There are three writers who regularly contribute to the Island news paper by the names of Thiasaranee, Shanie and Rohinie. Of these Thisaranie Gunasekara contributes to the Sunday Island while Rohinie Hensman and the pseudonym Shanie finds a regular column in the daily Island.
They write authoritatively appointing themselves as the arbiters of an 'ethnic problem' that they claim to exist in this country. Little do they realize that they are 'poor little rich girls' whose writings often betray the fact that their proclivity to write on this subject is borne more out of their hatred towards the Sinhala Buddhist majority in the country than by any sagacity or empathy on the subject. They are 'poor' because their knowledge on the subject does not go beyond the false propaganda manufactured by the Tamil Diaspora and the NGOs; they are 'little' because they display immaturity in their arguments and lacks cohesion even when they chose to be selectively biased in their writings; they are 'rich' because they belong to the privileged English speaking Anglophile community in this country who consider themselves to be the rightful heirs of governance in Ceylon treating the emerging post colonial forces with contempt.
I would not consider it worth the while writing on views of a bunch of writers whom I suspect to be heavily influenced by anti national forces at work to bifurcate this country, if not for the fact that a national newspaper in the caliber of island feature them so often. When a newspaper features a writer, the reader would consider it to promote that writer's views. Yet some newspapers adopt the attitude that diverse opinion on a subject needs to be presented in the name of 'freedom of expression', even though such opinion derisive of a healthy national consensus. In the case of Island the later seem to be the case because the editorials of these papers, especially that of the daily Island is studded with gems of comprehensive understanding and reasoning on this very subject. Often the editorials counter and sometimes ridicule the very ideas of these writers but still feel obliged to accommodate, may be in the name of 'fairness'.
When Voltaire said that, "I do not agree with what you say but I agree with your right to say that and defend that right to my death", the context was very different from the present scenario in Sri Lanka. Voltaire belong to the enlightened age in Europe and that was the time the enlightened citizens wished that the Governments of Europe should be more accommodative of the views of the public and take note of constructive criticism for the betterment of the country. Media freedom, no doubt, is a device in modern civilization but any good thing can be abused if it gets to the hands of the wrong party. In any case Voltaire, when he said that, would not have expected to 'defend to his death' the writings that justify the macabre designs of Prabhakaran who is the agent of death and destruction.
It is the hobby of Thisaranee to attack the Sinhalese as 'Sinhala Supremacist' and she identifies the 56 reforms to be the cause of the "ethnic problem' in this country. What she does not know is that Tamil Supremacist reared it's head much before 1956 in the form of 'Minority Grievances". When the universal franchise was introduced to then Ceylon in 1931, it was the Tamil leadership that fought tooth and nail against it because, on the one hand they knew that, with one man one vote, the oppressed Sinhalese would rise and on the other they did not enjoy the thought of having the low cast in Jaffna (their own community) in anyway equal to them. The British with their agenda of global decolonization had no choice but to go through with the legislation and hence Sri Lanka became a democracy despite Tamil opposition. The so called 'Tamil grievances' in fact started from this point and the attendant 'Donomore' legislature, the first elected representative body of Ceylon.
The then British Colonial Secretary, inundated with complains of grievance by the Sri Lankan Tamil leadership, detailed Lord Saulbury to look in to the minority grievances and then to draft a Constitution that is acceptable to all the communities. In his report submitted to the British colonial Secretary, Lord Saulbury maintains that 'The allegation, that there is an increase in the funds voted for education and health in the Sinhalese areas since the Donomore legislature is true. But considering the fact that these areas were under provided for years, such increase may be justified. Further even with the increased allocations when you consider the fund allocation 'per head' the Tamil areas still enjoy more funds per head compared to the Sinhalese areas'
Then came that infamous demand for 50;50 by the Tamil leadership. The demand was that '50 % of the proposed Parliament should be reserved for the minorities while the balance 50 % to be elected by the popular vote'. Sir Ivor Jennings, who was a member of the committee was obviously amused by the subtle nature of this demand and while rejecting the demand he maintained that, "Since it is possible for the minority members to stand for election as well, eventually more than 50 % of the minorities will be members of the Legislature and this clearly is an attempt to make the majority in to a minority and create a South African type Government in Ceylon". It is this Tamil struggle to get a bigger share of the country's governance for themselves that has perpetuated this crisis up to the present times, manifesting in different forms at different times.
The truth about 1956 reforms is that even by 1956 only 6 % of the Sri Lankan population were conversant in English, the official language of the time. As a result 94 % of the Sri lankans were being governed by a language that they did not understand and even justice was dispensed to them in that language. It was in order to rectify this socially and humanely unacceptable position that Swabasha Act. was introduced to Sri Lanka in 1956.It was not designed to hurt anybody but only to accommodate the pent up aspirations of a nation oppressed for centuries. There was reasonable use of Tamil in the North and East and hence even the vernacular Tamils would have found the bill more accommodative. But it affected the Anglophile vested interest of the country lead by the Church, a very powerful lobby at the time (even today). The Trotskyites who saw their political fortunes plummet with Bandaranaike doing everything they had planned to do were also against it. Church and the Trotkyites instigated the Tamils and baptized the bill 'Sinhala only'. The fact that the Tamils were over represented in the State service and the private sector, due to the favoured educational policies of the colonials, gave the impression that it was the Tamils who would be aggrieved by this new Swabasha Act. Chelvanayagam, who was waiting to 'cry foul' till somebody pinched him on the eye, grabbed the opportunity with both hands.
When a Tamil propagandist articulate 'equality for Tamils' what is meant is not equality of every citizen of the country before the laws of the land, but the equality of the 74 % Sinhalese to the 12 % of Sri Lankan Tamils'. The correct word for that type of administration is 'Apartheid'. Therefore in Sri Lanka what is masquerading in the name of 'Tamil Grievances 'is a reactionary movement that endeavored to introduce apartheid in to this country. It has manifested in different forms at different times and at present it appears in its most ruthless, but true, form under the leadership of that common criminal Prabhakaran.
These writers steadfastly advocate 'devolution of power' as the sole and only solution to what they call the 'ethnic problem' and berate the Rajapakse Government for its military approach.. They probably wish President Rajapakse to act like Chandrika Kumaratunge with a political solution in one hand and a disoriented and a knee jerk 'war for peace' on the other. For all that political solutions and the putative peace philosophy, CBK regime caused the death of an unprecedented number of security force members, LTTE members and Sinhalese/Tamil civilians strengthening and legitimizing Prabhakaran's mayhem and killings. It was during this period that the country experienced the highest number of casualties for the entirety of this war numbering 60,000, proving that putative peace could be more expensive than the war against terror.
When Chandrika was canvassing, nationally and internationally, for her so called pet theory of a 'political solution', Prabhakaran was on record saying, "Look, I told you that the Sinhalese will offer this when we fight relentlessly. When we killed thousand they offered us District Councils. We fought on, and killed tens of thousands; then they offered us Provincial councils. We fought on and killed more and more of them; now they are offering us a Union of Territories. So do not be foolish and accept what ever the Sinhalese Government offers you. You have to fight on until you achieve your final goal of Elam. I will never betray the cause of Elam and if I ever do, any one of you can shoot me to death!"
Hence it was this 'political solution that catalyzed the killings and mayhem in this country since 1994, and the LTTE obviously drew inspiration from the 'political solution' to be more intransigent and obdurate. After the Nugegoda blast these writers may be tuning their computers to say, Didn't we tell you' we should have stopped the war and offered the political solution. That way they will be transmitting to Prabhakaran the message that, " if you want more, you have to kill more!"
If the political and other concessions were of any help, look at all what the successive Sri Lankan Governments have granted since 1978. Official language status to Tamil; District Development Councils, Withdrawal of Shri, Provincial Councils, North East merger etc. Such measures never prompted the LTTE to an amicable solution any better. Instead such measures only created a chasm between the LTTE aspirations and the stand of a State, creating more top heavy and profligate white elephants like the PC system.
If Prabhakaran is to deserve a political solution for all his political murders then by the same logic every criminal in the Bogambara jail should deserve to be rewarded with what prompted them to kill. Does the fact that Prabhakaran has killed more than the others make him entitle to an extra reward that the others are not entitled to? What is the cause that is so sacred that can be justified by killing people?
The examples they site as success stories of devolutions in the world are nothing but integrations of small states for survival and sustenance. No state has succeeded in bifurcation, especially when it is threatened with insecurity at the periphery.
Rohinie's writings often alleges that the Government is disturbing the ethnic ratio in the east by colonizing the east in the name of liberation. Well, colonization according to the Oxford dictionary means, 'settlement in an area of land conquered by a distant state and controlled by that state'. The only colonization we knew in this country was that of the settlements of Indian labour. Any national necessity on the part of the Government of the country to settle its people in any part of the country is 'allocation of resources' and not 'colonization'. This writer writes to a national newspaper without knowing the meaning of simple words such as, 'colonization'.
Please read the history books. East was always a part of the Kandyan kingdom and even today most of its land belong to the Sinhalese. King Senarath accommodated the Muslims in the East, when the Portuguese chased them out from the western province and Tamils were settled there by the Portuguese/Dutch to cultivate tobacco. Chelvanayagam and the Tamil leaders after having exhausted all their attempts to install an apartheid regime at the center in 1948 then reverted back to the 'Homeland' concept in 1953 staking a claim for 'Tamil speaking' people for the first time simply because they wanted to claim the Eastern province. It is Chelvanayagam who coined the word 'colonization' for peasant settlements in the East. Hence these writers are only echoing the separatist propaganda of Chelvanayagam, the father of separatism.
Now there are more Tamils in the South than there ever was including pre July 1983. How do these writers explain that situation? Isn't that also 'colonization' by buying Sinhalese lands? The rich Tamils can buy the lands in the south, but the Government has to provide lands to the poor from areas where there is land. Who are these writers to talk of 'disturbing ethnic balances'? Do they wish segregation/disharmony and fighting each other forever? Are these writers at least aware that the homeland of the Tamils is Tamil Nadu in India and that an indigenous community, anywhere in the world could have only one homeland? But these writers in their desire to attack the Government and Sinhalese are advocating 'paradoxes' and 'insane' solutions.
In the future, as the LTTE comes more under attack, these writer will pour more and more venom from their pens against the 'Rajapakse years'. They may defend their writings by saying that they did not praise Prabhkaran; but attacking his enemies with distortions and quaint logic would have just the same effect. However Sir, this is certainly not freedom of expression but rather freedom of 'three wild lasses'
They write authoritatively appointing themselves as the arbiters of an 'ethnic problem' that they claim to exist in this country. Little do they realize that they are 'poor little rich girls' whose writings often betray the fact that their proclivity to write on this subject is borne more out of their hatred towards the Sinhala Buddhist majority in the country than by any sagacity or empathy on the subject. They are 'poor' because their knowledge on the subject does not go beyond the false propaganda manufactured by the Tamil Diaspora and the NGOs; they are 'little' because they display immaturity in their arguments and lacks cohesion even when they chose to be selectively biased in their writings; they are 'rich' because they belong to the privileged English speaking Anglophile community in this country who consider themselves to be the rightful heirs of governance in Ceylon treating the emerging post colonial forces with contempt.
I would not consider it worth the while writing on views of a bunch of writers whom I suspect to be heavily influenced by anti national forces at work to bifurcate this country, if not for the fact that a national newspaper in the caliber of island feature them so often. When a newspaper features a writer, the reader would consider it to promote that writer's views. Yet some newspapers adopt the attitude that diverse opinion on a subject needs to be presented in the name of 'freedom of expression', even though such opinion derisive of a healthy national consensus. In the case of Island the later seem to be the case because the editorials of these papers, especially that of the daily Island is studded with gems of comprehensive understanding and reasoning on this very subject. Often the editorials counter and sometimes ridicule the very ideas of these writers but still feel obliged to accommodate, may be in the name of 'fairness'.
When Voltaire said that, "I do not agree with what you say but I agree with your right to say that and defend that right to my death", the context was very different from the present scenario in Sri Lanka. Voltaire belong to the enlightened age in Europe and that was the time the enlightened citizens wished that the Governments of Europe should be more accommodative of the views of the public and take note of constructive criticism for the betterment of the country. Media freedom, no doubt, is a device in modern civilization but any good thing can be abused if it gets to the hands of the wrong party. In any case Voltaire, when he said that, would not have expected to 'defend to his death' the writings that justify the macabre designs of Prabhakaran who is the agent of death and destruction.
It is the hobby of Thisaranee to attack the Sinhalese as 'Sinhala Supremacist' and she identifies the 56 reforms to be the cause of the "ethnic problem' in this country. What she does not know is that Tamil Supremacist reared it's head much before 1956 in the form of 'Minority Grievances". When the universal franchise was introduced to then Ceylon in 1931, it was the Tamil leadership that fought tooth and nail against it because, on the one hand they knew that, with one man one vote, the oppressed Sinhalese would rise and on the other they did not enjoy the thought of having the low cast in Jaffna (their own community) in anyway equal to them. The British with their agenda of global decolonization had no choice but to go through with the legislation and hence Sri Lanka became a democracy despite Tamil opposition. The so called 'Tamil grievances' in fact started from this point and the attendant 'Donomore' legislature, the first elected representative body of Ceylon.
The then British Colonial Secretary, inundated with complains of grievance by the Sri Lankan Tamil leadership, detailed Lord Saulbury to look in to the minority grievances and then to draft a Constitution that is acceptable to all the communities. In his report submitted to the British colonial Secretary, Lord Saulbury maintains that 'The allegation, that there is an increase in the funds voted for education and health in the Sinhalese areas since the Donomore legislature is true. But considering the fact that these areas were under provided for years, such increase may be justified. Further even with the increased allocations when you consider the fund allocation 'per head' the Tamil areas still enjoy more funds per head compared to the Sinhalese areas'
Then came that infamous demand for 50;50 by the Tamil leadership. The demand was that '50 % of the proposed Parliament should be reserved for the minorities while the balance 50 % to be elected by the popular vote'. Sir Ivor Jennings, who was a member of the committee was obviously amused by the subtle nature of this demand and while rejecting the demand he maintained that, "Since it is possible for the minority members to stand for election as well, eventually more than 50 % of the minorities will be members of the Legislature and this clearly is an attempt to make the majority in to a minority and create a South African type Government in Ceylon". It is this Tamil struggle to get a bigger share of the country's governance for themselves that has perpetuated this crisis up to the present times, manifesting in different forms at different times.
The truth about 1956 reforms is that even by 1956 only 6 % of the Sri Lankan population were conversant in English, the official language of the time. As a result 94 % of the Sri lankans were being governed by a language that they did not understand and even justice was dispensed to them in that language. It was in order to rectify this socially and humanely unacceptable position that Swabasha Act. was introduced to Sri Lanka in 1956.It was not designed to hurt anybody but only to accommodate the pent up aspirations of a nation oppressed for centuries. There was reasonable use of Tamil in the North and East and hence even the vernacular Tamils would have found the bill more accommodative. But it affected the Anglophile vested interest of the country lead by the Church, a very powerful lobby at the time (even today). The Trotskyites who saw their political fortunes plummet with Bandaranaike doing everything they had planned to do were also against it. Church and the Trotkyites instigated the Tamils and baptized the bill 'Sinhala only'. The fact that the Tamils were over represented in the State service and the private sector, due to the favoured educational policies of the colonials, gave the impression that it was the Tamils who would be aggrieved by this new Swabasha Act. Chelvanayagam, who was waiting to 'cry foul' till somebody pinched him on the eye, grabbed the opportunity with both hands.
When a Tamil propagandist articulate 'equality for Tamils' what is meant is not equality of every citizen of the country before the laws of the land, but the equality of the 74 % Sinhalese to the 12 % of Sri Lankan Tamils'. The correct word for that type of administration is 'Apartheid'. Therefore in Sri Lanka what is masquerading in the name of 'Tamil Grievances 'is a reactionary movement that endeavored to introduce apartheid in to this country. It has manifested in different forms at different times and at present it appears in its most ruthless, but true, form under the leadership of that common criminal Prabhakaran.
These writers steadfastly advocate 'devolution of power' as the sole and only solution to what they call the 'ethnic problem' and berate the Rajapakse Government for its military approach.. They probably wish President Rajapakse to act like Chandrika Kumaratunge with a political solution in one hand and a disoriented and a knee jerk 'war for peace' on the other. For all that political solutions and the putative peace philosophy, CBK regime caused the death of an unprecedented number of security force members, LTTE members and Sinhalese/Tamil civilians strengthening and legitimizing Prabhakaran's mayhem and killings. It was during this period that the country experienced the highest number of casualties for the entirety of this war numbering 60,000, proving that putative peace could be more expensive than the war against terror.
When Chandrika was canvassing, nationally and internationally, for her so called pet theory of a 'political solution', Prabhakaran was on record saying, "Look, I told you that the Sinhalese will offer this when we fight relentlessly. When we killed thousand they offered us District Councils. We fought on, and killed tens of thousands; then they offered us Provincial councils. We fought on and killed more and more of them; now they are offering us a Union of Territories. So do not be foolish and accept what ever the Sinhalese Government offers you. You have to fight on until you achieve your final goal of Elam. I will never betray the cause of Elam and if I ever do, any one of you can shoot me to death!"
Hence it was this 'political solution that catalyzed the killings and mayhem in this country since 1994, and the LTTE obviously drew inspiration from the 'political solution' to be more intransigent and obdurate. After the Nugegoda blast these writers may be tuning their computers to say, Didn't we tell you' we should have stopped the war and offered the political solution. That way they will be transmitting to Prabhakaran the message that, " if you want more, you have to kill more!"
If the political and other concessions were of any help, look at all what the successive Sri Lankan Governments have granted since 1978. Official language status to Tamil; District Development Councils, Withdrawal of Shri, Provincial Councils, North East merger etc. Such measures never prompted the LTTE to an amicable solution any better. Instead such measures only created a chasm between the LTTE aspirations and the stand of a State, creating more top heavy and profligate white elephants like the PC system.
If Prabhakaran is to deserve a political solution for all his political murders then by the same logic every criminal in the Bogambara jail should deserve to be rewarded with what prompted them to kill. Does the fact that Prabhakaran has killed more than the others make him entitle to an extra reward that the others are not entitled to? What is the cause that is so sacred that can be justified by killing people?
The examples they site as success stories of devolutions in the world are nothing but integrations of small states for survival and sustenance. No state has succeeded in bifurcation, especially when it is threatened with insecurity at the periphery.
Rohinie's writings often alleges that the Government is disturbing the ethnic ratio in the east by colonizing the east in the name of liberation. Well, colonization according to the Oxford dictionary means, 'settlement in an area of land conquered by a distant state and controlled by that state'. The only colonization we knew in this country was that of the settlements of Indian labour. Any national necessity on the part of the Government of the country to settle its people in any part of the country is 'allocation of resources' and not 'colonization'. This writer writes to a national newspaper without knowing the meaning of simple words such as, 'colonization'.
Please read the history books. East was always a part of the Kandyan kingdom and even today most of its land belong to the Sinhalese. King Senarath accommodated the Muslims in the East, when the Portuguese chased them out from the western province and Tamils were settled there by the Portuguese/Dutch to cultivate tobacco. Chelvanayagam and the Tamil leaders after having exhausted all their attempts to install an apartheid regime at the center in 1948 then reverted back to the 'Homeland' concept in 1953 staking a claim for 'Tamil speaking' people for the first time simply because they wanted to claim the Eastern province. It is Chelvanayagam who coined the word 'colonization' for peasant settlements in the East. Hence these writers are only echoing the separatist propaganda of Chelvanayagam, the father of separatism.
Now there are more Tamils in the South than there ever was including pre July 1983. How do these writers explain that situation? Isn't that also 'colonization' by buying Sinhalese lands? The rich Tamils can buy the lands in the south, but the Government has to provide lands to the poor from areas where there is land. Who are these writers to talk of 'disturbing ethnic balances'? Do they wish segregation/disharmony and fighting each other forever? Are these writers at least aware that the homeland of the Tamils is Tamil Nadu in India and that an indigenous community, anywhere in the world could have only one homeland? But these writers in their desire to attack the Government and Sinhalese are advocating 'paradoxes' and 'insane' solutions.
In the future, as the LTTE comes more under attack, these writer will pour more and more venom from their pens against the 'Rajapakse years'. They may defend their writings by saying that they did not praise Prabhkaran; but attacking his enemies with distortions and quaint logic would have just the same effect. However Sir, this is certainly not freedom of expression but rather freedom of 'three wild lasses'
