Response: Why Douglas Devananda Is Rejected in the Tamil Homeland
The effort to rehabilitate Douglas Devananda as a “hero of the Tamil people” reflects a deep disconnect from the lived reality of Tamils in their homeland. While Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka’s article recounts Devananda’s alignment with the Sri Lankan state, it omits a central truth: Douglas Devananda is widely rejected among Tamils, not because of legal technicalities, but because of the role he is alleged to have played in enabling Sinhala state domination over Tamil areas.
Douglas Devananda did not protect Tamils from Sinhala aggression. Rather, his political and paramilitary collaboration with the Sri Lankan state is widely viewed as having legitimized and normalized that aggression, often by placing a Tamil political face on state violence. Under the banner of “democracy” and “devolution,” Tamil resistance was fragmented, Tamil political agency weakened, and fear institutionalized within Tamil society.
There are longstanding and serious allegations that hundreds of Tamil youths were forcibly recruited, coerced, or handed over to Sri Lankan security forces and foreign intelligence networks during the conflict period, with paramilitary collaboration playing a central role. These allegations include enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and systematic targeting of Tamil civilians. For countless Tamil families, these are not abstract claims but lived and unresolved tragedies.
In addition, survivors, families, and human rights advocates have raised grave allegations that thousands of Tamil girls and boys were abducted or detained and subsequently subjected to sexual violence, including abuse in detention facilities controlled by Sri Lankan security forces. Numerous testimonies allege that paramilitary collaboration facilitated arrests, transfers, and handovers that exposed detainees—particularly young women and minors—to sexual assault and other forms of gender-based violence. These allegations have been raised repeatedly over decades, yet no comprehensive, independent judicial process has investigated or adjudicated these crimes in a manner consistent with international human rights standards.
Importantly, concerns regarding Douglas Devananda and the EPDP were documented in diplomatic communications, including reports attributed to former U.S. Ambassador Robert Blake in correspondence to the U.S. State Department. These communications raised alarms about paramilitary activity, human rights abuses, and close collaboration with state security forces in Tamil areas. They did not describe isolated incidents, but a pattern of conduct that generated fear, displacement, and loss of life among Tamil communities.
Thousands of Tamil families continue to search for their missing children. Many believe that paramilitary collaboration enabled arrests, disappearances, and killings that were never investigated. To date, no independent and credible judicial process—domestic or international—has examined these allegations with transparency, witness protection, and accountability.
The claim that Douglas Devananda “defended Tamil interests within a united Sri Lanka” also ignores a fundamental historical reality: the Tamil people never consented to a unitary Sri Lankan state imposed on their homeland. Tamils are not a breakaway minority; they are an ancient people of the island. The Sinhala national identity often presented as primordial is, in fact, a modern, human-constructed political identity, shaped by colonial administration and post-independence majoritarianism.
By accepting and promoting this framework, Douglas Devananda is seen by many Tamils as having abandoned Tamil historical claims, Tamil sovereignty, and Tamil political continuity. Advocacy for limited devolution did not protect Tamils; it helped institutionalize subordination within a system that preserved Sinhala dominance.
Given the gravity of the allegations, Douglas Devananda must be subject to independent investigation and judicial accountability in accordance with international human rights law. Political protection and historical revisionism cannot substitute for justice. Accountability must be determined by courts, evidence, and due process—not by wartime narratives or political loyalty.