Sri Lankan social activist Arun Siddharth has criticised Canadian actress Maitreyi Ramakrishnan over her public expression of pride in being a “Tamil Eelam woman”, arguing that celebrating the idea of Tamil Eelam without acknowledging the social restrictions imposed during the LTTE’s rule presents an incomplete account of Tamil history.
In a note addressed to Ramakrishnan, Siddharth referred to comments in which the actress said: “I don’t speak Tamil fluently, but I love who I am as a Tamil Eelam woman. I love my family and my cultural history.” Siddharth challenged that expression of cultural identity by contrasting it with what he described as the restrictions experienced by ordinary Tamil women under LTTE rule.
“If you had actually lived under the rule of the LTTE, you would have been shot dead for photographs like the ones you have posted on Instagram,” Siddharth wrote. He specifically referred to photographs in which Ramakrishnan appears in a bikini, as well as publicly shared kissing photographs and videos, arguing that such displays would not have been accepted under what he described as the LTTE’s strict social and moral rules.
Siddharth said women living under LTTE control were not given the same freedom to dress as they wished or publicly express themselves. He argued that these restrictions should also be considered part of the history associated with the term “Tamil Eelam”.
“The irony is that you say you love Tamil Eelam while you cannot even speak Tamil fluently,” he wrote, while distinguishing between pride in Tamil identity and support for the political and military system established by the LTTE. He argued that Ramakrishnan’s present freedom to dress, publish photographs and make personal choices was different from the freedoms available to ordinary Tamil women under LTTE rule.
Siddharth also invoked American writer Henry Miller, quoting the statement: “Everybody says sex is obscene. The only true obscenity is war.” He used the quotation to contrast what he characterised as the LTTE’s treatment of personal expression with its promotion of armed struggle and violence.
The activist urged Ramakrishnan to examine the social reality associated with the period rather than what he described as a romanticised version of “Tamil Eelam”. “You can be proud of being Tamil. You can love your family. You can celebrate your cultural heritage,” he wrote. “But you should not romanticise a terrorist regime and erase the suffering and restrictions experienced by the very Tamil people who lived under it.”
Siddharth framed his criticism as coming from personal experience, saying he is a Sri Lankan Tamil who lived through the period in question and witnessed what he described as its realities. His intervention focuses on the distinction between cultural and ethnic identity, which he says can be celebrated, and the political legacy of the LTTE, which he argues should not be romanticised or separated from the experiences of civilians who lived under its authority.
The comments were directed specifically at Ramakrishnan’s expression of cultural identity and her reference to “Tamil Eelam”, with Siddharth arguing that understanding that history requires consideration of both cultural heritage and the restrictions imposed during the LTTE period.
