Dear Burning Issue,

You say, “I closely followed the Tinccomalee issue with Buddhist statue and was able to demonstrate as to how it was protected using the article 9 of the constitution at that time. I will certainly research again”

Over 5 weeks have elapsed but the proof that you bragged about is not forthcoming. It will never come as you were lying.

You say, “The big difference between the Buddhist statues and the rest is that, the Buddhist Statues have state patronage this is contrary to the term equality. Please keep your arguments simple and logical; as SD once said if one is intellectually honest, it will help the debates immensely!”

My arguments have always been simple. A court case moves from lower courts to the Higher courts. The final decision comes from the higher court. The Trinco Buddha statue case finally ended up in the Supreme Court.

What has happened to the Intellectual Honesty?

Dear Wijayapala,

“The Darusman Report denied that there was evidence that the LTTE had used people as human shields, despite the mountain of evidence provided by the UTHR-J and SLAF aerial videos. For that reason alone it is worthless.”

http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf

I have reviewed the Darusman report; I did not go very far to see the following points:
“Despite grave danger in the conflict zone, the LTTE refused civilians permission to leave, using them as hostages, at times even using their presence as a strategic human buffer between themselves and the advancing Sri Lankan Army. It implemented a policy of forced recruitment throughout the war, but in the final stages greatly intensified its recruitment of people of all ages, including children as young as fourteen. The LTTE forced civilians to dig trenches and other emplacements for its own defences, thereby contributing to blurring the distinction between combatants and civilians and exposing civilians to additional harm. All of this was done in a quest to pursue a war that was clearly lost; many civilians were sacrificed on the alter of the LTTE cause and its efforts to preserve ots senior leadership.”

“From February 2009 onwards, the LTTE started point-blank shooting of civilians who attempted to escape the conflict zone, significantly adding to the death toll in the final stages of the war. It also fired artillery in proximity to large groups of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and fired from, or stored military equipment near, IDPs or civilians installations such as hospitals. Throughout the final stages of the war, the LTTE continued its policy of suicide attacks outside the conflict zone. Even though its ability to perpetrate such attacks was diminished compared to previous phases of the conflict, it perpetrated a number of attacks against civilians outside the conflict zone. “

It appears within the executive summary; I am sure there will be plenty of reference to the LTTE short comings within the report. I had to manually type the quotes; if any mistakes, I stand by that.

Daer Wijayapala,

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/07/24/consistent-rejection-state-demands-tamils-led-war-separate-state

CBK’s perspective of peace, secularism and nation building; It is very relevant for our current discussion!

Dear Burning_Issue

“I note your veiled message that, any amount of devolution of power will not suffice for the Tamils as their end game is secession.”

Not really. Maybe for some, but there are others like you who believe that the magical “political solution” will negate the need for secession. The problem is not that you or most other Tamils have some hidden agenda or “end game,” but rather that when this “political solution” actually arrives you will only then realise that it is not so magical after all. If the Sinhalese were in your place, they would do exactly the same thing.

“The recent regional election has shown that the Tamils have overwhelmingly supported for a political solution within the undivided Sri Lanka; this is a strong message when they could have either apathetically abstained or voted for extreme elements; they did not.”

I have a rather different interpretation. The Tamils overwhelmingly rejected the party of Anandasangaree, who is probably the most credible Tamil leader to the Sinhalese, in favor of the LTTE lapdog TNA. As kadphises pointed out in another thread, Suresh Premachandran nailed the coffin on negotiations by chortling “The Tamil people’s demand is that they exercise full powers of self-rule within their homeland consisting of a merged North and East.” Surely he knew that “homeland” and “merged North and East” are totally unacceptable in the South, which proves without a shadow of a doubt that the TNA is NOT interested in a negotiated “political solution, but rather wants an endless confrontation with the government.”

“on the contrary, the whole idea of devolving power is to enable local accountability.”

And where will the provincial governments get the funds to exercise these powers? In particular, how will the war-devastated Northern and Eastern Provinces be able to run their own affairs with their own resources???

“Did the Sinhala agree to give anything at all?”

No, but the point I am making is that when they were forced to give the 13A, even that was not enough.

“How would anyone know if the Banda/Chelva pact had worked or not? What about the Dudley/Chelva pact?”

They would have failed miserably because they did not have popular support. The fact that Banda and Dudley had proposed them to begin with demonstrated how little they were connected with their electorates. I might have mentioned to you before how I consider SWRD Bandaranaike to have been the second worst leader in Sri Lankan history. He brought us “Sinhala Only” so I’m not surprised at all he could come up with another dumb idea like “Banda-Chelva.”

“Let’s be honest and say that, the Sinhalese deem sharing power with the Tamils amount to conceding to shared ownership of the nation and this is not acceptable to them.”

I don’t see how devolution is the same as “shared ownership of the nation.” Devolution draws lines in the “nation.” The Tamil Congress under GG Ponnambalam did not want devolution but sought “power-sharing” through his 50-50 idea. Misguided as it was, that idea conveyed more “shared ownership of the nation” than devolution.

“The regional set up should give them a voice with adequate representation.”

You did not answer my point- how come the upcountry Tamils have never demanded this “regional set up?”

“Why was the report not published? How do you know about the short comings? What are the recommendations on the report?”

Please give me some time to find the findings of the Majority Report, it has been a couple of years. The report may not have been published in full, but there was not a full consensus reached by the majority on some important points.

“The video footages that emerged mainly about the alleged crimes committed by the SLA; thus more specific emphasis were placed.”

The Darusman Report denied that there was evidence that the LTTE had used people as human shields, despite the mountain of evidence provided by the UTHR-J and SLAF aerial videos. For that reason alone it is worthless.

“Don’t you agree that Sri Lanka can put her case and challenge the evidences that appear implicating them in war crimes?”

Not when the investigators already begin with a “guilty” verdict, like the Darusman panelists. That is precisely why most Sri Lankans are dead set against such a stacked “investigation” and why all of you are making MR stronger by insisting on it.

“Please point me to an event where a developed country has committed mass killings of its own people?”

So it is perfectly acceptable for countries to commit mass killings of other people, as long as it’s not their own?

“Wijayapala, the above is an emotionally charged statement!”

Let me understand correctly: demanding war crimes investigations is not “emotionally charged” as long as they’re not against Tamil leaders or those claiming to lead Tamils?

“He has a duty to all of his citizens; he had not only failed them but allegedly willfully targeted them knowing that there were none combatants with women, children and old folks existing at the mercy of the president.”

What is your evidence that MR deliberately targeted civilians?

“You will say that, if the MR had held back, the LTTE and VP would have escaped! Where would they have escaped to?”

The same place that Adele escaped to?

“If that is the case why didn’t most of them escape?”

DBS Jeyaraj answered that question- Prabakaran believed all the way to nearly the end that the int’l community would save the LTTE.

“If an investigation pinpoints that Adele Balasingham has a case to answer, I will extend my support for her complying.”

She already has a case to answer. We are wondering why nobody is investigating her.

Dear Wijayapala,

“How much devolution is needed to achieve “people’s security?” What if devolution won’t improve people’s security very much (or only symbolically/psychologically), while further degrading Sri Lankan governance?”

I note your veiled message that, any amount of devolution of power will not suffice for the Tamils as their end game is secession. The recent regional election has shown that the Tamils have overwhelmingly supported for a political solution within the undivided Sri Lanka; this is a strong message when they could have either apathetically abstained or voted for extreme elements; they did not.

The Sri Lankan governance has been degrading ever since the 1948 constitution has been tampered with. Given that, there is no chance that the country would revert to 1948, we must find a best way forward considering all issues and giving weight to all concerns.

“That is my fundamental understanding of devolution in the Sri Lankan context- in practice it will provide very little for the minorities and it will ruin the country.”

I agree; there has to be a workable consensus and the parties must be sincere. But I disagree on the point about “in practice it will provide very little for the minorities and it will ruin the country”; on the contrary, the whole idea of devolving power is to enable local accountability. There has to be equitable representation of all groups within the regional governance. There should a mechanism by way of a binding arbitrational panel/s sitting centrally to deal with issues resulting from local impasses. It is thoroughly workable with greater successes than the current unfair system.

“The problem, as I tried to explain, is that many Sinhalese believe that the Tamils will never be happy with anything they are given.”

How would they know? Did the Sinhala agree to give anything at all? How would anyone know if the Banda/Chelva pact had worked or not? What about the Dudley/Chelva pact? Let’s be honest and say that, the Sinhalese deem sharing power with the Tamils amount to conceding to shared ownership of the nation and this is not acceptable to them. I am sorry that this may upset you but that is what I believe with the turbulent history on my side.

“The upcountry Tamils suffered far worse than their northeastern cousins, not even having the right to vote or participate in politics for decades, yet they never took to the gun to assert themselves.”

I agree that the Upcountry Tamils have been treated rather shabbily; they were made to feel aliens and stuck in areas where they are surrounded by the “hostile” Sinhala. You may probably need to read some of the things that Thondaman Snr said about the emergence of VP and post Kent & Dollar farm events! They never wanted to assert themselves but wanted to be treated fairly. This is a reflection on the Sinhala than anything else. The regional set up should give them a voice with adequate representation.

“The APRC “majority” report failed to resolve two very basic issues: 1) the unit of devolution and 2) the exact powers to be devolved, and how they would be devolved, showing once again that the pro-devolutionists are good at talking in terms of vague generalities and platitudes but not so good with the details.”

Why was the report not published? How do you know about the short comings? What are the recommendations on the report?

“I want a strong, efficient unitary state, with no 13A, where the minorities have the same individual rights as anyone else. If the devolutionists and Eelamists can dream, why can’t I?”

I am afraid that you dream was realised in 1948; we collectively destroyed it and getting it back seems impossible. Of course dreaming important but I cannot see any positive signals on that front when the Tamil Language provisions remain shelved for over 20 years. I personally would be happy with your dream if it can be realised but people of Sri Lanka are not cultured enough and more importantly, the politicians are visionless and suffer from self-centered power hungry attitude.

“Then we are at an impasse, because I felt that it was extremely biased against Sri Lanka. The report itself was poorly-written with a sloppy attention to details. The panelists clearly did not give a damn about Sri Lanka or what had transpired, more or less the future.”

I am sorry that you feel this way; the panel was tasked to look at the evidences present and advise the Secretary General on the case of further investigations. There were two parties in question and the report found credible evidences exist that war crimes were committed by both sides. The video footages that emerged mainly about the alleged crimes committed by the SLA; thus more specific emphasis were placed. If the GOSL had allowed reporters like in other operations around the world, we would know of events from third party perspectives. Hence, an investigation is required to address “The panelists clearly did not give a damn about Sri Lanka or what had transpired, more or less the future” don’t you agree? Don’t you agree that Sri Lanka can put her case and challenge the evidences that appear implicating them in war crimes?

“Why only developing countries? Are you saying that the developed countries should be immune?”

Please point me to an event where a developed country has committed mass killings of its own people?

“Only when the Tamil diaspora hauls Adele Balasingham and other LTTE survivors among them for war crimes will it have the moral authority to demand that the Sinhalese do the same for their own leaders.”

Wijayapala, the above is an emotionally charged statement! MR is a head of the state that has international accountability. He has a duty to all of his citizens; he had not only failed them but allegedly willfully targeted them knowing that there were none combatants with women, children and old folks existing at the mercy of the president. You will say that, if the MR had held back, the LTTE and VP would have escaped! Where would they have escaped to? If that is the case why didn’t most of them escape? There could have been an organised surrender and why wasn’t that avenue explored? There is definitely a case for a thorough investigation and why was not the LLRC mandated to do just that? If an investigation pinpoints that Adele Balasingham has a case to answer, I will extend my support for her complying. In fact, I would like to see the full facts published exposing the LTTE for all their short comings; they had opportunities to surrender earlier and many thousands of lives would have been saved.

Dear OTC,

One more thing; I truly find you rather boring and emotional these days I am very sorry to say! This is so after the emergence of the war crimes allegations and releasing of the C 4 documentary. You were logical and rational when the MR regime was in total control and dictating things. Now that the table has turned a bit, you appear to have lost your marbles!

Dear OTC,

“I believe you owe it to the Tamil community especially and to all Sri Lankans in general, to put the record straight and to desist from such hate spreading propaganda in the Future if you are unable to prove what you say in a public forum such as GV”

What is this ranting all about? I bring out the Buddhist issue because I believe in equality. One either believes in equality or not; your form of equality does not aggregate well! I am not a guy who is out to outsmart anyone; I debate on points of issues then and there and do not keep records of things. I closely followed the Tinccomalee issue with Buddhist statue and was able to demonstrate as to how it was protected using the article 9 of the constitution at that time. I will certainly research again.

Wijayapala wrote:

“I had challenged Burning_Issue to find an example where Article 9 was invoked against non-Buddhists, and he delivered. I should have kept better track of that link.”

This means that either I must have fooled Wijayapala or he must be lying to protect me; why would he do that? I cannot devote a lot time to debate on the Groundviews; I am a freelance consultant that takes me all around the world and do not have a luxury of a reference room etc.

After the fall of the LTTE, there are many Buddha statues have sprung up within the N&E erected in private lands. Who do you thing fund such activities? They are being given constitutional protection; I make this charge; if you like you can prove me wrong!

You can shout all you like; Sri Lanka cannot be equal with Sinhala Buddhist constitutional prominence. If Hindu and Christian devotees illegally establishing places of worships, they must be removed; law must apply evenly to all. The big difference between the Buddhist statues and the rest is that, the Buddhist Statues have state patronage this is contrary to the term equality. Please keep your arguments simple and logical; as SD once said if one is intellectually honest, it will help the debates immensely!

You have been regularly raising objections about Buddha Statues being erected and claiming that those who are doing so are invoking Section 9 of the constitution to claim protection (Personally I do not support the erection of any Religious edifice on Public Property).

Can you provide an Authoritative reference to such a claim?

I have proved that, If all three of us (you, Wijayapala and I) are referring to the same Buddha Statue, illegally erected in Trinco, your claim that the Litigants invoked protection using the Constitutional “Foremost place accorded to Buddhism” is Fraudulent.

The litigants claimed the Fundamental Right to equal treatment instead. In Trinco there were 17 illegal Religious edifices. Seven were Hindu Kovils, six were Christian and four Buddhist. All but the most recent Buddha statue had existed for a long time.

It is significant to note, that the Buddhist in the area, had not sought the Removal of the illegal Kovils or the Churches which have been standing in Trinco for years.

Please see the following posts addressed to you amongst others.
http://groundviews.org/2011/07/15/a-sri-lankan-identity-and-race-relations/#comment-34671
http://groundviews.org/2011/07/15/a-sri-lankan-identity-and-race-relations/#comment-34654
http://groundviews.org/2011/05/17/vesak-and-violence-against-women/#comment-32908
The same details are found in an article written by DBS Jayaraj in Transcurrents.

We (you and I) also had a discussion on this subject about an year back. If I remember correctly, it was about the same time as we discussed the Thesawalami Law.

Propagating such False propaganda will inculcate Hatred between the Minority and the Majority communities. Intellectuals such as you, should act with more responsibility and desist from repeating innuendo that have no foundation in Fact.

I believe you owe it to the Tamil community especially and to all Sri Lankans in general, to put the record straight and to desist from such hate spreading propaganda in the Future if you are unable to prove what you say in a public forum such as GV.

To Wijayapala and Burning issue,

Wijayapala,

The “Foremost place to Buddhism” within our Constitution is a sensitive subject. Hence any opinion expressed about it in a Public Platform such as GV should be factual and done with Responsibility. Spurious claims will inflame opinion of followers of other religions if the True Facts are with held.

BI has raised the Foremost place to Buddhism issue with me a long time ago (probably a year back). Subsequently I have seen Burning issue raising this question several times on GV. Here are two recent occasions.

“Buddha statues are being erected on state patronage within North & East in private lands!” http://groundviews.org/2011/05/01/notes-on-possibilities-after-the-un-report-including-nationalism-and-%e2%80%98the-geopolitics-of-emotion%e2%80%99/#comment-31942

“On the contrary; you have done immense disservice to many who eloquently shown as to why a special status to Buddhism in Sri Lanka an obstacle to the quest of nation building.”
http://groundviews.org/2011/05/17/vesak-and-violence-against-women/#comment-32530

Here are the TRUE facts about the Trinco Buddha Statue affair.

A Buddha statue had been erected overnite on 16 May 2005, without permission from any authority, on land belonging to the State/Urban Council,Trincomalee.

The AG filed a plaint in the Trincomalee courts seeking removal of the Buddha statue.

Subsequently a fundamental rights plaint was filed by a Dehiowitta Piyatissa Thera, chief priest of the Chinabay Sri Bodhirajamaha Vihare against the AG, alleging that the AG had directed the UDA to take steps under Section 28 of the UDA Act to remove the Buddha statue.

The petitioner had stated that there were around 17 illegally erected religious statues on State lands in Trincomalee, out of which, seven were Hindu Kovils and six churches or Christian statues. It was alleged that the AG had singled out the Buddha statue for removal by the UDA.

The petitioner further stated the AG and his department had instituted a case in the Trincomalee District Court seeking the declaration that the statue was an illegal structure in order to have the statue removed on that basis.

The petitioner had alleged that the selective and discriminatory conduct was in violation of the Article 12 (1) and (2) of the Constitution.

This is Article 12

Right to equality.

12. (1) All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.

(2) No citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth or any such grounds:

Where do you see the Litigants taking Refuge under Article 9 of the Constitution (Primacy to Buddhism) as alleged?

This is Article 9
9. The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

Any claim stating that the litigants sought protection under Article 9 is Fraudulent and is calculated to drive a divisive wedge to scuttle reconciliation.

If you, Burning Issue and I are all referring to the Trinco Buddha Statue case, here are only TWO Plaints filed in court. One by the UDA in the District Court of Trinco and the other a Fundamental Rights petition filed in the Supreme Court.

UNLESS Burning Issue is referring to a DIFFERENT Buddha Statue, which is probable as he refers to private land (Trinco Statue is on Public land) He wont be able to provide you with ANY Case Record where Protection was claimed under Article 9.

What you can observe from the above is that Burning Issue is SILENT about the SEVEN ILLEGAL HINDU KOVILS and the SIX CHRISTIAN Edifices but finds the Buddha Statue alone objectionable.

Apparently the Buddhist in Trinco had accepted the 13 ILLEGAL Kovils, Churches and Statues belonging to other Religions for long years without a protest.

Article 9 cannot OVER RIDE Articles 10 and 14(1)(e). Hence No one can claim protection under Article 9 if they transgress Articles 10 and 14(1)(e)

This is Articles 10 and 14(1)(e)

10. Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

14. (1) Every citizen is entitled to – (e) the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching;

Burning Issue,

You have been regularly raising objections about Buddha Statues being erected and those who are doing so invoking Section 9 of the constitution to claim protection.

Can you provide an Authoritative reference to such a claim?

Wijayapala, “It advanced his argument much much more than this garbage PDF attacking Sinhala Buddhists that you’re referring to”

Burning Issue referred you to it not me.

The link he provided did not work but I found the article by searching the name he provided. I agree with you that it is Garbage but BI thinks otherwise. He says “It is very well written by Neil DeVotta”
http://groundviews.org/2011/07/15/a-sri-lankan-identity-and-race-relations/#comment-34624

No that is not the link I was looking for. Burning_Issue had shown me a link with very specific information how Sinhala litigants were defending building Buddha statues in public spaces in the north by citing Article 9. It advanced his argument much much more than this garbage PDF attacking Sinhala Buddhists that you’re referring to.

“Burning Issue, this has been one of your favorite grouses that you repeatedly bring up on GV. Basing complaints on half truths an inuendo does not help reconciliation.”

Neither does attacking someone who is trying to understand our perspective. I had challenged Burning_Issue to find an example where Article 9 was invoked against non-Buddhists, and he delivered. I should have kept better track of that link.