No votes or peace in appeasing West and Jaffna jingoism
Posted on July 30th, 2011

H. L. D. Mahindapala

The most pragmatic solution to the Vadukoddai War waged relentlessly by the Tamil Tiger terrorists was prescribed by the London Times on August 10, 1995. (Please note the date). In a telling editorial it said: “The elimination of one man, Prabhakaran, could fashion a miraculous change in the island’s politics of conflict. An exhausted Tamil population, in the north and east of Sri Lanka, is in the evil grip of one man and his army of fanatics. Mrs. Kumaratunga must continue to try to liberate them, both by the force of arms and by the strength of her political logic.” Every line of this quote turned out to be prophetic. And what is more, the longest running war in Asia ended precisely on the terms outlined by The Times.

As predicted, the “liberation” of the Tamils from “the evil grip of (Prabhakaran’s) army of fanatics” came with “the elimination of one man, “”…” Prabhakaran”. The history of the failure of all Sri Lankan peace talks “”…” not to mention the failures of the regional and international formulas for peace — finally left only one option open: a military solution. The success of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s military offensive in ending Vadukoddai violence confirms the necessity and the inevitability of using whatever force that was required to eliminate Prabhakaran from the political equation. The fire of the north had to be fought with the fire of the south and to moralize on alternatives is as futile as all the peace formulas that took the nation deeper into endless cycles of violence.

The elimination of Prabhakaran came as a great relief to (a) the international community which had banned him as a terrorist leader; (b) India where he was wanted as a criminal for the killing of Rajiv Gandhi; (c) Sri Lanka which could not get him back to the negotiating table or into the non-violent democratic stream and (d), above all, to the Tamils who discovered, rather late, that Prabhakaran’s politics combined with brutal violence was detrimental to their pursuit of life, liberty, peace and happiness. The liberation of the 300,000 Tamil civilians of all ages “”…” from children to the old and feeble in hospitals — who were used as a human shield to protect Prabhakaran and his “army of fanatics” was seen on global TV screens as they voted with their feet running away from Prabhakaran, even when they were shot at by “the fanatics” in Prabhakaran’s army.

The weight of the Times’ argument lies not only in it being the authoritative voice of the Western establishment but also in recognizing (1) that there was no way of winning peace by appeasing Tamil extremism that peaked with the rise of Prabhakaran “”…” the logical end of the mono-ethnic political culture nurtured in the womb of Jaffna and (2) the inevitability of using military force as the only means of terminating Jaffna-centric violence and liberating the war-weary Tamils. The analysis of the The Times could not be faulted “”…” not even by a comma.

The editorial also focused sharply on a significant fact ignored by the local pundits “”…” i.e., “the divisions in Sri Lanka, although widened by years of civil war, are neither visceral nor atavistic”. It added, insightfully: “Mrs. Kumaratunga faces an adversary with whom little rational dialogue is possible.” This is a rare epiphanic moment in Western thinking where The Times cut through the cant and exposed the hard realities facing Sri Lanka.

In a few lines The Times exposed the hollowness of the mono-causal theory of NGOs and the peace-mudalalis who ran round the town blaming the Sinhala-Buddhist as chauvinists bent on waging war against the Tamils. When The Times said that “the divisions in Sri Lanka” are “neither visceral (i.e., ethnic hatred like the Jews and the Arabs) nor atavistic (i.e., deeply rooted in history)” it knocked the theories of S. J. Tambiah, H. L. Seneviratne, C. R. de Silva and their ilk into a cocked hat. A pronouncement of this magnitude coming from an independent Western source cannot be dismissed as the cry of Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinists. It should serve to revise the dogmas of the anti-Sinhala-Buddhist lobby which has thrived so far on propagating the mono-causal theory of blaming only the Sinhala-Buddhists, based on “visceral and atavistic” divisions.

But there is a twist to this position taken by The Times. The West, which was involved in giving covert and overt support to the elimination of Prabhakaran, turned against Sri Lanka on the eve of the defeat of Prabhakaran. It was not a post-Vadukoddai War phenomenon. It began just before the war ended. Later, in the post-Vadukoddai War period, the anti-Sri Lankan line was pursued with a vengeance by the West. The sudden U-turn needs to be examined in detail. Why did the West which went along with the military offensive of the Sri Lankan government till around January 2009 suddenly decide to call a halt to it when it became clear that the elimination of Prabhakaran as a military force was about to end?

Eric Solheim, the peace facilitator accepted by both parties, is on record saying that five months before the fall of the Tigers he had urged them to lay down their arms and negotiate. But the Prabhakaran, partly due to his own megalomaniacal ego and partly due to the false hopes raised by the Tamil expatriates who had never read the ground realities in Sri Lanka accurately, refused to negotiate with the Sri Lankan government. Had he agreed to lay down arms to a third party (say, the UN) and offered to negotiate constructively for peace the history of the Tamil Tigers would have been different. Their image as war heroes would have carried them to new political heights in the Tamil electorates and they would have continued to be a formidable political force, sans military power no doubt, with powers of bargaining with the Sri Lankan government. But the Tamil Tigers, like all other mono-ethnic agents of the peninsular political culture, lacked the political nous to seize the opportunities that came their way. Obsessed with mono-ethnic extremism they gambled with their lives and the lives of the Jaffna Tamils until they ended in humiliating defeat.

But if Prabhakaran had decided to negotiate from a non-military base, indicating his genuine willingness to negotiate for a peace settlement on terms and conditions offered to him with international guarantees, (example: Cease Fire Agreement of 2002) it would have put the Sri Lankan government in a tight corner from which there was no easy exit. International pressure on the Sri Lankan government would have had a greater force to halt the war and start negotiations all over again if Prabhakaran, even at the last stages, entered the peace process as a flexible, non-militant, non-violent negotiator. But he too had gone too far down the path of Vadukoddai violence path for him to become a peacenik overnight. Besides, he had neither trust nor experience in non-violent democratic processes. He was a prisoner of his violent past. He was beyond redemption. He had to do what he was used to do. And those who came to his rescue too were doomed to fail because Prabhakaran had been his worst enemy. By 2008 he had lost all moral respectability and authority to either defend himself or be defended by others. David Milliband and Richard Kouchner failed in their mission to halt the war because they had no moral or political or legal basis to keep Prabhakaran going as the armed “Pol Pot of Asia”. (The New York Times “”…” June 28, 1995).

Nevertheless, when Prabhakaran was outwitted, out-gunned and ousted from his military bases on the ground he looked Westward for rescue missions. He was aided and abetted by his misguided hero-worshippers in the Tamil diaspora. Though desperate attempts were made at the last minute nothing materialized. In any case he had wasted all the goodwill he had in senseless violence. He had lost the moral base even to inspire his own people who were deserting him in their thousands.

 Mere external pressure, presumably on international humanitarian law, was not valid enough to keep a fascist oppressor in power. The West had launched their global and regional wars in the twentieth century on the moral ground of totally rejecting anti-democratic fascist tyrants “”…” from Hitler to Saddam Hussein. They prioritized the elimination of fascist tyranny as their primary duty to protect and preserve their (a) national interests and (b) democratic values which were inextricably intertwined. They never hesitated to use weapons of mass destruction, if it suited them to destroy fascist tyrants who threatened their national interests. When it came to collateral damage to civilian victims in the enemy camps they either justified it or dismissed it as a necessary evil to serve the higher cause of protecting and preserving democratic values.

Furthermore, the West fought decades of Cold War in persistent, consistent and diverse maneuvers to liberate nations under communist tyranny. They fought proxy wars in all continents in the name of democracy. They fire-bombed Vietnam and concocted fake incidents (e.g: Tonkin Bay) as excuses to launch military offensives to target indiscriminately their perceived enemies in Vietnam, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia, Latin America etc “”…” all in the name of democracy. The publicized political, military and legal principles of the West state on record that post-World War II offensives in Afro-Asia and Latin America were waged by them on the morality of liberating people from tyranny. But the overthrow of Tamil fascist tyranny, opening up new democratic avenues for all communities to co-exist in peace, with minimal collateral damage, has not been given due recognition on the same principles.

The overthrow of the Tamil fascist tyranny has (1) stabilized the regional peace; (2) restored democracy (however defective it may be); (3) rescued 300,000 Tamils held as prisoners in a human shield maintained at the point of a gun to protect the fascist tyrant (4) ended a primary source of life-threatening political violence and (5) restored peace and paved the path for reconciliation and progress in Sri Lanka. All civilized societies have fought wars “”…” at great costs of human lives and resources no doubt “”…” to achieve these goals. These are achievements that should be balanced against any other consideration. The West, in particular, cannot take the moral high ground and point a finger on violations of human rights or crimes against humanity or war crimes because they won their national interests and freedoms by waging wars against fascist tyrants that led inevitably to violations of international humanitarian law.

Like all other wars won by the West against cruel tyrants Sri Lanka’s achievements deserve celebration and commendation. Which is what UNHRC did, quite rightly, in reversing the resolution moved by the West against Sri Lanka. But the vindictive West is relentlessly pursuing a vendetta against Sri Lanka for alleged violations of humanitarian law “”…” an accusation that pales into insignificance when compared to any scale of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the West.

Judged by any principle of proportionality it can be shown how the Western democracies had committed crimes against humanity on a scale that would make their claims to moral purity and superiority absolutely ridiculous. Their crimes against the innocent and unarmed peasants in Vietnam, or children in Iraq (600,000 died as a result of the naval blockade imposed by the West), or assassinating elected heads of states (example: Allende of Chile), or using weapons of mass destruction (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), or the use of chemical warfare indiscriminately as in Vietnam, or torturing prisoners in Abu Gharib jail and in client states like Egypt where military dictatorships were funded with billions of dollars, or drones bombing Afghanistan into the stone age, expose them as criminals who should be tried more for their hypocrisy than for the crimes committed under their command. Yet Bush, Blair, Brown and Obama escape with impunity while they are out to get Sri Lanka for alleged crimes, which are yet to be substantiated by non-partisan reports with a higher credibility rating than that of the Advisory Panel of Experts (APEs) and the fake Channel 4 video.

If the totality of the crimes committed by the West is piled up in one heap it would dwarf their moral claims to less than a mustard seed. Their morality at all times was based on political expediency. They covered up their bloody records with a veneer of principles borrowed from sacred reference points to glorify their crimes against humanity like the way Hollywood sanitized and sanctified the genocide of native American-Indians on the silver screen to the applause of the predatory white man’s gallery.

The West is dancing round the report of the Advisory Panel of Experts (APEs) and the questionable video of Channel 4 like the voodoo maniacs, ululating mantras, just before they spear their victims through the heart. They have failed to take into consideration the totality of the crimes committed in the 33-year-old Vadukoddai War and balanced the overriding and overwhelming gains scored by the Sri Lankan forces (which, incidentally, have been commended for their military conduct in reports ranging from University Teachers’ Human Rights, Jaffna to the APES) and focused only on the last stage which in itself is a biased approach to assess violations of human rights. Any judgment must take into consideration the entire 33-year-old time frame of Vadukoddai violence. On what moral criteria can the violations of the Vadukoddai War be judged only on the last few months? Isn’t this time frame designed to eliminate all other actors “”…” including the Indian IPKF “”…” and focus only on the alleged accusations against the Sri Lankan forces?

For instance, why shouldn’t Fr. S. J. Emmanuel be tried like Lord Haw Haw who broadcast from Berlin glorifying Hitler and denigrating the allies? Britain tried Haw Haw and hanged for being the leading propagandist of Hitler. But Fr. (Haw Haw) Emmanuel is now hobnobbing with British MPs as if he is the saintly brother-in-law (machang) of Mother Theresa.

The verdict of the Nuremberg trials which indicted and sentenced only the fascist aggressors threatening democratic states should be the reference point for anyone raising accusations against Sri Lanka. No one tried “Bomber” Harris for fire-bombing and flattening Dresden, killing 300,000 civilians in the last days of World War II. On the contrary he was knighted by the Queen. No political or legal authority has even raised the issue of trying the Queen for the crimes committed by her forces in World War II or in other conflict zones. Mark you, trying the Queen as the head of state for war crimes is within the law because there is no statue of limitation on crimes committed against humanity. The Eichmann trial in Israel also dismissed the argument that he was merely carrying out orders. Similarly the Queen was a part of the military machine that committed war crimes. But she was also a part of the forces that eliminated the evil that saved civilization from the fascist evil. She deserves to be commended and protected. So should Sri Lanka.

The Nuremberg trials were also one-sided but, on balance, it cannot be considered another instance of winner takes it all. Despite all the morality propounded by pacifist gurus, the laws operative in the history of wars confirm that the elimination of evil demands the use of disproportionate violence at times. Nor can Nuremberg trials be dismissed as unwarranted triumphalism. The aggressors and the intransigent fascists who never surrendered even at the last minute should be held totally responsible for the carnage, particularly at the last stage. Besides, the elimination of anti-democratic and fascist forces opened up new space for a better world. Germany and Japan are two notable examples where they rose to new heights after the forces of evil were vanquished. Imagine where Sri Lanka would be now if its leaders accepted Western advice and saved Prabhakaran?

In measuring and passing judgments on violence, particularly of democratically elected states, the West operates on false and questionable assumptions that degrade them in the eyes of the rest. Their sense of superiority runs on the following assumptions: our Western violence is superior to your Afro-Asian violence. Our Western violence (even when we bomb Afro-Asian peasants indiscriminately committing war crimes and crimes against humanity) serves a higher purpose while your Afro-Asian violence, even if it overthrows fascist tyrants and restores democracy, must be monitored, censured and taken up before international criminal courts. We in the West not only have the exclusive moral right to chase our enemies to the ends of the earth and eliminate them but also the monopoly of using whatever methods (including weapons of mass destruction which we have stockpiled for future use) we choose to achieve our political goals, even if it means violating internal law and international humanitarian law. The immorality is in placing a higher moral value on the violence perpetrated by the West each time they waged wars against their enemies that threatened their states as opposed to the violence of other states ( e.g: Sri Lanka) in waging its war against Tamil tyranny, and terrorism.

Besides, a close scrutiny of their morality reveals that they use the new secular religion of international humanitarian law not because they respect higher moral values but simply because it is politically expedient to win power and retain power, domestically and globally, at any cost. The immorality of using morality for political expediency is most apparent in the case of Sri Lanka. At various stages of the Vadukoddai War Sri Lankan forces swiftly drove out the Tamil Tigers in Jaffna “”…” the heartland of the Jaffna Tamils; (2) the East; and (3) Killnochchi, the capital of the Tamil Tigers without much fuss or accusations of massive violations of human rights. It was only in the last stage when Prabhakaran was on the run, taking shelter behind the human shield of his own people, that the accusations of committing violations of human rights came up.

How come these accusations reached hysterical pitch when Prabhakaran was facing extinction and not when he was making “tactical withdrawals” (according to his Vanni chieftains like Tamilchelvam) from Mavil Aru in 2006? It was this last phase that attracted the Western moralists of all hues, particularly British who were determined, according to (Wikileaks), to “sustain pressure” on the Sri Lankan government for ending the war by eliminating the Tamil Tigers. The British Foreign Minister, Milliband and his French counterpart, Richard Kouchner, rushed to Sri Lanka to halt the war. A British Parliamentary delegation, led by Tim Waite, pressed the Sri Lankan government to let them come in. Milliband was lobbying in UN to delay Sri Lanka’s Stand-By Arrangement with IMF.

Milliband, along with Kouchner, was determined to launch a diplomatic offensive against Sri Lanka at the UN by hosting “informal” meetings. After the humiliating defeat at the UNHRC he was plotting to initiate a special session at Geneva on Sri Lanka. These initiatives were to appease the Tamil voting banks in UK, as revealed by Wikileaks. For their part, the Tamil expatriates were going all out to put pressure on Western governments to put maximum pressure on the Sri Lankan government to halt the war. They took to the main roads in Western capitals. They blocked entrances to parliaments in UK, Canada and Australia. One even committed suicide in Geneva. Others went on hunger strike. Some walked miles across Canada and America, carrying anti-Sri Lankan messages to influence iconic figures like Oprah. Of course, they were chivying the Left-leaning parliamentarian allies in all Western capitals.

As if this was not enough Radhika Coomaraswamy, who has temporarily shifted her political base at Kynsey Road in Colombo to an office inside the UN, New York, corralled her political ally, Gareth Evans, who was then the head of the ICG, to threaten Sri Lanka with international intervention under provisions of R2P (Responsibility to Protect). Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu was running from capital to capital in the West urging anyone who was willing to listen to him to stop the war. Earlier he was boasting that the Tiger cadres consisting of committed volunteers were invincible unlike the Sri Lanka soldiers who were deserting the army in droves.

Never had Sri Lanka faced such a massive onslaught from the local and foreign lobbies aimed primarily at intervening in the domestic affairs at the critical moment that was to decide the fate of the nation. They were lobbying to save Prabhakaran which, if it succeeded, would have resulted in prolonging the Vadukoddai War which was the root cause of the violations of human rights, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Sri Lankans were yearning to see the end of the 33-year-old Vadukoddai War declared on May 17, 1976 by the Jaffna jingoists. Victory for peace could come only by eliminating Prabhakaran, as stated by The Times. The so-called peace lobbies were lobbying to keep him in his usual business of violence without any guarantees of Prabhakaran agreeing to peace and joining the democratic stream.

A prime mover in this enterprise of saving Prabhakaran at the last minute was David Milliband. He confessed to Tim Waite that he was spending “60 per cent of his time on Sri Lanka”(Wikileaks). One may well ask whatever possessed a British Foreign Minister of UK, who is over-loaded with global issues, to spend “60% of his time on Sri Lanka”? Didn’t he have anything better to do? How did Sri Lanka zoom so large on his radar? Was it his deep concern about human rights and save the Tamil civilians caught in the cross-fire? Or was he making an unconscionable bid to save his skin by exploiting the suffering of the

To understand Milliband’s hyper-activity against Sri Lanka at this time it is necessary to look closer at the plight of the Labour Party which was in the throes of a critical general election. Opinion polls were predicting that the chances of the Labour Party winning were diminishing rapidly. It was also election time in India and the Congress Party too was biting its nails wondering how the war in Sri Lanka would affect their chances of winning power again. India and UK “”…” two key players in the Sri Lankan crisis — sent high-powered teams to halt the war not because they were overly concerned about Tamil civilians losing their lives so much as the fear of the ruling parties in both nations losing their seats and grip on power. President Mahinda Rajapaksa was at the receiving end of all these international pressures without caving in. Publicly, Milliband posed as a political Moses dispensing eternal political principles for the good of humanity. But in reality he was nothing more than a peddler of mendacious myths to demonize Sri Lanka in the eyes of the international community. One has to go behind his public postures to grasp his hidden political agenda. The secrets were exposed by Wikileaks.

Wikileaks revealed that Milliband was just another politician mouthing principles for his personal gain. He was desperately firing in all directions to save the Labor Party from defeat at the last general elections. His anti-Sri Lankan activity on a global scale was to influence Tamil votes in domestic constituencies of Labour MPs struggling in marginal seats. His public grandstanding, where he was seen to be mobilizing international forces against Sri Lanka, was another way of getting a share of the 300,000 votes of Tamils scattered in the marginal seats in which the Labor candidates were tipped to lose. The Guardian summed up the Milliband’s thinking in its headline which said: “US embassy cables: Foreign Office says Milliband’s concern for Sri Lanka humanitarian crisis driven by electoral calculations.”

Quoting the Wikileaks it added that the “ministerial attention to Sri Lanka is due to the “very vocal” Tamil Diapora in the UK, numbering over 300,000 and who have been protesting in front of Parliament since April 6. He added that with UK elections on the horizon and many Tamils living in Labour constituencies with slim majorities, the Government is paying particular attention to Sri Lanka, with Milliband recently remarking to Waite that he was spending 60 per cent of his time at the moment on Sri Lanka.” (The Guardian, Wednesday, December 1, 2010).

In the end Labour Party lost. Milliband lost his job as Foreign Minister. The promise of Tamils to put Labour back into power with their vote banks failed. They used him by exaggerating their electoral clout to win in marginal seats. This is a common tactic of the expatriate Tamils. In Australia, as in most Western countries, their tactic is two-fold: 1) they infiltrate left-wing offices as active volunteers offering their labour free to get easy access to the centers of power and 2) exaggerate their electoral figures to impress that they have the clout to swing elections. In some seats they do have deciding margin to win seats but not to the extent they claim on a national scale. In Australia, for instance, the Sinhalese outnumber Tamils by 5:1. But they pose as the decider of the fate of the national electorate.

In short the numbers game played by Milliband reveals the hollowness of the Westerners’ claim that their foreign policies are based on high moral principles. Milliband would not have spent 60% of his time on Sri Lanka, particularly at election time, if there was nothing in it for him. The Tamils and the politicians play a symbiotic role, each hoping to exploit the other. They Tamils infiltrate practically every party to have the ear of whoever wins the elections. Milliband’s role was to exploit the principles of international humanitarian law to serve the electoral politics of the Labour Party. Milliband’s ghoulish politics was to grab power by climbing over the dead bodies found littered in the killing fields of exploding crises in various corners of the globe. This self-serving politics is symptomatic of the decline of Western standards. It is their disingenuous principles that are incrementally destabilizing global stability. The self-serving standards set by Western politicos will not help to lead the world into the 21st century

Sri Lanka has been dealing with the West from Greco-Roman times. At no time did it ever face such a collective assault from the West as during the last days of the war. To the credit of Mahinda Rajapaksa it must be granted that, like our great kings of the past, he did not cave in under Western pressure. Western pressures began to impact directly with the coming of the Portuguese in 1506. The predatory colonialists from Portuguese times tried economic embargos, diplomatic pressure and military offensives against Sri Lanka. So what the West is doing now is nothing new. Sri Lanka has gone through these pressures before and never stopped resisting the foreign interventionists.

There were, of course, Dharmapala “”…” not to mention his latest avatar, Wickremesinghe — ever willing to go to bed with the West for their personal gains and preservation. Even the latest polls confirm that the people reject the Dharmapalas and Wickremesinghes. The people rely on Mahinda Rajapaksa to defend the territorial integrity, sovereignty and the rights of all peoples “”…” just not one privileged community. If at this stage Mahinda Rajapaksa, by any chance, decides to give in he will be another Dharmapala or a Wickremesinghe. The people did not sacrifice their lives for him to play the role of Wickremesinghe.

It is he who is vested with the power of the people to protect the nation “”…” not the parliament. When Wickremesinghe handed over the north and the east to Prabhakaran he did not consult the President, parliament, the party or the people. He did it on his own when he was only a prime minister, without presidential powers. He gambled and lost in appeasing the West and one community only. As subsequent events have proved there are no votes in appeasing the West and Jaffna jingoists. And President Mahinda Rajapaksa has proved that he can win both at home and abroad if he sticks to his commitment to serve the nation by serving the aspirations of all communities “”…” and not just one community. As president he has all the powers to consolidate the gains of the people who have unquestioningly placed their trust in him. Will he surrender now? Will he betray his people who gave their hearts, minds and lives to him?

 His task his simple: fulfill the aspirations of all peoples and not just one community demanding a share of power which they are not entitled to in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. Pluralism, contrary to the delusional theories of anti-Sri Lankan pundits, has been the dominant political culture from time immemorial. Simple logic states that it is impossible to serve the aspirations of all the communities by pandering to one community. There should be one army, one navy, one air force, one police, one land shared by all without any arbitrary or artificial boundaries created for only one community. These demands based on a post-colonial history of mono-ethnic extremism have resulted in devastating consequences to all communities.

Besides, they fail to see the utter contradiction in arguing for the fulfillment of aspirations of all communities and in the same breath arguing for special rights for one exclusive community. This is the latest version of the Orwellian principles of some being more equal than the others. The Jaffna jingoists want equal rights with all other communities in the south and special rights over and above the other, to be more equal, in the north and the east. Example: the Jaffna Tamils (54%) have the right now to enjoy all the state facilities provided for multi-ethnic communities to co-exist in the south, including owning land in the south, but the state is prohibited from providing the same facilities for multi-ethnic communities to co-exist in mono-ethnic north.

Well, there is a workable solution to this divisive and corrosive exceptionalism which undermines multi-ethnic co-existence.. Those who are uncomfortable with the idea of co-existing in a multi-ethnic society peacefully should go to the embassies (example: American, British, French Australian etc) which hosts the Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam and demand visas to live under their new prime minister, V. Rudrakumaran, and their God father, Fr. S. J. Emmanuel. Issuing visas to these individuals “”…” en mass, if necessary “”…” to those who refuse to accept pluralism and co-exist in a multi-ethnic state would be the ultimate proof of the commitment of the West who has never ceased to preach to Sri Lankans the value of tolerance and co-existence in a democratic society. If these governments believe that they follow the higher principles of human rights then they must lead by example and give the Jaffna Tamils not only the visas but all the rights they demand in Sri Lanka, including a separate state.

Over to you Ambassadors and High Commissioners of the West.


5 Responses to “No votes or peace in appeasing West and Jaffna jingoism”

  1. Lorenzo Says:

    This is not the first time.

    1. During British times Tamils were doing well thanks to discrimination. But they still went for racist politics.

    2. In 1970s northern Tamils were doing extremely well thanks to import restrictions. Jaffna got a university, etc. But what did they do? They supported TULF racism even more.

    3. In 2002 Ranil signed the CFA and Tamils benefited a lot. However what did they do to Ranil in 2004 general election? Complete annihilation! What sis they do in 2005? Same thing. Remember Jaffna was not under the LTTE but Jaffna Tamils refrained from voting for him. Vanni voters turnout was higher than Jaffna believe it or not!

    This is their thinking. How strange! It is foolish MR doesn’t understand this.

    The more good you do —> the more racist they become.

    Learn from history.

  2. jimmy Says:

    always complaints complains and complaints

    please for Peeks sake (a) respect each other (b) Love each other ( c) Help each other
    (d) Pray for each other

    Tamils should sincerely and honestly reach out to sinhalese and help and Sinhalese should help Tamils

    I am sick and tired of damn complaints complainys from Tamils and Sinhalese

  3. AnuD Says:

    Lorenzo is correct.

    They think Sinhala people are inferior to Tamils, and therefore, they deserve more. what ever we do they will not acknowledge. they will say, “ahh, we did that, we did this. We screamed for it. So, youhad to give it. It is like why LTTE was there. It was Sinhala fault”.

    they will never accept that they did something wrong. It was the other guy’s fault.

  4. Lorenzo Says:


    Adding another example.

    In 1970s the government gave Jaffna a university which became the ONLY TAMIL ONLY university in the world outside TN. Did they appreciate it?

    No. Instead they complained of standardisation.

    Some barbarians burnt the Jaffna library. Someone else rebuilt it. Did they appreciate it?

    No. They only remember burning it.

    I can’t understand their mentality but I know how they behave. Like donkeys (no disrespect though). When you want the donkey to move forward, you pull it backwards. Then it goes forward.

    MR is going to fall into the same trap Ranil fell in 2004 and 2005.

  5. Fran Diaz Says:

    It’s time that some Tamil people (and TNA) should settle down now and stop playing international Games full of lies, cheat & deceit. The Game is all too transparent now and laid bare now for all to see. As the Indian flag motto states Truth wins in the end. This is the Law, and no one is exempt.

    Heavy metal toxicity and diseases due to environmental pollution will affect every community in Sri Lanka. We should put all our heads together to solve that problem and other problems that affect us all, plus how to produce clean energy for all.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress