RE:
Reply to Damien K, " Sri Lankan specialist"-Asian Tribune
Prof. Damien Kingsley has chickened out of a media
interview
by
HLD Mahindapala
Dear Damien,
I am shocked and disappointed by your attempt to wriggle out of the
interview after agreeing to do so initially. The least you could have
done was to honour your own words. My suspicions (mentioned in my earlier
e-mail) that you were pushing me to provide you with samples of my writings
to get out of your commitment have been proved correct by your refusal
to live up to your promises. Your excuses confirm that you never intended
to be interviewed by me.
Let me deal with your excuses one by one. Taking a holier-than-thou
attitude you claim that your "total acceptance of cultural diversity"
is a hall mark of your broad-minded liberalism and superior academic
approach, implying, in the same breath, that I am not in the same class
as you are because I have not followed your example. Let me quote you:
"As I feared, to me your journalism does not seem to be that (i.e.,
accepting cultural diversity), but a polemic." I'll come to the "polemic"
part later. But let me deal with my not "accepting total cultural diversity".
You boast that you are a shining example of "cultural diversity" because
you "mix with ethnic communities" (who doesn't these days?) and "work
with people of diverse ethnic background" which has become the norm
after Australia dropped its "White Australia" policy in the '70s.
If you think that this is the highest you can achieve in proving your
academic superiority, objectivity and liberalism where would you place
of a journalist like me who is married to a Tamil from Jaffna and even
adopted a Tamil boy, my wife's nephew? Can you think of anything superior
than this to accept "total cultural diversity" in the Sri Lankan context?
You wouldn't expect a Nazi who has "an ideological axe to grind" (your
words) to marry a Jewess, would you? Compared to loving and living with
a Tamil, which has enhanced immeasurably my understanding of cultural
diversity, what's the big deal in your mixing with ethnic communities
to pursue your personal and political agendas? It can be argued that
in the case of your interactions with pro-Tiger Tamils you have stoked
the fires of division than multiethnic fusion and co-existence.
We Sri Lankans have been living in a multi-cultural society, long before
"multiculturalism" became a fashionable word to academics like you in
Australia. If you know anything about Sri Lanka you will find that the
multi-ethnic and multi-religious communities have lived with each other
in harmony centuries before the so-called Australian experts were even
a twinkle in their fathers' eyes. For example, take a look at the Sri
Lankan cricket team. It can be argued that Murali, a Tamil, escaped
throwing hand grenades because the multi-cultural Sri Lankan nation
opened the way for him to throw the dooshra. There are also Muslims
and Burghers in the team. So when Australian experts try to teach Sri
Lankans about multiculturalism it is like teaching grandmothers how
to suck eggs.
The fact is that the two communities are not divided, as some Australian
experts think, viscerally like the Arabs and the Jews. As you know the
majority of the Tamils live with the Sinhalese in the south without
any walls being erected to keep them out. Being opposed to the Tamil
Tiger terrorists (as labelled by the international community) is not
an indication of being anti-Tamil. Arguing against the erection of political
walls to divide communities is another confirmation of adhering to multiculturalism.
Cultural diversity, as I understand it, does not (and cannot) endorse
separatism. It is the negation of multiculturalism which encompasses
unity in diversity.
Now to the issue of "polemics": I plead guilty without any apologies.
If you know anything about polemics you will not doubt recall passages
like the following:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto
white sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within
full of dead men's bones and of uncleanness." – Mathew 23;27……… And:
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation
of hell" – Ibid, 23;33.
Please note, that in quoting the above I'm not referring to you though
some aspects of these Biblical strictures , particularly "appear beautiful
outward, but are within full of dead men's bones and of uncleanness"
describes your approach to the Sri Lankan crisis aptly. Judging from
your standards, you might consider these Biblical statements as "polemics"
or even "vitriolics". To me it's neither. I, in fact, like it. Somethings
have to be told as it is. In any case, I haven't gone to this extreme
in my writing which you dismiss as "polemics". I guess that if you were
one of the editors of the Bible who sat in Nicea in AD 325 to put it
together you would have censored these passages insisting that they
are too vitriolic..
Besides, the greatest issues of humanity have been articulated best
through polemics. Marx, Bernard Shaw, Dawkins, Pilger, Voltaire, Swift,
Germaine Greer – you name it – have expressed their arguments in polemics.
In case you are not aware of it, one of Greer's forthright essays was
titled: Lady love your cunt, followed by the first sentence: "Because
nobody else is going to." (The Madwoman's Underclothes – Picador, p.
74, 1986). This doesn't devalue the message or the impact of the message.
On the contrary, it enhances the meaning and the impact.
Without meaning to put myself into this elitist category, I must confess
that I just can't understand the fuss you're making about polemics.
Middleton Murray (husband of Katherine Mansfield) in his book on style
argued that a writer must be aware of many styles and pick the appropriate
one for the topic. For instance, I don't use "polemics" when I write
poetry, some of which have been published in leading literary magazines
in UK, Australia and Sri Lanka. If, however, polemics can hit the truth
more effectively than the insipid academic jargon then so be it. Isn't
it better to call a grave digger a grave digger than an underground
engineer?
As I see it, your objections to my "polemics" are purely to dodge the
interview you promised me. This is pathetic, to say the least. I believe
that the task of a public intellectual is to meet head-on those who
have "ideological axes to grind" instead of hiding behind puerile excuses.
Your contributions to The Age and interviews on ABC I believe are a
part of this exercise to challenge ideological fixations. So you have
no excuse to dodge an interview with me, whatever my ideological stances
may be. It places you in the bad light of a man running away from facing
the "hard talk".
.
Now let me deal with another shocker. You say: "I do not do interviews
with journalists. I don't know, unless I am convinced they don't have
an ideological axe to grind. Keep in mind that as well as being an academic,
I also have a BA and an MA in journalism (Columbia , New York), worked
as a journalist for 15 years, and lectured in journalism before moving
into a different area."
Question: 1. Can you kindly point out to me a public intellectual/journalist
of note who "does not have an ideological axe to grind?"
Question 2: Are you saying that you do not have an ideological axe
to grind? Let me tell you bluntly that you're the last person who can
claim objectivity (if such a thing exists) having being a fellow-traveller
with Thillai Jeyakumar, the God Father of Tamil Tiger terrorists in
Australia. Your eulogy (he died of a heart attack on the eve of a raid
on his house by Federal Police for his links with the Tiger terrorists
in Australia) bears ample testimony to your ideological bias. It even
oozes with sympathy for his separatist cause.
Both of you can be classified as ideological twins, committed to the
politics of Tamil Tiger terrorists, with some differences, of course.
Jeyakumar was an academic, like you, pretending to be an objective analyst
when in reality he was the spearhead of the Tamil Tiger terrorist movement
in Australia. You were a part of the same ideological bandwagon, singing
the same tune with some variations. Your eulogy was carried in a publication
commemorating Jeyakumar, your close buddy, along with that of Velupillai
Prabhkaran, who was labelled by the New York Times, as "the latest Pol
Pot of Asia". In the publication put out by the Australian Tamil Co-ordinating
Committee, Prabhakaran, wrote: "I take pride in bestowing upon him (Jeyakumar,
your buddy) the supreme and highest national honour of Maamanithar."
You could not have been unaware of Jeyakumar's direct links to Prabhakaran
and his cause. In fact, Prabhakaran confirms this in his eulogy to Jeyakumar,
your close buddy. Prabhakaran wrote: "In Australia, across the seas,
across continents, miles away from the homeland, he did inimitable,
utmost service for the liberation of his homeland. Respecting the political
and legal milieu of Australia, he worked with care and capability for
the advancement of our freedom struggle. He nurtured love for the Tamil
language and people, evoking awareness of our liberation struggle amongst
the Tamil in Australia and united them in support of our cause. He was
instrumental in the stablishment of "Tamil Kural" Radio in Australia
and the Tamil Co-ordinating Committee spreading its winds with branches
in many countries. His unassuming contribution towards the liberation
struggle will be forever worthy of high praise."
Translated, it means that he was Prabhakaran's chief agent in Australia.
You worked hand-in-glove with this agent of Prabhakaran. Your eulogy
echoes some of Prabhkaran's politics, though in different phrases. In
the light of this, I was wondering how you could accuse me of having
"ideological axes to grind"? It is a pity that you do not belong to
that group of enlightened academics who declare there ideological commitments
before they set out to preach to the world and prescribe unworkable
solutions. Such a statement declaring your political leanings would
give the public the opportunity to know the angle from where you come.
It is unethical, to say the least, for you to hide your political leanings
(as seen even in your latest article in The Age) and project your views
as that of an unbiased political analyst with impeccable academic credentials.
Those who know your background can not only see through your political
cover but also know the political line you are plugging. It is true
that you make some criticisms about the Tamil Tiger terrorists but these
comments come after "respecting the political and legal milieu" of the
Pol Potist dictatorship of Prabhkaran, to quote your buddy's leader.
.
What surprises me most is the following line: "I also have a BA and
an MA in journalism (Columbia , New York), worked as a journalist for
15 years, and lectured in journalism before moving into a different
area."
Please let me know whether in your lectures you laid down the law that
journalists with "ideological axes to grind" should not be given interviews
by public figures. In other words, according your dogma Woodward and
Bernstein who had "an axe to grind" against Nixon had no right to get
interviews with those in the Nixon camp, right? How can an ex-journalist
with a BA and MA in journalism dish out this kind of baloney?
Besides, I was very specific in my request. I asked for a "recorded
interview" which, in plain English means, Q & A. This is the common
practice in journalism. It's done all the time. A good example is BBC's
Hard Talk where the interviewer and the interviewee talk tough to each
other in exploring issues. I would have certainly commented on your
statements in a separate article. But the Q & A would stand on its own
to prevent you from accusing me of misrepresenting or distorting your
comments. I mentioned a "recorded interview" because neither party could
accuse the other of misrepresenting the issues discussed.
The funniest part of your argument is when you take the two samples
I sent at your request and concluding: "This is fine for an editorial
or commentary piece, but for that you do not require an interview."
I doubt very much that Columbia University which has a reputation for
studies in journalism would have taught that interviews are not necessary
for editorial or commentary pieces. Of course, leader writers and commentators
do not go out to interview those propounding punditry on various issues.
But they are dependent totally on the latest comments or interviews
given by the pundits to the print and electronic media. In fact, interviews,
even the door-stop ones, or the sound bites, are the lifeblood of journalism.
Besides, the solution you prescribe for Sri Lanka ("that there needs
to be serious compromise on both sides to reach a sustainable peace
in Sri Lanka, and I see none of that from either side") makes it imperative
that you spell out the details in an interview. You complain in one
e-mail that the Sri Lankans are not paying attention to your "solution"
and then when a Sri Lankan journalist seeks to explore more of it you
refuse to meet him on the flimsy excuse that you don't like his style
of writing. Are you serious? Or have you taken on a third role of a
comedian, after being (1) a journalist and (2) an academic?
Let me now deal with your solution "that there needs to be serious
compromise on both sides to reach a sustainable peace in Sri Lanka,
and I see none of that from either side." Apart from this being the
proverbial motherhood statement (one does need a Ph. D. in political
science to pass out this kind of academic flatulence) it is the height
of naivety. What is more, every mother's son who has poked his fingers
in the Sri Lankan pie has said the same thing over and over again before.
So what else is new, Damien? It is legitimate to ask: Is this the best
that research from the School of International and Political Studies,
Deakin University can produce?
Every objective analyst, with no "ideological axe to grind", has concluded
that it is the intransigence of the Tamil Pol Pot that is standing in
the way of arriving at a negotiated compromise. Prabhkaran is on record
saying that his guards should kill him if he fails to win Eelam – the
elusive separate state for Tamils. The last attempt of the Sri Lankan
government to compromise was in the Ceasefire Agreement of February
2, 2002. Witnessed by the international community, both Prabhakaran
and Ranil Wickremesinghe, the then prime minister, signed the Ceasefire
Agreement to end hostilities and co-exist in a federal system. Though
Prabhakaran's Chief Negotiator, Anton Balasingham, at Oslo agreed to
the federal formula it was shot down in flames by his Chief who refused
to budge from a separate state. And, predictably, Balasingham, too retracted
shortly afterwards.
In keeping with the logic of insisting on a separate state Prabhakaran
shot the Ceasefire Agreement to bits because it was an obstacle for
him t reach the next level of a separate state. The Nordic Ceasefire
Monitors recorded that 95% of the violations of the Ceasefire Agreement
was by the Tamil Tiger terrorists. So on what basis have you concluded
that both sides are not willing to compromise? As I can see it you are
deliberately distorting facts to suit your pro-Tiger agenda. Your rapping
the Tiger knuckles with a feather, which you call criticism, is to distribute
the blame among both parties when the available evidence confirms that
the blame lies solely with the uncompromising Tigers. One of my questions
was going to be: How do you propose to shake hands with Prabhakaran
who is holding a kalashnikov in one hand and hand grenade in the other?
Finally, you conclude your argument with me by objecting to the "vitriol"
thrown at him by other Sri Lankan organizations. Crying your heart out,
you say: "If this is how Tamils are treated in Sri Lanka, if I was a
Tamil I too would probably be opting for separation." In the cut and
thrust of any debate sparks fly and if you can't face them then you
must not enter the arena. Earlier, I've shown how the Bible flays the
sanctimonious humbugs pretending to be the holy ones. Whatever criticisms
leveled at you, Damien, they have not reached that kind of Biblical
wrath exploding with hell-fires and brimstones.
I also note that after objecting to my polemics, you have had no qualms
about throwing in some polemics of your own. I won't hold that against
you. In fact, I welcome it. But may I remind you that those who live
in glass houses should not drop their trousers too low.
You are mostly worried about some comments coming your way which you
are using as an excuse to opt for the separatist agenda of your buddy
Jeyakumar. But have you paused to consider the plight of Tamil parents
who live, day in day out, fearing the knock on their door which signals
the coming of agents of Pol Pot, like your friend Jeyakumar, to drag
under-aged children to fight in Prabhakaran's futile war? Unlike you
the Tamil parents are not opting for separatism. They are voting with
their feet to run away from the so-called de-facto state of Tamil Tigers
which you and your friend Jeyakumar tried in your separate ways to boost.
I think the time has come for you to drop your political pieties and
come out in your true colours, more so because you have neither the
grasp of the grass root realities nor any viable solution to the problem.
Your mantras are not going to work. If you don't believe me read the
attached the balanced and perceptive analysis from Clare Martenstyn,
Institute of Reaserch and Analaysis, Canberra. The writer has torn your
punditry and solutions to shreds. So isn't it time for you not to rush
into places where angels fear to tread?
Rgds
Mahinda
PS: Since you reneged on your promise to give me an interview I too
will breakaway from my earlier promise (at your request)not to circulate
our correspondence to the original recipients and others in the mailing
list.
----------------------------------------------
Institute of Research and Analysis, Canberra; Group 6 – Sri Lanka
Conflict – Dr Clare Martenstyn Jan 08
Page 1 of 4
Politics of Sri Lanka and LTTE terrorism
Clare Martenstyn, Institute of Research & Analysis, Canberra
Recent media reports and radio interviews related to terrorism in Sri
Lanka has been of academic and research interest. Dr Damien
Kingsbury's media article in the Melbourne 'Age' of 9 January 08 is
an
eye opener to the conflict and politics in the south Asian island
nation of Sri Lanka. The developments in Sri Lanka are complex at the
present time, and have been so in the recent past. A few comments
would help
academics and media to appreciate the views that have been expressed
in the media.
These observations are with particular reference to Dr Damien
Kingsbury's article and Radio Australia interview, and also with
reference to Dr Rohan Bastin's radio interviews. Further discussion
would certainly be of interest to many.
Sri Lanka Ceasefire Agreement (CFA)
The ceasefire agreement (CFA) signed by the Sri Lanka with the LTTE
in
February 2002 was facilitated by the Norwegian government. This
agreement allowed for the unilateral termination of the agreement on
14days notice given to the Norwegian's by either party, as per by CFA
Article 4.4 (Refwww.peaceinsrilanka.lk). The announcement to abrogate
the CFA was done by the Sri Lanka government on 3 January 08 in
Colombo and the abrogation was effective from 16 January 08.
LTTE's position hardened since the election of Mahinda Rajapakse as
President of Sri Lanka late 2005.LTTE Chief Velupillai Prabhakaran
declared in November 2006 his Hero's Day broadcast that 'efforts to
find a solution through negotiation is now defunct'. The Tamil Tiger
leader's view expressed at the LTTE Hero's day speech on a 28 November
is considered the guiding policy followed by his lieutenants, as such
statements come from the leader's, or 'sun god' as he is fondly known,
own mouth. Statements made to media and at public handshakes by
negotiators from time to time, have become of secondary importance.
During the existence of the CFA the two parties had six rounds of
inconclusive peace talks over a period of 5 years and 10 months up to
the date of termination of agreement on 16 January 08. Sri Lanka
Government exercised its discretionary right in the termination of the
CFA it considered fictitious, and, as an agreement verbally dumped
many times over by the leaders of the LTTE. To call it a 'unilateral
withdrawal' indeed would be a misleading term, without elucidating the
attitude and the statements of the LTTE leading to this date.
Sri Lanka's Socio- Economic Indicators
In his article, Kingsbury goes further to comment on the 'high
education, life expectancy and low infant and maternal mortality rates
in comparison to the 1970s, implying that these have been lost to Sri
Lanka today due to the conflict. Perhaps this needs some statistics
to
shore up. According to the 2004 statistics, Sri Lankans had a 92.5%
literacy rate and averaged a 74 year life expectancy, an infant
mortality rate of
11.1 per 1000 and maternal mortality of 1.9 per 1000. (www.gov.lk).
They have maintained these key social factors for over 25 years, in
spite of the tensions in the island having nearly the land area of
Tasmania.
Sri Lanka is also currently experiencing a rapid development in its
educational levels and has a highly educated and versatile young
labour force able to access and compete in foreign markets. Educated
and skilled Sri Lankans are valued in the Australian and New Zealand
immigration programmes. Many UK, Australian, NZ, Singapore, Chinese
and Russian universities and tertiary educational institutions have
collaborative educational programmes to capture this education market
in Sri Lanka. However, parts of the north and the east of Sri Lanka
which had been under the control of the LTTE indeed do not have these
freedoms, due to the hardships of the conflict burdened on them
including kidnappings, child soldiering, military operations, and
general disruptions to civilian life.
Communal Conflicts
Kingsbury also refers to 'communal and state violence answering ethnic
grievance'. Commentators would need to appreciate that the last round
of communal violence in Sri Lanka occurred in 1983 July, a good 25
years ago. The riots had occurred with spontaneity mainly in the
capital Colombo and the suburbs, and was Institute of Research and
Analysis, Canberra; Group 6 – Sri Lanka Conflict – Dr Clare
Martenstyn
Jan 08
Page 2 of 4
triggered by the funeral ceremony in Colombo of 13 Sri Lankan soldiers
blasted to death on the streets of Jaffna, in the northern peninsula.
These disturbances were tragically exacerbated by the inaction of
government in power at the time, the United National Party (UNP) of
President Jayawardena.
With due credit to Sri Lankans there had not been communal violence
between ethnic groups during the past 25 years in Sri Lanka, even in
the face of extreme provocation. Commentators would need to appreciate
that of the nearly 3 million Tamils resident in Sri Lanka, over 2.25
million live in communal harmony with other Sri Lankans. mostly in the
east, west, central and the south eastern area of the island.
There appears little justification for Kingsbury to state in the media
that 'communal violence answers ethnic grievances' in Sri Lanka.
LTTE and Sri Lanka Elections
Kingsbury also goes on to state that 'since Rajapakse (the present
President of Sri Lanka) there had been mounting attacks against the
Tamil Tigers in the east'. The LTTE in the east had split into two
groups, and entered internecine warfare since 2004. The renegade
commander Karuna Amman later entered the 'democratic' stream whilst
still carrying weapons, for its own protection. The violence and the
killings caused by both these LTTE groups since the signing of the CFA
are well documented, and the numbers surpass all violations caused by
the state forces by tenfold. It would have been appropriate for the
writer to state that the Norwegian led Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission
(SLMM) has recorded over 7000 violations by
the LTTE, as against approx 700 by the Sri Lankan forces. There is
evidence to say that the Sri Lanka government has provided covert
protection to the breakaway group as it provided no further military
threat.
The commentator touches on the effects of LTTE's influence on the
voting public in the north and the eastern provinces during the CFA
existence. In these areas it has been the 'gun to the head' discipline
of the LTTE that decided all voting patterns. The LTTE controlled
these areas during the Sri Lanka General Elections of 2004, and the
Sri Lanka Presidential Elections of late 2005.
As the writer correctly states President Rajapakse's election would
have been in grave doubt, had the LTTE not imposed a ban on voting.
Rajapakse ultimately received a razor thin majority. The voting from
the north and the east would undoubtedly have been favour of his
opponent Ranil Wickremasinghe of the UNP, who he championed the
signing of Sri Lanka's ceasefire agreement with the LTTE which many
Tamils favoured.
Further, Rajapakse's chances of winning were damned well in advance
due to the reluctance of the outgoing Sri Lankan President Chandrika
Kumaratunga's failure to endorse his candidature. There is further
evidence to say that sections of her ruling Sri Lanka Freedom Party
was at loggerheads with Rajapakse at the time of his election, and
therefore he had to seek the assistance and the coalition of the more
nationalistic parties.
Previously in 2004, the LTTE engineered the general election in the
north and the east. Of the 22 members of the LTTE proxy the Tamil
National Alliance (TNA) now in Sri Lanka's parliament, three winning
members scored an unprecedented 94% of the votes. The voter turnouts
had been paltry in the terrorist occupied areas. Further, many
opposing candidates were threatened by the LTTE from appearing in
public,
and a few were even prevented from casting their own vote. At least
one candidate from the democratic UNP was assassinated by the LTTE in
the east at the in 2004 elections.
East of Sri Lanka and the Sinhalese
Kingsbury has made a serious misleading statements in 'As government
forces pushed into traditionally Tamil eastern Sri Lanka, Tamils have
been displaced, their land subsequently occupied by majority
Sinhalese'. The east of Sri Lanka is ethnically well balanced as per
the latest population census and the previous government census taken
in 1971, prior to the armed conflict.
It has approx a third of its population each of Tamils, Sinhalese and
Muslims. The east of Sri Lanka has been traditionally occupied by the
Sinhalese, who own over 52% of the land area, even after four
centuries of European colonial occupation of the coastal regions.
Large areas of the north and the east, excepting the northernmost
Jaffna peninsula were sparsely populated as late as early 20 century,
and the east has had no significant Tamil population. Immigration to
these areas commenced in the late 19 and early 20 century with the
resettlement incentives of the British colonial government.
Institute of Research and Analysis, Canberra; Group 6 – Sri Lanka
Conflict – Dr Clare Martenstyn Jan 08 Page 3 of 4
During the late 19 century immigrants from India were encouraged by
the British to settle in the north and the east, which had been
vacated by the Sinhalese who sought protection from European invasions
in the hinterland. (Lewis). By 1901, the Jaffna peninsula became the
springboard for immigrants to Sri Lanka from Tamil Nadu, Kerala in
India and as far away as Afghanistan. This is evidenced by the fact
that 88%
of the population of Sri Lanka's Northern Province were concentrated
on the northern Jaffna peninsula.
(Census 1901).
Language Use in Sri Lanka
Kingsbury's assertion that Tamil has been excluded by the use of
Sinhalese language is flawed. The use of Tamil as a national language
was allowed under the Official Languages Act (Special Provisions) in
the early 1960s. Tamil is a national language/official language only
in two other nations in the world viz. State of Tamil Nadu in India
and in Singapore.
Sinhalese has been the native language of Sri Lanka, and is today
spoken or understood by over 90% of the population. The commercial and
business fraternity throughout Sri Lanka are well interspersed with
Tamils and Muslims who earn their living trading with the Sinhalese
who constitute 74% of the population. The language used in dealing or
trading with the Sinhalese is none other than the Sinhalese language.
Further, approximately 85% of the Tamils in Sri Lanka live amongst
the
Sinhalese, and, outside the Jaffna Peninsula and those northern areas
currently under the control of the LTTE.
At the time of independence, there was no other language that had
precedence over Sinhalese as an official language. At the time Ceylon
gained independence after 133 years of subjugation to the British as
a
Crown Colony, an estimated 4 to 7% of the population were conversant
in the English language. Similar percentages of proficiency are quoted
by various independent sources.
British Colonials and a Federal Solution
Kingsbury states 'In large part, the origins of this conflict can be
traced to the colonial British leaving Sri Lanka, then Ceylon, in 1948
as a unitary state.' The statement appears simplistic. The British
colonial administration continually felt political pressure from
affluent Tamil minority groups of the northern peninsula, as the
English education of the native population took root. Since the 1920s
ethnic groups who
were principally establishing themselves on the riches of colonization
of the entire island, were claiming a far greater share of ethnic
representation based on their English education than what was deserved
by their ethnic populations. Although the British maintained a
divisive nature within native representation in state
affairs, they progressively paved the way for Ceylon to be self
governed. The stages of self government commenced with the Donoughmore
Commission's State Council of 1933.
Nations that are constituted of federal states have been formed
essentially due to the coming together of several independent states.
Federalism has been successful in Australia, US, UK, India and in many
other countries. In Sri Lanka, invasions and trading with South India
led to the establishment of a Tamil settlement in the Jaffna peninsula
around the 13 century. Historical evidence states that this kingdom
as
with many other sub kingdoms in Ceylon at the time, had evolved due
to
internal conflict in southern Sri Lanka. These sub kingdoms survived
only a short period of time in history, and saw their decay with the
Portuguese occupation of Colombo in 1520. Jaffna peninsula was of no
immediate commercial interest to the Portuguese.
In the tail end of British occupation of Ceylon, the Soulbury
Commission of 1944 recommended independence on a British Dominion
model in 1948. It also accepted the liberal democratic tradition of
'one man one vote', and rejected the strong representation made by
affluent ethnic minorities to restrict the voting to the English
educated. The numbers of English educated in the Tamil and Sinhalese
communities
were comparable at the time, although the island had about 80%
Sinhalese and 12% Tamils.
Finsbury in his Radio Australia interview states quite erroneously,
that Rajapakse (the current President of Sri Lanka) has not indicated
at any stage that he wishes to return to negotiations'. The repetitive
statements made by the President, and senior Ministers are to the
contrary. However, there have been clear instances where the senior
government Ministers and officials have taken a hardline stance due
to
the incessant attacks on civilians by the LTTE since mid 2006. The
current spate of attacks against civilians since December 2007 appears
to coincide with the end of the ceasefire agreement announced on the
3
Jan 08.
Institute of Research and Analysis, Canberra; Group 6 – Sri Lanka
Conflict – Dr Clare Martenstyn Jan 08 Page 4 of 4
LTTE uniting Sri Lanka on a Federal or Confederal status
The statement on national radio on the possibility of the LTTE's
coming back to form a federal or
confederal union with the south is nothing but the furthest from the
truth. As stated in the interview 'What
the Tamil Tigers are looking for I think and what they would accept
is
the creation of a state, some sort of
Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka, and then coming back
into a federated or confederated
political structure with the rest of the country.' This appears to
be
more of an aspiration of the
commentator. However, it needs to be stated that a federal state is
the aspiration of many leading Tamil
statesmen, government ministers and politicians, but it is certainly
not the intention of the Tamil Tigers.
Such statements also clearly demonstrate the confusion already created
by baseless propagated views - that
the Tamil Tigers represent the voice of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.
The views of the majority Tamil
people of Sri Lanka and the views of the LTTE are not coincident. The
Tamil Tigers have never moved
away from their demand for an independent sovereign state in Sri
Lanka, whereas the majority of Tamils
seek a power devolution model. Every academic would need to appreciate
the separation between the two.
At the initial stages of the peace talks in 2002 the intention to move
towards a federal solution was jointly
declared in Oslo, however this was quickly vetoed by the actions of
the LTTE leader Prabhakaran. Since
the Thimphu talks of 1985, and as commented by prominent analysts,
Prabhakaran has at no stage declared
his intention to be short of an independent Tamil nation. Further the
United States FBI report of January
2008 'Taming the Tamil Tigers' elucidates these observations - 'Its
(Tamil Tigers) ultimate goal: to seize
control of the country from the Sinhalese ethnic majority and create
an independent Tamil state.'
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan08/tamil_tigers011008.html
Rohan Bastin too in his ABC Breakfast Stories has commented of 'bloody
civil war again'. The distinction
needs to be made between the LTTE and the Tamil population in Sri
Lanka – they are not synonymous.
There has not been a civil war in Sri Lanka, and approx 85% of the
Tamils live amongst other Sri Lankans
and get about their daily lives. Although the comment was made in the
radio talk 'A Norwegian brokered
ceasefire brought relative peace in 2002, but has been repeatedly
abused by both sides in recent years', the
violations of the CFA by the state cannot be put into the same basket.
90% of the violations have been
committed by the LTTE, and are of grave nature of targeting civilian
populations and regular kidnappings
for child soldiering.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Clare Martenstyn is a visiting academic to the Institute and is
currently engaged in researching the complex nature of the Sri Lanka
conflict. Her interests are the origins of the conflict and the
underlying claims to a Tamil nation in Sri Lanka.
To register further interest in the discussion or in academic papers
of The Institute of Research and Analysis, Canberra; Group 6 –
Sri
Lanka Conflict, please send an email to
analysis canberra@gmail.com Feedback for furthering academic and
journalistic knowledge on the discipline is appreciated.
-------------------
PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROF. KINGSBURY
-----Original Message-----
From: Damien Kingsbury [mailto:dlk@deakin.edu.au]
Sent: 06 April 2008 10:18
To: Mahindapala Don
Subject: RE: Reply to Damien K, " Sri Lankan specialist"-Asian
Tribune
Dear Mahinda,
Your assumption that I require from you anything different to any
other journalist is mistaken. I do not do interviews with journalists
I don't know, unless I am convinced they don't have an ideological axe
to grind. Keep in mind that as well as being an academic, I also have
a BA and an MA in journalism (Columbia , New York), worked as a
journalist for 15 years, and lectured in journalism before moving into
a different area.
I am offended at your suggestion that my concerns over your
journalistic standards have anything to do with other than
journalistic standards. I grew up in a mixed ethnic community and
continue to work with people of diverse ethnic backgrounds. I have
actually been criticised by others I consider racists for my total
acceptance of cultural diversity.
As I feared, to me your journalism does not seem to be that, but a
polemic. It does not seek to exclude your opinion - the first rule of
journalism, but is based entirely around it. This is fine for an
editorial or commentary piece, but for that you do not require an
interview.
My view was and remains that there needs to be serious compromise on
both sides to reach a sustainable peace in Sri Lanka, and I see none
of that from either side. Interestingly, though, when I criticise the
LTTE position - and believe me i do, and quite openly - my Tamil
coleagues do not always agree, but they do not respond with the
vitriol that I have encountered on the part of members of SPUR and
some other in Sri Lanka. If this is how Tamils are treated in Sri
Lanka, if I was a Tamil I too would probably be opting for separation.
So thanks, but I think I will decline your offer of an interview.
Cheers,
Damien
Quoting Mahindapala Don <mahinda8@bigpond.com:
Dear Damien,
As requested I'm deleting the others in the mailing list.
I must also mention that I'm puzzled, to say the least, as to why
you insist
on me sending you copies of my writings when you can sample it on your
own,
as any research scholar would do, with easy access to material on the
Google. Besides, I wonder whether you would impose similar conditions
to a
journalist, say, from The Age. In my entire career as a journalist you
are
the first to make such demands. Could it be because an Asian journalist,
in
your mind, has less credentials/capabilities than a Caucasian and must
be
put to the test before getting an audience from you? For you to insist
on
sampling my writings, even after mentioning the signposts of my journalistic
career, smacks of a bias which is unwarranted from an academic of your
standing.
Anyway, to put your mind at rest I am forwarding two samples. I guess
you do
not expect me to produce any more. If you want more I am sure you know
where
to find them.
I am prompted to draw your attention to the above because I sense
(and I
hope I'm wrong) that you have either adopted a superior attitude to
put me
off or you are throwing up unnecessary obstacles to avoid the interview.
Please note, that this is not written to be confrontational but to
clear any
doubts you may entertain before meeting me for the agreed interview.
I'm
sure we both can engage in a productive discourse when we meet.
Hope the two samples (see below) would present to you adequate information
to draw your own conclusions about me.
I would thank you to kindly let me know dates, times and a place where
we
could meet. We could adjust the dates and times to suit the convenience
of
both.
Regards
Mahinda
.
A PATHETIC EDITORIAL OF THE DAILY NEWS
BY H.L.D. MAHINDAPALA
Your editorial ("We are all one" - 28/12/2004) is worse than
the tsunami
that hit the nation. The editorial writer is obviously a Christian who
believes that this is God's work to unite the nation. He wrote: "Perhaps
God
wants us to realise that we are one country, one people whether we may
be
Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim or Burgher." If God was really that serious
about
uniting the people, all what he had to do was to send one of His divine
e-mails to Prabhakaran and convey this message. Why must he kill 25,000
people to make people realise that they are one? There is some perverse
logic in this editorial. According to the editorial writer's argument,
everything must be attributed to God, including the creation of Prabhakaran,
a pathological killer who has been the cause of 65,000 deaths. He is
on a
killing spree not to unite but to divide. So isn't it the moral duty
of a
merciful God to convince Prabhakaran first instead of killing another
25,000
just to make the people realise that we are one country. Can this writer
be
real?
In reality, the Daily News editorial writer is insulting God by portraying
God as a ruthless killer. He is saying that God must kill - or do a
Prabhakaran - to unite people. Can the killing of another 25,000 and
a
prayer from the Daily News help to get one terrorist group to give up
arms
and work together with the rest of the nation? In any case, how many
prayers
have been sent to God in how many churches pleading with God to unite
the
people and stop the war? The Daily News editorial writer is the latest.
If
God has not listened to the millions of other prayers what makes the
Daily
News think that God will listen to its prayers?
Having said that killing is God's work to unite the people the writer
concludes by invoking God to save mother Lanka. How can God save mother
Lanka when he couldn't even stop the tsunami that raced across the India
Ocean to devour the lives of innocent babies and helpless people in
wheel
chairs? God had two hours from the time it started in Indonesia to stop
it
while the people didn't have even five minutes to escape.
As a Christian the writer should also know that the Churches have
been
praying for two millennia for peace and after all that what we find
is
Popes, archbishops, cardinals and other Churchmen blessing armies going
to
war. We even find bishops like Rev. Jebanesan promising to produce a
special
theology for Tamils as if the Sinhala Christians are not children of
God. If
God can't unite his own divided Church from the time of Jesus how can
he
unite Prabhakaran and the other peace-loving communities with a prayer
from
the Daily News?
The absolute lack of realism in this editorial - a pathetic one that
I've
ever read in my life - indicates the level to which journalism has sunk.
If
the founding father of Lake House, the distinguished Cambrian, D. R.
Wijewardene, was living no amount of this writer's prayers would have
saved
his job. The declining standards of journalism - not to mention the
intellectual capacity of some leader writers to comprehend the complexities
of the world in which they live - give no promise of hope for the future.
He
will continue to write this arrant nonsense because those at the top
at Lake
House neither seem to be aware of journalistic standards or genuine
concern
for the people who are wondering whether God had gone on a vacation
to some
other resort where there are no tsunamis.
BACK TO LATEST NEWS <http://www.lankaweb.com/news/latest.html
DISCLAIMER <http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items01/disclaimer.htm
Copyright C 1997-2004 www.lankaweb.Com Newspapers Ltd
<http://www.lankaweb.com . All rights reserved.
Reproduction In Whole Or In Part Without Express Permission is Prohibited.
.
OSLO DECLARATION GOING DOWN THE VANNI DRAINS - (18. 11. 2004)
by H.L.D.Mahindapala
The history of the north-south relations is saturated with the north
blaming
the south for everything that went wrong in the post-independence era.
Every
failure of the peace talks in the past too were blamed on the south
with the
NGOs manufacturing excuses justifying the northern claims. Now at last,
after the Oslo Declaration, they are finding it rather difficult to
blame
the "chauvinist Sinhalese" because it was witnessed and signed
by the
international community - the independent third party. If they renege
on the
Oslo Declaration (it is an incorrigible habit with the LTTE) then it
is
their political allies in the UNP and Norway who will have to face the
music. The LTTE is hoping that they could wriggle out by demanding a
"consensus" in the south. Norway and the UNP (hereinafter
referred to as
N-UNP) are repeating the LTTE line with the intention bailing out all
three
signatories. But N-UNP are in a bind. Both parties will either have
to stick
to their triumphalist claim of getting the LTTE to sign an agreement
to
abide by "a federal formula within a united Sri Lanka", or
admit that they
have been taken for a grand ride by the LTTE.
In the current phase, the LTTE is not only denying that there is a
commitment by all parties to a federal solution, as stated in the Oslo
Declaration, but also insisting that talks should begin on the Interim
Self-Governing Administration (ISGA). Accepting one is an automatic
rejection of the other. They have two basic arguments: First, they claim
that ISGA is important to them as a humanitarian instrument to ease
the
condition of the Tamil people by bringing home the peace dividends.
Second,
there is no consensus in the southern polity for a final solution and,
therefore, the ISGA should be given priority over the final solution
spelt
out in the Oslo Declaration.
This turns the Oslo Declaration into a hot potato in the hands of
N-UNP.
They would dearly love to drop Oslo and focus on the ISGA - the preferred
option of the LTTE. Because this option is not available at the moment
they
have diverted attention to demand a "consensus" only from
the southern
polity. This issue is now cranked up by the LTTE as priority number
one in
their political agenda. A good sample of this new agenda of the LTTE
was
reported in the TamilNet, its mouthpiece: "The so called 'Sinhala
Consensus'
is a perfidious mirage. It is now time for the Tamil people to call
the
bluff and prepare to forge ahead on their own", said Mr. Senathirajah
Jeyanandamoorthy, TNA MP for Batticaloa, speaking to TamilNet Monday
about
Colombo's reaction to the latest proposal by the LTTE to restart the
long
stalled peace talks in Sri Lanka. (November, 15, 2004).
Not surprisingly, the N-UNP are repeating the LTTE line of needing
a
consensus in southern politics to settle the north-south conflict. The
Sunday Times (November 14, 2004) reported that Erik Solheim had raised
the
issue of a consensus in the south at a meeting with the President. But
he
was shot down in flames when Foreign Minister, Lakshman Kadirgamar,
asked
him to name one democracy where he could find consensus. Solheim just
couldn't name one. An equally pertinent question to Solheim would have
been
to ask him why he, as a co-signatory to the Oslo Declaration, can't
produce
a consensus either on the meaning or the intent of the Oslo Declaration.
G.
LTTE Peiris says that in Oslo "all parties agreed to a federal
solution
within a united Sri Lanka". Anton Balasingham, the other signatory,
says
that there was no such agreement. So why is N-UNP demanding consensus
from
the southern polity when they can't produce a simple consensus on their
own
Oslo Declaration?
It is quite apparent that it is the failure of N-UNP to produce a
"consensus" on their Oslo Declaration that has caused the
current impasse.
The reality is that even if the government closes rank it cannot progress
because there is no consensus among the signatories on the Oslo Declaration.
As for the UNP, instead of demanding a consensus within the UPFA it
should
give the lead to establish a consensus with the government by backing
its
own Oslo Declaration. After all, if the government is willing to open
talks
on the Oslo Declaration, UNP has a moral, legal and political obligation
to
provide consensus by backing its own formula, whatever divisions there
may
be in the ranks of the government. As one of the leading authors of
the Oslo
Declaration it is the primary duty of the UNP to establish a consensus
in
the southern polity by extending its unreserved cooperation to the
government. But their tactic is to divert attention from the lack of
"consensus" among themselves on th eir grand formula to settle
the
north-south conflict to a lack of consensus in the government ranks.
Focusing on the lack of consensus in the ranks of the government is
also
another way of backing the LTTE on its demand for the ISGA. Their
manoeuvering gives more credence to the ISGA than their own creation
in
Oslo.
The bottom line, however, is that there is no consensus either in
the ranks
of the government or the signatories to the Oslo Declaration. But on
this
issue, the proverbial buck stops in Oslo and not in Colombo. So when
N-UNP
insist on "consensus" within the ranks of the government they
are not only
putting the cart before the horse but also attempting to escape their
responsibilities of holding the LTTE to the letter and the spirit of
the
Oslo Declaration. They have forfeited the right to ask for political
consensus from the people in the south because N-UNP cannot guarantee
consensus on the meaning, the intent and the implementation of their
formula
for peace.
This Oslo Declaration was supposed to have come with iron cast guarantees
from the international community and if they cannot stand steadfastly
by
their own agreement can the people of the south be expected to accept
their
word? If the international community, the UNP and the LTTE - three pillars
of the Oslo peace formula - cannot arrive at a consensus on the contents
and
implications of their own Oslo Declaration who else can secure the future
of
the Muslims, the dissident Tamils and southern people? In any case,
it is
now apparent that the implementation of the Oslo Agreement which was
hailed
a big breakthrough is not likely to take off the ground fundamentally
because there is no consensus on what the Oslo Declaration means and
who
should be held responsible for its implementation. Not knowing which
way to
go, the N-UNP are demanding a governmental "consensus" to
pass the buck. It
is, most of all, an admission that the Oslo Declaration is going the
same
way as Neville Ch amberlain's Munich agreement with Hitler. Or to localize
it, it is going the same way as Prabhakaran's agreement with Rajiv Gandhi!
The track record of LTTE has been to keep on talking to avoid talking
on the
core issues. Or when they are confronted with the core issues they will
throw up impossible demands to avert facing the inevitable. As a last
resort
they might even start Eelam War IV to avoid talking on the formula agreed
upon in Oslo. Consider first their demand for ISGA. Apart from gaining
legitimacy to run an administration of the LTTE, by the LTTE for the
LTTE it
is a move to stall the talks. Predictably, the key operators are embroiled
in discussing the pros and cons of the ISGA ignoring the only agreement
that
has come with international guarantees. Then there is their demand for
"a
consensus in the south". This is merely a ruse to dodge the pressures
coming
from the Oslo Declaration. Also, with this demand for "consensus
in the
south" they are merely running rings round the international community
like
the way they did to India. They played out India by first making Rajiv
Gandhi believe that they are on his side and later took him on militarily.
Not satisfied with that they bided their time and eliminated totally.
Those
who preached that "Blessed are the peace-makers" never counted
on the LTTE,
did they?
Anyway, the LTTE will find it very difficult to do what they did to
Rajiv
Gandhi to members of the international community. So they are treating
them
as jokers for the moment. Erik Solheim and Jan Petersen think that they
are
smart salmon-eaters experienced in conflict resolution. But Prabhakaran
knows that he can string them along and prolong the conflict going on
as
long as he wants, with some excuses manufactured by the NGO pundits
like
Jehan Perera, A. T. Ariyaratne, Jaydeva Uyangoda et al. All what he
has to
do is to keep them amused with an occasional appearance and send them
home
empty handed. Yasushi Akashi, Chris Patten, Jan Petersen and numerous
Western diplomats have come and gone taking back what?
At this critical juncture the international community has to decide
whether
they are going to stand by their own declaration in Oslo or are they
going
to be distracted and fall for the demands of the LTTE. There is certainly
no
doubt that consensual politics should be given due consideration. But
it
should not be confined to the narrow limits demanded by the LTTE. The
LTTE
demand for a consensus from the southern polity is a red herring drawn
to
deflect the focus away from the broader consensus that is needed to
work out
a durable peace. For N-UNP to insist on "consensus" from the
southern polity
alone is neither in keeping with the basic principles of consensual
politics
nor will it produce the desired results in the long run. There has to
be a
broader consensus, including the dissident Tamils and the marginalized
Muslims for a lasting peace. The granting of equal weightage to all
those
having a stake in the peace process is the only way to weld a viable
consensus. A narrow consensus between the JVP and the SLFP is a non-starter
unless there is consensus among Norway, UNP and the LTTE, to begin with.
After that consensus must grow to embrace the other groups as well.
Besides, before demanding a consensus from the south it is relevant
to ask
whether there is a consensus in the north and the Tamil-speaking people
in
the north and the east. The pressures brought on the southern electorate
by
N-UNP demanding a consensus also implies that the show of "consensus"
put on
by the LTTE expresses the general will of the Tamil people. In other
words,
they assume that the claim of the LTTE to be the "sole representative
of the
Tamils" is the Tamil version of consensual politics. But political
observers
agree that it is nothing but the imposition of will of one man. The
dissident Tamil political parties and the break-away Karuna group challenge
this N-UNP version of "consensual" Tamil politics. The new
rising wave of
anti-LTTE forces within the Tamil ranks do not give legitimacy either
to the
concept of "the sole representative of the Tamils" or to the
"consensus"
claimed by the LTTE. If N-UNP are genuinely committed to consensual
politics
(which is c ertainly legitimate and the need of the hour) then it cannot
stop at merely surrendering to the specious claim of "consensual
Tamil
politics" put up by LTTE. Consensus is not attained by suppressing
the will
of the people. N-UNP, hopefully, are fully aware that "consensus"
grows out
of roots like a flower that blooms naturally in a free and congenial
environment. Their crime is in their desperate bid to legitimize the
"consensus" that comes out of a gun.
The other aspect emphasized by the LTTE is the urgent need for ISGA
(even
before a federal solution, as outlined in the Oslo Declaration) to provide
humanitarian assistance to the displaced Tamil people who are yet to
reap
the benefits of peace. Though the aim is commendable, this aspect needs
to
be examined further to explore whether the LTTE can deliver humanitarian
assistance with or without the ISGA. For instance, the LTTE has never
shown
any lack of resources and skill to wage a prolonged war against all
other
communities and its own Tamil people. Only when it comes to delivering
goods
and services to its own suffering people does it cry for international
and
humanitarian help. It also claims to run a de facto state with forcible
recruitment Tamil children (a war crime), engage in ethnic cleansing
of 72,
000 Muslims from Jaffna, to destroy 150 Muslim places of worship, to
liquidate Tamil dissidents, to levy taxes (30-40 million a day, according
to
some estimates), to ru n police stations, etc., etc. So if it can run
an
administration on this scale - particularly to kill, destroy, violate
humanitarian and international laws - why is it in need of an ISGA to
deliver humanitarian assistance to the Tamil people?
It is either they are totally incompetent in delivering elementary
goods and
services to their people or they are harping on "humanitarian services"
to
cover up their hidden agenda. Even a cursory glance at the ISGA will
reveal
that it is defined as an instrument to reinforce the powers of the LTTE
as a
fascist killing machine and not as a deliverer of humane assistance.
Besides, demanding an ISGA as a tool to deliver humanitarian assistance
runs
counter to their claim of being a mighty power that had taken on the
India
etc. If they have all the skills, resources and global networks to shop
in
the international underworld for bullets, guns, hand grenades and all
other
instruments of war by what logic can they argue that they are totally
helpless when it come getting a tin of milk for babies, or medicine
for the
sick, or rice or parippu (lentils) for their own people? If they have
the
means to send handpicked suicide bombers to kill their opponents why
can't
they find some skills to re habilitate their displaced people? Sudar
Oli
recently hailed Prabhakaran as Lord Krishna who is about to establish
the
"regime of dharma.. by liberating the Tamil people from the thralldom
of the
modern-day "Narakasura", namely the Sinhala-dominated Sri
Lanka state".
(Hindustan Times - Novemeber 11, 2004). Does this mean that he will
preside
in his elusive "regime of Eelamist dharma" as the lord of
death and
destruction and not as the lord of bread and satisfaction?
This is not a war that anyone wants. This is the unwanted war launched
officially by the Tamil leadership when they passed the Vaddukoddai
Resolution in 1976. This is the war that was launched and perpetuated
by the
Tamil leadership. The fathers of separatism encouraged their "boys"
to
acquire skills in violence. They manufactured ideological myths and
demonized the "other" (namely, the Sinhalese) in their hate
campaigns to
mislead Tamil youth into violence. They whipped up mono-ethnic extremism
in
the northern electorates blaming their failure to co-exist in a
multicultural society with the Sinhalese who had shared the land for
centuries in comparative harmony with all minorities. Political records
reveal that the internal failures of the Tamil leadership, competing
with
each other for supremacy, were driving them into mono-ethnic extremism.
It
was the only means by which they could survive competitive electoral
politics.
For example, 1970 was a turning point in the northern electorate when
the
stalwarts of the Tamil State party (Dr. E. M. V. Naganathan, Appapillai
Amirthalingam, S. M. Rasamanickam) lost their seats. Even S. J. V.
Chelvanayakam was returned with a reduced majority. Their next move,
especially those of firebrands like Amirthalingam, was to the take the
electorate to the extreme end of the violent Vaddukoddai Resolution.
They
financed, propagated, organized, legitimized and led the violence of
the
north against all other communities. When the leadership of Jaffna,
which
was in the hands of the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kachchi (Tamil State Party
disguised as the Federal Party), was defeated in the 1970 elections
in
Jaffna they pushed the electorate to further extremism by passing the
Vaddukoddai Resolution - the only community to declare war officially
on
other communities in Sri Lanka. This extremism paid off instant dividends.
The Tamil State Party returned en bloc. But it was short lived.
Amirthalingam paid dearly as victim of the violence he launched in
the
Vaddukoddai Resolution. Chelvanayakam, who endorsed every word in the
Vaddukoddai Resolution, escaped this sentence by dying before his "boys"
could get him.
Today the Tamil community is paying for the sins of their political
fathers
that relied on superior racist ideologies backed by extreme violence.
The
frustrated Tamil youth (like the Sinhala youth in 1971 and 1998-1990)
took
up arms in the hope of finding a economic salvation. The educated Sinhala
youth turned to a localized rendition of Marxism and the Jaffna youth
took
to racism. Both "isms" appealed to the disillusioned youth.
The LTTE took
over from their political fathers first by liquidating their political
fathers. But they haven't given up the habit of their political fathers
of
blaming the "other", the "chauvinist Sinhalese."
Predictably, they are
blaming the "Sinhala chauvinist" government for the lack of
humanitarian
services to the displaced Tamil people. Like father like son. If they
are
expressing a compassionate desire to deliver humanitarian assistance
in
their demand for the ISGA they should prove their bona fides by first
agreeing to talk peace on the Oslo Declaration. In the last analysis,
it is not ISGA that can deliver humanitarian assistance to the Tamils
and other victims of a needless war
but peace - probably peace based on their signed and sealed agreement
in
Oslo. Without peace the ISGA will be another instrument of war. Is this
what
the Tamil and other communities want?
So the plain but critical question that Anton Balasingham and Prabhakaran
must answer on the coming Hero's Day oration is: if they have the capacity
to buy guns without an ISGA why can't they buy bread without an ISGA?
Copyright C 1997-2004 www.lankaweb.Com Newspapers Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Reproduction In Whole Or In Part Without Express Permission is Prohibited.
-----Original Message-----
From: Damien Kingsbury [mailto:dlk@deakin.edu.au]
Sent: 05 April 2008 14:10
To: Mahindapala Don
Cc: 'Ranjith Soysa'; 'John Ball'; agee@ncca.org.au; 'Nimal Liyanage';
'ProfDavid CamCA'; 'tissawarusawithana'
Subject: RE: Reply to Damien K, " Sri Lankan specialist"-Asian
Tribune
Dear Mahinda,
I have asked you to send me copies of your work - it is not up to me
to try to track down work you have done, and to soft through it. It
is
you, not me, who is requesting the interview.
This discussion does not concern other people. Please delete them
from further communication.
Thanks,
Damien
Quoting Mahindapala Don <mahinda8@bigpond.com:
Dear Damien,
Thanks for your response. I will certainly get in touch with you in
due
course for an interview at a mutually convenient time and date.
As for the examples of my work, may I kindly request you to Google
my name
which will give you a cross-section of my recent commentaries.
May I also assure you that I have no intention of assassinating your
character of which I know very little. I am only interested in separating
fact from fiction as indicated in your reply to Ranjth. As an academic
I
believe that you will have no objection to this.
You "could (also) count on (your) comments being reported as
such, as they
are by other media...." You and I have been interviewed by "other
media"
and we know how our comments have been reported. I can assure you that
I will
adhere to their standards.
Regards
Mahinda
-----Original Message-----
From: Damien Kingsbury [mailto:dlk@deakin.edu.au]
Sent: 04 April 2008 18:11
To: Mahindapala Don
Cc: 'John Ball'; 'Stephen Wheatcroft'; 'acfid'; agee@ncca.org.au;
'Nimal
Liyanage'; 'tissawarusawithana'; 'ProfDavid CamCA'
Subject: RE: Reply to Damien K, " Sri Lankan specialist"-Asian
Tribune
Derar Mahinda,
It may be for technical reasons, but I have never received any request
from you for an interview.
I would happily accede to an interview, assuming I could count on
my
comments being reported as such, as they are by other media on a
range of subjects. I would be less interested if this was just an
opportunity to engage in character assassination.
Perhaps, to that end, you might send me some examples of your work.
BTW, I c.c.ed you into the reply because you were in the original
list the offending e-mail was sent to.
Cheers,
Damien
Quoting Mahindapala Don <mahinda8@bigpond.com:
Dear Damien,
Thanks for sending me a copy of the e-mail sent to Ranjith.
I am intrigued as to why you included me in your mailing list after
ignoring
repeated requests on several occasions earlier for an interview on the
Sri Lankan issue. I notice that you have had no hesitation in fronting
up
before Australian media but you have refused to even send me a reply,
either
way, acknowledging my requests. Perhaps, you have an explanation for
this.
However, this can be repaired if you could kindly grant me an interview
in which I would like to explore your perspectives, facts, and analyses.
As
an expert on Sri Lankan issues I would fail to see why you would shy
away
from facing a journalist from Sri Lanka. I still contribute to Sri Lankan
media
and since you have objections to the Asian Tribune I could report our
recorded conversation to Sri Lankan newspapers. I would be happy to
present my copy to The Age (which has published some of my articles
earlier) but
I doubt they would like to enter into this controversy.
Hoping to hear from you asap.
Regards
Mahinda
H. L. D. Mahindapala
Editor, Sunday Observer and Daily Observer (1990 - 1994)
President, Sri Lankan working Journalists' Association (1991 - 1993)
Secretary-General, South Asia Media Association (1993 - 1994)
---------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Damien Kingsbury [mailto:dlk@deakin.edu.au]
Sent: 03 April 2008 23:21
To: Ranjith Soysa
Cc: Mahindapala Don; John Ball; 'Stephen Wheatcroft'; acfid;
agee@ncca.org.au; Nimal Liyanage; tissa warusawithana; ProfDavid CamCA
Subject: Re: Reply to Damien K, " Sri Lankan specialist"-Asian
Tribune
Dear Ranjith,
I'd be feeling quite chuffedd to get such publicity, except that this
is not a real newspaper, and is rather more a propaganda blog.
Of course, the main problem with this article is that it doesn't
address what I actually said in my own article. But never mind - we
can't always let the facts stand in the way of a good - or at least
amusing - story.
Cheers,
Damien
Quoting Ranjith Soysa <ranjiths@spur.asn.au:
Dear Dr DK
This is a reply to yours and which the Age was not willing to publish.
It is clear that your solution to SL is creation of two states.
Fortunately, 95% of Sri Lankan people do not want to divide the
country on ethnic lines hence rejects your two state solution.
Best Wishes
Ranjith
Associate Professor Damien Kingsbury
Associate Head of School (Research)
School of International and Political Studies
Deakin University
Ph: +61(0)439638834
|
