PM Narendra Modi’s Ravana terrorism comment draws ire in Sri Lanka
Posted on October 15th, 2016

Economic Times

COLOMBO: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comment that Ravana was the new form of terrorism has drawn fire from Ravana followers in Sri Lanka.
In his Vijayadashmi address in Lucknow on October 11, Modi had linked Ravana with terrorism and said that “the first person to fight terror was neither a soldier nor a politician, but the mythological bird Jatayu who fought against Ravana to protect a helpless Sita, whom he was trying to kidnap”.

“We condemn the statement made by the Indian Prime Minister equalling King Ravana to a terrorist,” Ittapane Saddhatissa, a Buddhist monk who leads the Ravana Force, said.
He said the Ravana Force would soon hand over a petition to the Indian High Commission here, protesting against this remark.
Saddhatissa said Modi’s comment hampers the ongoing reconciliation process in Sri Lanka.

Another organisation Ravana Shakthi said Ravana had not been dubbed a terrorist in even in Ramayanaya.

Read more at:


4 Responses to “PM Narendra Modi’s Ravana terrorism comment draws ire in Sri Lanka”

  1. Lorenzo Says:

    Raman and Hanuman were the TERRORISTS.


    Diwali should be BANNED in SL. It is a day when the lover of a woman was killed by the jealous husband and she was thrown to fire! Only BARBARIANS would celebrate such a day!

  2. Christie Says:

    I agree with you.

    Sita eloped with Rawana and hid away from Rama. Rawana a Sinhalese enjoyed life.

  3. Wetta Says:

    I am not sure if Mody knows that Indira and Rajeev have been Indian terrorists. They created, helped, nourished and dispatched their own terrorist brothers and sisters (LTTE) to Sri Lanka. While the stories about Ravanaa continues to stay as “stories”, but facts about Indira’s and Rajeev’s terrorism work are well documented, evidenced and proved.

    Modi, Now who is the true terrorist?

    Ironically the word “modi” in Sri Lanka is meat for “foolish woman”. Is he trying hard to prove the meaning of this word?

  4. plumblossom Says:

    As per the history and archaeology of the country. Even a few months back, a discovery was made of an archaeological site in Anuradhapura dating back to 800BC and included beads, pottery etc. Anuradhapura was a large village by 900BC and there was an expansion into a city by 600BC. There is plenty of evidence of pre-historic cave discoveries such a the Fa Hien caves, the Bellanbendi pellessa and other cave discoveries especially in the wet zone of pre-historic sites or iron age and stone age discoveries (due to the clay in the wet zone preserving such sites well). The oldest skeleton found on the island is 37,000 years old. We know there were four tribes Yaksha, Naga, Raksha and Deva and around 600BC there was an influx of people from India, possibly Bengal or Orissa. These people together with the four tribes Yaksha, Naga, Raksha and Deva together then formed the Sinhala nation. This is why Anuradhapura which was a village by 900BC expanded into a city by 600BC.

    Does all this archaeological evidence not prove that the Sinhala people are the descendants of the indigenous people of the island i.e. the yakshas, Nagas, Rakshas and Devas? Much later by around the 16th century due to the Aryachakravarthi invasion of the Jaffna Peninsula the Sri Lanka Tamils migrated but into the Jaffna peninsula only. Later during the Portuguese, Dutch and British colonial times, there were further migrations of Sri Lankan Tamils (called Malabars meaning those from the Malabar coast of India) for purposes of planting tobacco and indigo brought in by the colonialists.

    Of course other people such as the Arab traders, Malays, then the Burgers (descendants of colonisers) also migrated to the island too.

    Does this not then prove that this island inclusive of the North and the East is the homeland of all its people? So is this demand for a separate state by the Sri Lankan Tamils (called Malabars meaning those from the Malabar coast of India), descendants of recent migrations to the island, not absurd and unacceptable?

    Let us state in the constitution that this island is the homeland of all its people, for the sake of justice and fairplay, by everyone concerned.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2020 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress