23 October, 2020

Blog

Does Crimea Make Thamil Eelam More Likely?

By Kumar David

Prof. Kumar David

Prof. Kumar David

Every time I address a topic like this it is necessary to define what The Right to Self-Determination means. It is boring but I have to do it, repeatedly, because of ignorance. The simplest barebones statement of the principle is as follows: If a cohesive group of people X, inhabiting a territory Y that can credibly become a separate state Z, wants to secede from nation W and constitute themselves as nation Z, so be it; they have the moral and political right to secede and set up sate Z. There is an equally fundamental second part to the principle: I (KD), who accepts this principle, nevertheless has the absolute right to campaign among people X, for or against secession depending on my assessment of what is better. However, if finally they insist, one way or the other, so be it.

Now to Sri Lanka; if X were Ceylon Tamils, territory Y Northern Province and Batticaloa District, the name Z was Thamil Eelam or anything else, and W was Lanka, what do I have to say? I say ‘yes’, you X have the right to secede or not to secede, but I also say, taking into account all contingent social, economic and international factors at this time, in my opinion, you X folks would be bloody fools if you chose to secede. Don’t do it!

Phew, with this abc is out of the way for the benefit of the politically less educated, I can get down to my topic for the day.

Why did Russia annexe Crimea?

I am certain that the most important reason for Crimean union with Russia was not the assertion of self-determination rights by the Crimean people, though this was a factor. The most important reason was Russian concerns about the security of the Russian nation. Putin’s sharp and sudden reaction was a response to a justified prima-facie fear that Russia’s security was at risk. The overthrow of kleptocratic but democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych by popular protests that were hijacked at the last stage by a putsch executed by an “ultra right-wing fascistic paramilitary” (according to many commentators) and the possibility of NATO expansion left Putin no choice.

Nazi snipers firing into crowds, anti-Semitic violence, participation of the ultra-right fascist Svoboda Party in the new post-putsch government, all this creates a fearsome scenario. I cannot, nor can anybody else vouch for the allegation that Western agents were present; Western media neither confirm nor deny it. Hence I take it that grassroots fascists as well as German and/or American clandestine units were involved in the overthrow of Yanukovych. NATO has been pushing ever closer to Russia’s near-abroad for two decades. Ukrainian membership of NATO or stationing of missiles on Russia’s border would have been an intolerable provocation. The West has been pushing Russia to the wall. Putin, call him an assertive thug if you will, at last had the strength and the support base to fight back. He reacted out of fear that Russia’s security was at risk. None of this should be read as an apology for ex-KGB Putin’s autocratic ruthlessness or as making excuses for the kleptocratic oligarchs who surround his throne.

My point, for the purposes of this essay about the relevance of Crimea to the Thamil Eelam storyline, is that Crimean self-determination was only a contingent and peripheral matter.

Did the Crimeans want to join Russia?

Now a separate question: Did the Crimean people want to secede and join Russia? International observes present during the referendum made no adverse reports of electoral fraud. The yes vote was about 95% and the percentage voting in excess of 80% which means about 75% of the population supported the change. It is correct that a part of the Ukrainian and Cossack minorities in Crimea boycotted the referendum. It is also true that the presence of Russian forces would have persuaded many to join the winning side. There was irrational euphoria. A rushed referendum, not preceded by a campaign and debate, would indeed bias the result. Nevertheless, it is hard to contest the assertion that even a properly organised referendum would have produced a sizable majority in favour of seceding from the Ukraine and joining Russia.

Since the outcome is contested by some Western leaders it is pertinent to take note of surveys conducted before the referendum. The German GfK Group found 70% of Crimeans planned to vote to join Russia, while 11% wished to remain in Ukraine. The Institute for European Policy Studies found 80% in favour of reunification with Russia, and a Crimean Institute of Political and Social Research poll found 77% in favour. A 2008 poll by the Razumkov Centre found that 64% of Crimeans wished to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The verdict I think is pretty clear; yes the Crimean people were in favour of the change.

What implications for Sri Lanka?

The simple fact is that the Crimean experience lends neither support nor disproof of the thesis enunciated by ex-LTTE remnants and Thamil Eelam aficionados since Crimean desire to join Russia was of secondary importance. In contrast to Russia and Crimea, neither India nor Tamil Nadu wants the headache of Lanka’s Northern Province applying for integration with either. There is no strategic threat to Indo-American power in the Indian Ocean; hence there is no great power strategic worry. Are the Chinese going to send half a dozen junks and sampans to sink the Seventh Fleet and seize Vishakapatanam? The international balance is entirely different from the Russia-Crimea equation.

Right now the Ceylon Tamils are best off cooperating with the international community to force the Rajapakse Regime to honour 13A and putting up a fight to get as much power as possible devolved to Wigneswaran and the Northern Provincial Administration. Getting this racist kleptocratic regime to do even that is a big enough battle.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 8
    0

    “Neither India nor TN wants the headache of Lanka’s NP”. Blunt truth put the blunt way. The bluntest truth put the bluntest way is “Nor does the NP want the headache of India or TN either”.

  • 10
    1

    If Thamil Eelam ever comes into existence,it could happen only in one way. That is through Indian intervention. There is no other way it could ever happen. Of course, if such a situation ever arises there will be no doubt that Tamil Eelam will be another Bhutan or in other words a vassal state of India. I am sure no Tamil will be happy about such a situation. An event like this happening will be quite similar to the Crimean event though there will be minor differences.

    One thing is certain. With the impending change of regime in India, there will be some change in the relationship between India and Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka for the past several years had almost successfully played the China card with India. Whether it could continue to do so is very doubtful. There will be a tougher regime in Delhi whether one may call it extreme rightist or neo fascisist will matter little.

    Tamils always hope for a fair and reasonable settlement of the ethnic problem but that seems more and more hard to come from the Ma Ra regime to which an end is not visible in the foreseeable future.

    Desperate situations may compel the option of desperate solutions. Let us hope sanity will prevail on all sides!

    Sengodan. M

    • 7
      2

      Sanity! What sanity?
      These LTTE rump outside and inside (TNA included) has no sanity whatsoever … Look at Kumar, Wig & company – so called moderates … They think they have a strategy and try to get EEEELLLLAAAMMM through rough seas without being another toileltless state of India … The hero of this camp, Prabha also thought he could easily stand in his own without anybody or any country even though these catholic bunch (as opposed to Hindu bunch) got all the help from all these hyenas (India, USA, Norway, Milliband/Eric S company etc. ) … It ended up nicely at the bottom of Nanthikadal lagoon with untold miseries to normal tamils … Srilankan state had to rescue all these hapless tamils from the bottom of their existance ….
      Evennow, the catholic clergy without Hindu clergy set the agenda for majority Hindus … Results is that the Tamils I mean normal Tamils were betrayed left and right … They are still being taken for a ride by the TNA and the displaced Tamils so called ‘Diaspora’ …. These TTE rump and the moderates have no strategy whatsoever … Incase they have all the luck in this world, they would go under as another toileltless state of India … But, srilankans and it’s state would not letdown these hapless normal Tamils to go without toilets … That itself is magnificat act from the SrilankN state and it’s people …

      • 1
        1

        Tamils of the North are not crying for toilets, they are crying for freedom to live without fear of constant military oppression and fear of detentions and disappearances!

        The day the Sinhala South realises that the Tamils have a separate identity from them and that they should have the freedom to retain and foster same, sanity will prevail. Not otherwise!

    • 1
      0

      “Tamils always hope for a fair and reasonable settlement of the ethnic problem” Excuse me, but since is chasing out different ethnic groups living in the North and East province at gun point a fair and reasonable settlement. Since when is two thirds of the coast of a country and 1/3 the land mass for 10% of the population a fair and reasonable settlement. As a Western observer, I am not neither sympathetic nor fooled by the ways of the international Tamil population using Sri Lanka to get what they want. The average Tamil in the south, must think your fools. The average Tamil citizen of Sri Lanka in the north is still being suppressed by the caste system in place and coerced to vote for the TNA which has totally failed so far to act on the peoples behalf. I am not a supporter of any political party in Sri Lanka, but think that the current government has done more for Tamils in Sri Lanka than any president in the past. It is a shame that some foolish people pride and prejudice before reason.

  • 5
    0

    Prof. Kumar David,

    “Every time I address a topic like this it is necessary to define what The Right to Self-Determination means. It is boring but I have to do it, repeatedly, because of ignorance.”

    Well,
    Crimea,
    Cyprus,
    East Timor
    Sudan
    Goa,

    etc. are all potential solutions.

    What about getting India to Invade, like Goa, and make Lanka a State.

    UN They are a joke. Everybody knows it.

    • 1
      0

      I never thought jihadi Amaraya is this much of a nut. Bugger deserves a place in Allah’s heaven.

      • 0
        0

        mechanic, Kim Softy, Lorenzo and other Avtars,

        “Bugger deserves a place in Allah’s heaven.”

        Absolutely, Amaraya, The Egalitarian deserves a place in All the heavens and all the Nirvana.

        Amaraya, the Eternal, deserves a place in Allah’s heaven, All the other Heavens, Nirvana and Nibbana combined, for exposing the,

        1. Maras and Monk Mahanama Maras and liars and the bad Para-Sinhala and Para-Tamils and other Paras.

        2. The Wahhabi Mara Devils who followers the Devil, Satan

        3. The Christian Fundamentalists who Follow the Devil.

        Absolutely.

        Unfortunately the above 3 groups will end up in Hell, Apaya and will be reborn as a curse, to create bore trouble.

  • 1
    0

    It appears that there are unanswered questions in the narrative of Prof. Kumar David. I wish that KD himself would oblige with a response to the following.

    You say Sir, that taking into account all contingent social, economic and international factors at this time, that Tamils would be bloody fools if ‘we’ choose to secede.

    1) You have quite deliberately included the phrase ‘at this time’, in your statement. Why would Tamils be fools at this time. Under what possible scenario we would not be.

    2) Tamils opted for a united Ceylon. Hasn’t history shown us that Tamils were fools then.

    3) If your ‘at this time’ is a conditional one, what condition(s) of social, economic and international factors does it relate to.

    4) It is after two decades of struggle, and, in the absence of any opportunity for meaningful participation in the political process of the country, we let SL know that we wished to exercise our right to Self-Determination. Is there any scenario under which SL would concede that Self-Determination is our sacrosanct right. Or, is it not.

    5) Crimea was happy getting into the orbit of Russia. What relevance is Crimea to our struggle. Does its decision give us any compulsion to be a satellite of India or for that matter any other country.

    • 3
      0

      I will address only one of these questions now. Yes I deliberately included the conditional “at this time” to emphasise that the situation is fluid and there COULD arise circumstances in which the Tamils MAY BE better off in a separate state. An example of how this may happen is if the sabotage and undermining of the Northern Provincial Administration goes on and it is ground into the dust. If this comes to pass the conclusion is unavoidable that the Tamils will never be allowed to administer their own affairs, enjoy devolved powers, or prosper by their efforts.

      In these circumstances, possible given current trends, a referendum on self-determination is justified and the Tamils will have to give careful thought to the nature of the alternative state. I am still a little conditional because the prosperity of such a state depends on its democratic structure, economic prospects and international relationships, especially with India.

      Whether session can come relatively peacefully as in Crimea and Scotland (if it decides to secede), or after bloody conflict as in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and South Sudan is also a factor that voters at a referendum will have to give consideration to.

      I am of the view that the Tamils now enjoy material and international benefits from belonging to an at least partially democratic Sri Lanka. Personally I am still at the earlier stage of attempting to rescue democracy. It seems that the essential condition for this is getting rid of the autocratic Rajapakse government, and this is possible. Tamils should not rush; cross your bridges when you reach them.

      • 1
        0

        Professori,
        You may write hundreds of write-ups and accuse Rajapakse ‘regime’ autocratic, racist or kleptocratic or whatever you fancy degrade it but, if one compares how MR manage this country on point by point basis with that of the former heads of governments, it’ll become obvious that MR is a far more democratic, egalitarian and popular than all others.

        Just to give you an example, all MPs including the Prime Minister was forced to handover undated letters of resignation to JRJ. As for MR, he says his is a saloon door open for any MP to come or go. Under JRJ, due general election was postponed for six years with a pot and lamp trickery. What more proof for better democracy under MR than his holding all elections before due date and ID cards were made compulsory to prevent impersonation.

        Don’t forget, violence at the infamous Wyamba PC election under Chandrika K and burning of public library at Jaffna elections under JRJ. Violence we see today is just a child’s play compared to elections during their rule.

        It seems MR has to help opposition win elections for Professori to accept elections under MR are fair.

      • 0
        0

        Thank you Prof. Kumar David, for your prompt response.

        Not for the purposes of a debate, but for analytical purposes and resultant conclusions:

        a) You agree that Tamils should consider working on seceding ONLY if the current Administration continues to act in the way it has thus far, and if SL electorate does not opt for a Regime change.

        This position of yours is subject to:
        1) There exists a possibility that the current administration may soon adopt a radically divergent new path. Or,
        2) A new Administration that replaces the current one is more likely to avoid placing Tamils along the track of secession.

        The question that arises from these two postulates is:

        Based on past and recent history what chances are there for any of these two developments to take place.

        Would I be far too wrong in fearing that none of the above two is even a distant possibility.

        NB: Ideally, I for one would personally have a SL that removes from its records even the nationality into which one is born!

  • 9
    4

    The right to secession ( or self-determination, as KD calls it) does not arise simply from the consent of a minority. As the Canadian Supreme Court put in the Quebec Reference, it arises only when there is egregious discrimination against the minority of a prolonged nature. There was no such discrimination in Canada where three successive prime ministers were French speaking Canadians and several chief justices and commanders of the armed forces were French.

    In Sri Lanka, the Tamil people have been subjected not just to discrimination but genocidal violence ever since independence. The mindset of the Sinhala people will not admit change. All they have to do to ensure that the right of secession of the Tamils ends is to restore complete equality, provide a great deal of autonomy to the NorthEast, withdraw the army and ensure accountability for war crimes. This will never happen. That is why the Tamils will always have a right to secede. It will get stronger as time goes by as it is not only the Tamils who claim this right. States have been established on the basis of this right: Bangladesh, South Sudan, Eritrea etc. Other claimants exist all around the world. Mindanao in the Philippines, Karens, Kachins and Rohingyas in Myanmar, tribals in Sabah and Sarawak, Kashmiris, Uighars and Tibetans, Baluchis in Pakistan and so the list goes on. Precedents will mount over time.

    It is true that law alone does not matter. The situation has to become propitious as in Crimea or in the creation of Bangladesh, where India profitted from the intervention.

    As Rajapakse thumps the China card, this may provoke reactions. There is also the Tamilnadu factor and the rise of BJP and Hindu chauvinism in India. The time may well come for Tamil Eelam which would be created more as a result of the intransigence of the Sinhala governments than by the efforts of the Tamils, though they too will have to keep the flag flying.

    The Sinhala politician cannot survive without thumping the tub against the Tamls, Muslims or Christians. He is doing his best for Tamil Eelam. The triumphalism of victory is what keeps Rajapakse going. We can watch him demonstrate to the world along with his incompetent diplomats and the plagiarist professor how only secession is a workable solution for Sri Lanka.

    • 4
      0

      The first paragraph is no longer correct. In the case of Scotland there is nothing like the oppression that Kabaragoya mentions. If a people who can set up a credible state want to depart they are free to go. That’s the way the world is moving. And I ask ‘Why not?’

      The Canadian example is misstated; Qubec did not secede because two referrendums seeking secession were lost; otherwise it would have been a whole different ball game whatever any court on heaven or earth said.

      • 2
        0

        I thank Kumar D. I still disagree. He makes secession sound easy. X just gets up and goes. It simply does not happen that way. Secession is wrought out with blood. It has been the unfortunate history. I wish it were the way Kumar D represents it to be. It is not.

        Scotland is not apposite. It had a Parliament and a considerable amount of devolution as did Wales. The issue is whether they should break away from the union. Things will be done amicably in the Uk. But, can the Basques get up and go or the Flemish in Belgium. Or the Kurds or the Punjabis.

        Canada went through various phases. There was “terrorism” practised by the secessionists on occasions and the Parti Quebecois was strong at different times. The AG’s reference to the Supreme COurt would not have taken place if there was no issue in Canada. Now, the French speakers see no economic benefit in separation nor is there any need. Anyone going to Canada can see the perfect equality of treatment.

        What happens in African and Asia are different. Here we have asymmetric states, created by putting disparate people together. One sees this in Nigeria where the problem started with Biafra and continues now with people in the Ogoniland and elsewhere. Borders have to be redrawn and new states created to deal with the problem. This is the reality. But, it is not going to happen with the majority groups which are advantaged by the colonial agreements resisting any change.

        The parallel in Sri Lanka is certainly not with Scotland. Thank you Kumar for stating your views clearly. I will support Eelam which the Tamils will have to win through their peaceful struggle with the international community as the arbiter.

        • 0
          0

          There are micro nations within Australia.. Below is one.. Lot more people were trying to do the same later for operating online gambling like businesses… Prof. Davids theory should be correct, but applications are quite complex….

          From Wiki…

          The Principality of Hutt River, previously known as the Hutt River Province, is the oldest micronation in Australia. The principality claims to be an independent sovereign state and to have achieved legal status on 21 April 1972, although it remains unrecognised by Australia or other nations.

          The principality is located 517 km (354 mi) north of Perth, near the town of Northampton in the state of Western Australia. If considered independent, it is an enclave of Australia. The principality was founded on 21 April 1970 by Leonard George Casley, who styles himself as “Prince Leonard”, when he and his associates proclaimed their secession from Western Australia. The principality is a major regional tourist attraction.[1]

          Leonard Casley is considered to be the founding father of the micro-secession movement with dozens of micronations around the world established after being inspired by his success. Australia is home to almost half of the world’s micronations.[2] The matriarch of the principality, “Princess” Shirley Casley, died on July 7, 2013.[3][4]

    • 1
      0

      I am just going to ask this anyway although I know you mutts don’t have an answer. What rights do Tamils miss here that Sinhalese, Muslims and Burghers enjoy? What special rights do Tamils in UK or Canada enjoy for them to not engage in separatism their but only in Sri Lanka?

  • 0
    0

    I say taking into account all contingent social, economic and international factors at this time, in my opinion, you X folks chose to secede at the first opportunity. so be it

  • 5
    3

    All the arm chair politicians express their speculations in the CT as if they can predict the future: Many gurus with their PhDs tout their wares and their wild imaginations.

    In the stock market there is a saying: Don’t predict what the market will do next but study it as it unfolds and make money. If you can’t make money get out!

    Similar thing applies here I think: Study the Geo-politics and take advantage of it as you see fit, as the geopolitics unfolds. We can’t predict how Modi or Putin will react emotionally under certain circumstances. They are not robots – they can take action and make U-turns too. Just like Kruschev gifts it, Putin takes it back!

    Gurus disappear and forget their predictions when they go wrong. Logical arguments are good, but they have their limitations.

    I would rather watch or take whatever action I need to take rather than listening to armchair gurus: Let me ask them what are their track records in actual politics? Perhaps zero!

    My advice to the Gurus is this: Go, take part in politics like Wickramabahu Karunaratne, if you have convictions.

  • 2
    2

    Ours is not a simple case of settling X, Y Z in their respective X, Y Z homelands.

    Isn’t it?.

    In our case nearly all V are in in Wellawatta , C3, C4, C5, and even C7..

    Eelaam which is going to be in N has only NV,

    And V are only temporary residents living in holiday homes or boarding houses.

    Then there are more NV in E , S and , W than in N.

    And D overseas wouldn’t want to settle in N anyway.. Would they?..

    Can you see the problem?.

    Under the new United States of India ,it looks more simple , With all the powers the Eelaam leader in Tamil Nadu is expecting from PM Modi, it is just a matter of re phrasing the state to State of Eelaam. like State of Iowa..

    And it sounds a lot cooler than Thamil Nadu and Naduans.

    And V from all over and even D settle there as their language religion , culture and everything else is the same..

    And the Three Trillion cubic feet of Natural Gas in the Mannar Basin will be very attractive too, if they need any help from the US and Cameron, to twist Modi’s arm. to fix us up….

  • 2
    0

    I agree with Kumar David and other commentators who advise caution. Some, particularly those amongst the Tamil diaspora appear to favour intervention by India without realizing that it would be, in reality, disastrous for Sinhala and Tamil people in Sri Lanka. The climate is different to the 1980s both internationally and locally. The government and the military are primed to defend the country at any cost. The operative phrase is “at any cost”. The Indian army will not be able to march in as in Crimea or as they did in 1987. I fear that the cost will be in lives lost, perhaps a million. In fact I always felt that the heavy military presence in the North was intended to face this eventuality and not due to a fear of LTTE resurgence. No doubt the Indian military juggernaut will prevail, but are we willing to sacrifice so much just for a separate state? Are we that dumb?

    Let us say a separate state has been carved out in the North. What about the Indian Tamil population in the hill country? How will Lanka respond? Definite Chinese allegiance and bases in the South? Border skirmishes? Cross border terrorism? What happens to the Tamil people in the South? Abandon them?

    We have already lost happiness in one generation. Are we now contemplating that loss to another generation?
    My appeal is that we think this through and be patient, for after all it is the ordinary people and their lives that matter, not Rajapaksa, Jayalalitha, or Modi.

  • 2
    0

    Just read the topic, without reading the content I can say

    Why did Russia annexe Crimea?
    Crimea was land belongs to Russia before 1917 and 1950’s there was a agreement between Ukraine and USSR about Crimea. it was handover to Ukraine by USSR. Black sea fleet was stationed and upto 25 000 tropes were allowed to be in Crimea

    Now Russia took control over land which was belongs to them before and following the agreement’s procedures

    • 0
      1

      Bebon,

      “Why did Russia annexe Crimea?”

      They, the Russians, have always been annexing other countries. So, India can do the same, as they did to Goa, After all, the natives of Goa were from India, Similarly, the Natives of Lanka, Both Para-Sinhala, Para-Tamil and Para-Muslim have come from South India. If South India can be a State, why can’t Lanka.

      READ:

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

      Imperial Russia- Russian Empire

      Peter the Great, the first Emperor of Russia
      Under Peter the Great, Russia was proclaimed an Empire in 1721 and became recognized as a world power. Ruling from 1682 to 1725, Peter defeated Sweden in the Great Northern War, forcing it to cede West Karelia and Ingria (two regions lost by Russia in the Time of Troubles),[57] as well as Estland and Livland, securing Russia’s access to the sea and sea trade.[58] On the Baltic Sea Peter founded a new capital called Saint Petersburg, later known as Russia’s “Window to Europe”. Peter the Great’s reforms brought considerable Western European cultural influences to Russia.

      The reign of Peter I’s daughter Elizabeth in 1741–62 saw Russia’s participation in the Seven Years’ War (1756–63). During this conflict Russia annexed East Prussia for a while and even took Berlin. However, upon Elisabeth’s death, all these conquests were returned to Kingdom of Prussia by pro-Prussian Peter III of Russia.
      Catherine II (“the Great”), who ruled in 1762–96, presided over the Age of Russian Enlightenment. She extended Russian political control over the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and incorporated most of its territories into Russia during the Partitions of Poland, pushing the Russian frontier westward into Central Europe. In the south, after successful Russo-Turkish Wars against the Ottoman Empire, Catherine advanced Russia’s boundary to the Black Sea, defeating the Crimean Khanate. As a result of victories over the Ottomans, by the early 19th century Russia also made significant territorial gains in Transcaucasia. This continued with Alexander I’s (1801–25) wresting of Finland from the weakened kingdom of Sweden in 1809 and of Bessarabia from the Ottomans in 1812. At the same time Russians colonized Alaska and even founded settlements in California, like Fort Ross.

      In 1803–1806, the first Russian circumnavigation was made, later followed by other notable Russian sea exploration voyages. In 1820 a Russian expedition discovered the continent of Antarctica.

      The Russian Empire in 1866 and its spheres of influence
      In alliances with various European countries, Russia fought against Napoleon’s France. The French invasion of Russia at the height of Napoleon’s power in 1812 failed miserably as the obstinate resistance in combination with the bitterly cold Russian Winter led to a disastrous defeat of invaders, in which more than 95% of the pan-European Grande Armée perished.[59] Led by Mikhail Kutuzov and Barclay de Tolly, the Russian army ousted Napoleon from the country and drove through Europe in the war of the Sixth Coalition, finally entering Paris. Alexander I headed Russia’s delegation at the Congress of Vienna that defined the map of post-Napoleonic Europe.

      The officers of the Napoleonic Wars brought ideas of liberalism back to Russia with them and attempted to curtail the tsar’s powers during the abortive Decembrist revolt of 1825. At the end of the conservative reign of Nicolas I (1825–55), a zenith period of Russia’s power and influence in Europe was disrupted by defeat in the Crimean War. Between 1847 and 1851, a massive wave of Asiatic cholera swept over Russia, claiming about one million lives.[60]

      Nicholas’s successor Alexander II (1855–81) enacted significant changes in the country, including the emancipation reform of 1861. These Great Reforms spurred industrialization and modernized the Russian army, which had successfully liberated Bulgaria from Ottoman rule in 1877–78 Russo-Turkish War.
      The late 19th century saw the rise of various socialist movements in Russia. Alexander II was killed in 1881 by revolutionary terrorists, and the reign of his son Alexander III (1881–94) was less liberal but more peaceful. The last Russian Emperor, Nicholas II (1894–1917), was unable to prevent the events of the Russian Revolution of 1905, triggered by the unsuccessful Russo-Japanese War and the demonstration incident known as Bloody Sunday. The uprising was put down, but the government was forced to concede major reforms, including granting the freedoms of speech and assembly, the legalization of political parties, and the creation of an elected legislative body, the State Duma of the Russian Empire. Migration to Siberia increased rapidly in the early 20th century, particularly during the Stolypin agrarian reform. Between 1906 and 1914 more than four million settlers arrived in that region.[61]
      In 1914, Russia entered World War I in response to Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Russia’s ally Serbia, and fought across multiple fronts while isolated from its Triple Entente allies.

      In 1916, the Brusilov Offensive of the Russian Army almost completely destroyed the military of Austria-Hungary. However, the already-existing public distrust of the regime was deepened by the rising costs of war, high casualties, and rumors of corruption and treason. All this formed the climate for the Russian Revolution of 1917, carried out in two major acts.

      • 3
        0

        Selective cut n’ paste job. I wonder Amaraya himself has read all of it.

  • 1
    0

    I agree with Kumar David and other commentators who advise caution. Some, particularly those amongst the Tamil diaspora appear to favour intervention by India without realizing that it would be, in reality, disastrous for Sinhala and Tamil people in Sri Lanka. The climate is different to the 1980s both internationally and locally. The government and the military are primed to defend the country at any cost. The operative phrase is “at any cost”. The Indian army will not be able to march in as in Crimea or as they did in 1987. I fear that the cost will be in lives lost, perhaps a million. In fact I always felt that the heavy military presence in the North was intended to face this eventuality and not due to a fear of LTTE resurgence. No doubt the Indian military juggernaut will prevail, but are we willing to sacrifice so much just for a separate state? Are we that dumb?

    Let us say a separate state has been carved out in the North. What about the Indian Tamil population in the hill country? How will Lanka respond? Definite Chinese allegiance and bases in the South? Border skirmishes? Cross border terrorism? What happens to the Tamil people in the South? Abandon them?

    We have already lost happiness in one generation. Are we now contemplating that loss to another generation?
    My appeal is that we think this through and be patient, for after all it is the ordinary people and their lives that matter, not Rajapaksa, Jayalalitha, or Modi

  • 1
    2

    So go to Crimea Tamils so we don’t have to do war crimes to you.

    • 1
      0

      I read all the comments here,they were of such high standard(kabaragoyas was the best) that i was surprised.In fact i did not comment because i thought mine might spoil the thread.Then i came to your one and phew that was like a toilet cleaner in the company of intellectuals having a discussion with them.

  • 0
    0

    This subject is quite complex.
    Z=X+iY.

    • 2
      0

      J.Thavarajah

      If Z=X+iY is quite complex what would you say to E=mc²?

      The issue at hand is more to do with “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” than Z=X+iY or E=mc².

      • 3
        0

        Look at what vedda knows.

        • 2
          1

          I am no muslim

          I swear by Mahawamsa I did not solve “Fermat’s Last Theorem”.

  • 0
    0

    Keep dreaming David..

    • 0
      0

      This is not paul as you can see from the gravatar, however the sentiments are the same.

  • 0
    1

    Does Crimea Make Thamil Eelam More Likely?

    Hello David !!!! Pose that question to the BJPeeeeeeeee…………

  • 0
    0

    Admittedly one of the best threads of recent and Kabaragoya sublime. Although from a cost benefit perspective India could with a simple blockade render our glorious armed force nulla sum. If your old enough you may recall the Indian dabbling in gunboat diplomacy off Colombo harbour in the 80ies. Following that up with a few well place aerial sorties and you don’t even need the boots on the ground. Not that the Indian army unlike its western counterparts is shy of causalities. The India army, worryingly for its commanders, has not seen combat since Kargil if you could call the combat – the cold was the bigger foe. As every commmander knows its always useful to have a junior officer corp with tactical combat experience – even against a foe of limited capacity

    Without a steady diet of gal made from imported ethyl alcohol not even the praetorian guard of the BBS would last long.

  • 1
    1

    The self loathing kalu suddas and NGO cockroaches who cry about the human rights of tigers would not utter a word if the Indian army is to invade Sri Lanka, mark my word.

    • 1
      1

      Liberal One

      “would not utter a word if the Indian army is to invade Sri Lanka, mark my word.”

      Indian IPKF did invade, stupid VP took it upon himself to fight the foreign army while the Sinhala/Buddhist armed forces and its political leaders were hiding behind their women folks and VP’s bump.

      The Sinhala/Buddhist establishment did not utter a word against IPKF while it was committing war crimes and crime against humanity in the North East.

      What were you doing when Tamils were being killed and maimed and women were being raped?

      I suppose you could not see IPKF atrocities as you too were hiding behind your grand mother, little sister, aunts, …..

  • 0
    0

    The Sri Lankan Tamils cannot trust the Karunanidhi crowd of Tamil Nadu jokers along with their allies.Bensen

  • 0
    0

    The Rajapaksas are not smart enough to understand the power of unity. They truly hate Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese, but love their positions. Their hatred will eat them; in fact, it has been eating the country since 1948, but they are not smart to see it or admit the truth. They think that they are going live happily ever after with their hatred, but they are fooling themselves. “I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends” – Abraham Lincoln.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.