Thanks for the compliments. I am rally happy to note that at least one person has come out to comment on my idea and that too favourably.

But it difficult for me – an ordinary layman – to bring it out to reach the wider Sri Lankan public in all three languages. But its agreed that i is a must. But thn it has to be polished by people of your standard. I have only given a concept for thinking on a line much different from what is practiced. I am trying to reach out people who are like-minded to mould the idea and present it in an acceptable form for consideration by extremists as well as moderates. There will be formidable opposition from the powerful mighty who might lose all when people accept or feel that a change for the better on these lines is a must. I do not know the way to contact you directly since “groundviews” does not publish email addresses.

Let us hope for a better future to everyone.

IN GOD WE TRUST

An approach has been made to the blog to publish the idea in full and it might be published there for public discussion. I do not know how to send the idea to “groundviews” and whether “groundviews” will accept it as an article for publication to enable a vibrant discussion in the interest of sustainable peace and good governance.

Thanks very much for your comment. I sincerely appreciate your viewpoint with regards to the ethnic question. I used the term ‘homeland’ in referring to the predominantly Tamil northern and eastern provinces, not implying the ‘Tamil Homeland’ and ‘Tamil self-determination’ paradigm.

I do agree that elite bargaining is largely responsible for the outbreak and escalation of ethnic conflict, but we must not forget that 1) things were not rosy for Tamils in post-1948 Sri Lanka (the Official Languages Act of 1956, riots of 1958, and concerning Tamils of central Sri Lanka – denial of citizenship rights soon after Dominion status in 1948…) and that 2) a substantially large number of Tamils hphold a reading of Tamil politics and nationalism radically different to yours.

Let’s not forget that the late Hon. S.J.V. Chelvanayagam QC MP was a political leader with a high sense of integrity, who did not chage his religion or compromise his cause for narrow political gain, hence the fond appelation ‘Thandai Chelva’.

Just like any nationalist discourse, Tamil nationalism has its moderates and hardliners. What we need to understand is that the hardliners (just like Sinhala nationalist hardliners) are very, very difficult folks to deal with, but they cannot be ignored in any conflict regulation strategy. The current offensive, largely justified as ‘elimintating terrorism’, will indeed result in the crushing of the LTTE, but it does not respond to the political demands of hardliners. This obviously does not imply the blind acceptance of their demands, but the opening up of a platform that responds to their key concerns in a constructive manner.
An approach of this nature helps save valuable lives and much needed material resources.

As for the second comment by (Mr/Ms) Kichchi, I’m extremely grateful for coming up with a novel concept concerning participatory democracy. A reform of this nature certainly incorporates civil society in the political life of the state, srengthening the role of the people in determining the course of politics. Ideas of this nature should indeed reach the wider Sri Lankan public in all three languages.

We will have to think in terms of the welfare of the country and its inhabitants rather the the welfare of a group of people who are interested in their own welfare rather than that of the country. The writer is thinking about the future of the country as a whole while the Government is thinking about its future. That seems o be the basic difference.

Quoting a few paragraphs to put in my personal view for sustainable peace with good governance by addressing most of the prevailing problems.

“The political leadership in Colombo was not receptive to the fact that those individuals who drafted the Vaddukkodai Resolution for the creation of a separate Tamil state were also citizens of Sri Lanka, and that the said resolution was reached due to continuous inaction of Colombo, whose blind eye to ethnic minority grievances is at the heart of Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict.”

“What Delhi did not grasp was the fact that these militants were also Sri Lankans, and they had turned to terrorism due to decades of discrimination, neglect of their regions by Colombo, and the absence of educational and professional opportunities for youth. In the absence the active participation of these groups, a durable settlement could not be reached. Exclusion of violent, i.e. ‘terrorist’ factions from conflict regulation efforts is extremely detrimental to their success.”

“Necessity of Constructive Dealings with Hardliners
Yet, a situation of this nature should not prevent a responsible government from seeking further options, and developing innovative strategies of establishing channels of exchange with militant adversaries.”

“First, such a government requires a sincere commitment to restore equal treatment and respect for all ethnic/communal groups. Secondly, it is necessary for a state dealing with an intrastate conflict to observe mistakes committed by other states that have faced and/or continue to face internal civil conflicts.”

“It requires further creativity and innovation, and a higher level of sensitivity to pressing ‘case-specific issues’ and a deep commitment to peace and stability.”

“People who value democracy, equality and equity, needs to pressure the Sri Lankan state to take immediate action towards a meaningful and just power sharing arrangement. That is the only way to ensure security and the dignity of the peoples of Sri Lanka.

If peaceful coexistence through power sharing is not achievable, the only other solution that would be available will be secession.” so said Mr.Lionel Bopage, former Secretary of the original JVP.

A new concept that is for a meaningful and just power-sharing arrangement is given below for the comments of everyone.

Many, who call themselves as ‘moderates’, are not willing to consider this concept which gives a certain degree of ‘power’ with ‘responsibility’ to everyone including the poor and voiceless silent majority.

Now, one word, for those who are actually and sincerely interested in fostering a united country by supporting “devolution” as a means to achieve sustainable peace, please avoid thinking in terms of “devolution” and instead please try to think in terms of “sharing” of powers, rights, duties and responsibilities that cannot be taken back at any time by any government or individual by any method.

The best political solution would be to DILUTE the powers of all elected representatives by separating the powers of Parliament and empowering different sets of people’s representatives elected from different areas to administer the different sets of separated powers. It has to be devolution HORIZONTALLY where every set of representatives would be equal and NOT VERTICALLY where one set of representatives would be above the other which is the normal practice in this power-hungry world. It is because of “devolution” being done “vertically” we have all the trouble in this power-hungry world.

So for sustainable peace it should not be “devolution” but “dilution of powers” or “sharing of powers” in such a way that no one – other than the common people – is superior. This system would eradicate injustice, discrimination, bribery and corruption – the four pillars of an evil society – and establish the “Rule of Law” and “Rule by ALL” for sustainable peace, tranquility and prosperity and a pleasant living with dignity and respect for all inhabitants in the country. Everyone must have “equal” powers, rights and most importantly duties and responsibilities.

A detailed version of the concept, which is quite long is available for discussion by interested individuals with an aim to change the hearts not just a change of mind of the citizens of this country with the aim of preserving a UNITARY form of Government with every section of people from every part of the country PARTICIPATING in the GOVERNANCE OF THE COUNTRY in a practical way. In a way it may be termed “participatory democracy”. In this system the country is NOT DIVIDED but the “powers of governance’ of the Parliament is separated.

It is my considered opinion that the NEW concept of true democracy is applicable in any country for sustainable peace coupled with speedy development without wastage of scarce funds.