This is a very convenient propaganda along with the one that depicts the conflict as merely a war on 'terrorism' because it exonerates Sinhalese leaders of their own wrongdoings and puts the entire blame on Tamils for their own suffering.
It's a propaganda because it doesn't reveal the full truth and makes several logical leaps.
1) Even if Tamil leaders did advocate separatism in pre-independent Sri Lanka, it does NOT mean Tamils did not face discrimination after independence. Tamil leaders wanting a separate state prior to independence is not mutually exclusive to Tamils wanting the same thing but for reasons related to grievances after independence.
2) Even if Tamil grievances were imaginary or exaggerated, in no civilized word would that warrant violent backlash. But that is exactly what happened to Tamils in several anti-Tamil riots in response to their political demands and peaceful protests. To pretend that this would have no effect on people mobilizing toward separatism would be dishonesty and/or naivety.
3) Most importantly Tamil leadership was not a monolith. Before independence, Tamil leaders did not only advocate a unitary state but even opposed federalism which was ironically proposed by the Sinhalese leaders (also see this article):
"It could be seen therefore that federalism was first proposed by Sinhala political leaders. SWRD Bandaranaike the greatest intellectual among Sinhala political leaders of that era espoused some form of federalism as the only solution as far back as 1926. Kandyan Sinhala leaders recommended a federal arrangement of two units for Sinhalese and one unit comprising the north – east for Tamils in 1927. If Sri Lankan Tamil political leaders had availed themselves of the opportunity and demanded that the British grant federalism for the Tamils of the North and East there was every chance that the request might have been acceded to. The Kandyan Sinhala and Sri Lankan Tamil political leaders could have pressurised the low country Sinhala leaders in a political pincer. Yet this did not happen. The Sri Lankan Tamil political leaders did not demand federalism or even a separate state while the British were ruling. Instead these demands were raised only after the British left our shores."
Moreover, if there were calls for Eelam prior to independence as Sinhalese nationalists allege, it was by no means unanimous considering the Jaffna Youth Congress (JYC) was one of the earliest pre-independence organisation to agitate for full independence from Britain and advocate a broader Ceylonese nationalism under a unitary state.
“Long before independence, the JYC led the campaign for the use of national languages in education and in governance. The JYC succeeded in getting virtually all the leading schools in Jaffna to teach Tamil and Sinhala as compulsory subjects at the secondary level. As J.E. Jayasuriya has noted, 'At a time when the Sinhalese were prepared to do without Sinhala, the battle for Sinhala and Tamil was fought by Tamil leaders'” (PATHWAYS OF DISSENT Tamil Nationalism in Sri Lanka, p. xviii)
“The Sri Lankan Tamil sectarianism/communalism that surfaced with the Tamil Congress the late 1930s was stridently narrow and ideologically primitive—vide agendas such as the 50-50 proposal-but not separatist. The FP [Federal Party] too was Tamil nationalist but not separatist. Despite the progressive defection of the non-Marxist parties, followed by the Marxist parties into Sinhala Only, Tamil separatism received no electoral backing until 1977. As late as 1970, when an ex-FP MP, Navaratnam, voiced his advocacy of separatism (that is, secession), the FP challenged him by nominating K.P. Ratnam to contest him. Navaratnam campaigned vigorously on a secessionist platform, and Ratnam on a federalist platform; Ratnam won handsomely. The earliest advocacy of separatism by any Tamil group of any significance was around the mid-1970s.” (PATHWAYS OF DISSENT Tamil Nationalism in Sri Lanka, p. xxi)
