True, there will be a few amendments to the existing Constitution, as you say.

It is true that the ethnic minorities had little say in the drafting the previous Constitutions. But do you think that there will be space for Tamils, Muslims and Tamils of Indian origin to influence what future constitutional amendments would be or should be?

I foresee six problems withholding minority groups influencing future constitution making. .
• Firstly, the cry for a totally new Constitution will be forgotten conveniently once the ‘political perpetuation amendments’ are made.
• Secondly, the UPFA will not voluntarily press hard for minority concerns for two main reasons. One is the composition of the UPFA government rests on Sinhala Buddhist majority, which do not support minority demands. Two is that even the weak Marxist Parties who were for minority rights only hang on to UPFA for their political living without fighting for minority rights.
• Thirdly, the minorities did not give the expected political support to convert such narrow thinking in to a broader framework for the UPFA to act more reasonably and rationally towards minorities.
• Fourthly, even those from minority groups who are within the UPFA government (e.g. EPDP, CWC, Muslim groups) are very lukewarm. They do not contest unreasonable behavior because their very existence depends on back scratching the UPFA. Therefore, UPFA leadership is powerful to ignore if they make any demands. If they disagree they will be shown the door!
• Fifthly, the Diaspora which was the mainstay for LTTE is split and cannot now force the government to succumb to their pressures and only talk of Transnational Governments, which have not allured internationals or scared the UPFA. In fact, this has made the UPFA more arrogant and aggressive as one could see from the statements by the defense and political authorities.
• Lastly, we can hear only a loner voice from India for constitutional prescriptions. The rest of the internationals focus on rights violations and economic weapons from which the government might creep through by other means.

Therefore, with respect to you I may say that your prescription -i.e. “They need to come together and ensure that they have a significant role and that their concerns are taken into account when any future Constitution is drafted.” is unworkable. Due to complex relationships between minority groups they will not unite easily and not draw a significant role but hang on to governmental perks which may be preferred as constitutional solutions are secondary or tertiary for the UPFA government. It is fine if what you prescribe above happens.

I have no mandate to speak for the Tamil Diaspora nor for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka. But knowing the expressed thoughts of the Tamil Diaspora leaderships and the Tamil speaking leadership in Sri Lanka, it is important for both leadership should complement each others political positions. Neither should consider or try to use the other as their tool. Right now the positions are unhealthily diverse. It is necessary to arrive at a common realistic and just position where all communities can live Island peacefully and help each other.

There are about a million Tamils abroad with, not necessarily just monetary resources, but other resources as well, most importantly freedom of expression. Each one of them were Sri Lanka citizens or their descendants. They treasure their “Right to Return” and would like to vote in elections. They do not think that they have to complement the Tamil Sri Lanka leadership or vice verse. Support and cooperation from the diaspora will be best achieved if both leaderships arrive at a mutually acceptable political position that is REALISTIC and JUST. Complement should be mutual and not a one-war street.

I request Mr. Nesiah to back up the said claim with more evidence. Why was the Kandyan demand for federallism rejected… if the Kandyan demand for demand for federalism, did the Tamil demand stand a chance? The Southern Sinhalese apologists might counter that the Tamils were opposed to the Kandyan demand. Yet it is not the case that Tamils alone could be responsible for the passing – or failure to pass – of a piece of legislation. Mr. Nesiah must explain why the Kandyan demand was rejected, and why all consecutive demands of the Tamil Federal party were likewise rejected, before jumping to the rather abrupt conclusion that Tamils alone were responsible for the failure of federalism to Constitutionally materialize.

A very unasuming gentleman, Dr Nesiah has put forward some realistic notions as to how Tamil rights could be enshrined in the constitution notwithstanding Sinhal majority dominance in the govenrment.

Not unlike Prof. Hoole, Tamil moderates should follow-up on his suggestions and work together to avert another calamity of an internecine war.

It is difficult to see this administration asking for the input of minorities in drafting a new constitution or amending the existing one.
The reason for this is that this administration is mainly made up of people with a Sinhala majority mindset. It is more than likely that if a new constitution is adopted at a future date the ethnic minorities will have no say in it as was the case in 1972 and 1978.