Of course there were isolated incidents against Sikhs and Muslims. But it was not at the level of mayhem you speak of. Mayhem = riots, for example with Rodney King and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This was not even the first time that the WTC was attacked, it was the third. So whats your point?

“why cannot the tamils learn sinhala in a majority sinhalese country?”

I have already this question. If you have reading difficulties, I recommend “Hooked on Phonics.” As I stated earlier, Tamils have been discriminated against for 60 years. They should not now have to learn the language of the majority group. Secondly, Sinhala has no value outside of Sri Lanka. Comprende?

“These same complaining tamils are now in foreign ghettos happily speaking many different languages. ”

What ghetto’s are you speaking of exactly. Ghetto’s imply low-income wages… why don’t you provide labor statistics to back up your claim that the vast majority of Tamils are employed in low-end jobs? Also, for the record, just because someone is classified as a refugee does not make them ineligible for citizenship rights later on. Once they are citizens, they enjoy as many rights as any native-born.

<>

You seriously need to move around a bit…. ever heard of Quebec? Scotland? Northern Ireland? Federalism works… if Sri Lanka had adapted federalism in 1948, all would have gone well. Instead it chose the path of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism.

There is no problem with Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu is one of the 4 richest states in India. Tamil Nadu is not the only state that refuses to learn Hindi. No state in South India bothers with Hindi…. so again I ask you, whats your point?

what do you expect from 25 years of butchery by a gang of thugs backed by a many other gangs in tamil ghettos overseas?

As far as the above goes… it is my experience that Sri Lanka does not offer many economic opportunities outside of Colombo and Kandy. Once upon a time, Jaffna too offered opportunities… however, due to the extremely heavy military presence in Jaffna, in addition to virtually hundreds of human rights violations that go unreported, there has been a mass migration out of Jaffna. Not just to “Colombo” and “Kandy”, but all over the world. So for Pragmatist to imply that Jaffna Tamils moved to Colombo/Kandy just to “intermingle” with the majority is a very silly argument. Did the Tamils who moved to Australia/Canada/Europe etc. do so out of an inclination to “intermingle” with Europeans?

“For the diaspora it was now easy to get their kith and kin refugee visas to emigrate to Canada Australia etc. – to “escape” from state discrimination.”

The problem with this argument is that not only the Tamils left Sri Lanka in vast numbers; so too did millions of Sinhalese. Both groups left for similar reasons, in light of which Pragmatists visa swindling argument falls to pieces. Also keep in mind that many educated well-to-do Tamil professionals could have left the island at any time and settled anywhere without seeking any form of “refugee status.” I have no idea about the number of Tamils who actually sought asylum overseas, at least officially (I highly doubt that “Pragmatist” possesses such statistics either) therefore I cannot comment further.

“As a result UK, Canada, Australia are now full of thousands of under-educated unskilled misfit Tamil refugees”

Mr. Pragmatist should keep in mind that the Middle East is full of Sri Lankan housemaids (mostly of Sinhalese origin). The vast majority of individuals, regardless of ethnicity, go overseas for greater economic opportunities…

“The terrorism sustained by the diaspora has created an impression in most non-Tamil Sri Lankans that ALL TAMILS ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED.”

This is indeed the mentality of many extremists in Southern Sri Lanka. It is more than likely the product of decades of media censorship. In a normal society, a free press and the like will create a healthy amount of debate such that the issues of the day are debated from different angles. The net effect, of course, will not be that every member of the society agrees with 1 particular viewpoint. The net effect will be that dissent is tolerated, within comfortable levels to the extant that a mutual understanding of the other fellows point of view emerges, and no one feels a compulsion to turn on his next door neighbor with an axe. Unfortunately, the Southern Sri Lankan approach has been to demonize the LTTE to no end, and categorize any dissent as pro-LTTE. Given that some of the LTTE’s grievances overlap with those of ordinary Tamils, Tamils who voice personal concerns are viewed with extreme suspicion. The net effect has been that the Tamils simply keep silent, and everyone blindly follows the pro-Government line. What is also interesting here is that the Government uses many of the same methods to crush Sinhalese dissent, that it uses against Tamils. In other words, as long as the society tolerates inhibition of moderate Tamil voices, it is also tolerating the stifling of moderate voices from the majority community.

“Did we not see acts of inhumane discrimination in the US soon after 9/11?”

Did we see any American politicians claiming that the USA belongs to Caucasian Americans? Did we see any American politicians assault media outlets which published 9/11 conspiracy theories?

“Even my family members (on the sinhala side) while acknowledging that not all Tamils are terrorists, would not trust Tamil colleagues at work they have known for years.”

Looks like in your case, the racism is rather deeply rooted. Pathological indeed!

Meanwhile will the pragmatic Southern Sri Lanka find ways and means of finishing the job(which is a very tiny fraction of what needs to be done) left undone by the IIGEP?

What about the UNCEASING destruction of socio-economic-environmental fabric of Northeast(=state terroism) of the last sixty one years.

What Pragmatist says reflects the ignorance of those in the South(including some Sinhalese and some Tamils) about what has actually been happening in the last sixty one years. ”Peace talks” and Prabhakaran come and go, but there has been absolutely no change in the state terrorism of government institutions:

http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2009statements/2038/
” …. The test of civilisation in modern times is the nature of the political and legal institutions within which people live and not their so called traditional cultures. If the situation of Sri Lanka is such that no such civilised political and legal systems exists, the actors for the state and those citizens who have taken to violence must be judged within the framework of this total situation. ….”

I am being more and more convinced that the Tamils needn’t have done satyagraha or armed resistance – they simply had to give those in the South free bus tours to the Northeast beginning in 1950.