His argument has some truth BUT not the full truth. He fails to accept that it was the “minimum democratic space” offered by the state that was the root cause for the creation/birth of the JVP and the LTTE. There was “not enough democratic space” for these two to come into “main stream politics” and so they took the only alternative available to them.

Sri Lanka did not have enough democratic space from day one and does not have to this day because there was/is no real democracy in Sri Lanka at any time.

“Real Democracy” is people’s rule in the interest of the “people”.

“Present-day Democracy” is one-person’s rule in the interest of that person and his/her cronies. The “people” are used as the “human-shield” to protect this person and his/her cronies. The “ruling-class” (rich and powerful) is always united ad is not worried about the “ruled-class” (the powerless poor). It is the same throughout the world – no matter whether they are communist, socialist or capitalist.

So, it is “real democracy” that will save the people and bring prosperity to the country or for that matter “any country”.

Sri Lanka’s former ambassador to the UN in Geneva, who used to regularly deluge diplomats and activists with multi-megabyte emails and photos detailing his latest activities, is claiming credit for blocking an attempted UN Human Rights Council inquiry into his country’s war with the Tamils.

According to Dayan Jayatilleka, “Even the Richard Goldstone report on Gaza got only 25 votes, but we managed to secure 29 for Sri Lanka at the special session.”

The ex-envoy spoke of his radical Marxist past, and his connection with “dear friends” such as Jean Ziegler, the 1989 co-founder of the Moammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize, and recently-elected VP of the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee.

Having read the questions and the comments, I believe Acharya is spot on in his politically transcendent analysis.

Having associated and worked with Siva (Anna) in his last days, on an important project to connect him to the noted Sinhala intellectuals for a wider dialogue , I could vouch that he was involved in the internal as well as the external dialectical on the LTTE and the State of SL. I am sure Prof. Sumanasiri Liyange, Prof Desmond Mallikarachchi, Prof Jagatha Weerasinghe and many other academics and some members of the (thinking)JVP and (former ) X Kandayama, will testify that Siva was a defender of the State while willingly challenging its post-independent surrender to the world order , largely led by the Sinhala elites. Those who were associated with this project will remember his analytical defense of Lanka even against the Indian Imperialism into the very late hours of every night that we met with. In this sense he was more Bhoomiputhra than the ones claiming to be. And that is the reason that the majority of the Sinhala youth gathered in these discussions, who were originally hostile even to have him as a speaker, agreed to continue the discussion with Siva, till he was assassinated.

I agree with Achraya, one has to take sides as much one can avoid sides. But that decision should be governed by the judgment one makes on the outcome S/he intend to bring however marginal it may appear.

Since we have talked of him, I wonder whether Dr Jayathilake with his international and local connections help to narrow the search of the killers at least for the friendship (he had) with Sivaram? Because Siva Anna in the manner he lived and died was a true internationalist beyond lecturers or writing thesis on the same

To pick up on something I think NM said, I didn’t support Premadasa solely or primarily because I thought the JVP deserved to be defeated. I supported his domestic socioeconomic project. However, in MR’s case the support was mostly because I thought the Tigers needed a total war response. I did say “mostly”. The rest of it was/is because I can relate even less to those politically opposing MR.

1. I never thought the defeat of the JVP and the LTTE would solve all our problems. I thought that they had become part of the problem, not part of the solution. I did think that such a defeat would eliminate the problems that they had become and unblock the path for the tackling the other problems. In a recent polemic I stated clearly that the military defeat of the Tigers was “the necessary though insufficient condition” for tackling the ethnic issue and devolution. So, I always thought it was necessary but never thought it was sufficient. What it does is open the path for a reassertion of normalcy and basic democratic politics in the North and East. The ethnic issue can now be addressed by the elected representatives of the people through a process of negotiation.

2. I gather that “NM” thinks that the elimination of the LTTE and JVP is deleterious politically because it kind of scorches the larger political space in which they exist/ed. I have two counterarguments. (a) We, the state and society, tried the path of stop-go, of talk and fight, of talking from strength, of less than total war and total military victory. Not only didn’t it work, the repeated return to war by the Tigers discredited and undermined the pluralist democratic project in North and South.
(b) It is not the total nature of the military victories over the Tigers and the JVP that have damaged the larger political space. It is the total nature of the JVP and LTTE’s projects of elimination of rivals that did so. Concretely, was it the decimation of the JVP leadership and the second insurrection that has damaged the Left or the murder of Vijaya Kumaratunga by the JVP? What would the Left have looked like today — indeed what would Sri Lanka have been today– had Vijaya not been killed by the JVP ? What would Tamil politics have been without the elimination of Neelan, to name just one, by the Tigers?
(c)Doesn’t the imminent prospect of a wide open Presidential race prove my point?