Imaging the aftermath
Repost This Article
“Absence of war does not mean peace. Meaningful peace can only be achieved by accepting separate identities and by trying to understand and accept the differences and uniqueness of cultural diversity. Peace cannot be achieved by blurring the uniqueness and denying separate identities. Peace cannot be achieved by suppression or by force; peace has to emerge from mutual understanding and respect” says Godwin Constantine.
###
Godwin Constantine’s work takes us to a space engulfed with acute political and social implications that are connected with ethnic conflict and the resultant war that was fought for over 30 years in the land of his youth, Jaffna. Born to a middle class family in Kandy, doing his early schooling at St. Anthony’s College and Trinity College (Kandy) and now a leading cardiologist, one would wonder why Constantine’s work does not really sync with the usual art aspirations or aesthetics of the comfortable upwardly mobile middle class. In actuality, his work constitutes uncomfortable reminders to the comfort zones of many by constantly pushing us to think beyond the surface rhetoric of politics to unearth harrowing realities and layers of ignored truths.
In his early paintings, Constantine has developed a haunting iconography within his visual language where fleshless sculls peep from every corner making the foreground, and devastated landscapes forms the backdrop. Here, his work could find affinity with Kathy Kollwitzs’ numerous drawings of ‘death’ and Anslem Kiefer’s tortured landscapes that stretch into infinity. The ‘existence’ that is challenged in traumatic circumstances of war becomes Constantine’s constant thematic. His personal experiences living in Jaffna as a youth partly forms the strength of his conceptual intensity. In these art works, the boundaries that demarcate the personal and political are subsumed into one, leaving no space for a reality other than the political.
Like with many self-taught artists, Constantine’s primary sense of aesthetics, form and structure of paintings has roots in different art historical phenomena or thrusts. His obsession with textual excerpts and collage in paintings draw its inspirations from Jasper Johns or Robert Rauschenberg’s neo-dada and pop art renditions. At the same time, Constantine’s format of placing texts in his paintings cannot distance from the format of text placements in Buddhist mural paintings. Whether consciously or unconsciously executed, such close similarities make us think of the spectrum of sources and socio-cultural influences that crisscross in the art and the thematic that Constantine tries to attempt.
“One specific work comes to my mind that carries the following disturbing phrase uttered by George W. Bush: ‘ If you are not with us you are with the enemy.’ This phrase is written on the backdrop of a star spangled banner of red and white grids and white stars on a blue square similar to that of Jasper John’s work ‘Flag’ (1954). This work was done in relation to the paranoia of the global politics seen soon after the World Trade Center bombing in the USA on September 11th2001” says his fellow artist and curator of IMAGING THE AFTERMATH Anoli Perera.
The colour bars in his current work titled “Peace Dove” uses a graphic format containing colours similar to that of the Buddhist flag. It creates a visual interplay with a repetitive image of a dove carrying a leafy twig emerging out of a background creating a sense of a mirage. At the same time, the image of the dove gets camouflaged as part of the background. This denotes our vulnerability in consuming the ideas of peace on the one hand, and its illusionary nature in the grasp of the institutionalized power of ethicized religion, chauvinist politics and divided masses on the other.
Working with images used with loaded symbolism, Constantine continuously refers to the unspoken and the tabooed in relation to issues dealing with war, conflict, violence and their scars on humanity that reappear in different forms through generations. The work “Revisiting Guernica” uses imagery and mood of Guernica, the famous painting by Picasso done as a critique of the air raid of the village of Guernica in 1937 by Nationalists led by Franco during the civil war in Spain. Conceived as a symbol that stands to memorialize the destruction of war, human tragedies and pain inflicted on individuals and communities, particularly the innocent civilians, Guernica, through generations stand as a universal anti-war symbol and embodiment of peace that has been referred to many times by artists and others. While Guernica is a universal sign of peace, Constantine’s use of Guernica as a major component in his work also highlights the nature of Constantine’s highlights the nature of Constantine’s engagement with the Tamil ~ Sinhala ethnic issue as much as the resultant armed conflict and its consequences to humanity itself. His work “Revisiting Guernica” shows a camouflaged background in green, white and black with similar forms found in Picasso’s Guernica, but though done in transparent form giving it a ghostly atmosphere. On the one hand it reminds us of the unresolved human tragedies in the aftermath of conflict where so numerous deaths, disappearances and loss of place and soul have taken place. On the other hand, it also nudges us to rethink the notion of peace and its fragile nature in situations where the human predicament caused by war is not rectified and emotional wounds are not healed.
Constantine, belonging to the Tamil Christian community, which is a minority within a minority, his overall reaction to politics and issues pertaining to the anxieties of the larger Tamil community presents a marked difference to that of highly emotional deeply personal ethicized rhetoric that comes from the deep north and the deep south. Larger part of his childhood was spent in Kandy and his intense familiarity with Jaffna began after the 1977 Tamil ~ Sinhala riots which made the family to move to the safety of Jaffna when Constantine was aged 14 years. He received his medical training from Jaffna Medical College, and during this period as a young adult he closely experienced traumas of the armed conflict in the north which made him change his beliefs and convictions towards life and humanity. While these intensely experienced human suffering and anxieties were captured in his early works done in charcoal which are powerful reminders of pain and suffering of war and death, his art articulates a suffering and affectation that somehow goes beyond the personal, and utters a universalized pain and concern. Greatly influenced by the illustrations of Kathy Kollwitz found in a psychology textbook that he once read, his initial use of visual language and aesthetic preferences were developed using transnational symbolisms and art formats rather than referencing the ethicized and historicized signs and nuances from the locally rooted history. This is not about the denial of his roots to the Tamil community in Jaffna, but it’s more about his ability to avoid burdening himself with the emotional and rhetorical aspect of bearing the history of the Tamil community. His art illustrates a position that believes ‘personal is political and therefore it also has a possibility to be universal’. His use of Guernica as a central theme in his work emphasizes this aspect and urges us to transcend or rethink our obsessive preferences and tastes for privileging exclusivist ethno-religious experiences when it comes to human suffering.
Constantine’s expressions of art transcend visual art boundaries and extend into performance work. It is not an overstatement to say that G. R. Constantine along with Bandu Manamperi established ‘performance’ as a form of visual art in the Sri Lankan visual artists’ community. As noted by Weerasinghe, their work is seen as ‘a major confrontational stance that emerged from the para-modernist ideology of the ‘90s Trend’.‘Performance’, as a genre of art has a history that is rooted in the New York avant-garde movements such as Neo-Dada and Fluxusin the 1950s and 1960s as well as art personalities such as Yves Klein, Robert Raushenberg and Niki de Saint Phalle and musician John Cage where ‘happenings’ became part of art-making. In ‘performance’, the body of the artist is transformed into an object of art, allowing it to be opened to interpretation and attack. This places the body of the artist in a vulnerable position removing the distance between the artists~author and his~her work.Performance, as an art medium that emerged in the Sri Lankan visual art within the trans-formative space ushered in by the ‘90s Trend’back-grounding a highly volatile socio-political environment, it allowed artists such as Constantine and Manamperi to engage in an intense political critique within the visual art discourse.
Constantine’s past performances includes a powerful work titled “Homage to Thiranagama” making it a remembrance of RajaniThiranagama who was killed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam in Jaffna in 1989. His performance “Shifting Identity”(1999) at the ‘No Order’ exhibition surfaced the anxiety of displacement in terms of geographical territory, history and emotional belongingness to a community ~ country. Coming out from a newspaper wrapped cocoon implying a ‘womb,’ he read phrases which unraveled the dilemma of uncertainty in displacement. The “Silent Witness” (2004) and the “Story Untold” (2005) both discussed the predicament of an individual who has to bear in silence the perceptions, stereotypes, myths and histories constructed and narrated by the media to the public about his/her own ethnic community with innumerable biases in a situation of armed conflict.
His installation work and performance (in collaboration with Bandu Manamperi) “Maze” held in 2006 at Lionel Wendt Gallery presented an intense critique on the numbness of the Sri Lankan society that precludes it from intervening against social injustice, racism and extreme nationalism.
If the 90s Trend’s major intervention is to unearth the artist’s body as a political body and to be the prime site of experience that translates into form his ~ her art, then Constantine has unhesitatingly embraced such artistic interpolations and used them as effective weapons of socio-political critique. By doing so as an artist he has taken the risk to challenge, probe and intervene in the thought processes that constantly threaten to negate humanity’s most precious element, the ‘freedom of speech’.
IMAGING THE AFTERMATH an exhibition of paintings by G.R.Constantine opens @ Red Dot Gallery in Pittakotte . The preview was held on 29th of January 2011.The exhibition will remain open until 9th of February 2011. The Gallery hours are Monday~Wednesday 10.30AM~5.00PM, Sundays 11.00AM~4.30PM.
“Meaningful peace can only be achieved by accepting separate identities and by trying to understand and accept the differences and uniqueness of cultural diversity. Peace cannot be achieved by blurring the uniqueness and denying separate identities.”
NOPE. Australia, USA, Canada, UK don’t follow this. But we must accept, appreciate and understand differences in cultures (and similarities) within a single identity.
Tamil Elam movement was never a cultural movement. It was political and military.
If it was a cultural affair, inevitably the Sinhalese and Muslims would have joined in once again destroying all possibilities of seperate identity! Why? Because they love the Tamil culture and see the striking similarities with their own culture.
So don’t mix up culture and seperate ethnic identities in the context of Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims.
“NOPE. Australia, USA, Canada, UK don’t follow this.”
All of these countries have large white communities which are indigenous or considered to be so. Minorities are relatively new arrivals. So the newcomers obviously are expected to integrate into the culture and character of their adoptive nations. In SL, Sinhalese, Tamils, and all other smaller minorities have equal roots to the land.
Harmony isn’t achieved by pretending ethnic differences don’t exist; but by acknowledging the differences, attempting to understand them, and establishing an umbrella identity that can span all communities. You cannot submerge minority identity in a national identity that largely reflects that of the majority. Tito tried it in Jugoslavia, and as soon as the lid was taken off, we witnessed one of the most horrendous genocides of modern times.
DB,
Not so in the case of USA, Canada and Australia. The whites are not indegenous but the majority.
I totally reject the Yugoslavian model of disaster. There was no country called Yugoslavia. It was made up of many countries. Not much integration happened as people lived in their old countries. The US, UK, Malaysia, Australia model is the best.
“Harmony isn’t achieved by pretending ethnic differences don’t exist; but by acknowledging the differences, attempting to understand them, and establishing an umbrella identity that can span all communities.”
100% agree. “Creating an umbrella identity” (instead of seperate identities). That’s what I’ve been saying! Read what the writer has to say. The complete oppositte.
Imposing the Sinhala identity on Tamils, etc. is not the way to go. No one recommends that. But bringing them all under the Sri Lankan umbrella identity as didtinct cultural groups (NOT nationalities) is the right thing to do.
My other point is the Tamil Elam movement (both peaceful and violent) was never a cultural movement. It was a race-based political movement. Tamils can never pursue cultural difference to create a seperate national identity.
1. Sinhala culture has many similarities and substantially a derivative of Tamil culture (among other contributants).
2. Tamil Nadu culture is the Tamil culture of SL which makes it not unique to SL.
That’s why it was never a cultural movement.
“Not so in the case of USA, Canada and Australia. The whites are not indegenous but the majority.”
I said they are considered to be indigenous, given that they have colonised the land several centuries ago and virtually wiped out the true indigenous people, and relegated them to a non-entity, just as the Sinhalese and Tamils have done with the Veddhas. The whites then created the nations we know today as Canada, Australia and the USA. These whites were then faced with waves of immigrants — not in the year nought — but in living memory, and continue to do so. The immigrants were and are newcomers. Sri Lanka’s minorities are not newcomers, except perhaps the Malays and the Burghers. The Tamils have just as much right to nationhood as the Sinhalese. TT, I think before we go further, you need to state whether you think the Tamils are immigrants who must integrate. Do you think so?
“I totally reject the Yugoslavian model of disaster. There was no country called Yugoslavia. It was made up of many countries. Not much integration happened as people lived in their old countries. The US, UK, Malaysia, Australia model is the best.”
C’mon, TT, there are people that insist SL didn’t exist as a nation prior to 1873, so saying Jugoslavia was a collection of countries is not an argument that will hold water. The USSR was a collection of countries that broke up peacefully. And just like in SL and the USSR, communities in Jugoslavia held majorities in their traditional homelands but were minorities in the neighbouring areas. And there were ethnic tensions in Jugoslavia, just as there was and is in SL, tensions that Tito suppressed. When that suppression was removed the ethnic groups turned on their minorities. Initially, the Serbs, who were the largest ethnic group in Jugoslavia, just as the Sinhalese are in SL, and in turn the Croat, Muslim, and other minorities turned on the Serb communities who were themselves minorities outside of Serbia.
“100% agree. “Creating an umbrella identity” (instead of seperate identities). That’s what I’ve been saying! Read what the writer has to say. The complete oppositte.”
But at the moment, the umbrella identity or SL identity that the GoSL is attempting to create is a Sinhalese Buddhist one. How do you expect the minorities to identify with that. I am a minority, and I cannot identify with that. I need something above that, something devoid of specific race or religion.
“Imposing the Sinhala identity on Tamils, etc. is not the way to go. No one recommends that. But bringing them all under the Sri Lankan umbrella identity as didtinct cultural groups (NOT nationalities) is the right thing to do.
The Tamils are not a cultural group, they’re an ethnic group, and they’re asking for grievances specific to the Tamils to be addressed. Tamil nationalism gained popular support because these grievances were not addressed. If you don’t acknowledge and address these grievances as ethnic ones, the Tamils will once more think that the next-best thing — establishing themselves as a nation — is the only option.
“My other point is the Tamil Elam movement (both peaceful and violent) was never a cultural movement. It was a race-based political movement. Tamils can never pursue cultural difference to create a seperate national identity.”
Of course it was race based; it was a reaction to the race based and racist policies of the Sinhalese. Specific actiona have specific reactions. The civil rights movement in the US was race based. Why, because blacks are racist? No, it was a reaction to racist white policies and laws that specifically oppressed the negro race. Martin Luther King wasn’t asking for special rights for the blacks; he was asking for the same rights as the whites. The Tamils are asking for the same thing.
“1. Sinhala culture has many similarities and substantially a derivative of Tamil culture (among other contributants).”
Which is exactly why I said that this is not a cultural conflict but an ethnic one; and in SL language was the symbol of that ethnicity.
“2. Tamil Nadu culture is the Tamil culture of SL which makes it not unique to SL.
But you just said Sinhalese culture is similar to Tamil culture; how then is the former unique? In any case, how does uniqueness provide one with special privileges?
“That’s why it was never a cultural movement.”
Who said it was? It’s you that are claiming the Tamils are a cultural group. Culture is only one part of ethnicity and isn’t always a defining one. Serbs and Croats for example, share a common language, music, lifestyle, dress, and so many other things that are considered cultural. Only their religions differ, yet they consider themselves two ethnic groups.
DB,
“I think before we go further, you need to state whether you think the Tamils are immigrants who must integrate. Do you think so?”
Some Tamils are immigrants, some aren’t.
Again in USA, Canada, Australia the whites are NOT considered indegenous. They are considered the majority.
“Creating an umbrella identity”
“But at the moment, the umbrella identity or SL identity that the GoSL is attempting to create is a Sinhalese Buddhist one.”
Nope. The identity the government trying to create is a Sri Lankan multi ethnic identity not a Sinhala Buddhist identity. From the parliament to the cabinet this is the signal that is relayed. Obviously Sinhala Buddhism will be part of it too. And Tamil Hinduism, etc.
“The Tamils are not a cultural group, they’re an ethnic group, and they’re asking for grievances specific to the Tamils to be addressed. Tamil nationalism gained popular support because these grievances were not addressed.”
OK, to rephrase my statement,
Bringing Tamils, etc. all under the Sri Lankan umbrella identity as distinct ethnic groups (NOT nationalities) is the right thing to do.
1. DB, there is nothing called Tamil “nationalism”. Tamil is not a nation it is a race, ethnic group, culture, language. At most it is Tamil racism. A nation is made up of many ethnicities/race groups like Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim, Malays, etc.
2. Tamil “nationalism” didn’t gain popular support following the disregard of Tamil grievences. It’s the other way around. Tamil “nationalism” (or racims) emerged first. Sri Lankans took control of SL in 1948. Did the Tamil traditional homeland in SL emerge after 1948? Not according to those who believe it. If so Tamil “nationalism” MUST have been there before 1948!
Illankai Tamil Arasu kachchi was formed in 1949. The Citizenship act had nothing to do with it. No upcountry Tamil voted for ACTC. It was a cover up. All Ceylon Tamil Congress that promoted Tamil “nationalism” won all the seats in Jaffna at the 1947 election!
Clearly Tamil “nationalism” emered much earlier than Tamil grievences.
Everyone has grievences. But Tamil people’s grievences were given an undue importance over others’ grievences. Others didn’t kill people of other communities over their grievences!
““That’s why it was never a cultural movement.”
Who said it was?”
The writer.
“Some Tamils are immigrants, some aren’t.
OK, so which ones are immigrants and which ones aren’t?
“Again in USA, Canada, Australia the whites are NOT considered indegenous. They are considered the majority.”
Are you saying the whites in Canada consider themselves the same as the recently arrived SL diaspora? Are you saying that the whites in Australia consider themselves the same as the recently arrived Vietnamese and SL boat people? Do the whites in these countries consider themselves to have less rights to the land than the Native Americans and the Aborigines?
“Nope. The identity the government trying to create is a Sri Lankan multi ethnic identity not a Sinhala Buddhist identity.”
Really? Can you point to any policies, laws, or actions that the MR administration has put into place that is separate from the Sinhalese Buddhist identity and different from those of past administrations?
“OK, to rephrase my statement, Bringing Tamils, etc. all under the Sri Lankan umbrella identity as distinct ethnic groups (NOT nationalities) is the right thing to do.”
Do you understand that the Tamils are asking to be considered as a distinct and equal ethnicity and not as a separate and equal nationality? Do you understand the difference?
“DB, there is nothing called Tamil “nationalism”. Tamil is not a nation it is a race, ethnic group, culture, language.”
The call for a separate Tamil state was nationalistic because it intended to create a Tamil state or nation. Are you suggesting that there was no such movement? What was the Tamil separatist cause then if it wasn’t nationalistic?
“At most it is Tamil racism. A nation is made up of many ethnicities/race groups like Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim, Malays, etc.”
The Tigers were racist because they wanted Eelam to be purely Tamil, but the Tamil separatist movement didn’t call for Eelam to be exclusively Tamil.
“Tamil “nationalism” didn’t gain popular support following the disregard of Tamil grievences. It’s the other way around. Tamil “nationalism” (or racims) emerged first.”
I didn’t say that the Tamil nationalist movement didn’t exist prior to ’48. I said it gained popularity as a result of racist policies and practices enacted by the Sinhalese such as standardisation, tearing up of the Banda-Chelva and Dudley-Chelva pacts, anti-Tamil pogroms, the creation of the Executive, and other things. Can you show any popular support for Tamil nationalism prior to independence?
“Everyone has grievences. But Tamil people’s grievences were given an undue importance over others’ grievences. Others didn’t kill people of other communities over their grievences!”
Can you show grievances suffered by these “others” you mention that were of equal importance as the Tamils’ loss of access to state sector jobs, their inability to be administered in their own language, or their suffering repeated pogroms?
“The writer [refers to the Tamils as a cultural group].
I can find no such reference in Dushiyanthini’s review. In fact she refers to the Tamils as an ethnic community.
DB,
“OK, so which ones are immigrants and which ones aren’t?”
The truth is everyone is an immigrant everywhere in the world except parts of Africa. But depending on the arrival time in comparison to others, a distinction is made within the Tamil community. They call themselves “Tamils of reccent Indian origin”!
“Are you saying the whites in Canada consider themselves the same as the recently arrived SL diaspora?”
Yes. They all have equal individual rights. Then the rules of democracy applies. Remember there is NO right recognized in any country, the UN charter, etc. which says, “everyone has the right to do their business, speak to a government officer and to be spoken to, in his/her language”. It is NOT a fundamental right anywhere.
“Do the whites in these countries consider themselves to have less rights to the land than the Native Americans and the Aborigines?”
No. They all have equal individual rights. Then the rules of democracy applies.
“Can you point to any policies, laws, or actions that the MR administration has put into place that is separate from the Sinhalese Buddhist identity and different from those of past administrations?”
Why should it be any different to past administrations? Most of them were for the creation of a Sri Lankan collective identity too. E.g. a multi ethnic cabinet, equal individual rights, allowing Tamils in more than their population percentage to enter universities whereas tax money is collected equally (not saying right or wrong, but it is happening), allowing Tamils to live in all parts of the country, accepting Tamils in the state service, armed forces, paramilitaries, cricket team, etc.
For Tamils who seek a seperate identity, the Sri Lankan identity IS the problem!
DB, you contradict yourself here.
“Do you understand that the Tamils are asking to be considered as a distinct and equal ethnicity and not as a separate and equal nationality? Do you understand the difference?
Then you say.
“The call for a separate Tamil state was nationalistic because it intended to create a Tamil state or nation. Are you suggesting that there was no such movement?”
“What was the Tamil separatist cause then if it wasn’t nationalistic?”
Tamils are asking to be considered as a distinct “nationality” and not just a mere equal ethnicity. This is what they wanted and want from their point of view. Be clear on that. But their “nationalist” struggle is not a quite nationalist but racist. Because Tamil is a race/ethnicity, not a nation.
“but the Tamil separatist movement didn’t call for Eelam to be exclusively Tamil.”
Oh yes, they did. Read the Vadukoddai Resolution. That is why they vehemantly protested against “Sinhala colonization” of “Tamil homelands”. Now don’t play with words. They were after an area about 18,000 sq km which they called TAMIL ELAM which they claimed to the “Tamil homelands”.
“I said it gained popularity as a result of racist policies and practices enacted by the Sinhalese such as standardisation, tearing up of the Banda-Chelva and Dudley-Chelva pacts, anti-Tamil pogroms, the creation of the Executive, and other things. Can you show any popular support for Tamil nationalism prior to independence?”
Registering of the first ever race based political party – 1944 (all ceylon TAMIL congress) which became the premier political force in the north.
Making racist demands – 1931 (66% Sinhalese and 33% Tamils should have eqaul community rights! This was rejected even by the Brits.) The person who made this racist demand became so popular that his party swept the polls whenever they participated in elections thereafter.
Lanka Tamil Nation Party (ITAK) was formed in 1949 with the manifest demand to create a seperate Tamil nation.
standardisation (1973), tearing up of the Banda-Chelva (1958) and Dudley-Chelva pacts (1969), anti-Tamil pogroms (1956, 1958, 1977, 1983 etc), the creation of the Executive (1978).
Worse riots of 1983 and the creation of the executive happened years after the Vadukoddai Resolution which was overwhelmingly supported at the 1977 election!
“Can you show grievances suffered by these “others” you mention that were of equal importance as the Tamils’ loss of access to state sector jobs, their inability to be administered in their own language, or their suffering repeated pogroms?”
1. Loss of access to state jobs during the time colonials ruled/ruined the country.
2. Their inability to be administered in their own language is NOT a fundamental right of ANY country.
If so, USA, UK, Australia, Canada which are some of the most liberal and peaceful countries would be in deep trouble.
3. Repeated violence – Plenty of you read MoD. Many Sinhala and Muslim villages were attacked by armed Tamil groups. Sinhalese were killed, assaulted, chased away and looted in 1958 riots by Tamil mobs. Sarath Fonseka, Sisira Fonseka, Peter Fonseka, Peter’s wife and daughter spent 3 nights in a rock cliff in then Batticaloa district. Army, navy, air force didn’t come to their rescue. Some rival mobs rescued people so trapped which should not have happened.
4. Though non-Tamils pay over 85% (assuming population percentage) of tax for university education, they didn’t get a fair share commensurate with their spend in universities.
“The truth is everyone is an immigrant everywhere in the world except parts of Africa. But depending on the arrival time in comparison to others, a distinction is made within the Tamil community. They call themselves “Tamils of reccent Indian origin”!”
So you agree that the Sinhalese are as much immigrants as the NE Tamils and that therefore the argument of immigration is as invalid one in the context of language rights for the Tamils?
“Yes. They all have equal individual rights. Then the rules of democracy applies.”
The question isn’t about individual rights, TT. I have shown you how ethnic rights can coexist with individual rights in the example of the courtroom. I repeat, did you not understand the example?
“Remember there is NO right recognized in any country, the UN charter, etc. which says, “everyone has the right to do their business, speak to a government officer and to be spoken to, in his/her language”. It is NOT a fundamental right anywhere.”
You’re wrong, TT. The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indiginous Peoples includes language rights. The declaration goes on to also say that “all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.” Which is why the Quebecois have the right to a French Canada, the Swiss to French and German Switzerland, the Native Americans to their own languages on their reservations and so forth.
“No. They all have equal individual rights. Then the rules of democracy applies.”
Are you not aware that language rights are not an individual right but a communal one? Do you not know that certain rights — such as territorial rights, economic rights, military rights, etc — are common ones that while not applicable to individuals are applicable to communities? Are you not aware of this distinction, TT, or is that you do not acknowledge them?
“Why should it be any different to past administrations? Most of them were for the creation of a Sri Lankan collective identity too.”
So you contend that the policies of past administrations, such as Sinhala Only, were in fact not racist or oppressive to the Tamils, that the Sinhalese Buddhist identity should be the SL identity, and that this must continue unchanged?
“For Tamils who seek a seperate identity, the Sri Lankan identity IS the problem!”
But Tamils — and other minorities — are not seeking a separate identity; we are seeking an inclusive identity that includes all communities. The past — and arguably current — identity is a Sinhalese Buddhist one that rejects the Tamil language and other religions, and that is why it is rejected.
“DB, you contradict yourself here.”
Only if timelines are beyond your comprehension, TT. The Tamil aspiration was for ethnic equalty. When this was rejected by the Sinhalese and articulated by racist laws such as Sinhala Only, the Tamils aspired to their own nation (the nationalist movement you seem to have difficulty in grasping), and now that the separatist movement has been defeated, they are still aspiring for ethnic equalty. Do you now understand, TT?
“Tamils are asking to be considered as a distinct “nationality” and not just a mere equal ethnicity.”
No they’re not. You think they are, only because you equate a language with a state or nation, and you refuse to see that a state or nation can have two or more official languages, in spite of the fact that Canada, Switzerland, India, the UK, and other examples have been pointed out to you.
“But their “nationalist” struggle is not a quite nationalist but racist. Because Tamil is a race/ethnicity, not a nation.”
Oh dear, TT. Are you not aware of the definition of the word nationalism? Here’s what Wiki describes it as: “Nationalism involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation [that more or less describes Sinhalese nationalism]. Often, it is the belief that an ethnic group has a right to statehood [Tamil nationalism], or that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic group [the Zionist and LTTE brand, which is in fact racist], or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities [the ideal I'd like SL nationalism to identify with] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism?wasRedirected=true).”
“Oh yes, they did [demand that Eelam be exclusively Tamil]. Read the Vadukoddai Resolution. That is why they vehemantly protested against “Sinhala colonization” of “Tamil homelands”.”
I have read this resolution, but clearly you haven’t, TT. Nowhere does it state that it will be an exclusive Tamil state. It states “a. that the State of TAMIL EELAM shall consist of the people of the Northern and Eastern provinces and shall also ensure full and equal rights of citizenship of the State of TAMIL EELAM to all Tamil speaking people living in any part of Ceylon and to Tamils of EELAM origin living in any part of the world who may opt for citizenship of TAMIL EELAM.” Can you see anything there that suggests that non-Tamil minorities will be excluded from Eelam citizenship? But just to ensure there’s no misunderstanding, the resolution goes on to say, “b. that the constitution of TAMIL EELAM shall be based on the principle of democratic decentralization so as to ensure the non-domination of any religious or territorial community of TAMIL EELAM by any other section. In other words, they pledge to ensure that the Tamil majority will not oppress the minorities. But just in case it still wasn’t abundently clear, the resolution states, “d. that TAMIL EELAM shall be a secular state giving equal protection and assistance to all religions to which the people of the state may belong” and “e. that Tamil shall be the language of the State, but the rights of Sinhalese speaking minorities in Tamil Eelam to education and transaction of business in their language shall be protected on a reciprocal basis with the Tamil speaking minorities in the Sinhala State.” (http://www.sangam.org/FB_HIST_DOCS/vaddukod.htm) You’re ignorant of the subject matter, TT, like most bigots.
“Making racist demands – 1931 (66% Sinhalese and 33% Tamils should have eqaul community rights! This was rejected even by the Brits.) The person who made this racist demand became so popular that his party swept the polls whenever they participated in elections thereafter.”
There’s nothing racist about asking for equal ethnic rights. Since they’re not individual rights but collective ones, size percentages have no bearing on equalty. It is why the US has the electoral college, in recognition that smaller states must be afforded more power in a federal election, because a one-man one-vote election would leave all power with the most populace states. The same applies to ethnic groups. The bigger ethnic group could vote for laws that would oppress the smaller ethnic groups and justify it by callling it democracy as you do. The US civil rights movement proved this fallacy, showing it was undemocratic for the larger white ethnic group to pass laws that oppressed the smaller black ethnic group.
TT, you’re ignorant of even the most basic democratic tennents.
“1. Loss of access to state jobs during the time colonials ruled/ruined the country.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right. The Brits didn’t exclude the Sinhalese. The language of administration was English. At the higher levels of local administration, both Sinhalese and Tamils were equally represented (because in the upper strata of both the Sinhalese and Tamil communities, English was prevailent). It was at the mid- and lower-levels of the administration that the problems occurred. Middle and working class Tamils put more emphasis on education than Sinhalese of the same social strata, mostly because farming and other pursuits were more attractive to the southerners in their more fertile lands than the northerners from their more arid lands. The Tamils turned to administrative jobs out of necessity. If at independence, the Sinhalese had chosen to make English the official language and pushed for an expansion of English education, they would’ve eventually overtaken the Tamils at all levels. Instead they took the short cut and simply disenfrannchised the Tamils; a choice that also eventually disenfranchised the rural Sinhalese, who today must struggle to reach the upper levels of the mercantile sector ahead of his English-educated urban contemporaries.
“2. Their inability to be administered in their own language is NOT a fundamental right of ANY country.”
As I already told you, the UN declaration of 2007 recognises this right.
“If so, USA, UK, Australia, Canada which are some of the most liberal and peaceful countries would be in deep trouble.”
All of these countries are signatories to the UN resolution and practice it. In Australia, the newcomers have arrived in the 20th century and are not natives. That is why they are referred to as “naturalised”. Do you understand this term and its distinction, TT, or must I educate you on this too?
“3. Repeated violence – Plenty of you read MoD. Many Sinhala and Muslim villages were attacked by armed Tamil groups. Sinhalese were killed, assaulted, chased away and looted in 1958 riots by Tamil mobs.”
So you’re suggesting that communal violence didn’t especially victimize the Tamils?
“4. Though non-Tamils pay over 85% (assuming population percentage) of tax for university education, they didn’t get a fair share commensurate with their spend in universities.”
What would this fair share be, TT?
Dear TT, David
RE: “Registering of the first ever race based political party – 1944 (all ceylon TAMIL congress) which became the premier political force in the north.”
David, do you think that TT’s contention that “Tamils premièred race politics” is valid?
TT, whether or not this is valid, is it your opinion that Tamils do not have a right to equal (not identical) community rights? The term equal does not mean that the communities will be identical, just as equal rights for individuals do not mean that two individuals are identical – it is recognition of equality in spirit, if not entirely in practice.
RE: “Yes. They all have equal individual rights. Then the rules of democracy applies.”
TT, the “rules of democracy” do not mean that minority rights are completely subsumed and that the will of the majority is what prevails. Such rule is called a mobocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy) and is exactly the type of vision you seem to have. A democracy must necessarily have mechanisms to avoid a tyranny of the majority. So please be specific in your use of terms.
RE: “Lanka Tamil Nation Party (ITAK) was formed in 1949 with the manifest demand to create a seperate Tamil nation.”
The mere existence of the ITAK does not necessarily indicate popular support for a separate Tamil nation, just as the existence of the American Nazi Party does not mean that the Americans are Nazis. You therefore need to clearly address David’s and Wijayapala’s point – that Tamil popular opinion only turned in favour of separatism *after* the repeated abrogation of pacts and continued violence against them. Do you disagree with this and why?
SD, no, I don’t think Tamil racism preceded Sinhalese racism. I think Tamils and Sinhalese are equally racist, and always were. Race politics was played by both sides long before independence. However, I don’t think there was much support for it by either the Sinhalese or Tamil populations until just prior to independence. At that point, the Tamil politicians probably saw the writing on the wall, and attempted to gain an India/Pakistan-style partition, but failed. This in turn made the Sinhalese extremely reluctant to cede any power to the Tamils for fear of secession. They also enacted racist policies and stirred up the Sinhalese against the Tamils whenever Tamil politicians protested these policies or attempted to have treaties or resolutions passed to protect Tamil rights.
So IMO, it was the racist policies passed by the Sinhalese majority (something that TT claims is democratic) and their failure to curb violence against the Tamils that led to what was ultimately war.
I think that if the Tamils had been the majority we would probably have faced the LLSL (Liberation Lions of Sinhala Lanka); though I think a Tamil Government of Ceylon would more likely have picked English as the official language instead of Tamil Only.
TT
Adding to David’s comments, the history shows that the Tamils actually did embrace Sinhala language and even religion when it was not forced down their throats. Right up to 1956 it was common for Jaffna people to learn Sinhala. It was only after 1956 that language got politicised and the Tamils stayed away from learning Sinhala.
Going further back, the history of the modern Sinhalese is tied to generations of immigrants- mostly from S. India- coming to the island and assimilating to become Sinhalese. Presumably they assimilated because they wanted to be part of a great civilisation, not to make some insecure Sinhala nationalists happy.
The trick: build a great civilisation, and they will come.
Wijayapala,
Agree.
Politicising integration and destroying it were grave mistakes by power hungry SWRDB. His attempted resolutions were even more damaging.
“Build a great civilization and they will come”.
Very true and accurate also. Our Majesty however, is working towards this goal from the other angle. He is building the great family and hoping everybody will be wanting to be in the family.
But I am also thinking it is nice to be seeing the Blacker and the Wijayapala taking on the Double T. This is similar to my kitchen boy theory also. Moderate peoples from both sides should be tackling the extremism in their sides. That is giving the moderates in the other side confidence also and making them feel they are not alone and wandering in the dakness. If the moderates are not raising their voice the field is going to be left to the Double Ts and the Tamil Ts.
Mr.Constantine! I salute to your innerself for its nutral and bold idea through words and sight.
Any body can comment snub what is not in par with your ideal. Everybody wants to put their ideas through comments.
We have judge them.
Let dogs bark.
Absence of war may not be peace as you like it. The importance is nonetheless there is no bloodshed on a mass scale. That is certainly an improvement. The country is only now trying to come to terms with normality after 30 years terrorists menace. It takes some time for people to understand and appreciate the dignity of difference. Tamils must come out of the victim mode. Sinhalese must invite all and treat all with equal status. The international community cannot stick their fingers up Sri Lanka’s nose.
AC,
“Sinhalese must invite all and treat all with equal status.”
Equal INDIVIDUAL rights. Certainly not equal ethnic community rights which defeats equal individual rights. Communities are unequal and hence cannot have equal rights. Nowhere in the world except in India communities have anything close to equal rights. But individuals must have equal rights in every sphere. Then let good old democracy take care of things. Some fear democracy!
e.g. Hosni Mubarak and his western allies.
Equal individual rights include equal rights to land in all parts of the country. Some race based laws prevent this. These laws introduced by colonial rulers are a hindrance to peace.
TT, no one is asking for special race-based rights or laws for the Tamils. And community rights should not supersede individual rights. The latter is inviolable. A Tamil man can expect — at least in theory — to walk into a courtroom and be treated exactly as any other Sri Lankan. That is individual right. But if the court is conducted in Sinhalese and all the court papers are also in Sinhalese, his communal rights are being violated. Now if the proceedings and documents are available in both languages, his community rights and individual rights would both have been upheld without any damage to anyone else’s individual or community rights. Do you understand how this is applicable in other areas of governance and society? You cannot remove the individual from his ethnicity and declare voila! that he need not have ethnic rights because he doesn’t have ethnicity anymore, while still maintaining the ethnic rights of the majority because the latter is deemed to be that of the nation.
DB,
“You cannot remove the individual from his ethnicity and declare voila! that he need not have ethnic rights because he doesn’t have ethnicity anymore, while still maintaining the ethnic rights of the majority because the latter is deemed to be that of the nation.”
Now you are talking nonsense!
You CAN.
Mr Rudrakumaran lives in the USA. He does not enjoy any of the ethnic based rights. He has absolutely no right whatsoever (though he is a human like any other) to speek and be spoken to in his language – Tamil in his official conversations. Apart from a few instances of interpreters.
You may appreciate that “the right to speak in and spoken to in one’s own language is NOT a fundamental right, human right, UN declared basic right or any other legally valid right in any country”.
If it were, most liberal nations in the world will be violating it.
If individual rights are tied to ethnicity, that itself becomes discriminatory. People belonging to minute ethnic groups would be totally powerless.
Look at Sri Lanka’s case.
ALL (I mean ALL) ethnic groups other than Tamils are now increasingly functioning in Sinhala.
These include Muslims, Malays, Colombo Chettis, Bharata people, Burgurs, Jews, Panjabis, Chinese, Indonesians (yes SL has very small communities of these) and now even Maldivians!
Don’t tell me they have no ethnic rights!
Its time Tamils join in their hundreds of thousands too.
“u CAN. Mr Rudrakumaran lives in the USA. He does not enjoy any of the ethnic based rights. He has absolutely no right whatsoever (though he is a human like any other) to speek and be spoken to in his language – Tamil in his official conversations. Apart from a few instances of interpreters.
But Mr Rudrakumaran is an immigrant to the USA, TT. He is not part of an ethnic group that is native to the USA. The latter is his adoptive country and he must integrate because he has chosen to immigrate there. The Tamils in SL are native to the country and their language is equal in status to Sinhalese. Tamils didn’t immigrate to SL, TT, they have existed here as far into history as is recorded. Do you consider them immigrants and foreigners who must learn Sinhalese, the language of SL? Do you think that Tamil shouldn’t be an official language?
“You may appreciate that “the right to speak in and spoken to in one’s own language is NOT a fundamental right, human right, UN declared basic right or any other legally valid right in any country”.
Then why do the Sinhalese have the right to speak in and be spoken to in Sinhalese? Why does Buddhism have the constitutional right to have the foremost place?
“If it were, most liberal nations in the world will be violating it.”
How so? Can you name any country which has multiple native languages but is governed or administered only in one? Canada perhaps, or Switzerland, or India?
“If individual rights are tied to ethnicity, that itself becomes discriminatory. People belonging to minute ethnic groups would be totally powerless.”
But why do you think individual rights are tied to ethnicity? Didn’t you understand my analogy of the courtroom that shows there is no erosion of individual rights by ethnic ones?
“ALL (I mean ALL) ethnic groups other than Tamils are now increasingly functioning in Sinhala. These include Muslims, Malays, Colombo Chettis, Bharata people, Burgurs, Jews, Panjabis, Chinese, Indonesians (yes SL has very small communities of these) and now even Maldivians!”
Do any of these ethnic groups have the same roots to the land that the Tamils and Sinhalese have? The Moors are Tamil-speaking and would much rather conduct official affairs in that language. The only reason they haven’t sided with the Tamils is because they were alienated by the Tigers. The others are not native to SL and even if they were, are such a tiny fraction of the population that it isn’t realistic to argue for language rights.
“Don’t tell me they have no ethnic rights!”
They do, but the size of their communities precludes those rights centring on language.
“Its time Tamils join in their hundreds of thousands too.”
They will once language and other things are no longer contentious issues. Now that the war is over, it’s time for the Sinhalese to address and solve the issues that created the ethnic conflict in the first place, and not deny that they are legitimate.
?
Tamils ARE immigrants to Sri Lanka. The most recent of them are the so-called Indian Tamils. All Tamil civilizational developments of note happened not in the island but in South India. Their Anuradhapuras, Polonnaruwas, Sigiriyas, art, works of literature and their language developed and flourished in South India and not in Sri Lanka. Even today it is in Tamil Nadu that Sri Lankan Tamils seek refuge at the slightest sign of trouble, it is to Tamil Nadu that they look to for political succour, it is on Tamil Nadu that they depend on for all their cultural and entertainment products. This is because Tamil Nadu is their ethnic homeland, and not Sri Lanka.
The Sinhalese on the other hand, did not come as a people from India. There were no Sinhalese kingdoms or Sinhalese people in India. There are no Sinhalese speaking groups in India today either. That is because the Sinhalese identity and language came about entirely in the island of Sri Lanka. They built a distinctive civilization in the island. Their language developed and flourished in the island and still flourishes only in the island. They do not look to India for refuge. They do not run to India at the slightest sign of trouble. They are indigenous to the country and without them Sri Lanka would have no meaning, just like how Tamil Nadu would have no meaning without the Tamils. It is the Sinhalese who give Sri Lanka its unique identity just like it is the Tamils who give Tamil Nadu its unique identity.
The Tamils of Sri Lanka can be likened to French people in England. The homeland of the French people is next door to England called FRANCE, and is much larger than England. The homeland of the Tamils is next door to Sri Lanka called TAMIL NADU and is much larger than Sri Lanka. France is separated from England by the English Channel and Tamil Nadu is separated from Sri Lanka by the Palk Strait. Everything of note of the French people took place in FRANCE, just like everything of note of the Tamil people took place in what is now Tamil Nadu. The English language and their Protestant religion rule the roost in ENGLAND. The Sinhalese language their Buddhist region rule the roost in SRI LANKA.
The Tamil people of Sri Lanka are not a nation unto themselves — unlike the Sinhalese. They are a minority living among the Sinhalese. To give another example, the Tamils of Sri Lanka can be likened to the Telugu minority living in Tamil Nadu who are not a nation unto themselves but a minority living among the Tamils. They can be likened to the Tamil minority living in Karnataka among the Kannadigas, or the Tamil minority living in Kerala among the Malayalis. None of these Tamil groups are nations unto themselves — and Sri Lankan Tamils are no different. They simply are a minority living among the Sinhalese.
The sooner people like David Blacker realize this, the quicker there will be a solution to the “ethnic question” in the island.
Further, there is no distinct French ethnic community in England as you suggest; in fact, almost all of England’s so-called native population came from the continent; Scandinavia, Norman France, and Saxon Germany. Just as the Sinhalese and Tamils arrived from various parts of India.
The Sinhalese are not a nation either, they are an ethnic group in the nation of Sri Lanka. Their being unique to SL doesn’t give them special status above anyone else. Nor do their contributions to shaping SL deserve higher standing than anyone else’s. Whether the Sinhalese arrived before the Jaffna Tamils, whether the Sinhalese are in fact Jaffna Tamils, or whether Jaffna Tamils are in fact Sinhalese who were influenced by their proximity to Tamil Nadu can’t be credibly proven one way or the other. It doesn’t even really matter. What matters is that both Sinhalese and Tamils exist in SL today and have existed as far back as recorded history goes. Face up to it, accept it, and learn to live as equals.
DB,
“But Mr Rudrakumaran is an immigrant to the USA, TT. He is not part of an ethnic group that is native to the USA. The latter is his adoptive country and he must integrate because he has chosen to immigrate there.”
This is horrible! So some immigrants must be treated diffrently to other immigrants? This is discrimination of the worst kind.
Then how about Mr John Herrington who is a native American? According to your rule he should be able to communicate in his language which is a Red Indian language.
Got ya, Mr DB!
Now you are contradicting yourself.
1. So it should be clear to you now that there is no rule that says natives must be allowed to communicate in their language and others must learn it.
Another example is Australia.
2. Also there is no rule that says all natives must be allowed to communicate in their language.
3. Yet again there is no rule that says everyone should be allowed to do their work, governed, etc. in their own langauge.
There are NO such rules DB.
The rule is this. The political majority of a nation decides democratically if they need one language, two or three languages and what those languages are. If Sri Lanka’s political majority was allowed to decide that and if they chose Sinhala and Hindi to be national/official languages, so be it.
Why English is the national/official language of USA and Australia? It is certainly NOT native! But the political majority decided so. Call them chauvinists, racists, what not, but that is democracy. There is a winner and losers.
“Then why do the Sinhalese have the right to speak in and be spoken to in Sinhalese?”
Not only the Sinhalese but Muslims, Malays, Colombo Chettis, Veddhas, SL Jews, Chinese, Indonesians, Arabs and Tamils (yes Tamils) have this same right to speak in and be spoken to in Sinhala just as Red Indians, Maxicans, Tamils, Spaniards, the French, Russians, Arabs, Jews, Chinese, Indians, etc. have the right to speak in and be spoken to in English.
“Why does Buddhism have the constitutional right to have the foremost place?”
For the same reason Christianity enjoys the foremost place in the American, British, Irish, Russian, Norwegian, Italian nations and Hinduism in India (Hindustan as some call it).
By the way SL is way better than these countries where religious holidays of the minorities are not government holidays.
“Can you name any country which has multiple native languages but is governed or administered only in one? Canada perhaps, or Switzerland, or India?”
Native?
USA, Australia (various native languages), India (over 250 native languages but only 20 or so official languages), Sri Lanka (Veddha language is a native language but is not recognized even as a national language), Canada (there are plenty of native languages that are not recognized).
Now please don’t twist the meaning of the word native.
“Do any of these ethnic groups have the same roots to the land that the Tamils and Sinhalese have?”
Of course yes! In fact deeper roots than Tamils.
e.g. Veddhas
““Don’t tell me they have no ethnic rights!”
They do, but the size of their communities precludes those rights centring on language.”
This is horendous! So now you say size is the important criterion to decide which person gets the right to be governed by his/her langauge. Tamils to have one right and Veddhas to have another right. If size is the reason, why not have Sinhala because over 90% of the population can work in Sinhala today? If Tamil is a minority when compared again Sinhala, SL Chinese are a minority compared against Tamils! So are Veddhas and SL Arabs, Maldivians, Jews. Why discriminate among the minorities?
““Its time Tamils join in their hundreds of thousands too.”
They will once language and other things are no longer contentious issues.”
What can’t it be now?
If you wait till these issues are addressed to the satisfaction of Tamil politicians (TNA, ACTC, ITAK, TULF, ADMK of Karunanidhi, AIADMK, etc.) we will be waiting forever.
Sinhalese, Muslims, Veddhas, Malays, SL Chinese, Arabs, Maldivians, Jews, etc. can live in this sate of affairs. If at all it is the Tamils who need change then they must take the first step. If we argue over who should compromise first I can guarantee you that will be not go anywhere. Don’t think it is a stalamate. One party had won and another has lost. The winner will remain same and so will be the loser.
The above photo is rather funny. It is not the camouflaged thingy that is holding the dove (of peace?) captive. But the individual against the backdrop of the camouflaged thingy.
This is exactly what is happening in SL. It is not the military garrisons, HSZs, emergency law, etc. that is holding up some (not all) Tamils from intergration/reconciliation but Tamil race based political parties (TNA, ACTC, TULF, ITAK, ADMK, MDMK, AIADMK, etc.) and the weight of 80 years (2011 – 1931) of Tamil race politics.
But an increasing number of Tamils are breaking loose from these bonds and are making the most in the current situation. I know at least one hundred Tamil businessmen who are doing very well in current conditions. Surely it is not Tamilness that is at the centre of it. Something else. Lack of integration may be the reason.
“This is horrible! So some immigrants must be treated diffrently to other immigrants? This is discrimination of the worst kind.”
Lol what melodrama, TT! How is this more horrible a discrimination than discriminating against the collective rights of African Americans or SL Tamils? The fact is there is a distinction between the original occupants of a country (Native Americans, blacks, and Anglo-Saxons in the US; Aborigines and Anglo-Saxons in Australia; Native Americans and Eurpoeans in Canada; Sinhalese, Tamils, and Veddhas in SL) and later arrivals. That is why the latter are referred to as “naturalised” citizens, those who arrived as immigrants in an already existing and functional sovereign state. You do understand this definition, don’t you, TT? I ask because you’re so obviously ignorant of much of the subject matter.
“Then how about Mr John Herrington who is a native American? According to your rule he should be able to communicate in his language which is a Red Indian language. Got ya, Mr DB!”
All you’ve done, TT, is display your ignorance. Section 104 Part 6 of the US Native American Languages Act declares “tribes and other Native American governing bodies, States, territories, and possessions of the United States to take action on, and give
official status to, their Native American languages for the purpose of conducting their own business”. (http://www.nabe.org/files/NALanguagesActs.pdf)
“1. So it should be clear to you now that there is no rule that says natives must be allowed to communicate in their language and others must learn it.”
Correct, which is why I ask you why you think it’s right that Tamils must learn Sinhalese in order to engage with the state.
“2. Also there is no rule that says all natives must be allowed to communicate in their language.”
Wrong again, TT. In addition to the US act of 1990, the UN 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says that distinct ethnic communities have that language right. SL is a signatory.
“3. Yet again there is no rule that says everyone should be allowed to do their work, governed, etc. in their own langauge.””
See above.
“There are NO such rules DB.”
Here is the link: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html
“The rule is this. The political majority of a nation decides democratically if they need one language, two or three languages and what those languages are.”
Nope. The US civil rights movement showed that a majority ethnic group cannot pass laws or policies that are detrimental to minorities. That was just in case everyone had forgotten the Nuremburg verdicts.
“Why English is the national/official language of USA and Australia? It is certainly NOT native! But the political majority decided so. Call them chauvinists, racists, what not, but that is democracy. There is a winner and losers.”
Wrong again. See above and my previous comment on collective rights vs individual ones.
“Not only the Sinhalese but Muslims, Malays, Colombo Chettis, Veddhas, SL Jews, Chinese, Indonesians, Arabs and Tamils (yes Tamils) have this same right to speak in and be spoken to in Sinhala just as Red Indians, Maxicans, Tamils, Spaniards, the French, Russians, Arabs, Jews, Chinese, Indians, etc. have the right to speak in and be spoken to in English.”
Ha ha you’re beginning to sound like Heshan now, TT. Here is the short version: ethnic groups that are integral to a nation (Anglo-Saxons, French and Native Americans in North America; French and Germans in Switzerland; Sinhalese and Tamils in SL; Anglo-Saxons and Aborigines in Australia) have language rights; while those who’ve arrived in recent history do not. If the native languages are too many and diverse to practically implement them all, the language of the largest ethnic group and a language that spans all ethnic groups is made official (Hindi and English in India). Is this beyond your comprehension?
USA, Australia (various native languages), India (over 250 native languages but only 20 or so official languages), Sri Lanka (Veddha language is a native language but is not recognized even as a national language), Canada (there are plenty of native languages that are not recognized).”
In all these countries, native languages are used for the administration of those communities and/or an overeaching language such as English is used.
“Do any of these ethnic groups have the same roots to the land that the Tamils and Sinhalese have?”
Of course yes! In fact deeper roots than Tamils.e.g. Veddhas”
And that is why they are allowed to administer themselves in their language.
“This is horendous! So now you say size is the important criterion to decide which person gets the right to be governed by his/her langauge. Tamils to have one right and Veddhas to have another right.”
Lol your horror is touching, TT. Reminds me of a sobbing crocodile I once saw at the zoo. No, as I said, if communities are too many and diverse to implement all their languages, a bridge language such as English is used. Eg India.
““Its time Tamils join in their hundreds of thousands too.”
“What can’t it be now?”
Because bigoted Sinhslese like you refuse to grant or even acknowledge their legitimate aspirations.
“If you wait till these issues are addressed to the satisfaction of Tamil politicians (TNA, ACTC, ITAK, TULF, ADMK of Karunanidhi, AIADMK, etc.) we will be waiting forever.”
It will take forever only if you stubbornly refuse to address them.
“Don’t think it is a stalamate. One party had won and another has lost. The winner will remain the same and so will be the loser”
Certainly the Tamils must suppress these aspirations for the short term gain of rebuilding their war-destroyed community. But once they’re on their feet, they will seek them again, because it is their right. If the Sinhalese want long terme peace with the Tamils they must address this issue. As Julius Caesar said of the Britons, “A land is not governed that must be perpetually conquored”.
Oh, and the other minorities don’t accept having to communicate and be administered in Sinhalese because we’re satisfierd with it. We do it because we have no choice. I was forced to study in Sinhalese and struggled through my exams. I know for a fact that if I had a right to my own language, my academic path and thereby my career would’ve been far more successful. You speak so arrogantly because [Edited out] and lacking in empathy to understand how much your xenophobia has held back this nation.
DB,
“Section 104 Part 6 of the US Native American Languages Act declares…”
You and I both know this is not happening today!
All decendants of native Americans speak in English at all times when they deal with the US GOVERNMENT. They even do all their day to day business with each other in English today. If this happens in SL for minorities, I won’t be complaining either, just like the Americans.
“In addition to the US act of 1990, the UN 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says that distinct ethnic communities have that language right. SL is a signatory.”
That is ONLY to conduct their internal affairs within the communities. It does not extend to state affairs, governance of regions, official transactions, etc. This is their in SL too.
e.g. The Hindu Cultural Forum can conduct its meetings in Tamil only.
e.g. The TNA can hold its meetings in Tamil only.
But that is not what the Tamil leadership is demanding.
DB,
“Section 104 Part 6 of the US Native American Languages Act declares…”
You and I both know this is not happening today!
All decendants of native Americans speak in English at all times when they deal with the US GOVERNMENT. They even do all their day to day business with each other in English today. If this happens in SL for minorities, I won’t be complaining either, just like the Americans.
“In addition to the US act of 1990, the UN 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says that distinct ethnic communities have that language right. SL is a signatory.”
That is ONLY to conduct their internal affairs within the communities. It does not extend to state affairs, governance of regions, official transactions, etc. This is their in SL too.
e.g. The Hindu Cultural Forum can conduct its meetings in Tamil only.
e.g. The TNA can hold its meetings in Tamil only.
But that is not what the Tamil leadership is demanding.
“The US civil rights movement showed that a majority ethnic group cannot pass laws or policies that are detrimental to minorities. That was just in case everyone had forgotten the Nuremburg verdicts.”
To the extent their affect individual rights only, not community rights.
e.g. The ONLY national and official language of the USA is English. Minority Mexican, some native Americans, some US Arabs/Chinese, etc. cannot converse in English.
” ethnic groups that are integral to a nation (Anglo-Saxons, French and Native Americans in North America; French and Germans in Switzerland; Sinhalese and Tamils in SL; Anglo-Saxons and Aborigines in Australia) have language rights; while those who’ve arrived in recent history do not.”
The Nuremburg verdict doesn’t say so! This is your rule, mate. And it is discriminatory.
“i said – So now you say size is the important criterion to decide which person gets the right to be governed by his/her langauge. Tamils to have one right and Veddhas to have another right.”
“Lol your horror is touching, TT. Reminds me of a sobbing crocodile I once saw at the zoo. No, as I said, if communities are too many and diverse to implement all their languages, a bridge language such as English is used.”
So your native theory has been superceeded by the size? Why not do same with Tamils too? Veddha language has more reasons to become an official languagge than Tamil if not for the numbers. If numbers are something to go by Sinhala and English can be the 2 national languages. Those who cannot speak both are around 5% of the population.
“““Its time Tamils join in their hundreds of thousands too.”
“What can’t it be now?”
Because bigoted Sinhslese like you refuse to grant or even acknowledge their legitimate aspirations.”
lol!
DB, I was born in 1983 (yes!). When I was born the war had already started! Vadukoddai has been passed and ITAK was formed. Anyway I never said I’m a Sinhalese. The “bigoted” Sinhalese has nothing to do with Tamils joining hands with the Sinhalese. They won’t reject it!
So my xenophobia has held the nation!
I think it is the xenophobia and megalomania of Tamil race centred politics that held back not only the country but also the Tamil community. SJVC while teaching his family Sinhala, limped from kachcheri to kachcheri demanding Tamil employees not to learn Sinhala. In 1931 GGP made such a racist demand that even colonial rulers denied it! And it is these parties that still win in the north! What do you expect!
As I said before, there is a winner and a loser today. Of the two groups, at least one has to make the first step. If no one does, the winner remains the winner and the loser remains the loser. If you expect me to make the first move, you will be waiting forever! I have nothing much to gain and possibly a lot to lose. And that would keep me as the winner and I’m not complaining.
“You and I both know this [use of Native American languages] is not happening today!”
Whether it happens in reality or not is irrelevant, TT. The point is that the Native Americans have the right to use their own languages. Certainly, they have realised the advantages in speaking a universal language such as English (just as Sinhalese in the private sector have learned the advantages of learning English). Tamils living in southern SL speak Sinhalese because it’s advantageous to them, and no one expects that Sinhalese must learn Tamil, but the tamil right to have their own language made official for their use is guaranteed by the UN Declaration of 2007, as well as the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
“All decendants of native Americans speak in English at all times when they deal with the US GOVERNMENT. They even do all their day to day business with each other in English today. If this happens in SL for minorities, I won’t be complaining either, just like the Americans.”
They are not “descendants” of the Native Americans, TT, they are Native Americans, just as you’re not a descendant of the Sinhalese, but a Sinhalese. It is these subtle attempts to undermine ethnic rights by undermining ethnicity itself which marks your agenda so clearly. You’re also wrong that the American Indians must “speak in English at all times” when dealing with the US Government. The federal government recognises 562 tribal governments which conduct their affairs in either English or their local language, and these tribal governments are administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs which is headed by Asst Sec Larry EchoHawk, a member of the Pawnee Nation. Of course English is used to communicate with the federal government — 562 different tribes cannot each communicate with the centre in a different language. There aren’t 562 different languages in SL, TT. And of course you wouldn’t be complaining if the minorities must use Sinhalese, since you’re a Sinhalese
“That is ONLY to conduct their internal affairs within the communities. It does not extend to state affairs, governance of regions, official transactions, etc. This is their in SL too.”
Well, for their to be internal affairs within the Tamil community, you would have to have Tamil-administered exclusive territorial lands (like the Indian reservations in the US); would you be OK with this?
“e.g. The Hindu Cultural Forum can conduct its meetings in Tamil only. e.g. The TNA can hold its meetings in Tamil only. But that is not what the Tamil leadership is demanding.”
Don’t be silly, TT. What you mention are cultural and party meetings. Those can be conducted in Japanese if its members want it to, and has nothing to do with rights. The 13th Amendment to the SL Constitution makes it law that the state “make Tamil an official language and English the link language.” What is unclear in this to you? Tamil is an official language, and Tamils have the right to use it internally as well as in communication with the state; and where neither Sinhalese nor Tamil is practicable, the link language will be English. What Tamil politicians are demanding is that the law be implemented.
“To the extent their affect individual rights only, not community rights. e.g. The ONLY national and official language of the USA is English. Minority Mexican, some native Americans, some US Arabs/Chinese, etc. cannot converse in English.”
In the US, language wasn’t an issue in the Civil Rights movement, TT, but in SL it is the most contentious issue. On the Indian reservations the native Americans have the constitutional right to carry out all their affairs (these include government business, education, and self-administration) in their native languages if they so choose. I repeat, do you have no comprehension of what collective rights are?
If so, please just say so, and I will explain it to you, rather than you pretending to understand while raising arguments that prove you do not. Also, an analogy or example is not a comparison; therefore dismissing the example because it isn’t exact to our situation is as ignorant as claiming a bus is not a vehicle because a bike (which is a vehicle) is not a bus 
I used the US civil rights movement as an example of how majority rule over a minority cannot be justified as democracy if it oppresses either an individual or a collective of individuals. Again, I ask you if you understand that there are collective rights that are distinct from individual rights. Sometimes collective rights impinge on individual rights (conscription is one example), and at times the lack of a collective right also removes an individual right (for example, making only Sinhalese an official language deprives a Tamil from getting a state job because his education in his mother tongue precludes his fluency in the official language). Individual rights don’t always have precedence over collective ones. If you don’t understand these concepts, TT, I suggest you educate yourself on them to save time instead of arguing on a basis of ignorance.
“The Nuremburg verdict doesn’t say so! This is your rule, mate. And it is discriminatory.
Where did I say that it did? I said that the Nuremberg verdicts proved that a law or doctrine or policy, however legal, doesn’t protect an individual or group from prosecution or conviction if that said law, doctrine, or policy is subsequently overturned or shown to be discriminatory.
<em"So your native theory has been superceeded by the size?"
No, it hasn’t; it is superseded by range of diversity. I have already given you the example of India, where it is not practical to have hundreds of official languages, so instead two or more that are sufficiently common to all are used. Why do you think English is the most widely used working language of the EU, in spite of the fact that English is native to only a small minority? German is the most widely spoken of the three working languages in the EU, and French is next, and yet German is used the least of the three and French still second to English. It is because English is the most widely spoken second-language in the EU. Isn’t this concept simple enough for you to grasp?
“If numbers are something to go by Sinhala and English can be the 2 national languages. Those who cannot speak both are around 5% of the population.”
This would certainly be acceptable if Sinhala Only hadn’t also decimated English education in SL. Of the 95% you mention, 90% can only speak Sinhalese. So how will this remedy things? Why this intense resistance to having Tamil an official language, TT? The smart thing would be to make English the official language, pump money into English education and, as an interim measure, retain Sinhalese and Tamil as support languages, gradually phasing them out of public administration as English takes hold.
“DB, I was born in 1983 (yes!). When I was born the war had already started! Vadukoddai has been passed and ITAK was formed. Anyway I never said I’m a Sinhalese.”
What does your age or your race have to do with this discussion?
“The “bigoted” Sinhalese has nothing to do with Tamils joining hands with the Sinhalese. They won’t reject it!”
It has everything to do with it. Why would the Tamils join hands with bigots who deny them their ethnic rights while retaining their own? As I said, if the Tamils do suppress their legitimate aspirations, it will be only for short-term practical necessity (something I have suggested they do here and on other sites); in the end these aspirations will re-emerge and your children will have to face theirs once more.
“So my xenophobia has held the nation!”
I assume you mean held back the nation. Yes, it has.
“I think it is the xenophobia and megalomania of Tamil race centred politics that held back not only the country but also the Tamil community. SJVC while teaching his family Sinhala, limped from kachcheri to kachcheri demanding Tamil employees not to learn Sinhala.”
While SWRD and JRJ taught their children English and told rural Sinhlese not to learn English. Yes, as I said before, two stupid men don’t make a smart one. There was no Tamil xenophobia or megalomania prior to the rise of the Tigers and their propaganda; most of their demands were quite reasonable IMO. If you read the Vaddukoddai Resolution (I hope you actually read it this time!), most of their edicts required reciprocal action by the Sinhalese, which proves that Tamil aspirations were in fact a reaction to Sinhalese oppression.
“In 1931 GGP made such a racist demand that even colonial rulers denied it! And it is these parties that still win in the north! What do you expect!”
Er… TT, I think you need to pay more attention to history. It was the Donoughmore Commision that was formed in 1931. GG Ponnambalam’s ACTC was founded only in 1944, and he suggested 50-50 representation to the Soulbury Commission in 1947. Actually there was nothing racist about 50-50 representation; GG Ponnambalam wanted 50% representation for all minorities; not just the Tamils. His 1931 protest against universal franchise that would make the Tamils a minority in parliament was actually supported by the Sinhalese leadership which was against giving the vote to lower caste Sinhalese. Subsequently, the SLFP and the UNP declared Sinhala Only, Buddhism the foremost religion, and stirred up and encouraged race riots. And it is these parties that win in the south (!!) What do you expect?(!!!!!!!!!!)
“As I said before, there is a winner and a loser today. Of the two groups, at least one has to make the first step. If no one does, the winner remains the winner and the loser remains the loser. If you expect me to make the first move, you will be waiting forever! I have nothing much to gain and possibly a lot to lose. And that would keep me as the winner and I’m not complaining.”
There are no winners and losers in a united nation, TT. If one community loses, we all lose, because we have thereby failed collectively to succeed as a nation. No doubt the Tamils have the most to gain at the moment, and I hope they will realise that and take the opportunity to rebuild; but in the long term the Sinhalese have just as much to gain by moving away from their paranoia and xenophobia towards creating an inclusive SL identity, and creating an environment that will empower Sinhalese with the ability to engage with the world and not just with other Sinhalese. For that the Sinhalese must win over the Tamils and other minorities. It will cost you nothing and will ensure that in the long-term we’re all winners and not all losers.
There is no bloodshed. True = the 30-yr problem of the Sinhalese is over.
But the 63-yr problem of the others hasn’t changed a bit:
1.http://cimogg-srilanka.org/other-relevant-contributions/
Elmore Perera to LLRC, 10 November 2010:
”The 1983 racial riots were a disaster. I need say no more. Overnight, Tamils were treated as being sub-human. Many of those who could leave the country by lawful or even unlawful means did so. Those who remained were subjected to arbitrary, humiliating treatment. Rounding up of 30 to 40 Tamil youth on Friday evenings, producing them before Magistrates to be remanded, and later releasing them on bail, after they had paid lawyers Rs1,000/- each for this purpose, was a regular occurrence in many parts of the city. Tamils, who could readily be identified as such from their National Identity Cards, were at the mercy of the law-enforcement agencies which arbitrarily enforced even laws of their own making.”
2.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11328159
Young Tamils in Sri Lanka ‘being held without charge’, 16 September 2010:
”A retired senior diplomat in Sri Lanka says several thousand young people of the Tamil ethnic minority are being held in custody without any charges being brought against them. Nanda Godage said some had been incarcerated in this way for years. … Mr Godage told the BBC he was especially angry about 500 young people who were being held purely on suspicion in a Colombo jail, Welikada, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. ”
Davidson,
Is Tamil traditional homeland only 63 years old?
If the urge to “re-assert” the Tamil traditional homeland occured just 63 years ago, that is opportunism which will be met with similar opportunism.
Mutual understanding and respect for differences are the key words here. Thank you, Godwin Constatine, for your creativity and committment to reach people through art. And thank you, Groundviews, for reminding us once again that there are differnet ways to work for the same goal.
Hi Roshan_S
“All Tamil civilizational developments of note happened not in the island but in South India.”
Although the Tamils never had a separate “nation” in Sri Lanka, they most certainly had a distinct civilisation in the N-E that was grounded upon preexisting historical traditions in the island shared by the Sinhalese (i.e. Vijaya myth). It is this latter aspect that distinguishes the Sri Lankan Tamil civilisation from that in S. India. The Tamil language in SL also evolved separately, retaining some 13th century aspects but changing others, perhaps with some influence from Sinhala.
“Their Anuradhapuras, Polonnaruwas, Sigiriyas, art, works of literature and their language developed and flourished in South India and not in Sri Lanka.”
You are forgetting that Sinhala civilisation cannot be said to be purely “Sinhala” (in this sense, the term “Sinhala civilisation” like “Tamil civilisation” can be misleading). Polonnaruwa itself was built by the Cholas and the subsequent Polonnaruwa civilisation had many Tamil aspects.
“The Tamils of Sri Lanka can be likened to French people in England.”
A better comparison would be the Scotch-Irish Protestants in Ireland. The Protestants were colonists from Scotland but their history in the island traces back a few hundred years. Therefore they have come to see the Ulster Province as their home. Even the Irish Catholics have acknowledged this.
“The Tamil people of Sri Lanka are not a nation unto themselves — unlike the Sinhalese. They are a minority living among the Sinhalese.”
But the Sinhalese are a minority in the northern and eastern parts. Does that mean they should have fewer rights than the Tamils?
Wijayapala,
That is very unlikely. During ferocious wars between the Sinhala majority army and South Indian armies, it would be impossible for “Tamils of seperate identity in SL” to keep away. There is no reason for them not to support the other Tamils. All South Indian invasions were beaten by the Sinhala majority army. The inevitable result would have been a total wipe out of anyone in the island fighting against the Sinhala majority army.
There were few South Indians who defected into the SL side. Their decendants ended up becoming Sinhalese.
Also in the ancient times there is no evidence of Sinhala-Tamil kingdom clashes INTERNALLY. There were Sinhala-Tamil clashes between SL and TN.
Tamil as spoken in SL is VERY VERY SIMILAR to Tamil in Tamil Nadu. All the SL Tamils I know have absolutely no difficulty understanding Tamil Nadu movies, etc. If a seperate Tamil identity emerged and survived in SL, their “Tamil” (or whatever) would be as different as Sinhala and other Indo Aryan languages differ.
Dear TT,
Tamil as spoken in SL is VERY VERY SIMILAR to Tamil in Tamil Nadu. All the SL Tamils I know have absolutely no difficulty understanding Tamil Nadu movies, etc.
You continue to generalize things once again. Tamil spoken in North SL may be similar, but only to some extent. But that’s the most you would find in common between SL and Indian Tamil. Here are the differences that I personally find.
1. SL Tamil somehow seems to maintain a degree of purity which is not found in Indian Tamil, particularly in spoken form. Indian Tamil is about the most polluted of any languages, while SL Tamil still has somehow maintained it’s purity.
2. Indian Tamil has mixed with languages like Telugu, Sanskrit and even Marathi, Hindi, Urdu due to invasions from Vijayanagar Kingdoms (Telugu-ites), Shivaji’s invasion (Marathi language speakers), Urdu (Nawabs under Aurangazeb, Haider Ali, Nizam etc), Sanskrit (due to Tamil Brahmins and their proabable North Indian roots). Almost all of these would not apply to SL Tamil except a few things.
3. Finally, Indian Tamil varies across cities and districts. There are atleast 8 or 9 different accents/styles of Tamil spoken in India like Madras Tamil, Thirunelveli Tamil, Salem Tamil, Madurai Tamil, Coimbatore Tamil, Trichy Tamil etc. And SL Tamil surely has its own variations too.
4. Then comes the literature, art, dance, culture etc in which they differ. That would be a separate book by itself.
And your argument about movies is plain stupid. Hollywood movies are watched in US and Australia. Does it mean that their languages are exactly the same? Some of my Middle Eastern and Central Asian friends watch Hindi movies and enjoy. Does it mean that they all understand Hindi? In the case of SL Tamils, there may not be very many Tamil movies made in SL and end up watching whatever crap they make in India. If SL produces equivalent movies (qualitatively/quantitatively) in Tamil, then they may never watch the Tamil Nadu ones.
Dear TT,
“Tamil as spoken in SL is VERY VERY SIMILAR to Tamil in Tamil Nadu.”
How do you know this? Can you speak or understand Tamil? Are you a scholar of Dravidian linguistics?
“During ferocious wars between the Sinhala majority army and South Indian armies, it would be impossible for “Tamils of seperate identity in SL” to keep away.”
There’s one problem with your reasoning: the “Sinhala majority” armies never identified themselves as “Sinhala majority” armies! They instead identified with their king. Back then, one’s loyalty was to the ruler first and the ethnicity second or third. That is how Sinhala people were able to live peacefully even under non-Sinhala rulers.
There are too many examples of Sinhala chieftains fighting on the S. Indian side or Tamils fighting on the Sri Lankan side (like Vijayabahu’s warrior Kurukkulattaraiyan) to accept your Sinhala vs Tamil notion of history.
“All South Indian invasions were beaten by the Sinhala majority army. The inevitable result would have been a total wipe out of anyone in the island fighting against the Sinhala majority army.”
Except for Kalinga Magha’s invasion, right?? Or do you have another explanation how the N-E Tamils came to Sri Lanka????? Was it magic?
“Also in the ancient times there is no evidence of Sinhala-Tamil kingdom clashes INTERNALLY.”
Except for the wars between Jaffna and Kurunegala/Gampola/Kotte from the 14th through 15th centuries???
Dear Wijayapala,
“Tamil as spoken in SL is VERY VERY SIMILAR to Tamil in Tamil Nadu.”
How do you know this? Can you speak or understand Tamil? Are you a scholar of Dravidian linguistics?
I have experienced instances where my SL Tamil friends talk with my Tamil Nadu friends in TAMIL! They SEEMED to understand one another!
“During ferocious wars between the Sinhala majority army and South Indian armies, it would be impossible for “Tamils of seperate identity in SL” to keep away.”
“There’s one problem with your reasoning: the “Sinhala majority” armies never identified themselves as “Sinhala majority” armies! They instead identified with their king. Back then, one’s loyalty was to the ruler first and the ethnicity second or third. That is how Sinhala people were able to live peacefully even under non-Sinhala rulers.”
Yes, they never identified so but the majority in SL were Sinhalas. Of course it was no problem for them to live under non-Sinhala rulers as long as they gave Buddhism the utmost place and protected majority Sri Lankan interests.
“There are too many examples of Sinhala chieftains fighting on the S. Indian side or Tamils fighting on the Sri Lankan side (like Vijayabahu’s warrior Kurukkulattaraiyan) to accept your Sinhala vs Tamil notion of history.”
That’s why I said, majority Sinhala army. Once again they never identified as “Sinhala army”. It was a SL multiethnic army like now where the majority were Sinhalese.
“All South Indian invasions were beaten by the Sinhala majority army. The inevitable result would have been a total wipe out of anyone in the island fighting against the Sinhala majority army.”
“Except for Kalinga Magha’s invasion, right?? Or do you have another explanation how the N-E Tamils came to Sri Lanka????? Was it magic?”
Kalinga Magha was eventually beaten after 24 years and his Jain religion reversed. Kalinga country refers to modern day Orisa. Whether that is South Indian or not is debated. It is generally not considered South Indian.
“Also in the ancient times there is no evidence of Sinhala-Tamil kingdom clashes INTERNALLY.”
“Except for the wars between Jaffna and Kurunegala/Gampola/Kotte from the 14th through 15th centuries???”
Yes. Otherwise Sinhalese and Tamils lived peacefully, as today.
Krish,
“1. SL Tamil somehow seems to maintain a degree of purity which is not found in Indian Tamil, particularly in spoken form. Indian Tamil is about the most polluted of any languages, while SL Tamil still has somehow maintained it’s purity.”
Yes. But what is the closest language to “SL Tamil”? Sinhala? No! It is Tamil as spoken in Tamil Nadu!
“2. Indian Tamil has mixed with languages like Telugu, Sanskrit and even Marathi, Hindi, Urdu due to invasions from Vijayanagar Kingdoms (Telugu-ites), Shivaji’s invasion (Marathi language speakers), Urdu (Nawabs under Aurangazeb, Haider Ali, Nizam etc), Sanskrit (due to Tamil Brahmins and their proabable North Indian roots). Almost all of these would not apply to SL Tamil except a few things.”
But what is the closest language to “SL Tamil”? Sinhala? No! It is Tamil as spoken in Tamil Nadu!
3. Finally, Indian Tamil varies across cities and districts. There are atleast 8 or 9 different accents/styles of Tamil spoken in India like Madras Tamil, Thirunelveli Tamil, Salem Tamil, Madurai Tamil, Coimbatore Tamil, Trichy Tamil etc. And SL Tamil surely has its own variations too.
But what is the closest language to “SL Tamil”? Sinhala? No! It is Tamil as spoken in Tamil Nadu!
4. Then comes the literature, art, dance, culture etc in which they differ. That would be a separate book by itself.
And your argument about movies is plain stupid. Hollywood movies are watched in US and Australia. Does it mean that their languages are exactly the same? Some of my Middle Eastern and Central Asian friends watch Hindi movies and enjoy. Does it mean that they all understand Hindi? In the case of SL Tamils, there may not be very many Tamil movies made in SL and end up watching whatever crap they make in India. If SL produces equivalent movies (qualitatively/quantitatively) in Tamil, then they may never watch the Tamil Nadu ones.
[Edited out.] You don’t just watch whatever cr*p! You UNDERSTAND it. You watch Tamil (Nadu) movies not the way others watch Hollywood or Bollywood movies. You watch them and understand them in your very own language, customs, religious practices, politics, etc. Why not Tamils in SL watch more Hindi films than Tamil Nadu films which you call cr*p? Why Shakti TV don’t replace Tamil (Nadu) movies with Hindi movies?
“If SL produces….”
Why not SL Tamils produce these. Some good SL Tamils produce Sinhala movies but they don’t produce Tamil movies. Why? Because they will have to compete with other Tamil movies from of course Tamil Nadu and they don;t stand a chance! There cannot be any more cultural SAMENESS not similarity than that!
You may notice that all linguistic groups have only ONE homeland each. Not two or three. Same applies for Tamils.
e.g. Although English is the language in USA, Canada, Australia, these countries are never considered English homelands. There is only one English homeland – England. Similarly there is only one Tamil homeland – Tamil Nadu.
Now that does not mean you have to go to Tamil Nadu! Of course not! You are entitled to all the equal individual rights a Sinhalese have and all other cultural rights recognized by the UN Declaration of 1992 (SL has given all these). With all these, lets share each others cultures, worship the same gods, share a common national self determination and live in peace at least now.
Breaking news in 1956!
SL is summoned before the UN for violating the Nuremberg laws of 1945-49! lol!
Breaking news in 2011!
SL is summoned before the UN for violating the UN declartion of 1992! lol!
I’m not making fun of anyone but merely pointing out the absurdity of this logic. SL could not have got away if that was the case! For those who don’t know the Nuremberg laws of 1945-49 happened before 1956 Official Language Act.
Same goes for the 1992 UN declaration on minority rights. In fact SL has done very well compared to India where every decade a number of indegenous peoples disappear from the face of the earth.
I challenge respectable Tamil ladies and gentlemen in this forum to take SL to the UN over the violation of Nuremberg and UN Declaration of 1992. I bet you cannot because SL has not violated these!
I’m against war crimes allegations because there were no war crimes committed with the knowledge or consent of the topbrass, military and political. It only add hatred so there is nothing good from taking the matter to the UN. But the above 2 matters have nothing like that. Just to add, it is not the opinion of the UN Genral Secretary I’m after. He is just an administrative officer of the UN with not judicial powers.
Hope it is clear to all the crux of the application of the above 2 important laws.
“You may notice that all linguistic groups have only ONE homeland each. Not two or three. Same applies for Tamils. e.g. Although English is the language in USA, Canada, Australia, these countries are never considered English homelands. There is only one English homeland – England. Similarly there is only one Tamil homeland – Tamil Nadu.”
Oh dear, TT, how much deeper are you going to dig this hole? has anyone ever claimed that the USA, Canada, and Australia are English homelands? They are American, Canadian and Australian homelands for English-speaking Americans, Canadians, and Australians. They are also homelands for American Indians, French Canadians, and Aborigines. France is not the homeland of the French Canadians anymore than is the homeland of the Swiss French. In fact, if you go to Montreal, you’ll find that they consider themselves more French than the European French. Just as the Jaffna Tamils consider themselves more Tamil than the Tamil Nadu Tamils, whom they look down on. In the same way, Germany isn’t the homeland of the Swiss Germans or the German-speaking Austrians; who consider Switzerland and Austria their homelands, respectively. Nor is Portugal the homeland of the Portugese-speaking Brazilians, or Spain the homeland of the Spanish-speaking Argentinians. Don’t be so silly. You’re making an idiot of yourself. Most of this comes from the fact that the Sinhalese only have SL to consider homeland, and because of that you think that everyone must be the same.
Your problem is that your narrow mind can’t comprehend that a country can be the homeland of many ethnic groups, and that an ethnic group can be spread across many nations, and the inhabitants of each may call that nation their homeland. The UN declaration on indigenous peoples states that borders are no barriers to ethnic rights. No group has exclusive rights.
“SL is summoned before the UN for violating the Nuremberg laws of 1945-49! lol!
SL could not have got away if that was the case! For those who don’t know the Nuremberg laws of 1945-49 happened before 1956 Official Language Act.”
Good god, TT, are you a complete imbecile? If SL had indeed broken the Nuremberg Laws we would have been summoned by the UN for a medal not punishment.
The Nuremberg Laws were created by Hitler and the Nazis in 1935! When I referred to the verdicts of Nuremberg, I was referring to the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46! These were not laws, but the results of trials ensure that a legal precedent is set that can be then invoked in subsequent law-making and judicial prosecutions. In other words, defences that have been overturned and declared to be invalid by the court cannot be used again in the defence of similar crimes or in the face of similar charges.
“SL is summoned before the UN for violating the UN declartion of 1992! lol!
”
Will this stupidity never end? A UN declaration is not a law, unlike a UN resolution which may be enforced; a declaration is more of a pact that all the signatories promise to follow.
“I’m not making fun of anyone but merely pointing out the absurdity of this logic.”
What is really absurd is your total lack of both logic as well as knowledge, as can be seen from the hilarious comments you just made.
“I challenge respectable Tamil ladies and gentlemen in this forum to take SL to the UN over the violation of Nuremberg and UN Declaration of 1992. I bet you cannot because SL has not violated these!”
See my previous comment
“I’m against war crimes allegations because there were no war crimes committed with the knowledge or consent of the topbrass, military and political.”
How do you know this?
“Hope it is clear to all the crux of the application of the above 2 important laws.”
But neither are laws
Roshan_S,
Interesting. I have never known Tamil Nadu existed some hundreds of years ago. As far as I know, South India had Cheran, Cholan, Pandiyan dynasties that ruled it for various periods, their kingdoms extending into various territories, with the Chola one reaching as far as South East Asia (you can see such Hindu influence in Indonesia). The thing is I doubt thousands of years ago, there was even such thing as Tamil or Sinhala “nationality.” You had various kings ruling over the thrones.
Second, I don’t see how Sinhala is unique. If I am correct, it is an indo-aryan language with grammar and syntax closely related to the dravidian languages, which was probably introduced by the rulers. Their customs and traditions are also not unique but has influence from different cultures, primarily South Indian. Theravida Buddhism is not unique to Sinhalese. There were Tamil Buddhists and the religion itself came to South India before it reached Sri Lanka.
So how do these prove that Sinhalese are unique and indigenous to Sri Lanka while the Tamils are not?
So how do these prove that Sinhalese are unique and indigenous to Sri Lanka while the Tamils are not
is there any other place in the world where historical roots of Sinhalese Buddhist identity can be traced?
and also i would like to hear any available archeological deviance for existence of Tamil civilization in this island?
sinhalese certainly cant do much other than sympathizing historical inability of tamils to build a separate country/home land for themselves. if they really need one they should try it in south india against more powerful hindi speaking north.
MV,
“I don’t see how Sinhala is unique. If I am correct, it is an indo-aryan language with grammar and syntax closely related to the dravidian languages, which was probably introduced by the rulers. Their customs and traditions are also not unique but has influence from different cultures, primarily South Indian. Theravida Buddhism is not unique to Sinhalese. There were Tamil Buddhists and the religion itself came to South India before it reached Sri Lanka.”
So the Sinhalese language (at least part of it), religion, customs and traditions are connected to South India and not unique SL Tamils! You have answered your question. If there was a unique Tamil group in SL, Sinhalese would have first learned from them before reaching to South India!
What makes you think that they haven’t been influenced by SL Tamil culture?
David
“At that point, the Tamil politicians probably saw the writing on the wall, and attempted to gain an India/Pakistan-style partition, but failed.”
What is your evidence for this?
Evidence of them seeing the writing on the wall or of them working for a separate state?
Working for a separate state.
Wijayapala, I have heard said that GG Ponnambalam’s ACTC lobbying of the Soulbury Commission for 50-50 representation was merely the first step to pushing for partition at independence. But this is, of course, just a certain opinion, and there is no actual evidence of it.
However, the proportional representation call was also treated with suspicion by the Sinhalese.
DB,
In the UN declaration of minority rights, this is what is needed to do in regards to language. Nothing more.
ARTICLE 4
“3. States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.”
SL has done this!
Tamils in SL have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue. Done!
It does not specify any other rights Tamils as a minority should have in respect of language. SL may have gone beyond this which may not be good.
Yes, TT, but Article 5 Part 1 of the same charter also states that “National policies and programmes shall be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.”
In other words, majority rule doesn’t apply. Nor does enacting a policy that favours the language of the majority be said to be in line with the above charter.
In addition, Article 2 part 4 says that “Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.”
So your claim that Tamil political parties are racist by their very existence is plainly rubbish.
And the above declaration isn’t the only one on the matter, TT. Your selective quoting shows you’re grasping at straws. You began by claiming that there are no international charters or declarations on language rights for minorities. I then pointed out that there were many. You now select one article in one declaration and try to use it to justify your entire argument. You say that the Sinhalese have gone further than is necessary, but do you sincerely believe that they have followed Article 5 part 1? Do you still maintain that there should be no such thing as ethnic/minority rights?
Do read minorityrights.org’s commentary on the above declaration that articulates the spirit of such charters.
Also read the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (which I had already linked you to) which is very specific on minority language rights. It also establishes the rights of these ethnic minorities to self-determination.
Finally, I must again ask you, TT, why you’re resistant to allowing Tamils equal rights as an ethnic group to that of the Sinhalese ethnic group? What do you fear?
DB,
“that “National policies and programmes shall be planned and implemented
with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to
minorities.”
please note “legitimate interests”. No matter how you interpret legitimate interests, for all legal purposes legitimate means RECOGNIZED BY LAW. This means national policies and programmes should be within what the law says (as it applies to the minorities).
Thisdoes not in anyway interfere with any law including the official language act.
if you are after any other definition of “legitimate interests”, then it is debatable and there is no right or wrong answer.
“that “Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.”
So your claim that Tamil political parties are racist by their very existence is plainly rubbish.”
Did I say Tamils don’t have the RIGHT to form, vote for and associate Tamil political parties? No. They do have that right. But they have opted to vote for race based (racist) political parties like TAMIL congress/kachchi/front/alliance instead of multiethnic parties to which others (non-Tamils) are aligned.
It is not just the right but how you use it! This right has been exploited to promote racist politics as in Tamil Nadu.
e.g. DRAVIDA mk/amk,etc.
DB,
“why you’re resistant to allowing Tamils equal rights as an ethnic group to that of the Sinhalese ethnic group?”
1. There is nowhere in the world where ethnic groups get equal rights (India may be an exception but a very bad example to follow). It is individuals who get equal rights, not ethnic communities.
This is why GGP’s racist demand was cut down even by the Brits.
2. Culturally, all cultural groups should get government sponsorship.
3. NOTHING in the UN Declaration says ethnic groups shuld get EQUAL RIGHTS.
SL should not be the exception.
“No matter how you interpret legitimate interests, for all legal purposes legitimate means RECOGNIZED BY LAW. This means national policies and programmes should be within what the law says (as it applies to the minorities).”
No, it does not. As I told you before, Nuremberg proved that a law was no defence to individual or collective culpability. So the Nazis could not say that treatment of the Jews, nor the American whites say that slavery of the blacks, was in line with existing laws and therefore justified. Similarly the US Civil Rights movement overturned the theory that the majority had the right to make laws detrimental to minorities (in the US it was the Jim Crow Laws, in SL it was Sinhala Only). Lastly, other declarations and acts such as the 2007 UN one on Indigenous Peoples, the 1990 US one on Native Americans, the EU one on National Minorities, and others show that there is a universal trend towards a legitimacy for language rights for minorities.
“if you are after any other definition of “legitimate interests”, then it is debatable and there is no right or wrong answer.”,/em>
If the meaning of “legitimate interests” is “in accordance with national laws”, it would say so, as it does in some clauses. Since both “legitimate interests” and “in accordance with state laws” is used separately of each other, they clearly have different meanings.
“Did I say Tamils don’t have the RIGHT to form, vote for and associate Tamil political parties? No. They do have that right. But they have opted to vote for race based (racist) political parties like TAMIL congress/kachchi/front/alliance instead of multiethnic parties to which others (non-Tamils) are aligned.”
What you said was that Tamils only have the right to use the language during political meetings and cultural committee functions (“e.g. The Hindu Cultural Forum can conduct its meetings in Tamil only. e.g. The TNA can hold its meetings in Tamil only. But that is not what the Tamil leadership is demanding”). So why are you now talking about electoral choices. The discussion wasn’t on who the Tamils could vote for, but where they could use their language. Either you have problems staying focused or you’re being intellectually deceitful.
“It is not just the right but how you use it! This right has been exploited to promote racist politics as in Tamil Nadu.”
Hmm, so shouldn’t that apply also to the racist Sinhalese policies you seem to think you have the right to?
“1. There is nowhere in the world where ethnic groups get equal rights (India may be an exception but a very bad example to follow). It is individuals who get equal rights, not ethnic communities.”
Why are you persisting with this bullshit, TT? In addition to India, in Canada, the French have equal language rights, in Switzerland the Germans and French have language rights, in the UK the Welsh and Scots have equal language rights. There are many more such examples. I have pointed this out to you four times in this thread, but you avoid answering.
DB,
“Nuremberg proved that a law was no defence to individual or collective culpability……..the US Civil Rights movement overturned the theory that the majority had the right to make laws detrimental to minorities (in the US it was the Jim Crow Laws, in SL it was Sinhala Only). Lastly, other declarations and acts such as the 2007 UN one on Indigenous Peoples, the 1990 US one on Native Americans, the EU one on National Minorities, and others show that there is a universal trend towards a legitimacy for language rights for minorities.”
NONE of these made it compulsory to make Tamil in SL an offcial or national language; share power with Tamil race based political parties; recognize Tamil homelands, Tamil aspirations, etc.
You may not know but SL COMPLIES with all this and there is nothing more to give to Tamils as per these laws! If there is anything lacking. our firends in the Diaspora (who are very active) would have already taken these up! Don’t you think?
“What you said was that Tamils only have the right to use the language during political meetings and cultural committee functions (“e.g. The Hindu Cultural Forum can conduct its meetings in Tamil only. e.g. The TNA can hold its meetings in Tamil only. But that is not what the Tamil leadership is demanding”). So why are you now talking about electoral choices. The discussion wasn’t on who the Tamils could vote for, but where they could use their language. Either you have problems staying focused or you’re being intellectually deceitful.”
Am I not staying focused or you are not focused?
The UN delcaration has been all granted in SL. That is not this problem is about. This problem is Tamil race based political parties demanding Tamils MAJORITY RIGHTS within Tamil Elam.
“Hmm, so shouldn’t that apply also to the racist Sinhalese policies you seem to think you have the right to?”
Where did I say that? Sinhala racist parties in the likes of ACTC, ITAK, TULF, TNA are Sihala Urumaya (not JHU), Sinhala Boomuputra Party. People have rejected these nonsense in favour of multiethnic coalitions except in the north.
“1. There is nowhere in the world where ethnic groups get equal rights (India may be an exception but a very bad example to follow). It is individuals who get equal rights, not ethnic communities.”
“Why are you persisting with this bullshit, TT? In addition to India, in Canada, the French have equal language rights, in Switzerland the Germans and French have language rights, in the UK the Welsh and Scots have equal language rights. There are many more such examples. I have pointed this out to you four times in this thread, but you avoid answering.”
What is this bullshit DB? How many countries are there apart from India, Canada, Switzerland? Why the exceptions when we can follow the norm?
“NONE of these [UN and EU declarations, US acts, etc] made it compulsory to make Tamil in SL an offcial or national language; share power with Tamil race based political parties; recognize Tamil homelands, Tamil aspirations, etc.”
Of course not. But they are there to show us what is right and just, and how the civilized world views things. There is no law that says that SL cannot make slavery legal, so why don’t we make all Tamils slaves? The reason is because we (or most of us, it seems) know it to be wrong. Is the law the only thing that compels you, TT; have you no moral compass of your own? Didn’t you yourself say that the right to do something isn’t sufficient grounds for doing it?
Regardless of all that, the 13th Amendment is a law, TT, and it clearly says that provincial devolution and the status of Tamil as an official language is to be implemented. It’s there in black and white.
“You may not know but SL COMPLIES with all this and there is nothing more to give to Tamils as per these laws! If there is anything lacking. our firends in the Diaspora (who are very active) would have already taken these up! Don’t you think?”
As I have already pointed out to you, TT, the 2007 UN Declaration on indigenous peoples and their languages goes further, and SL is a signatory to that. Unless you come up with new arguments, we’ll be just repeating what we’ve already said.
“Am I not staying focused or you are not focused?”
What do you think? We were discussing language rights, you suggested that Tamil may be used only in obscure internal committee meetings, I pointed out that that wasn’t what having an administrative language meant, and you began to talk about who the Tamils were gonna vote for. Do you even know what the word “focus” means? I’m not talking about a Ford, you know.
“The UN delcaration has been all granted in SL. That is not this problem is about. This problem is Tamil race based political parties demanding Tamils MAJORITY RIGHTS within Tamil Elam.”
You mean majority language rights because they’re a majority in the NE (why do you keep referring to it as as TE, btw?)? Since you seem to think that the Sinhalese majority language rights are all OK since the latter are a national majority, why do you grudge the Tamils the same right? This is one more of the many questions you avoid answering, TT. I have asked you at least a dozen, and instead of answering you run off and start a new discussion in the hope no one will notice
But these are crucial questions, and you’ll find that all your fudging, running, and ducking can’t get you away from them.
“Where did I say that? Sinhala racist parties in the likes of ACTC, ITAK, TULF, TNA are Sihala Urumaya (not JHU), Sinhala Boomuputra Party. People have rejected these nonsense in favour of multiethnic coalitions except in the north.”
First of all, the Sinhalese haven’t rejected these parties; they are in parliament as a part of a coalition, but they were voted in. Second, the Sinhalese are not fighting for ethnic rights (because you’ve simply taken those rights) so they don’t need parties that will address that right; Tamils do. I already gave you the example of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement; fighting for black rights didn’t make him a racist; holding back black rights made the state racist. The Suffragette Movement wasn’t sexist because they only fought for womens’ right, were they? The same applies to the state vs the Tamils. we’ve been through all this before, TT. You offer no counter arguments; you simply abandon the debate and start a new one, which eventually leads back to the same issues.
“What is this bullshit DB? How many countries are there apart from India, Canada, Switzerland? Why the exceptions when we can follow the norm?”
EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY WITH A NATIONAL MINORITY HAS GRANTED THAT MINORITY OR MINORITIES THEIR MINORITY RIGHTS, INCLUDING LANGUAGE WHERE IT APPLIED. Which part of this sentence escapes you, TT??? I have asked you innumerable times to name any country that has not, and you are unable to. I ask you again, in case you missed it the previous dozen times. Which countries haven’t granted their national/indigenous minorities their language rights?
TT,
Our duty as citizens of SL is to create a country which is as fair and just as possible by all our fellow-citizens. I take it you agree with this?
In this regard, it is of utmost importance to be earnest in your attempts to create such an environment, to debate and discuss these issues as you are doing now (which all will doubtless appreciate), and to accept and acknowledge valid points so that we may all move forward.
However, thus far in this debate, you have failed to acknowledge the valid arguments of others in a “Heshanesque” fashion. David has painstakingly and carefully engaged with you on your primary argument, and you are yet to acknowledge any of the valid counter-points he has made. This is why I specifically re-raised the issue in this post, yet you have blithely skipped over it.
These are matters of grave importance to us all, and it is a matter beyond any flippancy. We have to rectify mistakes of the past if we are to create a just society for all human beings to live in. The majority community in a country, is encumbered with the duty of ensuring fairness by minorities – otherwise, we have no right to call our country a democracy beyond a basic sense of having an ineffective vote. Having a country which acts according to the whims and fancies of a majority will clearly always be unjust and unfair by minorities, and result in a despicable state of affairs, unsuitable to the dignity and sense of fair-play expected from a 21st century society. Do you disagree?
If not, the question is, have we succeeded in doing that thus far and what can we do to make things better for the citizens in one of our most ancient and significant communities – the Tamil community?
David,
“I have heard said that GG Ponnambalam’s ACTC lobbying of the Soulbury Commission for 50-50 representation was merely the first step to pushing for partition at independence.”
I would argue the opposite. GG’s position reflected largely the interests of the Colombo Tamils who had gotten accustomed to being overrepresented in government and had little to gain from federalism let alone independence.
Most Sinhalese “experts” on Tamil politics have not picked up on how the influence of the Colombo Tamils, who had strong “pull” links with Jaffna earlier on, was an obstacle to Eelam (actually these Sinhalese generally have not picked up anything on the Tamils worth mentioning). Instead, they incorrectly perceived the Colombo Tamils as insidious agents of a Jaffna-based separatist conspiracy. Read V. Navaratnam’s The Fall and Rise of the Tamil Nation to see more how the Colombo influence pushed ITAK toward compromise in the 1960s, before Amirthalingam had taken over.
You’re probably right, Wijayapala. However my point was that Sinhalese and Tamil political actions got incrementally more reactionary to each other.
Wijayapala,
Not so.
GGP may have been a “Colombo Tamil” but his racial demands was a smash hit in the north. His party (ACTC) swept the polls in the Jaffna district in 1947 winning all the electorates except the Kytes electorate (this has been behaving strangely ever since).
The drop out happened much later. But then the ground work had been done.
His racially charged remarks in 1939 against the Sinhalese sparked a riot. But that made him even more popular among northern Tamils.
After his highly racist demands were rejected by the rulers in 1931, he called for the boycott of the 1931 election and most Tamils in the north boycotted it. He demanded that if his demands cannot be given SL should be given independance as it was, before the introduction of universal frnachise. Why? Because at that time Tamils had a disproportionately large representation in the legislature. He could have kept that forever had SL got independance at that time without democracy. One evil plan after another. But all failed.
TT
“GGP may have been a “Colombo Tamil” but his racial demands was a smash hit in the north.”
That is because the Jaffna Tamils still had plenty to gain from 50:50 (at the expense of the Sinhalese). I never said that GG was not a communalist. I simply argued against the notion that he supported separatism more or less any devolution of power. And the ITAK’s politics of “federalism” were not accepted until 1956 Sinhala-Only.
“His racially charged remarks in 1939 against the Sinhalese sparked a riot. But that made him even more popular among northern Tamils.”
What is your evidence that the 1939 riots made GG more popular among the Tamils?
“He demanded that if his demands cannot be given SL should be given independance as it was, before the introduction of universal frnachise. Why? Because at that time Tamils had a disproportionately large representation in the legislature. He could have kept that forever had SL got independance at that time without democracy.”
Unless of course the Sinhala majority overthrew that minority government which would have been quite easy.
For all of GG’s gimmicks, he participated in the first post-independence government and his career of fanning extremism came to an end.
“After his highly racist demands were rejected by the rulers in 1931, he called for the boycott of the 1931 election and most Tamils in the north boycotted it.”
To my knowledge it was the Jaffna Youth Congress who had called for the boycott and was supported by Philip Gunawardena. Who were the other Sinhala leaders in 1931 calling for independence back then?
Wijayapala,
His party’s electoral performance in 1931 (partly due to the boycot) compared against 1947 (a massive win).
“Unless of course the Sinhala majority overthrew that minority government which would have been quite easy.”
I don’t like undemocratic means of overthrowing governments. Even if they had done, without changing the then Constitution (1924) the majority would not have gained anything. At the next election, a similar government would have come to power!
“For all of GG’s gimmicks, he participated in the first post-independence government and his career of fanning extremism came to an end.”
He had to. otherwise the “independants” would have grab the opportunity making the northers powerless in the government.
Seems like he did scale down his racism after 1947 but not without setting up a very dangerous trend of racist politics in the north and grooming a younger generation of “better” racially charged politicians.
e.g. His ACTC registered as a political party in 1944 is the first race based political party in SL (and in the region????) to contest and election and win. Since then (barring 1994 EPDP win), race based political parties dominated Jaffna district and many other parts in the north and the east.
e.g. He abruptly ended his racially charged conduct (which is a good thing). But the momentum he created among the people could not put break so quickly. They continued and sought a leader. And they found one in SJVC.
SJVC’s Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi won 2 seats in 1952!! Winning a seat under the FPTP system is very very difficult. But his ultra Tamil views and GGP’s step backward won the day. After 1952 GGP and his crowd became even more flexible earning the wrath of the Tamil people.
Don’t trust the nonsense about “Federal Party”. That is not the correct name. The correct name is Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi” (ITAK) which means Lanka Tamil Nation Party. You may notice that Tamil National Alliance still runs for election under ITAK.
So ITAK has remained, only its fancy English pet names have changed!
DB,
OK, lets have it all here.
UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religous and Linguistic Minorities
Adopted by General Assembly resolution 47/135 of 18 December 1992
Proclaims this Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities:
Article 1
1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.
2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.
Article 2
1. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.
2. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.
3. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.
4. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.
5. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.
Article 3
1. Persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights, including those set forth in the present Declaration, individually as well as in community with other members of their group, without any discrimination.
2. No disadvantage shall result for any person belonging to a minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration.
Article 4
1. States shall take measures where required to ensure that persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law.
2. States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards.
3. States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.
4. States should, where appropriate, take measures in the field of education, in order to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, language and culture of the minorities existing within their territory. Persons belonging to minorities should have adequate opportunities to gain knowledge of the society as a whole.
5. States should consider appropriate measures so that persons belonging to minorities may participate fully in the economic progress and development in their country.
Article 5
1. National policies and programmes shall be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.
2. Programmes of cooperation and assistance among States should be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.
Article 6
States should cooperate on questions relating to persons belonging to minorities, inter alia, exchanging information and experiences, in order to promote mutual understanding and confidence.
Article 7
States should cooperate in order to promote respect for the rights set forth in the present Declaration.
Article 8
1. Nothing in the present Declaration shall prevent the fulfilment of international obligations of States in relation to persons belonging to minorities. In particular, States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations and commitments they have assumed under international treaties and agreements to which they are parties.
2. The exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration shall not prejudice the enjoyment by all persons of universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.
3. Measures taken by States to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights set forth in the present Declaration shall not prima facie be considered contrary to the principle of equality contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
4. Nothing in the present Declaration may be construed as permitting any activity contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, including sovereign equality, territorial integrity and political independence of States.
Article 9
The specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system shall contribute to the full realization of the rights and principles set forth in the present Declaration, within their respective fields of competence.
DB and others,
This is ALL what a minority and all minorities irrespective of size and other BS logic of native/non-native are entitled to. Nothing more and nothing less.
There is no requirement to,
1. Share power with a single (or many) minorities.
2. Make the language of one minority (or many) a national or official language
3. Stop the majority community settling in areas predominantly habitated by a minority or many minorities.
4. Recognize traditional homelands of a single (or many) minorities
5. Stop national security related work in areas minoritieis reside in large numbers.
6. Have discriminatory laws to favour one minority like the Thesalawamei law.
You know what, SL have not been found fault with any of the provisions contained in the UN declaration. SL has given all (please be mindful that this declaration contains words such as may instead of should/must and other definitive requirements and gives many alternatives) to its minorities. There is nothing more to give. To come in line with the UN declaration and not to exceed it, certain things imposed on SL by India may be cut back!
Are we clear on this?
Well this is the world accepted reality. If any thing remains to be goven to all minorities, SL must do so now. But absolutely nothing more.
DB, this is where you come unstuck. ACTC, ITAK, TULF, TNA are not asking for the implementation of UN declared minority rights and stop at that because they cannot find fault with SL in that regard.
They ask for majority rights for Tamils becasue in their arguement, Tamils are not a minority but the majority of Tamil Elam.
Your argument falls apart but their argument is still logical (albeit not true and merely hypothetical).
“There is no requirement to Make the language of one minority (or many) a national or official language”
Nor is there a requirement to make the language of the majority a national or official language. Why then was Sinhalese chosen? I asked you this before, TT, but you didn’t answer.
“They ask for majority rights for Tamils becasue in their arguement, Tamils are not a minority but the majority of Tamil Elam.”
So you’re saying there exists such a thing as a “majority right”? What are these majority rights, and how does a majority have a right to something that minorities aren’t afforded? Are you saying that the majority is special simply because they are numerically superior?
DB,
For the same reason MOST countries have the language of the majority as the national/official language. There is nothing barring this. The bottomline is SL need not do anymore to Tamils in the language front. There is also no need to share power with ethnic groups. But only cuturally, SL should continue to engage ALL cultural groups (despite size) to the extent it relates to their cultural upliftment as in Australia, Malaysia, USA, etc.
““They (TAMIL race based political parties) ask for majority rights for Tamils becasue in their arguement, Tamils are not a minority but the majority of Tamil Elam.”
So you’re saying there exists such a thing as a “majority right”?”
I’m not saying. Tamil race based political parties say so and think so. They want to rule a peice of land (which they call Tamil Elam). For that they need the ability all POLITICAL majorities have – the ability to elect (and defeat) governments.
Please understand that in the north the political majority is 100% Tamil only.
That’s because Tamils in the north have ALWAYS voted for race based political parties. Their (race politics) future is certain in a country that encompases the north. Combining with the east still is beneficial to them numerically.
The only way to defeat this plan is to change the ethnic composition of the north. Let Tamils in the north continue to vote for race politics. But when their percentage in the north is reduced, it reduces their ability to elect powerful race based parties. At themoment they have the ability of the majority in the north – the ability to elect/change the winner in jaffna, etc. districts. This ability should be tranferred to a multi ethnic political majority in jaffna, etc. defeating race politics. Bingo! Thereafter TNA, T, etc. can scream for Tamil homelands, Tamil aspirations, Tamil grievences, Tamil self determination, Tamil nationality, Tamil whatnot but their say will not be as dominant as now as multi ethnic aspirations/ grievences/nationality takes hold and take cetrestage. SL continues to uplift Tamils (and all others) culturally.
“For the same reason MOST countries have the language of the majority as the national/official language. There is nothing barring this. The bottomline is SL need not do anymore to Tamils in the language front. There is also no need to share power with ethnic groups.”
TT, I have already asked you several times to name these “most other countries” that have an indigenous minority or minorities with its own language/s, but still haven’t granted these minorities language rights. You are unable to name any such countries. Instead, you point to countries such as Australia. The latter has granted language rights to its indigenous minority. The Asians in Australia and the west, the Turks in Germany, the upcountry Tamils in SL, etc are not indigenous minorities. The French in Canada, the Germans and French in Switzerland, the Scots and Welsh in the UK, the Jaffna Tamils in SL are indigenous minorities. I have asked you several times whether you don’t comprehend this distinction, and since you avoid answering, I conclude that you’re unwilling to acknowledge the distinction.
“I’m not saying. Tamil race based political parties say so and think so.”
But you just said that in most countries the majority language rules? Isn’t that then a majority right? So if the majority have that right, don’t the Tamils also have that right in areas where they are a majority? Regardless of what you say however, the Tamil parties are not asking for Tamil Eelam. They are asking for equal language rights within a united SL. If you disagree, please link to current statements articulating a demand for Tamil Eelam by parties contesting in SL.
“Please understand that in the north the political majority is 100% Tamil only. That’s because Tamils in the north have ALWAYS voted for race based political parties. Their (race politics) future is certain in a country that encompases the north. Combining with the east still is beneficial to them numerically.”
First of all the north isn’t 100% Tamil. Second, even if it was, demographics have nothing to do with political choice, race-based or otherwise. Third, as I have already pointed out to you, ethnic/race-based politics by Tamil parties was and is a reaction to racist policies by the Sinhalese; I have pointed this out already, and if you disagree, counter the point, instead of ignoring it in favour of repeating your own point. Fourth, the Tamils using a numerical advantage in the north is no different to the Sinhalese using a national majority; if you think the latter is OK, you must accept that the former is also OK; you can’t have one rule for the Sinhalese and one for the Tamils.
“The only way to defeat this plan is to change the ethnic composition of the north.”
Why is it necessary to defeat this? What are you scared of?
“But when their percentage in the north is reduced, it reduces their ability to elect powerful race based parties.”
But you don’t have the right to decide who the Tamils can vote for, regardless of your dislike for Tamil parties. Also, while diluting Tamil majority in the north will prevent them voting in their choice of party, it will also make them powerless to outvote racist Sinhalese parties like the JHU. So TT, what you’re trying to do is subvert democracy by changing a demographic. The equivalent in the US would be that a republican administration transfers millions of republicans from large republican-leaning states to small democrat-leading states so that they can win those states come election day. Obviously, TT, you haven’t a clue about real democracy.
SD,
However, thus far in this debate, you have failed to acknowledge the valid arguments of others in a “Heshanesque” fashion.
I don’t agree with TT, but at least he is honest. Unlike your comrade who claimed the USA is guilty of war crimes, but now tries to uphold it as a model of democracy. The funny thing is that he fought in a war to establish Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy and now tries to talk about Tamil rights! I could go on and on, but it is an exercise in futility. “Exotic cases” will always exist.
“Life is a well of delight; but where the rabble drinks, too, all wells are poisoned.” – Nietzsche
Thanks Heshan. I may never agree with you but I’ve been honest and decent. So admins who are doing a great job don’t have to EDIT OUT what I write. Unfortunately some people don’t follow that. Wish the warring parties spared some thought for each other which they could have in the midst of ANY disagreement as we do. (Now this does not mean there were war crimes committed by us.)
Dear TT,
You have certainly been decent in this debate, but whether you are intellectually honest remains to be clearly demonstrated. No doubt you believe in what you say, so that can be termed an “honesty” of sorts, but intellectual honesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty) requires a little bit more than that. It requires a dispassionate analysis of facts, and a willingness to acknowledge and consider contrary evidence.
Therefore, I would once again request straight answers to the following questions, so that we may make some progress in this debate.
1. You argue that separatism was on the agenda of Tamils since the very beginning. David and Wijayapala counter argue that Tamil *popular* opinion only turned in favour of separatism after the repeated abrogation of pacts and continued violence against their community. Do you disagree with this and why?
2. As David has asked, what countries refuse to recognize language rights for indigenous minorities?
3. Do you or do you not see the Sinhala only act, the standardization schemes, having Buddhism in the foremost place etc. as majoritarian policies which are unsuitable in a democratic context?
4. Is your idea of a democracy a country where there are equal individual rights and the rest is whatever the majority wishes, regardless of minority opinion? Please state clearly.
Hope to get point by point replies to the above, so that we have clear direction in this debate. Otherwise, your argument is mainly about how racist Tamils are. You may be right about that, but someone else can argue quite a bit about how racist the Sinhalese are, and there’s more than enough evidence for that too. The main problem at hand is not about who’s more racist (i.e. whose face is uglier) but what rights a minority has, and your argument about racism is mostly orthogonal to that issue.
SD,
1. The 1931 racist demand by GGP and the registering the first raist political party that excludes non-Tamils in 1944 (which won the electuion in 1947) are clear facts to prove that Tamil racism (not nationalism because Tamil is merely a race/ethnic group and certainly not a nation) predates even Independance. Since 1947 racism had dominated northern politics until this day. This is a sure sign of continuation. If tamil homeland was a subsequent creation after thi, that and the other by the majoruty, that is enough ground to deny it!
2. Sri Lanka recognises language rights of indigenous minorities FULLY. That however, does not necessitates these languages to be made official or national languages! Read the UN Declaration.
3. No. I see standardisation as a must to distribute taxpayer money equitably. Sinhala only is in line with MOST democracies where there is only one official language. Same goes for Buddhism in a foremost place. Most countries have one religion at the top.
4. “Is your idea of a democracy a country where there are equal individual rights and the rest is whatever the majority wishes, regardless of minority opinion?”
“Whatever” and “regardless” are your extreme words. Let me rephrase it, “Is your idea of a democracy a country where there are equal individual rights and the rest is what the majority decides democractically, while addressing genuine minority concerns strikly about those decisions?”
Yes!
“Unlike your comrade who claimed the USA is guilty of war crimes, but now tries to uphold it as a model of democracy.”
So you’re suggesting that the US is not in fact a democracy because it has committed war crimes? Interesting concept.
“The funny thing is that he fought in a war to establish Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy and now tries to talk about Tamil rights!”
So you’re saying that because the war was in fact not an ethnic one but a religious one, the Tamils have no right to ask for ethnic rights? So you agree with TT that the Tamils should not have equal ethnic rights?
I always suspected, Heshan, that your quarrel with this administration and past ones is not because they deprived Tamils of their rights, nor because they thought the Sinhalese were superior to other races, nor even that their conduct wasn’t really democratic, but that your righteous Christian hatred stemmed simply from the fact that they are Buddhist. Looks like you confirmed it.
Why did you quote that particular text of Nietszche, Heshan, that speaks of superiority of some over others? Do you know that Hitler quoted the same text in 1935 when speaking to Austrian Nazis about the dangers of reuniting with the racially inferior Magyars of Hungary instead of anschluss with Germany?
It is also interesting that the extremists such as Heshan and TT never take each other on, choosing to either preach rhetoric to their own choirs (or in Reverend Heshan’s case, to himself), engage in debationary mutual masturbation, or attempt to attack the ideas of the moderates. Unfortunately we oblige them by taking them on. [Edited out]
I always suspected, Heshan, that your quarrel with this administration and past ones is not because they deprived Tamils of their rights, nor because they thought the Sinhalese were superior to other races, nor even that their conduct wasn’t really democratic, but that your righteous Christian hatred stemmed simply from the fact that they are Buddhist. Looks like you confirmed it.
I am not the one who took up a gun and (potentially?) murdered hundreds of people in cold blood – all in the name of Mavahamsa mythology. Of course, every cause will have its believers, so in this case there will be those who justify even the latter cause. On the other hand, while every cause has its believers, there are only a handful of people who will lend active support to it – the vast majority will offer passive support. So if I were to condemn the vast majority of Sinhala-Buddhists, it would have to be for lending passive support, which is rather silly. What I condemn is not any group of people, but the ideology of militant Sinhalese nationalism that did not begin with the war, but can be traced back to the Mahavamsa, and which was given a new awakening by Dharmapala and the Revivalists. Of course this nationalism encompasses certain aspects of Buddhism, as noted by such scholars as Stanley Tambiah, Mahinda Deegale, P.D. Premasiri, Kumari Jayawardene, Richard Gombrich, Peter Schalk, and others. That is because Sinhalese nationalism is concerned with the preservation of Sinhalese culture and Buddhism (or what portends to be Buddhism) is a vital part of that effort. In any event, the danger is that this nationalism is being used as a political tool to control the masses as well as deepen the class divide. The Nietzsche quote is actually spot on, as war appeals most to the rabble, who are the ones most likely to offer their sons for the war effort, minus a draft.
Do you know that Hitler quoted the same text in 1935 when speaking to Austrian Nazis about the dangers of reuniting with the racially inferior Magyars of Hungary instead of anschluss with Germany?
Except that Nietzsche was never anti-semitic to begin with. The only fascination Hitler had with the man is his “will-to-power” concept.
It is also interesting that the extremists such as Heshan and TT never take each other on…
Lending passive support does not make you an extremist. The true test of an extremist is whether he is willing to pick up a gun to fight for his beliefs, would participate in a race riot, etc. Looks like you have clearly failed such tests. Enjoy the music!
“I am not the one who took up a gun and (potentially?) murdered hundreds of people in cold blood – all in the name of Mavahamsa mythology”
Sadly, neither are you the one who took up a gun and opposed it. Like JFK said, your are one of those poor timid souls that knows neither victory nor defeat.
And in the words of Mark Berent, “I am not a murderer; I am a killer. There is a difference.”
“What I condemn is not any group of people, but the ideology of militant Sinhalese nationalism that did not begin with the war, but can be traced back to the Mahavamsa, and which was given a new awakening by Dharmapala and the Revivalists”
But the individuals who most oppressed the Tamils — SWRD, JRJ, Cyril Matthew, etc — were born and raised as Christians. The fact is that the contentious issues that led up to the war were never religious, never Buddhism vs Hinduism, but largely an issue of language, and my ongoing debate with TT covers those aspects. Sinhalese nationalism was no more Buddhist than Tamil nationalism was Hindu.
“The Nietzsche quote is actually spot on, as war appeals most to the rabble, who are the ones most likely to offer their sons for the war effort, minus a draft.”
So are you saying that the families of American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are rabble?
“Except that Nietzsche was never anti-semitic to begin with.”
But Hitler certainly was, and Nietzsche certainly believed in the superiority factor. What I find fascinating is the common fascination both you and Hitler have for Nietzsche.
“The true test of an extremist is whether he is willing to pick up a gun to fight for his beliefs, would participate in a race riot, etc.”
Lol fighting for one’s beliefs isn’t extremist. That would make every US soldier in Iraq an extremist. However, harbouring extreme beliefs does make one an extremist. Especially on a blog, where the only conflict is between ideas. So online, harbouring and professing such beliefs as the superiority of Christianity, the inferiority of Arabs and Muslims, the denial of history, the claim that the US never built an atom bomb, etc is clearly extremist.
Prof Heshan
“The more abstract belief-systems of Hinduism/Buddhism etc, while obviously “intellectually” superior to Christianity, have only been perverted, diluted, and grossly misunderstood by the vast majority of their proponents”
So you are saying that the Christians who massacred Jews, other non-Christians, and even fellow Christians of different sects throughout their two millennia of existence perfectly understood the teachings of Christ? How is it that Christianity reigns supreme as the world’s most violent religion?
“What I condemn is not any group of people, but the ideology of militant Sinhalese nationalism that did not begin with the war, but can be traced back to the Mahavamsa, and which was given a new awakening by Dharmapala and the Revivalists.”
But you are not giving proper credit to your own faith Christianity for inspiring such bigotry. Why do you think Richard Gombrich used the term ***Protestant*** Buddhism to describe this phenomenon?
You criticize Dharmapala’s bigotry but you haven’t noted that he got his ideas from European race theory. For example, in ancient times the Sinhalese never identified themselves as “Aryan.” This is something that Dharmapala picked up after hanging out with people like you!
“And it (being a soldier) is still largely a foolish occupation. War is merely another aspect of political expediency.”
Then why are so many Christians soldiers???
ONWARD, CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/n/onwardcs.htm
Dear TT
“His party’s electoral performance in 1931 (partly due to the boycot) compared against 1947 (a massive win).”
Sorry, but that doesn’t prove that the 1939 riots specifically made GG more popular among the Tamils.
The ACTC received 82,000 votes in 1947 and ITAK got 143,000 votes nine years later. How would you explain the near doubling of votes in under a decade for a Tamil party?
“I don’t like undemocratic means of overthrowing governments.”
Neither did the British, which explains why they would never have acceded to GG’s idea- and GG knew it.
“For all of GG’s gimmicks, he participated in the first post-independence government and his career of fanning extremism came to an end.”
He had to. otherwise the “independants” would have grab the opportunity making the northers powerless in the government.
No he didn’t. ITAK/TULF participated in only one government- Dudley’s in the late 1960s. They were content to be “powerless” for the rest of the time.
“e.g. His ACTC registered as a political party in 1944 is the first race based political party in SL (and in the region????) to contest and election and win. Since then (barring 1994 EPDP win), race based political parties dominated Jaffna district and many other parts in the north and the east.”
Isn’t EPDP also a race-based party?
“SJVC’s Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi won 2 seats in 1952!! Winning a seat under the FPTP system is very very difficult.”
Not if the candidates that you run are more well-known to the electorates than your opponents.
Adding ACTC and ITAK’s votes together, I came up with only 4.77 percent of the national vote. For whom did the other Tamils vote?
Dear Wijayapala,
1. “His party’s electoral performance in 1931 (partly due to the boycot) compared against 1947 (a massive win).”Sorry, but that doesn’t prove that the 1939 riots specifically made GG more popular among the Tamils.
Agree. But it certain didn’t affect his rise in popularity which means Tamils in the north voted overwhelmingly to a person as far back in 1947 who was instrumental in race riots. They should have rejected him which should have taught all polies a lesson. To his credit he didn’t kill, etc. people but made racially inappropriate remarks ridiculing others beliefs. of course the rioters are the most idiotic to fall into the level of GGP!
2. The ACTC received 82,000 votes in 1947 and ITAK got 143,000 votes nine years later. How would you explain the near doubling of votes in under a decade for a Tamil party?
You provide the answer, Wijayapala.
“”Not if the candidates that you run are more well-known to the electorates than your opponents.”
For a more relevant assessment you have to add the ACTC vote to the ITAK vote in 1947, 1952 and 1956 and then compare. They were all the same albeit one was more race based than the other.
4. “For all of GG’s gimmicks, he participated in the first post-independence government and his career of fanning extremism came to an end.”He had to. otherwise the “independants” would have grab the opportunity making the northers powerless in the government.No he didn’t. ITAK/TULF participated in only one government- Dudley’s in the late 1960s. They were content to be “powerless” for the rest of the time.
That’s due to their own wrongs. GGP was the least racist of the lot and he could (despite having a party by the name All Ceylon Tamil (ONLY) Congress) and others found it impossible to cohabit. ITAK in 1965 was a greatly toned down one after the 1958 massive riots.
5. Adding ACTC and ITAK’s votes together, I came up with only 4.77 percent of the national vote. For whom did the other Tamils vote?
Now you are talking. There are 18% Tamils, aren’t there? But 5% of it live mainly in the multiethnic central province while another 6%-8% live in other multiethnic provinces (mainly the western province). That means 68% to 95% of Tamils in the north vote for racist political aprties. Why? That is because there is no room for multiethnic politics in the north due to its mono ethnic nature. If the north is as multiethnic as Trncomalee, the overall district outcome would be different. I must warn you, even in Trincomalee if you take only the Tamils, TNA received more than 50% of their votes in 2010. But that doesn’t matter. While Tamils should have all the right to vote for their choice, Sri Lanka must ensure race politics don’t win in a district. You can see this very same trend in Tamil only Tamil Nadu where Dravida race based parties continue win since 1967.
6. EPDP
EPDP is not a racist political party.
6.1 Its name does not contain any racially exclusive term such as Tamil. Elam was how SL was know to Tamils in the past. Party names matter because that says where you are heading.
e.g. You must expect from a popular communist party to agitate against privatisation (if they are powerful enough).
6.2 Compared to ACTC, ITAK, TULF, TNA, LTTE (and other “T” parties of SL and “D” parties of Tamil nadu), EPDP has not made racial homeland demands. They have proven they can co-operate without it.
6.3 EPDP never supported the LTTE ideologically.
6.4 EPDP aligned with whatever party in pwoer like CWC (another party that is not racist) for the betterment of their supporters, percieved voters and the general public in the north.
BTW you accepted that you cannot go by such dubious translations like “Federal Party” which is now “Tamil National Alliance”. It means, “Federal” = “Tamil Nation” and Party = Alliance!
Sadly, neither are you the one who took up a gun and opposed it.
Indeed, my Christian beliefs do not allow me to inflict physical harm upon others. But beyond that – and perhaps more importantly – is the realization that the deepest mysteries of the Universe have rational explanations that can be solved through logic alone. Education (knowledge) liberates one from the need to resolve conflicts via violence alone.
And in the words of Mark Berent, “I am not a murderer; I am a killer. There is a difference.”
And it (being a soldier) is still largely a foolish occupation. War is merely another aspect of political expediency. You blindly serve the ruling classes for pennies in return (assuming you survive).
But the individuals who most oppressed the Tamils — SWRD, JRJ, Cyril Matthew, etc — were born and raised as Christians.
Nice try, but nothing those people did benefited Christians in the least. Actions are what finally matters, not what one is born to. And the actions of those individuals only had benefit for the Sinhala-Buddhists.
The fact is that the contentious issues that led up to the war were never religious, never Buddhism vs Hinduism,
What you totally fail to realize is that Buddhism in its pure form rejects violence altogether. Sinhala-Buddhism, however, manages to overcome this limitation via its indulgence in mythology :
“At the beginning, I should reiterate that there is no direct validation of violence either verbal or physical within Theravãda canonical scriptures. However, at least one post-canonical work—the Mahãvamsa of Mahãnãma, a Pãli chronicle of the fifth century CE—contains a controversial reference to physical violence at times of civil war and conflict in Sri Lanka which will be discussed in detail later.”
Though Pãli canonical texts do not contain explicit textual evidence to support violence or remarks to justify violence, certain genre of post-canonical literature, for example, one of the Pãli chronicles, the Mahãvamsa of Mahãnãma composed in Sri Lanka in the fifth CE, unfortunately contains a narrative which disturbs the pacifist image of Theravãda Buddhism. Though the intention of this particular monastic author, Mahãnãma, is open for debate, this isolated reference is problematic when placed within the early Buddhist Pãli canonical textual corpus. This pervasive narrative gives the impression that in certain circumstances when the ultimate end is noble, the use of certain degree of violence is not going to harm the Buddha’s doctrine of non-violence and pacifist path.
Nevertheless, this reductionistic explanation is problematic for Theravãda Buddhist teachings and traditions. Justifying that killing Tamils during the war is not a pãpa is a grave mistake even if it was used in the Mahãvamsa as a skill-in-means. Such violations of the tolerant sensibilities found within post-canonical Pãli chronicles cannot be justified or harmonized since Buddhist scriptures do not maintain that depending on one’s caste, race, or ethnic group the severity of one’s negative acts vary.
Buddhist teachings maintain that under any circumstance, whether it is political, religious, cultural or ethnic, violence cannot be accepted or advocated in solving disputes between nations. All Buddhist traditions unanimously agree that war cannot be the solution to disputes and conflicts either. Even for achieving a religious goal, violence cannot be used and justified. A Buddhist cannot imagine a principle of ‘Just War.’ How can a ‘war’ become a ‘just’ one? How can the slaughter of human beings be justified as ‘morally right’? As P.D. Premasiri has convincingly asserted by examining early Buddhist standpoint that even in the case of solving social conflicts such as war, Buddhism “does not advocate violence under any circumstance.”10 When ‘insider’ perspectives are examined across Buddhist cultures and combined with doctrinal understandings, one can create a context in comprehending Buddhist abhorrence for violence and encouragement in seeking creative strategies for a non-violent path in overcoming violence.
- Is Violence Justified in Theravãda Buddhism?
Mahinda Deegalle
The dilemma is clear. How does a nation which calls itself the homeland of Theravada-Buddhism fight a brutal 30 year civil war? The only way to realize such an objective is by perverting and diluting the original doctrine and infusing it with mythology. Theravada-Buddhism then becomes Sinhala-Buddhism and the rest is history.
So are you saying that the families of American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are rabble?
The vast majority are from the lower classes (strata) of American society.
But Hitler certainly was, and Nietzsche certainly believed in the superiority factor.
Again, you demonstrate your absolute zero knowledge of Hitler, philosophy, and practically all else between the two. Hitler believed in the supremacy of the Nordic race, where for Nietzsche the highest form of civilization was that of the early Greeks. Nietzsche believed in different classes of men (as per his espousal of caste in the “Anti-Christ”), but there was no racial ordering to it. Without a racial ordering there is no comparison to Hitler.
Lol fighting for one’s beliefs isn’t extremist. That would make every US soldier in Iraq an extremist.
When you join a military, you are taught how to murder other human beings in cold blood. Not everyone can do that. Even many (former) soldiers do not master the process completely, as per PTSD syndrome and the like. As I noted earlier, violence is irrational. That’s why none of the other major religious figures, except for “Prophet Muhammed”, ever espoused it. Take someone like the Buddha. Had he spent a sizable portion of his life wielding a machete, the rest of his life would have been spent regretting that, as opposed to cultivating a precise, unblemished path to liberation of the mind.
So online, harbouring and professing such beliefs as the superiority of Christianity,
From a practical standpoint, Christianity is indeed superior. Judeo-Christian values and morality have coalesced well with Capitalism, allowing the West to become extremely prosperous. The more abstract belief-systems of Hinduism/Buddhism etc, while obviously “intellectually” superior to Christianity, have only been perverted, diluted, and grossly misunderstood by the vast majority of their proponents, which makes perfect sense, considering that the vast majority of humans still have trouble understanding basic calculus , which has been around since the 1600′s. Sinhala-Buddhism – a mythology-based perversion of unblemished Therevada-Buddhism – with its alarming propensity for extreme violence and prejudice is a fine example.
the inferiority of Arabs and Muslims,
Where did I mention they are inferior? Pointing out that most of the Arab economies will crash when oil dries up is a perfectly valid observation.
the denial of history,
You mean like your inability to comprehend the 23 million Chinese killed by the Japanese during WWII? I fully agree.
the claim that the US never built an atom bomb,
Had the Italian scientist Fermi not succeeded in splitting the atom when he did, there would have been no atom bomb before 1950, period. Had Germany not chased out many of its best Jewish scientists – e.g. Einstein, Boethe – who ended up working on the atom bomb, the success of the latter is questionable. Of course, science is probably beyond your abilities. But if you knew anything about it, you would understand that it is usually a collective effort, especially major discoveries , in particular the way that new discoveries build upon previous ones.
etc is clearly extremist.
Heshan,
RE: “Nice try, but nothing those people did benefited Christians in the least. Actions are what finally matters, not what one is born to. And the actions of those individuals only had benefit for the Sinhala-Buddhists.”
For once I agree with you. SWRD and the rest were pandering to the prevailing forces at the time, and the “Sinhala-Buddhists” were indeed the beneficiaries. I can agree with that argument.
What I find flabbergasting however, is that following this line of logic, you must doubtless agree that Hitler’s anti-semitism benefited Christians the most, for they now had a much sought after opportunity to gas those god-damned “christ-killers” (or at least, since the immediate culprits were dead for nigh 2000 years, their hapless descendants). Yet, you insist that Christian anti-semitic beliefs do not matter, while the Sinhala-Buddhists’ belief in mythology do. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, don’t you think?
The link for the above passage by Deegalle, which I have quoted, can be found here:
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd39-03.html
“Indeed, my Christian beliefs do not allow me to inflict physical harm upon others.”
Well apparently they do allow you to be a bigot. IMO, your lack of moral fibre is what prevents you from risking your own life for your anti-Buddhist feelings even in a pacifist non-combat role, while justifying it by evoking Christianity.
“Beyond that – and perhaps more importantly – is the realization that the deepest mysteries of the Universe have rational explanations that can be solved through logic alone. Education (knowledge) liberates one from the need to resolve conflicts via violence alone.”
It is a pity, therefore, that your own comments here lack any logic or a basis in education.
“And it (being a soldier) is still largely a foolish occupation. War is merely another aspect of political expediency.”
No more foolish than any proffession that furthers a state policy, and certainly not as foolish as the un-Christian policies that have sent foolish sons of rabble to Iraq to murder the Muslims your Christian beliefs have taught you to detest.
“Nice try, but nothing those people did benefited Christians in the least. Actions are what finally matters, not what one is born to.”
And those actions were committed by men who were raised as Christians. Clearly that upbringing, like yours, along to Christian precepts, influenced their view of Tamils, which is similar to yours on Arabs.
“And the actions of those individuals only had benefit for the Sinhala-Buddhists.”
Really? They certainly benefitted the Sinhalese to which community JRJ, SWRD, Cyril Matthew, and you yourself, belong, but can you show how these actions benefitted Buddhists over Sinhalese Christians.
“What you totally fail to realize is that Buddhism in its pure form rejects violence altogether blah blah”
While I do realise that, and your cut-and-paste job is very interesting, how does this prove that the war was one of Buddhism vs Hinduism, as you claim, and which I questioned.
“At the beginning, I should reiterate that there is no direct validation of violence either verbal or physical within Theravãda canonical scriptures. However, at least one post-canonical work—the Mahãvamsa of Mahãnãma, a Pãli chronicle of the fifth century CE—contains a controversial reference to physical violence blah blah”
So your point is that Theravadha Buddhism is peaceful, but the non-religious Mahavamsa isn’t? How does this prove that the war was a religious one, which was what I asked for, btw.
“This pervasive narrative gives the impression that in certain circumstances when the ultimate end is noble, the use of certain degree of violence is not going to harm the Buddha’s doctrine of non-violence and pacifist path.”
Sounds a bit like the Christian “thou shalt not kill, unless it’s a Philistine, Samaritan, Egyptian, or unless I tell you to”, eh?
“Buddhist teachings maintain that under any circumstance, whether it is political, religious, cultural or ethnic, violence cannot be accepted or advocated in solving disputes between nations. All Buddhist traditions unanimously agree that war cannot be the solution to disputes and conflicts either blah blah”
So how then could the war have been a Buddhist one as you claim?
“The dilemma is clear. How does a nation which calls itself the homeland of Theravada-Buddhism fight a brutal 30 year civil war?”
By disregarding religion. Can you show any attempt by the state to justify war by evoking Buddhism, perverted or sound?
“The only way to realize such an objective is by perverting and diluting the original doctrine and infusing it with mythology.”
It is one way. Much as Christian nations have perverted Christianity to justify things like the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the invasion of Iraq. However, this thesis takes for granted that Buddhism has been used to justify the war, or that it was in fact the cause of the war. You’ve failed miserably to prove either.
“The vast majority are from the lower classes (strata) of American society.”
So you think of the lower classes of society as rabble. Do you think of yourself as upper class?
“Hitler believed in the supremacy of the Nordic race, where for Nietzsche the highest form of civilization was that of the early Greeks. Nietzsche believed in different classes of men (as per his espousal of caste in the “Anti-Christ”), but there was no racial ordering to it. Without a racial ordering there is no comparison to Hitler.”
But I wasn’t comparing Nietzsche to Hitler, I was comparing you to Hitler. Believing in superiority based on religion and/or race, as Hitler did, and as you do today, is what makes Nietzche so attractive to you both. And the idea that Nietzsche wasn’t racist is pretty dumb. His belief in class was based on race. Here are a few of his writings:
This anxiety or distemper may be due to a variety of causes. It may result from a crossing of races too dissimilar (or of classes too dissimilar. Class distinctions are always indicative of genetic and racial differences: the European Weltschmerz and the pessimism of the nineteenth century were both essentially the results of an abrupt and senseless mixing of classes). — The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals, translated by Francis Golffing.
The Latin malus ["bad"] (beside which I place ? [mélas, Greek for "black"]) might designate the common man as dark, especially black-haired (“hic niger est”), as the pre-Aryan settler of the Italian soil, notably distinguished from the new blond conqueror race by his color. At any rate, the Gaelic presented me with an exactly analogous case: fin, as in the name Fingal, the characteristic term for nobility, eventually the good, noble, pure, originally the fair-haired [Blondkopf] as opposed to the dark, black-haired native population. The Celts, by the way, were definitely a fair-haired race [eine blonde Rasse]; and it is a mistake to try to relate the area of dark-haired people found on ethnographic maps of Germany to Celtic bloodlines, as Virchow does. These are the last vestiges of the pre-Aryan population of Germany. (The subject races are seen to prevail once more, throughout almost all of Europe; in color, shortness of skull, perhaps also in intellectual and social instincts. Who knows whether modern democracy, the even more fashionable anarchism, and especially that preference for the commune, the most primitive of all social forms, which is now shared by all European socialists — whether all these do not represent a throwback, and whether, even physiologically, the Aryan [master] race of conquerors is not doomed?) — ibid
By way of comfort to the milksops, I would also venture the suggestion that in those days pain did not hurt as much as it does today; at all events, such is the opinion of a doctor who has treated Negroes for complicated internal inflammations which would have driven the most stoical Europeans to distraction — the assumption here being that the negro represents an earlier phase of human development — ibid
And on the Jews: Whatever else has been done to damage the powerful and great of this earth seems trivial compared with what the Jews have done, that priestly people who succeeded in avenging themselves on their enemies and oppressors by radically inverting all their values, that is, by an act of the most spiritual vengeance. This was a strategy entirely appropriate to a priestly people in whom vindictiveness had gone most deeply underground. It was the Jew who, with frightening consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good/noble/powerful/beautiful/ happy/favored-of-the-gods and maintain, with the furious hatred of the underprivileged and impotent, that “only the poor, the powerless, are good; only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed. But you noble and mighty ones of the earth will be, to all eternity, the evil, the cruel, the avaricious, the godless, and thus the cursed and damned!” … We know who has fallen heir to this Jewish inversion of values…. In reference to the grand and unspeakably disastrous initiative which the Jews have launched by this most radical of all declarations of war, I wish to repeat a statement I made in a different context (Beyond Good and Evil), to wit, that it was the Jews who started the slave revolt in morals; a revolt with two millennia of history behind it, which we have lost sight of today simply because it has triumphed so competely. — ibid
And on Christianity being a creation of vengeance by the Jews: From the tree trunk of Jewish vengeance and hatred — the deepest and sublimest hatred in human history, since it gave birth to ideals and a new set of values — grew a branch that was equally unique: a new love, the deepest and sublimest of loves. From what other trunk could this branch have sprung? But let no one surmise that this love represented a denial of the thirst for vengeance, that it contravened the Jewish hatred. Exactly the opposite is true. Love grew out of hatred as the tree’s crown, spreading triumphantly in the purest sunlight, yet having, in its high and sunny realm, the same aims — victory, aggrandizement, temptation — which hatred pursued by digging its roots ever deeper into all that was profound and evil. Jesus of Nazareth, the gospel of love made flesh, the “redeemer,” who brought blessing and victory to the poor, the sick, the sinner — what was he but temptation in its most sinister and irresistible form, bringing men by a roundabout way to precisely those Jewish values and renovations of the ideal? Has not Israel, precisely by the detour of this “redeemer,” this seeming antagonist and destroyer of Israel, reached the final goal of its sublime vindictiveness? Was it not a necessary feature of a truly brilliant politics of vengeance, a farsighted, subterranean, slowly and carefully planned vengeance, that Israel had to deny its true instrument publicly and nail him to the cross like a mortal enemy, so that “the whole world” (meaning all the enemies of Israel) might naïvely swallow the bait? And could one, by straining every resource, hit upon a bait more dangerous than this? What could equal in debilitating narcotic power the symbol of the “holy cross,” the ghastly paradox of a crucified god, the unspeakably cruel mystery of God’s self-crucifixion for the benefit of mankind? One thing is certain, that in this sign Israel has by now triumphed over all other, nobler values. — ibid
And the very traits that make the lower dark classes contemptible to Nietzsche, are enobled when shown by the blonde upper classes in the same piece: And we are the first to admit that anyone who knew these “good” ones [nobility] only as enemies would find them evil enemies indeed. For these same men who, amongst themselves, are so strictly constrained by custom, worship, ritual, gratitude, and by mutual surveillance and jealousy, who are so resourceful in consideration, tenderness, loyality, pride and friendship, when once they step outside their circle become little better than uncaged beasts of prey. Once abroad in the wilderness, they revel in the freedom from social constraint and compensate for their long confinement in the quietude of their own community. They revert to the innocence of wild animals: we can imagine them returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape, and torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a fraternity prank — convinced, moreover, that the poets for a long time to come will have something to sing about and to praise. Deep within all the noble races there lurks the [blond] beast of prey, bent on spoil and conquest. This hidden urge has to be satisfied from time to time, the beast let loose in the wilderness. This goes as well for the Roman, Arabian, German, Japanese nobility as for the Homeric heroes and the Scandinavian vikings. The noble races have everywhere left in their wake the catchword “barbarian.” …..their utter indifference to safety and comfort, their terrible pleasure in destruction, their taste for cruelty — all these traits are embodied by their victims in the image of the “barbarian,” and “evil enemy,” the Goth or the Vandal. The profound and icy suspicion which the German arouses as soon as he assumes power (we see it happening again today [i.e. 1887]) harks back to the persistent horror with which Europe for many centuries witnessed the raging of the blond Teutonic [germanischen] beast (although all racial connection between the old Teutonic tribes [Germanen] and ourselves has been lost).
I could go on, but it’s pretty clear that Nietzsche was racist, aethist, anti-Semitic, and a believer of class based on race.
“When you join a military, you are taught how to murder other human beings in cold blood.”
On behalf of policies voted in by people like you. Soldiers may be butchers, but the meat is for your table.
“Where did I mention they are inferior? Pointing out that most of the Arab economies will crash when oil dries up is a perfectly valid observation.”
But longing for that day is not very Christian of you, is it?
“You mean like your inability to comprehend the 23 million Chinese killed by the Japanese during WWII? I fully agree.”
Do provide us with proof of these 23 million Chinese. The actual figures for Chinese civilians killed is never more than 20 million, and possibly only 10 million (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties?wasRedirected=true). This site, which has extremely detailed casualty figures places the number of Chinese civilians killed at 4 million (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm). I look forward to your sources.
So if denial of history is a denial of your fantasy version of it, I certainly am denying it
On the other hand, I was referring to your denial of a 2001 election in SL, your denial of US responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, your denial of North Korean membership in the UN and on and on and on 
“Had the Italian scientist Fermi not succeeded in splitting the atom when he did, there would have been no atom bomb before 1950, period. Had Germany not chased out many of its best Jewish scientists – e.g. Einstein, Boethe – who ended up working on the atom bomb, the success of the latter is questionable. Of course, science is probably beyond your abilities. But if you knew anything about it, you would understand that it is usually a collective effort, especially major discoveries , in particular the way that new discoveries build upon previous ones.”
So you’re saying that Femmi, Einstein, and Boethe nuked the Japanese? Would you also agree that since the biological application of hydrocyanic gas (an integral ingredient in Zyklon B) was developed devoloped in 1887 for use as a pesticide in California, the Americans were responsible for the Holocaust? Would you also agree that since Capt Basil Liddell Hart invented wrote the book on armoured warfare in the ’30s, the British were responsible for the fall of Europe? Would you also agree that since the Wright brothers invented the airplane, the US bombed themselves at Pearl Harbour?
Anyone who is interested in violence in Christianity only has to read the Bible itself. I think claims made by posters such as David Blacker fall flat in the face of evidence from the Bible, which, as we know, is considered to be the word of God by Christians. Let me back up my claim by providing some facts from the Bible:
In the Bible God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife. Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody. In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church. In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.
The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).
Now this type of criminal behaviour should shock any moral person. Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK.
I am not writing this to insult Christians or Christianity, but merely bringing to attention what is written in the Bible itself, a book that Christians hold in high regard and which teachings they are supposed to follow. The truth is that many Christian priests and preachers don’t like to read certain passages in the Bible because they present a message of hate not love.
Christians pointing fingers at Buddhists just screams of the “the pot calling the kettle black.” I just hope David Blacker and other Sri Lankan Christians with extremist views realize that.
Sorry, I thought I was responding to Heshan’s comments, not David Blacker’s.
Heshan, the act of murder is rampant in the Bible. How do you reconcile that with your comments “Indeed, my Christian beliefs do not allow me to inflict physical harm upon others” — especially when the Bible commands you to inflict physical harm upon others? In much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there are laws that command that people be killed for absurd reasons such as working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing one’s parents, or not being a virgin on one’s wedding night. In addition to these laws, there are plenty of examples of God’s irrationality by his direct killing of many people for reasons that defy any rational explanation such as killing children who make fun of bald people, and the killing of a man who tried to keep the ark of God from falling during transport. There are also countless examples of mass murders commanded by God, including the murder of women, infants, and children.
Just a few examples:
“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.” (Leviticus 20:27
– Was this the cause of witch burnings in Europe and the United States?
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13
— Is this the cause of homophobia and the murder of homosexuals in Europe and the United States?
One could well argue that you are being a bad Christian if you don’t go around killing homosexuals or witches/fortune tellers as requested in the Bible.
“I think claims made by
posters such as David Blacker fall flat in the face of
evidence from the Bible”
Which claims are you referring to?
SD,
What I find flabbergasting however, is that following this line of logic, you must doubtless agree that Hitler’s anti-semitism benefited Christians the most
Anti-semitism did not begin with Hitler. Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, Rome, all heavily persecuted Jews. In more modern times, more than a million Jews were forced to leave numerous Arab countries within a 20-yr span, beginning in 1945. In other words, Hitler’s anti-semitism did not occur in a vacuum. The Holocaust was the culmination of thousands of years of persecution by numerous civilizations, that had nothing to do with organized religion. As for whom Hitler’s anti-semitism benefited, I have already made the argument elsewhere that Hitler would have abolished Christianity had he succeeded in establishing his Reich. Furthermore, I have already shown that the vast majority of historians subscribe to the view that Hitler was no fan of the Church. So in this context, the question of who would have benefited is at best ambiguous .
SD,
Have a look at this picture:
http://tamilnet.com/img/publish/2011/02/Bo_sapling_1.jpg
If you can find a similar picture of Hitler surrounded by priests, you might have a point.
What about this?
http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/05/04/z_new350.jpg
And this:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0f8p2ltfu85E7/610x.jpg
All taken for publicity. Clearly, the monks are an important propaganda tool.
Heshan, please have a look at the following video:
You will be able to see Hitler surrounded by Christian priests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O12rzp2IMuE
“Many Sri Lankans are unaware of the connections the Catholic Church had with Hitler.”
Dear Heshan,
RE: “If you can find a similar picture of Hitler surrounded by priests, you might have a point.
You mean like these?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
or these videos?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-hS_90axHg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O12rzp2IMuE
or these artefacts?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
or would you prefer to purchase some collectibles?
http://www.nazicoinsonline.com/2reichsmarkpotsdamchurch.html
how does this prove that the war was one of Buddhism vs Hinduism
Where did I claim the war was between Buddhists and Hindus? You seem to have a tendency to bring up non-existent points. Anyway, the rest of your comments follow this sort of third-rate reasoning and do not merit any further response.
What I am glad to see, though, is that you fail to get along with Sinhalese nationalists of the likes of TT, for whose cause you actually risked your life. [Edited out.]
Prof Heshan
“What I am glad to see, though, is that you fail to get along with Sinhalese nationalists of the likes of TT”
Why, because you are getting along with TT better?
So now I’m a Sinhalese nationalist?
I find it appealing but wrong partly because I never said I’m Sinhalese and partly because there is nothing called Sinhala (or Tamil) nationalism. It is Sinhala (or Tamil) racism. A nation (and hence nationalism) requires many races, not just one.
“Anti-semitism did not begin with Hitler blah blah”
But no one said that it did, mein fuhrer. The question was this: if you feel that Sinhala Only, the war, etc benefitting Sinhala Buddhists (though you’ve failed miserably even to prove that it did) proves that the war was for Buddhism, how then can you deny that Hitler’s persecution of Jews (a religious community, not a race), which benefitted Christianity, doesn’t prove that the Third Reich was a Christian empire?
“As for whom Hitler’s anti-semitism benefited, I have already made the argument elsewhere that Hitler would have abolished Christianity had he succeeded in establishing his Reich.”
Yet you cannot provide any evidence of the Third Reich’s intentions to abolish Christianity at any time during its 12-year reign
“Furthermore, I have already shown that the vast majority of historians subscribe to the view that Hitler was no fan of the Church.”
But you cannot quote any single one of this “vast majority” as saying Hitler was anti-Christian
“Have a look at this picure: If you can find a similar picture of Hitler surrounded by priests, you might have a point.”
Here’s a picture of a Wehrmacht chaplain blessing troops before the invasion of Poland: http://m.flickr.com/photos/ferdockm/3447716781/
Here’s more of Third Reich chaplains conducting Roman Catholic masses and Protestant services for troops in eastern Europe where most of the Jews were rounded up:
http://m.flickr.com/photos/ferdockm/3447716689/
http://m.flickr.com/photos/ferdockm/3448531050/
http://m.flickr.com/photos/ferdockm/3448530996/
Here’s a service being conducted to actually bless an SS Einsatzgruppe during Op Barabarossa. These were the guys who actually lined up the Jews and killed them: http://m.flickr.com/photos/ferdockm/3447716447/
In contrast to western armies with their chaplains, the SL Army doesn’t have Buddhist priests commissioned as officers.
“All taken for publicity. Clearly, the monks are an important propaganda tool.”
Propaganda is hardly factual, so a propaganda picture doesn’t prove the war was a religious one.
“Where did I claim the war was between Buddhists and Hindus? You seem to have a tendency to bring up non-existent points.”
Right here: “The funny thing is that he fought in a war to establish Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy and now tries to talk about Tamil rights!” Any war to establish Buddhism, Sinhala or otherwise, would be a religious war. You’ve said this before, been asked to prove it and quietly slunk away instead. Is this lying part of the Christian beliefs you claim prevent you from risking your own life in the fight against evil? Why this constant need to lay the blame on Buddhism, Rev Heshan, instead of simply the Sinhalese? Is it because you can’t stomach the fact that you yourself are a Sinhalese, the Great Satan you yourself detest?
“Anyway, the rest of your comments follow this sort of third-rate reasoning and do not merit any further response.”
You mean you have no response when faced with actual evidence
“What I am glad to see, though, is that you fail to get along with Sinhalese nationalists of the likes of TT, for whose cause you actually risked your life.”
Oh I risked my life for my own cause, and no other; it just happened to coincide with TT’s at the time. If I had grown up in Jaffna, I assure you my cause would’ve coincided with that of Tamil nationalism, which I also disagree with. In the words of WB Yeats, Those that I fight, I do not hate; Those that I guard, I do not love.
Dear David,
RE: “Any war to establish Buddhism, Sinhala or otherwise, would be a religious war.”
In all fairness, I believe Heshan is not referring to the issue in the context of being a religious war, but in the context of Sinhala ethnic identity being fused with “Protestant-Buddhism”, a.k.a “Sinhala-Buddhism”.
http://www.southasianmedia.net/magazine/journal/sinhalabuddhist_nationalism.htm
There were raging debates on this forum, where this mentality manifested itself in terms of Sri Lanka being the last refuge of pure Theravada-Buddhism, with the Sinhalese having to stoically bear the monumental burden of preserving the dhamma for future generations, against international conspirators and an assortment of other villains, real or imagined. (This is perhaps the extreme end of its manifestation, but serves to highlight the general concern).
While I would agree that the term “Sinhala-Buddhism” does a disservice to the issue, both by suggesting a religious motivation (this is more an ethnic motivation) as well as over-simplifying the problem (as Heshan does) to one of ethno-religiosity alone, it does form yet another dimension to this hopelessly tangled issue.
http://books.google.com/books?id=rpN9atSFua0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=buddhism+transformed&hl=en&ei=t8pXTZXINJG6vQOi4v2nBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
“So now I’m a Sinhalese nationalist? I find it appealing but wrong partly because I never said I’m Sinhalese”
Neither have you denied it. Regardless of what you are, it is not required that you be of the ethnicity or nationality of the group calling for nationalism in order to support it. I earlier suggested that you were unaware of the meaning of the word “nationalism”, and I therefore provided you with the definition to help you, but clearly it has passed over your head.
“and partly because there is nothing called Sinhala (or Tamil) nationalism. It is Sinhala (or Tamil) racism.”
So you agree that Sinhala Only is racist? Finally.
“A nation (and hence nationalism) requires many races, not just one.”
Not at all. A nation can have many races or just one, and nationalism can be racist or not, depending on its form; nationalism per se is not racist. For example, German nationalism was centred around the belief in the superiority of the Germanic race over other races, and included the removal of these other races from Germany, which was racist. The LTTE’s brand of nationalism took this same fascist element, whereas Tamil nationalism as articulated in the Vaddukkodai Resolution, didn’t and was therefore not racist. Indian nationalism which agitated for independence from Britain included many ethnicities and wasn’t racist. Jewish nationalism and Palestinian nationalism both looked to a removal of the other, and is therefore racist.
All of this has been explained to you in detail, TT. Why do you ignore it? is it beyond your comprehension, or just inconvenient?
I have also asked you for a list of nations with national minorities that haven’t granted these minorities language rights. You haven’t answered.
I also asked you whether you consider the Jaffna (or NE) Tamils immigrants in relation to the Sinhalese. No answer.
I also asked you where it says that a majority ethnic group have the right to establish their own language as the national language. You don’t answer.
Instead, like Heshan, you continue to bat on even though your stumps have been knocked over.
DB,
” Regardless of what you are, it is not required that you be of the ethnicity or nationality of the group calling for nationalism in order to support it.”
Agree.
“I earlier suggested that you were unaware of the meaning of the word “nationalism”, and I therefore provided you with the definition to help you, but clearly it has passed over your head.”
Nope. nationalism is about a nation which is by definition multi ethnic, especially in the South Asian context. If you are to have a nation for every ethnic group, there would be thousands or at least hundreds in South Asia.
““and partly because there is nothing called Sinhala (or Tamil) nationalism. It is Sinhala (or Tamil) racism.”
So you agree that Sinhala Only is racist? Finally.”
Now you are jumping to wrong conclusions. Firstly there was nothing called Sinhala only in law. It is official languages act. It has nothing to do with Sinhala nationalism or racism. It is just like English (only) in UK, USA, Australia, French only in France, Chinese only in China, etc., etc. Most countries have ONE official language. It is about the majority will expressed democratically and well within the UN Declaration of 1992 and Nuremberg laws.
You always avoid these 2 definitive legal requirements. IF SL has violated ANY of these why don’t anyone who cry foul for non-existant war crimes challenge SL at the UN? Why? Because SL has come well within these and there is nothing wrong in 1956 Official Languages Act, standardisation, etc. in the context of the above 2 laws. Stop running away from this acid test.
“A nation (and hence nationalism) requires many races, not just one.”
“Not at all. A nation can have many races or just one, and nationalism can be racist or not, depending on its form; nationalism per se is not racist. For example, German nationalism was centred around the belief in the superiority of the Germanic race”
What BS is this. This is iteself racist. We are not living in the early 20th century Germany. We live in multi ethnic societies made up of few nations and many ethnicities. Today there is no nation with a single race.
“whereas Tamil nationalism as articulated in the Vaddukkodai Resolution, didn’t and was therefore not racist.”
My foot! Tamil racism (not nationalism because Tamil is only a race not a nation – not in India, not in Malaysia and not in SL) as articulated in the Vaddukoddai resolution (1976) is an exact copy of the Nuremberg laws (1935) – not the one after WW2 but the one before WW2.
“Indian nationalism which agitated for independence from Britain included many ethnicities and wasn’t racist.”
Agree.
“Jewish nationalism and Palestinian nationalism both looked to a removal of the other, and is therefore racist.”
Israeli nationalism is certainly not racist.
“I have also asked you for a list of nations with national minorities that haven’t granted these minorities language rights. You haven’t answered.”
That is not the issue. SL included almost all countries have already done that. But please try to understand that granting minorities the language rights as specified in the UN Declaration of 1992 DOES NOT include making these languages official or national languages. You have failed to see this.
Take USA for instance or Australia or India (there are hundreds of minority languages that are not national languages of India).
I also asked you whether you consider the Jaffna (or NE) Tamils immigrants in relation to the Sinhalese. No answer.
“I also asked you where it says that a majority ethnic group have the right to establish their own language as the national language. You don’t answer.
Instead, like Heshan, you continue to bat on even though your stumps have been knocked over.”
It is understood from the conduct of all democractic nations where the political majority can do so.
E.g. USA, Australia, etc.
In many jurisdictions, it is not written the husband and wife can engage in various sexual acts following marriage. it is understood and not challenged.
This is legally enforceable and even a government minister (Udaya Gammanpila) recently stated this as a guide to manage minority demands. There is no point beating about the bush. face the acid test.
IF SL has violated ANY of these (UN Declaration of 1992 and Nurumberg laws of 1945-49, why don’t anyone who cry foul for non-existant war crimes challenge SL at the UN? Why? Because SL has come well within these and there is nothing wrong in 1956 Official Languages Act, standardisation, etc. in the context of the above 2 laws. Stop running away from this acid test.
bad luck to those who run away from this. They have no other recourse.
Do Sri Lanka violate the UN Declaration of 1992 and Nurumberg laws of 1945-49? YES or NO.
If yes please go ahead and challenge SL at the UN over this (not other BS) and I will come with you as an observer.
Stop trying to reinvent the wheel when it is clearly there. Make use of it. Ask Bruce Fein, Francis Boyle, etc. to take up this EASY CASE (if so). IF SL has violated these, I’m 100% sure there is no way out for the violators!
My prediction: You will avoid answering this as you know very well SL has not violated these.
DB,
My bad, it is not Nurumberg laws per se but the laws and precedents used in the Nurumberg Trails of criminals plus the UN Charter.
These ARE laws and there are punishments for violators.
Don’t run away from it.
Has SL violated the 1992 UN Declaration; has SL violated anything upheld in the Nurumberg Trials; has SL violated the UN charter?
Krish,
You mentioned something very important. You said “pure” form of Tamil is used in SL whereas Tamil in Tamil Nadu has been “poluted” by words, etc. from other Indian languages.
This means Tamils in SL have not integrated much with the other vis-a-vis Tamils in Tamil Nadu. I want to change this. I want Tamils and Sinhalese to integrate well and “polute” each others’ languages. For this I propose settling a large number of landless Sinhalese in the north and landless Tamils in the south. I know you will be against this and call it “colonization”. If so we have to agree to disagree on that. but that does not mean this will not happen! It only means it will happen without your consent.
“Nope. nationalism is about a nation which is by definition multi ethnic, especially in the South Asian context. If you are to have a nation for every ethnic group, there would be thousands or at least hundreds in South Asia.”
You’re wrong, TT. Nationalism is about creating a nation, full stop. That nation can consist of many ethnic groups, or just one, depending on the demographic. I know your grasp of English is tenuous at best, but please don’t make a fool of yourself by trying to create new definitions. Here is the accepted definition of nationalism (I had posted it before, and I’m sorry if it contains words you don’t understand, but what to do): “Nationalism involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation [this broadly describes Sinhalese nationalism (or racism, as you call it)]. Often, it is the belief that an ethnic group has a right to statehood [Tamil nationalism falls into this category], or that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic group [the LTTE, Nazi, and Zionist brand of nationalism which is definitely racist (though you think it isn't)], or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.” [which is the nationalism I'd like to see SL embrace](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism)
This has all been explained to you before, TT. Do you disagree with the dictionary definition of the word nationalism? Obviously you cannot grasp it. How are we to proceed with this discussion when the basic tenets of democracy, or even the basic English terminology is incomprehensible gibberish to you?
“Now you are jumping to wrong conclusions. Firstly there was nothing called Sinhala only in law. It is official languages act.”
And there was nothing called Genocide, Extermination or Holocaust in German law either; it was called the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. But what they amounted to was genocide, extermination, and the Holocaust of the Jews. Similarly, the Official Languages Act of 1956 named Sinhalese only as the official language, hence it is referred to as “Sinhala Only”. Are you denying now that the law recognised only Sinhalese as an official language? Are you that stupid?
“It has nothing to do with Sinhala nationalism or racism. It is just like English (only) in UK, USA, Australia, French only in France, Chinese only in China, etc., etc.”
But there is no English Only in the UK, USA, or Australia
France has no national minorities that speak a different language 
And there is no single language called “Chinese”, TT 
Four languages are spoken in China: Mandarin, Wu, Cantonese, and Min. My goodness, TT, it’s like arguing with Heshan; before even a discussion can begin, I have to educate you to a standard of parity! Ha ha ha.
“Most countries have ONE official language.”
Really? Here are the countries with more than one official language:
1 South Africa — English, Afrikaans, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, Zulu.
2 Montenegro — Albanian, Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian.
3 Chad — Arabic and French.
4 Comoros — Arabic, French and Comorian.
5. Djibouti — Arabic and French.
6. Eritrea — Arabic and Tigrignan.
7. Iraq — Arabic, Kurdish and Assyrian/Syriac.
8. Israel — Hebrew and Arabic.
9. Jordan — Arabic and English.
10. Lebanon — Arabic and French.
11. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic — Arabic and Spanish.
12. Somalia — Arabic and Somali.
13. Sudan — Arabic and English.
14. Syria — Assyrian/Syriac and Arabic.
15. India — Assamese, Bengali, English, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, and 10 other official languages.
16. Bolivia — Spanish, Aymara and Quechua.
17. Peru — Spanish, Aymara and Quechua.
18. Spain — Spanish, Catalan, Occitan and Basque.
19. Belarus — Belarusian and Russian.
20. Sierra Leone — English and Bengali.
21. Bosnia and Herzegovina — Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian.
22. Serbia — Serbian and Bosnian.
23. China — Mandarin, Cantonese, Wu, Min, Kazakh, Korean, Mongolian, Kyrgyz, Portuguese, and English.
24. Singapore — Mandarin, English, Malay and Tamil.
25. Austria — German, Hungarian and Croatian.
26. Italy — Italian, French, German, Greek and Croatian.
27. Slovakia — Slovak and Czech.
28. Denmark — Danish and Faroese.
29. Afghanistan — Pashto and Dari.
30. Belgium — Dutch and French.
31. Holland — Dutch, West Frisian, English and Papiamento.
32. Australia — English and several Aborigine languages.
33. Botswana — Tswana and English.
34. Cameroon — English and French.
35. Canada — English, French and Inuinnaqtun.
36. United Kingdom — English, Scots, Gaelic, Welsh, Irish, Ulster Scots, Manx Gaelic, French and Cornish.
37. Fiji — Bau Fijian, English and Hindustani.
38. Grenada — English and French Creole.
39. Guernsey — English and French.
40. Ireland — Irish and English.
41. Kenya — Swahili and English.
42. Lesotho — English and Sotho.
43. Madagascar — Malagasy, English and French.
44. Malawi — Chichewa and English.
45. Malaysia — Malay and English.
46. Malta — English and Maltese.
47. Marshall Islands — English and Marshallese.
48. Mauritius — English and French.
49. Nauru — English and Nauruan.
50. New Zealand — M?ori and English.
51. Pakistan — Urdu, Sindhi and English.
52. Palau — English, Paluan and Japanese.
53. Papua New Guinea — English, Tok Pisin and Motu.
54. Philippines — English and Filipino.
55. Rwanda — English, French and Kinyarwanda.
56. St. Lucia — English and French Creole.
57. St. Vincent and the Grenadines — English and French Creole.
58. Samoa — English and Samoan.
59. Seychelles — Creole, French and English.
60. Sri Lanka — Sinhalese, Tamil and English.
61. Swaziland — Swati and English.
62. Tanzania — Swahili and English.
63. Uganda — Swahili and English.
64. United States — English (official only in 27 states) and many Native American languages.
65. Vanuatu — Bislama, English and French.
66. Finland — Finnish and Swedish.
67. Burundi — Kirundi and French.
68. Equatorial Guinea — French, Spanish and Portuguese.
69. Haiti — French and Haitian Creole.
70. Luxembourg — French, German and Luxembourgish.
71. Switzerland — German, French, Italian, and Rhaeto-Romansch.
72. Moldova — Moldovan, Gagauz, Russian and Ukrainian.
73. Cyprus — Greek and Turkish.
74. Albania — Albanian and Greek.
75. Paraguay — Spanish and Gurani.
76. Argentina — Spanish and Gurani.
77. Kazakhstan — Kazakh and Russian.
78. Mongolia — Mongolian and Kazakh.
79. Kyrgyzstan — Kyrgyz and Russian.
80. Vatican City — Latin, Italian and French.
81. Zimbabwe — English, Shona and Ndebele
82. Aruba — Dutch and Papiamento.
83. East Timor — Tetum and Portuguese.
84. Puerto Rico — Spanish and English.
85. Surinam — Sranan Tongo, Dutch, English, Hindi and Javanese.
86. Russia — Russian and Yiddish.
So, TT, you can see that 86 countries have more than one official language. You will also see that English is official in 55 countries, French in 32, Arabic in 24, Spanish in 22, Portuguese in 10, and so on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_official_languages), rubbishing your theory that speakers of a particular language can only hold the country of that language’s origin as a homeland.
The countries with just one official language are only slightly higher in number, and of these, the vast majority are tiny nations with tiny populations, have recently broken away along ethnic lines from larger multi-ethnic countries and therefore have no minorities of their own, or are totalitarian regimes. The only large democratic nations with one official language (Bangladesh, Germany, Greece, Japan, Thailand, etc) have no national minorities at present.
“It is about the majority will expressed democratically and well within the UN Declaration of 1992 and Nuremberg laws.”</em"
But I have already told you that majority rule isn't considered democratic anymore, which is why plebiscites on separation, the granting of black civil rights, etc, have been granted and recognised. How many times does this have to be repeated to you?
And can you quote which portion of these "Nuremberg Laws" you are advocating, justify keeping Sinhalese as the only official language.
“You always avoid these 2 definitive legal requirements.”
But they’re not definitive legal requirements. Can you quote any statement claiming that a UN declaration is legally binding? Can you also link me to the “Nuremberg Laws” you are advocating and where it says that they are laws, and which portion of them deals with minority rights.
“IF SL has violated ANY of these why don’t anyone who cry foul for non-existant war crimes challenge SL at the UN? Why?”
Because one isn’t legally binding (I await your evidence that it is), and the other doesn’t exist (again, I await your evidence on the existence of any post-WW2 Nuremberg Laws).
“Because SL has come well within these and there is nothing wrong in 1956 Official Languages Act, standardisation, etc. in the context of the above 2 laws. Stop running away from this acid test.”
Can you quote the the two contexts you speak of? Can you also show how Sinhala Only is legal when the Jim Crow Laws are not?
“What BS is this. This is iteself racist.”
How is pointing out that Nazis believed in racial superiority itself racist?
Is that why you think that the Tamils fighting against Sinhalese racism are themselves racist? You are indeed a confused young man, TT.
“We are not living in the early 20th century Germany. We live in multi ethnic societies made up of few nations and many ethnicities.”
Which is precisely why those ethnic groups must all have equal status and rights.
“Tamil racism (not nationalism because Tamil is only a race not a nation – not in India, not in Malaysia and not in SL) as articulated in the Vaddukoddai resolution (1976) is an exact copy of the Nuremberg laws (1935) – not the one after WW2 but the one before WW2.”
Still don’t understand the difference between nationalism and a nation, TT? Do you also think that a commune is the same as communism?
So do you think it was racism when SL nationalism agitated for independence from Britain since SL didn’t exist as a nation; since you think Tamil nationalism is racist because Tamils are not a nation? Can you also show me what the similarities between the Waddukoddai Resolution and the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 are (and btw, there’s only one set of these laws — the pre-WW2 ones)?
“Israeli nationalism is certainly not racist.”
How do you justify a nationalism that designates a country as belonging only to one ethnic group as not being racist?
That [the list of countries that haven't granted minority rights to their minorities] is not the issue.”
I’m afraid it is precisely the issue in the context of your claim that “most nations haven’t granted their minorities language rights”. Is it just that you cannot find such a list? I have already provided you with a list of nations that have indeed granted such rights, and the fact is almost all democratic nations with national minorities have done so.
“SL included almost all countries have already done that.”
Bt you said that “most countries” hadn’t. Were you mistaken?
“But please try to understand that granting minorities the language rights as specified in the UN Declaration of 1992 DOES NOT include making these languages official or national languages. You have failed to see this.”
But I have never claimed that the UN declaration required SL to do so. Neither did I say that that declaration was the only international framework; and in fact I listed several more. Have you forgotten what they were already? What I did say was that these international pacts indicate the civilised worlds’ view on such subjects, and are pointers in the right direction for those (like you) who have no moral compasses of their own. They are not binding laws as you mistakenly think, nor are binding laws required for us to understand good and evil.
I earlier asked you what you fear in giving Tamils equal language rights, and why you think its right for one ethnic group to have their language rights and for the rest to be deprived of it. I’m still waiting for your answer, though I won’t hold my breath. I doubt you’re capable of formulating a justifiable position on this.
“Take USA for instance or Australia or India (there are hundreds of minority languages that are not national languages of India).”
But I already told you days ago that when there are too many languages to be practicable, certain link languages such as English, Hindi, or French are used. Didn’t you understand this part? If you have a counterargument to that, please state it. Pretending it was never discussed makes you intellectually deceitful, like your friend Heshan.
I also asked you whether you consider the Jaffna (or NE) Tamils immigrants in relation to the Sinhalese. No answer.
I also asked you where it says that a majority ethnic group have the right to establish their own language as the national language. You don’t answer.
“It is understood from the conduct of all democractic nations where the political majority can do so.E.g. USA, Australia, etc.”
Ha ha, but the Sinhalese are not a political majority, they are an ethnic one. Language is not a political issue, it is an ethnic one. And in the countries you mention, language rights have been granted with no democratic referendum or any such thing in the decision-making process.
“In many jurisdictions, it is not written the husband and wife can engage in various sexual acts following marriage. it is understood and not challenged.”
So do you consider the placement of one ethnic language above the other to be similar to an act of sex? Would you then consider the enforcement of a language act that suppresses one ethnic language in favour of another to be an act of rape?
“This is legally enforceable and even a government minister (Udaya Gammanpila) recently stated this as a guide to manage minority demands. There is no point beating about the bush. face the acid test.”
Which acid test?
The point is that SL followed international norms and gave Tamil official status and English link status. What remains is to implement it thoroughly. If the GoSL thinks the 1956 Sinhala Only act was correct and legal and sufficient to world standards, why doesn’t it overturn the 13th Amendment (using the majority in parliament) and see if world opinion and the UN accepts it (since you claim UN declarations are binding). You do remember the PR disaster of trying to make the national anthem Sinhala Only, no? Instead, in a underhand and “ponna” manner, the GoSL retains the 13th but doesn’t implement it. That is the acid test, TT.
“Do Sri Lanka violate the UN Declaration of 1992 and Nurumberg laws of 1945-49? YES or NO.”
How can SL violate something that isn’t a law?
“My prediction: You will avoid answering this as you know very well SL has not violated these.”
But how can I provide the answer to a question that is wrong?
It’s like a little boy screaming at me “Is the moon made of cheese or ice cream?! Answer ONE OR THE OTHER!!!!!! If you cannot, you are wrong!” Ha ha ha.
“My bad, it is not Nurumberg laws per se but the laws and precedents used in the Nurumberg Trails of criminals plus the UN Charter. These ARE laws and there are punishments for violators. Don’t run away from it.”
The laws and precepts used in the Nuremberg Trials are those later used to set up the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the ICC (no, it’s not the International Cricket Council — before you start telling me SL hasn’t broken any cricket rules!) — the International Criminal Court. So no SL hasn’t been charged with war crimes. But ethnic language rights weren’t covered at the Nuremberg Trials, so perhaps you should explain what exactly you’re talking about.
How can SL have broken the “UN Charter” you mention above? Which part of the UN Charter?
“Has SL violated the 1992 UN Declaration;”
How can you violate a declaration?
“has SL violated anything upheld in the Nurumberg Trials;”
Er… no, but since the Nuremberg Trials were about genocide, what has that to do with language rights? SL certainly hasn’t committed genocide.
“has SL violated the UN charter?”
This is the UN Charter: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/ Are we talking about the same thing? I ask because you obviously have a problem staying on track and articulating your argument; no to mention comprehending English.
What SL has done is fail to fall in line with international norms articulated in a range of UN, EU, national, regional, and other declarations and pacts specifically outlined in the SL context by the 13th Amendment, by failing to implement it.
DB,
That is impressive. You are going where I want you to go!
Some of the countries in your list are wrong!
e.g. Russia.
86 out of 200 odd countries have more than one OFFICIAL (NOT NATIONAL) language according to you and some of the examples are wrong!
Also look how many of those are WORTHY of following? Not many isn’t it? On the other hand there are many countries that have one official language that are worthy role models for SL.
Then you go to say,
“Tamil already is an official language, TT.”
News to me; thank you. So you see SL is also in your list!:) Why this talk about language based discrimination?
“So you propose to have a tri-lingual translator seated next to every government clerk and official so that all documents can be translated on the spot; plus a tri-lingual interpreter at every government institute dealing with the public, and following every official around on his duties?”
Now you arejumping into extreme conclusions. Don’t you know that already a percentage of public servants equal to the percentage of Tamils are fluent in Tamil? This is in ADDITION to that DB! You are trying to be simpler!
But once again you slip from the main challenge. Has SL not implemented what’s contained in the UN declaration of 1992?
If yes, FULLSTOP. If not take up the matter with the UN!
““Do Sri Lanka violate the UN Declaration of 1992 and Nurumberg laws of 1945-49? YES or NO.”
How can SL violate something that isn’t a law?”
Why war crimes are law and this is not law/enforceable? Doesn’t it mean it gives nations options to come within it and SL has already done so?
Like SL the world community make decisions democratically. They know what to emphasise and what not to emphasise. SL has done its share for irs minorities and there is nothing more to give to Tamils.
“My prediction: You will avoid answering this as you know very well SL has not violated these.”
But how can I provide the answer to a question that is wrong?
So my prediction stands DB.
Making Hindu, Christianity, Islam state religions like Buddhism is OK by me as long as it is done within the democratic process.
The 13th amendment did not follow democratic process. It was trusted upon SL and SL should scrap it. But power devolution to provinces is a good thing. In the past there were 3 geographical regions of SL. Lets devolve power to 3 regions once again!
Northern, north-central and north-western provinces to be one single province.
Eastern, Southern and Uva provinces are to be another single province.
Western, Central and Sabaragamuwa provinces to be yet another single province.
Lets devolve power to these 3 regions!
Now don’t shy away from this worthy, better suited proposal DB. Even India wanted the northern and eastern provinces merged. So what’s wrong in a different yet more suitable, historically valid 3 region approach to power devolution?
“That is impressive. You are going where I want you to go!”
It’s a pity that you’re not going where you should be going, TT — namely a library, where you can reverse your woeful ignorance on SL, the world, and democracy.
“Some of the countries in your list are wrong! e.g. Russia.”
Prove it. I have given you the link. If you have a source that disproves that, let’s have it.
“86 out of 200 odd countries have more than one OFFICIAL (NOT NATIONAL) language according to you and some of the examples are wrong!”
Please enlighten us on the difference between an official language and a national one. In SL, Sinhalese, Tamil, and English are the official languages. There is no national language.
“Also look how many of those are WORTHY of following? Not many isn’t it?”
No one’s suggesting we follow any one country, but the international community. But which countries do you deem unworthy and why?
“On the other hand there are many countries that have one official language that are worthy role models for SL.”
Really? Can you name any of these “many countries” (I see you’ve abandoned the “most countries” tag ha ha) that have national minorities? I’m asking you this once more (I think for the sixth or seventh time in the past week) but no doubt you will hide from it once more like the intellectual coward that you are.
“News to me; thank you. So you see SL is also in your list!:) Why this talk about language based discrimination?”
Because that’s precisely the point, TT, and that’s why I stuck to this conversation instead of saying “Look, TT, it’s already law so stop acting the fool”. The point is Tamil has by law been an official language for 24 years, yet it is so badly implemented that most people (including you) think that Sinhalese is still the official language. How sad is that? It is this lack of implementation of the law that is the problem.
Today, we think that Sinhalese are enlightened, that they understand their past mistakes, that SL can finally round the corner, discuss modern precepts like devolution, federalism, etc. Then you come along, TT, and I realise that the Neanderthel of 1956 is still alive and well.
“Now you arejumping into extreme conclusions. Don’t you know that already a percentage of public servants equal to the percentage of Tamils are fluent in Tamil? This is in ADDITION to that DB! You are trying to be simpler!”
But it is you that suggested translators, TT, not me. I’m only suggesting that the law be implemented. Last week, I visited the Borella police station to make an entry, and the sergeant wrote it all down in Sinhalese and asked me to sign it. I can read Sinhalese very well, but his handwriting was so bad that I couldn’t read it and told him so. He mistook my comment to be that I couldn’t read Sinhalese, and told me that since there was no one in the station who could write in English or Tamil, he would read it out to me, which he did, and I signed, not knowing what I was signing. Does that sound like implemenntation of Tamil and English as official languages? A couple of days later, I went back to the station to get the police report, and it was given to me. Typed in Sinhalese. Since the report needed to be shown to a relative who isn’t fluent in Sinhalese, I asked if an English or Tamil copy could be given. The cop looked at me like I was an idiot and said that they only had a Sinhalese typewriter. Does that sound like implemenntation of Tamil and English as official languages? All that the Tamils are asking is for the law of the land to be implemented. When Tissanayagam was asked to sign a confession, it too was in Sinhalese, and neither he nor his lawyer could read it. So where is the law being obeyed?
“But once again you slip from the main challenge. Has SL not implemented what’s contained in the UN declaration of 1992?”
No, TT, that is not the main challenge; the main challenge is to create a modern, democratic, fair, and law-abiding nation. In not implementing the 13th, the government is failing this main challenge.
“Why war crimes are law and this is not law/enforceable? Doesn’t it mean it gives nations options to come within it and SL has already done so?”
Of course, and SL has passed a law that falls in line with international norms. The question is why hasn’t it been implemented?
“SL has done its share for irs minorities and there is nothing more to give to Tamils.”
Except the implementation of the 13th, which is what Tamils are demanding, and which you claim make them rascist.
“So my prediction stands DB.”
Your prediction of your inability to frame the correct question? It certainly does.
“Making Hindu, Christianity, Islam state religions like Buddhism is OK by me as long as it is done within the democratic process.”
Not like Buddhism, TT, instead of Buddhism. Would you be OK with that?
“The 13th amendment did not follow democratic process. It was trusted upon SL and SL should scrap it.”
It was passed in parliament by a majority. How is that not democratic? And why hasn’t it been scrapped for 24 years?
“But power devolution to provinces is a good thing. In the past there were 3 geographical regions of SL. Lets devolve power to 3 regions once again! Now don’t shy away from this worthy, better suited proposal DB. Even India wanted the northern and eastern provinces merged. So what’s wrong in a different yet more suitable, historically valid 3 region approach to power devolution?”
There’s nothing wrong with it, and a referendum can decide if people want to merge or not. The democratic way. But why is it that you want to implement part of the 13th but not all of it? Isn’t it because as a racist and a bigot you want to implement only the parts that will benefit the Sinhalese (by diluting regional Tamil majority in the transparent guise of bringing the communities together) but not the ones that will benefit the Tamils? Why do you fear Tamil equality so much? Another question you’ve run away from for days
SD,
Hitler meeting the Pope does not count as Hitler meeting priests. The Pope is a Head of State. Hitler meeting a single priest (Cardinal) does not count as Hitler meeting priests, as Hitler met German civilians from every segment of society. Notice the letter s at the end of the word “priests.”
It’s actually quite important. The more, the merrier. In this picture, you can see Mahinda surrounded by dozens of monks:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrIi427RJqZc0NEJ9Il544IsvttOdjiRyrxhVBWJQP6_Z8oVgs2A
A picture of other Nazis surrounding priests also does not count as Hitler meeting priests. The other Nazis may have had their own interests and fetishes. But Hitler was unique, and his interests need not have condescended with theirs.
So, I am still waiting for you to show me a picture of Hitler surrounded by priests – many, many priests – not a picture of the Pope (head of state) and a belt buckle with a runic cross that has strong pagan connotations.
Heshan,
RE: “So, I am still waiting for you to show me a picture of Hitler surrounded by priests – many, many priests – not a picture of the Pope (head of state) and a belt buckle with a runic cross that has strong pagan connotations.”
You mean the many many priests doing the Nazi salute isn’t good enough? I must find a picture from 70 years ago that meets some specific criteria you arbitrarily re-define, while ignoring all the evidence that clearly indicates that Nazis were very much Christians themselves? Since you are a master in the art of moving goal posts, I would be an utter fool to oblige
Happily for me, and not so happily for you, a reasonable human being with critical thinking faculties can evaluate the evidence for themselves, rendering your filibustering essentially – useless.
But you showed a picture of Buddhist monks and made a connection and challenged others to show Hitler with Christian priests and they have done so. You are now backtracking. Why? You have to admit that you were shown up with the videos/images that others have shown. The Vatican and Hilter even signed a concordat.
Lol, Heshan, the pictures and videos provided by Rajasuriya, Wijayapala and myself show Hitler with (in addition to the pope) the protestant Bishop of the Reich, Hitler attending mass, and praying in public. It also shows Nazis of all ranks involved in Christian services and ceremonies. It also shows Christian clergymen involved in Nazi ceremonies. In addition it shows that both Christian and Nazi regalia both contained symbolism, texts, and mottos from each other. They also contain literature from both organisations, praising the other. Further, the pictures show Christian chaplains in both the Wehrmacht and SS blessing troops about to go on operations, many against Jews.
In the light of all this, it’s pretty clear that at best the Nazis and the Christians coexisted amicably, and at worst the hirearchy of both gave each other mutual support.
In contrast, you Heshan, are unable to show any evidence of Hitler’s anti-Christian sentiments, nor any sign of Nazi oppression of either the Protestant or Catholic churches during the 12 years of the Third Reich.
The Bible says the devil is the great deceiver and the father of lies; and Jesus said “I am the truth”. Which master do you think you’re serving here, Heshan, with your intellectual deceit?
And Jesus also said, “You cannot serve two masters at the same time!”.
Vasala Rajasuriya:
The video you posted says “Walt Disney presents.” Please try again, as this is a venue for educated discussion (at least, ideally.
I think you are speechless after being shown direct evidence.
In contrast to western armies with their chaplains, the SL Army doesn’t have Buddhist priests commissioned as officers.
Nope, it builds viharas for them in the middle of Jaffna with taxpayer money and lets them attend VIP functions. If there is a special occasion, which is basically anything it can think of, it flies them in on special Airforce planes:
http://tamilnet.com/img/publish/2011/02/Bo_sapling_2_92024_445.jpg
Starting from Palaali airport, the sapling was paraded to Jaffna through Palaali Road, from there went to Maathakal and then was brought back to Palaali before being flown to Vavuniyaa. Military’s security was oppressively tight throughout the peninsula.
All this proves is that the state religion is Buddhism, which no one has denied. It doesn’t prove that the war was conducted to further Buddhism. In the UK and other Christian European nations, cathedrals and other places of worship are also maintained at great taxpayer expense.
I would ask the readers, though, why parade a Bo Sapling through a primarily Tamil city such as Jaffna? In the first place, the civilians are tired of having to put up with armed army thugs ( 40,000 ) and their daily checkpoint/harassment routine. The only possible meaning behind this parading of a Bo Sapling must be to some obscure mythological reference.
We’re still waiting with baited breath for the evidence that backs your claim that the war was fought not for/against the creation of a separate Tamil state but for/against the furthering of Sinhala Buddhism.
Why parade a statue of Mother Mary and Jesus through Anuradhapura, a primarily Buddhist city, on the way to Madhu?
Why NOT?
Heshan, do you think the following quote from the Bible worked to inspire religious intolerance towards non-Christian faiths and people?
“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
It sound to me like the Christian God is advocating genocide here.
How can you reconcile that with your claim of Christian superiority?
Unlike Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam which came to Sri Lanka in peace, Christianity came to the island with bloodshed and oppression. Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims were all persecuted by the Christian minority who held power. Non-Christian places of worship were destroyed and non-Christians were denied an education and positions of power unless they converted to Christianity.
Why parade a statue of Mother Mary and Jesus through Anuradhapura, a primarily Buddhist city, on the way to Madhu?
Did this procession have army protection? ? What did it cost the taxpayer? Although I agree with you in principle that all such processions are unnecessary. I have given the example of the Bo Sapling procession to indicate what “foremost place to Buddhism” means in the Constitution. In this case, it means all state resources, even the military will be used to “foster” Buddhism.
I see no complaints from you when the military rebuilds and renovates Madhu Church and other churches in Mannar? I wonder why
Vasala Rajasuriya,
Your misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the Bible are numerous, and this forum is not an adequate venue to address all of them. However, let me inform you that you are quoting from the Old Testament, which is essentially the Jewish portion of the Bible. Most of the Old Testament details the relationship between God (Yahweh) and the Jews. The “destruction” you speak of is simply a metaphor for Yahweh’s power. The idea is that when one obeys Yahweh, he prospers, whereas disobeying Yahweh will incur the wrath of the latter. This is not very different from Greek mythology, if you are familiar with it. In the Greek case, the gods pick their favorites; in the Old Testament, Yahweh’s favorites are the Chosen Ones, aka Jews.
However, Christianity is somewhat different from this. Christianity is based on the concept of original sin , and finally redemption. Christians are saved when they accept Jesus, not when they accept the Bible.
I’m sorry Heshan, but it appears to me as if you are trying to whitewash what is written in the Bible. It is somewhat typical of certain Christians to say “well, that is in the old testament” — as if that nullifies everything. If that is indeed the case why not throw out the old testament? Why follow the 10 commandments? Why insist on picking and choosing passages in the Bible? Isn’t the Bible supposed to be the word of God from beginning to end? Is it possible that the God that Christians worship is actually a cruel, vengeful God that has has murdered men, women and children (as told in the Bible itself – not claims made by other people with no evidence)?
There are many “hard passages” in the Bible which appear to conflict with today’s moral consensus. Some verses describe what appear to be unjust instructions or actions by the Christian God to commit genocide. Others involve the murder of innocent, defenseless individuals, including the elderly, children, infants and newborns. Still others involve the murdering of a person for a minor transgression. Some are single murders; others are instances of mass murder.
So the question that is left I suppose is, why do you worship such a cruel creature that has committed mass murder? Expanding further, how hypocritical is it for Christians to point fingers at, say, the Buddhists (like you have done), when Christians are worshiping a God who has carried out more bloodshed than Hitler himself?
Read the following verse from the Bible:
“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7)
The thought occurs to me: Christians who worship a God who has commanded such evil have the gall to point fingers at Buddhists by bringing up some passage in the Mahavamsa? I am sorry, but I find that somewhat amusing to say the least.
Vasala Rajasuriya,
Adding to Prof Heshan’s comments, you clearly lack an appreciation for how much violence Christianity has been responsible for in human history. I think he is disappointed that you have not highlighted how no other religion has killed so many people.
Heshan also wants you to understand that Christians view non-Christians as inferior because they do not believe in Jesus, in addition to the fact that non-Christians have not killed as many people.
The burning question that Heshan is taking his time to answer is how come Christians spent most of their time killing other Christians. There were plenty of Hindus, Buddhists, and other pagans who had been patiently waiting to get slaughtered. Heshan did point out the admirable job Christians did in persecuting Jews in revenge for killing Jesus, but that does not explain why Protestants and Catholics went to such lengths to massacre each other. Perhaps Heshan is being modest here knowing how envious we all are of this history.
As a Tamil and an staunch pacifist I find the ongoing discussion a very interesting one. Are all these people trying to prove who is more “racist or nationalist” than the other? or trying to prove whose religion or believe is violent-free or fanatic? Isn’t it interesting to note that the whole discussion was maintained at a level to find parallels to justify the killings and thus forgetting that there have been indeed people killed in this bloody war, people who were actually nothing to do with this almost thirty years of ruthless war. Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims, who were merely trying to survive the war and the war inflicted difficulties in the day to day life.
A former soldier, did his duty as a soldier in a killing machinary of war, even though questions the moral of the war and has difficulties in accepting the political reasoning-out of this war? Talking the rights of the minorities and their grievances as well as the dismay and their racism and the(imposed)nationalism as well as the roots of the Sinhalese nationalism and the political manipulation of the masses to feed the nationalism. On the other hand people who believe to pose themselves as intellectuals and members of civilized society question the basic rights of the existence of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, would be happy to reduce them as secondary citizens in their own country or push them over to India, because they came from India (where does the Sinhalese came from is not answered, however)interpreting the “democracy” as it suits them, by the way presenting Christianity as a suprem religion and its tolerance of the feeble as god given and tactically not want to accept that the Christianity has too the roots of violence in it. Who blame the Theravada-Buddhism as a violent version but willing to forget the Old Testament was not less violent than Quran or any other holy documents which form the base of our modern day religions. Or a Sinhalese Buddhist who would fight to death to defend his “most tolerant Buddhism, but at the same time ready to kill others to defend this tolerant religion. There have been discussion is Hitler more inhuman or the Japanese in killing the Chinese or the indeed the Americans marching into Iraq or the Einstein and Fermi who designed the A-Bomb and so on.
But what all you my friends have forgotten to mention is that we still have a problem at hand to be solved in Sri Lanka. Solved in a way that we do not need to discuss in another forum in the future that there have been again tens of thousand of innocent people got killed in a senseless war or have to explain our children we have defended our sovereignty or religion by killing other human beings in thousands. Isn’t it better that we start to show more civil courage to respect and save the lives of other human beings in our own interest than trying to save the Gods?
Zorro,
“Isn’t it interesting to note that the whole discussion was maintained at a level to find parallels to justify the killings and thus forgetting that there have been indeed people killed in this bloody war, people who were actually nothing to do with this almost thirty years of ruthless war.”
How do you feel now that there is no more war?
“But what all you my friends have forgotten to mention is that we still have a problem at hand to be solved in Sri Lanka.”
What is the problem to be solved, and how will it lead to another war if it isn’t solved?
Wijeyapala,
don’t you believe to avoid any potential war between the ethnic groups in future is to guarantee equal rights to each and every citizen of Sri Lanka, irrespective of his race or religion. The equal rights and the prosperity of the citizens guarantees a harmonious existence of the population / races with each other. I do not thing that peace can be achieved by means of “divide and rule” method, this may guarantee the retention of power and re-election of short sighted political parties but definitely not in the interest of the citizenry. And at last we decide how we want to co-exist in a society and how and what we need to achieve this goals. And this requests an enormous amount of tolerance, civil courage and morality and definitely less racism and nationalism. The last thirty or so years clearly showed that through radicalism of the society via religious fundamentalism or racism and war all societies have lost a lot than they gained. However definitely not the unscrupulous politicians and the unmoral warmongers from both sides.
Killing people over religion and race are such unintelligent acts. But killing tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to defend SL’s territorial integrity is logical. How? Because billions if not trillions will live in the island nation over the years. SL should be protected for them. Why can’t they live in peace in a divided SL island? They may; provided it is divided equitably. 12% for “Elam Tamils” and the 88% for 88% others – both sea and land. An unfair division (which is not proportionate to the land/sea and population) will lead to worse bloodshed than what we saw. Why? For equity.
But no one agrees to this! So division is not the solution. Division includes division of power over these lands/sea as well.
TT,
there have been other higher civilizations existed in our planet few of them were wiped out from the face of the earth due to different reasons like natural catastrophes or rivalry based on greed etc. Like an unpredictable Tsunami or vulcano or a pandemic attack like in 1918-20 or even they eliminated each other like they did in Easter islands. So for me it make sense to thing about my mutual and peaceful existence at present than thinking of what in 1000 years. Think of great warriors like Gengis Kahn or Alexander the Great or dictators like Hitler and Stalin what they left for World, namely nothing than misery and tears and millions killed. It makes no sense to kill thousand at present to preserve something for another thousand in the unknown future. It is like committing suicide in fear of death.
You say “Killing people over religion and race are such unintelligent acts.. but killing for territorial integrity is logical” It is not logical at all as all these killings are based on some kind of fanaticism and it is indifferent what kind it is. I would not kill someone to save something for my offspring, would you personally do it?
“Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come” Carl Sandburg in “The People, Yes” of 1936.
That’s right, TT. The solution is not 88% : 12% but 100% : 100%. Everyone gets everything.
Zorro,
It is even more absurd to kill or threat to kill over a nation that never was and non-existent.
Sure territorial integrity won’t last; not even the earth may last. But that is beside the point. We have to do whatever we can to preserve it as long as we can so that 100% of the population can enjoy 100% of the nation.
After a long time, I have something to agree with DB.
Glad you agree, TT. Because 100% means 100% rights too, including language.
“A former soldier, did his duty as a soldier in a killing machinary of war, even though questions the moral of the war and has difficulties in accepting the political reasoning-out of this war?”
Zorro, I assume you’re referring to me. It wasn’t my duty to go and fight; I went because I wanted to. And I don’t question the morality (I’m guessing that’s what you mean) of the war. The war was to prevent a division of SL.
Vasala Rajasuriya,
Regarding the rest of your comments:
Unlike Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam which came to Sri Lanka in peace, Christianity came to the island with bloodshed and oppression. Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims were all persecuted by the Christian minority who held power. Non-Christian places of worship were destroyed and non-Christians were denied an education and positions of power unless they converted to Christianity.
The Sri Lankan Army has killed more Tamils (in the name of Mahavamsa) within a 30 year span, than all of the colonialists combined in 250 years.:) I cannot speak for Tamils, but I am sure that if you gave them a choice , they would prefer to be under British rule than (predominantly Sinhalese) Colombo rule. Does that not say something about the lack of equity since Independence?
Indeed, Muslims came here as “traders,” and so have led a relatively peaceful existence here, except for the 1915 Kandy riots and ethnic cleansing in Jaffna by the LTTE. On the other hand, as I have discussed in some detail in another thread, (see “Political Opposition in a Nihilistic Sinhala Society: Responses and clarifications”), had the Muslims come as an invading army , things would have been very different. No one was forced to convert to Christianity in Sri Lanka. Incentives may have been offered, but this is different from forceful conversion. Had the Muslims gained administrative control, they would have engaged in forceful conversions. As I explained in the above thread, idolatry is a cardinal sin in Islam. Now you may imagine for yourself how long your Buddha statues would have stood (here is a video of the Taliban destroying 55mm Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D-z6sTs3pU). I do not think that if the Muslims had ruled Sri Lanka for several hundred years, it would be a majority Buddhist nation today. If you are still having doubts, I encourage you to read about the Moghul invasions of India; find out how many mosques were built with the stones of destroyed Shiva temples.
I would also point out that before the colonialists came, Sri Lanka was a class/caste-ridden society. All of the land was owned by the King. Most people were engaged in subsistence farming. What the colonialists did is break all these barriers; it was they who brought free education to the country, they who gave women and low-castes due rights. Now, I am not saying they did all this in the name of Christianity. Quite often, there was a profit motive involved, as with the creation of plantations. But on the whole, I believe the colonialists laid a solid foundation for the future of the island. That is why in the 60′s and 70′s, people thought SL will become the next Singapore. For obvious reasons, the latter phenomenon did not materialize.
Prof Heshan,
“No one was forced to convert to Christianity in Sri Lanka. Incentives may have been offered, but this is different from forceful conversion.”
“Over the next forty years, starting from 1619 until the Dutch capture of Jaffna fort in 1658, there were three rebellions against Portuguese rule. Two were led by Migapulle Arachchi,[6] during that period, Portuguese destroyed every Hindu temple and the Saraswathy Mahal library in Nallur, the royal repository of all literary output of the kingdom. Due to excessive taxation, population decreased and many people moved to Ramanathapuram in India and the Vanni Districts further south…In the words of Fernão De Queirós, the principal chronicler of Portuguese colonial exploits in Sri Lanka, the people of Jaffna were “reduced to the uttermost misery” during the Portuguese colonial era.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_conquest_of_Jaffna_Kingdom
“The Sri Lankan Army has killed more Tamils (in the name of Mahavamsa) within a 30 year span, than all of the colonialists combined in 250 years.:)”
But still not as many as the Jews and Russians Hitler killed in the name of Christianity, eh?
“On the other hand, as I have discussed in some detail in another thread, (see “Political Opposition in a Nihilistic Sinhala Society: Responses and clarifications”), had the Muslims come as an invading army , things would have been very different. “
“Discuss” is an ironic term for your bigotry, but the point is, whenever the adherents of a religion came in the form of an army, there was trouble. See the Crusades for more details. Answer: keep religion way from politics.
“No one was forced to convert to Christianity in Sri Lanka.”
No one was forced to convert to any other religion either. On the other hand, forced conversion was quite the rage with Christianity during the Inquisition.
“I do not think that if the Muslims had ruled Sri Lanka for several hundred years, it would be a majority Buddhist nation today. If you are still having doubts, I encourage you to read about the Moghul invasions of India; find out how many mosques were built with the stones of destroyed Shiva temples.”
No, it would have been a majority Muslim country, but why would you have a problem with that? Are you saying that Buddhism is a much more peaceful, civilised, and appropriate religion to Islam?
“I would also point out that before the colonialists came, Sri Lanka was a class/caste-ridden society. All of the land was owned by the King. Most people were engaged in subsistence farming.”
And once the colonials arrived, the local caste system was replaced by a Victorian one. All the land belonging to the kings of SL were taken over by the crown. Subsistence farming continued on coffee and tea plantations. All this was explained to you in that previous thread (“The Big Lie”), Heshan, until you were forced to abandon your indefensible white-is-right stance.
“t was they who brought free education to the country, they who gave women and low-castes due rights.”
Yes, free education in the master’s language, on the history of the master’s empire, and in his philosophy, and about his religion. Women and low castes were given their due rights, of course, which was none, just like all other locals, so yes, all were equally zero.
“Now, I am not saying they did all this in the name of Christianity.”
No, they did it all in the name of thievery, but Christianity was advocated to put a good face on it.
“But on the whole, I believe the colonialists laid a solid foundation for the future of the island.”
Yes, a solid foundation for stealing from the weaker to serve the stronger, a foundation that SWRD and JRJ built on handsomely (though more crudely) as they did unto others what had been done unto them previously.
Correction: the Bamiyan Buddha statues destroyed by the Taliban were 55 m, not mm.
DB,
BTW you are ignoring the fact that all the rights of the Tamil community under the 1992 UN Convention must be given to the Veddha, SL Malay, SL Chinese, SL Jewish, Muslim, SL Bharata, SL Burgur, etc. communities as well. They too are minoroties and the UN Declaration does not discriminate between large minorities and small minorities.
Since it’s all about cultural and religious, no problem. See the point?
If Tamil is to become an official language, these languages should also become so. And if Tamil is a national language, these languages should also be national languages! Size, native/non-native, etc. do not matter. A minority is a minority no matter how small it is.
Democracy ensures the majority’s decision making ability with due regard to the minorities. If the Official Language Act inconveniences Tamils, have translators and interpreters. Bingo! Same goes for Veddha, etc. language users. Simple problems, simple solutions. Now if SJVC is not going to like the solution, bad luck. There is no reason to sign the B-C pact over this.
I don’t see how Buddhism taking a supreme place in the state affects non-Buddhists in anyway.
Anyway don’t let SL getaway if the UN declarations were violated. Get them! I will 100% support an action against SL for violating these (if that is the case). If these are not enforceable, well, that was the intention of the world. They are nice to haves; but not necessary.
On the other hand, punishments for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide are enforceable.
“BTW you are ignoring the fact that all the rights of the Tamil community under the 1992 UN Convention must be given to the Veddha, SL Malay, SL Chinese, SL Jewish, Muslim, SL Bharata, SL Burgur, etc. communities as well. They too are minoroties and the UN Declaration does not discriminate between large minorities and small minorities.”
Of course, and if Sinhalese, Tamil, the Veddha languages, and English are implemented as official languages, everything will be fine. What’s the problem?
“If Tamil is to become an official language, these languages should also become so.”
Tamil already is an official language, TT. I know you were only 4 years old when the 13th Amendment was passed, but it’s been around for 24 years and I thought you’d have heard of it by now
And having language rights does not mean that every language must be made official for that to happen. Sinhalese will sort out the Sinhalese, 90% of whom unfortunately only speak their own language, thanks to SWRD and JRJ; Tamil will sort out the Tamils and Moors; Veddha language will sort out the Veddhas in their territories where they wish to remain; and English will sort out the Malays, Chinese, Burghers, Bharathas, Sindhis, etc. If those tiny minorities do want their own languages made official, they can speak up for it. Upto now, they haven’t.
Your problem, TT, is that you can see everything in only black and white; Sinhala Only or every single language made official. this is laughably childish, and the world doesn’t work that way. There are many ways for ethnic groups and nations to compromise and find a solution that’s fair to all. Sinhala Only is not fair to all, and that’s pretty clear. Why can’t you see this?
“Democracy ensures the majority’s decision making ability with due regard to the minorities.”
It doesn’t. And you’ve been provided enough examples of why it doesn’t for it to be clear to everyone here in this forum that you’re simply ignoring the evidence and sticking your head further up your backside.
“If the Official Language Act inconveniences Tamils, have translators and interpreters. Bingo! Same goes for Veddha, etc. language users. Simple problems, simple solutions.”
Really? So you propose to have a tri-lingual translator seated next to every government clerk and official so that all documents can be translated on the spot; plus a tri-lingual interpreter at every government institute dealing with the public, and following every official around on his duties?
Yes, that’s a pretty simple solution from a pretty simple-minded person, TT.
“Now if SJVC is not going to like the solution, bad luck. There is no reason to sign the B-C pact over this.”
No, you just need to implement the already-signed 13th Amendment
“I don’t see how Buddhism taking a supreme place in the state affects non-Buddhists in anyway.”
OK, so let’s give Hinduism or Islam or Christianity the supreme place instead then. Shouldn’t affect Buddhists at all, no?
“Anyway don’t let SL getaway if the UN declarations were violated. Get them! I will 100% support an action against SL for violating these (if that is the case). If these are not enforceable, well, that was the intention of the world. They are nice to haves; but not necessary.
”
Fortunately the rest of the world thinks they are necessary and have implemented them. The GoSL has also passed the 13th, and since it hasn’t overturned it, it clearly thinks it’s necessary too. If it doesn’t it could re-amend it. Since it hasn’t, and since it is law, it must implement it.
“On the other hand, punishments for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide are enforceable.”
Yes, because they are laws, like the 13th Amendment.
I must say, TT, that arguing with you is as hilarious as arguing with your friend, Heshan — [Edited out]. No wonder you don’t argue with each other; it would be you two sitting in two corners droning along with your rhetoric regardless of what the other is saying
DB,
“Tamil already is an official language, TT.”
News to me; thank you. So you see SL is also in your list!:) Why this talk about language based discrimination?
“So you propose to have a tri-lingual translator seated next to every government clerk and official so that all documents can be translated on the spot; plus a tri-lingual interpreter at every government institute dealing with the public, and following every official around on his duties?”
Now you arejumping into extreme conclusions. Don’t you know that already a percentage of public servants equal to the percentage of Tamils are fluent in Tamil? This is in ADDITION to that DB! You are trying to be simpler!
But once again you slip from the main challenge. Has SL not implemented what’s contained in the UN declaration of 1992?
If yes, FULLSTOP. If not take up the matter with the UN!
“Fortunately the rest of the world thinks they are necessary and have implemented them. The GoSL has also passed the 13th, and since it hasn’t overturned it, it clearly thinks it’s necessary too. If it doesn’t it could re-amend it. Since it hasn’t, and since it is law, it must implement it.
“On the other hand, punishments for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide are enforceable.”
Yes, because they are laws, like the 13th Amendment.”
Do you get it now? The world community considers territorial integrity, soverignty and democracy as enforceable but the 1992 UN Declaration is not enforceable. That creates a lesser burden on nations, isn’t it? Within that less burden, SL has done well and there is nothing more to give to the Tamil minority as per the UN Declaration of 1992. Fantastic.
Making Hindu, Christianity, Islam state religions like Buddhism is OK by me as long as it is done within the democratic process.
The 13th amendment did not follow democratic process. It was trusted upon SL and SL should scrap it. But power devolution to provinces is a good thing. In the past there were 3 geographical regions of SL. Lets devolve power to 3 regions once again!
Northern, north-central and north-western provinces to be one single province.
Eastern, Southern and Uva provinces are to be another single province.
Western, Central and Sabaragamuwa provinces to be yet another single province.
Lets devolve power to these 3 regions!
Now don’t shy away from this worthy, better suited proposal DB. Even India wanted the northern and eastern provinces merged. So what’s wrong in a different yet more suitable, historically valid 3 region approach to power devolution?
A better homegrown solution. It acheives devolution without the stink of seperatism and racist parties ruling a province. The best of both worlds and I bet you are against it!
TT, why are you re-posting your questions instead of responding to my answers? Are you hoping no one will notice that I’m making a fool of you? Anyway, here’s what I posted in response to you, which you conveniently ignored:
TT:“That is impressive. You are going where I want you to go!”
It’s a pity that you’re not going where you should be going, TT — namely a library, where you can reverse your woeful ignorance on SL, the world, and democracy.
TT:“Some of the countries in your list are wrong! e.g. Russia.”
Prove it. I have given you the link. If you have a source that disproves that, let’s have it.
TT:“86 out of 200 odd countries have more than one OFFICIAL (NOT NATIONAL) language according to you and some of the examples are wrong!”
Please enlighten us on the difference between an official language and a national one. In SL, Sinhalese, Tamil, and English are the official languages. There is no national language.
TT:“Also look how many of those are WORTHY of following? Not many isn’t it?”
No one’s suggesting we follow any one country, but the international community. But which countries do you deem unworthy and why?
TT:“On the other hand there are many countries that have one official language that are worthy role models for SL.”
Really? Can you name any of these “many countries” (I see you’ve abandoned the “most countries” tag ha ha) that have national minorities? I’m asking you this once more (I think for the sixth or seventh time in the past week) but no doubt you will hide from it once more like the intellectual coward that you are.
TT:“News to me; thank you. So you see SL is also in your list!:) Why this talk about language based discrimination?”
Because that’s precisely the point, TT, and that’s why I stuck to this conversation instead of saying “Look, TT, it’s already law so stop acting the fool”. The point is Tamil has by law been an official language for 24 years, yet it is so badly implemented that most people (including you) think that Sinhalese is still the official language. How sad is that? It is this lack of implementation of the law that is the problem.
Today, we think that Sinhalese are enlightened, that they understand their past mistakes, that SL can finally round the corner, discuss modern precepts like devolution, federalism, etc. Then you come along, TT, and I realise that the Neanderthal of 1956 is still alive and well.
TT:“Now you arejumping into extreme conclusions. Don’t you know that already a percentage of public servants equal to the percentage of Tamils are fluent in Tamil? This is in ADDITION to that DB! You are trying to be simpler!”
But it is you that suggested translators, TT, not me. I’m only suggesting that the law be implemented. Last week, I visited the Borella police station to make an entry, and the sergeant wrote it all down in Sinhalese and asked me to sign it. I can read Sinhalese very well, but his handwriting was so bad that I couldn’t read it and told him so. He mistook my comment to be that I couldn’t read Sinhalese, and told me that since there was no one in the station who could write in English or Tamil, he would read it out to me, which he did, and I signed, not knowing what I was signing. Does that sound like implemenntation of Tamil and English as official languages? A couple of days later, I went back to the station to get the police report, and it was given to me. Typed in Sinhalese. Since the report needed to be shown to a relative who isn’t fluent in Sinhalese, I asked if an English or Tamil copy could be given. The cop looked at me like I was an idiot and said that they only had a Sinhalese typewriter. Does that sound like implemenntation of Tamil and English as official languages? All that the Tamils are asking is for the law of the land to be implemented. When Tissanayagam was asked to sign a confession, it too was in Sinhalese, and neither he nor his lawyer could read it. So where is the law being obeyed?
TT:“But once again you slip from the main challenge. Has SL not implemented what’s contained in the UN declaration of 1992?”
No, TT, that is not the main challenge; the main challenge is to create a modern, democratic, fair, and law-abiding nation. In not implementing the 13th, the government is failing this main challenge.
TT:“Why war crimes are law and this is not law/enforceable? Doesn’t it mean it gives nations options to come within it and SL has already done so?”
Of course, and SL has passed a law that falls in line with international norms. The question is why hasn’t it been implemented?
TT:“SL has done its share for irs minorities and there is nothing more to give to Tamils.”
Except the implementation of the 13th, which is what Tamils are demanding, and which you claim make them rascist.
TT:“So my prediction stands DB.”
Your prediction of your inability to frame the correct question? It certainly does.
TT:“Making Hindu, Christianity, Islam state religions like Buddhism is OK by me as long as it is done within the democratic process.”
Not like Buddhism, TT, instead of Buddhism. Would you be OK with that?
TT:“The 13th amendment did not follow democratic process. It was trusted upon SL and SL should scrap it.”
It was passed in parliament by a majority. How is that not democratic? And why hasn’t it been scrapped for 24 years?
TT:“But power devolution to provinces is a good thing. In the past there were 3 geographical regions of SL. Lets devolve power to 3 regions once again! Now don’t shy away from this worthy, better suited proposal DB. Even India wanted the northern and eastern provinces merged. So what’s wrong in a different yet more suitable, historically valid 3 region approach to power devolution?”
There’s nothing wrong with it, and a referendum can decide if people want to merge or not. The democratic way. But why is it that you want to implement part of the 13th but not all of it? Isn’t it because as a racist and a bigot you want to implement only the parts that will benefit the Sinhalese (by diluting regional Tamil majority in the transparent guise of bringing the communities together) but not the ones that will benefit the Tamils? Why do you fear Tamil equality so much? Another question you’ve run away from for days. ?
TT
“This means Tamils in SL have not integrated much with the other vis-a-vis Tamils in Tamil Nadu. I want to change this. I want Tamils and Sinhalese to integrate well and “polute” each others’ languages.”
How will you promote SL Tamils interacting with Indian Tamils by getting SInhalese to “pollute” Tamil language??
“For this I propose settling a large number of landless Sinhalese in the north and landless Tamils in the south.”
For the purpose of ensuring that ALL parts of the island have a Sinhala majority?
Wijayapala,
You got it wrong. I want SL Tamils to interact with SL Sinhalese more.
Not necessarily. It will spread Tamils too into mostly Sinhala districts and forge better interaction and integration. Ancient SL kings did this with success.
DB,
You mentioned the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Do you know they are very similar to the Vadukodai Resolution?
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/shrilanka/document/papers/vaddukoddai_resolution.htm
Similarities between the Vadukoddai Resolution and Nuremberg Laws and assoiciated events
1. Both were based on ultra racism centred around a SINGLE ETHNICITY/RACE.
2. Both showed incredible intolerance towards people of other races.
3. NL resolved to create a Free Sovereign, Secular, Socialist State of the third reich whereas VR resolved to create Free Sovereign, Secular, Socialist State of Tamil Eelam.
4. In both cases “secular” meant the opposite! Nazi secularism was only about Germans of different religions and Tamil secularism in VR was about Tamil Hindus, Tamil Buddhists, Tamil Christians, Tamil Muslims, Tamil Aethists, etc!
5. The Nazi aspiration was a race/ethnicity mabed state. So was the VR state of Tamil Elam!
6. Why were these groups chose Nuremberg and Vadukoddai? Because each of these electorates were like homebases for the respective leaders! Vadukoddai was SJVC’s electorate! So was Nuremberg the Nazi bastion.
7. Both defined in EXCRUCIATING DETAIL who can be a citizen of their intended race based nations. Please read the 2 to see how identical these 2 are.
8. SJVC came to be known as “thanthai” which has the identical meaning as “furer”!
9. ITAK/TULF leaders vowed to “chase away” the Sinhalas from what they called “Tamil-only homelands”. They succeeded eventually. So were the Nazis.
Today Tamils live in each and every district (numbering 25) of Sri Lanka but Sinhalas, despite being the majority of Sri Lanka, are confined to only 20 districts.
According to the 1971 census, there were 20,402 Sinhalas in Jaffna. After the Vaddukoddai Resolution and resultant campaign of genocide against them, the number of Sinhalas fell to zero. Today the number of Sinhalas in the entire Jaffna district is zero. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffna_District). The same fate fell on Sinhalas in Batticaloa, Mulaitivu, Mannar and Kilinochchi districts as well. In other words, Sinhalas were entirely wiped out from five districts of the eight (8) districts of the North and the East that is claimed by Tamil Elamists to be the nation of Tamils and only Tamils. Apart from the Nazi genocide of Jews, nothing is comparable to this silent act of genocide by Tamil Elamists. However, Tamil Elamists didn’t stop at that. They went on to genocide Muslims too from the districts of Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mulaitivu and Mannar at a later stage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffna_District)
TT,
In a number of the posts in this thread you have cited census data from a wikipedia page as evidence of ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Sinhalese from Jaffna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffna_District#Demographics).
But how do you know the census data reported on the wikipedia page is accurate?
One of the references cited by wikipedia is a dead link. The other link points to a report produced by the Sri Lanka Department of Statistics (direct URL: http://bit.ly/fmGGa7). This report lists the population by ethnicity in 1981 and 2007 on page 16 (Table G). However, the problem is that the figures given for 1981 in this table do not match those on the wikipedia page: Wikipedia says 1981 Jaffna District population was 812247 SL Tamils, 13757 SL Moors and 4615 Sinhalese. However the Census Department report says 715892 SL Tamils, 11839 SL Moors and 5648 Sinhalese.
So if the person who compiled this Wikipedia page could even copy the numbers for 1981 correctly, how can we trust the other numbers?
Can you please give a link to some Census Department data for the population breakdown in 1971 and earlier?
Forgive me if this has been posted already.
10. One big difference between the Nazi campaign and the Tamil Elam campaign is the separation of ideological leaders from those who carried forward their agenda. Nazis had unison of ideological and military leadership whereas Tamil Elamists had separate ideological and military leaders. Although Parkinson’s disease struck both Hitler and Chelvanayagam, it affected the latter very badly and didn’t live to see the fruit of his ideology.
11. Both NL and VR groups used a phased approach towards their enemies. First Tamil Elamists wiped out the Sinhalese, then they turned their attention to Muslims and even the Indians!
First, Tamil Elamists went after political parties with secular ideologies and destroyed them in the North and Tamil areas of the East.
Alfred Duriappa
Then Tamil Elamists went after the police, the public service and trade unions in the North and Tamil majority areas of the East.
Then they targeted the Sinhalese, ethnically cleansing them out totally from five districts. Then they went after the Muslims, wiping them out totally from four districts.
Then their attention fell on Christian clergy and there was no one to defend them. Then the unthinkable happened. A large number of Tamil Christian clergy supported the Tamil Elam movement.
This phased approach of Tamil Elamists coins with the Nazi campaign as described in vivid detail by Pastor Martin Niemöller. “They came first for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
“Similarities between the Vadukoddai Resolution and Nuremberg Laws and assoiciated events 1. Both were based on ultra racism centred around a SINGLE ETHNICITY/RACE.”
Actually the VR states clearly that all races, religions and languages will be incorporated into TE:
“A. that the State of TAMIL EELAM shall consist of the people of the Northern and Eastern provinces and shall also ensure full and equal rights of citizenship of the State of TAMIL EELAM to all Tamil speaking people living in any part of Ceylon and to Tamils of EELAM origin living in any part of the world who may opt for citizenship of TAMIL EELAM.
B. that the constitution of TAMIL EELAM shall be based on the principle of democratic decentralization so as to ensure the non-domination of any religious or territorial community of TAMIL EELAM by any other section.
C. that in the state of Tamil Eelam caste shall be abolished and the observance of the pernicious practice of untouchability or inequality of any type based on birth shall be totally eradicated and its observance in any form punished by law.
D. that TAMIL EELAM shall be a secular state giving equal protection and assistance to all religions to which the people of the state may belong.
E. that Tamil shall be the language of the State, but the rights of Sinhalese speaking minorities in Tamil Eelam to education and transaction of business in their language shall be protected on a reciprocal basis with the Tamil speaking minorities in the Sinhala State.”
I can find nothing there that is “ultra racist” as you claim, especially in the light of Sinhala Only and the SL constitution of the time. Which part do you find racist?
“2. Both showed incredible intolerance towards people of other races.”
See above. Which part do you find intolerant?
“3. NL resolved to create a Free Sovereign, Secular, Socialist State of the third reich whereas VR resolved to create Free Sovereign, Secular, Socialist State of Tamil Eelam.”
And the repubican constitution of SL stated that we were a sovereign, democratic and socialist Buddhist and Sinhalese state.
So I guess we’re Nazis too.
“4. In both cases “secular” meant the opposite! Nazi secularism was only about Germans of different religions and Tamil secularism in VR was about Tamil Hindus, Tamil Buddhists, Tamil Christians, Tamil Muslims, Tamil Aethists, etc!”
See above. Where does it say that the VR isn’t talking about Sinhalese when it refers to Sinhalese-speaking minorities?
And what makes you think that when the VR refers to all religions to which the people of the state belong it’s talking about Tamil Buddhists? 
Do you know any Tamil Buddhists? Ha ha ha.
“5. The Nazi aspiration was a race/ethnicity mabed state. So was the VR state of Tamil Elam!”
See above. Which part of the VR statement that the people of the Northern and Eastern provinces means only Tamils?
“6. Why were these groups chose Nuremberg and Vadukoddai? Because each of these electorates were like homebases for the respective leaders! Vadukoddai was SJVC’s electorate! So was Nuremberg the Nazi bastion.”
Lol that’s quite a stretch isn’t it, TT, even for you. Quite Heshaneque actually!
Which part of the north wouldn’t have been connsidered a bastion? Would you have been OK if they had called it the Jaffna Resolution or the Eelam Resolution?
“7. Both defined in EXCRUCIATING DETAIL who can be a citizen of their intended race based nations. Please read the 2 to see how identical these 2 are.”
I have read both in English as well as the NL in the original German. The VR says that citizenship is granted to ALL inhabitants of TE (not just Tamils) as well as Tamils living outside TE if they want it. How is that race-based when citizenship is not exclusively for Tamils?
“8. SJVC came to be known as “thanthai” which has the identical meaning as “furer”!”
Ha ha ha TT, what straws you grasp at! “Thandhai” means “father”, and “fuhrer” means “leader” or “guide”. The latter has no ominous meaning in German. Eg a driving licence is called a “fuhrerschein”, a mountain guide is called a “bergfuhrer” and so on. The Tamil word for leader is “thalaiver”, which Prabakharan was referred to as.
“9. ITAK/TULF leaders vowed to “chase away” the Sinhalas from what they called “Tamil-only homelands”. They succeeded eventually. So were the Nazis.”
Can you quote any of these leaders? And it was the LTTE not the TULF that chased the Muslims away. What has this got to do with the VR?
“Today Tamils live in each and every district (numbering 25) of Sri Lanka but Sinhalas, despite being the majority of Sri Lanka, are confined to only 20 districts.”
Can you name the five districts in which there are no Sinhalese? And what has this got to do with the VR which was never made law?
“According to the 1971 census, there were 20,402 Sinhalas in Jaffna. After the Vaddukoddai Resolution and resultant campaign of genocide against them, the number of Sinhalas fell to zero.”
What genocide of the Sinhalese? All racist actions were carried out by the Tigers, a terrorist organisation, as well as the war itself. The 2007 stats you quote show some Sinhalese in Jaffna. For you to back up your claim you need to show the 1982 stats, prior to the war. Regardless, what has this to do with the VR?
“Apart from the Nazi genocide of Jews, nothing is comparable to this silent act of genocide by Tamil Elamists. However, Tamil Elamists didn’t stop at that. They went on to genocide Muslims too from the districts of Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mulaitivu and Mannar at a later stage.”
Really? Can you show stats for Sinhalese, Muslim, and other races killed by the LTTE that surpasses the Soviet, American Indian, Belgian Congolese Rwandan, Bosnian, or Cambodian genocides?
“10. Although Parkinson’s disease struck both Hitler and Chelvanayagam”
As well as Muhammed Ali and Michael J Fox; are they both Nazis?
“11. First, Tamil Elamists went after political parties with secular ideologies and destroyed them in the North and Tamil areas of the East.Then Tamil Elamists went after the police blah blah”
Those are strategies used by all guerrilla groups. Do you consider all such groups Nazis?
And what has that got to do with the Vr?
“Then their attention fell on Christian clergy and there was no one to defend them. Then the unthinkable happened. A large number of Tamil Christian clergy supported the Tamil Elam movement.”
Can you show any evidence of Christian clergy being targeted systematically by Tamil nationalists? And can you tell us why such an action would make the Christian clergy side with the Tigers?
“This phased approach of Tamil Elamists coins with the Nazi campaign as described in vivid detail by Pastor Martin Niemöller. “They came first for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.””
Isn’t it more often that Niemoller’s words are used against the GoSL, most famously by the late Sunday Leader edditor? Is the GoSL therefore also Nazi as your friend Heshan claims?
DB,
“Actually the VR states clearly that all races, religions and languages will be incorporated into TE:
“A. that the State of TAMIL EELAM shall consist of the people of the Northern and Eastern provinces and shall also ensure full and equal rights of citizenship of the State of TAMIL EELAM to all Tamil speaking people living in any part of Ceylon and to Tamils of EELAM origin living in any part of the world who may opt for citizenship of TAMIL EELAM.”
How foolish can you be DB! Firstly the state is called TAMIL Elam. Non-Tamils there have to first put up with this racism if at all they live there. Imagine SL changing the name to “Sinhala Lanka”!
As I said before I take you to where I want you to go!
Does it say “ALL” the people of the N & E provinces? No, DB. Of course it would consist of people of the N & E but not all of them!
Then comes the more interesting part – ONLY Tamils from other areas and the world are allowed in. Identical to the NAZI Nuremberg laws. Thank you DB.
“B. that the constitution of TAMIL EELAM shall be based on the principle of democratic decentralization so as to ensure the non-domination of any religious or territorial community of TAMIL EELAM by any other section.
C. that in the state of Tamil Eelam caste shall be abolished and the observance of the pernicious practice of untouchability or inequality of any type based on birth shall be totally eradicated and its observance in any form punished by law.
D. that TAMIL EELAM shall be a secular state giving equal protection and assistance to all religions to which the people of the state may belong.
E. that Tamil shall be the language of the State, but the rights of Sinhalese speaking minorities in Tamil Eelam to education and transaction of business in their language shall be protected on a reciprocal basis with the Tamil speaking minorities in the Sinhala State.”
I can find nothing there that is “ultra racist” as you claim, especially in the light of Sinhala Only and the SL constitution of the time. Which part do you find racist?”
Why wasn’t the Official Language Act called the Sinhala Only Act? Same thing here. Its all about TAMIL ONLY ELAM occurring seven times in it!
BTW where on earth is the “Sinhala State”? Note that it is in capital letters Sinhala State. The mythical Sinhala State does not refer to any existing nation and that means, no rights for the Sinhalese (if any left in TAMILONLYELAM).
“2. Both showed incredible intolerance towards people of other races.”
See above. Which part do you find intolerant?
Most of it including the race centric name.
“3. NL resolved to create a Free Sovereign, Secular, Socialist State of the third reich whereas VR resolved to create Free Sovereign, Secular, Socialist State of Tamil Eelam.”
And the repubican constitution of SL stated that we were a sovereign, democratic and socialist Buddhist and Sinhalese state. So I guess we’re Nazis too.
Oh no, DB. It doesn’t. Nowhere it says a “Buddhist and Sinhalese” state. Your lack of knowledge is shocking!
“4. In both cases “secular” meant the opposite! Nazi secularism was only about Germans of different religions and Tamil secularism in VR was about Tamil Hindus, Tamil Buddhists, Tamil Christians, Tamil Muslims, Tamil Aethists, etc!”
See above. Where does it say that the VR isn’t talking about Sinhalese when it refers to Sinhalese-speaking minorities? And what makes you think that when the VR refers to all religions to which the people of the state belong it’s talking about Tamil Buddhists? Do you know any Tamil Buddhists? Ha ha ha.
Yes, I know. I have answered the rest.
“5. The Nazi aspiration was a race/ethnicity mabed state. So was the VR state of Tamil Elam!”
See above. Which part of the VR statement that the people of the Northern and Eastern provinces means only Tamils?
See above answers.
“6. Why were these groups chose Nuremberg and Vadukoddai? Because each of these electorates were like homebases for the respective leaders! Vadukoddai was SJVC’s electorate! So was Nuremberg the Nazi bastion.”
Lol that’s quite a stretch isn’t it, TT, even for you. Quite Heshaneque actually! Which part of the north wouldn’t have been connsidered a bastion? Would you have been OK if they had called it the Jaffna Resolution or the Eelam Resolution?
Oh, shoot the messenger when you can’t face it! Its an old trick DB.
Vadukoddai was SJVC’s electorate. The fact that the TE campaign also chose an electorate that was sympathetic to its leaders show their intention to copy the NAZI resolution to create a race based nation.
“7. Both defined in EXCRUCIATING DETAIL who can be a citizen of their intended race based nations. Please read the 2 to see how identical these 2 are.”
I have read both in English as well as the NL in the original German. The VR says that citizenship is granted to ALL inhabitants of TE (not just Tamils) as well as Tamils ONLY living outside TE if they want it. How is that race-based when citizenship is not exclusively for Tamils?
Thank you for answering. DB you scored an own goal!
“8. SJVC came to be known as “thanthai” which has the identical meaning as “furer”!”
Ha ha ha TT, what straws you grasp at! “Thandhai” means “father”, and “fuhrer” means “leader” or “guide”. The latter has no ominous meaning in German. Eg a driving licence is called a “fuhrerschein”, a mountain guide is called a “bergfuhrer” and so on. The Tamil word for leader is “thalaiver”, which Prabakharan was referred to as.
Once again this shows the deliberate copying of the NLs by the VR crowd. Just like the electorate.
“9. ITAK/TULF leaders vowed to “chase away” the Sinhalas from what they called “Tamil-only homelands”. They succeeded eventually. So were the Nazis.”
Can you quote any of these leaders? And it was the LTTE not the TULF that chased the Muslims away. What has this got to do with the VR?
All the signatories to VR which was about TAMIL ONLY ELAM.
Where did the LTTE get its ideology? From the VR! You may know that unlike other terrorist/rebel groups, LTTE didn’t have an ideological leader! So it borrowed its ideology from the TULF.
“Today Tamils live in each and every district (numbering 25) of Sri Lanka but Sinhalas, despite being the majority of Sri Lanka, are confined to only 20 districts.”
Can you name the five districts in which there are no Sinhalese? And what has this got to do with the VR which was never made law?
Jaffna, Mulaitivu, Kilinochchi, Mannar, Batticaloa. Don’t say there are hundreds of recent settlers when there WERE tens of thousands before VR.
Why should it be law? This is a fact that Sinhalese and Muslims were wiped out from many districts in the north.
“According to the 1971 census, there were 20,402 Sinhalas in Jaffna. After the Vaddukoddai Resolution and resultant campaign of genocide against them, the number of Sinhalas fell to zero.”
What genocide of the Sinhalese? All racist actions were carried out by the Tigers, a terrorist organisation, as well as the war itself. The 2007 stats you quote show some Sinhalese in Jaffna. For you to back up your claim you need to show the 1982 stats, prior to the war. Regardless, what has this to do with the VR?
So you accept the ethnic cleansing of Sinhalese by Tamil Elamists. It was VR that resolved to create TAMIL (ONLY) ELAM in the N & E.
“Apart from the Nazi genocide of Jews, nothing is comparable to this silent act of genocide by Tamil Elamists. However, Tamil Elamists didn’t stop at that. They went on to genocide Muslims too from the districts of Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mulaitivu and Mannar at a later stage.”
Really? Can you show stats for Sinhalese, Muslim, and other races killed by the LTTE that surpasses the Soviet, American Indian, Belgian Congolese Rwandan, Bosnian, or Cambodian genocides?
Chasing away Sinhalese entirely is genocide. You don’t have to kill to achieve that. The fact that 20,000 to zero is sufficient evidence.
“10. Although Parkinson’s disease struck both Hitler and Chelvanayagam”
As well as Muhammed Ali and Michael J Fox; are they both Nazis?
“11. First, Tamil Elamists went after political parties with secular ideologies and destroyed them in the North and Tamil areas of the East.Then Tamil Elamists went after the police blah blah”
Those are strategies used by all guerrilla groups. Do you consider all such groups Nazis? And what has that got to do with the Vr?
“Then their attention fell on Christian clergy and there was no one to defend them. Then the unthinkable happened. A large number of Tamil Christian clergy supported the Tamil Elam movement.”
Can you show any evidence of Christian clergy being targeted systematically by Tamil nationalists? And can you tell us why such an action would make the Christian clergy side with the Tigers?
“This phased approach of Tamil Elamists coins with the Nazi campaign as described in vivid detail by Pastor Martin Niemöller. “They came first for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.””
Isn’t it more often that Niemoller’s words are used against the GoSL, most famously by the late Sunday Leader edditor? Is the GoSL therefore also Nazi as your friend Heshan claims?
Haven’t you seen the photo of a group of Catholic priests carrying banners of the INTERPOL wanted terrorist name Velupillai Prabakaran?
But GOSL didn’t kill or wipe out two ethnic groups from a district. So it is an erroneous statement. It was the VR that actually did it! First Tamil sane leaders of non-racist parties, then ALL the Sinhalese in the north and then ALL the Muslims. How very similar!
It is strange how DB sees Sinhala-Only in the Official Language Act (1956) but don’t see (pretend not to see) Tamil-Only in Tamil Elam! All the VR leaders were Tamil and Tamil Only too!
“How foolish can you be DB! Firstly the state is called TAMIL Elam. Non-Tamils there have to first put up with this racism if at all they live there.”
Isn’t it better to have a racist name and non-racist practices, than a non-racist name like SL, but with racist practices such as Sinhala Only? Besides, names don’t meen much — North Korea is formally known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the former East Germany was known as the German Democratic Republic. Neither was or is very democratic. So why don’t we look at the practices rather than getting caught up with names
“Imagine SL changing the name to “Sinhala Lanka”!
As I said before I take you to where I want you to go!
Hmm, and as I said before, unfortunately this discussion isn’t taking you where you ought to go. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Changing the name to Sinhala Lanka would at least have been honest, since Sinhala Only made it a Sinhala Only country. Nevertheless, “Lanka” is Sinhalese; the Tamil version is Ilankai. So if SL can have a Sinhala name, why can’t TE have a Tamil one?
“Does it say “ALL” the people of the N & E provinces? No, DB. Of course it would consist of people of the N & E but not all of them!”
Lol, why would the qualification “all” be necessary? If I were to say the people on this forum think you’re an idiot, is it necessary to say “all” the people on this forum think you’re an idiot? “All” is superfluous. Eg: In chapter 1 part 3 of the SL constitution it says, In the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the people and is inalienable. Why doesn’t it say “sovereignty is in ALL the people”? Does this mean sovereignty is only in SOME of the people, TT?
Then it goes on to say in part 4 (a) the legislative power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament. Why doesn’t it say ALL the people, TT? Does it mean only the legislative power of SOME of the people? 
Can you show me any part of the SL constitution where the prefix “all” is used in relation to the people? Your stupidity and decit is truly astounding, TT!
“Then comes the more interesting part – ONLY Tamils from other areas and the world are allowed in. Identical to the NAZI Nuremberg laws. Thank you DB.
”
What’s so racist about this? Do you know of any country that grants automatic citizenship to foreign nationals resident outside the said country? For instance, does SL grant automatic citizenship to Tamils living in Tamil Nadu? It took decades for SL to grant citizenship to all Tamils living in SL! On the other hand, Israel, which sees itself as the Jewish homeland, grants citizenship to Jews living outside its borders.
“Why wasn’t the Official Language Act called the Sinhala Only Act? Same thing here.
Why wasn’t the Nazi Final Solution called the Genocide of the Jews?
“Its all about TAMIL ONLY ELAM occurring seven times in it!”
Why are you descending to outright lies now, TT? Where does it say Tamil Only Eelam in the resolution even once? As I have shown you, it doesn’t even infer it, except in saying that Tamil will be the state language, though minorities will have the right to their own languages in administration, etc. Given that in SL at the time, Sinhalese was the only official language, this is hardly unreasonable.
“BTW where on earth is the “Sinhala State”? Note that it is in capital letters Sinhala State. The mythical Sinhala State does not refer to any existing nation and that means, no rights for the Sinhalese (if any left in TAMILONLYELAM).”
[Edited out] Do understand that the Sinhala State they are referring to is Sinhalese-majority SL where the Sinhalese language was the only official language? Opposing the validity of a definition cannot deny the existence of the defined object, and subsequent actions or decrees based on that object cannot be invalidated since only the definition and not the object has been opposed. Or to put it in simple language you can understand, if I were to say “I am having a discussion with the racist TT”, and you were to argue that you’re not in fact a racist as I have claimed, that will not change the fact that I am debating with you as I have declared. I thought you said you understood logic?
“Most of it [is intolerant] including the race centric name.”,/em>
Aside from the race-centric name (which is about the only thing you are able to prove is racist with the Tamil political parties as well), which specific parts do you find intolerant of other races? I can find none. You need to be specific.
“Oh no, DB. It doesn’t. Nowhere it says a “Buddhist and Sinhalese” state. Your lack of knowledge is shocking!”
But the constitution says Buddhism and only Buddhism has the foremost place, and the language act of 1956 said that Sinhalese and only Sinhalese will be the official language. So in practice, SL was a Sinhalese Buddhist nation. And action, not words, are what count. Your lack of honesty is what is truly shocking, TT, as well as (in Krish’s words) your absolute dedication to unreason
“Yes, I know [Tamil Buddhists].”
Really, how many do you know, and what percentage of the NE’s population do they make up?
“Oh, shoot the messenger when you can’t face it! Its an old trick DB.”
Regardless of whether you deserve to be shot, I haven’t shot you
“Vadukoddai was SJVC’s electorate. The fact that the TE campaign also chose an electorate that was sympathetic to its leaders show their intention to copy the NAZI resolution to create a race based nation.”
How does choosing to campaign in your electorate make you a Nazi? Nuremberg wasn’t a Nazi stronghold as you say; it was where the NSDAP held its annual rally, and that was only because the city was centrally located. Previously, they had also been held in Munich and Weimar. Was the Versailles Treaty also Nazi because it was signed in a particular place and named after it? What about the Kyoto Protocol? Or the Gettysburg address? Or the Paris Peace Talks? I already told you that treaties, resolutions and other documents are routinely named after their authors or the places they were drawn up in. There’s nothing evil about that
Thank you for answering. DB you scored an own goal!”,/em>
How is pointing out that citizenship in TE wasn’t exclusively for Tamils an own goal?
Which goal are you standing in front of?
“Once again this [calling Chelvanayagam "father"] shows the deliberate copying of the NLs by the VR crowd. Just like the electorate.”
But Ho Chi Minh was also known as “father”, and Mahinda Rajapakse is often called Mahinda “Mama” (uncle) or Mahinda “Aiya” (elder brother). Are they Nazis too?
“All the signatories to VR which was about TAMIL ONLY ELAM.”
But I asked you to quote any Tamil political leaders of the time as having threatened to “chase the Sinhalese out” as you claim. The VR has no such threat in it.
“Where did the LTTE get its ideology? From the VR! You may know that unlike other terrorist/rebel groups, LTTE didn’t have an ideological leader! So it borrowed its ideology from the TULF.”
Certainly, the Tigers got there ideology initially from the VR, but since the Tigers did many things that went beyond anything framed in the VR, they must take responsibility for that. The Crusaders took their ideology from Christianity, Osama Bin Laden from Islam, Stalin and Pol Pot from Communism, but none of those ideologies or religions contain anything close to the actions carried out by these extremists.
“Today Tamils live in each and every district (numbering 25) of Sri Lanka but Sinhalas, despite being the majority of Sri Lanka, are confined to only 20 districts.”
“Jaffna, Mulaitivu, Kilinochchi, Mannar, Batticaloa. Don’t say there are hundreds of recent settlers when there WERE tens of thousands before VR.”
There were hundreds of Sinhalese in the northern districts throughout the war, and thousands more in the east. There were tens of thousands of Tamils in SL who left as well. If a reduction of numbers is your criteria for ethnic cleansing, then aren’t the Sinhalese guilty (under your “logic”) of driving out those Tamils?
“Why should it be law? This is a fact that Sinhalese and Muslims were wiped out from many districts in the north.”
By the Tigers, yes, who were a murderous terror group. But I asked you for evidence of them being driven out by ordinary Tamils in the way that the Tamils were driven out by the Sinhalese in race riots.
“So you accept the ethnic cleansing of Sinhalese by Tamil Elamists. It was VR that resolved to create TAMIL (ONLY) ELAM in the N & E.”
But you’re unable to show any ethnic cleansing by anyone other than the Tiger terrorists, nor any part of the VR that claims TE will be exclusively Tamil
“Chasing away Sinhalese entirely is genocide. You don’t have to kill to achieve that. The fact that 20,000 to zero is sufficient evidence.”
I’m afraid, like almost every single statement of yours, that your comment on genocide is wrong too
Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Can you prove that any of this was done to the Sinhalese the NE Tamils? Also, can you show us stats that confirm the Sinhalese population in the NE went from 20,000 to zero as you claim?
TT: “10. Although Parkinson’s disease struck both Hitler and Chelvanayagam”
DB: As well as Muhammed Ali and Michael J Fox; are they both Nazis?
TT: “:) Did I say so?”
You drew a correlation between Hitler’s Parkinson’s disease and Chelvanayagam’s as evidence of the latter’s close similarity to the former. Do you consider Parkinson’s disease as sign of Nazism? What about moustaches? Being a teetotaler?
“Haven’t you seen the photo of a group of Catholic priests carrying banners of the INTERPOL wanted terrorist name Velupillai Prabakaran?”
But I didn’t ask you for evidence of individual priests supporting the Tigers; I asked you for proof of the Christian clergy supporting the Tigers. I also asked you for evidence that the Tigers systematically attacked the Christian clergy, as you claim, and also for reasoning that such attacks made the clergy support instead of oppose the Tigers. Don’t you have any?
“But GOSL didn’t kill or wipe out two ethnic groups from a district.So it is an erroneous statement.It was the VR that actually did it!”
But you have no evidence of this
No evidence that any part of the VR called for the killing or wiping out or driving out of non-Tamils from the NE, no evidence of Tamil politicians or signatories of the VR having ever called for such killing or wiping out, and no evidence that anyone other than the Tigers ever did such killing or driving out.
It is strange how DB sees Sinhala-Only in the Official Language Act (1956) but don’t see (pretend not to see) Tamil-Only in Tamil Elam!”
It is strange only if you’re Sinhala Only yourself, TT
Unfortunately, the Act itself shows you to be a liar: Extracts from the Official Language Act, No. 33 of 1956 — 1. This Act may be cited as the Official Language Act, No. 33 of 1956. SINHALA LANGUAGE TO BE THE ONE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE. In other words, TT, Sinhala Only.
Look forward to more of your foolishness and fantasies!
Oh, and the LTTE did have an ideological leader — his name was Anton Balasingham. LTTE ideology may have emerged from that of the VR, but Christianity and Islam emerged from Judaism, and Protestantism from Catholicism, but they are still very different to each other. Nice try, but hopeless fail
So far, the only similarities you can find between the Vaddukoddai Resolution and the Nuremberg Laws is that both were named after towns.
TT,
10. One big difference between the Nazi campaign and the Tamil Elam campaign is the separation of ideological leaders from those who carried forward their agenda. Nazis had unison of ideological and military leadership whereas Tamil Elamists had separate ideological and military leaders. Although Parkinson’s disease struck both Hitler and Chelvanayagam, it affected the latter very badly and didn’t live to see the fruit of his ideology.
Interesting point. It’s good to see someone with actual knowledge of the Nazis (besides myself). The reason for what you stated in (10) has to do with the growth of the LTTE. At first there were several militant groups, many of which were enjoying support (e.g. weapons/training) from India. They were given patronage by the TULF, under Amirthalingam (which is ironic, considering his fate). But at that time, the different Tamil militant groups were largely manageable. In my opinion, people like Amirthalingam did not envision a small band of youths (mostly engaged in petty crimes) metamorphasizing into something as large as the LTTE. Certainly, they did not forsee a prolonged war with Sri Lankan armed forces. Not even SJV foresaw this. The LTTE was really the brainchild of Prabhakaran. It is his organizing skill and abilities that took it to where it was. The other Tamil militant groups would not have survived a sustained war with the Sri Lankan Army, even if the LTTE had not wiped them out.
What happened to 1. to 9.?
I hate to type them again.
Heshan,
True; they thought it would be over and mere threats would surmise. But they were wrong. They miscalculated the price SLs were willing to pay for their version of peace.
Yu may appreciate that no terrorist group in the world want prolonged war. Nations, on the other hand don;t mind.
Hon. Wijyapapala:
For the purpose of ensuring that ALL parts of the island have a Sinhala majority?
It is great to see you pretending to oppose something which you know will happen regardless, and is already happening. Colonization occurred in the East (refer to census data in Trincomalee), greatly altering the demographics, and it will probably happen in the North. The reason it has not occurred earlier is because of the LTTE. The only difficulty right now is the negative state of the Sri Lankan and global economy. Colonization is an expensive proposition and requires a massive input of State resources. But I am sure Rajapakse will find a way, between now and the next 30 years [Edited out], as he is unofficially now the King for life.
Heshan,
Agree with your FACTS.
I believe colonization is the solution.
However, it does NOT cost a fortune.
Look at the 4 factors of production.
1. Land – available
2. Labour – the farmers, fishermen themselves
3. Capital – private capital in the form of know-how, implements are available. The rest can be obtained from a bank.
4. Organisation – up to the guys. Government need to build the infrastructure which the government has to do anyway. At some places even the infrastructure is there!
Actually colonization is the best solution to the present scarcity of food stuff, high inflation driven by consumer goods, unemployment at lower ends of the education spectrum and population related problems.
It is emmensely beneficial politically too! Trinco was won this time by national parties pushing the only racist party to the last spot in seats. Government can win the north (at least one in a while) if colonized adequately. Otherwise they can NEVER win it.
In my view, colonization is the panacea for all SL’s ills.
Zorro,
A former soldier, did his duty as a soldier in a killing machinary of war, even though questions the moral of the war and has difficulties in accepting the political reasoning-out of this war?
Imagine if you went about slaughtering prostitutes, alcoholics, and homeless people. And then when you were brought before the Judge, you stated that it was your “duty” to do so, as they were causing a disturbance to your neighborhood. You would probably be considered insane and committed to the asylum. Blind killing of one human by another is not something “natural” in any way to the human psyche. That is probably why ex-soldiers don’t go about boasting about all of the carnage they have caused. The military is really an outdated institution that only exists to protect outdated ideologies, or else cater to the whims of cunning politicians who wish to use brute force to achieve their ends. It is essentially slavery , except that this time the slaves are given a uniform and a gun.
As Robert Persig said in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, it is pointless to tear down a factory when the ideology that created it still remains; which will merely result in a new factory being built. Similarly it’s foolish to claim armies are immoral when democratically elected governments that create the policies that require armies to defend them still remain. In other words, Heshan, stand in front of the mirror and say those words. Except that you have neither moral integrity nor the testicular mass to fight for your beliefs.
Heshan,
a soldier is an enlisted person in the service of a ruling institution (i am not talking about “freedom fighters” or mercenary)and has to obey the rules of this service, which are not arbitrary. In countries where there are no “compulsory military duty or draft” any person qualifying for this duty can enlist himself for the service (like DB, I understand). Once you are there you are supposed to follow the prevailing rules and regulations and cannot act like you wish or you can desert the service and try to get yourself free legally or hide yourself like a criminal. As a citizen you can have your free opinion about the army, it is your right, even I do not like to serve in an army, but it would not allow me to say they are killers, only then they misuse their status, like in war crimes.
I think you and TT are missing the ability of rational thinking somehow and possessed with some ideology like in a cult.
Your statement on Pope was only a head of state was not correct, The Nazis were already in Italy and collaborating with Mussolini, and to takeover the state of Rome would have been like taking a piece of cake for the tea. There are different theses to the behavior of Pope Pius XII in relation to the NAZI terror, however Vatican hasn’t made the relevant documents from 1939 to 1945 free yet. WHY?.
For TT I have a hypothetical scenario: what would be your reaction if China annex Sri Lanka per decree, for what ever reason it may be and make Mandarin the official Language and ban all religions? I am just interested in your reaction and feeling, and not the probability of this scenario.
TT,
I challenge respectable Tamil ladies and gentlemen in this forum to take SL to the UN over the violation of Nuremberg and UN Declaration of 1992. I bet you cannot because SL has not violated these!
I’m against war crimes allegations because there were no war crimes committed with the knowledge or consent of the topbrass, military and political.
Actually the Sri Lankan Army has committed many, many war crimes. It was able to do this for two reasons: (I) PTA, and (II) ban on media/press. So, SL has violated its UN obligations and commitments. On the other hand, the UN became redundant a long time ago. That is why I have proposed on this forum that SL should voluntarily leave the UN. A crime only makes sense in relation to the violation of some law. So if SL leaves the UN, there is no law that says it can kill 10,000 or even 100K Tamils whenever it pleases. As you know, the “law” is arbitrary in SL – a minister or other VIP can overrule it at any time. I believe that my proposal is much better than simply punishing SL. Any punishment will only hurt the poor people, while those with US green cards (aka Gothabaya Rajapakse) will continue to live in luxury. While I am not against punishment in theory, I do not think it will serve much purpose. That is why I have said leaving the UN is the optimum solution.
Heshan,
Leaving the UN is unnecessary. It may have become irrelevant (true to great extent) but it is still a league as big or larger than the largest organisation of nations among WTO and FIFA.
I would not want SL to leave it.
I don’t think SL did “war crimes” apart from may be a very few isolated incidents. SL made use of the Geneve Conventions, etc. to kill the LTTE.
e.g. Moving weapons and cadres into a CSZ or NFZ is a war crime (committed by LTTE). That legally enables SL to attack the CSZ keeping within the Conventions. I think the whole point of declaring CSZs was to trap the LTTE and hammer them. They fell into the trap. Had we not done so, less people would have died. But that is not a war crime because it was done according to the GCs.
e.g. A UAV footage by SLA showed thousands of people (unlikely that they were LTTE cadres) pulling a 152mm old type artillery gun in the beach. SLAF MAY (not sure MAY) have bombed it killing thousands. It is not a war crimes as per GCs.
e.g. LTTE placed 130mm guns in a hospital and we attacked these. Not a war crimes as per the GCs.
SL may have committed war wrongs or war nasties or whatever but not war “crimes”. For it to be a crime, it should have violated a law (GCs, international law). It’s not so. These were carefully avoided by planning. Even if in isolated instances it had happened, that was not the intention of battle planners and they were unaware of it.
GCs and the international laws relating to wars were made and sanctioned by the biggest civilian killers – USA, Russia, Japan, UK, France, China. They would not dig their own grave. So they have left MASSIVE loop holes in them. It is up to legitimate armies to find them and exploit them to the maximum.
Personally I weep for all the humans who died in the war and pray for their souls but I would do the very same if same circumstances occur again. There is no better way, in my opinion.
I’m so glad to see that Heshan and TT have moved on from mutual masturbation to actual intercourse. I feel like a proud kapuwa!
But tell me, Heshan, what makes you think that removing oneself from a body (like you think N Korea has) exempts one from culpablity? Since Japan withdrew from the League of Nations over the latter’s comments regarding Japanese conduct in China, did that make what Japan was doing suddenly legal?
And TT, while your brave fight for Maldivian language rights in SL is awe inspiring and an example to us all, what makes you think that Maldivians are Sri Lankan?
Unless, you two abandon such foolish platforms you’ll find that your intercourse with each other, however loving and energetic, will lack a certain satisfaction.
Correction: *there is no law that says it can’t
TT,
“BTW you are ignoring the fact that all the rights of the Tamil community under the 1992 UN Convention must be given to the Veddha, SL Malay, SL Chinese, SL Jewish, Muslim, SL Bharata, SL Burgur, etc. communities as well.”
The Veddahs, Muslims, and Burghers don’t have a distinct language. Even the Malays have mostly forgotten their original language and have little interest in using it because nobody outside their small community does.
Wijayapala,
Veddhas have their unique language which is not Sinhala. Maldivians are a minority in Sri Lanka and their language should also be recognized as Tamil is recognized with minority rights.
It is not about “nobody outside their small community uses their language”. It is about awarding all minorities the right to nourish their language and culture as the Tamil minority has.
TT,
“It will spread Tamils too into mostly Sinhala districts and forge better interaction and integration. Ancient SL kings did this with success.”
Which king did this?
“Veddhas have their unique language which is not Sinhala.”
They do not. They speak variants of Sinhala or Tamil, depending on where they live. Their original language has been lost.
“It is about awarding all minorities the right to nourish their language and culture as the Tamil minority has.”
How many of the other minorities have a majority or plurality presence in any of the provinces?
Wijayapala,
Gajabahu, Parakramabahu I, etc. Even Parakramabahu VI according to some.
But still the Veddha language is unique. It is NOT Sinhala or Tamil. They deserve it. There are tens of thousands of maldivians now calling SL home. Their language must get equal recognition as Tamil (another minority language). Malay culture (may not be the language) needs equal recognition as Tamil cultural activites (both are minorities). Certain European cultures are minorities. They too deserve minority cultural rights as Tamil.
According to the UN Declaration on minority rights, there is no such requirement “for a minority to have a majority or plurality presence in any of the provinces”. Absolutely no need. All minorities are equal in terms of rights to minority rights.
Prof Heshan
“It’s good to see someone with actual knowledge of the Nazis (besides myself).”
Your modesty and humility is yet again quite refreshing. So you agree with TT’s equating the LTTE with the Nazis?
TT,
It is even more absurd to kill or threat to kill over a nation that never was and non-existent.
Do you agree that Theravada Buddhism does not endorse violence in any way, shape, or form? If this is the case, then waging a war against separatists cannot be justified under any circumstances. On the other hand, if Theravada Buddhism does not endorse violence, but Sinhala-Buddhism endorses violence, then there must be a fundamental difference between Theravada and Sinhala-Buddhism. But this also means that Sinhala-Buddhism cannot be used to justify the preservation of Theravada-Buddhism in Sri Lanka. That is, the claim that Sri Lanka is the homeland of Theravada-Buddhism cannot be used to justify the preservation of the territorial integrity of the island. I am not referring to just the recent ethnic war, but in fact the entire history of Sri Lanka, where numerous kings have waged war, often with the blessings and approval of monks. On the other hand, there may be other valid justifications for waging war to preserve the “territorial integrity” of the island, depending on one’s perception, but I do not think Theravada Buddhism and its preservation can be considered one of them. It would be the equivalent of a mass murderer deciding to become a monk; the entire purpose is lost at the very outset. Or as the popular English phrase goes, a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Heshan,
I don’t know much about Buddhism, let alone Theravada Buddhism! Even if does, commonsense must prevail over religious beliefs. If I were to be driven by my religious beliefs, I should be doing things nasty to other religions. I should drag them to my religion using whatever means because it is for their own “salvation”. I should not tolerate people worshiping “funny gods” and compel them to worship the “one true god”. I would never do such nonsense as commonsense prevails.
Hon Wijayapala,
Your modesty and humility is yet again quite refreshing. So you agree with TT’s equating the LTTE with the Nazis?
If you believe the LTTE’s single plane was equivalent to the Luftwaffe, that its Black Tigers had the destructive potential of a blitzkrieg, and that the LTTE had the capability to invade numerous nations, then I will be happy to engage further with you on the matter.
By the way, you did not comment on the video of Taliban blowing up Bamiyan Buddha statues. Do you believe, as one of your comrades here does, that prolonged Muslim rule of the island would have been superior to the European Christian colonization of the island?
TT,
What happened to 1. to 9.?
Well, I don’t think the LTTE engaged in ethnic cleansing out of any sort of hatred for Sinhalese and Muslims, but did so merely for its own survival. Imagine if several thousand Sinhalese had lived in an LTTE controlled area; it would have been a simple matter for the Sinhalese side to gather intelligence on LTTE logistics, LTTE capabilities, future operations, and much much more. From my understanding of guerilla warfare, the survival of the guerilla group is tenuous at best. Little things add up. Of course, I don’t personally subscribe to ethnic cleansing; I am merely pointing out that practically everyday brought with it the uncertainty of survival for the LTTE. On the other hand, I do not think a so-called Tamil Eelam would have been ethnically pure. With international recognition and the involvement of the pro-Western diaspora, many different groups could have lived there.
In fact, I did want to ask TT this question:
Would TT prefer the idea of a ‘multi-ethnic’ Tamil Eelam then?
MV,
“Would TT prefer the idea of a ‘multi-ethnic’ Tamil Eelam then?”
Why multi-ethnic Tamil Elam when there is already multi-ethnic Sri Lanka!
Heshan,
Actually it was not directed at you! My bad.
Agree with your facts and logic on this.
But it was NOT the LTTE ALONE that did ethnic cleansing Sinhalese and Muslims in the north.
Peaceful Tamil Elamists played a bigger role than them.
Here is proof.
1. The 1971 census say there were 20,000+ Sinhalese in jaffna district. By 1981 this had fallen to a mere 4,800. LTTE started war in 1983. Before that there were skirmishes against the SLA and Tamil leaders, police officers. Nothing specific against Sinhalese. So whose actions and INACTIONS ethnically cleaned the Sinhalese in the north? The peaceful Tamil Elamists including ITAK, TULF.
2. There is the alleged statement (only an allegation like war crimes against SL) that Mrs Amirthalingam made a barbaric statement concerning Sinhalese. It is too gruesome to write it here. The point is not that she said it or not but the fact she didn’t deny making it IN TIME!
3. When barbarians did the 1983 riot, all immovable property of Tamils were in tact. They could come back to their immovable property in Colombo, etc. But not so for Sinhalese and Muslims in Jaffna. Their immovable properties have been criminally misappropriated and stolen by people, not the LTTE!
4. There were hundreds of attacks on villages where Sinhalese lived in the north and the east. Most of these were carried out by the LTTE. But not all. Some were carried out by unarmed attackers. Of course they were armed, not with stuff that are used to kill people, but with agricultural equipment! It cannot be the LTTE because LTTE could easily use guns which they did in most village attacks. Also these attackers didn’t come from the jungles or LTTE bases. SLA was guarding these villages and there is no wat hundreds of LTTE crowds can infiltrate. The attackers came from within the guarded areas by SLA. may be a few LTTE cadres were among them.
So it was not just the LTTE that was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Sinhalese and Muslims.
Anyway its high time to resettle Sinhalese and Muslims in the north.
In my view Sinhala and Muslim colonization of the north is the panacea for most Sri Lanka’s ills.
Dear TT, David,
After following this exchange with great interest, let me start by commending David for his wealth of patience and TT for his steadfast commitment to unreason. I wish I could say: “never before have I seen an exchange as starkly abject on one hand and brilliantly illuminating on the other”, but alas, such mixed fortune is more commonplace on this forum than one might wish.
A dialogue is intended to foster growth in individuals, perhaps a maturing of perspective. My own views have gone through several revisions during the course of my participation in this forum, thanks to the intelligent and diverse commentary by (some of) the participants. Alas, TT does not appear to have benefited at all from David’s careful and methodical deconstruction of his arguments, why else would we be seeing this banal repetition of hackneyed arguments?
TT, at age 28??, it is surely time to depart from a binary mode of thinking to a more nuanced view of the world, one that appreciates the complexity of this issue with appropriate solemnity. Instead, your argument can be summed up in one line – “Tamils are racists, therefore everything else that’s happened and is happening is quite ok!”
At least, try to put in some thought first into how this matter can be resolved in a manner that is fair by all human being concerned, in line with 21st century morality, not 16th century bigotry. As the saying goes, there’s no point in having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
SD, I believe there are two broad extremist points of view on the conflict today.
The first is that the Sinhalese and the GoSL are all racists and the Tamils are victims. Let’s pretend the Tigers never existed and the war was a 30-year-long Black July that’s still going on and we should go back to Vaddukoddai and grant the Tamils what they want.
At the other end of the spectrum is the idea that there was no problem except racist demands by the Tamil immigrants which became a terrorist problem. Now that the terrorists have been defeated the problem is solved and we can go back to Sinhala Only.
I don’t think either of these points of view should be allowed to be voiced in rational forums, and we should make sure that the proponents of such extreme theories see that their arguments will be firmly rejected at every level.
David,
RE: “I don’t think either of these points of view should be allowed to be voiced in rational forums, and we should make sure that the proponents of such extreme theories see that their arguments will be firmly rejected at every level.”
Couldn’t agree more. There needs to be a “conversational intolerance” of those espousing irrational or bigoted world-views. Letting this bigotry go unchallenged is the surest way to let it get entrenched further. There’s no point in tolerating the intolerant.
SD,
Even before the full debate between me and DB was comlpeted, you formed this opinion. So it’s no surprise. My age and DB’s age do not matter!
In my view DB’s logic is flawed and lacks objectivity.
1.
e.g. IF SL has granted all the things it should to a minority community as per the UN Declaration of 1992 there is nothing more to give; is there?
IF it is not enforceable by the UN (which is the case DB is arguing for) does not that say the INTENTION of the UN nations that these are mere “nice to haves”?
So the bottomline is SL is as good (and bad) as the collective thinking of UN nations about minority rights. SL can be satisfied with that.
Native, non-native, historical, recent are not considerations according to the best and most detailed account of minority rights. Those are irrelevances.
2.
North east Tamil people’s political representaives (TNA, ITAK, ACTC, TULF) are NOT asking GOSL to treat Tamils as per the UN Declaration of 1992. They know it has been achieved. They want the majority ability for Tamils – the ability for self-determination as a nation in what they call “Tamil traditional homelands”. They want Tamil Ealm, a seperate nation for Tamils. This is impossible unless they are satisfied with 12% (or whatever the Tamil percentage is) of the landmass of the island. Certainly not 35%!
3.
I proposed an alternative power devolution mechanism of 3 regions. I didn’t get a proper answer for that. There is no need to mix racism and devolution. Not at all. Let there be multiethnic teams running all regions just like SL. If you look at the SL parliament, it is roughly representative (politically) of its major ethnic communities. So should be the regions/provinces.
There is no need to hold on to colonial British era provinces.
Why devolution proponents gallop when their hear this?
4.
I also propose multiethnic colonization of the north as a means of creating ethnic integration in war ravaged areas. No logical argument against this either! Obviously persons of all ethnicites have the right to live in any part of the country irrespective of who is sponsoring the colonization scheme.
Dear TT,
RE: “Even before the full debate between me and DB was comlpeted, you formed this opinion.”
I formed this view when it became manifestly clear that reason was not your forte.
RE” “IF SL has granted all the things it should to a minority community as per the UN Declaration of 1992 there is nothing more to give; is there?”
I agree with you! But that’s not the point is it?
Which slumber were you so rudely awakened from to be so utterly unaware of the years and years of conflict to resist majoritarian policies, before they were rolled back to have some semblance to any kind of UN declaration? And where are you living right now to be so unaware that despite SL having “granted” language rights (these are basic human rights TT, it’s not a privilege we can “grant” and that alone should speak volumes to you), they are implemented so appallingly that at times, it’s as if they don’t exist!
You think we’d be having this conversation if things were that great? What nonsense is this TT? Why do you keep ignoring these “FACTS”, as you put them, and expect to be taken seriously? It is beyond all reason.
2. RE: “They know it has been achieved. They want the majority ability for Tamils – the ability for self-determination as a nation in what they call “Tamil traditional homelands”.”
Tamil Eelam is dead and gone TT. It only lives on in the minds of those who are so dense that logic and reason have no chance of permeating their brains. We are not talking about “Tamil Eelam”, we are talking about ensuring the basic human rights and dignity of one of our national minorities – so that they can conduct their affairs untroubled by any majoritarian policies, intentional or otherwise.
3. RE: “Why devolution proponents gallop when their hear this?”
Devolution was never the subject of this discussion, and it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I too do not believe we need to have devolution, *if we refrain from enacting majoritarian policies and take responsibility to ensure fairness to others*. Again, the mind boggles that you cannot comprehend this.
4. RE: “I also propose multiethnic colonization of the north as a means of creating ethnic integration in war ravaged areas. No logical argument against this either! “
TT, I have replied to this point before, as has Wijayapala. It is *unethical* to forcibly dilute the opinion of an entire ethnicity, just so we can continue to be unfair by them unhindered and not have to listen to them complain through the only device at their disposal – their vote!
Don’t try to dress it up as being motivated by the noble goal of making ethnic differences “irrelevant”. If they were irrelevant, you would be happy to make Tamil the official language in Sri Lanka, and to relegate Sinhalese to the status of Tamil, would you not? Are you agreeable to that TT? Are you agreeable to according that dignity to a minority and as a majority, suffer some inconvenience on their behalf? Or are you under the impression, that it is always the *minority that must be inconvenienced*?
Or are you are merely trying to, once again, enforce a majoritarian policy whereby the Tamils are forcibly converted to a minority in *every region*, thus making it easier to continue with our majoritarian policies unhindered, because they will no longer have a *voice* to complain. Can you please give us a clear answer to the above?
I have always said that I agree with multi-ethnic nations in principle – but only if we take every step to be fair by them. Does that provide a clear answer to your question?
The problem at hand is that we have failed to do that, enacting majoritarian policies and being callously indifferent to their plight, thus fuelling valid protests that you now wish to lump together with invalid protests and call it all “racism”. You cannot ignore valid complaints by only dealing with the invalid ones. You cannot ignore the fact that majoritarian policies like Sinhala-Only were only overturned through massive protests. And you cannot pretend that everything has now been rectified and proceed to dilute their vote so they can no longer take any steps to so much as complain in future.
Fix the problems first, make sure language policies and communal rights are *properly implemented*, and that Tamils can live with equality and dignity in this island! Stop this dishonest, ahistoric analysis of our predicament.
TT: “Even before the full debate between me and DB was comlpeted, you formed this opinion.”
The debate was over a week ago, TT. Since then you’ve ignored my points and simply repeated your original arguments. Here are the questions you’ve run away from:
1. Do you believe the Tamils in SL are immigrants like they are in the west and the Maldivians are in SL?
2. Do you understand the difference between a national minority and a naturalised minority? If yes, explain.
3. Do you understand the difference between a UN resolution which is a ruling and a UN declaration which is a pact. If yes, explain.
4. Do you disregard all other UN declarations on minority rights except the 1992 one? Example the UN declaration on indigenous peoples in 2007. If yes, explain why.
5. Do you understand that being a signatory to a UN or other international or regional declaration is akin to a promise to follow said declaration?
6. Do you understand the difference between a homeland and a country? If yes, explain.
7. Do you believe that majority rule is democratic in light of the Civil Rights movement and the referendums and plebiscites on separation? If yes, explain how.
8. Would you accept another religion or language being given the foremost place in SL instead of Buddhism?
9. Can you provide a list of countries that haven’t given their national minorities language rights where applicable?
10. Do you understand the difference between nationalism and nationality? If yes, explain.
11. Do you know the difference between passing a law and implementing it? If yes, explain.
12. Do you accept that the 13th Amendment hasn’t been implemented in the area of language. If yes, explain why; if no, explain how it has been implemented.
13. Why are you against granting minorities language rights?
14. Do you understand that pointing out racism and fighting for equal race rights are not racist actions? If no, explain why.
15. Can you quote any current Tamil politicians who are calling for Tamil Eelam or any other separate state for Tamils?
Those are some basic questions you’ve ignored, TT, which are vital to engaging in this discussion. If you’re unwilling to answer, then I’m afraid you’ve lost the argument. If you’ve got similar questions, I’d be happy to answer them in turn.
“In my view DB’s logic is flawed and lacks objectivity.”
I fear, TT, that like many other English terms and definitions, you do not understand the meaning of either “logic” or “objectivity”. Sinhala Only has been the cause of many confusions, hasn’t it?
To be objective means to be “not affected by personal feelings” (http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=objective&o=0&l=dir). Where have my arguments incorporated personal feelings? On the other hand, your arguments are biased against one ethnic group and towards another; you are in point defending the use of a majority language of one group in opposition to the use of a minority language; this in fact is a lack of objectivity.
Logic “is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning” (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic?wasRedirected=true). Can you point out any incorrectness or invalidity in my reasoning and inference? In contrast, you claim that Sinhalese must be the official language because the Sinhalese are a national majority; but Tamil musn’t be an official language even in the NE where Tamils are a majority. This is a fallacy in reasoning and is inconsistent inference. In other words, illogical.
“e.g. IF SL has granted all the things it should to a minority community as per the UN Declaration of 1992 there is nothing more to give; is there?”
Here you are taking for granted that the ’92 declaration is the only valid international framework. Refusing to acknowledge these other frameworks is to avoid reality. And objectivity.
“IF it is not enforceable by the UN (which is the case DB is arguing for) does not that say the INTENTION of the UN nations that these are mere “nice to haves”?”
UN declarations are never intended to be enforced by the UN itself, since the General Assembly has no power of intervention. It can only declare. That is why when intervention is needed, the Security Council passes a resolution, and these resolutions are invariably specific to a country or situation, and to prevent actual deaths. When a declaration or protocol is passed, the understanding is that the signatories are expected to then pass laws in their own countries to fall in line with the declaration, and enforce these laws. That is why many countries don’t sign declarations they disagree with; the US and the Kyoto protocol, the US and the ICC, SL and the landmine declaration, etc. However, once a country has passed a law that covers the sentiments of one or more declarations, it must implement it if it is to maintain credibility in its system. So since SL has passed the 13th into law, it must implement it or re-amend it. That is logical. To have a law on a crucial point and to flaunt or break it is illogical.
That is why, in spite of the fact that member nations flaunt the UN charter and various declarations on individual freedoms and rights, civil and fundamental rights (N Korea, Saudi Arabia, the former USSR, etc), the UN has no power to punish. That doesn’t change the fact that these nations are indeed in violation.
“So the bottomline is SL is as good (and bad) as the collective thinking of UN nations about minority rights.”
It isn’t, because the collective thinking of the UN members is articulated in several declarations, not just one, and the implementation of those declarations via domestic laws is the proof of their belief in that collective thinking. If the GoSL doesn’t implement the 13th then it isn’t falling in line with the collective thinking that it claims to agree with, evidenced by its signing of the multiple declarations.
“Native, non-native, historical, recent are not considerations according to the best and most detailed account of minority rights. Those are irrelevances.”
Exactly. Which is why language rights must be granted to all. And the 13th, which places Sinhalese, Tamil, and English as official languages grants these rights on paper. All that remains is implementation.
“They want Tamil Ealm, a seperate nation for Tamils.”
I have asked you repeatedly for proof of this nonsensical accusation. You have none
“I proposed an alternative power devolution mechanism of 3 regions. I didn’t get a proper answer for that.”
I have responded to your proposal. If you’re not satisfied with my response, explain why not. If devolution along the provincial lines (also part of the 13th and law) is not satisfactory, that part of the law must be repealed and a referendum held on a provincial level to decide if they want to merge with other provinces.
I once pointed out that Heshan needed to change the problem to suit his solution, and you too seem unwilling to accept that you’ve got the wrong solution. The problem isn’t that Tamils want to govern themselves; the problem is that minorities lack their due rights. Merging into three large provinces will not change that; it will only remove the Tamils’ right to democratically gain their rights. Your suggestion of colonisation too is to achieve that objective. So for your solution to fit, you want the problem to be one of Tamil racism rather than Tamil rights. No one is fooled, TT, by your pathetic excuses about wanting the communitues to live together
This was explained to you weeks ago with the example of the electoral college. As usual you fled from that and simply repeated your foolish mantra elsewhere.
“There is no need to mix racism and devolution. Not at all. Let there be multiethnic teams running all regions just like SL.”
First the Sinhalese must prove they’re capable of providing multi-ethnic goveranance throughout SL. That means granting all ethnicities equal rights in accordance with the law. When the Tamils have no cause to feel lesser citizens, we will be truly multi-ethnic. Until the 13th is fully implemented, the Sinhalese will have failed.
“There is no need to hold on to colonial British era provinces.”
Under that reasoning there is no need to hold onto the colonial British era single nation either. So you’re then in agreement with the Vaddukoddai Resolution?
“Why devolution proponents gallop when their hear this?”
Why scratch your right ear with your left hand when you have a right hand?
“I also propose multiethnic colonization of the north as a means of creating ethnic integration in war ravaged areas. No logical argument against this either!”
The logical arguments have been provided to you several times over, but because you’re a racist and a coward who has no counter argument to these, you pretend they don’t exist. Like the people who insist the earth is flat
“Obviously persons of all ethnicites have the right to live in any part of the country irrespective of who is sponsoring the colonization scheme.”
Certainly people have the right, and if they have the need as well, they may do so by purchasing land with their own money. There is no need to provide state sponsorship.
SD,
“I formed this view when it became manifestly clear that reason was not your forte.
Why don’t I form any views about you? I take only the facts and logic only each time!
RE” “IF SL has granted all the things it should to a minority community as per the UN Declaration of 1992 there is nothing more to give; is there?”
I agree with you! But that’s not the point is it?
Thank you! Yes, this is not the problem. The problem is Tamil race based politicians (ACTC, ITAK, TULF, TNA, etc.) are after racist demands that cannot be DEMOCRATICALLY accomodated within an undivided SL.
years and years of conflict to resist majoritarian policies, before they were rolled back to have some semblance to any kind of UN declaration? And where are you living right now to be so unaware that despite SL having “granted” language rights (these are basic human rights TT, it’s not a privilege we can “grant” and that alone should speak volumes to you), they are implemented so appallingly that at times, it’s as if they don’t exist!
The conflict is over SD!
We WON it and we will win again if needed. Don’t use the conflict to extort things. You WON’T get any! SO language rights is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT? And it has been granted. Very good!
2. RE: “They know it has been achieved. They want the majority ability for Tamils – the ability for self-determination as a nation in what they call “Tamil traditional homelands”.”
Tamil Eelam is dead and gone TT. It only lives on in the minds of those who are so dense that logic and reason have no chance of permeating their brains. We are not talking about “Tamil Eelam”, we are talking about ensuring the basic human rights and dignity of one of our national minorities – so that they can conduct their affairs untroubled by any majoritarian policies, intentional or otherwise.
What drivel is this SD? “Ensuring basic HR and dignity” of “ONE” of our “minorities” so that they can conduct their affairs untroubled by any “majoritarian policies”. So only ONE minority and ONLY the minority? Majority is unimportant? What is the connection between basic HR/dignity and majoritarian policies? You have to live with majority decision making as with any thrid world democracy. The only way to block that is by defeating the state of SL in war.
3. RE: “Why devolution proponents gallop when their hear this?”
Devolution was never the subject of this discussion, and it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I too do not believe we need to have devolution, *if we refrain from enacting majoritarian policies and take responsibility to ensure fairness to others*. Again, the mind boggles that you cannot comprehend this.
You don’t have the capacity to understand that devolution has been proposed to solve the problem you are imagining! Anyway you too escape from recognizing this. I tell you, EVEN if SL continues or not with majoritarian policies, my form of devolution works!
4. RE: “I also propose multiethnic colonization of the north as a means of creating ethnic integration in war ravaged areas. No logical argument against this either! “
TT, I have replied to this point before, as has Wijayapala. It is *unethical* to forcibly dilute the opinion of an entire ethnicity, just so we can continue to be unfair by them unhindered and not have to listen to them complain through the only device at their disposal – their vote!
Unethical? So now we should refrain from doing what YOU consider “unethical”! Very sorry economic realities stack against you. Dilute the opinion of an entire ethnicity? What rubbish? Tamils can continue to vote for “T” parties. There is absolutely no restrictions or dilution. Only things is these race based “T” parties will not be able to win a district! That’s my plan. We did it in Trinco (you shouted then but to no avail), we will do it in the north whether you like it or not. I mean no offence (forgive me if you find this offensive), just stating facts. If you trust Tamilnet, you will know what I’m talking about.
I think TN grossly exaggerates things.
Still banging on at your nonsense, TT?
You’re like a woodpecker with an I-beam lol. Why don’t you answer the 14 questions crucial to this debate that I’ve put down and you’ve run away from for over a week now? 
Dear TT,
Please don’t let me distract you from answering David’s 14 questions here. I was merely highlighting some ethical considerations that should inform your reasoning, but in no way do I wish to divert your attention from those 14 questions, which you have thus far, tortuously tap-danced around.
BTW, it tickles me to no end that you think I’m a TN believing Eelamoid! Surely, your presumption must mean I’m doing something right
Well, anyway, don’t let any of this distract you from the 14 questions!
DB,
At last you could write something without having to [edit out].
The debate was over a week ago, TT. Since then you’ve ignored my points and simply repeated your original arguments.
No DB I read you but there is no substance in it or logic. Just because I don’t agree with you does not mean I ignored you. You are running away from my questions and as usually happens in politics, you blame me for it! Man, you are surely a politician!
1. Do you believe the Tamils in SL are immigrants like they are in the west and the Maldivians are in SL?
Some Tamils are, some aren’t. I know a number of Tamils who are recent immigrants.
2. Do you understand the difference between a national minority and a naturalised minority? If yes, explain.
There is no difference in fundamental rights, UN Declared rights between these 2 groups. They are all entitled to the SAME THING.
3. Do you understand the difference between a UN resolution which is a ruling and a UN declaration which is a pact. If yes, explain.
Looks like you don’t understand this. UN resolutions protect SL’s sovereignty, calls for punishment and clamp down on support to terror groups, etc. but the same UN speaks softly with no enforceable obligations when in comes to minorities. This is no accident. It was done so to emphasize on what’s relatively more important and what’s not.
4. Do you disregard all other UN declarations on minority rights except the 1992 one? Example the UN declaration on indigenous peoples in 2007. If yes, explain why.
DB, since I comprehensively beat you the 1992 thing by proving that there is nothing SL lacks in this regard, you are bringing the 2007 one. SL has done very well in that regard too! You cannot get anything from these for your campaign.
5. Do you understand that being a signatory to a UN or other international or regional declaration is akin to a promise to follow said declaration?
And SL has kept ALL those promises and there is ABSOLUTELY NO INSTANCE of violating these.
6. Do you understand the difference between a homeland and a country? If yes, explain.
I have explained this in detail previously. Sri Lanka is NOT the Tamil homeland and there is no need to waste time on this.
7. Do you believe that majority rule is democratic in light of the Civil Rights movement and the referendums and plebiscites on separation? If yes, explain how.
Civil Rights movement had its context, referenda for separation also had its context. But not in SL.
Now Db is confusing territories. A common disorder.
8. Would you accept another religion or language being given the foremost place in SL instead of Buddhism?
Sure, if that serves MOST SLs right.
9. Can you provide a list of countries that haven’t given their national minorities language rights where applicable?
This is not a point of debate. SL is in! You said so, remember?
10. Do you understand the difference between nationalism and nationality? If yes, explain.
The dictionary you check is as good as mine!
11. Do you know the difference between passing a law and implementing it? If yes, explain.
Carry out the specifications of the law IN THE COTEXT of other laws is implementation. For instance, 13A should be implemented in the context of the SIXTH amendment, PTA, 18 amendment, etc.
12. Do you accept that the 13th Amendment hasn’t been implemented in the area of language. If yes, explain why; if no, explain how it has been implemented.
Tamil is a national language of SL. 13 amendment did not follow the democratic process. It was forced upon SL by an alien army in the country. It makes sense to FULLY implement the SIXTH amendment BEFORE anything about the 13 amendment!
13. Why are you against granting minorities language rights?
They have been granted DB! What world are you in! I also want the Veddha, Maldivian, Burgur, etc. communities granted their language rights too as Tamils.
14. Do you understand that pointing out racism and fighting for equal race rights are not racist actions? If no, explain why.
Equal race rights? Equal individual rights is what matter MOST.
15. Can you quote any current Tamil politicians who are calling for Tamil Eelam or any other separate state for Tamils?
Many. But they are prevented by the fear of the SIXTH amendment to come out openly and support it. They don’t want to lose the parliamentary privileges like the TULF! There is no LOGIC in “CURRENT”. It is a continuation DB. Pitty you don’t get it!
DB,
Here go your questions. Thank you very much for agreeing to answer.
1. Do you believe the north east if Sri Lanka is Tamil traditional homelands? If yes, what is your proof?
2. Do you know that in India not even the Madras High Courts function in Tamil? No comparison, just asking.
3. Do you know that LTTE didn’t have an ideological wing? But LTTE was not a mere bandit group. They fought for an ideology. If LTTE had no ideological wing, from where did they get the ideology? Wasn’t it from Tamil race based parties?
4. If you were a Sinhalese how do you like to live in a district won by the TAMIL united liberation front or Ilankai TAMIL arasu kachchi or TAMIL national alliance?
Similarly if you were a Tamil, how would you live in a district won by SINHALA united liberation front, Lanka Sinhala Kingdom Party or Sinhala National Alliance?
5. Are you so naïve to believe that TNA and ACTC have given up the demand for the TAMIL ELAM nation? Or do you apprehend that they are merely lying low in fear of the sixth amendment and the absence of the LTTE?
6. Do you know that SL was never summoned at the UN, etc. for any act against Tamils? Petty discussions with no binding requirements are not worth mentioning.
7. Do you know that FEDERALISM was repeatedly rejected by SL voters and their elected representatives? Don’t tell me your bad luck stories. Those were no accidents.
8. Do you agree that SL offers EQUAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and EQUAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS to Sinhalese as well as Tamils in the Constitution?
9. Do you realize that MOST Sri Lankans don’t agree with your views? And do you see it’s consequences? I bet you don’t!
At the end of the day it’s the people, not the American Civil Rights movement that makes decisions around here. Too bad you are FAR TOO detached from the people of SL. Dream on DB. 
Remember TT when you realize that my way works and your way doesn’t.
10. Do you recognize that “colonization” schemes achieved much more towards a Sri Lankan version of peace than any of the things you preach including the Civil Rights movement? LOL!
11. Do you know that most old Buddhist temples have Hindu temples inside them? But the vice versa is not true?
12. Do you believe that Tamils in SL should have a “separate NATIONAL identity”?
13. Should Tamils in Sri Lanka be first Sri Lankans, then Tamils or should they be first Tamils and then Sri Lankans?
14. Do you believe in allowing Tamils the right of self determination?
15. Do you think the Vadukoddai Resolution as a basis of a good political solution?
16. Do you know that victims of abductors who kept them for years under their spell grew a great respect for their captors? On a similar note do you know that SOME SLA soldiers/officers frustrated by their inability to defeat the LTTE, grew a great deal of respect for the Tigers and their convictions? No wonder SL could not defeat the Tigers when such was the caliber of SOME of it’s officers then. How marvelously things changed after they left! (No reflection on anyone personally). In my view, losers of the war game don’t become winners in the peace game, though think they would.
17. Do you know that the 13 amendment can be reversed? Alternatively it can be disregarded as per the existing legal framework with NO LEGAL recourse?
18. What are the benefits non-Tamils would get (which they would otherwise not get) by following your course of action?
We may not agree with some but that’s alright. I humbly think I have won the debate with you WITHIN here and more importantly on ground!
“No DB I read you but there is no substance in it or logic.”
Since you’ve ably demonstrated that you have no understanding of the meaning of either substance or logic, I won’t worry about that
“Just because I don’t agree with you does not mean I ignored you.”
But I didn’t say you ignored me, I said you ran away from the questions like a coward. It’s taken much taunting by me and others to get you to make an attempt at answering
I say ‘attempt’ because I doubt your intellect is capable of formulating an adequate answer.
“1. Some Tamils are, some aren’t. I know a number of Tamils who are recent immigrants.”
The question wasn’t “which Tamils are immigrants”. Please answer the question put to you.
“2. There is no difference in fundamental rights, UN Declared rights between these 2 groups. They are all entitled to the SAME THING.”
Lol the question wasn’t “what’s the difference between fundamental rights and UN rights”. Please answer the question put to you.
“3. Looks like you don’t understand this. UN resolutions protect SL’s sovereignty, calls for punishment and clamp down on support to terror groups, etc. but the same UN speaks softly with no enforceable obligations when in comes to minorities. This is no accident. It was done so to emphasize on what’s relatively more important and what’s not.”
The question was for you to explain the difference between a UN resolution and a declaration. Instead of doing so, you claim that the UN passed a resolution protecting SL and clamping down on terrorism
Can you link to this resolution? And while you’re about it, please answer the question.
“4. DB, since I comprehensively beat you the 1992 thing by proving that there is nothing SL lacks in this regard, you are bringing the 2007 one. SL has done very well in that regard too! You cannot get anything from these for your campaign.”
You don’t have to defend yourself, TT!
Just tell us whether you believe only the ’92 resolution is valid. If you believe it, just say so. Why are you ashamed to answer?
“5. And SL has kept ALL those promises and there is ABSOLUTELY NO INSTANCE of violating these.”
But you said the UN had no authority to enforce, and that SL was not obliged to fall in line therefore. But now you say that SL has obliged all these frameworks. Yet just before you were unwilling to declare which frameworks are valid, which aren’t, and why. Why all this squirming and wriggling?
“6. I have explained this in detail previously. Sri Lanka is NOT the Tamil homeland and there is no need to waste time on this. “
But the question wasn’t “is SL the Tamil homeland” TT
Why don’t you answer the question I asked; it’s in very simple English that even you can understand.
“7.Civil Rights movement had its context, referenda for separation also had its context. But not in SL. ? Now Db is confusing territories. A common disorder.”
I didn’t ask you about the contexts of anything. I just asked you if you believe majority rule is democratic. Why won’t you answer? Are you ashamed?
“8. Sure, if that serves MOST SLs right.”
I didn’t ask you what serves most Sri Lankans; religion in the government serves no one. I asked you if YOU accept it unqualified. I await your answer.
“9. This is not a point of debate. SL is in! You said so, remember?”
It most certainly is a point of debate since you claimed first that “most” and then later that “many” countries haven’t provided these rights. In addition, you were unaware that SL had passed a law granting these rights, proving that by failure to implement SL is only theoretocally on the list. You have also suggested that SL should repeal the 13th and join the list of countries that don’t grant these rights. So can you provide that list of those countries?
“10. The dictionary you check is as good as mine!”
I didn’t ask you if you had a dictionary; please give us your definition.
“11. Carry out the specifications of the law IN THE COTEXT of other laws is implementation.”
Bzzzzzzz wrong! Laws are PASSED with due consideration to other laws. At implementation there is no room for modification — or bending as it’s usually called.
“12. Tamil is a national language of SL. 13 amendment did not follow the democratic process. It was forced upon SL by an alien army in the country. It makes sense to FULLY implement the SIXTH amendment BEFORE anything about the 13 amendment!”
I didn’t ask you if the 13th was democratic (it was democratically passed in parliament and has remained in law for 24 years without any alien army to guard it). The 6th (preventing territorial violatons) was being implemented for four years prior to the passing of the 13th and ever since. Can you answer the question.
“13. They have been granted DB! What world are you in! I also want the Veddha, Maldivian, Burgur, etc. communities granted their language rights too as Tamils.”
But you said the 13th should be repealed. If you want language rights for minorities, why do you want it repealed? You can’t want both can you?
“14. Equal race rights? Equal individual rights is what matter MOST.”
I didn’t ask you if individual rights or race rights mattered more. Please answer the actual question.
“15. Many. But they are prevented by the fear of the SIXTH amendment to come out openly and support it. They don’t want to lose the parliamentary privileges like the TULF!”
So you know many parliamentarians who have NEVER supported a separate state, but YOU know that they support it because you can read their minds with your x-ray vision?
So, TT, of the 15 questions I asked, you answered just one, and that too incorrectly. I ask you again to answer them sincerely and bravely if you believe in what you say. If you believe, stand up, don’t run away like a coward or wriggle and squirm like a worm
TT, in spite of the fact that you’ve been unwilling or incapable of answering my questions, I’ll do my part and answer yours.
“1. Do you believe the north east if Sri Lanka is Tamil traditional homelands? If yes, what is your proof?”
I don’t know if the NE is their traditional homeland, but I believe it is their home because they have lived their for centuries.
“2. Do you know that in India not even the Madras High Courts function in Tamil? No comparison, just asking.”
No I didn’t know that. Do you have any proof?
“3. Do you know that LTTE didn’t have an ideological wing? But LTTE was not a mere bandit group. They fought for an ideology. If LTTE had no ideological wing, from where did they get the ideology? Wasn’t it from Tamil race based parties?”
The Tigers DID have an ideological wing, headed first by Anton Balasingham their ideologue, and after his death by SV Thsmilselvam.
“4. If you were a Sinhalese how do you like to live in a district won by the TAMIL united liberation front or Ilankai TAMIL arasu kachchi or TAMIL national alliance?”
I would have no problem with it since I grew up as a Burgher in Sinhala Only SL, being forced to study in Sinhalese since Sinhala Only meant there weren’t enough English-qualified teachers to go around.
“Similarly if you were a Tamil, how would you live in a district won by SINHALA united liberation front, Lanka Sinhala Kingdom Party or Sinhala National Alliance?”
As long as I had ALL my rights fulfilled, I couldn’t care less what they called themselves.
“5. Are you so naïve to believe that TNA and ACTC have given up the demand for the TAMIL ELAM nation? Or do you apprehend that they are merely lying low in fear of the sixth amendment and the absence of the LTTE?”
Until they articulate that demand, I will believe that there is no evidence of such a demand, just as I will naively believe that there is no evidence that the moon is made of cheese until NASA brings me a nice piece of gouda.
“6. Do you know that SL was never summoned at the UN, etc. for any act against Tamils?”
I am well aware of it, just as I am aware that no nation has been ever summoned before the UN for any act short of genocide.
“7. Do you know that FEDERALISM was repeatedly rejected by SL voters and their elected representatives? Don’t tell me your bad luck stories. Those were no accidents.”
Of course I know it, and I’ve in fact pointed it out to your friend Heshan in this very forum.
“8. Do you agree that SL offers EQUAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and EQUAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS to Sinhalese as well as Tamils in the Constitution?”
Yes, I would, but I also would add that some individual and fundamental rights and many collective rights are denied by the passing and implementing of such laws as Sinhala Only, the PTA, the Emergency Regulations, and the 6th Amendment. Collectively, these undo many of the principles of the constitution.
“9. Do you realize that MOST Sri Lankans don’t agree with your views? And do you see it’s consequences?”
I think most right-thinking Sri Lankans agree with me. And 30 years of war was the consequence of thinking your way.
“10. Do you recognize that “colonization” schemes achieved much more towards a Sri Lankan version of peace than any of the things you preach including the Civil Rights movement? LOL!”
Since for 30 years there has been no peace in SL, I can see no evidence of any achievement gained by colonisation, particularly since you cannot provide any.
“11. Do you know that most old Buddhist temples have Hindu temples inside them? But the vice versa is not true?”
Yes, I believe SL Buddhism is heavily influenced by Hinduism, but that Hinduism has been uninfluenced by Buddhism.
“12. Do you believe that Tamils in SL should have a “separate NATIONAL identity”?”
No, I believe they may have a separate ethnic identity if they wish it. The same applies to all ethnic groups.
“13. Should Tamils in Sri Lanka be first Sri Lankans, then Tamils or should they be first Tamils and then Sri Lankans?”
I think they should be the former. The same applies to all ethnic groups.
“14. Do you believe in allowing Tamils the right of self determination?”
Within the parameters of the 13th, yes. In other words, within a unitary single state of Sri Lanka.
“15. Do you think the Vadukoddai Resolution as a basis of a good political solution?”
In 1974, in the light of Sinhalese racism, I think it was reasonable. If the 13th is implemented, I think it’ll be a better solution than the VR.
“16. Do you know that victims of abductors who kept them for years under their spell grew a great respect for their captors?”
Stockholm Syndrom is when a captive gains a psychological dependence on his/her captive. So, no, it isn’t respect.
“On a similar note do you know that SOME SLA soldiers/officers frustrated by their inability to defeat the LTTE, grew a great deal of respect for the Tigers and their convictions?”
No, they made excuses for their failure by awarding the Tigers more ability than they deserve. Respect for the Tigers and their convictions is merely that between warriors. I wouldn’t expect a civilian to understand it
“17. Do you know that the 13 amendment can be reversed? Alternatively it can be disregarded as per the existing legal framework with NO LEGAL recourse?”
Of course. All laws can be changed. And yes the 13th can be disregarded just as adultery can be committed without fear of legal action. It is a moral issue. SL wasn’t penalised for Sinhala Only, but we nevertheless suffered for it. Why leave a similarly painful legacy for our children.
“18. What are the benefits non-Tamils would get (which they would otherwise not get) by following your course of action?”
We would be happier.
“I humbly think I have won the debate with you WITHIN here and more importantly on ground”
Your humbleness is shamed by your ego which needs to claim victory for itself, when others here have pitied you for your abject defeat.
David Blacker said
Still banging on at your nonsense, TT? You’re like a woodpecker with an I-beam lol. Why don’t you answer the 14 questions crucial to this debate that I’ve put down and you’ve run away from for over a week now?
Then SD said,
Dear TT,
Please don’t let me distract you from answering David’s 14 questions here. I was merely highlighting some ethical considerations that should inform your reasoning, but in no way do I wish to divert your attention from those 14 questions, which you have thus far, tortuously tap-danced around.
BTW, it tickles me to no end that you think I’m a TN believing Eelamoid! Surely, your presumption must mean I’m doing something right Well, anyway, don’t let any of this distract you from the 14 questions!
1. mmmmmm….14 questions? Both DB and SD are talking about 14 questions? Aren’t there 15? But how come BOTH DB and SD get it wrong at the same time? Does that mean “both” have a problem (the same problem) with numbers?
2. “You’re like a woodpecker with an I-beam”
Oh! I’m like a woodpecker with an I-beam! So says DB.
We did this kind of stuff at school (which is now 9 years ago). Why don’t I make this kind of statements and DB makes them? Is it because I can’t make these kind of stuff or is it because I’m winning the argument and hence have nothing personal against DB?
Yes, yes, TT, we know you’re running around this forum bleating “I won, I won!” but until you can answer the remaining 14 questions everyone knows you’ve lost
So if I were you, I’d stop worrying about who won and how many questions there are, and actually answer them without hiding
Dear TT,
RE: mmmmmm….14 questions? Both DB and SD are talking about 14 questions? Aren’t there 15? But how come BOTH DB and SD get it wrong at the same time?
Good golly TT!! Have you never heard of Occam’s razor?
The simple answer is, I merely repeated the number that DB had quoted in error, and didn’t count it again myself.
Instead, you get wildly distracted by this simple issue and come up with a hokey conspiracy theory about how DB (his real name) has been using a sock-puppet account called SD for the past 3+ years! (Which is, as others might attest, roughly the period I’ve been writing to this forum)
Unbelievable!
Why waste time on silly nonsense when you can answer the questions clearly and directly, as DB has done?
Or are you merely looking for an easy exit by claiming that others are conspiring against you?
————–
And secondly, about ad-hominem attacks. While I would agree that ad-hominems are best avoided, not every insult is an ad-hominem, provided you make a factual rebuttal of the other person’s argument. So, I could for example, call you a raving lunatic provided I also rebut any points you make. So you need to check how it applies to the examples you raised.
Again, don’t let any of this distract you, because even though ad-hominems are best avoided – at certain times, I believe certain people *must be ridiculed for their nonsensical ideas*.
For example, someone who comes over saying that ’83 was an LTTE conspiracy *must be ridiculed*. Those who espouse racist or bigoted views *must be ridiculed*. Such ideas should not be dignified with so much as an iota of respect. Society needs to marginalize such people. It is partly our collective failure to do so that has allowed them to spread their vile ideas unimpeded.
SD,
Very wonderfully said! Can’t be said any better. David Blacker is a highly intelligent and very knowledgeable person with a great sense of neutrality (much like Wijayapala). And he has an amazing style of writing and is very modest and in the course of this entire conversation has been very patiently explaining to TT about every single point. While TT seems to be a nice guy, it doesn’t contribute much to any argument once someone views everything in black and white. He somehow construes any usage of the word “Tamil” to be racist in any context. I tried to explain to him the etymology, context and reference in which the word is used. Plus I tried to tell him how India has been linguistically divided constitutionally, apart from articulating the differences between SL and Indian Tamil and how poles apart they have become over the course of a few hundred years. But, none of these makes any sense to TT. I even wanted to respond to some of his posts, but he would go around in circles saying the same thing again and again. This is exactly how my interaction with Heshan went regarding languages of India when he repeated what he said post after post, while I tried in some detail to explain. But it is tough to convince someone who isn’t interested to listen.
In any case, this goes to prove Wijayapala’s earlier assertion (with which I agree 100%) that Sinhalas and Tamils need to know more about one another than what they currently know. Sadly that isn’t happening. Of course, there is a lot of rational folks in this forum who would keep these discussions going forward. But, given the kind of divide that you see (not just in SL but also GV), we would only see these fights going on and on. Got to live with that I guess.
Dear Krish,
RE: “But it is tough to convince someone who isn’t interested to listen”
I agree. They say never to feed the trolls. But David is right, we can’t let these people dominate the conversation with their illogic, lest it conveys the impression that we are ok with the bigoted sophistries that pass for reasoned argument. Every “point” they raise needs to be systematically dismantled, so that repetition is their only recourse – by which time all reasonable people would have already seen through their fallacious reasoning. I don’t, of course, expect the miracle that the bigots themselves would change their minds – pigs might fly sooner.
Prof Heshan
“If you believe the LTTE’s single plane was equivalent to the Luftwaffe,”
The Nazis were not equivalent to the Luftwaffe or even the Wehrmacht; the latter were military forces that existed prior to 1933, whereas the former were a regime. Has your Anglican upbringing prevented you from making that distinction?
“By the way, you did not comment on…blah blah blah”
That is because we are eagerly awaiting your views on European and Christian contribution to “Sinhala Buddhist” ideology- namely how European race theory formed Dharmapala’s views that the Sinhalese were a “race,” and how certain Buddhist institutions adopted Christian bigotry for “Protestant Buddhism” to evolve.
Also you had no comment on the observation that the Portuguese destroyed every single Hindu temple in Jaffna. Are you grateful to the Portuguese for sparing your Anglican antecedents from that task?
“I don’t think the LTTE engaged in ethnic cleansing out of any sort of hatred for Sinhalese and Muslims, but did so merely for its own survival.”
So you approve of the 1983 violence against Tamils because it was necessary for JR’s survival? That the Tamils have been and still are a fifth column acting against the Sinhalese and thus deserve to be exterminated?
“It would be the equivalent of a mass murderer deciding to become a monk; the entire purpose is lost at the very outset.”
Then how come the Christians were so eager to convert criminals and murderers in Sinhala society? Why were you so proud that the murderer of SWRD had converted to Christianity before his execution?
Also you had no comment on the observation that the Portuguese destroyed every single Hindu temple in Jaffna.
Can you give evidence of this?
That is because we are eagerly awaiting your views on European and Christian contribution to “Sinhala Buddhist” ideology- namely how European race theory formed Dharmapala’s views that the Sinhalese were a “race,”
It is true that Dharmapala thought Sinhalese were “Aryans” of “Bengali” extraction; however, this view has not had much impact on the modern-day nationalists. The modern-day nationalists still think the Indian national anthem is sung in only one language, and that the Third Reich was a Christian entity. I do not want to imagine how the nationalists perceive the so-called “Aryan race theory”, which by the way has been disproved by Indo-Aryan scholars – there is no Aryan race that invaded India , only an “Indo-Aryan” language group exists. The modern-day nationalists still draw their inspiration from Mahavamsa, e.g. “Prince” Vijaya (actually a thief and an outcaste) sailing from Orissa to Taprobane, and “founding” the Sinhalese “race”, whose destiny was foretold by the Buddha. It would be easy to counter this argument with genetics – e.g. genetic analysis of North Indians, SL Tamils, Veddah’s and SL Sinhalese – (which in my opinion would show intermarriage between Sinhalese and Veddahs has mostly bolished any remaining “North Indian” connection) but once again, even Western science can benefit from jathika chinthanaya , as stated by Hon. Nalin De Silva. There is a game which small children in the West play called “Follow The Leader”; but this game is played by even the adults in “Taprobane.” If “Mahavamsa” was analyzed in detail for logical flaws, it would lose its grip on the patriots’ common sense. But that is not the case; the “leaders” prefer to use Mahavamsa as a propaganda tool, and the followers are jumping higher than ever.
and how certain Buddhist institutions adopted Christian bigotry for “Protestant Buddhism” to evolve.
You mean that Sinhala-Buddhism tried to adapt such concepts as gender equality, abolishing of castes, Tamil rights , etc. but failed miserably? I fully agree.
Hon Wijayapala:
The Nazis were not equivalent to the Luftwaffe or even the Wehrmacht; the latter were military forces that existed prior to 1933, whereas the former were a regime. Has your Anglican upbringing prevented you from making that distinction?
The Luftwaffe was established by Hermann Goering on the direct orders of Hitler. Do you consider Hitler to be a Nazi or a tea picker from Nuwara Eliya or an incarnation of Eelara? I have given you several choices. Please consult with other Sons of The Soil before choosing the right answer. The Wehrmact had several branches, one of which was the SS. According to one of your comrades here, the crimes committed by the SS were so brutal that no investigation of SL Army excesses can come close, in terms of urgency. Do you agree that these crimes committed by the SS were done in the name of the Nazis? Or was the SS merely a Christian organization?
In other words, Heshan, stand in front of the mirror and say those words. Except that you have neither moral integrity nor the testicular mass to fight for your beliefs.
The dinosaurs too, had a lot of “testicular mass”, but look what happened to them.
It is a man’s own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways. – Lord Buddha
It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell. – Lord Buddha
Well I doubt that conquering themselves would’ve saved the dinosaurs
but I’m sure it seems logical to you.
But what irony that at a time when you should look to the example of Jesus who had both the integrity and the balls to risk his life, and even sacrifice it, for freedom, you wimp out and quote the very Buddhism you hate. What a shining Christian witness you are, Heshan
TT,
Agree with your FACTS.
I believe colonization is the solution.
However, it does NOT cost a fortune.
Look at the 4 factors of production.
1. Land – available
2. Labour – the farmers, fishermen themselves
3. Capital – private capital in the form of know-how, implements are available. The rest can be obtained from a bank.
4. Organisation – up to the guys. Government need to build the infrastructure which the government has to do anyway. At some places even the infrastructure is there!
Actually colonization is the best solution to the present scarcity of food stuff, high inflation driven by consumer goods, unemployment at lower ends of the education spectrum and population related problems.
I think you are assuming that because the factors of production exist, the rest will simply fall into place. If that were the case, there would not be a G10 club of the world’s wealthiest nations, but a G500 club. Africa probably has more resources (of every variety) than any other continent, but all of us know it is not even remotely prosperous. On the other hand, Japan, which possesses virtually no natural resources of its own, has managed to become a G10 nation. It is how you use the available resources (or make up for the lack thereof) which matters.
1. Land. How much of the land is occupied by high-security zones, military bases, and other military infrastructure? Does this constitute a productive use of the land? When you have 40,000 soldiers in a densely populated area like Jaffna, does it not create unnecessary congestion? Furthermore, the vast majority of these soldiers are not engaged in any sort of livelihood that has a positive bearing on the local economy. By positive bearing, I mean that these soldiers do not generate revenue that is then reinvested in the local economy. If you are familiar with the circular flow diagram, the only interaction there is between households, firms, and the government. But if I had to add “military” to this diagram, I would say that the military decreases consumer confidence , which means households buy less, and firms supply less. On a macro scale, of course, it means reduced GDP.
2. Labor. Even farming and fishing are complex activities these days. From what I have read recently, the Jaffna fishermen cannot compete with the TN fishermen, as the latter have superior (capital) resources, e.g. faster and bigger boats. So if fishing and farming is done at subsistence levels, overall production levels will be inside the production possibilities frontier, e.g. we are left with an inefficiency. To maximize the labor output, it is necessary to first maximize the prerequisite capital resources as well as improve the overall quality of human capital. For this to occur, the local economy has to flourish, e.g. local businesses must grow before they can improve their productive resources. To some extent, the government can provide loans, preferably in the form of microloans, which is now a widely accepted option in numerous places.
3. Capital – I have explained this one already.
4. Organisation – another word for this is entrepreneurship . The entrepreneur takes a risk with his investment. So, it is not logical for him to invest in a climate that is not conducive to promoting consumer confidence. If consumer confidence is lacking, businesses will not grow as easily – why start one then, in the first place? There is also the Sri Lankan red tape . One must know the right people, be willing to pay (bribe) the right people, etc. to get the business up and running. I do not think this kind of red tape creates a tenable environment for investing.
In general, I think that colonization brings with it too much government interference to promote any meaningful economic growth. This government interference can be in the form of the military, which creates congestion and which occupies very fertile land (thereby diminishing the productive output of the land), or in the form of awarding contracts (the local people in Jaffna and elsewhere in the North did not have any say in the bidding process for choosing a developer). As you know, government interference does not lead to market stability, but only creates shortages and surpluses . For example, if the colonizers are subsidized with government money and other resources we no longer have a free market.
It is immensely beneficial politically too! Trinco was won this time by national parties pushing the only racist party to the last spot in seats. Government can win the north (at least one in a while) if colonized adequately. Otherwise they can NEVER win it.
You have not specified a time-frame within which the demographics of the North can be changed from majority Tamil to majority Sinhalese (which would allow the Government to win the North, as per your conclusion). Look at Israel; the Jewish settlers have been colonizing certain Arab areas for quite a while now, but the Arabs still form a significant majority.
In my view, colonization is the panacea for all SL’s ills.
My opinion is that federalism and micro-loans are the panacea for the ethnic conflict. Federalism will create the free and fair environment within which to do business,and micro-loans will offer an incentive for small-scale investors to open businesses, thus giving the local economy a much-needed boost. You may read the following article about the pioneers of micro-loans and their Nobel-Prize winning work:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061013-nobel-peace.html
Heshan,
Not true.
Look at all the colonization schemes we already did. As per your own population figures, they are a REMARKABLE success. It is not just people. It is their economy as well. If they are/were economically worse off, they would take the first bus out!
What is more convincing is, most of them didn’t budge an inch despite the LTTE threat! Dry zone, water, Tamil homeland, etc. are no concerns for colonization. It has been proven that it can be done.
FYI, vanni has more water ways that the east, Hambantota and Monaragala! Jaffna has more well water than any other place.
By assertions are based on proven, actual events.
Federalism in tiny 9 provinces is a joke. If at all we are going to meaningfully devolve power, we should make 3 big provinces were the ethnic composition is diverse and rerpresentative of SL.
Anyway I value and respect your opinion. (But that does not mean anything on ground.)
TT,
By “success” I was referring to the successful alteration of demographics, whereby the Sinhalese voting block is a formidable one in the East now. I think it is worthwhile to give an idea of the census figures here, so that we are on the same page. In 1901, there were 1203 Sinhalese in TD, 8258 Muslims, and 17069 Tamils. The Tamil percentage was 60%. In 1963, there were 39950 Sinhalese (18.2% of total population), 42560 Muslims (34.1% of total population) and 54050 Tamils (44.7% of total population). In 1981, there were 86341 Sinhalese (29.1% of total population), 74403 Muslims (31.8% of total population), and 93510 Tamils (38.1% of Tamils). The 2007 Census data (unfortunately incomplete) gives the number of Tamils as 96142 (28.75% of total pop) and Sinhalese as 84766 (25.35% of total pop). This data is only for Trincomalee. What is interesting is that there are more people of all ethnicities in Trinco in 2007 compared to 1901, but that the Tamil majority (60%) is long since extinguished – by 1960 at the very latest. What is also interesting is that even after a 100 years of migrations – including colonization – Sinhalese are still not a majority in Trincomalee. However, the latter statement is somewhat misleading. If one divides the population of Trincomalee into 11 DS divisions, he will see that Sinhalese were the majority in 7 of them by 2007. How these divisions factor into an electoral system, I do not know, but 7 out of 11 sounds like a formidable way to get Sinhalese officials into power. Whether that has actually occurred in Trinco – again, I do not know. But if it has happened, then above serves as an important reference as to “how.” By the way, my sources for the data are:
http://www.uthr.org/Reports/Report11/appendix2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trincomalee_District
What is more convincing is, most of them didn’t budge an inch despite the LTTE threat! Dry zone, water, Tamil homeland, etc. are no concerns for colonization. It has been proven that it can be done.
The last time I was in the East was during the CFA, approx 2004. What about the standard of living? Trinco cannot compare at all to Colombo or Kandy. Development is altogether lacking – that is the sensation I got just from talking to people in the town, and of course just by looking around. It is similar to the deep south. People are just scraping by. So, I would ask you of what benefit colonization has been in this regard? Has it brought a single Majestic Mountain or KFC to Trinco ? When I was there, the busiest place in town was the fish market. What is interesting is the so-called beach resort, aka Nilaweli, that caters almost exclusively to tourists. The Government or whoever has clearly put a lot of work into the latter – it is first-class, but in no way does it reflect the quality of life of the local people. Most locals could probably not afford to spend even one night there. That is what I mean by the Government has neglected the general well-being of the town itself. It will do the same thing with colonization. If the colonization schemes are not profitable in the short-run, GOSL will just abandon them.
Heshan,
“By “success” I was referring to the successful alteration of demographics, whereby the Sinhalese voting block is a formidable one in the East now.”
That included too!
Of course Trinco is far behind Colombo but there is no room or jobs in Colombo for these people. Now we can blaim the governments for this or do somthing about it!
You answered the rest. No KFC in Trinco but you said the bussiest place was the fish market!
“So, I question its willingness to engage in colonization without some kind of kickback.”
Now this a smart remark. I completely agree.
But very soon the economic problems, the land probem (which is the BIGGEST problem in the country) are going to escalate. Politicians will not have anywhere to hide. Colonization can resolve all these at a very low cost to the government. Only then the government will do it.
Now the government thinks development in the north will bring them votes in the north. It doesn’t. I’m waiting till this crude awakening. Development with ethnic integration in the north is the way forward. Development in the north MUST benefit Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim, etc. communities, not JUST TAMILS! At the moment northern development ONLY benefits Tamils, a receipe for disaster – political and economic. TNA without any economic development work will win a landslide in the north.
Government can wait till colonization gives “kickbacks” or not doing colonization does a political and economic “kicka*s”!
*If the colonization schemes are not profitable in the short-run, GOSL will just abandon them.
I associate the term “profit” more with this Government than with colonization in general. It seems that this Government is more eager than all previous ones to engage in various profit-making schemes, whether selling land to the Chinese or bringing the military into numerous business ventures, or building a new harbor, or starting a new airlines, or building a new airport. So, I question its willingness to engage in colonization without some kind of kickback.
Prof Heshan
“Also you had no comment on the observation that the Portuguese destroyed every single Hindu temple in Jaffna.
Can you give evidence of this?
Take a look at my response to you on February 15, 2011 @8:01 am. I will not type it again.
“I do not want to imagine how the nationalists perceive the so-called “Aryan race theory”, which by the way has been disproved by Indo-Aryan scholars”
Aryan race theory was cooked up by none other than your civilised European racists. Therefore it can never be disproved.
“The Wehrmact had several branches, one of which was the SS.”
I am amazed that someone with an Anglican upbringing such as yourself could display such staggering ignorance (and be proud of it!). The Schutzstaffel was a paramilitary organisation that existed separately from the Wehrmacht and competed with it for resources, leading to animosity between the two forces.
“The Luftwaffe was established by Hermann Goering on the direct orders of Hitler.”
The Luftwaffe did not appear out of thin air. Goering himself had been a member of the original German air service. Were you aware that the modern German air force is also called the Luftwaffe?
Hon. Wijayapala:
The Portugese destroyed 500 Hindu temples in Jaffna (http://www.ceylontamils.com/history/history4.php). But the Muslims destroyed 60000 temples throughout India (http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/indianchron.html). Instead of shedding crocodile tears for Hindu temples destroyed by the Portugese, you should ask yourself why the Portugese did not destroy your precious viharas, dagabas, and free-standing Buddha statues. Also, it is interesting that the Portugese simply burnt the whole temples, idles included, instead of trying to steal and sell the idols off to the South, like your comrades in the 100% Sinhala-Buddhist Army, as has been noted in a different thread in this forum .
The Schutzstaffel was a paramilitary organisation that existed separately from the Wehrmacht and competed with it for resources, leading to animosity between the two forces.
You are trying hard to make a point in this regard, and failing miserably, as usual.
“The Waffen-SS, the combat branch of the SS (the Nazi Party’s paramilitary organization), became the de facto fourth branch of the Wehrmacht”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht
The Luftwaffe did not appear out of thin air.
Now you are dodging the point.
“The Luftwaffe attempted to incorporate all military units that had anything to do with air warfare. Given the strong Nazi origin and influence in the Luftwaffe, this was seen as a way to increase Nazi influence in the army (alongside the other project in this respect, the formation of SS divisions), as well as boosting the personal prestige of Göring.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe
If you do not understand the role of Nazi ideology in the formation and propagation of the Luftwaffe, I suggest you go back to flag-waving and pirith chanting.
Prof Heshan
About Nietzche- didn’t he say that God is dead? Does that mean Singularity is dead too?
“The Portugese destroyed 500 Hindu temples in Jaffna. But the Muslims destroyed 60000 temples throughout India.”
With your keen Anglican intellect, you may be aware that India is a little larger than Jaffna- 3,287,263 sq km compared to 20.2 sq km. That means on average, the Portuguese destroyed 247.53 temples per 10 sq km in Jaffna compared to .18 temples per sq km destroyed by the Muslims in India. Once again, Heshan, Christianity proves to be a far more violent and destructive religion in history.
“you should ask yourself why the Portugese did not destroy your precious viharas, dagabas, and free-standing Buddha statues.”
I already showed you that the Portuguese indeed destroyed Buddhist sites. Since the hatred and intolerance that your mummy and daddy crammed into your skull apparently has damaged your sense of memory, I am graciously providing you with the link yet again:
http://mahawansa.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/repression-of-buddhism-in-sri-lanka-by-portuguese-by-senaka-weeraratna/
On that topic, don’t you find it fascinating how the Buddhists of Kandy provided refuge for Catholics fleeing persecution from Dutch Protestants?
“The Waffen-SS, the combat branch of the SS (the Nazi Party’s paramilitary organization), became the de facto fourth branch of the Wehrmacht”
Do you understand what “de facto” means, Prof. Heshan? Or that the Waffen was only one part of the SS? Could you explain to us the integration of the SS’s chain of command with the Wehrmacht? Did Heinrich Himmler report to Hitler or to the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht?
Now you are dodging the point.
But I have learned so much from how you dodge Blacker’s points, more or less how you just dodged the fact that the SS was not part of the Wehrmacht?
Wijeyapala, SD, Blacker,
isn’t it sad to learn that the views of few people in this forum are such narrow and irrelevant to the world outside? If there is a creator (at all), whom they believe to serve and please, he would be sad to see the fate of his creation. How can somebody digitize the world to this extent to match his narrow thinking? If my God is an almighty as I would believe, then he would definitely not need my help to reach his goals in this world. Unfortunately we are living in a world full of mavericks, that they would believe to the personal secretary of their God. It is sad to know that such fanatics could possibly manipulate the simple minded populace by means of their half cooked “intellect” to radicalize the world. Hitler did it in Germany, and Pol Pot did it in Cambodia and al-Qaeda do it in the Islamic world or Bush jr. did it in the west, the essence of all these stories is that an immense number of people lost their lives and suffered under the emerging situations. I hope the world has learned something from the past and learned to differentiate between fanaticism and civilization.
More and more I have the feeling that our world, culture, values and tradition do exist only in the Wikipedia, though every intelligent person should understand, the Wikipedia is the first instance to inform himself but not the best. The industrialization and high-tech. should make the world a better place to live and not exploit the weaker part of the population, but it seems that we missed our aim.
Zorro, the hawk doesn’t look down on the pig and pity its life in the mud, and similarly the pig doesn’t look to the sky and wish it could soar like a bird. Empathy is what makes us human, and so we pity the Heshans and TTs of our world and, as SD said, hope that pigs will one day fly.
I could go on, but it’s pretty clear that Nietzsche was racist, aethist, anti-Semitic, and a believer of class based on race.
The above statement by David Blacker demonstrates a total misunderstanding of Nietzsche. I had a good laugh, knowing Nietzche’s relationship with Richard Wagner (famous anti-Semitic German music composer whom Nietzsche scolded for the latter’s views on Jews), as well as his (Nietzsche’s) rather unflattering opinion of the Germans. What is ironic is that Blacker has misunderstood Nietzsche similar to the way the Nazis did. So, we can draw two conclusions: (I) philosophy is not for weak minds, and (II) people like David Blacker should never run for political office – this kind of low intelligence poses a direct threat to society.
DB,
Mate, you contradict yourself (besides offering a LIVE example
).
You said to Heshan,
Statement 1
“So as usual, when faced with actual evidence you have nothing but personal attacks to offer.”
Then a sentence later you say,
Statement 2
“..but aside from [your] more clownish entertainment and yet more proof of your lack of intellect”
which is a personal attack on Heshan!
And you also said, “I doubt it’d add anything to the discussion”.
Does that not prove your point about you, DB?
You “have nothing more to add” (you said so. which means “when faced with actual evidence, you have nothing to offer in your own words) and then you make personal attacks.
So in your own logic YOU ACTUALLY MADE A personal attack when you had nothing to add. And you admitted that! A live example buddy!
Am I wrong? DB? Heshan?
(Not to mention those “masturbation/intercourse” talk before about other commentators! Oh I laughed it off but still these ARE personal attacks DB when you can’t face ACTUAL evidence.)
You were living the example DB. Good on you DB.
The full statement.
“So as usual, when faced with actual evidence you have nothing but personal attacks to offer. Roflmao. I would ask you to provide an interpretation of the quoted texts of Nietzsche, that casts it in non-racist light, but aside from more clownish entertainment and yet more proof of your lack of intellect, I doubt it’d add anything to the discussion.”
This contains no facts, knowledge or discussion points. Not a clever way to respond to another statement.
Awww sweet, intercourse has given way to love, TT and Heshan are now a couple, it seems.
My contribution to the debate had been in the form of evidence, in this case, portions of Nietzsche’s writings. The comment you’re referring to was a response to Heshan’s response which lacked any counter evidence or argument, and only a personal attack. You will find I’m quite prepared to respond to arguments and attacks in kind.
I know you’ve admitted your lack of logic, but it’s not necessary to demonstrate it on a daily basis
Now, instead of springing to Heshan’s defence so manfully, why don’t you answer the 14 remaining questions you failed to in your first attempt? Or is Heshan going to do that for you? Lol
TT,
Colonization can resolve all these at a very low cost to the government.
The colonizers are generally poor people. Their livelihoods will consist of subsistence farming or fishing . The government subsidy they receive will consist of land and a few thousand rupees every month. Look at what the government offered the Tamil IDP’s; I think it was a one-time grant of 5000 rupees. Can a family of four or five do anything with 5000 rupees? It will disappear within 1 week. As you know, the cost-of-living (CoL) is extremely higher. In the event of natural disaster – as we see with the recent floods – the CoL increases even more due to price inflation. That is why surviving off subsidies is not a good idea. If there is some kind of disaster – floods, tsunami, global recession, etc. – those who are living off subsidies will feel double the pinch.
I have another theory about the adverse impact of colonization. The government in fact, does not care about the welfare of the colonizers. It merely uses them as political pawns. Establishing Sinhalese supremacy will bring more votes, when the election comes. Colonization fits that bill well. This is not very different from the LTTE using Tamil civilians as human shields.
Heshan,
Agree with the first few sentences; they are facts. But govt don’t give anything additional to these people. No. And there is no reason to assume that they don’t get anything now which means there is no additional burden on the govt.
Actually they do reasonably well (MUCH BETTER than they used to – in most cases they do nothing at the moment!) in new settlements. They only need this start in life with land, water, etc.
Human shields!
Now that is funny (may be too much of DB! lol!) Human shields occur in war. There would be plenty of army camps in the surround so there is no threat to their lives. None at all. Potential trouble makers know very well what they can expect if they mess with these people and that is the most powerful deterrent.
Agree that they will be politicaly IMMENSELY VALUABLE in an area that would otherwise have ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT for multiethnic political parties. This is ONLY SURE way to penetrate in to these districts, politically.
Once again, Heshan, Christianity proves to be a far more violent and destructive religion in history.
Population density is irrelevant. You have not explained why the Portugese did not destroy your precious Buddhist temples to any significant degree, as you have not provided any quantitative figure that assesses the damage, but referred to a third-rate website that also fails to provide adequate statistics . You have also not explained why the British did not destroy any temples, period. The larger point is that the Moghuls (Muslims) in India destroyed everything they considered to be forms of idolatry, which confirms my hypothesis that had the Muslims administered Sri Lanka for even 200 years, the damage to Buddhism would have been far greater than 500 Hindu temples.
Do you understand what “de facto” means,
Of course I understand, but I doubt you do. Like I said, you should stick to pirith chanting.
more or less how you just dodged the fact that the SS was not part of the Wehrmacht?
They trained together, and in many instances, SS units were under direct Wehrmact command. Your claim that they were entirely different units is altogether baseless.
Don’t talk nonsense, Heshan. The Waffen-SS never trained with the Wehrmacht, or to use the correct name for the German army, the Heer. The Waffen-SS officers and men had their own training schools and separate selection criteria, their own ranks and uniform, and their own regiments. The Waffen-SS conducted joint exercises with the army because at the start of the war the former hadn’t much armour and no heavy artillery of its own and needed the latter for support as in any joint forces exercise. When the war started the Waffen-SS fought in its own regiments — the Leibstandarte-SS Adolf Hitler, the SS Verfurungstruppe, and the Totenkopf. These were motorised infantry regiments and light artillery, and fought as part of larger army formations. But once these regiments grew to brigade and divisional size, they operated on their own. They were occasionally part of larger formations, but were always under the personal control of Himmler and Hitler. By D-day, units such as the Leibstandarte, Das Reich, and Hitler Jugend were full-fledged armoured divisions, and in the Ardennes Offensive, attacked together as part of an SS-corps. They were considered a separate branch of service.
[Edited out]
I would ask you to provide an interpretation of the quoted texts of Nietzsche, that casts it in non-racist light
Any educated person who knows a little more than average about Nietzsche understands that he wasn’t racist or anti-Semitic, or even atheist, period. Of course, there are who know zero about him, read one of his paragraphs for the first time in their lives, and think they can pass sweeping judgment. Clearly, you fall into the second category . Next time try to figure out what the conventional wisdom says, before resorting to gross distortions.
Ha ha can’t find any of his texts that prove your fantasies? I didn’t expect it. [Edited out]
*there are those
“The Waffen-SS never trained with the Wehrmacht, or to use the correct name for the German army, the Heer.”
More rubbish from Mr. Blacker.
To speed up the process of training, each armed SS unit was twinned with a local army unit to allow it to share experience and conduct joint training.
- The Waffen-SS At War: Hitler’s Praetorians 1925-1945
By Tim Ripley
http://books.google.com/books?id=0TrWrxxDkf8C&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=Waffen+and+SS,+joint+training&source=bl&ots=A68gcfcFRP&sig=AelnSlsJ-jvuurhH2F6ucbqE1FQ&hl=en&ei=6lVfTdOnBoybtwfOooXuCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Waffen%20and%20SS%2C%20joint%20training&f=false
To avoid any discrepancy, the portion that I quoted can be found in the above Google book preview.
“They were occasionally part of larger formations, but were always under the personal control of Himmler and Hitler.”
This is also nonsense.
In August 1939, Hitler placed the Leibstandarte and the SS-VT under the operational control of the Army High Command (OKH). Himmler retained command of the Totenkopfstandarten, for employment behind the advancing combat units in what were euphemistically called “police and security duties”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS
Ha ha I thought you might suggest that, Heshan. Training alongside the army doesn’t make the Waffen-SS part of the army, which was the point. Nor does Hitler’s placing certain SS units under army command change the fact that he had the ability to do so. The US Marines come under the Department of the Navy and is often under naval command while at sea. It also conducts joint exercises with the other armed forces. Yet it is a separate arm of service. But marines are not trained with sailors nor SS soldiers with army soldiers. Both are separate branches of the armed forces.
In SS: the Secret Archives – Western Front by Ian Baxter, Chapter 1 Training for War page 8 says “The initial training for SS-VT [the first SS combat unit] was carried out separately from the army outside each SS-VT regiment’s home town. The gruelling training programme was set-up by the Inspectorate of the SS-VT, SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Paul Hausser.” On the same page Baxter goes on to say “Unlike the army, whose basic training was drill and more drill, the SS training emphasized physical toughness and fighting skills.”
In 1940, Hitler said to the Leibstandarte-SS Adolf Hitler, “It will be your honour that you, the Leibstandarte which bears my name, will lead every attack.” Clearly he didn’t care what formations the Waffen-SS were attached to or which general was in command. The SS was his personal army.
Ha ha can’t find any of his texts that prove your fantasies? I didn’t expect it.
Can I prove you wrong, yet again? That is not difficult to do, although it gets boring after a while. Since Nietzsche can’t defend himself however, it is worth doing on this particular occasion:
In a draft to Ecce Homo:
“Jews among Germans are always the higher race–more refined, spiritual, kind”
——–
Nietzsche on nationalism and racism:
In The Gay Science:
We are not nearly “German” enough, in the sense in which the word “German” is constantly being used nowadays, to advocate nationalism and race hatred and to be able to take pleasure in the national scabies of the heart and blood poisoning that now leads the nations of Europe to delimit and barricade themselves against each other as if it were a matter of quarantine. For that we are too openminded, too malicious, too spoiled, also too well informed, too “traveled.“
———–
In Genealogy of Morals:
I also do not like these latest speculators in idealism, the anti-Semites, who today roll their eyes in a Christian-Aryan-bourgeois manner and exhaust one’s patience by trying to rouse up all the horned-beast elements in the people by a brazen abuse of the cheapest of all agitator’s tricks, moral attitudinizing (that no kind of swindle fails to succeed in Germany today is connected with the undeniable and palpable stagnation of the German spirit; and the cause of that I seek in a too exclusive diet of newspapers, politics, beer, and Wagnerian music, together with the presuppositions of such a diet: first, national constriction and vanity; the strong but narrow principle “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,” [nationalism] and then the paralysis agitans of “modern ideas” [socialism]).
———
In Beyond Good and Evil:
it might be useful and fair to expel the anti-Semitic ranters from the country
——-
All quotes are from http://www.nikutai-to-kageboushi.com/discourse/discourse.html
Like I said, philosophy is not for weak minds! The rabble should not defile the purity of the fountain of knowledge.
Oh come come, Heshan, surely you can do better than that
Your first quote is an isolated sentence. Where’s the context, the rest of the passage? You need to provide that as I have 
At most, it shows that Nietzsche wrote at length against the Jews and occasionally praised them. For instance, in one passage I quoted, he calls the Jews a priestly people. Taken out of the context of his larger piece on the evil vengeance of Judaism, it would seem like praise.
In the second quote Nietzsche says that we are not German enough in that German is used negatively by others. In other words, we are not evil enough. He then lists a series of attributes, some positive some negative, as cause for this lack of Germanness or evil. Thus the ambiguity of the text as you have quoted it leaves open to question whether the speaker sees the German and the traits attributed to him to be positive or negative in his own view.
In the third quote, Nietzsche’s criticism of anti-Semites isn’t for their anti-Semitism but for their ideological speculation or dabbling. He also criticises them for their use of anti-Semitism to stir up German nationalism. None of that shows that his view of the Jews was positive.
In the fourth quote you again give no context on whether Nietzsche wishes the anti-Semites expelled for their anti-Semitism or for other reasons such as the political use of it.
This is what happens, Heshan, when you google for Nietzsche and copy/paste portions from interpretational discourse instead of from your own analyses. Of course, we’ve seen the results of your own analyses many times, so I’m not surprised!
Look at Blacker trying to change the subject when he has been exposed as a fraud :
Don’t talk nonsense, Heshan. The Waffen-SS never trained with the Wehrmacht
Training alongside the army doesn’t make the Waffen-SS part of the army
Really?
I thought the subject was whether the SS was part of the army or not? Clearly it wasn’t. SS training and army training was separate.
At most, it shows that Nietzsche wrote at length against the Jews and occasionally praised them. For instance, in one passage I quoted, he calls the Jews a priestly people. Taken out of the context of his larger piece on the evil vengeance of Judaism, it would seem like praise.
In the second quote Nietzsche says that we are not German enough in that German is used negatively by others. In other words, we are not evil enough. He then lists a series of attributes, some positive some negative, as cause for this lack of Germanness or evil. Thus the ambiguity of the text as you have quoted it leaves open to question whether the speaker sees the German and the traits attributed to him to be positive or negative in his own view.
Are you serious ? I don’t think an F grade would suffice for the above analysis. If I was the philosophy department, you would be expelled. . The total amateurishness of the above is not even worthy of being written on a piece of paper, or transcribed in electronic form . Look, if you’re this interested in Nietzsche, ask your pal Dayan for some guidance. It’s obvious you don’t have a clue; even a Hollywood film is likely to be more accurate than what you wrote.
Dear David, TT and Heshan,
This discussion is now closed due to the ad hominem attacks against each other and the fact that your discussions are unrelated to the topic of this particular post.
Thank you.
GV.