13 April, 2024


Eyewitness Geneva

By Guido Paola Brunetti –

The divisions within the Sri Lankan delegation to the 19th Session of the Human Rights Council in March 2012 reflected at least two different political orientations, which had already become manifest at the 18th Session of the Council in September 2011.

The two principal lines were:

1)     Sri Lanka should collaborate with the United Statesand its Western allies. This line was followed primarily by the delegation from the Foreign Ministry and the Head of Delegation, Mahinda Samarasinghe.

At both the 18th and 19th Sessions of the Council in September 2011 and March 2012, respectively, Mahinda Samarasinghe, Kshenuka Senewiratne, Sajin de Vass Gunawardena, and Mohan Peries, had entered into a process of compromise and had been ready to succumb to US pressure to place Sri Lanka on the Councilís agenda.

It should be recalled that in September 2011 Wikileaks had revealed Mahinda Samarasinghe’s hostility to President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his readiness to collaborate with the United States.

The Ambassadors of US, Israel, Canada, and UK had on several occasions alluded to the privileged relations they had had and continued to have with the previous Permanent Representative Kshenuka Senewiratne. Even after Kshenuka’s recall and return to Sri Lanka, the US Ambassador had continued to communicate with her via her private email. Western Ambassadors in conversations with members of the Sri Lankan delegation had let slip that they are in constant telephone and email communication with Kshenuka.

On several occasions, when information was leaked that Sri Lanka was secretly negotiating with the US, the Permanent Representative Tamara Kunanayakam was forced to intervene to keep Sri Lanka’s allies on its side. At the 19th Session, when Sri Lankaís allies began changing their intention to vote following an email from the US Mission claiming that the Sri Lankan delegation in Geneva was collaborating on the draft resolution, Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam had insisted on the urgent need to issue a public statement denying collaboration, whereas her predecessor Kshenuka Senewiratne argued against it. When Asian allies began receiving instructions from their capitals to abstain, in desperation she had to turn to the President to authorize her to send a public letter to her counterparts in Geneva to make clear that Sri Lanka was not collaborating on the text.

2)      Sri Lanka should obtain the support of countries of the Non-Aligned Movement and the like-minded such as Russia and China by mobilizing and uniting them on a common platform. This principled and visionary position is that of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, reflected in his Mahinda Chintana and loyally defended and implemented by his Minister of External Affairs, Prof. G.L. Peries, and Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative, Tamara Kunanayakam.

This political orientation sought to mobilize and unite Sri Lanka’s natural allies against what they also saw as attempts by the US and its Western allies to instrumentalize and hijack the United Nations in the service of their own hidden agendas, creating a dangerous precedent that by transforming it into a tribunal, would make them future targets. Such an orientation would also enable Sri Lanka to recover the leadership role it had once played as promoter of the Non-Aligned Movement.

It is clear that those attacking the Minister of External Affairs, Prof. G.L. Peries, and the Permanent Representative, Tamara Kunanayakam, were in fact targeting the President.

Brawn not brain in public display

The two distinct political orientations were also reflected in two distinct behaviours. The one identified with power, greed and domination, combined with personal and career ambitions, was represented by Mahinda Samarasinghe, Kshenuka Senewiratne and Sajin de Vass Gunawardena. Bullying, harassment, veiled threats, humiliation and public displays of aggression, including in the famous Serpentine Bar in the presence of other diplomats, NGOs, and separatist diaspora, as well as efforts to take control over the Mission, and divide and rule, became the order of the day. The political orientation identified with principles such as solidarity, complementarity and cooperation, represented by the Foreign Minister, the Permanent Representative and the young and dynamic Second Secretary Natasha Gooneratne, focused on professionalism, intellectual persuasion, and getting the work done.

A battle led by the enemy at the highest level of foreign policy, in this case the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, requires engagement at an equally high level, including competent diplomats and politicians who are well-equipped in the field of international relations, particularly the United Nations system and international law. Paradoxically, the most competent members of the delegation, including certain capable Ministers were totally isolated and marginalised and brawn not brain was on public display!

It is symbolic that on the day of the vote, it was Mahinda Samarasinghe who sat in front and Professor Peries behind him, and Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative was nowhere to be seen!

Several Ambassadors had complained that members of the delegation had violated established diplomatic practice short circuiting the Missionand even sending contradictory signals, which were counterproductive.

It has become routine in the Foreign Ministry to treat political appointees with disdain and suspicion, preventing them from fulfilling their responsibilities by denying or withdrawing support, approval and authorization, or even by framing them. This is a subject repeatedly echoed in the media and is aimed at discrediting the President’s representatives and through them the President himself.

An elitist Foreign Ministry bureaucracy

Despite warnings to the Foreign Ministry, there is an extreme negligence of countries of Africa and Latin America. Sri Lanka’s skeletal representation in these two regions do not contribute in times of difficulty to obtain the support that is needed at multilateral fora. Today, Sri Lanka is paying the price of the elitist attitude of the Foreign Ministry bureaucracy that considers it a waste of time to cooperate with poor countries. The argument constantly advanced is that these countries have nothing to offer to Sri Lanka, but go begging when a vote is needed at the United Nations!

Mahinda Samarasinghe’s betrayal?

What is not known to the Sri Lankan public is that India had not only expressed its support to Sri Lanka at a very early stage, but that it had actually been actively soliciting others to also do so. Due to the internal situation, however, the Sri Lankan delegation had been specifically asked not to make this information public. Nevertheless, only minutes after the request was made, Samarasinghe walked out of the room with Blackberry in hand and called his friends in the Sri Lankan media boasting “India is fully backing us”. In hindsight, with the knowledge of the political upheaval that this statement had provoked in India, including suspension of the Indian parliament and threat of collapse of the central Government, we may quite legitimately ask ourselves whether the real intention of Mahinda Samarasinghe was not to achieve precisely that. Was it just an irresponsible statement by an opportunist and ambitious politician seeking personal fame and glory, or was it more than that? Today, we know who profited from the crime: the United States!

Guido Brunetti<guido.paola.brunetti@gmail.com>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0

    Is Guido Paola Brunetti the same person as Dr Dayan Jayathilake?
    Anyway thanks for highlighting the professional work of SL delegation

  • 0

    Absolutely not, ‘Vasu’! I have NEVER used the term Mahinda Chinthana, even once, anywhere at all, in any capacity or context! If anyone can prove that I have, I shall resign. In any case how would I know who used Blackberrys and when? I was nowhere around. The degree of extraordinary close-up detail in this article obviosuly has to be by someone who had a ringside seat; perhaps not from the Sri Lankan delegation…

    • 0

      20 questions to Dr. Dayan Jayatileke on Geneva outcome 2012

      Politicians, who did not know history or geography of Sri Lanka, did blunders in the past. For example, both SWRD and Dudley S signed agreements with Chelvanayagam who wanted a country in a Tamil homeland giving him land powers. Giving land powers in such context is like erecting ladders to jumping monkeys. These agreements were based on selfish politics and not based on what was reasonable and justifiable. Present day Marxist remnants proudly cite Colvin R. de. Silva’s 1950s formula, “one language two countries, two languages one country,” forgetting what Colvin said and did in the 1960s and 1970s. Colvin, JRJ, CBK, RPremadasa or RanilW or the LLRC did not understand that as long as there is a Tamil Nadu, there will be a separatist Tamil country movement and Sri Lanka must do everything domestically to erase language-based boundaries.
      It is in this context that I doubt Dr. Dayan Jayatileke’s (DJ) sincerity. Does he not understand history and geography of Sri Lanka or is he pretending? Why we cannot be reasonable to all ethnic groups including the majority Sinhala? If DJ read the book by Devanesan Nesiah, “Discrimination with reason,” (1997), he would understand how reasonable discrimination has worked in India, USA and Malaysia. I do not think DJ is Harold Laski reborn in Sri Lanka as his uncle Carlo Fonseka once identified him, but DJ has some talents, just like Rohan Gunaratne who is an expert on terrorism operating from a university in Singapore. They both were in the “this war is not winnable” boat in the past. The “solutions” they suggest now make us think twice because of this past record, more so with DJ who once fled to India with Vartharaja Perumal.
      As a person who wrote enough against the 13A death trap (just like JRJ’s death trap constitution of 1978 and subsequent electoral reforms), I think I am correct in labeling Dayan J as the step-father of the 13A Plus idea, copied later by the American embassy in Colombo, Indians in Delhi, TNA, Anandasangaree and some Sinhala politicians now holding ministerial jobs. In the past, when I sought clarification from DJ about his 13A+ plan he behaved in a funny way which made me suspicious of his sincerity. Does he genuinely believe in his own step son 13A+ as a solution to keep this island in one piece? Marxists ruined Sri Lanka and DJ as a Marxist theoretician of sort, has a heavy burden to justify his miracle solution 13A+ by educating others by answering our questions. After he was removed from his ambassador job last time, there was a lull in his carrying the 13A monkey on his back and he even talked about a Sinhala Buddhist heartland in the island (opposite of Rosy Senanayake’s idea of removing the Buddhist social base in the island). Therefore, I hope a reformed DJ would decide to educate others about his magic solution called the 13A Plus.
      Twenty questions
      1. Does he (DJ) not agree that 13A has no moral basis to be a law because it was forced by India on a frightened JRJ who forced MPs to vote for it by keeping them in a hotel-converted prison?
      2. Does DJ agree with the suggestion to submit 13A to a people’s referendum to confirm or reject it by the people of Sri Lanka?
      3. Does DJ accept the fact that 13A is an acceptance of the myth of traditional Tamil Homeland in Sri Lanka?
      4. Does DJ not accept that on the basis of 3 above Muslims also will have a “right” to ask for a homeland (Oluvil Declaration type) of their own?
      5. Does he not accept the fact that 13A was nothing but the introduction to Sri Lanka of the policy of communal representation implemented in India by the Government of India Act of 1935?
      6. Does he not agree that 13A has created hordes of corrupt new political families who want to use the PC set up to go to parliament?
      7. Does he not think that Sri Lanka is too small to have separate provincial governments?
      8. What is DJ’s definition of 13A+? Is it giving land powers or giving both land and police powers?
      9. Does DJ support the re-merging of Eastern and Northern Provinces?
      10. Does DJ know that Christian fanatic organizations mapped a “belt of Satan” in the world that should be saved?
      11. Can DJ explain how 13A+ will prevent Tamil Nadu and world Tamil forum’s aspiration to have a Tamil country?
      12. Does DJ accept that Tamils in Sri Lanka have more rights than Tamils in India?
      13. Can DJ list grievances unique to Tamils in Sri Lanka?
      14. Would DJ agree that in Sri Lanka the problem is “spatial inequality” not racial inequity?
      15. LLRC wanted to empower people at the lowest level. What mechanism DJ can suggest to implement this?
      16. R. Premadasa increased GSN units from 4,000 to 14,000 to give jobs to his UNP supporters. Does DI think we need that many grama sevaka units?
      17. New Zealand and USA are examples of countries using natural boundaries as administrative unit demarcations. Does DJ agree to demarcate GSN boundaries on natural/ecological basis?
      18. Units under 17 above will create seven large River basins in Sri Lanka. Does DJ think such seven river basins are better than the artificially carved nine provinces?
      19. Does DJ think western white imperial politicians want one Sri Lanka or two countries in the island?
      20. Would DJ read the book, Breaking India: Western interventions in Dravidian and Dalit faultlines?

      • 0

        Wijewickrema’s reply is extremely sensible.He is expressing the views of the vast majority.The ultimate result of the 13th amendment was making of hundreds of super rich out of hooligans.Even onions,potatoes,lentils are being taxed to provide salaries,duty free vehicles,foreign jaunts to these useless hooligans. 13+ means more hooligans becoming rich.Wijewicrema has come up with a twenty pointer.Hope that Dayan will clarify and answer these points for our benefit.

      • 0

        Having lived in India and TN I can confirm Indian Tamils are not only administering their state, but even the whole of India. Tamil (plus Muslim) Abdul Kalam, scientist from the small Island and fishin hamlet of Rameswaran was the president, while Andra Pradesh Dravians like Narasima Rao had been the prime minister and now Sikh Manmohan Singh (even after Khalistan campaign).

        This Aryan supremacy is something we have picked up and yet hide behind (just like our religion and culture), while the Indians have made huge strides, even after partisian (and even with more Muslims in India). In SL only Buddist and usualy rice-board, Premadasa’s 100000 housing project and Rs2500 bribe. also subservience to insecure JR, being the rare exception.

        Sinhala only Acts, 83 riots, extremist Sinhala Buddist and Tamil ideology, colonization (European, Sinhala, Tamil), capitalist, marxist, racist all to blame. This rice-mud over pot-mud Buddism is another sickness, a root cause, one shudra discriminating another.

        Raavan is a Dravisian king, Shamaniasm and Hinduism predates Buddism (Budha also born Hindu!), SL and India were merged 7000 years ago, Pearl industry was SL’s first world famous industry from the time of the Indus period, 1 hour boat ride between the two countries, Gamunu fought Elara, even before Sena & Gutila, this is as old as SL, not just 2500 yrs, that just our post Buddist and expelled Aryan price (of beastiality ancestory) conquest.

        Decentralization for all, not just Tamil (and there are many Tamil province, not one). India, US, UK, Canada, etc…this is working. Asking the Sudha for self rule and denying even some Tamil in the anthem is the nazi eutopia of this bigot.

      • 0

        Going by your reply it seems that Tamil Nadu is the best place for Tamils to live.You can be of great service not only to Tamils living in Srilanka but to all if you be kind enough to work out a mechanism for Srilnakan Tamils(Volunteers)to settle down in Tamil Nadu.Then we all Srilankans can be relieved of the never ending agony of the Tamils.You can be assured of my fullest cooperation.

    • 0

      OK Dayan, You are right,this is Jean ……

      • 0


  • 0

    Guido Brunetti is the protagonist and fictional detective hero, a police commissioner by profession, of crime novels written by American novelist by Donna Leon.


    So, Guido Paola Brunetti is fictitious, not a Eurpoean leftist commentator as stated in the Daily Mirror print edition of 11.04.2012. Internet searches did not reveal that he is a European leftist commentator.

    • 0

      You seemed to be well informed.Would you be kind enough to dig up some dirt on a democratic future leader of Srilanka who is supposed to be an Australian?His name,well that’s a problem.Let me try.Kumar Mahathaya aka Noel Mudalige aka Daskon aka Bomba Gunda.

  • 0

    this writer, for all the word-twists and argumentative contortions remains a coward. it was not black-white or us-them. this issue was far more complex.

  • 0

    According to Douglas Wickremaratne’s e-mail from London, who is much better than Dayan J as a diplomat with 40 years of dedicated service to SL, about 70 people were on SL delegation. Only 3 or 4 of them actually spoke or took part in the debate/discussion. Others were wondering looking at buildings and flower plots in Geneva.

    No wonder SL is in a mess with these joker ministers and tiger agents like Dayan who was in the “this war is not winnable boat.”

    When will MahindaR learn???

  • 0

    C Wijeyawickrema in addition to being a senile Sinhala chauvinist, is an ignoramus and a liar, as are most of his ilk. If he can give a single quote that proves that I was in the ‘ this war is not winnable boat’ I shall stop writing to this website! Furthermore, I can demonstrate the absolute contrary, from decades ago, when Sri Lanka had never heard (as it still has not) of a C Wijeyawickrema and his views on the war.

    I reproduce an extract from a text from almost 20 years ago, dating from the beginning of 1993, and is a gruelling five-page interview, almost an ideological interrogation, conducted by one of the best Tamil ultranationalist minds, DP Sivaram (alias ‘Taraki’). It appeared in The Northeastern Herald’s issue of January-February 1993, Volume 1, No 6, pp8-12. Readers will recall that the N.E. Herald is the publication that journalist and ex-detainee Tissainayagam was editing at the time of his arrest, having succeeded Sivaram in that post.

    At the time, I was Director, Conflict Studies at the Institute of Policy Studies, Colombo and functionaed as an advisor/consultant to President Premadasa. Particular attention is drawn to the blunt question posed to me, and my categorical answer, precisely about the possibility of a military victory over the LTTE.

    “Q. Which means it is possible for the Army in its current form to defeat the LTTE and restore the primacy of the democratic forces in Sri Lanka?

    A. I think so. Of course, it will require enormous improvement in command and control, in strategy and tactics, in weapons systems and so on. But it can be done. It should and must be done.”

    The interview was run by Sivaram with the caption ‘President Premadasa Should Be Little More of a Warmonger’ and is an abbreviation of the concluding remark by me: “Personally I would prefer President Premadasa to be a little more of a war-monger towards the LTTE than he has been so far!”

    Significantly, my first book ( published in 1995) was met with a blistering full page critique by leading Tiger ideologue and spokesman Anton Balasingham in his ‘Brahmagnani’ column, in which he said: “Sri Lankan political discourse, in recent times, has produced an amazing variety of political theorists and analysts whose main vocation seems to be to produce denunciatory criticisms of the politico-military strategy of the LTTE and offer ideas or solutions as to how to end the so-called terrorist menace. Among these political theorists Dayan Jayatilleka stands out as a unique character in his irrational and ruthless criticism of the LTTE.” (Inside Report – Tamil Eelam News Review, June 30, 1995).

    So much for being in the ‘this war is not winnable boat’!

  • 0

    As for 13 Plus, my consistent position has been that while 13A Plus may well be the final Constitutional settlement someday, it should NOT be entertained in this postwar period and for many years to come; perhaps even a generation to come. Instead all I have argued for is the implementation of the 13th amendment as exists as part of our basic law, the Constitution, with mutually agreed upon adjustments (‘swaps’) where necessary; albeit with the de-merger remaining unchanged and unchallenged. As for the argument that 13A was an external imposition, well, even universal suffrage (the vote) was introduced by British colonialism, and all the Ceylonese representatives, inclduing SWRD testified in opposition to it at the Donomoughmore Commission. Only AE Goonesinghe supported it! So, are we therefore opposed to the vote?

    As for a referendum, that is something for the Supreme Court to decide — not some Sinhala chauvinist fanatic– and the Supreme Court did not decide that a referendum is necessary. If anyone wishes to recanvas the case he/she may petitio the Court. 13A has stood for almost 25 years, with people voting at PC elections (including when threatened with murder by the JVP in ’88) except in the North, where the Tigers stopped them.

  • 0

    I enter this discussion not to comment on its curious sounding author or the details and aspersions about the roles of various personae mentioned there. I write through a sheer sense of responsibility and duty to Sri Lankans and that in the role of a former Ambassador who was in that part of the world and
    information-merchant’for the last 18 years. I make only a single observation and no more.
    It did not require any special wisdom or analytical skill or even presence in Geneva to know that there was something wrong all along in Sri Lanka’s approach and group strategy to the question in Geneva since the successful 2009 Resolution favouring Sri Lanka got inscribed. A man called Dayan Jayatilleka whom I otherwise dislike, has to be given recognition, if not celebrated for that success.

    This was a great confrontation to those who tried to have a resolution passed against SL from 2009 onwards.This was admitted by Darusalam Panel Trio in their New York Times article they posted on the day US submitted the original text of the Draft Resolution.(7th MArch 2012).

    I do not join villfying anyone of this and that for their respective role and why they did so like wanting to undermine the Rajapaksa brothers as the Wikileaks cables pointed as Minister Samarasinghe had been doing.
    I base my observations that there had been a split of opinion over strategy in Geneva for quite sometime on evidence/facts I had observed from this distance (Colombo) thanks to the discipline in which I was honed as professional diplomat for nearly four decades and as a guest writer to the media for the last 18 years.

    I see the significance of the position adopted by Minister Samarasinghe for several years from previous sessions. He was asking SL’s opponents to wait till the LLRC Report was out. How did he know the way the LLRC report would turn out to make such a bold statement?
    My proposition is that this was a US ploy. Was the report then to be manipulated by somebody- the GOSL or outside? US was supporting the internal mechanism process and was ready to give it a chance (I can argue she has other reasons also as a state which withdrew from Rome Treaty).But at the March 2012 session the situation took a different turn. The LRRC recommendations received recognition in the US D/R. but for different reasons. The compliment paid to it in the D/R was deceptive. It was an allibii (THE Trojan Horse
    It was the implementation of LLRC recommendations PLUS that became the subject of the issue of the Draft resolution.SL was trapped well and truly thanks to thiose insiders.

    The US support for for LRRC process was then a trap well laid.Minister Samarasinghe was the one who pushed it. It cannot be denied that he was made use of to push it.
    Now the problem is for GOSL to extricate from it.In Geneva different Ministers were saying different things which showed there was no firm govt.position on it. One said it could not be implemented or needed time. Another senior Minister said it has been implemented. Even at the recent Inter-Parliamentary sessions, a contradictory statement was made by the Minister who had been contradicting himself from place to place and time to time. What a bloody mess!

    I am not interested in motives attributed to Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe of harbouring greater ambitions. But his role over several years displays he had been made a cat’s paw in America’s hand, if not a willing accomplice as Wikileaks suggest.
    I am not interested in other personae mentioned.

    There is absolute reasons to accept the view that he spoilt India’s vote for SL by letting India’s initially indicated position known to the media. Such spoiling is not uncommon in Sri Lankan diplomacy. That unwarranted action on his part which resulted in the opposition in Lok Sabha and Karunanidhi to join ( compete ) with Jayalalitha in firming up TN opposition gives enough cause for anyone to attribute motives for Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe’s action. (Where is he now?).

  • 0

    Here’s an observation about Geneva 2009, made recently (this website reproduces the article on ‘Lessons’) by the international award-winning journalist and author Nirupama Subramanian: “As Sri Lanka mulls over last month’s United Nations Human Rights Council resolution, it may look back with nostalgia at its 2009 triumph at Geneva. Then, barely a week after its victory over the LTTE, a group of western countries wanted a resolution passed against Sri Lanka for the civilian deaths and other alleged rights violations by the army during the last stages of the operation. With the blood on the battlefield not still dry, Sri Lanka managed to snatch victory from the jaws of diplomatic defeat, with a resolution that praised the government for its humane handling of civilians and asserted faith in its abilities to bring about reconciliation.” (The Hindu)

  • 0

    Whatever we all do to bring a sustainable moderate peace solution collapses in sinhala chauvinism as you see the comments from
    C. Wijeyawickremaee and all others

    Do not forget 27.000 (official statement, unofficially nobody knows) soldiers lost their lives to defeat 18.000 ( official statement ) LTTE cadres

    This man, only DJ ( not Tamara or anyone else ) convinced the majority of UN to vote for SL in 2007 to stop the UN intervention. I´m not a friend of DJ, see all my comments and my attacks. He is the one who stopped the intervention and responsible for 60.000 civilian casualities.

    India helped SL to eliminate LTTE, SL Air Force was trained in Tamil Nad and they started plenty of attackks from TN. MR promissed India to implement 13th ammendment after defeating LTTE.

    After winning the war the sinhalese chauvinists were drunked with victory nectar and started cheating everyone, as we have seen after Krishnan´s visit. MR promissed him something else than he told to the sinhalese press (only sinhalese press, who still remains in SL with yes yes machang opinion) no no machang press had to leave the country.

    Guys, you think China is enough for you to survive and some of your ministers force our school children to learn chinese. Chinese is not peking duck to enjoy worldwide.

    You sell this country everday to all others of this world. Your problem is to recognize the multi ethnic structure

    What is the issue to implement the 13th ammendment?

    Do you need a referendum like Sudan, Kosovo etc., whether Tamils need a separate state?

    To earn money you have to come to Suddha countries. Go and see how many sinhalese women work as slaves in middle east for 30 US$ per month, SL doesn´t offer anything than big paroles

    To buy a land you should join SLA to rob tamil poor people.

    Why Karuna, Pillayan, Douglas and all others supported you to win this war? To accept sinhalese chauvenism?

    Use your brain! Do not give space for next conflict!

  • 0

    At the UNHRC meeting, Devananda had replced Kunanayakam – a puppet minister running armed goon squads was preferred to a career diplomat.
    The international community would be aware & will know the state of human rights in sri lanka.

  • 0

    Okay DJ – Does your government really need TNA to accept a solution before it being offered to the people of Sri Lanka. The smart man, MA Sumanthiran says that TNA opposes the 13th Amendment, but challenges th government to implement it. Because, TNA knows that the government is NOT interested in providing a solution to the problem.

  • 0

    Because Max Silva’s have to content with a subconscious guilt syndrome, in many ways unfairly placed on them, they promote extreme treatment on other communities.

    Well, draw up a plan to go back to Bengal and compensation for the genocide of millions of our extinct natives !

    Suffering from baby-innocence !

  • 0

    Max Silva says:

    “……..kind enough to work out a mechanism for Srilnakan Tamils(Volunteers)to settle down in Tamil Nadu.Then we all Srilankans can be relieved of the never ending agony of the Tamils.You can be assured of my fullest cooperation.”

    Good idea Max.

    I want you Tamils to go back to Tamilnadu. When you go please take your Sinhalese brothers and sisters with you.

    My people would be grateful if you give a hitch to Max and your Sinhalese brethren and drop them at Sinhapura, Lala land in Venga.

    You can be assured of our fullest cooperation.

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.