Shenali D Waduge

Shenali D Waduge is an independent political analyst based in Colombo

LTTE Fronts’ Rising Influence in Canada: A Potential Future Power Shift


When the Prime Minister of Canada proudly identifies as a “feminist,” it raises concerns about the ideology he advocates for the country. We are aware that Canada was taken from the indigenous people who had inhabited the land for centuries, and their history was rewritten. This historical aspect resonates with LTTE fronts, as both are skilled at shaping a new narrative. Presently, Canada is governed by immigrants who significantly contribute to the national economy. If an Indian individual can become the Prime Minister of the UK, there is no reason why a handful of influential Tamil players cannot hold power in Canada. Whether they would rename it to Eelam is a separate matter, but considering the abilities of these Tamil lobbies and their success in persuading the Canadian Prime Minister to issue a “genocide” statement, it is evident that they yield considerable influence. Credit is due to them.

These LTTE fronts, once marginalized groups seeking asylum and refugees, have transformed into powerful entities. Where else would one find a terrorist openly displayed in shop windows, with authorities turning a blind eye? Where else would terrorist flags, symbols, and other paraphernalia be allowed for public display? They deserve acknowledgment for this.

They now operate legal firms, human rights organizations, and actively champion human rights, standing shoulder to shoulder with the highest echelons of Canadian society and politics. It is likely that they have greater access to Canadian leaders than our own High Commissioner in Canada. This is truly remarkable.

They enjoy carte blanche when it comes to fundraising, as Canadian authorities show little concern for the ultimate use of these funds. It is quite absurd to witness Canadian politicians attending LTTE memorials and issuing statements mourning the “dead LTTE.” The LTTE fronts deserve applause for this achievement. They have made fools out of white Canadians, and now some Sikhs are also joining their cause.

Now, let us consider a different perspective.

The LTTE fronts and their children have become well-known figures in Canada. They have established themselves, gained recognition, and achieved stature. Would they want to waste their time on Sri Lanka, a debt-ridden, politically compromised, and geopolitically vulnerable state? Even if they were to declare Eelam, would the neighboring giant allow them to rule freely? Would Western geopolitical alliances allow them to govern without interference or intervention? These questions must surely occupy the minds of those behind the LTTE fronts. Wouldn’t it be preferable for them to rule over Canada, with or without the name Eelam, given their growing influence?

Already, the LTTE fronts are establishing strongholds around key political structures in Canada. They are gradually adopting the same tactics and strategies in other Western countries as well.

It is evident that the white population is declining rapidly due to their own theories, which are now backfiring on them. Every country once ruled by the white man is now governed, controlled, or influenced by non-whites. Therefore, we should appreciate the progress the LTTE fronts have made on the international stage.

Their past involvement in funding armed terrorism is no more. Today, they are pursuing a political path that has allowed them to penetrate the Canadian political system. This serves as a blueprint for others in different parts of the world to follow. Whether they establish Eelam chapters or govern the country like Rishi Sunak is their choice. However, we should be proud of how far they have come.

Whether some perceive this as deceiving the Canadian Prime Minister and other politicians is a matter of debate. If a Prime Minister can be deceived, does he deserve to lead the nation? If politicians can be bought, should Canadian citizens vote for them? In a way, the LTTE fronts have exposed the flaws of these Canadian leaders.

Nevertheless, it is often said that

Debunking Tamil Homeland myth with 5 questions



Divide & Rule was key component of colonial rule. Illegally taking over lands and territories, planting fictitious history, and infesting minds with hate and violence is part of a legacy that continues unabated. Sadly, historians have failed to take these false claims and nullify them. They have been silenced by “political correctness”. However, it is time people begin asking questions and demanding answers. How can 2 provinces that were created only by the British in 1833 be claimed ‘original habitats” of Tamil people? How can Indian Malabars claim a separate homeland in Sri Lanka? How can a South Indian customary law applicable only to those inhabitants be the customary law in Sri Lanka? How did the Colonial Missionary create the Dravida Nadu movement to become a Tamil Eelam movement & what is their ultimate plan? Let’s have you start asking yourselves these questions too!

Question 1: How can Tamil Eelam Homeland lobbyists claim 2 provinces as their “homeland” making use of the 2 provinces created in 1833 by colonial Britain?

It is very clear that while the first Kingdom of Anuradhapura, 2nd kingdom of Polonnaruwa also included North Sri Lanka, the last kingdom of Kandy too included part of North & explains why the Kandyan king despatched his army to defend his people from the Portuguese. The last battle for the defence of Jaffna before it fell to European powers was fought not by a Tamil army but by Sinhalese men sent by the King of Kandy.

Portuguese historian Father Queroyz says “as long as Rajapure (Anuradhapura) was the capital of Ceylon, the whole island was subject to one kng” If it was so with Anuradhapura, it was so with the rest of the capitals. When the Portuguese arrived in 1505 there were 15 ‘kinglets’ subject to the King of Kotte of which Jaffnapatao kinglet was one of the 15 “kinglets” were independent or separate from the rest.

To quell the lies let us first turn to the maps.

The 1st kingdom was in Anuradhapura. The 2nd kingdom was in Polonnaruwa. The last kingdom was in Kandy. The kings of these kingdoms were the sole ruler of the entire Island.

These 3 maps clearly show there was no separate or independent Tamil Kingdom and the so-called ‘separate’ area being claimed as a “Tamil homeland” was ruled by the Sinhalese kings.

A separate kingdom must provide evidence of food/water supply (agriculture), a system of government, culture, belief & traditions, a written language, structures/monuments – the Kingdoms of Anuradhapura & Polonnaruwa leave us to cherish the world’s first man-made irrigation & water tanks, even animal hospital – these exist even to this day, where are those of a so-called Eelam Kingdom?

There were no separate independent kingdoms in Jaffna or anywhere else

There were no provinces.

Provinces were created by the Colonial British in 1833

Thus, there was nothing called Northern or Eastern province until 5 provinces was created in 1833 by Colonial Britain.

Therefore, how can the Eelam lobby claim to have ruled 2 provinces that did not exist until the colonial British demarcated them in 1833?

This is a key argument to debunk the demarcation of a bogus Tamil Eelam Homeland.

Question 2: How can Indian Malabars rechristen as Ceylon Tamils in 1911 claim a separate homeland in Sri Lanka?

There is no record in ancient Sinhalese chronicles, Tamil chronicles or even records of Portuguese, Dutch or British to claim an ethnic group called “Ceylon Tamils” were living before they landed. All of the colonial records refer to both Tamils & Muslims as “Malabars”. Malabars was the term given to people who came from the Malabar coast of South India or Coromandel coast also in South India. Malabars were indigenous to South India. Therefore, anyone termed Malabar were descendants from South India. Thus, the Tamils living in Sri Lanka were referred as Malabars by the Portuguese, the Dutch & the British.

The term “Ceylon Tamils” was coined only in 1911 when Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan who was registrar of census, inserted Ceylon Tamils instead of Malabars. The term Ceylon was coined by the British only after the Kandyan Convention in 1815.

Malabars cannot claim any “homeland” in Sri Lanka as they were immigrants from the Southern coast of India. Their homeland is in South India.

The quest for self-determination in India for Tamils started in India.

The same ethnic group cannot claim 2 homelands in 2 sovereign countries (or plan to annex Sri Lanka to create a Greater Dravida Nadu)

Question 3: Tamil caste system originates from South India – If Malabars are from South India, Vellalas & Thesawalamai Law is also – how can customary laws applicable to foreigners become mandatory customary law in Sri Lanka?

We have established Malabars are not indigenous to Sri Lanka but to South India.

The Vellalas are a low caste in South India but became the upper elite caste/class in Sri Lanka, not stopping there, the Vellala’s went on to oppress their own, dictating how other castes should function at kovil, funerals, weddings etc. If Tamils are marginalized or discriminated it is by the Vellala Tamils and not the Sinhalese. The Thesawalamai law encoded by the Dutch in 1706 claiming to be Tamil customary law is actually not applicable to all Tamils but to only Malabar inhabitants from Jaffna. What is the % of Tamils covered by this definition and how many Tamils does this law exclude – if so why should this be referred as a customary law for ALL Tamils when it is not so, more importantly, the Thesawalamai law is applicable to Malabar inhabitatnts in Jaffna only. Malabars are from South India. Vellala’s are a caste originating from South India. How can anyone quote these to claim homeland theories.

It is good for Tamils to realize who is discriminating them instead of falling prey to propaganda. How far has the caste system marginalized Tamils against each other, is a question Tamils themselves need to honestly answer. When Tamils are not welcome into Tamil homes, when even cutlery & crockery are differentiated, when even kovils disallow their own, when people are reluctant to share a toilet with their own – is this not discrimination?

Question 4: If the Dravida Nadu term was coined by colonial Missionaries, isn’t the Tamil Eelam quest (an offshoot of the Dravida Nadu movement) a similar Missionary infused agenda?

There was no term called Dravidian until it was coined by the Church.

The Church missionaries after creating the term Dravida went to great lengths to promote a fictitious history.

The Dravidian theory was an artificial theory implanted by the Church & it is possible the same was done to create a Tamil Eelam notion to separate both Tamil Nadu & Sri Lanka along ethno-linguistic lines.

Bishop Caldwell plugged the South Indian languages of Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada as Dravidian languages.

If the Dravidian movement was led & controlled by the Global Church, is it a surprise that the Tamil Eelam lobby has the blessings of the Church apparatus as well? It is the Tamil Christians/Catholics who are mainly operating this quest.

1939 commenced the “Dravida Nadu for Dravidians” a quest for a separate sovereign & federal state.

1940 Dravida Nadu map was released. 1947 Britain rejected appeals for a separate Tamil state which led to Dravida Nadu Secession Day being passed on 13 July 1947 demanding an independent Dravida Nadu. 2 years later in Sri Lanka, ITAK was created seeking a separate Tamil state in Sri Lanka.

1960 Dravida Nadu Separation Day which led to the Tamil Nadu Liberation Army while the Tamil Eelam movement in Sri Lanka resulted in Tamil militancy with LTTE taking leadership.

Dravida Nadu was replaced with “Tamil Nadu for Tamils” then “We Tamil Movement” which led to demand for an independent Tamil Nadu which Government of India stopped by legislative enactments in 1963.

The demands for Dravida Nadu were identical to demands by LTTE during Thimpu talks in 1985.

If Dravida Nadu movement & map was created by the Global Church; was the map of Tamil Eelam also their creation?

This implies that both movements (South India & Sri Lanka) did not originate from the people but from one external source – the Church.

Question 5: If the “Eelam” area was borrowed from colonial British map, if Global Church planted the Dravida Nadu movement & Greater Tamil Eelam initiative, if Malabars, Vellalars, Thesawalamail all are imported from South India is it so difficult to realize that Tamil Militancy was also exported from India to Sri Lanka to pass on India’s headache to us?

The Jain-Commission interim report following LTTE’s assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, memoirs by the IPKF former commanders and even former Indian High Commission to Sri Lanka J N Dixit prove a RAW hand in Tamil militancy in Sri Lanka from training to supplying of weapons to even logistics support & funding.

These lies are what lays the foundation for a bogus homeland quest which is kept alive because of the benefits to key players promoting it. The geopolitical & conversion motives are clear. Unfortunately, so-called academics and historians have been party to the lies or felt shy to negate these with historical facts & arguments.

So let us bring these to the open & demand facts, not propaganda.