An independent Sri Lanka where political representation was based on adult franchise posed a dilemma to the Tamil leadership. The options contemplated were as different conceptually as the personalities of the two leaders who represented them. On the other hand, Mr. S. J. V. Chelvanayakam represented a territorial approach, the initial concept of which was federal in nature, but which subsequently matured to a demand for a separate state. Every device and strategy continues to be exploited in the quest to justify special rights for the Tamil people based on territory. These internationally accepted guidelines on their own, recognize, accept, and validate the integrity and the sovereignty of a unitary Sri Lanka.
Additional justifications based on history become superfluous.
These ambiguities coupled with the accepted norm that the right to self-determination applies only to colonial situations as stated and repeated in several United Nation Charters, makes the case for the Sri Lankan Tamils weak. In practical terms this planet would not be able to entertain the prospect of granting a sovereign piece of territory to every ethnic group who decided to exercise their right to self-determination. The international media never fails to mention that the current conflict is because of a Tamil claim of discrimination by the majority Sinhalese. Despite the Tamil language being given due recognition in 1978, the past language policies continue to be cited as an act of discrimination that justify the current conflict. If discrimination in regard to education, employment, or any other field of activity is cited as sufficient grounds for a separate state, or an autonomous region, by peaceful means or otherwise, every nation-state on this planet will be experiencing conflict, because discrimination exists everywhere.