28 September, 2022


Absence Of Remorse As An Obstacle To Reconciliation

By Basil Fernando

Basil Fernando

Basil Fernando

People who live through long periods of repression often develop psychological and cultural habits that lead them to pretend not to see or hear what is going on around them in their society. These psychological habits may help people survive through difficult times. However, even after the difficult times have passed, cultural habits remain entrenched and people pretend not to really notice things that are going wrong in their societies. Creating the impression that everything is all right may be a way of maintaining some sanity and keeping up the pretense of being happy.

Sri Lanka is a society that has gone through a long period under extreme forms of repression. Since the 8th century AD, there has been a long history of repression, sometimes by foreign powers and sometimes due to the social institutions that have developed within the Sri Lankan society itself. That repression has created a habit among Sri Lankans of pretending not to see grave acts of injustice against people, even people who are very close to them, and thereby maintaining a silence even about matters that deeply trouble them inside. This is not peculiar to a particular race; it is spread across Sri Lanka, irrespective of race, gender, and other distinctions.

When we trace this back in history, we find that an enormous transformation took place within Sri Lanka during the centuries immediately following the 8th century, due to the cultural invasions that accompanied the Indian invasions that took place during these times.

Early Sri Lankan society, from 3rd century BC until about 5th century AD, was deeply influenced by the Asokan ideas introduced to Sri Lanka with the arrival of Ven. Mahinda Thero, who came as the messenger of the most powerful ruler of the time, Asoka. There has been enormous research in India about the transformation of Asoka into a just king, and on the philosophical and political outlook of Asoka, who realized that for the management of a vast empire at a time when there were powerful movements clamoring for greater equality, as against the draconian caste system which had been established in India in the past, he had to introduce a different model of ruling wherein the respect for ethical standards had to receive the highest priority. Great movements that were powerful in his time were the movements of Jainism and Buddhism.

Buddhism, in particular, was widespread, because people, particularly those who had been suppressed under the Brahmanical caste system, had gathered around the philosophy taught by the Buddha, which was one of recognition of everybody as human beings, and which required everybody to live ethical lives and accept that social responsibility would be key in dealing with all matters.

The change of philosophy, away from caste-based social norms and towards equality-based social norms, that came about during that time unleashed enormous creativity in India and Asoka took trouble to spread his ideas about the manner in which countries and people should govern themselves into all neighbouring regions. It was as his messenger that Ven. Mahinda Thero arrived in Sri Lanka, and he laid the foundation of cultural norms into a society and a civilization that was in its early stages of development. Thus, Sri Lanka was one of the countries fortunate enough to be influenced by a great philosophical and ethical tradition; the early foundations of Sri Lankan culture was based on this powerful foundation.

It was this cultural foundation which was attacked, for the most part successfully, through the Indian invasions, which brought along new philosophical trends that had lead to the virtual wiping out of Buddhism in India. The thought processes were led by another significant Indian philosopher, Adi Sankara, who developed a philosophy known as the philosophy of ‘Maya’, the philosophy of illusion.

He considered that only God existed and that nothing else existed, including himself and everyone and everything else, and this created deep cultural habits of doubting ideas that advocated ethical living. Ethics, along with everything else, was illusion. This philosophy was couched in Vedic philosophical language and Brahmins, who had lost power due to the spread of Buddhism, soon gathered around this new philosophy of Adi Sankara. There have been studies about how this philosophy was spread in India from village to village, both by intellectual means, such as arguments, as well as by physical force, by destroying people who refused to change their views and become followers of this new philosophy of Maya.

The same process took place in all pats of Sri Lanka and Adi Sankara’s philosophy was absorbed into everything, including the manner in which the kings ruled Sri Lanka thereafter. Like in India, there were also campaigns that went from village to village by Brahmins who were brought from India; they played a role in reorganizing the whole of Sri Lanka society on the basis of caste.

By the Polonnaruwa period, the social organization in Sri Lanka was done according to caste. In modern times, we speak about organizing societies on constitutional principles; during this time, social organization was done on the principle of the caste system.

In short, it was these principles that created the kind of repression that has shaped the mindset and psychological and cultural habits of all Sri Lankans thereafter. What are the principles of the caste system?

A few basic and fundamental principles:

The first principle was that a man’s status was determined by birth, which means that those who were born to a caste considered the higher caste (which amongst the Sinhalese meant the ‘Govigama’ caste and among the Tamils meant the ‘Vellalas’) were the upper caste; everyone who did other work, particularly physical work, belonged to what was called ‘Kula Heena’, the lower castes. Each male had to do the job his parents did and therefore their status remained permanent, one that could not be changed. Therefore, the idea of social migration, the idea of having a different status through ones efforts or acquisition of wealth, was forbidden in this society.

The second most important principle was the principle of disproportionate punishment. Disproportionate punishment meant that those who were considered to have a lower status were punished with the gravest forms of punishment for even slightest digression by them from the kind of behavior that was expected of them. For example, a lower caste girl who had had a sexual relationship with an upper class man had to be killed by the people of the caste to which she belonged. There is research material now available about complaints received in the early part of British rule about women being killed by their own elders in their own caste, due to transgressions of these absolute principles of marriage within one’s caste.

On the other hand, disproportionate punishment also meant that what might today be considered a grave crime, like murder, if committed by an upper caste person, either led to no punishment or only led to some minor penalty, such as the payment of some compensation.

This was the law. This law was enforced by its own inner mechanism. This became engraved in the minds of all Sri Lankans. The fear of punishment for the transgression of caste laws is imbedded in the psyche of all Sri Lankan people; this habit was engraved through practices that were carried out for a period lasting at least one thousand two hundred years.

We know from the studies on the formation of habits that something that is repeated over and over for a long period of time enters into our very inner psyche; it’s almost like it is entered into the genes. Though it is different to gene transformation, it does involve deep change among individuals who, for a long period of time, have been influenced by deeply-held cultural ideas that are enforced by strong punishments.

Once people have been taught to accept that their repressed status is their normal or proper status, they develop a capacity or habit of ignoring what others what would normally call a violation of their dignity, because they do not understand the idea of dignity as involving being equal to others. They understand dignity as being relative to a particular status and the kind of humiliation that is imposed on them is regarded by them as being part of their natural heritage. This caste heritage became the cultural heritage of the Sri Lankan people in all communities.

From that developed this habit of not seeing or hearing things that trouble them. If they see something as being wrong, and if they react to it as a wrong, then they get into greater trouble and do not achieve any positive result. Thus, protest in this society is not appreciated, because protest leads to greater trouble and there is no possibility that the protest may lead to a better dialogue among people, better understanding of a problem or the curing of wrongs.

The essence of caste is that social intercourse is done under draconian limitations, and that those draconian limitations are accepted as natural and normal.

It is this heritage that ran through that whole period, including colonial times. Despite certain influences from the newly-introduced administrative and legal models, which created some limited modification in the overall psyche, they were unable to erase this in its entirety. They could not, because there was no internal attempt to erase it entirely. At the inner level, the old habits, old attitudes and old prejudices remained as they were.

Then we come to the modern period, particularly the last fifty years, during which, due to various insurgencies and antiterrorism laws, a heavy level of repression was unleashed on Sri Lankan society in all parts of the country, in the South as well as in the North and East. These old habits of ignoring what is happening just before their eyes were once again revived. Just to take one example: an enormous number of enforced disappearances took place in the country, and in the global statistics, Sri Lanka has acquired second place in terms of the practice of enforced disappearances. However, the numbers of people who are willing to talk about this problem, who are willing to say what they saw, what they heard, and what they know, about the manner in which these things took place, are only a handful. The amount of writings, amount of reflections, either creative or otherwise, is at the lowest possible level.

There is no discourse on the violence that has taken place around people. This is due to deeply-held cultural habits that have come down through many centuries, and it is this that remains the basic obstacle to the development of a discourse on reconciliation, despite so much of talk about reconciliation.

Reconciliation becomes possible only when people are capable of remorse. When the people, having seen wrong, are able to reflect on it and are able to speak out on it, when people begin to acknowledge wrongs that have happened in their society and their own actions. Until this happens there cannot be a genuine discussion on reconciliation. Remorse is not possible when people have learned to accept wrongs as a normal part of life. If people have gotten into the habit of accepting the torture and ill-treatment practiced by the police and other law enforcement agencies as something normal, then they simply do not protest against it; they do not consider it as a wrong that needs to be eradicated, and they do not regret that such a situation is existing in their country.

These days there are a lot of movements throughout the world of people looking into wrongs in different manner. For example, in China, there are people who lived through the cultural revolution, which was a terrible period in Chinese history; they are now speaking about how they, as young activists and idealists, went into the cultural revolution thinking that it was a progressive movement, but who were used in order to kill opponents and destroy property, and today they deeply express their own remorse about what they saw, what they heard, and, sometimes, what they did. There are individuals who claim that until, in their own minds, they could feel that they had done something to atone for the wrongs they have done, they could not find inner peace.

It is that level of remorse that makes people capable of transforming themselves into practitioners of better ethical habits than what they have been exposed to. It is that which helps people reject violence and adopt a method of social discourse that is less coercive. That is the foundation of anything that can be called a democracy.

Sri Lanka is finding itself unable to start on the path of democracy because of long-held psychological and cultural habits, which are a result of the practices of the caste system. It has created people who, for most part, pretend that they do not hear or see the wrongs taking place in their society.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 1


  • 2

    Why haven’t you touched on Ariya & Diravidiya divide ? I believe Ariya brought the cast system into India.

    Are you from Ariya stock or Dravidiya stock ? Are you an Ariya Sinhala or Kalu Dravidiya Sinhala ? Are you sudu or Kalu ? Is para kalu demala inferior to para Kalu Sinhala ?

    Devanambiya Theesan or Tissa is suthu or kalu ? Is he Ariya or Diravidiya ?
    Prince Vijaya is he Ariya or Dravidiya ? Why most of the East Bengalis are Kalu ?

    Why majority of the Muslims & Christians in India and Sri Lanka are Kalu ?

    The North South divide in India and Sri Lanka is due to what ?

    What’s Indus Valley civilisation ? Was prince Sidarath an admirer of Indus Valley Civilisations & rebelled against Ariyan Cast System ?

  • 4

    Mr.Basil Fernando, you say:
    “The same process took place in all pats of Sri Lanka and Adi Sankara’s philosophy was absorbed into everything, including the manner in which the kings ruled Sri Lanka thereafter. Like in India, there were also campaigns that went from village to village by Brahmins who were brought from India; they played a role in reorganizing the whole of Sri Lanka society on the basis of caste.”

    Very interesting, Mr. Fernando.Can you please give the source of this thesis, particularly the last sentence about the Brahmins.
    And what happened to these missionary Brahmins. Did they return to India? Did they merge with the locals and settle down in the island? Were they Tamil Brahmins?

    • 1

      Yes, Basil

      Some sources will help. And disciplined reliable ones at that.

      Otherwise you sound like a story teller who speaks about things unobserved and even unobservable in view of their spread and diffusion over time and space, as though you had a ringside observation post of happenings in a little place. Therefore I doubt that you will find any decent to support this picnic of yours.

      What you say of Sankara’s denial of reality to anything other than God is a childish distortion of his thought. He was a bit more subtle than that. You make him sound like an idiot.

      You are very good and admirable when you speak about the horrors of contemporary happenings on the basis of what we believe are reliable reports. Let us have more reports and details about them.

      We do not have to seek their causes ten centuries ago. Your narrative almost sounds like the ubiquitous golden age stories from which we were thrown out by some devil of some name or another.

      This kind of story telling could endanger your credibility and please those whom you expose through your reporting..

  • 1

    Basil, our latest in the row, the cow skin clad lion wrote an earlier article about Shankara’s Advaitham, without knowing the difference between Brahman, the super Atman and the Brahma, a god no longer prayed. The order in the Hinduism is God, Supreme God and Brahman. These are not the exact material, but for laymen, that is the order. So by philosophical status, Brahman is far away from Supreme God like Siva. So, at average level, Saivite or Vaishnava does not get engaged into praying Brahman. Shankara’s Advaitha Philosophy never reached the temple going average people. By caste, Shankara was a high end Brahman. When one becomes Sanyasi, caste does not hold after that. I did not see how he lived, but his latter part of the life was caste-less Sannyasin. It is so silly to write that Shankara argued he did not exist. Maya is the body of the Pirapancham. Brahman is the soul. As you know there is nothing like it is a metaphor only to start to understand that philosophy. So there is no use of praying the Brahman. Further Advaitham is saying there not two as Brahman and Atman and after all your body is included in the Pirapancham, so as your the Atman is embed in the Brahman. This is usually simplified and fed to Hindu kids, so they say the God and the man are same. The God, Supreme God and Brahman are three different ideas. Another simple notion of these is, a god is super king, who punishes you and rewards you. Siva the Supreme god, who had the eight Gunas(natures). Place to place these are differing. But I just want to pick up two. “Unlimited Grace” and “No like or no dislike”. Supreme god Siva neither like you because you pray him nor hates you because you don’t. Because those properties are not with him so he has no way of displaying them. Here is a one sharp contradiction between Bhakthi Marka which more or less follow the western gods who like or doesn’t the people as per their prayer. So Thiruvarutpayan openly declares not to waste the time in praying. “ஓராதே வொன்றையுமுற் றுன்னாதே நீமுந்திப் முந்திப்பாராதே பார்த்ததனைப் பார்.” If you are not in line, prayer brings no fruit. Just mind your things. So when the third level, the Brahman comes, as you and he is no different so praying does not make any sense. This made some Vedic Hindu pundits to call Shankara an atheist. Brahminical Vedic Philosophy did not get along withShankara. Vedanta is the Philosophy set in during the end of Vedic Philosophy. Saiva Siddhantham has nothing to do with Nothern Manu Dhrama. But here, our cow skin is mixing everything in one. What is convulsing is to prove the current troubles in Lankawe are due to Tamils, flowed from Shankara, but has nothing to do with the Mahavamsa Dutugamunu Old or New.

    According to the legend Mahavamsa, Mahinda and Wijeya came from North. The Chola who invaded the medieval periods has not been influenced by these Northern Philosophies. Saiva Siddhantham was exclusively developed for Tamil Nadu and complete country practiced it.

    Advaitham is not the one wiped out the Jainism and Buddhism. It is the Bhakti Marga. It was started by Thirunavukarasar in 4th century. In that time, it was not done by simple preaching. Big religious wars took place. Sampanthar was burned in the Wedding Panthal with bride and attendees. This provoked to hang 8000 Jain Priests on one day. So much of tit for tat took place. Both Parties lost volumes and Volumes of their classical work Manuscripts. One family Brother and sister killed same family Brother and sister. Gowrie’s story is telling how the families were torn apart that time by different religion in one family. At the end of this 63 Nayanmars, basically only very few were Brahmin out of them, came to existence to teach the Bhakti Marga. Especially Nathan was Pariah. Kannappar is a rural Native Vedda ate only meat. Controversial sentences like “Sati Irandoliya Verillai”, Vetham naankillum Meypporulavathu” which denounce the basic Brahminical religions appeared. It is said the first Sanskrit book took the Southern bhakti marga to north is Bhagavata Purana. It was written Sanskrit for the purpose of sent to North. It is actually dated before Shankara. But there are some drops of his talks also appearing. It could have been inserted latter. But somebody back dates it as nearly 10th century because of this. In other words Manu’s Philosophy came to south long ago, but Bhaki Marga went to north much latter. How much of the Manu’s philosophy was accepted in south is explained by non Brahminical Nayanmars working. How much of Nayanmar’s Bhakti Marga was accepted in North is explained by the wipe out of Buddhism and Jainism fromthere. One should note Manu’s Philosophy never wiped out Buddhism in India and Buddhism could not influence the acceptance of Manu’s writing. Our cow skin has no idea of what went there. They both co-existed until the Southern fire of Bhakti Maraga went to North.

    Basically Ceylon was not affected by these changes. Buddhism was tricking from South to this country. There is a Chance Dutu Gemenu was a Hindu until war and Ellara was Buddhist. There was never ever any Brahminical Ideology in Ceylon long after the appearance of Ariya Chakarawarthys. Under Manu’s Varna only four divisions exist. Vella is the lowest Varna, the Shustra. They are the only Varna bared to study Veda. This Varna system never entered into Ceylon, Not with Wijeya, not with Mahinda not even during Polanaruva times. The only purpose of Brahmins arrivals were to conducts prayers in the temples owned by Vellala. This practically it reduced them workers of Vellala, though not by status. That is the top Varna was employed by the lowest Varna. There is no Sinhala Brahmin at all, though all Sinhalese were Hindus one time. Sinhalese followed their original Dravidian system that existed in South India before the Aryan influence brought those Jains and Buddhism too. It was job based, unlike Manu’s Birth based. When Brahmin started to come to Northern Ceylon, South was completely Buddhist. So, never any Brahmin family was settled in South. But Northern Hindu Ceylon lent it ways to the Birth based Brahmin families settle in North. Kathirkamam is an outstanding proof of this. There only Vellala Hindus conducted the prayers long ago there. This was the continuation, one after other Tamil Nau temples was converted to Veridic style Puja. Their Generation changed into Sinhalese and they are still conducting the prayers there. But all other Non-Sinhala area Muruga temples have gone to Veda type prayers. Sinhala culture never faced a Northern Indian Manu type system, or the Northern Ceylon Brahmins conducing Puja.

    • 1

      Mallaiyuran, it would be helpful if you try to concentrate your writing to the main point about Basil’s essay: Absence of remorse in Sri Lankan society is the obstacle to reconciliation.
      Arguing about what happened a thousand years ago is irrelevant and off the track.
      After all what we should be trying to do here is to debate why we in Sri Lanka find it hard to achieve reconciliation and try to figure out a way to do it.

      • 0

        There is no remorse in cow skin clad Basil’s’ writing.

        Varuna system forcefully inserted into Tamils. Even Tamil Nadu is not not practicing it in its real form. Sinhalese have only Dravidic sathi system. They never felt the influence of Varuna system. It never went to near to them. Not one single Birth related Brahmin has come into Sinhala Communities for existence. No Brahmic materials are translated into Sinhala. No King, at no periods, even in Polonnaruwa time, can do preaching and make some non Brahmin person to become a Brahmin. So Anything Sinhalese have now is theirs, Nothing to do with North Indian Aryans Varuna system, trickled to them though Tamil Kings. It is plain and simple. Don’t tell stories into that and complicate it and confuse the Sinhala Modayas.

        The best tolerant sathi system is Sinhalese system. The Best tolerant Varuna system is North-East Varuna system- Basically as I, repeated many times, it is still in sathi system. Sathi system originally did not have levels until it show the Varuna system. The worst barbaric political culture system anywhere found is Sinhala Intellectuals’ Political jugglery. The racist, Basil convulsing to put the Sinhala Intellectuals’ barbaric politics on North-East Tamils religion. North -East Tamils were rated by Sinhala Police for decades as crime free society until army introduced drugs and organized Avava gangs after the war. Thest best educated, higly employed, well mannered, civilized villages were Northern villages until the end of the war.

        The racist, ignorant Basil is struggling to hide the venum over flowing in his Sinhala Intellectual mind. He is bring here JaffnaHistory.com proofs. So he is forming gang relationship with Izeth and Mahindapala and starting to write essays about Hinduism believing that will insult Tamil. I am not insulted by a fool who could not understand what is Varna, what is Sathi, what is Brahman, who is Brahma, Who are Dravidians, who are Aryans, who are the originators of the Birth based Varuna system.

        What he is trying to preach here is that there is an element of Tamils culture is embedded into the pure Aryan Sinhala Blood. This is another form of SinhaLE. This is the new Ravana Balaya movement that is being organized by Basil. He wants to have that cleaned Sinhalese from the element the Tamils Kings infused into them. That has nothing to do with the political game Don Stephen and Solomon West Ridgeway Dias started after freedom. The current politics we are engaged has nothing to do with Tamils or Sinhalese. It is completely western. This racist Sinhala Intellectuals wants to have it Sinhalised by cleaning the Sinhalese. It is shame for this fool to start another round of Anagarika Dharmapala games. The attempt to clean the Sinhalese from his so called Tamil Kings brought Varuna system is going to bring another round of JVP, probably worse than that. This shallow, ignorant, racist person has to think twice before he suggest a cleaning is needed to make Sinhalese Buddhist more of modern high class elite lords rathen than they become composante by humanist educations.

        His article has nothing to do with remorse. Tamils are not going to accept the overrule of Sinhalese. Standing against Sinhala Chauvinism has nothing to do with remorse. It is only a process of pain relieving. That is something decided by SJV after seeing the suppression of Satyagraha of 1961. The real Sinhalese will know Sinhala Buddhism is not something taught by Tamil Kings. There is no origin of it can be traced back to Tamils in Tamil Nadu. It is pure product of ugly Kandyan Sinhala intellectuals. There is no parallel for Kadyan Varuna in the Manu Smriti or in the Aryan Varuna system. Don’t confuse this 21st Very Most Anagarika Dharmapala to Buddha. He is preaching divisions not remorse.

  • 1

    People who live through long periods of repression often develop psychological and cultural habits that lead them to pretend not to see or hear what is going on around them in their society. – BF
    [Edited out]

  • 0

    [Edited out]

  • 0

    Well said Basil. You have pointed out the root problem of Sri Lankan society which is the absence of remorse within wrong doers, as well as society in general (particularly the Sinhala Buddhist).
    I would also suggest an additional reason for this is the Buddhist belief in karma (cause and effect). Rightly or wrongly, this is understood by the Sinhala Buddhist community as: what good or bad happens in one’s life is due to what one has committed in a past-life.
    With such a psyche, it is very easy to accept any injustices suffered by one as one’s karma, and not do anything about it (because you cannot do anything about it anyway). ‘Remorse’ does not even come in to the picture and is completely absent in the thought process.
    It is very difficult for such a society to change it’s mindset, especially when you are indoctrinated like with all religions, in to thinking that your religion/philosophy is the ultimate truth (foremost) and better than any other. Unfortunately for the Sinhala Buddhists, progressively since independence this illusion has been reinforced through education, laws and customs.
    It is a very steep learning curve for Sri Lankans to come to accept 21st century global norms.

  • 1

    Roots of ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’ (caste) or theories on ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ humans (race) based on birth can be varied, and the known histories are also complicated both in Sri Lanka/India and elsewhere. However, the prejudices and absence of remorse based on these distinctions or combination of them are inimical to human progress and reconciliation of the existing conflicts and disagreements. Basil’s attempt to unravel some of them is admirable.

    However, I am not sure whether his clear distinction of the Sri Lankan history into a kind of a ‘golden age’ before the 8th century, and a ‘decline and degeneration’ after that period is tenable. It may be true that the caste system became entrenched later. However, even during the so-called ‘golden age’ there were prejudices against the ‘non-believers’ not based on birth, but on belief (religion). That is how some monks managed to dispel King Dutugamunu’s remorse about the deaths during the war against Elara according to Mahavamsa. That was second century BC. Even today, the absence of remorse can be based on several factors; prejudices and distinctions or combination of them. Perhaps the general insensitivity or absence of remorse that Basil talks about at the beginning might be a combination of all these.

    When youth were killed in 1971 in thousands there was no much remorse because they were low caste or rural ruffians. When youth became indiscriminately killed in the North, there were added reason to dispel remorse on the part of some because they were Damila. Same may be on the part of some Tamils when the Tigers killed innocent Sinhalese or Buddhist monks. When the JVP killed anyone who opposed them in 1987-89, there was no remorse on their part, because these were agents of the state, capitalists or traitors. The country as a whole doesn’t have much remorse for what happened during the war killing each other, because most (I am not saying all) have become insensitive to human life and life’s dignity.

    I remember how people wept if there was a death by a road accident when I was a child. But after 1971, when there were dead bodies on the roadside, people walked past of them without any emotion. These are the insensitivities that we have to change. I am not saying there is no remorse at all, but it is not prominent or effective.

  • 0

    Dear Basil Fernando and all Participants,
    Long past not only just Sri Lanka but almost all South and South East Asian Countries underwent similar changes and similar oppression. But all these Countries have evolved from inhuman and callous rulers to todays humanitarian treatment of all humanity that evolved after world war 1 and world war 2. We have also learnt through history the dictatorial leaders of Countries who were treacherous rulers for the minority (sometimes for the majority) population are taken to task and made to pay the penalty for the treatment given to one section of the citizens. We have also seen this kind of oppression disappear after the culprit ruler is punished according to existing order of the International Community.
    “Sri Lanka is finding itself unable to start on the path of democracy because of long-held psychological and cultural habits, which are a result of the practices of the caste system. It has created people who, for most part, pretend that they do not hear or see the wrongs taking place in their society”.
    But in Sri Lanka right now the culprit rulers are left off the hook and are being watched by the International Community. As for the population of Sri Lanka, there is no dearth of people showing remorse for the victims after the recent bloody war. There is no any sign, people are still holding on to the past caste systems and superiority among ordinary population. It is upheld by the ruling Majoritarian Governments having got the taste of coming to power again and again using the Racist, and Religious division. This power is the only factor that is preventing reconciliation in Sri Lanka. If the current politicians really reign in equal treatment to all, they have no chance to campaign and win election on real issues like economy, meritorious education and Employment, Religious freedom etc. They have spoilt their voter base with wrong promises depriving their own lives and have no idea of developing and sustaining a Country wise good economy just like other neighboring Countries. This racism and communal issues in Sri Lanka was not an issue of the past. It is an issue of the present Majoritarian Government only for the last 60 years.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.