End of Tamil Identity Politics: A Post-Election Reality Check in Sri Lanka’s North and East
Colombo — The results of the recent parliamentary election have delivered more than a numerical victory for the National People’s Power (NPP). They have triggered a political realignment that many once thought impossible: the visible collapse of Tamil identity–based electoral politics in Sri Lanka’s Northern and Eastern Provinces, with only a few geographical and ideological outliers remaining.
For nearly four decades, Tamil politics was shaped—sometimes imprisoned—by the language of ethnicity, grievance, and exclusivity. That era, at least in its organised party form, now appears to be drawing to a close.
A Political Earthquake in the North and East
The NPP’s breakthrough victories across the Northern Province and large parts of the Eastern Province have fundamentally altered the electoral map. For the first time since the end of the civil war, voters in these regions decisively rejected traditional Tamil political parties in favour of a multi-ethnic, class-oriented political movement.
This was not a protest vote. It was a conscious rejection of a political model that relied almost entirely on ethnic mobilisation, international lobbying, and perpetual grievance without measurable outcomes.
The significance of this shift cannot be overstated. Tamil identity politics—once dominant, feared, and internationally amplified—has lost its electoral legitimacy at the ballot box.
The Fragmentation of the TNA
The Tamil National Alliance (TNA), long considered the principal parliamentary representative of Tamil political aspirations, is now visibly fractured. Internal divisions over leadership, relevance, and strategy have turned the party inward at precisely the moment it needed renewal.
The leadership contest itself has become emblematic of the party’s crisis. Former parliamentarian and lawyer M.A. Sumanthiran’s reported ambition to assume leadership of the TNA—despite being rejected by voters under the preferential voting system—has been met with open ridicule even within Tamil political circles.
In Sri Lankan parliamentary tradition, leadership without electoral legitimacy carries little weight. The question being asked, quietly and publicly, is simple: how does one lead a political movement without a parliamentary mandate?
The Sumanthiran Problem: Credibility Without a Mandate
Sumanthiran was once a key international voice for Tamil political advocacy. His access to embassies, foreign missions, and international human rights forums stemmed from one fact alone: he was an elected Member of Parliament.
That political capital has now evaporated.
The ongoing rivalry between M.A. Sumanthiran and Sivagnanam Shritharan has become a defining fault line within the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK), the principal constituent of the former Tamil National Alliance. In January 2024, Shritharan was elected ITAK leader through a secret ballot, defeating Sumanthiran in a contest that exposed deep internal divisions over the party’s future direction. Since then, the leadership outcome has remained contested, with reports of legal challenges and procedural disputes reflecting a broader struggle for control of the party and its political relevance in a rapidly shifting post-election landscape.
Having failed to secure sufficient preferential votes, Sumanthiran no longer carries democratic legitimacy. Diplomatically and politically, this matters. In Colombo’s foreign missions, access is determined not by rhetoric but by representation. Without a parliamentary seat, claims of “representing Tamil interests” ring hollow.
The uncomfortable question remains unanswered: if Tamil voters themselves rejected him, on what basis does he claim to speak for them internationally?
Can Tamil Identity Politics Be Restarted?
Supporters of traditional Tamil parties appear to believe identity politics can be revived through leadership reshuffles, press conferences, and embassy briefings. This misunderstands the depth of the shift that has taken place.
Tamil voters did not merely vote against specific candidates; they voted against a political method. The language of permanent victimhood, international pressure campaigns, and ethnically exclusive representation has lost traction among a generation facing economic hardship, unemployment, corruption, and collapsing public services.
There is no “magic button” to restart identity politics once the electorate has moved on.
A Wider National Awakening
Crucially, the problems faced by Tamils in Sri Lanka today are not uniquely Tamil. They are shared by Sinhalese, Muslims, Burghers, and others alike:
-
unequal distribution of resources
-
entrenched corruption
-
political dynasties looting the state
-
economic exclusion
-
collapse of public institutions
For nearly 75 years, two dominant political camps exploited ethnic divisions while quietly sharing state resources among elite families. Identity politics, in this sense, functioned less as liberation and more as distraction.
The NPP’s rise has disrupted that model by reframing politics around governance, accountability, and class—not ethnicity.
Diaspora Fatigue and the End of External Leverage
Another silent shift is taking place outside Sri Lanka. Large segments of the Tamil diaspora—particularly second-generation migrants—have grown fatigued with identity-based lobbying that delivers headlines but no tangible change on the ground.
The perception that the current NPP-led government is at least attempting to address structural governance issues has reduced enthusiasm for confrontational diaspora activism. Funding streams, once robust, are thinning. International enthusiasm has cooled.
This matters because Tamil identity politics relied heavily on external amplification.
Embassy Politics Without Substance
For years, Tamil politicians perfected a ritual: emergency meetings at embassies, letters to diplomats, press briefings accusing the government of discrimination. These actions created international noise but rarely produced domestic solutions.
That strategy now faces a credibility problem. Diplomats increasingly ask: where is your electoral mandate? Who do you represent?
Without parliamentary authority, embassy politics becomes political theatre—high on performance, low on impact.
Comedy Politics and the Crisis of Representation
The rise of flamboyant, unserious political figures claiming to represent Tamil interests has further weakened credibility. When parliamentary representation turns into spectacle, satire, or social media performance, genuine community grievances risk being trivialised.
Tamil politics cannot afford caricature leadership at a time when serious policy engagement is required.
Do Tamils Still Need a Tamil-Only Political Party?
This is now an unavoidable question.
Representation does not require ethnic exclusivity. Minority rights do not require ethnic parties. What they require are accountable representatives embedded in national governance structures, capable of delivering policy outcomes rather than press releases.
Tamil political mobilisation once emerged from real historical oppression. But its continuation as a permanent political identity has produced diminishing returns.
Transparency, Funding, and Accountability
There is growing discussion within policy circles about auditing political party funding, including diaspora contributions and foreign-linked financing. Transparency is not persecution; it is democratic hygiene.
If Tamil political parties are confident in their legitimacy, they should welcome scrutiny rather than fear it.
A Political Era Ends
The decline of Tamil identity politics is not the silencing of Tamil voices. It is the transformation of how those voices are expressed.
Sri Lanka is entering a phase where citizens increasingly vote as workers, taxpayers, parents, and students—not as ethnic abstractions. That transition is uncomfortable for parties built on identity, but it is necessary for democratic maturity.
The question is no longer whether Tamil identity politics will end. The electorate has already answered that.
The only remaining question is whether Tamil political leaders will adapt—or fade into political irrelevance.