19 November, 2019

Blog

Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord And The 13A: Who Is The Winner?

By Ayathuray Rajasingam

Ayathuray Rajasingam

Since the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace accord, there was reluctance to implement the 13th Amendment as it was unacceptable to the ruling Sinhalese politicians.  On the other hand, it was felt that neutralizing the 13th Amendment would be a monstrous justice to the Tamils paving way for the creation of the essence of inequality to be embedded to the constitution. The issue is whether Sri Lanka can wipe out the 13th Amendment and if so, what will the reaction of India.

The period from 1970 to 1987 in Asia should be determined in the context of political developments in the South Asian region. During the period of the Bangladesh independence war with Pakistan, India was unhappy when Sri Lanka allowed Pakistani planes to refuel at Katunayake airport. The USA and China were unable to assist Pakistan, when Bangladesh was provided with military assistance in gaining independence by India. In view of the Pakistan’s behaviour, India was exploring to invade West Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir which compelled America to urge China to mobilze its forces along the Indian border, but China wanted a ceasefire with India. When, Bangladesh was recognized immediately by India and Russia,  America recognized it much later and China went to the extent of vetoing its admission to the UN until 31st August 1975. Meanwhile India took various measures to modernize and strengthen its naval force and air force. This was the scenario in South Asia.

When J.R.Jayawardene (JR) assumed power, the third constitution was passed in the Parliament. The TULF had become the opposition party. It was a disgrace that mobs went to the extent of burning the official residence of the opposition leader during the riots. Perhaps they would have found it difficult to digest that a Tamil Party has become the opposition party. The problem led the TULF leader A.Amirthalingam to be an ally of Indra Gandhi when J.R was the pet of USA and China. India smelt the dangers to its sovereignty through Sri Lanka and took up the Sri Lankan Tamil issue to monitor foreign activities in Sri Lanka.

JR was adamant not to give in to Tamils after the 1983 civil riots. When refugees flooded in Tamil Nadu, Indra Gandhi government sought to make it clear to JR that armed intervention in support of the Tamils was an option, India would consider if diplomatic situation should fail. Meanwhile some unpleasant incidents occurred in India. The Golden Temple was invaded by the Indian Army and the Sikhs were massacred. Thereafter, Indra Gandhi’s son, Sanjay Gandhi, who was a dominating figure in the Indra Gandhi’s Government, died in an aircraft crash. Later, Indra Gandhi was assassinated. Finally Rajiv Gandhi assumed office as Prime Minister of India.

After the 1983 communal riots, Tamil militant movements were established and thousands of Tamil youths joined which prompted the Armed Security Forces to engage in search and destroy operation. It is the military operation at Vadamaradchy that led India to intervene in Sri Lanka as guardian of the oppressed Tamils, resulting in Operation Poomalai where Indian Air Force to air-drop food supplies over Jaffna and JR sought assistance from US and China which proved to be a futile exercise as both countries did not wish to go against India. Thereafter, the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord in July 1987 and the induction of IPKF in Sri Lanka took place. The issue is has Sri Lanka bowed to India.

Prior to the signing of the Peace Accord, in 1985 India organized a meeting at Thimpu for Sri Lanka and the Tamil militants with the TULF for peace talks in order to end the war in Sri Lanka. Four principles were laid down at this Thimpu Talk, viz, (1) recognition of Sri Lanka Tamils as a nation, (2) recognition of the existence of an identified homeland for Sri Lanka Tamils, (3) recognition of the right of self-determination of the Tamil nation, and (4) recognition of the right to citizenship and the fundamental rights of all Tamils, who view Sri Lanka as their own country. This was known as the Thimpu Declaration of 1985. But Sri Lanka rejected the first three principles, as they violated Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. Sri Lanka took the view that since the right of self-determination implies the right of secession and the right to create a separate State, they are totally unacceptable. International law does not regard the principle of self-determination which authorizes a group to take action that would result in impairment of the territorial integrity and unity of a sovereign and independent State. International Law recognizes that the right of self-determination applies only to colonial peoples striving to win independence from foreign domination and does not apply to States. Eventually the peace talks collapsed on 18th August 1985 due to the intransigence of both parties.

Mention should be made that India was only keen to bring both the warring factions to settle their disputes in an atmosphere of cordial friendship and peaceful manner. India expected a give and take policy from both parties. Both parties failed to control their emotions. They failed to realize that negotiation is an art and involves technique and not demand. Sri Lanka’s representatives were adamant in criticizing the principle of self-determination to which India was not happy, as it was a direct hint to India which militarily assisted Bangladesh to gain independence from Pakistan. India was also unhappy with the Tamil militants for being inflexible in their attitude. Neverthless, Tamil insurgents made a blunder in not allowing the TULF leader A.Amirthalingam solely to present the problem like Bismark of Germany or Cavun Cavoor of Italy.

The Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord was signed with the objective of keeping America away from gaining a foothold in Sri Lanka. When J.R.Jayawardene asked J.N.Dixit to be specific about India’s concern, J.N.Dixit said that Sri Lanka should assure India on the following terms:

  • Reduction & phasing out of foreign military and intelligence personnel in Sri Lanka from western countries and Pakistan;
  • Sri Lanka should reorganize its foreign and defence policies and reduce its involvement with USA, Pakistan, China, Israel & South Africa;
  • Sri Lanka should give assurance that its seaports and airports would not be utilized by foreign powers which were antagonistic towards India or which affected India’s security interest negatively; and
  • Sri Lanka should fulfil the assurances which it gave in 1985 that India would be given an opportunity to maintain the Trincomalee Oil Tank Farms and that Sri Lanka would prevent foreign broadcasting stations like the VOA from being utilized for military purposes by western countries.

When J.R.Jayawardene pointed out that these were excessive, J.R.Dixit politely reminded that these were mentioned by Minister P.Chidambaram on 29th April 1985 and 5th May 1985. In addition, Indian Minister of State Natwar Singh did the same on 24th November 1986 and again between 17th and 19th December 1986. Briefly it means Sri Lanka bowed to India in a peaceful manner. The two developments – (1) from the day Bangladesh obtained independence until the formation of the SAARC that took place in 1985 and (2) thereafter to the signing of the Peace Accord 1987 – sent a strong message to its neighbours, China and the West that India will not ignore strategic developments in its close proximity in Sri Lanka (a reminder to Rajapakse’s regime) that are likely to harm the security interest of India and would support the minority demand for an equitable deal. Even during the Tsunami in 2004, Indian naval ships were reported to be along the coast of Sri Lanka.

With the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord, the IPKF was inducted in Sri Lanka. The IPKF was sent not only to maintain peace in the North and East Provinces, but also to monitor the activities of the Islamic terrorist activities in the Eastern Province where there were signs of gradual emergence of Wahhabism. Perhaps that may be the reason why Kathankudy was razed to the ground by the IPKF. Moreover, the inflexible attitude of the Tamil militants, which reflected the suspicious behaviour of the LTTE, cautioned India to have contacts with one Gnanapragasam Gnanasekeran alias Paranthan Rajan, a prominent figure of PLOTE who formed the Three Stars militant group with splinter groups. He formed a political group known as ENDLF with the breakaway faction of PLOTE, in the event of any reprisals from the LTTE with the aid of R.Premadasa to hamper the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord. As expected R.Premadasa had secret links with the LTTE to fight the IPKF, without knowing the dangerous consequences. This is where the Indian diplomacy worked well.

In pursuance of the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord, the Sri Lanka Parliament passed the 13th Amendment to the 1978 Constitution and the Provincial Councils Act to establish the Provincial Councils. Tamil was made an Official Language under the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment was the outcome of the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord relating to the rights of the minority Tamils which was utilized as the weapon for India and the USA to grate Sri Lanka.

The turn of events in South Asia led Sri Lanka to be the focal point in the eyes of USA when India and China were competing for supremacy in the Indian Ocean region. After 1980 US expanded its co-operation in the economic and scientific realms with the view to counteracting Russian influence in the region.

But after the defeat of the LTTE, the prospects for national integration appears to be blocked under Mahinda Rajapakse’s regime because his government is likely to roll back the 13th Amendment which was instrumental in making Tamil as an official language and limited autonomy to the Northern Province. The dismantling of North-East Provinces appears to be a calculated move – a sign of ignoring the Peace Accord.

There are drawbacks in the 13th Amendment which revolves round (1) Provincial Governor, (2) a Provincial Board of Ministers with a Chief Minister and (3) Provincial Council.

Provincial Governor is elected by the President who will have to carry out his orders. If the President is not satisfied, he can dismiss the Provincial Governor. It means the Provincial Governor will hold office during the pleasure of the President in accordance with Article 4(6) of the Constitution. Therefore, the 13th Amendment has not weakened the powers of the President. The President is all powerful.

The fact that the Provincial Council will have control over the Provincial Public Service is without any foundation. The Governor is empowered to alter, vary or rescind any order made by the Provincial Public Commission, because the Provincial Governor is the administrative head of the Provincial Public Service.

Even the Chief Minister of a Province is tightened by way of Oaths. The 6th Amendment was declared to be a violation of the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in Section 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by the International Commission of Jurists. This is an embarrassing situation for Sri Lanka in the eyes of the western democratic countries which honour and respect the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Sri Lanka is a signatory. The civil liberties in Sri Lanka have become a matter of considerable debate.

The only notable feature for the Tamils in the 13th Amendment is that the Provincial Governor is required to act on the advice of the Chief Minister only in respect of formal and ceremonial matters relating to the appointment of Ministers, summoning of Provincial Council, proroguing of Provincial Council and dissolution of Provincial Council which are matters that will not affect the President by virtue of Article 4(b) of the Constitution. It is the financial matter which is vital for the development of the North Province. But the Provincial Council was not empowered to withdraw money from the Provincial Fund without the approval of the Governor. Moreover, the Provincial Council will have to obtain the recommendations of the Provincial Governor to levy taxes. In addition, the Provincial Fund will be in the custody of the Provincial Governor, who will regulate the Provincial Fund. Briefly the 13th Amendment catered to the objectives of the President. The question of improvement of the 13th Amendment to fulfill the aspirations of the legitimate rights of the Tamil speaking people was totally ignored by the Sinhalese politicians.

What is required is an improvement of the 13th Amendment to legitimize the rights of the Tamil speaking people with a positive thinking in accordance with the democratic practices. Sri Lankan politicians have to learn from Canada as to how the French speaking Quebecois are looked after or how the British politicians are looking after the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by way of enacting separate Acts for them to govern within the unitary government of the United Kingdom. Canada always rectifies all defects and justified their aspirations of the French people of Quebec which strengthen the unity of the country. But in Sri Lanka, Sinhalese politicians always explore ways and means to suppress the aspirations of the Tamil speaking community. They are not concerned that Tamils are a segment of the Sri Lankan population since time immemorial. It is time for Sri Lanka ruling politicians to address the central issues of the Tamil national struggle, instead of deviating the attention of the Sinhalese with the creation of Bodu Bala Sena (BBS), sending of Sri Lankan military personnel for training to India and later to Pakistan at a time Muslims have been the target of BBS, settlement with Sinhalese in lands belonging to the Tamils, etc, some of which are against the spirit of the Peace Accord and nullify the concept of TRULY SRI LANKANS.

Being aware of the weakness of the SAARC by virtue of its Article 10 which states that bilateral and contentious issues shall be excluded from the deliberations, the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord was drafted in a manner for India with the view to forge both the Sinhalese and the Tamils as close partners within Sri Lanka. It may be argued that there is a diversity in the types and forms of political regimes as found in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, Tibet, etc based on caste, language, religion, etc., and as such there cannot be unity among the Indian States. But since India (Pakistan included) gained its freedom through bloody war and because of the pressure from external sources to its sovereignty, India realized the value of independence. Had Sri Lanka fought a bloody war for its independence like the USA or India, the politicians would have taken into consideration of all the communities and respect their rights upon realizing the value of independence. Likewise, had SAARC been a strong organization like the European Union with the enshrinement of a Human Rights Charter and a Parliament, ethnic Tamil problem would not have cropped up in Sri Lanka. However, since the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord was signed between two countries, it can only be abrogated by both parties and cannot be abrogated unilaterally. It appears that India has landed Sri Lanka in the pit from where Sri Lanka cannot escape. The Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord and the 13th Amendment is a total defeat for both the Sri Lanka Tamils and the Sinhalese while India emerged as victorious.

The improvement in the 13th Amendment revolves round the issue of the right to self-determination. Self-determination is a human right of all people, which could be exercised within a country. It is not the issue that it leads to secession, but the question of how such self-determination will lead to strengthen the unity of the country as demonstrated in Canada, India, Switzerland, etc. It is the question of mutual understanding and respecting other’s rights, for which the ethnic communities should be granted power to pursue their own economic, social and cultural development. The power should be given to the ethnic Tamils and Muslims who seek proper representation and participation in decision making, power sharing and the right to exploit the natural resources on a regional basis, subject however that the granting of power should not mean the right to secede based on people’s ethnicity. The right to self-determination is a means of confident building measure. Sri Lanka should realize that every country is been built on trust. The eradication of the impediments disclosed in the 13th Amendment is the expectation of democratic countries for the smooth functioning of the Provincial Councils, in the new amendment to be passed. It is then the people of Sri Lanka can be called TRULY SRI LANKANS reflecting multiculturalism.  If, however, Mahinda Rajapakse is bent on wiping out the 13th Amendment and the Peace Accord, at a time he is under a moral obligation to uphold the Commonwealth values, it is going to be a million dollar question.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 1
    0

    So, Sri Lanka is a colony of India.

    • 0
      1

      Not yet. The British colonized the plantations with South Indian labourers. Smuggling between Velvetithurai and Madras opened floodgates for “Kallathonis” but due to the Police being vigilant on them they were caught and repatriated. The Dutch brought labourers from South India for cinnamon plantations. Had the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with India been signed it could have been one way from India to Sri Lanka in regard to movement of persons.

      It will definitely happen in the near future with or without CEPA if, as fulfillment obligations of 1959 ESCAP Accord, Indo-Lanka Bridge is constructed. And then Mr. JimSofty, you may be able state with proof that Sri Lanka is a colony of India.

      • 1
        0

        Why not? Vijaya is the first Indian Kallathoni colonized ILankai.

    • 0
      0

      no who is telling that we are still independent nation.not a colony we are sri lanka. Democracy country,island.

  • 0
    0

    Does the writer propose more power given to say for the Northern Provincial Council of 1 million people than the powers enjoyed by the State of Tamil Nadu with a population of over 60 million? The Chennai Municipal Corporation with a population of over 15 million is administered by only a Mayor.

  • 0
    0

    how ever we can’t support for who help the LTTE…because we all are destroyed from the war in past thirty years..we must protect our land.and we must not give any chances to other country to solve our country problems because this is our land..we are sri lankan!!

  • 0
    0

    The article is very informative. Thanks.

  • 0
    0

    Ayathuray Rajasingam,
    I think you presented these beautifully. After you watched the interests of Rajiv Gandhi at the Courts Martial. As such you can disclose some more truths so that everyone of us can get a clear picture. Anyway it is a marvellous presentation. But will these idiots in the political parties think of the right of the right to self-determination.

  • 0
    0

    Dear Mr Ayathurai: A very informative presentation. What caught my attention is one pharase “SELF DETERMINATION”. Being a person engaged in religious studies (understood from your earlier contributions to CT), I believe you would agaree that this pharase is equal to a “INNER CALL FOR FREEDOM”.

    In following this “Inner Call” the living beings have struggled and faught many a battles causing much disaster. Why?. It is nothing but due to the key players, such as “Religious Leaders” “Social Activistis” and “Polticians”. What was and is the cause? It is notning but all of them were and are motivated by one and the only perinciple of “Delution of personal self” – the mother of all EGOISM. See how a Golden Principle has been converted to be a ghastly battle field.

    So unless and until these Key Players realize their “Maya” and work towards that “Inner call” we will be struggling for ever and ever.

    • 0
      0

      Impressive.Wise comment.

    • 0
      0

      Dear Douglas,
      Agreed. It is ego that compels these people to do all unreasonable & unjustifiable acts. I have this in mind and written that the right to self-determination should be focussed on a broader spectrum for everyone to live peacefully. The British assured the Quebecois that they will have the right of self-determination, after they were defeated. In India every State is given the right of self-determination, though sometimes the ruling politicians are up to mischief. Even Lord Buddha and Emperor Asoka (after the Kalinga War) were of the view that we should get rid of egoism. I hope their conscience pricks. Thanks.

  • 0
    0

    “….which compelled America to urge China to mobilze its forces along the Indian border, but China wanted a ceasefire…” This is interesting as well as intriguing. Many have not heard this before. Will the author kindly elaborate further as it will help researchers in the subject.

    Senguttuvan

  • 0
    0

    Dear Senguttuvan,
    This was the period that both America and Russia were considered as super-powers. It is during the period of Bangladesh independence war, Richard Nixon was the President of America during the period and Henry Kissinger (a great diplomat) was Secretary of State. Though he supported Pakistan, he maintained that it was an internal matter. While monitoring the scenario in South Asia, it appeared that Pakistan’s defeat was certain. Thereafter, Nixon sent the air craft carrier USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal. India viewed this move as a nuclear threat. Following US’s move, Russia dispatched two groups of ships armed with nuclear missiles and trained the US Task Force. Henry Kissinger also feared about Russia’s expansion in South Asia. During this period, Pakistan was in good terms with China within which period Henry Kissinger was in the process of negotiating a rapproachement, i.e. to come together. This was a period where there was tension between Pakistan and India. US feared India’s invasion of West Pakistan which meant an Indian domination in the region, which is likely to undermine the position of US and the new friendship with China. This was the period when the US Congress imposed sanctions in Pakistan and in violation of such sanction Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan and also encouraged China to increase its military assistance to Pakistan, despite grave crimes against humanity by Pakistan Army in Bangladesh. Meanwhile Russia supported Bangladesh and India. China was alarmed on realizing India’s intended invasion of West Pakistan. As the situation was tense, Nixon wanted China to mobilize its army along its border with India. But China threw its weight for an immediate ceasefire upon realizing that the Indian military was prepared and deployed eight mountain divisions to the border.
    Dear Senguttuvan,
    It was in 1971 I was doing my course on ‘International Relations’, while practising law. It is a very interesting subject.

    • 0
      0

      Thank you for sharing your understanding of the events of China-USA-Indian history during the Mao-Nixon-Kissinger period. I have followed events of that time and find it difficult to come to terms with a situation where the Americans would have encouraged the untested Chinese PLA to take positions along the Sino-Indo border. The events during the Cultural Revolution where Mao tried to re-establish control over his vast land, with Deng, Lin Piao et al offering resistance to his leadership, supports this view. The brilliant Harvard Professor Henry Kissinger envisaged at that time Mao had sagged China’s energies in the Sino-Russian global effort at influence and will not be able to lift the lot of the nearly billion Chinese population with his (1948-1975) policies or leadership. He feared Deng’s tilt towards the free market economy will eventually succeed – and it eventually did. He also feared Deng will end China’s voluntary isolation from the rest of the world that would have meant, in different ways, of challenges to Mao’s firm dictatorial rule of the vast country.

      Encouraging China at that time to line up along the Indian border at a time when Indo-Russian ties were supposedly high, it appears to me, is a gamble the visionary Nixon-Kissinger duo would not have taken. That would have, in a way, offered recognition to accepting China as Asia’s emerging power which would have endangered every country in Asia.

      Senguttuvan

  • 0
    0

    The manner in which the writer has summed up about the remedy for the 13th Amendment, i.e. the right to self-determination in a positive way is really fantastic and will tempt any liberal minded persons to really change their hearts. Will the Indian Congressmen at Delhi remind this to Basil Rajapakse when he visits with the view to discuss the 13th Amendment. Colombo Telegraph, you are really great in getting such articles at this crucial hour. I wonder whether Wimal Weerawansa, the BBS, DIG Vass Gunawardena and other unscrupulous politicians are TRULY SRILANKANS. They are a disgrace to Sri Lanka and Buddhism.

  • 0
    0

    Sri Lanks is now a colony of the Chinese and full of convicted criminals marrying beautifull sinhalese girls. By alienating Tamis of Sri Lanka we are going to be the Colony of the Cheenas!

  • 0
    0

    Sri Lanka is now a colony of China !!!

  • 0
    0

    Dear all,

    My question is if so called self determination is granted to Tamils and Tamil speakers in the Northern Province and the Eastern Province how does this continue into the future WITHOUT population migration restrictions.

    The Total population of Tamils in Sri Lanka is about 18%-21% looking at 1981 census data. If all the said group were to live in N & E province then they make up 80-90% of that province’s population yet it is only 21 % of the total population of Sri Lanka.

    So to keep the Northern and Eastern province a Tamil majority one would have to say some population movement restrictions or discouragements would have to be implemented. Otherwise the Sinhalese could become a majority in the Northern and Eastern province simply by population diffusion from high concentration to low concentration…

    How does this help Self Determination of Tamils ?
    Would not this lead to a separate state in the long run ?

  • 0
    0

    Reader Sinhala Voice may rest assured there will be no “population migration restrictions” in a future majority Tamil-speaking North (or what was the demerged NEP) Assuming, in the very unlikelihood event of some misguided bigot in the NP trying to bring such an unacceptable and foolish move in some future, the Centre can immediately neutralise the move. I see no difference in the Tamil-speaking majority of the North running their PC as the Sinhala-majority PCs of the SP, NCP, NWP and so on have been so far run. Just because Tamilnadu is physically a few hundred miles away across the seas does not mean Tamils of the NP can move their Province physically to the Indian mainland – a delusion that seems to have captured the many minds of Sinhalese in the South.
    At any rate, many others and I – with our experiences in South India for many decades, are aware the fairly well developed Tamilnadu
    State has absolutely no appetite to get involved in a Union with the Lankan NP/NEP. All they appear to want is for the Lankan Tamils to be allowed to run their affairs without molestation and free of injustice.
    It might be uncharitable to describe Tamilnadu will love to be free of a recurring headache both to them and New Delhi. I am glad many well-meaning and well informed Sinhalese recognise this undeniable reality.
    The opposition from the South comes from the mischievous extremists from the fringe and the pseudo-patriots as those desirous of keeping the Beggars wound in business.

    Senguttuvan

    • 0
      0

      Absolutely, We have no ambition to take even an inch of Srilanka, why would we need first when we all plan to leave to UK and US and settle there? Let the tamils live peacefully like we live in India, that’s all we want.

      • 0
        0

        manisekaran thangavelu

        “We have no ambition to take even an inch of Srilanka,”

        As far as Hindians are concerned Sri Lanka is a Sinhala state of India. If it is already theirs why should they take it back?

        It is only a matter of time before Sinhala/Buddhists would grudgingly accept mother India as the sole owner of this island.

        Hindians need not to lift a finger, just sit tight and wait.

    • 0
      0

      My question is :

      Tamils are demanding internal self determination in Northern and Eastern province.

      In the medium to long term how can this continue unless the Tamil population in the Northern and Eastern Province is more than (50%) + 1 of the total population in those provinces.

      Taking the fact that this Total population is currently at most only 20% of the total population of Sri Lanka…..

      UNLESS you have some form of apartheid it is impossible for the Northern and Eastern province to remain Tamil majority over long period…

      There is NO QUESTION ABOUT TAMIL NADU here !

      • 0
        0

        The proper count of the Tamil population in the NEP is not today’s
        doctored statistics. I would suggest the 1948 statistics i.e. before DS Senanayaka’s Colonisation Project began. Look at today’s statistics – in Batticoloa Tamils were ousted from the position of ruling the PC and where there is/was not a single Tamil Minister in the PC?????

        Senguttuvan

      • 0
        0

        Dear Sinhala Voice,
        If you think your assertion is correct, can you ask your Sinhalese people in the Western countries to raise a voice that Federalism would lead to separation. When those Sinhalese are living peacefully in those Federal countries and enjoining the benefits thereof, can you ask them to return to Sri Lanka. Be practical in your thinking and think positively.
        Moreover, I can vividly remember that when Buddhist monks told G.Parthasarathy that they do not require the advice of Prohithars (Brahmins), he immediately replied that he had not come at their invitation. Perhaps that may have landed Sri Lanka in the pit. Now why is Basil Rajapakse running to New Delhi to discuss about the 13th Amendment. Doen’t it show that Sri Lanka has bowed to India. What is the big idea of talking sovereignty.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.