I also opposed the Pol Potist uprising of the JVP and supported the effort to suppress that insurrection.

Before the collapse of global socialism in the late 1980s, I supported a socialist revolution through the joint efforts of the Sinhala and Tamil radical Left.

After the collapse of global socialism I supported the closest available approximation on a continuum of values, whether it is social democracy, patriotic populism or the defense of national sovereignty.

Very clear, very simple, very logical, very rational.

I find it impossible to debate or discuss with anyone such as Raghavan, whose writing I find incoherent and incomprehensible. Mahavidyalayas have nothing do with it: ask Amarakeerthi.

lets discuss politics to detect where we went wrong and how our two nations could correct the past and move forward. Because while the contemporary political history of SL is blood soaked it is the bourgeoisie thugrism from Gangodawila to Geneva which prevents any meaningful discussion now.

Raghavan urges us all to “Read ‘’the emergency of 1956 by Vittachchi and recent analysis of De Votta) Prof. Seneviratne in his ‘’the works of the King (1999)”. Well, it is diffucult to do so because Tarzie ( Uncle tarzie to me) wrote no such book and could not have because there was no such emergency in 56. He did write a famous book on “Emergency ’58″. And my respected friend Prof HL Seneviratne did not write a book on “the Works of the King”, but on “The Work of Kings” ( in which he is kind enough to make a positive reference to me in the company of the late Regi Siriwardene).

Humour aside, that implies quite a difference.

You are merely proving my point. There were several reasons such as those listed by you and more, for the rise of Nazism. Wilhelm Reich investigated the social psychological background. Others like Barrington Moore went further back and researched the thwarting of the bourgeois democratic revolution in Germany. However, the operative point is that whatever the factors involved, however many other forces were responsible ( eg for the humlilaition of German nationalism by the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles), the Nazi fascist challenge had to be destroyed militarily, until it was buried in the rubble of Berlin. The rest was irrelevant until AFTER the war, when the Allies decided not to make the same mistakes as were made after World War 1. While thw war was on, no one wasted time trying to debate, still less address, the reasons. This is true also of the war of Secession waged by the Southern Confederacy. The disquisitions, the guilt trips and reparations can come later.

1) Versailles
2) The economic crises of 1929-1932
3) Plotting by conservatives eg Papen
4) Fear of communism
5) Long standing prejudices against democracy (read the Open Society and its Enemies Vol 2, Karl Popper) to understand how far back this goes.

So what then is the main cause for support of

1) The LTTE
2) Tamil nationalism

I try not to speak or write out of ignorance. Apropos Lee Kwan Yew:

“Singapore’s senior minister, Lee Kuan Yew, has a blunt message for Taiwan…Lee spoke in an interview on May 26 with the REVIEW’s Phil Revzin, Michael Vatikiotis, David Plott and Ben Dolven…Here lies the danger for the rest of Asia, says veteran leader Lee Kuan Yew. In an interview with the Review, Singapore’s senior minister, a former adviser to Beijing, delivers a strong message to Taipei, Beijing and Washington.”

- Far Eastern Economic Review
June 8, 2000

Nope, I don’t. Never did.

Titular Republic,

Should, but since it isn’t possible, it should come after – and i think it can due to external and internal electoral realities. By the way, I don’t believe that “much of (the Tigers’) support originates from the lack of liberty and plurality in politics and other spheres of life”. The Nazis arose against the backdrop of the liberal Weimar Republic; the terrorism in Indian Kashmir, Colombia and the Philippines operates against a backdrop of democracy.

Shouldn’t the “pluralist, liberal and moderate” politics be a fundamental part of fighting the totalitarian Tigers, much of whose support originates from the lack of liberty and plurality in politics and other spheres of life?

Despite the fact that I vigorously disagree with much of what he says, I have respect for the style and substance of his writings. There is an ocean of difference between his measured polemics and the brash pyromaniacal rhetorics of his colleague Rajiva, who appears punch-drunk at his eloquence (has anyone read that ridiculously self-indulgent piece titled ‘London Kills Me’?) and whose sheer nastiness impresseses none other than the Sinhala-extreme-nationalist crowd.

Coming back to DJ, most people who respond to his articles end up being those offended by all the above points that he couches his arguments in. But that is really a given, and is the pre-cursor to this main argument rather than the argument in itself. I am not trying to defend DJ at all (far from it), but am just trying to point out that the real issues that his articles seem to want to address go unaddressed because of his inability to call a spade a spade, and the delicacy with which he treats the culprits. As a result, the people he wants to talk to don’t respond and engage with him for they are too busy celebrating their imminent victory.

At the end of Pontecorve’s ‘Battle of Algiers’, there is a brilliant moment of dialogue penned between the (apparently) victorious French officers as they step down the casbah. Having presumed to have defeated the Algerian patriots by blowing up their last secret cell, the French generals speak to one another with smug satisfaction and the fake magnanimity of the victor … ‘You know, we go back a long way, us and the Algerians, we’ll be friends again’.

Surely this isn’t too far from the truth of what is happening with regards to the fake discussion on post-victory devolution. The hawks and extremists who hold sway in the circles of power can swagger around, making tongue in cheek promises, pretending to agree with DJ’s ideas, and affectating a cock-sure posture of great magnanimity towards the cowed and devastated Tamil population. They can pretend that Sinhala nationalism was never about denying Tamils their place in the country, and that the war was only about defeating the terrorists. They can pretend that the JHUs and the Wimals of this world will change their colours and not oppose a future devolution of any measure whatsoever. They can pretend that Lasantha’s murder, Tissainayagam’s detention, hundreds of abductions, etc were just unfortunate transitory by-products of an otherwise necessary and successful military strategy that will disappear over time.

Do we believe this? Do you, Dayan?

The world of the 1950s to the 1970s was very different from the world of today, and so is the neighbourhood, starting with India’s power and influence. No Sinhala government will be able to ignore for long, the growing global consensus in favour of devolution.