Moving Tamil Dissent Politics Beyond Anti-LTTEism
To be able to engage in dissent politics one needs enormous courage. Not only in terms of the threats and dangers that come your way as a result of your decision to dissent (I remember Kethesh Loganathan once mentioning that when you dissent you risk bullets from multiple sides unlike when you take sides, when you have some cover) , but also whether you are convinced whether you are doing the right thing. Particularly, when you are faced with a situation where as a result of the dialectics of power, one power (which I shall call the ‘initial source of power’) has led to the creation of another as a natural corollary. As a member of a political community subjected to immense oppression by the ‘initial source of power’ I have found it immensely difficult to decide how to respond to the power that was created as an anti thesis – as a response, in opposition and in resistance to this initial source of power. This is a dilemma, I am confident, would have been faced by every single Tamil political activist who takes his or her politics seriously. I do not believe in dissent for dissent’s sake. Though I am willing to concede that we need a group of people who can dissent for the sake of just dissenting too. But that sounded to me right from my very early days of political consciousness as too much of a luxury. The idea is not about being politically correct. It is about deciding what what kind of politics on a balance is the right thing to do. It is about being conscious and being very deeply critical about this choice that you make. Something similar to what the Marxist critical theorist Paulo Freire called critical consciousness or conscientisation. I seriously believe that in deeply divided and violent societies like ours the type of politics that we choose to do has an enormous impact on the life opportunities of the people who are at the receiving end of our politics. (I have written briefly about this before on Groundviews. See: http://tinyurl.com/4kptpzb)
Having said this, it should be a truism to state that dissent politics is also a type of politics which needs to be introspected. I have great respect for the line of Tamil dissent public intellectuals that our community has had, some of whom lost their lives in the cause of dissent, to name only a few, Rajini Thiranagama, Kethesh Loganathan, Neelan Thiruchelvam et al. Respect does not mean agreement, but it does mean a deep sense of acknowledgement in that that they took their politics seriously, were self critical and self evaluative. I never knew any of them personally. I deeply regret that we don’t have any of them today (and in this list I include Taraki Sivaram) to converse, guide and critically engage us in the type of politics that we need to be doing at present.
It is in this spirit that I read and write this response to Sumathy Sivamohan and Mahendran Thiruvarangan’s contribution to the second edition of Dissenting Dialogues, a web-based magazine of the Sri Lanka Democracy Forum on the politics of boycott of Galle Literary Festival and the International Tamil Writers Conference of 2011. (accessible at http://tinyurl.com/5t6j3mg pp. 30-32) Sumathy and Thiru are aware the identity of this pseudonym author and I hope they excuse my cowardice in hiding beyond a fake name in writing this piece. I am hoping that this piece does not lead to the general trend of blogosphere exchanges, that of trading of accusations, of identifying our respective ‘camps’ of politics and the rest. I am also desirous and deeply eager that Sumathy and Thiru do not misunderstand and interpret my criticism of their article (it is only a vehicle for the larger point that I wish to make) as an attempt on my part to fit them in such a very vague category of politics that I call anti-LTTEism (by which I mean a type of politics that is hell bent on attributing all that ails Tamil politics as primarily originating from the politics of the LTTE)
The passage from Sumathy and Thiruvarangan in the above mentioned article that provoked this response, is as follows:
“(T)he appeal [for boycott] endorses and even embraces a dangerous trend of political disengagement, a liberal imperial version of the self-destructive politics of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The tone of the appeal resembles the LTTE’s persistent refusal to examine any form of political solution to the ethnic conflict other than a separate state or its suicidal call demanding that the Tamils boycott the presidential elections in 2005. This suicidal approach to politics was destructive for the Tamil community. It suppressed discussion and dissent. For us, such generalised acts as the calls for boycott – first of the International Tamil Writers’ Conference and then of the GLF – are reminiscent of that time of terror. We continue to live in terrible times; but the way to confront that is not through disengagement, but through mobilisation, discussion and dissent – through greater participation of the people”.
I cannot understand the logical premise and proximity that Sumathy and Thiruvarangan see in drawing a parallel between the politics of boycott of the JDS/RSF with the politics of the LTTE. Is it the most relevant parallel for us, in the present times that we live in? Is this how Sumathy and Thiruvarangan wish to engage with the past, in retrospection? Is it required that every single critique that dissent activists such as Sumathy make have to contain a necessary element of Anti-LTTEism in it? I find it highly problematic that the terror of the times that people have gone through and still undergo can be compared with the displeasure that has been caused to the writers because of the call for boycott. When reflecting on this analogy that Sumathy and Thiruvarangan draw, I could not help but be reminded of Sarah Palin’s ‘blood libel’ remark in response to the accusations leveled against her for possibly evoking sentiments leading to the Arizona shooting incident. (See for example http://tinyurl.com/4h9jwuh)
Sumathy and Thiruvarangan complain and are highly critical of the lack of nuance shown by Noam Chomsky and Arundhati Roy in signing up to the GLF appeal. But where is the nuance in dealing with the reasons for the destruction that fell on the Tamil Community? One might or might not agree with the criticism that they level against the LTTE, but where is the nuance in generalising this factor as the sole or main reasoning that turned out to be destructive to the Tamil community?
Sumathy and Thiruvarangan characterise the actors that called for the boycott as liberal imperialists. Do Sumathy and Thiruvarangan really think that Chomsky, Roy, JDS and RSF are all liberal imperialists? They ask for example whether Chomsky is ‘free and un-circumscribed by the illiberal politics of the US government and economy’. Is this what they gather from Chomsky’s writings and activism over all these years?
Sumathy and Thiruvarangan, to be sure, are very critical about the GLF. (I recommend to all those interested in the GLF, the excellent debate between Hartosh Singh Bal and Willian Dalrymple on whether the Jaipur Literary Festival is a manifestation of the fact that the Indian life of letters is still beholden to the British. http://tinyurl.com/6gxllv5) They say it’s more about tourism than literature. But they still maintain that it provides some space for discussion and positive action. They provide two examples of GLF’s positive contribution. One is where Sumathy herself was accommodated by the GLF on two occasions in the past and the other was the case of US embassy funding (no concerns about imperialist funding here) university students including from Jaffna to attend the GLF. As someone who has been associated with the Jaffna University in a similar capacity like Thiruvarangan, I am aware of the importance of opportunities like these but I am sure Sumathy and Thiruvarangan will understand the limits of tokenistic engagements. Sumathy and Thiruvarangan need to engage with the more substantive, worthy objections raised regarding the Galle Literary Festival as for example why they accepted sponsorship from Sri Lanka Tourism Board (particularly so because Sumathy and Thiru agree that GLF was mostly about tourism). I also wonder why the BBC forum on post-conflict Sri Lanka at GLF did not have a single minority representative on it. I would have also liked Sumathy and Thiru to engage with the question for example why Mrs. Ekneligoda welcomed the GLF boycott.(See http://tinyurl.com/5vqt6lq) If Sumathy and Thiru’s problem was strategy or not engaging with the local activist community before calling for the boycott they could have raised that in their article. The subject of their attack in the article is instead the good intentions of those who called for the boycott. Further, it is deeply problematic that Sumathy and Thiruvarangan do what should be nerve wrecking for dissent politics itself – What authentic local standi Chomsky and Roy have, they ask, to talk about Sri Lanka. Surely Sumathy and Thiruvarangan might not want to engage in this type of politics, do they: on who can speak for whom?
Let me clarify that I was not necessarily for the boycott. I have nothing against a section of the Colombo literature crowd having fun. (This Sumathy and Thiruvarangan admit was the main purpose of the Literature Festival) and them sharing their fun with some of those not too well provided (how generous indeed!). But I have a problem with it when promoted as a space for discussion and dissent. In December 2010 a conference in Jaffna under the heading ‘Post-May 19, Development in Sri Lanka’s North and East – Whose Development and at What Cost?’ was deliberately blocked by the Government (See: http://tinyurl.com/6fjwwvt ). A conference that Sunila Abeyasekera was scheduled to speak at the University of Colombo on reproductive rights was cancelled by the Vice Chancellor of that University either because she wanted to prop up her image as being extremely pro Government or the Government itself wanted such cancellation. But the Government is happy with the GLF and even allows one of its its agency to sponsor the event. Is it wrong to raise questions about this? Sumathy and Thiruvarangan say nothing about the International Tamil Literary Festival. Those who called for a boycott of this festival included S.V. Rajadurai, V. Arasu and A. Mangai – you definitely cannot say that these people know nothing about Sri Lanka. Finally, Sumathy and Thiruvarangan do not say that boycotts as a political strategy is intrinsically bad. They could have done us a lot of good by engaging in a constructive dialogue (not just a dissenting monologue) on how we may use the politics of boycott in the present political climate that we live in. What engagement is politically acceptable? What is the role of pragmatism in political thought and importantly action? What are the legitimate and illegitimate ways of questioning power (On this see Slavoj Zizek’s recent article titled “Good manners in the age of Wikileaks‘ available here: http://tinyurl.com/5wmrfbg) These are the burning questions of our time.
May I say this in conclusion. I have no doubt that we have to engage critically with the past and be involved in a process of deep retrospection. Such a process needs to identify not just the role of the mainstream actors responsible for what went wrong with the Tamil struggle for self determination but also how we the broader society, including the community of dissenting activists within the Tamil polity contributed to the present state of affairs of the Tamils self determination struggle. I think that there is an enormous burden on all those who engaged in dissent politics that was disproportionate in their condemnation of the LTTE, that bordered at times as a defense of the Sri Lankan Government, which at times identified LTTE as the sole obstacle at arriving at a solution to the ethnic conflict (See for example my reflections on this here: http://tinyurl.com/d5wn9j), to help navigate through this difficult post war situation of political and social vacuum. So far, very unfortunately, I have seen nothing concrete coming from the dissenting Tamil activist community. I am afraid that two or more decades of pure- dissent-politics has truly robbed them off their political acumen and creativity.
What we have seen for a long time within Tamil politics is two dichotomously opposed discourses – a discourse that supported the LTTE, come what may and its reflection, die hard criticism of the LTTE, come what may. Both sides have been exhausted now. We were told repeatedly that cross-ethnic, progressive, mass based movements is the alternative and we need to know how we are doing on this front. We need to hear more nuanced criticism of the powers that haunt the Tamil community and broadly minorities in this country today, for the power that was born in response to the ‘initial source of power’ and oppression is no more. The initial source of power remains, and has become even more oppressive, in a nuanced and sophisticated way. As much as we need the pro-LTTE discourses and groups to rethink their options we also need the anti-LTTE discourses and groups to rethink their ways. We need UTHR (J) reporting more than before now. More SLDF activism on the ground now.
138 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
Aachcharya,
Well written; your call for a new type of dissent politics is a good one, thanks.
But the right and wrong of that politics is not what matters in the present climate. I worry more about the effectiveness of it. After all, you want to engage in a process that will produce tangible results.
I think any form of dissent that is Tamil-centric is not going to be effective when the memory of LTTE is kept alive by the flag wavers, trans-national government formers and those idiotic students of Jaffna University wanting to go on a minibus day trip to the funeral of VP’s mother. It will do nothing other than increase the voter base of Sinhala chauvinists and help them stay in power for years to come. IMHO there is an alternate way forward: Lowest Common Denominator politics (pothu madangukaLil ciriyathu, in Tamil). Identify issues that are common to everyone in the country: dictatorial governance, impossibility of local decision making, corruption, emergency rule, police torture, manipulation of the judiciary, ever widening gap between rich and poor, garbage dumping, pot-holes on roads, mafia take-over of university hostels, political interference in appointments, selling off state land to big business, exponential decline of media freedom,… quite a big LCD! Issues for everyone, not just us Tamils. And when we start working on these, issues that are Tamil-specific might also get addressed as side effect.
“…and those idiotic students of Jaffna University wanting to go on a minibus day trip to the funeral of VP’s mother. It will do nothing other than increase the voter base of Sinhala chauvinists and help them stay in power for years to come”
If this is the quality of Sinhala polity then we will never be able to achieve issues “that are common to everyone in the country: dictatorial governance, impossibility of local decision making, corruption, emergency rule, police torture, manipulation of the judiciary, ever widening gap between rich and poor, garbage dumping, pot-holes on roads, mafia take-over of university hostels, political interference in appointments, selling off state land to big business, exponential decline of media freedom,… quite a big LCD! Issues for everyone”
Based on your assumption that the Sinhalese people are incapable of being tolerance to a group of students paying last respect to a diseased Tamil woman; then please forget about Reconciliation.
Not sure this drama can be viewed outside the UK but its worth watching.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-promise
Peace can be built only on mutual respect.
“incapable of being tolerant to a group of students paying last respect to a diseased Tamil woman; then please forget about Reconciliation”
Fantastic! Who wants reconciliation more, the winners (actual and perceived) of the war or the losers (actual and perceived)? Honestly, the winners NEED no reconciliation to survive, or at least they don’t stand to benefit from it than the losers of the war. The winners of the war can get anything they want with or without reconciliation. Sorry to put it as it is, if you don’t like it.
I personally like reco-lonisation of the NE by people of all ethnicities as a solution than recon-ciliation. That too will bust reconciliation for SOME but will bring tangible peace beneficial to all.
Anyway I disagree that those students were “idiotic” for doing that. It is their right. What’s wrong in paying last respects to her? I would call them idiotic if they had not bothered to respect someone they love when there was the opportunity. I don’t find it wrong if pepole pay last respects to VP without creating violence or disgust. May her soul RIP.
Dear TT,
you are wrong, even victors need reconciliation.
It was the unfair insertion of reparations in the treaty of Versailles that created the Hitler and paved the way for second World War.
We are in a decisive period and if we mess this up as usual, then surely more troubles to come.
Dear Ram,
That is hilarious. It may have played a part but Hitler was driven by far more insane things than that obviously! His craze cannot be justified based on the WW1 defeat. Anyway he was defeated again!
“Much as you like colonisation of the NE and the disempowerment of Tamils, you were unable to state how colonisation benefited SL in the past, or how it would do so in the present and future”
I answered this in detail previously. But for your benefit. Remember DSS launched colonization schemes? That IMMENSELY benefitted SL. Landless farmers started producing crops contributing manyfold to the economy. In my 27 years, I have visited these areas DB with an OPEN mind. Looks like your LONG LIFE has not yet taken you in such an enlightening trip. It was so successful that they didn’t budge even when faced with the WORLD’S MOST RUTHLESS TERRORISTS! It had HUGE political and defence goods. When Batticaloa/Jaffna still vote for race based politics, Trincomalee/Ampara championed multiethnic politics. East was cleared first militarily because its multiethnic population supported coexistence (the real reason for war victory) unlike the north. EPC elections were held 4 years ago NPC not yet!!
“Then why was Sinhalese selected as the official language in 1956, and why do you want to repeal the 13th Amendment and return to Sinhala Only? If we should think of ourselves as Sri Lankan and not along communal or religious lines, why is Buddhism placed in the foremost place in the constitution?”
I have answered this many times before DB. For the same reason MULTIETHNIC, DEMOCRATIC, HUMAN RIGHTS VALUING, PEACEFUL Australia has English Only and have ONLY Christian public holidays. So you see these are not hurdles for peace but pillars! Tamil is an official language in SL, is it not DB? So called “Sinhala Only” Act had wide public support and hence it’s implementation was fast but the 13 amendment never had wide public support (it was secret!!) and hence its implementation has been relatively slow.
“Why doesn’t it preclude it, since you say that ethnicity should be kept out of governance?”
It was not “ethnicity” driven. Sir Razeek Fareed, Bathurdeen Mohammad also supported the so called “Sinhala Only” Act. Making a particular language an official language is not mixing ETHNICITY. Even the Kandyan Convention, the Malvana Convention and the Nallur Conventions were written in European and “Chingalese” languages DB. You fail to understand ethnicity and language.
“What are these “everybody’s problems” you speak of? Since it is only the Tamils who are raising the language issue, you prefer to ignore that and call for a look into “everybody’s problems”? And why is it that though the 13th takes care of “everybody’s” language problems, you still want it repealed in a return to Sinhala Only that will not solve anyone’s problems?”
I’m amused that you are unaware of problems faced by everyone!
There is wide spread poverty, unemployment, hunger, landlessness. I have given a list above. Please read it before asking again and again. There are more burning issues of 100% of the population than the language problem of 5%-10% of the population. Even a sizable proportion of Tamils and most Muslims can function in Sinhala today. Lets first resolve DIRE LIFE THREATENING problems of 100% of the population, then lets look at language problems of 5%-10%. Otherwise none of these problems will be resolved, EVER.
“There is no shortage of land in the south. The shortage is only around urban centers. If families are willing to live in the dry zone, there’s plenty of space, and it is unnecessary to transplant them onto state land in the NE where property is gifted to them.”
Have you been to Sri Lanka, DB? Look at the land cases in courts. Look at the fights, etc. over land. Look at illegal squatting, felling of forests to build houses, turning farms into houses, etc. Of the 20,000,000 population, close to 90% live in just 65% of the land whereas only 10% living in a VAST 35%! So where is land in the “south” or the “north”? This too based on inaccurate population estimates for the north. The hilarious dry zone argument! Isn’t Anuradhapura, Trincomalee, Ampara, Puttlam, etc, in the dry zone? How about Hambantota where parts are in the ARID zone! People are willing to go IF development benefitting multiethnic communities is done in the NE. They have already done that DB since the time of DSS. And it is certain doable AGAIN.
“Very good, so let’s fully implement the 13th so that language will no longer be an issue and we can all move on.”
Do I have to repeat? There are MANY, CRUCIAL LIFE THREATENING problems faced by 100% of the population than language problems of a mere 5%-10%. Lets resolve the former problems first then come to the others. Tamils too benefit by resolving those problems!
“But the problem isn’t between a political majority and minority, but between an ethnic majority and minority. Language rights and individual rights are not political issues but rights. Therefore, when an ethnic majority votes for an oppressive law such as slavery, the Jim Crow Laws, the Nuremberg Laws, or Sinhala Only, it cannot be said to be a political majority. “
DB, those who cry loudest about “Sinhala Only” in SL have mastered French, English, Danish, Norwegian, etc. Totally alien languages to them. You ability to learn a language doesn’t change by territory. (If so we can fix it!) It’s the will to learn it. There are 1,000,000 alien language speaking SL Tamils the world over. Sinhala is closer to Tamil than English. There are 1,000,000 Tamils unable to speak Sinhala in SL. I’m sure they can learn it if 1,000,000 Tamils can learn alien languages. Anyway there are more crucial problems faced by more people than language problems of a few who should be given opportunities and incentives to learn a familiar language. As with the political majority, just look at any election not just 1956. It’s the same thing DB.
“In other words, you have an ethnic majority that is not worried about minority problems because their own problems have been taken care of at the expense of the minority; just like in 1956. So when you say that a “Government may actually address problems faced by all”, you really mean a government that addresses problems faced by the majority.”
No DB. It means resolving hunger, poverty, unemployment, insecurity, HR issues, etc., etc. of ALL including Tamils. Can’t you understand that ALL includes Tamil? “Solving” problems of all mean solving them, not transferring them to others! You don’t have to starve a Tamil to solve the problem of a Sinhalese.
“As SD has asked you, why are you shamelessly ignoring the questions put to you that basically destroy your arguments in previous threads? Is it because you know you have no argument?”
As usual! When you cannot face the CONTENTS of the argument, you shoot the messenger! CBK called Lasantha a worm when unable to face the CONTENTS of the argument. That proves I won it! Thank you. I’m ASHAMED of the losers of Nantikadal and PROUD of the winners. So I have nothing to be ashamed of. Am I wrong?
The above is for DB.
“I answered this in detail previously. But for your benefit. Remember DSS launched colonization schemes? That IMMENSELY benefitted SL. Landless farmers started producing crops contributing manyfold to the economy.”
Really? I can find no such previous answer, TT. Can you link to where you had previously shown how colonisation was beneficial? Also, can you show what percentage of the crops produced were contributed from the colonised areas vs the rest of the country? For your convenience, this was the Paddipalai Aru area which was renamed Gal Oya in Sinhalese. In addition can you show how the produce from these colonised areas were more plentiful than if state land in areas like Anuradhapura or Kurunegala were made available to Sinhalese farmers? Can you also explain why (if colonisation is so good), when Tamils from the hill country moved to Vavuniya and colonised land there, why their crops and dwellings were burned by police on orders of the government agent in April 1983? Can you further explain why if colonisation helps integration, why it was necessary for a new district to be separated from the Tamil-majority Batticaloa District in 1961 to create the Muslim-majority Ampara District, which is now in fact Sinhalese-majority? And you thought Vaddukoddai was the first instance of the idea of separatism, no? Can you also tell us, since you claim colonisation encourages integration and thereby harmony between communities, why the 900 Tamil families were chased in 1956 out of the area where they had been settled with 7,000 Sinhalese families? Can you also explain why those who returned were chased out again in 1958? And finally, why those who returned a third time were finally chased out for good in 1990? I hope you will address these questions instead of ignoring them and later pretending to have answered them, as you have done with the 15 questions I asked you before, as well as many others.
“In my 27 years, I have visited these areas DB with an OPEN mind.”
Really? You’ve been visiting the NE since you were a baby? Have your ideas developed much since then?
“Looks like your LONG LIFE has not yet taken you in such an enlightening trip.”
Oh the most enlightening trips I made were in 1990 (when you were 6) to Elephant Pass, Palaly, Vasavilan, Batti, etc. Tracer bullets are very enlightening
“It was so successful that they didn’t budge even when faced with the WORLD’S MOST RUTHLESS TERRORISTS!”
But you earlier claimed that the Sinhalese were driven out of the NE by the Tamils.
“It had HUGE political and defence goods.”
But I asked you how it benefited the people, not political parties.
“When Batticaloa/Jaffna still vote for race based politics, Trincomalee/Ampara championed multiethnic politics.”
Of course, since the demographic was changed to suit the Sinhalese-majority parties. I earlier pointed out how changing a demographic to suit a political platform instead of changing the political platform to suit the demographic isn’t what democracy is built on. As usual, you had no response.
“East was cleared first militarily because its multiethnic population supported coexistence (the real reason for war victory) unlike the north.”
Not at all, the East was cleared first because it was the power base of the Karuna Group which was familiar with that territory, and because the Tigers avoided major combat and retreated, saving their troops for the fight in the North.
“EPC elections were held 4 years ago NPC not yet!!”
Yes, and the party that won in the East was the TMVP, a Tamil party led by former Tamil Tigers; the only difference being that the TMVP allied itself with the ruling UPFA while the TNA didn’t. As a result, TNA MPs’ families were kidnapped and candidates intimidated until the party boycotted the elections. The East is basically ruled by a Tamil party that has announced that it will soon assume police powers as well
The delay in the North wasn’t due to the existence of Tamil parties (they are there in the East too), but that the aftermath of the war made it impossible to hold elections with large numbers of the population displaced, in IDP camps, or otherwise unable to return to their homes.
In the East, while the UPFA-backed TMVP won 20 seats, the UNP which has of late been defending Tamil rights, won 15. But the right-wing Sinhalese JVP won just one seat. In addition, in recent elections, the UNP under Ranil W has lost consistently partly because the Tamil UNP-voters have been unable to vote because of the war and/or Tiger pressure. If the Tamils are so racist as you say, why would they vote for the non-Tamil UNP?
“I have answered this many times before DB. For the same reason MULTIETHNIC, DEMOCRATIC, HUMAN RIGHTS VALUING, PEACEFUL Australia has English Only and have ONLY Christian public holidays.”
But it has explained to you many times that Australia doesn’t have any national minorities except the Aborigines who are allowed to conduct themselves in their own languages if they wish. SL has national minorities. You have never been able to raise a response to this, and I predict you’ll not be able to do so now either; instead you will slip quietly away and repeat your mantra in the next article in the hope that no one will notice
“Tamil is an official language in SL, is it not DB?”
On paper yes, in reality, no. Why hasn’t the GoSL fully implemented it if it is law? And that still doesn’t explain why you want to repeal it and return to Sinhala Only. Why, TT? What do you fear so much about the Tamils?
“So called “Sinhala Only” Act had wide public support and hence it’s implementation was fast”
You mean it had widespread Sinhalese support, so it was implemented, and since the 13th has no widespread Sinhalese support, it wasn’t. You’re right. Finally you’re going where you should be going
“but the 13 amendment never had wide public support (it was secret!!) and hence its implementation has been relatively slow.”
What makes you think it was secret? The Indo-Lanka Accord was signed in July 1987, its contents were public, and the 13th was passed in open parliament in November and gazetted. There was nothing secret. Your ignorance of the amendment until last month doesn’t make it secret.
“Why doesn’t it preclude it, since you say that ethnicity should be kept out of governance?”
“It was not “ethnicity” driven. Sir Razeek Fareed, Bathurdeen Mohammad also supported the so called “Sinhala Only” Act.”
Really? Then what was it driven by? RF and BM may have supported it, and as upper-class Muslims it probably didn’t matter to them, but pointing to two individuals doesn’t show minority support.
“Making a particular language an official language is not mixing ETHNICITY. Even the Kandyan Convention, the Malvana Convention and the Nallur Conventions were written in European and “Chingalese” languages DB. You fail to understand ethnicity and language.”
Really? What do I not understand about ethnicity and language?
And since both the Kandyan and Malvana conventions were agreements between Europeans and Sinhalese, why would it be written in any other languages?
“I’m amused that you are unaware of problems faced by everyone!
There is wide spread poverty, unemployment, hunger, landlessness. I have given a list above. Please read it before asking again and again.”
So how will a repeal of the 13th and a return to Sinhala Only solve all of these problems, when they were not solved between 1956 and 1987 when Sinhala Only was in force and there was no 13th? You keep running around this mulberry bush, TT, but seem incapable of actually answering the question.
In contrast, when these same problems were brought up to Governor Sir Hugh Clifford in 1927, he suggested that landless Sinhalese from the wet zone be given state land in Sinhalese-majority areas of the dry zone. The Land Commission then identified areas in Anuradhapura and Kurunegala for Sinhalese and Trinco, Mannar, Mullaitivu, and Jaffna for landless Tamils. The first of these settlements were established by DSS in 1933 when Sinhalese farmers were settled in Minneriya and Tamil farmers in Kilinochchi. Everyone was happy until DSS changed the policy in 1949 of settling Sinhalese in Sinhalese-majority areas and Tamils in Tamil-majority areas. All of these “problems” of yours are just old excuses for depriving the Tamils of their majority power in the NE.
“There are more burning issues of 100% of the population than the language problem of 5%-10% of the population.”
And there is no reason why these “burning issues” of yours can’t be taken care of simultaneously with the Tamil issue; governments should be capable of doing more than one thing at a time, especially since all that the Tamil issue requires is the full implementation of an existing law! Plus the fact that a 30-year war was fought and a hundred thousand people killed over this issue, makes me think it’s serious enough of an issue to be taken care of before it costs our children or grandchildren the same.
“Even a sizable proportion of Tamils and most Muslims can function in Sinhala today.”
Humans will eat grass to survive if they must, but that doesn’t mean that it’s OK to make them do so.
“Lets first resolve DIRE LIFE THREATENING problems of 100% of the population, then lets look at language problems of 5%-10%. Otherwise none of these problems will be resolved, EVER.”
But 100% of the population isn’t suffering from “dire life-threatening problems” are they?
The SL economy is growing, people are generally happy for a 3rd world country. Why do you have to wait to solve the Tamil issue? What part of implementing the 13th will delay the GoSL taking care of unemployment, landlessness, poverty, etc?
“Have you been to Sri Lanka, DB? Look at the land cases in courts. Look at the fights, etc. over land. Look at illegal squatting, felling of forests to build houses, turning farms into houses, etc. Of the 20,000,000 population, close to 90% live in just 65% of the land whereas only 10% living in a VAST 35%! So where is land in the “south” or the “north”?”
Oh, I assure you I live in SL, unlike you
The issues of squatting, felling forest, etc is because people want to live in close proximity to urban centers, the few main roads, water sources, and other resources and infrastructure, not because there is not enough land. It is because there is not enough attractive land. If the GoSL provides the necessary infrastructure in areas that don’t have them, these untenable areas will become much more attractive, and there will be no need to encroach into the NE. Unless the latter has an ulterior motive 
“The hilarious dry zone argument! Isn’t Anuradhapura, Trincomalee, Ampara, Puttlam, etc, in the dry zone? How about Hambantota where parts are in the ARID zone! People are willing to go IF development benefitting multiethnic communities is done in the NE.”
But people don’t need to go to Ampara and Trincomalee if the GoSL instead develops Hambantota, Puttalam, etc in the Sinhalese-majority areas. Sinhalese themselves will prefer to live in the south if development is done as promised by the Mahinda Chinthanaya.
“They have already done that DB since the time of DSS. And it is certain doable AGAIN.”
People went because there was nothing provided for them in the south the way that it was done in 1927. DSS, JRJ, and others used the Sinhalese poverty and landlessness to push them into the NE, pawns in an attempt at colonisation that helped bring us to war. Why do you want to make the same mistakes again?
“Do I have to repeat? There are MANY, CRUCIAL LIFE THREATENING problems faced by 100% of the population than language problems of a mere 5%-10%. Lets resolve the former problems first then come to the others. Tamils too benefit by resolving those problems!”
Repeating nonsense is pointless; I am asking you to look at it differently. I already pointed out to you that 100% of the population isn’t suffering from life-threatening problems, and that there is no reason why these so-called life-threatening problems that haven’t been dealt with in the 55 years of official and unofficial Sinhala Only suddenly have become so important that all else must take second place (because they are second class?) instead of being dealt with simultaneously.
“DB, those who cry loudest about “Sinhala Only” in SL have mastered French, English, Danish, Norwegian, etc. Totally alien languages to them.”
And those who created Sinhala-only were educated in English at Oxford and Cambridge. And as I have earlier pointed out to you, Tamils are aliens or “naturalised” in the west. They aren’t aliens here. I asked you weeks ago whether you consider Tamils aliens in SL, but you wriggled away as usual, claiming that “some Tamils” are alien. In the context of the Tamils and their demand that the Tamil language be implemented as an official one, you have to decide whether that right is dismissable on the grounds that the Tamils are aliens; but if you don’t wish to discuss it for whatever reason, you have to stop bringing up the alien issue as a reason for not granting them their right.
“You ability to learn a language doesn’t change by territory. (If so we can fix it!)”
Really? How will you “fix” it, TT? By expelling the Tamils from SL?
“It’s the will to learn it. There are 1,000,000 alien language speaking SL Tamils the world over blah blah”
It doesn’t matter if it’s easier or hard or if they have learned foreign languages or not. When Tamils learn German in Germany, they do so because they wish to immigrate and live in that country. Tamils are not immigrating to SL and applying for residency. This is their country and they have just as much right to it. Do you disagree with this?
“Anyway there are more crucial problems faced by more people than language problems of a few who should be given opportunities and incentives to learn a familiar language.”
Yes, you keep repeating this, but are unable to show any of these crucial problems that will be delayed by implementing the 13th.
As with the political majority, just look at any election not just 1956. It’s the same thing DB.”
What is the same thing?
“No DB. It means resolving hunger, poverty, unemployment, insecurity, HR issues, etc., etc. of ALL including Tamils. Can’t you understand that ALL includes Tamil?”
But these are not problems of ALL of the population, either. It’s not even a problem of MOST of the population. Is ALL or MOST of SL hungry? Is ALL or MOST of SL poverty-stricken? Is ALL or MOST of SL unemployed? Is ALL or MOST of SL unsafe? Do ALL or MOST of SL not have their human rights? In fact, you’ll find that hunger, poverty, unemployment, lack of security and human rights, is disproportionately in the Tamil areas of the NE. So you see, these issues too are to do with only SOME of the population. So why is it that you think the GoSL must first work on something that benefits ALL (even though you cannot show a problem that affects ALL of SL) BEFORE it works on something that affects some (and in fact the issues you bring up do affect just SOME)? Won’t implementation of Tamil as an official language enable Tamils to be employed more widely, thereby allowing them to start solving their own problems of hunger, unemployment, poverty, etc?
““Solving” problems of all mean solving them, not transferring them to others! You don’t have to starve a Tamil to solve the problem of a Sinhalese.”
I’m so glad you think so, TT. Could you explain then why in 1956, the Sinhalese decided to transfer the problem of a lack of Sinhalese access to the government and civil service by transferring that problem to the Tamils through the passing of Sinhala Only which deprived the Tamils of that very same access?
“As usual! When you cannot face the CONTENTS of the argument, you shoot the messenger!”
But you had no content whatsoever until SD and I made fun of your lack of an argument. Previously too you avoided answering my 15 questions until taunted by SD and me. Even then, you were capable only of addressing only 1 out of 15, and that too was an incorrect answer.
That proves I won it!”
No, TT, proof is actual evidence, not an opinion
“I’m ASHAMED of the losers of Nantikadal and PROUD of the winners. So I have nothing to be ashamed of. Am I wrong?”
But why are you ashamed of the LTTE; were you one of them? And how are you proud of a victory you had no part in?
DB,
“Can you link to where you had previously shown how colonisation was beneficial? Also, can you show what percentage of the crops produced were contributed from the colonised areas vs the rest of the country?……………”
DB, I have answered the 15 questions and you know that!
“Links”? So you believe only “links” and not practical experience? I asked you to GO THERE are see for yourself and being unable to face the reality, you are asking for links?
The best evidence is the FACT that these communities never left these areas despite terror attacks from the world’s most ruthless terrorists! If it was not beneficial for them to stay, they would never have stayed amidst all this trouble.
I was not arguing the yield of these areas were more than any other areas. That is beside the point. The point is the yield was sufficient to sustain these communities. They were so plentiful that not even terrorists could dislodge these farming communities.
What is the problem of Ampara district being Muslim majority or Sinhala majority? Looks like you have a strong anti-Sinhala views! A sure recipe for DISASTER, Nantikadal style!
I never thought VR was the first instance of separation DB! Illankai Tamil Arsek Kachchi was formed in 1949! SL’s oldest race based party was formed in 1944. A racist demand that goes against the concept of equality was made in 1931. A highly race centric discriminatory law called the Thesawalamei law was regulated in 1806 and entered the formal laws in 1911! It even goes against the UN accepted equality concept. Read my other comment in this article.
Killing Tamils, Sinhalese, burning their houses, chasing them away by ANYONE is a crime and I do not in anyway support such barbarity. At the time government goons did these crimes some people even bore weapons for the very same government. I find it appalling.
“Really? You’ve been visiting the NE since you were a baby? Have your ideas developed much since then?”
DB you don’t seem to know numbers! That is sad.
“Oh the most enlightening trips I made were in 1990 (when you were 6) to Elephant Pass, Palaly, Vasavilan, Batti, etc. Tracer bullets are very enlightening”
That is impressive. But these were inaccessible to the public at that time. So you may not have seen anything much other than war! But you should visit Gal Oya, Weli Oya, Maduru Oya, etc. too.
“But you earlier claimed that the Sinhalese were driven out of the NE by the Tamils.”
Completely driven out of Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mulaitivu, etc. districts in an act of genocide. So were the Muslims. But these failed in the East thanks to higher numbers.
““It had HUGE political and defence goods.”
But I asked you how it benefited the people, not political parties.”
I have explained above. The same can be extended to Jaffna and Vanni districts today. When I visited Jaffna and Vanni recently I saw many productive lands not being utilized. They benefit people of all races in solving the problems associated with land, increasing food production, sustainable development, increasing fish production, help ethnic integration, reduce the power of race centric political parties, etc.
““When Batticaloa/Jaffna still vote for race based politics, Trincomalee/Ampara championed multiethnic politics.”
Of course, since the demographic was changed to suit the Sinhalese-majority parties. I earlier pointed out how changing a demographic to suit a political platform instead of changing the political platform to suit the demographic isn’t what democracy is built on. As usual, you had no response.”
No DB. There is NO restriction in democracy against that. If racist politics like DMK, ADMK, AIADMK, TNA, TULF, ACTC, ITAK, SU, SMSBPP, etc. are your favourite politics, you have a strange view of democracy. People have the right UNDER DEMOCRACY to live in anywhere in the island nation no matter how they are settled there. That is democratically recognized. Please read the SL Constitution and many constitutions of other nations too if you can.
“Not at all, the East was cleared first because it was the power base of the Karuna Group which was familiar with that territory, and because the Tigers avoided major combat and retreated, saving their troops for the fight in the North.”
That wasn’t the ONLY part of the equation DB. Pity you always fail to see the big picture! So Tigers retreated in fear of the Karuna group!!
Good for Humour in the Uniform column, DB! And Karuna group was not the only living beings in the East FYI. Clearing the east and SUSTAINING the victory despite LTTE infiltration and defection by some Karuna cadres meant winning their support too. This was easier in the east than in the north because the east was/is multiethnic and not the north. Generally Sinhalese and Muslims support the SLDFs more than Tamils. This is a fact. That is an additional factor in the east being easier than the north to clear of terrorists and sustain it.
“Yes, and the party that won in the East was the TMVP, a Tamil party led by former Tamil Tigers; the only difference being that the TMVP allied itself with the ruling UPFA while the TNA didn’t. As a result, TNA MPs’ families were kidnapped and candidates intimidated until the party boycotted the elections. The East is basically ruled by a Tamil party that has announced that it will soon assume police powers as well The delay in the North wasn’t due to the existence of Tamil parties (they are there in the East too), but that the aftermath of the war made it impossible to hold elections with large numbers of the population displaced, in IDP camps, or otherwise unable to return to their homes.”
DB, you lie like a politician.
It was NOT by TMVP. It was won by UPFA and then came the UNP – 2 multiethnic political parties. Your reason for the delay in the north PC elections is hilarious! DB, TWO national elections were held in the north in 2010!!! So why can’t a provincial election be held in 2011?
You say TNA members were threatened, etc. Well the same thing happened to TMVP, EPDP, UPFA, UNP activists too!! Some of them were even killed.
“In the East, while the UPFA-backed TMVP won 20 seats, the UNP which has of late been defending Tamil rights, won 15. But the right-wing Sinhalese JVP won just one seat. In addition, in recent elections, the UNP under Ranil W has lost consistently partly because the Tamil UNP-voters have been unable to vote because of the war and/or Tiger pressure. If the Tamils are so racist as you say, why would they vote for the non-Tamil UNP?”
Stop lying DB. UPFA won not TMVP. UNP has been defending Tamils, etc for a LONG TIME DB, not as of late. Of course there were a few problems that lasted a few days but on most days UNP did defend their rights. You scored an own goal. Thank you. That’s what I’ve been telling you. We need multiethnic parties to replace monoethnic parties. Multiethnic by name, membership, etc.
I never said “Tamils are so racist”. I only said Tamils in the NE and Tamil Nadu vote for race centric politics. But you have given the answer. TAMIL national alliance didn’t participate but the TAMIL elam makkal viduthalai pulikal (TMVP) did with the UPFA.
“But it has explained to you many times that Australia doesn’t have any national minorities except the Aborigines who are allowed to conduct themselves in their own languages if they wish. SL has national minorities.”
DB, read the UN declaration on minority rights of 1992. There is no distinction between “national minorities” and other minorities. Stop mincing words.
“Tamil is an official language in SL, is it not DB?”
On paper yes, in reality, no. Why hasn’t the GoSL fully implemented it if it is law? And that still doesn’t explain why you want to repeal it and return to Sinhala Only. Why, TT? What do you fear so much about the Tamils?”
Did I say I want to return to “Sinhala Only”? There was no “Sinhala Only” in SL. Under the Official Language Act of 1956, REASONABLE USE OF TAMIL was allowed. So it was not Sinhala Only. SL Constitution has been subsequently changed to include Tamil and English as national/official languages. So we can repeal the 13 amendment.
In 1956 people voted for Sinhala to be the official language. It was not so in the case of the 13 amendment. That is why it has been difficult to implement. You force more unpopular laws on SL, it will be the same fate.
““So called “Sinhala Only” Act had wide public support and hence it’s implementation was fast”
You mean it had widespread Sinhalese support, so it was implemented, and since the 13th has no widespread Sinhalese support, it wasn’t. You’re right. Finally you’re going where you should be going”
No DB. It had wide people’s support irrespective of ethnicity. Over 68% of the Sri Lankan voters who voted supported it. In the case of the 13 amendment, NO ONE! Put the 13 amendment to the test at least now. Hold a referendum and see what will happen! Love to see it!
““but the 13 amendment never had wide public support (it was secret!!) and hence its implementation has been relatively slow.”
What makes you think it was secret? The Indo-Lanka Accord was signed in July 1987, its contents were public, and the 13th was passed in open parliament in November and gazetted. There was nothing secret. Your ignorance of the amendment until last month doesn’t make it secret.”
Lol! Haven’t you answered it? So you came to know about it AFTER it was gazetted and the other AFTER it was signed? What’s the point DB? It was too late then. People were NEVER consulted. So you agree that people came to know of these ONLY AFTER they were enacted. Good.
“Really? Then what was it driven by? RF and BM may have supported it, and as upper-class Muslims it probably didn’t matter to them, but pointing to two individuals doesn’t show minority support.”
Most Muslims voted for UNP and SLFP led parties in 1956. Only a very small number of Muslims in the north voted for ITAK, communist parties and Independents. So were the other smaller minorities. Tamil tigers drove all these people out of Jaffna district.
“Really? What do I not understand about ethnicity and language? And since both the Kandyan and Malvana conventions were agreements between Europeans and Sinhalese, why would it be written in any other languages?”
So you mean to say there were no non-Sinhalese in the territories under the Kotte and Kandyan kingdoms? Or do you mean to say IT WAS OK to have this VITAL legal document in SINHALA ONLY (plus a few European languages) and not Tamil?
How about the Nallur convention DB. It too was written in Portuguese and Chingalese languages? Certainly not in Dravidian or Tamil language!
““I’m amused that you are unaware of problems faced by everyone! There is wide spread poverty, unemployment, hunger, landlessness. I have given a list above. Please read it before asking again and again.”
So how will a repeal of the 13th and a return to Sinhala Only solve all of these problems, when they were not solved between 1956 and 1987 when Sinhala Only was in force and there was no 13th? You keep running around this mulberry bush, TT, but seem incapable of actually answering the question.”
Lol! How can the 13 amendment and political solutions solve these problems DB? But creating multiethnic agricultural and fishing communities in the north can.
“ “There are more burning issues of 100% of the population than the language problem of 5%-10% of the population.”
And there is no reason why these “burning issues” of yours can’t be taken care of simultaneously with the Tamil issue”
No. These must be addressed FIRST because they affect 100% of the population. 12% can wait.
““Even a sizable proportion of Tamils and most Muslims can function in Sinhala today.”
Humans will eat grass to survive if they must, but that doesn’t mean that it’s OK to make them do so.”
Wrong comparison DB!!
““Lets first resolve DIRE LIFE THREATENING problems of 100% of the population, then lets look at language problems of 5%-10%. Otherwise none of these problems will be resolved, EVER.”
But 100% of the population isn’t suffering from “dire life-threatening problems” are they? The SL economy is growing, people are generally happy for a 3rd world country. Why do you have to wait to solve the Tamil issue? What part of implementing the 13th will delay the GoSL taking care of unemployment, landlessness, poverty, etc?”
Oh yes, they have. 13 amendment cannot put food on the table. It has already costed BILLIONS in totally wasted money to run these stupid things called provincial councils – 9 of them.
““Have you been to Sri Lanka, DB? Look at the land cases in courts. Look at the fights, etc. over land. Look at illegal squatting, felling of forests to build houses, turning farms into houses, etc. Of the 20,000,000 population, close to 90% live in just 65% of the land whereas only 10% living in a VAST 35%! So where is land in the “south” or the “north”?”
Oh, I assure you I live in SL, unlike you The issues of squatting, felling forest, etc is because people want to live in close proximity to urban centers, the few main roads, water sources, and other resources and infrastructure, not because there is not enough land. It is because there is not enough attractive land. If the GoSL provides the necessary infrastructure in areas that don’t have them, these untenable areas will become much more attractive, and there will be no need to encroach into the NE. Unless the latter has an ulterior motive.”
Encroach to NE?? You talk like Tamilnet.tv! Sri Lankans have the right to live in any part of the island no matter who their relocation is financed.
“But people don’t need to go to Ampara and Trincomalee if the GoSL instead develops Hambantota, Puttalam, etc in the Sinhalese-majority areas. Sinhalese themselves will prefer to live in the south if development is done as promised by the Mahinda Chinthanaya.”
That is not sustainable. That means 90% of the population will be living in only 65% of the land. Why oh why when there is PLENTY of land in the north. FYI Vanni has more water resources than Hambantota, Monaragala, Ampara. NE has over 65% of the coastline! Why get trapped into just 35% of the coastline. NE has more untapped resources than anywhere else. Why not the Sinhalese and Muslims exploit them? They MUST. Otherwise there is no real development. That’s the prize of winning the war to all SLs irrespective of ethnicity.
“People went because there was nothing provided for them in the south the way that it was done in 1927. DSS, JRJ, and others used the Sinhalese poverty and landlessness to push them into the NE, pawns in an attempt at colonisation that helped bring us to war. Why do you want to make the same mistakes again?”
Mistakes? I don’t see ANY mistake here. That is the SOLUTION! So what happened at the end of it all? WE WON!
So no regrets absolutely.
““DB, those who cry loudest about “Sinhala Only” in SL have mastered French, English, Danish, Norwegian, etc. Totally alien languages to them.”
And those who created Sinhala-only were educated in English at Oxford and Cambridge. And as I have earlier pointed out to you, Tamils are aliens or “naturalised” in the west.”
What nonsense they are not aliens. How about their kids born in those countries? They too have no right to Tamil as an official or national language.
““You ability to learn a language doesn’t change by territory. (If so we can fix it!)”
Really? How will you “fix” it, TT? By expelling the Tamils from SL?”
DB Tamils and MOSTLY Muslims have shown the way. It must be encouraged. If 1,000,000 Tamils can learn alien European languages, it will be peanuts for 1,000,000 Tamils to learn their relative language called Sinhala.
““It’s the will to learn it. There are 1,000,000 alien language speaking SL Tamils the world over blah blah”
It doesn’t matter if it’s easier or hard or if they have learned foreign languages or not. When Tamils learn German in Germany, they do so because they wish to immigrate and live in that country. Tamils are not immigrating to SL and applying for residency. This is their country and they have just as much right to it. Do you disagree with this?”
No DB. Most of them first arrive there, get humanitarian visa and THEN forced to learn those languages. I’m not saying Tamils should be forced to learn Sinhala. But there is nothing draconian about the Official Language Act which recognized reasonable use of Tamil.
“As with the political majority, just look at any election not just 1956. It’s the same thing DB.”
What is the same thing?”
The political majority irrespective of ethnicity makes decisions and the political minority complies.
““No DB. It means resolving hunger, poverty, unemployment, insecurity, HR issues, etc., etc. of ALL including Tamils. Can’t you understand that ALL includes Tamil?”
“But these are not problems of ALL of the population, either. It’s not even a problem of MOST of the population. Is ALL or MOST of SL hungry? Is ALL or MOST of SL poverty-stricken? Is ALL or MOST of SL unemployed? Is ALL or MOST of SL unsafe? Do ALL or MOST of SL not have their human rights?”
What a way to look at problems! It affects all. Resolving these problems benefits ALL. There are more poverty stricken people in SL than those who cannot speak Sinhala. There are more unemployed people than Tamils in the NE. Look at the numbers. Even in 1982 there were disproportionately larger percentages of Tamils in taxpayer funded universities, government services, etc.
Please read – http://www.infolanka.com/org/srilanka/issues/acslu.html
““Solving” problems of all mean solving them, not transferring them to others! You don’t have to starve a Tamil to solve the problem of a Sinhalese.”
I’m so glad you think so, TT. Could you explain then why in 1956, the Sinhalese decided to transfer the problem of a lack of Sinhalese access to the government and civil service by transferring that problem to the Tamils through the passing of Sinhala Only which deprived the Tamils of that very same access?”
No DB. For the first time REASONABLE USE OF TAMIL was recognized by the 1956 Act. It wasn’t there until then. I have explained to you umpteen times this problem didn’t start in 1956. If those who believe in traditional Tamil homelands believe it was only 55 (2011-1956) years old, fantastic. That proves there were no Tamil homelands in SL. These are not root causes but EXCUSES to extort a 35% of the island nation for a mere 12% of the population. The military has resolved this problem 90%. Now it is up to the government to resolve the remaining 10% by ethnic integration in the NE by creating multiethnic settlements.
TT “can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others, he has taken great pains to deceive himself”, to borrow a quote from Peter Medawar.
TT, the logic in your argumentation is self-defeating, because the near schizophrenic inconsistency of it is evident to any rational reader. Not only that, you display a failure of comprehension that is altogether unsuitable for any sentient being. The 15 questions that David asked were answered yes, but in such a completely tangential fashion that it was apparent that not a single question seemed to have been comprehended. Why else would you completely miss the point on 14 of them? And even more depressingly, you answer the one question you did comprehend, wrongly!
In future, I see no recourse but to simply post a link to those questions and your appalling reply. The nature of your answers should be sufficient to convince any rational reader that you cannot even comprehend these issue with any clarity, let alone begin to analyze them.
Your failures are only compounded in this last post, where your responses are limited to either monomaniacal repetition or a Mahinda Abeysundara type “traitor-patriot” portrayal of David, so that you can avoid tackling the issues he raised by simply – dismissing them.
You may try to portray yourself as a patriot by blindly defending your ethnicity, just like your counter-part Eelamoids blindly defend theirs, but the only thing you succeed in doing is showcasing your disinterest in truth and fairness, and confirming why patriotism is indeed the large refuge of the scoundrel.
I suggest you rethink the arguments raised by others first, without simply engaging in a simplistic, one-sided, monomaniacal, binary mode of argument. This was the reason I paraphrased your own “thesis”, which you seemed to accept as being accurate, but slyly avoided giving a definitive word on. I see no similar evidence that have you even begun to understand the points raised by others so far.
Here’s my challenge to you TT. Show this forum your comprehension of these issues by paraphrasing the counter-arguments to your views. I have already shown you an example by paraphrasing your own views, to which you did not object. I’m sure everyone would love to see your attempts at comprehension in return.
There’s no shame in being wrong. In fact, there’s honour in frankly admitting it. But a disinterest in right and wrong is a sin for which there is no absolution.
“DB, I have answered the 15 questions and you know that!”
Yes, you certainly made an attempt after much taunting and mocking by SD and myself. Anyone who wishes to see TT’s pathetic “answers”, they are here: http://groundviews.org/2011/02/02/imaging-the-aftermath/comment-page-1/#comments But for those who can’t be bothered actually reading TT’s dreary bigotry, I’ll paraphrase.
I asked,
1. Do you believe the Tamils in SL are immigrants? This was asked because you continuously referred to Tamils learning European languages when they immigrated there.
Your answer was that some Tamils were immigrants, thereby avoiding admitting they are not immigrants who have a right to their own language, but also avoiding looking like a racist by claiming that they are. So the question remains unanswered.
2. Do you understand the difference between a national minority and a naturalised minority? This was also asked because you pointed to immigrants in the west who have assimilated with the populations of their adoptive countries.
Your answer was that there was no difference in the context of fundamental rights. Since the discussion was in the context of collective rights in general and language rights in particular, and not fundamental rights, you were unable to answer the question. In the context of language and other collective rights, the UN (and SL as a signatory) has acknowledged a distinction between these groups.
3. Do you understand the difference between a UN resolution which is a ruling and a UN declaration which is a pact? This was asked because you questioned the importance of the various UN declarations on minority, language, and indigenous rights, due to the fact that SL hadn’t been penalised for non-compliance.
You claimed that I didn’t understand the question, and proceeded to point out that some UN resolutions were enforced and some were not. So the question is unanswered.
4. Do you disregard all other UN declarations on minority rights except the 1992 one? Example the UN declaration on indigenous peoples in 2007. This was asked because you were only willing to quote from this one declaration, while ignoring the suggestions of the others.
You answered that since I couldn’t prove SL’s non-compliance with the ’92 resolution, I was bringing up other resolutions. This was in spite of the fact that I had first mentioned the 2007 UN resolution on indigenous peoples. So you refused to answer the question.
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? This was asked because you claimed that there was no reason why a signatory needed to abide by said declarations.
You answered that SL had complied with all its promises. This, in spite of the fact that you had earlier refused to acknowledge the relevance of any other UN declarations on minorities except the ’92 one. So the question was unanswered.
6. Do you understand the difference between a homeland and a country? This was asked because you insisted that Tamil politicians of today were calling for Tamil Eelam.
You answered that the Tamil homeland is not in SL. Clearly you didn’t understand the question or were unwilling to acknowledge the difference since it would undermine your theory that all Tamil political parties are racist. So the question wasn’t answered.
7. Do you believe that majority rule is democratic in light of the Civil Rights movement and the referendums and plebiscites on separation? This was asked because you claimed that since the Sinhalese majority had voted for Sinhala Only, it was democratic.
You answered that civil rights movements and referendums had no place in SL. Here it’s clear that you understand the question but don’t want to engage with it because it would lead you to admit that majority rule was undemocratic. So the question wasn’t answered.
8. Would you accept another religion or language being given the foremost place in SL instead of Buddhism? Again, this was asked in the context of your insistence that majoritanianism is democratic, and therefore the constitutional enshrinement of Sinhalese and Buddhism was also democratic.
You answered that it would be if the majority were also were accepting of it. The question was whether YOU accepted it, not the majority and so the question stayed unanswered/
9. Can you provide a list of countries that haven’t given their national minorities language rights where applicable? This was asked in the context of your insistence that most of the world’s nations had not granted their national minorities language rights.
You answered that this was not the point of debate, even though it clearly was. Even if it wasn’t there was no reason why you could not answer the question anyway.
10. Do you understand the difference between nationalism and nationality? If yes, explain. This was in the context of your absurd claim that since Tamil Eelam was not a nation, the struggle to create it could not be called nationalist
You answered that the dictionary you possessed was as good as mine, in spite of the fact that your understanding of the two terms was clearly not the same as mine. Since you refused to explain the distinction, if any, as you understood it, the question wasn’t answered.
11. Do you know the difference between passing a law and implementing it? This was asked in the context of your subsequent claim that since the 13th had been passed, tamil rights had been granted.
You answered that implementing a law meant carrying it out in context to other laws. This is in fact wrong, since the context of other laws is considered only when creating the law, and the context of other laws is considered at implementation only if stipulated as such in the law in question itself. So your answer was wrong.
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. This was asked in the context of your claim that SL Tamils’ rights were equal to Sinhalese because of the passing of the 13th, and your earlier acknowledgment that that you had been unaware of the 13th’s existence prior to my informing you of it.
You answered that Tamil was an official language under the 13th, and proceeded to attack the law for being undemocratic and in violation of another law. So the question was not answered.
13. Why are you against granting minorities language rights? This was asked in the context of your call for the removal of the 13th Amendment from the constitution and the return to the Sinhala Only Act of 1956.
You claimed that you were for all minority language rights. Since you had clearly called for a return to Sinhala Only, and have never attempted to modify this call since, it is fair to say that your answer didn’t address the question itself.
14. Do you understand that pointing out racism and fighting for equal race rights are not racist actions? This was asked in the context of your claim that by asking for equal Tamil rights (via such things as the Vaddukoddai Resolution, 50-50 representation, etc) the Tamil political parties were racist.
You answered that individual equality was what mattered. Since the question wasn’t about the importance of one right over another, it’s fair to say that you didn’t answer the question.
15. Can you quote any current Tamil politicians who are calling for Tamil Eelam or any other separate state for Tamils? This was asked because you continue to insist that they do.
You admitted that you could not.
If anyone is interested in verifying TT’s actual words against my paraphrase, please follow the link above. My questions and TT’s “answers” are on the first page of the comments thread, about three-quarters of the way down.
““Links”? So you believe only “links” and not practical experience? I asked you to GO THERE are see for yourself and being unable to face the reality, you are asking for links?”
I have been there many times, TT, before you were born and since, but merely looking at a paddy field will not answer how much produce it has contributed to the national output, and since neither of us are the minister of agriculture, our personal experience in this area is irrelevant; which is why I ask you for the stats. Clearly you don’t know whether the colonised areas have contributed significantly to the national agricultural production, no?
Even though you claimed it had.
“The best evidence is the FACT that these communities never left these areas despite terror attacks from the world’s most ruthless terrorists! If it was not beneficial for them to stay, they would never have stayed amidst all this trouble.”
Certainly it was beneficial for them to stay since they would have been landless refugees if they had not. And people will hang onto what they have if they can. But you claimed that the Tamils drove out all the Sinhalese from the NE; so wasn’t it also beneficial for those Sinhalese to stay instead of fleeing? So since some fled and some stayed, how does this back up your claim that the colonisation benefited the country?
“I was not arguing the yield of these areas were more than any other areas. That is beside the point. The point is the yield was sufficient to sustain these communities.”
But the yield in southern areas of SL would have been just as plentiful and more than sufficient to sustain those communities too. My challenge was to your claim that these villages in colonised areas were more beneficial than if they had been in the south.
“They were so plentiful that not even terrorists could dislodge these farming communities.”
Then how were the terrorists able to dislodge communities further north (as you yourself claim)? Were these dislodged communities less plentiful?
“What is the problem of Ampara district being Muslim majority or Sinhala majority?”
So what is then wrong with the Northern or Eastern provinces being Tamil majority?
“Looks like you have a strong anti-Sinhala views! A sure recipe for DISASTER, Nantikadal style!”
Really? Are you planning to have me killed and displayed in my underwear?
“I never thought VR was the first instance of separation DB! Illankai Tamil Arsek Kachchi was formed in 1949! SL’s oldest race based party was formed in 1944. A racist demand that goes against the concept of equality was made in 1931. A highly race centric discriminatory law called the Thesawalamei law was regulated in 1806 and entered the formal laws in 1911! It even goes against the UN accepted equality concept. Read my other comment in this article.”
But there was no call for separation in 1911, 1931, or 1949
The first call for separation came in 1975, almost 20 years after the racist Sinhala Only law was passed. My point was that the creation of the Amaparai District was in fact the first separatist action in SL. And I have read your comment on the Thesawalamai Law and replied it.
“Killing Tamils, Sinhalese, burning their houses, chasing them away by ANYONE is a crime and I do not in anyway support such barbarity. At the time government goons did these crimes some people even bore weapons for the very same government. I find it appalling.”
So you’re suggesting that serving in the SL Army against the Tigers was criminal and barbaric? Is that why you didn’t join up and fight for what you believe in?
“DB you don’t seem to know numbers! That is sad.”
Really? You said you were born in 1983, which would put you at 26-27 years old, depending on the month of your birth, and you just claimed to be traveling to the NE for 26 years of your life
I’d say a one-year-old was a baby, and given your theories, they are very much those of a one-year-old.
“That is impressive. But these were inaccessible to the public at that time. So you may not have seen anything much other than war! But you should visit Gal Oya, Weli Oya, Maduru Oya, etc. too.”
Did I say I only visited those places and at those times? I have been all over this country, many times over, both before and after you were born. But as I said before, looking at a paddy field is just looking at a paddy field.
“Completely driven out of Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mulaitivu, etc. districts in an act of genocide. So were the Muslims. But these failed in the East thanks to higher numbers.”
Driving someone out is not genocide, it is ethnic cleansing. Are you suggesting the anti-Tamil riots of the ’50s, ’70s, and ’80s were also genocide? And while the Muslims were in fact driven off the Jaffna Peninsula, can you show any evidence (yes, links) of the Sinhalese being driven out in this way?
“I have explained above [how colonisation benefited the people of SL].”
No, you haven’t. All you claim was that the farms were plentiful, a fact that isn’t unique to the colonised lands. The challenge was for you to prove that these lands were especially beneficial because they were colonised instead of utilising land in the south. No evidence?
“The same can be extended to Jaffna and Vanni districts today. When I visited Jaffna and Vanni recently I saw many productive lands not being utilized.”
Perhaps those lands haven’t been utilised because of the war, and will soon be once the Tamils are rehabilitated. In contrast, I’ve seen lots of unutilised land in the North-Central Province where there has been no war. Why not utilise that land first?
“They benefit people of all races in solving the problems associated with land, increasing food production, sustainable development, increasing fish production, help ethnic integration, reduce the power of race centric political parties, etc.”
But you have been unable to show how colonisation benefited people of all races. Only that it benefited Sinhalese farming communities, and even then no more than if they had been settled in the south. In contrast, Tamil farming communities that were settled in the Gal Oya and Vanni areas were driven out by the GoSL. Nor have you been able to show production figures for farms in colonised areas that justify their having been situated there instead of in southern areas. Nor have you shown figures for fish “production” (I assume you mean fishing lol) that justify colonisation. Nor have you been able to show any sign of integration between Sinhalese and Tamils due to colonisation; in fact the latter has contributed to much disharmony, bloodshed, and death for both communities. And finally, you’ve been unable to show any sign of the destabilisation of the power of Tamil parties in the NE (although that is in fact the primary reason for colonisation).
“No DB. There is NO restriction in democracy against [artificially changing a political or ethnic demographic to suit political party vote counts].”
Oh, there most certainly is. Wiki says that Internal colonialism is a notion of structural political and economic inequalities between regions within a nation state. The term is used to describe the uneven effects of economic development on a regional basis, otherwise known as “uneven development”, and to describe THE EXPLOITATION OF MINORITY GROUPS within a wider society. This is held to be similar to the relationship between metropole and colony, in colonialism proper. It goes on to say An internal colony supposedly produces wealth for the benefit of those areas most closely associated with the state, usually the capital area. The members of “internal colonies” are distinguished as different by a cultural variable such as ethnicity, language, or religion. They are then excluded from prestigious social and political positions, which are dominated by members of the metropolis. The main difference between neocolonialism and internal colonialism is the source of exploitation.
If racist politics like DMK, ADMK, AIADMK, TNA, TULF, ACTC, ITAK, SU, SMSBPP, etc. are your favourite politics, you have a strange view of democracy.”
Well, where have I claimed that any political party or parties were my favourites?
“People have the right UNDER DEMOCRACY to live in anywhere in the island nation no matter how they are settled there. That is democratically recognized. Please read the SL Constitution and many constitutions of other nations too if you can.”
Certainly, people have the right to settle where they wish. However, internal colonisation consists of the state identifying certain areas and then moving people into those areas and settling them there on state-provided land in state-provided housing, when they would never have been there in such numbers in such a short time. That is why the gradual increase of Tamils in the south cannot be said to be colonisation, whereas the increase of Sinhalese in the NE can be. I had earlier asked you if you didn’t understand the definition of internal colonisation, but you didn’t answer as usual
Now we see why.
“That wasn’t the ONLY part of the equation DB. Pity you always fail to see the big picture! So Tigers retreated in fear of the Karuna group!!”
Where did I say that?
I gave you other factors for the selection of the east for quick clearance other than its multi-ethnic demographic. In reality, the East is multi-ethnic only in the greater sense of a census. In reality, areas of the East remain majority-Tamil, majority-Muslim, or majority-Sinhalese.
“And Karuna group was not the only living beings in the East FYI.”
Hmm, and where did I say that it was?
“Clearing the east and SUSTAINING the victory despite LTTE infiltration and defection by some Karuna cadres meant winning their support too. This was easier in the east than in the north because the east was/is multiethnic and not the north.”
Certainly, winning the hearts and minds of the people amongst who you are fighting is always necessary for victory, regardless of whether they are Tamil or of other communities. The difference between the East and the North was that in the East the GoSL had a ready-made loyal Tamil military/political group to fill the vacuum and provide an alternative to the Tiger claim of sole representation of the Tamils. In addition, the TMVP/Karuna Group was made up of Easterners to whom the Tamil population was loyal and who would thereafter resist Tiger infiltration. If multi-ethnicity was the reason for the victory, why wasn’t the GoSL able to clear and hold the East between 1983 and 2008? What took so long? The answer is there was no TMVP/Karuna back then to take over once the Tigers had been kicked out; instead the military had to guard every inch of territory, and that wasn’t possible; the Tigers always returned.
“Generally Sinhalese and Muslims support the SLDFs more than Tamils. This is a fact. That is an additional factor in the east being easier than the north to clear of terrorists and sustain it.”
As I said, Sinhalese and Muslims have always supported the state against the Tigers. That has been true for 30 years. But the East was only definitively cleared in 2008. Why?
“DB, you lie like a politician.
It was NOT by TMVP. It was won by UPFA and then came the UNP – 2 multiethnic political parties.”
Really? How is it that I’m lying when 90% of the candidates fielded by the UPFA were TMVP Tamil members? The TMVP simply campaigned under the name of the UPFA
“Your reason for the delay in the north PC elections is hilarious! DB, TWO national elections were held in the north in 2010!!! So why can’t a provincial election be held in 2011?”
Well, shouldn’t you be asking the GoSL why they haven’t held provincial council elections yet? Isn’t it they who decide? But on your amusement about my claim that war and displacement would hamper a northern PC election, have a look at these stats:
In the Presidential elections, voter turnout in Jaffna was only 25.66%; in Vanni it was a bit better at 40.33%. Other districts in the North didn’t even vote. Why didn’t they vote, TT, if elections are possible? In the East, Trinco and Batti were much better, with 68% and 64% turnout respectively. And when you look at districts outside the NE, none showed voter turnout below 70% and most had over 80%.
Also, TT, if Tamils are so racist, how come all the Tamil-majority districts in the NE and the Central Province voted for the Sinhalese general who defeated the Tamil Tigers?
Now let’s look at the general elections: Jaffna voter turnout was less than even in the presidential elections at 23%; Vanni was slightly better than the previous election at 44%; Batti and Trinco were 59% and 64% respectively, which was about the national average.
Still wanna laugh, TT?
“You say TNA members were threatened, etc. Well the same thing happened to TMVP, EPDP, UPFA, UNP activists too!! Some of them were even killed.”
I’m talking about about the PC elections in the East, TT, where the TNA was intimidated ’til they boycotted in protest.
“Stop lying DB. UPFA won not TMVP.”
As I pointed out already, all the candidates fielded by the UPFA were TMVP members.
“UNP has been defending Tamils, etc for a LONG TIME DB, not as of late.”
And that’s why ever since Ranil W took over the UNP the Tamils have voted for him and his party, because it is the only Sinhalese-majority party with a multi-ethnic platform. Can you explain why else the Tamils would consistently vote for one Sinhalese-majority party over another? I’ll tell you because I doubt you’ll answer — it’s because of their policies. It’s not about ethnicity, but what a party stands for.
“Of course there were a few problems that lasted a few days but on most days UNP did defend their rights.”
Those “few days” would be in July 1983, no?
The fact is, until RW took over the UNP, that party was as anti-Tamil as the SLFP/UPFA is today, and that’s why when CBK ran for president, the Tamils also voted for her, including the East. Gamini Dissanayake only managed to win one solitary district. In the 1994 general elections, her PA didn’t have any minority parties in their alliance and failed to win a majority. In the 2000 general elections she had a couple of minority parties and so the PA was more representational and she managed to win. In 2001, the minority parties had gone over to RW’s UNP who won decisively. In the Tiger-controlled North, the TNA who were controlled by the Tigers, obviously won. I can keep going, TT, but what’s the point? 
It’s pretty clear that it isn’t racism that makes the Tamils vote for Tamil parties, nor is it multi-ethnicity that makes them vote for Sinhalese-majority parties — it is simply what those parties stand for, and that is the basis of democratic campaigning, not by changing the demographic to suit your racist policies, but by justly representing your electorate.
“You scored an own goal. Thank you.”
Was the above goal the one you meant?
As I said before, TT, it’s pretty clear you don’t even know where the goals are!
“I never said “Tamils are so racist”. I only said Tamils in the NE and Tamil Nadu vote for race centric politics.”
But you have been unable to prove it, TT
Instead, we see that the Tamils in the NE have voted for a Sinhalese general who defeated the Tigers, various Sinhalese-majority alliances when those alliances represented minority interests as well as majority ones, and yes Tamil parties that were representing Tamil interests.
“But you have given the answer. TAMIL national alliance didn’t participate but the TAMIL elam makkal viduthalai pulikal (TMVP) did with the UPFA.”
But you held up the last PC elections in the East as a satisfactory example
So are you saying that the Tamils voting for the Tamil TMVP are a good thing? I thought you said that was racist? Why then didn’t the UPFA field candidates themselves instead of allowing the TMVP to campaign on its behalf; was it because winning was more important than being multi-ethnic? 
Which would therefore answer your question on northern PC elections; there would have been an election by now if the GoSL had been able to get the TNA to ally itself with the state. Instead, that party has held out, making the likelihood of a GoSL victory unlikely. I can assure you that if the TMVP had similarly gone it alone, we wouldn’t have seen such quick elections in the East either 
“DB, read the UN declaration on minority rights of 1992. There is no distinction between “national minorities” and other minorities. Stop mincing words.”
That is because in most civilised countries there is no need to define it; ie national minorities are clearly distinct from recent immigrants. In other words, national minorities are NOT immigrants. Here in SL it’s an issue because racists such as you avoid categorically stating that Tamils are NOT immigrants but a national minority (as we have seen you do now for over a month). The fact that SL doesn’t have any large immigrant minorities to contrast with the Tamils has made your brand of racism easier to defend. But this might help you understand (if you’re at all interested in understanding: following the 1992 UN declaration on minority rights, the EU parliament also realised that they needed to define national minorities as separate from recent immigrant communities, and so they defined a national minority as “a group of persons in a State who: a) reside in the territory of that State and are citizens thereof, b) maintain long-standing, firm and lasting ties with that state, c) display distinctive ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics, d) are sufficiently representative, although smaller in number than the rest of the population of the State or of a region of that State, and e) are motivated by a concern to preserve together that which constitutes their common identity, including their culture, their traditions, their religion or their language.” Nations that feel their is such a grey area must therefore take on the responsibility of defining the category. When it comes to its own citizens, a state shouldn’t be looking for loopholes in which to defend its own injustice, but ways in which to be just to all.
“Did I say I want to return to “Sinhala Only”? There was no “Sinhala Only” in SL. Under the Official Language Act of 1956, REASONABLE USE OF TAMIL was allowed. So it was not Sinhala Only. SL Constitution has been subsequently changed to include Tamil and English as national/official languages. So we can repeal the 13 amendment.”
Unless you can quote the passage from the act of 1956 that specifies under which circumstances Tamil may be used, you cannot claim that it was a “reasonable” use. So yes, as I have quoted to you, the act specifies that ONLY Sinhalese maybe used. Ie Sinhala Only as it is now well known. Why are you so ashamed of what you believe in, TT
? And yes, a change to the constitution is called an “amendment”, TT. And in this case it was the 13th Amendment; so to repeal it is to remove the change. You’re really not too good at this English business, are you? But then, that’s Sinhala Only for you lol.
“In 1956 people voted for Sinhala to be the official language. It was not so in the case of the 13 amendment. That is why it has been difficult to implement. You force more unpopular laws on SL, it will be the same fate.”
Nobody voted for Sinhala Only, TT
Parliamentary acts and constitutional changes are not directly voted for by the public; they merely need to be passed by a parliamentary majority. The public endorses these changes and policies at general elections by electing a party that proposes certain policies, endorsing those policies at re-election time, or rejecting them if they disapprove of the policies. So just as the SLFP won the ’56 election on its racist platform that was articulated in the Sinhala Only act, the 13th was endorsed by the public when they elected the UNP’s Premadasa in ’88, and re-elected the UNP in ’89.
“No DB. It had wide people’s support irrespective of ethnicity. Over 68% of the Sri Lankan voters who voted supported it. In the case of the 13 amendment, NO ONE! Put the 13 amendment to the test at least now. Hold a referendum and see what will happen! Love to see it!”
Well, what I’d love to see, TT, is where you get the 68% figure from. You see, in 1953 the SL population was just over 8 million, and at the 1956 elections, less than 3.5 million were registered as voters. Of these, just over 2.6 million valid votes were counted, and of these the SLFP got just over a million votes or 39.52%. So what makes you think 68% voted for Sinhala Only?:D The fact is, not even all the Sinhalese voted for it!
“Lol! Haven’t you answered it? So you came to know about it AFTER it was gazetted and the other AFTER it was signed? What’s the point DB? It was too late then. People were NEVER consulted. So you agree that people came to know of these ONLY AFTER they were enacted. Good.”
Ha ha ha you seem very eager to put words in my mouth, TT. What’s the matter, can’t handle what I’m actually saying?
Where did I say that it was a secret until after the signing? Perhaps you’re mixing it up with the recently passed 18th Amendment. The Indo-Lanka Accord and the 13th Amendment were both printed out in full in the newspapers before they were passed into law.
“Most Muslims voted for UNP and SLFP led parties in 1956. Only a very small number of Muslims in the north voted for ITAK, communist parties and Independents. So were the other smaller minorities.”,/em>
How do you know most Muslims voted for the SLFP?
“So you mean to say there were no non-Sinhalese in the territories under the Kotte and Kandyan kingdoms? Or do you mean to say IT WAS OK to have this VITAL legal document in SINHALA ONLY (plus a few European languages) and not Tamil?”
I’m sure there were many non-Sinhalese around, but the Kandyan and Malwana chieftains were Sinhalese. The common man wouldn’t ever even see such a document, nor was it likely that he was literate enough to read it even in his own language. So why would it need to be in anything but Sinhalese?
“How about the Nallur convention DB. It too was written in Portuguese and Chingalese languages? Certainly not in Dravidian or Tamil language!”
Why are you surprised about this? Is it not possible that the rulers of Nallur at the time were Sinhalese? After all, the last king of Kandy was a Tamil.
““I’m amused that you are unaware of problems faced by everyone! There is wide spread poverty, unemployment, hunger, landlessness. I have given a list above. Please read it before asking again and again.”
“Lol! How can the 13 amendment and political solutions solve these problems DB? But creating multiethnic agricultural and fishing communities in the north can.”
Still unable to answer, TT? My question was how the repealing of the 13th will solve these problems. The 13th was created to uplift Tamil to the same status as Sinhalese and to devolve power to the provinces. If it is implemented it will do that. So how will repealing it solve the problems? Colonisation by fishing and farming communities is not affected by the 13th one way or the other.
“No. These must be addressed FIRST because they affect 100% of the population. 12% can wait.”
But they DON’T affect 100% of the population, TT. 100% isn’t affected by hunger, poverty, unemployment, landlessness, or any of the other problems. Not even most of the population. So why should it be addressed first? And why has it not been addressed since 1949? What it not important then? Why is it only important now?
“Wrong comparison DB!!”
How is it wrong?
““Lets first resolve DIRE LIFE THREATENING problems of 100% of the population, then lets look at language problems of 5%-10%. Otherwise none of these problems will be resolved, EVER.”
“Oh yes, they have. 13 amendment cannot put food on the table. It has already costed BILLIONS in totally wasted money to run these stupid things called provincial councils – 9 of them.”
But you were suggesting a provincial system with three larger provinces
How will this be cheaper? And under what rule of judgement do you so wisely declare the PCs “stupid”?
“Encroach to NE?? You talk like Tamilnet.tv! Sri Lankans have the right to live in any part of the island no matter who their relocation is financed.”
As already pointed out to you, people do indeed have the right to live wherever they wish as long as they’re buying the land and building the houses. Being gifted free state land is internal colonisation and if, as you freely admit, this is being done to change the demographic and favour certain ethnic-majority parties, the minorities have just as much right to resist it.
“That is not sustainable. That means 90% of the population will be living in only 65% of the land. Why oh why when there is PLENTY of land in the north.”
There is certainly no overpopulation in the south. First use up the available land in your own areas before looking for new land.
“FYI Vanni has more water resources than Hambantota, Monaragala, Ampara. NE has over 65% of the coastline! Why get trapped into just 35% of the coastline.”
Really? On what grounds do you declare this expansive claim? The southeast of SL is just as fertile and irrigated as the north? And lots of southern fishermen engage in deep water fishing which is not restricted by available coastline, unlike in the North. You need to statistically prove your claim, TT, instead of making such silly claims
“NE has more untapped resources than anywhere else. Why not the Sinhalese and Muslims exploit them? They MUST. Otherwise there is no real development. That’s the prize of winning the war to all SLs irrespective of ethnicity.”
What are these untapped resources you speak of?
“Mistakes? I don’t see ANY mistake here. That is the SOLUTION! So what happened at the end of it all? WE WON!
So no regrets absolutely.”
Oh, I’m sure you have no regrets about 100,000 deaths, even though 25,000 were Sinhalese too. But most civilised people would rather have an alternative that won’t cost similar casualties to future generations.
“What nonsense they are not aliens [in the west]. How about their kids born in those countries? They too have no right to Tamil as an official or national language.”
Yes, they are. Immigrants are aliens. Language rights are accorded to those who are national minorities. If a century in the future, Tamils still form a sizable and distinct linguistic community in western nations, they would then perhaps be considered national minorities.
“DB Tamils and MOSTLY Muslims have shown the way. It must be encouraged. If 1,000,000 Tamils can learn alien European languages, it will be peanuts for 1,000,000 Tamils to learn their relative language called Sinhala.”
Why are you repeating your argument without engaging my counter-argument? Is it beyond your capabilities? It has been explained to you that Tamils are not immigrants in SL. They are immigrants in the west. So they don’t need to learn Sinhalese, though they need to learn German, etc. Sinhalese too learn French, Italian, etc when they immigrate to the west. So under your logic, they should learn Tamil here, right?
“No DB. Most of them first arrive there, get humanitarian visa and THEN forced to learn those languages. I’m not saying Tamils should be forced to learn Sinhala. But there is nothing draconian about the Official Language Act which recognized reasonable use of Tamil.”
It doesn’t matter how they get to the west. The point is they have immigrated to the west. They haven’t immigrated here. And I’ve already asked you to quote the portion of the Sinhala Only Act that allows such “reasonable” use of Tamil, and what the unit of reasonableness is.
“The political majority irrespective of ethnicity makes decisions and the political minority complies.”
But it has been pointed out that there is a difference been political majorities and ethnic majorities and that an ethnic majority cannot pass a law detrimental to an ethnic minority and simply call itself a political majority. Do you not understand the difference? If you don’t I’d be happy to explain it to you. That’s about 20 questions now you’ve failed to answer
“What a way to look at problems! It affects all. Resolving these problems benefits ALL. There are more poverty stricken people in SL than those who cannot speak Sinhala. There are more unemployed people than Tamils in the NE. Look at the numbers.”
But it doesn’t affect all, TT. Hunger, poverty, unemployment, etc affect a minority of Sri Lankans, so why is it so important now when it wasn’t important enough to solve in the 60 years of independence?
Please read – http://www.infolanka.com/org/srilanka/issues/acslu.html
“No DB. For the first time REASONABLE USE OF TAMIL was recognized by the 1956 Act. It wasn’t there until then.”
It wasn’t there til then because Sinhalese hadn’t been made the official language
And for the third time, please show me the portion of the act that says that Tamil may be used to a reasonable level, and who is to decide what this level of reasonableness is.
“I have explained to you umpteen times this problem didn’t start in 1956.”
You have certainly repeated it umpteen times, but you’ve been unable to show how any of the Tamil actions before 1975 caused any “problems”.
If those who believe in traditional Tamil homelands believe it was only 55 (2011-1956) years old, fantastic. That proves there were no Tamil homelands in SL.”
Their belief is that these homelands are as old as the Sinhalese homelands. How does this prove that there weren’t any? Is this the logic you claim to grasp? Their claim was that the need for a separate state dates from a need created in 1956. That’s why I asked you if you understood the difference between a homeland and a country. Unfortunately, you were unable to answer. Now we see why that was.
“These are not root causes but EXCUSES to extort a 35% of the island nation for a mere 12% of the population.”
That’s a subjective opinion, TT, not based on fact. The facts are that until 1956 there was no Tamil claim to a homeland or separate state whatsoever. Even then, and in spite of repeated pogroms by the Sinhalese there was no concerted call for separation until 1975. Those are facts that you are unable to disprove.
“The military has resolved this problem 90%. Now it is up to the government to resolve the remaining 10% by ethnic integration in the NE by creating multiethnic settlements.”,/em>
That will merely undo the sacrifice made by braver men than you. And while you don’t care about those dead Sinhalese soldiers and civilians (“no regrets”, remember?), the rest of us who lost friends and loved ones in this war which could easily have been avoided by simply removing one law, those of us who actually care about human beings and not just racist pride, would like to avoid another 100,000 deaths in the future.
SD, what TT, Heshan, and others of their ilk from both ends of the spectrum engage in is what I like to call “guerrilla intellectualism”. This intellectualism is to true intellectualism what guerrilla warfare is to true conventional warfare — a sort of bastard little brother. However, while there is nothing dishonourable in guerrilla warfare, since it is necessitated by a lack of strength and not a lack of morality, the opposite is true with guerrilla intellectualism. While warfare is a clash of arms, the balance of which is irrelevant to morality or the idea behind it, in debate it is a direct clash of ideas. Therefore guerrilla intellectualism is a strategy grasped at by those who are lacking the intellect and/or morality to face off against an opposing idea, just as guerrilla warfare is grasped at by forces who lack the force of arms to directly confront a more powerful enemy.
So as in guerrilla warfare, the guerrilla intellectual must flee when confronted with a direct assault (ie a direct question), he must avoid encirclement by superior numbers (ie a paraphrasing, as you and I have looped around TT), he must extricate himself from the battlefield when casualties mount (ie abandon the debate when proven wrong), choosing instead to return and make pinprick attacks in other areas to give the impression of victory and frustrate the more powerful enemy who will begin to wonder why his superior arms and numbers (ie facts, stats, and historical evidence) cannot defeat the guerrilla intellectual.
Like the guerrilla soldier, the guerrilla intellectual cannot hope to defeat his more powerful enemy’s superior intellect (weapons and numbers) and morality (idea). His only hope is to demoralise the stronger enemy (ie break down his focus on his true idea) and entice him into committing his troops to small battles on the guerrilla intellectual’s territory where devoid of his true strengths his troops will be whittled away piecemeal.
To avoid this, the true intellectual must play to his own strengths and not those of the guerrilla intellectual. He must remember that his strength is in the moral superiority of his idea (the strategic overview), his intellect (the overwhelming firepower at his disposal), and his ability to disengage and quickly re-engage elsewhere without diminishing either of the first two strengths (ie his strategic mobility which is superior to the guerrilla’s tactical mobility).
Once you understand this, the defeat of the intellectual guerrilla is as inevitable as the defeat of the guerrilla soldier
DB,
No substance again. Just repeating the same thing without any new substance.
But amidst the garb there is something new that has caught DB’s attention!
“Also, TT, if Tamils are so racist, how come all the Tamil-majority districts in the NE and the Central Province voted for the Sinhalese general who defeated the Tamil Tigers?”
Once again you make wrong generalisations. I never said “Tamils are so racist!” I only said they vote for RACIST political parties at general elections, etc.
At presidential elections there is no choice for them; is there? That is why they vote for any Sinhala candidate. The ONLY exception being their large support for GGP in 1982 in Jaffna.
A VERY GOOD POINT DB.:)
This is exactly what I want to see following a process of mass colonization of the north. When they are convinced that “T” racist parties cannot win, they will have no choice but to vote for multiethnic parties!!
For your information, same voters 2 months later voted for TAMIL national alliance at the general election! As they have done in general elections of 1947, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1977, 1989, 2000, 2001, 2004!!
And of course as always in Tamil Nadu since 1967!
SD,
I see no substance in your post apart from silly personal attacks.
Tamilnet is a live example of defeatism and triumphalism in the same news item. It depends on the reader!
Dear David,
Yet another outstanding post which will sadly roll off TT like water off a duck’s back. It’s even more unfortunate that it’s buried within the wreckage and rubble of TT’s unbounded folly, and it must surely be lifted out of this relative obscurity. I would urge you to write a separate article to Ground Views, perhaps with a title like “Racist/Extremist FAQ”, for, as much as I would like to pretend that the kind of logic displayed by TT is limited to fringe loons, I strongly suspect that at least some of this distorted logic has made significant in-roads into public consciousness. A kind of elaborate rationalization woven by Sinhalese nationalists to escape facing the realities of past discrimination against Tamils.
It’s not that there isn’t a grain of truth buried beneath all this over-the-top exaggeration, i.e. Tamils can be as racist as Sinhalese, and there’s surely plenty of evidence to point to, and none better perhaps, than the crazed, foaming lunacy of Eelamoids, but the problem is, it’s all a very lop-sided story!
About your piece on Guerilla intellectualism. I really enjoyed it – for it reminded me of several seasoned guerillas on this very forum
I think you’ve pinned down their strategy exactly. However, I am sceptical whether your counter-strategy will work. For one thing, are you not assuming a fundamentally rational agent? I’m not sure that some of these people are!
Secondly, preying on the intellectual fairness of the other can also be a significant victory for the intellectual guerilla. Take for example, climate change scepticism – all they have to do is to amplify the doubt caused by honest inability to make definitive statements on certain issues.
Lastly, as long as they succeed in obfuscating an issue long enough to make people disinterested, that alone can be a victory for them. As the saying goes “Don’t argue with a fool. People might not be able to tell the difference”.
Having said that, it’s not that I agree with that last statement. I believe that these people *must* be intellectually defeated, very comprehensively, and at all cost – for fairness and justice in our society must now be won through intellectual battles. However, it’s clearly not going to be easy!
For one thing, these battles must be carefully picked. Take for example, this aspect of your discussion with TT: “Would you accept another religion or language being given the foremost place in SL instead of Buddhism? Again, this was asked in the context of your insistence that majoritanianism is democratic, and therefore the constitutional enshrinement of Sinhalese and Buddhism was also democratic.
You answered that it would be if the majority were also were accepting of it. The question was whether YOU accepted it, not the majority and so the question stayed unanswered.”
I wish only people like TT give slippery answers to questions like that. The unfortunate truth is, even otherwise fair human beings (on this very forum), who wish to institute fair provisions for all minorities, are nevertheless remarkably unethical on this issue – another example of the kind of psychopathology and intellectual dishonesty that religious attachments give rise to.
Amusingly enough, some people point to England to justify the practice. Isn’t the irony of that act rather exquisite? For, these same people are strongly critical of “elites” and “liberals”, claiming that they are still living in a state of intellectual servility to England, yet, the claimants themselves make a remarkable display of their own servility and mental-enslavement by still looking towards England for moral leadership! Why else in the world would you summon that childish English fancy-dress parade involving the queen, church and govt. to justify one’s own unjust practices?
Nevertheless, I don’t think that this is a battle worth fighting. That silly clause in the constitution can remain, the bigger battle I feel, must be for the proper enforcement of language policies and enactment of anti-discrimination laws.
So the question is David, what battles are worth fighting? And what strategies can be employed?
SD, I’m glad you’re enjoying my little exchanges with TT. Perhaps I will expand the FAQ into an actual blog post. In fact I did that with the guerrilla intellectualism idea. If you’re interested, it’s on my blog.
You’re right that victory against these guerrillas is uncertain, and that’s why I said that victory over the intellectual guerrilla is as inevitable as against the actual guerrilla
and we know how long that can take. The point is not to give up and allow the guerrila’s ideas free reign. He must be constantly engaged so that in the long run his ideas are sufficiently destabilised and and shredded that general opinion will not readily accept it. A glance across GV’s comments threads of the last few months will reveal that viewpoints of bigots such as Heshan and TT are no longer unchallenged nor stable enough to be accepted. I think that’s all the victory that’s needed, no?
In the end one can’t hope to convince people like them. They don’t come here to engage and discuss, but to preach. If we can convince the potential moderate of today or of the future who might one day google these subjects, I think that’s good enough.
You’re also right about the constitutional place accorded Buddhism. This is not a crucial battle to be won, since after all, practical freedoms are more important than theoretical ones, which is the point when the finger is pointed west. But neither is it a position that should remain comfortably unchallenged. The unchallenged position of Buddhism in the ’40s led many to believe that Sinhala Only too would be unchallenged. Similarly today, who knows what would have happened if the call to do away with the Tamil national anthem had gone unchallenged.
So in answer to your last question, all I can say is, to your own conscience be true. Remember what the true cause is and oppose all that challenges it.
David,
I read the blog post and others too seem to have enjoyed it
While I agree with what you say to a large degree, I fear that hounding the guerilla also results in a certain kind of defeat.
If you analyse the discussions in the past few days, another thing to notice is how most of them have been derailed by the guerillas. Most often, the discussion becomes either tangential, altogether irrelevant, or focuses on minutiae so that it effectively sinks the main discussion into obscurity.
This alone can be a successful strategy for the guerilla. For example, the discussion on the diaspora’s contribution to the future of SL was hijacked into a discussion on Nazism. Effectively, the guerilla has forced us into their territory of yarns, exaggeration and nitpicking, and the intellectual who can’t bear to see this nonsense go unchallenged, ventures afterwards, only to fall prey to the guerilla’s diversionary tactic. In the end, neither the discussion on whether the diaspora has any plans at all for a positive contribution, nor the discussion on how they can contribute, ever takes place.
Worse, the discussion becomes so overwhelmed by repetition, diatribes and irrelevant nonsense, that I wonder whether it results in an iron-clad guarantee that those who visit in 2 years time will never both to read these threads either.
I remember another discussion that took place on religion, and yes, it challenged the very foundations of Buddhism, and a guerilla trotted in quantum physics, Einstein and even “decadent western conspiracies” to effectively bury the discussion in irrelevant nonsense, when all that was requested was a simple cogent argument as evidence. (One that was never supplied, nor can be supplied, as it would then be established scientific fact, not wishful, (well-intentioned) belief)
Such tactics too need to be countered – argumentum ad nauseum and the Chewbacca defence, although it’s not entirely clear to me how.
In any case, I think we are largely in agreement on the core issues at stake.
I think it’s time the Tamil people set aside their victim-hood mentality if they are to progress.
Too right the Vasala! Victimhood is the privilege of the Sinhalese who are free to be feeling victmised by the Western imperialists whenever their leaders are saying so.
Not if that is beneficial. If a respectable person who is a beggar collects more money when he has a wound, will he EVER cure it?
Sadly, he may die from it. Some living beings may abuse him over it knowing his weakness. The easily crying/victimised person often ends up becoming the “bite” (object of abuse).
“those idiotic students of Jaffna University wanting to go on a minibus day trip to the funeral of VP’s mother”
What’s wrong in paying last respect to a deceased Tamil woman? From the news paper reports, scores of Sinhala tourists visited her when she was admitted in Urani Hospital.
If you want to practice this kind of selective freedom, you don’t have any moral right to stop the the likes of trans-national government.
Acharya, thanks for a nice article.
But
a) i would not attempt in any way to reduce/dilute strident criticism of LTTE – perspective/proportionality is in a sense in the eye of the beholder. IMHO the leadership and its diaspora supporters deserve this and more.
b) Politics of dissent is not mutually exclusive to pragmatic politics and is wrong to identify it as a binary variable.
With the above caveats I am with you to see a hundred thousand march peacefully in Jaffna/Batti/Amparai/Trinco/Nuwera Eliya and Colombo to claim their rights!
@travelling academic – I agree, but would like to see LCD plus some collective/group rights and grievances even if it is tactically a bit costly.
The SLDF has no value without the LTTE but you might find them selling tomatoes along the A9. They are trying to jump on the GOSL bandwagon in saying the diaspora is the new LTTE but don’t expect much from this.
The UTHR has disappeared altogether which makes me questions a lot of what they said about the LTTE during the armed conflict.
May they live forever.
I find it amusing that even 2 yrs after which SL claimed total annihilation of LTTE, the mainstream political discourse and SL media (including some Tamil sections) are still beating this dead horse. Perhaps it is visible now where the root of the problems are.
A good presentation except the harping of Tamil this and that. We should start thinking like Sri Lankans. Tamil, Sinhala, etc. matters only when in comes to cultural and language issues. Tamil, Sinhala should be kept out of governance issues. The moment these are mixed with governance, homelands, etc., things collapse. This does not preclude people democratically voting for a language policy of their choice.
Everyone has problems. Everybody’s problems (100%) should be resolved first before even thinking of resolving “Tamil” problems (18%).
One of the biggest problems with no attention is the problem of landlessness. Millions live without land in the south whereas land is aplenty in the north. People of all ethnicities should be given land where it is available so that they can overcome poverty. This can reduce the cost of living problem too. Once these are resolved people will look for better governance issues, not before. Self before country is what most people understand. Among others most people put country before race. So that leaves only a few Sri Lankans to genuinely fight for racial demands.
Collectively agitating for government change is a good starting point over problems faced by all. But the real problems start not in changing the government but in forming one and making sure it delivers! If it doesn’t deliver to the satisfaction of the political majority, it goes home. It doesn’t matter what the political minority thinks in an election outcome if the political majority is large enough.
e.g. 2001-2004
There is another danger. Government may actually address problems faced by all (not specific “Tamil problems”). Then you have a satisfied electorate that doesn’t mind neglecting “Tamil problems” as their problems have been resolved and they want no shake ups.
So it all boils down to the intention or the desired end.
Anti-this and pro-that are not the only options. There are many more.
Dear TT;
I like your way of writing. You rely on your own understanding and arguments to justify what you say, without any fear of what is said by that big man, what is said by that big man or what is mentioned in that big book. A man is confident when he really knows, rather than knows to quote a man or a book or a theory to support what he says.
Highly appreciate your confidence on your understanding.
Thanks!
Here’s Stephen Colbert giving a speech about another such man who doesn’t worry about what books say, or what informed people think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s
“I personally like reco-lonisation of the NE by people of all ethnicities as a solution than recon-ciliation. That too will bust reconciliation for SOME but will bring tangible peace beneficial to all.”
Much as you like colonisation of the NE and the disempowerment of Tamils, you were unable to state how colonisation benefited SL in the past, or how it would do so in the present and future when questioned here: http://groundviews.org/2011/02/02/imaging-the-aftermath/#comments
Why not?
“A good presentation except the harping of Tamil this and that. We should start thinking like Sri Lankans. Tamil, Sinhala, etc. matters only when in comes to cultural and language issues. Tamil, Sinhala should be kept out of governance issues.”
Then why was Sinhalese selected as the official language in 1956, and why do you want to repeal the 13th Amendment and return to Sinhala Only? If we should think of ourselves as Sri Lankan and not along communal or religious lines, why is Buddhism placed in the foremost place in the constitution? Why is it that, when I asked you here http://groundviews.org/2011/02/02/imaging-the-aftermath/#comments if you would be willing to have another religion placed in the foremost place instead of Buddhism, you were unwilling to answer?
“This does not preclude people democratically voting for a language policy of their choice.”
Why doesn’t it preclude it, since you say that ethnicity should be kept out of governance?
“Everyone has problems. Everybody’s problems (100%) should be resolved first before even thinking of resolving “Tamil” problems (18%).”
What are these “everybody’s problems” you speak of? This was asked of you here http://groundviews.org/2011/02/02/imaging-the-aftermath/#comments but you refused to answer. Also, why is it that since it is only the Tamils who are raising the language issue, you prefer to ignore that and call for a look into “everybody’s problems”? And why is it that though the 13th takes care of “everybody’s” language problems, you still want it repealed in a return to Sinhala Only that will not solve anyone’s problems?
“One of the biggest problems with no attention is the problem of landlessness. Millions live without land in the south whereas land is aplenty in the north.”
There is no shortage of land in the south. The shortage is only around urban centers. If families are willing to live in the dry zone, there’s plenty of space, and it is unnecessary to transplant them onto state land in the NE where property is gifted to them.
“Among others most people put country before race. So that leaves only a few Sri Lankans to genuinely fight for racial demands.”
Very good, so let’s fully implement the 13th so that language will no longer be an issue and we can all move on.
“Collectively agitating for government change is a good starting point over problems faced by all. But the real problems start not in changing the government but in forming one and making sure it delivers! If it doesn’t deliver to the satisfaction of the political majority, it goes home. It doesn’t matter what the political minority thinks in an election outcome if the political majority is large enough.”
But the problem isn’t between a political majority and minority, but between an ethnic majority and minority. Language rights and individual rights are not political issues but rights. Therefore, when an ethnic majority votes for an oppressive law such as slavery, the Jim Crow Laws, the Nuremberg Laws, or Sinhala Only, it cannot be said to be a political majority. I wonder how long it will take you to understand this.
“There is another danger. Government may actually address problems faced by all (not specific “Tamil problems”). Then you have a satisfied electorate that doesn’t mind neglecting “Tamil problems” as their problems have been resolved and they want no shake ups.”,/em>
In other words, you have an ethnic majority that is not worried about minority problems because their own problems have been taken care of at the expense of the minority; just like in 1956. So when you say that a “Government may actually address problems faced by all”, you really mean a government that addresses problems faced by the majority. Yes, we know that, TT. Your bigoted arguments are so transparent even a child could take them apart
It was this sort of governance that led to war.
“So it all boils down to the intention or the desired end.”
So the end justifies the means?
As SD has asked you, why are you shamelessly ignoring the questions put to you that basically destroy your arguments in previous threads? Is it because you know you have no argument?
Dear DB;
My criticism is not towards informed people or good books, but about the people who quote books and men to cover up their bankruptcy of ideas and arguments, but want to show that they are important.
When somebody quotes from “an authority”, it usually creates an obstruction arguing against the focal point, because the attention is distracted to explore the alien element introduced. I have seen this has been used as a strategy to weaken the other party in debates and discussions. Some people use mighty words where simple words are possible. Some mighty concepts are used to scare the opponents. Most of the time they are used as just inflaters to show off their egos, rather than as positive contributers to discussions. They make elite forums this way and play at hearts content in their imaginary worlds. Average people tends to think that they cannot talk with these “mighty charactors” and keeps away from participation. This has happened in the past. People din’t understand the vocabulary of lawyers, vocabulary of doctors, vocabulary of politicians,they were like coming from heavens for the common man. They alienated themselves from the common people uttering uncommon words.
Really we should not utter alien words found in the books in common forums, rather should try to understand them and tell the people in an understandable language. Learned people should not alienate from the common people, by showing them they are different.
Your plain and sharp language filled with appropriate knowledge is a good example. Even the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Physics and AbhiDhamma can be discussed in plain language.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
I’m just trying to point out the reality. Sadly some don’t like to admit it.
But the beauty is it does not matter! SL moves forward regardless; one way other the other.
There is little regard for CONTINUING sob stories in the human society. Funny enough what is good for most, always create a new reason to sob for this group. My worry is these sobbing ladies and gentlemen are easily manipulted by interested parties by promising the unachievable. That prolongs sobbing though there may be a temporary respite.
e.g. There was a crybaby in school – year 1. Other kids exploited his weakness. It was very difficult to stop it because this crybaby refused to accept reality and move forward. He would find everything as things against him. When other kids plead to extend playtime outdoors, he cries. He refuses to wear sport shoes and cries. When we are overjoyed after anticipation the drama time, he starts to cry. He would get extremely angry at times which led to further problems. But in year 7 he found new friends and came to accept the reality – sobbing/demanding/living in a corner gives nothing. He ended up playing rugby. Today he faces problems and CHANGES accordingly. Even in the society the majority rules. When the majority wears shoes for an event, you don’t go there wearing a pair of slippers.
Dear TT;
In that case stories are not only meant for children,eh? I also have posted a story, I think others too will benefit.
Thanks!
“My criticism is not towards informed people or good books, but about the people who quote books and men to cover up their bankruptcy of ideas and arguments, but want to show that they are important.”
Perhaps then, you should indicate where bankruptcy has been covered by reference to books. In the discussion with TT, none of the ideas are novel or unique; on one side you have age-old racist rhetoric, and on the other, the established tenets of democracy. Reference to books or articles are only to confirm facts, which is useful in a debate with an individual largely ignorant or capable of ignoring these facts.
“Really we should not utter alien words found in the books in common forums, rather should try to understand them and tell the people in an understandable language.”
Usually these words are alien only to the illiterate. With the availability of online dictionaries, this is no longer a problem.
“Your plain and sharp language filled with appropriate knowledge is a good example. Even the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Physics and AbhiDhamma can be discussed in plain language.”
As I said, I have tried to do so, but when faced with outright denials or distortion of history, it is necessary to refer to an accepted source.
TT,
RE: “Everyone has problems. Everybody’s problems (100%) should be resolved first before even thinking of resolving “Tamil” problems (18%).”
You mean like how the Sinhalese looked after everybody’s problems (100%) by enacting Sinhala Only, standardization schemes, Buddhism to foremost place etc? Unless you believe in racial inequality, it’s difficult to get away with a statement like that, isn’t it? Of course, laughably enough, you never hesitate to pay lip service to this so called equality!
Anyway! Didn’t David demolish these arguments already? Shouldn’t you be having the decency and the sense of honour to refute them first? Oh wait, I guess you are “relying on your own understanding (which is not much) and arguments (which are almost schizophrenic in their inconsistency) to justify what you say”. Instead, you bang on shamelessly to the same beat. Hmm, ok, carry on oh valiant agent of 21st century racism!
What some people do is to cram some theory or some quote of a big man from some big book without understanding and trying to force the ground realities to fit into them. This like cutting the legs of a man to suit the size of the bed. This “pothe guru vadaya” (book worm theory)has become a menace. They are agents of some alien world who has no sense of the ground realities.
Thanks!
Totally agree, Yapa. It’s much better to just play gudu in school and then get on the internet and talk from your own widespread and indepth experiences.
The Sinhalese language and the Buddhist religion has and will continue to have a special position in Sri Lanka. I feel that the minorities (namely the Tamils who seem to have a huge problem with it) ought to get used to this idea, because as I see it, the majority will not compromise on this. I don’t see it as a negotiable issue, but that is my personal opinion.
Dear Vasala,
RE: “I feel that the minorities (namely the Tamils who seem to have a huge problem with it) ought to get used to this idea, because as I see it, the majority will not compromise on this. I don’t see it as a negotiable issue, but that is my personal opinion.”
Vasala, there are many things that are difficult to change, but are unethical at the same time. As examples, one could cite slavery, open racism, the dark ages etc., all of which took centuries to overturn in other parts of the world. Many countries are still struggling with majoritarian politics, racism and exclusivism, but most highly developed countries are gradually inching away from them, and taking steps to recognize the dignity of all its citizens. (These things are understandably difficult and time-consuming, given that centuries of primitive, tribal, evolutionary programming has to be suppressed, which is why success is necessarily a matter of degree. Therefore, the hidden racism in developed countries is superior to the open racism in less developed countries)
The questions I pose to you is, do you think the current state of affairs is just and fair by our fellow citizens? (whether we can change the situation or not is another matter altogether, the question is, is it ethical?)
Once we have an honest answer to that question, then we can see that, even if we can’t change certain things about the situation, given the present state of social consciousness, we can still take appropriate steps to make things better for others (i.e. Implement language policies properly, create a multi-ethnic, non-exclusive identity etc.)
What is your position on this?
“The Sinhalese language and the Buddhist religion has and will continue to have a special position in Sri Lanka. I feel that the minorities (namely the Tamils who seem to have a huge problem with it) ought to get used to this idea, because as I see it, the majority will not compromise on this. I don’t see it as a negotiable issue, but that is my personal opinion.”
I think you said it correctly and well. I don’t think French Language in France or English Language in England will ever loose their special treatments.
Some people who have misunderstood the western concept of “equality” in Political science, think that anything should be assigned equal weights, disregarding all the differences they possess. Religion is one of the main focuses of such people. They oppose any religion to have special treatments. How come it is possible for anybody to come to that conclusion?
Equal things deserve equal treatments, but how could one say unequal things too deserve equal treatments, even in principle? Can any body conveniently come to the conclusion that things are equal, without understanding and comparing their multi-faceted attributes. Things have different inherited values, different positional values, different market values,….., otherwise all the mangoes available in the market should have the same price. All the fish varieties should have a single price. The price of a diamond cannot be different than a piece of coal, as both are made of carbon molecules.
How come one can say all the religions should be equally treated when they are not same of the variety, as in the case of mangoes or fish given in the above example? There are/were thousands of religions spread all over the world including simple faiths confined only to a limited number of tribal people. Some have nothing more than a set of simple rituals and some have philosophies which marvels even the modern day people.How could anybody reasonably say that such tribal religions and religions with remarkable philosophical value should have equal treatments? Isn’t it proper to treat them differently, if such differences prevail? Can anybody even say that major religions of today deserve equal treatment even on the basis of the service they bestowed to the world? Some have done massive harm to the world even in the line of intellectual discourse, keep aside what they have done in the line of devastating human lives. Are the non violent religions and violent religions same?
Buddhism is embedded with special qualities and a positional value to have special treatments in Sri Lanka. You don’t have to be afraid of the “single parameter thinkers”,and their big books that draw special treatments because they have a special positional value due to their foreign origin.
Thanks!
SD,
“You mean like how the Sinhalese looked after everybody’s problems (100%) by enacting Sinhala Only, standardization schemes, Buddhism to foremost place etc? Unless you believe in racial inequality, it’s difficult to get away with a statement like that, isn’t it? Of course, laughably enough, you never hesitate to pay lip service to this so called equality!”
It is not Sinhalese only. People of all ethnicities voted for it at elections and in parliament. Some countries have English only as its official language so there is absolutely nothing wrong in SL having Sinhala only. But SL has gone a step further by making Tamil an official language! Buddhism gets a foremost place but that doesn;t put down other religions. AT least holidays of religions of the minority are recognised in SL unlike MOST democratic countries. SL need not be a IDEAL nation. Just be like any other nation like USA, UK, Australia in terms of language and religion. That is sufficient. Standardisation is a good thing because it ensures taxpayers in every district gets their due share. However, it must be regulated to ensure Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, etc. get an equal percentage of university opportunities in govt universities as their ethnic percentage. A VERY FAIR system.
Racial inequality or equality? I have never come acorss such BS in the constitutions of democratic countries. All individuals have equal individual rights plus minorities have cultural rights recognised by UN declarations. Nothing more. The Tamil community (18%) cannot have equal representation as the Sinhalese (74%) community. That is undemocratic.
“Anyway! Didn’t David demolish these arguments already? Shouldn’t you be having the decency and the sense of honour to refute them first? Oh wait, I guess you are “relying on your own understanding (which is not much) and arguments (which are almost schizophrenic in their inconsistency) to justify what you say”. Instead, you bang on shamelessly to the same beat. Hmm, ok, carry on oh valiant agent of 21st century racism!”
Hilarious. The opposiite is true! I demolished each and every DB’s arguments. Racism? The ONLY racist politics in the 21st century are found in northern SL and Tamil Nadu. These include but not limited to TAMIL alliance/congress/kachchi/front, DRAVIDA kazagham/munetra/anna, etc. Everywhere else people are moving into multiethnic politics. No wonder these sob stories never end!
We cannot do anything about TN’s race politicvs but we can fix SL’s race politics by adequately changing the ethnic composition (mono ethnic now) of the north. That is the 21st century! A melting pot in every district with multiethnic neighbours everywhere.
My dear Yapa,
I am so happy to be seeing that you have started this campaign against the books. This is what we in the government are also trying to be doing. What is the use of all these books we are having? They are only taking the space in the library and cramming the minds of the people with silly things. Better to be using the libraries to be building accomodation for the millions of tourists who are going to be coming to Sri Lanka very soon to be looking a the wonder of the Asian side.
In my opinion there is only one book that we are all needing to be reading. It is very small book, called Mahinda Chintana. Everything everybody wanting to be knowing is there. Not many pages and not much writing also. In fact and truthfully speaking no writing at all, only pictures and that also only one picture – of Our Majesty. What else is anybody wanting to be knwoing these days?
If people are still wantig to be surfing the Internet we are pleased to be announcing the launching of a new website very very soon. This is the Mahinda chintana free encyclopedia called the Mihi-pedia. Everything you are wanting to be knowing about the Royal Family is there and to be very very frank I am not thinking anybody is wanting to be knowing anything more than that nowadays. The Mihi-pedia is likely to be bigger and better than the other encyclopedia we are having – the Mahavansa or the Maha-pedia as we are calling it.
I don’t understand why nobody is objecting to Vatican State for giving a special position to Christianity?
Thanks!
“Vasala, there are many things that are difficult to change, but are unethical at the same time. As examples, one could cite slavery, open racism, the dark ages etc., all of which took centuries to overturn in other parts of the world. Many countries are still struggling with majoritarian politics, racism and exclusivism, but most highly developed countries are gradually inching away from them, and taking steps to recognize the dignity of all its citizens. (These things are understandably difficult and time-consuming, given that centuries of primitive, tribal, evolutionary programming has to be suppressed, which is why success is necessarily a matter of degree. Therefore, the hidden racism in developed countries is superior to the open racism in less developed countries)”
SD, I don’t see why it is “unethical” for the Sinhalese language or the Buddhist religion to have a special place in Sri Lanka. Both have had a seminal place in the formation of the country’s identity and ethos and are what the majority of Sri Lankan citizens subscribe to, if can phrase it that way. It is no different than the position of the English language and Protestant Christianity in, say, Britain except that the Sinhalese language and the Buddhist religion have a far, far older presence in the island of Lanka, than has English or Christianity in the British isles. You admit there is inequality and discrimination in developed countries – so why expect all of that to disappear overnight in developing Sri Lanka? To be honest, I don’t think it is a very realistic expectation.
“The questions I pose to you is, do you think the current state of affairs is just and fair by our fellow citizens? (whether we can change the situation or not is another matter altogether, the question is, is it ethical?)”
What exactly do you mean by “the current state of affairs”? I ask because I am not sure what you mean.
“Once we have an honest answer to that question, then we can see that, even if we can’t change certain things about the situation, given the present state of social consciousness, we can still take appropriate steps to make things better for others (i.e. Implement language policies properly, create a multi-ethnic, non-exclusive identity etc.)”
I am all for implementing language policies properly, and I think Sri Lanka already celebrates its multi-ethnic and multi-religious composition in a way that most western countries which pride themselves on being “multicultural” and “secular” do not. For example, not one western country officially celebrates non-Christian holy days. So Christians are placed in a special position over all other religious practitioners in these countries. France has an 8% Muslim minority (similar to Sri Lanka) but absolutely no official holidays for its Muslim minority,. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_France for the publich holidays in “secular” France that are dedicated to Christians. France has also banned the hijab while in Sri Lanka the government provides free cloth (ie subsidizes) for Muslim girls to wear the hijab to school!
Sri Lanka’s record here is far superior.
Dear The Mervin Silva;
Thank you for your response for my post about books and book worms. In Sinhala, book is known as “potha”. Some people like books because they can use it for “potha daema”.Some people try to be six footers standing on a four foot high bundles of books.They are just two footer dwarfs without those books.
However, some say because of these book worms, books have gone to dogs, and dogs are always used to say “book! Book!!”, that is the main reason why I don’t like books. They say the same “book! book!!” to each and every thing they come across on their way.
However, honourable minister, there is an interesting folk tale about a right honourable book lover in the past, I think he must be the great grand father of our book worms today. His name is “Mahadaenamuththa” (knoweledeable great grand father/an authority of knowledge, if directly translated to English),I think you too must be familiar of the man, I am not sure whether he is from your ares as that famous court jester “Andare”. (I think Andare must be a relative of yours, and you must be inheriting his job in the king’s court?)
So, this Mahadaenamuththa used to have five disciples/pupils.Where ever, he goes disciples are to follow. One day this knowledgeble man,Mahadaenamuththa, who had a honorary degree in western management decided to streamline the work of his disciples, like a present day “Boss” of a government office,and prepared a “Written Job Description” for them to perform their duties perfectly.Every thing they are supposed to do were included in a big book, and the big book was supposed to carry where ever they go.
One day Mahadaenamuththa and the five disciples had to walk for some important duty as those days they didn’t have limousines to hire. On their way across the paddy field there was a puddle,similar to one you find in the middle of our high roads. Unfortunately, just like todays knowledgeable men, our Mahadaenamuththa fell accidently into the puddle. Just like todays Mahadaenamuththas,he also was too fat due to the ignorance of food habits and could not get up, however, his disciples were just looking at him doing nothing, to astonishment of the great knowledgeable man. He ordered them to lift him, but they refused saying that it was not in their job description, after going through the big book. So,the authority of knowledge took the book from the hands of the disciples and wrote, ” If I fall, lift me”.
Several days after that they went another walk. On the way the coins the great man had in his “madissale”(Great wallet) fell onto the ground, however, just looking at them the pupils followed the great master. The great master was very tired after walking some distance and took out his madissale to chew some betel, only to find he had lost his treasure. The disciples told him that they didn’t pick them as their job description mentioned only to lift the Master if he falls. Then the master got the book and made the second amendment. “If anything is fallen, pick them and put them into my Madissale”.
Following day they came home after accomplishing their mission, and the master wanted to chew some betel leisurely. To his astonishment he found the madissale was full of various leaves found in the jungle. Disciples were summoned and asked for show cause. Ultimately it was disclosed that they have acted right according to the job description stipulated in that big book. They had picked every leaf fallen from the trees and had filled the madissale.
Potheguras in the past were no different from their counterparts today.
Thanks, my dear minister!
When the Eelamists fabricated false theories and spread false propaganda to destroy this country, our present day disciples only looked up in that big book supplied to them by their mighty masters to see an answer. That is why they couldn’t refute those mythical theories and propaganda, the answers were not written in the book.
Thanks!
“The Sinhalese language and the Buddhist religion has and will continue to have a special position in Sri Lanka.”
This special position will not be a contentious issue as long as it is not used to impinge on the rights of others.
“I feel that the minorities (namely the Tamils who seem to have a huge problem with it) ought to get used to this idea, because as I see it, the majority will not compromise on this. I don’t see it as a negotiable issue, but that is my personal opinion.”
But the majority have already made a compromise when they passed the 13th Amendment. The Sinhalese need to accept that equality isn’t a threat and implement the law. It took the white man a while to understand that the black man wasn’t a threat; hopefully the Sinhalese are smarter and won’t take as long.
“I don’t understand why nobody is objecting to Vatican State for giving a special position to Christianity?”
Really, Yapa? You actually have difficulty with this weighty and complex issue? Could you perhaps tell me how many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, etc are living in the Vatican?
“Thank you for your response for my post about books and book worms. In Sinhala, book is known as “potha”. Some people like books because they can use it for “potha daema”.Some people try to be six footers standing on a four foot high bundles of books.They are just two footer dwarfs without those books.”
Very true, Yapa. Perhaps you should sue your relative who is selling lots of books all over Colombo. In the meantime, let me tell you about one of these dwarfs I met a few years ago. This dwarf was a government minister and was giving away prizes at the State Literary awards, and as soon as he started to talk, all the real six-footers there saw what a two-footer our “Maubimay Pomenarian” was. You see, he too thought reading books was for book worms, and thought better to just use his gudu experience and so when he started to talk about books, specifically about one called The Old Man and the Sea, this weeraya claimed that it was written by Guy de Maupassant. I guess Maupassant sounded like maubima, so it was easier to remember.
“That is why they couldn’t refute those mythical theories and propaganda, the answers were not written in the book.”
Is that the Mahavamsa book?
The Yapa,
Thank you for writing long story but I am unable to be reaing because I am following your guidance on reading what other peoples are writing.
Dear Heshan;
“If political solutions were merely implemented on the basis of what a given group of individuals “feels”, the implications for society would not be good. Consensus is important, but at the end of the day, its best to go with what has proven to be correct, and leave the R & D to political think-tanks.”
Heshan, can you show me an example for an occasion, from anywhere of the world politics,where political solutions are/were based on consensus. Even democracy is based on the consent of the majority.You are citing the ideal (what the book says) but not the real one.
Who are these political think – tanks you are referring to? They are not think -tanks, if they are not baptized by the west. You need a think tank certificate for that. That is how things are arranged.
Thanks!
The Mervyn Silva;
Did I prohibit reading my books and the king’s books? If you read that Chinthanya book, it is unfair not to read “my not prohibited book”, as per my book. Please read my book after you finish the kings book, please.
Thanks!
Dear DB;
“Very true, Yapa. Perhaps you should sue your relative who is selling lots of books all over Colombo. In the meantime, let me tell you about one of these dwarfs I met a few years ago. This dwarf was a government minister and was giving away prizes at the State Literary awards, and as soon as he started to talk, all the real six-footers there saw what a two-footer our “Maubimay Pomenarian” was. You see, he too thought reading books was for book worms, and thought better to just use his gudu experience and so when he started to talk about books, specifically about one called The Old Man and the Sea, this weeraya claimed that it was written by Guy de Maupassant. I guess Maupassant sounded like maubima, so it was easier to remember.”
You must respect his opinion dear DB, as per the golden rule ” You are entitled to your opinion”, as some elites are used to say in style. It could be Weerawansa’s opinion that Old Man and the Sea was written by Guy de Maupassant.
You must learn to respect others’opinions though you don’t believe in them. On the other hand don’t you think that it is the right of an individual for freedom of expression to express whatever he wishes. What right do you have to interfere into others’ individual freedom?
It seems to me that you are going against profound political principles written by political think – tanks in mighty Political Science books!
Thanks!
Dear DB;
“Really, Yapa? You actually have difficulty with this weighty and complex issue? Could you perhaps tell me how many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, etc are living in the Vatican?”
No DB, I was responding to solicitors who want to make this multi religious country a secular state by stripping off Buddhism from the state patronage. I was asking ,why the same way they don’t want to make that multi religious Vatican a secular state as well by stripping off the state patronage to Christianity.
Do you feel my argument as an invalid one?
Thanks!
Dear Yapa, I have not disrespected the Pomenarian’s opinion in any way whatsoever; I merely pointed it out to you. You have correctly deduced the quality of said opinion, particularly in the context of your warning that books give one stature one would not otherwise possess. The Pomenarian’s opinion and his stature were more or less similar in height.
As for your intense struggle with the issue of the Vatican’s multi-religious nature, is this too an opinion?
The tone of the appeal resembles the LTTE’s persistent refusal to examine any form of political solution to the ethnic conflict other than a separate state or its suicidal call demanding that the Tamils boycott the presidential elections in 2005.
Well, the LTTE is gone now, and the so-called “political solution” becomes a distant daydream with each passing day. The reality is that the North and East consist of prime real estate, to be auctioned off one piece at a time to carefully chosen bidders, with the resulting commissions lining the bulging pockets of the Temple Trees crowd and their cronies. That is the only reason why HSZ’s have yet to be dismantled, and why 40,000 soldiers are still stationed in Jaffna. There is indeed a chauvinist/nationalist element to this, but the latter exists merely as a diversion to placate the Southern masses, that need continued reassurance that their perennial fear of Tamil separatism is indeed justified. I don’t know about the Tamils, but the Rajapakse’s are well-equipped to take advantage of the economic “opportunities” brought by the prospect of “development.” Any political solution which truly empowered the Tamils would, of course, negate all this – which is exactly why such a political solution does not exist, and, given wealthy China’s new found affection for prime real estate in SL – is unlikely to materialize for quite a while.
You cannot deny that the LTTE saw all this coming. The irony is that Prabhakaran was correct never to trust the Sinhalese South. You may have a few genuine peaceniks like Ranil here and there, but the reality is that they will always get drowned out by the nationalists. Suffice it to say, that even if Neelan’s constitutional proposals had reached the target audience, and been implemented, it is not unlikely that such proposals be undone at a later date, given the correct nationalist mood of the Southern polity.
Few of us would agree with the methods employed by the LTTE, yet their underlying political dogma cannot be dismissed nearly as easily. In this regard, the LTTE is being vindicated as time goes on. So the notion of using the LTTE as a benchmark for everything barbaric (refer to initial quote in this commentary) is somewhat of a distortion.
Before moving Tamil Dissent Politics beyond anti-LTTEism, why not help Tamil politics move to anti-LTTEism as first base; get Tamil dissent politics to become the or a major element of mainstream Tamil politics? That is probably the only way to effect N-S reconciliation.
Another thing: there’s one heck of a difference between a national, internally generated call for a boycott and an externally generated and propelled one.
That should be obvious to any thinking person: the difference between what is happening in the Arab world today, and the invasion of Iraq!
Why Tamil politics?
It should be politics of everyone irrespective of race/ethnicity/language.
Tamil people’s politics should be SL national politics for it to go anywhere. Its time to shed the “T”, “M” and “S” from political aprty names and be multiethnic.
“Why Tamil politics? It should be politics of everyone irrespective of race/ethnicity/language.”
Really, TT? I was unaware that any other politics except Tamil politics needed to be moved away from being pro-LTTE
“Tamil people’s politics should be SL national politics for it to go anywhere. Its time to shed the “T”, “M” and “S” from political aprty names and be multiethnic.”
That’ll happen as soon as the so called multi-ethnic (aka Sinhalese-majority) politics cease to benefit only the majority.
DB,
“Tamil people’s politics should be SL national politics for it to go anywhere. Its time to shed the “T”, “M” and “S” from political aprty names and be multiethnic.”
That’ll happen as soon as the so called multi-ethnic (aka Sinhalese-majority) politics cease to benefit only the majority.”
No DB. It started before Independence and has continued from there. It will continue until the north becomes multi ethnic. Take a look at the 1947 election result. A race centred party by the name all ceylon TAMIL congress won almost all the seats in Jaffna district.
We need someone like the FATHER OF THE NATION – DSS again.
TT,
RE: “No DB. It started before Independence and has continued from there. It will continue until the north becomes multi ethnic.?”
TT, Do you or do you not understand, that while Tamils too need to do their part (as you so strenuously insist), so do the Sinhalese?
Do you or do you not understand that Sinhalese politics in the past have been detrimental to minorities, and that too needs to be fixed?
Which of it do you not understand or disagree with?
Or are you saying that none of the politics of the Sinhalese so far need correction, and that it is only Tamils who need correction?
Can you think of anything beyond a binary answer?
Robert Blake makes statements near the election calculated to benefit the ruling party!
This type of stupid statements further strengthen the anti-western vote base and why not it may even push the pro-eastern agenda.
The Sinhalese language and the Buddhist religion has and will continue to have a special position in Sri Lanka.
As will the Rajapakse dynasty, despite their proven ability to trample the Constitution, and all manner of other nefarious activities. For the sole reason that he (Mahinda) fulfilled a 2500 yr old myth.
I feel that the minorities (namely the Tamils who seem to have a huge problem with it) ought to get used to this idea, because as I see it, the majority will not compromise on this. I don’t see it as a negotiable issue, but that is my personal opinion.
The real question is how the Sinhalese language and Buddhist religion can improve the welfare of society. Can the Sinhalese language give children an edge in science and technology and can it give promising young Sri Lankan entrepreneurs an edge in the global marketplace? I will let you answer that. As for the Buddhist religion, the involvement of the Sangha in politics speaks volumes in and of itself.
To put it simply, Heshan, the minorities (read Tamils) will have to get used to the POLITICAL REALITY of the Sinhalese language and the Buddhist religion having primacy of place in Sri Lanka. Whether this has “benefits” to society at large is besides the point. The majority of Sri Lankan citizens are Sinhalese, and speak Sinhalese and practice the Buddhist religion (nominally or otherwise). There is no escaping that fact.
On a side not, as citizens of Sri Lanka, the “Sangha” have all the democratic rights to be involved in politics if they so wish – another political reality that no amount of tongue clicking is going to change. They have the right – just like other Sri Lankan citizens – to stand for election and vote as they see fit. They also have the right to act as a pressure group and use what influence they have to mobilize the population for any cause not deemed illegal by the constitution of Sri Lanka.
“The majority of Sri Lankan citizens are Sinhalese, and speak Sinhalese and practice the Buddhist religion (nominally or otherwise).”
As has been explained ad nauseam to TT, having more people in your camp does not give you any special legal standing or any special rights that can be put before the rights of those who are lesser in number. In Australia, for instance, English is overwhelmingly the most widely spoken language, and the country has no national minorities except the Aborigines; and yet, English is not enshrined in the Australian constitution as the official language. In the UK too, English is the most widely spoken language, even in Scotland and Wales, but yet, the UK officially recognises no less than nine languages by law.
No one is denying the Sinhalese their right to speak Sinhalese, use it in officialdom, or practice Buddhism, nor should anyone; but what we are questioning is the Sinhalese right to say that only Sinhalese shall be the official language and only Buddhism shall receive official support, thereby denying the Tamils and other minorities the very same rights accorded the Sinhalese. In my view, the Buddhism issue is minor, as religion isn’t really being enforced. However Sinhalese has in fact been enforced and used to disempower and disenfranchise the minorities. No one has that right based on the fact that they outnumber everyone else. This is a long-recognised pillar of democracy, most evidential in the US Civil Rights movement, where it was shown that the white majority had no special right to pass laws that were detrimental to blacks simply because they outnumbered them and were thus able to outvote them.
If your logic, Vasala, is that the language of the majority must be the language of all, that logic must also apply in the NE where Tamil is the language of the majority. Under this logic it is perfectly feasible to allow local government to decide the language of officialdom in the smallest unit of devolved government, be it the province or district.
Frankly, I’m amazed that in the 21st century, I am forced to argue on behalf of the very basics of universal franchise and rights that have been in place for over half a century, and that people actually exist in my country who seem to think that it is possible to raise a practicable opposition to it!
I completely agree with Yapa. “TT” always hits the nail on the head. His arguments are forceful. But what I like most about him is his ability to ignore personal attacks and laugh it off. He retains it when others lose it. That is clear proof of his superior knowledge of the subject than others who often fall to personal attacks. Well done brother. You filled a void.
Thank you Groundviews team and all the best.
Fahim
After reading all above, I feel that all have missed the basic measures to bring normality to sri lanka.
The enforcement of the Rule of Law and Human rights in our nation, will solve the majority of problems between the races and in civil society.
But, this I fear, will not happen in the foreseeable future, because, if this happens, those in power, and their sycophants, will lose all their illgotten wealth, perks and exalted way of life. They have a tight grip on the means and mechanisms to enable them to carry on as of now. The 18th amendment has entrenched their grip.
The Mervyn brings up a very good:
I am so happy to be seeing that you have started this campaign against the books. This is what we in the government are also trying to be doing. What is the use of all these books we are having? They are only taking the space in the library and cramming the minds of the people with silly things. Better to be using the libraries to be building accomodation for the millions of tourists who are going to be coming to Sri Lanka very soon to be looking a the wonder of the Asian side.
How much has the present regime invested in education? Has a single new library been built? Have the existing libraries been improved? The present regime is hell-bent on “defense”. But who exactly is it defending against? The Tamil diaspora that protests in London and Toronto? The “terrorists” were buried once and for all at Nanthikadal Lagoon, but this regime is exploiting that memory for its own gains. This regime is unwilling to release the Tamils from the iron grasp of the military, because to do so would upset the nationalists . It would expose the hypocrisy and bankruptcy of the present regime, that is still using a war victory to justify its indefinite existence. The truth is that not just Prabhakaran and the LTTE were the enemy, but all Tamils were (and still are). That is the exact indication which one gets, if he observes the priorities of the present regime.
Prof Heshan
“Has a single new library been built?”
http://www.infolanka.com/news/IL/1442.htm
http://www.development.lk/news.php?news=394
Next time Heshan, kindly google before opening your mouth. Thank you!
Vasala Rajasuriya:
Whether this has “benefits” to society at large is besides the point.
So you are implying the sentimental value exceeds the practical value? I am not sure that that is good formula. If political solutions were merely implemented on the basis of what a given group of individuals “feels”, the implications for society would not be good. Consensus is important, but at the end of the day, its best to go with what has proven to be correct, and leave the R & D to political think-tanks. Running a country is not entirely different from running a business – without proper analysis of the risk factors, the business (insert country) will fall.
Dear Yapa:
Buddhism is embedded with special qualities and a positional value to have special treatments in Sri Lanka.
Buddhism could not prevent 100K people from dying in 30 years of needless war, all of which could have been avoided with a simple political solution. Philosophies have a certain sentimental value, but they should not be interpreted at the expense of human life. You may read the book “Mathematician’s Apology” where Hardy is proud that mathematics never resulted in the loss of a single life. But Hardy lived before computers. If he could have seen the impact that his beautiful number theory has made on cryptography, which is now an essential component of ballistic missiles, among other things, he might realize that humans are capable of corrupting even the most pure of ideas.
Prof Heshan
“Buddhism could not prevent 100K people from dying in 30 years of needless war,”
Once again your wisdom shines through. As Mango pointed out in the other thread, the British managed to kill 3 million Bengalis through famine within only six years. This is concrete proof of the superiority of Anglicanism over Buddhism. Let us challenge yapa, Vasala, or these others whether Buddhists can ever hope to kill more people than those having a proper Anglican upbringing.
Heshan,
There was need to. It was a very good thing the war was allowed to run its cause. Thanks to war =100,000/26 = 3,846 persons get to live every year!
e.g. If GWB (Sr) had got rid of Saddam Hussein in 1991 without stopping at liberating Kuwait, millions of people would have survived. Then there’s no need to have crippling sanctions on Iraq for so long that killed over a million kids and then GWB (Jr) needn’t have gone there killing even more. And the continuing bloodshed today would not have occured.
There is/was no simple political solution. And LTTE didn’t give a damn about political solutions anyway.
The successful war strategy of GOSL was essentially a numbers game.
It was a very good thing the war was allowed to run its cause. Thanks to war =100,000/26 = 3,846 persons get to live every year!”
“e.g. If GWB (Sr) had got rid of Saddam Hussein in 1991 without stopping at liberating Kuwait, millions of people would have survived.”
And if the GoSL had repealed the Sinhala Only act or never passed it, 100,000 people would have lived.
“There is/was no simple political solution. And LTTE didn’t give a damn about political solutions anyway.”
Sadly, in 1974 there was, and that simple solution was to repeal Sinhala Only. Without Sinhala Only the Vaddukoddai Resolution wouldn’t have had any backing, and nor would the Tigers and other separatists have had any popular support. Today, the political solution is just as simple: fully implement the 13th Amendment which has been passed in parliament 14 years ago. Hopefully the Sinhalese of today will be smarter than their fathers and grandfathers, but if TT, Vasala, and Yapa are anything to go by, that is a forlorn hope. Let’s hope instead that there are some smart Sinhalese in the GoSL with the power to act.
“The successful war strategy of GOSL was essentially a numbers game.”,/em>
But peace is not war
DB,
May be I didn’t make it very clear. You don’t seem to have developed numerical skills.
That’s the number of people on average who died in the war. Absence of war means at least that number of people don’t die every year.
Rubbish about the “Sinhala Only” act. If it was not passed millions would have died in trying to bring it on by other means! Good that it was introduced the democratic way.
Anyway the SL war was WON on SL terms! It could not have been done better. Surender is worse than war. Don’t drag this 1956 as the root cause.
Illankai Tamil Arasu kachchi (Lanka TAMIL NATION party) was formed in 1949! So the desire to create a Tamil nation/kingdom/state or whatever was there even 7 years before 1956 led by a prominenet educated Tamil leader.
Once again, SL won the war in 26 years. Well done. Wars in Afghanistan rages one for over 32 years now and no end in sight.
“May be I didn’t make it very clear.”
No you didn’t. Your English is often barely comprehensible. Blame it on SWRD
“You don’t seem to have developed numerical skills. ? That’s the number of people on average who died in the war. Absence of war means at least that number of people don’t die every year.”
Really? But if there had been no war in the first place, a 100,000 people would have been spared.
“Rubbish about the “Sinhala Only” act. If it was not passed millions would have died in trying to bring it on by other means!”
Really? How would these millions have died? Only 40,000 died when the JVP racists fought against its repeal in ’87. And after they were crushed there were no further attempts to bring back Sinhala Only by any fashion.
“Good that it was introduced the democratic way”
But it wasn’t. Majoritarianism isn’t democracy.
Anyway the SL war was WON on SL terms! It could not have been done better. Surender is worse than war. Don’t drag this 1956 as the root cause.”
It was won after 30 years, TT, and a 100,000 deaths. Do you call that winning on our own terms? Lol! How do you know whether surrender is worse than war when you have experienced neither surrender nor war? You don’t even know to spell surrender
Of course 1956 was the cause; you are unable to prove any other cause.
“Illankai Tamil Arasu kachchi (Lanka TAMIL NATION party) was formed in 1949! So the desire to create a Tamil nation/kingdom/state or whatever was there even 7 years before 1956 led by a prominenet educated Tamil leader.”
First of all, ITAK is translated as Lanka Tamil National Party and Lanka Tamil State Party; where did you find it translated as Nation? I earlier asked you if you didn’t understand the difference between nationalism and nation (one of the 14 questions you failed to answer), it seems as if you don’t understand what national means either! Is the United National Party also separatist? Ha ha. Besides, in the US many Indian tribes call themselves nations — eg the Sioux Nation — without this having any secessionist connotations, so even if your translation were correct, it would mean nothing. The ITAK’s manifesto and campaign platforms never had any separatist call prior to 1956. A political desire (unlike physical desire) must be articulated to exist. Do you have any evidence of such a desire being expressed before 1956? I’ve asked you this before, but you cannot answer
“Once again, SL won the war in 26 years. Well done. Wars in Afghanistan rages one for over 32 years now and no end in sight.”
Lol and as usual you openly confirm that your ignorance of world history is only surpassed by your ignorance of SL history. The US invaded Afhanistan in 2001, so that would be ten years. Before this war the Soviet occupation lasted from 1979 to 1992. Even if you combined both wars it would still come to 23 years not 32.
Buddhism bashing by those who don’t oppose Tamil Elam is VERY interesting. Going by their remarks, I can make out their mentality.
1. First they (and Tigers) thought that since Buddhism teaches compassion, etc. Buddhists would not like to have continuing violence. That means easy to pressurise them to give up 35% of their country.
2. If people and leaders are “proper” Buddhists, they would avoid violence at all cost.
But they miscalculated.
Now they realize they miscalculated. Instead of blaming them for a stupid assumption, they blame Buddhists for not following Buddhism!
VP many times tried to tap into Buddhism to save himself. It all failed.
The problem is not learning from history. They say: “History? History of SL is mostly Mahavamsa history. That is not true.” Great Buddhist kings (they were much more religious than modern day corrupt abusive politicians) in the past destroyed Tamil invaders mercilessly. That is enough evidence Buddhism never interfered with doing the right thing. It should not.
Sinhalese Buddhists worship (other) gods too. Most popular among them is a Hindu war god by the name God Kataragama (praise be to him)! Young prince Dutugemunu worshiped him and sought his assistance to defeat Elara. That was around 160 BC. But from the description it is clear the shrine was there for at least centuries before. People of this country worhshiped the Hindu war god even before Buddhism arrived! Even today Kataragama attracts more Sinhala devotees than any other Buddhist place of worship!
So it is not just Busshism that dictates how Sinhalese behave the way they do.
Its the same in the mostly Christian west. Love thy enemies told Jesus. Loving their enemies is the last thing in the minds of Christians in the west! In God we trust!
There is no need for SL to set an example to these guys.
Religion is just one part of humans. There are many other parts.
“That means easy to pressurise them to give up 35% of their country.”
By “their’ country I didn’t mean Buddhis-only country. It means the country belongs to them as well. once 69% of the population is willing to give up part of the country, and when around 10% had already voted for VR, getting the other 21% support may not be necessary.
To put more pressure, TEs launched barbaric attacks on Buddhist interests.
1. Jaya Shri Maha Bodhi worhipers were attacked killing hundreds.
2. Young monks were killed in Aranthalawa.
3. Dalada Maligawa was bombed.
DB,
Once again there is no substacnce in your replies.
Allow me to enlighten you on something far more racist and EXACTLY 150 years older than your so called “Sinhala Only” Act.
It is called Thesawalamei Law which is a highly discriminatory piece of law that unfairly advantages Tamils from Jaffna against all others! It was regulated under COLONIAL RULE in 1806. Severe restrictions are in place in relation to land transfers including sales based on race and many more. This is totally unacceptable.
This is the first ever race centred, racially discriminative and even gender discrimination law ever to be regulated in this country that is still continuing.
It directly goes against UN accepted EQUALITY concept too! Talking about equal rights!!
It violates The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly.
It is high time Thesawalamei Law is scrapped.
First things first. Lets scrap this colonial imposed highly discriminative (even going against UN accepted EQUALITY concepts) law first before even think of implementing the 1987 13 amendment.
“Once again there is no substacnce in your replies.”
Hmmm really? Then why is that you’re unable to provide adequate responses to these insubstantial replies? Instead, you have to run about declaring victory to make sure everyone understands you have won, since looking at the actual evidence shows that you’ve lost pathetically
“It is called Thesawalamei Law which is a highly discriminatory piece of law that unfairly advantages Tamils from Jaffna against all others! It was regulated under COLONIAL RULE in 1806. Severe restrictions are in place in relation to land transfers including sales based on race and many more. This is totally unacceptable.”,/em>
I agree, and I’ve on this very forum said that it should be repealed, along with other ethnic-specific laws such as Kandyan Law. However, it is logical that before the GoSL sets about dissolving or changing laws, it should first show its commitment to justice and fairplay by fully implementing all the existing laws, such as the 13th Amendment.
The GoSL then needs to decide whether it is willing to empower provincial high courts (which are stipulated in the 13th) to pass provincial laws that do not violate the constitution or national laws, while retaining the power to pass the latter. In the US, states and counties may pass certain laws and ordinances specific only to their jurisdictions, while the Supreme Court presides over federal laws.
This is the first ever race centred, racially discriminative and even gender discrimination law ever to be regulated in this country that is still continuing.
“It directly goes against UN accepted EQUALITY concept too! Talking about equal rights!!”
I am very pleased, TT, with your sudden waving of the UN flag, where before you claimed that UN conventions and resolutions were not legally binding, merely recommendations, and that signatories were not obliged to obey them
Since the GoSL is a signatory to the conventions regarding indigenous peoples, minority language rights, and several other UN frameworks that cover minority issues, shouldn’t it also be implementing laws in line with those? Why only womens’ rights, and that too only the ones in the Thesawalamai Law? 
Here is what the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women said in its 48th session last month about the GoSL’s failure to implement the treaty: “The Committee is concerned that, although the State party ratified the Convention in 1981, the Convention has not yet been accorded the status of domestic law under the Constitution or an Act of Parliament,” and “The Committee urges the State party to proceed without delay with the full incorporation of the Convention into its domestic legal system in order to give central importance to the Convention as the basis for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.” The language then gets stronger: “The Committee is concerned that legislation in the State party does NOT prohibit discrimination against women in line with article 1 of the Convention covering both direct and indirect discrimination, or extending to acts of both public and private actors in accordance with article 2. In this regard, the Committee observes that the Women’s Rights Bill which is being elaborated by the State party is NOT IN LINE WITH THE CONVENTION.” So isn’t it a bit silly for you to be suddenly up in arms on women’s rights when the GoSL hasn’t taken the basic steps to enshrine women’s rights by law? 
And while you conveniently target the Thesawalami Law for its discrimination against women, the UN committee says: “While noting that there is an ongoing reform of the Muslim Personal Law, the Committee is concerned about the persistence of discriminatory provisions in the law, including in the Penal Code, the Land Development Ordinance which gives preference to male heirs over females, the general personal laws, the Muslim Personal Law, the Kandyan Law and the Tesawalamai Law.” You can read more here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/co/CEDAW-C-LKA-CO-7.pdf
So, TT, why are you only targeting the Thesawalamai Law; is it because you don’t like Tamils?
DB,
Hilarious! Why on earth should I hate ANYONE for his ethnicity? In my world I don’t see race, ethnicity, etc., I see humans and other creations of god.
“I agree, and I’ve on this very forum said that it should be repealed, along with other ethnic-specific laws such as Kandyan Law. However, it is logical that before the GoSL sets about dissolving or changing laws, it should first show its commitment to justice and fairplay by fully implementing all the existing laws, such as the 13th Amendment.”
Good. At last something to agree.
Now don’t jump into that unlucky 13 nonsense. First things first DB. First repeal the 205 years old racist Thesawalamei Law. Then we can look at the 13 amendment which is only 24 years old!
Not implementing the 13 amendment does not affect equal individual rights but the implementation of the “T” law does!
Agree that other ethnicity based laws should also be repealed and ALL SLs irrespective of ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. MUST be equal before the law. Every SL should have not less than and not more than EQUAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. If most SLs at a referendum or election votes to make Hebrew or Russian the official language, so be it!
“Hilarious! Why on earth should I hate ANYONE for his ethnicity? In my world I don’t see race, ethnicity, etc., I see humans and other creations of god.”
That’s very white of you, TT. So what do you see Tamils as — humans or those “other” creations?
“Good. At last something to agree.”
So you agree that we should first implement the existing laws fully, and fulfil our obligations to the UN declarations we have signed, before attempting to change existing laws or create new ones? Sounds logical.
“Now don’t jump into that unlucky 13 nonsense. First things first DB. First repeal the 205 years old racist Thesawalamei Law. Then we can look at the 13 amendment which is only 24 years old!”
But no one has complained about the Thesawalamai Law for 205 years, TT, so what’s the hurry now? However Sinhala Only caused a war that killed a 100,000 people; so the law that repeals it and which millions of people are calling to be implemented needs to be implemented. Also, the only real grounds for repealing Thesawalamai is women’s rights not ethnic rights, and before that the GoSL needs to actually include these rights in the constitution itself. So when will that happen? Also why is there no call for Kandyan Law to be repealed? Why are you only interested in Thesawalamai? How many more pathetic straws are you gonna clutch at?
“Not implementing the 13 amendment does not affect equal individual rights but the implementation of the “T” law does!”
How does Thesawalamai violate individual rights except women’s rights? And given that the SL constitution doesn’t legislate against discrimination against women, why are you concerned about unconstitutional reform, when you’re unwilling to implement constitutional laws?
“Every SL should have not less than and not more than EQUAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.”
Of course, an individual cannot have more than individual rights, but communities have collective rights, and all communities must have equal rights
You can run around in circles all you want, TT, but you can’t escape the truth!
“If most SLs at a referendum or election votes to make Hebrew or Russian the official language, so be it”
But the majority ethnicity doesn’t have the right to stipulate how the minority ethnicity must behave. That has already been explained to you by pointing out the repealing of the Jim Crow laws during the civil rights movement. The 1992 UN declaration also states that minority rights cannot be taken away by majority ruling, TT. So a referendum cannot be held on the matter on a national level, especially under the provincial system; any referendum would have to be by province for that province.
Ha ha keep trying, TT.
Dear Vasala,
I think you may have misunderstood the issue I was trying to bring to your attention. The issue isn’t whether we can seek to excuse having Sinhala Only or Buddhism in foremost place by pointing to other countries, the issue is, is it ethical to elevate one’s race/religion above others?
I will try to highlight the moral issue here thus. Let’s imagine that you are a member of an international cricket club. In this club, let’s say 70% are Muslims, 20% Buddhists and 10% Christians. Now, the cricket club passes a resolution saying that Islam must be elevated to foremost place, and Arabic mustbe learnt by all who hope to work in the club, disregarding the multi-ethnic composition of the club. Would you consider this ethical? Would you consider it ok to unceremoniously sideline other cultures and give a purely “Arabic” characterization to the club?
The point is, strictly speaking, it isn’t. It is an unfair advantage that the majority confers upon itself for either convenience or through brute force. It cannot be deemed “ethical” in even the most remote understanding of the word.
We must understand majoritarianism to be something that always inconveniences or is altogether unjust by minorities. Why
is it that only minorities have to compromise, and never the majority? What ethic dictates this?
It is only this understanding, this frank admission, that is required to realize that everything in our power must be done to accommodate minorities, whose voices and preferences are often drowned out due to lack of representation. Of course, I readily agree with you that being a 100% fair by all is difficult or next to impossible. No one is denying that. However, that should not prevent us from recognizing the cultural worth of every citizen living in our country, and to take
appropriate measures whenever possible to ensure their happiness, rather than simply saying it’s ok to brazenly adopt majoritarian policies. It is most often, the callous refusal to admit this simple truth that is insufferable.
We must also admit that there have been many lapses in the past, culminating in the disaster of ’83, where even the basic right to security for the Tamil minority was robbed from them, when their own govt. actively took steps to persecute them, to the applause of jeering Sinhala extremists. We can’t pretend that it wasn’t because of this that Tamil popular opinion turned in favour of the LTTE, although extremists like TT like to pretend that even this was somehow the
fault of Tamils.
Therefore, it is necessary to make reparations for past mistakes, to honestly admit to them, to sideline the extremists and to aim to create a society that is just and fair by all its citizens. That’s all we need to do.
None of this is to say that we must now immediately work to repeal Buddhism from the constitution or marginalize Sinhalese instead. You have correctly noted that we are ahead of other countries in certain
regards, contrary to the picture that is painted by certain extremist elements. We have also taken steps to rectify some of the mistakes that were made in the past, such as Sinhala Only (TT will quickly say that it allowed reasonable use of Tamil. What TT does not mention is that SWRD added this shamefaced addendum a little later after massive uproar, and that regardless, it was never properly implemented, causing a loss of jobs to many Tamils)
The fact remains that language policies are still poorly implemented. This must be rectified. The fact remains that a purely Sinhala-Buddhist characterization is being given to this island, disregarding the dignity and contributions of its minorities. This must be rectified. We don’t live in the past. We live in the present. And we must recognize the dignity of our fellow citizens.
Those are the simple, honourable consessions that we must make to make most reasonable people happy. There is no need to cater to extremists by giving Eelams or other such fantasies. With the demise of the LTTE, one extremist threat has been neutralized. However, the Sinhala extremists, who were also responsible for many of our woes in the first place, have been further empowered. Their influence must be neutralized also.
After that, all that remains, as David has also mentioned, is to recognize the mistakes of the past and to take steps to correct them.
But are we honestly doing any of that?
A little bit more on BOOKS
There may be very good political theories and arguments perfected in Political Science books, by political science think – tanks.They must have developed marvelous ideas like “majoritarianism to be something that always inconveniences or is altogether unjust by minorities” or great arguments like “We must also admit that there have been many lapses in the past, culminating in the disaster of ’83, where even the basic right to security for the Tamil minority was robbed from them, when their own govt. actively took steps to persecute them, to the applause of jeering Sinhala extremists. We can’t pretend that it wasn’t because of this that Tamil popular opinion turned in favour of the LTTE, although extremists like TT like to pretend that even this was somehow the fault of Tamils.”
However, what I cannot understand or what remains a paradox for me is that despite all those magica political solutions created by the political wizards of the world, why still they sought the consent of the “ignorant majority” by way of a franchise, rather than just implementing those spotless impeccable political solutions in societies. Why political wizards themselves value consent of the people over their magnificent theories?
Though I am not a political – think tank, my instinct suggests to me and I feel so that the peoples’ sentiments represents more political reality than any political principle found in any profound book!Any magnificent political theory has no value if it cannot influence the sentiments of the people concerned. Therefore my belief is political realities should be judged by the sentiments of the people and the destiny of any profound political theory is determined on the basis how far it is able to touch the people’sentiments. Otherwise they would be deposited respectfully inside a pyramid of a foreign land as golden principles that did not bear fruits. It must be this Marx meant when he said “an ounce of practice is better than a ton of theory”.
Just theory is like a huge barren tree that does not bear fruit. It only wastes the resources of the ground (environment)[realities].
Thanks!
a bit more addition to my post above……
All in all despite the grunts and howls of the political experts, vasala’s personal opinion;
“The Sinhalese language and the Buddhist religion has and will continue to have a special position in Sri Lanka. I feel that the minorities (namely the Tamils who seem to have a huge problem with it) ought to get used to this idea, because as I see it, the majority will not compromise on this. I don’t see it as a negotiable issue, but that is my personal opinion.”;
….will remain a political reality of this country for an innumerable period of time.
Thanks!
Yapa, would that special status be similar to the special status that some schools have for special children? You’re quite welcome to that status, one I see you’ve embraced on GV. But all we’re concerned with is the legal and implementational status.
Dear DB;
“Yapa, would that special status be similar to the special status that some schools have for special children? You’re quite welcome to that status, one I see you’ve embraced on GV.
Are you referring to special school for Genius/Gifted children, DB?
Thanks!
Dear DB;
Really don’t you believe that Sinhala language and Buddhism deserve a special status in Si Lanka?
Political Pandiths who are entangled in superficial theories but have no common sense or any clue about deep discourses developed at philosophical level simply come to such shallow conclusions and try to push through our throats what they conveniently believe as true.
They are simply mistaken, DB. Simply mistaken!
Thanks!
“Are you referring to special school for Genius/Gifted children, DB?”
Whether you feel these “special” children are gifted or geniuses would depend on your own “specialness”
The same would apply to the specialness of Buddhism and Sinhalese.
“Really don’t you believe that Sinhala language and Buddhism deserve a special status in Si Lanka?”
I don’t believe that any language or religion should have a special status in SL.
“They are simply mistaken, DB. Simply mistaken!”
That is your opinion, of course, and as with the Pomeranian’s opinion, its lack of a book to stand on deprives it of stature.
“Thanks!”
You’re most welcome.
RE: “That is your opinion, of course, and as with the Pomeranian’s opinion, its lack of a book to stand on deprives it of stature.”
Priceless
(Oh and just wait for the predictable response. It’ll come as sure as clockwork)
Dear Heshan;
“Buddhism could not prevent 100K people from dying in 30 years of needless war, all of which could have been avoided with a simple political solution.”
Buddhism has never claimed/promised it could/would do it. So how come you hold Buddhism responsible for it. Buddhism has never claimed it is a panacea for every problem. Even the Lord Buddha sought the help of physician Jeewaka for the ailments he suffered.
You can hold Buddhism responsible if it broke promises only, It is not responsible for any hypothetical promises.
“Philosophies have a certain sentimental value, but they should not be interpreted at the expense of human life. You may read the book “Mathematician’s Apology” where Hardy is proud that mathematics never resulted in the loss of a single life. But Hardy lived before computers. If he could have seen the impact that his beautiful number theory has made on cryptography, which is now an essential component of ballistic missiles, among other things, he might realize that humans are capable of corrupting even the most pure of ideas.”
I accept what you say above. Nietzsche was quoted to justify genocide. Einstein’s formula E = mc2, was used to produce Atomic bomb. However, it does not necessarily imply that all the philosophies are so or you should stop developing Philosophy. Especially, you cannot cite Buddhism for such examples. Buddhism is not just a philosophy either.
Thanks!
wijayapala
March 3, 2011 • 8:40 am
Once again your wisdom shines through. As Mango pointed out in the other thread, the British managed to kill 3 million Bengalis through famine within only six years. This is concrete proof of the superiority of Anglicanism over Buddhism. Let us challenge yapa, Vasala, or these others whether Buddhists can ever hope to kill more people than those having a proper Anglican upbringing.
————-
This is my response: the Zen-Buddhist Japanese killed 23-million Chinese during WWII, over an 8-year span.
“It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
I can claim that Buddhism is superior to Anglicanism, since the Japanese Buddhists killed 8 times the number of Chinese as died in the Indian famine, within a similar period of time.
Prof Heshan
“This is my response: the Zen-Buddhist Japanese killed 23-million Chinese during WWII, over an 8-year span”
So by equating what the Japanese did to the Chinese during war, you are saying that the Anglican Christians were at war with the Bengalis to wipe out 3 million of them through starvation? That is how the Anglicans viewed the occupation of India and the lives of non-Anglicans?
well said Acharya.
Ratnajeevan Hoole, Savitri Hensman, Sumathy Sivamohan, Nirmala Rajasjingham and others of thier ilk please take note.
Dear Heshan;
“This is my response: the Zen-Buddhist Japanese killed 23-million Chinese during WWII, over an 8-year span.”
For the benefit of Buddhism or in the name of Buddhism or just because they were Zen-Buddhists? Wouldn’t they have done it if they were not Buddhists?
Again wonderful logic from a man with a Mathematical background, excellent!
Thanks!
Dear Yapa:
Actually I agree with you. Similar to what you said, I can also say, “wouldn’t the British have colonized Sri Lanka regardless of their background?” The primary motivation for British colonialism was mercantilism , not religion. The only reason the British tried (but not forced) people to convert to Christianity, is that it made administration of the island easier. The British view was that a class of English-speaking, Christian natives can better understand the British law and therefore are better suited for various civil service and other occupations as pertain to the administration of the island. It does not make much sense from today’s point of view, but this is the logic that people followed back then.
Dear Heshan;
I too agree that the main focus of the British colonialism in here was not religion and their damage was less fierce than Portuguese and Dutch in religious lines.However, as you have pointed out their interest was never totally free from religious biases. But I still believe that no war was fought for the purpose of propagating Buddhism.
Thanks!
Hon. Wijayapala:
So by equating what the Japanese did to the Chinese during war…
I did not know the Chinese civilians were at war with the Japanese. In any event, I have thoroughly demolished your argument. Not even Hitler killed 23 million Jews; only Stalin killed more (50-60 million) than the Zen-Buddhist Japanese.
Prof Heshan
“I did not know the Chinese civilians were at war with the Japanese.”
Did you know that it was the Japanese who were at war with the Chinese, thus explaining how the Japanese killed Chinese? Your comparison with the deaths of 3 million Bengalis under Anglican supervision is most apt by explaining that the British were at war against the Bengalis.
Dear Yapa:
However, as you have pointed out their interest was never totally free from religious biases.
The British aristocrats generally treated the poor people in England the same way as they would have treated natives in SL. England was a class-conscious society until well after the Industrial Revolution. Religion never united the British people, so why would they try to impose it on others? What has united the British throughout history is loyalty to the King or Queen, and the fact that they live on an island separated from the rest of Europe via the Channel.
But I still believe that no war was fought for the purpose of propagating Buddhism.
Do you think that if the LTTE were hiding among 10,000 Kandyan Sinhalese, GOSL would massacre 30K Kandyans, and reduce Kandy to rubble, just to finish off the LTTE? The answer is no, because it would be a direct attack on Sinhala-Buddhism. No Government would allow bombs to be dropped anywhere in the vicinity of Dalada Maligawa, for example.
“The British aristocrats generally treated the poor people in England the same way as they would have treated natives in SL. England was a class-conscious society until well after the Industrial Revolution.”
But prof, didn’t you earlier claim that the British arrival removed caste from SL society and elevated the natives from their pathetic situation? Now you admit that British society itself was caste-ridden and that its common man was badly treated by the aristocracy. You mean it wasn’t the Utopian paradise you claimed it was? Shocking!
As for your absurdity about the Tigers holding 10,000 Sinhalese in the Temple of the Tooth; were you unable to find a more extreme hypothesis? Perhaps 10,000 Buddhists all on top of Adam’s Peak? Lol. The point is the UNP government didn’t flinch from killing 40,000 Sinhalese to get the JVP. They killed and tortured Buddhist monks when they wanted to. It’s a fallacy that’s easily demolished, Heshan.
Correction: Do you think that if the LTTE were hiding among 100,000 Kandyan Sinhalese…
Dear Heshan;
If you disclosed this secret a little bit early, LTTE would have been saved.
You seems to fond of imaginations since recent past.Are you aspiring to become a poet , Heshan.
Thanks!
Did you know that it was the Japanese who were at war with the Chinese, thus explaining how the Japanese killed Chinese?
The Buddhist Chinese civilians did not try to fight back against the Zen-Buddhist Japanese. Otherwise you are implying that the 80,000 women raped at Nanking by the Zen-Buddhist Japanese were all soldiers. So you have still not explained why the Zen-Buddhist Japanese killed 23 million Chinese civilians who did not fight back, and raped 80,000 at Nanking. . Did the Buddha say its okay to kill 23 million innocent people during a war?
Dear Yapa:
Do you agree that every human conflict has a non-violent, rational solution? In fact, this is the purpose of secular education – to teach students a non-violent approach to conflict resolution. Different people are trained to do different jobs, and finally through the mutually agreed upon exchange of goods and services, the entire society as a whole is better off. You can imagine the alternative. If you survived by stealing and killing – then what? If the person you killed is a farmer, then less food for the society. If its a logic teacher, then one less logic teacher for the children. Of course, if you take this scenario to its extreme end, then thousands of dead farmers means a famine and starvation for the society and few teachers left to teach. This is what happened in Cambodia, when the dictator Pol Pot engaged in a genocidal “Year Zero” Project.
While I agree that a war may be beneficial in the short-term , the long-term gains are questionable. One of the victors of WWII was the Soviet Union. With all of the territories and resources it gained, the Soviet Union then became a superpower. Today the Soviet Union does not exist, and Germany is the richest nation in Europe.
Dear Heshan;
“Do you agree that every human conflict has a non-violent, rational solution?”
I am not very sure. I wish it had.
“While I agree that a war may be beneficial in the short-term , the long-term gains are questionable.”
I don’t think a war is beneficial even in short term and every effort should be taken to avoid it. However, I feel it is some times an unavoidable evil due to the evil nature of humans (and other animals). As I see it, reason being I love myself than others or the mysterious love for self.At the basic level conflicts begins as I try to keep my ego high over others by various means, and war is a composite of conflicts so originated. So it is logically implied that the true conflict resolution method is to shed the love of self at individual level, though I am not sure whether it is practically possible. Otherwise I think human kind (and other beings) are doomed for conflicts and wars. It is a result of their love of ego and actions based on it and conflicts and wars are the result.It is the result of their actions or in other words, consequences of their “KAMMA”. There is no place anywhere to in the world to get rid of the result of the action.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Prof Heshan
“The Buddhist Chinese civilians did not try to fight back against the Zen-Buddhist Japanese.”
Did the Bengalis fight back when you were starving them to death by the millions?
Hon. Wijayapala:
You have lost the argument and are now jumping from corner to corner. Let’s review the argument.
First, you made the following claim:
As Mango pointed out in the other thread, the British managed to kill 3 million Bengalis through famine within only six years.
Then you said:
Buddhists can ever hope to kill more people than those having a proper Anglican upbringing.
In your second statement, you did not specify any context. Therefore, war, famine, or any other disaster does not matter. All that matters is that the Zen-Buddhist Japanese killed 23 million Chinese and the British (indirectly) let 3 million Bengali’s die of starvation.
On the other hand, the behavior of your Zen-Buddhist Japanese comrades is equal to eight Bengali famines. So the Buddhists definitely come out on top, by a factor of 8!
Prof Heshan
“All that matters is that the Zen-Buddhist Japanese killed 23 million Chinese”
Have you missed the fact that Shintoism, not Buddhism was the state religion of Japan at that time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Shinto
On the separation of Shinto and Buddhism during this era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinbutsu_bunri
“In a narrower sense, shinbutsu bunri is the policy of separation of Shinto and Buddhism pursued by the new Meiji government with the Kami and Buddhas Separation Order (?????, Shinbutsu Hanzenrei?). This last event is of particular historical importance, partly because it triggered the haibutsu kishaku, a violent anti-Buddhist movement which in the final years of the Tokugawa shogunate and during the Meiji Restoration caused the forcible closure of thousands of temples, the confiscation of their land, the forced return to lay life of monks, and the destruction of books, statues and other Buddhist property. Even Buddhist bronze bells were melted to make cannons.”
“Therefore, war, famine, or any other disaster does not matter.”
As it turns out, the context is quite important. It is your attempt at dodging blame that is leading you to jump from corner to corner. The fact remains that you killed 3 million Bengalis **who were not your enemies**, which is a quite different context than the Japanese who considered the Chinese their enemies.
Hence I asked the question: Did the British consider their colonial subjects to be their enemy? You have remained silent on this question, dear Heshan.
To highlight the Anglican expertise at killing nearly 60 million people during the occupation of India, I present this wikipedia article for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
“The late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw the worst famines. These famines in British India were worse enough to have a remarkable impact on the long term population growth of the country, especially in the half century between 1871-1921.
“Amartya Sen implies that the famines in the British era were due to a lack of a serious effort on the part of the British government to prevent famines. He links the lack of this serious effort to the absence of democracy in British India. The father of India’s green revolution M. S. Swaminathan credits the elimination of famines to Indian independence from the Britain despite the trebling of population.”
This picture illustrates the height of Anglican civilisation.
Anglicans did not limit such benevolence to Indians. The Irish Catholics also were similarly blessed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Famine_(1740-1741)
“Summing up all his sources, Dickson suggests two estimates: 1) that 38% of the Irish population died during the crisis and 2) that between 13-20% excess mortality occurred for 1740-1741.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_Ireland
“Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was in charge of the administration of Government relief to the victims of the Irish Famine, limited the Government’s actual relief because he thought “the judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson”"
“In 1845, Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid declared his intention to send £10,000 to Irish farmers but Queen Victoria requested that the Sultan send only £1,000, because she herself had sent only £2,000.”
(evidence of Anglican thriftiness(
“Earlier predictions expected that by 1851 Ireland would have a population of 8-9 million. A census taken in 1841 revealed a population of slightly over 8 million.[99] A census immediately after the famine in 1851 counted 6,552,385, a drop of almost 1.5 million in 10 years.”
Prof Heshan, I have shown a historical trend of Anglicans causing the deaths of tens of millions through starvation over 200 years. A similar trend cannot be found for the Buddhists. Hence the superiority of Anglicanism over Buddhism because of its people-killing ability.
Mr Yapa,
Buddhism is supposed to create a pacifist society. If society is aggressive then either (1) that society is not Buddhist or (2) the claim that Buddhism eliminates aggressive behaviour is unfounded.
(I get a strange feeling of Deja Vu here)
Dear BalangodaMan;
Both are incorrect.
1. Even during the Buddha’s time there were aggressive societies, which he could not avert.
2. There is no claim that Buddhism eliminates aggressive behaviour. Buddha only shows the path, one can either follow it or not.
Buddhism has no special power or authority.
Thanks!
I too get a strange feeling of Deja Vu here. Maybe it brings to the mind a marathon effort(or a waste of energy) by a few self-styled philosophers on an amazingly similar topic last year!
That peaceful society will not be there unless everybody has overcome hatred greed and ignorance, which is not a practical possibility. Even what Jesus told about love and sacrifice are just empty words in the present societies! The problem is that people want to label themselves with one religion or another and fight for it and even die for it, for their own self glory!
Hon. Wijayapala:
Have you missed the fact that Shintoism, not Buddhism was the state religion of Japan at that time?
Zen-Buddhists supported the Japanese war effort:
”
Victoria pinpoints Shaku Soen (1859-1919) as one of the first Zen Masters to enthusiastically embrace war as Zen training. Well-known as D. T. Suzuki’s teacher, Soen is revered in the history of Buddhism in the West as the first Zen teacher to visit the United States. In the war against Russia, Soen served as a chaplain in 1904. “I wished to inspire,” Soen later wrote, “our valiant soldiers with the ennobling thoughts of the Buddha, so as to enable them to die on the battlefield with confidence that the task in which they are engaged is great and noble. I wish to convince them…. that this war is not a mere slaughter of their fellow-beings, but that they are combating an evil.”
From Soen’s point of view, since everything was one essence, war and peace were identical. Everything reflected the glory of Buddha, including war. And since the Buddha’s main purpose was to subjugate evil, and since the enemy of Japan was inherently evil, war against evil was the essence of Buddhism. “In the present hostilities,” Soen wrote, “into which Japan has entered with great reluctance, she pursues no egotistic purpose, but seeks the subjugation of evils hostile to civilization, peace and enlightenment.” (Japan’s invasion of Russia was entirely self-serving and hardly reluctant.). To Soen, war was ” an inevitable step toward the final realization of enlightenment.”
Soen used the phrases “just war” and “holy war.” Japan was engaged in a “war of compassion” fought by bodhisattva soldiers against the enemies of Buddha. As Rinzai Zen Master Nantembo (1839 – 1925) preached, there was “no bodhisattva practice superior to the compassionate taking of life.” (Soen considered any opposition to war as “a product of egotism.”) Reading these words now, they seem clear examples of disturbed religious thinking. Buddhist teachings, language and symbols, like any religion, can be perverted and twisted to support nationalism and violence. It is important to note that Soen is not some fringe crackpot. He is still almost worshipped in Japan as one of the great “fully enlightened” Zen Masters of our time. ”
http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm
Did the British consider their colonial subjects to be their enemy?
Only when the colonial subjects engaged in mutiny. Unlike your Zen-Buddhist friends, who spent hours torturing innocent Chinese, and hanging the heads on bamboo poles, after ripping out the organs of the victims with bayonets (you may google the images).
“The late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw the worst famines. These famines in British India were worse enough to have a remarkable impact on the long term population growth of the country, especially in the half century between 1871-1921.
Trying to blame the British for all of those famines is absurd. There were famines in India until the 1970′s .
“Tirthankar Roy suggests that the famines were due to environmental factors and inherent in India’s ecology.[fn 7][fn 8] Roy argues that massive investments in agriculture were required to break India’s stagnation, however these were not forthcoming owing to scarcity of water, poor quality of soil and livestock and a poorly developed input market which guaranteed that investments in agriculture were extremely risky.[52] After 1947, India focused on institutional reforms to agriculture however even this failed to break the pattern of stagnation. It wasn’t until the 1970′s when there was massive public investment in agriculture that India became free of famine[53], although Roy is of the opinion that improvements in the market efficiency did contribute to the alleviation of weather-induced famines after 1900, an exception to which is the Bengal famine of 1943.[54][Full citation needed] ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
The Irish Catholics also were similarly blessed:
I am glad to see you shed crocodile tears for Irish Catholics.
The proximate cause of famine was a potato disease commonly known as potato blight.[5] Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland — where one-third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food—was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.[6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29
In other words, if the potato disease had not been there, there would have been no famine at all. British rule only made the situation worse. But it did not create the situation.
but Queen Victoria requested that the Sultan send only £1,000, because she herself had sent only £2,000.”
Indeed, the Queen should have collected 800,000 USD and deposited it in the sister’s bank account, as per HE Rajapaksa, Incarnation of Dutugemunu, via “Helping Hambantota” tsunami fund. I fully agree with you that the British buggers are thrifty… instead of taking 80 people along on overseas VIP trips, they only take 10 or 12 .
At the end of the year, they publicly declare the net value of all their assets and earnings, which can then be read by anyone online. I am glad we agree on this point!
Prof Heshan, I have shown a historical trend of Anglicans causing the deaths of tens of millions through starvation over 200 years.
You have only demonstrated a very weak, indirect link. You have not ruled out all the other possible alternatives beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt. On the other hand, there is no doubt that your Zen-Buddhist comrades were directly involved in the slaughter of 30 million people.
A similar trend cannot be found for the Buddhists.
You are indeed correct. The Japanese did not need 200 years, they need eight. Speaking of tens of millions, the Wikipedia article says they slaughtered 30 million = 10 million + 10 million + 10 million. DO you see how 10 million gets multiplied by three? That turns 10 million into “tens of millions.”
Dear Heshan;
Do you think Shaku Soen’s wrongs could be identified as wrongs of Buddhism? There were even disciples of Buddha during his time who preached and acted contrary to the Buddhist doctrine. That was the reason why Buddhist Councils had to be set up for “Dhamma Sangayana”. Every act of Buddhists cannot and should not be attributed to Buddhism.
Anyway Buddhism never preached or supported violence. It is a non – violent religion, if anybody like to call it a religion.
Thanks!
Prof Heshan
“Zen-Buddhists supported the Japanese war effort”
Irrelevant. Zen Buddhism was not the state religion and you have not shown how it contributed to what happened in China.
“Only when the colonial subjects engaged in mutiny.”
So you justify the deaths of 3 million Bengalis because you think they were mutinying?
“There were famines in India until the 1970?s.”
But none of those famines killed millions of people as accomplished by Anglicans.
“British rule only made the situation worse.”
On the contrary, Heshan logic clearly dictates that Anglican rule made the situation BETTER- the undesirables (in this case, Irish Catholics) were eliminated.
How do you feel about Trevelyan’s views about God teaching the Irish a lesson?
“the Queen should have collected 800,000 USD”
Please Professor, neither Mahinda nor any other Sri Lankan or Buddhist had been involved with the deaths of millions as Anglicans have. Kindly desist from jumping around.
“You have not ruled out all the other possible alternatives beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt.”
We weren’t talking about just one or two famines, professor, but rather a series that demonstrates a pattern of neglect at best. You are so loud when bleating about the benefits of colonialism, but when I show pictures of skeletal Bengalis suddenly all the enthusiasm drains away. Similarly your Singapore mantra goes silent when Christian Zimbabwe is brought up. Is it too much to ask for you to express pride in how many people your religion has killed?
Dear wijayapala/Heshan;
If really your objective of “fighting” is to ascertain which religion is more violent, I would advise you to go to the roots of them, rather than just touching the peripherals like believers.Go for the doctrines.
Thanks!
yapa,
“If really your objective of “fighting” is to ascertain which religion is more violent, I would advise you to go to the roots of them, rather than just touching the peripherals like believers.”
First of all, Prof. Heshan and I are most certainly not fighting. We are both on the same side in stating that Anglicanism is the most superior religion on the basis of its hatred towards everyone else. We are just trying to clarify certain details.
Secondly, Prof. Heshan once explained how Jesus Christ himself cursed a fig tree to death (Matthew 21:18-22 & Mark 11:12-14, 19-25) to encourage death to all non-believers. Heshan carefully pointed out that Jesus’s proper Anglican upbringing had formed the basis for this action. Hence, we can say that Anglicanism’s violent history is certainly connected with its doctrine, at least how Heshan explains it.
Irrelevant. Zen Buddhism was not the state religion and you have not shown how it contributed to what happened in China.
Actually its highly relevant. There was no reason for the Japanese government to make Buddhism the state religion, when the religion of most Japanese already consisted (and still consists) of a mixture of both Shintoism and Buddhism. I have already demonstrated how the Zen-Buddhist establishment openly supported the imperialist ambitions of the Japanese government, and justified violence in the form of Bushido. This is equivalent to the Maha Sangha supporting the war efforts of GOSL.
But none of those famines killed millions of people as accomplished by Anglicans.
Once again, you have failed to establish a clear link between famine and Christianity. Your whole argument falls apart considering that famines occurred after the British left. This makes it highly probable that famines would have occurred before the British left, regardless of whether or not the British were there. In other words, in all cases, the famine occurred independently of British rule which leads to the conclusion that the British were not the root cause of the famine. If the British were not the root cause of the famine, then you really have no case.
Please Professor, neither Mahinda nor any other Sri Lankan or Buddhist had been involved with the deaths of millions
The Shinto/Zen-Buddhist Japanese killed 30 million Chinese in 8 years. Buddhism has been around in Japan since the 5th century and has contributed immensely to the development of that culture. It has been an official religion of Japan many times.
We weren’t talking about just one or two famines, professor, but rather a series that demonstrates a pattern of neglect at best. You are so loud when bleating about the benefits of colonialism, but when I show pictures of skeletal Bengalis suddenly all the enthusiasm drains away.
You have not demonstrated a pattern of neglect in all cases. Your logic goes something like this:
“Tthere was a natural disaster in India, but the British ruled, so blame the British.”
“There was a natural disaster in Ireland, but the British ruled, so blame the British.”
Basically, you are blindly blaming the British for every disaster involved, without mentioning their specific role.
There was neglect during the Bengali famine, but the Irish famine was due to crop failure and exacerbated due to British economic policy. On the other hand, a pattern of neglect does not constitute a root cause . The Zen-Buddhist Japanese were the root cause of the 30 million East Asians slaughtered during WWII.
By the way, does it bother you that your Zen-Buddhist Japanese friends were even more brutal than the Nazis ?
Prof Heshan
“There was no reason for the Japanese government to make Buddhism the state religion, when the religion of most Japanese already consisted (and still consists) of a mixture of both Shintoism and Buddhism.”
But I already showed that the government most certainly separated Shintoism and Buddhism into a new, artificial “state Shintoism” that explicitly rejected Buddhism to the extent of persecuting Buddhists. That is why even by Anglican standards, your argument that Buddhists who were persecuted by the Japanese govt had persecuted Chinese makes no sense.
“Your whole argument falls apart considering that famines occurred after the British left.”
But you haven’t answered how many people did these post-British famines kill. Since Anglicans were not involved, it is safe to say that relatively few people died and hence these famines are not worth mentioning.
Remember Heshan, it is not so much the famines as the outright deaths that are the hallmark of Anglican governance.
“Buddhism has been around in Japan since the 5th century and has contributed immensely to the development of that culture. It has been an official religion of Japan many times.”
But millions of people never died at those times when Buddhism was the state religion. It was only when Buddhism was displaced that the mass deaths started.
Are you upset because the Japanese had not embraced Anglicanism and did not kill more people?
“There was neglect during the Bengali famine, but the Irish famine was due to crop failure and exacerbated due to British economic policy.”
In other words, there was neglect in both cases that can directly be traced to the Anglican intolerance of non-Anglicans, as you have strenuously exhibited in your writing here in Groundviews.
“By the way, does it bother you that your Zen-Buddhist Japanese friends were even more brutal than the Nazis?”
No, because 1) my Zen Buddhist friends did not conduct atrocities and 2) I view the Zen Buddhists much as you view the Portuguese Catholics, whom we already agreed were more anti-Hindu than the Muslims.
Dear Yapa:
If really your objective of “fighting” is to ascertain which religion is more violent, I would advise you to go to the roots of them, rather than just touching the peripherals like believers.Go for the doctrines.
Actually I do not consider either religion to be inherently violent. I am merely utilizing the logic of Wijayapala and showing how it can used to implicate the Japanese during WWII. But it his logic, not mine, as I personally would never blame a religion for a natural disaster. Only the product of a government school would do that.
Dear Yapa:
Do you think Shaku Soen’s wrongs could be identified as wrongs of Buddhism? There were even disciples of Buddha during his time who preached and acted contrary to the Buddhist doctrine. That was the reason why Buddhist Councils had to be set up for “Dhamma Sangayana”.
Nevertheless, the Buddha himself did not justify war – even in the case of self-defense. Even defending oneself would constitute an act of aggression, resulting in possible injury inflicted upon another person. When that person has fallen, one’s ego might then be inflated. One would also hold certain power over the fallen – example, one could force him to give up land, or pay tribute. That person would then enter into a certain kind of bondage , which is simply another type of suffering. This whole argument rests on the fact that one person has managed to assert control over another just through force , and not by any rational agreement. If human beings are truly enlightened, then force is not necessary. It should be possible to come to an agreement through free discussion. Actually, you can see this in many human activities. Scientists do not kill each other if they disagree. Neither do mathematicians. There is a system of logic that everyone agrees to. Either your logic is correct or incorrect.
Every act of Buddhists cannot and should not be attributed to Buddhism.
I fully agree.
Anyway Buddhism never preached or supported violence. It is a non – violent religion, if anybody like to call it a religion.
Again, I agree. But it is an impossible goal to achieve for a government. That is why religious institutions should be kept out of politics.
didn’t you earlier claim that the British arrival removed caste from SL society and elevated the natives from their pathetic situation?
No doubt about it, it was the British who removed caste/class from SL society.
Now you admit that British society itself was caste-ridden and that its common man was badly treated by the aristocracy. You mean it wasn’t the Utopian paradise you claimed it was?
SL was merely a colony. The British had no interest in turning it into another Britain. The only interest Britain had in SL was trade , via the exploitation of natural and other resources. To maximize the gains from this trade, the British tried to create a class of natives familiar with European mores and norms. This makes sense if you consider that for trade to be successful, the cooperation of the natives would be essential. On the other hand, the caste/class system as found in SL would have proved to be a barrier towards enlisting the cooperation of the natives, which is why the British did not utilize it. At the same time, it would have been impossible to impose the Victorian-style class system found in Britain, on the SL natives, since the one in Britain depended to a large extent on inherited wealth and inherited title .
Prof Heshan
“No doubt about it, it was the British who removed caste/class from SL society…the British tried to create a class of natives familiar with European mores and norms.”
Excellent rejoinder to Blacker who is totally ignorant of the British contribution. You have argued that the British removed class from SL society by creating a class. What ingenious thinking, truly the product of a trained Anglican mind to say that you can remove something by creating it.
I am so happy the British removed castes i.e. Govigama, Vellala, Karava etc. It is also so great that the British created a English-speaking elite class within Sinhala society and distinguished them from the Sinhala-speakers so that the Sinhala-speaking underclass would adopt an ethnonationalist political consciousness after independence in response. We can safely say that Sinhala nationalism and its attendant anti-Tamil racism owes its very existence to the British.
“No doubt about it, it was the British who removed caste/class from SL society.”
But how can a class-ridden society rid another class-ridden society of its class-consciousness? Wouldn’t that be like a sinner trying to die for another sinner’s sins?
“the British tried to create a class of natives familiar with European mores and norms. This makes sense if you consider that for trade to be successful, the cooperation of the natives would be essential. On the other hand, the caste/class system as found in SL would have proved to be a barrier towards enlisting the cooperation of the natives”
So prof, you admit that the Brits “created a class of natives” (your words) that were similar in “mores and norms” to those of the British. You had already admitted that these Brit mores and norms were based on class-consciousness
Well done, Heshan! I couldn’t have explained it better myself.
“At the same time, it would have been impossible to impose the Victorian-style class system found in Britain, on the SL natives, since the one in Britain depended to a large extent on inherited wealth and inherited title .”
Given that the wealth in colonial Ceylon was centered with the Brits, who held it due to their position and colour, it was basically an inherited wealth and title that couldn’t be touched because it was inherited and not earned. So you yourself have described exactly how this Victorian class system was transposed onto the local society, a system that we still see in effect today; a system that is only of late being overrun by the Sinhalese-speaking “yakos” your class-ruled heart detests.
Thank you, Heshan. You need to polish up your guerrilla intellect a bit more lol.
“All I’m saying is you would not have found this type of scorched earth crater in Kandy, when all was said and done:”
Of course not; mostly because when all is said and done, there wouldn’t have been thousands of Tigers in Kandy, nor were they able to hold even a few thousand Sinhalese hostage, never mind your fanciful 100,000
On the other hand, do you think the Tamils would have weathered a casualty rate of 10,000 a year the way that the JVP did?
“From what I have read, the LTTE did not possess the weaponry necessary to cause such massive craters, which makes SLAF aerial bombing the primary candidate.”
Really? Where did you read that, [Edited out.]? While you were invading Russia with the Nazis? Guessing at what vehicle made those tracks, those craters could be either 250-lb bombs or 105-mm shells. The Tigers had the latter.
“GOSL would have thought long and hard before randomly shelling Kandy.”
What makes you think there was random shelling, [Edited out]? Randomness is often a conclusion of the ignorant.
“90% of all homes in the North were completely destroyed due to SLAF aerial bombing and other SLA aggression.”
Where did you get that statistic from, [Edited out]?
“They didn’t have to worry about the Maligawa and such places getting in the way. “
No, just tens of thousands of Sinhalese. Besides, Hindu and Christian places of worship equivalent in importance to the Tooth Temple were never targeted. The Nallur and Koneswaram Kovils and the Mannar Church were all meticulously spared. Other lesser places of worship were damaged or destroyed in the course of the fighting, not by design. In contrast, the Tigers targeted Buddhists places of worship, worshipers, and the clergy in places like Kandy, Anuradhapura, Arantalawa, Dimbulagala, and others. We’ve been through all this before, [Edited out] Heshan.
“I have never heard of them killing and torturing Buddhist monks.”
Well, given that you hadn’t heard that there was an election in SL in 2001, that North Korea was a member of the UN, that the US created the first atom bomb and dropped it on Japan, and that Hitler had lost WW2, do you consider your ignorance of this matter to also mean it never happened?
As for your absurdity about the Tigers holding 10,000 Sinhalese in the Temple of the Tooth; were you unable to find a more extreme hypothesis?
All I’m saying is you would not have found this type of scorched earth crater in Kandy, when all was said and done:
http://srilankandiasporablog.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/pic3n.jpg
From what I have read, the LTTE did not possess the weaponry necessary to cause such massive craters, which makes SLAF aerial bombing the primary candidate.
Forget about 10,000 Sinhalese in the Temple of the Tooth (an example which I never gave). GOSL would have thought long and hard before randomly shelling Kandy. 90% of all homes in the North were completely destroyed due to SLAF aerial bombing and other SLA aggression.
PThe point is the UNP government didn’t flinch from killing 40,000 Sinhalese to get the JVP.
They didn’t have to worry about the Maligawa and such places getting in the way.
They killed and tortured Buddhist monks when they wanted to.
I have never heard of them killing and torturing Buddhist monks.
You have argued that the British removed class from SL society by creating a class.
The British laid the foundations for capitalism. Even capitalism has classes. Every economic system groups society into classes. Did you expect the British to create a welfare state and hand everyone a monthly stipend? I am sure you would find a way to criticize even that.
It is also so great that the British created a English-speaking elite class…
Every society has class but not necessarily caste. What is more important than class is the potential for upward socio-economic mobility . Before the arrival of the British, there was no potential for a lower caste/class to move up the ladder.
… within Sinhala society and distinguished them from the Sinhala-speakers so that the Sinhala-speaking underclass would adopt an ethnonationalist political consciousness after independence in response.
In that case, the British must be amazing fortune-tellers!
“The British laid the foundations for capitalism.”
Yes, that’s what they called stealing
Maybe the Ten Commandments should’ve said “Thou shalt not capitalise”.
“Even capitalism has classes. Every economic system groups society into classes.”
Yes, Heshan, you already admitted that the Brits merely replaced one class system with another. We got it the first time, thanks.
“Did you expect the British to create a welfare state and hand everyone a monthly stipend?”
No, I would’ve expected that as Christians they would stay at home and be satisfied with what God had given them instead of venturing forth to steal from others. Wouldn’t you?
“Every society has class but not necessarily caste. What is more important than class is the potential for upward socio-economic mobility . Before the arrival of the British, there was no potential for a lower caste/class to move up the ladder.”
But you already said that the British system back home was based on wealth being centered with those who had inherited it and had titular ownership. Therefore it was almost impossible for a common man to move up the socio-economic ladder and become wealthy in Britain. So instead of waiting for the inevitable revolution by a hungry population, they sent them off to create an empire where those same hungry and poor could replenish themselves at the expense of Africans and Asians, and establish their own fortunes based on their inviolable positions as the white masters; a position that it was impossible for the conquered natives to gain. These colonists themselves, no matter how wealthy they became “east of Suez”, remained several rungs below the aristocracy at home who hadn’t had to sweat in the tropics for their loot. So to be an Indian-born Brit meant you couldn’t quite consider yourself eligible to marry into home-born Brit families of similar wealth; a Brit officer in the Indian Army wasn’t considered quite the contemporary of a British Army officer and so forth. Below that came the English-speaking brown sahibs who spoke the lingo as good as the whites but just weren’t white, and so they were kept a tier below; able to gain some wealth themselves, but never the status of the whites. Below that would be yet more tiers of progressively browner and less literate classes down to the untouchable coolies with whom a white man would not dream of having legitimate contact. Neat, eh?
“In that case, the British must be amazing fortune-tellers!”
No, just a gang of rogues who used the natives as best suited their profits.”
“No substance again. Just repeating the same thing without any new substance.”
Yes, you keep repeating that my responses have no substance, but yet when I challenge you to demolish them, you somehow seem unable
If my responses are repetitive, they are thus simply because you yourself have repeated your original arguments without answering my own questions. The 14 questions remain unanswered, now added to by several more. 
I’m glad to see that you admit you have no new arguments lol. Here’s the list of areas you had no argument for:
1. Unable to answer whether you believe Tamils are immigrants in SL or not.
2. Unable to explain the difference between national and naturalised minorities.
3. Unable to explain the difference between a UN declaration and a resolution.
4. Unwilling to state which UN declarations outline minority rights.
5. Unable to explain the difference between a homeland and a country.
6. Unable to explain the obligations of being a signatory to a UN declaration.
7. Unable to explain the effect of the Civil Rights movement on majoritarianism.
8. Unwilling to state whether replacing Buddhism in the constitution would be fair.
9. Unable to name any countries that haven’t given national minorities their language rights even though you claim they exist.
10. Unable to explain what nationalism is.
11. Unable to explain why Tamils must not have equal rights.
12. Unable to explain the difference between racism and defending equality.
13. Unable to quote any current Tamil leader as calling for separation, even though you claim they do.
14. Unable to show how colonised territories were beneficial even though you claim they are.
15. Unable to prove that all colonies resisted Tiger aggression even though you claim they did.
16. Unable to show any sign of Tamil inclination to separation before 1956.
17. Unable to show any evidence of Sinhalese being systematically driven out of the NE.
18. Unable to show any evidence that colonisation fostered integration.
19. Unwilling to acknowledge the distinction between natural immigration and internal colonisation.
20. Unable to explain why the GoSL was unable to take and hold the East until 2008.
21. Unable to explain the pathetic voter turnout in the North in 2010.
22. Unable to prove that Tamils in the North vote only for Tamil parties.
23. Unable to explain why the UPFA fielded a TMVP side in the last PC elections, even though you claim the East is multi-ethnic and that the GoSL believes in multi-ethnicity.
24. Unable to quote any portion of the Sinhala Only Act that allows for use of Tamil.
25. Unable to substantiate your claim that 68% of SL voted for Sinhala Only.
26. Unable to substantiate your claim that most Muslims voted for Sinhala Only.
27. Unable to explain how repealing the 13th Amendment will solve problems of hunger, poverty and unemployment.
28. Unable to substantiate your claim that ALL of SL is affected by the above problems.
29. Unable to explain why above problems haven’t been tackled for over sixty years.
30. Unable to prove a lack of land resources in southern and north-central SL.
31. Unable to prove that the North has more water resources than the east, south, or north-central areas of SL.
32. Unable to name the untapped resources you claim exist in the NE that don’t exist in the south.
33. Unwilling to acknowledge the role ethnicity plays in majoritarianism within a multi-ethnic society.
34. Unable to prove how Sinhala Only saved millions of lives as you claim.
35. Unable to show constitutional reasons for reform of local laws.
36. Unwilling to acknowledge Tamils as human beings.
37. Unable to justify why local laws must be changed when national laws remain unimplemented.
38. Unable to prove how Thesawalamai Law violates individual rights.
39. Unwilling to acknowledge the existence of collective rights for minorities.
So, TT, thirty-nine individual issues just in this thread that you’re unable or unwilling to respond to, in spite of the fact that you claim that they are insubstantial.
That is indeed a pathetic record for a debater, TT, ha ha.
“Once again you make wrong generalisations. I never said “Tamils are so racist!” I only said they vote for RACIST political parties at general elections, etc.”
Which would make them racist.
But as has been proved to you they have voted for the UNP and the PA when they were both genuinely multi-ethnic.
“At presidential elections there is no choice for them; is there?”
But there is no obligation to vote is there, TT? The third choice is to abstain. However, Tamils voted for a Sinhalese because they believed he was the person who had the best policies. Previously, they had voted for CBK and RW too.
“This is exactly what I want to see following a process of mass colonization of the north. When they are convinced that “T” racist parties cannot win, they will have no choice but to vote for multiethnic parties!!”
But even without colonisation the Northern Tamils have voted for multi-ethnic parties such as the UNP and the PA, and in spite of colonisation the East has voted for Tamil parties such as the TMVP
So how has colonisation been of any use?
“For your information, same voters 2 months later voted for TAMIL national alliance at the general election!”
So first they voted for a Sinhalese, then later for Tamils. How is this racist?
“As they have done in general elections of 1947″
But if the TULF of 1947 was racist as you claim, why did DSS form an alliance with them instead of the multi-ethnic LSSP?
“1952″
Is that why DSS stripped the estate Tamils of citizenship before the elections?
“1956″
So you admit that the Tamil minority didn’t vote for the racist Sinhala Only platform the SLFP was campaigning on. Wiki says The SLFP campaign of 1956 was the first in Ceylon’s history where communal feelings against the minority Tamil community were deliberately stirred up by Sinhalese politicians for electoral gain. The SLFP tried to blame the high unemployment Sinhalese youth faced on the Tamils, and in effect promised not to correct injustices but to openly discriminate against Tamils via a policy of official unilingualism. In such a light, why would Tamils vote for anyone but Tamil parties?
“1960″
In the March elections Wiki says Both the UNP and the SLFP campaigned on a strongly anti-Tamil line, promising to repatriate the estate Tamils to India, and implement the Sinhala Only Act. Again, what reason would the Tamils have had to vote for anyone but Tamil parties?
In the July elections the UNP and SLFP campaigned on the same platforms as in March and so the Tamils had once more no reason to elect them.
“1965″
Again, DSS allied with the so-called racist ITAK to form a government. Why did he do this if they were racist?
“1970″
This time the SLFP-led UF allied with the ACTC. If they were racist, why the alliance?
“1977″
Sirima’s government had alienated the Tamils, and though JRJ promised to look into their grievances, the Tamils remembered his role in anti-Tamil government action in the past. The Vaddukoddai Resolution had already been declared and Tamils were rallying behind the TULF in its call for independence. So once more it was Sinhalese racism itself that drove the Tamils to vote for parties that represented their interests.
“1989″
After Black July ’83 and four years of intense warfare under the UNP, the Tamils were obviously going to vote for Tamil parties
“1994″
As I explained earlier, CBK’s PA had no minority parties in its alliance, and obviously the Tamils wouldn’t vote for such a Sinhlese alliance which included the racist JVP. The UNP included the CWC in its alliance and thereby garnered the upcountry Tamil vote.
“2000″
Again, neither of the large so called “multi-ethnic” parties included minority parties in their alliances. Result, minorities voted for their own parties.
“2001″
The UNP included three minority parties in its alliance and won. The PA had none and lost
In the NE where the LTTE was in control, obviously their political front, the TNA won. Whether people actually voted for them and they won fairly is hard to say. Knowing the Tigers’ rep, it’s unlikely.
“2004″
In spite of having some minority parties, the UNP lost. This was also partly because with the LTTE’s consolidation across the entire North and most of the East, minority parties like the SLMC, EPDP, etc had no voter base in Tiger-controlled areas. In those areas the Tiger-controlled TNA won solidly, but whether this was a result of actual democracy is questionable. In the south, the Sinhalese voted for the UPFA and it won.
“2010″
The UPFA with Tamil and Muslim minority parties on board won solidly. Nevertheless, in areas such as the western Jaffna Peninsula, the upcountry, and parts of the East, it was these minority parties that in fact brought in the vote. The UPFA did not seem to mind that this was racist
Nor did they attempt to change the demographic. Instead they won by allying with the right parties, which is in fact democratic. In the North, where Tamils are largely unhappy with the GoSL, they naturally turned to the TNA to represent them. FYI the Tamil TMVP lost badly in its Tamil heartland in the East.
So you can see, TT, that the Tamils have voted for parties that they feel represent their interests, not simply because those parties were Tamil. When Sinhalese parties didn’t adequately represent Tamil interests, the Tamils voted for their own parties which were. As Sinhalese parties became gradually if erratically more progressive towards minority rights, the Tamils voted for them. When they regressed, they didn’t.
“And of course as always in Tamil Nadu since 1967!”
Frankly I have little interest in TN politics and tend to agree with SF’s analysis of them
So instead of waiting for the inevitable revolution by a hungry population, they sent them off to create an empire where those same hungry and poor could replenish themselves at the expense of Africans and Asians, and establish their own fortunes based on their inviolable positions as the white masters; a position that it was impossible for the conquered natives to gain.
This makes no sense. There was no racial component to mercantilism. The brown and black natives in the colonies could indeed improve their fortune; I have already mentioned the Karava Soysa’s who made a fortune from liquor.
The rest of your post is based on subjective daydreaming and does not merit any response.
“This makes no sense. There was no racial component to mercantilism. The brown and black natives in the colonies could indeed improve their fortune; I have already mentioned the Karava Soysa’s who made a fortune from liquor.”
If there was no racial component to mercantilism, why was it that The East India Company was controlled by whites and that there were no natives in its upper hierarchy? Why was it that all the big mercantile firms such as John Keells, Bartleets, Browns, British American Tobacco, etc were controlled and governed by whites? Why is it that all the tea and rubber estates were owned and run by these mercantile firms? Why was it that every estate superintendent and assistant superintendent was white?
If mercantilism or capitalism was all the Brits were interested in, why was it necessary to conquer a country, replace or supersede its rulers with Brit rulers and control the resources? The answer is because they wanted to make an absolute profit out of a nation’s resources; something that isn’t possible through trade and other capitalist ventures. So Britain wasn’t buying SL’s resources as you’re trying to suggest with your bullshit capitalism theory; Britain was stealing them and paying the natives to harvest, process, and transport the loot. It’s like someone breaking into your home and paying you two rupees to polish, pack, and carry your family jewels out to his truck for him.
Whatever entrepreneurship the natives acquired was limited to areas that the Brits were uninterested in, but which could still be taxed to oil the wheels of the empire itself; so the natives could peddle cheap arrack to other natives, manufacture clothes for the natives, grow betel, rice, and coconuts on smallholdings and get relatively wealthier than their labouring countrymen; but they had no hope of entering the hallowed domains of the white man.
No local could hope to rise to the board of a mercantile firm that controlled the tea, rubber, or shipping industries, the areas where the real money was; they couldn’t rise beyond a certain level in the political structure to where the real power was; nor could they enter the white man’s social or sports clubs, or acquire power by marrying into their families.
Have you no concept of what colonialism was, Prof? Did you imagine it was some sort of trade agreement between Britain and us?
“The rest of your post is based on subjective daydreaming and does not merit any response.”
Hmmmm, you mean you mean you don’t know how to respond
That sounds familiar. Run along now, little boy, and come back when you’ve grown up a bit.
More nonsense from Blacker, that couldn’t be further from the truth.
According to Blacker, there were no native entrepreneurs. In fact, there many native entrepreneurs.
Enterpreneurs of the karava caste were mainly from the South-western coastal areas – especially Moratuwa and Panadura. They owed their phenomenal business success in the middle decades of the 19th century to the advantages and headstart they had earlier achieved through having family members in various occupations as craftsmen, traders, and minor government officials. Since the karava families were the prominent capitalists of later years, some information is available about these families. An outstanding example of a successful business clan was the well-known Lindamullage de Silva family of Moratuwa who claim that their ancestors came to Sri lanka from India in the 13th century. In Dutch times, the family had landholdings in Moratuwa and was probably involved in entrepreneurial activities; in the early British period, they embarked on various business enterprises and, by the 1820’s, two brothers, Lindamullage Fransisco and Domingo de Silva, laid the foundation of the family fortunes. Domingo (Daingi rainda mahatmaya) was in the arrack trade, being one of the Moratuwa tavern keepers in 1828; Fransisco was a distiller of the 1820’s and a renter in later years. However, the best known member of the family in the early decades of the 19th century was Domingo’s son Pedro de Silva, who, (as we noted earlier) was one of the leading wholesalers of arrack of the 1820’s; there are records of his annual contracts to supply large quantities of arrack to the government stores from 1827 to 1831. He was also a house and property owner in Grandpass. Qwhen he died in 1838, his son Jusey de Silva took to renting and in later years, became one of the country’s wealthiest men, and the father-in-law of Charles de Soysa, the richest merchant capitalist of the 19th century.
Another karava group with similar widespread interests was the Balappuwaduge Manakulasuriya Mendis family from Moratuwa. According to folklore in Moratuwa, one of its members, Balappuwaduge Gabriel Mendis (known as Gaba rainda rala) was said to have been an arrack renter during Dutch times. B Pedro Mendis was the mahavidana Mudaliyar of Moratuwa and a prominent landowner; B Juan Mendis had the title of master carpenter in 1819 and did work for the Royal Engineers department in 1822; B Bastian Mendis, who as early as 1804-5 had the gaming rents for Kalutara, was also a ferry renter for Mutwal and Wewelle in 1826; B Simon Mendis was a licensed distiller in 1827 and an owner of land, and B Savariel Mendis was a tavern renter in the Kandyan regions from 1828 onwards. Other members of the family, such as B carolis Mendis were carpenters working on contract to the government in the early 1830’s.
A karava familyof Moratuwa which had varied economic interests in the 19th century were the Vidanalage de Mels, whose trading and renting activities probably dated back to Dutch times. V James de Mel was second vidane of Moratuwa in 1809; V Abraham de Mel (known as Punchi rainda mahatmaya) was appointed the first vidane and was also a renter and distiller in 1819; In 1832, his son Anthony de Mel succeeded him as first vidane of Moratuwa. V Salman de Mel was another distiller of this family in 1827. The most important family member during this period, however, was Vidanalage Pedro de Mel (1784-1850). He was a landowner, as is evident from a report that the government acquired 13 of his fields in 1826. His son Fransisco de Mel (1809-1906), the famous renter, was the father of Jacob de Mel (1839-1919) and the grandfather of Henry de Mel (1877-1936) – both leading entrepreneurs in the late 19th and the early 20th centuries (Fernando 1989).
Among the wealthy karava families of the 19th century, was the Telge Peiris of Panadura, which seems to have been involved in trade and in buying land from the Dutch period onwards. According to one account, three generations of the Telge Peiris family, Jeromias, Jeronis and David, “were shipowners as well as landowners. Their sailing vessels plied between South India and Beruwela, Panadura and other ports on the West Coast of Ceylon” (Keble and Surya Sena 1950);
Other important karava entrepreneurs with diverse interests were the Hettiakandage Fernandos. According to family sources the founder of the family came from the West coast of India
The wealthiest of the Sri Lankan families of the 19th century, however, was the karava Warusahennedige Soysa family which rose from humble origins and expanded its interests into a range of economic activities. The successful pioneer who accumulated wealth through arrack renting was Warusahennedige Jeronis Soysa, also known as Babsingho Vedahamatmaya. He was the son of Warusahennedige Joseph Soysa, a Buddhist of Moratuwa (1796-1839), known as Josrala, who it is claimed made money through renting carts and breeding cattle.
Page 132-133 – The Role of Foreign Merchants
The commerce of the city of Colombo was dominated by European and Indian merchants and by local traders belonging to minority groups. Sinhala or Tamil Sri Lankans participated marginally in foreign and internal trade
The majority of local merchants were small retailers who had to face fierce competition from Borah, Memon, Parsi and Chettiar traders from India. Ferguson’s Ceylon Directory of 1863 lists the leading merchants and agents who were large scale exporters of coffee (and other produce) and importers of goods needed for the local market. Of the 33 firms, 31 were foreign. The only locals were P.B.Fernando & Sons and E. Nannytamby, a merchant from Jaffna.
While there were several British retail establishments in Colombo in 1863, the non-European retailers, composed mainly of Chetty and Muslim traders, were located in the Pettah, the center of non-European trade. There are no references to any Sinhala or Tamil retail businesses of any note in the Ceylon Directory of 1863, but there were 75 principal firms owned by Nattukottai Chettiars of South India, who were mainly in the rice and cloth trade as importers and retailers. Writing of these Chettiars, Weerasooria (1973:xiv) has observed that, by the middle of the 19th century, “the greater part of the Indo-Ceylon trade and the internal commerce of the Island was either in their hands or at least largely funded by them.” The only local large trader of significance were the Muslims. There were 35 of them in in 1863 in Colombo who dealt in the retail of a large variety of goods. Emerson Tennent, describing the Colombo retail trade of this period, wrote:
Excellent stores within the Fort supply articles imported from Europe; and those who bring outfits from England, generally find they could have obtained the same articles on the spot… The Moors in Pettah have shops which are certainly among the ‘wonders of Serendib’. [H}ere everything is procurable that industry can collect from the looms of Asia and the manufacturers of Europe.” (1860, Vol II:160)
The non-Europeans included two Parsi firms, Framjee Bhikhaijee and Rustomjee Muncherjee; the two Sri Lankan firms, owned by Charles de Soysa and Jeronis Peiris respectively, were agencies connected with the trading aspects of their arrack renting and planting activities. The non-European retail trade, however, was dominated in 1880 by 86 leading Chetty firms involved in the rice, cloth and other trade, and 64 Muslim retailers who dealt in a wide variety of consumer goods – these two groups accounting for almost all the retail trade in Pettah (Ferguson’s Ceylon Directory 1880-81;494 &507-8). The increased economic activity associated with the growth in prosperity of the tea sector, led to an expansion of the Chetty trade, and in 1890, there were 111 Chettiar traders in Colombo; of these 66 were rice dealers, 38 cloth traders, and 7 were money lenders. They not only dominated vital sectors of local trade in essentials, but also were a readily available source of credit (Ferguson’s Ceylon Directory 1890-91;651).
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/nobtosom.html
There were Parsi firms, local firms, and Indian firms all competing with each other, contrary to Blacker’s zero knowledge of the situation. Also, notice how Kumari J. points to the phenomenal business success of local merchants. I doubt these merchants gave a hoot whether John Keels was owned by the British or the Emperor of China.
Ha ha thanks, Heshan. You’ve substantiated everything I said in great detail.
I’ve proved that there were more non-Whites than Whites doing business in SL. I’ve also proved that plenty of locals – whom Jayawardene calls “nobodies” in her book – became filthy rich via the entrepreneurship opportunities offered through colonialism, hence becoming “somebodies.”
The descendants of many of these low-country “nobodies” now enjoy prominent positions in the S. Lankan government. In essence, I’ve totally contradicted your argument, which was that locals had no chance to move up the socio-economic ladder.
“I’ve totally contradicted your argument, which was that locals had no chance to move up the socio-economic ladder.”
But that wasn’t my argument
Mine was that locals couldn’t move up beyond what their class (as brown-skinned natives of varying language shades) dictated. And you have substantiated thi in your cut-and-paste job. I’m sure you lack the intellect to actually realise this yourself unless I break it down into chewable mouthfuls and regurgitate it into your waiting maw, so let me do that for you 
“According to Blacker, there were no native entrepreneurs. In fact, there many native entrepreneurs.”
Really? Where did I say that? What I said was that local entrepreneurship was allowed only within areas that catered just to locals and in which profit was negligible by white standards.
“Enterpreneurs of the karava caste were mainly from the South-western coastal areas – especially Moratuwa and Panadura. They owed their phenomenal business success in the middle decades of the 19th century to the advantages and headstart they had earlier achieved through having family members in various occupations as craftsmen, traders, and minor government officials blah blah”
As I said, peddling cheap arrack and renting property to the locals wasn’t an area the Brits really cared about. These areas might have provided enough profit to enrich a local family in relative local terms, but came nowhere close to the huge quantities of moolah the big plantation and shipping firms were raking in for their white owners.
“Another karava group with similar widespread interests was the Balappuwaduge Manakulasuriya Mendis family from Moratuwa blah blah”
Again, you substantiate what I said; locals were allowed to supply menial labour under contract, and provide certain services to the white regime that would enable the colonial empire to run on cheaply. Some locals were allowed to profit from the colonial system itself as long as their areas of interest didn’t cross those of the whites.
“A karava familyof Moratuwa which had varied economic interests in the 19th century were the Vidanalage de Mels, whose trading and renting activities probably dated back to Dutch times blah blah”
As per my previous comment.
“Among the wealthy karava families of the 19th century, was the Telge Peiris of Panadura, which seems to have been involved in trade and in buying land from the Dutch period onwards. According to one account, three generations of the Telge Peiris family, Jeromias, Jeronis and David, “were shipowners as well as landowners. Their sailing vessels plied between South India and Beruwela, Panadura and other ports on the West Coast of Ceylon” (Keble and Surya Sena 1950)”
Transporting saris, betel, and Tamil labourers between India and Ceylon is hardly comparable to the British shipping firms that plied the oceans carrying tea, rubber, spices, opium, steel, fuel, high-paying passengers and other high-profit cargo. Locals were able to do business in the fields the whites weren’t interested in.
“Other important karava entrepreneurs with diverse interests were the Hettiakandage Fernandos. According to family sources the founder of the family came from the West coast of India”
Not even a local then.
“The wealthiest of the Sri Lankan families of the 19th century, however, was the karava Warusahennedige Soysa family which rose from humble origins and expanded its interests into a range of economic activities. The successful pioneer who accumulated wealth through arrack renting was Warusahennedige Jeronis Soysa, also known as Babsingho Vedahamatmaya. He was the son of Warusahennedige Joseph Soysa, a Buddhist of Moratuwa (1796-1839), known as Josrala, who it is claimed made money through renting carts and breeding cattle.”
Another booze peddler and farmer. Hardly an attractive area for the Brits.
“The commerce of the city of Colombo was dominated by European and Indian merchants and by local traders belonging to minority groups. Sinhala or Tamil Sri Lankans participated marginally in foreign and internal trade”
As I said
“The majority of local merchants were small retailers who had to face fierce competition from Borah, Memon, Parsi and Chettiar traders from India.”
That’s what I said, Heshan, small-time businessmen. Thanks
“Ferguson’s Ceylon Directory of 1863 lists the leading merchants and agents who were large scale exporters of coffee (and other produce) and importers of goods needed for the local market. Of the 33 firms, 31 were foreign. The only locals were P.B.Fernando & Sons and E. Nannytamby, a merchant from Jaffna.”
Lol this is your argument against my point that most of the big business and trade was controlled by whites?
I hope you don’t plan to take up law as a career, Heshan!
“While there were several British retail establishments in Colombo in 1863, the non-European retailers, composed mainly of Chetty and Muslim traders, were located in the Pettah, the center of non-European trade. There are no references to any Sinhala or Tamil retail businesses of any note in the Ceylon Directory of 1863″
Did you actually read this last sentence before pasting it? ROTFL
“but there were 75 principal firms owned by Nattukottai Chettiars of South India, who were mainly in the rice and cloth trade as importers and retailers. Writing of these Chettiars, Weerasooria (1973:xiv) has observed that, by the middle of the 19th century, “the greater part of the Indo-Ceylon trade and the internal commerce of the Island was either in their hands or at least largely funded by them.””
Ha ha ha did you read the bit that says that most of the Indo-Ceylon and internal Ceylonese commerce and trade was controlled by Indian Chettiars?
“The only local large trader of significance were the Muslims.”
So I guess that demolishes your earlier suggestion that the Sinhalese had significant business interests lol.
“The non-Europeans included two Parsi firms, Framjee Bhikhaijee and Rustomjee Muncherjee; the two Sri Lankan firms, owned by Charles de Soysa and Jeronis Peiris respectively, were agencies connected with the trading aspects of their arrack renting and planting activities.”
And that planting would be coconut for the arrack and arecanut for the betel chewers? Lol.
“The non-European retail trade, however, was dominated in 1880 by 86 leading Chetty firms involved in the rice, cloth and other trade, and 64 Muslim retailers who dealt in a wide variety of consumer goods”
As I said, just peddling minor consumer goods. Local resources such as tea, rubber, spices and other global commodities which were the source of true profit were out of local control.
“There were Parsi firms, local firms, and Indian firms all competing with each other, contrary to Blacker’s zero knowledge of the situation.”
I never said that there was no competition, just that there were classes in the system that were as inviolable as the former caste systems, and from your own quoted sources, the locals were at the bottom of the pecking order; above them were the Parsees, Chettiyars, and other Indians, and above that the whites.
For instance, when my grandfather was in the Army in WW2, the majority of the officers were white, with a smattering of Burghers and a few upper-class Sinhalese and Tamils (since only they could speak English and use knives and forks like the whites and Burghers), the senior NCOs were all Burghers with a few Malays, and the ranks were just Sinhalese and Tamils from the working class. So even in the military and government service the classes were cast (pardon the pun) in stone.
“I doubt these merchants gave a hoot whether John Keels was owned by the British or the Emperor of China.”
Perhaps, but it was pretty clear that no matter if it was a white man or a yellow man up in that boardroom, it was still out of reach of the brown man
Thanks, Prof, for clearing that all up for us. Ha ha ha
Dear TT,
I’m sorry if you consider my response a personal attack, but my aim was to explain why your replies were entirely inadequate, and to highlight what you must do to make your arguments reasonable.
In particular I issued a challenge to you, so that you can counter my claim in a comprehensive fashion.
Here’s my challenge to you TT. Show this forum your comprehension of these issues by paraphrasing the counter-arguments to your views.
RE: “Tamilnet is a live example of defeatism and triumphalism in the same news item. It depends on the reader!”
I don’t see the relevance of Tamilnet. It’s a ludicrous propaganda site, paralleled only perhaps by defence.lk. I usually read both, and divide by 2.
SD,
don’t see the relevance of Tamilnet. It’s a ludicrous propaganda site,
If that is the case, then why is it banned in SL? Obviously someone in GOSL/defense ministry can’t handle the truth.
Heshan,
So you’re setting your atrocity meter to ascertain which is worse – hacking or disembowelling ? A very odd set of priorities. Anyway, unlike Blacker, I’m not going to educate you for free and I really don’t want to re-visit those hideous images. Why not treat this as your homework on Sri Lanka’s atrocities and do your own research.
If you want me do it, make a contribution of (say) £100 to Groundviews and I’ll treat that as my research fee.
Here’s a tip: you’ll have to find Sinhala and Tamil sources; the latter being particularly circumspect when noting the increase in pregnancies and abortions in under-age female LTTE cadres.
I am so relieved to come accross this website and find out that Tamil dissent is allowed in Sri Lanka. Im even more relieved to find out you dont endorse the LTTE.
Are you guys allowed to speak about the alleged war crimes? I personally believe that horrendous crime against humanity did occur in 2009 and that refusal to acknowlege this, by the polity and greater community, is the only thing standing in the way of true peace and reconciliation.
I hope people are free to atleast discuss these issues openly so that no more victims of atrocities feel the need to take up arms