Dear Justin,

You stated that “The Indo Lanka Accord(ILA) of 1987, was an agreement between three parties, namely; India, Sri Lanka(SL) and Tamil Liberation Movements(TLM)”

The ILA carries the signatures of JR Jayawardene and Rajiv Gandhi ONLY. Where has this imaginary THIRD signatory placed the signature?
Signed in invisible ink?

You have a way of introducing figments of your imagination as gospel truth. You campaigned for Eelam here (http://groundviews.org/2013/06/18/twitter-qa-with-lalith-weeratunga-secretary-to-the-president-of-sri-lanka/#comment-54180) and you are campaigning for Eelam now.

When asked to justify your claims and blames you vanished from that thread and is now popping up on this thread with your blame game.

“Under IPKF, the first elections for the merged Provincial Council of North-East was held and Chief Minister Varatharajaperumal was appointed”

IPKF rigged the election and Indian backed Terrorists EPRLF and ENDLF were uncontested in all 36 seats in the NORTH but there were elections for the 35 seats in the EAST.

“SL on its part, was to hold a referendum in the East, within one year, ratifying its merger with the North”

A Referendum while the Terrorists were still armed? You must be joking.

LTTE refused to hand over their guns remember?
They held on to their guns till May 2009.

“The TLM, referring to the past dishonesty and breach of agreements by the Sinhalese collectively with the Tamils, raised serious doubts and reservations about violation or abandonment of the provisions of ILA, by the Sinhalese, to make ILA a “toothless dog” for Tamils”

The following is from the ILA

2.9 The emergency will be lifted in the Eastern and Nothern Provinces by Aug. 15, 1987. A cessation of hostilities will come into effect all over the island within 48 hours of signing of this agreement. All arms presently held by militant groups will be surrendered in accordance with an agreed procedure to authorities to be designated by the Government of Sri Lanka. Consequent to the cessation of hostilities and the surrender of arms by militant groups, the army and other security personnel will be confined to barracks in camps as on 25 May 1987. The process of surrendering arms and the confining of security personnel moving back to barracks shall be completed within 72 hours of the cessation of hostilities coming into effect.

If the language is unclear to you, the above paragraph from the ILA required India to DISARM all terrorists.

The cessation of hostilities came in to affect within 48 hours of 29 July 1987 (the day the ILA was signed).

The SL Army was to move to barracks within 72 hours of the cessation of hostilities.

The SL Army was to be confined to barracks AFTER the SURRENDER of ARMS by the terrorists.

The Surrender of Arms never happened although the SL govt confined the SLA to barracks in good faith despite India breaching the very foundation of the ILA.

Hence Sri Lanka can abrogate the whole ILA by India’s default.

You have been blaming the Sinhalese, hiding the fact that the LTTE and the Tamil political parties except Douglas Devanada’s EPDP REJECTED the ILA.

“Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, assured the TLM, TULF and the political leaders of Tamil Nadu, that in such an eventuality, India would support and create Tamil Eelam according to the democratic Tamil Mandate of 1977”

Democratic Tamil Mandate? Did ALL the Tamils vote for that Mandate for you to name it as a “TAMIL” mandate? What percent of the 3 million Tamils of Lanka vote for that so called “Tamil Mandate”? Just over 1%, even with the backing of the LTTE terrorists guns?

Democratic elections with the electors and the opposition subdued by LTTE guns!

There are MORE Tamils living outside the North and East than living within it. NON of them voted for your so called Democratic “Tamil Mandate”.

There was no such Tamil Mandate, you are hoodwinking the world.

“Since 1987, SL has unilaterally violated the ILA at least 3 times. They are;
1. Asking IPKF to leave prematurely,
2. Failing to hold a referendum in the East before 1988.
3. De-merging North-East without a referendum.
Therefore, India is obliged to carry out the promise given by its Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi”

The ILA was defaulted by India within 120 hours of it coming into affect (please see above).

India was responsible for creating the conditions for a referendum by disarming terrorists. That never happened.

The Supreme Court held that the merger was illegal in the first place, when the JVP petitioned it against the merger.

Finally, Eelam was declared by Chief Minister Varatharaja Perumal of the merged North and East with the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, supported by the Tamil National Army. This led to the dissolution of the NE Provincial Council and the imposition of Direct Rule by the then President Premadasa.

The separatist Tamils of the North have by their own actions proven that they do not want a Sri Lankan identity and has forfeited the trust of the rest of the Sri Lakans.

India was the guarantor for the implementation of ILA. Under IPKF, the first elections for the merged Provincial Council of North-East was held and Chief Minister Varatharajaperumal was appointed.

SL on its part, was to hold a referendum in the East, within one year, ratifying its merger with the North.

The TLM, refering to the past dishonesty and breach of agreements by the Sinhalese collectively with the Tamils, raised serious doubts and reservations about violation or abandonment of the provisions of ILA, by the Sinhalese, to make ILA a “toothless dog” for Tamils.

Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, assured the TLM, TULF and the political leaders of Tamil Nadu, that in such an eventuality, India would support and create Tamil Eelam according to the democratic Tamil Mandate of 1977.

Since 1987, SL has unilaterally violated the ILA at least 3 times. They are;

1. Asking IPKF to leave prematurely,
2. Failing to hold a referendum in the East before
1988.
3. De-merging North-East without a referendum.

Therefore, India is obliged to carry out the promise given by its Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi.

These proposals do not deal with the essentials.Only what it will cost for the UNP to be back in power. It does not deal with good financial governance. There should be Public Official who control the finances, not by politicians as it is now.He should be able to say so far nothing more until the Parliament approves.Since 1977 the heads of State had abused their priviledges and we are in this mess.The DST is the person presently empowered to control finances.
2. All investments should be subject to thorough scrutiny.The country should never get into the mess that we are with Norochcholai.For this purpose there should a separate body to assess all major investments.
3.Sale of State Owned Enterprises should be after a wide discussion, with parliamentary approval.This had not been the practise so far.
4.A sold SOE should be continuously be under Parliament scrutiny.In case the buyer is unable to cope with his work, the SOE should be nationalized. After all it was put up with tax payers money.Of the 125 odd SOEs sold not even five are functioning.
5.Essential SOE should not be sold eg The sale of the Distilleries Corporation, which was a bottomless well for state finances was sold.See what it had led to.The Govt cannot pay the public sector salaries.
6.No SOE should be sold for scrap. eg Fertliser manufacturing factory.This had led directly to the health problems among farmers in the NCP.
7. In all SOEs the Board of Management should have members of the staff representing different specialities with the Chairman and the MD from outside.The outside Directors should be educated people. There should be no tailors, pimps, drunkards, karawadu sellers, cigarette salesmen,etc etc in the Board.
8.The Directors of the SOE should be removed on retirement, inefficiency corruption etc but not when political parties taking over power in the Centre change.,

It has always been clear, throughout human history that those who have power would almost always abuse it. The greater the power, the greater the abuse. The only solution is to limit power. But there isn’t a single libertarian in the parliament, and the UNP has never really been a party that cared a lot about people’s rights. The UNP comes up with this new constitution only because they are powerless. It sucks to be powerless when power is not restricted. Hence, the UNP is not sincere. The only way this new constitution would come to life is if the UNP came into power, and yet it was absolutely necessary to adopt this constitution for them to just remain in power. Those two things are very very unlikely.