Sri Lanka’s Multicultural Casualty – The National Anthem
Posted on January 26th, 2013

Shenali Waduge 

  It is puzzling how an unreliable political ideology, advocated by liberals and subscribed to by a handful of academics, media personnel, government officials, social theorists. lefties and politicians have managed to take the world by storm introducing a concept called MULTICULTURALISM. We question what its experimentation has actually delivered to nations in terms of national unity? We ask how these lobbyists expect to deliver integration when it is seeking to break identities and deal a slow death to historically preserved and valued cultures by establishing virtually sovereign societies within nations. We want to know what is at stake for Westphalian sovereign nations and the legality of what is taking place globally. Changing national anthems, national flags in a liberal “open” society spells dangers to all mankind unless governments take a firm grip on the situation.

It was 3 years after Independence that Sri Lanka officially adopted a national anthem on November 22, 1951 it was also translated into Tamil. Namo, Namo Matha, Apa Sri Lanka was the original first line until it was changed without the consent of the author Ananda Samarakoon in 1961. Constitutional recognition of the national anthem Sri Lanka Matha came in 1978. In 2010 December, it was decided to scrap the translation of the Sri Lanka Matha following a paper produced by the Public Administration and Home Affairs Minister.

All was forgotten until the present Minister of National languages and Social Integration comes along 3 years later “”…” another “leftie” pulling the multicultural strings and produces yet another paper that reconciliation would be complete once the national anthem is mixed in Sinhala and Tamil.

The Government has been too accommodative of demands on the excuse of reconciliation always putting the Government on a back foot with accusations of war crimes as a ploy to swing the decision.  Veiled behind this fear psychosis, opportunists are having a field day presenting all sorts of multicultural goondus in order to take Sri Lanka close to breaking up the cultural heritage it had preserved and walking into a whole new set of minefields “”…” and only last August we had cleared the dangerous ones!

How symbolic it is to change what has been sung since 1951?

How many are “national” enough to realistically put the national flag on independence even in their homes or know to sing the national anthem?

The Minister or for that matter many other Ministers can be lobbied by the multicultural fashion-house but sanity must remain. Experimenting with something like the national anthem is nothing a single person or a handful is entitled to do. Especially when the person making the recommendation does not even have a vote bank to argue that he is backed by the people.

There is little point in bringing examples from other nations because a nation’s national anthem is nothing that has been hurriedly worded together and certainly nothing to please a set of people only or something that should be done just because another country did so.

For arguments sake take the oldest national anthem “”…” the Dutch “Wilhelmus” which has 15 eight-line verses written between 1569 and 1578 and is made up of mysterious ancient words which everyone including children have to learn without knowing its meaning. Now The Netherlands is a nation that has its fair share of multiculturalism and has decided to say enough is enough. Yet, lobbyists have not managed to change the world’s oldest national anthem and there is no reason that Sri Lanka’s national anthem should be constitutionally changed just because Vasudeva or any other wants to change it.

“Singing the national anthem in the Tamil language, which is a recommendation of the LLRC, is a ridiculous and unpractical idea” so said Sri Lanka’s Defense Secretary. So the multicultural lobbyists had made inroads into the LLRC too.

The “multicultural” hamper includes many more changes and it’s an all-out effort to reverse all that nations had fought for, generations of values that nations had proudly preserved and nations need to now stand to defend these cultures without digging their own graves. Everywhere the objective of taking the power from the majority in every sphere that it controls is subtly taking place on the guise of multiculturalism and reconciliation.

 Look at neighbor India and how far its Hindi influence has been influenced and reduced by the Christian movement, look elsewhere in UK where 30 years of multiculturalism has led to the city of Birmingham not displaying Christmas messages, Santa Claus, ornaments etc on its street during Christmas lest non-Christians may get upset or where areas are now considered “zones” belonging to an immigrant community!

Back home we can but wonder if the multicultural objective in Sri Lanka is to remove all traces of Sinhala Buddhist identity and we see that taking place before our very eyes.

These changes are carefully designed “”…” it will be the national anthem, then the national flag, we have witnessed how the subject of History was removed by Baathurdeen Mohamed, the education minister in 1972 and similar steps were again adopted during Chandrika Kumaratunga’s stint as President, then we know that the Constitution is likely to be changed, so people need to be alert to see how far Article 9 of the Constitution (foremost place to Buddhism) will be fiddled with and whether it will remain undented.

So we are up against a lot of powerful people involved in a competition to win what is “politically correct” and in so doing creating a plethora of blunders that the nation’s people will end up having to pay.

We cannot but forget how the Opposition Leader wanted to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the arrival of the Portuguese and the attempts made to show the presence of Christians before the arrival of the colonials.

Since multiculturalism almost always gets tagged with reconciliation there is never mention of helping to reconcile what the majority of the nation’s ancestors had suffered. So where are the proposals that should seek apology and return of Temple Lands acquired by force? How about compensation for the destruction of Buddhist temples “”…” national reconciliation cannot omit what is due to the Buddhists while always getting the Buddhists to part with what little it has left to call its own.

The problem is that when discrepancies are brought out it almost always end up in defense mode where it has been easy to cry foul instead of providing answers.

We would like to know why they would want to promote the notion that immigrants do not require to adapt to the new culture in the host nation that they make their new home in but to continue their foreign culture even if it goes against that of the host nation? Is this not a direct blow to natural assimilation and national unity? Has this not led to the creation of micro-nations where countries in Europe and Australia are at a loss to handle little China’s, little India’s etc?

Moreover migration is not a right “”…” the onus is on the person enjoying the “privilege” to adapt to the culture of the nation he migrates to. It is not the host nation that must adapt to the migrant’s culture.

Do countries not fear a threat to their national security as a result? Though it must be said that these nations must now be realizing how countries like Sri Lanka would have felt when these very nations were encouraging national conflicts in the homelands of their immigrants which have now become transferred to their own nations.

These multiculturalists are certainly bringing more confusion and solution. Their quest appears to be to destroy a country’s national and cultural identity and no wonder we are all confused about who exactly is a “White American”, “Black American”, “Ethnic German”, “African-American”, “Canadian-Tamil” etc.

Countries are now waking up “”…” finally. They are beginning to realize the damage these liberals, academics and “lefties” who first started their campaign as private groups have today created shoving ideas into politics, public officials and governance and forcing “official policy”. It is as a result of these new laws enacted by self-serving politicians and officials that has created a new breed of “political correctness” and has come to nullify opposition as being racist or extremist.

Threat to National Security

In the West this trendy liberal idea has become a “migrant vote winner” for politicians which will become another menace to these Western nations on top of the national security issue.

In Sri Lanka our fears are no less different!

Today these multiculturalists have managed to get their ideas “endorsed” in various policy statements even those of political parties and much of these endorsements have been based on nothing but political dishonesty using a trendy set of words and phrases.

Multiculturalism originated in the ideas of Horace Kallen published in 1915 proposing that America becomes a “commonwealth of “¦.nationalities”. He encouraged ethnic separatism though warned that cultural pluralism would lead to the Balkanisation of the US.

The term “multicultural” was coined in Canada in the 1960s and used by Trudeau to promote harmony amongst predominant French-Canadian and British-Canadian cultures and minority cultures. It was also in the 1960s that multiculturalism started in Australia with Prof. Jerzy Zubryzycki introducing the “cult of ethnicity”.

Today, that “cult” is haunting nations.

Professor Lauchlan Chipman has exposed multiculturalism as containing a wide spectrum; from “soft” multiculturalism (the “food and dances” justification, used so often) to the realities of “hard” multiculturalism:

“It is imperative that we realise that this is what hard multi-culturalism is about. It is not about folk dancing, interesting food, and free-flowing wine. Nor is it about experiments in living and the open-minded and sensitive quest for improved or alternative life-styles. It is not just about reinforcing the ‘nice’ or the ‘cute’ or the ‘exotic’ aspects of these cultures as perceived by widely read, widely travelled middle-class Australians. Rather, it is about the preservation of ‘ethnic integrity’, the reinforcement and imposition on the new-born of sets of traditions, beliefs, and values which include, as well as those which are noble and enlightened, some which are at least as inhuman, as grotesquely ignorant, and as racist, as sexist, and as bigoted as any that can be squeezed from even the most appalling of ockers.” Also looking at the consequences of multiculturalism, Dr. Frank Knopfelmacher warned that “It entails permanent class war with an ethnic dimension — the worst kind of class-war, and in the end, terrorism and civil war.”

There are 4 aspects to multiculturalism.

Demographic multiculturalism is about a society of people of different backgrounds being multicultural. Well in this case, there was no need for such a description; people had already been living in such “multi” societies.

Prescriptive multiculturalism is a utopian concept that advocates provisions in official language, transactions etc which is more divisive than the romanticism attached to it.

Holistic multiculturalism aspires to completely nullify the predominant culture “”…” something which we in Sri Lanka now fear.

Political multiculturalism completely opposes integration since it holds view that a society can have “separate ethnic” groups “”…” so where do we expect to see peaceful co-existence? Now the best part of this 4th dimension is the theory that Governments should encourage not only separate ethnic groups but that they can maintain their own institutions, have explicit funding, their own policies, own language, own news media, clubs, schools, economic institutions like shops, professional services “”…” where is this all going?

How can a sovereign country have multiple “sovereign nations” within a nation?

These notions are perfect for idle debate but can we seriously see how practical these are and to what extent countries can maintain law and order? With one law per country can we really be proud of the peace that prevails in the nations of the world? To have a free for all governance what anarchy are we projecting?

Are we looking at a future where the multiculturalists will de-legitimize national culture, subtly burying historical links to ancient civilization, generate humans who have no moral code, no limits to how they live and governments have fallen for the trap by thinking it only “politically correct” to welcome these notions with open arms thinking that they hold the key to reconciliation.

It is not hard to see that these liberalists and lefties are creating an “industry” for them to thrive on. Countries end up footing bills for all types of multicultural programs “”…” learning languages, new offices and staff etc

Failure of multiculturalism and how it has managed to dislocate national unity is evident in the manner nations are now rising to stop multiculturalism completely:





UK: /


Just as countries like Australia, Canada, US, UK and most countries in Europe are monocultural the use of “multicultural” does not hold true. Even Sri Lanka, the same ethnicities that prevailed at post-independence remains so.  Why is this sudden push for a pre-fix “multi”.

Those that expose multicultural hidden agenda are branded “extremist” and “racist” so now you know the drill.

Ironically, in the end multiculturalism will equate to mean NO CULTURE.

 The Government should not commit hara kiri by digging its own grave and that of the country by falling for the multicultural googly’s.

16 Responses to “Sri Lanka’s Multicultural Casualty – The National Anthem”

  1. Nanda Says:

    Good example of “Multiculturism ” is Singapore.

    1. No Allah hullalah shouting to a mythical superpower is allowed there, eventhough surrounded by Islamic superpower Indonesia.
    2. Strict balancing of number of Indians(includes Sri lankan , Paki , Bangla etc) even for foreign emplyment and definitely for Permenant Residence.
    3. No recognition of Indian, Sri Lanakn degrees.
    4. If an Indian or a Malay got caught , maximum punishment.
    5. All “other cunture” MPs and ministers speak monoethnic language.
    6. Check the bagd of Indians thouroughly at the airport.
    7.One national anthem sung in malay “Majuah Singapura”, malays call it “mathilash Singapura”. ( Mathi means dead)

    This is despite the fact that it is traditional malay homeland.

  2. Nanda Says:

    Exactly like Singapore we MUST marginalise the bloody Indians and Islamist, which is called modern day “multiculturism”.

  3. Dilrook Says:

    Multiculturalism has failed even in Australia. Sri Lanka is not a secular nation. As per the Constitution it is a Buddhist nation that subject to the supreme place granted to Buddhism, allows religious freedom to all. A country need not be a multicultural country to allow its people to celebrate their (or any other) culture.

    This national anthem mockery by an old communist is shameful.

  4. mjaya Says:

    Though the national list allowed gentlemen like Hon. Lakshman Kadiragamar to enter parliament, it also let these leftist parasites from three wheeler and bicycle political parties in. None of them can get in though a vote.

    Pathetic Dew brought the pathetic “Bi Lingual Act” which clearly favors minorities to the government service. Why should we waste so much of resources to learn Tamil? Is there any practical use of learning Tamil in Sri Lanka? Certainly not.

    What should have been done was get the Tamils to learn Sinhalese. There is nothing wrong with Tamil being a “minority language” but Tamil should not be a “national language”. It only allows Tamil speaking minorities to be segregated and poisoned by separatists and extremists.


  5. S de Silva Says:

    This ‘MULTICULTURALISM’ lark in the UK was driven (in a democracy) by the Labout Left to garner votes from the immigrants just to stay in power and nothing else. They are now realising the error of their ways! – S de Silva – London

  6. Ratanapala Says:

    These are President Mahinda Rajapakse’s blunders. He should have properly constituted the members of the LLRC with patriots. A set of Colombians, Liberals, Marxists and traitors have drafted a report to placate the whims and fancies of the Christian West. Now he has to eat humble pie trying to undo the damages.

    LLRC recommendations are just recommendations. They should not be taken out as sacrosanct to be implemented one hundred percent. The nation must have a place to debate the recommendations before they are implemented. We are grateful for the Army Commander’s counter recommendations to the LLRC’s and so it must be for any other that violate the foundations, the well being, the unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.

    The Buddhist nation must rise up to these challenges. If not for the likes of Shenali and other patriots, where would our nation be when snakes are all over trying to undermine the very foundations of our culture and identity.

    Where are the Mahanayakes? Not a word on these burning issues!

  7. Nanda Says:

    “A set of Colombians, Liberals, Marxists and traitors have drafted a report to placate the whims and fancies of the Christian West.”
    very true. Christian wife would have been more appropriate.

    “Where are the Mahanayakes? Not a word on these burning issues!” – no they will not help, they belong to above group too.

  8. mario_perera Says:

    Ratnapala’s assessment is very fair and very square. The president is NOT bound by recommendations.

    The comment is reinforced by the most recent major happening in the country: the impeachment of the CJ. There parliament took over from the Supreme Court the sole right of interpreting the constitution. After crossing that sacrosanct divide why should parliament cringe before an ‘ad hoc’ (come and go) body such as the LLRC? The Red Sea of the constitution was cleaved asunder by the punitive wand of the president, and crossed over by the band at Diyawanna Oya, Now they are on the ‘other side’ and must now consider all matters from the perspectives of that ‘other side’. A ‘one leg here and the other leg there’ policy cannot hold anymore. Such being the ‘officially and fearlessly’ proclaimed situation, even a public debate is not necessary. Why pour water on a duck’s back? Henceforth let the president either alone or through his arm the parliament, call the shots. Indeed the army commander’s report falls squarely within the framework of this new development.

    Ratnapala’s last line about our highest religious leaders is one hundred percent correct.

    Mario Perera

  9. lingamAndy Says:

    Shenali Waduge
    In 2010 December, it was decided to scrap the translation of the Sri Lanka Matha following a paper produced by the Public Administration and Home Affairs Minister.- no one of us know this happened !
    Great so TNA is right sinhala Govt one by one get ritoff Tamil once VP gone !

  10. Lorenzo Says:

    “The US will bring a fresh resolution to the UN Human Rights Council in a bid to force Sri Lanka to deliver on promises to probe its troops for war crimes, top US diplomats announced Monday after talks with Lankan officials.

    “The US has decided to sponsor a procedural resolution (against Sri Lanka) at the March 2013 sessions of the UNHRC,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James Moore said.

    The US recognised Sri Lanka had made “some progress” since the previous US-led censure of Sri Lanka at the March 2012 UNHRC sessions in Geneva, but Washington believed more needed to be done, Moore said.”


    Just like Tamils. NEVER satisfied with anything. STOP appeasing Tamils at least now and start STRUCTURAL CHANGES in the north. Like crocodiles. The more meat you give, the more they demand. It is time to stop giving in.

  11. Senevirath Says:

    Is vaudeva related to NAYAKKA R SRI WICKRAMA who destroyed so many sinhalese

    People willnever elect him to the parliment So why Mahinda gave him a minstry
    Oh yes there may be reasons….. Even Dutugemunu Silva ia a minister

    Give these snakes to th e famouse NAAGA KANYA

  12. Senevirath Says:

    Shenali please traslate U K parliment debateabout Sri lanka
    held on 8th January 2013 and publish in Sinhala papers

    Hanzard U K Parliment

  13. Lorenzo Says:

    SL should follow Israel on UNHRC. US plans to bring another BS resolution against us. We too have NO TRUST in the biased piece of dirt called UNHRC. Use their SAME language.

    “Israel has boycotted a regular review by the UN Human Rights Council, the first time any country has done so.
    The move was expected as Israel has long been angered by what it claims is unfair criticism from the body.

    A decision last year to investigate Jewish settlements in the West Bank prompted Israel to announce it would no longer co-operate with the council.

    Following the no-show by Israeli representatives at Tuesday’s meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the meeting was suspended and a response is being decided.

    “After a series of votes and statements and incidents we have decided to suspend our working relations with that body,” Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told the Financial Times on Tuesday.

    Council spokesman Rolando Gomez told the Associated Press that Israel’s unprecedented absence had put the council in “new territory” because attendance of the Universal Periodic Review was mandatory.

    Israel’s action has prompted concern that it might undermine the UN’s human rights work, says the BBC’s Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.

    Human rights experts fear other countries facing awkward questions might follow suit.

    – BBC

  14. Voice123 Says:

    In Australia, former Labor Party PM Kevin Rudd is reported to have said that: “although multiculturalism is under attack in Europe, Australia is an example of successful multiculturalism. Also, that Australia is about to shed its homophobic, racist and sexist past attitudes.”

    Labor PM Julia Gillard and her Greens (pro LTTE) allies have called for a general election in September. Sri Lankans holding Australian citizenship, please note.

  15. NAK Says:

    Sri lanka must not do things just for the sake of reconcilliation or it is recommneded in the LLRC to please a section of the local community or a section of the so called International community. Sri lanka must do what it has do right by its poeple,all the people and not a part of it, majority or minority.

    I personally think a phrase in the national anthem should be sung in Tamil not for reconcilliation purposes but to give those who understand only Tamil, the feeling of patrioitism,the adrinerline rush,the choking in the throat,the goose bumps,and the tears welling in the eyes to them as well.
    The meaning in the words that does it, I do not think If we sing our national anthem in tamil, which most of do not understand, we’ll get those feelings and it will just be another tune and song. So it will be for them. For that, I think they will have to show their unwavering allegeance to the country and earn that that privilege. Having said that we know for fact that the majority of them are Sri Lankans at heart and only a tiny minority among them prevents them from showing it. Sad.

    Also we must fight for the injustices done to us in past under the colonial rule as a country with all its people behind it and that better not be mixed with this.

  16. Fran Diaz Says:

    We think it is STUPID to change the National Anthem. Unless, of course, Sri Lanka wants to be an appendage of backward Tamil Nadu !

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress