P.A.Samaraweera

During recent times the performance of the police had been widely criticised by the public. Because it had become obvious to the people that they pick and choose the way they treat those who come under their jurisdiction. Some time back we saw how a mentally retarded man being beaten up at Mt Lavinia beach, despite his pleas. Then there were the university students being given the same treatment when they went to present their grievances. The more recent incident was the Embilipitiya case where unnecessary force had been used to break up a party which led to the death of a man.

Apart from these we have also seen instances where young school children being arrested for flimsy matters such as stealing a few coconuts to pay their fees or steal something to eat. Neither did the police look at their age nor consult the Legal Draftsman.  Compared to these we saw the way how Hirunika MP was arrested. The whole of Sri Lanka probably thought she should be arrested. But despite all the evidence showing that she was involved in an abduction, the police surprisingly sought advise of the Attorney General. This as usual took weeks. Then after instructions were given by the Legal Dept, the arrest, producing before a magistrate, giving bail, preparing all the paper work in relation to this and so on had been done in a few hours. All these were done so swiftly people think that it is a  record. The photographs displayed in the media shows that even Hirunika seems to treat her ´arrest´ very lightly. We see her laughing all the way to courts. The new govt had appointed Independent Commissions and the people are wondering if they are independent only on paper!

Kelum Bandara Courtesy The Daily Mirror

The initiative for constitution making did not take passage through Parliament last Tuesday because the debate was adjourned till January 26.  The Government, comprising the United National Party (UNP) and a segment of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), intended to adopt it  on January 9 at a special parliamentary session to initiate the process of evolving a new Constitution to coincide with the first anniversary of   President Maitripala Sirisena in office
. 

It did not come to pass as originally planned because political parties and groups including the SLFP section in alliance with the government had strong reservations about the content of the resolution.  The Joint Opposition sought a radical departure from the original resolution and insisted on strict adherence to the procedure laid down in the present Constitution and the parliamentary standing orders.  Alongside the SLFP faction in government also wanted to propose certain changes to the resolutions.

Subsequently, it was found that the two sets of amendments had a partial overlap. The SLFP ministers agreed to incorporate the Joint Opposition amendments in theirs. The debate got underway in the House on Tuesday, but the resolution was not put to a vote at the end of the day.
In principle, the Joint Opposition, acting under the leadership of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa   objected to the creation of a body called the ‘Constitutional Assembly’ as proposed in the resolution.

It also asserted that the present Constitution had no provision for it. In proposing a Constitutional Assembly,   reference was made to political circles in the ‘Constituntional Assembly’   appointed by the government of Ex-Prime Minister the late Sirimavo Bandaranaike in the 1970s, as a precedent. Yet, critics of the present resolution took the view that Mrs. Bandaranaike’s move was distinguishable from the body proposed today.   At that time, the Joint Opposition said she had asked for a mandate in her manifesto to appoint a Constitutional Assembly to evolve a constitution.

Her political front secured a two-thirds majority at the election as a singly entity. Likewise, according to the Joint Opposition, there was clear rationale behind the move by Mrs. Bandaranaike’s government   at that time as explained by then Minister Colvin R. de Silva that it was just a constitutional exercise to sever the country’s link with the British Crown and transferring the sovereignty of the country to the people.  That effort took the form of a constitutional revolution at that time.
However, the Joint Opposition has seen the present situation in a different light.  In its amendments to the resolution at hand, it has stressed that the process of evolving a new Constitution should be done within the framework of the present Constitution and parliamentary standing orders.
The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna(JVP) , a political party  with six parliamentary seats, also wanted changes in the
original resolution.

The government initially thought that it would be smooth sailing to initiate the constitution-making process concurrently with the first anniversary of   President
Sirisena in office.  

Ahead of the January 9th session, a series of meetings were conducted by government leaders with other parties seeking consensus on the content of the resolution. First, it was a meeting with Prime Minster Ranil Wickremesinghe that was followed by meetings with President Sirisena and Speaker Karu Jayasuriya . The meeting with the Prime Minister took place at 6.30 pm on that day when the parties expressed reservations about the resolution and revealed the amendments they intended to suggest

Later the Joint Opposition met with the President at 8.00 pm on the same day.   Communist Party leader D.E. W. Gunasekara while presenting his views strongly asked, Why does the government deviate from the procedure laid down in the Constitution?” He charged that the government was leading the whole process into a muddle from the very beginning.

Kandy District MP Keheliya Rambukwella also speaking on behalf of the Joint Opposition said it [Opposition] was not opposed to the abolition of the Executive Presidency and the enactment of electoral reforms, but that all should be done in a lawful manner. He asked the government not to get tied up in procedural tangles unnecessarily. Joint Opposition Leader Dinesh Gunawardane said the resolution contravened standing orders.
It was also found then that the amendments, proposed by the Opposition and SLFP ministers in the government had a partial overlap. But, the Joint Opposition viewed that the SLFP amendments   did not
go deep enough.

At 11.00 pm on the same day, the Speaker called for the meeting of party leaders. There,   the main opposition Tamil National Alliance (TNA) led by R. Sampanthan spoke in support of the original resolution.  The party insisted that the original one should not be altered or changed.  At this point the discussion heated up particularly after the Prime Minister, accompanied by Minister Malik Samarawickrama, arrived.  

The Prime Minister took on the JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake who criticised the resolution in principle. The PM said,  You are trying to hold a gun to my head. You all are the ones who wanted it. I am the only person here who voted for the 1978 Constitution of then President J.R. Jayewardene.”
The JVP leader did not agree and that led to a heated exchange of words. Finally, no consensus was reached on the matter at hand.  After that, 31 MPs of the Joint Opposition met at the residence of former Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris   the following day. They decided to insist that their amendments are incorporated in the resolution. [ It is learnt that these amendments were drafted by Prof. Peiris on behalf of the Joint Opposition.]   They acted accordingly during the
session on Tuesday. After Tuesday’s parliamentary session, the opposition group met at the same place. Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa had also attended it and reportedly had hailed the role played by the party’s parliamentary group.  He said that a group of local authority members that met him recently asked for support to prevail upon the government to conduct the local government elections as early as possible.
It transpired that this group was planning to conduct a protest rally soon.

The New Left Front Leader Vasudeva Nanayakkara presented a concept paper highlighting the need to transform the Joint Opposition into a political movement with an identity and a set of policies distinguishable from others. Rather than forming a new party, he said it would be a better option to retake control of the SLFP and the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). However, the proposal met with little support.

In the meantime, the UNP, in an obvious reference to the move made by the Joint Opposition, said it was nothing but political hypocrisy to criticise the proposed Constitution even before its provisions were worked out. Highways and Higher Education Minister Lakshman Kiriella said though these elements talked about attempts to compromise the sovereignty of the country and the recognition of Buddhism as the foremost religion, no such provision
had been made.

During the previous rule, the 18th Amendment was passed. It was done surreptitiously. Nobody spoke a word against it. When the provincial council system was introduced, it was criticised as a move for the partition of the country. But, nothing has happened. Critics even enjoy power at the provincial councils today,” he said. He added that it was a good opportunity to work out a solution to the national question that plagued the country for over 50 years.

New party to be formed soon

Some recent political developments point towards efforts underway to form a new political party ahead of the local authority elections.  Former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa once made a remark of that intention publicly, and his brother former President Mahinda Rajapaksa said the emergence of a new political party   would be inevitable unless the SLFP followed the present leadership. However, it still remains uncertain who will lead this front.

What is clear is that it will enjoy the blessings of the former president. Also, recent remarks made by Minister S.B. Dissanayake that the SLFP and UNP cannot be parties in the same government for long had created feelings that  the present cohabitation between these two main parties may end soon.
The UNP and SLFP are two parties with differring policies. They cannot stick to each other for long politically,” he had said at a press conference.

These remarks have given rise to speculation that a chasm is developing between the two parties in the government and that they may part ways.   However, such a parting cannot be anticipated soon. Probably, policy differences between them might surface over the new
constitutional exercise.
– See more at: http://www.dailymirror.lk/102937/is-the-unp-slfp-cohabitation-destined-to-end#sthash.Xg9f58zJ.dpuf

Malinda Seneviratne Courtesy The Daily Mirror

– See more at: http://www.dailymirror.lk/103029/bikkhu-vinaya-who-should-decide#sthash.ipsmJLkK.dpuf

එස්. අකුරුගොඩ

1948 දී සුද්දාගෙන් නිදහස ලැබුවද 1957 වනතුරුම රජයේ භාෂාව  වූයේ ඉoග්‍රීසි යයි. ඉoග්‍රීසි උගතාට පමණක් නොව කලිසමට තිබුන තැනවත් එදා සිoහල උගතාට තිබුනේ නැත. එවකට විජේවර්ධනලාට අයත්ව වික්‍රමසිoහලා පාලනය කල ලේක්හවුස් ආයතනයේ ඉoග්‍රීසි පුවත් පතක පලවූ කාටුනයක සිoහල උගතා වඳුරෙකුට සමාන කර තිබිණ. රජයේ පමනක් නොව පුද්ගලික ආයතනවල පවා ලිපිකරු සේවයේ සිට පරිපාලනය තෙක් සියලු තනතුරු කොළොඹ ඇතුලු ප්‍රධාන නගරවල, විශේෂයෙන්ම යාපනයේ,රජයේ ආධාර ලබමින් පවත්වා ගෙන ගිය මිෂනාරී පාසැල් වලින් බිහිකල ඉoග්‍රීසි උගතුන්ට පමණක් සීමාවිය. ඔවුන් අතර ‘බර්ගර්’ හා ද්‍රවිඩ  ජාතිකයින්ද ක්‍රිස්තියානි ලබ්දිකයින්ද, රටේ බහුජන කොටස වන සිoහල බෞද්ධයින් අභිභවා කැපීපෙනින. ගමේ ගොඩේ පවත්වා ගෙන ගිය පාසැල් බොහමයක අවසානය අටවෙනි පන්තිය විය.  නැතනම් දහවෙනි වසරතෙක් යන ‘ප්‍රාරම්භය’ යනුවෙන් හැඳින්වූ අවසාන පන්තිය විය.

සුප්‍රකට පනස්හයේ පෙරලියෙන් පසු සිoහල රජයේ භාෂාව කිරීම, විශ්ව විද්‍යාලය අධ්‍යාපනය පුලුල් කිරීම රජයේ ආධාර ලබමින් පවත්වා ගෙන ගිය පාසැල් රජයට ගැනීම වැනි ක්‍රියා දාමයන් මගින් රටේ බහුජන කොටසට යටත් විජිතවාදීන්ගේ පාලනසමයේ සිට වරත් ප්‍රසාද ලබා සිටි පැලැන්තියෙන් සිදුව තිබූ අසාධාරණය කිසියම් ප්‍රමාණයකින් දුරස් වුවද, සිoහල රජයේ භාෂාව කිරීම මෙරට ඊනියා ජනවාර්ගික අර්බුදයේ හේතුවයි පවසමින් ඊට විසදුමක් වශයෙන් 1978දී  දෙමළ ජාතික භාෂාවක් වශයෙන් විය්‍යවස්ථාගත කෙරින.

එයින් නොනැවතී 1987දී ඉන්දියාවේ බලකිරීම මත 13වෙනි සංශෝධනය මගින් දෙමළ භාෂාවද රජයේ භාෂාවක් කෙරිණ.  ඒ අනුව වත්මන් විය්‍යවස්තාවේ සිoහල සහ දෙමළ රජයේ භාෂාවන් මෙන්ම ජාතික භාෂාද වේ. ඉoග්‍රීසි සන්ධීය (Link) භාෂාව විය. රටේ 74% කට වැඩි ජනතාවකගේ මවුබස සිoහල වන අතර දෙමළ භාෂාව කතා කරණ දෙමළ හා මුස්ලිම් ජනතාව මිලියන 4.7 පමණි. එහෙත් ඊනියා ජනවාර්ගික අර්බුදය තව තවත් තීර්ව වූවා මිස භාෂාව විසඳුමක් නොවීය. භාෂාව අර්බුදයේ හේතුව  නම් ඊනියා අර්බුදය එතනින් අවසන් විය යුතුව තිබින.

ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම විය්‍යවස්ථාවේ IV පරිච්ඡේද යේ  22 වගන්තිය  අනුව උතරු හා නැගෙනහිර පලාත් සභාවල සියලු රාඡ්‍ය ආයතන වල පරිපාලනය කලයුතු වන්නේ දෙමළ බසිනි. දෙමළ බෙදුම් වාදීන් දැනටමත් සිoහල ජනයා උතුරු පලාතින් පලවාහැර ඇති බැවින් හා සිoහල ජනයා යලි පදිoචි කිරීමට ඉඩ නොදෙන බැවින් වත්මන් විය්‍යවස්ථාවම උතරුපලාත ඒකභාෂික (monolingual) කිරීමට මඟ පාදා ඇත.

13 වෙනි සංශෝධනය මුලුමනින්ම ක්‍රියාත්මක කලයුතුයයි අදත් දෙමළ සoධානය,  බටහිරයන් හා ඉන්දියාව තදින්ම බලකරන්නේ උතරු හා නැගෙනහිර පලාත් දෙමළ කතා කරන ජනයාගේ ඓතිහාසික නිජබිම් හැටියට හා දෙමළ රජයේ භාෂාවක් මෙන්ම ජාතික භාෂාවක්  හැටියට ඉන්දියාව ජේ.ආර්/රජීව් ගිවිසුම මගින් බලහත්කාරයෙන් සටහන් කරවීම, ඊනියා ස්වයo පාලනයකට ගෙන යෑමට ඉමහත් රුකුලක්වී ඇති බැවිනි.

ලෝකයේ බොහො රටවල්  තම ජාතියේ අනන්‍යතාවය රාඡ්‍ය භාෂා මට්ටමින් පෙන්නුම්කරයි. රටක බහුජාතියේ භාෂාව රාඡ්‍ය භාෂාව වශයෙන් මතුවී අනෙකුත් භාෂාවන්ගේ සාධාරණ භාවිතයට පහසුකම් සැලසීම පිලිගත හැකිවුවද, ශ්‍රී ලoකාව රජයේ භාෂා හා ජාතික භාෂා කිහිපයක්   හඳුනා ගන්නා රටවල් අතලොස්සකින් එකකි.

කලක් යටත් විජිතයන් වූ සමහර රටවල් තවමත් ඉoග්‍රීසි, ප්‍රoශ, ජර්මන්, ස්පාඤ්ඤය වැනි භාෂාවන් විවිධ හේතූන් මත තමන්ගේ රාඡ්‍ය භාෂාව හෝ ව්‍ය්‍යාපාරික භාෂාව වශයෙන් තවමත් පවත්වාගෙන ගියද රටක ජාතික භාෂාව විය යුත්තේ එරට ජාතියේ භාෂාව, එනම් එරටේ ශිෂ්ටාචාරය ඇතිකල ජාතියටය. මේ සදහා සිoගප්පූරුව, ලක්සම්බර්ග්, ජපානය, වියට්නාමය, බුරුමය සහ මැලේසියාව උදාහරණවේ. ඒ අනුව අප රටේ ජාතික භාෂාව වියයුත්තේ සිoහල පමණි.  එසේ වුවද කිසිදු ඓතිහාසික සාධකය කින් හෝ  රටේ ජනමතයකින් තොරව, එක් රැයකින්, හුදෙක් ජාතිවාදී තර්ජන හා විදේශ මැදිහත්වී ම් මත භාෂා දෙකක් රාඡ්‍ය හා ජාතික භාෂා වශයෙන් සමතත්වයේ ලමින් රටේ අනන්‍යතාවය දැනටමත් පාවා  දී ඇති ලෝකයේ එකම රට ශ්‍රී ලoකාව වියහැකිය.

එපමණකින් නොනැවතී ඉතා පැහැදිලිවම විදේශීය කුමණ්ත්‍රණකරුවන්ගේ සහයෙන් හා උතුරු නැගෙනහිර මහා පරිමාණ ඡන්ද මoකොල්ලයකින් බලයටපත් ජනාධිපතිවරයා, සිය දොල පිදේනියක් හැටියට රටේ පවතින විය්‍යවස්තාවට එරෙහව යමින් වහාම ක්‍රියාත්මක වෙන පරිදි ජාතික ගීය දෙමළ භාෂාවෙන් ගැයීමටත් ඉඩදී ඇත.

බුද්ධ ශාසන කාර්ය්‍ය සාධක මණ්ඩලය නමින් පිහිටුවාගත් කිසියම් සoවිධාණයක් මගින් මෑතකදී නිකුකර ඇති පුවත්පත් නිවේදනයකට අනුව 13වෙනි සංශෝධනය මගින් අපෙන් ගිලිහී ගිය ජාතික අනන්‍යතාවය පමණක් නොව ජාතික ගීයට වත්මන් ජනාධිපතිවරයා සිදුකරඇති අත්තනෝමතික ක්‍රියාවද අනුමතකරමින්  ඒවා නව විය්‍යවස්තාවකට ඇතුලත්කිරීමට යෝජනා කරනු දක්නට ලැබීම ඉතා කණගාටුවට කරුණකි.

ජාතියේ අනන්‍යතාවය එසේ තිබියදී අද බොහෝ දෙනුකු රටේ විය්‍යවස්තාවෙන් ඒකීය භාවයට හා බුද්ධාගමට දී ඇති වගන්ති බේරා ගැනීමට දඟලනු පෙනේ. 13වෙනි සoශෝධනය  මුලුමනින්ම ක්‍රියාත්මක වීමෙන් පසු ශ්‍රී ලoකාව තුල බලය බෙදීම ඉන්දියාවේ අර්ධ පෙඩරල් ක්‍රමය අභිභවා යන්නේයයි පැවසුවේ අන්කවරෙකු නොව එහි නිර්මාතෘ රජීව් ගාන්ධිමය.

‘ඒකීය’ වචනය තුලම ‘පෙඩරල්’ යන වචනය නොයොදා ඊටත් එහා යන ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම යක් දැනටමත් ලැබී ඇති අපට බුද්ධාගම යන වචනය තිබියදීම අපට සර්ව ආගමික පූට්ටුවක්ද ලැබීම වැඩි ඈතක නොවේ.

එස්. අකුරුගොඩ

චන්ද්‍රසේන පණ්ඩිතගේ විසිනි

පූර්ණ වර්ෂයක් පුරා කිසිදු ජනතා හිතවාදී වැඩක් නොකල මෙෙත්රීපාල සිරිසේන මහතාගේ යහපාලන ආණ්ඩ‌ුව සිය වර්ෂ පූර්ණය ඉතා ඉහලින් සමරා අළුත් වැඩකට අත ගසා ඇත. ඒ බෞද්ධ විනය සම්බන්ධව මහා වැඩපිලිවෙලක් දියත් කිරීමයි. බෞද්ධ භික්ෂුව යනු මේ රටේ මුදුන් මල් කඩක් වන්වූ අගනා වස්තුවක් බව ජනාධිපතිතුමා හදුනා ගත් බැවින් මේ කාර්යයට අත ගසා ඇති බව අපේ විශ්වාසයයි. මේ රටේ විනය පිරිහී ගිය හාමුදුරුවරුන් තොග ගනන් සිටින බව , මෙතුමාගේ මැතිවරණ ව්යාපාරවලදී මෙතුමා අවබෝධ කරගත් බැවින් මෙය සිදු කරනවාද විය හැක. යහපාලන ආණ්ඩුවට අනුව බෞද්ධ භික්ෂුවට,
1. රැකියා කිරීම අදාල නැත.

2.ව්යාපාර කිරීමද නොකල යුතුය.

3.යන්තර මන්ත්ර වැඩ කිරීමද නොකල යුතුය.

ඒ අනුව, විශ්ව විද්යාලවල උපකුල පතිවරයාගේ සිට, පාසල් ආචාර්ය වරයා දක්වාවූ සියලුම හාමුදුරුවරුන්ට ගැටළුවක් මතුකර තිබේ. ඒ සමග අත් වැල් බැදගත් කාරණය වන්නේ දැනට විශ්ව විද්යාල තුල හා ප්රාතමික තලයේ ඉගෙනගන්නාවූ සාමනේර භික්ෂූන් වහන්සේලාගේ අධ්යාපනයෙ ඉලක්කය කුමක්ද යන්නයි. ඔවුන් ලබන මේ අධ්යාපනයෙන් රැකියාවක් ලැබෙන්නේ නැත්නම් ඉන් ඇති කිසිදු පලයක් භික්ෂුවකට නැත. සමහර විට මෙෙත්රීපාල සිරිසේන මහතාගේ අරමුණ, උන්වහන්සේලාගේ ලෞකික අරමුණු වලින්  බැහැර කොට නිර්වානය සොයා යන මාවතට උන්වහන්සේලා  පෙල ගස්වා යැවීම සදහා විය හැක. නමුත් බුදු රජානන්වහන්සේ භික්ෂූන් නිර්වාණය කරා යන මාවතට යොමුකලේ ඉතා විද්යාත්මක ක්රමයන්ට අනුකූලවය. නිවන හැමෝටම උරුම නැත. හැමෝටම උරුම නම් ගෞතම බුදුන් වහන්සේ ඒ යුගයේ සිටි සියල්ලන්වම නිවන් මගට ගනු නිසැකය. එසේ නොවූ බැවින් මෙෙත්රීපාල නම් වූ ජනාධිපතිවරයෙක් හා භික්ෂූ පරපුරක්ද ලොවට ඉතුරු ව ඇත. දැන් ගැටළුව බවට පත්ව ඇත්තේ මෙරට ජනතාව මුහුණ දෙන ප්රශ්න නොව, මේ භික්ෂූන් වහන්සේලාට නිර්වාණය ලබා දෙන්නේ කෙලෙසද යන ගැටළුවයි. එයට පිලියමක් ලෙස මහා පරිමාණයෙන් භික්ෂූන් වහන්සේලා නිවන් දැක්ක වීමේ ව්යාපෘතියක් ආරම්භ කිරීම සදහා කටයුතු සම්පාදනය කිරීමට සැරසේ. මේ අනුව සම්මා සම්බුදුපියාණන් වහන්සේ විසින් පැනවූ විනය නීති කඩ නොකිරීම සදහා රාජ්යබලය උපයෝගී කිරීමට පාර්ලිමේන්තුව තුල අණපනත් සකස් කිරීමේ සූදානමක් ඇත.

අත්තටම රාජ්ය බලය යොදා නිවන් මාර්ගය භික්ෂුව මෙහෙයවීම බුද්ධ සාසන අමාත්යන්සයෙන් ආරම්භකර එය සාර්ථක වුවහොත්,  සියළුම බෞද්ධයන්ටද උදාවෙන්නේ කිසිදු රජයක් ලබා නොදුන් වරප්රසාදයකට උරුමකම් හිමිවීමයි.

සත්ය වශයෙන්ම  රටක ප්රශ්න විසදනවා කියන්නේ පෝර්ට් සිටි, අධිවේගී මාර්ග, මහා විශාල නිවාස සංකීරණ, වරායවල්, ගුවන්තොටුපලවල් කර්මානත වැනි දේවල් ගොඩනංවා මිනිසුන්ව ලෞකික ආසාවන් වැඩිකරවන එක නොවේ. නිවන් දක්වන එකය. එවැනි බැරෑරුම් කටයුත්තක් සදහා නොබියව අතගැසීම සම්බන්ධ මෙරට යහපාලනයට චන්දය දුන් බෞද්ධ ජනතාව ප්රබෝධයට පත්වෙනු නියතය.

බුදුරජානන්වහන්සේටත් කල නොහැකිවූ මේ කටයුත්ත සාරථක කර ගැනීමට අතිගරු ජනාධිපතිතුමාට සියලු ශක්තිය හා ධෙෙර්ය ලැබේවායි අපි පතමු.!

ශ්රී ලාංකීය සියළුම බෞද්ධයින්ට නිවන් සුව අත්වේවා!

සාදු! සාදු! සාදු!
චන්ද්‍රසේන පණ්ඩිතගේ විසිනි

උපුටාගැණීම අදදෙරණ

ආණ්ඩුව කිසිදු ආගමකට නීති පැනවීමට නොයන බව අධිකරණ හා බුද්ධ ශාසන අමාත්‍ය විජයදාස රාජපක්ෂ මහතා අවධාරණය කරයි.

‘ථෙරවාදී භික්ෂු කතිකාවත්’  පනත් කෙටුම්පත ගැන  සංඝ සමාජයෙන් ලැබී ඇති ප්‍රචාරවලට පිළිතුරු දීම සඳහා අද (14) කැබිනට් මාධ්‍ය හමුවට එක්වෙමින් මාධ්‍යවේදීන්ගේ ප්‍රශ්නවලට පිළිතුරු දෙමින් හෙතෙම මේ බව පැවසීය.

ආණ්ඩුව කිසිවිටෙකත් සංඝයා වහන්සේ උදෙසා නීති පැනවීමට නොයන බවත්,  ‘ථෙරවාදී භික්ෂු කතිකාවත්’  යන පනතේ ඇති කරුණු වැරදි ලෙස වටහා ගැනීමෙන් මෙය සිදුව ඇති බවත්, ඇමතිවරයා පෙන්වාදුන්නේය.

එම පනත සැකසීම සඳහා ත්‍රෛනිකායික හිමිවරුන්ගෙන් ද උපදෙස් ලබාගෙන ඇති බවත්, බුදුන් වහන්සේගේ ධර්මයට අනූව භික්ෂු විනය සම්බන්ධයෙන් ත්‍රිපිඨකයේ කරුණු දක්වා ඇත්තේ
විනය පිඨකයේ බවත්, ඒ අනූව භික්ෂූන්ට නීතිපැනවීමට ආණ්ඩුව කිසිවිටෙකත් ඉදිරිපත් නොවන බවත්, අමාත්‍යවරයා පැවසුවේය.

මෙහිදී සිදුවන්නේ අදාළ භික්ෂු නිකායේ හෝ පාර්ශවයේ ප්‍රධාන හිමිවරුන් විසින් සම්මත කර ගන්නා නීති වලට නෛතික භාවයක් ලබාදීම පමණක් බව ඇමතිවරයා කීවේය.

ඒ අනූව එක් එක් නිකායන් විසින් නිර්මාණය කරගන්නා කතිකාවත් බුද්ධ ශාසන අමාත්‍යංශයේ ලියාපංදිචි කරන බව ද ඔහු පැවසීය.
නෛතික බලය යනුවෙන් අදහස් වන්නේ යම් නිකායක හෝ පාර්ශවයක ස්වාමින් වහන්සේ  නමක් අතින් සිදුවන විනය උල්ලංඝණය කිරීමක් සම්බන්ධයෙන් ලබාදිය හැකි දඬුවම එම නිකායේ හෝ පාර්ශවයේ ප්‍රධාන භික්ෂූන් වහන්සේලාට ලැබීම බව ඔහු පෙන්වාදුන්නේය.

තම නිකායේ හෝ පාර්ශවයේ භික්ෂු සංඝයා අතින් සිදුවන විනය විරෝධි ක්‍රියාවක් සම්බන්ධයෙන් විනයානුකූල පියවර ගැනීමට එමඟින් එක් එක් නිකාය වල හෝ පාර්ශව වල ප්‍රධාන සංඝයා
වහන්සේලාට බලය ලැබෙද්දී  ආණ්ඩුව කිසිවිටෙකත් භික්ෂු සංඝයාට එරෙහිව නීති පැනවීමට අවශ්‍යතාවයක් නැති බව අමාත්‍යවරයා පැවසුවේය.

භික්ෂු කතිකාවත් සැකසීමේදී එක් එක් නිකායවලට හෝ පාර්ශවවලට අවශ්‍ය  නම් රියදුරු බලපත්‍ර, හදි හූනියම් කටයුතු වැනි දෑ  ඇතුළත් කිරීමටත්, අනවශ්‍ය නම් ඉවත් කිරීමටත්, හැකි බවද ඊට රජයේ කිසිදු මැදිහත්වීමක් නැති බවද ඔහු කියා සිටියේය.

භික්‍ෂුන් වහන්සේට නීති පැනවීමේ බලයක්‌ රජයට නැතැයි  රාමඤ්ඤ නිකායේ දක්‌ෂිණ ලංකාවේ ප්‍රධාන සංඝනායක ආචාර්ය ඕමල්පේ සෝභිත හිමියන් පුවත්පතකට  කර ඇති ප්‍රකාශය ගැනද
ඇමතිවරයා එහිදී අදහස් පළ කළේය.

භික්‍ෂුන් වහන්සේට අලුතින් නීති පැනවීමට අවශ්‍ය නොමැති බවත්, සිදුකළ යුත්තේ භික්‍ෂු කතිකාවත්වලට නීතිමය බලය ලබාදීම බවත් ඕමල්පේ හිමියන් කර ඇති ප්‍රකාශයට අනූව ආණ්ඩුව
කරන්නේ ද එයම  බවත්, භික්ෂූන්ට නීති පැනවීමක් ආණ්ඩුව කිසිවිටෙකත් නොකරන බව අමාත්‍යවරයා වැඩිදුරටත් අවධාරණය කළේය.

උපුටා ගැන්ම දිවයින

භික්‍ෂූන් සඳහා විනය නීති පැනවීමේ අයිතියක්‌ ජනමාධ්‍ය ඇමැතිට ලැබුණේ කොහොමද! ගැටඹේ නාහිමියෝ ප්‍රශ්න කරති

සිරිල් විමලසුරේන්ද්‍ර

බුදුන්වහන්සේට මිස භික්‍ෂූ නීතියක්‌ පැනවීමේ අයිතිය භික්‍ෂුවකට නැතිව තිබියදී භික්‍ෂූන් සඳහා විනය නීති පැනවීමේ අයිතිය ජනමාධ්‍ය ඇමැතිවරයාට ලැබුණේ කෙසේද යන්න විමතියට කරුණකැයි පේරාදෙණිය ගැටඹේ රාජෝපවනාරාමාධිපති අති පූජ්‍ය කැප්පෙටියාගොඩ සිරිවිමල නාහිමිපාණෝ පැවසූහ.

භික්‍ෂු ක්‍රියාකාරකම් පාලනය සඳහා නීති පැනවීමේ පනතක්‌ ජනමාධ්‍ය අමාත්‍යවරයා විසින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කිරීම පිළිබඳව කරුණු දක්‌වමින් අතිපූජ්‍ය කැප්පෙටියාගොඩ සිරිවිමල නාහිමිපාණන් වහන්සේ මෙසේද ප්‍රකාශ කරති.

එක්‌ එක්‌ කාලවලදී බොහෝ යෝජනා කාලෝචිතව ඉදිරිපත් වෙනවා. එහෙත් මෙම භික්‍ෂූන් පිළිබඳ යෝජනා ඉදිරිපත් කරන්නේ කවුරුන්ද යන්න ගැටලුවක්‌. බෞද්ධ ශාසනික ප්‍රතිපදාව අනුව භික්‍ෂූන් සම්බන්ධ නීතිරීති  ඇතුළත් යෝජනා ඇමැතිවරයකුට ඉදිරිපත් කළ නොහැකියි. එවැන්නක්‌ කළ යුත්තේ උත්තරීතර සංඝයා වහන්සේගේ කමිටුවක්‌ මඟින් පමණයි. භික්‍ෂූන් පිළිබඳ විනය නීති සියල්ල බුදුන් වහන්සේ විනය පිටකයෙන් පනවා තියෙනවා. විනය නීතියක්‌ පැනවීමට භික්‍ෂුවකටවත් අයිතියක්‌ නැත. බුදු රදුන් පරමවේලයික නමින් හඳුන්වන්නේ ඒ නිසයි.

භික්‍ෂුවගේ සෑම නොමනා චරියාවකටම විනය නීති රීති පනවා ඇති හෙයින් හා දඬුවම් නියමකර ඇති හෙයින් විනය ප්‍රතිබලසම්පන්න සුපේෂල ශික්‍ෂාකාමී මහා සංඝයා වෙත ඉදිරිපත් කළ හැකිය. එවිට එම යෝජනා සම්මුති සංඝයා එක්‌වී බෞද්ධ නීතියට අනුගතව නීති ප්‍රතිපාදනය කොට කතිකාවතක්‌ ලෙස රාජ නීතියට ද අනුකූලව කතිකාවතක්‌ ලෙස. ඉදිරිපත් කළ හැකිය.

ඒ හැර භික්‍ෂූන් සඳහා නීති පැනවීමට ගිහියන්ට ඇති බවක්‌ හෝ ඉඩකඩක්‌ හෝ ඇති බවක්‌ ශාසන ඉතිහාසයේත් විනය පිටකයේත් සඳහන් වී නැත. ගිහියන් එක්‌වී සංගායනාවක්‌ද පවත්වා නැත.

මහනාහිමිවරුන්ගේ අනුමැතිය නැතිව අණ පනත් සම්මත කළොත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුව වටලනවා
– බෙංගමුවේ නාලක හිමි

සිරිල් විමලසුරේJද්‍ර

මහානායක ස්‌වාමීන්ද්‍රයන් වහන්සේගේ අනුමැතිය නොමැතිව සංඝයා වහන්සේගේ විනය පිළිබඳව අණ පනත් සම්මත කළහොත් මහා සංඝරත්නය පාර්ලිමේන්තුව වටලනවා යෑයි රණවිරුවන් සුරැකීමේ ජාතික ව්‍යාපාරයේ සභාපති බෙංගමුවේ නාලක හිමියෝ මහනුවරදී පැවසූහ.

මල්වතු අස්‌ගිරි මහනාහිමිවරුන් බැහැ දැකීමෙන් අනතුරුව මාධ්‍යයට කරුණු දැක්‌වූ බෙංගමුවේ නාලක හිමියෝ සංඝයා වහන්සේගේ හැසිරීම් ක්‍රියාකාරකම් සම්බන්ධයෙන් නීති රීති ඇතුළත් කථිකාවත් සම්මත කිරීමේ අයිතියක්‌ හෝ සදාචාරයක්‌ ගිහියන්ට හිමි නැතැයි ද පැවසූහ.

මහානායක ස්‌වාමින්ද්‍රයන් වහන්සේලාගේ ලිත අනුමැතියකින් තොරව මහා සංඝරත්නය පිළිබඳ විෂයයෙහි කිසිදු නීතියක්‌ හෝ අණපනත් සම්මත කිරීමකට අයිතියක්‌ නැති බැවින් එවැනි ශාසන විරෝධී ක්‍රියාවකට ඉඩදිය නොහැකි යෑයි ද උන්වහන්සේ පැවසූහ.

ත්‍රස්‌තවාදය පරාජය කිරීමට සහයෝගය හා කැපවීම ලබාදුන් රණවිරුවන් ආරක්‍ෂා කිරීම සඳහා වූ දශලක්‍ෂයක්‌ අත්සන් ලබාගැනීමේ වැඩසටහන පිළිබඳව මල්වතු අස්‌ගිරි මහා නායක හිමිවරුන් දැනුවත් කිරීමට බෙංගමුවේ නාලක සහ කොටුව ශ්‍රී සම්බුද්ධාලෝක විහාරාධිපති ඉත්තදෙමලියේ ඉන්දසර හිමිවරු වැඩම කර සිටියහ.

මල්වතු පාර්ශවයේ අතිපූජ්‍ය මහානායක තිබ්බටුවාවේ ශ්‍රී සිද්ධාර්ථ සුමංගල ස්‌වාමීන්ද්‍රයන් වහන්සේ සහ අස්‌ගිරි පාර්ශවයේ අති පූජ්‍ය මහානායක ගලගම ශ්‍රී අත්ථදස්‌සි ස්‌වාමින්ද්‍රයන් වහන්සේ බැහැ දැකීමෙන් පසුව පූජ්‍ය බෙංගමුවේ නාලක ස්‌වාමීන්ද්‍රයන් වහන්සේ මාධ්‍ය කළ විමසීමකට ප්‍රතිචාර දක්‌වමින් එසේ පැවසූහ.

කැලණිය රාජ මහා විහාරස්‌ථානයේදී ලබන 24 වැනිදා පැවැත්වෙන බෝධි පූජාවකින් අනතුරුව රණවිරුවන්ට මුහුණ පෑමට සිදුවන හිංසා පීඩා පාලනය කිරීම පිළිබඳ අත්සන් දශ ලක්‍ෂයේ පෙත්සමට අත්සන් ලබා ගැනීමේ කටයුතු කොළඹ කොටුව ශ්‍රී සම්බුද්ධාලෝක විහාරස්‌ථානයේදී ආරම්භ කරන බව මෙහිදී ප්‍රකාශ විය.

දිවයිනේ පළාත් සියල්ල ආවරණය වන පරිදි දිස්‌ත්‍රික්‌කයක්‌ පාසා අත්සන් ලබාගැනීම සිදු කරන බවද උන්වහන්සේ පැවසූහ.

අලුත් පනතට එරෙහිව ගලගොඩඅත්තේ හිමිගෙන් දැඩි තීරණයක්‌

සිරිමන්ත රත්නසේකර

ආණ්‌ඩුව විසින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කර ඇති ථෙරවාදී භික්‍ෂු කතිකාවත් ලියාපදිංචි කිරීම සඳහා වන පනත් කෙටුම්පතට විරෝධය පළ කිරීම සඳහා තමන් වහන්සේට එරෙහිව අධිකරණයේ විභාග වන කිසිදු නඩු කටයුත්තකට මේ මොහොතේ සිට ඉදිරිපත් නොවීමට තීරණය කළ බව බොදු බලසේනා සංවිධානයේ මහලේකම් රාජකීය පණ්‌ඩිත ගලගොඩඅත්තේ ඥනසාර හිමියෝ ඊයේ (14 වැනිදා) අවධාරණය කළහ.

හිරගෙවල් සියයකට දැමුවද පොලිසියේ කුමන තරාතිරමක නිලධාරියකු පැමිණිය ද තමන් වහන්සේ අධිකරණය හමුවට නොපැමිණෙන බවද උන්වහන්සේ සඳහන් කළහ.

මේ සිංහල රටේ සංඝයා වහන්සේලාට දඬුවම් කළහැකි පනත් සම්මත කර ගැනීමට බොදු බල සේනාව විසින් ඉඩ නොතබන බව සඳහන් කළ උන්වහන්සේ මෙම පනතට පක්‍ෂව අත ඔසවන පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන්ගේ පාංශුකූලයට හෝ මහා සංඝරත්නය වැඩම නොකරන බවත් කියා සිටියහ.

තමන් වහන්සේ නැවත උසාවිය හමුවට වඩිනු ලබන්නේ මෙරට සංඝාධිකරණයක්‌ ස්‌ථාපිත කළ පසුව බවත් ඥානසාර හිමියෝ කීහ.

ආණ්‌ඩුවට මෙවැනි පනතක්‌ ගෙන ඒමට අවශ්‍යව තිබුණේ නම් එය කළ යුතුව තිබුණේ මහා සංඝරත්නයට එරෙහිව නීතිරීති පැනවීමට පමණක්‌ නොව සියලු ආගමිකයන්ට පොදු පනතක්‌ ගෙන ඒම බවත් උන්වහන්සේ පැවසූහ.

ගලගොඩඅත්තේ ඥනසාර හිමියෝ එම අදහස්‌ පළ කළේ කිරුළපන බෝධි බෞද්ධ මන්දිරයේ ඊයේ (14 වැනිදා) පැවැති මාධ්‍ය හමුවකදීය.

Nalin de silva-සිංහල බෞද්ධ සංස්කෘතියට නිසි තැන

By M D P DISSANAYAKE

Undoubtedly, Mr Vasudeva Nanayakkara is one of  the odd men out of the current team of the Joint Opposition.  It is surprising to note his continuance with the Joint Opposition, instead of joining the so called government of good governance.  Mr Nanayakkara can most certainly occupy a posh key ministerial position with the government, with all perks.

Mr Nanayakkara tried twice before to become the President of Sri Lanka, in 1982 and 1999, receiving 0.26% and 0.28% of votes respectively.  In 2015 general election, contesting with the UPFA of MR camp, he convincingly won the Ratnapura District, receiving 81000 votes and placed in the 4th position.

It is no secret Mr Nanayakkara fear the presence of Messrs Gotabhaya and Basil Rajapakse in the MR camp.  Mr Nanayakkara’s policies towards Sinhala Language and Buddhism are well documented.    His sentiments are towards a United Sri Lanka instead of Unitary Sri Lanka.  He is fighting for the rights of Tamils, but not for the rights of Sinhalese or Buddhists.  Mr Nanayakkara’s continuation in the Joint Opposition, in our view, is a serious draw back.  At a critical moment these groups may rally against MR policies, which will increase the stocks of the government of good governance instantly.

During the period of Alutgama riots, the then Minister Mr Nanayakkara blamed  Bodu Bala Sena as “setting fire to the country” (‘බොදු බල සේනා රට ගිණි තියනවා’.  During the BBC interview, he questioned the President Rajapakse government, attacking it ” if this government is a government, why no action has been taken against organisations such as these”(ආණ්ඩුව ආණ්ඩුවක් නම්” මෙවැනි සංවිධානයක් මේ ආකාරයට කටයුතු කරනු නිකම් බලා සිටීමට” ආණ්ඩුවකට හැකිදැයි වාසුදේව නානායක්කාර ඇමතිවරයා ප්‍රශ්න කරයි.)These views of a Minister in the government against itself created doubts in the minds of Muslims.   Massive campaign of rumours were spread trying to establish a connection between Mr Gotabaya Rajapakse and  the extremist group of BBS. These are political snakes under the carpet, similar to Maithreepala Sirisena.

Both President Mahinda Rajapakse and Mr Gotabaya Rajapakse, together with Dinesh, Wimal, Udaya, Prasanna etc.  have made it clear the war was against a group of terrorists in the Tamil community, winning the war was a major victory for innocent tamils.  Mr Nanayakkara’s hatred attitude against sinhala buddhists, including buddhists monks deserve no place for him in the Joint Opposition.

Mr Nanayakkara should strongly consider joining the government of good governance.   This will greatly help  for the formation of clear cut policies on language, religion, unitary status by the Joint Opposition.  It will not be possible to get rid of 13 Amendment to the  existing constitution, or similar proposals in the  new draft constitution, with the presence of members of parliament  in Joint Opposition Group who are not committed to the basic rights of sinhalese and buddhists.

වෛද්‍ය රුවන් එම් ජයතුංග 

1999 වසරේ දෙසැම්බර් 25  නත්තල් දින මම මීගමුව රෝහලේ බාහිර රෝගී අංශයේ සේවය කලෙමි. දෙසැම්බර් 25 නිවාඩු දිනයක් වූවද ක්‍රිස්තු භක්තික වෛද්‍යවරුන්ට නත්තල් උත්සවය සැමරීමට ඉඩ දෙනු වස් මා  ඇතුළු වෛද්‍යවරු කිහිප දෙනෙක් ස්වේච්ඡාවෙන් දෙසැම්බර් 25  නත්තල් දින රෝහලේ වැඩ ආවරණය කිරීමට ඉදිරිපත් වූයෙමු.

මීගමුව රෝහලේ බාහිර රෝගී අංශය කාර්‍යබහුලය​. එසේම ඉඳ හිට ගෝරිද යයි. වරක් ප්‍රදේශයේ මදාවියෙකු බරපතල තුවාල ලැබ බාහිර රෝගී අංශයට ගෙන එනු ලැබීය​. අවාසනාවකට මෙන් රෝහලට ගෙන එන ලද විගසම ඔහුගෙ පණ ගොස් තිබුණි. බාහිර රෝගී අංශයේ සිටි වෛද්‍යවරයා රෝගියා මිය ගොස් ඇති බව ඔහුව ගෙන එන ලද පිරිසට දන්වන ලදින් ඉන් කුපිත වූ පිරිස වෛද්‍යවරයාට හා හෙදියන්ට පහර දී බාහිර රෝගී අංශය කුඩු කරන ලදි.

රෝහලේ පොලිස් පෝස්ට් එකක් තිබුනද එහි සිටියේ ආරියරත්න රාලහාමි නම් අහිංසක පොලිස් කෙනෙකි. සමහර විට රෞද්‍ර මුහුණක් පෙන්වා සමහර කලබලකාරයන් බියට පත් කලද  ආරියරත්න රාලහාමි නිය පිටින්වත් කිසිවෙකුට පහර දෙන පුද්ගලයෙකු නොවේ. එම නිසා අපගේ ආරක්‍ෂාව අපටම සලසා ගැනීමට සිදු විය​. ඇරත් ප්‍රදේශයේ දේශපාලකයන් ගේ හෙන්චයියන් රෝහල් කාර්‍ය මණ්ඩලයට බුරා සපා ගියද නීතිය ක්‍රියාත්මක වුයේ නැති තරම් ය​. එසේම අහිංසක පොලිස් ආරියරත්න රාලහාමි බාහිර රෝගී අංශයේ යාබද කාමරයේ සිටියද කිසිවෙකු ඔහු ගෙන් ආරක්‍ෂාව බලාපොරොත්තු වූයේ නැත​. නමුත් මම ආරියරත්න රාලහාමි ගෙන් ක්‍රියාන්විතයේ සිටි කාලයේ අත්දැකීම් ඇසීමට ප්‍රිය කලෙමි. ආරියරත්න රාලහාමි යුද කාලයේ නැගෙනහිර ප්‍රදේශයේ එතරම් යුද ගැටුම් නොමැති කළාපයක සිටි අතර ඒ කාලයේ තිබූ  කාන්සිය මුසු වූ කතා නිබඳව කීවේය​.

දෙසැම්බර් 25 දින උදෑසන අටට පමණ මම බාහිර රෝගී අංශයට ආවෙමි. රාත්‍රී මුරය කල වෛද්‍යවරිය නිදහස් වී ගියාය​. උදෑසන දහය වන තෙක් සුළු සුළු ප්‍රතිකාර සඳහා පැමිනි රෝගීන්ට අවශ්‍ය ප්‍රතිකාර මම ලබා දුනිමි. උදෑසන දහයට පමණ  කොස් ගසකින්   වැටී විසංඥව සිටි  තරුණයෙකු බාහිර රෝගී අංශයට ගෙන එන ලදි. උක්ත තරුණයා කොස් ගෙඩියක් කැඩීමට උස කොස් ගහකට නැගි අතර අත්තක් කඩාගෙන බිම වැටී තිබේ. ශරීරයේ බාහිර තුවාල නොතිබුනද ඔහුගේ හිස බිම වැදී ඇත​.

රෝගියා පැමිණ සිටියේ ඔහුගේ මහළු මව සහ දුප්පත් පෙනුමින් යුත් අසල්වාසීන් කිහිප දෙනෙකු සමගය​. මෙම තරුණයා මහළු මවගේ එකම පුත්‍රයා බව මට ඔවුන් ගේ කතාවෙන් වැටහුණි. මම රෝගියාව පරීක්‍ෂා කලෙමි. ඔහුගේ කිසිදු චලනයක් නැත​. හුස්ම ගැනීම සිදු වන්නේ නැත​. ඇසේ කළු ඉංගිරියාව විදුලි පන්දමේ එළියට ප්‍රතිචාර දක්වන්නේ නැත​.  රෝගියා මිය ගොස් ඇති බව මට වැටහුණි. එහෙත් මහළු මව එය තවම නොදනී. තම පුතාට අවශ්‍ය ප්‍රතිකාර දැන් ලැබී ඔහු සිහිය ලැබ නැගිටිනු ඇතැයි ඇය අපේක්‍ෂා කරන්නීය​. මට ගෝර්කිගේ ස්වයං චරිතාපදානයේ එන ට්සිගනොක් තරුණයාගේ මරණය සිහි විය​.

මම මහළු මාතාව දෙස බැලුවෙමි. දුප්පත්කමත් අසරණකමත් දිවි ගැටගහ ගැනීමට මුළු දිවිය පුරා වෙහෙසීම නිසා දිරා ගිය කයත් මගේ දෙනෙත් වලට අසු විය​. මේ මාතාවට ඇයගේ එකම පුතාගේ මරණය ගැන මම කියන්නේ කෙසේද​? මම ඔවුනට නොතේරෙන සේ තරුණයාගේ සිරුර සහිත ට්‍රොලිය බාහිර රෝගී අංශයේ  ඉස්ක්‍රීමකින් මුවා කරන ලද කොටසකට ගෙන ගියෙමි. ඉන්පසු මහළු මාතාවට මගේ මේසය  අසල ඇති රෝගීන් ඉඳ ගන්නා පුටුවේ වාඩි වන ලෙස කීවෙමි. ඇය වාඩි වූවාය​. මම මගේ දෑත් වලින් ඇයගේ මහළුවී හා කෘෂවී ගිය කරගැට පිරුනු දෑත් අල්ලාගත්තෙමි.

මම අසීරු හඞකින් කථා කලෙමි. ” අම්මේ හිත හදා ගන්න බලන්න පුතාගේ පණ ගිහිල්ලා ” මම ඇයට ඇසීමට අපහසු වදන් පැවසුවෙමි. වෘද්ධ මාතාව හිස් බැල්මකින් මා දෙස මොහොතක් බැලුවාය​. ඇයගේ දෙනෙත් වලට කඳුළු ගලා ආවේය​. එහෙත් ඇය විලාප දුන්නේ නැත​. ඇය කෙලෙස හිත හදා ගන්නද ? ඇයගේ එකම පුතු හදිසි අණතුරකින් මිය ගොසිනි. ඇයව රක්‍ෂා කල ඇයට සවියක් වූ පුතා ජීවතුන් අතර නැත​. දුගී මාතාව ජීවිතයට මින් පසුව මුහුණ දෙන්නේ කෙසේද​? දහසකුත් ප්‍රශ්න අතර මම අතරමං වූයෙමි. දුප්පත්කම , අසරණකම හව්හරණක් නොමැතිබව යන සමාජ ව්‍යාධී කුණාටු වලට ජීවිත කාලය පුරා මුහුණ  ඇයට දෛවය විසින් අවසන් වරට ඉතා බරපතල පහර දීමක් කොට තිබේ.

ඇයගේ පුතාගේ මෘත ශරීරය මරණ පරීක්‍ෂණයක් සඳහා මෝචරියට ගෙන යන ලෙස රෝහල් කම්කරුවෙකුට නියම කල මම අවශ්‍ය ලියකියවිලි පිරවූයෙමි. ඒ අතර මහළු කාන්තාවගේ අසල්වාසීන් ඇයව වත්තන් කරගෙන ඉවතට ගෙන ගියාය​.

මෙම දුක්බර සිදුවීම මා ලේඛනගත කරන්නේ  2015 දෙසැම්බර් වලය​.  මේ වන විට එකී මරණය සිදුවී වසර 16 ගතවී තිබේ. ඒ මහළු කාන්තාවගේ එකම පුතාගේ මරණින් පසු ඇය කෙසේ ජීවත්වීද යැයි මා නොදනිමි. එසේම මේ වන විට ඇයද ජීවතුන් අතර සිටිනවාද කියා මා නොදනිමි.  එහෙත් එම මාතාවගේ අවසන් දිනය තෙක් තම පුතුගේ අකල් මරණය ඇයගේ සිත දැවූ බව මම  හොඳාකාරව දනිමි.

Editorial Courtesy The Island

White vans and Lamborghinis ruined the image of the Rajapaksa government. Now, black Defenders and Prados have landed the present dispensation in trouble. Customs trade unionists tenaciously hold on to their demand for a probe into an alleged Prado racket which is said to have cost the cash-strapped state coffers a whopping Rs. 3 bn.

The All Ceylon Customs Service Union (ACCSU) blew the lid off what it called a mega vehicle racket a few moons ago. They claimed that about 200 Prado SUVs detained by the Customs Central Investigation Division at the Hambantota Port on the grounds that the actual transaction values were not reflected in the commercial invoices had been released fraudulently. The ACCSU argued on Tuesday that since those SUVs had been imported under public officials’ vehicle permit scheme their value had to be below USD 35,000 each; but their actual value was USD 50,000 each and, therefore, either they had to be confiscated or the importers had to be fined three times the value of the vehicles for submitting false invoices. Nothing of the sort had happened, the ACCSU said.

The government which extols the virtues of good governance and is in overdrive mode to combat corruption should have got cracking on the serious allegation levelled by the Customs officers themselves. But, it made a mockery of its anti-corruption mission by turning its Nelsonian eye to the issue. It only made a vain attempt to use some Customs panjandrums to dispute the unionists’ claim.

The ACCSU has written to President Maithripala Sirisena, seeking his intervention to bring the Prado racketeers to justice and help recover the tax revenue the state has lost. It told the media on Tuesday that all its efforts to have the FCID investigate the alleged racket had come a cropper. Naturally, the FCID has no time for such matters. What do the Customs officers think the FCID is there for? Itsraison d’etre is to probe alleged corrupt deals of political nature and not to conduct investigations against the government politicians and their fellow racketeers.

The Customs trade unionists don’t seem to know how to galvanize the FCID, or the police for that matter, into action. If they had mentioned the names of some Opposition top guns in their complaint as suspects the FCID would have gone hell for leather to take all the SUVs into custody and arrest their owners as well as importers in next to no time. Let the Customs officers try that trick next time.

The Prado racket is a godsend for the Opposition. It can be flogged effectively to expose the corrupt elements within the government ranks. But, strangely, the cantankerous Opposition politicians have chosen to remain mum, making one wonder whether they have also benefited from the vehicle racketeers.

One may not be so naive as to believe that the Customs officers who are demanding a probe into the Prado racket are driven by altruism and their love for the country. There is a public perception that the Customs Department is a den of thieves. However, the best way to catch a thief is to set another thief.

Here is a situation where President Sirisena can put his stingray tail or madu walige to good use instead of chasing the organisers of bra-throwing gigs. He should make good his promise to probe corrupt deals and punish those responsible for them. This is the moment of truth for him. He should crack the whip, sorry, madu walige. If it can be proved that there has been a vehicle racket at the Hambantota Port and about 200 Prados have been released fraudulently as the ACCSU claims then those responsible for it deserve cat-o’-nine-tails treatment in public.

A high-level probe into the Prado racket is called for. If the yahapalana worthies have nothing to hide they must order an investigation and get to the bottom of it.

H. L. D. Mahindapala

Long after his death, the macabre shadow of Velupillai Prabhakaran continues to stalk the peninsula, darkening the neck of Jaffna with the coagulated blood of those Tamils who sacrificed their lives for a cause that failed. In the end, their sacrifices turned the North into one mass graveyard that buried practically everything cherished by the Tamils except their folly, arrogance,  hate politics and myths glorifying Tamil greatness that is not found in the pages of recorded history. The post-independent history of Jaffna was essentially a movement to create,if possible, and actualise Tamil greatness which existed only in the  minds of the deluded Tamils.

1. J. V. Chelvanayakam and Velupillai Prabhakaran are the two Tamil leaders who attempted to transform fictitious Tamil greatness into a historical fact by establishing a separate state. With typical Tamil arrogance that rejects peaceful co-existence in a multi-ethnic nation Chelvanayakam announced that the Sinhalese were not big enough to rule the Tamils” (p. 128 – S. J. V. Chelvanayakam and the Crisis of Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism, 1947 – 1977, A Political Biography, Lake House Bookshop, 1993). His solution to bring  down to earth the pie-in-the-sky Tamil greatness was to establish Eelam. That fitted into his sense of superiority. He dismissed with contempt those  who refused to join his Jaffna-centric bandwagon. Like most of the  upper-caste Vellahlas his universe began and ended with Jaffna. Factors outside the periphery of the  Jaffna-centric culture were denigrated and rejected as inferior because they threatened their assumed sense of superiority. For instance, he had utter contempt for his rival G. G. Ponnambalam who opted  to work with the Sinhala governments”. He branded Ponnambalam as a thief” (p.72 – Ibid). After  his break-up  in 1948 he dismissed Ponnambalam as an opportunist.” (p.36 – Ibid). Ponnambalam was relegated to a corner of  his  mind where  he remained as an implacable foe” to  the end  of time.

With more than a touch of contempt he also labelled the Tamils of  Batticoloa as the trousered people of Batticoloa” ( p. 32 – Ibid) though one of  his main political strategies was to get the Tamil-speaking Muslims, Indians estate workers and the Eastern Tamils under his umbrella of the iyakkum (movement) of Thamil Payasooom Makkal (Tamil-speaking people) as opposed to Thamil Makkal (Tamil people). But the Muslims and the Indian Tamils were not drawn to his Jaffna-centric political agenda of Jaffna-centric extremism.

Chelvanayakam’s attempt to spread his tentacles into  the  other two Tamil-speaking minorities failed. They were suspicious of his Jaffna-centric agenda, consisting mainly of a separate state and Vadukoddai violence. Both Chelvanayakam and Prabhakaran failed  – and failed miserably – primarily because  they refused to accept the  opportunities that came their way to resolve differences like the other two Tamil-speaking community leaders through non-violent means. Indian and Muslim community leaders succeeded because they refused to accept his leadership and his Vadukoddai violence aimed primarily to glorify Tamil greatness. Both leaders directed their energies to establish Tamil greatness by carving out a separate state based on borders imagined by Tamil cartographers. Both Tamil leaders failed because of their intransigent and arrogant belief that  violence could force the break-up of the nation.

First, S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, the father of Tamil separatism, laid the ideological foundations to drive his campaign to attain Eelam. He officially launched his Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK, disguised in English as Federal Party) on December 18, 1949 at the Government Clerical Service Union in the Colombo suburb of Maradana. By 1976 when he discovered that he can never be a Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, (1947),  or a Sheik Mujubir Rahman, the father of Bangladesh, (1972) he steered the Vadukoddai Resolution at the Vadukoddai Convention (1976) legitimising  violence to attain his elusive Eelam. Second, out of  the military solution legitimised  in the Vadukoddai Resolution came the armed Vadukoddai children who turned their guns first on the fathers of the Vadukoddai Resolution. Chelvanayakam’s military solution was a futile exercise doomed from the start because Prabhakaran, the Tamil leader assigned to deliver Eelam, was more keen on killing Tamils than the non-Tamils. In the end the Vadukoddai Resolution ran out of Tamils to fight for the Vadukoddai Resolution – the  high point  of Tamil arrogance and imagined greatness.

Imagining Tamil greatness, which was never there in the first place, has been an obsession fixated in the Tamil psyche. Looking for the missing greatness has been like Chelvanayakam looking for his missing father. His father brought him from Ipoh. a town in Malaysia, and left him with his mother in Tellipallai in 1902 when he was four and the young boy never saw his father ever again, except  once when his father was in his death bed in Malaysia. The void caused by the absence of a father warped  his psyche. His biographer, Prof. A. J. Wilson,  who knew him better than anyone else, wrote: The absence of  his father from home in his formative years was a key factor in his development. Living in a social ethos that was and still is male-centred, he witnessed the daily discomforts and petty humiliations suffered by the mother whom  he revered. He could  not  compensate for this lack of a paternal presence; he could merely repress it by his  own conscious will.” (p.viii – Ibid). Prof. Wilson cannot be challenged on this because of his intimate knowledge of Chelvanayakam and his politics. In analysing Chelvanayakam’s career  and  character from within” he wrote: … I knew him  intimately and was privy to his innermost political thoughts between 1953 and 1977. ”(p.viii – Ibid). Besides, as his  son-in-law he would  have worked intimately with his father-in-law who would  have been a gold mine to him as he was specialising in political science.

Prof. Wilson makes it abundantly clear that there was nothing in Chelvanayakam’s life that could compensate for this lack of  paternal presence.” The emotional pressures would  have left indelible mental scars. Prof. Wilson added: Chelvanayakam’s separation from his father, growing up with only his mother and two brothers and sister, left its mark. The family system in Tellipalli placed a premium on the presence of a father in the home. In the extended Ceylon Tamil family system the nearest uncle fulfilled the paternal role, and Chelvanayakam’s maternal uncle, S. K. Ponnaiah, a minister of the then Church  of England in Ceylon, attempted to act as his guide. However, despite fine qualities and many friends in the elite circles of Colombo, he could not fill the gap in the young man’s life.” (p 5. – Ibid).

The humiliations in his early life and his repressions would have been the factors that caused him  to withdraw into his Tamilness as an internal defensive mechanism. A boy thrown into an alien, threatening milieu, without the comforting and confidence-building hand of a father protecting him, could only be  bundle of insecure nerves. Not only young Chelvanayakam the entire family felt the absence of the father. The Velupillai household lacked a vital element with the absence of the father, and Chelvanayakam’s mother felt diminished in the company of her sister and brothers and  their spouses. In that world women needed to have husbands to make the family unit complete.” (p.1 – Ibid). Isolated as a repressed and humiliated youth Chelvanayakam found his comfort zone only in exclusive Tamil institutions and territory. Besides, growing up in Tellipallai, a village deep in the heart of Jaffna and nearest to Tamil Nadu, contributed to his being essentially a Tamil village man”, a label which he was proud to claim even when he was moving  in the highest circles in Colombo. Even though he was a Christian he made sure that he was not alienated from the Hindu society that dominated his world. He therefore made the paradoxical claim that he was a Christian by religion and Hindu by culture”, says Prof. Wilson (ibid- p.4).

The Jaffna Tamil Christians were faced with the dilemma of being a Christian in a predominantly Hindu culture. Some of them like Fr. S. J. Emmanuel, the Vicar of Jaffna, openly declared that he was a Tamil first and a Christian second. To prove their worth to the Jaffnaites they also tried to hijack Christianity to serve the political agenda of Tamils. The first missionaries tried to convert Hindus  into Christians. But the Christians of the 20th century went the other way about : their aim was to make Christianity serve the Tamil political agenda. However, the  overweening factor that dominated their minds was just not Tamilness but the  sense of being superior to all other ethnic  groups that accompanied Tamilness. Chelvanayakam consoled his conscience by having one foot in each tabernacle. He got away by saying  that he was a Christian by religion and Hindu by culture. Prof. Wilson says that he was able to function as a convinced Christian while retaining in himself those aspects of Hinduism which he felt were quintessentially Tamil.” (p 4. – Ibid)

Besides, (T)he cultural effects of his formative environments were strong…..” and he clung on to the Hindu culture which made him quintessentially Tamil”.  His sense of insecurity caused by the lack of paternal presence” would have driven him  to find  security only by identifying his being with the larger community of  Hindu Tamils. That feeling of being one with the Tamils made him feel great too. In short, Tamil  communalism was his substitute  for the missing father. Prof. Wilson confirms this when he states that he decided to play the role of the father for the Tamils because  he had no father. From all available accounts there is no doubt that the intense impact  of the lack  of paternal protection played a key role in shaping his  youth and political life.

His mind was buried deeply in Tamilness. He had nothing else to hang on to as an  alternative to his father. His isolation was deepened by being a Christian in a Hindu world. In the political culture of Jaffna there was a stigma attached to it from the time the missionaries set foot in Jaffna. Arumuka Navalar, (1822 – 1879), the Pope of Vellahla casteism, ran  this anti-Christian movement It did not impact on Chelvanayakam adversely because he identified himself with the Hindu culture in everything except religious rituals and the  plethora of  Hindu gods. But he aligned himself with Saivite Vellahla socio-economic hegemony of Jaffna to the extreme point of going along with the casteist politics of the Vellahlas.

Politically it would have been  suicidal for him to be thrown out of the dominant Vellahla upper caste. No Tamil leader could  risk that isolation. In peninsular politics where  the  ambition of  every Tamil leader is to be the sole representative of the Tamils” – and this is a trait that ran from Sankili to Prabhakaran — his biggest dread was to be isolated from his community. He refused to buy a house in Colombo fearing that  its multi-cultural cosmopolitanism would  pollute  the purity of his children’s Tamil minds.  Anything alien to  his familiar Tamil culture was abhorrent  to his closed mind. Even when it came to his Christian religion he jumped, at the first opportunity, from the Church of England, as it was known  then in colonial times, to the Church of South India when it opened a place of worship in Colombo. (p.4 – Ibid). Chelvanayakam’s repressed personality is written all over in his dogged personality that hid behind Tamil communalism as the answer to his personal problems as well as that of the Tamils.

He was no different to the other Tamil who found confirmation of their greatness only by convincing themselves that they are superior to everyone else. The fact that the Tamil segment of history is bereft of any notable leaders or original achievements did not disturb their mythical beliefs in Tamil greatness. It must  be emphasized that the native Tamils of their only homeland in Tamil Nadu achieved  great cultural heights but not their carbon copies in Jaffna. But driven  by their imagined sense of superiority they felt that they deserve a separate state. They felt it infra dig to play second fiddle in a state dominated by another non-Tamil ethnic community. The acquisition of a state by a stateless people naturally confers a sense of superiority though not security as seen  under  the leadership of the Tamil Pol Pot.

Chelvanayakam’s political ideology of separatism was linked to this claim  of Tamil superiority – a claim which is also allied to his sense of insecurity which he acquired from his fatherless home in Tellipallai. That sense of superiority demands a separate existence from alien territory which is threatening their sense of superiority. It is obvious that only a community obsessed with their imagined greatness would contemplate writing a theology in praise of their glory derived from their special relationship with God. The insecurity caused by the absence of a father  in the family was off set only by identifying himself with a collective gathering of Tamils – and that too only from Jaffna.

When the fragments of Chelvanayakam’s political personality are put together it can be seen that his inner compulsions had played a key role in determining his politics. He  has been a complex character with a narrow vision driven by mono-ethnic extremism. By 1976 he had been many things to many people. He had been a Gandhian pacifist and also a Vadukoddian militant. He had been a Christian and also a Hindu who dared not to disturb his casteist universe. His ambition was to be a Jinnah or Sheik Mujubir Rahaman of Sri Lanka but he ended up as the Pied Piper of Jaffna who lured his  people like the rats of Hamelin to their watery grave in Nandikadal. His notable political legacy was the Vadukoddai Resolution which he  handed to his political children who ran amok with the violence he legitimised. His Gandhian pose  deceived many of his followers.

My memory goes back to the day when I was climbing the stairs of the old Parliament after lunch. I caught up with Dr. E. M. V. Naganathan, a leading light of the Federal Party, who was labouring  to climb the stairs. He put his hand on on my shoulder to prop himself up, every step of the way. On the way up he was chatting and what  he told me about Chelvanayakam made me  think. He said that Chelvanayakam is able to maintain his saintly Gandhian  pose because of his Parkinsons disease. Then it struck me that It  was indeed his  feebleness that made him  look like a quiet Gandhian, though in reality he was a  tough Vadukoddian  committed to the  military solution – a solution  which he knew would lead to the deaths of countless Tamils and, of  course, non-Tamils. He was not averse to the brutal  consequences of war as long as it brought  him his Eelam. But he  failed.

Taking an overview, it is not possible to escape  the overwhelming  question : Were the traumatised Sri Lankans – from Point  Pedro to Dondra  – tormented,persecuted and made to pay with  their lives for 33 years because Chelvanayakam did not have a father?

To be continued

Compiled By Upasaka

The government Sri Lanka yesterday presented a historic bill seeking the approval of Parliament to bring about new laws governing the life of every Theravada bhikkhu (monk) and bhikkhuni (nun) in Sri Lanka revising 2600 year old Vinaya pitaka, the first division of the Tripitaka. The Bill can even prohibit chanting Ratana Sutta (The Jewel Discourse) by Theravada bhikkhus  (Buddhist monks) because this can easily be classified as act of occultism.

The Vinaya Pitaka, the first division of the Tipitaka, is the textual framework upon which the monastic community (Sangha) is built. It includes not only the rules governing the life of every Theravada bhikkhu (monk) and bhikkhuni (nun), but also a host of procedures and conventions of etiquette that support harmonious relations, both among the monastics themselves, and between the monastics and their lay supporters, upon whom they depend for all their material needs.

It is this unbroken lineage of bhikkhu (monk) and bhikkhuni (nun) who have consistently upheld and protected the rules of the Vinaya for almost 2,600 years that we find ourselves today with the luxury of receiving the priceless teachings of Dhamma. Were it not for the Vinaya, and for those who continue to keep it alive to this day, there would be no Buddhism.

It helps to keep in mind that the name the Buddha gave to the spiritual path he taught was “Dhamma-vinaya” — the Doctrine (Dhamma) and Discipline (Vinaya) — suggesting an integrated body of wisdom and ethical training. The Vinaya is thus an indispensable facet and foundation of all the Buddha’s teachings, inseparable from the Dhamma, and worthy of study by all followers — lay and ordained, alike.

Despite all these rules of the Vinaya that kept Buddhism flourishing for almost 2,600 years throughout Asia, now Sri Lankan so called Yahapalanaya government with bunch of homosexuals and non-Buddhists  majority in the government attempt to rewrite vinaya pitake to suit their own goal to control the conduct of bhikkhus in Sri Lanka and punish those who did not abide by the new laws. (very similar to what has happened in Vietnam during American occupation)

The Bill titled Theravadi Bhikku Kathikawath (Registration) seeks to “provide for the formulation and registration of Kathikawath in relation to Nikaya or Chapters of Theravadi Bhikkhus in Sri Lanka to provide for every bhikkhu to act in compliance with the provisions of the Registered Kathikawath of the Nikaya or Chapter which relates to such bhikku, to impose punishment on bhikkus who act in violation of the provisions of any Registered Kathikawath and for the matters connected therewith or incidental hitherto.”

This is completely contradict the The Suttavibhanga of vinaya pitaka that contains the basic training rules for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, along with the “origin story” for each one. These rules are summarized in the Patimokkha, and amount to 227 rules for the bhikkhus, 311 for the bhikkhunis. The Patimokkkha rules are grouped as follows:

• Parajika: rules entailing expulsion from the Sangha (Defeat) (4 for bhikkhus, 8 for bhikkhunis)
• Sanghadisesa: rules entailing an initial and subsequent meeting of the Sangha (13,17)
• Aniyata (indefinite) rules (2, 0)
• Nissaggiya pacittiya: rules entailing forfeiture and confession (30, 30)
• Pacittiya: rules entailing confession (92, 166)
• Patidesaniya: rules entailing acknowledgement (4, 8)
• Sekhiya: rules of training (75, 75)
• Adhikarana samatha: rules for settling disputes (7, 7)

The controversial bill was presented by Chief Government Whip and Parliament Reforms and Mass Media Minister Gayantha Karunathilaka.

The bill seeks to set up a code of conduct and discipline which would enable Mahanayake theras to punish a bhikkus who engage in or carry out occult practices or similar activities and giving publicity to such activities; involve in trade or business activities; obtain driving licences and drive vehicles, engage in any employment in the public or private sector other than in the fields of education, social services and religious affairs and engage in activities unsuitable for a bhikku in a manner contrary to bhikku vinaya in public places.

Buddhism is full of features that suggestive of occultism, if occultism is defined as belief in the existence of secret, mysterious, or supernatural agencies.

So chanting Pirith specially the Ratana Sutta (The Jewel Discourse)itself can be interpreted as an occult practice because purpose of chanting is to help evil spirits to be exorcised, the pestilence subside by the supernatural force of dhamma,and this has been practiced throughout the history

The first occasion for this discourse, in brief, according to the commentary, is as follows (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html )

The city of Vesali was afflicted by a famine, causing death, especially to the poor folk. Due to the presence of decaying corpses the evil spirits began to haunt the city; this was followed by a pestilence. Plagued by these three fears of famine, non-human beings and pestilence, the citizens sought the help of the Buddha who was then living at Rajagaha.

Followed by a large number of monks including the Venerable Ananda, his attendant disciple, the Buddha came to the city of Vesali. With the arrival of the Master, there were torrential rains which swept away the putrefying corpses. The atmosphere became purified, the city was clean.

Thereupon the Buddha delivered this Jewel Discourse (Ratana sutta[1]) to the Venerable Ananda, and gave him instructions as to how he should tour the city with the Licchavi citizens reciting the discourse as a mark of protection to the people of Vesali. The Venerable Ananda followed the instructions, and sprinkled the sanctified water from the Buddha’s own alms bowl. As a consequence the evil spirits were exorcised, the pestilence subsided. Thereafter the Venerable Ananda returned with the citizens of Vesali to the Public hall where the Buddha and his disciples had assembled awaiting his arrival. There the Buddha recited the same Jewel Discourse to the gathering:

In Buddhism Loka” or the world” denotes the 3 spheres of existence comprising the whole universe,i.e 1. The sensuous world (kama-loka)or the world of five senses

2.The fine material world (rupa-loka) corresponding to the 4 fine-materrial absortions (jhana 1-4)

3 The immaterial world (arupa-loka) corresonding to the 4 immaterial absorptions (jhana 5-8)

The sensuous world comprises the hells 9niraya) the animal kingdom (tiracchana-yoni), the ghost realm9peta-loka) the demon world (asura nikaya0 the human world (manussa-loka) and so on.

So, Bhikkus who violate aforementioned provisions with chant Ratana Sutta or explain sensuous world comprises of ghost-realm (peta-loka) or the demon world (asura nikaya) will be punished with temporary or permanent expulsion from the residing temple, temporary or permanent removal from the office of Viharadhipathy, expulsion from the studentship, expulsion from the relevant Nikaya or chapter and cancellation of the bhikku registration, the bill says.

The whole monastic community (Sangha)in Sri Lanka can be wiped out with this bill. That is the Yahapalanaya intention.

Sri Lanka Jayabumi

This new punitive legislation against the bikkus is a total foreign conspiracy against Buddhism and Sri Lankan way of life. Whole purpose of this legislation is to imprison skilful bhikkus by falsehood and stop them protecting buddashasana and nothing else. This legislation would be used by Muslim and Catholic politicians (no disrespect to the fellow citizens of Muslim and Catholic faith) to destroy the Buddasashana in Sri Lanka. (Lot of people don’t know this, Jesus Christ is actually a messenger of Allah according to the Islamic religious text book “Quran” and according to the Quran a powerful ruler called Mehedi is going to return to earth to prepare the earth for the second coming of the Jesus Christ. Muslims believe upon the second coming of Jesus Christ, Jesus himself would destroy all the non-muslim resistances and establish a global Islamic government finally defeating an Antichrist personality called “Dajjal”. Which means according to the Muslims, Jesus is the final representation of Allah on earth and his final kingdom is going to last 1000 years). Religions other than Buddhism and Hinduism do not have any sound foundation to last the next century let along another millennia when the modern scientific discoveries further improves the understanding of the general populous. What people do not realise is that other religions are multi-billion dollar generating business machines. The foreign powers want to create a puppet state in their likeness in Sri Lanka and the main obstacle to that is Bikkus. So they are trying to eliminate that obstacles and safe guard their financial interests at the same time. Killing two birds in one stone, not bad eh?

Just because few apples are fake, that does not mean every apple is bad. Yes, there are fake rogues who wear robes to gain material advantage but that number is very few in comparison.

Not a single lay person can dictates terms to the Honourable Bikkus let alone criticise them in public. Thiloguru Samma Sambudu Piyanan never allowed lay people to instil discipline in bikkus let alone punishing them. The budda shasana does not belong to anybody but Thiloguru Samma Sambudu Piyanan. Thiloguru Piyanan has clearly mentioned that only senior monks can discipline the junior monks. Furthermore a bikku has to commit one of the 4 serious acts called “sathara parajika” inorder to be automatically disrobed, and no other act can warrant a punishment such as disrobing a monk even by a senior monk as far as I know.

Ordinary lay people are absolutely crazy and idiotic in comparison to the enlighten beings like some honourable monks who still live among us without us even realising. So how come some idiotic poli-ticks can even think that they can pass a legislation to judge and punish an entire bikku shasanaya. Who are they to judge who CANNOT be judged. They must be so out of their mind. Have those poli-ticks even passed O/L to begin with and through their thuggery and corruption they suck the blood out of lives of ordinary citizens of this beautiful country. I say all these poli-ticks should be placed under a special legislative disciplinary code of conduct and if they break those special rules placed upon them they should be banished from Sri Lanka forever (may be we can send them to Syria to join ISIS where they would fit in nicely). Enough of those fools trying to govern our mother land while still licking the back side of the white fellow and Lenin.

We have to remember that the religion found by a war lord turned paedophile which openly states in it’s unholy book that shedding blood of a non-believer in the name of almighty is an act which warrants eternal presence in heaven. So how come the poli-ticks don’t try to ban such unholy practice called religion which incite violence in the name of almighty? My dear moor brothers and sisters, do not misunderstand me thinking I am criticising you, what you and the general populous of Sri Lanka do not know is that you have “hela blood line” flowing in your vains from your maternal side and on your paternal blood line, you only have handful of mixed foreign blood and in reality you are more sinhalese than actual sinahlese when it comes to the genetic decomposition given the fact that Sinhalese are genetically such a mixed race. Sri Lanka is an open country and you can continue to believe whatever you want to believe, you are free to even blindly follow a war-lord who butchered millions and stolen their wives and molested their kids as your saviour or you can open your brains and convert to Christianity or Hinduism or any other faith which is founded on the non-violence principle. Either way Islam is not going to have a future in this world and sooner rather than later entire world will be on war against Islam for a valid reason and I wish you would not be get caught up in the cross fire. Aswalam Malekum to you all and hope you will be properly sheltered in our motherland and I am sure my fellow Buddhists would protect you from the foreign powers’ war on Islam which is about to be kicked into a new gear very soon.

Unfortunately we have a spineless puppet at the top chair who is sleeping at the wheels who pardons harden terrorists while imprisoning the decorated warriors who helped save our motherland from brutal decade long terrorism. I wish he would grow a spine and lead the country bravely rather than be a servant to the white masters or leave the seat sooner rather than later without causing any further damage to the buddashasana under his watch. I wish him luck, but if he does not change, I am pretty sure in the local government election he will be utterly humiliated.

I want to end my rant with this final note, why don’t we call it a day and chase all these poli-ticks from the parliament and start completely fresh. Why do we allow our selves to be hostages in our own country when we can kick out these criminal/idiotic poli-ticks. Even the ticks on my dog would be a better politician than the current poli-ticks we have in the parliament at the moment. Let’s rescue our mother land and start from scratch. 

By : A.A.M.Nizam, MATARA

The most discussed topic nowadays is the abolition of the existing constitution or the replacement of it with a new constitution under the guise of abolishing the powers of the Executive Presidency and the preferential voting system.  The purpose of this article is to enlighten the patriotic people on the moves taken in the past to segregate Sri Lanka for the detriment of the Unitary status of the country. Similar discussions were held in the 1930s when the subject of granting independence to Sri Lanka and introducing the Soulboury Constitution were being contemplated in the then Legislative Council.

The father of separatism, the Singapore born S.J.V.Chelvanayagam opening the Pandora’s Box of national disunity at that time said that they the Tamils are far more superior to the Sinhalese and they cannot be ruled by the inferior Sinhalese and hence a separate entity guaranteeing an autonomous region for the Tamils to have their separate self rule in the North and East of the country should be established if independence is to be granted to Sri Lanka (Ceylon). The Sinhala and patriotic legislators sternly objected this proposal and insisted then that independence be granted to Ceylon as a Unitary State and Buddhism the majority religion of the country which had prevailed in the country for several centuries should be made the State Religion.  These views of the majority community were fully endorsed by the Muslim member of the Legislative Council Mr. A.L.Marcan Markar and said that the Sinhalese being the majority community of the country has every right to rule the country and the Muslims will be happy to be under the Sinhalese rule as they hitherto existed under the Sinhalese rule amicably.

Chelvanayagam also stated that the majority of the Tamils are erudite and they cannot be compared with the uneducated Sinhalese despite the fact that they were South Indian slaves brought to this country by the Dutch colonialists for tobacco cultivation and educated by the American missionaries who came to Sri Lanka in 1813 and established the first American Missionary English school at Tellippalai in 1816. By 1848 these American missionaries established 105 English Schools and 16 Tamil Schools in the North.

The uncles and cousins of separatists, the Arunachalams, Ramanathans, Naganathans and Amirthalingams fully endorsed the vicious views of Chelvanayagam and agitated for self rule of Tamils in various forms.  When the populous government of late Prime Minister SA.W.R.D.Bandaranaike came into power in 1956 these separatists made all attempts to introduce a federal form of administration for the Northern and Eastern Provinces and even signed an agreement called Bandaranaike- Chelvanayagam agreement and the Prime Minister tore up and annulled the agreement in the face of the stern opposition from the majority community. Puppet Bra Sirisena speaking at a function on the 8^th of this month aimed at bolstering his image regretted for having annulled this agreement and the Chelvanayagam-Dudley agreement (details of which will follow)

From then onwards, since 1958 the separatists staged various forms of unsuccessful agitations with the objective of achieving their goals.  They were totally rebuffed during the reign of Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s government from 1960 – 1965 and that led to the formation of the 7-party coalition of the Dudley Senanayake government of 1965 in which the separatists were a part of the government and the separatist Thiruchelvam was the Minister of Home Affairs. During this period Premier Dudley Senanayake succumbing to the dictates of the separatists signed an agreement with the father of separatism Chelvanayagam to grant autonomous status and self rule to the Northern and Eastern provinces.

Under stern opposition staged by the patriot masses throughout the country with the slogan of Dudlige Bade Masala Wade” the government was forced to abandon this agreement with a Buddhist monk assassinated at by the Police at the Kollupitiya junction.  However, the separatists did not abandon their urge for self rule and in the Northern and Eastern provinces and on May 14, 1976  the Tamil leadership, headed by S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, the father of Tamil separatism, passed the Vadukoddai Resolution , declaring war on the nation through violence to get their demand of an autonomous / federal state.

The entire Tamil leadership called on the Tamils  in general and the Tamil youth in particular to throw themselves fully in the sacred fight for freedom and not to abandon their goal achieving a sovereign state of Tamil Eelam and the armed Tamil youths launched this armed struggle under the leadership of magalamaniac Prabhakaran by making Jaffna Mayor Duraiappah the first victim of their armed struggle.

While the tiger terrorists atrocities were mounting in the country with deaths and bomb blasts being carried out in the country almost daily the Tamil sympathetic bandit Queen Chandrika incapable of finding a mechanism to defeat the terrorists offered the Northern and Eastern provinces for magalamaniac Prabhakaran to rule those two provinces without elections and when that also failed this arrogant woman attempted to impose a federal constitution drafted by Thiruchelvam the son of the separatist former Minister Thiruchelvam to Sri Lanka in the year 2000 which was once again thwarted by the people of this country.

What followed then until the former President patriotic Mahinda Rajapaksa eliminated Prabhakaran and the entire tiger terrorist leadership at Nandikadal without bowing down to dictates of the western and hegemonic Indian leadership on May 18^th 2009 needs no elaboration as it is known even to a toddler in this country.  However, it is pertinent to remind here how the treacherous United National Party leadership, Ranil Wickremasinghe and his cronies ridiculed the liberation struggle being carried out by our gallant forces with statements such as Toppigala is a large forest, that any bull can fight a war and our forces are marching towards Medawachchiya instead of Kilinoichchiya and towards Pamankada instead of Alimankada and our Army Commander is only fit to be the Commander of the Salvation Army.

In the meantime another dimension has emerged to this Tamil aggression with hegemonic Indian patronized groups called Tamils of Indian Origin in Colombo and several hill country districts that they too are a significant population of this country and they should have at least 14 seats in our Parliament.

It is a well known fact that it was the tiger terrorist diaspora, the western powers and the Indian hegemonists who installed the puppet Bra Sirisena government last year to grant the separatist Tamils and the Tamils of Indian Origin all what they desire and make the majority population of this country slavish to them.  The latest attempt being made to force a constitution in the guise of abolishing the powers of the Executive Presidency and the preferential voting system is to satisfy the anti national elements in the country and the overseas elements which are against Sri Lanka remaining a unitary state and a Buddhist State despite in their States the majority religion remain as the State religion.

When discussions about the so-called constitution was taken up in the Parliament yesterday it was separatist Sambambandan who opened up the debate and he urged all members to cooperate in forming the new constitution thereby implying how it is important for them  to have this new constitution implemented.  At the same time, the treacherous political chameleons of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party who have illegally joined the government stated that they have introduced some amendments to the proposed constitution.  People of this country cannot be fooled by such statements and attempting to show that they did not fully endorse the proposed constitution. These treacherous political chameleons will have no exoneration from the masses and the future elections will certainly dump them in the political dustbin of this country.

Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka Geneva

Sri Lanka has been selected as one of the four pilot countries to participate in a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Project titled Intellectual Property, Tourism and Culture.” This Project will contribute to promoting awareness of the role of IP in Sri Lanka and supporting the tourism-related economic activities of the country. Further it will enhance the scope for utilizing IP for development in a new area, under the ongoing cooperation between WIPO and GOSL through a 10 Point Action Plan.

Dr. Francis Gurry, Director General of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) communicating this decision to Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN in Geneva, has informed that this selection was made pursuant to Sri Lanka’s expression of interest and formal proposal submitted to WIPO to participate in this Project in August 2015. This is the first time Sri Lanka has been selected to participate as a pilot country for a Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) Project. WIPO officials will liaise with the relevant authorities of the Government of Sri Lanka to begin project implementation early in 2016.

This Project will aim at building capacities of key stakeholders and raising awareness of the intersection between IP and tourism, in the framework of growth and development policies. The experiences and best practices documented and the strategies, tools and practical guide developed in the course of the Project will also contribute to guide policy decisions and raise public awareness on the use of IP in promotion of tourism, national and/or local knowledge, traditions, and culture, while increasing national economic, social and cultural benefits. The Project aims to address Recommendations included in the WIPO Development Agenda.

Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka

Geneva

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

The UK Government is breaking national, EU and international law and policy by supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia in the context of its military intervention and bombing campaign in Yemen according to an analysis by eminent international law experts commissioned by Amnesty International UK and Saferworld, both members of theControl Arms coalition.

The lawyers, Professor Philippe Sands QC, Professor Andrew Clapham and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh of Matrix Chambers, conclude in their comprehensive legal opinion that, on the basis of the information available, the UK Government is acting in breach of its obligations arising under the Arms Trade Treaty, the EU Common Position on Arms Exports and the UK’s Consolidated Criteria on arms exports by continuing to authorise transfers of weapons and related items to Saudi Arabia within the scope of those instruments, capable of being used in Yemen.

They conclude that any authorisation by the UK of the transfer of weapons and related items to Saudi Arabia… in circumstances where such weapons are capable of being used in the conflict in Yemen, including to support its blockade of Yemeni territory, and in circumstances where their end-use is not restricted, would constitute a breach by the UK of its obligations under domestic, European and international law.”

Any authorisation by the UK of the transfer of weapons and related items to Saudi Arabia… in circumstances where such weapons are capable of being used in the conflict in Yemen … would constitute a breach by the UK of its obligations under domestic, European and international law.

Professor Philippe Sands QC, Professor Andrew Clapham and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh of Matrix Chambers

They also conclude that the UK Government can properly be deemed to have “actual knowledge… of the use by Saudi Arabia of weapons, including UK-supplied weapons, in attacks directed against civilians and civilian objects, in violation of international law”, since at least May 2015.

The UK Government asserts that it is not taking an active part in the military campaign in Yemen. However, the UK has issued more than 100 licences for arms exports to Saudi Arabia since the State began bombing Yemen in March 2015. That includes more than £1.75 billion worth of combat aircraft and bombs for the use of the Royal Saudi Air Force.

In 2013, David Cameron hailed the Arms Trade Treaty as a landmark agreement that would “save lives and ease the immense humansuffering caused by armed conflict around the world.” He said Britain should be proud of the role it had played in securing an agreement that would make the world safer for all.

This legal opinion confirms our long-held view that the continued sale of arms from the UK to Saudi Arabia is illegal, immoral and indefensible. Thousands of civilians have been killed in Saudi Arabia-led airstrikes, and there’s a real risk that misery was ‘Made in Britain’.

Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK

The UK has fuelled this appalling conflict through reckless arms sales which break its own laws and the global Arms Trade Treaty it once championed,” said Kate Allen, Amnesty International UK Director.

This legal opinion confirms our long-held view that the continued sale of arms from the UK to Saudi Arabia is illegal, immoral and indefensible.

Thousands of civilians have been killed in Saudi Arabia-led airstrikes, and there’s a real risk that misery was ‘Made in Britain’.

The UK government must halt these arms sales immediately.”

UK Government policy on Yemen is in disarray. The UK gives aid to help the victims of war while illegally supplying weapons that cause their misery.

Paul Murphy, Saferworld Executive Director

Saferworld Executive Director Paul Murphy said:

“UK Government policy on Yemen is in disarray. The UK gives aid to help the victims of war while illegally supplying weapons that cause their misery.

If the UK seriously wants to sit ‘at the heart of therules-based international order’ as claimed in the recent National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review, it must itself abide by the rules to which it has signed up.

It’s time the Government acted as a peace broker, rather than an arms broker. The first step would be to suspend further licences and transfers of weapons to the Saudi Arabia-led coalition.

With the start this week of peace talks, the UK Government should help turn the ceasefire into a permanent peace by stopping its support to one side of the conflict.”

Although the focus of their opinion was on the UK Government’s legal obligations regarding the authorisation regime for weapons transfers to Saudi Arabia, the lawyers underscored that all sides to the conflict in Yemen are accused of serious breaches of international law.

The conflict in Yemen has turned the country into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. Civilian targets including hospitals, schools, markets, grain warehouses, ports and a displaced persons camp have been hit in airstrikes by Saudi Arabia-led coalition forces. Since the conflict escalated in mid-March 2015, more than 5,800 people have been killed and tens of thousands wounded. Two and a half million have been forced to flee their homes. More than 80% of the population (21 million people) are in need of humanitarian aid, including two million children at risk of malnutrition.

All sides in the conflict are responsible for causing the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. The UK is not alone in sending arms to and supporting parties to the conflict. Several other countries have also supplied arms to the Saudi Arabia-led coalition now fighting in Yemen, with supplies to the Huthis shrouded in secrecy.

The agencies called on the Government to immediately take the following steps:

• Immediately suspend arms transfers and military support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners which could be used to commit or facilitate further serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in Yemen.
• Carry out a thorough and independent investigation into UK arms transfers and reported war crimes in Yemen.
• Make every possible diplomatic effort to help bring the conflict to an end.
• Continue to push for an end to the de facto blockade so that vital humanitarian and commercial supplies enter Yemen and reach those most in need.
• Fully implement the provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty, and encourage all other arms exporters to do the same.

By Bandula Jayasekara Courtesy The Island

January 14, 2016, 12:00 pm

As the Minister for Nothing to do in Sri Lanka’s jumbo Cabinet, even bigger than the one created by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, I am having the time of my life living in lies, blatant lies and deception. I only hope the bubble will never burst. In this New Year, I am waiting for the Christmas present promised to me by the dear Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and dearest President Maithripala Sirisena, the additional massive, enormous 20,000 rupee increment for me to attend parliament sessions in Kotte. It is my treasure and pleasure hunt in the ancient capital of Sri Jayawardanepura.

I am of the most sincere view that this increment will help to solve all the problems in the country, mostly our problems to have fun at the masses of Sri Lanka. I will continue to consider them as the biggest asses of the world for electing us as their sole representative. This will enable everyone to attend Parliament, even those who haven’t uttered a word there so far. I have no doubt they will not utter a word even after the increased allowance. Many will continue to relax, dance, engage in slanging matches, bring swimming trunks to take a swim in the well of Parliament, and have a feast at the parliamentary canteen and engage in useless talk.

There will be confusion with the media declaring that they are the real opposition with so many oppositions in Parliament at present. One led by Sam-Ban-Dan who is representing only the North as the Leader of the Opposition, another led by no one but a disjointed opposition which proudly call themselves THE joint opposition, another by the black flag Guru, Udaya Gammanpila , the opposition opposed to President Sirisena, other group opposed to old Comrade Vasudeva Nanayakkara, another opposed to giant Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake, another opposed to a ship named Avant Garde, and another opposed to Ranil Wickremasinghe and Premadasa. I nearly forgot the Wijedasa and Fonseka factions. There is another group opposed to all opposers. Everything is taking place among these 225 members. As a Minister, I am also a creator of this highly divisive Sri Lankan island society.

Only I, as the Minister of Nothing to do at all, could see the big picture. It is really a big picture for us, but for the masses it will always remain a small picture. No one is objecting to the increase of allowance. Not Vasu who is fighting for a house at his old age, not Mahinda who is still waiting for his official residence as a former President, whilst doing his Temple rounds, not Dullas and Dallas. Even not so Weera Wansa who is keeping quiet. In fact the likes of Suresh Premachandran are asking for even more. My buddy from the hill capital, Lakshman Kiriella too is asking for more. Poor chap he is. Poor Hirunika Premachandra who is awaiting a transfer to the new ministry of Criminal Activities, Thuggery and

Violence too, is keeping quiet. There is a big buzz that she will be in charge of Abduction in the new ministry. I am sure the new minister will have more subjects in time to come. Several black defenders have been ordered to be placed under Hirunika for the purpose of future abductions.

That Parliamentary Jokes man, Ramanayake, who makes a big ha ho on the plight of the people living in Saudi Arabia is extremely quiet. May be no one is offering him any film roles these days due to his real life acting and he too is in need of money. Poor fellow! Only if he remained as plain one shot, we could have transferred him to the Ministry of Crimes, Thuggery and Criminal Activities as one of the Chief Thugs or just One Shot,

Someone said even the Prime Minister and the Speaker are entitled to this 20,000 per sitting. Not bad for these top leaders to pick pocket money from the masses. I overheard young Muthuhettigama saying “Ado, People like Weerawansa, Ajith Perera, Dilan , Anura Kumara Dissa, Vasu Aiya, Dinesh Uncle and others are not entitled to 20,000 rupees per sitting, because they are always standing and shouting in Parliament.” I thought Muthu’s was a class act. I wonder if he is a student of Prof GL Peiris and a constitutional expert. Maybe he was educated at Harvard. Bandula Gunawardane, who once said that ordinary people could live with just Rs. 2,500 a month, too, is silent. I am surprised at his silence since he is a people’s fool. Did he get his calculations right or is he struggling to swallow it all. Ah Yes. Rs. 20,000!

However, since I came from the back door national list to Parliament. and was later appointed as a Minister, just like my Humpty Dumpty ministerial buddy SB Disa, I have a soft corner for the people of this country. Whilst saying Thank You to the people of Sri Lanka for the 20,000 rupees per parliamentary sitting ducks, I am waiting to see if any of the 225 MPs will have the guts and courage to say NO to the 20,000. If anyone refuses it and wants it to be given to the masses I am also prepared to say NO. Thank you very much. Have a nice day. Have a nice New Year!

Thanks again to the people of Sri Lanka for electing us so foolishly. Happy New Year!

by Harischandra Gnaratna Courtesy The Island

Former Army Commander Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, leader of the Democratic Party yesterday said that there was no evidence to prove LTTE leader Prabhakaran’s son had been killed by the army.

Field Marshal Fonseka was addressing the media at his party headquarters in Pelawatte.

Asked to comment on former Indian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Gopalkrishna Gandhi’s claim that the army had committed a war crime by killing Prabhakaran’s son, Balachandran, Fonseka said if the Tiger leader’s son had been killed it amounted to a war crime, but added there was no evidence to prove the former High Commissioner’s statement.

He said there were only two photographs and a video of Balachandtran. In one of the pictures his body was seen lying in a jungle patch between the Nanthikadal lagoon and the sea and the other showed the 12-year-old in a bunker.

“Both these photographs and the video do not provide any evidence that the terrorist leader’s son was killed by the army; no other persons are seen in the pictures.”

Fonseka said “Nobody has been able to prove this allegation though many have voiced their opinion. It is either a figment of their imagination or a fabrication to implicate the army.”

The Field Marshal said certain elements with vested interests were making an attempt to tarnish the image the army and now they would have to eat their words.

by Mahendran Thiruvarangan Courtesy The Island

More than six years after the war’s end, a particular line of thinking has come to the forefront in Tamil nationalists’ defence of their politics around national self-determination. I would broadly describe this philosophy as liberal pluralism. Predicating the politics around state re-formation primarily, if not solely, on ethnicity or culture, it tends to build a one-to-one relationship between cultural identities, territories and the state. It is not an entirely new phenomenon as far as Tamil politics in Sri Lanka is concerned. It has been the bedrock of political reforms proposed as solution to the national question by a wide variety of actors in the country and in the diaspora ranging from liberal intellectuals based in Colombo to sections of the Leninist left to the old Federal Party, sections of today’s Tamil National Alliance, the bi-nationalist Tamil National People’s Front, journalists and various militant groups and organizations like the Trans-national Government of Tamil Eelam and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the latter would not settle for anything less than a separate Tamil state in the north-east of the island.

What is comparatively new about this trend is that this ideology is deployed today in such a way that it places unwarranted limits on anyone outside a particular political community in shaping the trajectory that politics centering that community ought to take. It sometimes encourages communities to (mis)articulate their political existence as secluded political islands. An example of this political thinking appears in the policy document released by the Tamil Civil Society Forum (TCSF) in 2014, which states that the TCSF recognises the right of the Muslim and Up-Country Tamil communities to decide how they want to articulate their political identity as regards their relationship to the Sri Lankan state. The document also notes that they are “equal but independent partners in a process that addresses their political rights”. It is easy to make such claims which, one would even say, demonstrate a genuine interest on the part of the TCSF to build an amiable political relationship with the other minority communities whose political aspirations were often subsumed in the past under the political identity called the ‘Tamil speaking people,’ an identification that overtly and by subterfuge offered a place of privilege to the Tamils of Ceylonese/Sri Lankan origin in the north-east and their political aspirations. But, nations and political communities do not exist in a vacuum. Their politics is often directed towards the territoriality of the state. The pluralist narrative hinging on the logic of cultural difference and cultural autonomy would not work beyond a point as a given territory is often home to and the homeland of multiple political communities. For instance, the north-east of Sri Lanka which Tamil nationalist narratives present as the traditional homelands of the Tamils was described as the traditional homelands of the Muslims in the north-east too in the Oluvil Declaration which was presented during the ceasefire agreement between the United National Front government and the LTTE in 2003 amidst heated debates on the de-merger of the merged North-Eastern Province. The TCSF statement does recognize the Muslims’ and Sinhalese’ claims to the land in the north-east. But it fails to stress the importance of collaboration (which is different from extending solidarity to one another’s struggle) among these three communities and the others in the north-eastand outside in charting the political future of the region. Its activism which primarily concerns the Tamils’ right to self-determination in the north-east which is inescapably limited by the ethnic diversity of the north-east, does not seek to include the Muslims and Sinhalese in the region and their political concerns as the movement has framed itself as a Tamil group.

Liberal pluralism may seem rosy as a concept, but before the stark reality of competing territorial claims it falls to pieces. When it is overstressed it will result in the creation of small ethnic enclaves. While narratives on ethnic-nations seek to keep communities apart or place them side by side, the shared identity of the territory reminds us that we live amidst and within one another and behooves us to work together, forge alliances and even speak on behalf of one another. My critique of cultural relativism does not intend to erase or trivialise the political significance of cultural/ethnic differences; rather, it seeks to open up a conversation, especially as the country embarks on the process of charting a new constitution, on how best we could address the specific concerns of our ethnic communities while imagining a shared future of peaceful ethnic coexistence all over the country. It is primarily and fundamentally about framing the sovereignties of our (national) communities as contingent (interdependent on one another) realities circumscribed by multiple territorial claims, only meaningful and effective within a larger collective of diverse smaller groupings, as opposed to unencumbered collective wills, and recognizing the specific nature of identities and ethnic concerns while envisioning a cosmopolitan, inter-nationalist future.

From a Leftist point of view, one could argue that the precursors to modern liberal pluralism appeared in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the capitalist and imperialist classes in Europe began to manage cultural and linguistic differences among the laboring populations in places like the plantations in the Americas and their colonies in Asia and Africa. The oppressed classes and communities, for strategic reasons and sometimes in a chauvinistic manner, internalized and incorporated these divisions into their politics and organized themselves into racial, cultural and ethnic groups. Similar cultural alignments were promoted in the work of nationalist activists and writers (including anti-colonial nationalists) who supported the self-determination of national collectives. But, as an overstretched discourse, postmodern pluralism often becomes blind to the ways in which different collectivities crisscross and overlap and share territory, resources, nature and institutions with one another. This is why one has to bring the historically constituted porous totality within which differences and specificities present themselves back into the discussion. What we need is a critical approach to culture that views the tension between the specific/plural and the singular unity as reciprocal, productive and enabling. This is an approach that prioritizes neither the specific nor the cosmopolitan over the other.

Many contemporary proponents of Tamil nationalism assert that self-determination does not mean separatism. For me, separatism does not just mean the creation of a separate, sovereign state or a federal unit in a given territory; any political thought that assumes that a given population can act on its own and determine its political future in isolation of theother populations with whom it shares a territory and along with whom it belongs to a common political totality created by the forces of history needs to be seen as separatist. Pluralisms that fail to take into consideration the reciprocal relation between the specific constituents of a collective and the collective as a whole are separatist in character. They would only create narrow political enclaves and lead to anunimaginative institutionalization of cultural and ethnic differences on the structures of the state.

The TPC and Mono-ethnicism

The newly formed Tamil People’s Council (TPC) with the Chief Minister of the Northern Province as one of its co-chairs has raised the eyebrows of many. What kind of political vision is the newly-formed Tamil People’s Council trying to offer? Is there an attempt on the part of this group to part with the dry, debilitating pluralism that dominates the Tamil nationalist political landscape and offer an alternative that promotes inter-ethnic dialogue and action? The initial remarks made by the Chief Minister does not indicate a welcome shift in this regard. In his address at the second meeting of the TPC held on the 27th of December, Chief Minister Wigneswaran stated that since the last century, the Sinhalese people had tended to hold the view that allowing the Tamil people to prosper and progress on the island would be detrimental to their interests. Wigneswaran may be right. But, he has not paid attention to the ways in which social, political and economic forces and the ruling classes of the Sinhala community created anti-Tamil sentiments among sections of the Sinhala population. For instance, the Sinhala nationalist leadership of the 1950s created the impression among the Sinhalese that the Tamil community as a whole was a privileged class in colonial and post-colonial Ceylon by misrepresenting the prestigious public sector jobs held by an English-educated section of the Jaffna Tamils as indicators of the social and economic prosperity of the overall Tamil population.

This leadership concealed from the rural Sinhala communities the truth that thousands of oppressed caste Tamils and Tamils in the Vanni and the rural regions of the east were as marginalized as (or even more marginalized than) the poor Sinhala people who lived outside the urban areas of Colombo and Kandy. This is just one example of how the Sinhala nationalist leadership sow the seeds of racism in the South in the past.

Wigneswaran has also failed to note thatanti-Tamil/anti-minority views have always been challenged by progressive social movements and political actors in the south, although the latter were a few in number and not able to create a major shift in post-independence Sinhala politics that would favor devolution or federalism. Yet there have been optimistic examples that one cannot easily sweep under the rug. The electoral victories of former President Chandrika Kumaratunga in 1994 in the Sinhala heartland when she contested elections on a visibly pro-devolution platform prove that the Sinhala people did support political reforms that aimed at sharing more state power with the Tamil community. Of course, one needs to admit that the pro-devolution forces in the South could not sustain these victories in the long-run in the face of the opposition from the UNP to devolution and federalism.

The violence that the LTTE unleashed on the Sinhala people in the south and the border villages of the north-east in the 90s and 2000s alienated pro-devolutionary activists from the political mainstream in the south and shifted the discourse on federalism to the right. After the war victory in 2009, the Rajapaksa regime promoted anti-federal positions and furthered the ethnic divisions within the country by fanning the flames of communalism. On the other hand, the increased international involvement in ‘managing’ Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict by neo-liberal organizations and powerful Western states and the Tamil political leadership’s invitation and uncritical support to such external involvement gave chauvinistic politicians and ideologues disguising themselves as anti-imperialists many an opportunity to heighten their anti-Tamil rhetoric and scuttle dialogues between the communities. One needs to understand the Sinhala psyche, if at all there is one, in the larger social and political contexts in which it emerged and by identifying and analyzing the forces that nourished it. And it is only through self-introspection and a holistic socio-economic analysis that eschews ahistorical readings of ethnic hostility that Tamil leadership will be able to make any progress in winning the support of the Sinhalese and the other communities to their political struggle.

The TPC’s vision, as it appears in the statements made by the Chief Minister and its conveners, is primarily about building a mass-based movement that would include not just Tamil political parties but also civil groups, professionals, the educated classes, trade unions, women and marginalized sections within the Tamil community. All in all, it is a mono-ethnic Tamil movement for the Tamil people by the Tamil people. Those who are active within this new formation are yet to present their plans on initiating dialogues with the other communities in the north-east or the rest of the island on the national question. From what we have heard since its inception in December, the TPC appears to be liberal at best and enclavist and separatist at worst. This movement, unless it undertakes a course correction on the inward-looking nature of Tamil nationalism, would be mired in ethnic parochialism and never be able to encourage the other communities on the island to view the Tamils’ struggle for emancipation as their struggle as well. On the other hand, if the members of the movement think that they can build a pan-Tamil movement merely by accommodating women and marginalized sections without actively challenging the caste, class and gendered forms of oppression felt by the downtrodden groups within the Tamil community on a daily basis or by imagining themselves as custodians of Tamil culture without questioning its hegemonic underpinnings, it is hardly possible that the TPC will be able to bring about any social and economic transformations that would bring relief to the oppressed sections of the Tamil community.

At this historical moment, as we are preparing to draft a new constitution, we need to grapple with the question of ethnic difference and its institutional manifestations as we see in the various commissions and omissions by the state in its interactions with the different ethnic and cultural communities on the island. At the same time, we should not allow these identities to trump our inter-nationalist political vision.

The new constitution should recognize not only the multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-cultural character of our polity but also the changing nature of ethnic and linguistic identities and cultural boundaries and the dynamic relationship between culture/ethnicity, territory and state power instead of predicating the political on culture in a crude, linear, and ahistorical fashion. For example, a healthy and open dialogue on the status of the Eastern Province that attends to the current demographics of the province, its historical connections to the Kandyan kingdom, its centrality in the post-independence Tamil and Muslim national imagination and the social and cultural re-configuration that occurred in the region as a result of state-aided colonization is necessary to address the competing claims made by the people of the province over its territory.

The inflow of foreign remittances sent by family members and relatives has led to the rise of a Tamil (upper) middle class in parts of Colombo. This phenomenon shows that the state alone is not responsible for the social and cultural changes that happen in a territory. The constitutional exercise of drawing new territorial boundaries needs to be informed by a class analysis as well of the demographic changes that have happened in the various parts of Sri Lanka over the years Devolution should also address the concerns and needs of regional minorities, internally displaced groups and laboring communities. The Muslims in the Northern Province and the plantation Tamil communities in the Southern Province are two among the many groups that deserve special attention in this respect. Besides the three major minorities, the new constitution should bring to the center numerically smaller minorities like the Malays and the Burghers whose historical claims over the island have often been overlooked in our deliberations on political reforms.

Our recent conversations on constitutional reforms tend to focus predominantly on abolishing the executive presidency or sharing state power among the different ethnic groups or nations or electoral reforms. We have not given much thought to important questions like how federalism would benefit a member of the landless oppressed caste internally displaced community in Jaffna or a fisherwoman in Puttalam or a tea-plucker in the central hills or what the “socialist” in “Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,” the name of the country as stated in the constitution, means to the workers, peasants, the unemployed and the poorof the country considering the rapid liberalization and neo-liberalization of Sri Lanka’s economy that has happened with the blessings of the different governments that came to power since the introduction of the second republican constitution in 1978. Class, caste and gender remain absent in our reflections on the constitution. Let’s hope that these identities and identifications will, alongside ethnicity, animate the debate on devolution by framing the questions of belonging, land and social existence in multiple ways. Perhaps the constitution needs to present a legally binding state policy (not like the ineffective and superficially socialist “Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties” included in the current constitution) that ensures the (re)distribution of land and resources to the landless, poor, oppressed caste communities, the cultural autonomy of women and minority genders, the continuation of free educational and health care services to the people of the country and the rights of trade unions, farmers, fishermen and workers.

The people of this country should be the architects of their constitution. Though as everywhere else, politicians and constitutional lawyers would play a decisive role in authoring the constitution, there should be avenues for social movements, trade unions and activists and intellectuals to offer direction to the processes of drafting the new constitution. Unfortunately, there is very little conversation on the constitution between academics and experts working in the field of constitutional law and academics and activists working in the areas of identity, economy, gender, culture and literature in Sri Lanka. There is a wealth of path-breaking scholarship on the latter produced by Sri Lankan and international academics, but much of it does not usually find its way into the chambers where policies are made. I would just name a few that I am familiar with and consider leftist and radical in orientation: Qadri Ismail’s Abiding By Sri Lanka and Unmaking the Nation, a volume of essays co-edited by Qadri Ismail and Pradeep Jeganthan, Sivamohan Sumathy’s Militants, Militarism and the Crisis of (Tamil) Nationalism and her work on the Malaiyaha Thamilar and displaced Muslims. Ahilan Kadirgamar’s writings on the neo-liberalization of Sri Lanka’s economy, Arjuna Parakrama’s work on border villages and language standards, Thanges Paramsothy’s work on caste and land issues in the north, the writings of Jayampathy Wickremartne and Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri on the national question and devolution, M. A. Nuhman’s work on the formation of the Muslim identity and Tamil nationalism, Dainel Bass’ writings on the Malaiyaha Tamil community and S. H. Hasbullah’s work on land issues in the north and east. I would also addpoets, novelists and film makers like Ambalavanar Sivanadnan, Somachandra Wijesuria, Liyanage Amarakeerthi, Vihanga Perera, Sivaramani, Dharamsena Pathirajah, Shoba Sakthi and many other writers, actors, dancers, artists and singers to this group who have kindled in us a political imagination that is inclusive, egalitarian and counter-hegemonic. One wonders how much of this scholarship and creativity would figure in and shape the philosophy of the new constitution and if those who draft the constitution will see these works as offering useful conceptual frameworks for the new constitution. As trade unionists, academics and writers, we the people of this country should find ways of intervening in the debates on the new constitution and should ensure that the radical creativity, critique, research and activism that we have produced and presented through the long years of violence, communalism and neo-liberal assault despite the various forms of intimidation that we faced from various state and non-state actors have a transformative value for the future of our polity. Otherwise the new constitution will only represent the nationalist, liberal and neo-liberal views propounded by chauvinistic politicians, experts and NGOs that have already caused much confusion, chaos and destruction in this country.

Drafting a constitution inevitably involves building boundaries and borders around identities, communities and territories. Thus the new constitution, like any constitution, would make exclusions and lead to new forms of discrimination. But when the constitution is informed by a socio-economic analysis that captures the complexities characterizing the social and political existence of the different communities in the different territories of the island without simplifying them in an ahistorical fashion into binaries and essences we can certainly come up with historically relevant and less exclusivist institutional arrangements that encourage the people to work together and bring the communities polarized along ethnic and religious lines closer to one another.

(The writer is a member of the Collective for Economic Democratization in Sri Lanka)

චන්ද්‍රසේන පණ්ඩිතගේ විසිනි

වර්තමාන රජය නව ආණ්ඩුක්රම  ව්යාවස්ථාවක් නිර්මාණය කිරීම සදහා පියවර ගෙන ඇත. ඒ සදහා සාමාන්ය ජනතාවගේ යෝජනාද ඉදිරිපත් කරන ලෙස විවෘත ආරාධනාවක් සිදුකර ඇති පසුබිමක, මෙරට ජනතාව සිදිකල යුත්තේ කුමක්ද? යන පැනය සමාජය ඉදිරියේ මතුව ඇත.

මෙරට ජනතාව හා  ආණ්ඩු ක්රම ව්යාවස්ථාව යනු අහසට පොලොව තරම් දුරින් පිහිටා ඇති එකිනෙකා නොහදුනන උපාඞග දෙකකි. මෙරට ජනතාව ආණ්ඩුක්රම   ව්‍යාවස්තාවේ ඇත්තේ මොනවාදැයි නොදන්නවා සේම, මෙරට ආණ්ඩුක්රම ,ව්‍යාවස්තාව ම‌ෙරට ජනතාවගේ උවමනාවන් මොනවාදැයි හදුනාගෙන සකස් කල දෙයක්ද නොවේ. මේ ආණ්ඩුක්රම ව්‍යාවස්තාව එක එකාට සිතැගි පරිදි නිරන්තරයෙන් දූඩණය කරන ලබන්නක් බැවින් මෙය තුල ඇති ලෙඩරෝග සංඛ්යාව අති විශාලය.

හිටපු අතිගරු ජනාධිපති ජේ. ආර්. ජයවර්ධන මහතාගේ අවශ්යතාවයට අනුකූලව සකස්කර, මේ  ව්‍යාවස්තාවට කල න‌ොහැක්කේ ගැහැණියක් පිරිමියෙක් කිරීමත්, පිරිමියෙක් ගැහැණියක් කිරීමත් පමණක් බවට උදම් අනන තත්වයක් තුලදී ඉන්දීය අගමැති රජිව් ගාන්ධි මහතා මෙරටට බලහත් කාරයෙන් කඩාවැදී; ප්රසිද්ධියේ මේ ව්‍යාවස්තාව 13 වෙනි වතාවටත් දූෂණය කරමින්, මේ ටව්‍යාවස්තාවට මහා බලපරාක්රමයෙන් යුතු මිනිසෙකු නපුංසකයකු බවට පත් කිරීමේ බලයක්ද ඇතිබව පෙන්වාදී, වීර සෙබලෙකුගේ රයිෆල් බට් පාරක සංග්රහයක්ද විද වහා වහා පලා ගියේය.

එතැන් පටන් මේ ව්‍යාවස්තාව තවතවත් කෙලසීම් ගනනාවකට පත් කරන ලදී. මේ ව්‍යාවස්තා දූෂණය කිරීම කිසිදු හිරිකික් නැතිව ජනාධිපති හා අගමැති යන රටේ ඉහලම පුරවැසියන් දෙපල සිදු කරන්නේ මහා ප්රසිද්ධියක් ද ලබා දෙමින් වීම මෙරට ජනතාව ලබා ඇති අභාග්ය සම්පන්න තත්වයයි.

මේ රටේ රාජ් නායකයින් මේ ව්‍යාවස්තාව දූෂය කිරීම ක්රම දෙකකින් සිදුකිරීමට පුරුදුව ඇත.

1. තමන්ට කිරීමට ඇවැසි දේ සදහා ටිකක් කල් ගත්තාට කමක් නැති තත්වයක් තුලදී ව්‍යාවස්තා සංශෝධනය නම්වූ උපක්ක්රමය යොදා ගන්නා අයම, තමන්ට ක්ෂණිකවම කර ගැනීමට ඇති කාර්යයන් සිදු කරන්නේ ව්‍යාවස්තාව නොසලකා හැරීමෙණි. මේ යහපාලනය පුරාවටම ආණ්ඩුක්රම ව්‍යාවස්තාව ඇත්තේ කුණු බක්කියඒ බැවින් නව ආණ්ඩුක්රම ව්‍යාවස්තාවක උවමනාව ඉස්මතුකර තමන් කරන නොගැලපෙන වැඩ සදහා නීතිමය පදනම සකස් කිරීමට තීරණය කර ඇත. ඒ අනුව එම කටයුත්තට මෙරට ජනතාවද සම්මාදම් කරගෙන මේ අප කරන්නේ ජනතාවාදී ව්‍යාවස්තාවක් බව ලොවට හඩගා කීමට මංපෙත් විවර කරගෙන ඇත.

කුමන පදනමකින් වුවද මේ රටට ආණ්ඩුක්රම ව්‍යාවස්තාවක් අවශ්යය. එය ජනතාව හා බද්ධ වුුණ ජනතාවගේ දෙෙනික කාර්යයන්ට මනාව මග පෙන්වන ආණ්ඩු ක්රම ව්‍යාවස්තාවක් විය යුතුය. ඒ කාර්යය සදහා අත ගැසීමට සුදුසුම අවස්ථාව මේය වේ අපි සියළු දෙනාම එකතුව මේ මහා පින්කමට දායක වෙමු.

ශ්‍රී ලංකා ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී සමාජවාදී ජනරජය නව ආණ්ඩුක්රම ව්‍යාවස්තාව සදහා මෙරට ජනතාවගේ යෝජනාවන් මෙසේ විය යුතුය.

1. හදුන්වාදීම

1.a. ශ්‍රී ලංකා ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී සමාජවාදී ජනරජය නව ආණ්ඩුක්රම ව්‍යාවස්තාව සෘජුවම කටයුතු කරන්නේ, මෙරට පුරවැසියන් වන 22,053,488 ජනතාවගේත් වාර්ෂිකව .84% වේගයෙන් ජනගහන වර්ධනය හේතුවෙන් සමාජයට එක්වන අනාගත පුරවැසියන්ගේත් අභිවෘද්ධිය සදහා පමණි..

1.b.ශ්‍රී ලංකා ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී සමාජවාදී ජනරජය නව ආණ්ඩුක්රම ව්‍යාවස්තාව සෘජුවම පෙනී සිටින්නේ වර්තමානයේ,  මෙරට වාර්ගිකව,
1.b.a. සිංහල                     74.9%
1.b.b. ශ්‍රී ලාංකික දෙමළ    11.2%
1.b.c. ඉන්දීය දෙමළ           4.2%
1.b.d.මුස්ලිම්                    9.2%
1.b.e. අනකුත්                   0.5% යන වාර්ගික අනුපාතයකින් යුත් ශ්‍රී ලාංකීය ජනසමාජයේ අභිවෘද්ධිය සදහා පමණි.

1.c.ශ්‍රී ලංකා ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී සමාජවාදී ජනරජය නව ආණ්ඩුක්රම ව්‍යාවස්තාව සෘජුවම පෙනී සිටින්නේ වර්තමානයේ, මෙරට ආගමිකව.

1.c.a. බෞද්ධ                       70.2%

1.c.b. හින්දු                          12.6%

1.c.c  ඉස්ලාම්                        9.7%

1.c.d. රෝමාණු කතෝලික     6.1%

1.c.e. අනිකුත් ක්රිස්තියාණික  1.3% යන ආගමික අනුපාතයකින් යුත් ජනසමාජයේ අභිවෘද්ධිය සදහා පමණි.

1.d. ශ්‍රී ලංකා ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී සමාජවාදී ජනරජය නව ආණ්ඩුක්රම ව්‍යාවස්තාව සෘජුවම පෙනී සිටින්නේ වර්තමානයේ මෙරට වයස් අනුපාතය අනුව

1.d.a.  වයස අවුරුදු 0 – 14 දක්වාවූ  24.58%

1.d.b.  වයස අවුරුදු 15 – 24 දක්වාවූ 14.77%

1.d.c. වයස අවුරුදු  25 – 54 දක්වාවූ 41.9%

1.d.d  වයස අවුරුදු  55- 64 දක්වාවූ  9.72%

1.d.e. වයස අවුරුදු  65 ඉහල           9.04% යන වයස් සීමා අනුපාතයන් අතර සිටින ජනසමාජයේ අභිවෘද්ධිය සදහා පමණි..

2 දේශපාලන ක්රමය:

හදුන්වාදීම:

ශ්‍රී ලංකා ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී සමාජවාදී ජනරජය තුල ජීවත්වෙන සියළුම මිනිසුන්ට,සිය ජීවන කටයුතු සාර්ථකව පවත්වා ගැනීම සදහා, ස්වභාවය විසින් අපේක්ෂා කරන දේ, අවබෝධ කරගෙන,  නිසි වයසේදී ඇවැසි දේ, නිසි ලෙස ලබා ගැනීමට මංපෙත් විවර කරදීමට වුවමනා පරිසරය සකස් කරදිය හැකි දේපාලන ක්රමයක් ස්ථාපනය කිරීම, මේ  ව්‍යාවස්තාවේ මූලික අරමුණයි,

එක් එක් පුද්ගලයාගේ නිදහස් වර්ධනය, පවුල හා පවුලේ සාමූහිකත්වය මත ගොඩනැගෙන වර්ධනය,හා  එම පදනම මත ගොඩනැංවෙන ග්රාම සේවා වසමේ වර්ධනය, මෙම යෝජිත දේපාලන ක්රමය අපේක්ෂා කරයි.

2.a. වයස අවුරුදු 0 සිට 14 දක්වාවූ ජනගහණය, මුළු ජනගහනයෙන් 24.58% කි. මේ පරපුර, රටෙහි ජීවනාලියයි. මතු පරම්පරාව වන ඔවුන්ගේ අවශ්යතාවයන්ට ප්රමුඛත්වයක් ලබාදීමට මේ දේශපාලන ක්රමයට හැකිවිය යුතුය. ඒ සදහා,

2.a.a. මේ දරුවන්ට මව්පිය රැකවරණය අනිවාර්යෙන්ම ලබාදීමට මේ දේශපාලන ක්රමයේ ප්රමුඛ කටයුත්තක් විය යුතුය.

2a.b. මේ දරුවන්ට ශාරීරික පෝෂණය හා මානසික පෝෂණය නිසි ලෙස ලබාදෙන සමාජයක් ගොඩනැංවීමට මේ දේශපාලන ක්රමයක්ට අයිති කාර්යයකි.

2.b. වයස අවුරුදු 15 – 24 දක්වාවූ 14.77% තරුණ ජනගහණය රටට වැඩදායක පරපුරක් කිරීම සදහා, උසස් අධ්යාපනයට සුදුසුකම් ඇති හැම දෙනාටම ඒ අයිතිවාසිකම ලබාදිය හැකි දේශපාලන ක්රමයක් මෙහි ස්ථාපිත විය යුතුය.  උසස් අධ්යාපනය ලබන උගතා හා බුද්ධිමතා, රුකියා උත්පාදකයින් බවට පත්වෙන සමාජ ක්රමයක් ගොඩනංවන දේශපාලනයක් මේ රට තුල නිර්මාණය විය යුතුය.

2.c.වයස අවුරුදු  25 – 54 දක්වාවූ 41.9% පරපුරට පවුලක් නඩත්තු කල හැකි ආදායමක් හා පවුලකට නිවසක් අනිවාර්යෙන්ම හිමිකර දෙන දේශපාලනයක් මේ රට තුල තිබිය යුතුය.

2.d. වයස අවුරුදු  65 ඉහල  9.04% පරපුරථ සිය සැදෑ සමය නිදහස්ව නිවහල්ව ගත කරමින් තම අත් දැකීම් තුලින් ලද දැනුම් සම්භාරය අනාගත ලංකාවේ අභිවෘද්ධිය සදහා යෙදවිය හැකි සමාජයක් නිර්මාණය කල හැකි දේශපාලනයක් මෙහි තිබිය යුතුය. තවද මෙරට වර්තමානයේ සදහන් වන උපරිම ආයු කාලය  අවුරුදු 76.5 වශයෙන් සටහන්ව ඇති බැවින් යෝජිත දේශපාලනයට ජනතාවගේ උපරිම ආයු කාලය, අවුරුදු 76.5 ක් වශයෙන් පවත්වාගෙන යාමට හෝ ඊට වැඩි ආයුකාලයක් ලබාදෙන තලයකට මේ රට පරිවර්තනය කිරීමේ දේශපාලනයක් අවශ්යව ඇත.

(මීලග කොටස බලාපොරොත්තු වන්න)
චන්ද්‍රසේන පණ්ඩිතගේ විසිනි

Dr. Chandana Jayalath

The Central Expressway, also known as the Colombo–Kandy Expressway is a proposed road project that will link Colombo, with Kandy. It will essentially duplicate the route of the A1 Road (Colombo-Kandy Road), thereby reducing the motor traffic to a greater extent. The expected benefits are enormous in long run so that this is one of the few projects having a national significance. Its first stage from Kadawatha to Ambepussa, as so far as heard, will be a four lane divided carriageway (with room for a future two lanes) for a length of 48.2 km. There will be interchanges at Kadawatha, Gampaha, Balabowa and Mirigama, with fifty overpasses and thirty underpasses along the route. The initial estimated cost of Phase One was approx. Rs. 70.0bn, with more recent costs estimated at Rs. 130bn. However, these figures will definitely vary as the work progresses.

It is also heard that the investor is expected to fully finance building, maintain and operate the expressway, collect toll and after an agreed period transfer same to the Government of Sri Lanka. The investor is expected the design the road over the pre-selected corridor, acquire land, pay compensation and construct with related facilities. The design and construction would be under the supervision of a reputed international firm, selected by the investor to ensure the required standards and quality. What was initially heard is that the investor will prepare acquisition drawings, pay compensation to affected parties at rates not less than paid in the other Expressways. He will implement the Resettlement Action Plan for affected parties subject to RDA approval and will identify the areas suitable for resettlement of affected parties.

It is also understood that using paddy fields are more economical than building up through densely built up areas. This principle is acceptable for the whole alignment, where economically viable. On section km 0-30, paddy fields are now used, to a large extent. The proposed Enderamulla-Ambepussa stretch of the Expressway will be constructed in most part parallel to the railway line over paddy, marshy and uncultivated areas. However, it is seen that a considerable extent of arigable lands will experience a severe topographic change.

However, the question of whether the responsibility of acquisition and payment of compensation has been passed over to the investor is unknown. In acquisition of properties and payment of compensation, however, government politicians play a major role. It would be interesting to observe what would happen. Under the stipulated conditions, the payment of compensation should at least be in par with payments made in previous such projects.

Compensation is a sensitive issue when large scale private properties and settlements are being disturbed. As such, it is imperative to have a matrix in place that proposes basis of eligibility and extent of payments for all kinds of losses (e.g., land, housing, businesses, and other income sources, temporary loss of income, displacement and moving costs). A matrix that sets standards for compensation is inevitable to avoid any potential anomalies over compensation and unnecessary political interference. Since the policies of any typical international funding agencies is, at least, to maintain the level of living under without-project” situation, a strategy for maintaining their former standard of living needs must be of top priority. The foremost is to avoid or minimize resettlement effects through technical modifications.

The next step is to develop entitlement guidelines to cover all project-affected people, including non-titled persons, and ensure that the common needs of masses are fully met. Indeed, the affected people should be fully informed and closely consulted on resettlement and compensation options. They must be contacted nicely and humanely without any sphere of influence. It is natural that people affected by resettlement are apprehensive that they will lose their livelihoods and communities, or be ill-prepared for complex negotiations over entitlements. Participation in planning and managing resettlement helps reduce any fear or obscurity and gives an opportunity to participate in key decisions that will affect their lives. Resettlement implemented without consultation may lead to inappropriate strategies and eventual impoverishment. Without consultation, the people affected may oppose the project, causing social disruption, substantial delay in achieving targets or even abandonment, and cost increases. Negative public and media images of the project and of the implementation agency may develop. With consultation, initial opposition to a project may be transformed into constructive participation. Consultation can be fostered by holding public meetings and identifying focus groups. Planners might draw on participatory problem-solving methods, supplemented by use of the media in scattered or broad areas.

Compensation, as said earlier, is one of the key considerations the government authorities must be insightful. Therefore, it is important that the eligibility matrix works on a fair and humane basis covering, though it is impossible to replace the mental agony and depression monetarily, the key cost components that are ascertainable scientifically. Such elements basically include replacement cost of housing, land, crops and vegetation, source of income, loss of business opportunity, relocation costs etc. Accordingly, the cost of a house ascertained merely on square meter basis with a ceiling budgetary restriction does not amount to a fair compensation. Costs depend on a myriad of factors such as type of construction, height and volume, number of rooms, type of finishes used, external amenities, locational factors, etc that heavily influence the quality, workmanship and performance characteristics inherited in these houses. In addition to that, there will be professional fees for design, supervision as well as fee for government agencies including stamp duties. Land too has variables such as location, adjacent plots, local government payments, notary charges, stamp duties, etc. In nutshell, it should be the value enough to replace the loss over displacement had there been no project. It is not the value of the property decided by market demand and supply forces since this involuntary resettlement is not a result of a buying and selling transaction.

Simply put, the replacement cost is the actual cost to replace an item or structure at its pre-loss condition. This may not be the “market value” of the item, and is typically distinguished from the “actual cash value” payment which includes a deduction for depreciation. The term replacement cost or replacement value refers to the amount that an entity would have to pay to replace an asset at the present time, according to its current worth. This concept is different from the book value used by accountants in financial statements or for tax purposes. Accountants use the purchase price and subtract the accumulated depreciation in order to value the item on a balance sheet. Replacement cost is the price that an entity would pay to replace an existing asset at current market prices with a similar asset. The replacement cost of an asset may vary from the market value of that specific asset, since the asset that would actually replace it may have a different cost; the replacement asset only has to perform the same functions as the original asset – it does not have to be an exact copy of the original asset. Replacement cost can also be used to estimate the amount of funding that might be required to duplicate another option, however, care must be taken that there are artificial price hike-ups in adjacent land properties. In whatever means, the compensation must be reflective of the foregoing considerations which will, if implemented logically and expeditiously, render social justice and human worth for those who scarified their urumaya on behalf of a nationally important project.

 ධර්මසිරි සෙනෙවිරත්න

 අලුත් සන්ඝාදිකරන පනත ගෙන එන්නේ ඉංග්‍රීසින්ට ගැතිකම් කරපු හා කරන එජාපය විසින්ය . එහි නායකයා ඇන්ග්ලිකන් කාරයෙකි ,.  මුළු රටම        අ   ප්‍රියකරන  ප්රුතුගීසිකාරයාටත්මේ මිනිහා ප්රියකරය් . සේවනය බාලයන්මය  මෙයා මොනවා තහනම් කලත් පන්සල් සුදුව නම් තහනම් කරන්නේ නැත .
වාරියපොළ හිමි ඉංග්‍රීසි කොඩිය බිමා දමා පෑ ගුවේය ඒ එතුමනන් ගේ“”” සිංහල ලේ “”” කකියන්නට පටන්ගත් නිසය් දැන් මාක්ස් වාදියෙක් අසය් සිංහල දෙමල මුස්ලිම් ලේ කියල එක එක වර්ග ලේ තියනවද කියල  ඉංග්‍රීසි කොඩිය වැරදි වෙලාවේ උස්සන කොට වේදනාවක් ආවේ සිංහලයට පමනය් දෙමළට හෝ මක්කලයට වේදනාවක් ආවේ නැහැ . එහෙම වුනේ  උන්ට සිංහල ලේ නැති නිසය් සිංහල ලේ කකියනාවා කියන්නේ ජාතික කැ ක්කුමටය්  ආයෙත් වැරැද්ද ගන්න එපා    ” අළුක්  කාල්මාක්ස් ”  ඒ කැක්කුම කොන්දේ  කැක්කුම වාගේ එකකුත් නෙමෙය්  .
දේශද්‍රෝහීන්ගේ ක්‍රියා හමුවේ  අභීත ලෙස  හඬ නගන භික්ෂුන් දඩයම් කිරීමත් ජාතියේ මුරදේවතාවන්  අරන්යට පමණක් සීමා කිරීමටත් මුන්ට අවශ්ශ්‍යය . ආගමට ද්‍රෝහිවන වටරැක විජිත වැනි  ලෙබ්බේ හාමුදුරුවරුන්ට දෙන්නේ මොන දඩුවමද .  ජාතිකවාදී හිවරුන්ට දඬුවම් දෙන මේ පනතට  විරුද්ධ නොවන  මල්වතු අස්ගිරි ඇතුළු මහනායකයන්ට  දෙන දඬුවම් මොනවාද . ජාතික ගීය දෙමලෙන් ගැයීම වැරදි නතය් කියා  සිංහල බෞද්ධයන්ට ද්‍රෝහී වෙන බෙල්ලන්විල විමල රතන  හිමිට දියයුතු දඬුම කුත්  නිර්දේශ කලයුතුය   බෙල්ලන්විල හිමිගේ ප්‍රකාශය  අනාගත මහාව්‍යසනයකට මුල පුරවන්නකි . අනේ දෙය්යනේ බුද්ධ ධර්මය වෙනුවට උන්නාන්සේ  මාක්ස් ධර්මය  අනුගමනය කරන වා වාගේ මහින්ද ලඟින් ඳ ඉගෙන වාසුදේවත් කලේ ඔයවාගේ ද්‍රෝහී  වැඩ තමය් . බෙල්ලන්විල දේවාලේ දේව කන්නලවුහා  භජන්  සමගම පිරිතුත් ඇත .ඉස්කෝ ප්පවලින් එකතු කරලා ගෝනි පුරවන්න තරම්  කාසි එකතුවෙන්නේ එතකොට තමය්
පුදුමය් නේද ප්‍රසිද්ධ හාමුදුරුවරු ටික ටික බිලීබාගන්න හැටි  සිංහල බෞධ්ධයිනි මේක බලාගෙන ඉන්න හොඳ ලෙඩක් නොවෙය්  අප්‍රමාද වෙයව්
හරි හමන්  පැහැදිලි දර්ශනයක් ඇති අලුත් පෙරමුණක් හෝ පක්ෂයක් වහාම අවශ්ශය් 

Kanthar Balanathan

DipEE(UK), GradCert(RelEng-Monash),DipBus&Adm(Finance-Massey), C.Eng., MIEE,  MIE(Aus) CPEng, (Retired)

Former Director of Power Engineering Solutions Pty Ltd, Consulting Electrical Engineers

12^th January 2016

Right Hon Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe MP

Prime Minister of SriLanka

No. 117, 5th Lane
Colombo 03,

SRILANKA

Dear Prime Minister,

It has become necessary to write to our PM to unravel important information on fraudulent practices within the Northern Provincial Council. GOSL is involved in having conferences/workshops on economic development based on four key areas to provide quality life to the people of Sri Lanka. However, our Tamil politicians are not interested in developing the province they are responsible for, but plan, scheme for more powers so that they can rip the country to full scale. GOSL allocates financial provision (budget) for NPC’s expenditure to look after the Tamil people of the North, however, the politicians are only interested in fraudulent practices and ignore the people. The people of the North keep complaining to the UN and media that GOSL does not look after them. Sir, it is not the truth. GOSL provides funds, but the NPC politicians keep misappropriating the funds.

Sir, I would like to refer you to an article written in Tamil, (you could get it translated). I give you the contents please. Ref: http://www.newjaffna.co/moreartical.php?newsid=41534&cat=nnews&sel=current&subcat=16#sthash.PUsFYe9w.dpuf

Of the allocated Rs 600 million to NPC only 10% was expended and 90% was not spent till December 2015. Dr. Sathiyalingham who is the Health Minister, with no experience in politics, management, or administration, ordered his Secretary to Spend Rs 5.47 million within 30 days.  The Secretary was ordered to sign cheques and hand over to him. Mr. Thiruvakaran, being a permanent government servant of the SL Administrative Service, refused to sign the cheques. Mr. Thiruvakaran complained to the CM, stating that the funds allocated are for the welfare and progress of the people. Chief Minister, on the contrary has ordered him to sign the cheques, and that if any issues crop up he will look after the issues.

Mr. Thiruvakaran suffered a heart attack as a result of this chaotic environment, states health circles. It is believed that the money may have been directed towards private coffer(s).

This is not the first case. Sathiyalingham was involved in a hospital food supply fraud in March 2014.

Sir, while GOSL is engaged in economic reforms, the NPC is siphoning funds into their coffer. It is an appeal that your government should appoint a commission to address the budget and expenditure and check the assets of every politician in the North please. It is a surprise that the Governor of the NPC is not aware of these misappropriations.

The fun part is, Sir that these people are still complaining about GOSL, with lack of knowledge in their incompetency.

Sir, please believe, these people are not patriotic, but cling onto a mythical Tamil Eelam” and rights.

If they were patriotic to the country and love their people of the Northern Province, then they should have developed the underdeveloped areas of the North.

I can vouch that these NPC people may not have visited Waligamam West any time within the period. May be, they do not know where Waligamam West is.

Being an administrator and the PM of good governance, please take immediate steps to investigate this fraud please.

I Remain,

Yours Obediently

Kanthar Balanathan

Cc: His Excellency the President Mr. Maithripala Sirisena

Patriot

1. If the President says there is no foreign influence to draft the constitution why is it that every hour some foreign secretary or foreign envoy is landing in Sri Lanka and telling you, the Government what to do?

2. If this is a government voted by the People of Sri Lanka, why is it that UN envoys are allowed to inspect the national security establishments and restructure the armed forces according to their wishes? Would the US /UK or Indians allow you and your officials anywhere near their armed forces leave alone allow you to restructure their military?

3. If the President says he will protect Buddhism (we find this hard to believe because he held the sacred karanduwa and lied) why is the place of Buddhism being slowly removed from all State and even School curriculums and the failed notion of multifaith and multiculturalism is being introduced to remove the special place Buddhism holds as a religion accepted by royal invitation and followed by 180 Sinhale kings and the people before colonial invaders Christianized by force the Sinhala Buddhists and Tamils and Islamic traders were allowed to make Sri Lanka a home. Why should Sri Lanka’s historical past be removed by a bunch of Western worshipping local politicians simply because they are in power because of the help extended by these Western forces and unreliable India whose orders the majority of the minorities in Sri Lanka happily follow without any fuss or concern for the nation?

Buddhism finds itself in this pitiful place because of ALL the politicians and leaders who have given only ceremonial status to Buddhism because they have been bought over by the nations that represent these minorities.

Buddhism is a challenge to all other religions because it is the only religion/philosophy that can be scientifically proven. That is why since 1500s there are efforts to annihilate or dilute the place of Buddhism in Buddhist majority nations. Buddhism does not need Santa Claus, third party messengers or fairy tales to proof its power. The people have not understood the real power of Buddhism still.

4. What is the good governance that your government has promised? Every day there is a murder taking place, every day there is a rape or crime being committed of unthinkable nature, every day your Ministers are upto mischief but only Opposition Leaders and their followers are arrested and for all this the UN Secretary General sends a congratulatory message. It is now very clear to us when UN Head is to arrive next month who were the players involved in the regime change and it is now beginning to get clearer what their real intentions are in placing puppets like YOU in governance.

5. What are you doing to protect the people of this country when you can’t even buy a jet for the armed forces without getting scared of India’s nagging diplomattas. Does this government have no pluck to stand up after signing a bilateral agreement and has to cave in and cancel the agreement signed with a true friend of Lanka, Pakistan? Even a song turning you into a King gets removed after social media protests. Seriously, can we have confidence in such a government?

6. Boasting of all the wrongs of the past throughout the one year, what exactly has your government done to raise the economy? The rupee is struggling to survive, we have no foreign reserves and we have a pretty looking budget but nothing to show as income generators…even the money from housemaids has stopped and thanks to your government our teas are getting diluted with low-quality Indian tea and being sold as Ceylon Tea. Our people are struggling to survive and all the promises made are shattering with each day. Yet, we can live and survive but when your government is out to sell the country and our people, we cannot remain silent.

7. Who is this secret investor? The Soros guy in town of late along with war criminal Blair? How can a country be sold to a creepy individual who has a knack for ruining nations? Is this the good governance that your government has promised the people

8. What is this new constitution, when a country is unstable is it wise to tamper with the constitution when your government is too scared to say NO to foreign interference? The people did not ask for a constitution. What is the big rush in hurrying a new constitution. By the way we do not trust your government nor do we trust most of the members in the Opposition. Why? Because we have seen how easily they all buckle to money.

9. Why is your government using the Prevention of Terrorism Act to arrest State intelligence officers who were serving the nation. PTA arrests are for those who are going against the state and involved in acts of terror. While LTTE cadres are being released your government is holding state intelligence officers in prison and there are some sucking lawyers who have no morals but to defend the stand you are taking.

10. A weekend newspaper horoscope column predicted that your Prime Ministers wife is set to buy a house abroad and your Prime Minister will leave overseas from 2019…..are we being told that your government having done the dirty task of changing the constitution, devolving powers to the provinces, giving the leaders of the minorities who gave fullest support to the West and India their own independent state (with the assurance that the West/India can use it as a base against China and Russia), allow Indians to flood Sri Lanka and slowly uproot the Sinhalese leaving them the next boat people…after doing all this and more You, the Prime Minister, CBK and all the other rogues and traitors will flee the country that you all joined to ruin to live abroad and die without any conscience??? This prediction must be true by the way things are taking shape because after dividing the country, creating a constitution that the West, the Missionary NGOs, India, the UN and all other wicked people want what is left for you and yahapalana leaders to do other than escape and laugh at how successfully you and your government ruined a nation with a 2500 history.

For the damage yahapalana are presently doing, the ancestors and the patriots of this country and abroad will curse every minute of your lives.

By P.K.Balachandran Courtesy The New Indian Express

COLOMBO: Indian Foreign Secretary Dr S Jaishankar told the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) leader R.Sampanthan here on Wednesday, that India would like Sri Lanka to build on what has already been achieved in the area of devolution of power when it drafts its new constitution.

Jaishankar was alluding to the devolution package contained in the 13 th. Constitutional Amendment which was inspired by the India-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987.

Sampanthan, who had breakfast with Jaishankar, told Express that  that during the free and frank” exchange of views on the recent political developments in Lanka, the Indian Foreign Secretary recalled the steps already taken in the direction of devolving power to the provinces, and suggested that Lanka should build on this rather than start from scratch.

Jaishankar was keen to know about the government’s bid to re-write the Sri Lankan constitution and the process being adopted to turn the present parliament into a Constitutional Assembly for that purpose.

It was a useful conversation,” Sampanthan said

by Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

One-time Indian High Commissioner in Sri Lanka, Gopalkrishna Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, declared, in Colombo, on January 8, that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa would be remembered for eradicating the LTTE.

Former President Rajapaksa brought the war to a successful conclusion on May 19, 2009.

Having commended the former President for giving resolute political leadership to the successful war effort, Gandhi delivered an unmistakable warning, pertaining to war crimes allegations.

But the crimes committed during eelam war IV would also not be forgotten, Gandhi warned the former President who skipped the event.

Gandhi was delivering the keynote address at a ceremony to mark the completion of President Maithripala Sirisena’s first year in office, at the BMICH.

Former Indian High Commissioner, Gopalkrishna Gandhi, is seated between President Maithripala Sirisena and twice President, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. Kamal Bogoda captured the scene at an event held at the BMICH on January 8 where Gandhi endorsed unsubstantiated war crimes allegations directed at the previous government, including the execution of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran’s second son, Balachandran.

War-winning Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka was also in the audience, seated next to UN Resident Representative, Subanay Nandy. Among the Colombo-based diplomats, present on the occasion, was Indian High Commissioner, Y.K. Sinha.

Gandhi accused the previous government of having executed LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran’s 12-year-old son during the final phase of the Vanni offensive, in May, 2009.

Gandhi alleged that the Sri Lankan military had executed Balachandran because he was the younger son of the LTTE’ leader. The retired Indian career diplomat subscribed to the allegation of mass scale killings of civilians, during the final assault, though he refrained from mentioning an exact figure.

UNSG Ban Ki-moon Panel of Experts (PoE), in March, 2011, estimated the number of civilian deaths, due to military action, at over 40,000.

Many an eyebrow was raised at the timing of Gandhi’s statement meant to give credence to war crimes allegations. “The massacre of innocents at its denouement has compacted the gore of terror with the blood-thirst of revenge,” Gandhi said.

“And the killing in cold blood, of a child, for the sole reason, that he was his father’s son, has left the world in cold horror.”

Gandhi went to the extent of justifying the war waged by Prabhakaran for nearly 30 years. The retired diplomat refrained from bringing up the bloody Indian Army campaign against the LTTE, launched in Oct., 1987.

“If the Ponnambalams and Chelvanayakams had not been disappointed, spurned and marginalized, Velupillai Pirbakaran would not have been required. We may not have those great leaders today, but we have in the Tamil leaders of Sri Lanka today, let us not forget, persons who have survived terror. The Tamil nationalist who has striven to find political solutions within a united Sri Lanka is a terror survivor. The very presence of such a politician is a huge acknowledgement of the efficacy and strength of perseverance.”

Gandhi conveniently failed to mention the massive excesses committed by the LTTE.

Gandhi basically asserted that Rajapaksa’s defeat, at the presidential polls, a year ago, ended a reign of terror. The former High Commissioner took the shine off Sri Lanka’s triumph over LTTE terrorism in May, 2009. Obviously, Gandhi had conveniently forgotten the situation, in Sri Lanka, during his short tenure as Indian High Commissioner, in Colombo (2000-2002). The country was in unprecedented turmoil due to a series of high profile battle-field defeats experienced by the Sri Lankan Army (SLA). Sri Lanka also experienced massive political crisis with a spate of defections from the then ruling SLFP-led People’s Alliance (PA), leading to parliamentary elections, in early December, 2001. The UNP-led United National Front (UNF) comfortably won the polls. Having formed the government, the UNP swiftly entered a ceasefire agreement (CFA) with the LTTE, under the auspices of Norway. India threw its weight behind the CFA, though New Delhi declined to publicly support the Norwegian initiative that received the backing for the US, EU and Japan. They functioned as Co-chairs to Sri Lanka’s Peace Process with Norway being the fourth in the grouping.

It would be pertinent to mention that Sri Lanka suffered her worst battlefield defeat, in April, 2000. India declined to come to Sri Lanka’s rescue, even in the aftermath of the SLA’s humiliating defeat at strategic Elephant Pass area. The 54 Division, headquartered at Elephant Pass, suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of the LTTE, by then developed into a conventional fighting force. India also spurned Sri Lanka’s call for urgent military assistance to save the SLA trapped in Jaffna. A disappointed President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga re-established diplomatic ties with Israel, in May, 2000, in accordance with her overall plan to meet the LTTE challenge.

Jolted by the shocking loss of Elephant Pass, Mrs Kumaratunga sent the then Maj. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, along with Maj. Gen. Janaka Perera, to thwart the LTTE bid to overrun Jaffna. Although, the SLA managed to halt the advance, it couldn’t regain Elephant Pass, until early 2009.

Those wanting to haul Sri Lanka up before an international war crimes inquiry, meant to examine accusations pertaining to eelam war IV, remain silent on the Indian terrorist project here. In act, the previous government pathetically failed at least to mention the Indian role at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), even after India voted against Sri Lanka, in 2013.

However, the former Indian High Commissioner obviously lacked courage to admit Indian intervention in Sri Lanka, in the early 80s, by providing weapons training to terrorists; how the LTTE brought terror back into Indian soil, and also Indian trained Sri Lankan terrorists making an attempt on the life of the Maldivian President, in early Nov. 1988. Gandhi must also admit that the crimes committed by the then Government of India, too, would also not be forgotten. India also paid a heavy price for its foolish decision to destabilize a small neighbouring country. The former Indian High Commissioner couldn’t be unaware of the circumstances leading to the high profile assassination of one-time Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, on May 21, 1991.

The year before Gandhi succeeded Mennon, the LTTE made an abortive bid on the life of the then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. The LTTE targeted her at her final Dec. 1999, president campaign rally, at the Town Hall. Mrs. Kumaratunga secured a second term. Had Prabhakaran succeeded, the war would have taken a different course. The presidential election took place against the backdrop of devastating battlefield losses in the Vanni. During the 1996-1999 period, the LTTE inflicted massive losses on the SLA, in the Vanni theater of operations, and, by Dec. 1999, was poised to take on the 54 Division, deployed in the Elephant Pass-Vettilaikerni sector.

Gopalkrishna Gandhi was in Colombo when the LTTE mounted its boldest attack in the South, during the entire war. The LTTE stormed the Bandaranaike International Airport, in the early hours of July, 24, 2001. The national economy was on the brink of collapse. The losses suffered by the national carrier, and the SLAF, caused a massive impact on the economy. India can never absolve itself of responsibility for causing terrorism in Sri Lanka.

One of Gopalkrishna Gandhi’s predecessors in Colombo, J.N. Dixit (1985-1989) in his memoirs titled Makers of India’s Foreign Policy: Raja Ram Mohun Roy to Yashwant Sinha, launched in 2004, lucidly explained the circumstances under which the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (1980-1984) intervened in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka should be grateful to Dixit for having the courage to publicly acknowledge the Indian role after having retired from the esteemed Indian Foreign Service. Dixit retired as the Foreign Secretary, in 1994, and received the post of National Security Advisor, in 2004. Dixit at the age of 68, suffered a massive heart attack in January, the following year.

The writer received a copy of Dixit’s memoirs, courtesy Ministry of External Affairs, during a visit to New Delhi, on the invitation of the government of India, in July-Aug 2006. Let me reproduce verbatim Dixit’s explanation on Mrs Gandhi’s action: “India’s involvement in Sri Lanka, in my assessment, was unavoidable not only due to the possible ramifications of the Sri Lankan government’s oppressive and discriminating policies against its Tamil citizens but also in terms of India’s national concerns due to the Sri Lankan government’s evolving security connections with the US, Pakistan and Israel.”

Obviously, India was acting in accordance with its overall strategy as a cold war ally of the then Soviet Union. Dixit said: “It would be relevant to analyze India’s motivations and actions vis-a-vis Sri Lanka in the larger perspective of the international and regional strategic environment obtaining between 1980 and 1984.”

Dixit alleged that the US and Pakistan had exploited the situation in Sri Lanka at the onset of hit-and-run attacks by Tamil youth in the Northern Province to create what he called a politico-strategic pressure point against India. Having discussed the Indian intervention, in Sri Lanka, as well as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Dixit faulted Premier Gandhi’s position on both. Dixit asserted: “The two foreign policy decisions on which she could be faulted are: her ambiguous response to the Russian intrusion into Afghanistan and her giving active support to Sri Lankan Tamil militants. Whatever the criticisms about these decisions, it cannot be denied that she took them on the basis of her assessments about India’s national interests. Her logic was that she couldn’t openly alienate the former Soviet Union when India was so dependent on that country for defense supplies and technologies. Similarly, she could not afford the emergence of Tamil separatism in India by refusing to support the aspirations of Sri Lankan Tamils.”

Sri Lanka never made an effort to examine the origins of terrorism. Instead, successive governments accepted responsibility for their failure to address the grievances of the Tamil-speaking people. Tamils believed India backed their campaign of death and destruction to pressure the then Sri Lankan government, whereas New Delhi was seeking to thwart the growth of separatism in Tamil Nadu. In other words, India had averted a major threat to her security and stability at the expense of Sri Lanka. For want of comprehensive examination of events, leading to eelam war, I in the early 80s, and subsequent phases, Sri Lanka failed at least to verify and record facts. War-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa never made a serious effort to examine the origins of the conflict even after the armed forces brought the war to a successful conclusion, in May, 2009.

Seven years after the war, Gopalkrishna Gandhi was in Colombo to remind Sri Lanka of accountability issues. What would be Gandhi’s response to Dixit’s assertions? Would Tamil militancy developed to such an extent if India didn’t intervene here? Having sponsored over half a dozen terrorist groups, India thwarted Sri Lanka’s first determined effort to wipe out the LTTE, in May-June, 1987. Had Operation Liberation was allowed to proceed, as planned, India could have saved the lives of over 1,500 officers and men, Rajiv Gandhi wouldn’t have had to die in the hands of an LTTE suicide cadre and, most importantly, the war wouldn’t have lasted for nearly three decades. India intervened as troops of Operation liberation were in the process of gradually achieving their objectives.

Former President Rajapaksa squandered an opportunity to conduct a thorough examination of events. Had he provided the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) the required mandate, it could have examined the origins of terrorism here. Had that happened, his government could have successfully countered an expensive propaganda campaign directed at the country, since the end of war, seven years ago. The former President paid a very heavy price for his lapses.

The Indian Army, during its deployment here, was accused of numerous atrocities. Those accused of atrocities were never punished. The then Sri Lankan government had no authority, at least to inquire into violations, whereas the Indian Army simply ignored allegations. Perhaps Gopalkrishna Gandhi should be reminded of accusations made against India’s premier intelligence service, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), in respect of the assassination of two Jaffna District TULF members, V. Dharmalingham and M. Alalasundaram, in early Sept. 1985. Dharmalingham’s son, Siddarthan, now a member of the TNA-run Northern Provincial Council, told the writer, way back in 1997, of the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization (TELO) abducting and killing the two politicians. Dharmalingham asserted that India carried out the killings to bring the LTTE under pressure. The decision was obviously prompted by the collapse of tripartite talks aimed at resolving Sri Lanka’s national problem, in the Bhutanese capital, Thimpu, involving the governments of India and Sri Lanka, as well as representatives of Tamil speaking people of Sri Lankan origin, during the third week of August, 1985.

An irate Rajiv Gandhi ordered the immediate deportation of LTTE theoretician, Anton Balasingham, a former employee of the British High Commission in Colombo.

The TULF, and a grouping of Indian sponsored terrorist organization calling itself Eelam National Liberation Front (ENLF), represented the Tamils at the Thimpu talks.

The abortive Thimpu deliberations comprised two rounds of talks; first in early July 1985 and the other in August. Bodies of TULF members were found on the morning of Sept. 3, 1985.

The killings should be examined against the backdrop of the Thimpu fiasco as well as the short-lived Delhi Accord of 1985. India should accept responsibility for plunging Sri Lanka into crisis. New Delhi pursued a deliberate policy meant to cause chaos in Sri Lanka to achieve its political and military objectives.

Those hell bent on destabilizing Sri Lanka ordered the killings, with a view to discrediting the LTTE and its leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. The assassinations were meant to isolate the LTTE, thereby paving the way for rival groups to consolidate their power in the post-Thimpu environment. Another objective was to curb the TULF influence over the Jaffna populace. Whoever had the power to decide on the fate of two politicians, the TELO led by Sri Sabaratnam alias Tall Sri had been given the dastardly assignment. Obviously, the enmity between Prabhakaran and Sri Sabaratnam had been taken into consideration when the latter was ordered to carry out the killings.

The JRJ government wrongly blamed the LTTE for the killings. Sri Lankan authorities never made a genuine attempt to investigate the assassinations.

Interestingly, TULF heavyweights, M. Sivasithamparam and A. Amirthalingam, were in New Delhi to meet Premier Gandhi when TELO cadres carried out the killings. Having discussed the Delhi Accord of 1985 with Premier Gandhi, the TULF leaders returned to Chennai, where they rejected the latest initiative on the basis it didn’t address three vital issues, namely Tamil homeland in a merged North-East Province, the devolution of power in respect of land, as well as police powers.

Post-war reconciliation in Sri Lanka is not possible unless India, too, admits its despicable role here. Perhaps, the proposed war crimes court can be utilized by those wanting to establish truth to give an opportunity to India.

To be continued on January 20

By Professor Shelton Gunaratne, Ph.D.

 Reliability of the Analysis

To ascertain whether the results of our content analysis was generalizable to the entirety of Sunday Times editorials published during the period 2000-2015, we drew a second (non-stratified) random sample of 15 editorials for the same period as a crosscheck. This selection yielded the following results:

• February 11, 2001: Batty and the economy” (Comment on Justice Minister Batty Weerakoon’s view that the only way to combat the cost of living was to drastically reduce the military spending. The correct approach, the editorial argued, was for this brazenly profligate government” to cut its extravagant costs” incurred on duty free cars for Members of Parliament, a large Cabinet, and Presidential palaces. This was, therefore, an exception that did not fit the dominant themes of the ST editorials.]
• June 17, 2007: Save the planet”[ STs concern with the Greenhouse effect reflected in this editorial is consistent with its concern for animal rights/slaughter expressed in the first random sample. It criticized the United States, India and China for not taking the Kyoto protocol seriously because the 2007 G8 declaration on global warming does not spell out specific goals for each industrialized nation or a United Nations formula for the rest of the world to adopt.” One may call another exception to ST’s dominant editorial concerns over this period.]
• January 13, 2008: Devolution begins with the district” [This editorial repeated the need for the introduction of the 1981 District Development Council system as the first step towards devolution of power to the peripheries” because  a federal system of government does not have universal acceptance in this country.” It criticized the Tamil political leaders of the North who are asking for the re-activation of the 13th Amendment that was shoved down the throat of Sri Lanka by the then Indian Government.” It slammed the IC for their intense pressure on the government to devolve power as part of a negotiated political settlement with the Tamils of the North and the East.]
• August 10, 2008: Chinese Dragon awakes” [Looking at the ups and downs in China on the occasion of the extravagant opening of the Beijing Olympic, the editorial asserted that today China, which has become the world’s fourth largest economy, is capable of opposing the US and the West on Iran’s nuclear issue, the Darfur crisis, the Kosovo issue, etc.” However, it took issue with the country’s human rights problems and its insistence on denying the Dalai Lama to visit the sacred Buddhist sites in Sri Lanka. One can look at this article as an expression of the ST’s thematic disgust with the arrogant West.]
• July 3, 2011: Govt says ‘No’ to a modern citizen’s Right” [The ST showed its umbrage at the government’s continued pussyfooting with the FOIA since the turn of the century. A Right to Information Law is not for editors to ask for a government file, but for ordinary citizens to apply for a government file anywhere in the country,” the editorial declared.” It pointed out that the argument based on national security had little substance because such information was already exempt from the FOIA, which would, however, enable citizens to get information on the bankruptcy of Sri Lanka Cricket, just three months after co-hosting the World Cup, or the expenditure of Rs. 400 million for a four-kilometer stretch on the Chenkaladi-Maha Oya road in the Eastern Province or the expenditure of Rs. 40 million for the 1.7-kilometre of the Hettipola-Chilaw road about which even the local Panduwasnuwara Pradeshiya Sabha knows nothing of, or how school admissions take place, how tenders are doled out, or even how the head of the legal division was recruited to the Ministry of External Affairs.”]
• March 18, 2012: India: To be or not to be with Lanka” [This editorial, which was typical of the ST’s consistent India bashing, claimed that the “friendship” that certain Tamil Nadu legislators and politicians have had with the LTTE was public knowledge. It went on to say: The Indian position on Sri Lanka has often been triggered by the dynamics of Tamil Nadu’s vote- crazy politics. The one recent exception was India looking the other way when the LTTE, which killed one of its former Prime Ministers and more than a thousand of its soldiers, were liquidated militarily in 2009. … India’s vacillation over the vote on the US resolution is fraught with intricacies. It has to be on the good side of the US. Yet, it does not want China to go one-up by supporting Sri Lanka while India votes against Sri Lanka. No doubt it needs to worry about the domestic pressures from its regional partners, and the sustainability of its very coalition government due to constant blackmailing.”
• April 22, 2012: The intricacies of the Indian factor” [Yet another India-bashing piece, this editorial welcomed a delegation from both Indian Houses of Parliament to Sri Lanka. The editorial asserted that although India kept saying it respected Sri Lanka’s sovereignty right through the years, India actively supported the secessionist insurgency in Sri Lanka. It advised the Indian MPs to go back and report that not all of Sri Lanka is linked to Tamil Nadu. The delegation (five of them from Tamil Nadu) in their discussions here seemed to accept that Indo-Sri Lanka relations couldn’t be Tamil-centric. The editorial said that Sri Lanka is wary of the Indian-style” devolution being parroted by India and the TNA because many saw it as India’s attempt to have a proxy or puppet ‘Government’ installed in the North preferably by its authorized local agent, the TNA.”]
• September 30, 2012: Agriculture in poison hole” [This was an unusual editorial of excellent developmental journalism that deviated from the ST’s emotional rhetoric on its dominant themes to analyze the plight of farmers in the North, North Central and Eastern provinces who face an epidemic of chronic kidney disease because of excessive use of low-quality fertilizer and pesticides with a high content of arsenic and cadmium. It called on the government to adopt an overall agriculture policy of gradually transforming to bio or organic farming.]
• March 1, 2015: Northern PC: Spoiling for another fight” [The last editorial in this sample, continued with its ST’s penchant for criticizing Tamil politics in the North –one of its very dominant editorial themes over the 15-year period. It condemned the rabble-rousing NPC resolution calling for an investigation into genocide against the Tamils since 1948″ and asserted: The aggressive nature of the resolution and the fresh intransigence of the north, spoiling for another round of conflict offers little hope for reconciliation.” It continued: No doubt, communal frenzy is the mainstay of the northern politicians. Spurred on by the Diaspora, their grip on the north, their authoritarian rule in the province is wholly based on whipping up the communal card. The north is run, not by the people who live there wanting their lands back to cultivate, requiring clean water, good education, health, sanitation and housing, but the Diaspora driven politicians who thrive on conflict.”  Finally, it aimed the final shot at the NP chief minister, thus: Having served as a Judge of the Supreme Court, and an upright judge at that, the Chief Minister knows the repercussions of words, their nuances and interpretations. He ought to, by now, know the socio-political fallout from these hysterical utterances. And, to thine own self be true; can he, a learned man, who was given his due place in the country’s highest judicial court, to determine the fate of all citizens irrespective of race, justify his recent deed?”]

The headline of each editorial in the sample provides a rough indication of its thematic thrust. These themes are very similar to the dominant concerns we found in this report through the content analysis of the (stratified) random sample analyzed in Part 1. We did not think it necessary to apply statistical tests to ascertain the reliability of these two samples because the elegant results derived from converting qualitative information into numerical values are no better than the general inferences one could make by reading the text.

නලින් ද සිල්වා

අජිත් අලහකෝන් – කුෂාන් සුබසිංහ

ෙත්‍රෙනිකායික භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේලාගේ හැසිරීම හා විනය කරුණු පිළිබඳ විධිවිධාන පනවමින් ථෙරවාදී භික්‍ෂු කතිකාවක්‌ ලියාපදිංචි කිරීම සඳහා වන පනත් කෙටුම්පතක්‌ පාර්ලිමේන්තු ප්‍රතිසංස්‌කරණ හා ජනමාධ්‍ය ඇමැති, ආණ්‌ඩු පක්‍ෂයේ ප්‍රධාන සංවිධායක ගයන්ත කරුණාතිලක මහතා විසින් ඊයේ (12දා) පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ඉදිරිපත් කරන ලදී.

මෙම පනත් කෙටුම්පතට අනුව ගුප්ත විද්‍යා කටයුතු හෝ ඊට සමාන කටයුතුවල නියෑළීම හෝ කරගෙන යැම සහ එම කටයුතුවලට ප්‍රචාරය ලබාදීම ද ෙත්‍රෙනිකායික භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේලාට දඬුවම් ලබා දිය හැකිය.

එමෙන්ම වෙළෙඳ හෝ ව්‍යාපාරික කටයුතුවලට සම්බන්ධ වී කටයුතු කිරීම, රියෑදුරු බලපත්‍රයක්‌ ලබා ගැනීම සහ වාහන පැදවීම භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේට කළ නොහැකිය. එමෙන්ම අධ්‍යාපනය, සමාජ සේවා හෝ ආගමික කටයුතු යන ක්‍ෂේත්‍රවල හැර රාජ්‍ය හෝ පෞද්ගලික අංශයේ යම් රැකියාවක නියුක්‌ත වීමට ෙත්‍රෙනිකායික භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේලාට හැකියාවක්‌ නොමැත.

ප්‍රසිද්ධ ස්‌ථානවල බෞද්ධ භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේ නමකට අකැප අයුරින්, භික්‍ෂු විනයට පටහැනි ක්‍රියාවන්හි නියෑළීමද දඬුවම් ලැබිය හැකි වරදකි.

එකී වැරදි සඳහා දඬුවමද අදාළ කතිකාවක ඇතුළත් කළ හැකි බව පනත් කෙටුම්පතේ දක්‌වා ඇත.

ඒ අනුව ඉහත වරදට ලැබෙන දඬුවම් මෙසේය.

වැඩ සිටින විහාරස්‌ථානයෙන් එම භීක්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේ තාවකාලිකව හෝ ස්‌ථීරව ඉවත් කිරීම, විහාරාධිපති ධුරයෙන් තාවකාලිකව හෝ ස්‌ථීරව ඉවත් කිරීම, ශිෂ්‍යභාවයෙන් ඉවත් කිරීම, අදාළ නිකායෙන් හෝ පාර්ශවයෙන් ඉවත් කිරීම සහ භික්‍ෂු ලියාපදිංචිය අවලංගු කිරීම අදාළ වරදට දඬුවම්ය.

මෙම පනත් කෙටුම්පතට අනුව එක්‌ එක්‌ ථෙරවාදී භික්‍ෂු නිකායේ හෝ පාර්ශවයේ කාරක සංඝ සභාව විසින් එම නිකායට හෝ පාර්ශවයට අදාළ කතිකාවක්‌ සකස්‌ කර සම්මත කර ගත යුතුය. ඉන් පසු එය එකී නිකායේ හෝ පාර්ශවයේ මහානායක හිමියන් විසින් අත්සන් කළ ප්‍රකාශයක්‌ සමඟ බෞද්ධ කටයුතු කොමසාරිස්‌වරයා වෙත ලියාපදිංචිය සඳහා යොමු කළ යුතුය.

බෞද්ධ කටයුතු කොමසාරිස්‌වරයා විසින් එය විශේෂඥ මණ්‌ඩලයත් වෙත ඉදිරිපත් කරනු ලබයි. මෙම විශේෂඥ මණ්‌ඩලය බෞද්ධ භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේලා තුන් නමකගෙන්, බෞද්ධ භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේට අදාළ විනය රීති පිළිබඳ දැනුම ඇති නීතිඥවරුන් දෙදෙනෙකුගෙන් සමන්විත විය යුතු බවද පනත් කෙටුම්පතේ දක්‌වා තිබේ.

විශේෂඥ මණ්‌ඩලයේ සහතිකය ලබා දුන් පසු බෞද්ධ කටයුතු කොමසාරිස්‌වරයා විසින් අදාළ කතිකාවත ලියාපදිංචි කළ යුතුය.

ඉන් පසු මෙම කතිකාවතේ විධිවිධාන එකී නිකායට හෝ පාර්ශවයට අයත් සෑම භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේ නමකටම අදාළ විය යුතුය. එකී කතිකාවතේ විධිවිධාන එම භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේ විසින් දැඩිව පිළිපැදිය යුතු බවද, ඊට අනුකූලව හැසිරිය යුතු බවද පනත් කෙටුම්පතේ සඳහන්ය.

මෙම කතිකාවතේ සඳහන් කලින් සඳහන් කළ විධිවිධාන භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේ නමක්‌ විසින් උල්ලංඝනය කළොත් අදාළ නිකායේ හෝ පාර්ශවයේ කාරක සංඝ සභාව විසින් පරීක්‍ෂණයක්‌ පැවැත්විය යුතුය. චෝදනා ලත් භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේටද කරුණු ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමට අවස්‌ථාව හිමි වේ.

චෝදනාවන්ට වරදකරු වන යම් භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේ නමකට කාරක සංඝ සභාව විසින් නියම කරන පෙරකී දඬුවම් පිළිපැදීම එම භික්‍ෂූන්වහන්සේ විසින් ප්‍රතික්‍ෂේප කරන්නේ නම් පනත යටතේද එම භික්‍ෂුව වරදකරු කර මහෙස්‌ත්‍රාත්වරයකු හමුවට ඉදිරිපත් කර රුපියල් පනස්‌ දහසකට නොඅඩු දඩයක්‌, හෝ මාස හයකට නොවැඩි සිර දඬුවමක්‌ හෝ එම දඬුවම් දෙකම හෝ ලබා දිය හැකිය.

යම් කිසි ලෙසකින් වරදකරුවකු වන භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේ නමක්‌ වෙනත් නිකායක්‌ හෝ පාර්ශවයක්‌ විසින් භාර ගැනීම හෝ භික්‍ෂුවක්‌ ලෙස ලියාපදිංචි කිරීම නොකළ යුතු බවද පනත් කෙටුම්පතේ දක්‌වා තිබේ.

පනත් කෙටුම්පතේ විධි විධාන ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීමේදී හෝ එය බලාත්මක කිරීමේදී ෙත්‍රෙනිකායික මහ නාහිමියන්ගේ තීරණය පරිදි භික්‍ෂූන් වහන්සේලාගේ සිවුරේ වර්ණය නියමිතව දැක්‌වීම සඳහා ද බෞද්ධ විෂය ඇමැතිවරයාට නියෝග සැදිය හැකිය.

මෙම පනත් කෙටුම්පත ශ්‍යාමෝපාලි මහා නිකාය, ශ්‍රී ලංකා අමරපුර මහා නිකාය සහ ශ්‍රී ලංකා රාමඤ්ඤ මහා නිකාය යන ථෙරවාදී සම්ප්‍රදායට අනුකූල තුන් නිකාය සහ එම නිකායන් යටතේ පිහිටුවන ලද පාර්ශවයන්ට අදාළ වන බවද සඳහන්ය.

මෙම පනත් කෙටුම්පතට අදාළ විවාදය ඉදිරි දිනක පැවැත්වීමට නියමිතය.