After reviewing how genocide studies approaches the Holocaust, Rwanda, Armenia, and Bosnia and comparing those methodologies to Tamil genocide scholarship...I've identified massive, systematic gaps. This isn't just about "more research needed." It's about entire analytical frameworks that exist for other genocides but are completely absent for Tamils.
Here's what I found by analyzing Journal of Genocide Research, Genocide Studies and Prevention, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and comparing their methodological standards to Tamil case literature.
What Genocide Studies Actually Does (The Standard Framework)
Based on analysis of 20+ years of top genocide journals, here's what rigorous genocide scholarship looks like:
The Holocaust Studies Model
Methods: Systematic archival research (Nazi documents, railway records, bureaucratic memos), comprehensive survivor testimony archives (USC Shoah Foundation, Yad Vashem), perpetrator psychology studies, bystander analysis, comparative European frameworks
Key Questions: How did state bureaucracy enable genocide? What motivated ordinary perpetrators? How did ideology translate to mass killing? What resistance existed? How does memory function?
The Rwanda Studies Model
Methods: Mixed-methods combining quantitative violence datasets with qualitative local case studies, geographic variation analysis (why did some areas kill more than others?), elite vs. mass participation research, hate speech/propaganda analysis, gacaca transitional justice studies
Key Questions: Why did ordinary Hutus participate? How did radio propaganda mobilize killers? What local factors explained violence variation? How did state authority interact with grassroots hatred? Why did prevention fail?
The Armenian Genocide Model
Methods: Ottoman archival research, witness photography analysis, genocide denial discourse analysis, foreign diplomatic correspondence, comparative Ottoman minority studies, cultural trauma research
Key Questions: How does genocide denial function? What role did foreign powers play? How did deportation serve genocide? How is trauma transmitted intergenerationally? Why has recognition failed?
Genocide Studies Meta-Analysis (Bachman 2020, GSP)
Analyzing 20 years of publications, genocide scholars found the field focuses on:
85% mass killing as primary genocide method
Top-half canon cases (Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia, Armenia, Cambodia) get 66% of research
State-centric explanations dominate
Prevention and early warning frameworks widely applied
Comparative analysis considered essential methodology
What Tamil Genocide Research Currently Looks Like
Dominant Approaches:
1. Legal Analysis (Francis Boyle, PEARL reports)
Application of Genocide Convention to 2009 Mullivaikkal
Proving actus reus (genocidal acts) and mens rea (intent)
Focus on ICJ jurisdiction and accountability mechanisms
Strength: Authoritative legal framing
Weakness: Narrow temporal focus (2009), limited to legal standards
2. Human Rights Documentation (UN, Amnesty, HRW)
Documenting war crimes, crimes against humanity
IDP conditions, disappearances, torture
Strength: Extensive evidence collection
Weakness: Avoids genocide terminology, focuses on violations not patterns
3. Diaspora Studies (Walton 2015, Seoighe 2022)
How Tamil groups use "genocide" frame
Memory and commemoration practices
Transnational advocacy networks
Strength: Understanding victim community agency
Weakness: Often framed as "diaspora politics" not genocide scholarship
4. Conflict/Political Science (Nationality studies, ethnic conflict literature)
Tamil-Sinhala relations, nationalism, LTTE analysis
Strength: Historical context
Weakness: "Ethnic conflict" framing obscures genocide; both-sidesism
What's MISSING:
Comparing Tamil research to genocide studies standards, here are the catastrophic gaps:
The 10 Critical Methodological Gaps
GAP 1: No Systematic State Archive Research
What Holocaust Studies Does: Scholars spent decades in Nazi archives analyzing bureaucratic documents, railway schedules, Einsatzgruppen reports, inter-ministerial memos. We know exactly how genocide was planned, authorized, and executed.
What Rwanda Studies Does: Analysis of government documents, Hutu Power propaganda, RTLM transcripts, military orders, akazu planning documents.
What Tamil Studies Lacks:
Zero systematic analysis of Sri Lankan state archives
No study of military command structures during genocide
No analysis of cabinet meeting minutes, defense ministry communications
No documentary evidence of genocidal planning (despite it surely existing)
Why This Matters: Without archival research, we can't definitively prove state coordination, planning, and intent - the core of genocide. We're relying on external documentation (UN reports) instead of perpetrator documents.
Research Agenda:
Sri Lankan military archives analysis (if accessible)
Defense ministry document requests under RTI laws
Analysis of leaked Gotabaya Rajapaksa communications
Presidential secretariat document review
Parliamentary debate analysis during conflict escalation
Police and STF operational orders
GAP 2: No Geographic Variation Analysis
What Rwanda Studies Does: Omar McDoom's groundbreaking work analyzed why violence varied within Rwanda-some communes had high killing rates, others resisted. He used geographic, demographic, and political data to identify local factors. This revolutionized understanding of how genocide spreads.
What Bosnia Studies Does: Analysis of which towns experienced ethnic cleansing vs. which remained multiethnic; role of local leaders, military presence, propaganda exposure.
What Tamil Studies Lacks:
No systematic analysis of why certain Tamil areas experienced more violence than others
No study of Colombo 1983 Black July patterns (which neighborhoods, why those Tamils)
No geographic mapping of 1956-1983 pogrom patterns
Zero analysis of 2009 violence variation across Vanni
Why This Matters: If we can't explain local variation, we can't understand mobilization mechanisms. Why did some Sinhalese mobs in Colombo kill Tamils while others didn't? Why were some villages completely destroyed while neighboring ones survived?
Research Agenda:
GIS mapping of all anti-Tamil pogroms (1956-2009)
District-level violence intensity analysis
Correlation analysis: military presence, political party strength, Sinhala-Tamil demographics, economic factors
Comparative case studies: high-violence vs. low-violence areas
Urban vs. rural genocide patterns
Colombo neighborhood-level 1983 analysis
GAP 3: No Perpetrator Studies
What Holocaust Studies Does: Extensive research on who killed: SS, Wehrmacht, Einsatzgruppen, local collaborators, bureaucrats. Studies of perpetrator psychology (Browning's "Ordinary Men"), recruitment, training, motivations, post-war justifications.
What Rwanda Studies Does: Analysis of who participated in genocide: Interahamwe militias, military, local officials, ordinary civilians. Studies on why ordinary Hutus killed—ideology, coercion, opportunity, grievances (McDoom 2021, Straus 2006).
What Tamil Studies Lacks:
Zero studies on Sri Lankan military perpetrators
No analysis of how soldiers were recruited, trained, indoctrinated
No study of Special Task Force (STF) operations
No research on paramilitary groups (home guards, Karuna faction)
Zero perpetrator interviews
No analysis of Sinhalese mob participants in pogroms
Why This Matters: We can't understand how genocide happens without understanding who did it and why they did it. Were soldiers ordered? Did they believe propaganda? Were they rewarded? Understanding perpetrators is essential to prevention.
Research Agenda:
Oral histories of former Sri Lankan soldiers (diaspora, defectors)
Analysis of military recruitment and training during war
Study of propaganda targeting soldiers
STF and paramilitary group analysis
Black July pogrom participant profiles
Military unit-level analysis of 2009 operations
Comparison: willing vs. reluctant perpetrators
GAP 4: No Longitudinal Hate Speech/Dangerous Speech Analysis
What Rwanda Studies Does: Systematic analysis of RTLM radio broadcasts, Kangura newspaper, government propaganda from 1990-1994. Tracking escalation of dehumanizing rhetoric ("cockroaches"), coded language ("go to work" = kill Tutsis), how hate speech mobilized violence.
What Armenian Studies Does: Analysis of Ottoman press, Young Turk ideology, deportation orders framed as "security measures."
What Tamil Studies Lacks:
No systematic analysis of Sinhala-language media (newspapers, radio, TV) from 1948-2009
No tracking of anti-Tamil rhetoric escalation
No analysis of government speeches using dehumanizing language
No study of how "terrorism" discourse evolved to encompass all Tamils
Limited analysis of Buddhist monk hate speech
Why This Matters: Dangerous speech is a genocide indicator and mobilization tool. Without studying it longitudinally, we can't trace how ordinary Sinhalese were prepared to accept violence against Tamils.
Research Agenda:
Content analysis of Sinhala newspapers (1948-2009)
Government speech analysis (presidents, defense officials)
Buddhist monk sermon analysis
Television and radio broadcast review
Social media hate speech (2000s-present)
Comparison: pre-pogrom vs. post-pogrom rhetoric patterns
Dangerous speech framework application (Susan Benesch)
GAP 5: No Systematic Survivor Testimony Archive
What Holocaust Studies Does: USC Shoah Foundation (55,000 testimonies), Yad Vashem archives, Fortunoff Archive (4,400 testimonies) - systematic, searchable, preserved survivor voices.
What Rwanda Studies Does: Kigali Genocide Memorial archives, ICTR testimony databases, academic oral history projects.
What Tamil Studies Lacks:
No centralized, systematic survivor testimony archive
No coordinated oral history project
Testimonies scattered across diaspora organizations
No standardized interview protocols
Limited academic access to existing testimonies
Why This Matters: Survivor testimony is primary evidence. Without systematic collection, preservation, and analysis, we lose irreplaceable knowledge and cannot identify patterns across testimonies.
Research Agenda:
Establish centralized Tamil Genocide Archive (diaspora-led, academic partnerships)
Systematic oral history collection using GESUQ guidelines
Video testimony projects (USC Shoah model)
Translation and transcription protocols
Thematic coding of testimonies
Longitudinal study tracking survivor health/trauma over time
GAP 6: No Comparative Genocide Framework Application
What Genocide Studies Does: Constant comparison—Holocaust scholars reference Rwanda; Rwanda scholars cite Bosnia; Armenian scholars compare to Holocaust. Comparative analysis identifies universal patterns vs. unique features.
What Tamil Studies Lacks:
Tamil genocide barely mentioned in comparative genocide textbooks
No systematic comparison: Tamil vs. Rwanda, Tamil vs. Bosnia, Tamil vs. Armenian
Limited application of Stanton's 10 Stages of Genocide
No use of Lemkin's cultural genocide concept
Genocide studies journals rarely publish Tamil case articles
Why This Matters: Without comparison, we can't identify what's universal (and thus predictable/preventable) vs. what's unique to Tamil case. Comparative analysis also legitimizes claims—if Tamil genocide fits established patterns, it strengthens recognition case.
Research Agenda:
Systematic comparison: Tamil genocide vs. Rwanda (state mobilization, "safe zone" massacres, failure of intervention)
Tamil vs. Bosnia (ethnic cleansing, demographic engineering, media complicity)
Tamil vs. Armenian (denial strategies, deportation as genocide method, foreign complicity)
Application of genocide stage models to 75-year Tamil persecution timeline
Inclusion of Tamil case in genocide studies curricula/textbooks
GAP 7: No Transitional Justice Scholarship
What Rwanda Studies Does: Extensive research on gacaca courts, ICTR, memorialization, reconciliation programs, survivor needs, perpetrator reintegration—what works, what doesn't.
What Bosnia Studies Does: Analysis of ICTY, Srebrenica memorialization, truth-telling initiatives, return of displaced persons.
What Tamil Studies Lacks:
Limited analysis of why Sri Lankan truth commissions failed (LLRC)
No systematic study of what justice mechanisms Tamils actually want
Minimal research on diaspora vs. homeland justice priorities
No comparative analysis of failed vs. successful transitional justice
Why This Matters: Accountability requires understanding which mechanisms work. Without research, future justice efforts will repeat past failures.
Research Agenda:
Why did LLRC fail? Comparative analysis with successful TCs
What reparations do Tamils seek? Community consultation research
Diaspora vs. homeland justice priorities survey
Analysis of Canada's Tamil Genocide Education Week Act—does recognition matter?
Research on universal jurisdiction cases (can they work?)
Memory and memorialization practices research
GAP 8: No Public Health/Epidemiological Genocide Studies
What Genocide Studies Does: Growing field analyzing long-term health impacts (Lindert et al. 2019 GESUQ guidelines, Mollica's work on refugee trauma).
What Tamil Studies Lacks:
No systematic health data on genocide survivors
No mental health prevalence studies
No chronic disease studies linked to conflict exposure
No intergenerational health impact research
Limited disability and war injury data
Why This Matters: Health impacts are genocide consequences and generate reparations claims. Without epidemiological data, we can't quantify harm or design interventions.
Research Agenda:
Health survey of Tamil conflict survivors (diaspora and homeland)
Mental health prevalence studies (PTSD, depression, anxiety)
Chronic disease correlation analysis
Intergenerational health study (second-generation diaspora)
Disability prevalence and care needs assessment
Comparative analysis: Tamil vs. other genocide survivor health outcomes
GAP 9: No Economic Dimensions Analysis
What Holocaust Studies Does: Analysis of Aryanization, Jewish property seizure, slave labor, corporate complicity (IBM, I.G. Farben, banks).
What Armenian Studies Does: Analysis of Ottoman economic motivations-Armenian merchant class control of trade, property seizures during genocide.
What Tamil Studies Lacks:
No systematic analysis of economic motivations for persecution
Limited research on Tamil business/property seizures
No study of military economic interests in Tamil areas
Minimal analysis of plantation Tamil labor exploitation
No corporate complicity research (who sold weapons, surveillance tech to Sri Lanka?)
Why This Matters: Economic dimensions reveal cui bono—who benefited from genocide? This is essential for accountability and reparations.
Research Agenda:
Economic analysis of Tamil business destruction (1983 Black July)
Military economic interests in North/East (land, fishing, tourism)
Plantation Tamil labor exploitation history
Corporate complicity study (arms dealers, surveillance companies)
Analysis of economic blockades as genocidal weapon
Chinese economic role in post-genocide Sri Lanka
GAP 10: No Prevention/Early Warning Scholarship
What Genocide Studies Does: Extensive research on why prevention failed (Rwanda, Srebrenica), what early warning indicators existed, what interventions might have worked, how R2P can be operationalized.
What Tamil Studies Lacks:
Limited analysis of why international community failed to prevent 2009
No research on early warning signs ignored (decades of pogroms 1956-1983)
Minimal analysis of India's complicity in enabling genocide
Limited study of UN institutional failures
No research on how "War on Terror" framework enabled genocide
Why This Matters: Prevention failures in Sri Lanka enabled current atrocities (Myanmar, Gaza). Understanding why prevention failed is essential to preventing future genocides.
Research Agenda:
Why did R2P fail in 2009? Comparative analysis with Libya (where R2P worked)
India's role in enabling genocide: analysis of diplomatic pressure, arms sales, intelligence sharing
UN institutional failure analysis: why were warnings ignored?
How did "counterterrorism" framing prevent intervention?
Media failure analysis: why was there a "war without witnesses"?
What interventions might have worked? Counterfactual analysis
What This Means: A New Research Agenda
Based on genocide studies standards, here's what must be researched:
Tier 1: Foundational Research
Establish Tamil Genocide Archive: Systematic survivor testimony collection using established protocols
Geographic Violence Mapping: GIS analysis of all anti-Tamil violence 1948-2009
Dangerous Speech Analysis: Longitudinal study of Sinhala hate speech
Comparative Genocide Framework: Systematic comparison with Rwanda, Bosnia, Armenia
Public Health Study: Epidemiological survey of survivor health outcomes
Tier 2: In-Depth Analysis
Perpetrator Studies: Oral histories of former soldiers, paramilitaries; mobilization analysis
State Archive Research: Analysis of Sri Lankan government documents (where accessible)
Economic Dimensions: Corporate complicity, economic motivations, property seizures
Transitional Justice: Why past mechanisms failed; what Tamils want
Prevention Failure: Why international community failed; R2P analysis
Tier 3: Theoretical Contributions
Structural Genocide Theory: Conceptualizing "slow genocide" beyond mass killing
Counterterrorism and Genocide: How "War on Terror" enabled genocide
Digital Genocide: Surveillance, online hate speech, content moderation
Colonial Origins: How British policies laid groundwork for post-independence genocide
Diaspora Genocide Studies: Transnational dimensions, memory across borders
Methodological Standards We Should Adopt
Based on genocide studies best practices, Tamil genocide research should:
1. Use Mixed Methods
Quantitative: Violence datasets, health surveys, demographic analysis
Qualitative: Oral histories, archival research, ethnography
Integration: Explain patterns (quantitative) through processes (qualitative)
2. Adopt Comparative Frameworks
Always compare: Tamil vs. other genocides
Identify universal patterns vs. unique features
Use comparison to strengthen recognition claims
3. Follow Ethical Guidelines
GESUQ checklist for genocide health research
IRB approval for survivor interviews
Trauma-informed research protocols
Community ownership of knowledge
4. Center Survivor Voices
Systematic testimony collection
Participatory research methods
Tamil scholars as PIs, not just subjects
Diaspora community partnerships
5. Pursue Interdisciplinarity
Combine: law, public health, history, political science, anthropology
No single discipline can explain genocide
Create interdisciplinary research teams
6. Build Institutional Capacity
Establish Tamil Genocide Studies centers (university-based)
Train Tamil scholars in genocide studies methods
Create funding mechanisms for Tamil genocide research
Develop archival infrastructure
Why Genocide Studies Has Failed Tamils
Comparing Tamil case to genocide studies standards reveals systemic failures:
1. The "Terrorism" Blind Spot
Post-9/11, genocide studies ignored cases framed as "counterterrorism." Sri Lanka successfully weaponized terrorism discourse, and scholars didn't question it.
2. Canon Bias
Genocide studies focuses on "top-half canon" (Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia). Tamil genocide is "periphery"....not in textbooks, not in curricula, not in journals.
3. Access Barriers
Sri Lanka denies visas, restricts research access. Unlike Rwanda (which wants genocide studies), Sri Lanka blocks it. Scholars gave up instead of adapting methods.
4. Geopolitical Selectivity
Western powers backed Sri Lanka; genocide studies scholars avoided criticizing Western complicity. Compare to Rwanda, where Western failure is extensively studied.
5. Diaspora Dismissal
Tamil diaspora testimony dismissed as "biased" while Holocaust survivor testimony is revered. Double standard rooted in racism/Orientalism.
Call to Action
For Genocide Scholars:
Include Tamil genocide in comparative frameworks
Publish Tamil case studies in top journals
Partner with Tamil scholars and diaspora organizations
Apply your methodologies to Tamil case
Stop avoiding it because it's "politically sensitive"
For Tamil Scholars:
Get trained in genocide studies methodologies
Use mixed methods, comparative frameworks
Build archives and datasets
Publish in genocide studies journals
Claim space in the field—don't wait for invitations
For Funders:
Fund Tamil genocide research centers
Support systematic testimony collection
Enable long-term comparative research
Fund Tamil scholars' graduate training in genocide studies
For Activists:
Recognition requires scholarship....support research
Connect scholars with survivor communities
Document everything...testimonies, health data, photos
Pressure universities to create Tamil Genocide Studies programs
Conclusion
By comparing Tamil genocide research to Holocaust, Rwanda, and Armenian genocide studies standards, the gaps are undeniable:
No systematic archival research
No geographic variation analysis
No perpetrator studies
No dangerous speech analysis
No survivor testimony archive
No comparative frameworks
No transitional justice scholarship
No public health studies
No economic analysis
No prevention research
These aren't minor gaps. They're foundational methodological failures that explain why Tamil genocide remains unrecognized while less-documented cases are accepted.
The methodologies exist. The frameworks exist. The standards exist. What's missing is will, funding, and institutional support.
If Tamil genocide research adopted genocide studies standards, recognition would be inevitable. The evidence is overwhelming—we just need to organize it according to established scholarly frameworks.
The research agenda is clear. Now we need scholars, institutions, and communities to execute it.
SOURCES:
Genocide Studies Methodology:
Bachman (2020) "Cases Studied in GSP and JGR" Genocide Studies & Prevention 14(1)
Lindert et al. (2019) "The long-term health consequences of genocide" Conflict & Health 13:17
McDoom (2021) The Path to Genocide in Rwanda: Security, Opportunity, and Authority
US Holocaust Memorial Museum (2022) "Methodology for Atrocity Prevention Research"
Tamil Genocide Literature:
Boyle, Francis A. (2016) The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka (2nd ed.)
PEARL (2024) "Justice for Genocide: Sri Lanka's Responsibility"
Walton (2015) "UK-based Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora groups' use of the 'genocide' frame"
Thambinathan (2022) "Methodology as a Form of Repatriation" Nordic Journal of Human Rights
Comparative Genocide:
Lemkin, Raphael (1944) Axis Rule in Occupied Europe
Stanton, Gregory (2013) "The Ten Stages of Genocide"
Straus, Scott (2015) Making and Unmaking Nations: War, Leadership, and Genocide in Modern Africa
By
நன்னிச் சோழன் ·
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.