25 September, 2020

Blog

Tamil Autonomy, Lee Kuan Yew Line, Putin Policy

By Dayan Jayatilleka –

Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

“Machiavelli… brusquely remarks that a state undergoing these changes would fall victim to a stronger neighbour before it could have time to complete the cycle.” – Introduction to ‘Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy’, University of Chicago Press, 1996, p. xxxviii

It is good of Prof GH Peiris (‘Prophesies on Sri Lanka’s Global Vulnerability: A Critique’, The Island, June 14-15, 2013) to “spell out the essence of [his] perceptions on the issue” of province-based devolution. He writes that: “I believe that any constitutional provision which conforms to or perpetuate the ‘Two Nation Theory’ and the idea of the northern and eastern parts of the island constituting an ‘exclusive traditional Tamil homeland’ is detrimental to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation-state of Sri Lanka.”

While that statement is in and of itself, utterly unexceptionable, it is also profoundly irrelevant to this debate. Which constitutional provision conforms to this description? None! Certainly not the 13th amendment! If it were even a close approximation, the Tigers would not have rejected it. The facts that the TNA rejected the 13th amendment in 1988 and continues to refuse to accept it as the solution to the Tamil question, and that the entirety of the Tamil Eelamist Diaspora network as well as Gajan Ponnambalam’s TPNF treat this constitutional provision with angry scorn, makes nonsense of Prof Peiris’s contention.  Let us, however, leave interpretation aside for a moment and examine the ground on which the 13th amendment and its wellspring the Indo-Lanka Accord are based.

Far from being based on any two nation theory, the Accord delineates it foundation by

acknowledging that Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual plural society consisting, inter-alia, of Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims (Moors) and Burgers; recognising that each ethnic group has a distinct cultural and linguistic identity which has to be carefully nurtured… conscious of the necessity of strengthening the forces contributing to the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka, and preserving its character as a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi- religious plural society, in which all citizens can live in equality, safety and harmony, and prosper and fulfil their aspirations…”

Now this recognition of Sri Lanka’s multiethnic, multilingual, multi-religious and plural character may sound like a ‘two nation theory’ to Prof Peiris, but that’s his misperception. Neither the Accord nor the 13th amendment defines the North and East as an “exclusive traditional Tamil homeland”, as Prof Peiris alleges. What the Accord does say is the following: “…also recognising that the Northern and the Eastern provinces have been areas of historical habitation of Sri Lankan Tamil speaking peoples, who have at all times hitherto lived together in this territory with other ethnic groups…”

How can a clear statement to the effect that the Tamil people in the North and East “have at all times hitherto lived together in this territory with other ethnic groups” be an assertion of an “exclusive traditional Tamil homeland”?  On the contrary it is the opposite, the negation, of any notion of exclusivity or even prior occupation of the North by the Tamils (“have at all times hitherto lived together in this territory with…”).

Prof Peiris charitably clubs my stance with that of the signatories to the Vadukkodai Resolution right through to the late unlamented Velupillai Prabhakaran. Here his categorisation is slightly at variance with that of Anton and Adele Balasingham, writing as Brahmagnani, in the paper published by the LTTE until its retreat from Jaffna in late 1995.  Devoting a full page  to a full-on critique of the very book (‘Sri Lanka, the Travails of a Democracy: Unfinished War, Protracted Crisis’, Vikas 1995) that Prof Peiris quoted from earlier in this debate, they opined that: “Sri Lankan political discourse, in recent times, has produced an amazing variety of political theorists and analysts whose main vocation seems to be to produce denunciatory criticisms of the politico-military strategy of the LTTE and offer ideas or solutions as to how to end the so-called terrorist menace. Among these political theorists Dayan Jayatilleka stands out as a unique character in his irrational and ruthless criticism of the LTTE.” (Inside Report – Tamil Eelam News Review, June 30, 1995).

The problem, its origins, and its present status as well its solution has been captured by one of the earliest and longest-standing critics of Sinhala majoritarianism and its tragic consequences, not least for the Sinhalese. That critic is no Tamil, Westerner, Christian, Marxist or NGO ideologue – those creatures of the night that haunt the Sinhala xenophobic imagination– but precisely a man recognised almost universally as one of the most outstanding minds and political leaders that Asia has produced in modern times, namely Lee Kuan Yew.

His oft-repeated analysis is most authoritatively contained in his memoirs, ‘From Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965-2000’. Devoting six pages to tracking Sri Lanka’s decline, he traces the tragedy thus:

“…He [SWRD Bandaranaike] had decided on nativism and…had become a champion of the Sinhala language. It was the start of the unravelling of Ceylon…”

“…During my visits over the years I watched a promising country go to waste. One-man-one vote did not solve a basic problem. The majority of some eight million Sinhalese could always outvote the two million Jaffna Tamils who had been disadvantaged by the switch from English to Sinhalese as the official language. From having no official religion, the Sinhalese made Buddhism their national religion. As Hindus, the Tamils felt dispossessed…”

“…I was impressed by his [Junius Richard Jayewardene’s] practical approach and was persuaded to visit Sri Lanka in April 1978. He said he would offer autonomy to the Tamils in Jaffna. I did not realise that he could not give way on the supremacy of the Sinhalese over the Tamils, which was to lead to civil war in 1983 and destroy any hope of a prosperous Sri Lanka for many years if not generations…”

That then is Lee Kuan Yew’s diagnosis, but what was his solution? His logic leads to this conclusion which I share:

“A political solution was the only way, one considered fair by the Jaffna Tamils and the rest of the world; then the Tamil United Liberation Front, the moderate constitutional wing of the Tamil home rule movement, could not reject it. I argued that his [Premadasa’s] objective must be to deprive the terrorists of popular support by offering the Tamils autonomy to govern themselves through the ballot box…It is sad that the country whose ancient name Serendip has given the English language the word ‘serendipity’ is now the epitome of conflict, pain, sorrow and hopelessness.” (pp. 460-466)

Consider also his remarks made to Prof Tom Plate in ‘Citizen Singapore: How to Build a Nation’, Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew, a volume in the series ‘Giants of Asia’.  In an extended conversation in late 2009, mere months after the victory, Lee Kuan Yew observes as follows:

“Another example is Sri Lanka. It is not a happy, united country. Yes, they [the majority Sinhalese government] have beaten the Tamil Tigers this time but….the Jaffna Tamils have been in Sri Lanka as long as the Sinhalese. …I don’t think they [the Tamils] are going to be submissive or go away.” (p55)

What is perhaps most crucial from the point of view of a strategy and even political philosophy is the point that Prof Tom Plate immediately makes about Lee Kuan Yew’s views on post war Sri Lanka:

“See that’s really a fascinating point, because to the extent that we have any sense of who you are at all, we think of you as this hard-boiled force-first guy. But in fact your system of government is much softer, consensual and intelligent, whereas what the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka are doing is a caricature of an LKY [Lee Kuan Yew] who never existed.” (Ibid)

This then is Asian modernity and ‘smart power’ at its best. Singapore understood and exemplifies the understanding that in a challenging neighbourhood, a strong state is a smart, supple, innovative state, sensitive to its strategic environment. This is why I urged the ‘Lee Kuan Yew line’ of Tamil autonomy through the ballot box i.e. the implementation of the 13th amendment, after the war, and I stand opposed to its roll-back today.

Contrary to the claims of Sri Lankan officials who present our victory as the first such in the 21st century, Vladimir Putin won a major war against a terrorist militia in this century a few  years prior to May 2009. So too did the Angolan government, by the way. Putin is no NGO-backed cosmopolitan liberal and is in fact reviled by them. He is however, a very smart leader who combines hard power with autonomy reforms. He implemented regional autonomy of a far wider sort than the 13th amendment, in parallel to his military drive against the Chechen terrorist militia (a drive which included the aerial bombing of targets in Grozny) and has allowed that autonomous entity to become prosperous– which is probably why there aren’t any war crimes/violations of international humanitarian law campaigns in the UN HRC in Geneva, not even on its sidelines by Channel 4 and INGOs, against Russia’s victory in Chechnya. To the horror of Tamil Diaspora ideologues and activists, in the closing year of our war and in its aftermath I had expressly recommended Putin’s policy of autonomy for Chechnya.

Prof Gerry Peiris and I shall have to agree to disagree on Yugoslavia, India and Geneva. As for my own role in Geneva May 2009, it is best not to be detained either by my protestations or the critiques of my ‘detractors’ or indeed by Prof Peiris’ curious reconstruction, and look instead to more authoritative and independent sources. The Economist (London) described by Karl Marx as “the most intelligent defender of capitalism” referred to in its August 6-8, 2009 issue to “…Dayan Jayatilleka, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Geneva, who warded off the threatened UN war-crimes probe in May [2009]…”

Thanks to Wikileaks what is now known beyond doubt is that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instructed its Mission in Geneva to throw its weight behind the move on Sri Lanka at the UN HRC Special Sessions in 2009. She sent the following explicit instruction:

“Mission Geneva is requested to convey to the Czech Republic and other like-minded members of the HRC that the USG supports a special session on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and related aspects of the humanitarian situation. Mission is further requested to provide assistance, as needed, to the Czech Republic in obtaining others, signatures to support holding this session…Mission is also instructed to engage with HRC members to negotiate a resolution as an outcome of this special session, if held. Department believes a special session that does not result in a resolution would be hailed as a victory by the Government of Sri Lanka. Instructions for line edits to the resolution will be provided by Department upon review of a draft.” [Cable dated 4th May 2009 from Secretary of State (United States)]

So the US was hardly absent from the equation and was ‘leading from behind’. After the special session failed to obtain the prescribed outcome, UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navi Pillay said to Susan Rice: “Sri Lanka and its allies…simply outmanoeuvred the EU”.  [Cable date 25 June 2009]

To quote another source hardly supportive of Sri Lanka’s accomplishment in Geneva, Gordon Weiss describes my role in the concluding chapter of ‘The Cage’: “Dayan Jayatilleka, one of the most capable diplomats appointed by the Rajapaksa regime, had outmanoeuvred Western diplomats to help Sri Lanka escape censure from the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. (p 256-7)”.

So there we have it then: that’s the story as seen by critical observer-analysts. It is rather different from Prof GH Peiris’ grotesque comic-book version.

As for the votes on the Sri Lanka resolutions of 2012 and 2013, Prof Peiris will find that his explanatory framework cannot accommodate the votes against Sri Lanka cast by Non Aligned members who voted with Sri Lanka in May 2009 or abstained, do not have Tamil voters, and are by no means allies or economic dependencies of the USA and the West—such as Brazil, Uruguay, Peru and Argentina (all oriented to the Left). Nor can he explain the abstentions of similar states which voted with us in May 2009, such as Angola. My own reading is that Sri Lanka’s narrative is losing out globally. If, on the contrary, the slide was entirely due to India’s shift, then surely Sri Lanka has to press the re-set button and restore the relationship, and if the shift in India is due to domestic political compulsions then it is in Sri Lanka’s interest to help Delhi offset those pressures, especially in an election year, by moving positively on devolution.

Contrary to Prof Peiris’s claim I do not consider the legendary US diplomat, the late Richard Holbrooke as “a fount of wisdom”. Nor however, do I regard him as Prof Peiris does, with the misplaced superiority and coarseness common to Sinhala xenophobes, as “a bumpkin”. My point was that Sri Lanka’s dominant discourse (of which Prof Gerry Peiris’ is a literate example), characterised as it is by an antiquarian historicism and delusions of Sinhala exceptionalism and superiority, fails to convince the world community and especially its most powerful members such as the world’s sole superpower and the world’s most populous democracy, both of which are Asian powers and one of which is our neighbour. My further point was that Holbrooke’s response to Milosevic’s invocation of pre-modern historical claims prefigures the likely response of the world system (and world opinion) to Sinhala Buddhist revivalist ideology propels the dominant discourse today. I tend to recall the grimly cautionary note often struck in the pages of the Lanka Guardian by Hector Abhayavardhana, one of Sri Lanka’s most penetrating minds, who said that “the Sinhalese are the Serbs of South Asia”.

I must add that I have never once said that “in the US the mainstream is a sewer”. That phrase was minted by distinguished retired Ambassador N.M.M.I Hussein and it referred to Sri Lanka, not the USA. I have always been an admirer of the US ‘mainstream’ while being a critic of certain aspects of US foreign policy. The closest I have come to using the phrase Prof GH Peiris attributes to me is that “in Sri Lanka, the lunatic fringe is the mainstream”. Having proved precisely that point by his polemic, he can look it up in my first book which he quoted in an earlier intervention.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    The fact that 13A is not accepted by either of the extremes as a solution for diametrically opposite reasons indicates that it is centric piece of legislation. So for the moment it is the only solution available which goes half way to fulfill the desires of both extremes.

    Ditching or meddling with it carries the risk of destabilising the current balance with regard the local and international factors. The regime would be well advised to reject the proposals of the extremist Gota/JHU/BBS factions.

    • 0
      0

      When the Indo-lanka accord was signed in 1987, the TULF sent a rejoinder to India outlining the pitfalls in it, which was signed by Amirthalingam, Sivasithambaram, Sambanthan etc. Rajiv Gandhi assured them on their concerns about the inadequacy of the provisions and the honesty of the Sinhala leaders and said everything is under written by the government of India. He said North-East merger will remain and though there is provision to hold a referendum to decide on the merger, the Srilanka President will continue to postpone it indefinitely. He also said the devolution process will continue till such time Tamils will have a fair autonomy in place. The position of the Tamils is the same now also, and what they want is a meaningful devolution so that they will rule themselves and be first class citizens in their area of historical habitation. In the current form of the 13th amendment there is room for interference by the government in the subjects devolved to the provinces and also the governor appointed by the President has the final say. Since the sovereignty lies with the people, why cannot the government amend the constitution for the governor of the province to be elected by the people of the province. By this way the people will become supreme and the government will not be able to manipulate the governor who is answerable to the people of the province. Also devolution should be in such a way that the writ of the Sinhala controlled government should end at the border of the Tamil majority province and the writ of the Tamil controlled provincial legislature should take over.

  • 0
    0

    What a travesty of intellectual honesty to hoist one’s own petard by the likes of:

    “Gordon Weiss describes my role in the concluding chapter of ‘The Cage’: “Dayan Jayatilleka, one of the most capable diplomats appointed by the Rajapaksa regime, had outmanoeuvred Western diplomats to help Sri Lanka escape censure from the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva”.

    One cannot and will not “outmaneuver” the TRUTH. The TRUTH will prevail against all the Machiavalian machinations of all the the kings horses and all the kings “diplomats”. Shakespeare’s truism is for all time: “Be true to thyself, to thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night follows the day, thou canst not then be false to any man”. I will end again with my continuing tribute to the “People of the Vanni” with the last paragraph of my article in the CT of Feb 7, 2013, “Vanni 2002 – 2006, What I Owe the People of the Vanni”:

    “More importantly, all people of the island, the Singhalese, the Tamils, the Muslims, the Burghers and all others will for the first time be able to find accountability and justice for all the innocent and precious lives that were snuffed out since 1948 to date, due to the rampant cancer of impunity. That cancer and culture of impunity will be arrested for the first time in the history of the country since it attained independence in 1948. Moreover, truth, accountability and justice will be followed by reconciliation and peace that will result due only to the supreme sacrifice of the people of the Vanni. That is their legacy, and it is actually the vast majority of the Singhalese people, their brothers and sisters, who will most of all be eternally grateful for the end to impunity brought about by the ultimate sacrifice of the people of the Vanni. Working towards such an end is what I (and may I say all of us) owe the people of the Vanni for the ultimate and supreme sacrifice they made”.

  • 0
    0

    I suppose that Mr.Anandarajah’s comment,while very moving,is somehow related to this debate between DJ and Peiris, but I can’t see it.

  • 0
    0

    Dr. Dayan Jayathilake.

    Lee Kwan Yu was Chinese who are highly materially -oriented and he got the Singapore separated from Malaysia from the Colonial master. Only way, Singapore could have become a country was by developing the way it had been developed.

    Why do you take Lee Kwan you as the mentor here ? Do you think that your ideology is not that intelligent as Lee KWan Yu is ?

    • 0
      0

      Lee KWan Yu is a dictator like Rajapaksha.

      He ruled from 1965 to 1995. Then gave it to his friend and relative for a short time. Now his son is the PM.

      Only his party has ruled Singapore.

      A good model for SL.

      • 0
        0

        Muliawaikal.don’t you think you are a bit harsh on lee kuan yew and MR.They cannot be dictators because they are restricted by a constitution,laws and an opposition.I know you will say that singapore did not have an effective opposition, and that MR is trying to amend the constitution and the laws to suit his selfish needs,but the reason why singapore had a one party rule was Lee kuan yew was doing such a fantastic job there was not much pressure by the people to get rid of him and MR is not a dictator,though he would love to become one,because he has to face the people at elections as per the constitution.If unnecessary powers have been given to him by the presidency,you have to blame JRJ for that and also Chandrika for not abolishing the presidency as she promised before being elected as president herself.Once she also tasted power she did not want to get rid of it.Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

        Ghaddafi,assad and saddam were dictators because there is no constitution or restriction on their actions by laws,or an opposition or elections.

      • 0
        0

        In developing countries delivering both economic development and
        unfettered all-round democratic rights may not always be possible. LKY chose a form of Guided Democracy but did not risk the media in calling it that. But in about 2 decades he made Singapore virtually a 1st World country and attracted enormous FDI and created millions of jobs at high paying wages. The Per Capita is at US$60,000 whereas the average in India it is US$4,000 and in Sri Lanka USS5,500. He did not play about with the judicial system, the government administrative machinery or make the Police his personal hit-team. People do not fear go to the Police Station and neither do people go “missing” there in that multi-racial multi-religious country. He made corruption virtually unheard of in his fastly developing country and kept taxes low. His health and educational sectors are the best in the region and attracts many from the neighbourhood. He lead from the front in his personal integrity. His son worked his way up the ladder and is a highly educated person fit to be PM. The suggestion of nepotism does not hold water in Singapore.

        Senguttuvan

  • 0
    0

    Dayan,

    What a turn-coat!

    Now you want to pretend denouncing Sinhala majoritarianism as evil and tragic, citing LKY in ” The problem, its origins, and its present status as well its solution has been captured by one of the earliest and longest-standing critics of Sinhala majoritarianism and its tragic consequences, not least for the Sinhalese.”

    Here is a quote from none other than you not too long ago, unabashedly in solid support of majoritarianism aspirations of the Sinhalese: “the protest against apartheid was rooted EXACTLY (your own emphasis, not mine) on the thirst for majoritarian domination of the minority.”

    Could you explain what made you change your mind?

    • 0
      0

      Easy to guess.

  • 0
    0

    Dr Dayan,

    Prof GH Pieris is always a racist academic.

    During the period the Northern and Eastern Provinces were merged, Prof Pieris was arguing that Eastern Province was always under the Kandyan Kingdom and that Jaffna kingdom had never extended to include Eastern Province, thereby agreeing indirectly that North and not the east has a historic claim for autonomy, now after demerger when the North is in the threshold of enjoying a watered down nominal devolution, he is coming out with outdated arguments to deprive northerners from any participation in governance.

    If Prof really reads the 13 A and Provincial Council Act No 42 of 1987 as an unbiased academic, he will realize that it is an innocent piece of legislation and that without Governors permission nothing will move in the Province.

    Racists are always racist, they will never change and it is useless in entering any polemic with them.

    The northerners are being given a historic opportunity and we hope they will capture the opportunity and prove the doomsayers wrong and lead the other Provincial Councils towards real participatory governance at grassroots level.

  • 0
    0

    Dayan

    May I know your comment on the two pictures:
    [Edited out]

    @Please write here, instead of posting links – CT

  • 0
    0

    “Machiavelli… brusquely remarks that a state undergoing these changes would fall victim to a stronger neighbour before it could have time to complete the cycle.”

    India falling victim to China?

  • 0
    0

    If India invades SL there will be another 1983 and who will prevail ultimately? The Indians? No way. They don’t have their “army” anymore after 2009. So they have no guardians.

  • 0
    0

    Why does MR have to listen to advice from Lee kuan yew when he has advisors like modawansa and chimpanzee ranawaka who provided plenty of blackouts for the people during his electricity tenure.

    After all 2 heads are better than one they say.

  • 0
    0

    I was surprised that they removed Dr.Dayan from the UN duties he was performing in 2009.Normally you remove someone who does a poor job,not one who has got a resolution praising srilanka after it has butchered its own people willy nilly.

    A bad decision by MR,just like prabha sent Kp on retirement listening to castro and their likes,who wanted his job.

    the problem with jobs is that there are others wanting yours, and putting the right words into the leaders ears will get them that even if it is at the expense of a more capable fellow.

  • 0
    0

    Police Powers for the Provincial Council are no longer in the constitution! Please read the following link in the Island newspaper:

    http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=81403

    How was this grand theft perpetrated under the very eyes of our lugal luminaries within and without parliament? Was Dr.dayan Jayatillke aware of this grand theft? What have Messers.Sambanthan and Sumanthiran have to say?

    Is what has been accomplished through the 18th amendment legal? How did the Supreme Court approve the 18th amendment knowing that it was undermining a key aspect of the 13th amendment? Is it fulfilling its duty to defend the constitution?

    does the left hand know what the right hand is doing the country? Was the President who is a lawyer know this. Was it intended to be so? Prof. G.L.Pieris, were you asleep or pretending to be so? Perhaps, it was your brain child!

    What sort of constitutional gerrymandering are we up to? Is our constitution worth the paper it is written on?

    Dr. Rajasingham Narendran

    • 0
      0

      All point out to one end – SL is not the place for Tamils.

      Dignified Tamils must leave SL to where they are treated with dignity. Others can stay to be further degraded, humiliated and finally killed!

    • 0
      0

      Dr.narendran,I read the link that you have given here,and it states that the 18th amendment has got rid of any link that the 13th amendment has to the 17th amendment with regard to the provincial police force.I can’t see any problem in that because we are talking about the indo lanka accord here and i believe,correct me if i’am wrong,that the 17th amendment has nothing to do with the Indo lanka accord which only resulted in the 13th amendment.So whether the link it has with the 17th amendment is still there or not is immaterial because the 13th amendment still stands as it is envisaged in the Indo lanka accord.If the 13th amendment is deficient with regard to the police powers that is another matter altogether and should not be confused with the 17th amendment.

      We have to just stick to the Indo lanka accord which is an international agreement.The 17th amendment may have been brought in to improve transparency,efficiency etc but it is a home grown one.To adopt the 17th or not is upto the government,but the 13th cannot be fiddled with unilaterally without the consent of India.

      • 0
        0

        Shanker,

        The 13th and 18th amendments are part of our constitution. The Indo-Sri Agreement is not a part of the constitution, although the 13th amendment arose from it. It is for India to insist that the terms of the Indo-Lanka agreement are respected. Will it, given the history of how it has turned a blind eye to how the 13th amendment has been implemented from its very inception, even in the Sinhala-majority areas?

        Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

        • 0
          0

          Dr.narendran,You can’t blame India for not seeing to that the 13th amendment fully.That selfish man prabha was only worried about himself and not the tamils when he torpedoed the 13th amendment.How could india see that it was implemented fully when prabha killed their soldiers and rajiv too.Then premadasa cut the ground from under their feet and asked them to go.Then if the IPKF did not leave they would be looked at as a invading force,not a peacekeeping one because the head of state has asked them to go.

          So they left and Prabha had his day and only in 2009 the biggest obstacle to the Indo lanka accord had been removed.Now there is the other obstacles such as the racist chauvinistic elements in the south such as modawansa and chimpazika ranawaka that india has to grapple with and the security paranoid gota too.So it is obstacle after obstacle for india and i don’t think we can blame them too much for the non implementation of the Indo lanka accord.They have done their best but mongrels as we are a stubborn incorrible race of people controlling us is impossible.

          As for your contention that india did not look into the implementation of the 13th amendment for the sinhala majority areas,India did not bring in the concept of devolution into srilanka to solve the problems in the sinhala majority areas.It brought it to show srilanka the correct path to go on to douse the flames of seperation when a country has different ethnic and linguistic groups and which successfully India has done to date by weaving more than 25 different linguistic and ethnic groups into one country of 1200 million people using the thread of devolution to stitch it together.India is merely telling srilanka,look it has worked for us here for 60 years,whereas the path you trod has not worked for you and the problems you have are also spilling over into our soil,so why don’t you try this different path to what you have done earlier and see whether things get better for you,but mongrels that we are we keep yapping yapping and growling at india like as if it is the enemy,and we are perfect,nothing wrong with us,and we are not our own worst enemies.

        • 0
          0

          Rajasingham,

          So, what it amounts to is that first you believed in MR – and he has turned out not not worthy of trus. Now, you feel India is also not going to stand by what it promised (“It is for India to insist that the terms of the Indo-Lanka agreement are respected. Will it, given the history ?”).

          You still think you had evrything right in your trust and confidence? Would you agree you were gullible and stupid, in the sense that you were outsmarted by both MR and India, the two who you described as the “stupidest” in a previous blog a day or two ago?

          • 0
            0

            I also trusted my mother when she taught me to call her husband, my Appa. I have not done any DNA tests to co firm this. Fortunately, I resemble my father a lot and am like him in many ways too. Yet, it. Is based on trust. I am what I am, irrespective of who my father was. Without trust and hope, there cannot be life!

            Yes, I trusted MR, He has done many things I had expected him to do, post-war. My trust was not been misplaced in these instances. He has in fact exceeded my expectation in those matters, commendably. However, he has failed the country in many crucial matters, for which he will answer to history. I condemn him for these.

            My trust in him to find a permanent and acceptable solution to the so-called national question, has been badly betrayed, I have no hesitation to condemn him for this grievous failure.

            Further, I trust India less than I do MR. What India did during the IPKF episode and the design of the 13th amendment are unpardonable. Its response to the LTTE perfidy and reaction towards the Tamil civilians, should never be forgotten by the Tamils. We Tamils stand to be blamed more, because we have consistently chased after mirages. I am a Tamil too and had hoped MR was real, but he has turned out to be a mirage too. I yet hope, he will change and do what destiny pointed him towards.

            Dr. Rajasingham Narendran

            • 0
              0

              Dear Dr.RN,
              I am now confused and I think you are confused too. As you admit he(MR) has done much and more,but not good enough as he has not lived up to your expectations is that it?
              Do you think a national level referandum will approve to accommodate all the aspirations of the Tamil politicians?(I use politicaians deliberately as ordinary Tamil persons will never benefit from these so called aspirations)
              If so why not the Tamil politicians ask for it. If not why you or anybody else expect MR, or anyone at that, will give the Tamils what the majority of the people does not approve. Don’t you see it will be politcal harakiri for anyone.

              Trust is like a thin glass and easily broken. When you place your expectations on it you must be careful not to put too much weight on it or it will break and what’s the point in blaming the glass after it is boken.

            • 0
              0

              Dr.narendran,you say “What India did during the IPKF episode and the design of the 13th amendment are unpardonable. Its response to the LTTE perfidy and reaction towards the Tamil civilians, should never be forgotten by the Tamils.”

              When the IPKF came to Srilanka it was cheered by the Tamils,somewhat akin to what the americans were cheered by the people of the countries occupied by the nazis.It showed that the tamils fully supported the actions of rajiv ghandhi.Therefore blame cannot be made on India for what it did because it was in the interest of the tamil people as shown by their support for the indians.Where it backfired was when the LTTE started to kill the Indian troops because of the suicide of the kumarappa mob.Now that mob had no business to be crossing the palk strait at that time and getting caught by athulathmudali.It is upto them to look after themselves not ask the indians to save their arse when they get caught trying to be too smart.

              I agree with you that the tamils should never forget what the indians did to tamil civilians.That is why i’am happy that that bastard rajiv was killed.He deserved it for letting the IPKF rampage among the tamils and never even had a diciplinary inquiry,let alone courtmartial the perpetrators.After that episode the tamils must be in future be wary of the indians and not trust them in future.They will only use the tamils for their own purposes.Now they are calling the TNA to talk to them because their arse is on fire due to china.TNA should not fall into any trap where they are going to be used by the indians to give them leverage against the rajapakshes who are firmly with the chinese and will definitely give them a military base one day unless the US applies too much pressure on them..Damn good for the indians if they do give a military base and the tamils should just watch the fun without getting involved in all this geopolitical shit and get used by everybody for their own ends.

            • 0
              0

              Rajasingham,

              It certainly seems like it was a comfort to you that you look like the person your mom said was your father – I am just a tad surprised/disappointed that you needed such validation, besides your mom’s word.

              That aside, can you tell me one action that MR initiated and implemented that convinced you of the fair mindedness of MR in addressing the Tamils issue? Assuming an undefined vision or giving a speech do not wash. As a leader, with substantially greater power than almost all before him, what specific action, the best you can think of, has MR put in place in the last 4 or perhaps 7 years that convinces you that MR’s intentions are and remain honourable so far as Tamils are concerned?

              I have asked you this three times so far, and every time you tangentially refer to your trust in his vision, a vision undefined to boot. Undefined vision is nothing more than hallucination. Frankly, now you yourself concede you don’t trust him – so, you don’t trust him, except that you somehow trust him he had this undefined vision – and the proof is that Gotabaya also said it. That flimsy excuse really seems logical to you?

              I can only hope the paternity issue you felt appropriate to bring up is not based on proof, even if only half as flimsy as that.

        • 0
          0

          “It is for India to insist that the terms of the Indo-Lanka agreement are respected”
          Why? because India stuck its bargain on the 87 agreement? India failed its commitment in the 87 accord remember!What right do they have now to insist on anything from Sri Lanka with regard to the 87 accord.

  • 0
    0

    Dayan,
    If ENDIA wants war they can have it. Wish you reply to Lalin’s Coloum: Holbrooke, Devolution and War games as well.

    • 0
      0

      What in the name of Allah is Endia?

      Is India ending?

  • 0
    0

    Dayan created unpromising hypothesis form time to time misled and confused of set-of mind of elites in one hand in SL. On the other hand as person he has to misled public current issues by that given misinterpret so-called theory of power balance and class-forces, and history of certain countries capitalist path of progress,by that ineffective history inside and outside nations.All his theories has no base or concert analysis,but on effete of different grounds of capitalist models.
    The capitalist path of development has own laws, but its depend on times and space political power of balance, stage of uneven economic development and of velocity investment and priority world CAPITAL MARKET of edify and efficacious of Capital ownership.
    According to Dayan’s irreconcilable theory of political science teach us,that capitalism,shifting one place other,movement and motion are irrefragably phenomena; that its is look like irreclaimable by an accident.But Dayan lack of knowledge or he is in dark on having other side an objective of the class nature of economic,social power that NOT only to the power accession political-state governance and but indeed, its confluence of revitalization and reorientation of new path of capitalist development in Singapore.
    The Lee Kuwn yuw line of politics are imperious and imperceptible capitalist modus operandi,time its came into being and expand since late 1960.s. There is no doubt that which new model of capitalism political-economy-social system,base of Confucian monism school of thought and its civilization. His( Dayan) politics science is unable reached and his outlook is unconsciousness retain simple fact Confucianism.

  • 0
    0

    Now, Dayan wants his job back. Easy as that. He can assume any ideology, any principle, depending on the time and need.

  • 0
    0

    Lee kwan Yu was a shrewd politician but that does not grant him all knowing status and to treated his comments as gospel. His observations on the Tamil issue in Sri Lanka are based on the perception that the Tamils are fighting against discrimination which is not the whole truth. We all know that the the Eelam dream was first dreamt somewhere in early 1920’s.

  • 0
    0

    Singapore has done well and has developed immensely.
    That said should Lee Kuan Yew be held as an exemplary leader whose “insights” of Sri Lanka are important.

    For one Lee Kuan Yew is a racist and has publicly said that Chinese are smarter than Indians/Malays.

    http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN004070.pdf

    LKY’s family controls most of business in Singapore and pay themselves very well.
    http://www.yeocheowtong.com/Salaries.html

    Human Rights Watch says that Singapore is a “Text Book” case of a Repressive State.
    http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/01/20/singapore-textbook-example-repressive-state

Leave A Comment

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