By Prof John Evans

The book titled “Selected Essays on President Mahinda Rajapaksa” by Dr Levins .T C Rajaratnam has been published by Sarvodaya Viswa Lekha (ISBN 978-955-51312-2-3). The Author has in his acknowledgement stated that the book is a compilation of a collection of articles published in the newspapers and the electronic media. The book is a living testimony of President Rajapaksa’s credentials and has successfully wiped off all the negativism and created a positive and affirmative impression of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The entirety of the book  justifies the actions and effective leadership of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s  and the military victory at war. He has distinguished the internal war from international war.

 It is the best book I have read of the President Rajapaksa and its manifestation of  intelligent, intricate and strategic writings of a political analyst . Dr Levins Rajaratnam has commended the Rajapaksa regime and its leadership. This is the first book in Sri Lanka which narrates the necessity of Patriotism  with political activism.

 The Author  states that President Mahinda Rajapaksa has cherished the ideals of a free and democratic society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal he states, that President Rajapaksa has long cherished and now fulfilled as the Father of the Sri Lanka Nation.

 The book contains 10 Chapters. Chapter 1 is on Patriotism-the need of the hour, Chapter 2 is on Patriotism vs.Terrorism:Conflict of interests and the deterioration of a nation, Chapter 3 is on President Mahinda Rajapaksa-President for two full terms until 2017., Chapter 4 is on President Mahinda Rajapaksa:The Greatest Leader that Sri Lanka has ever producred, Chapter 5 is on the Tower of Strength to the Masses.,Chapter 6  The Choice of the People, Chapter 7 Election Victory Revisited, Chapter 8 The Defender of the Nation, Chapter 9 Namal Rajapaksa-the emerging Leader of the Youth, Chapter 10 President Rajapaksa- the Saviour of the Nation.

 The book should be made available to the diplomatic community in Sri Lanka and be promoted by Sri Lankan Missions overseas to rebut the presumption that is presently been propagated by vested interests.

 The books are available at the bookshops at Hilton, the Cinnamon Grand Hotel and at leading bookshops.

Dr.P.A.Samaraweera, Australia

Sri Lanka’s former top Army Officer in a farewell letter to the troops has said, “…I want to assure you that I will commit myself to protect democratic freedoms which we are rapidly losing… I pledge to work to restore human rights, media freedom, social justice, ethnic unity and peaceful co-existience. I will be by your side like a shadow…”
 
So the General discarded the uniform because of his passion for politics. All political parties are committed to preserving the doctrines he had analysed.
 
However, with all the signs he is making, he is keeping everyone in suspense. Before his resignation, there was an open invitation for him from the  UNF/UNP/JVP to come forward as a common candidate. After he resigned, the UNP alliance tightened the screw on him with a Ten Point Policy statement which he was supposed to adhere.
 
The two main conditions in it were to appoint Ranil as the Executive Prime Minister in a caretaker government and to abolish the Presidency. This must have sent jitters in him as he was only to be made a pawn in the hands of the bankrupt politicians. So this seems to be keeping him at a distance from the UNP alliance. Based on these recent developments, the JVP is openly backing him to come forward from their ticket.
 
The UNP strategy is to sideline Gen. Fonseka because of the block vote in the UNP which Ranil is sure of. So by promoting the General from another source he wants to tap into the anti-UNP votes between the General and the President. Ranil  is hoping to have a better chance in a three-cornered fight.
 
On the other hand, even if the General accepts the 10 point policy statement still Ranil hopes to come through the back door, as he wants to be executive PM and abolish presidency. Ranil is in a dreamland!
 
Amidst these, there are also reports emerging that the General is planning to register a new political party !
 
So apart from rumours, General Fonseka has not made any statements about his future political plans. Obviously, having aligned with bankrupt politicians he cannot see any ‘light at the end of the tunnel’. He is in fact capsized. Therefore, there is no doubt that he is confused as everyone else is about him!
 

Embassy of Sri Lanka Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of State has issued a “revised” travel advisory for Americans in Sri Lanka to, “reflect improving security conditions in the country,” according to the U.S. Embassy in Colombo.

At the same time, Japan relaxed its, “Travel Advisory & Warning,” for Sri Lanka to a “Travel Caution,” also noting the improved security situation.

The United Kingdom revised its own travel warning in July 2009.

Additionally, the Government of Sri Lanka lifted restrictions on those living in the northern city of Jaffna to travel throughout Sri Lanka, a security measure that was imposed during the conflict with the LTTE terrorist group. The LTTE was headquartered in northern Sri Lanka.

The Government also lifted the requirement that lorries must register in order to transit goods between the north and south. It said that such registration was no longer necessary.

The State Department’s decision comes exactly six months after Sri Lankan Government forces defeated the LTTE. No terrorist incidents have occurred in Sri Lanka since then, and tourism arrivals have jumped substantially. The Government expects to attract 2.5 million Tourists in 2010.

In its revised travel warning, the State Department states: “Stability in the southern and western areas of the country has improved with the cessation of hostilities. The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to remain vigilant while traveling in Sri Lanka.”

The State Department does continue to note that landmines are buried throughout northern Sri Lanka. The Government of Sri Lanka has launched a widespread de-mining effort there.

There are an estimated 1.5 million landmines and unexploded ordnance in northern Sir Lanka, and Government forces have continued to unearth buried LTTE weapons caches. But no terrorist incidents have occurred.

More than 288,000 civilians, mostly from the north, were initially displaced by the conflict and then housed in Government-run welfare centers. As de-mining has advanced, a massive resettlement campaign has begun.

As of Nov. 20, 2009, more than half of those displaced civilians had been sent home. The Government has pledged to return most of the displaced by Jan. 31, 2010. About 135,000 people remain in the centers today.

Ira de Silva London, Ontario

Professor C. Kananganayakam
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
 
Dear Sir:
 
Panel Discussion at Munk Centre for International Studies on Monday Nov. 16,2009 titled
Illusionary Justice: Threats to the Rule of Law and Human Rights in Sri Lanka
 
I am writing to you because I was informed of your association with the Munk Centre and the University of Toronto. If this panel discussion was not in your area of control, please forward it to the relevant authorities.
 
The announcement stated that the panel discussion would include Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, the Executive Director of Centre for Policy Alternatives, said to be an independent and non-partisan public policy institute focussing on issues of democratic governance, human rights and peace. Anyone who is familiar with this non-governmental organization in Sri Lanka is well aware that it is not independent – it is funded by international agencies with a vested interest in contributing to dissension and turmoil in Sri Lanka.  That it is “foreign funded” is clearly stated on it’s website. Dr. Saravanamuttu is paid to carry out the programmes of his paymasters.
 
Although formed in 1996 to supposedly provide “conflict resolution”, it has not provided any valid or constructive contributions because up to May 2009 it concentrated on being critical of the Government of Sri Lanka and had no answer to or critique of the LTTE that was terrorising the country. There was no attempt at engaging the LTTE so it is difficult to understand how it could claim to provide conflict resolution in the Sri Lankan context.
 
It is interesting that Dr. Saravanamuttu is in Canada at the present time when news reports indicate that the Tamil diaspora that supported the LTTE and were the driving force of the LTTE as evidenced by the thousands that were demonstrating on the streets of Canada in April 2009, are attempting to re-group and use Canada as a base. Having heard a brief statement he made in the news media, it appears that he is repeating the same empty, meaningless phrases that he does all the time and that he has no new initiatives, ideas or programme.
 
As for the others on the “panel” such as Amnesty International, they are the usual culprits who concentrate on criticising governments while ignoring terrorists because when their mandate was established in the 1960’s it was a world that did not have the terrorism of today and they have not progressed to dealing with the realities of current conflicts.
 
Of note is the fact that there were only “anti-Sri Lanka” panellists. For it to have been meaningful, there should have been other points of view. I understand that the sponsor of the discussion was the Centre for Asian Studies at the University of Toronto. It is to be hoped that any future events, discussions, conducted by this Centre, will have a more balanced representation. 
 
Yours truly,
 
Ira de Silva
London, Ontario

By Dr.Levins T.C.Rajaratnam

It is a privilege to pay tribute to the Greatest Patriot of Sri Lanka who saved the Nation from disaster with whom I am well acquainted for several years.

Chapter VII of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in Article 30 states:

30. (1) There shall be a President of the Republic of Sri Lanka, who is the Head of the State, the Head of the Executive and of the Government, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

(2) The President of the Republic shall be elected by the people, and shall hold office for a term of six years.

The concept of respecting the superior in the Armed Forces is a sine qua non of an Officer and a gentleman. These are the tenets of a Patriot. But alas, I am shocked and dismayed by the recent media information that reveals  the dishonourable conduct of a once respected  personality  who has been misled by disgruntled politicians in the opposition who are desperate to govern this country. It is unfortunate that this personality who tried to bite the hand that fed him and nursed him when he was injured has fallen into the hands of evil men plotting against a legally elected Patriotic President. The actions of this personality in question has not only amounted to unpatriotic conduct but betrayal to a the Leader of the Nation and to the Nation as a whole and tantamounts to a flagrant violation of the norms required of an Officer and a gentleman. Moreover to seek residence in an alien land whilst serving in the Forces was am unpatriotic and vicious act of dishonour.  It is pathetic and falls well within the maxim that “the Devil himself knows not the thought of man”. Patriotism cannot be sold for a song or for residence in an alien land whilst serving in the Armed Forces. This is a flagrant violation of the norms required of an officer and a gentleman. Furthermore, the status of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is the President.

The war was won because of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s leadership and Dr.Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s  directives and strategies. No one else can take credit for the victory except the President and the Defense Secretary.

President Rajapaksa with his legal acumen, skills of political analysis cleared with one sweep the allegations against Sri Lanka by carefully and analytically making a submission about the intricacies of Human Rights and the complexities of Terrorism.

There are millions of children all over this nation who are left out and left back …. who will never become doctors or lawyers or teachers or police officers or much else …. who cannot even imagine a profession whose latent idealism will never be freed to grow into compassion and action ….. because there was no teacher, no friend, no one like you, who by action or example, quietly inspired them; showed them how to look up, not down; helped them to see their stake in their own and their neighbors dreams; touched a life in some private, but powerful way, and gave someone else a reason to hope. President Rajapaksa has saved the Nation and we should support him to develop the country by being patriotic.

Whatever system of governance is eventually adopted, it is important that it carries the people with it. We need to convey the message that safeguarding our common property, humankind, will require developing in each of us a new loyalty: a loyalty to mankind a loyalty to the country and a loyalty to the President-The Leader of the country.

Each of us has loyalties to several groups – from the smallest, the family, to the largest, at present, the nation. Many of these groups provide protection for their members. The entire country needs protection. We have to extend our loyalty to the whole of the human race.

We must appeal, as human beings, to human beings: Remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open for a new paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of destruction.

The quest for a war-free country has a basic purpose: survival. But if in the process we learn how to achieve it by love rather than by fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion; if in the process we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, this will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task.

Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor — never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees — not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own.

Does it mean that we have learnt from the past? Does it mean that society has changed? Has the human being become less indifferent and more human? Have we really learnt from our experiences? Are we less insensitive to the plight of victims of ethnic cleansing and other forms of injustices in places near and far?

A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of Sri Lanka and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.

We have hard work ahead. There is no resting for any one of us till we redeem our pledge in full, till we make all the people of Sri Lanka what destiny intended them to be. We are citizens of a great country on the verge of bold advance, and we have to live up to that high standard. All of us, to whatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of Sri Lanka with equal rights, privileges and obligations. We cannot encourage communalism or narrow-mindedness, for no nation can be great whose people are narrow in thought or in action.

Ceylon obtained independence from the British Rule in 1948 by smooth transition after India gained its independence. We honour our Patriots who contributed towards that endeavour. But the crucial factor is the independence gained by defeating terror by the Rajapaksa regime in the midst of so much interference from Developed countries with vested interests is far greater achievement in the history of this country. This is an event to celebrate.

Patriotism is the grund norm of Civilized Society. As citizens we owe allegiance to the Constitution of Sri Lanka and we owe our loyalty and allegiance to the President. The total eradication of Terrorism is possible only if arms are seized from all militant groups who pay lip service to democracy whilst flirting with the major Terrorist Group.

Civil allegiance is the duty of loyalty and obedience which a person owes to the State of which he is a citizen. The word ‘allegiance’ is a derivative of liege, free and historically it signifies the service which a free man owed to his liege lord. Every citizen owes the duty of loyalty to the state where he is a Citizen.

The term allegiance is often used by English legal commentators in a broader sense, divided them into natural and local, the latter applying to the deference which even a foreigner must pay to the institutions of the country in which he lives.

The English doctrine which was once adopted in the United States, asserted that allegiance was indelible: “Nemo potest exuere patriam” . Accordingly, as the law stood before 1870, every person who by birth or naturalization satisfied the conditions set forth, though he should be removed in infancy to another country where his family resided, owed an allegiance to the British Crown which he could never resign or lose except by Act of Parliament or by the recognition of the independence or the cession of the portion of British territory in which he resided.

Allegiance is the tie which binds the subject to the Sovereign in return for that protection which the Sovereign affords the subject. It was the mutual bond and obligation between the King or Queen and his or her subjects, whereby subjects are called his liege subjects, because they are bound to obey and serve him..

Allegiance is owed both to the Sovereign as a natural person and to the Sovereign in his or her political capacity. Loyalty requires affection also to the office of the Sovereign, attachment to royalty, attachment to the law and to the Constitution of the realm and he who would by force or fraud endeavour to prostrate that law and Constitution, though he may retain his affection for its head, can boast but an imperfect and spurious species of loyalty.

As nature and religion teach moral obligations and prescribe to children dutiful conduct towards the parents, so nature and religion imposes on citizens certain obligations towards their country and its rulers. These obligations may be interpreted as patriotism and obedience. Patriotism requires that the citizen would have a reasonable esteem and love for his country. He should have a reasonable esteem and love for his country.

Legal Allegiance is due when a person takes an oath of allegiance required for a particular office in the State.

Article 2 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka states “The Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State.”

Article 63 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka states: “Except for the purpose of electing the Speaker, no Member shall sit or vote in Parliament un and subscribed the following oath or made and subscribed the following affirmation , before Parliament:- ‘I ………………………………. do solemnly declare and affirm/ swear that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka”’.

Article 81 illustrates in regard to the expulsion of Members and imposition of civic disability. The Sixth amendment to the Constitution (certified on August 8, 1983) the preamble states “Whereas Sri Lanka is a Free , Sovereign , Independent and Unitary State and it is the duty of the State to safeguard the independence, sovereignty, unity and the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka By virtue of the Sixth amendment to the Constitution Article, 157A was added after Article 157 for ‘Prohibition against violation of territorial integrity of Sri Lanka’ , Article 11 was amended as well. The Seventh Schedule by virtue of the Sixth amendment to the Constitution is “ I………………………………..do solemnly declare and affirm / swear that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and that I will not, directly or indirectly, in or outside Sri Lanka, support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka”.

Every citizen owes his or her allegiance to the Constitution and to the Head of State- the duly elected President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. We don’t need people from the ‘international community’ to cast aspersions on our President and our Government. People should be aware of what allegiance is and the concept of Patriotism. This is not only the duty of every citizen but the obligation in the best interests of the Nation.

Our nation has been torn apart by the evils of terrorism and natural disaster. We have all suffered – there is no answer – there is no justification for the pain. Freedom of choice alone does not guarantee justice. Equal rights are not defined only by political values. Social justice is a triad of freedom, an equation of liberty. Justice is political liberty. Justice is economic independence. Justice is social equality.

Due to our internal conflicts which we could have long resolved, external forces with vested interests have all sought to intervene some in the pretext of resolving the conflict but our experience has proved that the gap of resolution of conflict does not seem to be narrower now.

We look for diplomacy. But there is no diplomacy with some of those opposed to us. We do not consider them opponents but they oppose every conceivable move we make to develop the country.

We learnt that equality is about equal worth and not equal outcomes.

The standard of living is higher. The expectations of the people are higher. This is a consumer age. People don’t take what they are given. They demand more. The rising cost of living is because of Terrorism – not only the amount we spend on the war but the consequences that follow the false allegation by the Terrorists and their henchmen in Parliament who travel on diplomatic Passports, enjoy all the perks of the State, desecrate the sanctity of the House of Parliament and make false allegations to the world at large – these men and women will howl and cry but fear that they may not be elected to Parliament again. They neither love their own people they love themselves.

We are not alone in this. All round the world governments are struggling with the same problems. The program of reform is huge. We must have co-operation, determination and consensus.

We are a community of people, whose self interest and mutual interest at crucial points merge and that it is through a sense of justice that community is born and nurtured. This is the moment to bring the faiths closer together in understanding of our common values and heritage a source of unity and strength.

By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more together than we can alone. We must reach beyond our fears and our divisions to a new time of great and common purpose. Let us trace the roots of affirmative action. Let us determine what it is and what it isn’t. Let us see where it has worked and where it hasn’t and ask ourselves what we need to do now.

Private media freedom is running amok. The news that millions of people in this country including foreign correspondents who convey news overseas receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible only their corporate employers. The State should have control not to permit abuse of the freedom of the Press.

The people love the President. His achievements are remarkable. He has been a stoic in the face of adversity. He has earnestly endeavoured to unify the nation. He is totally committed to serve the people. It is genuine unwavering and it is selfless.
We must not permit a contaminated moral environment. Let us not negotiate out of fear, But let us never fear to negotiate.

As a philosopher once remarked. “The water is clear pure and fresh – it is for all to drink. But some clever people began to bottle the water. Some in beautiful bottles. Some in ugly bottles -with no regard to the water but with great care to its shape.”

It is time that affirmative action is taken so as not to eradicate the norms of democracy.

Resolution of conflict has its requirements. Parties to a dispute cannot threaten and violate the rights of innocent people or those who are performing their duties. If the conflict between the organized form of government and a force not popular on the norms of legality, it is then the duty of the Head of State to take such measures to safeguard the nation by whatever means to protect the nation.

There are individuals and groups who may be critical of the President for political gain, but the President has always taken affirmative action within the norms required of the President. No progress can be made unless a common ground is established. To endeavour to establish common ground certain specific responsibilities on the people and political leaders should be imposed. More of our people must set an example. People should be made conscious of their conduct. We must learn to discuss matters with those who are different from us. Not just people who agree with us but with somebody who is different.

Politicians must set an example to those among whom they work. After all, politics is a matter of serving the community which means that is morality in practice. We cannot restore peace unless we can find some way to bring the nation close together. There should be collective responsibility within groups or else the people will be confused.

We must be Patriotic. We must uphold and defend the Constitution and the Head of State-the President. We owe allegiance to the President and the Constitution as Citizens of Sri Lanka. We must uphold the norms of the Constitution apprehend and prosecute those who terrorize us by their actions and threats, then economic prosperity will follow suit. Our destiny lies in our hands.

 (Dr.Levins T.C.Rajaratnam LL.B(SL)., LL.M(Lond)., Ph.D(Lond)., was the Co-ordinating Secretary to the Chief Government Whip of Parliament, Late Jeyaraj Fernandopulle; Media Advisor to the English Media of the Media Observation Unit founded by Late Jeyaraj Fernandopulle for the Presidential Election Campaign of President Mahinda Rajapakse in 2005; Candidate for the Colombo District for SLFP-PA in the 1994 Parliamentary General Elections  & the Western Provincial Council Elections in 2009; Author; Former Lecturer in Laws, Member of the World Lawyers & Poets Society: Author of “Selected Essays & Tributes on President Mahinda Rajapaksa”Sarvodaya Viswa Lekha Publication  ISBN 978-955-51312-2-3)

Sumanananda Premseri

The Buddhist Maha Vihara Brickfields is pleased to launch its first ever Dhamma publication in Luganda, the language of the people of Uganda, in Africa. This is the 16th language undertaken by the Vihara’s FREE PUBLICATIONS PROGRAM.

 The book is a translation of “How to Practise Buddhism? authored by Ven Dr K Sri Dhammananda. The book was translated by Nicholas K. Ssewanyana and Tom Kyembe and edited by Bhante U. Buddharakkhita, currently the only native African Theravada Buddhist monk. Ven Buddharakkhita has also authored another popular book, “Planting the Seeds of Dhamma”- the Emergence of Buddhism in Africa. Bhante’s book was also published by our Vihara in English and Mandarin.

 Bhante also set up the Uganda Buddhist Center in Kampala, the first ever Buddhist center in Africa set up by a native African Buddhist monk. The Venerable’s mother has ordained to become the first Theravada native African Buddhist nun. The Uganda centre and its Buddhist population is growing slowly with the support of Buddhists overseas and the small expatriate Chinese, Thai, Burmese and Sri Lankan communities.

 Annually, the Vihara publishes about 200,000 to 300,000 Buddhist books in several languages, and also CDs, VCDs and MP3s for free distribution. The Vihara’s free publications are available in English, Mandarin, Bahasa Malaysia, Tamil, Sinhalese, Vietnamese, Burmese, Thai, Brazilian Portugese, Spanish, Hindi, Kannada, Telegu, Kishwahili and Chichewa. The Vihara also teaches the Dhamma to the Deaf using sign language, the only such Buddhist class in Malaysia.

 The Vihara’s Free Publications program is supported by the Buddhist Translation Exchange (BTE) which coordinates the translation of Buddhist books authored by Ven Dr K Sri Dhammananda into various languages in various parts of the world. These books are then published in those respective countries, some sponsored by the Buddhist Maha Vihara. To date translations into 25 languages have been completed. Among the languages are Mandarin, Russian, Swedish, Marathi, Japanese, Korean, Khemer, Indonesian, Persian, Arabic, Nepalese, Dutch, Bahasa Malaysia, Tamil, Sinhalese, Vietnamese, Burmese, Thai, Brazilian Portugese, Spanish, Hindi, Kannada, Telegu, Kishwahili and Chichewa.

 “O Bhikkhus, I allow you to teach in the language of the people” (Arana Vibhanga Sutta)

- the Buddha’s reply to monks who complained that certain monks at the Western frontier are not teaching the Dhamma in the language spoken by the Buddha

 Come down to earth, warns Judge Weeramantry

H. L. D. Mahindapala

Part 1

The marked and recurring theme in Judge C. G. Weeramantry’s legal philosophy has been to resurrect and elevate religions and traditional values to the highest level in the global agenda as a guide to the future. He demonstrated his commitment to his principles when, as a member and later as Vice-President of the International Court of Justice – the highest judicial institution in the world – he wrote some of his judgments based on essential religious philosophies propounded for the preservation of posterity. In returning to religion he decisively branched away from the father of international law, Hugo Grotius, who secularized international law by “divorcing of legal principles from religious teachings which has characterized it to the present day.” (p.9)

Judge Weeramantry’s revolutionary approach is to bring law back to its basics in religion and sacred traditions. In his latest book, Tread Lightly on the Earth, he returns once again to the underlying principles in the five main religions – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism — as the primary sources that can halt the precipitous slide down the path into an early environmental grave which continues to be dug by the relentless, ruthless, exploitative and chrematistic forces of modernity with utter disregard for future generations.

Cynics may ask whether there is anything new in this approach. Religions have been touted as the panacea for all ills plaguing humanity down the ages. But Judge Weeramantry’s approach to religions is not to go down the beaten track of rituals, prayers, and institutionalized mantras. He moves away from the conventional “doctrinal issues, issues relating to religious rites and practices, issues relating to virtuous conduct, issues relating to duties to family, tribe or nation, issues relations to obedience to the law, issues relating to peace and justice and so forth” (p.25) and stresses the dynamic – but neglected — principles in religions as the gateway to the future of humanity threatened by the environmental degradation.

This is an integral part of his multi-ethnic, multi-religious approach to global issues. The return to religious values was first expressed cohesively in The Lord’s Prayer – Bridge to a Better World, a masterly study of the politico-legal meaning in a spiritual text. He lifts the Lord’s Prayer out of the narrow interpretation given by the Church and places it in the wider socio-political context. In it he teases out the legalistic and moral principles which are applicable to all times in all cultures.

He argues that the human condition has not changed that much from the time of Jesus to the present day. The socio-political problems that confronted Jesus continue to haunt man to this day. Jesus was a victim of the oppressive regime of the imperialist Romans who denied the fundamental human rights to the Jewish people. Jesus also stood up for the poor and the marginalized outcasts of society. He rebelled against the “whited sephulcres” in the Jewish establishment working hand in glove with the Roman powers. Eventually, he discovers that the most dangerous thing on earth is to work for the good of mankind. He, in fact, is crucified for doing just that.

The Ecclesiastes – one of the most profound chapters in the Bible that comes closest to Buddhism – underlines the perennial condition of man when it said: “So I returned,” says Ecclesiastes (Chapter 4 -1) “and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.” This penetrating analysis predates Marxism. The multifarious political and religious manifestos have yet to save mankind. Marx, for instance, is nothing more than another secular messiah of the Judaic tradition (his father was a Jew who converted to Protestantism to practice law in Germany) who promised to eradicate the power of the oppressors and establish the kingdom of heaven on earth.

He failed to establish his secular kingdom on earth. The greatest symbol of the vanguard of his revolutionary force – the workers’ hammer – ultimately was used eventually to bring down the Berlin Wall, the symbol of the power of the Marxist oppressors. Besides, Marxism was no different from capitalism in that both forces agreed on structuring a cornucopia of goods and services by exhausting the limited resources of planet earth.

In Lord’s Prayer Judge Weeramantry attempts to build a bridge between the Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of Earth.  In his thesis he weaves his way to equate religious principles with legal and human rights principles. With this bold approach he makes the Lord’s Prayer relevant to all cultures. Perhaps, the most profound principle expressed in Western religio-political texts is contained in the revolutionary line of Jesus: “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” If this principle is fulfilled to the letter by all neighbours collectively who needs states, armies, police and nuclear weapons for security or survival? 

But the neighbourhood is no longer populated with Good Samaritans. It is overpopulated with conspicuous consumers most of whom have invested in the market place hoping to grab a share of it. As insatiable consumers, doubling up simultaneously as greedy shareholders, they are inextricably intertwined as an integral part of the market forces that are jointly and severally responsible for the degradation of the environment. Secular Western ideologies, from Marxism to Friedmanism, have focused essentially on transforming the earth into a cornucopia of goods and services by either freeing or controlling market forces that gouge the wealth buried in the fertile soil.

Judge Weeramantry belongs to that growing army of Al Gorerians who are challenging the fashionable ideologies promoting the exploitation of the resources of earth with no moral limits placed to protect the future endangered by the money-making predators dictating from Wall Street without any regard for their victims in the Main Street. The ultimate goals of socialism and capitalism have been to reconfigure consumerism as the answer to the human condition.

This is symbolized in the architecture of the past and present. In the past monuments leaping into the sky were built to venerate spiritual values. In our time skyscrapers escalate to worship commerce and consumerism. The proliferating supermarkets are the modern temples in which the masses celebrate their endless craving for fleeting self-gratification.

The glittering market place is the sacrificial shrine of the acquisitive society offering the future generations to eternal damnation. The ever expanding market place devours not only the limited resources but also the protective values of traditions enshrined for the protection of all species and their only known abode in the universe – the planet earth.  It is overloaded with products derived from the dwindling resources of the earth and worse still, shopaholics take home their goods in plastic bags which are guaranteed to pollute the earth for generations to come. So at both ends of receiving and disposing goods the market place degrades the earth.

Is the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness then to end in the supermarkets? Is the marketplace, driven by the grinding forces of globalisation, the final graveyard of humanity? In varying degrees the global community has adjusted their race, gender, political and some socio-economic relations. But have they adjusted their relations to the earth – the primary source on which their survival depends?

Misled by the hubris of scientific and technological achievements it has taken a long time for the inhabitants of the earth to abandon the myth that the earth’s resources are infinite and inexhaustible. The urgent need is to seek a balance. The headlines scream of nightmarish scenarios which are already upon us. The snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing, says one headline. The other shrieks of the droughts and the fires. TV screens focuses on the ice shelves in the poles crashing headlong into the seas. The sea levels are inching their way up threatening the land.

But not everyone is convinced that these new developments add up to any serious threat to the environment. At the World Economic Forum, in Davos, the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, expressed doubts about global warming and attacked former US Vice President and environmental activist, Al Gore, for failing to look at the complete picture in regard to the global phenomenon.

Klaus said: “I don’t think that there is any global warming, I don’t see the statistical data for that. I’m very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.”

Despite the environment skeptics (and whether we are inclined to believe them or not) there is no doubt that the climate change is upon us. So have we the capacity and the knowledge to handle it? Is it too late for us to day anything now? These are two urgent questions for us, confronted by the grim reality of the environmental forces changing the planet as we know it. Can science and technology build super refrigerators in the poles to replace the disappearing ice shelves?

The rapidly deteriorating environmental conditions confirm the conclusions of concerned polymaths like Judge Weeramantry that we have the capacity to destroy the environment but not to repair it with the required speed for the survival of generations to come. The limited capacity of science and technology derived from mini-appliances to control the weather in limited spaces like fridges and bedrooms does not go beyond that to restore the global environment to its pristine security and glory. This poses a serious threat to the future of mankind.

So did the Luddites have a point in attacking the new inventions that were displacing their way of life and livelihood? Could the present plight of mankind, faced with an environmental crisis that is probably irreversible, be the hidden meaning of eating the forbidden apple of knowledge?  This is one of the issues canvassed by Judge Weeramantry. One of the questions raised in his book is: Is science, one of the primary forces that advanced the condition of humanity, now returning to undermine the very comforts it gave man? 

“The emphasis on nature and on the human future,” argues Judge Weeramantry, “is so marked that one begins to wonder how these primeval focal points of communal attention receded from the mental horizons of more developed societies.” (p.25). A fundamental facet of his moral argument is that modernity, dependent primarily on technology, science, and market forces driven by fashionable ideologies, have failed and humanity can find its way out of the “one-track way to disaster” (xv) only by returning to the traditional values that recognized the necessity of living in harmony with the environment.

Politics threaten the environment

H. L. D. Mahindapala

Part II

In his book Tread Lightly on the Earth Judge Weeramantry provides a compelling argument for humanity to rediscover the wisdom of traditional societies that found their happiness in less than in craving for more and more. For how long can 6.5 billion people keep on exploiting the limited resources of the earth? For how long can the market place keep on feeding the greed of consumerism and its own greed for profit by exploiting the greed of consumers? Is globalization the spade that is digging the grave of civilization?

In a cartoon of yesteryear drawn by the celebrated cartoonist David Low he caricatured the boastful claims of modern progress in two frames. In the first frame he sketched a peaceful, almost idyllic, scene of a native African in his remote village enjoying the day with his baby crawling on his fours in the garden outside his thatched hut. In the second frame he pin-pointed a modern plane from advanced civilizations of the West dropping bombs on this primitive village. Low was juxtapositioning the modern and traditional values to question the validity of the fanciful notions of technological and scientific “progress”.

After the quantum leap of scientific and technological “progress” in the post-Industrial  period, humanity has ended up virtually in a dead end, burdened with knowledge to destroy itself many times over. The tragedy is that there is neither the collective global will nor a reliable safety mechanism in place on a planetary scale to avert the impending wrath of nature taking its revenge on man usurping the role of God, according to some environmentalists.

In the meantime, the doomsday scenarios continue to proliferate. One popular scenario is the coming of “2012” – the year in which the world is supposed to end, according to folklore. Those who advance this “2012” end-of-the-world scenario are not the old-fashioned Biblical preachers thundering from the pulpits. They cite Nostradamus as the primary source. According to his calculations 2012 seems to be the decisive date. They also cite the Mexican calendar of the Aztecs which ends abruptly in 2012. It is also reported that the Maorian culture too highlights this date. The “2012” doomsayers argue that it can’t be just a coincidence that three different cultures unrelated to each other and separated in time and space can arrive at this date without some significance attached to it.

Skeptics may dismiss this as fear-mongering. Of course, if this scenario is taken seriously it can even cause a run on the banks in and around 2010 – 11 because the neither the banks nor the borrowers will be there to repay the loans. But the mounting evidence has gone beyond speculation. The sins of our forefathers are threatening every aspect of human existence. Man, however, is supposed to be a problem-solving animal. The Micawberian optimists are hoping that sooner or later something will happen somehow to save the planet from sinking into its own garbage. But can man solve this problem in time? Does he have the capacity and the will to do it? Time is not on the side of humanity. Time is surely running out.

The politicizing of the critical issues on the delicate and threatened balance of the environment is as great a danger as the impending disasters of climate change. Environmental issues are now locked in the bitter rivalry of right vs. left politics. The right is challenging the scientific evidence and the left is dependent increasingly on the new evidence provided by science to defend their position on environment. The right-wing politicians, driven by big business and military industrial complex, are not only pooh-poohing the argument that man is a contributor to the degradation of the environment but they are actually playing an active role to prevent any nation states and the international community taking any collective action to do whatever is within the capacity of human society to save the precious ecosystem.

For instance, the left-wing greens see the Czech President Vaclav Klaus as “an anti-warming fanatic declaring it to be a ploy by the UN to achieve world government”, according to Clive Hamilton, the Greens candidate for the seat of Higgins in Australia. (The Australian, November 11, 2009 – p 14). The greens claim that greedy politics is making a desperate bid to replace scientific evidence and rationality. They argue that the neo-cons have hijacked the debate and with it the political clout to change laws for greater protection of environment.

The politicizing of this issue is typified in the crisis faced, oddly enough, by Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the conservative, right-wing Liberal Party in Australia. He is virtually facing a revolt within the party because he is greenie of sorts on this issue of global warming. He says: “The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that we are going through a period of global warming caused by human, principally by the burning of fossil fuels and releasing of greenhouse gases, into the atmosphere at higher rates. They are the main contributors and I accept that.” (Herald Sun, November 11, 2009 – p21)

But the right-wingers in his party are refusing to go along with that line and Turnbull is in a quandary not knowing how to take the party along with him. The Acting Prime Minister, Julia Roberts, Labour Party, has thrown the ball into the court of Turnbull and is telling him to bring the party into line.

The world is clearly divided into two traditional right and left camps on this issue of environmental protection. Angela Merkel of Germany is speaking out firmly for strong action on global warming. But America is still to declare its stand. The Republicans, who tend the embrace the Bible more than Darwin, have been at war with science practically on all issues except on building the military-industrial complex to retain America’s dominant power status. So at the coming world summit in Copenhagen analysts are expecting only a non-binding formula to tide over their difficulties.

The way the political forces are aligned as of now it is doubtful whether any positive or meaningful action will be taken at Copenhagen to fulfill the aspirations encoded in the Johannesburg Political Declaration, which stated in its final paragraph: “We commit ourselves to act together, united by a common determination to save our planet, promote human development and achieve universal prosperity and peace. We commit ourselves to the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and to expedite the achievement of the time-bound, socio-economic and environmental targets contained therein … we solemnly pledge to the peoples of the world, and the generations that will surely inherit this earth, that we are determined to ensure that our collective hope for sustainable development is realized” (Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 4 September 2002).

As in most noble declarations the rhetoric soars to high heavens but action dives into the depths of despair. Political leaders have failed – and will continue to fail – because they are willing to sacrifice the long-term future of the planet for the short-term gains of surviving in power. Besides, politicians play the game of giving more and not less. They pander to the bottomless centre of greed. They outbid each other in competitive politics to be seen as the Santa Claus bringing the cornucopia of goods and services to all and sundry.

But their capacity to give is limited by earth’s decreasing capacity to sustain growth at an unlimited pace. For how long can the rising waters of the sea, the longer-lasting droughts, the expanding desertification of arable lands, the deforestation, exhausting the seas of the fish, gouging the decreasing resources of the planet keep on increasing profits? If the earth dries up what are we going to have for dinner? Who can eat money for breakfast, lunch and dinner? Are we, in short, cursed with the Midas touch? If on the demands of market forces we all turn into gold what will be left of humanity?

Since the threatened environment is threatening growth the potential for destabilizing and disrupting societies is bound to increase exponentially. The comfort zone in which the 21^st century is ensconced is not guaranteed to last long. As the comfort zone shrinks it is bound to create socio-economic frustrations that can lead only to uncontrollable violence. In the long run, saving the planet means moving away from conspicuous consumerism into an alternative life style which Judge Weeramantry outlines concisely.

On page 21 he presents the agenda derived from religions for the future in point form: * intergenerational equities; * avoidance of luxury and ostentation; * the stress on simple living; * concerns for one’s neighbour; * the emphasis on duties rather than on rights; *stress on spiritual rather than materialistic views; * notion of trusteeship of earth resources; * discouragement of pursuit of wealth and power; * avoidance of waste and *the stress on the interests of the community rather that the rights of the individual.

All this constitutes the essence of pure religion. Religions, of course, have been waging a losing battle from birth to keep humanity on the straight and the narrow. Judge Weeramantry’s argument emphasizes the urgency to return to the religious ethic as a way of avoiding the dangers that lie ahead. Religions have consistently focused on limiting the insatiable appetites of consumers which are aided and abetted by rampant market forces dominating advertising space in the media – forces which are running away like uncontrollable wild horses. In essence, Judge Weeramantry’s remedy is to tie up law with the principles of religions as a countervailing deterrent to rein in the apocalyptic market forces running rough shod over civilization as we know it.

In varying degrees, religion and law have acted as separate forces down the ages to control the appetites of man. The new order visualized by Judge Weeramantry is to combine the two into one single force. If, of course, the current trends continue the law will have to step in to control the disruptive forces unleashed by environmental disasters. So should the law-makers wait till the disasters hit mankind (it will be too late then) or should they start now?

But the law-makers are dependent on the consumers who are their voters. So which one of them will have the guts to control the appetites of consumers?

To be continued

by Lt Col (Retd.) Anil Amarasekera

When I wrote the article ‘United we stand divided we fall’ I could see trouble brewing ahead with an effort by vested interests to divide the nationalistic forces. It is now fast reaching the boiling point with the resignation of General Sarath Fonseka from the post of Chief of Defence Staff. That there has been a lot of love lost between President Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse and the former Commander of the Sri Lanka Army, General Sarath Fonseka, is obvious to the man on the street and it is not my intention to add fuel to the already burning fire by finding fault with one party or the other. That is exactly what the vested interests would want at this point of time to destabilize, divide and rule this country by making the political forces in power dance to the tune that they would decide to play.

I have read in the past few days many articles by journalists. Some of them have exposed hidden facts that are very true but by exposing such facts they have only deepened the rift between the two parties and have not contributed in any way towards reconciliation. Most of these articles have found fault with either General Sarath Fonseka or with the President or with both parties and in the process created doubt and mistrust in the minds of the reader towards one party or the other or with regard to both parties. Is this what we require at this point of time when we have defeated the world’s most ruthless terrorist organization and is on the threshold of establishing a unitary nation that needs to regain its prosperity once more to become that island paradise?

The LTTE it must be said was defeated by a combined effort of many. They include not only the President, the Secretary of Defence, the three service Commanders and the service personnel, the IGP and the Police Force, the Director General and the personnel in the Civil Defence Force but also the patriotic general public and expatriates of our nation. Therefore it would be wrong for one person, be it the President or General Sarath Fonseka, to claim that the victory was achieved due to his and his effort alone, forgetting the fact that it was a combined effort that made this victory possible. To evaluate one persons contribution against another’s is also futile, for it will only add to further misunderstandings. One drop of water however big it may be cannot and will not form an ocean. It is many drops of water that go to from an ocean.

Many journalists who write on the subject are unaware of the deep involvement of vested interests to destabilize this country through distorted facts, now that their proxy the LTTE has been convincingly defeated. Elaborating on such distorted facts will only further confuse the reader and add to the already brewing misunderstanding between the President and General Sarath Fonseka. Other journalist may even be in the pay of this vested interests to misrepresent facts and thus to deepen the rift between the President and General Sarath Fonseka. What a reader should understand is that only a fraction of this conspiracy to destabilize our nation will ever be exposed at the surface, while deep within there is much more to such hidden conspiracies. They are no different to an iceberg that floats with only a fraction of it exposed on the surface while much of it will remain submerged. The reader like a passenger in the ship Titanic believes that the ship can never be sunk by even an iceberg, until the iceberg hits the ship and the rest becomes history.

History on the other hand teaches us many lessons if we care to study and understand them. The Sinhala Army under the leadership of the Adikars and Dessaves were supporting the last king of Kandy Sirivikkamarajasiha (1798 to 1815) during the initial stages of his reign. Therefore when a British expeditionary force marched to the hill country to conquer the Kandyan kingdom, the Sinhala chieftains advised the king to withdraw from Kandy. The Sinhalese army then having allowed the British expeditionary force to enter Kandy surrounded them, cut off all supplies and reinforcements from finding its way to the besieged British troops and completely annihilated this force. It was such an overwhelming and humiliating defeat that the then Colonial Secretary in Britain sent out an order for the remaining British troops in Ceylon to leave the island forthwith. However, Lieutenant General Robert Brownrigg had by then requested and received assistance of over two thousand five hundred men as reinforcement s from the British government in Madras and this enabled him to request for the cancellation of the order to withdraw British troops from Ceylon.

The king swollen headed after the defeat of the British expeditionary force became outrageous and barbarous in his conduct towards some of his unoffending subjects who travelled to the Maritime Provinces held by the British for trade as they had been accustomed to do. He turned out to be such a despotic tyrant that he went to the extent of murdering his first Adikar Pilamatalawa in 1809, on some frivolous pretence accusing him of treachery. It must be mentioned at this point that it was first Adikar Pilamatalawa who helped him to usurp the throne in 1798. Eheylepola Dessave was next appointed as the first Adikar. Before long he too was similarly accused of treachery and had to deflect to the Maritime Provinces under the British for protection. It was then that the king decapitated Eheylepola’s children and forced his wife to pound their bleeding heads in a mortar after which her own throat was cut and her body cast into the Kandy Lake.

The stage was thus set for the British to create dissent between the king and the Sinhalese chieftains. The mastermind behind fueling this dissent was John D’Oyly the British government interpreter of the Sinhalese language, who had won the confidence of many chieftains and Mahanayake Theras. The British, who were convincingly defeated in battle in 1803 by the Sinhalese, were able to capture the King with little or no bloodshed receiving support from some of the Sinhala chieftains. Thereafter the Kandyan kingdom was ceded to the British by the Sinhala chieftains on the 2nd of Mach 1815, through the Kandyan Convention. The name of the ceded country mentioned throughout the Sinhala text of this International Treaty is called Sinhala, the name by which the island was known through the centuries. The letter and spirit of the Convention was never observed by the British colonial administration. This resulted in two rebellions. One was in 1818 and the other was in1848. British were able to crush both these rebellions in the most ruthless manner. What conspired is best explained in the words of an English Doctor serving in the British Army, Dr. John Davy in his writings, ‘An Account of the Interior of Ceylon 1983,’ reprint pp 245-247.

“When a district rose in rebellion, one or more military posts were established in it; martial law was proclaimed; the dwellings of resisting inhabitants were burnt; their fruit trees were often cut down, and the country was scoured in all directions by small detachments, who were authorized to put to death all who made opposition ,or were found with arms in their hands….When one considers this rebellion and its consequences, one almost regrets that we ever entered the Kandyan country”

One reason for the fall of the Kandyan kingdom was the fact that the king lost his head after defeating the British expeditionary force. Another reason for the fall of the Kandyan kingdom was the split that was engineered very surreptitiously by John D’Oyly between the king and his first Adikar Eheylepola. Therefore the lesson that you and I can learn from our own history is that a misunderstanding between the head of state and an important chieftain can destabilize a country and spell destruction and ruin to that nation. On the other hand when misunderstandings do occur, if reconciliation is possible between the head of state and an important chieftain, a nation can march forward towards prosperity. Let me therefore give another lesson from our own history to prove this possibility, by focusing your attention to the reign of king Mahasena (334 AD to 362 AD). His achievements in developing our country during his reign of twenty seven years are second to none.

King Mahasena who was misled by some lawless and evil Bhikkhus from Abhaygiri vihara destroyed the splendid Lohapasada seven stories high and carried away the material to construct additional buildings for the Abhaygiri vihara. Many other buildings of the Maha vihara were also destroyed for the very same purpose. One of the chieftains Meghavannabhaya, the best friend that the king had, saddened by the behavior of the king, gathered a rebel army in the Malayarata to punish the king for this wanton destruction. However before the battle, chieftain Meghavannabhaya decided to have one last meal with his best friend king Mahasena. Therefore with some very delicious food he went forth alone by night to meet the king and have dinner with him. When the king had eaten with perfect trust all the delicious food Meghavannabhaya had brought, the king asked his best friend why he had become a rebel. He informed the king that it was because the Maha vihara had been destroyed. The king admitted his fault and promised to reconstruct the Maha vihara to its former glory. They were thus able to reconcile their differences and avoid battling with each other the next day.

Let me conclude by reminding the readers that among the great kings who built ancient irrigation systems in this country, which even modern day technology may find difficult if not impossible to achieve, the name of King Mahanasena stands in the forefront as the king who constructed most of these irrigation works. He was able to achieve such a great success because there was unity and no division after he recoiled with his best friend and restored the Maha vihara.

Reviewed by Dr Muralidaran Ramesh Somasunderam

The writer makes a new analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka, touching on the areas of terrorism, ethnicity, and the political economy.  The Introduction and Chapter 1 indicates the wide approaches to these sensitive areas of study, and comment.  In the past, most of the writers have dwelt with this subject as an ethnic conflict, and have tended to set it within a historical context of the story of Sri Lanka from its past history.  This approach is narrative, and seeks to set this conflict within certain known parameters.  This appears to be a limited approach to the whole problem.  Most of the writers have, therefore, taken one side of the issue, and analysed the events from that angle.  It is either from a Tamil point of view, or from that of the majority community.  Both these lead to a limited vision.  It is refreshing therefore that a new approach has been made in this book to understand the local, regional, and global issues involved.

A sociological approach is vital to a person making a serious attempt to understand, and appreciate, the present world.  Sociology approaches the diversity of the human experience and its continuity.  Such an approach leads one to understand the culture and life of other persons and assists one to a better understanding of society and institutions.  This approach is a breaking away from preconceived and set habits of thinking, and focuses on areas of interest which are central to human life within a given society. 

The conceptual framework of the book clearly points to this.  In dealing with the terrorist problem reference is made to the importance of distinguishing between national liberation movements and terrorism where innocent populations are targeted.  In dealing with the ethnic problems mention is made to the primordial conservative approach (which sees ethnicity as fixed), with a purely biological basis, as opposed to a more liberal approach.  The liberal approach defines ethnic identity as socially constructed.  However, this liberal approach has been made more difficult with the spread of ethno/religious conflicts, which have become a wide political phenomena in the post-Cold War era.  There is also reference to the “partition theory”.  This theory advances the fact that minorities within a state will be victimised unless they are partitioned into independent states.  This has gained wide acceptance within certain academic circles.  The consequences flowing of such a theory, as pointed out by the writer, can only lead to further complications, leading to conflict, rather than solve the problem of multi-ethnic societies.

In the context of Sri Lanka, it has been pointed out that the Tamils did not demand a separate state during the period of British colonialism.  It only became an issue after independence was granted, and in tracing the events to this evolution of Tamil separatism specific reference has been made to its causes.   

Chapter 5 of the book refers to “Internationalization of the secessionist struggle, 1983-1987”.  The Sri Lankan separatist conflict and the Civil War of recent years, has thereafter been dealt with on a regional and global basis.  This approach is vital, due to the geographical position of the country, and its strategic importance.  It is no more a purely domestic conflict, but has global and regional geopolitical issues. 

The writer has correctly pointed this out when she states: “Various external interests may be waiting for the opportunity to gain access to the vast stretches of undeveloped rich agricultural land, magnificent beaches, strategic Trincomalee harbour, and potential mineral resources in the Eastern Province.  But would local, Indian, or international efforts to develop the region benefit the poor from all the communities?”  What is needed, therefore, is to take a realistic approach to the present ethnic conflict.  In this context it is an important book to be read, especially by the policy makers in Sri Lanka.  Unless this is understood and appreciated, at all levels, the future does not offer much hope to the evolution of a stable Sri Lanka: which is the ideal of all moderate Sri Lankans.

Dr Muralidaran Ramesh Somasunderam.

                                       The title of the book is:
The Separatist Conflict In Sri Lanka Terrorism, ethnicity, political economy   By Professor Asoka Bandarage.                                                                                   
Publishers:  iUniverse, Inc. New York Bloomington (2009). Also please include Routledge, and Vijitha Yapa as publishes, as informed by Professor Bandarage.
Reviewed by Dr Muralidaran Ramesh Somasunderam.
Gained a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Deakin University in Geelong , Victoria. 
A Graduate Diploma in Applied Heritage Studies from Curtin University of Technology from Perth, Western Australia.  
A Master of Arts Degree by research in History from Deakin University from Geelong, Victoria.
And a PhD in British Colonial History from The University of Western Australia.  
I am the author of the book entitled: Strategic Significance Of Sri Lanka.