By Raj Sivanathan –
Raj Sivanathan
After seventy five years of struggle, the Tamil political movement faces a defining question: can it move beyond theory and deliver real outcomes for the people of the North and East?
One of the most urgent and uncomfortable questions confronting the Tamil people in Sri Lanka today is simple yet profound: where do we truly stand? More than seventy five years after independence, the Tamil political journey has been shaped by sacrifice, resilience, and repeated attempts to secure justice, dignity, and political recognition. Yet despite these long standing efforts, a growing sentiment across the North and East suggests that a clear, unified, and results driven political direction is still absent.
This is not merely a failure of outcomes. It reflects a deeper structural issue within Tamil political engagement itself. While the narrative of struggle continues to evolve, the methods and strategies appear to remain trapped between ideology and execution. The gap between what is promised and what is delivered has widened, and this gap is now being felt directly by the people.
Political Confusion in the North and East
The current political environment reflects a state of confusion. Multiple organisations, initiatives, and intellectual movements are emerging, each attempting to redefine the Tamil political future. However, these efforts often operate in isolation, lacking coordination and a shared strategic direction.
For the ordinary citizen, this fragmentation creates uncertainty. There is no clear roadmap, no unified leadership, and no measurable outcomes. Political messaging has become complex and inconsistent, making it difficult for people to understand where the movement is heading.
The Role of Legal Professionals: Theory or Practice
Legal professionals continue to play an important role in shaping discourse. However, much of their contribution remains theoretical. Legal arguments, constitutional interpretations, and rights based frameworks are important, but they must translate into practical solutions.
When political engagement is confined to legal theory, it risks excluding the wider population. The challenge is not the lack of knowledge, but the lack of application. The Tamil political struggle now requires implementation focused thinking.
The Reality on the Ground
The lived reality of people in the North and East is defined by economic hardship, land disputes, unemployment, and limited access to essential services. Youth frustration is growing, leading to migration and social instability.
These are not abstract concerns. They are immediate challenges that require urgent political intervention. Yet there is a perception that political leadership is disconnected from these realities.
Ideology vs Reality: A Dangerous Disconnect
The growing gap between ideology and reality presents a serious risk. While long term political goals are necessary, they cannot replace the need for immediate action. Politics must deliver both vision and results.
If leadership continues to prioritise abstract frameworks over practical solutions, public trust will continue to decline. This erosion of trust is one of the most significant threats facing Tamil politics today.
Repeating the Same Mistakes
The history of Tamil politics reveals a pattern of repeated strategies. Without critical reflection, old approaches are often reintroduced under new identities. This cycle limits progress and prevents innovation.
A forward looking political movement must learn from past failures. It must be willing to adapt, evolve, and embrace new methods that reflect current realities.
The Question of Representation
Representation remains a key issue. Political bodies must be built on genuine public participation. Without this, they lack legitimacy and long term sustainability.
The voices of grassroots communities must be central to decision making processes. Political legitimacy cannot be assumed. It must be earned through engagement and accountability.
The Problem of Elite Politics
There is a growing perception that political discourse is dominated by elite groups. This creates a disconnect between leadership and the people. Inclusive politics is essential for sustainable progress.
A New Political Direction: What Must Change
The path forward requires a shift in priorities. Immediate engagement with ground level issues must become the foundation of political activity. Transparency and accountability must guide leadership decisions.
Collaboration between political groups, legal experts, and civil society is essential. Fragmentation weakens the collective voice of the Tamil people.
Conclusion
Tamil politics stands at a decisive crossroads. The future will be shaped by the decisions made today. A people centred, practical, and accountable political approach is essential to break the cycle of stagnation.
Ajith / April 20, 2026
“Tamil politics stands at a decisive crossroads.”
It is true that Tamil Parliamentary politics since 2009 is at a decisive crossroads. But at the same we have to look at the politics of Sinhala continued to face severe political, social and economic crisis since 1948. Out of the past 78 years of Sinhala Governments rule, Sinhalese people have changed their leadership three times within six years. That does not mean our politics is great. Almost all the political parties and political leaders are not genuine to its people. There is a power greediness competition. It will change over time but it will happen.Tamils don’t need many political parties. we should remember that there were 30 or 35 militants groups in the start which finally ended with one for nearly 30 years.
/
SJ / April 21, 2026
“Sinhalese people have changed their leadership three times within six years. “
That reminds me of Sir Razeek Fareed. Once a Muslim youth told him that while he appreciated his service to the Muslim community, he was at a loss to understand his frequent switching of political parties.
He told the young man: ” I do not change parties. It is the Sinhalese who keep changing. They elect the UNP now, the SLFP later and UNP again and so on. I have always been with the government party”.
*
The Tamils had no chance to change anything under VP, did they?
/
Native Vedda / April 22, 2026
“The Tamils had no chance to change anything under VP, did they?”
–
Maybe maybe not true, however VP had had many chances to change his position, mind, …according to his needs, ………. stupidity, ….. and the price offered, …. he was initially loyal to TULF, then to Indra, RAW and MGR, then to Premadasa and the West, …. later to Mahinda clan (Rs 165 Million), …… and he voluntarily silenced his guns (note he didn’t surrender the weapons, nor the land area, nor did he surrender his armed struggle), ……
–
I wonder why the Tamils (those VP’s ***** carriers) haven’t built a temple for him, ……
/
SJ / April 22, 2026
Over to Ajith
/
Nathan / April 20, 2026
… A people centred, practical, and accountable political approach is essential
Raj Sivanathan, With no identity – specification – of a said approach, the article stands equally hollow!
/
SebastianSR / April 21, 2026
Just as Tamil politics is a consistent repeat of the old racist formula of GGP invented in the 1930s, and based on minority hate of a majority, this article too is a repeat of the rhetoric of the past. Nothing new in it. It could have been written in 1970. No new suggestions. The issues raised by it, youth unemployment, rights issues, affect poor people of this country and not just the “Tamils” (who are they, please define. Why only consider the “Tamils” of the North when tamil speakers are all over the country?
/
SebastianSR / April 21, 2026
People like Shanmugadasan correctly analyzed, already in the 1969s. the political issued involved. Not only for the minorities, but also for the majority. Unfortunately that rhetoric was marred by its Marxist ideological narrative and incorrect economics as well as the immoral doctrine of “End justifies the means- by the bullet if not by the ballot” stuff. Shan identified how caste oppression as well as the domination of Tamils by an upper-caste Christian Elite skewed Tamil aspirations in a way that we can today contrast with Tamil politics in, say, Malaysia.
/
SJ / April 21, 2026
SSR
Only a Marxist politician could analyse the national question with such clarity.
Has any other done it?
*
Why do you insist on repeating the lie about Marxists and ‘ends justifying the means’ You further decorated it to make: ““End justifies the means- by the bullet if not by the ballot”
*
Lying in this fashion is a clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
/
SebastianSR / April 21, 2026
Shanmugathasan always loved to say “by the bullet if mot by the ballot”.
/
SJ / April 21, 2026
Do not twist.
That has nothing to do with ‘ends justifying the means’.
In a particular context Mr S thought that it was time for an armed rebellion.
That is unlike your ‘by hook or by crook’ theory.
/
SebastianSR / April 21, 2026
In Malasiya they have a Malay majority of 65%, then Chinese and Tamils at about 7%. Only Basha Malaysia is used even on highway signs or in monorail stations even though the Chinese minority is bigger in proportion compared to sinhalese versus Tamil minority. But the Chinese have followed a very pragmatic political approach unlike the race-hate vengeance politics of our Karuvakaddu (Col 7) based Tamil-lawyer leaders of the Ramanathan to Wifneswaran caste strstum. full of hubris hurt my the desire for a crown on their head. So, they began a fight for an “exclusive Tamil Arasu” using the poor tamils as pawns. Prabhakaran hijacked it to become Soorya Thevan. We have inherited this terrible legacy.
/
SJ / April 21, 2026
You may not know that majority was achieved by forming the federation of Malaysia which had only a marginal majority of Malaya followed by a comparable Chinese population and a significant Indian population.
Expulsion of Singapore reinforced the Malay majority as well as economic power.
/
SebastianSR / April 21, 2026
It seems that SJ does not know what are “address hominem” remarks, and what are not. Irrespective of how a majority was achieved, what I said stands correct.
/
SJ / April 21, 2026
A sense of belonging makes a difference. A long history of residence makes a difference to a people.
Tamils are settlers as ancient as the Sinhalese. Assertion that this country belongs to the Sinhalese (Buddhists?) is at the root of the two conflicting nationalist claims. Whether good or bad, that is reality.
*
The achievement of a majority by merging territory was based on an agenda, both Malay majoritarian and anti-Chinese.
We cannot be selective about history and select events to suit a prejudiced interpretation.
History is always relevant even if one chooses to ignore it or even distort it.
/
SJ / April 21, 2026
Honestly I do not know what “address hominem”. Kindly let me know.
But I know what ‘ad hominem’ means.
It refers to a logical fallacy where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive than addressing the substance of the argument itself— something that you seem to be gaining skill in.
/
SJ / April 21, 2026
The Colombo elite were far more caste conscious THAN ethnically conscious.
/
Rohan25 / April 22, 2026
Sebastian, as usual, is again trying to be very selective and twist the truth. It’s stupid to compare the settler Chinese minority in Malaysia with the indigenous Tamil population in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan Tamils are widely recognised as native to Sri Lanka, with a presence on the island dating back at least to the 2nd century BCE. They established the sovereign Jaffna Kingdom in the north, ruling from the 13th to 17th centuries, and eastern Tamil Vannimai Many Eelam Tamils consider themselves descendants of the island’s aboriginal Naga and Yaksha people. Chinese Malaysians: Generally categorised as a settler minority. While some small communities existed before colonialism, the vast majority arrived during the 19th and 20th centuries as immigrants to work in mining and commerce under British rule. Malaysian Chinese are generally considered a politically influential economic minority, whereas Sri Lankan Tamils have historically faced structural marginalisation, discrimination, and engaged in armed conflict for self-determination
/
SebastianSR / April 22, 2026
Rohan25 concedes that the vast majority (of Tamils) arrived during the 19th and 20th centuries as immigrants to work in mining and commerce under British rule, while there were Tamil settlements from even 2nd century BC. I agree with all that, and note that the Portuguese and the Dutch too brought in Tamils to work in tobacco farms etc. However, the principle of universal franchise as recognized by all jurists do not give greater weight to one set of citizens as against others who may claim to have “arrived before”. The Malabar Tamils, or Tamils who had been “indigenous”, or the Sinhalese, or the Yakkas and Nagas before them all have modern descendants (with NO genetic traits to distinguish one group from another). So, irrespective when someone’s ancestors came here, they have EQUAL STANDING”.
There is no “exclusive homeland” or ” sinhalé ” based on who came first. In Malaysia this principle was violated when they declared a privileged group called “Bhumiputra” (70%), downgrading ethnic Chinese (23%) in a manner far worse than has ever happened in Sri Lanka (except within the Tamil caste system). And yet the Chinese found a very practical and successful way of holding to their power and well being, unlike our community where 7% stupidly declared war against some 80% of the demographic and predictably lost!
/
Rohan25 / April 23, 2026
Stop posting so much rubbish and still trying to twist the truth. I have not conceded anything . Historical evidence suggests that a significant and overwhelming number of South Indian Tamil migrants, particularly from the 13th century through the Portuguese and Dutch eras (16th–18th centuries), assimilated into the Sinhalese community. This assimilation was driven by factors such as marriage, employment, and caste integration, particularly in the western and southern coastal regions, forming the basis of certain Low-Country Sinhalese castes. Not into the Sri Lankan Tamil identity, so stop lying. Following increased contact and invasions around the 10th-11th centuries, many Tamil speakers settled on the island. While some formed the nucleus of Tamil communities in the north/east, the vast majority of others who settled in the south gradually blended into the Sinhalese population, adopting the Sinhala language and Buddhist or Catholic religion.
/
Rohan25 / April 23, 2026
Many South Indian migrants were assimilated into the Sinhalese caste structure, leading to the emergence of new Sinhalese caste groups, most notably the Salagama, Durava, and Karava. These groups, despite their relatively recent South Indian Tamil origin, are now part of the Sinhalese ethnicity. Regional Assimilation: The coastal areas of the western and southern provinces (e.g., Negombo, Chilaw, Kalutara) saw significant assimilation, which is still evident in the local Tamil dialect and the presence of many, initially Tamil-speaking, Catholic families. An overwhelming majority of migrants from the 10th to 18th centuries did assimilate into the Sinhalese identity; another segment of Tamil settlers, particularly in the North and East, maintained a distinct linguistic and cultural identity, leading to the development of the Sri Lankan Tamil community.
/
Rohan25 / April 23, 2026
The Naga and Yakka (or Yaksha) are widely regarded as ancient, indigenous tribes that inhabited Sri Lanka before the arrival of North Indian settlers. They are often described as early Dravidian-speaking peoples who were part of the cultural and linguistic substrate of South India and Sri Lanka. Early Prakrit inscriptions in Sri Lanka contain Dravidian linguistic features, suggesting that the indigenous population spoke a Dravidian language, often identified as a proto-Tamil or early South Indian dialect. The Nagas were a powerful maritime tribe who worshipped snakes and were often associated with the northern and western parts of the island, including Jaffna (Naga Nadu). They are considered ancestors by many Sri Lankan Tamils. The Yakkas were often described in ancient chronicles, such as the Mahavamsa, as powerful, technologically advanced tribes living in the highlands. Some studies suggest they were the same as, or intermingled with, the early South Indian population that adapted to the Tamil language. : Historical and genetic studies indicate that these original tribes did not vanish but were largely assimilated into the emerging Sinhalese and Tamil ethnic groups. Genetic evidence shows that both Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Adivasi groups share ancestry patterns similar to Dravidian-speaking people in South India.
/
Rohan25 / April 23, 2026
Naga Tribe Primary Region: Coastal areas, specifically Northern and Western Sri Lanka. Main Occupation: Maritime trade, navigation, and fishing
Symbolism Serpent (Cobra) . Ancestral Link: Strongly linked to Eelam Tamils.
Yakka Tribe: Primary Region Mountainous interior and dry zone regions. Main Occupation: Agriculture, iron smelting, and irrigation. Symbolism: Nature spirits and agrarian deities. Ancestral Link: Linked to the Vedda people and early Sinhalese. Archaeological sites like Ibbankattuva (c. 900–600 BCE) show megalithic burial practices identical to those in South India, supporting the theory of a shared cultural stratum between these tribes and early Dravidian civilisations. You are indeed a master of trying to twist and reinterpret history to suit your pro-Sinhalese Buddhist Fascist agenda and cherry-pick and selectively interpret like most Sinhalese racists do to suit their Sinhalese Buddhist agenda
/
Rohan25 / April 22, 2026
Being “indigenous” is a major point of contention in Sri Lanka, which is not typically applied in the same manner to the Chinese in Malaysia. Sri Lanka also has a “settler” Tamil population. Known as Hill Country Tamils, they were brought by the British in the 19th century to work on tea plantations, much like the Indian and Chinese labourers in Malaysia. Both countries have systems that prioritise the majority ethnic group, but the legal framework varies. Malaysia (Bumiputra Policy): The Malaysian constitution enshrines the “special position” of the Malays and other indigenous groups (collectively called Bumiputra), which grants them preferences in education, business, and civil service. The Chinese and Indians are generally categorised as non-indigenous “immigrant” races, despite being citizens for generations. Sri Lanka (Sinhala Nationalism): Unlike Malaysia, where “settler” status is a primary legal divider, the conflict in Sri Lanka was between two groups who both view the island as their ancient homeland. The “Sinhala Only” Act of 1956 and subsequent policies were seen by indigenous Tamils not just as discrimination against a minority, but as the erasure of their rights in their own native territory.
/
Rohan25 / April 22, 2026
Comparing them is often seen as “stupid” or flawed for the following reasons. The Sri Lankan Tamils fought a 26-year civil war for an independent state (Tamil Eelam) based on their history as a sovereign nation on the island. In contrast, the Malaysian Chinese have historically sought equal citizenship and economic rights within the existing Malaysian state rather than secession. In Malaysia, the Chinese minority has historically held significant economic equity and dominated the mercantile sector. In Sri Lanka, while the “Ceylon or Eelam Tamils” were once well-represented in the civil service and professions, the “Indian Tamils” (the actual settler group) remain one of the most socio-economically neglected populations in the country. Stop deliberately trying to twist history and have selective amnesia.
/
SebastianSR / April 22, 2026
In Sri Lanka, while the “Ceylon or Eelam Tamils” were once well-represented in the civil service and professions, the “Indian Tamils” (the actual settler group) remain one of the most socio-economically neglected populations in the country.
According to Rohan25 majority of Ceylon Tamils also came to Ceylon in the Colonial period and in fact, the British called them Malabars. The “Indian Tamils” were the estate workers brought in by the British, and the Ceylon Tails did not even ant to give them the designation of “Tamil” as they were rejected as “low caste Coolies”. They were citizens of British India but India reneged them in 1947. Even in 1965 the blacks in the USA who had been brought in as slaves to work in cotton plantations were in a very much worse situation than the estate Tamils were were granted citizenship if a family could show continuous residence for 5 years. That was the 1948 citizenship law which was far in advance of what the US or EU has, even today, for foreign workers.
However, the Indian Tamils played a very clever and pragmatic policy of REJECTING violent politics and working with what ever party was in power to win what they wanted.
While the Ceylon Tamils fought for exclusion and separation, the Indian Tamils worked for inclusion and remaining as Lankans, rejecting the Vaddukkoddai resolution.
/
Ocean11 / April 24, 2026
Okay and what has this so called pragmatism got the Indian Tamils in the long run. They still remain amongst the poorest sections of society. It has only been their leaders who have benefited and gotten fat from working all manner of political parties.
The only minor concession that they got was being given citizenship in the 1990’s which they should have been given long time ago anyway.
/
SJ / April 21, 2026
You forget that the Chinese in Malaya were settled during colonial rule and refuges from the civil disturbances in China.
The Colombo elite were far more caste conscious and ethnically conscious.
The collaborated to elect Ramanathan to keep out a Karawe candidate.
Ramanathan in turn fought for the Sinhala elite when they were put behind bard for their role in the 1915 riots.
There was no Tamil-Sinhala rivalry until much later.
The first riot was Buddhist–Catholic, but rather localized. The next was Buddhist–Muslim and had a wide spread.
*
Do not let your imagination run riot.
/
SebastianSR / April 21, 2026
I advise SJ to read what he writes.
/
SJ / April 21, 2026
Thank you for the advice, But I have read enough to know what the man stood for —perhaps not everything — unlike SSR who seems to have read everybody fully but remembers very selectively.
/
SJ / April 22, 2026
“I advise SJ to read what he writes.”
If the he refers to me, and not the person attacked by SSR, I can assure that I know what I write and have never had to correct what I write but for the occasional typo.
BTW
Thanks for not defending your lie about Marxism and ‘ends justifying the means’.
/
SebastianSR / April 22, 2026
I had raised this issue of Marxist Immorality and Bolshevik amoralism before, and then too SJ claimed that I was was peddling lies. Then I gave references from the Marxist cannon and he seems to have forgotten all that. Let me repeat some of that again.
1). In his 1938 essay, Their Morals and Ours, Trotsky directly addresses the charge of “Bolshevik amoralism”. He argues that “a means can be justified only by its end” but adds that “the end in its turn needs to be justified”. For Trotsky, this was achieving Communist Utopian state, which he believes makes revolutionary violence and even the taking of hostages permissible if they serve that goal.
2). Lenin practiced a form of “extreme utilitarianism” where any action that advanced the revolution was considered moral. In his work The State and Revolution, he argues that the “supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without violent revolution”. He dismissed universal moral truths as “bourgeois deception” designed to keep the working class subservient.
3). Mao famously declared in his 1938 work Problems of War and Strategy that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. He taught that the seizure of power by armed force was the “highest form of revolution” and a “universal principle” for all countries.
/
Ocean11 / April 24, 2026
The Karave themselves are descended from Tamil Kariayars who migrated to the South west of the country between the 13th-18th century. over time the Karaiyars became Sinhalised and and their caste names were modified to become the Karave.
This is coming from an individual who has both Karave and Karaiyar ancestry.
The that the Karave, Durava and the Salagama castes are all of recent Indian ancestry. Even the bulk of the upper caste Sinhala such as the Bandaranaikes have Telegu/ Tamil origins.
The fact is that the biggest genetic contribution to the Sinhalese comes from the Tamils and not from North India or Bengal.
/
SJ / April 21, 2026
Sinhala-Buddhist bigotry had an early start with the likes of Anagarakia.
Others followed suit.
/
Paramanathan K / April 21, 2026
The article “Tamil Politics at a Crossroads: Ideology vs Ground Reality in Sri Lanka” offers a deeply perceptive and incisive appraisal of the contemporary state of Tamil political engagement. It brings into sharp focus a persistent and widening disjunction between entrenched ideological narratives and the pressing, pragmatic needs of the people in the Northern and Eastern provinces.
The author compellingly contends that, notwithstanding decades of political struggle and sacrifice, Tamil politics continues to suffer from an absence of strategic coherence, unified leadership, and demonstrable outcomes. The prevailing fragmentation among political actors, coupled with an excessive reliance on abstract legalism and theoretical discourse, has engendered public disillusionment and eroded confidence in the political establishment.
Significantly, the analysis draws attention to the mounting socio-economic hardships confronting ordinary citizens—manifested in unemployment, protracted land disputes, and increasing youth migration. These lived realities, the article argues, necessitate urgent, action-oriented interventions, rather than a continued preoccupation with conceptual frameworks devoid of tangible impact.
Furthermore, the article offers a cogent critique of elite-centric political structures, advocating instead for a more inclusive, participatory model grounded in grassroots representation. It underscores the imperative of accountability, inter-political collaboration, and a decisive shift towards implementation-driven governance.
In summation, the write-up presents a compelling case that Tamil politics stands at a critical inflection point.
/
SebastianSR / April 22, 2026
Shanmugathasan was the leader of the Ceylon Communist Party (China wing) and he paraphrased Mao’s statement and justified their engagement in Lankan electoral politics by saying that they aim to capture power “by the bullet if not by the ballot”.
Even Rosa Luxemburg, who took a more nuanced position on violence, fell in line for attacking the German Parliament. Her comrade Liebknecht was more extreme and joined the “Revolutionary Committee”. Despite her misgivings about violent strategy, she used her newspaper, Die Rote Fahne (The Red Flag), to support the strikers, which led the right-wing paramilitary Freikorps to view her as the insurrection’s violent “brain”. Although Luxemburg dismissed the Bolshevik idea of a minority seizing power through a military-style plot (which she called “Blanquism”), she believed revolution must be the spontaneous, possibly violent act of the majority. She too, like Shanmugathasan, did not exclude coming into power by the ballot (“if not by the bullet).
So, instead of making empty statements where I am called a “liar” I invite SJ to defend his position by quoting from his Marxist scriptures. He will find that almost every recognized Marxist leader supported a violent struggle and considered it “heroic” instead of seeing it as pure seeds of Facism.
/
SebastianSR / April 22, 2026
Incidentally, “Ad homenim” had become “Address homenim” due to the autocorrection facility installed in the Colombo-Telegraph comments set up. I think most readers (including SJ) can allow for such uncontrolled effects of automation.
/
SJ / April 22, 2026
Your use of the phrase is invalid even after your correction.
*
I drew attention to your wilful misinterpretations.
You may wriggle as much as you wish.
I do not intend further elaboration.
/
SebastianSR / April 22, 2026
I provided SJ the references. He may also look at Antonio G’s shift from the traditional violent position of Marxism to a more nuanced position; in his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci analyzed Machiavelli to develop his “Modern Prince” concept of the “revolutionary party”. Gramsci was wary of the state worship he saw in the Soviet Union. He (and also later Trotskyites) believed that if a party relied solely on violence without cultural support, it would degenerate into a “bureaucratic-collectivist” tyranny. However, he too did not succeed in shedding links to violent approaches; Gramsci was not at all a pacifist. He supported the Bolshevik revolution, and the arming of workers during Italy’s Red Biennium. In effect, while Lenin prioritized the “seizure of the state,” Gramsci prioritized the “prior seizure of the culture”, believing that a revolution without moral legitimacy was doomed to become a violent dictatorship. However, today we know from mathematics of complex systems (c.f., von Neumann et al 1960s onwards) that any revolutionary change is uncontrollable (i.e., chaotic dynamics). I think evolutionary non-violent change is the only safe approach.
/
Lester / April 22, 2026
” The future will be shaped by the decisions made today. A people centred, practical, and accountable political approach is essential to break the cycle of stagnation.”
If the primary objective is separation , then expect infinite stagnation. Recursion without a base case.
/
SebastianSR / April 23, 2026
The future will be shaped by the decisions made today.. Not at all true. The future of a system is made by decisions made today (that is, at this current slice of time) IF AND ONLY IF the system obeys Markovian dynamics. Social systems are complex systems that do NOT obey a Markov type evolution. Social systems are complex systems whose dynamics, although deterministic, reside on the edge of criticality and hence they are very sensitive to details (e.g., if Clopetra were ugly, history may be different) and yet they may develop into a trend (manifesting a new order parameter or critical path). There are many time constants operating in such systems and political scientists have not developed the tools for modeling them to be able to make useful predictions, So, we have the type of hollow comments of political opinion writers who have not attempted to construct even a basic model of the system they are trying to predict, or listed the relevant factors, parameters, or sectors of influence. In effect, the political systems analysis should be a super-system analysis which considers an economic model embedded interactively in a socio-structural model. So, the stuff of the genre of this article is for popular reading and coffee-table bantering but without serious meaning..
/
SebastianSR / April 22, 2026
If you look at what happened in Sri Lanka assuming (false) Gramscian terms, with the rise of Tamil Nationalism leading to the Vaddukkoddai resolution, one may say that this was a process of “prior seizure of the culture and community” within a sharply nationalist agenda; but this “success” was hijacked by Prabhakaran et al who violently assassinated the TULF leadership in order to do so. In fact, Gramasci made the mistake of assuming that this “prior seizure of the culture” could be done avoiding the emergence of radicalization. The TULF rhetoric involved calling upon the “boys” to extra-parliamentary (i.e., military) action. Ultimately, all Marxist or sharply Nationalist parties try to develop an “armed wing” of the Party and splinter in a reign of terror.
/