Presidential Election 2010: The choice before pluralist democrats
Q: Why did you fall out with Rajapaksa?
A: Five days after we won the war, at a meeting of the (president’s) Security Council, he said he’d stop recruiting new people in the army because it’s too strong and too big, that Sri Lanka would become like Myanmar. Such statements demoralized me. I thought they were disgusting.”
- GEN SARATH FONSEKA, INTERVIEW GIVEN TO SATARUPA BHATTACHARJYA, OUTLOOK INDIA MAGAZINE, DEC 14TH, 2009 (He Said The Army’s Too Strong, Sri Lanka Will Become Like Myanmar)
There are many interpretations of what came between Rajapakse and Fonseka. Some able commentators have speculated that it was dynastic rule. While there is indeed such a dismal prospect (as during the Bandaranaike years 1970-77), I do not believe that was the issue, and the Outlook India interview from which I’ve quoted, ends all speculation on the authority of Gen Fonseka himself. The central issue was the balance of power between the civilian and military wings as represented by Mahinda Rajapakse and Gen Sarath Fonseka. During the war there was a shift in that balance, which Gen Fonseka sought to prolong, make permanent or take to the next level in the post war period, in peacetime, while Mahinda Rajapakse pushed back to reassert civilian control and the supremacy of the elected Executive. The critical issue was whether Gen Fonseka would exert veto power over decision making as the military did for decades in Pakistan before the restoration of democracy. The Army would dominate the armed services, and the former Army commander turned CDS would determine the processes within the army and the military as a whole, while determining the parameters of national policy under the rubric of national security. The issues of a vastly expanded postwar military, the fate of the IDPs and the 13th amendment/devolution were cases in point, and the faint contours of a “National Security state” became discernible.
In the post Cold war period I have supported patriotic populists, Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapakse, as the most progressive alternative possible. This stand derives support from Fidel Castro’s statements of 1986-7, foreseeing the collapse of the USSR and the global socialist system, that ‘in the present historical period, revolutionary socialism is not on the agenda; what is on the agenda is the defense of national independence and the sovereignty of the state’.
Personally I have been far more disappointed with Mahinda Rajapakse than with Ranasinghe Premadasa for reasons that are obvious, but politically and historically, I have been far less disappointed with Mahinda than with Premadasa- the reason being my failure to convince the latter to apply his drive and efficiency to the task of defeating Prabhakaran and thereby securing the pre-requisites for the sustainability of his amazing social and development programs. As a political scientist – and at bottom, that’s a large part of what I am—I do not take my stand on the basis of personal disappointments but on objective historical assessment.
Four Presidents – Jayewardene, Premadasa, Wijetuga and Kumaratunga—failed to win the war. Mahinda Rajapakse did. By what logic or morality can we fail to reward him with a second term? By what logic or ethics can the Sri Lankan voter, who gave a second term to a president who failed to win the war and abandoned efforts to do so, should turf out after one term a President who won the war, or if you prefer, on whose watch the war was won?
Let’s not make the same mistake as the Tamil people did. Out of profound dissatisfaction, they abandoned, turned their backs on their civilian lawyer-politician leaders and opted for a warrior-warlord as their “national leader”. This has led them to the brink of destruction as a community. Do the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims collectively wish to make the same disastrous choice or its equivalent? We needed a tough, ruthless, driven, army commander to beat an enemy as ruthless as the Tigers but do we need him to lead us and rule us?
If you wish to change the analogy, the end of the Tamil nationalist cause commenced with the Karuna breakaway and the challenge to his leader. Karuna has proved his point about being the match winning commander for the Tigers: they lost the only war in which he did not fight and indeed fought on the other side. Is Sarath Fonseka our Karuna equivalent? Karuna is good for Sri Lanka as a whole but that was because he went up against Prabhakaran, not a democratically elected nationalist leader. What would be the effect on the national interest of a Karuna rebellion on our side? Do we wish to reward it with electoral success?
Gen Fonseka claims that the military victory was his, while he acknowledges the “support” extended by President Rajapakse. History however, rightly credits Lincoln over Grant and Sherman, Lenin over Trotsky, Stalin over Zhukhov, Churchill over Montgomery, Roosevelt over Patton and MacArthur, Mao over Zhu Deh and Lin Biao, and Ho Chi Minh over Gen Giap. This is because the role of overall political leadership and the necessary political will is the most vital single element in the conduct of war.
Sarath Fonseka was a vitally indispensable factor in the victory. There may not – or probably would not — have been one without him. But there definitely would not have been a victory without Mahinda Rajapakse. If we had only Gen Fonseka as Army commander and no Mahinda Rajapakse as President — and no Mahinda as President would have meant no Gotabhaya as Secy Defense—we might have had a Jayasikuru writ very large.  Having fought under President Kumaratunga, who permitted Mangala Samaraweera’s Sudu Nelum movement and the Saama Thavalama to roam the countryside spreading antiwar propaganda precisely at the same time that the army was struggling to recruit men for the ongoing war that had been imposed by Prabhakaran, Gen Fonseka should perhaps be more aware than most, of the vital role played by political will and commitment to victory at the top, the level of the Executive and Commander in Chief, i.e. by the Rajapakse Presidency. While Gen Fonseka was the driving force of the ground war, the prime motivator of the soldiery, this was a combined arms war in which tactical airpower was more important and effective than ever before and the Navy crippled the logistics of the Tigers. Montgomery defeated Rommel by targeting his petroleum supplies, reducing the efficacy of his splendid tank force. If the Tigers had been able to bring down on the Sri Lankan infantrymen, the kind of ordnance they were able to during Jayasikuru, the war would still be on. This does not mean that Admiral Karannagoda and Air Marshal Goonetilleke were more important than Gen Fonseka, but it does mean that the victory was a superb collective effort, and that collectivity of effort, overcoming inter-service rivalry and indeed intra-army rivalry was made possible by Mahinda Rajapakse through the “General Manager” Gotabhaya Rajapakse, who also secured the necessary external inputs, both material and intangible-qualitative.
It is alternately nauseating and hilarious that some who have never looked violent death in the face say or heavily hint that General Sarath Fonseka who has shed blood copiously for the Sri Lankan cause, carries enemy lead in his body, and was the driving force of the main force – the army – of the historic victory against the Tamil Tigers, is a traitor. What gives them the moral right and authority to do so? Who has the right to determine who is and isn’t a traitor, and by what criteria? Furthermore, what is the relevance of this terminology anyway? The war is over and won, thanks far more to Sarath Fonseka than to any of those people, so what is the relevance of traitors and patriots except in the historic sense of who was and wasn’t pro-Tiger when the war was on? I rather doubt that this rhetoric of an international conspiracy and General Fonseka as a traitor is going to cut much ice with the Sri Lankan voter who is a pretty sophisticated political animal. Conspiracies are secret and what is happening is out there in the open, in the Western and Lankan media. There is a crisis in our external relations with a very important part of the world, including the world’s only superpower, led by one of the world’s most popular personalities. Any conspiracy is located within this crisis and is a byproduct of it.
Anyone who hopes for the topmost slot in any enterprise be it in the corporate or state sector, must either have some experience in that broad area or possess academic training and qualifications in that subject, or have a combination (e.g. Barack Obama: academic and intellectual, community organizer, writer, Senator). A soldier of forty years experience, Gen Fonseka is seeking the top spot in the country with no experience in politics or civilian life. Dwight Eisenhower was President in 1953 not 1945 and in the intervening years he was President of Columbia University one of the Ivy League universities in the USA and one of the best in the world. Susilo Bangbang Yudhyono came from within the Indonesian military which had governed Indonesia since 1965 until 2000. Gen Colin Powell was once regarded as a possible Presidential candidate but that was after he was Secretary of State. Gen David Petraeus of the US army is seen as a possible US Presidential candidate next time around, but he is known as a warrior scholar, a student of History with a PhD from Princeton (and protégé of the renowned progressive scholar of international law and international relations, Richard Falk). Sarath Fonseka does not qualify on either count, though I might add that with a term in Parliament as an MP or Minister he may qualify for serious consideration as a Presidential candidate.
It was his 40 years in the army that turned Sarath Fonseka into what he was: the warrior capable of providing inspiring leadership to his men to win the war. It is precisely those 40 years that disqualify him from holding the topmost civilian job in the land; a job that requires consultation, compromise and consensus, three qualities that are necessarily absent in the army, and which Gen Fonseka was never renowned for during his military career. Mahinda Rajapakse has exactly the same years of experience, forty, in civilian politics that Gen Fonseka has in military life. That makes him at the moment – a moment where Gen Fonseka has not yet accumulated any civilian experience– the better man for the presidency. He is not the visionary we need to take the country united into the 21st century but as a populist he is preferable to an authoritarian persona.
None of this means that the country doesn’t need change, accelerated and socially responsive economic progress, an enlightened charter for multi-ethnicity and a vastly improved style of governance. Someone should just look at the UNDP’s Human Development report figures for Sri Lanka over the past few years, including the Gini Coefficient. Rajapakse rule does indeed need reining in, but the answer does not reside in General Fonseka as President; it does not lie in the Presidential election at all. It resides in the doctrines of “balance of power”, “containment” and more concretely, “checks and balances”. The parliamentary election is to be held shortly after the Presidential. We must not confuse the two. We the citizens, get an opportunity to throw the rascals out at the Parliamentary election, either (i) electing the UNP (which is unlikely if the party leadership remains unchanged) or (ii) reducing the strength of the SLFP led coalition and having a strong UNP Opposition or (iii) simply throwing out by means of preference votes, those existing sleazy, incompetent Ministers and sitting MPs.
As between Rajapakse and Fonseka, continuity is better than change; within the government change is imperative, and as between the Government and the Opposition, change may be better than continuity. Observing the vital distinction between the two elections, Presidential and Parliamentary, enables Sri Lanka’s citizens to get the best deal available. Fortunately for democracy the issues that really divided Fonseka and Rajapakse ( by the former’s own admission) are now out in the open, not hidden within the state structure where they could have exploded in extra Constitutional violence. Now, it is the people of all communities, who by their free choice at the ballot box will determine the trajectory of the country.
55 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
Respect and love are contagious and rewarding.
Our forefathers, respected each other, loved life,saw good things and passed on their character to their children. From the table of their heart sprang out good and not evil.
They worked hard for good times and celeberated what they achieved. The island of Ceylon was blessed with peace and opportunities till 1950′s. There was quality life.
But, if we step back in time for 50 years from now, we witness a contrast to what our forefathers enjoyed. Things went terribly wrong.
The politicians abused the Buddhist prelates and monks, and together, they became self proclaimed good men. They provoked the Sinhalese to anger aginst Tamils when the Tamils sought to establish their legitimate rights, human rights and freedoms in 1956.
The hearts of Buddhist prelates and monks gradually drifted away into political power, influence and materialism. They could no longer reflect or emulate the life of Buddha. They multiplied and blessed violence and war insted of preaching peace.
Almost all the political leaders, “blessed” by the Buddhist clergy with Buddhist religious rituals, turned out to be a curse to the country, causing oppression, violence, bloodshed and brutal war.
The very evil which Buddha asked his followers to refrain from, were fondly embraced with passion by the prelates and monks. Evil became the cornerstone of Buddhism in Sri Lanka(SL).
They dictated the politics of SL, though utterly unfit to do that job. The island was wrecked.
Now, hearts are empty, lives are desperate and the young generation is fired up for peace with justice. With extreme urgency, they have chosen to bring back life and love into the bloodstream of their island.
They have resolved, like our forefathers, to be responsible and accountable to each others’ life. Each person wants to be “his brother’s keeper”.
Surely, they will succeed and achieve peace. Then the island will no longer be a bother and a problem to the rest of the world and its people, but a tremendous blessing.
Gamini Weerakoon, in his Sunday Leader column, makes a valid analysis (of sorts) with regard to the ‘experience’ of former Presidents of Sri Lanka that is worth considering in opposition to your premise that the candidate “…must either have some experience in that broad area or possess academic training and qualifications in that subject, or have a combination.. “. History seems to have disproved your theory (according to GW)
You also mention the case of “Churchill over Montgomery”, but in spite of his heroics and indisputable contribution, Churchill was voted out soon after the war. Do you think this was for the better?
Idiot Islanders For Democrazy Anarchy!
We at IIFDA hope to, “Wipe out Corruption in Government by wiping out Government!”
We will, “Give Government back to the People and make everyone his/her own lawmaker!”
LET’S RETURN TO THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE!
1. Don’t vote on Election Day!
2. Don’t support any political parties!
3. Don’t obey the laws of the land!
4. Don’t inform authorities about potential seaside bummers who target parleymutts!
5. Don’t inform authorities about roadside bums targeted at parleymutts!
6. Don’t watch government TV or read government newspapers!
7. Don’t even join this organisation!
We are a non-profit organisation dedicated to the proposition that “Government Stinks!” and the people who vote for parleymutts stink even more!
JOIN NOW!
A nice try DJ in your inimitable “I came to bury, not to praise” style! The issue that you chose to conveniently avoid is this – MR has shown callous disregard to Democracy and has rapidly usurped the entire nation’s admin power structure to be within the family and thug-loyalists. That has now spread to cornering the Land, business and wealth, not to mention most of the Media, often by threat. The signs are that the tentacles are beginning to wrap around the Nation’s Politics for a monopoly on that too. The advanced election announcement came as a result of the potential threat to such intentions, in case the citizenry were to open their eyes a little too early that would devastate the popularity quite rapidly. Are you happy with or should the citizenry be happy with these power grabs by the Royalty? If MR were to get re-elected, wouldn’t it further consolidate the power grab? Is that the democratic progress the country should look for? So, the question is, should the country contain the power grab by denying MR a second term or should they help him consolidate the Family Royalty by re-electing him?
Interesting read! Thanks for that!
I have a few questions though, (for anyone who would like to respond). Firstly I am not in Sri Lanka, so i am not too sure of the ground reality per se. I was wondering
1. Which strata of the population makes up the general’s support base? Its not likely that all those who are heavy duty UNP supporters would automatically support the common candidate. In fact it seems more likely that they should be disgruntled, stupefied and downright frustrated with RW’s leadership (or lack of it). The reason I am asking such is for preemptive reasons:
If there is knowledge of who is more likely to vote for the general, then there is opportunity to address those grievances.
2. Some of the grievances used as catch phrases to capture the imagination and the hearts and minds of the population, including the Colombo folk (and I mean this in the sense, where Colombo folk are supposedly self believing in their capability to spot a scam and deduct more reasonably considering international considerations) is the elimination of corruption and the prevention of a dynastic rule in this Island of ours. However, I cant help but wonder how the General would go about ‘eliminating’ corruption… and I also cant help but wonder, if there are others who wonder how this would happen, and shudder at some image of a draconian albeit systemic elimination of corrupt individuals. No doubt that process itself would be corrupt, no doubt that process would reach our own backyard, if in the least any of us are guilty of sustaining the system of corruption through our own laziness of running away from a bureaucratic and idiosyncratic system.
3. Where is Sajith Premadasa in all of this? I am not suggesting he should contest but i am wondering what he has to say. Indeed silence is golden, but at a time when the future of our Island hangs in its balance, silence can be detrimental.
4. What is the level of support the general can expect from the armed forces if not army. I ve heard stories on both sides one proclaiming that the army is a professional bunch and would not resort to such political hoo haa but on the other hand there is also the realization that the general was a motivator, that there may have been political hurdles the general fought and also that the army, although professional, is still human. It would be interesting to note the level of personal dissatisfaction with life that the army personnel may have, this if significant could spill over to wanting the general in office as a signifier of hope for themselves.
My country is my home, and without my home I am nothing.
Dr Jayatilleka raises an interesting point about throwing the rascals (i.e. MPs) out, and sets out three possible options. These are, quite correctly, the possible options available to the voter. However, is the choice an easy one?
As regards option (i) – electing the UNP would not be possible simply due to the leadership of RW (as pointed out by the author).
As regards option (ii) – the part about reducing the strength of the coalition SLFP is acceptable, but the part about having a strong UNP is questionable IF its leader is going to be RW. Hence, if RW remains leader of the UNP (oh, he surely will), might not the voter go with the SLFP?
As regards option (iii) – throwing out the sleazy and the incompetent is what needs to be done, undoubtedly. But is it truly possible, given the fact that it’s after all a 225-MP Parliament we are talking about, and the competent prospects that would come forward at the election will only be a handful?
Dear Java Jones,
Gamma Weerakoon even remotely suggesting a parallel between Gen Fonseka and Obama in the same sentence is absurd. Obama was editor of the Harvard law review, a professor of law at Chicago university, a community organiser in Chicago, an award winning writer of two books and a Senator for 8 years. His speech at the Democratic Convention during John Kerry’s presidential bid brought him to national prominance. How could anyone seriously compare that richness of experience in civilian life, civil society and governance with Gen Fonseka’s purely and exclusively military experience.
Dear AJ Perera,
So you want democracy restored by a harshly authoritarian, ruthless, military officer with no experience in life other than in the army? That’s logical, i must say…
Dear DJ,
As for being logical, I am sure you would agree that a wolf in sheep’s clothing is infinitely more dangerous than a wolf in its own skin – in the latter case, we know what we are up against.
We now know MR has deceived his way through a history of faked HR Actions, championing of Democracy and fighting for the Poor Man – his intentions all along had been to establish a Despotic ruling and amassing of wealth within the clan like no other – Mihin Lanka and H’Tota airport are not trivial. Are you sincerely suggesting giving him and his clan a free hand, and perhaps a cheer or two to go along with that?
SF is no saint, but have you ever had to contend with the better of the two evils? We know for sure now what MR & clan would do, along with Mervyn, I might add. We don’t know what SF will do, but it couldn’t be any worse, if only for the reason that he has not had the privilege in the last four years of dictatorial administrative setting up necessary to ransack the rest of country that is still not in the loot bag. Logic, my foot.
Dr.D.J.,
Do you seriously believe that the Tamils chose Prabakaran?
If Tamils chose Prabakaran, as you say, then how come the GoSL and you say that the LTTE is using Tamils as human shields??
How come you and the GoSL say that Prabakaran does not have a democratic mandate, when you say the Tamil people chose Prabakaran??
You seem to contradict yourself.
Would you not agree that the abrogation by the state of agreements entered into with minorities, and state terrorism is the reason why the militant struggle won adherents in its nascent stage and caused the ethnic conflict??
Dear Dr. D.J.,
While, I agree with your general premise that Gen. Fonseka, as a military person, does not have political training either academically or empirically and hence not suited for presidency. But some of the facts you give to buttress your argument are either misplaced or incorrect. Examples are:
Gen. U.S. Grant became U.S. president in 1868 straight from the army. Same with Gen. Zacary Taylor, becoming president having never held elected office and being in the army for 40 years.
Gen. MacArthur was asked to run for president but refused.
Colin Powell was asked to run for president in 1996 against Clinton but refused, not after he became Secy of State, as you stated.
As for the Chinese and Vietnames generals, well those countries aren’t democracies so their case is different since they can’t run for elected office.
Then what about Fidel Castro? He led the revolution and became the head of state???
So military leaders can become heads of state. Let’s not forget to add George Washington to the list.
Dear Dr. D.J.,
You rightly state that the war victory was a collective effort. Don’t forget the international communities role in isolating the LTTE. IC made series of busts from Canada, USA, UK, France, India, Singapore, Malaysia,etc.
SL did not have sophisticated radar to detect ships coming from more than 1000 miles. India is likely to have supported with all those busts of arms ships. So don’t forget the IC effort in this war as well.
Dayan – Your point regarding the comparison to Obama is well taken, however, the crux of my comment (and GW’s column) was more to do with the historical reality pertaining to Sri Lanka and the ‘inexperienced’ individuals who went on to become president (successfully or not is a matter of opinion) over a reasonable period of time. And this is what contradicts your theory.
Here’s looking at you General Fonseka,
It looks like the quislings of the LTTE, among whom unfortunately are some human rights organizations as well, have out-Rajapaksaed Rajapakse in embracing “Sinhala Buddhist hegemony”. Hurray to the LTTE Diaspora in UK, North America and other Western countries. Why the other day, in a certain North American city, just after the recent Martyr’s Day celebration, they say, the attendees were talking about the valour of General Fonseka. It’s also commendable of the human rights activists to speak kindly of General Fonseka, they have changed their thumbs down to thumbs up.
Way to go, people! What love you have for the country and her citizens!
My Dear Justin;
When are you going to stop this false propaganda? You all have been misleading and deceiving international community this way to get undue advantaesfor a long time. The strategy of the LTTE and its allies was to use the Gobel’s theory on fabricated false and unsound theories to get undue advantages. This has been a failed strategy. You cannot deceive everybody forever with such prejudiced fabricated stories. In our part, we won’t let you break pots in ababdoned houses any more. We will be watching you very closely.
Mr. Justin; Please stop this nonesense now. Look at what you have written. This is only a hateful narration. Can you back up what you have said with facts? You are using emotionally packed terminology to arouse people against Buddhism and Sinhalese community. According to you, Sinhalese are a pack of criminals and even LTTE is a pigeon of peace.I challenge you to back up your emotinal narration with facts. Any perverted minded fellow can howl like this. Please back up your writings with facts. Stop slinging mud and deceiving people. Otherwise you will again have to reap what you sow.
Be sensible and kind towards humanity. Give up your hatred.
Thanks!
Dear Kalana,
Your counterpoints take us to the heart of the question: RW’s continuation as UNP leader. If in the immediate aftermath of the Presidential election ( which MR will probably win modestly but clearly enough), RW can be replaced as leader by KJ, one could have a decent UNP PM and a bipartisan or multiparty National government ( with Tamil and Muslim participation).
Dear AJ Perera,
C’mon, seriously, though he may be a fox, Mahinda is no wolf … and is decidedly the lesser evil, as SF’s own quote which i’ve placed at the top of this page proves. Sri Lanka must not go the Pakistan-Bangladesh route.
If the ills of MR’s tenure were really to have been eradicated, the candidate should have been Karu Jayasuriya. That may have been the “Churchill replaced by Atlee” parallel.
Dear Myilselvan,
The Tamils chose prabhakaran in the sense that when they had a chace to differentiate themslves from the LTTE during the Accord and the IPKF presence, they did not– at least not in sufficient numbers. During the last stage they made the stupid mistake of demonstrating all over the world under the LTTE flag with Prabhakaran’s portrait. The Sinhalese polity and society behaved differently during the JVP’s ” patriotic” uprising. there was a real polarisation.
The fact that MacArthur and Powell declined to run, proves that they recognised what Fonseka does not. You cannot be serious about Fidel: he was well known lawyer with a stellar academic performance at Cuba’s most elite private Catholic schools and at university, a newspaper and magazine columnist as well as a politician who was to contest election when Batista pulled his coup.
another key difference between SF and Obama is that one gets things done, while the other is a No Action talk only person. thats why he got the nobel for being there rather than gettign things done… SF took 2-3 years to do what he needed to do. lets see if obama can get world out of trouble… he took 6 months to increase a afgan troop requirement – and Gitmo is also not closing it seems…@@@@@@@ so much for obam’s promises on “change”
Dear Justin,
Your post of December 7, 2009 @ 3:45 pm refers
You stated “They provoked the Sinhalese to anger aginst Tamils when the Tamils sought to establish their legitimate rights, human rights and freedoms in 1956.”
Unquote
Please begin at the beginning if you want to be honest.
Those who created the “anger” as you put it, were the people who wanted to continue to maintain the position of authority that the British conferred on the Minority over the Majority even after Independence.
Can you please enumerate what rights that the Constitution of Sri Lanka has NOT given the Minorities that justifies continued hate propagation?
“By what logic or morality can we fail to reward him with a second term? By what logic or ethics can the Sri Lankan voter, who gave a second term to a president who failed to win the war and abandoned efforts to do so, should turf out after one term a President who won the war, or if you prefer, on whose watch the war was won?”
Should we choose our leaders on the basis of events that are now over?
What of the unsolved problems that exist today?
Yapa
Be bold and face facts. Do not practice cowardice. If you do not know, I suggesst you learn the truth.
Dear Justin,
Yapa says ……”I challenge you to back up your emotinal narration with facts.”
You say …….. “Be bold and face facts. Do not practice cowardice. If you do not know, I suggesst you learn the truth.”
Now….. who is going around the Mulberry bush here?
Dear DJ,
First it was SF’s lack of Civil Admin experience that was your basis for running down SF; now it is his “Pakistanization” intention that is the evil. Your solution is, “just vote for MR, ignoring all the ills – corruption, nepotism, despotism, what have you. – once he is re-elected we can find one of many ways to solve the problems, such as hammering on the Parliamentarians and other elected officials.” Your recommendation conveniently sidesteps the cause of all the problems – the MR clan itself. Now we have four years of experience to know the source of all evil, and have a fair view of the future, should this regime continue. (Remember “Trick me once, shame on you; trick me twice…”?) So, you seriously want Sri Lankans to close their eyes and jump, right?
DJ, frankly my objections to your article is more based on your slimy way of presenting a “propaganda” piece on MR’s behalf, disguised as an analytical piece aimed as red herring; a deception of the uninitiated. (Come to think of it, the wolf in sheep’s clothing analogy applies here as well!) If you want to do propaganda, be forthright – don’t use the umbrella of education for deception.
And as for Bangladesh/Burma comparison, at this point I am thinking we are well on our way to Eretria and Mogadishu, and if we can stem it Bangladesh level, we would be lucky. It is not where we are now that counts; it is from where we came. Bangladesh has been Bangladesh forever while Ceylon was better than Singapore not many years ago. Now we rival Bangladesh and Burma in all of the “infamous” indicators — give a couple of more years of the current regime, and I am afraid we will be insulting Bangladesh and Burma if we choose them to compare with us!
Justin;
You said ” If you do not know, I suggesst you learn the truth.
Yes Justin, I request,
TEACH ME IF YOU CAN.
THANK YOU Dr.D.J., some of your points are well taken, especially regarding Castro.
My main point is: whatever the field there are certain all encompasing traits of leaders, i.e., know your goal, be decisive, plan well, discipline, dedication, determination, etc, etc,etc. These will help when changing to another field. As for Success, time will tell.
It’s something like managers reading up Sun Tzu, Macciavelli, Von Clausewitz, etc.
But State Terrorism is the cause for this ethnic conflict, LTTE is a symptom.
There is a real polarisation in the Tamil polity as well.
There are quite a number who don’t support LTTE’s methods but support the Tamil Cause.
The Sinhala political leadership could have engaged the non-violent side of the cause, rather than pay violence for non-violence and make violence attractive.
Just because some sections of the protestors held LTTE flags and posters of Prabakaran does not mean everybody who was protesting agree with it. On a very cold day in London more than 100,000 Tamils turned out to protest. Some definitely had sympathies for the LTTE but most had sympathies for civilians being killed. And also the fact that they were easy to kill because they were Tamil.
Do you seriously expect me to believe a majority of sinhalese are not racist???
As for SF and MR, you should know, politics does make strange bedfellows
Dr.D.J,
Clausewitz once said, ” WAR IS AN EXTENSION OF POLITICS”
SF must have taken those words to heart the other way around, wouldn’t you say?????
Dear myil selvan
You stated that
On a very cold day in London more than 100,000 Tamils turned out to protest. Some definitely had sympathies for the LTTE but most had sympathies for civilians being killed.
Unquote
Did you not find it strange that this sympathy for the civilians did not materialize much earlier when it was known beyond any reasonable doubt that they were being Killed, maimed and children as young as 8 years were forcibly recruited by the LTTE?
In the light of the above your statement does sound hollow does it not?
You also state
And also the fact that they were easy to kill because they were Tamil.
Do you seriously expect me to believe a majority of sinhalese are not racist???
Unquote
You forget that 52% of ALL Tamils in the Island live amongst the Sinhalese in the South. In spite of the various attempts by the LTTE to instigate a backlash against these Tamils by massacring Buddhist priests and pilgrims at the Sacred city of Anuradhapura and Bomb attacks on the MOST VENERATED shrine of Buddhist the world over, no backlash could be instigated. Is that not sufficient proof of the tolerance of the Sinhalese?
It is you people who clamour for an Exclusively Tamil “Traditional Homeland” not the Sinhalese. This is a Fiction that divisive Tamils are trying to foist on Sri Lanka. For your information The Netherlands National Archives has the following statement in a document
“During the 17th century the Company was engaged in a war of attrition with the king of Kandy, who had close ties with Ceylon’s Buddhist population. There was a narrow tongue of land at Elephant Pass a fort was built to guard the border with the king’s territory. Elephants captured on Ceylon were herded past here to Jaffna to be sold in India, hence the name Elephant Pass.”
Notice that the Dutch mentions ONLY ONE BORDER and that’s with the Sinhala Kingdom of Kandy and where do you think that border was? Elephant Pass In the Extreme North of the Wanni that the divisive Tamils claim to be “Traditionally Exclusively” theirs.
http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/detail.aspx?page=dpost&lang=en&id=682#tab2
The real motive was never the safety of the civilians, was it?
So who are the RACISTS?
Rather than expending your energies in trying to maintain division would it not be more productive to use it for reconciliation?
Dear AJ Perera,
If you have a problem with my argumentation, why don’t you refute it instead of simply calling names? After all, the readers can judge. My point isn’t ” vote for MR” at any and all costs. If Karu or Sajith was the candidate I might have said something different or remained neutral and silent. However that is not the choice before the voter: it is MR or SF. Of the two I think that people should vote for MR even holding their noses. I do not know what your credentials to pontificate on this issue are (if any) but I write as a political scientist and analyst of international affairs, from which perspective, electing SF will be a disaster while electing MR will only be a considerable frustration. MR will keep us in stagnation, SF will take us down a precipice into a deep hole of utter authortarian rule. Of the two, MR will ensure more individual and democratic freedom, or rather, will damage it less than SF.
Looks like we are back to position based arguments.
Dear DJ
perhaps we could look at the question I posed previously and list out the issues that face the population and then evaluate the solutions offered by the candidates?
The list will be contentious and I am yet to see a listing of problems, let alone solutions being offered by the various candidates.
The TNA member siva keeps saying TNA wants fedaralism and that if not they will filed a tamil candidate for the election. it would be very interesting to see if a tamil candidate ever goes into the presidentail andhow many votes such a person can get.. i bet it would be less than 5%. also when a full post-war cencus is done, we can finally see how much of tamil are there in North and east and if there homeland claims beased on numbers make any sense…
Dear myil selvan,
Dont you think that in Sri Lanka…”WAR IS AN EXTENSION OF THE FAMILY DYNASTY??”
….and in the case of Sir Roth Funnyshaker, “OLD SOLDIERS NEVER DIE…THEY JUST RUN FOR PRESIDENT!”
Dear Mr DJ, very interesting arguments in your analysis in this article. We have still been one of the under develop nations in the world. Why??? talk to yr heart and look for the real cause. In this country can you call the President “Mr President” No why?? Because we are still in the stone age. The power vest to one man have taken presidence over all other factors like fairness, democracy, equality, competence, etc etc. The cowards go before the power for survival and will do anything as told by their leader. Do we think positvely towards the development of the nation or being act selfishly for our own prospects. Do our Ministers say anything bad about the presidency rather keep thier mouth shut when its comes to unfair or bad governance. Why? think!!! because we are the best selfish cowards in the world. Now you have come forward to safeguard a leader who has the power and who use that power against the democracy. Yet we forget the corruption accusation but we can not forget thuggery he demonstrate against the innocent civilions and killing people who go against him. We do not want corruption, thuggery, unfairness, illicitly earning money thro the innocent businessmen, family bias and terrorize era in this country. Why people are so gready of power, because they survive only with that. We beng so foolish, supports them in achieving their status. Im sick of all of these things and want a change for this country. We dont want centralised power and we want the democtratic rights of the parliment where all the major decisions should take place. think on these lines and start doing somethin for the coutry rather than promoting something bad for the coutry.
I completely agree with you DJ. MR is by far lesser evil and I good with that for now, thank you very much. Are we crazy to even consider SF? Do we want to be taken down another disastrous 30 year road (30 years if we are lucky)? How quickly we forget. We Sri Lankans are so short sighted, it is shocking.
I also agree that MR will keep us in stagnation. We could use a little stagnation, quite frankly right now, instead of a continued downward spiral which we all know all too well. Yes the whole bunch of the MR lot are corrupt, but it is corrupt we can all live with, while we have a chance to have some sort of peace for just a little bit.
Yes of course if we had legitimate opposition such as Sajith, I would not hesitate to throw my support there, but we don’t.
Come on you Fonseka supporters. Don’t do it please. I don’t want to say I told you so a year from now. It will be too late for all of us.
Old man,
You say, “Should we choose our leaders on the basis of events that are now over?
I would like to rephrase this question by asking: “shouldn’t we choose our leader based on how successfully he carried out the “events that are now over””?
The defeat of terrorism – or as you put it, “the events that are now over” – couldn’t have been achieved without MR’s overall experience in politics.
As to your next question: “What of the unsolved problems that exist today?”
Here, I have to say, this is where you and I come in. If we truly love our country we will not put our petty, personal agendas ahead of the citizens of Sri-Lanka.
Is that such a hard thing to do, ‘old man’?
Dear OFF THE CUFF,
Thank you for your query. Your query gives me an opportunity to elaborate on what I said earlier.
You have made some good observations.
You stated, ” Did you not find it strange that this sympathy for the civilians did not materialize much earlier when it was known beyond any reasonable doubt that they were being Killed, maimed and children as young as 8 years were forcibly recruited by the LTTE?”.
My reply: No, I don’t find it strange. Because partly it’s human nature to speak out or shout out when things intensify. For example: if two people were killed here and 3 there, there wouldn’t be much attention. But if 100 people were killed in one go that would get the attention. In journalism they say, “If it bleeds it leads.” I know it is sad or tragic that I’m saying this but sadly that’s part of human nature.
I agree that the LTTE was recruting children(I haven’t heard of 8years, but like 11 or 12) and also adults, but what can the diaspora do? They didn’t really have much influence over decisions of LTTE. On the other hand by protesting they could get the UK govt to pressure the SL govt. That’s what happens in a real democracy. Thankfully the UK govt is a working, mature democracy.
SL politicians derisively remark, that UK politicians are making a noise just to pander to their Tamil electorate, as if though that was bad and shameful to do. But the reality is, in a true working democracy that’s what politicians do – listen to their people!
If SL was a true working democracy we wouldn’t be having this conversation!
When SJV Chelvanayagam, took the case of disenfranchisement of Tamil estate workers to courts, the High Court agreed with the disenfranchisement! Even though it was clearly against the Constitution. So the parliament and the judiciary went against the constituition by discriminating the Estate workers. In such a scenario what do we do?? when all mechanisms fail to protect us then where do we go? Prabakaran had one answer to that. SJV Chelvanayakam had another answer, that of NON-VIOLENT Struggle, but unfortunately that wasn’t working with the SL govt, which responded with terror.
By protesting in London the diaspora hoped to get the international community to get more proactively involved. Another reason was, by that time it was obvious from a military standpoint the LTTE was not going to win. By bombing, even after the end of January, the SL govt just killed more Tamils that’s all. They did not change the outcome of the end result. If the SL govt had allowed international mediators into the safe zone they could have secured the release of people and the surrender of the LTTE leadership to a third party. There was no getting away for the LTTE leadership as some think. They would have ended up being tried by India or the Int’l community. But the SL govt didn’t want that because revenge is sweet and they wanted to reward the bloodthirsty extremists who wanted to kill.
2. Your second point, you state: “You forget that 52% of ALL Tamils in the Island live amongst the Sinhalese in the South. In spite of the various attempts by the LTTE to instigate a backlash against these Tamils by massacring Buddhist priests and pilgrims at the Sacred city of Anuradhapura and Bomb attacks on the MOST VENERATED shrine of Buddhist the world over, no backlash could be instigated. Is that not sufficient proof of the tolerance of the Sinhalese?
My reply: It is true there is a large portion of Tamils who live in Colombo. Your figure of 52% must also include Estate Tamils, who were brought to work on the plantations. They should be discounted, since they have always been outside the Northeast. As for Northeast Tamils (aka. Sri Lankan Tamils) yes large portions are in Colombo. Partly due to economic reasons and partly due to the war situation in the Northeast. The LTTE should take the blame for trying to force people to join and due to that people would have left and come to colombo. But it is also true, that Tamils were being killed by the Sri Lankan armed forces in the Northeast. By coming to colombo it did secure some safety, as colombo was where most attention is,especially international attention, so this would make it difficult for the SL govt to attack Tamils. So, if one is abducted it is likely to make the news and more people, especially internationally, are likely to get to know. Hence SL govt would hesitate to attack Tamils in Colombo. Whereas in the Northeast you could easilly be disappeared and people may not accurately know what has happend or news may not get out about crimes.
It is also true that many Tamils left SL altogether, the upper classes due to 1983 went to western nations and the lower classes went to India. Other Tamils from the northeast came to colombo thinking it would be the safest place in SL.
As for tolerance by Sinhalese, first of all I said “a majority of sinhalese are racist or communal minded” NOT ALL. I agree Sinhalese do have tolerance, but more appropriately it is what action the govt or authorities do during times of attacks. After 1983 the SL govt was censured by the int’l community and ostracized by many. SL govt learnt a lesson, which is – if something like 1983 were to happen again, the Tamils would likely get a separate state, spearheaded by INDIA. Hence from then on the SL govt has sought not to repeat 1983, for fear that India and the int’l community would push for a separate state for Tamils.
But some attacks have taken place against Tamils after LTTE attacks. Examples: LTTE attack on Navy ship in Galle harbour, caused a mini riot where sinhalese started to riot and Tamil shops were burnt. But curfew was clamped and situation quickly brought under control. April 2006 in Trinco, after a market bomb, sinhalese rioted and burnt Tamil shops and killed Tamils. The armed forces looked on and did nothing, even though Trinco is a heavily militarised area. The media did it’s part by not reporting anything about it.
From 1984-87 sinhalese were being moved into areas in Trinco district at the expense of Tamils and Muslims. Tamils fled to India and others were killed and goarded into IDP camps. The colonisation has been going on since 1955 under various pretexts by bringing sinhalese into minority dominated areas to dilute the strength of the minorities.
3. Your third point, you state, “This is a Fiction that divisive Tamils are trying to foist on Sri Lanka. For your information The Netherlands National Archives has the following statement in a document….”
Your reply was to my statement, “Do you seriously expect me to believe that a majority of sinhalese are not racist”
What I mean’t by this statement is quite straight forward. A majority, NOT ALL. There are a lot of good, right minded sinhalese people who understand the Tamils’ plight, but unfortunately they are relegated to the sidelines. But a majority do have prejudiced feelings.
Take for example” inter-ethnic marriages. Of all the Tamil-Sinhala or Sinhala-Tamil marriages it is the Sinhala identity that is fostered and developed. I personally know of quite a few of these inter-ethnic marriages where the parents end up putting their children in the sinhala medium at school. Some of the reasons given are: “it is easier that way”, “better to be with the majority, then more opportunities”, etc, etc,etc. So I ask the question, “Why is it that the sinhalese identity is emphasized?? And I personally am not surprised, because parents want their children to enjoy their school experience and be able to make the Cricket Team,etc or other fields and in a racist country the best way is to be with the majority since power is with them. I have personally experienced this at school in Colombo!
The treatment by police of Tamils, the fact that most sinhalese don’t know Tamil. There are some places where names boards are only in sinhala, forms are only in sinhala.
The overarching belief that this is a sinhala-buddhist country and that the minorities are foreigners is another reason. Sinhala extremist groups have used history to try to justify that this country is a sinhala-buddhist country by using the Mahavamsa, which was written by a buddhist monk.
What you should know, back when Mahinda thera brought buddhism to sri lanka, he came through south india and arrived in Jaffna. People in South India and Jaffna are likely to have embraced buddhism. There are buddhist ruins to prove it in Jaffna and South India. Hence Tamils in South India and Jaffna are likely to have practiced buddhism. All buddhists back then were NOT SINHALESE. Anyway, the Mahavamsa version, all of which is not true, of Sri Lankan history is what is taught in schools. Hence the sinhalese chilren are incalcated with this myth that this country is theirs and the Tamils were invaders and so on…, is propagated. The truth is, even before Vijaya came to SL there were hindu temples in SL for the exclusive worship of Shiva. Even today it is well know that the exclusive worship of Shiva in hinduism is prominent among Tamils. The Hindu temples that I’m refering to are” in Trinco – ThiruKoneswaram, in Chilaw-ThiruMuneswaram, in Jaffna – ThiruNaguleswaram, in Matara-ThiruTondeswaram and in Mannar- ThiruKethiswaram.
4. Your fourth point, about the Dutch inscription and so on…..
Yes, I agree that is likely to be correct. The Kandyan Kingdom used the Jaffna Kingdom to get it’s trade products to India, especially after the portugese captured Kotte. That’s why the portugese captured Jaffna to cut off this trade. Yes, it is possible the border was in Elephant pass, but that does not mean that Tamils were residing in Jaffna only. Tamils were also residing in the Kandyan kingdom. Don’t forget the last four Kings of Kandy were Tamils or of South Indian extraction but they developed Buddhism. The Nayakkar dynasty is what I’m talking about. That is why you have sinhalese who have ‘nayake’ at the ending of their names, like: Senanayake, Bandaranayake, Ratnayake, etc,etc. The name comes from the South Indian dynasty of Nayakkars.
5. Your fifth point, you say that “Tamils want an exclusively Tamil homeland”.
My answer to this is NO. That was not what was wanted initially. Initially Tamils asked for some autonomy to run their affairs and be able to use their language. They were reasonable demands, but the SL govt responded with terror and made violence the only language they understand. After more than 20years of trying through non-violent (Gandhian style) agitation, which was met with SL govt terror/riots against Tamils, did the Tamils decide to go for a separate state through the Vaddukkodai resolution of 1976. And the separate state was to be sought through non-violent means. But the SL govt responded with terror and after the govt backed 1983 riots the militants grabbed the upperhand and hijacked the cause.
I clearly tell you the Tamils would have been happy with credible and genuine devolution of power, but the SL govt is not willing to budge. The 13th amendment is not devolution of power, because the president controls the provinces through the power given to the Governor of the province. The governor needs to be consulted on every major decision of the provincial council. And the governors of the Northern and Eastern provinces are ex-military sinhalese.
6. Your sixth point, you ask me “whether it is not better to expend my energies for reconciliation rather than division”.
The reason why I’m writing is to try and bring reconciliation from an equal standpoint. And also to bringout the “whole truth”
What we have right now is not equality but, the sinhalese gloating “we have beaten the Tamils now lets talk reconciliation”. Why did the SL govt not think of reconciliation before??? Yes, there were attempts, but were they genuine? Ranil’s in 2002 and Chandrika’s in 2000 were credible efforts. Sure, the LTTE was also stalling these attempts. But if it was genuinely interested, the SL govt should have pushed for a sinhalese consensus and voted to get 2/3 majority and change the constitution and implement these new measures. This would have helped to win the hearts and minds of the Tamils and wean them away from the LTTE. Thereby automatically weakening the LTTE. Even after these credible measures were taken, and still the LTTE had refused? Then the SL govt could have initiated operations to neutralize the LTTE.
What was this war for in the end???? So that the sinhala leadership can have the upperhand and give what they feel like giving to the Tamils, which is basically nothing much.
I stand for reconciliation, but what’s the point of reconciliation when Tamils have no justice for the crimes committed against them? Can you call that reconciliation?
No one was charged for the 1983 riots?
Burning of the Jaffna Library – was anyone convicted? was there even a case?
Bindunuwewa massacre of Tamil inmates, 5 were convicted but were later released by the supreme court. So who did it???
Udathalawinna massacre of Muslims, all those charged were released by supreme court. So who did it?
Killing of 10 muslims. what’s happening to the case?
Like this there are so many cases all pushed under the carpet. So what kind of reconciliation are you talking about????
It’s not surprising the conviction rate in SL is around 4 or 5%
What happened to the cases surrounding the deaths during the JVP insurrection? In such an environment do you think reconciliation is possible???
I kindly suggest you read all the reports,bulletins,statements by the university teachers for human rights (UTHR) they have some good stuff at http://www.uthr.org.
thank you for your questions.
In Your Face,
my point was that we should look to the future rather than the past, which may be clearer in my follow up comment.
Dear Dyan,
Your response was an interesting one. I did not call you name(s) – I re-checked. I will appreciate if you would check again and let me know if that is not the case. I did characterize your writing as slimy – perhaps that touched a nerve. In fact I considered slick, sly and slimy before deciding to go with the harshly appropriate one that stood a chance of triggering a response rather than the lame diplomatic lame one, more likely to be ignored. In any case, I make no bones about it and even my very first response I opened with a near- equivalent characterization “A nice try DJ in your inimitable…”
Why I call yours an “interesting” response is because, frankly, I feel vindicated on the two judgments I made based on your presentation – that you have a distinct penchant to red-herring and an astute knack for putting good education to bad use!
First, as for my credentials, would you consider the following adequate to discuss your esteemed writings: I am a legitimate voter with appropriate interest in the welfare of the country; I keep up on as much of useful current information as I possibly can; and I feel sufficiently endowed to make my own judgment free from getting clouded by rabble-rousing. Oh.. That, and an ample, healthy and legitimate amplitude to either dumb-down or hype-up credentials beyond that as the occasion merits.
Dyan, the validity of the argument one makes and how it is presented should speak for the credentials of the presenter. When there is a need to pre-empt the discussion by throwing in the credentials to establish validity of the argument, I am afraid that just undermines the credentials. Both Professor Higgins and the Hungarian Zoltan of My Fair Lady -fame were matched in their credentials as far as linguistics go – yet, how they chose to make use of their learning made a world of difference – don’t you think?.
That precisely is my point – I am not critical about your support of MR or opposition to SF. I am quite aware that you have a rather enviable collection of academic credentials as well as more-than-a-modest amount of experience and global recognition in your specialty. But, that should make you even more, and not less, responsible in your writings. Many look to you for genuine guidance. It is a sacrilege to take undue advantage of that trust the less-initiated place on you on account of the credentials you carry.
You have your every right to support, write, speak, and do as much of propaganda as you wish on behalf of the candidate of your choice. However, couching it as an analytical piece worthy of your education is not merely unbecoming of an academic: it grossly fails the education you have earned and more importantly is a horrendous travesty against the trust the ordinary people place on the credentials and on you. Let me be specific why I characterize your contribution as Propaganda rather than Analysis. An educated analysis would, at the minimum, present and compare the positives and negatives. It may be followed by either a conclusive decision, or a sensible, rational guide for the reader to make his/her own decision. Here is a list of positives and negatives on MR I counted from your article:
MR: Positives: (1) One of the most progressives. (2) Less disappointing than Premadasa. (3) Achieved what four previous presidents couldn’t. (4) We have no logic or morality to deny him a second term. (5) The civilian lawyer-politician the country needs as ruler. (6) Credit for the victory is rightfully his, going by history. (7) There would not have been a victory without him. (8) It was MR and his brother who helped overcome inter-service and intra-army rivalry, plus obtain all external tangibles and intangibles to win the war. (9) Has accumulated civilian experience unlike SF. (10) A tangential reference that the current ills are due to “existing sleazy, incompetent Ministers and sitting MP’s”, indirectly absolving MR culpability. (11) Need of the hour is continuity that favors MR.
Some are perhaps valid, some debatable, and some plain ludicrous – but that is your opinion and you have every right to express that. My point is, such one-sided composition, intentionally blind to the other, makes this a mere approval, endorsement or propaganda, and NOT an Analysis. For it to be an analysis, let’s see what you saw as negatives. Except for the “Personal disappointments” politically, the count on Negatives is Zero! You found nothing!!
That is my point.– it lacks the needed “truth in advertising.” You use your credentials to try to pass propaganda as analysis. That is, and was, my objection to your presentation.
For the sake of completion, please count the Positives and Negatives on SF on the same lines – surprise, surprise, exactly the inverse: Zero positives and all negatives. Even the left-handed compliment of his role in the victory is quickly negated with comments after comments, all negative. You can’t find one thing positive except a meek, diversionary “traitor-patriot” argument, an obvious valiant attempt to establish your “fairness.” Further, in your follow-up you chose to describe SF quite succinctly as ” harshly authoritarian, ruthless, military officer with no experience in life other than in the army.” Again, that is fine as an opinion, but is that truly a valid political-science analysis?
You are drawing of parallels with distant, unrelated and possibly irrelevant historic observations, while choosing to ignore (and to divert attention away from) the immediate, relevant and critical history of the last four years that would be by far the better predictor of what we could expect in the next six under MR. No other democratic leader that you listed had shown the propensity and the need to be so distrustful or ambitious that drove MR to place all and only his family members around him. Well, I suppose no one other than Saddam Hussain, perhaps. So, would it be useful to make that historic comparison as well?
In the last four years the MR family has obtained near monopoly on the country’s Political powers (Ministries within family control account for 95% of National budget?). Once healthy businesses such as Air Lanka have been run to the ground due to political interference. As for the circle of International friends, we have migrated rapidly away from the traditional developed, civilized democracies to the undeniably lesser democracies. The media freedom has been crippled. Law and Order is nearly driven to extinction. White elephants in an around H’Tota are galore. The intimate bonding with the new-found China is increasingly becoming a suspect as a stealthy sellout.
There is a good reason that prompted MR to call elections two years ahead – recognition of dwindling credibility and the fear it would erode beyond repair within the next two. On that back ground, it seems handing him another six years on a silver platter would merely accelerate the rot that has set in. Wouldn’t it be prudent to, instead, cease this opportunity to change the regime rather than extend it, even if it means risking the unknown in SF? At the least we would have the comfort of knowing that SF will not have at his disposal the four-year worth of “kingdoms and castles” that MR built – he will need to start afresh, even if he were to go the same route. A free hand to MR on the other hand runs the risk that MR would put to good use all that “kingdom and castles” to only further expand the family fiefdom. Would you consider that a reasonable refute to your “argumentation?”
DJ:
you are the best when explaining things here factually. I respect you so much, Sir. I dont think MR will be defeated by SF. But both are not good governers for the country after elemination of the terror within the country. MR paves the way to corruptive lanka while SF is trying to revenge him with zero knowledge in politics. Some can though argue if Premadasa could get selected why not SF.
Dear Myil Selvan
I believe you have a genuine interest in finding a solution hence I am replying you at length.
Your statement “I agree that the LTTE was recruting children(I haven’t heard of 8years,”
Unquote
Please refer UTHR (Jaffna) Information Bulletin No. 17 Date of Release : 27th May 1998
… early 90s in Jaffna when the LTTE proudly displayed recruits aged 10 and sometimes even 8. That was when the LTTE ran a virtual mini state with a command of resources supplied by the government, making it feasible to sustain a reserve army of children.
You ask “but what can the Diaspora do?”
You could have collectively refused any form of support Monetary or otherwise. That would have hurt them the most and would have sent an unmistakable message to the LTTE. But then you could not or did not do so. This gave the LTTE the message that they can do anything they wish even to Tamil Children in the Vanni. The Diaspora was silent as it was not their children but those of the entrapped Vanni Tamils. The Diaspora was willing to sacrifice them to achieve an Eelam.
You say “They didn’t really have much influence over decisions of LTTE.”
What you really mean is that the Diaspora did not try
See how the School Principals and the PTA’s of the Vanni pressured the LTTE WHILE Living under LTTE Totalitarian Authority. Shamefully the Diaspora just sat back and relaxed.
Please refer UTHR (Jaffna) Information Bulletin No. 17
upwards to be given military training. This was strenuously opposed by principals and associations of parents and teachers. It was pointed out by principals and teachers that they were running the schools with great difficulty under enormous drawbacks, shrewdly pointing to the schools running smoothly in Jaffna, Vavuniya and Mannar Island. The LTTE has since modified its proposal to one hour a day of ARP (Air Raid Protection ) training.
Recently the LTTE floated proposals to place the Vanni under a proclamation of state of war similar in tone to that declared by Mahattaya soon after the outbreak of war in June 1990. Under the new proclamation it was proposed to close the schools for three months and students of about the age of 13 (i.e. year 9 or standard
When the LTTE took the Vanni Tamils Hostage to use as a Human Shield the Diaspora was silent. These people were herded from place to place by the LTTE for months but the Diaspora was silent. When reports of Shooting and Cutting off of limbs surfaced the Diaspora was silent.
Anna Marie Loose of Medicines Sans Frontiers reported that People were being Shot in the back and Limbs cut off to prevent the Vanni Tamils moving to safety in Govt controlled area.
Still the Diaspora kept Silent. When the LTTE prostituted the Govt declared safe zones by moving heavy military hardware into the zones and compromising the safety of civilians the Diaspora was silent. This happened not only once but twice. When the Govt declared TWO 48 hour Cease Fires and the LTTE actively prevented the Tamil civilians to escape, the Diaspora was silent. If it was TRULY the safety of the Tamil Civilians that the Diaspora championed this was the time they should have come out in their 100,000s world wide to pressure the LTTE to allow the Tamil Civilians to leave for safety or to surrender. How many times did the Govt ask the LTTE to do so?
That the Diaspora kept silent for so long until LTTE activists organised coordinated worldwide mass protests to come out in favour of the Vanni Tamils was as bogus as the Burgher eating Death Fasts in London.
You say “On the other hand by protesting they could get the UK govt to pressure the SL govt. That’s what happens in a real democracy. Thankfully the UK govt is a working, mature democracy.”
Unquote
Do you believe that the MP’s would have listened to you if the numbers were small? If you do study what the UK Govt did to the Chagos Islanders. Some of them are British citizens but the numbers are small. See how they had to fight their way through the courts to have their voice heard. Even after the British Courts ruled in their favour the UK Govt uses the “Royal Prerogative” to subvert that. So much for the real democracy part. Keith Vaas was listened to due solely to the Tamil Vote Bank nothing else (you did not have to go to court to have your voice heard).
You state
“When SJV Chelvanayagam, took the case of disenfranchisement of Tamil estate workers to courts, the High Court agreed with the disenfranchisement! Even though it was clearly against the Constitution. So the parliament and the judiciary went against the constituition by discriminating the Estate workers.”
I do not know from where you get your information but if it is from Pro Eelam web sites what you just stated is a TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF BRAZEN FALSE HOODS SPREAD BY TAMIL EELAMISTS.
S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, the leader of the Tamil Arasu Kachchi, contested the Citizenship Act before the Supreme Court, and then in the Privy council in England, on grounds of discrimination towards minorities but the decision concluded that the citizenship act stipulated conditions well in line with those of European states.
Please note that the case went up to the ‘PRIVY COUNCIL” in the UK and it was held that it was WELL IN LINE TO CONDITIONS OF CITIZENSHIP OF EUROPE.
You state
It is true there is a large portion of Tamils who live in Colombo. Your figure of 52% must also include Estate Tamils, who were brought to work on the plantations. They should be discounted, since they have always been outside the Northeast.
Unquote
Why should the Estate Tamils be excluded? The British brought them and put them in Land they plundered from the Sinhala peasantry. There were no Tamils living in the Hill
country for over 2000 years till then. Why do you want to include them when talking about Tamil rights and exclude them now? Have they not been accommodated by the Sinhalese in spite of the Great Injustice perpetrated by the British on the Sinhala Peasantry? Since over a Million Tamils have left Sri Lanka the 52% should actually be increased not decreased.
You state
It is also true that many Tamils left SL altogether, the upper classes due to 1983 went to western nations and the lower classes went to India.
Unquote
1983 is a shame. It occurred the day 13 Sinhala Soldiers murdered by Prabahkaran were buried. Hatred was fanned by politicians and Mob violence was the result. This does not justify your statement that the “MAJORITY” of Sinhalese are Racists. Remember you are talking about a population in excess of 14 million. For a majority to be Racists over 7 million should be racist. That 7 million will be over Quadruple the Tamil population (including Racist Tamils) living in the South. If that is the case the LTTE did enough instigation for those racists to go out of control and create a conflagration that would have made 1983 look insignificant. The govt would not have been able to contain the LTTE and 7 million plus Racists at the same time. Please don’t take away the patience and tolerance shown by the LTTE by stating that it was due to a lesson learnt by the Govt.
From what you write I assume that you were in Colombo during the 1983 mob violence. Can’t you remember the THOUSANDS of Sinhalese who came forward to protect Tamils? These Sinhalese not only risked their own lives they risked the lives of their families and property to save Tamil friends. How many of you acknowledge that on the web? I have seen only a Handful. Why is that? Is it because it goes against the Eelam project of Demonising the Sinhalese?
Long before any Civil unrest, Sri Lankans of ALL ethnicities wanted to migrate. The Eurasians mostly went to Australia and others to the West. Tamils used 1983 to gain access to migration to affluent countries. They were not running for fear of death. Such a person makes a bee line to the closest Haven which was Vanni and India in that order. But they chose to stay for months in dangerous Colombo to process Visas. Not the behaviour of a person running for his life. These people deserted the LTTE and the freedom fight, allowing the poor Vanni Tamils and the Children to do it for them.
You state
Yes, it is possible the border was in Elephant pass, but that does not mean that Tamils were residing in Jaffna only
Unquote
I never indicated that Tamils were living only in Jaffna my purpose was to show that the Sinhalese lived in the Vanni in 16xx through an unimpeachable independent Source (other than the Mahawansa) in this case, records in the Dutch National Archives. This proves beyond any doubt that the claim for an “Exclusive Traditional Tamil Homeland” is FALSE.
Separatism has a longer History than the Vadukkodai resolution. The reasons that led to ethnic unrest lies in the fact that powerful Tamils wanted to perpetuate the favoured position that they were placed by the British during colonial times even after independence.
You state
Why did the SL govt not think of reconciliation before??? Yes, there were attempts, but were they genuine? Ranil’s in 2002 and Chandrika’s in 2000 were credible efforts. Sure, the LTTE was also stalling these attempts.
Unquote
You are making an excuse for the LTTE. The LTTE did not stall, it Filibustered all attempts.
Don’t forget that Prabahkaran was OFFERED the North and the East without ANY ELECTION for a period of 10 years. What was his reaction? That’s History isn’t it? Why did not the Diaspora press Prabhakaran to accept? Why no Mass Protests? Imagine the development he could have carried out with his $300 million income. If he took that offer and developed the North and the East he would have obtained a 100% of Tamil votes in an election after the 10 years and if he was a ‘JUST’ Chief Minister of the North and East like the “Tamil General Elara” he would have received a near 100% vote even from the Sinhalese and the Muslims.
Please look inwards without being in a hurry to heap all blame on the Sinhalese.
What is required is reconciliation and to that end it is best to investigate what the Minorities are denied by the SL Constitution.
What are the rights the Minorities don’t have that the Majority does? Look at the ‘CURRENT STATUS’ instead of harping on the past as that would be a never ending process.
Thank you
Dear Myil Selvan,
CORRECTION
The following sentence should be corrected to read as
“Please don’t take away the patience and tolerance shown by the SINHALESE by stating that it was due to a lesson learnt by the Govt.”
The word LTTE should be replaced by SINHALESE in that sentence
The Error is regretted
Dear Myil Selvan
The COMPLETE CORRECTED PARAGRAPH should read thus
You state
It is also true that many Tamils left SL altogether, the upper classes due to 1983 went to western nations and the lower classes went to India.
Unquote
1983 is a shame. It occurred the day 13 Sinhala Soldiers murdered by Prabahkaran were buried. Hatred was fanned by politicians and Mob violence was the result. This does not justify your statement that the “MAJORITY” of Sinhalese are Racists. Remember you are talking about a population in excess of 14 million. For a majority to be Racists over 7 million should be racist. That 7 million will be over Quadruple the Tamil population (including Racist Tamils) living in the South. If that is the case the LTTE did enough instigation for those racists to go out of control and create a conflagration that would have made 1983 look insignificant. The govt would not have been able to contain the LTTE and 7 million plus Racists at the same time. Please don’t take away the patience and tolerance shown by the SINHALESE by stating that it was due to a lesson learnt by the Govt.
The error is regretted
Thank you
Dear Dyan
I didn’t call you names, but rather Called Your Bluff! Evidently, you are not up to the challenge, just empty rhetoric. Not surprising though. Frankly, I didn’t believe that your article came out of convictions, but rather out of necessity. I also read Bandara’s critic on your views in another web – and again, your “necessity” to support MR showed out rather vividly. Hopefully these criticisms will help restraining you from misusing your credentials to mislead the public – that is all we ask for. Good luck.
“but I write as a political scientist and analyst of international affairs, from which perspective, electing SF will be a disaster while electing MR will only be a considerable frustration.”
Actually there is no difference between either candidate. Both would have come to power thanks to JVP backing. In which case, we can presume none will vouch for policies that are entirely at odds with the JVP agenda. In particular, neither will take extraordinary measures to ensure minority issues are addressed, particularly in regards to devolution. Human rights, economics, etc. will follow a similar path. Many voters presume that the UNP is behind SF. This is not true. SF is a lifeline for the JVP.
DJ – Your analysis brought forward interesting responses, some fawning and some critical. The best appeared from A J Perera, who challenged your understanding and questioned your bias and after two or three back and forth, you appear to be dumb-founded. You accused him of calling you names, when that was challenged, you threw forward your considerable credentials, a common garden variety Sri-Lankan ploy, that did not fly either.
On your path to acquiring those credentials, did you not know that one should not hide behind excuses but try to win by improving the argument..
A gentleman will throw in his hat gracefully. Remember Churchill? He said ‘I stoop to conquer’ when he lost an argument. But then he was a gentleman.
What now, Doctor?
Oh yes, I forgot to mention, I too support MR, not for the reasons you put forward, but for some very practical reasons.
SF will be like Iddi Amin. He will ruin what is left of the country and end being the laughing stock of the world.
On the other-hand, MR compared to the other scum-bags standing to take over after him are just like ordinary thugs. Compared to them, MR can be considered a gentleman.
Until the vast majority of the population wakes up and demand better and give-up ‘the Hamu’ mentality, Ceylon does not have a chance rise.
I left Ceylon in 1969, you will not know how thankful and lucky I feel.
Dear Off the Cuff,
Thank you for your response. I’m in agreement with some of your points. Thanks for citing the http://www.uthr.org to buttress your point on the age issue. UTHR (J) is probably the best source on the ethnic conflict, due to their impartiality and thoughtful analysis.
While, you say, “I believe you have a genuine interest in finding a solution hence I am replying you at length”, you don’t actually seem to epitomize it in your last post to me. As the post goes on you seem to get emotional and make somewhat contradictory and unrealistic statements. You sometimes quote http://www.uthr.org to buttress your point, while ignoring it where it debunks your point.
I agree we should look to the future, but our future is made by our past. One of the main issues for the future is the issue of ‘Trust’. Tamils do not have trust in the Sinhala leadership due to past experiences. Hence, the Sinhalese political leadership should come forward to engage the minorities, as they hold the reins of power.
Following are my replies to your last post on Dec 12, 2009.
I was not trying to stereotype the Sinhalese, and did say in my earlier post, there are good intentioned Sinhalese. All blame is not on the Sinhalese, but their leadership must take responsibility for taking this country down the present path.
You state:
“What is required is reconciliation and to that end it is best to investigate what the Minorities are denied by the SL Constitution”.
My reply:
When the SL constitution is not being implemented, but rather selectively according to those in power, then what’s the credibility of the Constitution?
The question of whether it is denied or not in the constitution only is relevant if the constitution is implemented. The 13th and 17th amendments are well known examples of non-implementation.
You state:
“You could have collectively refused any form of support Monetary or otherwise. That would have hurt them the most and would have sent an unmistakable message to the LTTE. But then you could not or did not do so”.
My reply:
Aren’t you being somewhat naïve by the above statement? You need to understand group dynamics and the ground realities. To a certain extent you are right in what you say. But collective refusal is not easily achieved and cannot be for every issue. There was extortion taking place and a fear psychosis that prevailed. One individual rightly summed up the prevailing situation saying, “I give because I don’t want family members back in SL to get hurt”. At the same time there were those who happily gave for the cause, realizing that some tragic realities would have to be faced.
The next point, collective action is easily mobilized in times of mass killing rather than for child recruitment, etc. That is the tragedy and reality of being human. I referred in my earlier post to the phrase, “If it bleeds it leads”.
Have Sinhalese ever questioned children being given into Buddhist priesthood by their parents as Child Recruitment??
The Buddhist Maha Sangha is in existence due to child recruitment, is it not??
How can a child choose a life of renunciation or to become a monk? Should that not be a choice made with measured and thoughtful understanding, which only an adult can do?
Did the Sinhalese/Diaspora question or denounce the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL), when they were indulging in child recruitment by aiding and abetting the Karuna Faction??
Did the Sinhalese/Diaspora question or denounce the GoSL/President, when he threw out the APRC Expert’s report on devolution, which he himself appointed??
Did the Sinhalese/Diaspora question or denounce the GoSL/President when he did not extend the Commission of Inquiry, which he himself appointed to investigate 16 cases of HR violations??
Did the Sinhalese/Diaspora question or denounce the non-implementation or selective implementation of the constitution??
You state:
“This gave the LTTE the message that they can do anything they wish even to Tamil Children in the Vanni. The Diaspora was silent as it was not their children but those of the entrapped Vanni Tamils. The Diaspora was willing to sacrifice them to achieve an Eelam.”
My reply:
The LTTE didn’t need any messages from the Diaspora. They have a message from their leader Prabakaran, and according to that everything else fell in place. This is more the reason why the GoSL, that likes to call itself ‘democratic’, should have listened to its Tamil constituents. What has the Sinhala Diaspora done? Same old selfishness.
You state:
When the LTTE prostituted the Govt declared safe zones by moving heavy military hardware into the zones and compromising the safety of civilians the Diaspora was silent.”
My reply:
By this statement are you trying to say, the actions of the GoSL was because they cared for the Tamil civilians??? The GoSL didn’t care for Tamils, just for their land!
If GoSL really cared for Tamils, why not stop the war and let them have the land?
GoSL declared safe zones were, Unilateral. According to international law both sides must agree to a safe zone. Hence, the intention of a safe zone was not to keep Tamils safe but rather an excuse for paying lip service to deflect international criticism.
You state:
This happened not only once but twice. When the Govt declared TWO 48 hour Cease Fires and the LTTE actively prevented the Tamil civilians to escape, the Diaspora was silent. If it was TRULY the safety of the Tamil Civilians that the Diaspora championed this was the time they should have come out in their 100,000s world wide to pressure the LTTE to allow the Tamil Civilians to leave for safety or to surrender. How many times did the Govt ask the LTTE to do so?
My reply:
Even if the Diaspora came together to denounce the LTTE actions, what would have been the use? The UK govt would not have had much traction against a non-state actor as the LTTE. On the other hand the UK govt would have had more traction with the GoSL as it has some diplomatic connections, etc…
If GoSL was really interested in Tamils safety why go to war in the first place? Let the Tamils deal with the LTTE on their home soil and you mind your own affairs??
You state:
“That the Diaspora kept silent for so long until LTTE activists organised coordinated worldwide mass protests to come out in favour of the Vanni Tamils was as bogus as the Burgher eating Death Fasts in London.”
My reply:
Then what about those who self-immolated and killed themselves? Was that also bogus? What did the Sinhala Diaspora do? Things were going their way, wasn’t it???
You state:
“Do you believe that the MP’s would have listened to you if the numbers were small? If you do study what the UK Govt did to the Chagos Islanders. Some of them are British citizens but the numbers are small. See how they had to fight their way through the courts to have their voice heard. Even after the British Courts ruled in their favour the UK Govt uses the “Royal Prerogative” to subvert that. So much for the real democracy part. Keith Vaas was listened to due solely to the Tamil Vote Bank nothing else (you did not have to go to court to have your voice heard).
My reply:
Don’t try to deflect from the issue we are discussing by other issues. You use one small incident to trash UK democracy, while you sadly defend Sinhala hypocrisy? Criticizing western nations maybe a favourite past time for a big majority of Sinhalese. What about the Sinhalese looking inward? Like you preach to me? What have the Sinhalese achieved in terms of democracy and state craft? There was no India before the British, there was no Sri Lanka before the British.
Be thankful the British left you guys in power after they united all the kingdoms. And what have you done??
Is not the UK a better democracy than SL? Democracy is also about numbers. Yes, the Tamil vote bank counts just as any vote bank in any other functioning democracy would.
Have SL courts ruled in Tamils favour when GoSL was moving Sinhalese into Tamil and Muslim villages?
At least the UK courts ruled in their favour and they have British citizenship to push their case. All of which is better than what is going on in Sri Lanka, run by Sinhala chauvinists. We can also talk about what happened to the people of Diego Garcia.
You state:
“I do not know from where you get your information but if it is from Pro Eelam web sites what you just stated is a TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF BRAZEN FALSE HOODS SPREAD BY TAMIL EELAMISTS.”
My reply:
My information is from uthr.org website. The same site you quoted, to defend a few of your statements. You selectively quote UTHR to make your point, while you leave it out when you defend Sinhala racism as Sinhala tolerance.
You state:
S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, the leader of the Tamil Arasu Kachchi, contested the Citizenship Act before the Supreme Court, and then in the Privy council in England, on grounds of discrimination towards minorities but the decision concluded that the citizenship act stipulated conditions well in line with those of European states. Please note that the case went up to the ‘PRIVY COUNCIL” in the UK and it was held that it was WELL IN LINE TO CONDITIONS OF CITIZENSHIP OF EUROPE.
My reply:
How come you haven’t given the http://www.uthr.org link on this issue????
Yes, I’m aware it went to the Privy Council. It was contested in the High Court not the Supreme Court (supreme court created in 1972). The Privy Council ruled in favour of the decision because, Tea companies were British OWNED, that’s the underlying truth, not for what they SAID. Money talks and big money talks big time.
Check http://www.uthr.org
You state:
“Why should the Estate Tamils be excluded?
My reply:
As I said before, because they were already outside the Northeast!! Seems like you just want to distract from the real point.
You state:
The British brought them and put them in Land they plundered from the Sinhala peasantry.
My reply:
Once again, why no quote from UTHR.org?? Because it goes against your falsehood???
Some lands were taken from sinhala peasantry, but a big majority was forested area that the Tamil estate workers laboured to clear and plant tea, which sinhala governments have benefited from because it was SL’s biggest export until recently being overtaken by garments.
You are exaggerating sinhala claims while downplaying Tamil claims. Not surprising.
You state:
There were no Tamils living in the Hill country for over 2000 years till then.
My reply:
Can you prove it? When part of the Sinhala population is descended from Tamils, this comment shows your touch with reality. Anyway it does not buttress or strengthen your point.
You state:
Why do you want to include them when talking about Tamil rights and exclude them now?
My reply:
Not excluding them, only saying they are already ‘outside northeast’, again! You were talking about Tamils living outside the northeast, that’s why I made the remark.
You state:
“Have they not been accommodated by the Sinhalese in spite of the Great Injustice perpetrated by the British on the Sinhala Peasantry?”
My reply:
Please don’t exaggerate the injustices. If you talk about injustice, why didn’t the GoSL eradicate the tea plantations and give back the land to the sinhala peasantry?
Tea was SL’s biggest export. Money counts my friend. Sinhalese have benefited as well. So much for your injustice talk.
What about sending some of the Tamil estate workers back to India through the Srima/Shastri pact and some others to the Vanni and northeast?
I know of Estate Tamils who study in Sinhalese because the GoSL has not provided sufficient Tamil schools.
There has been internal migration from Ratnapura by Estate Tamils due to discrimination and attacks by Sinhalese.
Is this what you call accommodation??
Were Sinhalese who were moved into parts of the Northeast moved out????
You state:
“Since over a Million Tamils have left Sri Lanka the 52% should actually be increased not decreased.”
My reply:
Wrong again! All did not leave, there were Tamils killed by GoSL (as well as LTTE) and the fear psychosis it spread drove them out. So number should actually be decreased!
You state:
1983 is a shame. It occurred the day 13 Sinhala Soldiers murdered by Prabahkaran were buried. Hatred was fanned by politicians and Mob violence was the result. This does not justify your statement that the “MAJORITY” of Sinhalese are Racists. Remember you are talking about a population in excess of 14 million. For a majority to be Racists over 7 million should be racist. That 7 million will be over Quadruple the Tamil population (including Racist Tamils) living in the South. If that is the case the LTTE did enough instigation for those racists to go out of control and create a conflagration that would have made 1983 look insignificant. The govt would not have been able to contain the LTTE and 7 million plus Racists at the same time. Please don’t take away the patience and tolerance shown by the Sinhalese by stating that it was due to a lesson learnt by the Govt.”
My reply:
Thank you for admitting that “1983 is a shame”, the first time you have admitted Sinhala acts of genocide. But you go on to excuse that by using Prabakaran.
A lot of your statements are naïve and not grounded in reality.
Let me revise my statement to say, A BIG majority of Sinhalese are racists or prejudiced.
You don’t seem to understand how reality works, but rather concoct a fairytale existence of life.
Just because the number would be more than 7million that does not mean All 7million will go on a riot all at once (maybe in your dreams and fairytale world). Not all are bold enough to put their feelings into action.
It is only a few who go on a riot and still fewer who instigate a riot. Other racists, especially the upper classes, would be happy with the proceedings, while they keep silent. Not everybody wants to do the dirty job.
The GoSL would have been able to contain mass riots because their forces have guns and that Fear alone would keep a lot from rioting. Those bold enough, always a minority, can be controlled with various riot quelling measures; tear gas, rubber bullets, pressure hose, etc, etc.
You state:
From what you write I assume that you were in Colombo during the 1983 mob violence. Can’t you remember the THOUSANDS of Sinhalese who came forward to protect Tamils? These Sinhalese not only risked their own lives they risked the lives of their families and property to save Tamil friends. How many of you acknowledge that on the web? I have seen only a Handful. Why is that? Is it because it goes against the Eelam project of Demonising the Sinhalese?
My reply:
There are Tamils who have given credit to the Sinhalese who helped rescue Tamils during the 1983 violence. But I do agree that is not greatly emphasized. I was not in Sri Lanka during 1983; I humbly thank God for his grace and providence.
While some Sinhalese protected others didn’t or let the genocide take place. You once again exaggerate your claims. If thousands of Sinhalese came out to protect then the riot would have been quelled sooner rather than later. Why did it go on for days??
You State:
“Long before any Civil unrest, Sri Lankans of ALL ethnicities wanted to migrate…. Tamils used 1983 to gain access to migration to affluent countries. They were not running for fear of death. Such a person makes a bee line to the closest Haven which was Vanni and India in that order. But they chose to stay for months in dangerous Colombo to process Visas. Not the behaviour of a person running for his life. These people deserted the LTTE and the freedom fight, allowing the poor Vanni Tamils and the Children to do it for them.”
My reply:
Your racism is showing as this post goes on. You should be ashamed that you tarnish the sufferings of humans with comments like the above. Only a racist could pull it off.
Once again you don’t understand reality.
Tamils were not the ones who created and implemented 1983. Tamils in Colombo were doing their jobs and were happy to stay in Colombo. But after the 1983 genocidal riot, even if a Tamil had not lost anything he/she would have naturally wanted to get out due to ‘FEAR’. It has a domino effect. This is how humans react and have been reacting the world over for centuries.
I know a Sinhalese friend who said that his father bought some properties at bargain prices because Tamils hurriedly sold their properties to leave.
After the riots were brought under control, Tamils were in refugee camps. Those who were able to get out went to Jaffna and the Northeast, but not all. Everyone does not make a bee line to Vanni and India, that shows your detachment from reality and your stupidity.
Your racist comment, that they stayed to process visas, shows you are not really interested in reconciliation but rather domination, Sinhala domination over minorities.
People got embassies (Where else, the butcher’s shop???) to process visas to go knowing the future is not good for them in SL.
You state:
“I never indicated that Tamils were living only in Jaffna my purpose was to show that the Sinhalese lived in the Vanni in 16xx through an unimpeachable independent Source (other than the Mahawansa) in this case, records in the Dutch National Archives. This proves beyond any doubt that the claim for an “Exclusive Traditional Tamil Homeland” is FALSE.”
My reply:
Who said the Dutch National Archives was an “unimpeachable independent source”? They are an independent source. I don’t know how you came up with Unimpeachable. Anyway, just because this source may indicate Sinhalese were in the Vanni, you call it unimpeachable, but if it had claimed Tamils were in SL long before Sinhalese or Prince Vijaya then you would have called it LTTE lobbyists’ writing.
You state:
“Separatism has a longer History than the Vadukkodai resolution. The reasons that led to ethnic unrest lies in the fact that powerful Tamils wanted to perpetuate the favoured position that they were placed by the British during colonial times even after independence.”
My reply:
This is BOLD FACE DISHONESTY!!!
The Sinhalese have always tried to justify their racist and discriminatory policies by blaming the British, etc, etc.
The truth is the British went according to a system of meritocracy. Accordingly, they took those who were qualified into the, at that time, prestigious civil service. The big majority of those qualified were Tamils, hence big majority of Tamils in the civil service. Tamils were qualified because disproportionately there were more Tamils in the universities. This was because of the good education system from the independent Christian missionary schools.(British govt did not support Christian missionaries coming into Sri Lanka or other of their colonies, because it would disrupt their profit motives). But the Sinhalese portray this as divide and rule by the British to excuse their racism and jealousy.
So after Independence the Sinhalese, thanks to the British putting them in charge of the whole country, wanted to redraw the lines to their advantage, ex: sinhala only,etc.
SJV Chelvanayagam and the Federal party actually denounced those who called for a separate state like Prof.Sunderalingam. Due to this Prof. Sunderalingam lost badly.
How come no quote from the uthr.org? it doesn’t serve your purpose, eh?
You state:
“Don’t forget that Prabahkaran was OFFERED the North and the East without ANY ELECTION for a period of 10 years. What was his reaction? That’s History isn’t it? Why did not the Diaspora press Prabhakaran to accept? Why no Mass Protests?”
My reply:
The so-called ‘OFFER” is what Chandrika said in an interview with Time magazine. There is no evidence that this was actually possible. Besides, the UNP made a hue and cry about this and asked to reveal the details, as if to bring down Chandrika’s government. You are going on hearsay, was this actually really possible?? Same old sinhala politics, the major parties fighting with one another for brownie points.
You state:
Imagine the development he could have carried out with his $300 million income. If he took that offer and developed the North and the East he would have obtained a 100% of Tamil votes in an election after the 10 years and if he was a ‘JUST’ Chief Minister of the North and East like the “Tamil General Elara” he would have received a near 100% vote even from the Sinhalese and the Muslims.
My reply:
If you are so interested in development of Tamil areas, you should ask why Chandrika did not offer a separate state? Then no need for war and all focus would be on development. It could have been like Czechoslovakia amicably splitting into Czech & Slovak republics. Don’t use Tamils and their children to further Sinhala hegemony. If you were a person truly interested in Tamls’ welfare you wouldn’t write like this.
You state:
Please look inwards without being in a hurry to heap all blame on the Sinhalese.
My reply:
Maybe you should do the same, as you preach to me.
I never assigned all blame to the Sinhalese, but their leadership should take responsibility for the creation of groups such as the LTTE and the bloodletting.
You state:
What are the rights the Minorities don’t have that the Majority does? Look at the ‘CURRENT STATUS’ instead of harping on the past as that would be a never ending process.
My reply:
Aren’t you also harping on the past? Hypocrisy can be a virtue! Can a Tamil become President of Sri Lanka??? Can a Christian Sinhalese become president???
D.R. Wijewardene, founder lakehouse, once said in reference to British rule: The relationship between the ruler and the ruled would be one of master and slave without political rights.
Give us our political rights of justice, equality, self-determination and autonomy
Dear Myil Selvan
You state
Aren’t you also harping on the past? Hypocrisy can be a virtue! Can a Tamil become President of Sri Lanka??? Can a Christian Sinhalese become president???
Unquote
Sri Lanka is 73% Sinhalese. So what do you think is the highest qualification required of a Tamil to aspire to the Highest office in SL?
You can’t do that by unjustly vilifying the Sinhalese at every turn, you need to EARN the trust of the majority.
Do you see ANY TAMIL of such high caliber in Today’s Sri Lanka?
In order to win over the majority a Tamil has to show that he is a fair Human being and not driven by Ethnicity. Do you have anyone of the Stature as L Kadirgamer?
Mr Lakshman Kadirgamer was one such person who could have been the Obama of Sri Lanka. I am a Sinhalese and would have UNHESITATINGLY voted for him had he chosen to come forward as the Presidential Candidate. He proved himself to be an ethnically unbiased human being. with very sound judgment.
Judging from his writings, Dr P. Jeganathan could be a candidate.
Though Muthiah Muralidaran is not a politician he too is a person that has earned the trust of the majority.
Hence Myil, without crying foul at every turn, your community should work towards winning the TRUST of the majority? Are you doing so?
Remember Tamils have been appointed as the Chief Justice and the Attorney General of Sri Lanka which are posts that even the SL President cannot give directives to. The FORMER AG Siva Pasupathi is the LTTE legal ideologist is he not?.
The answer to your religion based question is the same. Don’t forget that the First Lady is a Roman Catholic. That did not stop MR from winning the Presidency.
You state
You sometimes quote http://www.uthr.org to buttress your point, while ignoring it where it debunks your point.
Unquote
This is a funny logic. I quote references to build my argument. It is incumbent on you to quote counter references to break it if you can. You can’t expect me to counter my own arguments can you? Isn’t that your responsibility?
You state
I agree we should look to the future, but our future is made by our past. One of the main issues for the future is the issue of ‘Trust’. Tamils do not have trust in the Sinhala leadership due to past experiences.
Unquote
If you want to go back to the past the mistrust is mutual as when Tamils served the British as their lackeys to rule over the Majority, their behaviour hardly built trust with the majority. It was the desire of those Tamils which held Administrative power to perpetuate it that was the root cause for the ethnic problems. It is your community who should work towards erasing the memory of that bad experience from the minds of the majority. This going back and forth about the past does not create harmony and that’s why I stated we should move forward from the present.
“The Broken Palmyra” a book written by TAMIL UNIVERSITY TEACHERS FROM JAFFNA states
“Thus the Tamil burgeois leadership had to adopt the slogan of Tamil Eelam, the cry for a separate state for their political existence. But they had no concrete programme…Of course the Tamil nationalists could not pull the Eelam rabbit out of the parliamentary hat. The leadership had put forward a cry that they knew could never be fulfilled in a constitutional way, and Eelam had never been practicable with their class’s economical integration and dependency on the south… They kept the people under an illusion, by such slogans, calling the TULF leader Chelvanayagam, the Mujibur of Eelam, and even hinted at taking arms from the election platforms. Critics of these slogans were called traitors to the “cause”
You state
When the SL constitution is not being implemented, but rather selectively according to those in power, then what’s the credibility of the Constitution?
The question of whether it is denied or not in the constitution only is relevant if the constitution is implemented. The 13th and 17th amendments are well known examples of non-implementation.
Unquote
What you fail to realise is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Country. It cannot be superseded by any other law. There are specific remedies incorporated in the Constitution to obtain redress for any infringement.
Why can’t eminent Tamil Lawyers inundate the Supreme Court with EVERY case that they can find where MINORITY rights have been transgressed?
Why can’t These Tamil Lawyers appear FREE and prove to the world that the Minorities are indeed discriminated against and that the Sri Lankan State is Racist as you allege?
Is this not a better way than taking guns?
You state
You need to understand group dynamics and the ground realities. To a certain extent you are right in what you say. But collective refusal is not easily achieved and cannot be for every issue. There was extortion taking place and a fear psychosis that prevailed. One individual rightly summed up the prevailing situation saying, “I give because I don’t want family members back in SL to get hurt”.
Unquote
That there was a fear psychosis was well known. The UK papers reported of a Tamil who was tied up and killed by loading his chest with heavy objects making it difficult for him to breath and he died a slow and excruciating death. These were not isolated incidents but organised extortion.
So your fear psychosis kept you from coming out to protest until the fear mongers themselves organised the mass protests. It was not spontaneous it was organised. That’s why those protests were seen for what they were, They were aimed at saving the LTTE not the civilians.
You state
The Buddhist Maha Sangha is in existence due to child recruitment, is it not??
How can a child choose a life of renunciation or to become a monk? Should that not be a choice made with measured and thoughtful understanding, which only an adult can do?
Unquote
Partly true, as many adults join the order too. There is one MAIN difference which you conveniently overlook. The LTTE recruited Children to FIGHT TO THE DEATH. A Buddhist apprentice can leave the order anytime he wishes and many do after receiving a free education, free living and graduating from the SL Universities from fields other than Buddhism.
Who are the occupants of Christian Seminaries? Adults?
I do not know about Hindu apprenticeships so can’t comment on it here. Probably there are more knowledgeable people about this matter that can shed light on that subject.
You state
Did the Sinhalese/Diaspora question or denounce the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL), when they were indulging in child recruitment by aiding and abetting the Karuna Faction??
Unquote
Who is Karuna? Was he not the SECOND in command of the LTTE? Yes he did recruit children to fight to the death when he was in the LTTE. The current Chief Minister of the Eastern provincial council is one of them.
Trying to tie up Karuna’s infamy while he was an LTTE with that of the Govt is without foundation and is just mud slinging and conjecture.
You stated in response to my point on Safe Zones as follows
By this statement are you trying to say, the actions of the GoSL was because they cared for the Tamil civilians??? The GoSL didn’t care for Tamils, just for their land!
If GoSL really cared for Tamils, why not stop the war and let them have the land?
GoSL declared safe zones were, Unilateral. According to international law both sides must agree to a safe zone. Hence, the intention of a safe zone was not to keep Tamils safe but rather an excuse for paying lip service to deflect international criticism.
Unquote
If the GOSL did not care for the Civilians the war would have not lasted even a week. That they cared for the civilians was seen when the LTTE built Earth Bunds (Built using heavy earth moving equipment supplied by certain NGO’s) was breached and over a 100,000 civilians started pouring in to Govt areas.
LIVE UAV video footage witnessed by foreign Diplomats stationed in Colombo clearly showed LTTE Using Tanks and Vehicle mounted machine guns to try and stop that exodus. The Vanni Tamils braved the LTTE bullets and poured out so don’t try to whitewash the LTTE. While slinging mud at GOSL
The SL Govt is the ONLY Govt in SL the LTTE is just a TERRORIST organisation. The Legal Govt had EVERY right to declare safe zones as it thought fit there is no question of Unilateral and International Law regarding terrorists holding Govt subjects as Hostage.
You also mention about “Tamil Land”
There is no TAMIL LAND OR SINHALA LAND OR MOOR LAND OR ANY OTHER ETHNICALLY OWNED LAND IN SRI LANKA. All Land within the boundary of Sri Lanka including the littoral Islands is Sri Lankan Land. It belongs to EVERY CITIZEN of Sri Lanka.
I am sorry to note that you are espousing “The Traditional Homeland Concept”
If your claim to the Traditional Tamil Homeland is the Cleghorn minute of 1799 (18 th century) have another look at the link I provided to the National Archives of the Dutch where they write of a Fort Built at Elephant Pass to protect themselves from the Sinhala Kandyan Kingdom’s border in the 17 th Century. That predates Cleghorn by a CENTURY.
There is no mention of ANY Tamil Kingdom or Border in that Dutch document (http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/detail.aspx?page=dpost&lang=en&id=682#tab2)
You ask me why I call this Dutch evidence unimpeachable. It’s because its very old, the Year (16xx). The Dutch has no earthly reason to manufacture that and no earthly advantage in stating what it states. They are not trying to create new evidence and any modern dating technique will prove that its age is authentic
So Myil you had no EXCLUSIVE Traditional Homelands there were Sinhalese living in the areas you claim as exclusively yours.
You state
Don’t try to deflect from the issue we are discussing by other issues. You use one small incident to trash UK democracy
Unquote
The Diego Garcia case was mentioned to show that when numbers are small even if they get judgements in their favour from the Highest Court of the land other methods are used in your MODEL democracy to subvert justice but when the numbers are large even without recourse to the Courts your voice is heard. Why? Is it not the Vote bank?
If you call the DEPOPULATION of Diego Garcia a small issue you don’t have any right to talk about Human Rights.
Your apparently had prior knowledge that the citizenship Act went up to the Privy Council and the Judgment delivered by the Privy Council. You purposely CONCEALED it in your first accusation.
That makes it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that you FRAUDULENTLY tried to show the Act as RACIST.
(This is what you stated “I’m aware it went to the Privy Council. It was contested in the High Court not the Supreme Court”)
Now when you are challenged you even go to the extent of accusing the Highest Court of your model Democracy with Graft.
(you state The Privy Council ruled in favour of the decision because, Tea companies were British OWNED, that’s the underlying truth, not for what they SAID. Money talks and big money talks big time.)
You very conveniently ignore the following statement by the Privy Council
“THE DECISION CONCLUDED THAT THE CITIZENSHIP ACT STIPULATED CONDITIONS WELL IN LINE WITH THOSE OF EUROPEAN STATES”
The words “European States’ does not mean only UK but the WHOLE WESTERN WORLD.
So shall we call it “This is BOLD FACE DISHONESTY” (your words not mine)
Please refer the Wiki at the link given http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Tamils_of_Sri_Lanka#cite_ref-17)
S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, the leader of the Tamil Arasu Kachchi, contested the citizenship act before the Supreme Court, and then in the Privy council in England, on grounds of discrimination towards minorities but the decision concluded that the citizenship act stipulated conditions well in line with those of European states
Myil. Don’t delude yourself or try to insult the intelligence of others. Many Tamils used the situation to get access to affluent countries they were economic refugees. These same people who were afraid to stay in SL are buying up housing and property in the South to live amongst the Sinhalese. No fear this time around? Why not invest in the North instead of the South? Why are they trying to enter Australia and Canada even now? Why don’t they go to Tamil Nadu where there are 60 million plus Tamils with the same language same culture and the same religion? Its Money isn’t it?
I asked you whether the Sinhalese have not accommodated the Indian Tamils in the Hill country where there were non living for millennia and that the British took land belonging to the Sinhala peasantry your reply is as follows
You state
Please don’t exaggerate the injustices. If you talk about injustice, why didn’t the GoSL eradicate the tea plantations and give back the land to the sinhala peasantry?
Tea was SL’s biggest export. Money counts my friend. Sinhalese have benefited as well. So much for your injustice talk.
Unquote
Please remember that Sri Lanka was an Agricultural Society. It did not become the Granary of the East by chance.
The Northern Zone was arid and was rain fed. The Sinhalese transformed this zone by building extensive irrigation systems from the East Coast to the West Coast. Most of these reservoirs depended on rivers, almost all of which originated from the Hill Country. The British denuded the forests for their Tea and Soil Erosion and the destruction of the ecosystem depleted the rivers.
Are we to be thankful to those who plundered our country which was self sufficient in food and a major exporter of rice and turned it to an importer to feed her own people?
I hope I have answered your long post. Please feel free to point out any question that I have missed.
Dear Off the Cuff,
The way you talk/write yourself into believing your fallacies is quite amazing. There were many points that you ignored from my earlier posts to you. Anyway, my posts are rather long and hence I try to make it shorter, yet they are still long, because I genuinely want to engage with you. But I don’t think you are genuinely interested in engagement but rather trying strenuously defend the myth that Sinhalese have grown up with, which is, this is our country, minorities have to be satisfied with what they are given by us. This is also what Sarath Fonseka said and now he is singing a different tune.
You don’t seem to understand what a genuine dialogue is. My interaction with you is to make you understand that vilifying the LTTE and minorities is only going to perpetuate the sad road SL has gone down since independence. You think I’m vilifying the Sinhalese, that is not at all the point. I am only here to bring out the -whole-truth-.
Sinhalese must own up to the hatred they have fanned through pogroms such as 1915, 1958, 1983 and those in between.
I am not here to vilify but to bring out the whole-truth. And if the whole-truth portrays the Sinhalese in a bad light then that is not my fault or my intention.
At the same time, I do agree that some sinhalese, like you, will get offended. My intention is not to offend anyone but whether you like the truth or not I will try to bring it out.
Ponnambalam Ramanathan was elected by the sinhalese in one of the early local elections. From this we can see that there were Tamil candidates that the sinhalese voted for. He went on to defend Buddhist leaders involved in the riots of 1915 against the Muslims. But after his brother Pon.Arunachalam, Pon.Ramanathan was denied the leadership of the Ceylon National Congress. This was part of the beginning of communal politics.
A.E. Gunasinghe praised the port cargo strike, which was multicultural back in the 1920s. But a few years later he turned communal minded and attacked the Malayali workers in colombo. Same goes for Dr. Colvin R. De Silva, who made the speech, “one language two nations, two languages one nation”, but then changed years later to write the 1972 republican constitution with preference for Buddhism and taking out the minority safeguards. This has been the sad tragedy of majoritarian politics.
Sri Lanka is actually close to 80% sinhalese now, thanks to the violence started by the Sinhala govt, which sadly you don’t accept.
There are Tamil candidates who are better than Kadirgamar, those who stand for principles. But in a land where a person of principles is not valued there is no point in standing up for principles.
In the current environment where the grievances and injustices done to the Tamil community remains uninvestigated and not brought to Trial, it will be hard for a Tamil candidate to ignore that and at the same time earn the trust of sinhalese. Because a majority of sinhalese may not like the SL army’s actions against Tamil civilians being investigated.
Not all Tamils are driven by ethnicity. But when one community is on the receiving end due to its ethnicity then that community is forced to look at things from a ethnic standpoint.
L.Kadirgamar was unfortunately not really interested in the Tamil community. He seemed more at ease among the Sinhala ruling elite circles.
You say rather naively “Tamils have been apointed as AG and Chief Justice,which are posts the president cannot give directives to”
My reply:
This above statement by you is the perfect example of you not being in touch with reality. You seem to live in a dream world. Please come back to earth and Sri Lanka and you will find out the truth, which is :
Wether the Constitution is the supreme law of the land it comes to nothing when it is not IMPLEMENTED or when it is not put into effect or practiced. Do you understand?????????????
Even if a Tamil is the Chief Justice or AG the president can easily send a hit squad to have him/her killed. In such an environment the AG or Chief Justice will not want to go against the President. So it is not about giving directives, it is also about the environments in which these people serve.
YOu say, “the First Lady is a Christian”. Was again you don’t understand sri lankan reality. The First Lady is a Christian in name only. She did not impart her christian faith to her sons. The sons all follow buddhist practices or at least for the cameras and newspapers they go worshipping the Lord Buddha and carry Buddhist dagobas on their head, etc, etc. The first lady is not putting a christian faith into practice. It’s all cheap show.
I will respond at length a little later. But what you need to realize first and foremost is that, it is one thing to talk about laws and it is totally another thing to implement those laws. The constitution is becoming a joke because it is not being implemented is my short and quick point. If it is not implement then it is of no use to anybody.
But from your writings it seems that you are a person hell bent on having your way, just like the majority of sinhalese who want it their way. That is no way to go into the future or to go about reconciliation.
thank you and stay tuned for more.
Dear AJ Perera,
Sorry but I had forgotten all about this piece and just rediscovered it since some one wanted a copy.
Don’t you think I’m a little more likely to take you seriously if you were to get my first name right, as everyone else does ( including TIME and The ECONOMIST), instead of getting it repeatedly wrong?
Or is that modification a legitimate multicultural use of the language?
Dear Off the Cuff,
I said I would write back, hence I’m doing so. But I think it’s best we move on, as I know we won’t get very far in our back and forth assertions.
What I’ve realised from our conversations is, that you seem to be inflexible and still not ready to give Tamils or other minorities their rightful place in society. But rather would like to give what the Sinhalese feel like giving. When challenged the sinhalese want to fight back to reassert their authority, instead of sharing authority. With that kind of mentality there will be no equality and true harmony.
The GoSL should accept its responsibility for the killings of a big majority of the people in this racist/ethnic conflict. The LTTE leadership responsible have been executed, hence on the LTTE side of things, things have been taken care of by the GoSL. But what about justice to all those who died at the hands of the GoSL???
As there is no equality before the law and no proper rule of law, this country will continue to underachieve. Only when there is true equality and respect for the other, only then can real peace and harmony be achieved.
Thank you.
Dear Off the Cuff,
“..Notice that the Dutch mentions ONLY ONE BORDER and that’s with the Sinhala Kingdom of Kandy and where do you think that border was? Elephant Pass In the Extreme North of the Wanni that the divisive Tamils claim to be “Traditionally Exclusively” theirs…”
The above evidence is not enough to back up your claim.
In those days, common enemy for both Wanniyans and Kandyans was Dutch. The focus of both the Tamils (mainly Wanniyans) and Sinhalese was on Dutch and both the Wanniyans and Kandyans were struggling to keep the Dutch within the boundaries of peninsula. Even the Dutch praised the fighting spirit of the Wanniyans.
The country moved on. There is no Portuguese, Dutch, British, etc, etc,.. Here we are now.
Dear Myil Selvan,
I had missed your replies but will answer them soon.
I was drawn to this thread again due to the post by “SomeOne,
December 31, 2009 @ 8:44 am “which I just saw in the recent comments section.
I noticed that you state
“There were many points that you ignored from my earlier posts to you.”
Unquote
I draw your attention to what I stated in my reply
Quote
I hope I have answered your long post. Please feel free to point out any question that I have missed.
Unquote
So your charge is unjustified.
Dear SomeOne,
You state that the evidence that I provided about the Sinhala Kingdom extending up to Elephant Pass is insufficient to prove that the “Vanni” was not “Exclusively” populated by the Tamils and that Sinhalese and probably the Muslims were also occupants of the same area that is claimed as “Traditionally exclusively Tamil” (your post of December 31, 2009 @ 8:44 am)
I note that you have not refuted the evidence which is from the Dutch National Archives
(http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/detail.aspx?page=dpost&lang=en&id=682#tab2 )
Your next paragraph acknowledges the presence of the Sinhalese in the Vanni though you have not noticed the significance of the Dutch statement that below “Elephant Pass” was the Sinhala Kandyan Kingdom.
Therefore the Vanni was never “EXCLUSIVELY” populated by Tamils. There were Sinhalese as well as Muslims living there. Do you have any other reliable evidence to contradict that?
My firm belief is that EVERY citizen of Sri Lanka (irrespective of ethnicity) has an UNALIENABLE right to live wherever they wish. This is true for a Tamil or Muslim in the Deep South or a Sinhalese or a Moor in the extreme North.
This is also the Primary Law of the country.
As you say Sri Lanka has moved on. Traditional Ethnic Enclaves that divides communities has no place in it
Dear Off the Cuff,
Nuwarakkalawiya (Anuradhapura) was part of Wanni. Do you know that? Therefore, whether wanni is exclusively populated with Tamils or not is irrelevant here. The fact is that we have been fighting for centuries. However, we haven’t had time to turn on each other for about 4 centuries (due to European occupation).
Now, we have enough time for that. Then again, why do you think Karuna broke away from LTTE? Therefore, It is NOT true that we are divided along the ethnic line all the time. I don’t find fault with any one, though. If we have tendency to fight we will be fighting for any thing and every thing.
What you said is excellent on paper. What a noble idea. The ground reality is totally different. The people are held up in concentrated camps against their will and their right to go back to their birth place has been denied. What kind of UNALIGNABLE right these people have. What you said is absolute joke. I am only talking the act of so called legitimate Govt.
My firm belief is that if we had up held basic human right we could have avoided all this trouble. If you are really interested in finding a way out of this situation, get to the root of the matter. This is a noble idea, I reckon.
I am looking forward to have a productive discussion.
Dear Dayan,
I don’t have any doubts as to how capable you are when it comes to analysing current political landscapes. However, it’s pity to see your lame excuse for not replying to AJ perers’s very informative analysis of your writings. We expect and wish that you would provide us with a solid reply at your earliest.
former president MAHINDA RAJAPAKSA was a hero seven months ago but he Quickly became a zero because his brothers and his greedy ministers
WE NEED A CHANGE
Just wanted to make a point regarding what mr. selvan said:
:YOu say, “the First Lady is a Christian”. Was again you don’t understand sri lankan reality. The First Lady is a Christian in name only. She did not impart her christian faith to her sons. The sons all follow buddhist practices or at least for the cameras and newspapers they go worshipping the Lord Buddha and carry Buddhist dagobas on their head, etc, etc. The first lady is not putting a christian faith into practice. It’s all cheap show.”
I’m sorry but you have been duped to the public show of a happy and staunchly buddhist family that MR is portraying.
The first lady is very much a practicing christian and makes regular visits to the churches in the area.
Of course this really doesn;t have much bearing to the presidential elecetion at hand, especially when there are more pressing issues, but the only thing is that the president has on many occassions openly and firmly publicised on how his wife is a strong buddhist and in that context, to know that he is saying blatant untruths, it begs the question of what else he is lying about.