Initially, there was no specifically and exclusively Muslim political party. The Muslims joined the available political parties. Thus Razeek Fareed was a founder member of the United National Party and Dr. M. C. M. Kaleel was its chairman for decades. The Minister for Posts and Telecommunic-ations, in the MEP government of 1956 was C. A. S. Marikkar. The SLFP dominated United Front government of the 1970-1977 had Badiudin Mahmud as Minister for Education. Now we have Minister A. H. M. Fowzie of the SLFP and former Minister A. C. S. Hameed of the UNP. Clearly these Muslim politicians symbolise the significant Mus-lim support for these governments and political parties. 

However, in 1988 the position changed. The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress was for-med. One reason given for its existence was the Indo Lanka Accord of 1987, which put the Muslims in the North and East into a very precarious position. "Muslims who had hitherto looked to the Sinhala based Colombo leadership was almost overnight pushed into the hands of the Tamil leadership. Muslims began to go after Varatharaja Perum-al". It was also suggested that the 2/3rds of Muslims living outside the North-East would also be in ‘grave peril’ by the absorption of the north-east Muslims by the Tamil leadership. Muslims did not wish to be a third minority ruled by a second minority. (Daily News 16.5.98 p.8) 

The SLMC has been critically recei-ved by certain sections of the Muslim community. Javid Usuf has stated bluntly that the SLMC accounts for only a small support base and that the majority of the Muslims have always supported the main stream political parties. The SLFP and the UNP as separate parties as well as collectively account for very much more support among the Muslims than the SLMC (Sunday Times 2.8.98 p 10). The other Muslim party to appear on the scene is the Muslim United Liberation Front. This has apparently been asked what they were trying to liberate the Muslims from. (Sunday leader 5.7.98 p 4). One aspect of these two parties which struck me, was the similarity in their names to those of separatist Tamil political parties. We had the All Ceylon Tamil Congress, and the Tamil United Liberation Front. Now we have the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and the Muslim United Liberation Front. 

There has been some degree of Muslim support for Eelam from several decades back. We are told that in September 1987 and April 1988, Muslim delegations visited Madras and had wide ranging discussion with Tamil moderates as well as the militant groups (Island. 9.12.98 p 20). Javid Yusuf says that SLMC leader Ashraff actively campaigned for Eelam in the 1977 General Elections. He had supported the Swiss Canton system as a model for Sri Lanka and said that he would achieve Eelam even if Amirthalingam failed to do so (see Sunday times. 2.8.98 p 10). However, to be fair by Minister Ashraff, he had been a member of the Federal Party (Sunday Leader 23.11.97 p 9). The SLMC has been bluntly described as a communal political party. That has sought to exploit the religious setiments of the Muslims for political advantage. It is considered guilty of partisan and irresponsible actions which jeopardise national unity (Island 23/11/98 p 9 — Sunday Times 2/8/98 p 10). 

Today there is a warm relationship between the TULF and the SLMC. When SLMC celebrated its 10th anniversary at its new Headquarters in Colombo, TULF leaders, Sivasitham-param and Thiruche-lvam paid glowing tributes to the SLMC. They praised the SLMC and its leader for standing alone for the Muslims of Sri Lanka. They said that it was long felt that the Muslims should have a political leadership, but until Ashraff nobody had thought of establishing one. (Island 17.2.98 p 2, Sunday leader 1.3.98 p 7). It was also pointed out that the ‘Thinakaran’ had had a policy of lavishly praising the SLMC between 1995 and 1998. SLMC policies had been emphasised and the Muslim politics advocated by the SLFP were undermined and the communal politics of the SLMC promoted. (Sunday Times 1.3.98 p 6). We also note that the TULF Manifesto for the 1994 General Electio-ns stated that they were for the rights of the Tamils and Muslims of the North-East and other parts of the Island (Tenth parliament of Sri lanka p 163). 

Not all Muslims are pleased. They get annoyed when the Tamil separatist movement speaks of ‘Tamil speaking peoples’. M. Fuard warned that the Ceylon Moors could easily swap their linguistic affiliations to Sinhala, and re-assert their Sinhala origins by using their Sinhala names". (Daily News 29.1.98 p 24). Long ago, in 1888 Ponnam-balam Ramanathan wrote a paper titled "The ethnology of the Moors". He said that the Ceylon Moors were ‘Tamil Muhamedans’. Since the Moors spoke Tamil they must be judged as Tamils. Also that they came direct from Tamil-nadu (Journal of Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 10(36) 1888 p 237). The Moors of the time contested this strenuously. Sir Ponnambalam Rama-nathan is still spoken of by educated muslims with anger for this essay (Sunday Leader 23.11.97 p 9). Muslims are not prepared to be subsumed under the category ‘Tamil’. Ponna-mbalam Arunachal-am speaking of the 1915 riots, referred to the Moors by the offensive expression ‘tambayas’ (Nira Wickramasinghe "Ethnic politics in colonial Sri Lanka" p 39). 

Muslims are firmly recording the unhappy treatment given to them by the Tamils. For example "Omar Khayyam" says: "Muslims list a long roll of discrimination by Tamils against them while the latter were complaining to the world of oppression by the majority Sinhalese. From the days before Independence when Tamil politicians attempted to block separate legislature representation for Muslims, to the days of early independence when they opposed the opening of separate secondary schools and training colleges for Muslims, to the recent ‘hijacking’ of the Eastern Univer-sity, Muslims have a long list of grievances which they say makes for distrust of Tamils if they are given political power" (Sunday leader. 23.11.97 p 9). M. Hamza Haniffa points out that during the period after 1983 Muslims were massacred in the hundreds, even while praying inside mos-ques, by Tamil terrorists. They were turned into refugees in the thousands, with the entire Mus-lim population in the North told to quit with just 24 hours notice, leaving behind property worth billions. In the East thousands of acres of rich paddy land owned by Muslims cannot be cultivated at present because these are either under LTTE control or in areas which are unsafe (Lanka Guardian. May 1998. p 17). 

This is contrasted with the sympathetic attitude of the Sinhalese. The Sinhalese recognised the Muslims as a distinct community, and even granted them rights in various fields ranging from separate government Muslim schools to separate Muslim units in state media organisations such as SLBC, despite intense opposition by Tamils (Sunday Leader 23.11.97 p 9). A. M. M. Rauf pointed out that "Muslims have won in non-Muslim areas" (Daily News 1.7.98 p. 22). 

Muslims are now expressing concern about the recent clashes between the Sinhalese and Muslims in various parts of the country. The first point they make is the widespread nature of the issue. There have been clashes in the last few years, in the South (Galle, Beru-wela, Aluthgama) Western Province, (Kalutara, Alutgama), Central Province (Akurana, Madawela, Ugurasspitiya, Galagedara) Uva (We-limada) also Kuru-negala and Dickwella. Muslims were concerned about several matters. Firstly, all these clashes started with small issues which seem to have been staged. There-after a fullscale anti-muslim attack was launched. Galagedara clash had started with regards to a tri-shaw hire. There seemed to be a ‘general pattern’ as to how the clashes began. Thirdly, the police were inactive. The charge of connivance has been made. One newspaper stated that certain government poli-ticos were attem-pting to start a Sinhala-Muslim conflageration. Muslim political observers suspected that there was a hidden hand or forces behind these attacks on Muslims. They commented on this anti-Muslim trend, particularly in the media and even in stage plays and teledramas where the intention seemed to be to create suspicion and enmity among the majority Sinhalese, particularly Buddhists against Muslims. The question is who is going to gain by Sinhala-Muslim antagonism". It is hinted that those involved would benefit by creating a Bosnia like situation here, and point fingers at "certain NGOs behind the conspiracy" (Lanka Guardian, May 1998. p 16-17. Sunday Leader 18.10.98 p 7 Sunday Leader 5.7.98 p 4). 

A key feature of SLMC politics is its support for a separate South-east Provincial Council, incorporating the Muslim areas of Amparai, Kalmunai, Samanthurai, Pot-tuvil. This made way for a Tamil region of Trincomalee and Bat-ticaloa, in the Eastern Province. The Sinhala areas of the Eastern Province were to be excised and added onto Uva. There were virulent objections to this by the Muslims. The main arguments were that such a Council or Unit would not help the Muslims who were not living in the east. In fact it would go against them. Secon-dly that such a Unit will not help the Muslims living in Batticaloa and Trin-comalee. Also that such a Unit will not benefit the Muslims in that Unit either due to problems relating to land and water (see Javed Yusuf. Sunday Times. 2.8.98 p 10). It has been argued that a separate Muslim South-Eastern Unit would cause irreparable damage to the Muslims. 

It would be noted that the South-Eastern Muslim Unit would help the Tamil Separatist Movement, by getting rid of the Sinhalese and Mus-lims in the south-east and thus creating a viable Tamil north-east which would retain Trincomalee and Batticaloa. Poli-tical observers had thus noted that while the Muslim Congress itself was taking a low profile as regards this South-Eastern Unit, the TULF was promoting the idea vigorously in public (Sunday Leader 27.7.97 p 6). The SLMC representatives took positions which are supportive of the Tamil separatist movement. Rauf Ha-keem, in an interview stated that the SLMC was a co-author of the government de-volution proposals. He also stated that "the long standing grievances of the Tamil community should also be considered" (Daily News 3.4.98 p 8). However the SLMC also takes the position that the South Eastern Unit, like the rest of the devolved units, will be multi-ethnic. SLMC had argued that the Indo-Lanka Accord ignored Mus-lim claims and that the ‘package’ was better in that respect (Sunday Times 2.8.98). 

The Muslims see themselves as the rightful residents of both the North and East of Sri Lanka. They argue that at one time, even the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Jaffna Municipal Council were Muslim (Sunday Leader 21.12.97 p 4). Dr. M. C. M. Kaleel, it appears had wanted to open a branch of Zahira College in Jaffna (Daily News 3.2.99 p 9). The Muslims of Jaffna protested against holding the Jaffna Municipal Council elections in Decem-ber 1997, saying that most of the Jaffna Muslim population were unable to excercise their vote, since they were in refugee camps in Puttalam. In other words they were saying that they were still residents of Jaffna and that they intended to return (Sunday leader 21.12.97 p 4). 

Marwan Macan Markar recorded that on October 22, 1990 the LTTE ordered the Muslims to leave or that they would be killed. In some areas families were given two days to pack and quit. In Jaffna, a mere 24 hours. Overnight close to 75,000 people be-came dispossessed. Thus the districts of Jaffna, Mannar, Kili-nochchi and Mul-laitivu were cleansed of their Muslim population (Sunday Leader 1.11.98 p 9). 

The Muslims do not intend to let the matter be. The Nor-thern Muslim Refu-gee Organisation was set up. Three bus loads of Muslims left Puttalam on Decem-ber 15, 1997 on a fact finding mission to see for themselves whether Muslims could go back to these areas where the Muslims still had their fields and businesses. They had planned to visit Mannar, Kottantivu, Erukkalampiddy, Norachcholai (Sun-day leader 21.12.97 p 4). Some refugees did indeed return to their homes in Vavuniya. But returning Muslims to Mannar had been harassed by the armed Tamil groups. The NMRO pointed out that some of the homes given to returnees had been in non-Muslim areas, while the armed Tamil groups were continuing to settle Tamils from outside in lands belonging to Muslims and from which they had been expelled by the LTTE. Another obstacle to those returning to Vavuniya and Mannar was the ubiquitous presence of armed Tamil cadres all over the Muslim villages, adopting intimidatory postures, with nobody to stop them (Sunday Leader 15.2.98 p 7).