Comments on: THE DEEPEST DIVISION IN SRI LANKA

By: justitia

justitia — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:00:49 +0000

The so called “high security zones” were established to prevent the LTTE shelling army camps with long range artillery. Now this situation does not exist.So, why are these zones being maintained even now,preventing thousands from resettling in their homes? Many who visited their former homes in these zones have found that they have been looted and even windows,doors,roofing material and timber structures missing.
What is the need for the army’s presence in the north – as now the LTTE is no more? Why are members of a political party allied to the government allwed to bear arms? They exploded bombs during the presidentil election, intimidating would be voters. Why was this allowed? Are all these not signs of a totalitarian cum police state?
Because of this,most tamils who were able to vote, cast an anti-government rather than a pro-Fonseka vote. Even now many tamils are not in a position to vote in the coming parliamentary election as their identity documents have not been issued.
Recent reports state that many male and female IDPs have been suddenly transferred to the Boosa Camp in the south where already many hundreds if not thousands of tamils are held, many of them for months and years, without being produced before courts. Is this not like what happened to jews in Nazi Germany?
Thus suppression of tamils’ free lifestyle and oppression of so called ex-LTTE
supporters goes on.
The emergency is now going to be reintroduced instead of same being allowed to lapse, at least during the coming election. Why? Surely without the emergency, the election will be more free and fair than what happened during the last election.

By: sumane

sumane — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 05:41:28 +0000

“A substantial section of the electorate of Sri Lanka is willing to back the Rajapaksa regime despite all this, and we can conclude that they benefit from, or can live with, a totalitarian state. The majority of those who voted for Fonseka, on the other hand, did so because they felt that was the only chance for democratic change.” what is the democracy she is talking about? what is the kind of democracy, the latter forces are capable of developing?

By: Bankimchandra

Bankimchandra — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:17:32 +0000

“The real divide between the Sri Lankans is between: the country bumkins (supporters of totalitarianism) and those with a global perspectives (supporters of democracy)”.

This is the exact reverse in Sri-Lanka, my dear little political analyst. The urban goday types have got democracy mixed up with crude capitalism.

By: Observer

Observer — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:05:07 +0000

You have to understand the more the the diaspora mobilise the international community into pressuring Sri Lanka thought their lobbying, propaganda & bribing, the more people will support and rally behind MR. Why??? It’s the same reason when we were kids we cheered for Bruce Willis in Die Hard. The same reason we cheered Arnold Schwazaneger in Commando
You give opportunities for MR administration to shine. We need heroes who are selfless like that! Raises the stakes and bluffs out the opponent. Not afraid to tell the enemy you suck and and then let the double barrel shot gun do the talking. And most of all, they don’t sell out. All the straight qualities we ever looked for in a true leader. There’s a group of Sri Lankans who are ready to march with this leadership.

By: Observer

Observer — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:43:43 +0000

A substantial section of the electorate of Sri Lanka is willing to back the Rajapaksa regime despite all this, and we can conclude that they benefit from, or can live with, a totalitarian state. The majority of those who voted for Fonseka, on the other hand, did so because they felt that was the only chance for democratic change.

Ahem, a wee bit presumptuous? Let me get this, millions of people casted a vote, exercised a democratic tool to elect a totalitarian? Can you even make some sense in what you write?

You are just stating this. I can state the same way, people who voted for Rajapaksa believes in unwavering democracy and people who voted for SF supports military rule. What;s the point of me telling? People have enough facts at hand to make their own judgement on that.

Another election comes and you whip up your keyboard again for the party you support. I can easily summarise the predictable little substance of this article into few words.

Rajapaksa = bad
SF = thumbs up (in her personal opinion)
So please vote for SF. (because she think that’s what you should do)

I remember a previous article by you with the same formula just before the presidential elections Keep up the vote begging! Believe me SF needs all he can get. Our vote aint gonna change, until someone makes a compelling case!

By: Ranaviru Bandara

Ranaviru Bandara — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:38:36 +0000

The essence of this argument is right. The real divide between the Sri Lankans is between: the country bumkins (supporters of totalitarianism) and those with a global perspectives (supporters of democracy). This is REALLY the ground truth!

By: Ranaviru Bandara

Ranaviru Bandara — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:37:04 +0000

The essence of this argument is right. The real divide between the Sri Lankans are: country bumkins (supporters of totalitarianism) and those with a global perspectives (supporters of democracy). This is the ground truth!

By: Sugath

Sugath — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 04:12:55 +0000

It is more important not that what they did. What are they doing now. Good gentlements can become bad guys any moment and Any bad guys can become gentlemen at any moment. I have no difference of any as long as a real gentlemen at present. Guess what I mean and take your decision at the forthcoming election. Suba Anagathayak or Visvasaneeya venasak. Take whatever relevant to you.

By: wijayapala

wijayapala — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 04:02:58 +0000

ModVoice,

“The issue is not that of totalitarianism but of people clinging onto nationalism that made them blindly elect totalitarian leaders disregarding the issues on the ground.”

Whom should the people have voted for? What issues on the ground did that candidate espouse?

By: wijayapala

wijayapala — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 04:01:41 +0000

Dear Paramanathan,

“Tamil homes, businesses, schools, libraries, temples, churches, universities, cultural buildings destroyed by Sinhalese Army”

How many of the above were destroyed over the last 6 months?

By: In Your Face

In Your Face — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:58:04 +0000

I am so happy that President Rajapakse was re-elected!

I fully support this wonderful, terrorism free “totalitarian” regime.
Hell, “totalitarianism” never looked this good.

If this means not being blown to bits by a bunch of loser terrorists, I couldn’t be happier.

Cheer up honey, we all benefit from this brand of “totalitarianism”.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 01:38:38 +0000

Another whine about the elections, way to get your point through.

By: ModVoice

ModVoice — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:13:58 +0000

It is funny that Sinhalese found it ok with the Rajapakse regime when it was exerted on the Tamils but now they find it backfiring on themselves.
I don’t think things would have been any different if Fonseka came into power, particularly for the Tamil people, so whose democracy are we talking about? Only difference would be Fonseka would have allied with the West as opposed to the East.

“unless he is replaced as leader of the UNP, it cannot take the moral high ground.”

What moral high ground in sri lanka are we talking about?

The issue is not that of totalitarianism but of people clinging onto nationalism that made them blindly elect totalitarian leaders disregarding the issues on the ground. Democracy is a distant dream for Sri Lanka.

By: wijayapala

wijayapala — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:13:01 +0000

So everyone who voted for Mahinda is pro-totalitarianism?

By: Heshan

Heshan — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:55:01 +0000

The outcome of the election was never in doubt. Charisma aside, the timing of the election alone ensured a victory for MR. Unfortunately, the timing also implied an inability of the average Sinhalese voter to distinguish between the “war” and the “peace.” Peace is a lot more than simply being immune to suicide attacks. Within the democratic framework, “peace” involves building up strong institutions free of political interference, encouraging foreign investment, and forming good relations with the rest of the *civilized* world. I say civilized, because holding the begging bowl to Iran, Libya, and Burma is rather self-defeating in the long run. The whole point of peace is to ensure some kind of long-term stability (otherwise what’s the point?) Maybe the Rajapakse’s achieved this on the security front, but the rest of the ballpark is an open question. The writer is correct to say that the Opposition needs to exploit these deficiencies. In the final analysis, quick and painless regime change can save the country quite a few decades of potential turmoil.

By: Paramanathan

Paramanathan — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:12:49 +0000

I agree with you Rohini Hensman

“I have always argued that the deepest division in Sri Lanka is not the so-called ethnic divide but the split between supporters of democracy and supporters of totalitarianism …”

The democratic Sri Lanka will free thousands of innocent Tamils who languish in prisons today

Today, there is no â€˜LTTE’.

There is no longer an excuse to kill, imprison, rape, torture the Tamils.

Tamils are being killed, massacred, slaughtered & tortured. â€“ for more than 60 years!

Tamil homes, businesses, schools, libraries, temples, churches, universities, cultural buildings destroyed by Sinhalese Army ..

Tamils are living in fear in Sri Lanka

- Tamils are afraid of the Sri Lankan Police & Army.
- Tamils are living in fear of Sinhala Thugs, Criminals: ex-Sinhala Army Soldiers who deserted Sri Lankan Army
- Tamils are living in fear of Kidnappers. Most are kidnapped at random by Sri Lankan Intelligence Agency and tortured

By: Groundtruth

Groundtruth — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:46:16 +0000

It is a combination of both factors however much the issue is avoided perhaps for window dressing purposes. The war had been in the making for decades as a result of failed governance to treat all citizens alike from the beginning. Just words alone, even if written into the constitution in staggered stages, was insufficient. Rather what has been also missing has been effective implementation. The dalliance carries on even after the end of the war. How can it when it serves as the ‘battle cry’ in every election after Sept. 1956 and it dd even in the last presidential election. What is ommitted in the article was the voting pattern across the obvious ethnic divide combined with the ‘hero’ factor, in part attributed to the aerial bombardments to demolish the LTTE as well as the Tamil people trapped with them, and as stated, relief from further suicide bombings. For the tamil people the unspeakable travails carries on without witnesses. Had there been real democracy under consensual constitutions at the level of “citizens” from the start all these serious ill effects need not have happened. It lingers on and on perversely (to win elections)! Travesty of democracy is so obvious withot justice, rule of law and security for all citizens while some continue to pay a heavy personal price.