Why The Diaspora Must Return To Sri Lanka
Image from Himal Southasian, Sri Lanka’s alternatives abroad, December 2010 | By Sworup Nhasiju
[Editors note: Also read The Disillusionment of the Diaspora and Two years after war’s end in Sri Lanka: What can the Tamil and Sinhala diaspora do? that offer context and counter-points to this article.]
In a recent post entitled “How The Diaspora Can Overthrow The Government”, blogger Indi Samarajiva put forth the notion that all the Diaspora needs to do to claim Eelam (or whatever solution it wants) is to come back. As idealistically narrow as this claim may be, it does bear a certain logic. As Indi puts it, radical change requires radical sacrifice.
For many, the idea of returning to Sri Lanka is a fantasy but not a practical reality. There are limits to what one is able to do. Those who have children and extended families to support cannot afford to drop everything. And deeper still, the idea of returning to the devastation of what once was a paradise home is more than some are able to emotionally bear. The island remains unsafe and potential migrants would only be returning to a dangerous and uncertain future. Despite all this, the Diaspora must be willing to take risks and find its way back home.
Whether one wants to label the Sinhala influx as “governmental colonization” or not, it is a fact that the demographic face of the North-East is changing. The degree to which the Tamil Diaspora has participated in this shift is questionable. With dual-citizenship on hold and with the possibility of Eelam gone, much of the Tamil Diaspora has lost all desire to return to Sri Lanka. The housing market in Jaffna has boomed, with British, Canadian, and Australian residents selling their ancestral homesteads left, right and center. The streets of Jaffna, once rife with friends and family, are now peopled with strangers and isolated neighbors — many of whom are afraid to speak openly to each other in the current climate of fear.
Of greater import than any physical destruction, the Tamil community has been psychologically decimated. “Selvarani” is a young woman, a former LTTE cadre, who was released earlier this year from the Poonthotam Rehabilitation Camp. She returned to Mullaitivu, where she lives with her mother and father. For many, the rehabilitation camps are thinly-veiled prisons, separating former cadres from their families and from moving forward with their lives. “Selvarani”s experience is different. She has voluntarily returned to the camp to take a teacher’s certificate course offered by the government. “I love coming here,” she says. Tears quietly well in her eyes as she explains the loneliness and isolation she feels at home. “When I am here, I am happy. I have friends and people to talk to.”
The people need people. When speaking with a local psychologist, he defined the greatest need not as money but as manpower. “We have a shortage of qualified psychologists who can speak Tamil,” he said. “We just don’t have the people.” Post-traumatic stress disorder — a very real and debilitating psychological disorder — has quietly crept upon survivors of the war. Extreme depression depletes the women, young children suffer from an absolute inability to focus in school, and a growing addiction to alcohol within the male population threatens to overwhelm the entire community.
“Kanmani” is a single mother of 3. Her husband was killed during the final stages of the war, while her youngest was still only a few weeks old. While no longer suffering from as deep of a depression, she laments the effect her post-war emotional state had on her children. “I became deeply depressed…I used to take such good care of my son. I used to sit with him and make sure he did his studies. I can’t say I did the same for my daughter. The reason my son failed to get a scholarship is because I stopped attending to him. Mentally I was a complete mess.”
“Kanmani” attributes her positive emotional shift to an Indian swami who personally visited her and several others in the area. Her face brightens as she reflects on the laughter and care he brought to the village. He visited each house individually, partook in plays, and provided them counseling and a shoulder to cry on. “Because of him, my head is beginning to clear…if I drown in my sorrows, my children too will be lost…Slowly I am coming back to myself.”
The 2001 ceasefire brought an influx of Samaritan traffic to the island. Young adults from Canada, US, and UK arrived in droves, eager to contribute to the people of Vanni and to connect with and understand their own Tamil roots. While the current situation in Sri Lanka may be less than ideal, these opportunities to connect and contribute still exist. Orphanages, schools, and villages would happily welcome young volunteers, eager to spread English, dance, theatre, or any range of cross-cultural knowledge and exchange. This type of contact would do much to alleviate the sheer loneliness which impacts much of the Tamil community. While regions in the Vanni may still be subject to security regulations, travel to Mannar, Batticaloa, and Ampara is easy and unrestricted.
The first wave of Diaspora emigrants was ardent in its vision for a Tamil nation, a vision which has been passed on to their children. However, the past 30 years have robbed families of the opportunity to introduce their children to the land and people they hold so dear. The end of the war has brought no end to prevailing safety concerns. Parents continue to be reluctant to bring their children on visits to Sri Lanka, let alone the North-East. At some point the long term consequences of these choices must be addressed.
Much of the upcoming Diaspora generation has had no direct contact with Sri Lanka’s Tamil population. A large portion of this generation does not speak Tamil and would be unable to have anything but the most basic of conversations with their Sri Lankan counterparts. For others, their connection to Sri Lanka is romantic and genetic – the way many Americans refer to their long-forgotten German or English ancestry.
In the past 30 years, the North-East has been heavily supported through remittances from abroad. Within one generation, these direct remittances will wane or halt altogether. The Diaspora’s current breadwinners are the original immigrant population. These are people who grew up in Sri Lanka, who have shared memories and relationships with the remaining Tamil population. Relationships are the ties that bind. Relationships are what compels an already struggling family of five to continually spare and send $100 per month to cousins, neighbors, and old classmates. Without established, emotional relationships to persons on the ground, the new earners of the Diaspora will be forced to redirect their remittances solely through faceless NGO’s and government endorsed charities.
While Indi’s writings tend to be steeped in ideological theory, his recent post serves as a reminder of the Tamil Diaspora’s true mandate. A homeland is much more than a vacation destination. A homeland can exist only so long as a stable, interconnected community survives. Sri Lanka’s Tamils have endured 60 years of governmental persecution and a devastating war. They are staggering under an emotional weight which, in conjunction with continued governmental persecution, is becoming far too heavy for them to sustainably bear. The Tamil Diaspora can circumvent this weight only by reintegrating itself into the island’s community. The survival of the Tamil Diaspora is equally contingent upon maintaining this connection. Without a concerted effort to return to Sri Lanka and to reacquaint itself with the North-East, the Tamil Diaspora risks losing itself within their host country identities. At some point, the benefits of returning to Sri Lanka must outweigh the costs.
If that time is not now, then when?
88 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
/The Tamil Diaspora can circumvent this weight only by reintegrating itself into the island’s community/
another snake oil saleswoman enters into the business.
Unfortunately, the Tamil diaspora reads from the dabbling Grease Devils in Tamil areas to neo-fascists masquerading as sri lankan political advisers cum intellectuals.
Get Real! Acts are more important than words. I do not think Tamil Diaspora would buy snake oil from any one either from a cajoling sweet word-mincers or from a charming phrase-dispensers
This author’s Northeast has no military there – its atrocities in many horizontal and vertical dimensions to the resident population
Visitors tell a very different story from this – Presidential Task Force preventing Sustainable Development.
A few recent examples:
http://www.sangam.org/2011/08/Visit_North.php?uid=4442 ( reference to Al Jazeera website)
http://groundviews.org/2011/08/25/jaffna-brutal-assault-of-civilians-in-navanthurai/
http://www.nation.lk/2011/02/20/newsfe5.htm
(Eastern Provincial Council made powerless by governor’s veto power and Northern Council election not yet held.)
http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/08/rajapaksa_onslaught_on_basic_r.html
Rajapaksa onslaught on basic rights is a common threat to all our citizens by Tisaranee Gunasekara, 14 August 2010:
”…. In the South, resistance is possible and, given certain conducive conditions, can become successful. In the North, democratic and peaceful resistance is near impossible, because the regime and its agents can implement any injustice, however abominable, under the cover of security.
….”
Madam
Will diaspora overcome/counteract the following?
http://print.dailymirror.lk/opinion1/31361.html
Rahul Gandhi, the UN and US Express Concern regarding Sri Lanka , Harim Pieris, 30 December 2010:
• The IDPs released for resettlement have not been provided with basic facilities nor compensated.
• A large number of Tamil prisoners are detained under Emergency Regulations and the PTA and not indicted. A complete list of all those Tamils who are in custody must be released.
• The military presence is continuing at war time levels in the North. The artillery range High Security Zones prevent people from resettling on their private lands. Outsiders are permitted to access these lands.
• Involvement of the security forces in civil administration and public affairs creates impediment in the resumption of a civil administration.
• Establishing settlements of security force’s families will drastically alter the demographic composition in the Northern and Eastern provinces of the country.
• Local Tamil youths have been ignored in appointments to the posts in Government institutions in the North or as labour in government projects.
• The real issue is why the government of Sri Lanka is stonewalling on addressing these issues. The influence of a handful of majoritarian ethno religious nationalists should not be allowed to prevent the essential reconciliation measures that are needed in the post war period
- Rahul Gandhi, the UN and US Express Concern regarding Sri Lanka , Harim Pieris, 30 December 2010, http://print.dailymirror.lk/opinion1/31361.html
Dear Luxmy,
The Diaspora has worked hard and continues to strive towards bringing an internationally addressed solution to these problems. As Rahul Gandhi points out, the real issue is why the government is stonewalling on the issues. So long as the current government remains in power, there seems to be little action which can effectively dismantle this wall. In the meantime, the Tamil population continues to suffer from a lack of emotional support, colonization IS taking place, and the younger generations of the Diaspora fold themselves more deeply into their host nation identities. These are issues the Diaspora is able to take immediate action upon and much of it greatly relies upon maintaining a strong, direct connection with the Tamil homeland.
”I am a Tamil. Northeast isn’t so bad as some say” syndrome – part of PR work by GoSL
Why are some Sinhalese very worried about what’s going on in the Northeast, Madam?
The GOSL has temporarily stopped issuing dual nationality to the Sri Lankan diaspora which consits mainly of TAmils. This doesnt help if you want them to return. It is simply another manner in which the GOSL is writing away much of the Tamil population
Dear Anbu,
You are right, the GoSL does not want Tamils to return to the island. My call to return is not necessarily a call to re-patriate. However I do believe the Diaspora should visit Sri Lanka, for 2-3 weeks at a time, and travel to areas outside of the Colombo/tourist destinations. I have two primary concerns. One is largely for future Diaspora generations. If parents do not bring their children to visit, connection to the island will be further diluted as upcoming generations settle deeper into their host nations. My second concern is for those who remain in Sri Lanka. Tamils in Sri Lanka are in dire need of psycho-social services, emotional safety, and support. The GoSL has made it clear it has no intention of providing these necessary mental services. While we have so far been unable to attract sufficient international attention to improve the Tamil condition as a whole, the GoSL has so far not restricted all access to our people. The Diaspora, thus far, is the only entity invested in the well-being of Sri Lanka’s Tamils. As the example of “Kanmani” demonstrates, visiting an affected village may not save the world, but it will make a huge impact upon the lives of those who live there.
when people were killed in Vanni & Vakarai, where were you, Ms. Meena Serendib?
Being the press secretary to one the Rajapakses’?
You do NOT have any moral right to tell what the Tamil Diaspora should do. Only you and your sort of PR machines want are the probable investigations on lankan government to go away and the Tamil money to flow into the country so that lankan government can fund the military machines to harass the Tamils and Muslims, and colonizing Tamils areas with more sinhala (OOPS! as Indi and you could say, ‘lankan’) people.
Do you you have any shame left in you? You do not want to talk about the reality. Shame on you!
Before the Tamil “diaspora” dream of returning to mother Lanka, certain criteria must be fulfilled.They must first shed their “snake skin” together with their deadly poisonous teeth and fangs.I wonder whether they have any tongues. If they do have tongues of demonic fire, they must shed them off too. They must purge themselves of the deadly snake eel-am and rehabilitate themselves from their anti-social mono-ethnic behaviour and embrace everyone honestly and truthfully to incorporate themselves as brothers and sisters in one nation, one country. They must stop collecting money to buy snake oil or snake venom. A cremation of the LTTE must be the final ritual. Only if they can pass all these tests and guarantee and sign in blood that they will never misbehave to wage a demonic war,always uphold peace, only then can consideration be given for their welcome
North/East was never under Sinhala rule. When the Europeans arrived, there were separate kindoms in the North and South.
Now the Tamil land is occupied and is being colonized with Sinhala settlers.
For the Tamils to return, there must be some security in place. Is India willing to provide that again?
Please learn your history before making comments. The Kandyan kingdom stretched from Avisawella to Trincomalee. Look at any map of that time. Now where is Trincomalee?
Dear Ray,
You are living in a Fools Paradise and have gobbled hook line and sinker the rewrite of History by the Separatist Tamils.
You stated “North/East was never under Sinhala rule. When the Europeans arrived, there were separate kindoms in the North and South.”
Here is irrefutable proof from the Dutch National Archives that in the 17 th century the Border of the Sinhalese Kandyan Kingdom was at Elephant Pass. Jaffna peninsula was under Dutch Rule and the Tamil’s did not have a Tamil Ruler.
Extract
During the 17th century the Company was engaged in a war of attrition with the king of Kandy, who had close ties with Ceylon’s Buddhist population. There was a narrow tongue of land at Elephant Pass a fort was built to guard the border with the king’s territory.
http://www.atlasofmutualheritage.nl/detail.aspx?page=dpost&lang=en&id=682#tab2
End Extract
You further state “Now the Tamil land is occupied and is being colonized with Sinhala settlers.”
Since the Sinhala Kingdom extended up to Elephant Pass, where did that Tamil Land exist?
If you are interested in discussing this issue please read the following posts and join the discussion there.
Traditional Homelands
http://groundviews.org/2011/08/31/forbidden-fruits-niromi-de-soyzas-tamil-tigress-noumi-kouri-and-helen-demidenko/#comment-36185
13 th amendment
http://groundviews.org/2011/09/02/should-sri-lanka%e2%80%99s-youth-get-ready-to-confront-armed-intervention-two-years-after-the-war/#comment-36318
http://groundviews.org/2011/08/18/thus-spake-gothabaya/#comment-35906
http://groundviews.org/2011/08/18/thus-spake-gothabaya/#comment-36133
seems like the Tamil diaspora is at the Katunayake Airport lounge begging the lankan government to let it enter and be submissive at any condition; keep pipe dreaming, brother
Off the Cuffs
Are you living in a imaginary world where you can rewrite history by omitting part of it?
Who told you that the Knadian Kingdom was a sinhalease one? The last king of Kandy and his ancestors were TAMIL : ). why dont you also look at the Kandian convention : ) – you will see how half the adikarams of the so called ” Sinhala” Kandian kingdom signed the convention in Tamil : )
So much for the Sinhala Kandian Kingdom.
You guys should get a life and not try to distort history.
Off the Cuff
Also before 17th centurey, there was 16 century, 15 century, 14, 13, 12 and 11 century. Why not look at the borders of the Jaffna Kingdom before it was conqured by the Portugies? Why do you need to wait till the 17th century when the dutch had taken over from the Portuguies to come up with its boundries?
Dear Key,
Sorry to bring you down to Earth from where ever you are.
The last King of Kandy was a Madurai Nayak.
Madurai Nayaks belonged to Telugu speaking Balija social group.
They claimed a Bana descent.
Since you seem to know a lot about History are the Telegu speakers with Bana descent Tamils? Please provide authoritative proof when you write again.
The Nayaks were INVITED to the Kandyan throne they never subjugated the Kingdom by war. The fact that the Sinhalese INVITED the Nayks is proof that the Sinhalese were not Racists. Can you make the same claim about the Tamils of the North?
Perhaps you do not possess the intellect to understand that it is not the Ethnicity of the Ruler that defines the ownership of a country. How many ordinary Tamils resided in “Kande Uda” as the seat of the Kandyan Kingdom was known then? You are citing a Ruler who was invited to Rule to prove that the Kandyan Kingdom was not Sinhalese but Tamil. If that were so Britain would not be English but German.
You say half the Adikarams signed in Tamil. May be and May be not and that fact is irrelevant. I can sign my name in Tamil, English, Hindi, Sinhala and Japanese. It does not change my ethnicity. It also does not mean I can understand any of the above languages. There are Tamils and Sinhalese who can sign in English whose only writing ability is just that. They have learnt just the letters required to sign their names using the Roman alphabet. These people signing in English does not make them Native English does it?
BTW do you have proof that those signatures were not Telegu? The Ruler was Telegu. Could it not have been Prakrit? Even Hindi can look like Tamil if the definition of the sample used is indecipherable like in the Treaty document.
How far down History do you want to go?
US Country Studies states thus,
The first extensive Sinhalese settlements were along rivers in the dry northern zone of the island. Because early agricultural activity– primarily the cultivation of wet rice– was dependent on unreliable monsoon rains, the Sinhalese constructed canals, channels, water-storage tanks, and reservoirs to provide an elaborate irrigation system to counter the risks posed by periodic drought. Such early attempts at engineering reveal the brilliant understanding these ancient people had of hydraulic principles and trigonometry. The discovery of the principle of the valve tower, or valve pit, for regulating the escape of water is credited to Sinhalese ingenuity more than 2,000 years ago.
Key, my posts were a challenge to the Traditional Homeland Theory of the Tamils.
I maintain that the whole of Lanka is home to ALL ethnicities.
I also maintain that PUBLIC RESOURCES should be shared equally amongst Lanka’s Citizens. Tamils such as yourself oppose it.
Why is it that you cannot agree to an equal share of public resources?
Why do you want a bigger share than you are entitled to?
Why do you want to steal from PUBLIC RESOURCES?
Dear Ray;
“North/East was never under Sinhala rule.”
Are you sure about what you say? Can you substantiate your statement with evidence?
I think you know nothing more than eelam brain washers taught you or you are trying to deceive the world to get undue advantages. I think either you are ignorant or dishonest.
There was never a Tamil rule in North or East before 13th century. In the last part of the 13th century invader Aryachakravarthi captured Jaffna peninsula. It was an invasion. There was never a Tamil rule in East.
Until 13th century the whole country was under Sinhlese rule. Not only Tamils but also other invaders like Portuguese, Dutch and Brits had kingdoms in Sri Lanka. Invaders never have legacies. That is why Portuguese, Dutch and Brits went away and do not claim anything on the basis of their “invader kingdoms” in this country. Same way Tamils cannot claim any ownership on the basis of “the invader kingdom of Jaffna” of Aryachakravarthi.
Many people talk what ever comes to their mouths without any shame.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
Ray is right, for there rulers of the Sinhalese people were Tamil kings; therefore to say that no Sinhalese ever ruled the NE is true!
The AryaChakaravarti did claim the right of rulership over the whole of Lanka and was poised to make that claim real when the Portuguese arrived.
The AryaChakaravarti did not see himself an invader but as much a rightful ruler due possibly to his Kalinga connections.
The Kandyan king too came straight out of India, but was regarded as a rightful ruler due to his ancestry!
The Sinhala-Buddhist nonsense about invading Tamils is only about 100yrs old and was invented by Anagarika Dharmapala and his followers.
If the Tamil Pandyans didn’t establish a Lankan throne (as their colony) around the time attributed to Vijaya (for ‘Vijaya’), then there would be no Sinhalese!
Dear sambar;
On your own argument only Indian kings can claim the rightful ownership for Sri Lanka, not ordinary Tamils. That is also for the whole country not for a part of it. Then how can you justify a separate rule in this country?
What you should do is go to South-India and find a person with royal blood akin to royal lineage of Sri Lanka and bring him here and demand MR to resign and hand over the whole country to that “Prince”, not to ask for a separate chunk of land for ordinary Tamils who have no any relationship to rightful royal lineage. How come ordinary Tamils who have no relationship to the kings here have rights for such demands?
You people have wonderful arguments!, dear smart sambar.
Thanks!
Dear sambar;
“Ray is right”
Ray is right even though he is wrong.(as his statement is advantageous to you and your ideologies, isn’t it, dear sambar?)
Haven’t you heard the proverb, “Honesty is the best policy”?
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
The justification for a separate Tamil state is about Tamil kingdoms versus Sinhalese kingdoms.
In the past there were no kingdoms in Lanka that identified as Tamil or Singhalese.
Whether or not the people in different areas spoke Tamil or Sinhalese is quite a different matter.
When Parakramabahu ruled over the whole island he did not do so as a Sinhalese king, but just a king who claimed the right of rulership of Lanka.
When the AryaChakaarvarti was set to conquer the whole island (with some southern help no doubt), it was not about a Tamil king conquering Sinhalese territory, but it was because he claimed that he too had the right of rulership of the whole island.
Nothing to do with being Sinhalese or Tamil or Sinhalese kingdoms and Tamil kingdoms – note also that the Kandyan king was Tamil and Parakramabahu was also a Tamil of Pandyan descent.
The justification for Tamils separating themselves and forming a separate government in the predominantly Tamil speaking areas is in the extremism of the Sinhala-Buddhists, who believe the nonsense concocted by Angarika Dharmapala and his followers.
It is all about geting away from the Sinhala-Buddhist extremists, just like the Kandyans wanted to as early as 1924!
Dear sambar;
I cannot understand what you are telling. You seems to be a overjoyed with your ideas coming from your mind without evidence or against evidence. It seems you casually let go untruths, as natural truths.
Now you start your argument from this wonderful statement as its base.
“In the past there were no kingdoms in Lanka that identified as Tamil or Singhalese.”
There is a saying among Sinhalese, they use when they see people doing nonsense. They say “moota amu kaevilada koheda” which means this man must have eaten “amu”(grain)which sometimes make people’s minds off for some times.I feel like to become a Sinhala rustic ask that from you looking at the contradictory statements you make.
This is what Ray said on September 6, 2011 • 5:08 pm in his post
“North/East was never under Sinhala rule. When the Europeans arrived, there were separate kindoms in the North and South.”
This is what I said to him in response in my post of September 6, 2011 • 9:05 pm
“Are you sure about what you say? Can you substantiate your statement with evidence?
I think you know nothing more than eelam brain washers taught you or you are trying to deceive the world to get undue advantages. I think either you are ignorant or dishonest.”
Your response on September 7, 2011 • 4:14 pm to my post was
“Ray is right, for there rulers of the Sinhalese people were Tamil kings; therefore to say that no Sinhalese ever ruled the NE is true!”
Didn’t you notice Ray’s post you approved talk about separate kingdoms. do you stand both Ray’s statement and your statement denying the existence of statements?
Tell me were these slips of your tongue or you really did not know the facts or you are getting ready to tie a knot on Sinhala modaya’s head? (Konde bandinna hadanavada?)
I think you will soon be beaten by your Tamil brothers for denying the existence of a Tamil Kingdom. They revere Jaffna kingdom as a Tamil kingdom and on that basis only they claim exclusive separate state for Tamils.
Even the smartest man cannot make a perfect lie.
Thanks!
Correction….
“do you stand both Ray’s statement and your statement denying the existence of statements”
here “statement” should be replaced with “kingdoms”
Thanks!
Dear sambar;
“The AryaChakaravarti did claim the right of rulership over the whole of Lanka and was poised to make that claim real when the Portuguese arrived.
The AryaChakaravarti did not see himself an invader but as much a rightful ruler due possibly to his Kalinga connections.”
There cannot have a barrier for anybody to claim anything. Despite Aryachakravarthi’s claim and your want to white wash him he was a a South Indian invader, who paid tribute to Pandayan Dynasty of South India. You cannot white wash him to make your dream prince of the past to legitimize the today’s dream claim for a separate Tamil state in Sri Lanka.
That claim is dead. You cannot give life back to it. Rather than trying to ride a dead horse, I think what Tamils should do is to accept and adjust to the realities as soon as possible to be a part of nation to reap the benefits of the fast development of the country after the end of nonessential war. Keep in mind Sri Lanka is on the track as one of the fastest developing nations in Asia. I think it is better for Tamils hurry up than be sorry with their nonessential barren ideologies.
Thanks!
Dera Yapa,
I am not surprised that you did not follow what I was getting at.
My mistake!
Apologies, I missed out a very crucial word.
The first sentence should have been:
The justification for a separate Tamil state is NOT about Tamil kingdoms versus Sinhalese kingdoms.
The rest looks ok.
On the point of the “Jaffna Kingdom”, I maintain that it should NOT be regarded as a Tamil Kingdom. Rather it was the case that the AryaChakaravarti who claimed the right of rulership over the whole of Lanka had his throne in Jaffna at the time. Though of course the Jaffna region was even then predominantly Tamil speaking – that’s a coincidence.
If the AryaChakaravarti had gone on to conquer the whole of Lanka then he would have been a Lankan king.
Neither should Parakramabahu be regarded as a Sinhala king but as a Lankan king – besides, he was of Tamil Pandyan descent anyway!
All the present communal problems of Lanka are due to the ignorant and ego-driven beliefs that Anagarika Dharmapala and his followers invented to make themselves feel that they could stand up to the British and others: for example, that of the ‘Invading Tamil and the glorious Sinhala-Buddhist defenders’.
The present question though is what will these ‘glorious Sinhala-Buddhist defenders’ do when India swallows up Lanka.
(Of course the freedom to eat kiribath etc. will not be taken away; but in terms of control and future directions, all that will be administered from Delhi!).
Dear sambar;
I would like to answer your last post a bit specifically.
You say (A):On the point of the “Jaffna Kingdom”, I maintain that it should NOT be regarded as a Tamil Kingdom.
Answer (B):You are the only Tamil who would maintain maintain the above stance, that is also for the for the time being for sake of supporting your present argument. When the opposite is advantageous you also would never never fail to shift your stance to the opposite. Even you maintain it forever what is the use. Common Tamil stance except you is that Jaffna kingdom was a Tamil kingdom. There is no any facts for you to maintain your stance but you say you maintain it against the common stance of your brethren I think not for any reason but for the trivial advantage of supporting your present arguments. Otherwise tell me the mighty reason.
(A): Rather it was the case that the AryaChakaravarti who claimed the right of rulership over the whole of Lanka had his throne in Jaffna at the time. Though of course the Jaffna region was even then predominantly Tamil speaking – that’s a coincidence.
(B): What rightful ownership? You ought to understand the difference between a rightful ruler and an invader.
Rightful Ruler
1. must have the mandate/support of the people of the country.
2. He should be a citizen of that country.
3. upholds the culture and values of the people.
4. Becomes a part of the culture of the people.
5. Nourishes and continues the prevailing civilisation.
6. Always take the side of the people against foreigners.
An invader:
1. Always a citizen of another country.
2. No mandate of the people or support of them.
3. His army totally or mainly consist of foreign soldiers.
4. Faces resistance in entering the country.
5. Enters a country by force.
6. Always maintain a hostile attitude towards the native rulers.
7. Try to capture the other territories of the native rulers.
8. May get the help from foreign rulers to fight against the native rulers.
9. May pay tribute to foreign rulers in order to get their support to suppress the native rulers.
10. Culture of an invader is usually different from the native culture.
I think all above ten points are true for Portuguese, Dutch and Brits who invaded this country. Also they are true for all the South Indian Invaders started from Sena Guththika/Elara to Aryachakravarthi. Can you free Aryachakravarthi from above criteria of an invader? Can you show any of the six qualities given above in Aryachakravarthi?
You can just parrot Aryachakravarthi as a rightful ruler, but never will substantiate it, as lies have few natural evidence to support them.
(A):If the AryaChakaravarti had gone on to conquer the whole of Lanka then he would have been a Lankan king.
(B): No, he would have become an invader for the whole country as Brits did and would have faced the destiny of chasing away by the Sinhalese some day. It was lucky for so called “Jaffna Kings” to take over their “Tamil kingdom” by Portuguese.
(A): Neither should Parakramabahu be regarded as a Sinhala king but as a Lankan king – besides, he was of Tamil Pandyan descent anyway!
(B): Your approval is not the deciding factor to regard Parakramabahu as a Sinhala king. Your lack of comprehension/knowledge of the concepts of “Race” and “Ethnicity” is the problem for your poor understanding of Parakramabahu. Though he had some race connection to Pandyans, in ethnicity Parakramabahu was a Sinhalese. A Sinhalese king. Please read, and earn the difference between race and ethnicity. It will heal your illness.
http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1956#comment-31184
(A): All the present communal problems of Lanka are due to the ignorant and ego-driven beliefs that Anagarika Dharmapala and his followers invented to make themselves feel that they could stand up to the British and others: for example, that of the ‘Invading Tamil and the glorious Sinhala-Buddhist defenders’.
(B): You are just narrating against Anagarika Dharmapala. Can you justify your common detest against him with facts and evidence? I put to you that it is with just hatred Tamils make empty legations against him. I challenge you to show any wrong thing he has done without just repeating what Tamil brain washers taught to you all in greed of grabbing this country. Please substantiate your statement, it is unethical to make unsubstantiated bad comments on anybody.
(A): The present question though is what will these ‘glorious Sinhala-Buddhist defenders’ do when India swallows up Lanka.
(Of course the freedom to eat kiribath etc. will not be taken away; but in terms of control and future directions, all that will be administered from Delhi!).
(B): Another dream of your defeated aspirations. India is a friendly nabour of ours,who helped the Humanitarian Operation against the Terrorists. No doubt India too will benefit from the fast development of the freed country.
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
Whether you like it or not the AryaChakaravarti saw himself as a rightful ruler of the whole of Lanka and not as just a Tamil king!
Note that by your own criteria of ‘An Invader’, Vijaya and all who followed in his throne-line must be regarded as invaders too.
As well, you will not find any past ‘Rightful Ruler’ of Lanka by your criteria.
And where do you place the last kings of Kandy?
You are committing the fallacy of trying to read into the past the values and ways of the present.
And also note that in the past the rights of kings was one thing the station of commoners quite another.
However much you repeat otherwise, Parakramabahu was a Tamil who ruled over the Sinhalese in the south as well as Tamils in the north.His throne-line was established by the Pandyans long ago.
Just because he preferred to keep his throne in the south does NOT make him a Sinhalese, any more than just because the Tamil king of the Kandyan throne was in Kandy he was a Kandyan Sinhalese!
Re http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1956#comment-31184 , I have explained elsewhere that it is quite consisten to see Dutugemunu as a Pandyan Tamil and the ‘Demala’ as Chola Tamils.
The Pandyans held that Lanka was their colony and that the Cholas had no right to it.
There was no one then who identified in terms of a Sinhalese ethnicity; even the Sinhalese language was at best probably only just begining to evolve in the south at that time.
Of course India will benefit hugely, and in fact they will insist that they should!! The Indians didn’t help fight the LTTE for the love of the Sinhala-Buddhists did they!
Dear sambar;
I would like to touch upon your last post too abit specifically.
You say (A): Whether you like it or not the AryaChakaravarti saw himself as a rightful ruler of the whole of Lanka and not as just a Tamil king!
Answer (B): I never said he didn’t claim. I said all claims are not true and provided facts to negate Aryachakravarthi’s(and yours) claim.
(A) :Note that by your own criteria of ‘An Invader’, Vijaya and all who followed in his throne-line must be regarded as invaders too.
As well, you will not find any past ‘Rightful Ruler’ of Lanka by your criteria.
And where do you place the last kings of Kandy?
(B): Last king of Kandy, Sri Wickrama Rajasingha (Kannasamy)is the Last king of Sinhalese. Sinhalese consider him as “Sinhale anthima raja”,he ruled Sinhalese people with their consent, not Tamils. Still your understanding of ethnicity and race seems to be poor. I have repeatedly mention that Sinhalese are not a distinct race but a ethnic group.Ancestors of Sinhalese were not Sinhalese. They were Yakkha, Naga, Arya and may be even some Tamils. Sinhalese were a mixture of them. After Pandukabhaya brought the country under one flag, all the prevailing tribes united to form a single ethnic entity called Sinhalese. Buddhism further united them under one umbrella giving them again a single world outlook. A few who didn’t accept the common ideology lived separately as Veddha community, in the jungles. All these happen B.C. and Sinhalese (Buddhists) were the nation flourished in “Sinhaladweepa” after that. No any signs of other civilization is found in Sri Lanka, until the 13th century. That is why there are no Tamil monuments going beyond that period are found in North or East of the island, but thousands of ancients Sinhalese monuments are found all over the country, through out the country. Out of over 25, 000 Wevas (irrigation tanks) that is why not a single of them was built by a Tamil king. That is why no any ancient Tamil literature is found in Sri Lanka. That is why out of hundreds of graffiti found in Sigiriya there is none in Tamil Script, though some Tamils try to give Sigiri Kasyapa, the Tamil name Kasi-Appan and try to Tamilze him. Same way sambar is trying to say Parakramabahu a Tamil, many Tamils in the DBSJ.com even went further as to say the greatest king of Sinhalese, Dutugamunu was a Tamil though he fought mighty battles against the Tamils to united the country. So are the mysterious and mythical distortions of the History of this country by Tamils. It is true that Parakramabahu had 1/4the Tamil blood, but he is 100% ethnic Sinhalese king. Race is some thing related to genes(biology), but ethnicity is determined in terms of culture. Really if we go further down in biology you cannot identify something called a race. Is really there a race called Tamil? Who are their ancient ancestors? They didn’t came to South India from nowhere in 3000 BC. It is said that they migrated from Africa, but there are no a race called Tamils in Africa today though there should still be people with same blood there. Therefore, the distinction among the groups of people are not based much on race, but on ethnicity. Same blood does essentially gruop people into a race. But not only of the people of same blood but also of entirely different blood become a members of an ethnic group when they are of the same culture. Sinhalese people absorbed into Tamil culture in Jaffna, known as Koviyar caste are not considered as Sinhalese but known as Tamils despite of their different biology. Same way, there are Keraltes who were Dravidian in their blood absorbed into Sinhala society and they are no more Keralites but Sinhalese. That is how Parakramabahu and even the last king of Kandy were Sinhalese kings. Kannasamy became a Buddhist,embraced Sinhala culture and became Sri Wicrama Rajasinghe, before he became the king of Kandy. No Dravidian Kannasamy ruled over Kandyan Sinhalese,but Sinalized “Sri Wickrama Rajasingha ruled over them. He was the “last king of Sinhle”, not of “Demale”. So that way,you find Rightful Sinhala Rulers’ of Lanka by my criteria. As I have said earlier, when we wanted we hired kings from other countries as well, but all of them were rightful Sinhala kings as they were brought here with the consent and approval of the people of this country.
It is good you created an opportunity for me to talk about “Vijaya”. You say according to my criteria the first king of Sinhalese is also a n invader. My dear friend, are you sure about it. Let me talk.
According to my understanding there are five different ways people can come to another country.
1. With the prior approval and consent of the country (legal migrant)
2. By force (invaders)
3. Without prior approval but not by force but with the consent of the country who lost their rights in their country of birth (you can say in today’s context refugees)
4. Without approval or consent of the country (illegal migrants, Kalla thoni?)
5. Brought by force by others (forced migrants)
Don’t you think that Vijaya belongs to the 3rd category? Vijaya was exiled from his country and was brought here by winds. He didn’t have an idea to come to “Thanba Panni”, he really even did not know where he got down, that is why he called the country by that “invented/created name”. Further he did not accompany an army. He didn’t come prepared or had no the “intention” of invading this country. So do you consider him an invader?
However, I don’t say Vijaya and his gang were good men. Anyway, this fact alone does not justify branding us, Sinhalese, as good for nothing men. Because Vijaya and his gang or their relative is not the the only spring of the brook of Sinhalese. I think Yakkas, Nagas and Dravidians(if they were there at that time) were bigger springs than the vijaya and the gang. That may be the reason for the bad temperament of Sinhalese, a mixture of all bads. Ha! Ha!!
(A):You are committing the fallacy of trying to read into the past the values and ways of the present.
(B): I think now the above issue does not arise.
(A):And also note that in the past the rights of kings was one thing the station of commoners quite another.
(B): Exactly!, You can still see the the wring of king Nissankamalla near the Palace of Parakramabahu which says that only the people with Royal blood could rule the country and the farmer community was not suitable for that. That was an accepted tradition in here. Sinhalese kings did not marry from the common Sinhalese families. They preferred non Sinhala royal brides. That is why the sought princes from Madurei as their queens. That is why we hired kings and queens from other countries when we were in need. All these didn’t make the country a Tamil country or a Sinhalese royal lineage a Tamil lineage.
You are trying to claim for the country, just giving a wife to one of our kings. Dear sambar have you ever acted in a comedy?
(A): However much you repeat otherwise, Parakramabahu was a Tamil who ruled over the Sinhalese in the south as well as Tamils in the north.His throne-line was established by the Pandyans long ago.
I think a sufficient answer was give to the issue of first sentence above. Really no Tamils were in North then. Until 13th century no south Indian invader invaded North. Before that hey invaded only Anuradhapuraya and Polonnaruwa, which are in North-Central part of the country. There are enough evidence that even during the B.C. north was inhabited by Sinhalese. The king Devanampiyatissa went to welcome the Srima Bo Sapling to Dambakolapatuna, in Jaffna. Over sixty Buddhist Dagabas in Kandarodei(Kadurugodada) and many ancient ruins found with Prakrit Sinhala script are the evedence. Why no ancient Tamil ruins are not found in Jaffna(North)?
However, with regard to the second sentence, can you justify your claim with any evidence. As I have never heard of such a thing I cannot comment on it. Can you please elaborate on the claim?
(A):Just because he preferred to keep his throne in the south does NOT make him a Sinhalese, any more than just because the Tamil king of the Kandyan throne was in Kandy he was a Kandyan Sinhalese!
(B): I think this was explained.
(A): Re http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1956#comment-31184 , I have explained elsewhere that it is quite consisten to see Dutugemunu as a Pandyan Tamil and the ‘Demala’ as Chola Tamils.
(B): I have clearly disproved this claim in the discussion.
Please read my discussion starting from the following post.
http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1956#comment-32640
(A):The Pandyans held that Lanka was their colony and that the Cholas had no right to it.
(B): Please elaborate on this.
(A): There was no one then who identified in terms of a Sinhalese ethnicity; even the Sinhalese language was at best probably only just begining to evolve in the south at that time.
(B): True, The name Sinhala developed later, their ancestors were known by various other names as I have mentioned above. It was just a change of name. Only the “rose” known by several other names. was
(A):Of course India will benefit hugely, and in fact they will insist that they should!! The Indians didn’t help fight the LTTE for the love of the Sinhala-Buddhists did they!
(B): Obviously!, no one would help for nothing. But we can make it mutually beneficial.
Thanks!
Dear sambar;
Thia article also would be helpful.
Thanks!
Dear sambar;
Thia article also would be helpful.
http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1956#comment-32783
Thanks!
I wanted to discuss about our friend samabar’s allegations of Anagarika Dharmapala, after finishing the present discussion. I think he would respond to my last posts addressed to him before we begin our discussion about Anagarika Dharmapala.
Thanks!
Yapa and Sambar
In Sri Lanka we can write history revise it change names change the time kidnap somebody and say it is a humanitarian operation, No body died in the war everything . Just read Mahinder Chin Da naya it gives all the answers. According to Mahider Chindanay the KIng of Hambantota ruled the whole of Sri Lanka, if you want the proof you go and see it, there is a big hole left by him in every thing economy character civilization religion every thing. Another one Gotha Chindanaya is on the way. Which will give more answers and solutions for all problems. Look what happend to Lybiya after Gaddafi Chindanaya. Dont waste your time when the country is wasting itself.
correction in my post of September 12, 2011 • 8:16 pm
“Same blood does essentially group people into a race.”
Should be changed as,
“Same blood does [not] essentially group people into a race.”
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
Been busy, sorry for the delay …
“You can still see the the wring of king Nissankamalla near the Palace of Parakramabahu which says that only the people with Royal blood could rule the country and the farmer community was not suitable for that.”
In other words, as I said before, the Sinhalese who were the common people were never royal material and the ‘Sinhalese’ royals were in fact of Tamil royal lineage. You can call them ‘Sinhalese royals’ if you like but it makes no difference to their Tamil lineage. It was exactly because of the Tamil royal lineage (and other related Indian royal lineages) that the the kings of Lanka would never marry with the Sinhala commoners.
You are are basically in agreement with my point, but somehow refuse to acknowledge it. Very strange!
Because the AryaChakravarti was of a royal lineage that could claim some connection with the royal lineages of Lanka (i.e. the Kalinga connection) that he felt he could rightfully claim rulership over the whole of Lanka.
Just because Vijaya was blown to Lanka by the winds and ocean currents, does not make him a non-invader. He did not come in peace but after he landed proceeded to commit genocide and took the land that belonged to the original inhabitants by force. So he did invade the lands of others.
But the throne line of Vijaya was established by the Pandyans – see the Mahavamsa or Dipavamsa for the evidence.
The Lankan royals, the Pandyans and the Cheras were related and close allies, and they together were often in conflict with the Cholas.
Ellalan/Elara was a Chola and that is why Dutugemunu (of Pandyan connections) was annoyed that this Chola was in Lanka.
Dravidian is a linguistic grouping, not a racial grouping. And like the Indo-European lingusitic group the Dravidian group also arrived in India from somewhere around the middle-east and caucases regions. The Dravidian group invaded India first though, so for example there are Dravidian linguistic pockets even in the north like Baluchi.
In fact rather coincidentally the proto-Tamils might have arrived from a place called Elam!
Also Yapa you seem to erroneously conflate Buddhism with Sinhalese. Rather until about 1000 AD Buddhism was quite strong in India and many Tamils were Buddhist. So any Buddhist artefacts could easily have been due to Tamil Buddhists!
Dear sambar;
Most of the things you have raised in the above post had been discussed in detail in the past. For some doubts created i are without any evidence and just speculations. [Eg: So any Buddhist artefacts could easily have been due to Tamil Buddhists!, (could not be as well)]
There are two new things I am interested to discuss and know.
1. Your claim that the throne line of Vijaya was established by the Pandyans
2. Your allegations against Anagarika Dharmapala
Can you please elaborate on them?
Thanks!
It seems that our friend sambar is reluctant to share his insights about Pandyan Dynasty and Anagarika Dharmapala with us???
Thanks!
It is only a wishful thinking. The Diaspora Tamils may only get back at the will and the pleasure of the Sinhala people – that is the GoSL. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, those who have taken up various citizenships will never be allowed to return just as they would want to re-settle back in Sri Lanka. Have to consider that once you are gone, you are gone! Period. Land in Sri Lanka is for all Sri Lankans and there is no such thing as Tamil areas or Sinhala areas for that matter. Just as Tamils live peacefully all over Sri Lanka, all Sri Lankans may chose wherever they want to reside. To protect the country from undesirables, the government is compelled to establish security agencies all over the nation, including the north and north-east. It will never allow happening what had happened in the past. After all, Sri Lanka is for people of Sri Lankans. Others stay out – period
On the issue of PTSD here’s a really good documentary you should see.
“With suicide rates among active military servicemen and veterans currently on the rise, the HBO special WARTORN 1861-2010 brings urgent attention to the invisible wounds of war. Drawing on personal stories of American soldiers whose lives and psyches were torn asunder by the horrors of battle and PTSD, the documentary chronicles the lingering effects of combat stress and post-traumatic stress on military personnel and their families throughout American history, from the Civil War through today’s conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Thanks georgethebushpig for the video. It is again a show of horror of war. Whatever we gain in war, ultimately it is a loss. As a tool of finding solutions to problems, it brings unimaginable devastation before it brings any gains (to a party). War has never been a tool that brings gains to all parties. By no means it can bring justice.
“Freedom of emotions” is the cause of war. World must learn to curtail emotions, not letting go them to that heights. We think todays world is a better place for humans and other beings to live in with modern technological sophistication. But modern development was not able to fade out a single undesirable emotions from human hearts, else it has sophisticated all prevailing emotions in humans. It has made war sophisticated and led the world to more sophisticated suffering. The world seem to prefer sophisticated suffering than primitive suffering. They seem to prefer kill and wound with guns and bombs than with clubs and swords.
Has the modern man developed from his primitive ancestor or he is just sophisticated? Today are we civilized men or the sophisticated same primitive man eating enemy flesh with forks and spoons?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Dear Johnny Be Good
“when people were killed in Vanni & Vakarai, where were you, Ms. Meena Serendib?”
That is an excellent question. In order to properly humble and awe Ms. Serendib in your august presence, why don’t you tell her where were YOU Mr Be Good when people were killed in Vanni & Vakarai?
“You do NOT have any moral right to tell what the Tamil Diaspora should do.”
You tell her!! I am feeling so proud that someone here is finally standing up and declaring that the Tamil diaspora should just completely forget about Sri Lanka, stay away, assimilate into the new homelands and lose all trace of their roots. There will come one magnificent day when not a single child in the diaspora will be able to speak one word of Tamil let alone have any desire at all to speak with the Tamils left behind in SL. The diaspora will trace that glorious moment back to September 6, 2011 • 5:35 am, when Johnny Be Good stood up against the injustice of diaspora Tamils reconnecting with their relatives, communities, and heritage and declared ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
“There will come one magnificent day when not a single child in the diaspora will be able to speak one word of Tamil let alone have any desire at all to speak with the Tamils left behind in SL. The diaspora will trace that glorious moment back to September 6, 2011 • 5:35 am, when Johnny Be Good stood up against the injustice of diaspora Tamils reconnecting with their relatives, communities, and heritage and declared ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.”
Do not forget the role that you played in this too. You protect the MR regime with your tooth and nail and what moral authority you have even to highlight this disastrous issue?
Dear Burning_Issue
“You protect the MR regime with your tooth and nail and what moral authority you have even to highlight this disastrous issue?”
How am I protecting MR? And does he need or even want my help?
Dear Burning Issue,
Morality aside, the truth of Wijayapala’s observation seems to have shaken you a bit, in to responding with an irrelevancy.
Dear OTC,
You have the habit if putting your foot in without understanding of the issues I am very sorry to say! Wijayapala knows very well as to what I meant by it. As to the issue of Sri Lanka is a Secular country and state funded Buddha project, I will engage with you at another time as am a little busy at present. You spring out from nowhere when Sri Lankan history is being discussed impinching on the Sinhala Buddhist supremacy, but stay silent on the injustices that are being meted to the Tamils.
You do not need to implement the Singaporean colonisation model in Sri Lanka as the Tamils in Sri Lanka will be reduced to next to nothing in a few years; this will be of course music to you no doubt.
Dear Burning Issue,
You wrote “You have the habit if putting your foot in without understanding of the issues I am very sorry to say!”
And what issues that you have raised on this thread that I don’t understand? Pray please condescend to advice and thank you in advance.
You wrote “Wijayapala knows very well as to what I meant by it”
Oh so it’s a private joke unrelated to what you have written and that you are unable to clarify publicly?
You wrote “As to the issue of Sri Lanka is a Secular country and state funded Buddha project, I will engage with you at another time as am a little busy at present”
You have been bragging about that for a long time … since 2009 in fact. http://groundviews.org/2009/11/30/why-should-tamil-speaking-communities-give-critical-support-to-sarath-fonseka/#comment-11609
Most recently you did so on August 24, 2011 • 3:50 pm. when you stated “I raised before about the state sponsored erections of Buddha statues within N&E;”. http://groundviews.org/2011/08/17/darusman-deconstructed-godfrey-gunatilleke%e2%80%99s-critique/#comment-35962
However when challenged you are unable to provide any authoritative references. http://groundviews.org/2011/08/17/darusman-deconstructed-godfrey-gunatilleke%e2%80%99s-critique/#comment-36009
You bragged about providing references on July 25, 2011 • 1:45 pm “I closely followed the Tinccomalee issue with Buddhist statue and was able to demonstrate as to how it was protected using the article 9 of the constitution at that time. I will certainly research again”
http://groundviews.org/2011/07/15/a-sri-lankan-identity-and-race-relations/#comment-34688
As a response to my post at this link
http://groundviews.org/2011/07/15/a-sri-lankan-identity-and-race-relations/#comment-34671
Today is September 8 but you are yet unable to provide that most elusive Proof. Why I may ask but then you have a stock reply …..busy….. yet you are not too busy to write irrelevancies.
But the real reason is different isn’t it?
You will never find such proof regarding the Trinco Statue because you were Lying. I proved you were wrong by providing you with case reports.
In the case of Trinco there were 17 illegal religious constructions on State Land. Seven were Hindu, Six Christian and 4 Buddhist.
Our Constitution states that All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law (Section 12).
The Fundamental Rights Petition was based on the above, as the AG sought to SINGLE OUT the Buddha Statue for removal without taking simultaneous action to remove the 16 other illegal constructions.
That Fundamental Right is not related to any Religion. Yet you have been Hiding the truth and have continued to claim that the Constitution Protected the Trinco statue due to section 9 that accorded a special place to Buddhism. This is an abominable canard and a DELIBERATE LIE intended to fan hatred. You are guilty of doing this since 2009.
You wrote “You spring out from nowhere when Sri Lankan history is being discussed impinching on the Sinhala Buddhist supremacy, but stay silent on the injustices that are being meted to the Tamils.”
Sorry to disappoint you but I have been contributing to this site almost daily.
“Sinhala Buddhist Supremacy”? “silent on Tamil issues”?
I believe I write on the side of Justice and on Equality (regardless of either ethnicity or religion) but if you think otherwise please provide references like I have done in your case. Otherwise you are just throwing wild darts just like the one you have been throwing about the Trinco statue.
These days I have written about the 13th Amendment, the Land grab called the “Traditional Tamil Homeland” the “CH4 Fiction”, the “Tamil Tigress fiction”, “Singapore’s Ethnic Integration Policy” and about Elephant Pass being the 17th Century Border of the Kandyan Kingdom etc
You wrote “You do not need to implement the Singaporean colonisation model in Sri Lanka”
Oh so you have been following what I have been writing about Singapore’s Ethnic Integration Policy though you ran away from that discussion some time back. Strange that you interpret it as Colonisation when the Singapore Tamils do not see it that way. Tells a lot about the Jaffna Tamil attitude and the Singapore Tamil mind set does it not?
You wrote “as the Tamils in Sri Lanka will be reduced to next to nothing in a few years; this will be of course music to you no doubt”
If the Tamils in Lanka are reduced to nothing in the future, you would have played a very large part in that due to the Non reconciliatory attitude that you posses. Oh I know that you try to put on the cloak of a Moderate but the DELIBERATE LIES that you spread makes me wonder. I am rather disappointed and saddened that you have not realised the damage that you do when you spread rumours.
What the Tamil Intelligentsia did just after Independence resulted in a 30 year war. The continuation of the same policy would result in what you predicted above. I only wish there are more people like Dr Noel Nadeson and Pradeep Jeganathan amongst the Tamil community as they are the ones capable of preventing such a calamity.
Dear Burning_Issue
“Wijayapala knows very well as to what I meant by it.”
No I do not know, hence I explicitly asked you how I am defending MR tooth and nail.
And why are you responding only to OTC? Do you like him more than me?
Dear OTC,
You can quote many references as much as you like; They prove anything!
You stated that Sri Lanka is a secular country; your understanding of secularism and Sri Lanka is impeccable!
Do you claim that the Trinco Buddha statue was saved as a result of “The Fundamental Rights Petition”?
If the Fundamental Rights Petition was based on Individual Rights provision in the constitution, I can erect a Hindu statue anywhere I want and no one can do anything about it; is this what you are claiming?
“In the case of Trinco there were 17 illegal religious constructions on State Land. Seven were Hindu, Six Christian and 4 Buddhist.”
What do you term as illegal? If these 17 religious constructions were deemed illegal, how come they became legal as a result of the Individual Rights Petition? So they were not illegal in the first place, is this what you claim?
The Attorney General at the time wanted all illegal sites removed; are you saying that the Fundamental Right Petition overruled this?
“CH4 Fiction”
How do you know that it is a fiction? Do you have evidence? If this is a fiction as you claim, why not support an investigation? Is this how you operate impartially?
“Oh I know that you try to put on the cloak of a Moderate but the DELIBERATE LIES that you spread makes me wonder. I am rather disappointed and saddened that you have not realised the damage that you do when you spread rumours.”
Wow; I now need cave in and accept the above! Please get real OTC; the current MR regime is the most racist Sri Lankan regime ever; you are an ardent supporter of it; you have no right to talk about equality. The LTTE was a terrorist organisation and too right all of you wanted it to be defeated. If you stand for justice for all, you showed nothing whatsoever on these forums to support that. Including the Singapore model to backing of the Trinco Stature issue your standpoints have narrow perspective. You are one of those who patronisingly and subtly advocate racism I am very sorry to say.
OTC,
“I only wish there are more people like Dr Noel Nadeson and Pradeep Jeganathan amongst the Tamil community as they are the ones capable of preventing such a calamity.”
What you wish here is that the Tamils should allow them to be subjugated! I have no problem with Nadeson and Jeganathan calling for the Tamils to toe the line; it is the only way the Tamils can save themselves and evidently, this does not mean they will be equal to the Sinhala but can survive and live peacefully accepting their defined status. This does not reflect well on people like you, a Sinhala, to cite these two individuals as examples for all the Tamils to follow!
A Tamil can advocate an undivided Sri Lanka and at the same time can stand up for his rights. A Tamils has the right to ask as to what happened to the fellow Tamils during the last stages of the war. They have the right to ask as to why so many civilians killed. This is not anti-Sri Lanka; this is asking for justice. Tamils should have the right to political freedom and equality. To systematically rendering a community irrelevant and insignificant politically is cultural and political genocide; this is what you advocate and support! You can try to obscure your veiled racism with term “equality”, but it will not wash with people like me.
You will have the subjugated Tamil in a peaceful Sri Lanka eventually, but please do not use the terms such as Equality or Justice; you do not know the meaning of them!
Dear Burning Issue,
You wrote “You can quote many references as much as you like; They prove anything!”
Slow down BI, You are writing gibberish.
You wrote “You stated that Sri Lanka is a secular country; your understanding of secularism and Sri Lanka is impeccable!”
Sri Lanka is not secular and it has never been, not even during British Rule and even the British recognised and gave Primacy to Buddhism. That is a fact but not necessarily what I subscribe to.
The majority in Sri Lanka however is very tolerant of other religions though some amongst them react when that tolerance is misused.
BTW can you reference to a comment from me where I claimed Sri Lanka was Secular? Is that another concoction?
You wrote “Do you claim that the Trinco Buddha statue was saved as a result of “The Fundamental Rights Petition”? “
Cant you read BI? I have not only claimed it, I have proved it, many times, in several posts addressed to you. Where is the counter proof that you bragged about over 5 weeks ago? Judging by this long post of yours you did have the time, this time, but you definitely could not get your proof. You will NEVER get this purported proof as it does not exist. Its a COMPLETE FABRICATION on your part and a Mischievous one to claim the Trinco Statue had Constitutional protection even when faced with irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
You wrote “If the Fundamental Rights Petition was based on Individual Rights provision in the constitution, I can erect a Hindu statue anywhere I want and no one can do anything about it; “
There is no IF about it. It was based on Section 12.
Do your much bragged about research and come out with a FACTUAL counter.
You forget that Trinco had and still has 7 illegal Hindu Temples and 6 illegal Christian structures. You can add one or many more illegal Hindu Temples or statues. In fact I would implore you to do so. Just take a Hindu statue and put it up on the roadside and get people to come and worship there. You are from Trinco aren’t you? Should have no difficulty in organising a 20 – 50 Hindu’s to support you. Then if it’s removed by anyone (police or public) take your case to the Supreme court as a test case. You already have a precedent so what stops you? That is how you fight this sort of thing not by planting lies on public forums. I will of course back you to the hilt on GV.
You wrote “What do you term as illegal? If these 17 religious constructions were deemed illegal, how come they became legal as a result of the Individual Rights Petition? So they were not illegal in the first place,”
What a question to ask. Illegal can be many things but in the context of Trinco religious structures all 17 are unauthorised and has encroached on Public land and hence illegal on both counts.
You wrote “How can a section 12 petition claiming the right of equal treatment cause an illegal entity to become legal?”
That is an absurd conclusion. ALL 17 of them are still illegal.
What you need to understand is action on any one of them is not possible unless action is taken simultaneously against ALL 17. You can’t SINGLE out any one of them be it Hindu, Christian or Buddhist. That BI is the meaning of EQUALITY.
You wrote “The Attorney General at the time wanted all illegal sites removed;”
That is a LIE. What was attempted was to SINGLE OUT the Controversial Statue. That’s why the Section 12 Fundamental Rights petition succeeded in achieving what the petitioner wanted. I believe the Petition was never heard in the Supreme Court as the AG withdrew the case in the Trinco courts and the FR petition was consequently withdrawn. The alternative would have been to demolish or remove ALL 17 structures. Apparently no one wanted that.
Of course I will stand corrected in the event you can provide any other reason (with proof) for the withdrawal of the Section 12 FR petition.
You wrote “How do you know that it is a fiction? Do you have evidence?”
I have already indicated to you why it is fiction
1. Dr Nadeson (he is Tamil BTW) has observed the presence of a purported SLA soldier in SLIPPERS but otherwise in uniform. SLA soldiers do not wear slippers when they go on operations.
2. There was only ONE hospital available to the LTTE in the war zone and under their control. However there was not a SINGLE LTTE wounded or Dead in combat attire in the Hospital or it’s precincts. ALL casualties and the dead were in CIVILIAN clothes.
Lies have a habit of catching up.
You wrote “If this is a fiction as you claim, why not support an investigation? Is this how you operate impartially?”
You don’t need anyone’s support as Sri Lanka has already officially accepted investigations under a JUST regime.
Justice cannot be delivered without a Just investigative regime.
These are principle’s of Justice
1. Everyone is equal before the Law
2. Everyone must have the equal protection of the Law
3. Justice is BLIND to anything other than the law.
In order to satisfy the above, the investigative regime allows no exceptions and No Vetoes.
It is not swayed by Emotion
it is not swayed by Military or economic prowess of the alleged wrong doer.
All states must irrevocably submit itself to such regime.
Unless these conditions are met these so called “investigations” will just degenerate and become a Club in the hands of the powerful with which the weak can be pummelled in to submission.
The consequences of that BI, are far more far reaching and detrimental to world peace, than the narrow ends of revenge that the proponents of investigations seek.
I will give my whole hearted support for investigations when a JUST regime as enumerated above is established.
You wrote “If you stand for justice for all, you showed nothing whatsoever on these forums to support that. Including the Singapore model to backing of the Trinco Stature issue your standpoints have narrow perspective”
Well BI you must have been too blinded with your preconceptions to see any other perspective than yours. I need not comment on the Trinco statue as I have provided enough FACTUAL evidence to prove that you have been LYING all along. Rhetoric wont do, provide factual references as I have done. Didn’t you brag about possessing evidence? Where is it?
I have given exhaustive details of the Singapore Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP).
Like 13A it is based on per capita distribution of Land
Unlike 13A it does not have a covert clauses to subvert the Per Capita sharing of resources.
Singapore also had Ethnic strife
EIP has successfully averted that to date.
Why do you object to equitable sharing?
Do you expect the Majority to continue to pay for your luxuries as in the past?
What made you inarticulate halfway through the debate?
Over 80% of Sri Lanka’s Land is PUBLIC property.
Your right to public property is the same as mine or anyone else’s.
You cannot claim for yourself the Lion’s share
What Moral Right do you have to do that?
Is that your sense of equality?
You wrote “You are one of those who patronisingly and subtly advocate racism I am very sorry to say.”
Facts prove otherwise.
You cannot substantiate what you stated about the Trinco statue.
I have shown you several times with reference to case reports that the the FR petition was filed using section 12 equality and not section 9 Primacy to Buddhism. Any RATIONAL person would refrain from repeating ad nauseam the section 9 mantra knowing full well that it is wrong. The DELIBERATE attempt at inflaming religious sentiments prove who is subtly peddling disharmony while pretending to hold moderate views.
You wrote “Wow; I now need cave in and accept the above! Please get real OTC; the current MR regime is the most racist Sri Lankan regime ever; you are an ardent supporter of it; you have no right to talk about equality.”
Nope I don’t need you to accept anything. Repeating the Section 9 Mantra even after all facts were placed before you proves that either you are irrational or that you are cunning. My aim was to expose your pernicious intentions to those who thought you were a moderate. If you had accepted the facts placed before you, I would have believed you made a genuine mistake, as all of us do at sometime or other but yours was deliberate and not a mistake or error in judgement.
I do not care about the Regime but I do care about my Mother Land. I will defend to the best of my ability any transgression of the Honour of my Mother Land and that is what I have done and still do and will continue to do here on GV.
Dear Burning Issue,
Ah so you have had time for an afterthought to your previous post of September 9, 2011 • 7:50 pm to which I have already replied in mine of September 10, 2011 • 4:47 am.
Unfortunately your afterthought did not appear on GV (delay in moderation) at the time I responded to your earlier comment.
Some of the issues you have raised in your afterthought seems to have been covered in my reply above but some are not. I will respond to ALL your questions after I see what you have to say to my post of September 10, 2011 • 4:47 am at http://groundviews.org/2011/09/05/why-the-diaspora-must-return-to-sri-lanka/#comment-36483
I quote Tamil’s to prevent you from huffing and puffing with a Sinhala Buddhist Hysteria. You can’t possibly accuse your own as being Sinhala Buddhists. That should keep the discussion on a more Rational Plane.
In your haste to sling mud, you have labelled Dr Nadeson and Dr Jeganathan as pacifists. Why, because they have the intelligence to see through the smoke screen that you guys generate?
You wrote “I have no problem with Nadeson and Jeganathan calling for the Tamils to toe the line;”
Is Dr Noel Nadesan asking Tamils to “Toe the Line”?
I have seen only an attack by him on the LIES spread by CH4 and the Terrorist sympathisers amongst the Tamil Diaspora and a commendation of the Humanity of the SLA Forces. You a delusional Burning Issue. Please reference to any thing that he says that can be interpreted as a call to “Toe the Line”.
You see BI, you have to back up your derisive writing with FACTS. This you have failed to do though you have been bragging about a non existent evidence for over 5 weeks and postponing presenting that evidence to the GV readership with a very lame excuse of being Busy all the time.
Where has Dr Jeganathan asked Tamils to “Toe the Line”?
You are getting deeper in to a quagmire of LIES.
Wijayapala has also called your BLUFF.
http://groundviews.org/2011/09/05/why-the-diaspora-must-return-to-sri-lanka/#comment-36440
Please reply my previous post before you do this one, unless you reply them together.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first start to deceive.
Dear OTC,
I asked:
“Do you claim that the Trinco Buddha statue was saved as a result of “The Fundamental Rights Petition”? “
You replied:
“Cant you read BI? I have not only claimed it, I have proved it, many times, in several posts addressed to you. Where is the counter proof that you bragged about over 5 weeks ago?”
OTC, of course reading and comprehending is vital in understanding issues. Now let’s look at as to how much you understand by your reading abilities!
No; The Fundamental Rights Petition did not succeed. The Fundamental Rights in the constitution and Local Council covenants cannot clash. No one can erect a religious structure or any form of a structure in public or private land without obtaining a due permission from the local authority concerned. In this case the Chief Justice Sarath Silva implicitly invoked the Article 9 of the Constitution and arm twisted the Attorney General to withdraw the motion directed at the District Court to remove the statue concerned. As a direct result, the Monk withdrew his petition. If the Petition had had been tested in isolation without the Article 9, it would have miserably failed.
Please read the following article written by DBS Jayaraj:
http://transcurrents.com/tamiliana/archives/155
An excerpt:
“My concern however is about the Supreme Court of Chief Justice Sarath Silva. The SC bech presided over by the CJ behaved controversially in the matter of the Trincomalee Buddha statue. Sarath Silva ordered Attorney – General Kamalasabayson to stop all legal action taken by the department to get the statue removed. Courts in other Countries take extra efforts to protect minority rights. Not so in Sri Lanka”
You said:
“That is a LIE. What was attempted was to SINGLE OUT the Controversial Statue. That’s why the Section 12 Fundamental Rights petition succeeded in achieving what the petitioner wanted.”
By the above sentence you said that the Fundamental Rights Petition succeeded, which did not; then you further say:
“ I believe the Petition was never heard in the Supreme Court as the AG withdrew the case in the Trinco courts and the FR petition was consequently withdrawn. The alternative would have been to demolish or remove ALL 17 structures. Apparently no one wanted that.”
My friend, the Fundamental Rights Petition was only put forward to buy time; the Chief Justice at that time behaved irresponsibly; the same man is now a Buddhist Monk, which says a lot of the whole affair. If all 17 structures were to be illegal, all should be removed, this is the way it should have been.
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/archive/20060409/issues.htm
DBS Jayaraj writes On the Sunday Leader:
“The problem here was not the erection of Buddha statues itself but the motives and manner of such erection. The erection and construction of Buddha statues in public places or under Bo trees has in many instances transcended the realm of genuine piety and devotion. There are many instances of these comprising a political project. The Buddha statues are very often symbols of intrusive supremacy.One realises that the vast majority of Buddhists in the country have nothing to do with this political Buddhism and are appalled by the blatant abuse of Buddha statues. They are however voiceless in the face of this “mahajathiya” juggernaut attempting to crush the “sulujathiya.””
The first point is that the Trinco Statue was erected in order to provoke reaction; it was not as a result of piety. However; whether a place of worship is intended as a result of piety or not; it is required by law to obtain permission before erecting a statue or anything of that nature. I accept that many people in remote areas set up places of worships without obtaining due permissions. Generally, no one opposes such situations in the absence of communal issues. In the event, if a complaint is lodged about an illegal set up, it is incumbent on the council authority to take action. This is exactly what happened in the Trico affair.
The Monk who filed the Fundamental Rights petition withdrew it as a result of AG withdrawing his motion. CJ Indicated that the AG had no right to interfere in the civil matters; it did not mean that the original ruling of the district judge was deemed overruled. It is not true that the Fundamental Rights petition set president such that anyone can, as you claim, erect a statue with popular support; it is an irresponsible thing to say!
I wrote:
“The Attorney General at the time wanted all illegal sites removed;”
Your reply:
“That is a LIE. What was attempted was to SINGLE OUT the Controversial Statue.”
Mister, please read below:
http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/07/19/news25.htm
One Wasantha Ramanayake states on Daily News:
“Senior Counsel S.L. Gunasekera for the petitioner making his submissions for Leave said that the decision of the respondents to remove the statue without removing other illegal religious structures were discriminatory, arbitrary and the unlawful and in violations of the petitioners rights. He stated that the removal of the statue would cause the breach peace and would be irreparable loss and damage to the Buddhist in the area.”
In reply to Counsel S.L Gunasekara, The Solicitor General:
“Solicitor General C. R. De Silva PC resisted the application for the Leave submitted that the Attorney General directed the UDA remove the statue only when it had sought the advice of the AG. He also submitted that the AG also initiated actions to remove the others unauthorised religious structures as well.”
Do you still claim that I have lied?
You said:
“What you need to understand is action on any one of them is not possible unless action is taken simultaneously against ALL 17. You can’t SINGLE out any one of them be it Hindu, Christian or Buddhist. That BI is the meaning of EQUALITY.”
Dear OTC; please do not talk about “EQUALITY” as you do not understand the meaning of it. All illegal religious cites should have been removed that is what should have happened. The issue is that, the Chief Justice behaved deplorably (He is now a Buddhist Monk speaks volume); he arm twisted the AG; him being Tamil and put under undue stress and left in a situation and compelled to withdraw the order to remove the statue. As a result the Monk concerned withdrew his petition. Hence the ruling was not on the basis of the Fundamental Rights and no President was set rather CJ implicitly invoking the article 9 of the constitution! How do you now feel about your reading abilities?
I am very puzzled that many reference sites that I read before on this very subject are no longer available!
Dear Burning Issue,
The level of Deceit you practice is deplorable. You not only LIE but you SELECTIVELY quote material to BUTTRESS that LIE.
Do not lose sight of the Fact that your contention was, is and has always been that Section 9 of the Constitution was used to protect the Trinco Statue. That Burning Issue is a DELIBERATE and CALCULATED LIE. It is as much a deliberate Lie as your present claim that the Former CJ Sarath Silva is now a Buddhist Monk!!!! You can hoodwink foreigners and the GULLIBLE Tamils who may be hanging on every word that you write, but you cant hoodwink the people of Lanka.
Let’s look at what you write and the references you use as proof.
This is what you wrote “In this case the Chief Justice Sarath Silva implicitly invoked the Article 9 of the Constitution “
Please remember that you have to prove that Section 9 of the Constitution was used to prevent the demolition / removal of the statue in question.
Please also keep in mind that my objections are to the manner in which you try to Demonise section 9 of the Constitution and I am not justifying the use of religious objects to challenge the Tamils or anyone else.
You wrote “Mister, please read below:
http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/07/19/news25.htm
One Wasantha Ramanayake states on Daily News:
“Senior Counsel S.L. Gunasekera for the petitioner making his submissions for Leave said that the decision of the respondents to remove the statue without removing other illegal religious structures were discriminatory, arbitrary and the unlawful and in violations of the petitioners rights. He stated that the removal of the statue would cause the breach peace and would be irreparable loss and damage to the Buddhist in the area.”
Well Dear Burning Issue, did YOU read the above and understood it’s meaning?
Where did you see the INVOKING of Section 9 by the petitioner? In your dreams perhaps. The Emphasised text depends SOLELY on Section 12 Equal Treatment
That’s why you are a LIAR.
You PURPOSELY and DELIBERATELY distort Facts, to achieve your Ulterior Motives.
You also quote DBS Jayaraj
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/archive/20060409/issues.htm
I am quoting below extracts from the same document
“Counsel Mr.S.L.Gunasekara who appeared for the petitioner argued there are several unauthorised structures of statues and temples of other faiths in Trincomalee. The AG has filed action in the Trincomalee District Court only for the removal of the Buddha statue erected in the bus stand premises. Hence this violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner.”
The following inferences flow from the above statement.
1. The Fundamental Rights petition came up for hearing in the Supreme Court
2. The Petitioner declared in the Supreme Court that “The AG has filed action in the Trincomalee District Court only for the removal of the Buddha statue erected in the bus stand premises”
3. The Petitioner pleaded unequal treatment by Law enforcement (Equal treatment is a Fundamental Right under Section 12 of the Constitution
All the above are confirmed in the quoted text from DBSJ as no Lawyer in Sri Lanka (Mr. SLG in this case) will dare to attempt perjury by making false declarations (2 above) about another court case in the Supreme Court.
Therefore Burning Issue, the District Court Case was filled ONLY to remove the Buddha Statue and NOT to remove the other 16 Illegal religious edifices.
The same document states, “Mr.C.R.De Silva, Solicitor General appearing for the Attorney General submitted to court that the government has filed the case to reduce tension in the town following the erection of the Buddha statue. He further submitted to court that the AG has also taken steps to remove other unauthorised religious structures in Trincomalee.”
It was ONLY as a response to the FR petition that the AG took steps to remove the other religious edifices. The DC court case SINGLED out the Buddha Statue.
When you make counter claims please do not lose sight of the CHRONOLOGY. Doing so deliberately is deceit.
That it was section 12 and not section 9 that was used (as you deceitfully allege) as the basis of the FR Petition is confirmed by DBSJ’s report that you have quoted.
“The petitioner further said although there were around 17 illegally erected religious statues on state lands in Trincomalee out of which seven were Hindu Kovil and six churches or Christian statues the AG had directed UDA to remove only the Buddha statue.
The petitioner alleged the selective and discriminatory conduct was in violation of Article 12 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. The removal of the statue would preach peace and cause irreparable loss and damage to the Buddhists in the area. The petitioner sought two interim reliefs: – A stay order preventing the removal of the statue by the UDA and to stay the proceedings in the Trincomalee District Court,”
Where do you see ANY reference to Section 9 of the Constitution in what DBSJ reports?
As per the foregoing it is clear that your statement reproduced below wont fit me but fits you like a glove and is a very accurate description of yourself.
“…. of course reading and comprehending is vital in understanding issues. Now let’s look at as to how much you understand by your reading abilities!”
Your OWN words BI, Your OWN words.
That you have not only LIED but has been practising DECEIT to further your irrational views of the Constitution has been proved by the documents you yourself have referenced.
Dear OTC,
This is the last time I will ever write to you! Evidently, I have really got under your nose; you have not only become irrational, emotional and patronising but also rather abusive! I will leave you to do all the abusing as it suits a person like you who supports and defends the degrading phenomenon such as the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism.
You accused me of lying in relation to AG’s intention to removing all illegal structures. I provided evidence; your response:
“It was ONLY as a response to the FR petition that the AG took steps to remove the other religious edifices. The DC court case SINGLED out the Buddha Statue.”
Nice try OTC! The AG was only dealing with Trnco Statue as that was the centre of the case. As I said before, if any other situations were to be brought before the courts, AG would deal with them as appropriate. There is nothing strange about it at all. You cannot bring yourself to apologise that you got it wrong. I do not need an apology especially from a man who comfortably advocates chauvinism; hope you sleep better at nights.
Let me reiterate:
1. I state that the FR Petition did not succeed; it did not set a precedent as you claim; it is pathetically wrong.
2. The CJ implicitly invoked the Article 9 of the Constitution arm twisting the AG to withdraw his motion directing at the District Judge to remove the Buddha Statue. There is no reference to Article 9 because it was implicitly invoked. You can dispute it but there is no other explanation. If any legal or constitutional experts on this forum can through some light on this I would welcome it.
3. When a petition is placed in front of the Supreme Court, the petitioner makes representation with his side of the arguments; this does not mean, whatever said is accepted! The test is that, whether the petition succeeded or not; clearly it did not in this case.
4. No one can erect a religious structure or otherwise without obtaining a due permission from the relevant authority concerned. No popular support, as you claim, will rise above the law in such situations. The FR provisions in the constitution cannot conflict with the local authority by laws unless the bizarre provision like the Article 9 is invoked.
“That you have not only LIED but has been practising DECEIT to further your irrational views of the Constitution has been proved by the documents you yourself have referenced.”
You can say whatever you like mister; “DECEIT” is what you will have to deal with in your conscience. The Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism by its nature is self-defeating and deceitful. The whole world knows what this is all about and still there is no realisation that this concept has ruined the nation and it is still advocated and fostered with total ignorance nonetheless! If you want to really defend Sri Lanka, first try to be a true democrat, practice equality, treat everyone equal, do not support constitutional bigotry and be a good human being. If you can do that, you can claim that you truly defend your country. Sleep well tonight.
Dear Burning Issue,
You wrote “There is no reference to Article 9 because it was implicitly invoked. You can dispute it but there is no other explanation”
So at last, after TWO years, you finally admit that there is no reference to Article 9, yet you were emphatic that it was Article 9.
You were caught out in a Lie Burning Issue.
Please pray enlighten us how a Constitutional Law can be IMPLICITLY INVOKED
Now you try to claim that there is no other explanation huh?
How about Illegally exceeding Authority?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2005/07/050718_statue_courts.shtml
Chief Justice Sarath Silva ruled that the AG had no power to order the Urban Development Authority (UDA) to remove a controversial Buddhist statue. The AG agreed to withdraw the case and recall the order issued to the UDA. The Supreme Court made this ruling having considered a Fundamental Rights petition by Dehiovita Piyatissa thero.
You are Pathetic Burning Issue
Since 2009 you have been claiming that Article 9 “Primacy to Buddhism” was invoked and not Article 12 “Right for Equality”. This is 2011 and yet you cannot provide a SINGLE authoritative document to prove your case.
People who make frivolous statements without proof are called LIARS.
This is the latest of such Canards that you Shamelessly propagate without an Iota of Evidence
You wrote “the Chief Justice at that time behaved irresponsibly; the same man is now a Buddhist Monk, which says a lot of the whole affair”
Fabricating such canards says a lot about you BI. Who is irresponsible, you or the former CJ?
Burning Issue, I have quoted Chapter and Verse in proving you wrong and you have been unable to make any Rebuttal with authoritative references. Proves who is irrational does it not?
You wrote “ Nice try OTC! The AG was only dealing with Trnco Statue as that was the centre of the case”
Yes of course and that is the reason it gave rise to an Article 12 Fundamental Rights application pleading unequal treatment by law enforcement. If however, action against ALL 17 illegal constructions were made SIMULTANEOUSLY there would have been no room for an Article 12 application.
You wrote “ You cannot bring yourself to apologise that you got it wrong”
Apparently you have a short memory. Remember when we discussed the Thesavalami Law in 2009? I never hesitated to except your position when you had the supporting evidence. Further more I provided you with a Supreme Court case reference which I found while researching Thesawalami.
In stark contrast to that, in the present case, you do not have an IOTA of evidence to substantiate your claim. Compounding the lack of evidence you dogmatically refuse evidence placed before you. Do you call that Rational?
I have proved my case and hence there is nothing for me to apologise. You on the other hand FAILED to prove ANYTHING.
Calling a person who resorts to Lying and Deliberately distorting facts, a Liar, is a statement of Fact. How else would you describe such a person?
I will continue to challenge you when you attempt to spread Lies in GV. My posts will be read and the readers would know that your silence is an admission of guilt.
See you online BI.
Wijayapala
nice try, friend. Alas! twisting one’s words into another may not be new for a sri lankan anymore, as we have learned people already came up with the phrases, “all are sri lankans” and “post-ethnic era”.
Where was Mr be Good when people were killed in Vanni & Vakarai? Probably on London Parliment… Australian streets…Canadian Bridges… in front of Swiss UN office… shouting and protesting to get the international attention on what was going on. Certainly not on manufacturing truth out of fiction with phrases such as, “all are sri lankans” and “post-ethnic era”.
First do not worry about the Tamil diaspora kids’ fluency in Tamil; same can be asked about any diaspora kids’ fluency in its mother’s tongue (including a sinhala diaspora kid’s sinhala language). Yet, I think Tamil diaspora kids are generally doing ok with their mother tongue – to the extent they need, and better than their peers thanks to their parents’ eagerness to remind them the history and why they ended up as a part of diaspora.
Second issue: What is important to a diaspora kid is to have a good environment to adapt to environment it lives (the language of the nation it lives; now do not tell me that its parents could have then studied sinahala in lanka before getting chased from their lands in 1958, 1977, 1983 onwards). Then, loving and defending your kins left at the shore of your parents’ land you do not need the language, but the interest in fighting for the righteous rights and humanity.
Dear Mr Be Good,
Mr Ram has just informed us that Ms. Serendib’s parents are in the GTF. It seems you have made a terrible blunder in going after her! :-0
“Probably on London Parliment… Australian streets…Canadian Bridges… in front of Swiss UN office… shouting and protesting to get the international attention on what was going on.”
And when you foolishly started waving the LTTE flag in addition to your mindless shouting, the int’l attention became quite unsympathetic and thus nobody stopped the SLA from finally steamrolling the LTTE. You can therefore blame yourself for the Wanni Tamils’ plight!
May I ask why you were not trying to get anyone’s attention when the LTTE went back to war in 2006, or at any time during the CFA when the LTTE was recruiting child soldiers? Do you look down on Wanni Tamils because they are not from Jaffna and/or some of them might possibly be of a lower caste than yours?
“What is important to a diaspora kid is to have a good environment to adapt to environment it lives”
You mean an environment where your children will not be used as cannon fodder by the LTTE? Then how come you never have spoken out against the use of child soldiers?
Well, another load of stinky lies on display here.
Example: “Kanmani” is a single mother of 3. Her husband was killed during the final stages of the war, while her youngest was still only a few weeks old.”
Wow! What a long pregnancy this woman had. If she conceived her child from her husband just before he died at least 2 years ago (when war ended in May 2009), then she should have had at least 24 months long pregnancy to have a “only few weeks old” child now, unless she had some good time with someone else after her husband died.
Well, the answer to the “long pregnancy” issue probably lies in the next sentence; ““Kanmani” attributes her positive emotional shift to an Indian swami who personally visited her and several others in the area. Her face brightens as she reflects on the laughter and care he brought to the village……. “Because of him, my head is beginning to clear…if I drown in my sorrows, my children too will be lost…Slowly I am coming back to myself.”
Oh! Nice !
Looks like this is one service Tamil diaspora would do to their left-over kith and kin in Sri lanka to eliminate their loneliness.
Dear Manjula,
You appear to be comprehension challenged.
The child was a few weeks old 2 yrs ago, and is now said to be 3. You might have challenged the present age as to whether it should not be 2, but that seems to have slipped by you!!
Meena Serendip: “Without a concerted effort to return to Sri Lanka and to reacquaint itself with the North-East, the Tamil Diaspora risks losing itself within their host country identities.”
Nonsense! The Tamil diaspora will only lose its Tamil identity if they allow it to.
A good example are the many jews around the world who have not lost their Jewish sense of identity, because it is held as something of cultural and ancestral value to be so valued.
So why will the Tamil diaspora give up on its Tamil identity?
Besides reconnection is always possible through vacations that amount to more than eating hoppers and sipping arrack in Galle Face hotel!
“At some point, the benefits of returning to Sri Lanka must outweigh the costs.”
But what if the cost is erasure of the Tamil identity by enforced Sinhalisation (or Sinhala-Buddhistisation) as seems to be happening in the NE now?
So perhaps it is better safeguard the Tamil identity from a safe place outside of Lanka for now?
Sambar,
“But what if the cost is erasure of the Tamil identity by enforced Sinhalisation (or Sinhala-Buddhistisation) as seems to be happening in the NE now?”
Kindly explain how the Upcountry Tamils who have been surrounded on all sides by Sinhalese for decades have not been “Sinhala Buddhistised.”
Dear Wijayapala,
The Upcountry Tamils were never a threat, so there was no urgency to Sinhala-Budhistise them.
But it will happen in time.
The only reason why the Sinhala-Budhistisation program was delayed was due to the protests of the Ceylon/Lanka Tamils, and then the LTTE (that arose due the peaceful protests of the Tamils being brutally attacked by the violent Sinhala-Buddhist extremists).
Now in the present climate the Sinhala-Buddhistisation program will go ahead without any obvious opposition.
Dear sambar,
“The Upcountry Tamils were never a threat, so there was no urgency to Sinhala-Budhistise them.”
So you are saying that the non-upcountry Tamils were a threat to the Sinhalese? Would this not suggest, as per your reasoning (not mine), that all that the Tamils had to do to avoid being Sinhala Buddhistised was to avoid being a threat??
Dear Wijayapala,
You wrote: “all that the Tamils had to do to avoid being Sinhala Buddhistised was to avoid being a threat”
If only that was possible!!
Unfortunately the Sinhala-Buddhist extremists are not only paranoid but suffer from a massive inferiority complex.
The simple fact that the Tamils were/are generaly more successful than they [the Sinhala-Buddhists] were/are, automatically made/makes them [the Tamils] a threat in the eyes of the Sinhala-Buddhist.
And just like any bully the Sinhala-Buddhists have a need to sadistically attack the Tamils to make themselves feel a sense of worth – hence the many anti-Tamil pogroms.
Have a look at some of anagarika Dharamapala’s early writing if you get a chance. It is full of self pity and self loathing. That’s where much of the mentality of the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’ came from.
Dear sambar;
“The simple fact that the Tamils were/are generaly more successful than they [the Sinhala-Buddhists] were/are, automatically made/makes them [the Tamils] a threat in the eyes of the Sinhala-Buddhist.”
The real reason is not that. It is the majority complex induced by the 60+ million Tamils living in Tamil Nadu. They try to humiliate “Garunda” the vehicle of Vishnu, resting around the neck of Maheshvara (?).
“Tamils were/are generaly more successful than they [the Sinhala-Buddhists] were/are,”
Ha! Ha!!, must be in eating dosas and wadas. Oh! I forgot they were more successful than Sinhalese in the war ended in 2009.Ha! Ha!!
Thanks!, dear sambar for providing entertainment.
Dear Sambar,
You wrote “Unfortunately the Sinhala-Buddhist extremists are not only paranoid but suffer from a massive inferiority complex“
Why cannot it be the corollary?
1. You have a massive Superiority Complex (a vestige of the Colonial era when you wielded administrative power)
2. You have met your Waterloo in the form of the Sinhala Buddhists who form the overwhelming majority and who seem to be delivering the message that enough is enough of that superiority complex
Wijayapala has pointed out that the Up country Tamils have neither lost their Tamilness nor their Religion though they have lived as a minority surrounded by an overwhelming majority of Sinhala Buddhists for decades (Actually, almost 200 years! ).
You have stated that the Indian origin Tamils were able to do so as the Sinhalese Buddhists did not see them as a threat but saw the Jaffna (Lanka) Tamils as a threat due to they being “Successful”
Hence It follows that you believe that the Indian Origin Tamils to be an inferior lot to the Jaffna Tamils. You are the intelligentsia and everyone else are non entities? Get off it Sambar, we share a 55% genetic pool between the Sinhalese and Tamils. What percentage of an exclusive genome do you posses that puts you above the Indian Origin Tamils to make you that “Successful” or to make the Upcountry Tamils that Inferior to you? Given an equal opportunity you are no better than anybody else.
You never thought about what you wrote but you could not help yourself. As that is what you have been fed by your elders for Centuries. Apparently, you wont spare your children from that mind set either.
That is the ACTUAL Brahmin Jaffna Tamil mindset. The Mindset that prohibited the Non Brahmins from even entering a Hindu Temple on days set aside for the High Casts. The Mindset that believed giving Drinking Water to a lower cast Tamil at the door step of your house was demeaning. The Mindset that believed that allowing a lower cast Tamil to cross the threshold would be defiling. The Mindset that trampled on Tamil, Sinhala, Muslim peasants alike. The Mindset that is at the ROOT of Lanka’s strife. Prabahkaran was the equaliser between the High and Low cast Tamils and that is the ONLY good thing that he did. Now that he is gone, the Brahmin Mindset is back on the rise?
What Wijayapala has pointed out has deeper meaning.
It is the tolerance taught by Buddhism that has allowed the Indian Tamils to live amongst an OVERWHELMING Sinhala Buddhist population on LAND Dispossessed from the Sinhalese themselves. You would call it Colonisation of Traditional Homelands. It was Colonisation at the beginning because the people who were settled in these lands were foreigners. Today two centuries later, those who live there were born in Lanka and should have and has the right to live anywhere in Lanka just like any other citizen.
The REAL reason for the coexistence of the Sinhala Buddhist majority and the Indian Origin Tamil minority is the absence of the Jaffna Tamil Brahmin Mindset and the tolerance taught by Buddhism.
Dear OfftheCuff,
You have gone off on a tangent going to who knows where. Hence I am at a complete loss to know where to begin or how to reply!
However I see you have writen: “The REAL reason for the coexistence of the Sinhala Buddhist majority and the Indian Origin Tamil minority is the absence of the Jaffna Tamil Brahmin Mindset and the tolerance taught by Buddhism.”
So am I to understand that in your mind it is this “tolerance taught by Buddhism” that also resulted in all the barabaric anti-Tamil violence?
Thank goodness then that the Jaffna Tamil mindset was never polluted by this so-called ‘tolerance’!
You will no doubt wish to note that because the Jaffan Tamils lacked this ‘tolerance’, even in 1983 not a single Sinhalese was killed in Jaffna.
Dear Sambar,
You wrote “You have gone off on a tangent going to who knows where. Hence I am at a complete loss to know where to begin or how to reply! ”
Apparently I have ruffled your feathers and had been on target.
You stated that the Jaffna Tamils were a threat as they were successful but the Indian origin upcountry Tamils were not a threat to the Sinhala Buddhists.
It follows from the above that you consider the Upcountry Tamils INFERIOR to the Jaffna Tamils.
You state that the Tamils are more successful than the Sinhalese.
The inference that is derived from the foregoing is that, in your opinion, you are superior to both Upcountry Tamils and the Sinhalese. This clearly is your perception derived from your Psychological make up. Simply put you have a “Massive Superiority Complex”
Arumuga Nalavar, was a driving force in consolidating the Vellala hegemony at the expense of other Tamils. Read Prof. Ratnajeevan Hoole (younger brother of R Hoole of UTHR (Jaffna))
These are examples of that complex
1. Prohibiting entry to Hindu Temples for the Low cast Tamils. Mr C. Suntheralingam MP was fined by the Supreme Court in the Maaviddapuram Temple entry case.
2. Preventing Lower cast Tamils from drawing water from wells owned by High cast Tamils.
Your declared position is proof that you are a follower of Arumuga Nalavar.
Since you consider yourself superior to both the Sinhalese and the “OTHER TAMILS” I questioned you as to how that superiority is derived, when Jaffna Tamils, Upcountry Tamils and Sinhalese all share a common Genome of 55% and when the Jaffna Tamils and Upcountry Tamils share a common genome of 100%.
My queries are directly on target and you cant deflect it, hence you are “at a complete loss to know where to begin or how to reply!” (your own words).
The second question that you are trying to avoid is, as Wijayapala pointed out, How did a Tamil minority smaller in size than the Northern Tamils co exist with the “bullying” Sinhala Buddhist for 200 YEARS in LAND dispossessed from the Sinhalese? The dispossession of Land is aggravating enough, for a bullying community to react against that Minority. So why did they not react?
There should be a cause for the above.
There are two groups living amongst the Sinhalese Buddhists
1. The Northern Tamil group
2. The Upcountry Tamil Group
Both groups are Tamil yet one group coexist and the other is antagonistic
So why?
I see the following possibilities
1. The mindset and outlook of the Upcountry Tamils are diametrically opposed to that of the Northern Tamils.
2. The mindset of the Sinhala Buddhist is essentially peace loving unless aggravated beyond tolerance
There is one factor regarding the Mindset of the TWO Tamil groups that stand out. That is the “Vellala Hegemoney” of Arumuga Nalavar.
The Northern ruling class of Tamils the Vellala, have it and the more peace loving Upcountry Tamils don’t.
“Vellala Hegemoney” of Arumuga Nalavar was the ROOT cause of Strife.
It is not Ethnic strife, as comparable strife, does not exist, with half the Tamil population, the Indian Origin Upcountry Tamils.
Yes, Fair play in Srilanka will produce good atmosphere, understanding,
and good progress of Srilanka to the future. I was in Srilanka in August for about 28 days. Yes, we have gone through lot of misstrust,
missunderstanding & not trusting each community. Srilanka has lot of
potential for growth. Let us Sinhalese & Tamils give a hsnd to develop
Srilanka, so will have plenty of wealth to over come the issues of
Language/Religion & Community. When I am hungry, I cannot think well.
Me as a Jaffna born Tamils, who has met & mixed with the Sinhalese in
young days in Colombo / Kandy / Matale etc, let us still not seperate
us. Fair play is in the hands of the Sinhalese today. The Tamils who
left Srilanka will be a definite asset to Srilanka. So, Srilanka hold
onto them, let them decide what they want to do. All Srilankan Tamils
must be allowed live & do their matters without having dual citizenship. Let them be still as Srilankans. Do not look at me a
foreigner, Srilanka.
This is ridiculous. I grew up in Colombo in a private school and I learnt to read Tamil really well by looking at the morning tamil newspapers and here in the west I see kids no different from me. You need passion to learn the language by yourself. Also there are thousands of tamil private schools and the language is now integrated into high school/secondary examinations. I hope Sri Lankans have a future to dream of. This article by this writer in a fake pseudonym is very much threatening. Thanks for showing whats in your chauvinistic sinhala mindset of being a government of sri lanka apologist.
Todays headlines in virakesari.lk – “we will kill all the tamils if international sanctions are passed against the nation – Minister Chamipika warns almost..
How would one differentiate Groundviews.org and the LLRC of Sri Lanka ?
What is the answer to those affected? A Bhuddist temple? The way the answer comes to the affected people is horrible. Can a sinhalese man bring back the situation in N/E as it was before any conflict that had happened from 1958. Very few people in this forum nkew about 1958. Shame on those people who comment about the tamil conflict.
Same to you!
Thanks!
The Tamil diaspora’s participation is very much essential for a lasting peace in Sri Lanka. But the issues is Meena’s parents themselves are heavily involved in the activities of United States Tamil Political Action Council, a constituent organization of GTF. Every one knows the politics of GTF – there is no room for engagement – it will be a great achievement, if Meena can convince her parents to ‘return’ to Sri Lanka.
Dear sambar
“The simple fact that the Tamils were/are generaly more successful than they [the Sinhala-Buddhists] were/are, automatically made/makes them [the Tamils] a threat in the eyes of the Sinhala-Buddhist.”
If that is true, then the Tamils in SL now have nothing to fear from the Sinhalese, because they unfortunately but clearly are not enjoying very much success in anything these days.
“And just like any bully the Sinhala-Buddhists have a need to sadistically attack the Tamils to make themselves feel a sense of worth – hence the many anti-Tamil pogroms.”
Your logic makes little sense- if the Sinhala Buddhists are bullies who target the weak, which is the definition of bully, then they would have targeted the up-Country Tamils who were in a much more vulnerable position.
History does not support your argument of systemic anti-Tamil violence. All four of the major anti-Tamil riots took place under just two leaders, demolishing the theory that they represented genuine antipathy of the Sinhalese against the Tamils. The failure of the Sinhalese to stop this violence is a more solid indictment, although in this sense the Jaffna Tamil tolerance of violence against lower-castes and later against the Muslims quite amply shows that they share the same mindset as the Sinhalese.
“Have a look at some of anagarika Dharamapala’s early writing if you get a chance.”
What’s wrong with his later writings? And where did he preach hatred specifically towards Sri Lankan Tamils?
Dear Wijayapala,
“If that is true, then the Tamils in SL now have nothing to fear from the Sinhalese, because they unfortunately but clearly are not enjoying very much success in anything these days.”
Ingrained beliefs and habits generally do not dissapear overnight and certainly not for rational reasons – we are talking about the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’ mentality!!
“Your logic makes little sense- if the Sinhala Buddhists are bullies who target the weak, which is the definition of bully, then they would have targeted the up-Country Tamils who were in a much more vulnerable position.”
And indeed the bullies did, and continue even to these days to, target the Upcountry Tamils!
“All four of the major anti-Tamil riots took place under just two leaders, demolishing the theory that they represented genuine antipathy of the Sinhalese against the Tamils.”
ONLY Four! So that is oK is it?
And what about all the antiTamil incidents that you would not classify as ‘MAJOR’?
Surely four is more than enough to note the anti-Tamil mentality among the rioters!
“The failure of the Sinhalese to stop this violence is a more solid indictment,”
That failure given the Sinhala-Buddhist mentality of violence is however understandable.
It is the ignorant ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’ maniacs who are the problem not the normal Sinhalese speakers.
“although in this sense the Jaffna Tamil tolerance of violence against lower-castes and later against the Muslims quite amply shows that they share the same mindset as the Sinhalese.”
Ahh, Wijayapala I see you are struggling to try and erase the shame of the inaction of the Sinhalese.
“What’s wrong with his later writings? And where did he preach hatred specifically towards Sri Lankan Tamils?”
Is that meant to refute the contents of his early writings? Anyway the point is that where he came from psychologically and emotionally is very clear in his early writings.
Anagarika Dharmapala did not preach hatred toward the Tamils at all, but his followers did after around the 1920′s.
In fact Dharmapala himself hoped, given the Muslims and western colonisers, that the Indians and Tamils would save the Sinhalese race from extinction!
However Anagarika Dharampala was very anti-Muslim and the Sinhala-Buddhist went on a riot against the Muslims in (if I remember correctly) 1918. The British quickly put it down and it was the Tamils who convinced the British to release the Sinhala-Buddhist rioters and their leaders – the Sinhala-Buddhists since proved themselves to be an ungrateful lot as well!
Dear sambar
“And indeed the bullies did, and continue even to these days to, target the Upcountry Tamils!”
That contradicts what you earlier said on September 8, 2011 • 3:36 pm that “The Upcountry Tamils were never a threat, so there was no urgency to Sinhala-Budhistise them.” Kindly keep your arguments consistent.
“All four of the major anti-Tamil riots took place under just two leaders, demolishing the theory that they represented genuine antipathy of the Sinhalese against the Tamils.”
ONLY Four! So that is oK is it?
I did not say “only four,” I said “ALL four.” Whether there were four, or eight, or sixteen riots, the point was that they took place under only two leaders which suggests that it was their policies, and not Sinhala sentiment alone, which led to anti-Tamil violence.
“And what about all the antiTamil incidents that you would not classify as ‘MAJOR’?”
Why don’t you name them, so that we can discuss them?
“although in this sense the Jaffna Tamil tolerance of violence against lower-castes and later against the Muslims quite amply shows that they share the same mindset as the Sinhalese.”
Ahh, Wijayapala I see you are struggling to try and erase the shame of the inaction of the Sinhalese.
And I can see that you sambar have absolutely no sense of shame how you treated the Jaffna Muslims recently, and the lower-castes historically. That is the difference between you and me.
“Anagarika Dharmapala did not preach hatred toward the Tamils at all, but his followers did after around the 1920?s.”
Who were these followers?
“However Anagarika Dharampala was very anti-Muslim and the Sinhala-Buddhist went on a riot against the Muslims in (if I remember correctly) 1918.”
1915. Were you aware that more Sinhalese were killed than Muslims?
“The British quickly put it down and it was the Tamils who convinced the British to release the Sinhala-Buddhist rioters and their leaders”
You have mixed up your history once again. Ponnambalam Ramanathan traveled to Britain to argue that the Sinhalese as a community should not be punished for what happened.
Dear Wijayapala,
To Sinhala-Buddistise is not the same as being violent toward them, though the two do seem to go hand in hand – I meant target with violence not for Sinhala-Buddhistisation, (sorry what I wrote was ambiguous).
A degree of moral/psychological subjugation is necessary before Sinhala-Buddhistisation can happen.
With the Upcountry Tamils this is not a problem for they are in many ways subjugated. It is then only a matter of time until sinhala-Buddhistisation occurs.
Anagarika Dharmapala’s ‘followers’ are the extremist Sinhala-Buddhists. Actually they are not quite his followers, but only claim to be. Anagarika Dharmapala, though he created a fancuful history and identity for the Sinhalese Buddhists as the Arya-Sinhala-Buddhists etc., he was certainly not anti-Tamil, unlike the ‘followers’.
When I said Anagarika Dharampala was anti-Muslim, I should also have added that it was not without cause!
Ponnambalam Ramanathan was Tamil, therefore it is fair to say that it was the Tamils who saved/defended the rights of the Sinhalese then.
When did I say that I agreed with casteism?
Samabar, could you kindly ask “sambar” to respond? I found your response to be less than enlightening.
“With the Upcountry Tamils this is not a problem for they are in many ways subjugated. It is then only a matter of time until sinhala-Buddhistisation occurs.”
Well, what’s taking us (Sinhala Buddhists) so long???? It’s been 200 years since the Upcountry Tamils arrived and over 60 years since independence. Surely you can understand my impatience; I find it so distressing to see a self-described superior Tamil like you proven wrong.
“When I said Anagarika Dharampala was anti-Muslim, I should also have added that it was not without cause!”
Well, thank goodness the Iyakkam got rid of them in Jaffna, eh?
“When did I say that I agreed with casteism?”
When did I say that you agreed with casteism? I simply pointed out that whereas I have acknowledged shame for the anti-Tamil violence that took place after independence, you have not similarly acknowledged shame for violence perpetrated against Muslims and lower-castes. Actually you come across as a Tamil version of yapa, reinforcing my view that Sinhalese and (non-upcountry) Tamils share the same shortcomings in mindset!
Dear Wijayapala,
Been busy ..
You wrote: Well, what’s taking us (Sinhala Buddhists) so long???? It’s been 200 years since the Upcountry Tamils arrived and over 60 years since independence.”
The British were in the way until independence, and then the Lanka/Ceylon Tamils and their agitations and then the rise of the LTTE distracted the Sinhala-Buddistisation program
“Well, thank goodness the Iyakkam got rid of them in Jaffna, eh?”
I only said that Anagarika Dharampala was anti-Muslim, and at that time it was not without cause.
“When did I say that I agreed with casteism?”
“you have not similarly acknowledged shame for violence perpetrated against Muslims and lower-castes.”
Of course it is shameful to inflict egoistical and meaningless violence on anyone!!
What happened to Prof.Hoole when he returned?
Dear CASSHIVAS;
As usual TAMILS rose against him. I think Tamil caste differences also played a role.
It should be noted that a SINHALESE(you know who) invited him.
Thanks!
Dear OTC,
I apologise for my post in a haste though my writing was not up to the mark, I am sure you understood everything what I wanted to convey. I am not privy to your employment situation and how you manage to devote a lot of time to these forums; I work on client sites on contract basis and finding time to engage in constructive debates is very cumbersome. This is my situation and I care not whatever you perceive about it.
“Sri Lanka is not secular and it has never been, not even during British Rule and even the British recognised and gave Primacy to Buddhism. That is a fact but not necessarily what I subscribe to.
The majority in Sri Lanka however is very tolerant of other religions though some amongst them react when that tolerance is misused.”
I remember reading in one of your earlier posts that you made reference to Sri Lanka being a secular country. I have tried to trace it; if I made a wrong observation I say sorry. However, I am glad that you explicitly stated that Sri Lanka is not a secular country; this means that one religion is held at high esteem over and above all the other religions, which means there is no equality in Sri Lanka!
“Sri Lanka is not secular and it has never been, not even during British Rule and even the British recognised and gave Primacy to Buddhism. That is a fact but not necessarily what I subscribe to.”
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/kandconv.html
No, I dispute this with conviction. I have already disputed the Kandian Convention and its relevance to the entire nation; you can say whatever you want but the truth is that, the Kandyan Convention was only applicable to Kindy itself ! The British stipulated this in the section 9 of the convention “Over non-Kandyans the position to remain according to the British Law” and additionally, the British reneged on the Convention in 1818. Your claim that the Convention is meant for the entire Sri Lanka is a pure concoction of the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists that you subscribe to! It is a mischievous attempt to claiming that the British gave recognition to the Buddhism in relation to the whole of the Island! Please get real.
Can you elaborate on “The majority in Sri Lanka however is very tolerant of other religions though some amongst them react when that tolerance is misused.” What will be deemed as misused? So by definition you admit that, in Sri Lanka, non-Buddhists cannot be equal to the Sinhala Buddhist. You cannot have the cake and eat it at the same time. You cannot hold a moral high ground arguing that you stand for equality and justice. My friend, you need to get real, you ardently advocate subjugation of all the non-Buddhists in Sri Lanka; do not make it look as if you are a benign individual who is trying to build harmony; it is a real joke!
I will write about the Tinco Buddha Statue soon…
Dear Burning Issue,
The Kandyan Kingdom extended up to Elephant Pass in the North even during Dutch Rule. There is a document in the Dutch National Archives that states the Border with the Dutch ruled Jaffna and the Kandyan Kingdom was at Elephant Pass. This was in the 17th century.
http://www.atlasofmutualheritage.nl/detail.aspx?page=dpost&lang=en&id=682#tab2
More over, the treaty between the Dutch and the King of Kandy refers to the King as the King of Kings and Emperor of Lanka.
THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE KING OF KANDY AND THE DUTCH, 1766.
Know all men: The Lords of the States-General of the Free United Provinces of Holland and the illustrious, powerful Company of Hollanders in the East for the one part: the illustrious powerful, noble king of kings, His Imperial Majesty Kirthi Sri Rajasinghe, Emperor of Lanka and the leading very honourable members of the council of Ministers of the Great Court for the other part; terminating the hostilities between the two powerful parties:
The whole of Lanka other than the Jaffna Peninsula and some coastal areas that were conquered by the Portuguese and then the Dutch were under the Kandyan Kingdom where Buddhism was given state protection.
The British conquered the Dutch and those areas under the Dutch passed to the British.
Section 5 of the Kandyan Treaty Stands alone
5. The religion of the Buddha is declared inviolable and its rights to be maintained and protected.
Sections 8 and 9 refers ONLY to Civil and Criminal Justice and has NO reference to Religion and hence do not apply to section 5. You cannot apply either section 8 or 9 by taking them out of context to buttress your personal views.
8. All civil and criminal justice over Kandyan to be administered according to the established norms and customs of the country, the government reserving to itself the rights of interposition when and where necessary.
9. Over non-Kandyans the position to remain according to British law.
The Kandyan convention applied to the whole land area of the Kandyan kingdom even to the areas that were previously annexed by the British. That BI is getting Real. So where is the mischief?
British reneging on the Treaty is immaterial to the acceptance of the principle, which was forced on the British due to the prevalent political environment at the time.
Name calling is not PROOF BI.
First provide the proof then do the name calling.
If you Lie I will call you a Liar but before that I will provide the proof and I will give you a chance to explain yourself.
You wrote “I am glad that you explicitly stated that Sri Lanka is not a secular country; this means that one religion is held at high esteem over and above all the other religions, which means there is no equality in Sri Lanka!“
If that is your Logic and the yardstick of equality, is there equality in the UK where you live?
UK has a State Religion and unlike in Sri Lanka it is not benign.
In Sri Lanka the Constitution only gives Primacy but does not exclude any Citizen from ANY position due to Religion. It is quite the opposite in the UK where the Monarch has to belong to the English Church and Roman Catholics are explicitly prohibited from holding the Crown.
What if the reigning Monarch decides to embrace Hinduism, Islam or Buddhism? Will that Monarch be able to continue as the Monarch?
In Lanka the Head of State can change Religion at any time and there is absolutely no bar to prevent holding office till the end of term.
So why the Double Standard?
The problem is when you are dogmatic you fail to see reason.
You wrote “What will be deemed as misused?“
The reference to “misuse” is nothing to do with the law but to the sensitivities of the public who are normally tolerant and does not interfere in the religious practices of others. Muslims pray to God 5 times a day and they do use Loudspeakers. Hindu Kovils come up on roadsides without any reaction. Christian Crosses and Statues come up on roads without any reaction. No violence takes place because of that. That is Tolerance. Proselytisation on the other hand has caused some reactions due to the methods employed.
You wrote ”So by definition you admit that, in Sri Lanka, non-Buddhists cannot be equal to the Sinhala Buddhist.“
What definition are you talking about?
You wrote “My friend, you need to get real, you ardently advocate subjugation of all the non-Buddhists in Sri Lanka; do not make it look as if you are a benign individual who is trying to build harmony; it is a real joke! “
You seem to have a problem with comprehension. Read again what I have written.
Can you show where I advocate SUBJUGATION of non Buddhists?
You have a tendency to manufacture statements from thin air.
Did you miss the following statement or failed to understand what it meant?
“Sri Lanka is not secular and it has never been, not even during British Rule and even the British recognised and gave Primacy to Buddhism. That is a fact but not necessarily what I subscribe to. “
This is a response to your post of September 12, 2011 • 3:12 pm
You have chosen to selectively reply my post and your post above seems to deal with the subject of Primacy to Buddhism in the Constitution. I have replied it with that understanding.
You wrote “I work on client sites on contract basis and finding time to engage in constructive debates is very cumbersome.”
I work with clients at their sites too but I make it a point to refrain from commenting Authoritatively on subjects that I am not sure of. Specially on issues that has the potential of inflaming sensitivities.
Lack of time is no excuse for disseminating misinformation.
Dear OTC,
OK, The Sinhala Chauvinists have decided that, a Dutch document in the 17th century states that the Elephant Pass was the border with Jaffna; the Kandyan Convention gave Buddhist prominence and the section 9 only applicable to admin; so it is ok to conclude the entire country should be painted with Buddhism in the 21st century! Wow, OTC, I do not know whether to laugh or cry. I can do one thing that is to feel very sorry for you.
“THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE KING OF KANDY AND THE DUTCH, 1766”
Wow; have you paid any attention to the circumstances under which those types of treaties were signed? The Europeans at that time were trying to undermine each other; Britain included, all such countries signed treaties but reneged on them wilfully. Since 1838 to 1948, for 110 years the country enjoyed secularism though the Christian Missionaries were given access to all areas for their conversion programs, there was no state sponsorships in fervour of one religion. Since, 1948 the Buddha project gathered momentum and accelerated after 1950s. If you are really interested in Equality and Justice for all, you should focus on good governance, democracy, equal rights, minority issues and secularism; these are bedrock of nation build in a country like Sri Lanka. You cannot be a Chauvinist and one who stands for Equality at the same time!
“UK has a State Religion and unlike in Sri Lanka it is not benign.
In Sri Lanka the Constitution only gives Primacy but does not exclude any Citizen from ANY position due to Religion. It is quite the opposite in the UK where the Monarch has to belong to the English Church and Roman Catholics are explicitly prohibited from holding the Crown.”
OTC, you are comparing chock and cheese here; Britain’s association with the Church of England is only symbolic. The State does not fund the church; nation-wide in the UK many, many churches stay in ruin; there is dwindling congregations; no state sponsorship for reviving its predicament unlike in Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka the state is actively involved in funding the Buddha project; within the N&E since the fall of the LTTE, several Buddha Statues have been erected; no one can do anything about it; this is what you call EQUALITY – Sri Lankan style.
Since MR coming to power till now count all the Buddha statues in the country and compare them to pre MR, there will be remarkable statistics!
Basically, I have had enough of your arguments and logic; you are basically a pathetic individual who talks about Equality and Justice but do not understand the ethics of the concepts. You cannot point your finger at the Tamil Chauvinists when you are one who stand on the Sinhala Buddhist platform.
Dear Burning Issue,
You wrote “OK, The Sinhala Chauvinists have decided that, a Dutch document in the 17th century states that the Elephant Pass was the border with Jaffna;”
It is a statement of FACT authored by the DUTCH Govt. How did you fail to notice that? Selective blindness? Does not fit in with your agenda? When faced with irrefutable evidence you get flustered and fall back on Rhetoric BI. Why do you do that?
That statement does not leave anything for interpretation or decision, be it by Tamil Separatist Chauvinists or Sinhala Chauvinists.
Elephant Pass WAS the Border between the Kandyan Kingdom and Jaffna and you have no way of refuting that FACTUALY.
“This means the WHOLE of the WANNI was within the Kandyan Kingdom” and you have no counter to it.
You say “I do not know whether to laugh or cry”
That is not surprising, you are clueless and you don’t even know what to write.
You wrote “ all such countries signed treaties but reneged on them wilfully”
Treaties are made with parties in power not with all and sundry.
My purpose in highlighting the Treaties is to show that the foreign invaders who colonised this country identified the Kandyan Kings (King of Kings and Emperor) as the rulers and no one else. Reneging on treaties is immaterial to the question of who ruled Sri Lanka at the time of invasion. Logic seems to have deserted you BI.
You wrote “Since 1838 to 1948, for 110 years the country enjoyed secularism though the Christian Missionaries were given access to all areas for their conversion programs, there was no state sponsorships in fervour of one religion.”
Really? Let’s list some of the ways in which Christians, and other religious groups, are given special privileges every day in Britain. Start with the educational system. Every school in Britain is required by law to make its pupils engage every day in “an act of collective worship of a wholly or mainly Christian nature”. Yes: Britain is still a nation with enforced prayer. The religious are then handed total control of 36 percent of our state-funded schools, in which to indoctrinate children into their faith alone.
Special rights for the religious don’t stop at the school gates. They automatically get 26 unelected bishops in the House of Lords. Public broadcasters are required by law to give them large amounts of money and time to screen religious propaganda.
And it seems that, in crucial cases, religious figures are virtually exempted from the law. There is now overwhelming evidence that Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope, was involved for over twenty years in an international criminal conspiracy to cover up the rape of children by priests in his Church. (Check out the superb edition of the BBC’s Panorama, ‘Sex Crimes and the Vatican’, for the evidence.) But when he arrives in Britain in September, our politicians will fawn over him, rather than dialing 999.
BI, the above three paragraphs are a VERBATIM extract from an article written in 2010 by columnist Johan Hari of the London Independent and I have not added a single word. Looking from a secular viewpoint, UK is far worse than Lanka but yet you are never short of excuses. Speaks volumes about your Impartiality does it not?
Surprise! Surprise!! and the great Burning Issue is postulating that the British were benevolent and SECULAR 200 years ago in the Colonies when UK is not secular even today?
Where is your intellect BI?
Why did you ignore the following?
What if the reigning Monarch decides to embrace Hinduism, Islam or Buddhism? Will that Monarch be able to continue as the Monarch? In Lanka the Head of State can change Religion at any time and there is absolutely no bar to prevent holding office till the end of term.
Who are you trying to fool BI?
This country NEVER enjoyed Secularism.
During the beginning of Colonial Rule how many Government Jobs were available to Buddhists? Zero.
As a Buddhist you could not even get a decent education.
Why did you ignore the following statement?
even the British recognised and gave Primacy to Buddhism. That is a fact but not necessarily what I subscribe to.
Did you understand the meaning of the Emphasised text?
You wrote “If you are really interested in Equality and Justice for all, you should focus on good governance, democracy, equal rights, minority issues and secularism”
What makes you think that I have no interest in any of the above? But I will add majority issues to that list too, as minority issues cannot be solved without simultaneously looking at majority issues. Why did you omit it?
You can achieve everything else but secularism as that cannot be forced on a country which has never been secular. If you think it can be done please discuss your proposal.
Regarding the Rest, are you prepared to fight against the Tamil Homeland theory that usurps half of Lanka’s publicly owned Land resources for the exclusive use of a population of less than 10% ?
Are you ready to fight for the rights of every citizen to live anywhere in Lanka
Are you ready to fight for the right of every community to have a share reflecting the National Ethnic proportion in every PUBLICLY funded development project?
Are you ready to equate your ASPIRATIONS with the aspirations of the rest of the population?
You wrote “Basically, I have had enough of your arguments and logic; you are basically a pathetic individual who talks about Equality and Justice but do not understand the ethics of the concepts.
Other than name calling, rants and rhetoric you have failed to factually meet any argument placed before you. That BI is pathetic.
Dear Burning_Issue
“Basically, I have had enough of your arguments and logic; you are basically a pathetic individual who talks about Equality and Justice but do not understand the ethics of the concepts.”
Does that mean you will now speak with me?
Burning_Issue
“This is the last time I will ever write to you!”
How come you never gave me that warning before shutting me off? That is not fair. I never accused you of being a liar! I admit that sometimes I lost my cool, but you did as well and there was no harm done.