Sri Lanka’s Constitution is off-limits for those that seek to divide the island and those that did not contribute to the betterment of the island
Posted on January 6th, 2017
Shenali D Waduge
When terrorism is funded and supported by external factors, when we know politicians, political parties are influenced to bring about regime change assisted by external players, when we know heads of foreign-bankrolled NGOs are foot soldiers for foreign agendas and all these players are simply carrying out the invader objectives to incrementally dilute the powers historically bestowed to the islands’ Buddhist heritage and associated history are we fools not to realize that many of the players selected to draft the new constitution are only carrying out that insidious agenda? We cannot ignore that the recommendations and proposals that have been presented fall well into place with that overall plan. It is this awareness that should make all citizens realize the plight the island is facing and the future that is at stake. Preservation & Protection of the history of Sinhale Nation & Buddhism are sine quo non in Sri Lanka’s Constitutional Reforms.
No country in the world has a 100% perfect constitution. No constitution can satisfy the demands or desires of all citizens. All the ills suffered by the developing world are also experienced by the developed world be it in lack of lawlessness, racism, discrimination, rights of women and children, sexual abuse, migrant intolerance etc. In some instances the incidents tabulated in western shores are far worse and more appalling that the same over-dramatized in the developing world.
Constitution making is part of the western system derived after colonial rule where the developed world have become what they are as a result of the murder, plunder and confiscation of lands belonging to the original inhabitants. Eastern civilization had no constitutions but had royal decrees which clearly envisaged what the law of the land was and people adhered.
Many of the new demands for self-determination have arisen as a result of colonial invaders transporting people as indentured labor across the world to work on their plantations and thereafter leaving them to beg newly decolonized nations to accept them as citizens and give them a home. That hospitality is now being manipulated.
Many of the troubles of the world find their root to the colonial invaders whose divide and rule tactics spur minorities to make un-acceptable demands. Most of the indentured labor were from South India including those in Sri Lanka who are now demanding a separate state combining 2 provinces. If anyone should be giving land and self-determination it should be the British but in their own land and not anywhere else. Rohingya problem in Myanmar is a creation of the British as is the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka.
Let us also be clear that in ancient times, people were never divided as minorities or majority or by any of the terminologies used by Western governments. The laws of today are those coined by former colonial powers derived on their terms and with their interest at heart. The first justice system following World War 1 & 2 was created to punish the victims and not put any of the victor’s crimes on the dock. Things have not changed as can be seen in the lack of accountability and justice to all the nations that the West have since illegally invaded, occupied, plundered, people murdered, governments toppled, puppets installed etc. Acknowledgement for colonial crimes and its compensation is still pending while West demands war crimes tribunals for other nations omitting trial of their own crimes. Therefore, do these countries have any moral right to be preaching what other countries should or should not do and should we be bound to listen to them when their crimes are ignored and omitted from prosecution?
In keeping these factors in the background there are other factors that cannot be ignored.
Tamils cannot prove they have evolved in our island to claim right to any homeland. There cannot be 2 homelands for the same ethnic group. Tamil Nadu self-determination began first and Sri Lanka’s was an offshoot by Tamils who descend from Tamil Nadu. Given that reality why should any political solution be reached on a fictitious homeland claim.
While the Separate Tamil Homeland quest began in Tamil Nadu, was passed on to Sri Lanka and spearheaded by Tamil leaders in Sri Lanka (forming ethnic based political parties even before independence, making bizarre demands without taking to stock the ethnic composition of Sri Lanka, the 1949 establishment of ITAK for a separate Tamil State) was hijacked by Tamil militant groups that were originally trained and supported by the Indian Government to destabalize Sri Lanka and pass the headache of separatism to Sri Lanka. Plenty of falsehoods have been included to realize India’s goal to annex Sri Lanka – the reference to North & East being traditional Tamil Homelands in the India drafted Indo-Lanka Accord is one such fictitious example. All these politically motivated lies can historically be nullified by facts.
When Portuguese arrived the majority populace in the North were Sinhalese. Given that Sinhalese had been living in the North and had been pushed southward as a result of foreign incursions and climate factors, no constitution can claim the North or the East as being the homeland of only one ethnic group while reserving the right for that ethnic group to live in all parts of the island while denying other ethnic groups to live in either the North or the East.
By 18th century Sinhalese had dropped to third place with Tamil Nadu workers brought to work by the colonial invaders exceeding the Tamils who had migrated throughout the 17 invasions by South Indians. While the colonial invaders brought workers from South India, the LTTE is also on record to claim that over 30% of their fighters were also from South India. We do not know how many of them continue to live illegally as Sri Lankans and have been given lands and other rights.
The works of Portuguese historian Father de Queyroz clearly states that the Sinhalese were living in the North and that the Kandyan King ruled the North. Nagadipa is first mentioned in the Pali chronicles of Ceylon in connection with the story of the Buddha’s second visit to Sri Lanka in the 6th century B.C. It was at the ancient port of Jambukola, the present Sambiliturai, in the Jaffna peninsula that the envoys of king Devanampiya Tissa (250-210) embarked when leaving Ceylon on their mission to the court of Asoka (273-236). This was the same port Theri Sanghamitta and her retinue had disembarked from India with a branch of the Bodhi tree at Buddhagaya during the reign of Devanampiya Tissa. King Devanampiya Tissa built three Buddhist shrines, namely the Jambukola Vihara, the Tissamaha Vihara and the Pacina Vihara and planted a Bo sapling in the Jaffna peninsula (MV.XX.25-27). A gold plate inscription discovered at Vallipuram near point Pedro reveals that during the reign of Vasabha (67-111) the Jaffna peninsula was governed by a minister of that king and that a Buddhist Vihara named Piyaguka Tissa had been built there by that Minister. Plenty more examples prove no independent Tamil kingdom was in existence in the Jaffna peninsula during the Anuradhapura period. http://www.infolanka.com/org/srilanka/hist/hist4.html
It was the Kandyan King who sent his troops to defend his citizens when Portuguese were attacking North, clearly revealing that North Sri Lanka including East Sri Lanka came under the Kandyan King.
In terms of grievances or aspirations – we need to differentiate what the politicians want from the demands of the ordinary people. This was clearly articulated by some Tamil youth who openly claimed that they need homes and jobs and not the division of the country. To answer that what needs to be asked and answered is the simple question – what is it that the Tamils are legally and constitutionally denied that which is given to the Sinhalese or enjoyed by the Sinhalese only. While the Majority populace of the island has remained Sinhalese and it is they who built the nation on the doctrine of Buddhist philosophy and virtues.
To satisfy the cravings of a handful of minority politicians cannot transfer the powers of the majority into the hands of the minority whose political parties are formed with the explicit intent of dividing Sri Lanka and serving one group of people only. These factors are issues that directly confront those preaching about equality and peaceful coexistence.
Moreover those at the political helm are people with tainted records – their decision making have been questionable, some of those at the helm have been prohibited from holding any public office by supreme court order, their actions have been direct affronts to the national security of the country, their bleak record, associations and connections should make all citizens question their current recommendations. We cannot forget how our national army had been placed on par with a terrorist movement, how territory of a sovereign nation was virtually given to terrorists, how terrorist leader was invited to rule the nation for 10 years without election, how parties proposing and demanding clauses are accepted as terrorist proxies and have yet to be investigated and cleared of these charges. The others drafting and making proposals have been either on foreign payroll and foreign guidelines or others who have no spine to decipher what is of national interest and are working to a well calculated plan to culturally cleanse the historical heritage and weaken the periphery of the Centre to facilitate newly created regions/provinces with bigger powers easier to manipulate for foreign agendas.
What clearly remains to be said is that all those who have played no role in building the nation, making Sri Lanka a safer place, eliminating the terrorists that terrorized for 30 years, those that had no spine to even call LTTE as terrorists, those that laughed & ridiculed the heroic deeds of our armed forces, those that included LTTE as being the sole representative of the Tamils in their election manifestos. None of these players have any moral right to determine what goes in and what goes out of the present constitution.
Shenali D Waduge