On two occasions Tamils were selected and killed in Welikade prison. Such selectiveness indicated a prepared plan of action. It is not that poor Tamils were also not killed or made refugees. They were. It is simply that in their case the mobs did not reveal a method in their madness. But there was more. A large number of people lost their employment as a result of destruction, and these included not only Tamils but Sinhalese and others. Even some kovils, churches and vicarages were not spared. As a result of all this, economic development and foreign exchange suffered an immense loss. Public services were disrupted. Our image abroad was damaged.

The people responsible for all this violence and destruction and suffering were mostly Sinhalese. The fact that Jaela, Wattala, Kotahena, Kelaniya and the Galkissa-Wellawatte areas were places where mob-rule was evident, points to some Christians being involved. Those Sinhalese responsible were not confined to Buddhists. People other than Sinhalese may also have been part of certain mobs on the rampage. And according to available evidence, the police and armed forces were seen in different places to be either inactive spectators or active supporters of these mobs who attacked the lives and properties of Tamils.

Was all this justified or not in the circumstances?

There are those who say that this massive Sinhala retaliation on Tamils in the southern parts of Sri Lanka was justified. They say that the killing of at least 83 persons, including the 13 soldiers on 23rd July, the attacks on police stations, damage by bombs on an aircraft, a passenger train, and government institutions, bank robberies and acts of arson on public property in the North, were such crimes as to deserve the revenge exacted by the Sinhalese. They add that Tamils in the South of Sri Lanka did not for the most part condemn these acts by the armed groups. But those who say this forget three facts:

First, retaliation for these actions was being taken by the police and armed forces in Jaffna district, Trincomalee and Vavuniya through the killing of many more than 83 persons, damage to private property, arson, looting, assault on civilians, destroying of public property such as the Jaffna Public Library in 1981, and the torture of detenus in police stations and army camps. Secondly, indigenous Tamils who lived in the South of the Island had already faced arson, looting, and death and become refugees in 1977. Thirdly, the Tamils who faced such retaliation in 1977, 1981 and 1983 included Tamils of Indian origin, who had no part in the attacks made by the armed groups in the North. In view of these facts, to say that the retaliation in July was justified is to advocate tribal vengeance. In fact the verse in the Old Testament which says 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' was a reminder that the Jews should not engage in tribal vengeance. A tribe should not destroy the whole of another tribe for the crimes of one of its members. Jesus in the New Testament pointed out that this ancient Jewish law was a moral standard that was no longer justified.

This shows that those who say that the massive Sinhala retaliation on Tamils living in the South was justified have a lower standard of morality than the ancient Jews. Their conscience is distorted. We must rise above such tribal morality.

There are others who say that the personal suffering and murder which took place in July may not be justified. But they feel deep down in their hearts that the enforced departure of indigenous Tamils from the professions, government services, universities and schools and of Tamils of Indian origin from retail trade and other occupations in South Sri Lanka was justified. They have questions of conscience about the methods adopted, but not about the final result. Because they feel that the undue advantage which the indigenous Tamils had in relation to their percentage of the population, and which the Tamils of Indian origin had in the internal trade1 especially within the Sinhala areas, were not justified, they are not willing to condemn the methods adopted to get rid of them. They had compassion and were helpful in many instances. But they did not feel a sense of moral outrage.

There are those who say that the personal suffering and murder which took place in July may not be justified. But they feel deep down in their hearts that the enforced departure of indigenous Tamils from the professions, government services, universities and schools and of Tamils of Indian origin from retail trade and other occupations in South Sri Lanka was justified. They have questions of conscience about the methods adopted, but not about the final result. Because they feel that the undue advantage which the indigenous Tamils had in relation to their percentage of the population, and which the Tamils of Indian origin had in the internal trade especially within the Sinhala areas, were not justified, they are not willing to condemn the methods adopted to get rid of them. They had compassion and were helpful in many instances. But they did not feel a sense of moral outrage.

I would like these people to reflect on three questions:

First, were these undue advantages solely the result of what happened in the colonial period, and to mutual help among themselves at the expense of the Sinhalese? Did not the middle class Tamil move southwards and abroad because Jaffna district did not provide enough avenues for prosperity through economic enterprise, as South Ceylon provided for the emerging Sinhala middle-class? Did not the quality of hard work, thrift and ability help the Tamils to prosper where they came to work and reside?

Secondly, who enabled them to remain in the Sinhala areas? Did not the successive Sinhala political leaders make use of the skills of the indigenous Tamils to implement their programmes? Did not the traders of Indian origin have easy credit facilities with people in India, which enabled them to provide certain goods speedily and efficiently? Did not Sinhala politicians and officials permit them to remain also because of the presents they took from these traders?

Thirdly, can the final result of removing those with undue advantages through methods that are not condemned, be restricted to the Tamils? In Kandyan areas, people from the low country have undue advantages in the professions, government services, universities, leading schools and in the trade. The Muslims have such undue advantages in the trade sector. Are these undue advantages due solely to what happened in the colonial period and to the mutual help at the expenses of the Kandyans? Did not the qualities of enterprise, hard work and ability enable them to prosper in these areas? Do these undue advantages justify the final result of securing their enforced departure, if the Kandyan Sinhalese were to adopt the same method as were adopted in July 1983 towards the Tamils?

Another question follows. Certain families in our rural areas have such advantages as undue ownership of land, access to the best schools and to the best occupations, which the poorer people in these areas do not have. Are such advantages due solely to what happened in the colonial period and to mutual help at the expense of poorer people? Did not the qualities of hard work, thrift and ability enable them to prosper as these areas were developed? Do these undue advantages justify the final result of securing their displacement, if the poorer people adopt the methods used towards the Tamils in July 1983? Did not the insurrection led by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna in 1971 have this result in view? So, let those who justify the final result of what happened in July 1983 to the Tamils in South Sri Lanka consider further the implications of their moral standards. To restrict what they justify, when it happens to the Tamils, is to hold double standards. This is hypocrisy. To think in this way at all is really to hold the moral standard that the end justifies the means. None of the great religions we profess upholds this morality.

There are still others who justify the role of several of the police and armed forces, during this massive retaliation in July 1983. Some people say that these security forces did nothing to stop the violent mobs or encouraged them, because they were angry that their own personnel had been killed by armed groups in the North. Such solidarity with those killed or resentment against the killers in the North does not justify what they did or failed to do in the South. The security forces are trained and armed to eliminate armed groups. They are paid to protect the lives and properties of civilians, and to maintain law and order. Their inefficiency in being unable to eliminate armed gangs of Tamils in one part of the Island does not justify the revenge taken on innocent Tamils in the other part of the Island. This is not the kind of behavior that can be justified on moral grounds. Then other people say that the security forces could not be expected to harm or kill Sinhalese people to save Tamils. But, in fact, I saw some security forces do so though not the police. They did their duty in enforcing law and order against mobs on the rampage. To give reasons why this was not done in 1983 is to provide psychological explanations.

Finally, there are still others who say that there were several instances where the police and armed forces simply could not disperse the mobs. This was because they were too few in numbers in some places, not properly concentrated in the right areas, and in some instances they were faced with young students placed in front of the advancing mobs. Or else some had lost their morale owing to the success of the armed groups in the North. We can sympathize with some of the police and armed forces who were faced with such situations. These reasons may be explanation for inefficiency, for which such persons may not be responsible. They do not justify failure to protect the lives and properties of defenseless people. This must not prevent us, however from expressing our deep gratitude to those in the police and armed forces who did their duty, in spite of risk, and division within their own ranks.

The arguments that have been stated so far point to one basic moral fact. It is that the massive retaliation mainly by the Sinhalese against defenceless Tamils in July 1983 cannot be justified on moral grounds. We must admit this and acknowledge our shame. And we must do so for the right reasons. It is not enough to be ashamed for the reason that inhuman passions enslaved a section of the Sinhalese for a short period. Nor must we be ashamed because our sense of moral outrage will improve our image abroad. We must be ashamed because what took place was a moral crime. We are ashamed as Sinhalese for the moral crime other Sinhalese committed.

We must not only acknowledge our shame. We must also make our apology to those Tamils who were unjustified victims of this massive retaliation. An apology must be made for three reasons:

First, as Sinhalese we share in the total life of our people. We share in all that is good and great in our Sinhala heritage. These good and great aspects were due to the lives and achievements of only a section of the Sinhala people. But as members of the whole group we claim what one section did as belonging to us all. We share in the joy and the responsibility of their lives and labors. That is why in this diocese we acknowledge and rejoice in all that is good and great not only in our Sinhala heritage, but also in Sinhala-Buddhism. We have absorbed all this into the life and mission of this diocese, except that we have basis in Jesus Christ. In the same way, when a section of the Sinhalese does what is morally wrong or bad, we share in it. As members of the whole group we claim that what one section did belongs to us all. We share in the evil they have done.

Secondly, it is a mark of moral maturity to acknowledge a moral crime on behalf of those closely knit to us, who do not realize that they have done so. And an apology is made on their behalf. Parents do so on behalf of children. Others do so on behalf of relatives and friends. There is solidarity of family, of kinship, of friendship, in things both right and wrong. Gandhiji used to acknowledge the moral crimes of those who engaged in violence. He fasted in order that they would come to the point of acknowledging the evil they had done and change their ways.

Thirdly, there is the example of Jesus in the midst of brutality and suffering. He shared in the guilt of all those who were involved in the moral crime of bringing about his unjust death, because he shared in our humanity, he apologized for all those who did not know the moral evil they were doing. His compassion acknowledged both shame and guilt. He apologized so that He might begin the process of setting right what was wrong in a broken relationship. It was between Jesus and those who had done wrong to him. It was also between God, whose will Jesus had done, and all those who thereby had done wrong against God. In setting right their wrong done to Jesus, he would also set right the wrong they had done to their Heavenly Father. As He apologized, He also prayed that all would come to recognize the wrong they had done, duly apologize and change their ways.

It is only by such a kind of apology that we shall also recover our proper moral and religious values. Then, we can begin the process of setting right what went wrong in our relationship with the Tamils.

A section of the Sinhalese must acknowledge the wrong done to those Tamils who were innocent victims. And they must do so with compassion for their fellow Sinhalese who did the wrong, and for those who do not want to admit that a wrong was done. Christians will know that in setting right a broken relationship with those Tamils who suffered unjustly, they would be setting right a broken relationship with God, who is the Heavenly Father of us all. At the same time, they must pray that those who did the wrong, and those who are unable as yet to admit the wrong done by others, will come to a new level of moral insight. The tragedy is that it is becoming harder, in 1983, for Sinhala Christians to acknowledge that what was done is a moral crime than in 1958. Our moral sense in this matter is getting dull. We must ask that the Holy Spirit may enlighten our consciences.

It may be that this process of setting right the moral wrong that was done, by a section of the Sinhalese, may evoke a softening of attitudes among a section of the Tamils. To so admit the wrong, to make the apology and to change past attitudes, may awaken a new moral sense among a section of the Tamils. They may come to acknowledge the moral wrong of condoning violence, especially the seeking of revenge among their own people. The main point however that is the true basis of reconciliation is admission of wrong done and an appeal for forgiveness. When forgiveness is given or a mutual apology is evoked, reconciliation begins to take effect, slowly but surely. Hardened attitudes begin to change.