21 September, 2018

Blog

On The Concepts Of Federalism & Secularism

By Surendra Ajit Rupasinghe

Surendra Ajit Rupasinghe

Surendra Ajit Rupasinghe

It is simply amazing how the very mention of these concepts in an open discourse on constitutional reform would immediately trigger frenzied, robotic responses from learned professors and self-appointed pundits. The response from Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka to Madam Chandrika’s remarks on the subject is instinctual, political and vituperative, and deliberately distorted and misleading.

Federalism

His argument has three main points. First, that federalism inherently contains the element of separatism. This is empirically unsupported, as in classic examples such as the US, India, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland etc. Not perfect examples, but where there is some degree of social cohesion, in spite of severe national and ethnic oppression in some cases. The second aspect of the argument that Sri Lanka is just too small a country to afford federalism is purely prejudiced and anti-democratic. When we deal with a question of an oppressed nation seeking liberation, the guiding criteria is not the size, but the democratic essence of the demand for dignity, equality, security, autonomy and democratic freedom. But, we cannot expect such a profound vision of democracy from a sycophantic, careerist, ideological agent of a rabidly chauvinist camp as that led by Mahinda Rajapaksa. Mahinda Rajapaksa’s credibility as a ‘patriot and defender’ of the Sinhala-Buddhist Nation has been completely and irrevocably demolished by his very own act of ‘betrayal’ when he bribed Prabhakaran to the tune of millions, which massive funds the latter would have used to grease up his war machine to kill Sinhala-Buddhist soldiers and civilians. He also gunned down unarmed Sinhala civilians who were exercising the fundamental right of democratic protest- the very same guns that killed unarmed Tamil civilians. Also, the attempted coup by him to suppress the presidential election results shows to what extent he would go to betray the sovereignty of the people, including the Sinhala Buddhist nation, simply to entrench his dynastic rule and dictatorship through perpetuity. The third major point of argument is that Federalism would certainly play into the hands of an expansionist Tamil Nadu. This is just fear-mongering designed to incite and mobilize his tribal-feudal, chauvinist political base and score points for his Master. There certainly could be such grand designs by some Tamil Nadu politicians. Precisely for the reason that foreign powers could and do play dirty politics with the Tamil nation that it must be decisively determined on a sustainable democratic basis. Indeed and in fact, it is the denial and violent suppression of nationhood and the attendant right of self-determination that has led to the politics of separatism and paved the way for foreign powers, including India, to sink their fangs into the lifelines of the people and the country. None are so blind as those who have eyes but refuse to see.

Towards a Transcending Solution

I have initiated a new framework and approach for resolving the Tamil National Question, sponsored by the Inter-Religious Peace Foundation in the form of a ‘Citizen’s Initiative for Constitutional Reform’. This new paradigm positively transcends the mutually exclusive polarities between a Federal State and a Unitary State. I have suggested a formula that calls for a Second Chamber constitutionally entrenched and empowered to protect the national-democratic rights of all nationalities, which would also elicit a constitutional pledge to a democratically constituted State. This would allay all fears of separation and provide a basis for all nationalities to enjoy parity of status, dignity, security and autonomy, as equal and indivisible partners and architects of a modern, unified democratic State. I have suggested that this would provide a solid and principled basis to forge a united, indivisible and integrated Sri Lankan Nation, to be forged on a voluntary basis. It is also a remedy against the ‘tyranny of the majority’. There are no perfect solutions. But we must strive to move forward and away from the dark era of enforced subordination, communal violence and war, which has violated and defiled us all and robbed us of our collective dignity and humanity.

Secularism: The Doctrine of Separation of State and Religion

A theocratic-supremacist State or a secular, democratic-pluralist State? In my opinion, all theocratic States have proven to be monstrous examples of extremely rigid, chauvinist-supremacist states- such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran, whereas, secular states such as the US, France, Germany, India etc, have at least relatively more cohesive, integrated and pluralist societies, with some degree of formal, constitutional guarantees and democratic freedoms. There is, of course severe national oppression in some of these countries, such as the US and India. Yet, there is no supreme religious ideological monopoly that prescribes a moral code and doctrine regulating and enforcing a particular set of values and forms of social activity. However, even these democratic freedoms are now being challenged by the rise of theocratic-fascist right-wing forces.

Religion has no place in politics and certainly not in modern democratic states. Religion is a profoundly personal and private affair, which ascribed sanctity is preserved when it is constitutionally separated from the affairs of the State. Religion played a dominant role as official state ideology during feudal times under monarchs who derived their absolute power to rule over their subjects from a ‘divine right’. This is an archaic form of State, long overthrown by the progress of history. Secularism – the separation of State and Religion – was a resounding cry of the Enlightenment of the 18th Century and given powerful expression by the foremost ideological vanguard of the bourgeois democratic revolution, such as Voltaire, and stands as a hallmark of modern civilized States.

The Perversion of Religion as Political Ideology

The temple had once functioned as a bastion of anti-colonial / national liberation struggle. Buddhism had once been a progressive doctrine that stood against superstition, and against enforced and arbitrary authority and hierarchy. The power of Buddhism derives from the injunction that all human beings must strive to achieve conscious self-determination and chose their path in Life through seeking truth. It has no place for dogma or official ideology. It posits no political authority over the interpretation or application of the Dhamma. It prescribes a quest for human liberation through self-realization. Then, what does it mean to define Buddhism as the foremost religion of the State? What has the increasing politicization of religion brought us? Let us look at the stark reality without fear and prejudice. Buddhism as a philosophy and way of life of seeking individual liberation by seeking truth through deep meditation and meritorious thought and deed, with compassion towards all beings, has been transformed into a rote, recitative dogma and ritual. With the exception of genuine and committed monks, the Sangha has become a caste-ridden, hierarchic, feudal enclave of power, wealth, status and privilege, and an instrument of political patronage and manipulation. So much so, that a leading Buddhist monk engineered the assassination of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, in the pursuit of commercial interests. The Bodu Bala Sena and its ilk are the modern prototypes of neo-fascist goon squads, acting in the name of the Lord Buddha and the Dhamma. The universally emancipating, noble vision of the Lord Buddha as encapsulated in the appeal; “Let all Beings be Free of Sorrow” is roundly and routinely defiled by such practices. In widespread instances, as in the Christian church, the temple has become a notorious hotbed of moral corruption and sexual abuse. Under state patronage, some places of worship have become opulent palaces of wealth and privilege – far away from the ascetic culture of self-denial and Pinda Patha. Any honest Buddhist would agree that the Maha Sangha, in general, has to be reformed and transformed into the noble vision of a selfless community of ascetics who are required to be exemplary models of philosophical wisdom, selflessness, moral fortitude and discipline in following and preaching the Dhamma – as lived and envisioned by Lord Buddha. This would require that the Maha Sangha, and Buddhism itself, be salvaged from being an instrument of State power and from reactionary, self-serving political agendas.

Towards a Transcending – Transformative Leap

But, as according to the pompous pontifications of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, there is to be no such transcending, transformative vision and program for a democratic restructuring of the State and constructing a new future as a united and liberated country. Not even an enlightened and engaged discourse. Just spitting out the venom of an embittered, irate and demented chauvinist camp that is desperate for returning to power, even at the cost of the disintegration of the country, the decomposition of the social order and the misery and degradation of the people. If we are ever to achieve a transcending -transformative leap beyond the dark era of violent division, terror, fear and war and lay claim to a new future of genuine independence, unity and democratic freedom, at the very least, there should be a spirited and open discourse and debate on the fundamental issues of division and conflict that have rent us apart. Redefining and radically restructuring the nature, structure, content and purpose of the State is at the heart of this process of rejuvenation. Every age and every profound crisis has brought forth an advanced leap in consciousness and practice in the process of social progress and historical social evolution. Our time has long since arrived.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 15
    2

    Ajith, your description of Dayan is J spot on (as many of us are already aware)!

    You also hit the nail on the head with your view of Sinhala Buddhism as being “the Perversion of Religion as Political Ideology”.

    All in all, a sound POV!

  • 13
    1

    QUOTE: “Religion has no place in politics and certainly not in modern democratic states. Religion is a profoundly personal and private affair, which ascribed sanctity is preserved when it is constitutionally separated from the affairs of the State.”

    This is so true! I don’t know why people can’t understand this. I am Buddhist. My belief is personal to me and me alone. The only thing the state should guarantee is the right to practice ones religion within certain common, neutral rules/laws. As a Buddhist I totally support a fair, secular state. As a Buddhists, the last thing I need is BBS or whatever extremists running the state. The best solution is neutral state. What is so hard to understand here?

    • 8
      0

      Very true,it’s being used a oppressive and divisive instrument,mainly manipulated by the crooked and dishonest politicians.The attire that is being used is only by the politicians are a farce,just to fool the people.
      We must have a secular country like UK,which is the best example of a decent country.

  • 3
    12

    /*

    When we deal with a question of an oppressed nation seeking liberation, the guiding criteria is not the size, but the democratic essence of the demand for dignity, equality, security, autonomy and democratic freedom.

    */

    I don’t think this guy is fluent in his own ideology.

    The Marxist definition of a nation is as follows.

    Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question (1913) declares that “a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people;” “a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people”; “a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation”; and, in its entirety: “a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.”

    The Tamils have neither lived “generation after generation” in the North East nor have they been a stable entity. Tamils are recent migrants to the north east.

    http://www.jaffnahistory.com/Northern_Province/Sinhala_Villages_of_Jaffna_1695.html

    Its the Sinhala and the Veddha people who qualify for nationhood.

    So in order to be “oppressed nation”, Tamils must fulfill criteria that meet the nationhood qualification first.

    Its donkeys like this who give dead ropes to Tamils.

    • 10
      4

      Dear de Silva!

      Please tell me when did your ancestors reach the shores of Lanka? 14th Century? 15th Century? Portuguese period? Dutch Period? Or English period? Study the history properly and write my dear!!

      • 4
        10

        Abimanasigham,

        You can question mine if your ancestors have a better record.

        It would be akin to a Pakistani in UK questioning the ancestry of an Anglo-Saxon!

        Its not appropriate. Do you understand?

    • 3
      0

      THE NATIONAL QUESTION HAS COME A LONG WAY SINCE THEN

      Stalin’s definition was in the a colonial era.
      The national question in the post-colonial era is different and has to address national oppression in the current context.

      The concept of self determination, initially proposed by Lenin, now needs to accommodate oppressed nationalities besides nations.

  • 1
    15

    Silva

    “Its donkeys like this who give dead ropes to Tamils.”

    With your permission may I replace the word ‘donkeys’ with ‘intellectuals’?

    Either way the truth of your statement remains unaffected.

    As you suggest let us not mislead the Tamils towards this mirage.

    There is no conceivable solution to the Tamil ethnic question.

    Reason?

    If the “TAMILS” for whom a ‘political solution’ is sought means ONLY the Tamil speaking Hindu and Christian people in the North EXCLUDING those who practise Islam and those arrived during the British then the numbers are insignificant amounting less than 5% of the total population.

    If the “TAMILS” for whom a ‘political solution’ is sought means ALL the Tamil speaking people in the Island INCLUDING those who practise Islam and those arrived during the British then the numbers are significant but they are all distributed across the island. No political Einstein can think of a practical devolution model which can satisfy at least 90% of them.

    Soma

    • 1
      8

      Soma,

      /*

      With your permission may I replace the word “donkeys” with “intellectuals”?

      */

      Of course you may!

      I shall continue to refer to the moron as a donkey because that is the only animal that fit his profile.

    • 3
      0

      soma,

      De Silva is reincarnated from Vibhushana who is a dispicable racist. You on the other hand are not far behind. I tell you again that there Is a conceivable solution to the Tamil question. You just need to come to terms with this reality. I know it is hard for you to accept but it will do you good for your own sole to gracefully accept!

      Tamils will not test until there is acceptable solution for them. Get used to it mate!

      • 0
        1

        B.I

        “Tamils will not test until there is acceptable solution for them. Get used to it mate!”

        Depends.

        If the “TAMILS” for whom a ‘political solution’ is sought means ONLY the Tamil speaking Hindu and Christian people in the North EXCLUDING those who practise Islam and those arrived during the British then the numbers are insignificant amounting less than 5% of the total population.

        If the “TAMILS” for whom a ‘political solution’ is sought means ALL the Tamil speaking people in the Island INCLUDING those who practise Islam and those arrived during the British then the numbers are significant but they are all distributed across the island. No political Einstein can think of a practical devolution model which can satisfy at least 90% of them.

        Regarding getting used to I don’t lose sleep on your imaginary scenarios.

        Soma

        • 3
          0

          somaaasss

          “If the “TAMILS” for whom a ‘political solution’ is sought means ONLY the Tamil speaking Hindu and Christian people in the North EXCLUDING those who practise Islam and those arrived during the British then the numbers are insignificant amounting less than 5% of the total population.”

          No I don’t agree that a political solution sought for “TAMILS, Hindus, and Christian”. It is unfair and unworkable.

          The only way to go about is that we will have to find solution to Sinhala/Buddhist problem. Then everything will fall into to where they should be or into places.

          Therefore lets start with your Sinhala/Buddhist problem. What exactly is your problem?

          If you don’t tell us we can’t deal with it. If we don’t deal with it, you will go on rioting against the minorities, burning and looting their properties, including business properties, homes, libraries, ..killing innocent people, raping their children, …..

          Open up pour your heart out, ….. we are listening, you don’t have to bottle up your colonial anger, …. You will feel better and sometimes a human.

          • 0
            3

            NV

            It is you who are asking a ‘political solution’ for “Tamils”. I am only trying to identify who the ‘Tamils’ are for the purpose of inviting them for a meaningful discussion.

            Soma

            • 3
              0

              somaaas

              It has been a Sinhala/Buddhist problem all along hence a solution is urgently needed for them, the noisy minority.

              Would a separate Sinhala/Buddhist ghetto in the deep deep south satisfy them?

              If Aryan Sinha Le Sinhala/Buddhists cannot live peacefully with rest of the people the island must consider giving them a piece of land which hopefully can be expected to isolate them from great majority, and live peacefully ever after.

              Where would you like to draw the borders?

              • 0
                1

                On the sea coast all around the island of Thambapanbi which has been existing for the last 2500 years.

                Soma

                • 4
                  0

                  somaasss

                  “On the sea coast all around the island of Thambapanbi which has been existing for the last 2500 years.”

                  There are plenty of geological evidences available to prove that the island existed much longer period than 2500 years.

                  The island was divided from India only in the last 7000 years.

                  And there were no concepts such as Sinhala/Buddhism and Sinhala/Buddhists until it came into vogue after the advent of Aryan Sinhala/Buddist public racist Anagarika Dharmapala (the homeless one).

                  As a person and part of community you lost, go look for your identity, land, religion and language in south India.
                  In fact according to prominent Indian historian Prof Champakalaksmi, there had been a few Simhala settlements in Thirunageshvaram (Kumaramarttandapuram) a nagaram (market centre) and in Tiruvalamculi.

                  You can build your Sinhala/Buddhist ghetto in those historical area.

  • 4
    15

    Ajith R. starts his response to me with “His argument has three main points. First, that federalism inherently contains the element of separatism.”

    Now that is nothing less than a downright lie and I challenge him to quote anything I wrote in that article or any other article in any other place at any other time, in over four decades of published writing, in which I say any such thing!

    He also has to answer the point as to why Marx and Engels so vehemently opposed federalism when Bakunin proposed it in the First International. That debate contributed to the split within and eventual end of the First International Workingmen’s Association.

    • 8
      2

      Thero has to stop beating around the bush. He has to take a bath before he comes here.

      Let us say Thero de Silva never said that federalism inherently contains the element of separatism, but just say for an argument Mallaiyuran is saying “that federalism inherently contains the element of separatism.” Will the Thero de Silva come forward and accept or deny the Mallaiyuran’s statement with his descriptive arguments. Thero is the most,ultimate, ridiculous, a penny worthless fraudulent crook.

      In the recently past few years, the fraud named Thero De Silva has been explicitly and impliedly in may of the context of the paragraphs, has been claiming that the Federalism is separation and all what Tamils asking for under name of Federal State is separation. Thero has been attacking the 13A, which is many times below a Federal Goverment Structure, but only and structure to decentralise the EP’s authority, and in which he was part of the failed N_E PC, as power sharing mechanism and he wanted that modified and restricted. He even attacked recently Varadhar, the N_E PC’s India appointed unelected CM, and used P.Richards’ and J.R.’s statements to show that how Varadhar concepts were not accepted.

      Further in many, many places, when Thero was way held back in his blunt logic, by his own blunt logic, he shamelessly claimed that if the Tamils are not asking for separation now and only asking for Federal State, that only a hidden agenda of separating as soon as they get the Federal State. Thero never, ever cited how those all will be practically possible or never, ever discussed any practical step would be need in the proposed Federal Constitutions he has been having in his minds to make them a realistic separation. He never quoted from political theory developed in the history in which’s time the Ceylon had received freedom, other than bringing some fungus infected two-three centuries old Marx’s and Stalin’s quotes. Then writes about what Napoleon said about Patriotism. If he has nothing there to quote, he bring here what his granny told about Mahavamsa and Athula. Will ever a learned man up to high school would have quoted in his article for an exam from his granny theories on Athula? He take the pain to bring those rubbish with his ill mind only because he wants to refuse freedom to Tamils. It is not just he bring Fungus and moles infection though his writings, he is not just holding the Sinhala mass on their throat not being able to wake up and see the civilization growing out there in the shine of democracy, he is a moles and fungus infested and outdated man needs physical and mental help to get out of his foreign label feeding bottles.

      There was many things, many times writers have corrected of his faulty writing. In defense to that all what Thero de Silva does is naively deny that is not what he said. Just for the sake of an argument, if the criticizing writer has honestly misinterpreted his, Thero never rephrased what he originally meant and tried to clarify. He knows what mistake he made earlier was tightly locked and it cannot be rephrased to twist and cheat the readers.

      Thero is accused by many on a very serious charge of that portraying him as a political pundit to the politically ignorant Sinhala Buddhist and of spreading racism by falsely preaching the Federal Sate is separation. He could not not defend him from the grave pit he digged for him. So he is very childishly raising funny counter question. Here how his comedy goes:He also has to answer the point as to why Marx and Engels so vehemently opposed federalism when Bakunin proposed it in the First International. This can come out as output from a man aged like Thero is only because of the foreign label feeding bottles. He is such an idiot to try to divert the question from Tamils-Sinhala issue by bring an outdated ideological one sided quote. When was the Tamils appointed these people as their judges and when Tamils told Thero their saying are the benefit for Tamils? How he is going to avoid another armed struggle breaking out by sticking on these quotes?

      Now, “His argument has three main points. First, that federalism inherently contains the element of separatism. This is empirically unsupported, as in classic examples such as the US, India, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland etc. Not perfect examples, but where there is some degree of social cohesion, in spite of severe national and ethnic oppression in some cases.” this cut and past reasonable holding in tact the context. I have bolded only the substance of the paragraph.

      If Thero has capacity to talk on any subject, I ask him talk on the bolded statement which Surendra Ajit Rupasinghe has stated.

      On your marks, Get set, Ready, go Thero! Start to Talk.

  • 6
    1

    as in classic examples such as the US, India, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland etc. Not perfect examples, but where there is some degree of social cohesion, in spite of severe national and ethnic oppression in some cases

    India did not exist. So first it will take time to India to become fully exist and then achieve a desirable level of freedom to the citizens.

    But the first prize of achievement goes to America. There is no example in the recent history comparable to violent birth of America. The entire continent’s first nation was practically wiped out to capture the land. Then Africa was cordoned, slaves were captured and transferred. Even the most of the whites arrived came as indentured slave workers. That was the start of the nation. With in three hundred years, it stated the model constitution. Whites wiped 1/10 of the whites in the civil war to liberate the blacks. Still blacks shoot the policemen and whites police shoot Blacks. Trump can come up in primary. But as a nation whole, they all get rejected at the end of the day, democracy leads and divisions die.

    We Lankaweyans has been bragging of 2500 years of history. Genetically one single race, Dravidian-came from south India live there. But invent shameless uncivilized, horrific stories of sleeping with wild animals to falsify this scientific fact and create artificial divisions. Hinduism and Buddhism are not two different religions. But at least for 1700 years we have been singing Buddham Saranam Gacchami. But the recent achievement of the nations is 145,000 butchered in five months. Country has been named as one in 20 nasty nations use rape as weapon. The second highest in forcefully missing persons. Fourth worst in the media freedom and murders. It is not is is too small to implement Federalism, but it is too small to carry these big titles. It is the citizen of Dumindha Silva in the UN.

  • 2
    9

    Another Non-Buddhist agent but with a Sinhala name have contributed his two-cents worth opinion on behalf of the Non-Buddhist Malayali woman.

    Is lack of Federalism the most acute problem in Sri Lanka? Sri Lanka has become a Begging Bowl of the world for following the doctrine preached by SWRDB School of Corruptions and the JRJ School of Corruptions. Obviously you have not attended them but may be running errands to them

    So Mr. Rupasinghe it appears you are the spokesperson on this occasion for the SWRDB School of Corruption and the JRJ School of Corruptions.

    It looks like even you are not convinced about the application of Federalism on a country that was founded by the Sinhala people and existed since 543 BC as a Sovereign Unitary State. That is before your acquired religion was founded. You have said;

    “A theocratic-supremacist State or a secular, democratic-pluralist State? In my opinion, all theocratic States have proven to be monstrous examples of extremely rigid, chauvinist-supremacist states- such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran, whereas, secular states such as the US, France, Germany, India…”

    You are obviously a confused spin master, that is why you have lumped France (Unitary State) with other Federal States. Chandrika, Ranil and you better understand; US, Germany and India were formed by amalgamating independent group of territories, kingdoms, fiefdoms, bush-lands, and bantu-lands. All were controlled by different rulers, maharajahs, kings, tribal chiefs etc…

    SRI LANKA was never an amalgamation of independent kingdoms or fiefdoms. It is a single landmass with no shared boundaries. It is not logical to create some artificial boundary based on language spoken in order to appease certain ethnicity and enhance the survivability of SWRDB School of Corruptions and JRJ School of Corruptions.

    The dubious Sri Lankan characters in politics say federalism does not lead to division of the country. What an idiotic lopsided argument. “Divisions through the shared boundaries” defined the founding principle of “FEDERALISM”.

    Chandrika has given lot of advices in the past or “not to do’s” this time she has added “And don’t stuff beans up your nose!”. This lady knows very well, what the perennial enemies of Sinhala-Buddhist nation will do.
    that was founded and existed since

  • 0
    0

    [Edited out]

  • 4
    0

    Let anybody say anything, argue the pros and cons of Federalism ,the Tamils are not going to get anything beyond the present Provincial Council system with powers to the centre and the Governor. The 13th Amendment is a bad form of legislation. Number 13 is itself a bad number. The president who was elected by the Tamil people, declared in his speech at the Council that Sri lanka is a Buddhist country which spells out majoritism and the minorities are second class citizens. Why did he bring religion and politics together. That is why the government is building Buddhist Temples all over the Northern peninsula.
    The shameless TNA members of parliament holding posts in the government and supporting the government in its racially motivated anti-Tamil activities. The TNA depended on India to solve the Tamil problem but failed miserably. Then they depended on the United States and that too failed and when that too failed they are silent.
    If the government is genuine for reconciliation with the Tamils, initially it would have released all lands held by the army to its owners instead of colonising , released all political prisoners, got rid of the Terrorism act, giving the full powers to the Provincial council to administer the Northern Province without interference.

  • 6
    0

    Tamil Leaders Opposed When Sinhalese Leaders Proposed Federalism

    “A thousand and one objections could be raised against the system, but when the objections are dissipated, I am convinced that some form of Federal Government will be the only solution’” – S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike in 1926.

    “We suggest the creation of a federal state as in the United States of America” – Kandyan National Assembly in 1927.

  • 2
    9

    Ajith’s political ideology is Racist – socialism. In other words, racism based socialism to promote political demands of minorities. I think, this time he has added Secularism to that too.

    Which religion accepts secularism ?

    All the Indian religions accepts secularim. but, middle eastern two political religions are aggressive, expansionist, totallitarian. Most probably ajith also was born a christian. but, now a racist socialist.

    • 8
      1

      jim softy Dimwit

      “Most probably ajith also was born a christian. but, now a racist socialist.”

      Most probably your parents were Buddhists.

      However, since you are racist it appears that converted to Sinhala/Buddhism about 60 years ago. At the time of your conversion from Buddhism to Sinhala/Buddhism, wasn’t it cool to be a public racist?

  • 0
    0

    If Prabakaren won the war where would the stupid sinhalaya be today. One thing for sure, all rajapaksas would be executed

    • 0
      1

      Hey LTTE rat;

      I don’t have any love for Rajapaksas now. But not only Rajapaksas your mentor and your guiding beacon would have turned our beloved motherland into another Cambodia under Polpot. The terrorist VP would have wiped-out at least 50% (fifty percent) of the Sinhala-Buddhists and turned the other fifty percent into slavery.

      Dream on fellow, that is why we need a strong military to protect our existence.

      • 2
        0

        //”The terrorist VP would have wiped-out at least 50% (fifty percent) of the Sinhala-Buddhists and turned the other fifty percent into slavery.”//

        He had no imperialism aims. You’re regurgitating one of your typical Sinhala paranoid delusions.

        “We do not regard the Sinhala people as our opponents or as our enemies. We recognise the Sinhala nation. We accord a place of dignity for the culture and heritage of the Sinhala people. We have no desire to interfere in any way with the national life of the Sinhala people or with their freedom and independence. We, the Tamil people, desire to live in our own historic homeland as an independent nation, in peace, in freedom and with dignity.” – V.Prabhakaran

        “The inherent aspirations of our people do not in any way hamper the national interests of any country or people.” – VP

        “We are not enemies of the Sinhala people, nor is our struggle against them. It is because of the oppressive policy of the racist Sinhala politicians that contradictions arose between the Sinhala and Tamil nations, resulting in a war. We are fighting this war against a state and its armed forces determined to subjugate our people through the force of arms. We are well aware that this war has not only affected the Tamils but also affects the Sinhala people deeply. Thousands of innocent Sinhala youth have perished as a consequence of the repressive policies of the war mongering ruling elites. We are also aware that it is the Sinhala masses who are bearing the economic burden of the war. Therefore, we call upon the Sinhala people to identify and renounce the racist forces committed to militarism and war and to offer justice to the Tamils in order to put an end to this bloody war and to bring about permanent peace.

        The Tamil people want to maintain their national identity and to live in their own lands, in their historically given homeland with peace and dignity. They want to determine their own political and economic life; they want to be on their own. These are the basic political aspirations of the Tamil people. It is neither separatism nor terrorism. These demands do not constitute a threat to the Sinhala people. They do not in any way affect or undermine the political liberties or the social, economic and cultural life of the Sinhala people.”- VP
        http://www.tamilnation.co/ltte/vp/mahaveerar/vp01.htm

        “For him, Tamil Eelam belongs to the Tamils and they have the sovereign right over their territory. Indeed, he has neither demonstrated nor articulated any aspiration to annex traditional Sinhala territory nor does he dream of an expansionist greater Eelam as projected by some Indian critics.” – Adele Balasingham, ‘Will to Freedom, The: An Inside View of Tamil Resistance’

  • 0
    0

    What aconcotionn of meaningless hyperbole from the NGO representative. Just loot the last paragraph-Decomposition, disintegration, degradation!.
    Rupasinghe has picked the consequent words from the thesaurus.
    Just for few dollars!

  • 1
    1

    Frankly,SAR replying to Dayan is infradig.
    Anyway,you have condescended to do so!
    Cheers.

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.