The Rajapaksa regime has officially confirmed it is in fact in agreement with a position taken recently by the State newspaper Daily News and its Editor Rajpal Abeynayake, by issuing a statement claiming that many of the religious worship targeted in mob attacks were those operating in violation of the guidelines governing the establishment of such place. “ It has generally been found that these incidents have been a reaction on the part of the community resident in those areas,” the Ministry of External Affairs said in its rebuttal of remarks by visiting US Assistant Secretary of State on South and Central Asian Affairs.
Foreign Minister
“With respect to incidents that have raised concerns the minister observed that in many instances the facilities concerned were not mosques or churches but makeshift prayer centers whose operations had irked relevant communities. He pointed out that there are laws regarding the establishment of places of religious worship,” Minister G.L. Peiris said, according to the Nation Newspaper.
Biswal had underscored concerns about continuing religious intolerance and attacks on mosques and churches in Sri Lanka during her concluding press briefing yesterday.
In response, the External Affairs Ministry said that attributing blame to the government for these incidents was totally unwarranted. “While legal action has been taken with regard to some incidents, others have been settled amicably. Therefore, the criticism is grossly disproportionate and politically motivated,” the Ministry said.
The sentiments echo the reasoning by Abeynayake who recently authored an editorial in the Rajapaksa state newspaper Daily News, alleging genocide against the Sinhalese people. “For example the Sinhala majority in this country is often not permitted to do anything tangible about aggressive proselytization which is carried on through the twin instruments of unethical conversions and the illegal or barely legal establishment of churches etc., on ground that was previously occupied by Buddhist temples, or on property that has simply not been authorized for the purpose of establishing places of religious worship,” Abeynayake’s editorial in January said.
Neither the Daily News nor the Sri Lankan Government appear to comprehend that the excuses being made for mob violence are tantamount to justifying the attacks against minority religions. In the case of the Hikkaduwa church attacks for instance, the most recent case, the “community” in the area were claiming that the churches were operating in violation of an October 2008 circular issued by the Ministry of Religious Affairs, making reference to places of religious worship set up with effect from that date, claiming they would need authorisation from the Ministry. However, both churches had been in operation since the late 1990s.
essie / February 3, 2014
Jesus said ‘wherever two or three are gathered in My name, there I am with them’. He gave us the licence to pray in groups. I did not realise that I had to have a GOSL licence as well!!!
/
Sandy / February 3, 2014
Hi Essie(:
/
Off the Cuff / February 3, 2014
Dear essie,
Praying is not causing the unrest.
Attempting unethical religious conversions are doing so.
What I cannot understand is the need to use anything other than preaching the virtues of God to increase the flock. Is it because the word of God is not that enticing?
Kind Regards,
OTC
/
Cyril de Alwis / February 4, 2014
The major religious conversion in Sri Lanka, according to my opinion, was done by Indian Buddhists. When King Ashoka’s children came to Sri Lanka, there was not a single Buddhist. I believe they have forcibily converted all Sri Lankan to Buddhism. Don’t forget, the King Ashoka, before he became a Buddhist, he was one of most brutal kings ever lived in India.
Cyril
/
Off the Cuff / February 5, 2014
Dear Cyril de Alwis,
Re “The major religious conversion in Sri Lanka, according to my opinion, was done by Indian Buddhists. When King Ashoka’s children came to Sri Lanka, there was not a single Buddhist”
You are absolutely right.
Re “I believe they have forcibily converted all Sri Lankan to Buddhism.”
Your belief is irrelevant. Anyone can believe anything. There is no record of ANY carcase of any being (including animals) coming back to life. Yet many believe that it did happen though there is absolutely no proof of such a medical marvel.
You need to provide evidence that the conversion took place by coercion. However there is overwhelming evidence that Christianity was established in Sri Lanka by forced conversion.
Re “Don’t forget, the King Ashoka, before he became a Buddhist, he was one of most brutal kings ever lived in India.”
Absolutely right again. Was he a Hindu before?
What your statement proves is that Buddhism moulded that Brute into a compassionate Human being.
Kind Regards,
OTC
/
Dawn Dale / February 5, 2014
this is disputed now. Newest findings indicates that Buddhism was in SL long before Mahinda Thero came to SL. but during that time there was a huge influx of persecuted Buddhists from India to SL so it would have established as a major religion then.
/
JimSofty / February 3, 2014
In Democratic countries even A shanty hut cannot be set up and is not allowed to operate as a gathering place for people because it violates fire regulations.
It is only in Sri Lanka where ignorant and stupid bureaucrats and corrupt politicians are operating, These people can do any thing and every thing.
/
aratai / February 3, 2014
.
Peiris…… a Portuguese saying that “there are laws in Sri Lanka regarding the establishment of places of religious worship,”
:-)
/
OutRider / February 3, 2014
Blaming the government for the attacks on mosques and churches is like blaming the US government for Christian hate mongering against other religions, Islamophobia, anti-Burqa-Hijab-Niqaab movements, and attacks on Hindu temples, mosques & synagogues that take place not too infrequently there.
/
paul / February 3, 2014
Dear [Edited out] Rider
if any religious / race based attack is carried out, in any country, and the perpetrators are allowed to go unpunished, then the law enforcement and indirectly the government of that country is definitely to blame for encouraging these acts of violence.
/
OutRider / February 4, 2014
Paul
Yes, I accept the Americans are smarter. The US government meticulously goes through the motions of law enforcement in dealing with hate crimes and racist attacks, while it has highly secretive covert agencies to carry out its clandestine activities against its own citizens and communities.
/
Marwan / February 3, 2014
It just may be your poor understanding of the dynamics involved. There is nothing of the sort that can happen without the government’s tacit support. Even the peaceful campaign held against hate speech (candle light vigil) was squashed using the strong arm of the law, in support of the saffron robed bigots. The constabulary which is the lap dog of the government is made mute in the face of marauding saffron robed thugs. What more do you need as evidence to prove that the government is hand in glove with these undisciplined extremists. The behavioral pattern of present day Sri Lankans are quite unique, and unlike any other country. So don’t expect similarities in comparison.
/
OutRider / February 3, 2014
Marwan
“The behavioral pattern of present day Sri Lankans are quite unique, and unlike any other country. So don’t expect similarities in comparison.”
Isn’t this the kind of racist stereotyping and essentialist notion of identity you were supposed to be fighting against. You got carried away there because of your undisguised hatred of Sri Lankans.
/
jansee / February 3, 2014
In short, this lame and dumb FM is telling that if there are places of worship set-up without observing the relevant bye-laws, then Buddhist goons have a passport to vandalise, threaten and cause damage and harm to them. Where is the rule of law? If there is any contravention of bye-laws in setting up religious places, it is the govt that should take action, not allow goons, and for the most part Buddhist monks which essentially becomes a problem between religious entities. How on earth this guy was a law professor?
/
maali / February 5, 2014
BBS is the new police set up by the regime. GL prof of law is admitting the fact that BBS and the like can take the law into their hands.
/
crazyoldmansl / February 3, 2014
Sexy man. The external ministers brain is pickled. How easily a once respected academic has become a rug on which the dirt on the jackboots of the regime is rubbed off.
/
Sandy / February 3, 2014
‘..makeshift prayer centers whose operations had irked relevant
communities.’
So it’s o.k. for the ‘irked’ to vandalize ‘makeshift prayer centers?’
Please..Worship who ever or what ever you want.Your own self if you
wish.
Just let us worship our God. In Peace.
/
Safa / February 3, 2014
“With respect to incidents that have raised concerns the minister observed that in many instances the facilities concerned were not mosques or churches but makeshift prayer centers whose operations had irked relevant communities. He pointed out that there are laws regarding the establishment of places of religious worship,” Minister G.L. Peiris said, according to the Nation Newspaper.
RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE? COOKED UP STORY says the Daily Noise
GLP should reveal the laws with regard to the establishment of places of religous worship. Then people can decide if these are required or not. Who are these relevant communities who have been irked? It is a shame that a so called Prof of Law and Minister endorses the actions of facist groups like BBS, SR and RB. These are not local communities but fringe extremist groups beating the drums of hate and intolerance. Does he know any laws regarding the criminal activities of such groups? Why does the Govt take any action against these groups? Are they not terrorists?
/
Leo / February 3, 2014
I had the opportunity of showing video clips of church attak by buddhist monks to my foreign frinds and show them what kind of religion buddhism is.
/
spark / February 3, 2014
Please do not blame buddhism and comparing this to the criminal and uncivilised behaviour of sinhalese. The sinhalese are a race that converted to buddhism, thanks to Mahinda thera, however dispite this their barberous nature continues. Today, they plant statues of Lord Buddha almost in the most ludicrous places they can find, even next to fish markets or vine stores and on top of drains and blast pirith on loudspeakers all because they have not been able to inbibe the true preachings of Lord Buddha. The three wheeler drivers (notorious as they are) have become the administrators of buddhism, thus you cannot find a three wheeler stand without a buddha statue and loudspeaker. Buddhism is used as a tool to perform all the uncivilised and criminal acts of racism and religeos intolerance, making the sinhalese actually the worst example to buddhism world over. Buddhism should not be allowed to be insulted the way it is being done by the sinhalese in Sri Lanka. This requires the support of all exemplary buddhist countries, mainly India and China to make a joint statement condemning the shameless manner that the sinhalese are corrupting and desicrating buddhism.
/
pasel / February 3, 2014
there are two kinds of Buddhism in sri lanka this kind calls government supported terrorist Buddhism
other one is people supported Buddhism
/
Ricky Breeze / February 3, 2014
Even if the these churches, prayer centre’s, kovils,mosques or temples or the people associated with them broke the law, then it is the duty of the law enforcement agencies that have to step in. The Minister of External Affairs slip is exposed badly in that the monks and hooligans are allowed to act with impunity with the law enforcers being spectators. No person should be allowed to take take the law into their own hands. When the State cannot act, to protect the law, then it becomes a case of intolerance which the MEA cannot deny. How did this minister become professor of law? Such attacks can take place anywhere in the world, but the law enforcers generally act.
/
Yoosuf / February 3, 2014
Persi and Peris are demolishing this country
/
bganendra / February 3, 2014
FROM WHERE DID 100 ODD BUDDIST TEMPLES PROP UP ON THE A9 ROAD. hOW MANY WORSHIPERS ARE THERE ON THE A9 ROAD.
/
Off the Cuff / February 3, 2014
Dear Readers,
When Christianity had State sponsorship, proselytization was the order of the day. Then differences were settled by Public Debate, the most famous of which was the Panadura Debate. Today even the main stream Christian Churches complain about proselytization carried on by the Born Again Christians.
It is to be noted that religious conversions per se has not caused religious disharmony as it has been going on for centuries.
Does this mean that there is a case for making unethical religious conversions a criminal act?
Kind Regards
OTC
/
Siva Sankaran Sarma / February 3, 2014
What is unethical? The last time I checked no one was being lassoed and dragged and forced to become a christian at gun point.
If the NEW church can satisfy some primal need of the people going there and the OLD churches or the Buddhist temples cannot satisfy that need then it is not the fault of the people.
I have seen even hindu’s being converted by these new churches, but I don’t see them attacking these new churches. Why is it that the Buddhists feel threatened ? Is is because they are preaching a pseudo religion and fear being found out?
Watch and enjoy the attack on a Dumbulla Mosque:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTchxH8RKJw
/
Off the Cuff / February 3, 2014
Dear Siva Sankaran Sarma,
Re “What is unethical?”
Anything other than preaching one’s religion to others in order to convince them of the virtues of their own religion.
The primal need you identify with is causing unrest. My question was whether that unrest makes a case for making unethical religious conversions a criminal act?
Kind Regards,
OTC
/
Robert.R / February 3, 2014
“Anything other than preaching one’s religion to others in order to convince them of the virtues of their own religion.”
Are you are suggesting that material things are given to persuade them to change their religion?
Well if the people who are changing are truly Buddhist to begin with, they wouldn’t be persuaded by material things , would they?
So it that is the case, then why worry about the fake Buddhist leaving? Wouldn’t that leave behind the pure believers?
I would think that would be a cause for celebration that with time Buddhism become pure !
The claim of mass scale conversions doesn’t make sense when you look at the population growth. The Christian population has in fact gone down. So hopefully those who are “unethically converted” as you claim are not automatically being vaporized to heaven, that would be a tragedy !
/
Off the Cuff / February 4, 2014
Dear Robert R,
Re “Are you are suggesting that material things are given to persuade them to change their religion?”
If the above is news to you, you may not be living in Sri Lanka.
In answering the above I am referring you to an earlier post of mine in order to keep my comment here as short as possible. Please see my comment on January 14, 2014 at 5:40 pm in the discussion at https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/video-buddhist-monk-led-mob-attacked-christian-church
Let’s see what the Supreme Court of India says
Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) (1) SCC 677
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice A.N. Ray interpreted the word `propagate’ used in Article 25(1) of the Constitution as `defined’ in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary – “to spread from person to person, or from place to place, to disseminate, diffuse (a statement, belief, practice etc.)” and in the Century Dictionary (which is an Encyclopaedic Lexicon of the English Language) Vol. VI – “to transmit or spread from person to person or from place to place; carry forward or onward; diffuse; extend; as `propagate’ a report; `propagate’ the Christian religion.” The Bench observed: “We have no doubt that it is in this sense that the word `propagate’ has been used in Article 25 (1), for what the Article grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets.”
My Note:- As can be seen from the above, the right to propagate is not synonymous with the right to convert. The right to propagate was upheld as a fundamental right while the right to convert was disallowed.
Referring to Article 25(1), Chief Justice Ray, writing for the Court, held: What the Article grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has to be remembered that Article 25(1) guarantees A freedom of conscious to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion and that, in turn, postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenets of his religion, that would impinge on the “freedom of conscience” guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike (wiki)
Ms Maria Correa in a paper discussing Anti Conversion Laws of India states,
Today, anti-conversion laws are in force in the states of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Gujarat.
While these laws do not prohibit religious propagation, they aim to protect against ‘forcible conversion’ using the following terms: ‘No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religion to another by use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means, nor shall any person abet any such conversion.’ A major criticism of these Acts is the use of uncertain terminology; while the various terms used are statutorily defined, these definitions remain vague. Force refers to ‘show of force or threat of injury or threat of divine displeasure or social ex-communication.’ This broad definition restricts interactions between potential converts and propagators of a religion. Inducement is defined as inclusive of ‘the offer of any gift or gratification, either in cash or in kind and shall also include the grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise.’
Singapore
The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (“MRHA”) is a Singapore statute which, according to its long title, provides for the maintenance of religious harmony, for the establishment of a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (“PCRH”), and for matters connected therewith. The Act, which was passed on 9 November 1990 and came into force on 31 March 1992, empowers the Minister for Home Affairs to make a restraining order against a person who is in a position of authority in any religious group or institution if the Minister is satisfied that the person has committed or is attempting to commit any of the following acts: causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups;….(please refer wiki for more details)
Inter-religious tensions were largely attributed to aggressive and insensitive proselytization by religious groups, mostly Protestant churches and organizations. Examples cited in the ISD report annexed to the white paper included tensions in August 1986 when Hindus found posters publicizing a Christian seminar pasted at the entrance to their temple, and when Christian missionaries distributed pamphlets to devotees going into temples along Serangoon Road.
Unethical Religious Conversions have caused many problems elsewhere in the world not just in Sri Lanka. Is God’s word not enticing enough that it has to be supplemented by other unethical means? If it has to be supplemented then those who indulge in such activities KNOW that God’s word is simply not enough!
Do we have a case for a Law preventing unethical proselytization?
Kind Regards
OTC
/
Robert.R / February 4, 2014
You didn’t really answer my question, a long word count still does not equal an ANSWER.
If as you say material wealth is leading people to christianity, then why is the census showing a drop in numbers?
/
Spring Koha / February 4, 2014
A drop in numbers? could it be martyrdom?
/
Robert.R / February 4, 2014
That’s worse than being vaporized ;-)
/
Off the Cuff / February 5, 2014
Dear Robert,
My post posed a question regarding whether there is a case for criminalising unethical proselytization. Yours did not answer my question and rather avoided it.
Your question “Are you are suggesting that material things are given to persuade them to change their religion?” was answered in the post that I referred you to.
Your second question “Well if the people who are changing are truly Buddhist to begin with, they wouldn’t be persuaded by material things, would they?” was childish because it is not about conversions that I was writing about but the reaction from radicalised elements which is a threat to peace. My second post made it clear that the reaction that you see from radicalised elements in Lanka is the same as the reaction from the Hindus in India. Hence there is a common denominator that is causing a threat to peace.
That common denominator is unethical conversions.
Christianity gained a foot hold in Sri Lanka due to such forced State backed Unethical Conversions.
What you admit by that question is that God’s word alone is worthless and that you have to BUY allegiance to GOD.
Re “The claim of mass scale conversions doesn’t make sense when you look at the population growth. The Christian population has in fact gone down”
Please quote your statistics and the source then we can discuss.
Re “So hopefully those who are “unethically converted” as you claim are not automatically being vaporized to heaven, that would be a tragedy !”
I wouldn’t know whether they get vaporised or not but if Unethical Conversions are not checked there are signs that even moderates will get radicalised resulting in a serious situation that can potentially snowball out of control developing.
Kind Regards,
OTC
/
Robert.R / February 5, 2014
For the statistics look at the census dept., it clearly shows a slight drop in numbers of Christians and an INCREASE in the number of Buddhists.
Its not unethical conversions that need to be banned but people who react who need to be punished.
I don’t believe there is such thing as “unethical” to begin with.
/
Off the Cuff / February 6, 2014
Dear Robert,
Re “I don’t believe there is such thing as “unethical” to begin with. ”
Well neither the Indian Supreme court nor the States of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Gujarat that have Anti conversion Laws in their Statute books share your liberal view. Wonder why that is.
Are you one of those born again Christians who cannot convince people by preaching the WORD of God and hence have to BUY their allegiance? Are you not DEMEANING your God by doing that?
Re “Its not unethical conversions that need to be banned but people who react who need to be punished”
My my so though you denied it, you actually knew that their is something called UNETHICAL conversions?
Why don’t you try converting citizens in any one of those 6 Indian States using the identical methods that you employ in Lanka and test your contention?
Re “For the statistics look at the census dept., it clearly shows a slight drop in numbers of Christians and an INCREASE in the number of Buddhists”
It is not for me to go in search of statistics to prove your contention, it is your responsibility to do so.
The NUMBER of Buddhists will ALWAYS have a higher increase as their are nearly 15 million Buddhists in Lanka, which is more than ten times the number of Christians.
Apparently there is a case for introducing Laws against UNETHICAL Conversions in the interest of AMITY between Religions.
Kind Regards,
OTC
/
Sandy / February 3, 2014
‘Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus..He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God.For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
“How can a man be born again when he is old? ” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born?”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again’…” (John.ch.3.Holy Bible)
/
Park / February 3, 2014
Is GL saying that people can take law into their own hands? If these places of worship were unauthorized then legal proceedings should be instituted against them. Is GL saying that the law and order in the country has gone to the dogs with the appointment of the new Inspector General of the Police and the Cheap Justice, that the people have to resort to violence to sort out matters? What a stupid argument. I thought all these days GL was stupid but definitely not to this extent. He is a law professor what is he trying to say? What sort of a person is he, he is giving more ammunition to those who want to attack SL in the international forums. What a shame.
/
Suha Cassim / February 3, 2014
Please, can you untwist yourself? Rajapakse State Newspaper?? I mean seriously…
/
Rajash / February 3, 2014
“ It has generally been found that these incidents have been a reaction on the part of the community resident in those areas,”
(a)what a lie…these are well organised attack by BBS etc and the goons are brought in form oyut side the area.
(b)ok eveen if assume it’s illegal…there is no need to parade the violent Sri Lankan Sinhala Buddhism to the world. Instead these things ca be done in a civilised manner
(c)the objective of these organised attacks is to video record them and air it to the Simhala Masses to creat racial hatred
/
ravi / February 3, 2014
Sinhala Buddhist used Christian as their new weapon for cover up total sinhalization in north and east Tamil land same they used LTTE and war for 30 years.Christian without knowing sinhala Buddhist playing dangerous game and first victims will be Tamil…don’t let gota lead BBS come power in down south…
/
Off the Cuff / February 3, 2014
Dear Ravi,
Dear Ravi,
Re “north and east Tamil land”
There is no such thing as Tamil Land.
Sri Lanka is owned by ALL her citizens. No part of it is owned by ANY ethnic group.
Since you try to lay claim to part of Lanka, the following record in the Dutch National Archive should open your eyes.
Quote
Elephant Pass
De compagnie stond in de 17de eeuw dikwijls op vijandelijke voet met de koning van Kandy, die sterk verbonden was met het boeddhistische deel van de Ceylonese bevolking. Bij Elephant Pass was een smalle landengte waar een fort gebouwd werd om de grens met het gebied van de koning te bewaken. Olifanten die op Ceylon waren gevangen, werden langs dit punt naar Jaffna gebracht om verkocht te worden in India, vandaar de naam Elephant Pass.
In English
Elephant Pass
During the 17th century the Company was engaged in a war of attrition with the king of Kandy, who had close ties with Ceylon’s Buddhist population. There was a narrow tongue of land at Elephant Pass a fort was built to guard the border with the king’s territory. Elephants captured on Ceylon were herded past here to Jaffna to be sold in India, hence the name Elephant Pass.
The border of the Sinhalese Kandyan Kingdom ran through Elephant Pass. That excludes the whole of the East from your claim.
Kind Regards,
OTC
/
Anpu / February 4, 2014
Disagreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jaffna_Kingdom.jpg
/
Off the Cuff / February 6, 2014
Dear Anpu,
Your map cannot over ride the Dutch Government Record about the Border between the Jaffna Kingdom and the Sinhala Kandyan Kingdom.
The Dutch statement proves beyond any doubt, from a completely independent source, that when the Dutch Ruled Jaffna, the BORDER of the Kandyan Kingdom ran through Elephant Pass.
Since the Portuguese defeated the Jaffna King and the Dutch conquered Jaffna by defeating the Portuguese, the Border of the Jaffna Kingdom would remain at what it was JUST before the Portuguese conquest of the Jaffna Kingdom.
Unless you can show that the King of the Sinhala Kingdom altered the pre existing boundary of the Jaffna Kingdom by fighting the Portuguese and chasing them beyond Elephant Pass or that the King of the Sinhala Kingdom did the same thing to the Dutch, the Dutch Historical record FIRMLY establishes that the BORDER between the Jaffna Kingdom, BEFORE it was conquered by the Portuguese and that of the Sinhala Kingdom was at Elephant Pass.
Kind Regards,
OTC
/
Maghribi / February 8, 2014
Off the Cuff
Impressed with your train of thought
If, Sri Lanka is owned by ALL her citizens. No part of it is owned by ANY ethnic group. Is this a legal position in the Sri Lankan constitution? If it is then why do the Buddhists claim as a Buddhist country.
/
Rajash / February 3, 2014
OTC
your transalation defiens what Elepahnt Pass is.
Elephants were hereded throught the elephant pass to Jaffana.
It implies Jaffana is in a different country.
The Elephants are sold to India from Jaffana.
It implies Jaffna had close trading links with India.
It implies Tamils in Jaffna were selling to Tamils in the OSuth of India.
if you would take trouble to read the rest of the archive…it amy all come clear.
Do not quote of out of context
/
Off the Cuff / February 3, 2014
Dear Rajash,
Re “your transalation defiens what Elepahnt Pass is.”
It is not my translation. It’s that of the Dutch National Archives.
Re “Elephants were hereded throught the elephant pass to Jaffana. It implies Jaffana is in a different country.”
If you had not been so flustered and had read my comment carefully you would have noted that the emphasized text mentions a border with another kingdom. I trust you know what a border means.
Re “The Elephants are sold to India from Jaffana. It implies Jaffna had close trading links with India. It implies Tamils in Jaffna were selling to Tamils in the OSuth of India.”
You should slow down lest you wright more gibberish.
The sentence “Elephants captured on Ceylon were herded past here to Jaffna to be sold in India,” means that it went through Elephant Pass on their way to India. The Elephants were not sold to Jaffna but to India. Hence until they were sold, the ownership rested with the King of the Kandyan Sinhala Kingdom. The ownership did not pass to the Tamil Traders of Jaffna for them to act as a middleman.
It shows is that the Kandyan King of the Sinhala Kingdom had safe passage through Jaffna for his trade wares. It hence proves that the Sinhala Kingdom of Kandy either had good relations with the Jaffna Kingdom or that it had Suzerainty over the Jaffna Kingdom and that the Northern port used by the Sinhala Kingdom was in Jaffna.
Re “if you would take trouble to read the rest of the archive…it amy all come clear.”
I am always careful with what I write. But as you can see, you have been so flustered by the information contained in the Dutch National Archives that you have been unable to comprehend what your eyes read.
Re “Do not quote of out of context”
Good advice but not appropriate in this case. Ravi claimed the East as Tamil Land. The Dutch Govt says the Land SOUTH of Elephant Pass is the Kandyan Kingdom of the Sinhalese The present Eastern Province is South of Elephant Pass and is hence part of the Sinhala Kandyan Kingdom.
However I say the whole of Lanka is the Land of ALL Sri Lankans and No Ethnicity has exclusive rights to any part of it.
Kind Regards,
OTC
/
Tolco / February 3, 2014
The Medamulana bandits want to remain in power. So they are orchestrating the religious conflict. They consider it is necessary to do this in order to remain in power for ever.
In relation to the incidents arising from the current religious conflict Dr G.L.Peiris has reportedly made a statement which implies that Buddhist extremists have the right to abuse, defecate, destroy any religious edifice, and harm and humiliate those responsible for constructing them, if constructed without government permission.
Firstly Doctor G.L. what any law student learns at the very beginning is that there is punishment if one takes the law into his own hands. Your statement clearly sends the message that the attack is justified and that the state will take no punitive action. Secondly there is the glaring discrimination that a Buddhist can create a place of religious worship as he likes, even around a bo sapling that takes root in the neighbors garden, whereas a non-Buddhist bona fide place of worship cannot be constructed unless the government expressly authorizes it. Is that fair? And the non-Buddhist religious buildings actually destroyed in the recent incidents were some of them 10, 15, 50, and 100 or more years old. When that happened you appeared to be blind. There were no statements from you.
Let me briefly state Professor G.L. Peiris’ profile. He is a lawyer, professor, well versed in the study of European humanities having mastered Latin and Greek. He has a photographic memory to help with intellectual pursuits. He has written high quality legal books. He was born to a wealthy Panadura family, with a well respected father, a diplomat. He has hereditary wealth, and if he chose he can get very respectable employment and lead a decent honorable life, in accordance with the unadulterated teachings of the Gautama Buddha.
Dr G.L., unless you are held hostage, or under threat of punishment for any heinous crime you may have committed, or exposure for any morally blameworthy shameful act you may committed, the only explanation available for your shameful top lapping (don’t reach for the OED, you wont find it there), and groveling at the feet of the uncivilized and uncouth, is because you are the classic pervert who begs for bondage to be insulted and humiliated. Are you not ashamed of yourself?
/
Jay / February 3, 2014
Well said MEA – being the legal luminary you are, please lead a campaign to encourage the demolition of all things ‘illegal’. Churches, mosques, temples . . . and ALL statues obstructing roadways to be forthwith removed. Let there be a will to show that Sri Lanka is truly a land that enforces the law in the strictest sense – equally to all.
We will then have cause to erect a truly monumental statue of you, of course in a suitable location, without breaking the law!
/
essie / February 4, 2014
Dear OTC,
I agree with you. ‘Praying’ is not causing the unrest. Unethical conversion (which I abhor) is apparently the reason. But these attacks were on pastors who preached the gospel and ‘prayed’ in groups. Re unethical conversions- this excuse could have been made in the past during colonial times. Now, in a population which is almost 85% Buddhist, why should anyone care if a mere 1000 or 2000 are converted? If this is done unethically the pastors will have to answer to their God.
If the GOSL have the law on their side they should not encourage mob rule.Sooner or later this will boomerang.
/
OTC to OTC / February 4, 2014
OTC -HOW ABOUT , THE NEW THERADAVA TEMPLE IN KENYA , WHERE NO BUDDHIST EVER LIVED ? HOW ABOUT THE UNETHICAL CONVERSION HAPPENING THERE by abusing the starving poor .
OTC you talk a lot of cock, I seen your stupid articles of copy & paste ,now you copy and paste Indian law ,,you are the worst racist ever to be on line,,
Bitch go get a life,
what about the devil dance and killing animals for the devils in your devala? how about the imaginations of witchcraft ,black magic sooth saying ? Guess very rational in your religion? go fly a kite.
/