Framing The Elections
Agents both foreign and domestic are framing the election as a victory for Tiger-supporters or loss for the government. Personally, I think them simply happening is good for governance, which the Tigers were pretty unilaterally opposed to. To compare, in May 1983 two Tamil UNP candidates were shot dead for defying the LTTE diktat to boycott elections. The voter turnout was one percent in Point Pedro and mara low in Jaffna. There haven’t been proper elections since. This is a local government election and, as deeply flawed as the process was, it’s a start. If people want to stick it to the government that’s great. As long as they’re participating in governance.
Having elections at all is a victory against the Tigers. They rose by killing the Mayor of Jaffna Alfred Duraippah, killing Mayor Sarojini Yogeswaran (after killing her husband), killing Mayor P Sivapalan, government agents, municipal council members, basically anybody who participated in the political process. All those good people with courage and devotion to service are dead and we have to start over from fear and trauma.
So having anybody turn out and vote at all is fine by me, for whoever they want to vote for. 18% turnout (though that number seems low by half, given messed up voter rolls) is still an improvement over the near nothing turnout in the last Presidential election under LTTE boycott.
What sticks out for me is that people voted at all, and that 52% turned out in Vavuniya. What’s even better is that they stuck it to the government, which deserves it. If everyone in the north gets the franchise for the Presidential Elections they can actually vote Mahinda out, seeing as he only won by 200,000 last time. As long as people are voting and not killing each other it’s fine by me.
The elections are deeply flawed, the voter rolls are messed up and a lot of voters are in detention. This is, sadly, a great improvement over the LTTE in that A) people voted and B) the candidates aren’t dead. That is a low bar, but we’ve cleared that at least. Personally, I think participation is the way out, and we have to start somewhere.
Posted on Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 in GoSL, Photography, Politics, Sri Lanka, tamils.
Mohsin Hamid, author of How To Get Filthy Rich In Rising Asia, has a nice 
I’m happy to be featured in Echelon magazine’s 40 Under 40 feature, profiling young people who contribute to the economy in some way, mainly in business but also in terms of innovation and thought leadership. It’s an interesting article not just in that I’m in it (mainly for work on indi.ca and 
I won’t add too much commentary, but just read I guess. The youngest Rajapaksa, Rohitha (Chi Chi) has given an amazing interview to the 
In 2009 this strange character appeared on the Sri Lankan Internet scene, getting angry, flaming, trolling whatever. Then he started naming anonymous bloggers, posting comments as people’s kids, nasty stuff, for which I removed him from 
ah, indi.
truth hurts don’t it
TNA won in 2004 on the platform of the LTTE as sole reps and you and others said it was because anandasagaree and douglas couldn’t campaign.
now TNA wins (parsing the jaffna vote shows that without the muslim votes from puttalam TNA would have won there also) WITHOUT being able to campaign.
and despite the fact that the LTTE doesn’t exist any more your post continues to attack them.
you just don’t get it – what is going on in SL and has gone on in SL since independence is not and has never been an “LTTE problem” or “terrorist problem” – it is the TAMIL PEOPLE who want self determination
the quislings that you hope the tamils will support will never be seen as anything but corrupt opportunists…
by the way, the “darlings” of the sinhala south and the international community, Laksman Kadirgama & Neelan Thiruchelvam, were never elected to ANYTHING by the tamil people. they were NATIONAL list MPs and were NEVER directly elected – could never be because the tamil people never supported what they stood for
There’s a lot of distrust but there’s also a vacuum – this is the perfect time for the government to swoop in and show these people it’s their government too. Best way to fight separatists is to eliminate the will to separate.
Doesn’t look like it’s happening though, and that’s the real cause for concern.
Also, Thiruchelvam and Kadirgamar weren’t quislings, that line of rhetoric needs to be done away with.
There are many Tamils who admire what Thiruchelvam was trying to do, there are many more who at least respect him for it. Are we quislings too? Words like compromise, federalism…those are things everyone has to take to heart. Moderation is the only way out of this.
Condemning everyone who doesn’t want Eelam is the best way to continue as before. I think you’d agree it hasn’t worked out well for SL Tamils thus far.
see, it’s far too easy to go from, “they’re quisling illegitimates!” to “kill them!”
It didn’t take the tigers long.
it doesn’t matter where people feel like pinching your cheek and sighing–if you speak some sense and act as if you’ve taken more than anger-n-johnny-soaked glance at the world, you should, in a normative sense, live to continue that lifestyle. Do you honestly disagree with that statement? Are there additional criteria to be deemed a worthy tamil soul to save?
Simon Aiya, how come you haven’t mentioned how the TNA has distanced itself from both the LTTE and it’s policies since your uncle died in a lagoon?
[...] Northern Sri Lanka as as a victory for LTTE supporters or loss for the government. However, Indi.ca opines that: “Having elections at all is a victory against the Tigers. [..] As long as people are voting [...]
The desire to separate was embedded deep in their psyches. It was a historic imperative, almost a race memory of those glorious ancient days when they had wrested away from the Sri Lankan state her northern territories. Those territories are ours their blood told them and we will build the glorious Tamil Elam there some day! For only that will heal the wound in our collective psych! Any other alternative is the refugee of quislings who would betray the glorious imperative, the holly drive, the sheer irresistible compulsion to establish the separate Country which is by God owing to us! For did we not suffer at their hands for 60 years since Independence? Did we not suffer the persecution, the discrimination, the simmering racial hatred of the Sinhalese and their leaders? Does not the blood of our ancestors cry to us? Do we not have an unbroken linear ideological legacy going back to the great Kalinga Magha himself? Shall we turn our backs on this legacy and die as quislings? No my dear comrades no! We will eschew halfway measures and compromises like federalism.
(So federalism is a compromise is it? a half way point between Elam and a whole Sri Lankan State ? A Sri Lankan state entire and whole is not acceptable is it? No it is not. Don’t be simplistic).
So we have to arrive at this interim mid point, this transitional stage, this Federal State. From there we will strive! We have the future ahead of us! Just let us arrive at this interim stage comrades! Please please do not sour the prospects by your extremist rantings. If only you would take your heads out of the clouds you will spot the ideological brotherhood that exists between us. The only difference between you, the glorious elamists and we the moderate fedaralists is one of degree. We are pragmatic. You are idealistic. Who will survive comrades you or us? Who will eventually achieve the ultimate, common yes comrades let me admit once and for all (and with pride) our common goal?
So the argument raged on. Forgetting all the while the other major strain in the Sri Lanka’s ideologisphere, the one based on the great integrating principal, the drive to integrate, the imperative towards territorial and national integration. Forgetting all the while the lives that were laid down fighting under the banner of that imperative.
Read this millenia old tale now unfolding with its all too familiar and boring twists and turns on indi.ca
Man, how do Austria, Canada, the USA, India, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany and Australia (to name a few) manage to be federal states and NOT SHATTER INTO A MILLION PIECES?
It boggles the mind. No doubt these unpatriotic, backward nations don’t know how best to run a country. Sri Lanka, with its long history of stability, peace and tolerance, knows that federalism is definitely not the answer. Indeed, only traitors support federalism.
indeed, a martial-law-ruled backwater wasteland like Canada where quality of life ratings are next to only Chad or Burkina Faso, could never maintain territorial integrity–especially after years of nonviolent agitation by the Quebecois or insouciant demands from upstart petulant aboriginal peoples. With the disgusting concession to native demands and the troubling allowance of bilingualism in Quebec went Canada’s chance for peace, prosperity and freedom for all.
Austria, Germany and Australia are culturally homogenous and therefore cannot really be compared to the situation in SL. They are federal for administrative convenience and/or historic sentiment.
India is only quasi-federal – the central government has sweeping powers to intervene in state affairs and used to do so quite often. There are numerous secessionist insurgencies in the non-Hindu states (and even some Hindu-majority ones) that are largely kept down by force.
The USA did in fact shatter, due in some part at least to cultural differences. The war it fought to put itself back together again is still the bloodiest in its history (600,000+ casualties).
Belgium has all but ceased to function as a single entity and is on the brink of breaking up. There’s unlikely to be much drama in the event however, due to its tight integration into the EU superstate.
Canada has come very close to splitting. The Quebec referendum of 1995 was a close run thing. As I recall, immigrants were credited (or blamed) for tipping the scales ever so slightly in favour of the federation. The issue hasn’t really gone away – Quebec is still sore about it and has yet to ratify the Canadian constitution. Ask Triumph the insult comic dog.
Switzerland is interesting, although it’s more a sort of utility than a country really, made up of fragments of old Europe that didn’t quite fit into the larger nation-states that formed around it. The Swiss-French are Protestants for example, unlike Catholic France. The Swiss-Germans are Catholics, unlike Protestant-led Germany.
This is not an argument against federalism, but rather against making glib comparisons. I think there are plenty of useful lessons to be learnt from all these countries, but they’re not always simple ones.
On balance, I’d say that that federal set-ups with culturally distinct units do have a harder time keeping it all together. Particularly if the federation is formed in contentious circumstances, as in Canada and Belgium, and as will likely be the case in SL. In any federal system, there will be periodic tensions between the centre and the units over such things as, say, transfer payments. The trick is to prevent these run-of-the-mill disagreements from turning ugly and ethnic.
If the idea is to keep the country united while accommodating minority interests and aspirations, I’d say federalize softly. And carry a big stick.
yeah, that slavery thing is totally irrelevant. The statue of Stonewall Jackson that I see every day is a testament to that fact, of course.
And belgium is a tiny country with relatively balanced language groups. That surely is irrelevant as well and not glib at all.
Well of course slavery was the chief cause of the Civil War, which is why I qualified my statement. But the agrarian South developed a distinct culture and way of life which was also felt to be under threat from the growing power of the industrial North.
As you would know, that cultural insecurity persists to this day and has a huge bearing on American politics. Remember the Confederate flag controversy? And wasn’t Rick Perry muttering something about secession just a few weeks ago?
As for Belgium, what do its size and language groups have to do with the argument? Pants brought up Belgium, and that it hadn’t fallen apart despite going federal, and I’m simply pointing out that this is not quite the case. I’m not the one who made the comparison.
okay, for the last time:
1. everyone laughed at rick perry. do you know why? (hint: it’s not because federalism permanently weakened the atavistic impulse to feel, almost viscerally, like an ‘Murrican) Also, we move around alot. Labor mobility trumps state loyalties in just about every rich country I can remember.
2. canada is still a great place to live. In fact, it has nearly always been so. At what point would you say quality of life or any sort of economic indicator has dropped due solely to quebecois or native agitation? (hint: you’ll have to find a canadian stormfront.org for an example)
3. For people so dedicated to the notion that the Tamil IDPs must WAIT patiently for resettlement and that any attempt to rush the process is motivated by disingenuous and mendacious commenters, it’s surprising that every other example of ‘taking time to achieve ultimate stability’ is characterized as a failure of federalism which should, inexplicably, stand in for an argument to scrap 13 and anything like it.
1. Let’s go back to what to what Pants said:
“Man, how do Austria, Canada, the USA, India, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany and Australia (to name a few) manage to be federal states and NOT SHATTER INTO A MILLION PIECES?”
I was pointing out that in the case of the US, this statement is factually incorrect. It DID shatter. Not BECAUSE of federalism – which is your misinterpretation, not my argument – but IN SPITE of it.
2. Canada can sustain its wonderful standard of living despite uncertainty over Quebec because it is a vast country with huge resources. In fact, Canada can go on being wonderful even without Quebec.
Sri Lanka is less than a 150th the size of Canada, much poorer, and much more densely populated. She cannot afford to be quite so blase about one third of her territory and two-thirds of her coastline.
3. For the record, I believe the IDPs must be released NOW, THIS MINUTE, PRONTO and I’m willing to live (or die) with whatever uncertainties follow.
I am by no means against federalism, I just think it needs some serious examination. Saying “oh well it’s worked for countries A, B & C so let’s have it here” does NOT constitute a serious examination.
I think devolution of power in SL is necessary and desirable, but the devil is in the details. There are competing aspirations that need to be balanced – maximum self-rule on one side, unity and territorial integrity on the other. Given the emotional pitch today, I’d say gradualism and flexibility would be the prudent way to go. There’s no need for ‘ultimate stability’ as you say, but the last thing we want is a hastily conceived ‘solution’ that precipitates us back into the abyss.
your conception of reality v. wild conjecture seems, in the american context, to be a bit off. the alaska independence party, the free state movement in new hampshire and Alamo-nostalgics have been around for close to a century. Still, no secession. If you’re trying to build an argument on how federalism inevitably fractures unitary nation-states, you’ve got a couple books to go. Actually, save the energy, you’ll never convince me or anyone who actually lives here.
“remember the confederate flag controversy.” dude, there’s ALWAYS a flag controversy where I live. when arthur ashe can stare down stonewall and the city ain’t burnin down, your thesis has more than a ways to go.
Nayagan, I believe Rajiv said that a federal system weakens the unitary state when the federal lines are drawn along ethnic divides — case in point, Canada and Belgium. Before you pound the drum for the US, have a look at what he actually said — the South’s attempted secession (made easier by federalism) had an impact on the country probably unparalleled in its history.
The only similarity Germany has to Canada and Belgium is when it comes to Bavaria, which while ethnically the same as the rest of the country, is culturally quite different. Bavaria would be the most likely to secede, and while they haven’t yet, there are periodical calls for it. In a country with ethnic divisions, federalism can create cracks.
“unparalleled in it’s history.” You must complete the sentence, old egg. “unparalleled in it’s history up until the 1860s.” Now you may be able to remember this era, lord knows this wet behind the ears youngster does not, but i believe more than a few things were different then: chattel slavery, mercantile economy, nascent industrial revolution. But yes, I still can’t believe i’m making this stupendously obvious point to people educated in a pan-western curriculum. Federalism made this country POSSIBLE when state representatives fiercely negotiated based only on allegiance to colony. I realize some are quite sore about the american empire that has sprung up in the meantime but do note the time periods you’re referencing and the bloody context when arguing that the federal system caused slave holders to imagine themselves, their economy and lifestyle to be diametrically opposed to those in the North–a leap of logic so brave and ultimately blinkered that you could similarly pin all of SL’s troubles on the first European who set foot on the island.
you guys want the benefits of uncertainty and no uncertainty at the same time–guess what, that’s having your cake and eating it too. quite impossible. If you want freedom the uncertainty comes with the package.
and it’s really not like you have to be the hapless lebanese moderate who must contend with Aoun-style murderers on one side and Hizbullah/Syria/Iran on the other. you’ve got crazy monks, crazy marxist/populists and a bunch of tamils who don’t believe in the benevolence of Rajapakse. That’s a far better bet for harmonious survival.
“you’ll never convince me or anyone who actually lives here.”
Perhaps you should stop discussing Sri Lanka then.
that’s ironic, because i never thought for a second I could convince you lot that 280k people shouldn’t be treated like fucking animals in a zoo.
but way to fall back on your bro’s canard.
First of all, Nayagan, at the risk of making you seem like an idiot, it was YOU who said ““you’ll never convince me or anyone who actually lives here.” Remember?
Secondly, if your view of history ends at the limits of your memory, you should stay away from discussing anything abstract.
Thirdly, your comprehension seems very limited. No one said that a federal system was the cause of the US Civil War. However, it DID make things easier. You don’t have to live in the US to study its history.
Fourthly, neither Rajiv nor I are against a federal system. It’s just important to recognize its weaknesses as much as its strengths.
Finally, your rambling on about the American empire. WTF are you on? I know it must be easier to pigeonhole the arguer when you haven’t a strong argument yourself, but seriously dude.
And your biggest prob is your trying to convince us without understanding what we’re saying. Perhaps you’re more American than either of us thought. I agree that no one should be penned up. But I’m afraid it’s the lesser of two evils, and frankly only one of us will have to live with the greater, so forgive me if I don’t cave to your American logic.
yes, picking the least contributory factor produces the strongest analysis. Federalism was a contributory factor to the civil war in much the same way as the existence of nation-states and the scientific method made the Holocaust possible.
Perhaps you should look into that government thing–i hear it facilitates oppression.
Don’t be a fool, dude. No one said federalism contributed to the civil war. Why be intellectually deceitful? Are you really so incapable of forming a counterargument that you must rephrase what I say to suit your argument. I’m sorry of I mistook your extenseive vocubulary to indicate intelligence and/or comprehension.
Water makes swimming easier; it doesn’t contribute to swimming.
Give it up, machang. You’re just digging in.
i’m no machang of anyone here, that much is clear, and i never triage based on vocabulary unless communication is rendered impossible.
i objected and continue to object to the lax analysis of federalism presented by rajivmw.
surely i did get off the rails–but when have I not? Have you deigned not to respond in all those other situations or is this a new rule?
i continue to respond to you not because you are some great bridger-of-divides but because of the relative paucity of interlocutors. Even though you’re presumably quite fine with allowing the “sea of tiger facilitators” that currently is not able to facilitate terror to drown in the muck, so that the sounds of victory may better resound from yonder hill, I continue to see you as more reasonable than the rest and worthy of many responses.
remember, your response to the ‘how long must they stay’ was unbounded.
strike that last comment. i see what you’re talking about.
as they say in chennai, “tension develop arruthu.”
muy (and my) apologies.
‘For people so dedicated to the notion that the Tamil IDPs must WAIT patiently for resettlement……..it’s surprising that every other example of ‘taking time to achieve ultimate stability’ is characterized as a failure of federalism”
Here’s a window into Nayagan’s soul. He is saying that the American civil war is not ultimately an example of a failure of federalism. It happened way back in 1860 in a different era under a different set of reality in the infancy of the American Nation. It represented the growing pains of the new Nation. The new American Nation got over that blip and went on to build the American Empire. It was a cathartic experience for them. In other words USA took time to achieve ultimate stability and now it has been achieved no one can shake that. Not Rick Perry not any flag issues.
I think he has a point.
“when arguing that the federal system caused slave holders to imagine themselves, their economy and lifestyle to be diametrically opposed to those in the North……”
Here he went off the rails. Because nobody argued thus. The slave holders didn’t just imagine themselves different from the North. Their economy, lifestyle, culture and themselves truly were diametrically opposed to those in the North and the North was threatening that way of life. (one does not need a birth date in the19th century. Just needs to read North & South or Gone with the Wind) Then the South exercised the right to secede from the Union enshrined in the federal constitution.
That is the snake in the grass. That right to secede. That right enshrined in federal constitutions and which defines federalism. A federation of states that have come together voluntarily and each of which has (in theory)the right to separate. Although in the USA context the right to secede is no snake in the grass only what is right and proper and fitting.
I think every country in the world has its equivalent of a genetic blue print. A sort of a nascent character which doesn’t change however much it changes. An embryonic mold which contains from the beginning the latent potentialities of that country. How it should be and what it will be are largely predetermined by and dependent on how it came to be and how it grew. Federalism took root in the American soil so well, it may have been created for America and America may have been created for Federalism. In fact the way America was created federalism was the only viable method of governance. A bunch of French, English, Spanish colonies comming together to form a federation willingly. Of course in theory it was right that they should have the right to secede if the people of the state wished it. No wonder Nayagn says, if you’re trying to build an argument on how federalism inevitably fractures unitary nation-states save the energy, you’ll never convince me or anyone who actually lives here! He lives in the land of milk and honey where federalism took root and after that initial blip grew into a towering super structure which holds together the greatest nation on earth.
Also Nayagan lives close to Canada another new world land of milk and honey where too federalism was the only viable option when two strands of colonies established by those two ancient rivals France and England came together. In choosing federalism as the mode of governance in Canada nobody went against the grain. Therefore no wonder it took root. Even if Quebec separates no one would say it was unfair. It would certainly be constitutional. No armed struggle, no passion, no big deal.
Often Americans have trouble understanding Europe which is merely old. When it is a question of understanding Asia which is ancient…. let’s not even go there. If Nayagan had been brought up and living in Yugoslavia before it broke up maybe he would have had a little more empathy with people who have problems with the idea of importing the federal mode of governance to their country (I think the word importing is a key word here. I will dissect that later. Maybe)
Infact I bet in a parelel world somewhere there is a Nayagan living who was born and brought up in Yugoslavia and by now has extreme empathy with people who looks at federlism with suspicion.
And yet federalism is not to blame in any of those instances. Nayagan is right there. Let’s see American civil war would it have happened if USA had had a central, unitary mode of governance? Then slavery would have been outlawed in the Southern states by the central government. Seceding would have been an aelian concept but the discontent, the threat, the resentment at the imposition would have come out in some way. But what’s the point in speculating? America could not have been formed with a unitary centralized sort of government. It would have gone against the grain. When Nayagan says Federalism made that country POSSIBLE he is so right.
Yugoslavia too would not have been possible without fedaralism. Forming Yogoslaia by putting together a motley crew of central European kindoms or duchies or whatever with a unitary centralised mode of governance would not have been fitting. It would have gone against the grain. It would have been unfair. Nobody would have voluntarily agreed to it. (Which brings us to the other key fact Yugoslavia was not a natural country). It was put together for expediency. The only viable method of governance would have been federalism. So the fact that it broke up should not be atributed to federalsm.
So Nayagan is right in that too. By now I have repeated this statement so many times that it’s getting boring and bags the question, why then am I writing this reply? Why am I contributing to the congestion that invariably results from people hyjacking indi’s blog to go where the original comment never intended to go?
I am doing it because Nayagan and pants are proposing importing to Sri Lanka a mode of governance(a good and just mode of governance too, which has made certain Nations great and without which certain Nations would not have been possible) which would have gone against Sri Lanka’s natural grain. A mode of governance that would be diametrically opposed to and make a mockery of Sri Lanka’s nascent character, genetic blue print and embryonic mold. A mode of governance that would kick Sri Lanka’s latent potentialities in the teeth.
People, Sri Lanka is already a country. There is no need to assemble a motley crew of kingdoms or colonies to form Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was old and had an unshakable identity and awareness as a single country when Europe was young and USA and Canada were unthought of. The Sri Lankan state, it’s rulers and peoples had their share of troubles however. What nation state does not? When the rulers were having fun with their queens and harems, while they were hunting and making merry, infact even when they were sleeping they were plagued by the problem of what to do about the damned Cholas and Pandyas and other South Indians who kept invading and conquering and helping themselves to Sri Lanka’s Northern parts as if it was their birth right. The problem was ever present what to do about the northern teritories which were gradually getting populated due to those invasions and conquests with a peoples who were ever ready to swear allegiance to any conquering South Indian Tom, Dick or Harry. Ever present in the mass consciousness of Sri lanka’s rulers and peoples was the urge, the imperative to unite the country. It was a big deal to them then and it is a big deal now.
To acknowledge the North and the East as units that have voluntarily joined in to form the Sri Lankan federation and therefore possessing the enshrined right to secede would not be compatible with the nascent character, genetic blue print and the mass self image of Sri Lanka. It would go against the grain.
All the same I think a segment of Sri Lanka’s peoples who have fought so long and hard against integration into Sri Lanka for whatever reasons and continues to resist integration into the Unitary State even now for whatever reason (The reason obviously being the concern that justice will not be accorded to them as a minority within a Unitary Sri Lanka) cries out for acknowledgment. A segment of Sri Lanka’s peoples who due to historic reasons consider themselves apart and separate cries out to be acknowledged and recognized. And I do not think it would be democratic anymore to ignore their cries. Are they not our people too? Because even undue demands, treasonous designs on the State become just, legitimate aspirations in one, two, three, four hundred years. That is how it is. That is how Nations and States evolve.
People keep making undue childish comparisons however. A comment on a previous post had tried to compare Sri Lanka and the North and East to India and Tamil Nadu. It said India was prepared to call the Tamil State, Tamil Nadu and give it autonomy and language rights. See how good and noble India’s majority was being in granting its less than 5% Tamil majority such concessions and would the Sri Lanka’s majority be so noble as to re merge North and East and call it Tamil Elam and give it autonomy?. Jesus how simplistic can people be? The existence of the quasi autonomous State of Tamil Nadu within India is not a concession to a minority. It is simply an acknowledgment of a historic and political reality. Tamil Nadu was the great Chola Empire which even emperor Asoka did not manage to penetrate. (I think) An integral part of the great Dravidian civilization which grew south of the Vindhyas naturally and spontaneously and which were never at threat from or challenged by the Northern Indian civilization because it grew out of the very soil, very air and water of the region south of the Vindhyas. Calling it Tamil Nadu and giving it language rights and making it autonomous was the least India could do.
So why would Sri Lanka re merge the North and the East (a large part of which belonged to the Kandyan Kingdom and the people of which enjoy the right to be governed by Kandyan Law even now and which has a strong Muslim presence and …..God I am so tired) and call it Tamil Elam and give it autonomy? Because the Sri lankan State is delusional? has a reality distortion disorder? Suicidal? Self destructive?
To get back to Nayagan I think he is like that classic Hindi song pictured on Raj Kapoor. His shoes, hat, shirt, etc. may be American but I think his heart belongs to Sri Lanka. That’s why he spends so much time on the Sri Lankan blogosphere. And that’s why his own blog is about Sri Lanka. Also he has firmly categorized himself as a unique kind of diaspora. Not who talk at US or to THEM against US but who takes the time and effort to talk to US. That’s wonderful. But Nayagan’s mind is very agile and so it is always several jumps ahead of his hand which types and probably due to lack of time he doesn’t always bother to bridge the gap with words. Some day soon Nayagan will get one of those Stephen Hawkins inspired gadgets that transfers his thoughts directly into words on a screen. Until then it is very intellectually stimulating to find a sentence, and then find another sentence several paras down and link the dots and reconstruct his reasoning process.
Even Pants when he comments with witty sarcasm ‘Indeed, only traitors support federalism’ is signaling his overwhelming desire not to be thought of as a traitor. He is reaffirming his commitment to the Sri Lankan State or its Ideal and that’s more gratifying than words can say. Rather than conforming to the defeatist attitude which according to Anon Tamil people have, keep your head down or migrate, they care, they are involved, they hold on to their stake. Keep it up you wonderful people. I think we can work something out. I hope.
Damn you are good. Enjoyed that write up and agree. Keep it up.
Of course I am good and of course I will keep it up. Thanks.
If you go to the North and East they speak Tamil and they have their own culture and ideas. They are not South Indian ‘invaders’. The Sinhalese people were invaders too at some point, and the borders have been pretty porous. Even the Kandyan kings generally married Indian Tamil brides. I don’t think there’s any genetic dominion the Sinhalese have over the whole island.
If there is a blueprint for the country it’s the Constitution, and that calls for significant autonomy in the North and East. I think it is a very different place, especially based on language. They should have a strong Chief Minister and be able to appoint their own police, etc.
They may not be invaders themselves, but they are remnants of South Indian invaders. Many Jaffna Tamils pride themselves on being remnants of the Cholas. That’s where the whole Tiger emblem came from. The Sinhalese as a people never came from India. There were no Sinhalese kingdoms in India where the Sinhalese language was spoken. The Sinhalese developed in Sri Lanka as a people, with significant input from Indic and Veddoid people and developed their civilization and language in the island which is today known as Sri Lanka. The Tamil civilization and language developed and flourished in the area which is today known as Tamil Nadu (Land of the Tamils). As fo autonomy, the east was part of the Kandyan Kingdom and is not majority Tamil and what level of autonomy (if any) will be given to these areas will be decided in the coming days.
this is divisive nonsense. Tamil and Burghers and Muslims and more have been here for hundreds of years and they don’t have to explain themselves to anybody. Sri Lanka only existed for a bit over 50 years now so all the prehistory isn’t actually a condition for citizenship today
Indi Indi Indi ! With all due respect stop acting like a text book case of an over sensitive politically correct white knight in shinning armour rushing forward to launch a kamikaze attack on shadows and moving branches. You have completely misunderstood me (and insulted me too in the process). Of course the Sri Lankan N/E Tamils are not South Indian invaders. No more than the Sinhalese are Indian. The keyword here is ARE. If you read the bit preceding the part you have quoted you’ll see I was talking about AGO. ONCE UPON A TIME. I was trying to explain the historic relationship of the Northern territories to the Sri Lankan State. I was trying to state the historical and moral justification for the oneness of this country. I was trying to explain why in the Sri Lankan context people who stand for national and territorial integration and an inclusive Sri Lankan identity can always always claim the moral high ground over people who agitate for fragmentation and exclusive ethnic identities and territories.
Of course you don’t think there is any genetic dominion the Sinhalese have over the whole island. I don’t either. Only a lunatic with super race fantasies would believe in genetic dominion. Genetic dominion? Where did this come from? From my comment? Of course from that phrase ‘genetic blue print of Sri Lanka’. I should have known the word ‘genetic’ used in connection with Sri Lanka would act like a red Sinhala Supremist rag to an enlightened, politically correct, liberal bull. But seriously what I meant by genetic blue print of a country had nothing to do with race. I did say THE COUNTRY’S EQUIVALENT of a genetic blue print and as such it has nothing to do with human genetics at all. What I meant was if a country started as a tadpole, it will achieve the best equilibrium only when it’s energies are spent towards producing a healthy frog. If people say Dolphins are great glorious animals roaming the deep seas and devote their energies to turning the tadpole into a Dolphin it won’t work for one and they will be working against the inherent potentialities of the tadpole. And also they will be making an unfair comparison between a frog and a dolphin. A frog is not inherently inferior to a dolphin. Or vise versa. A healthy frog and a healthy dolphin are two biological systems where all parts work together in complete harmony with each other to realize the full potential of the integrated whole and as such a healthy frog is equal to a healthy dolphin in the GREAT SCHEME OF THINGS.
Of course the Kandyan Kings married Tamil brides. In fact not only the Kandyan kings who are such nouveau royalty, such arrivistes, such johnnies come lately in Sri Lanka’s royal line up, even the truly great golden age kings took South Indian brides or had South Indian mothers. Even Kalinga Magha, the South Indian invader who annihilated the great ancient Pollonnaruwa Kingdom and wrought such devastation on this country and set up the gold standard for all successive south Indian invaders to follow was a descendent of the King of Sri Lanka on his mothers side and invaded this country on the strength of an imagined claim to the throne. Of course all the royal dynasties of a geographical region are intertwined. Most medieval English Kings found themselves under the necessity of going to war with France when they were half or even three quarters French. When the first and second world wars were declared the English royal family was mostly German. Until they infused British blood into themselves via Diana and the late Queen mother the Windsors were German. Queen Victoria couldn’t speak English properly. I know all this. Why do you assume that I do not and pounce on me with the Tamil brides bit? Why why why? Why do you assume that I do not know that all major races that interacted throughout history became intermixed to such an extent that now they are genetically homogenous. Latin, Jew, Anglo-Saxon got mixed in a common melting pot and lost their genetic uniqueness. Same with Sinhalese and Tamil. You say with such bravery that N/E Tamils are not south Indian invaders. Of course not. A significant portion of them is assimilated Sinhalese. So many castes of the Sinhalese are recently assimilated South Indians. That’s why through out my comment I used the word Sri Lankan. Why have you used the word Sinhalese in your reply? Is it because you attributed to me all the tiresome prejudices and fantasies you imagine the Sinhalese entertain?
This is my first post/write-up here. This is a good blog with wonderful discussions. One is impressed with the fact that civility is maintained here despite the disagreements.
Not sure how to read into these elections. But what strikes me as strange is, why hold this so soon? Would it not be better to hold the elections once all people are re-settled? That way, the process is inclusive and legitimate. With a chunk of population in refugee camps and a voter-turnout of about 20%, is the outcome a clear indication of what the majority actually thinks? I don’t quite understand. I don’t know if this is due to any pressure from international community or a pending aid of some sort that forced the SL election commission to rush to this.
On a funny note, I see a lot of political parties listed out on the ballot. Sounds very similar to how things are in India in the last 20 years or so, where you have so many parties on ballot papers only to confuse voters and increase the printing costs for polls.
Like the author says, having an election is better than not having one. Hopefully, Srilanka moves towards a prosperous future, although to get there it is would have to cross several hurdles, slowly and steadily.