Comments on: Architects of a military junta in Sri Lanka?

By: neem

neem — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:17:04 +0000

The reality is is that you reap what you sow. The present state of politics in SL is a result of years of cause-effect disasters. NO one community can be entirely blamed, neither can be called the only victim. The entire society has contributed to extremes on both sides of the political spectrum. If the present govt is seen as chauvinistic, it is simply because of the pandering given to neo-liberal, pro-western/globalization facets of society whilst ignoring the less fortunate masses who turned to nationalism to voice their worth! I'm sure if such people could spend time in a swim pool on weekends and send their kids abroad whenever there was a problem at home, they would agree with the writer too! The view represented here by us (moderately well-off elites who can afford an internet subscription, period.) is not shared by those who don't have the money and time to sit and blog about their complaints. People need to investigate the root causes of political cultures before branding governments. We can't keep yelling at the monster we create….we have to cut down the root causes

By: muzammil

muzammil — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:20:25 +0000

There has always been national harmony existing in all parts of the country about
three decades ago. Of course there's been some nasty incidents which can be
described communal,barbaric and so on, but generally , communal harmony has
been good until it was taken into the hands of destructive anti social and anti national elements.So called "nationalist" elements are not genuinely nationalists.Nationalists should embrace whole nation and not part of it. Racism has raised it's head through the bulk of nationalism.It's like the old communist
using communism for political survival and everybody knows they are capitalists on reverse and you know where people sent them.But surely,those on top can not behave short sighted.Dry jokes by people like our PM won't amuse the audience.There are mixed feelings and uncertainty in the whole country about their future.Who's responsible?

By: Dayan Jayatilleka

Dayan Jayatilleka — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:47:53 +0000

In reply to Justin. Hey Justin, The Armed forces put down two Sinhala based insurgencies , in 1971 and 1987-89, didn't you know? Still, they are probably the most popular institution in Sri Lanka. So there goes you theory. Secondly whatever the other faults of the Sinhalese, they never permiitted themselves to be enslaved by any leader or party; they always fought back and supported fightbacks against any totalitarianism which threatened to take away their individual rights especially the right to vote; they never called anyone Sun God or tolerated such nonsense; and they never rolled barebodied on hot tarred roads behind chariots carrying pictures of Sun Godly leaders. Which is more than I can say for some...

By: Observer

Observer — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:46:29 +0000

In reply to Ravi . because of the LTTE. LTTE chose to continue a cycle of violence, It is sad Tamil people have to suffer for that.

By: Ravi

Ravi — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:09:56 +0000

In reply to Observer.

"If the LTTE's actions don't claim them as terrorists I don't know what sort of sensibility you adhere to. How would you feel if someone blew apart your close family?"

Using the precise logic of the above lines…I have to call the government of SL "Terrorist" as they bombed and blew apart my family, and my close friends family.

By: Dayan Jayatilleka

Dayan Jayatilleka — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:05:49 +0000

George Bush was wrong, very wrong, but that doesn't make him a fascist. And what was most wrong about what he did was to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with al Qaeda. Sri Lanka has not invaded any country.

The writer opines about "A sentiment of intense ‘fear’ of the state and the military establishment". Perhaps true, but that has to be qualified. Fear on the part of whom? According to all opinion polls, the vast majority of Sri Lankans admire, respect, support and even love the military. So about whom and on whose behalf is the writer expressing these sentiments of 'fear"?

Sri Lankan liberal-progressives simply must learn lessons from Barack Obama, who was rightly against a specific war – Iraq- but is pro-military and said in a TV interview a day or two ago that "it is possible to win in Afghanistan…it is possible to stamp out Al Qaeda".

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:24:20 +0000

Miltary in Sri Lanka, from the trend of events, will be like Hitler's army in the future. First against the Tamils under the cover of terror. Then it will be the Sinhalese. When the Sinhalese face genocide, then the world will keeep stone silent, and they should, becuase it is the accepted culture of the Sinhalese as shown in recent election results, if the polls were not rigged!

The present dangerous Buddhist cult, encouraging killing, bombing, maiming, wiping off families, torture and murder, now being justified by the Sinhalese, will also be considered as a part of their culture by the International community.

In essence, the Sinhalese would perish.

The Sinhalese who care for their children and children's children should act before it is too late.

By: citizen

citizen — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:44:38 +0000

rajivmw,
You make a good point – with most Sri Lankans, the harder you push, the lesser chance you have of moving them. However, I am not convinced that it will be difficult to get the support of the majority for progressive social reform by exposing facts about how their actions and attitudes are contributing to the problem. The late Gangodavila Soma Thero did so with remarkable success – to the extent that the more he exposed and criticised the inanities of the majority’s beliefs and attitudes, the more popular and even politically powerful he became.
I do not fully agree with how he went about his mission – because I noticed that he did sometimes have a hint of hatred and animosity in his tone – but I have no doubt that his method; albeit in a more tolerant and pluralistic tone, can be used very effectively for social reform. I also feel that the ‘messenger’ is more important in our society than the ‘message’… which is why it is important that popular figures such as the defence secretary and army commander should be more watchful of what they say – and why people should have the space to debate what they say openly and without fear of reprisal.

By: Observer

Observer — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:19:37 +0000

Army commander doesn't care for PC (political correctness), so don't hang on it too much. Also in a democracy majority gets what they want. So if the elections give them Hon. Rajapakse and Gen. Fonsek then so be it! End of story.
If the LTTE's actions don't claim them as terrorists I don't know what sort of sensibility you adhere to. How would you feel if someone blew apart your close family? What would you call them? other than criminals of course…?
I agree with the first commenter that this article is poorly structured and conceived.
In fact it portrays a poorly developed and expressed liberal mind.
This is not a military junta but action required by current climate. You would have said the same thing about the US right after 9/11 with their drastic anti-terror legislations and screening. People know what they want, and we have the right people to deliver it. That's all I know!

By: Kumara

Kumara — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:13:30 +0000

Some corrections and then some comments.

George Bush gave the "you are with us or against us" speech after the US was attacked and when he launched his war on terror. It was an appropriate comment at that time which has been misquoted by journalist who fail to check facts. At that point in time, either you support the Al Queda and similar organizations that planned to or carried out attacks against the US and the west or you were against such attacks. What is so hard for you to understand that line?
The current situation in Sri Lanka is very different as the LTTEs goals are not to destroy Sinhala Sri Lanka, but to fight for the control of Tamil homelands, as Tamils have been treated shabbily and were living as second class citizens. Now this is not a clear cut solution accepted by all Tamils, but a good majority used to support this.

The present Sri Lankan governments strategy of using the same slogan of war-on-terror is more of a political move than a good description of the reality. This is more of a civil war than a war on terror. Otherwise how do you justify bombing your own land and people. Just that fact itself is proof that the present government of SL does not consider Tamils in the North as an intricate part of Sri Lanka.

We can all wallow in this liberal nonsense and political correctness or just speak in plain terms. The Tamils are unhappy living with the Sinhalees and want to separate and have their traditional homeland. They are not asking for one square inch of Sinhala land. They just want control over what was once theirs. So they decided to fight and now they are loosing. They will come back with some other ways of getting there, if it's the will of the people living in the North & East. So far the last few governments of Sri Lanka have NOT proposed a reasonable solution. So the war will go on. The mechanics might be different but the goals will be the same.