Scholars such as K. Indrapla and S.J. Tambiah have argued that Tamils would be in a better position if they would refrain from using the historical homeland concept and instead invoke international human rights instruments for the cause.

What are your thoughts on this?

Gamarala,

There are many upstanding, decent and honest individuals in the MR administration whom I happen to know. Does that mean that the MR administration is above Criticism? Why make these childish arguments?

The wording … “All Tamil North”… was deliberately introduced to add a Pro Tamil Bias into the contents of the report. Are you suggesting that the North was ALL TAMIL except after the immediate aftermath of the Ethnic cleansing by the LTTE?

The Crisis Group undermined their own credibility by using provocative language in their report. I only pointed it out.

Are you contesting that?

BTW. I am happily married and would not require the services of a broker (the better description would not meet with the GV guide lines). However I see that Thivya and you both see eye to eye re the Crisis Group. Hence why not approach her if you are not happily married?

The hallmark of your arguments is the personal comments that you seem unable to refrain from. If you cannot argue the contents of a post, you should try taking the advise that you offer all and sundry so freely. That was what Mahadenamuththa, the village idiot, who thought he was wise, used to do.

Off the cuff, the nature of your arguments are becoming so tenuous that it is becoming increasingly unnecessary to even argue against you – just leave you be and your arguments will unravel on their own, just like our dear Thivya! In fact, I would argue that the two of you are a match made in heaven, why not consider forwarding a marriage proposal? 😉

I happen to know some people directly/indirectly involved with the Crisis Group and I can say that, at least the people I know are very decent, upstanding individuals. Furthermore, the substance of their critique has nothing to do with whether the North is all Tamil or not, and it is an amusing display of intellectual evasion to insist on mathematical rigour in one’s wording, when the main issues flagged in their report are in neglect. And by golly, to actually use the precision of wording as your main counter-argument – you have considerable testicular fortitude indeed.

At least, your strategy is self-evident – discredit them however you can, so you don’t have to deal with the issues eh?

Thivya,

Crisis Group loses credibility because they have shown that they are not objective and is partial when they stated in their report “……in the formerly all-Tamil north ….”.

The North was NEVER ALL Tamil.
It was Majority Tamil.

That Thivya, is the huge difference.

This sentence was deliberately used to give a Tamil bias to the report and colour the minds of the readers. Anyone who is unbiased and has a command of the language will realise that, in spite of your contortions.

Crisis Group Discredited itself, no one had to do it for them.

I believe you have a memory problem.

We have discussed Prof Brian Blodgett and both you and Sangam.org was proven wrong. Why are you dishonestly trying to bring in Blodgett to a thread where the readers are unaware of the arguments? You were able to read only the TWO LINES that Sangam.org reported but I possess the complete book.

Extract from Blodgett’s book
Retention, Recruitment, and Training
In 1962, a policy of recruiting only from the Sinhalese Buddhist community was instituted. This was the beginning of an ethnically pure army and caused Tamils and other ethnic groups to believe they were viewed as “second-class citizens” who could not even be trusted to protect the country. No records involving retention or recruitment are available.
End Extract

The Authority quoted by Blodgett is “World Armies” by John Keegan page 651 published in 1979

1962 is 50 years ago.

If such a policy existed, the SL Forces would today be a 100% Buddhist.

This is absolute nonsense, which even a die hard separatist racist, with even an iota of intelligence, would not dare to utter, as it can be disproved without any effort.

But then, that would be a separatist racist which has intelligence.

Please don’t think you can win arguments by throwing names.
It won’t work, not on GroundViews.

Thivya,

My reply can be found here
http://groundviews.org/2012/08/06/the-kattankudy-mosque-massacre-in-sri-lanka-22-years-after/#comment-48532

Dear Thivya,

Hmm you are right, I have made a mistake. Sorry.
We were discussing the Public land holding and Public Owned Resources (Private Land cannot be divided) and I have omitted to qualify it.

This is what I wrote on August 29, 2012 • 5:34 pm
Sri Lanka’s Land is divided as follows
Private Land 15%
Public Land 85%

In 1999 the actual land was divided as follows

State Land 5,440,000 ha = 83%
Private Land 1,112,500 ha = 17%

The second mistake was the approx data I used as seen above.
Private land is proportional to the population.

It now appears that the Eelamist claim is 2,012,929 Hectares or 37% of State Land. Which is 0.6 Hectares per capita.

While the rest of the population has 3,478,870 Hectares or 63% of State land, which is 0.21 per capita.

The above used 2012 population data.

The Eelamists thus claim 3 times more Publicly owned land as the rest.

I also see that the separatists are claiming 49% of the Inland waters of Lanka as well. Thank you for providing the data. I also note that you have not contested usurping 60% of Lanka’s coastline

Now comes the difficult part.

How do you justify usurping 37% of Lanka’s Public Land and 49% of Lanka’s inland Waters?

Even if we go by your simplistic calculations how do you justify what you are claiming?

Thivya,

“It seems like they are your friends, lucky you, why don’t you ask them.”

Why don’t you ask Off the Cuff about our friendship? He will point you to all the niceties he has written about me on GV!

OFFtc,

//The proponents of the Mythical Historic Tamil Homeland claims exclusivity in,1. Control of 45% of Lanka’s Land Area.//

Actually if we go by only land area the Tamil Eelam is only 31% of Sri Lanka’s land area not 45%. See you exaggerated. 🙂

Sri Lanka Land area: 64,740 km2 (24,996 sq mi)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107992.html

Tamil Eelam land area: 20,533 km2 (7,928 sq mi)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Eelam

(20533/64740) x100 = 31%