read the rest at
http://www.tamilguardian.com/article.asp?articlei…

A common explanatory adage for the bitter conflict today is that the Sinhala people suffer from ‘insecurity’; that they see themselves as a unique island people under perpetual threat.

Apparently there are ‘only’ 17 million Sinhalese in the world, in fear of being swamped by the billion Indians across the Palk Straits, especially the 60 million Tamils – because there are ‘already’ 3 million Tamils on the island.

‘Surrounded’ by these ‘others’ in the region, the Sinhalese are reportedly a ‘majority with a minority complex’.

International analysts and diplomats routinely accept this ‘insecurity.’ For example a report by the conflict think tank, International Crisis Group, worries that “the international community has struggled to come to terms with Sinhala nationalism, frequently misunderstanding its nature and legitimacy.”

“Interventions, even including the Norwegian-sponsored 2002 ceasefire, which most Sinhalese ultimately judged as too favourable to the LTTE, have tended to stimulate xenophobic elements in the Sinhala community and help the extreme nationalist parties gain ground,” the ICG patiently spells out.

A BBC survey of the mood on the street in Colombo quotes a middle class Sinhala professional explaining the historic insecurity of the Sinhalese, how they are a minority compared to neighbouring India and how this has fuelled the race ‘tension’ with the Tamils.

Bear in mind that not once has India, the Indian Tamils or, for that matter, the Sri Lankan Tamils, laid claim to the Sinhala territories.

The irrationality of this ‘minority while a majority’ complex struck me when a Dutch colleague expansively informed me, in a recent discussion about identity: “you know, there are almost 17 million of us Dutch.”

Arguably, the ‘just’ 16.57 million Dutch in Holland are very much ‘surrounded’ by over 700 million “others” in Europe, including 82 million Germans who not so long ago invaded and occupied their homeland.

But there is no minority complex, despite a resurgent Germany driving European fortunes. Indeed, Holland is an enthusiastic participant in the European project.

Moreover, The Netherlands is the 25th most densely populated country in the world whereas Sri Lanka is 39th.

Nonetheless, the Dutch do not think of themselves as a ‘small’ nation under threat of being swamped. But apparently, the Sinhalese are a to be seen as a fearful ‘small’ nation under siege.

This alone is not enough for conflict, of course. Having found themselves an enemy without, the Sinhalese have also found an enemy within: the island’s Tamils.

Of course, every nation has its bit of racism. In Europe, for example, far right groups in many states love to hate immigrants (usually, but not exclusively, the dark-skinned kind): “they are taking away our jobs”, “they don’t want to fit in”, “our identity will be lost” and so on. 17% of the French voted for the National Front in 2002.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the Sinhala people also had their form of ‘immigration angst’: immediately after independence, they enthusiastically supported the stripping of citizenship from a million ‘Indian’ Tamils who had been brought to the island by the British generations earlier to work on the plantations.

What was served by this act of pure racism? What were these people who had been born on the island and knew no other home expected to do? The answer is the war cry of far rightists everywhere: “go back to your country!”

But the deep-seated racism in Sri Lanka is different. For the Tamils of the Northeast are not recent or arriving immigrants and this is not the usual angst of ‘integration’.

Rather, the Tamil people have lived on the island in their own contiguous, distinct, geographical territory for millennia. They lay claim only to the territory they have historically lived in. In fact, the 3 million Tamils constituted a nation with distinct self-governance until invaded and occupied by Colonial powers – who amalgamated them with the Sinhala nation and territory for pure administrative convenience.

Brilliant! That sounds simple enough!
Why don't we just do that and let the country prosper then?

Post- February 2009
1. Removing the principal contender (the LTTE) from the equation through military defeat
2. Came to end by defeating one party, the LTTE
3. GoSL controls the entire territory.
4. Causes of conflict resolved such as happening in th East. Since the cause of the problem is eliminated prgress toward adressing the current needs of all people can now happen for the first time = solved.
Mediation is on-going, still undecided on the finished product, application of the 13th amendment, holding elections as in the East. Possible mechanisms
(a) The wining party (the GoSL) deciding the agenda;
(b) The winning party in consultation with friendly Tamil parties setting the agenda;
(c) Tamil parties being in the winning party.
(d) Setting the agenda in consultation with India as a third party;
(e) Setting the agenda in consultation with all oter interested parties within Sri Lanka and the current realities.
(d) Combination of the above.

There are always a pesimistic some who are a party to the problem, such as above, and then there are some who are an optimistic paty to the solution, such as below;

Post-February 2002
1. Relationship between contenders Making contenders (the GoSL and LTTE) partners of problem-solving or so was the image presented by the militant fascist contender (Col. Karuna).
2. 'Direct' Military Confrontation Came to a TEMPORARY end through an pressure and agreement between a democracy and a fascist militant regime.One cannot rightfully contend as these contenders are a wee extremist minority.
3. Outcome: Temporary No war, no peace due to Tiger obticale to the democratic processes, including elections, Re-armement.
One part of the country was under the LTTE rule.
4. How to address them? Through negotiation with third party arm/cash suppier appointed by the fascist party.