Once a breach is made others must follow and GO BEYOND.

There is a tendency to celebrate too soon and rest on our laurels.
Our mediocrity is made up of a 100 such partial achievements that retreated to the safety of race, religion and caste.

It is time to stand up on our own two feet

(extra) Ordinary Lankan
yes agreed.
But one must go beyond the mere good will speculations. My question is: how did the Sinhala society become so politically barren that even a distant hope of a drop in the ocean generates such euphoria?

we will not find answers with the same mind set that creates the questions? hoping cosmetic changes without a structural analysis only good, if birds can fly without wings.

What we urgently need in my motherland is a mobilization of a bottom-up envisioning of this land and its nations in say 2048 (a century after the Suddas left us).

Neither the venerable Sangha, present regime nor the pundits who defend it, are unable/unwilling to imagine such trajectories
Do we have preventive mechanism/answers to the next social-political blood bath that could happen, as we have seen in every 15-20 years in this blessed land?
Sangha may be a cuckoo that is beginning to sing. I honestly think we need a ferocious lion, hungry for social justice, to wake us from this deep sleep.

i think any sign of independence must be celebrated and encouraged; even if it is a drop in the ocean.

Dayan

I am not quite sure that Rajiva Wijesinha represents our future as much as Sangakkara. No doubt his apologist ideology will die a hard death. At some point we will have to tell all the war heroes – thank you very much – and good bye.

Rajiva Wijesinghe’s appearance on Hard Talk was like watching spit boil over as opposed to Sanga’s speech, which was a breath of fresh air!

So why does the author select his terminology so carelessly? He deploys a word used to describe Christian interdenominational unity (as opposed to interfaith pluralism), and then marries it with the name of the historical figure who introduced Buddhism to Sri Lanka. He then singles out the wolf of retribution as being ‘thamil’. I trust this selection is unintentional, as the sentiments otherwise expressed in the piece do not appear to be racially or religiously motivated. Yet the ‘idea’ of reconciliation must surely be couched in more neutral terms.

Thus I think it would be a mistake for Dr. Dayan Jayathileke to assert that ,
“Failure to integrate the latter perspective would leave a renewed Young Ceylon discourse and project open to the same critique and failure as suffered by its predecessor in 20th century Ceylon, namely outflanked by anti-colonial or anti-imperalist nationalism, albiet of a narrow sort”

I think Sangakkara of the 21st century has a much greater touch with the common Sri Lankan than the 19th century DeAlwis did (this is not to say that DeAlwis did not have a deep and abiding love for Sri Lankan culture and Sinhala in particular- it was Hon DeAlwis who translated the Siddath Sangrava, the Sinhala Grammar which had been formalised in the early part of the last millennium).

I would assert that Sangakkara represents in a very deep sense the majority of the majority. This is a quite contrast indeed to the venality of Prof. Rajiva Wijesinghe.

In the Hard Talk programme, Wijesinghe (quite rightly) defends the GoSL, as any diplomat should. It is unfortunate that he spoilt it by resorting to his irrepressible school-boy derision at the serious matter of the physical disruption of a meeting of Tamil politicians.

I did observe something more interesting and subtle in his interview (available on another GV article) in which he reveals his knowledge of what happened with shelling. He vigorously defends any shelling which occurred prior to May as response against deliberate acts of the LTTE. But he demurs when it came to May.

It is interesting mainly because of the thesis of Gordon Weiss and his book the Cage, which is beginning to show cracks at the edges.In this Gordon Weiss appears superficially as a just Western official who was shocked at his experience of the conduct of the War by GoSL. Having implied that he knows more than he can tell, he then goes on to put together a bit of history along with description of witnesses to the War. Whilst for the most part he has an accurate grasp of the nature of Sri Lankan struggles as a struggle against the brutal state, inaccuracies in his text reveals more about what he is influenced by or what his agenda is.

An example is in relation to General Sarath Fonseka. He builds Fonseka’s image as a brute in the 1987-89 period. But he makes a cardinal mistake in indicating that SF was in command of the Gampaha Army camp at the time and that brutality emerged from this camp. It would be very easy to prove the truth or untruth of this assertion (I suspect that the latter- “untruth” is the truth). This assertion is useful mostly in the context of setting the stage for Fonseka as the architect of some brutality and War Crimes at the last stages of the War. It seems that Rajiva Wijesinghe (deliberately or unconsciously) has revealed that Fonsekas actions are defensible, but that somethings that happened in May could point to fault.

When considering Dr. Robert’s statement “nor the thamil-wolf of retribution posing in the sheep’s clothing of truth & justice that is the need of the hour”, the unnecessary demonising of Sarath Fonseka by both the LTTE-proxies and GoSL surfaces like the proverbial spit in the wind. Both groups have chosen a common enemy to blame. An enemy who has been unequivocal in stating that he did not leave any room for any crimes or wrong doings. The childish attempts of GoSL to convict Fonseka has only served to display the subjugation of the judiciary by the executive, laying the path for International intervention (e.g. Hedging deal). Similarly, the LTTE-proxies will be defeated by their own (traditional) greed of attempting bite off more than they can chew.

The out come will be an opening for the West (USA) to manipulate those who can be manipulated (those who are the true criminals can easily be manipulated through their venality or by discovery) without any resort to actual judicial action Internationally. LTTE will be left out on the cold again. Well done GoSL for managing to give the bait of Fonseka to the LTTE knowing the obfuscation it would cause and knowing that Fonseka had performed not only on the ground but in terms of treaties of War!

I suspect though that the Fonseka move is yet to be made and will be devastating when made by those loyal to him.

In the meantime I feel somewhat more at peace knowing that there are increasing numbers Snagakkarites putting their hands up to be counted. The Sri Lankan diaspora can assist by beginning the process of true reconciliation and healing. Dr. Roberts (I believe) has already played a large part in this.

Sangakkara becomes a symbol and hope in a hopeless barren land of politics? Such is the civil bankruptcy of once dynamic politics of Sri Lanka. This is the apparent display of the heterogeneously collective breakdown of the emotional and normative aspect of the contemporary Sinhala citizenry and their post prapha state.