“Siva Lingam said,

June 29, 2009 @ 2:21 am

We have no energy left for another round of struggle, whatever the mechanism, whoever the enemy. All three “struggles” (2 X JVP, 1 X Eelam) brought out the worst in us — brutal rebellions, put down with equal brutality. The cost has been enormous. Enough. Our future thinking should not be about theoretically optimal ways to carve the cake, but about how to make it a little bit bigger, so everyone gets a piece, however small. Trickle down? So be it.”

In my humble opinion we do not need devolution of power BUT we need meaning sharing of power NOT between ethnicity groups BUT among the people of the country.

The best political solution to address the problems faced by various sections of the Sri Lankan society – particularly the poor, the politically weak and the “minorities” who do not carry any “political weight” – would be to DILUTE the powers of all elected representatives of the people by separating the various powers of the Parliament and by horizontally empowering different sets of people’s representatives elected on different area basis to administer the different sets of the separated powers at different locations.

It has to be sharing of popwer HORIZONTALLY where each and every set of representatives would be in the SAME LEVEL as equals and in par and NOT VERTICALLY, where one set of representatives would be above (more powerful than) the other, which is the normal adopted practice when talking of devolution, in this power-hungry world. It is because “devolution of power” has been evolved “vertically”, we have all the trouble in this power-hungry world. So, for sustainable peace it should not be the present form of “devolution of power” but “dilution of powers” or “sharing of powers” in such a way that no single person or single set of people’s representatives be “superior” to another.

This system would help to eradicate injustice, discrimination, bribery and corruption – the four pillars of an evil society – and help to establish the “Rule of Law” and “Rule by ALL” for sustainable peace, tranquility and prosperity and a pleasant harmonious living with dignity and respect for all the inhabitants in the country. Everyone must have “equal” powers, rights, duties and responsibilities and most importantly everyone should be deemed “equal” and treated “equally” before the law not only on paper but also practically – be it the Head of State, The Chief Justice or the voiceless and weightless poor of the poorest in the country.

Comments from the readers and Mr.Lionel Bopage would be appreciatd

You said: ” My considered view, in the wake of the announced plan to recruit about 50% more of the current strength of soldiers gives the inescapable view that SL govt wants Sri Lankans to believe that the war is far from over.”

Well, I agree with your view. The govt. seems concerned about the re-emergence of separatism and they obviously want a strong, visible deterrent to anyone even entertaining such a notion. The downside is that it makes civilian life in the North far from normal. I don’t much understand the point in bolstering the ranks, since they already have a rather large number, although it could be a matter of coverage, in terms of soldiers per square km of land. It’s certainly not pretty and not something that is necessarily a good idea, especially from the point of view of restoring normalcy in those areas.

On the other hand, they may indeed have legitimate concerns and perhaps once the govt. is somehow reassured that the north will not see a resurgence of terrorism or separatism, the forces will be gradually withdrawn. Indeed, this *must* be done. But not even two months have elapsed since the end of the war. I suspect that it will take some time as well as campaigning on the part of the citizenry to reduce military presence. I see the decision to incorporate a Tamil regiment as a very positive move. But on the whole, the only thing I’m sure of is that military presence must dissolve sooner or later, no questions there.

This is the problem with people like you. Where did you pick that label “ForATruelyIndependantSriLanka”. For a country that has been independent since 1948, you are the one and only duck that never knew of SL’s independence. This rhetoric just gives away your immaturity.

SomewhatDisgusted:

No offence meant personally on the “totalitarian” connotation. If you look at the ground situation today, it is very revealing. Perhaps, this may change in the future but the present situation is not far from what I have mentioned.

Anyway, based on the title “Is the war really over”, what do you think? My considered view, in the wake of the announced plan to recruit about 50% more of the current strength of soldiers gives the inescapable view that SL govt wants Sri Lankans to believe that the war is far from over.

I agree with your analysis to a certain degree, especially on the right to have freedom of press in Sri Lanka. But, I pooh-pooh your idea of socialism. Like you, I abhor Sinhala chauvinism and ultra-nationalism; however,Mr. Bopege, your meetings with the Tiger sycophants in Canada – affiliated to the Berghoff Foundation – contradicts your supposed dislike of extremism. Chauvinism and nationalism are the same no matter the practioner! Sinhala and Tamil ultra –nationalism, for me, is the one and the same. The aforementioned people with whom you had meetings with in Canada are the very flip side of Champika Ranawaka , Prof Nalin Silva, Wimal Weeravansa and the JHU crowd. The only difference being that the one based in Canada is slicker and gives a better pitch. This salesman even manages to squeeze in a bit about… oh my, my… Women’s Lib.

You see, theTigers’ paraded Adrian Wijemanne for awhile, then lately the good Dr. Brian Seneviratne. This Poor man later became the butt of the joke. Rumor has it that he’s gone bonkers!!! Looks like the Tigers have discarded him like yesterday’s news paper. I think you are way smarter. You’ve come up with the best pitch of all. I’m surprised you were not interviewed by the REAL NEWS net-work.

Adieus amigo

I should also mention, the use of words like “totalitarian” does nothing to help the impartiality of your statements, because it also makes you no different from people bandying about words like “genocide”, in apparent obliviousness to the gravity of such words. Such things indicate a political agenda than an actual, impartial look at the current state of affairs, which is perhaps why Observer felt compelled to interpret your post that way. Just noting why your post may not have been interpreted the way you perhaps expected it to be.

Thank you but I have read the article and believe I did understand the point. If you re-read my post carefully, I was merely drawing your attention to the fact that the elimination of the LTTE as a fighting force is a net positive gain, in comparison to the previous state of affairs. So whether the war is over or not, we are nevertheless in a better position as far as I can see. Just trying to cheer you up really, since you seem to have a rather bleak outlook on the current state of affairs.

Both of you seem to be missing the point here. Did both of you really read the article and the ensuing comments on “Sri Lanka: Is the war really over?”

BTW, “Observer” your magnanimity in the choice of your words does show that you do not think well before you write as your off-tangent “little speech” seem to suggest.

Is the war really over? Surely you can understand the title, if you are as smart as you seem to potray?

In the meantime let the democratically elected government exercise its right to expand armies, shrink armies, add Tamil brigades to the army, give soldiers new fluro coloured uniforms, basically whatever the hell they think is best, because it’s an elected government’s right.

If the security elite advises the government that they need to expand the army whether it be man power or new weaponry, it is a responsible governments duty to put national security at the forefront of the agenda. Hell we’re not planning on invading other countries for the sake of freedom, just trying to defend our selves from whatever threat that may come in the future. Security is best when prepared before the threat materialise.