In order to clarify some of the points that I have raised such as GV contributors not taking responsibility please look at the following links

http://www.groundviews.org/2009/09/17/the-internment-%e2%80%93-a-collective-punishment/comment-page-1/#comment-9725

http://www.groundviews.org/2009/11/15/gsp-sovereignty-double-standards-and-terrorist-traitors/#comment-10865

There are others who stop replying when difficult questions are posed

This is post 6 and is the final part

The FIRST time I knew that Disgusted had a Dual ID and was actually a Female was when I saw the post be SomewhatDisgusted December 8, 2009 @ 2:13 pm

Whether the counter arguments made are without coherent logic will be judged by the reading public

My personal view is that ANY WRITER posting on a PUBLIC FORUM like GV should be able to Justify what they write by providing factual evidence. Unless the writer has the INTEGRITY to answer questions posed by readers in a straight forward fashion that writer is attempting to degenerate GV to the level of a propaganda tool to suit their narrow objectives.

Some use an elastic measure and others argue ad infinitum to prove that black is really white

There are many on GV who have the courage to challenge false and divisive propaganda some written by so called academics couched in academic language but when challenged they withdraw into a shell and when they do not have a factual footing, flaunt qualifications to try and break arguments.

Truth is sometimes unpalatable but has to be faced in order to move forward towards reconciliation.

Dogmatic and frozen views will not help anyone in Sri Lanka to build a just society.

I would like to invite anyone to discuss the current Constitution of Sri Lanka and point to areas that DOES NOT GRANT EQUAL RIGHTS to all Citizens of this country.

Thank you

Off the Cuff

Post 5 ….more to follow

Again when the Singapore housing policy was raised by reference to an article written by an Indian who lives and studies in Singapore Disgusted went underground.

Out comes “Belle” November 25, 2009 @ 7:10 pm http://www.groundviews.org/2009/11/05/deepavali-dilemma-reflections-from-the-diaspora/comment-page-6/#comment-11241 and she raises a very pertinent point which I reproduce below

“The per capita contribution is from each citizen. So why should each community get its just share? So each Sinhalese citizen gets 72% of a chance, and a minority citizen gets 18% or even a smaller chance? Why? All citizens paid the same, didn’t they? Why must ethnicity be brought into play when you say SL is not for Sinhalese, Tamils or Muslims but for all? Why not draw lots or allocate according to a first-come-first-serve basis?/
Whose logic is racist here? “
Unquote

A part of my response to her was as follows

“Belle,
You sure have got the cart before the horse.
The intent is to DISPROVE the “Traditional Tamil Homeland” claim.

This divisive concept is the biggest stumbling block for reconciliation.
The proponents of a Traditional Tamil Homeland do so by claiming that the Tamils were the main occupiers of the Land claimed as the “Traditional Homeland”

Now please tell me how that claim can be shown to be Fraudulent and thwarted, other than by showing that NON TAMIL SPEAKING people were also occupying or were probably the only occupants of the same land?
Who would that non Tamil speaking people be?

Regarding your suggestion of drawing lots I agree that it can also be a solution. I provided the solution which came to my mind as an equitable one.

However since drawing lots leaves things to chance the mathematical probability of the majority community getting more allocations will always be present. This may lead to dissension in the long term.

The point I wanted to make is that a Govt funded project should not be exclusive to or favouring any community, just because the project is sited in a predominantly Sinhalese area or Muslim area or Tamil area.
Now how can that be racist?
Unquote

The complete reply is available here http://www.groundviews.org/2009/11/05/deepavali-dilemma-reflections-from-the-diaspora/comment-page-6/#comment-11256

There were some more questions directed at her in that same post but she too went underground.

Continued in Post 6

Post 4 …more to follow

Coming to the current thread I posted a comment addressed to “Huh” on November 23, 2009 @ 2:35 am http://www.groundviews.org/2009/11/05/deepavali-dilemma-reflections-from-the-diaspora/comment-page-6/#comment-11111

It contained a link to the National Archives of the Netherlands stating that the Dutch constructed a Fort to protect the BORDER with the Sinhala Kingdom of KANDY at “Elephant Pass”. Strangely there was no mention of a “Tamil Kingdom” (http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/detail.aspx?page=dpost&lang=en&id=682#tab2 )

This Document which cannot be refuted as its in the Dutch National Archives and is Dutch property, gives the date as 17th Century (year 16xx) and COMPLETELY destroys the “Traditional Tamil Homeland Concept” as it PREDATES the “Cleghorn minutes of 1799” which is in the 18th Century by nearly a CENTURY !!!!

This was too much for Disgusted and out he (she) came with all guns blazing and shooting from the hip. Those interested can follow the discussion with Disgusted and me on this thread.

Continued in post 5

Part 3 ….. More parts t follow

For some reason the GV servers keep refusing my post and I am compelled to break it down to shorter posts than expected

When a reply from Suren Raghavan was pending in comes Disgusted in his defence and states
“Again, look at the attempts to demolish you as a person, as an academic, while accusing you of being personal.”
Unquote

This again opened the questions that remained unanswered by Disgusted in the previous thread and I re-posted it for a response from Disgusted, assuming that as my post was the last on the other thread it was not seen by Disgusted

Disgusted’s response was explosive and unexpected
http://www.groundviews.org/2009/10/12/imagining-the-immediate-impossibilities/#comment-9998

However the answer for this explosive reaction came from Disgusted himself when he stated that
“At any rate, I don’t appear on your list of those who you felt contributed to productive discussion on the other thread, so I am “perplexed” that you would want to seek my contributions, and even import a posting from the other thread to this one. It seems somewhat distracting.”
Unquote

There is no wrath like that of a woman scorned although I never knew that I was dealing with a woman at that time.

Continued in Post 4

This is part 2

As a person living in a state that has apparently successfully integrated a multitude of races into a cohesive problem free society could you enlighten us on the policies adopted in Singapore as Disgusted was the person that opened the discussion in this direction by comparing Singapore to SL.
1) Land
2) Housing, State & Private (with special reference to any govt funded schemes)
3) Language
4) Judicial review process
5) Education (Govt as well as Private)
6) Equality
7) Power sharing
8 ) Access to free Medical Care
9) Media Freedom

The opening for these questions were made by Disgusted (him/herself) by bringing out the Singapore comparisons.

There was no reply and I assumed I joined the thread too late

Then came the Second thread imagining-the-immediate-impossibilities by Suren Raguvan http://www.groundviews.org/2009/10/12/imagining-the-immediate-impossibilities/

I had the distinct feeling that under the guise of Academia veiled attacks on the Sinhalese and Buddhism were being made by the writer of that article Suren Raghavan

My first posting on that thread was http://www.groundviews.org/2009/10/12/imagining-the-immediate-impossibilities/#comment-9875
Those interested can follow the exchange between Suren Raghavan and Myself in that thread.

It referred to my compliments on the previous thread (which excluded Disgusted) and added the following A writer who avoids discussion and fails to take responsibility for what he/she writes would not be any better than a Troll or a Rabble Rouser that unfortunately infests the web discussions.
Unquote

Referring to my statement below
I have noticed that with the exception of Dr Devanasan Nesiah, Dayan Jayatilleka and probably a few others the majority of writers shy away from discussing their own articles. This brings to question the motive behind what they write.
Unquote

Suren Responded with a vicious attack on Dr J.
Was it because Dr.J was a Sinhalese while the first named was a Tamil that he overlooked Dr Nesaiah and took on Dr. J ?

Why?

Continued in Part 3

Due to the length, which causes a problem with the GV server this post is in three parts

Part 1

My first post on the thread delusions-of-power-devolution-searching-post–prapa-possibilities was
http://www.groundviews.org/2009/09/17/delusions-of-power-devolution-searching-post%E2%80%93prapa-possibilities/#comment-9817

It also happens to be the last post to date on that thread.

This is what I said there
The discussion on this thread is one of the best I have seen on groundviews so far. I wish that such discussions will overwhelm the slang matches that usually take place on most threads.

Smoulderingjin, somewhatdisgusted and undergroundview please keep it up. I hope that Dr. Pradeep Jeganathan will continue to provide his perspective on what is being discussed.
However Suren Raghavan is very conspicuous by his absence in a thread started by himself.
Unquote

I omitted the name of Disgusted as My opinion of his views expressed on that thread appeared to be Dogmatic and was not inflexible and he/she admitted as such as the following quote shows

“There isn’t a chance that I will re-consider my position.”
http://www.groundviews.org/2009/09/17/delusions-of-power-devolution-searching-post%E2%80%93prapa-possibilities/#comment-9817
Unquote

This proved to me that Disgusted was not writing on GV with an “Open Mind” but was doing propaganda to disseminate preconceived dogma aimed at polarising that SL communities which was detrimental to any sort of reconciliation within communities in Sri Lanka

I also recognised that Disgusted was espousing the concept of “Traditional Tamil Homelands” which in my view is the most divisive element standing in the way of reconciliation. Disgusted should have known better as the Govt of Singapore does not allow such ethnic conclaves in order to prevent ethnic problems developing in Singapore so why was he (she) espousing it in SL?
Was he (she) against SL achieving the same ethnic harmony that Singapore achieved?

As you will find later this seems to be Disgusted’s Achilles heel. The moment this point is raised Disgusted goes into hiding and out comes Belle.

Disgusted says
Sinhalese are not only a dominant community in SL, they are an overwhelming majority. So to allow them to settle everywhere without placing any ethnic limits would mean that they will in actuality be forming Sinhalese ghettos all over the country, and getting all the benefits of that (support from the community, the ability to dominate and dictate district needs) while the minorities will get no chance to do so.
Unquote

Disgusted also goes on to compare Singapore to Sri Lanka, by saying
In Singapore, for example, the government dismantled the kampongs where the Malays lived and forced them to live all over the country. That meant in effect that they could no longer exist as a community. In terms of ethnic-based businesses such as running food stalls and running sundry shops, the Malays cannot run viable businesses because there isn’t a large enough market, a critical mass, for them in any location, whereas the Chinese can set up shop anywhere and thrive because they are always surrounded by their community. The end of the kampongs led to the disappearance of much of Malay culture from the Singapore landscape. They now had to assimilate to survive. The Chinese lost none of their ethnic culture. Thankfully, they have ethnic-based organisations through which they can mobilise for their needs, but presumably, in your vision, you would not even allow that.
Unquote

What struck me was that Disgusted who lives in Singapore is unable to criticise the Singapore policy in as strong terms in Singapore (in the controlled media of that country) while denying the right of a SL citizen to live anywhere within our country IF that person is a Sinhalese. Where as Tamils can live wherever they please. The existence of the Thesawalami Law in Sri Lanka which gives Tamils special rights in the North while excluding ALL other communities is conveniently forgotten.

This struck me as double talk and I requested from Disgusted the following information

Continued in Part 2

Using pseudonyms is a brilliant idea. It will completely derail the one-track thinking of you-know-who. In particular, their “conspiracy theories” will not hold up well. The resulting psychosis will be amusing to watch. 🙂

Cheers.

That’s fine by me. I was re-reading this thread and realized that kinder gentler souls such as Humanist have politely retreated in the face of your bellicose invective, rajivmw and huh got a taste of some acid-tongued vituperation for comments they never made and I recall from a previous thread that “undergroundview” too was accused of bad faith when he/she gently pointed out the flaws in your arguments. Off-the-cuff, Yapa and Observer too may have suffered similar fates, but I honestly stopped reading half way through. Therefore, I consider myself to be in esteemed company to be “chastized” by you.

There is no need to metamorphose into different identities, some self-analysis will do. Myself, I am slightly ashamed of my own pugnacity (but not too much) but more so for having devalued the discussion on this forum for others. I won’t seek to pursue the matter further, but don’t expect a get-out-of-jail-free card to continue unchallenged in spreading bigoted views.

But if you are indeed an academic, then surely you ought to know that a whole lot more of careful citation and documentation needs to be made in representing another person’s position and criticising an argument that has been made in another location. Accusations such as my moving my goalposts, that I have not sought to resolve any inconsistencies, etc, cannot be just flung about according to your pleasure–they need to be painstakingly evidenced. Otherwise, it is just slander.

I don’t claim to possess “vast reserves of knowledge” which others can’t grasp because of their alleged mental deficiency. That too is a misrepresentation of what I said. I do think it is only appropriate that when one is discussing a specific issue, here multiculturalism and equal rights, and claiming to be the one with all the ‘correct’ views on these matters, that one should have a minimum knowledge of developments in the field. For eg, you raise the issue of female genital mutilation–is that all there is to that, i.e. the irreconcilable claim of human rights vs that of ethnic cultural rights, i.e the politics of universalism vs the politics of difference? No ways that have been offered of getting around this; no other complicating factors in the issue?

And no, my version of multicultural democracy is not at all similar to racialism—but you would think so because you have only one model of pluralism in mind, and anything outside it is consigned to racism and racialism.

Do not demand that I engage in discussion with you. I am tired of having my views and position deformed and twisted by the limiting prism of your perspectives and prejudice. Why should I have to repeatedly defend my views and position just because someone else keeps misinterpreting them?

Given your moral superiority, the great integrity of your character, I am sure you won’t have trouble respecting someone’s wishes not to engage with you.

Otherwise, I shall just have to metamorphose into yet another pseudonym…