Home Archives for April 2012

Brewing a Conflict with China

| by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

( April 30, 2012, Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) Washington has pressured the Philippines, whose government it owns, into conducting joint military exercises in the South China Sea. Washington’s excuse is that China has territorial disputes with the Philippines, Indonesia, and other countries concerning island and sea rights in the South China Sea. Washington asserts that China’s territorial disputes with the like of Indonesia and the Philippines are a matter of United States’ national interests.

Washington has not made it clear what Washington’s stake is in the disputes. The reason Washington cannot identify why China’s disputes with the Philippines and Indonesia are threats to the United States is that there is no reason. Nevertheless, the undefined “threat” has become the reason Washington needs more naval bases in the Philippines and South Korea.

What this is all about is provoking a long-term cold war conflict with China that will keep

profits and power flowing into Washington’s military-security complex. Large profits flow to armaments companies. A portion of the profits reflow into campaign contributions to “the people’s representatives” in DC and to presidential candidates who openly sell out their country to private interests.

Washington is going to construct new naval bases in the Philippines and on the environmentally protected Jeju Island belonging to South Korea. Washington will waste

tax revenues, or print more money, in order to build the unnecessary fleets to occupy these bases. Washington is acquiring bases in Australia for US Marines to protect Australia from China, despite the lack of Chinese threats against Australia. Bush and Obama are the leading models of the “people’s president” who sell out the people, at home and abroad, to private interests.

Why is Washington ramping up a new cold war?

The answer begins with President Eisenhower’s warning to the American people in his last public address about the military/industrial complex in 1961. I won’t quote the warning as it is available online. Eisenhower pointed out to Americans that unlike previous wars after which the US demilitarized, after World War II the cold war with the Soviet Union kept the power and profits flowing into the military/industrial complex, now known as the military/security complex. President Eisenhower said that the flow of power and profit into the military/industrial complex was a threat to the economic wellbeing and liberty of the American people.

No one paid any attention, and the military/security complex was glad to be rid of the five-star general war hero president when his second term expired. Thanks to the hype about the “Soviet threat,” the military/security complex faced an unlimited horizon of mounting profits and power as Americans sacrificed their future to the interests of thosewho protected Americans from the Soviet threat.

The good times rolled for the armaments companies and security agencies for almost three decades until Reagan and Gorbachev reached agreement and ended the cold war. When the Soviet Union subsequently collapsed, the future outlook for the power and profit of the US military/security complex was bleak. The one percent was about to lose its fortunes and the secret government was about to lose its power.

The military/security complex went to work to revive the need for a massive “defense” and “security” budget. Among their willing tools were the neoconservatives, with their French Jacobin ideology and Israeli loyalties. The neocons defined America as the “indispensable people.” Such extraordinary people as Americans must establish hegemony over the world as the sole remaining superpower. As most neoconservatives are allied with Israel, the Muslim Middle East became the target of opportunity.

Muslims are sufficiently different from Westerners that Muslims are easy to demonize.

The demonization began in the neoconservative publications. Once Dick Cheney had the George W. Bush regime staffed with neoconservatives, the next step was to create “threats” to Americans out of verbiage about the Taliban’s responsibility for 9/11 and about “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,” including verbal images from Bush’s National Security Advisor of “mushroom clouds” over US cities.

No one in the US government or the “free” US media or the media of the US puppet states in England, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Australia and South Korea was struck by Washington’s proposition that “the world’s sole superpower” was threatened by the likes of Iraq and Iran, neither of which had any offensive military capability or any modern weapons, according to the unequivocal reports of the weapons inspectors.

What kind of “superpower” is threatened by Iraq and Iran? Certainly, not a real one.

No one seemed to notice that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians, not Afghans or Iraqis, yet it was Afghanistan and Iraq that were labeled “terrorist threats.” Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which do terrorize their subjects, are safe from having America bring them democracy, because they are Washington’s puppets, not independent countries.

As fear of nonentities swept over the population of “the world’s sole superpower,” the demands for war against “America’s enemies”–”you are with us or against us”–swept through the country. “Support the troops” plastic ribbons appeared on American cars. Americans went into a frenzy. The “towel heads” were after us, and we had to fight for our lives or be murdered in our beds, shopping centers, and airliner seats.

It was all a hoax to replace the Soviet threat with the Muslim threat.

The problem that developed with the “Muslim threat” is that in order to keep the profits and power flowing into the military/security complex, the promised six-week war in Iraq had to be extended into 8 years. The war in Afghanistan against a few thousand lightly armed Taliban has persisted for more than a decade, longer than the attempted Red Army occupation of Afghanistan.

In other words, the problem with hot wars is that the need not to win them in order to keep them going (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan are all long-term wars never won) in order that the profits and power continue to flow to the military/security complex demoralizes the US military and creates the world-wide impression that the “world’s sole superpower” cannot even defeat a few thousand insurgents armed with AK-47s, much less a real army.

In Iraq and Afghanistan more US soldiers have died from demoralization and suicides than from combat. In Iraq, the US was humiliated by having to end the war by putting the Sunni insurgents on the US military payroll and paying them to stop killing US troops. In Korea the US was stopped by an army of a backward third world country that lived on rice. What would happen today if the US “superpower’s” militarily confronted China, a country with an economy on which the US is dependent, about equal in size to the US economy, operating on its home territory? The only chance the evil in Washington would have would be nuclear war, which would mean the destruction of the entire world by Washington’s hubris.

Fortunately, profits are more important to Washington than ending life on earth. Therefore, war with China will be avoided, just as it was avoided with the Soviet Union. However, China will be presented by Washington and its prostitute media, especially the New York Times, Washington Post, and Murdoch’s collection of whores, as the rising threat to America. The media story will shift the importance of America’s allies from Europe to countries bordering the South China Sea. American taxpayers’ money, or newly printed money, will flow into the “new alliance against China.”

China’s rise is a great boon to the US military/security complex, which governs america in which there is a pretense of “freedom and democracy.” China is the profitable replacement for the “Soviet threat.” As the days go by, the presstitute media will create in the feeble minds of Americans “The CHINA Threat.”

Soon whatever little remains of the US living standard will be sacrificed to Washington’s confrontation with China, along with the seizure of our pensions and personal savings in order to deter “the China threat.”

If only Americans were an intelligent people. Then they might have some prospect of holding on to their incomes, remaining wealth, and liberty. Unfortunately, Americans are so thoroughly plugged into the Matrix that they present as a doomed people, incapable of thought, reason, or ability to comprehend the facts that the rest of the world sees clearly.

Can reality be brought to the American people? Perhaps a miracle will occur. Stay tuned.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

Sri Lanka and its Broken Promises

Time for India to re-examine the Issue

| by Usha S Sri-Skanda-Rajah

( April 30, 2012, Toronto, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is hard for a man to keep a straight face and tell a lie but President Rajapakse manages to do it every time he has to face the Indians and the International community about devolving power to the Tamil NorthEast. He just did it again when he had breakfast with Sushma Swaraj on the last day of the Indian delegation’s visit to Sri Lanka.

There is now a huge confusion as to who said what. Sushma says Rajapakse talked about devolution and mentioned 13th +Amendment and Rajapakse through the Island denies he said that: “The Sri Lankan government on Monday strongly denied a statement attributed to Indian Opposition Leader Sushma Swaraj, that her delegation had received an assurance from Mr. Rajapaksa on his commitment to the 13th Amendment, and his readiness to go even beyond it.”

Photograph: KeystoneUSA-ZUMA/Rex Features

Raising the matter of the continuing saga of Rajapakse saying one thing to Indian officials and then totally denying the statement when they have gone, under the headline “No assurance from Rajapaksa, says Sri Lankan daily,” R. K Radhakrishnan of the The Hindu, opines on Rajapakse’s promises “This is an exact replay of what happened with External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna in January 2012. Soon after Mr. Krishna met the President, the Indian side released to the press, a statement, which said the President had agreed to the implementation of the 13th Amendment (which grants some powers to the provinces) as a means to cater to the hopes and aspirations of Tamils in the Northern Province. Then, too, there was no briefing from the government side. A day later, the government's preferred newspaper, The Island, quoting the President, said he had not discussed 13-plus with Mr. Krishna.”

This clearly illustrates the sad spectacle, the tale of “Broken Promises” that Tamils have experienced under successive Sri Lankan governments and in this case under the Rajapakse regime.

When is India going to Re-assess?

Rajapakse talks about a home-grown solution to the question of power-sharing but nothing will ever grow on parched earth; when there is a lack of will, nothing will come to fruition. This is a profound reality that India must begin to recognize. How much longer is India going to wait for Sri Lanka to deliver on its promises?

It has a been a history of “Broken Promises” will show how utterly disingenuous Rajapakse is when he told Sushma that “he can’t force” the TNA to join the Parliamentary Select Committee for “talks”, as though this time round he has under his belt a magic formula that’s going to work wonders.

It is surprising that Sushma and the Centre still believe Rajapakse’s statements and continue on the path of no return, with Sushma calling on the TNA and (the UNP) to join the “talks” emphasizing to all that “until and unless the Parliamentary Select Committee works, the deadlock will remain.”

It blows the mind that Sushma is still placing her faith in Rajapakse and wants him to “persuade the TNA to join the talks,” believing that Rajapakse is ready not only to concede the 13th amendment but would go beyond, meaning, granting “more than devolution” (that’s a new one – I have heard of “maximum devolution” once mentioned by Rajapakse), and that he is convening a Parliamentary Select Committee to “discuss” it.

Sushma hasn’t studied Rajapakse when she commented that he must be persuasive with the TNA. Rajapakse doesn’t lack powers of persuasion, only that he is, on the contrary, not short in that department. It may seem that Sushma, like everyone before her, has succumbed to Rajapakse’s powers of persuasion.

Believing Sri Lankan governments has been India’s folly.

This is Déjà Vu over and over and over again. How many Indian leaders and ministers has Sri Lanka fooled?

This was a worry for most Tamils when news came of the Indian delegation’s visit to Sri Lanka which was reflected in the withdrawal of AIDMK nominee by TN Chief Minister Jayalalithaa. (The DMK nominee also withdrew at the 11th hour), the concern being that Rajapakse would manipulate events in his favour and it will be “an eye wash” and she was right.

“Talks” are good – but when promises are broken time and time again, there inevitably comes a stage when certain ultimatums should be given. It’s time that India gave that ultimatum to Rajapakse.

The TNA leader R. Sampanthan in his response to the position of the government of Sri Lanka at the 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) armed with facts, figures, events and quotes uttered by Rajapakse and his emissaries, examines the history of “Broken Promises”, amounting to a virtual dossier of facts, illustrating in no uncertain terms how hypocritical Rajapakse is and how his assurances to Sushma Swaraj ring hollow down to the very core.

Let alone the history of “Broken Promises” since independence, the TNA leader goes on further to examine the course Rajapakse has taken in hoodwinking the world before and indeed after the war and to fob off such irritants like India and the international community who keep insisting that action be taken towards genuine reconciliation that’s based on a lasting political settlement.

Just three years ago, when under Rajapakse’s command the Mullivaikkal massacre took place when forty thousand, possibly much more, perished and the UN appointed panel later found credible evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity which many believe amounted to genocide, Rajapakse issued a “Joint Statement with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon which Sampanthan reminds, “explicitly contained a number of assurances relating to a promised political solution.”

Since that carnage, such assurances have been repeatedly made by Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, Rajapakse’s emissary at the UNHRC for the benefit of the international community. In the 11th session Samarasinghe glorified the virtues of a home-grown solution: “We have always said that the only durable and lasting solution is a political process which addresses the socio-economic and political grievances and expectations of our citizens through a home grown process acceptable to all sections of our multicultural society. The efforts in this direction Mr. President have already commenced.”

Similarly Sri Lankan External Affairs Minister, GL Peiris and his Indian counterpart have from time to time issued joint statements “on the on-going dialogue between the Sri Lankan government and Tamil parties,” and more recently, in his dossier of “Broken Promises”, Sampanthan quotes Indian External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna who at a joint press conference with G L Peiris, on 17, January 2012, subsequent to meeting with Rajapakse, had expressed faith in the so called “dialogue process”: The Government of Sri Lanka has on many occasions conveyed to us its commitment to move towards a political settlement based on the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution, and building on it, so as to achieve meaningful devolution of powers. We look forward to an expeditious and constructive approach to the dialogue process.”

The harsh reality of this high drama played out by Rajapakse and his emissaries is contained in Sampanthan’s expose of the truth of what really happened at these 8 rounds of futile chatter where the Sri Lankan government “reneged” on its promise to respond to TNA’s proposals: the reality is that bilateral discussions commenced between the government and the TNA in January 2011 and continued for over a year without progress, consequent to the government reneging on its own commitment to respond to the TNA proposals made in February/March 2011.

But the futility of the whole “dialogue process” was beginning to emerge when the Sri Lankan government broke its promise for the umpteenth time when the government delegation at the bilateral talks went back on the agreement that “consensus” reached by both parties at this level would be then presented to the Parliamentary Select Committed (PSC) instead went on to “introducing a precondition that the TNA nominate its members to the PSC for the continuation of the bilateral talks.”

It is relevant and important that Sampanthan’s account of events of what was agreed upon at the bilateral talks be studied for a clearer understanding of how Rajapakse has steamrolled the process by withdrawing his delegation in violation of the agreements made and why the TNA finds itself portrayed as the villain, the reluctant participant of the reconciliation process when the contrary is true.

Agreements made at the bilateral talks between the government delegation and the TNA including events there after and how the government delegation withdrew are explained chronologically by Sampanthan:

· It was agreed that a number of past proposals for constitutional reform, including the Mangala Moonesinghe Select Committee Report, the 1995, 1997 and 2000 Proposals for constitutional reform and the majority Report of the multi-ethnic APRC experts committee appointed by the President, be brought into the negotiation process

· It was also agreed that the consensus reached between the TNA and the government delegation at the bilateral talks would be presented to the Parliamentary Select Committee [PSC] as the position of the government or as the joint position of the government and the TNA; and that the TNA would participate at the PSC on substantial consensus being reached at such bilateral talks.

· The said agreement was recorded in the minutes of the bilateral talks of 16 September 2011, stating: “once agreement was reached with the government delegation at these talks, which can be placed before the PSC as suggested, they [TNA] would join the PSC process.” These minutes were confirmed at the meeting held on 20 October 2011.

· However, in January 2012, in direct violation of the said agreement, the government unilaterally withdrew from discussions with the TNA, introducing a precondition that the TNA nominate its members to the PSC for the continuation of the bilateral talks. This was not only in violation of the agreement arrived at, but would also have nullified the opportunity of arriving at a measure of consensus at the bilateral talks.

This is nothing new. If there are any doubts lurking in the minds of the Indian people, Sampanthan’s dossier of “Broken Promises” would serve as a testament that there is little hope of a satisfactory “home grown solution” ever materializing.

To say, finding consensus and for that matter finding a “Southern Consensus” at the Parliamentary Select Committee is a near impossible task, is an understatement, and the world is again going to bear witness to a charade. There are substantive issues that need addressing, serious issues that have proved elusive thus far: the vexed question of the extent of the political settlement; whether it would be at par with what the state governments in India enjoy; whether police and land powers are “in” or “out” and what then is meant by 13A+ (that’s been rejected by Rajapakse time and again but has been resurrected according to assurances given to Sushma and again been now denied by him). But the TNA as Sampanthan has always said is ready for the long haul if only a measure of consensus was reached at the bilateral talks. It’s a shame that it didn’t happen.

India did assist Sri Lanka in the war. When concerns were raised by Vaikho and conveyed to Manmohan Singh in 2006 and by Karunanidhi to Sonia Gandhi in 2007, both (Vaikho and Karunanidhi) were given undertakings that they were “defensive weapons” and would not be used against civilians. Rajapakse did break India’s trust entirely; allegations are that Indian hardware including chemical weapons were used in the massacre of the Tamil civilian population.

Having prodded India to dilute the US sponsored UNHRC resolution by securing the clause that any advice from the UN to implement the conditions in the resolution could only be given at the consent of Sri Lanka, Rajapakse must be now secretly contemplating the prospect of escaping a war-crimes prosecution in lieu of an undertaking to India that he would reach a political settlement with the Tamils which India wants; a political settlement that he can continue to fudge. Rajapakse must be chuckling at his ability to out maneuver the Indians albeit with a little help from his brother Gotabaya. .

Then there is the “China factor”, Rajapakse it seems has had both China and India competing for his affections and time will tell at what cost to India.

This then is the sad truth and will be the sad fate of the Tamils if India does not change its policy of mollycoddling Rajapakse. Hopefully a new chapter will begin where India will begin to be less trusting and more demanding of Rajapakse.

India’s trust that the PSC would work is misplaced in the backdrop of the history of “Broken Promises”. I can imagine how the PSC process would work. Sri Lanka will be going round in circles, when a repeat of the shenanigans in the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) deliberations will be acted out again. The APRC met 128 times for three years minus the UNP which refused to attend and minus the TNA which wasn’t invited and therefore not party to deliberations, the formal report of which never saw the light of day although was later leaked to the public by some members.

How much longer is India going to wait for Sri Lanka to deliver on its promises?

The Sri Lankan government’s procrastination serves well its political agenda and that of Rajapakse’s. Sampanthan articulates his fears well in his address to parliament: “Moreover, the trajectory of the government’s conduct indicates that, if given time and space, that time and space will be utilized to pursue the agenda that the government has brazenly undertaken despite assurances to the contrary. That agenda entails the silencing of the democratic voice of the Tamil people, the entrenching of power at the centre and the transformation of the linguistic, cultural and religious composition of the North and East so as to negate the need for a political solution.”

It’s time India understood Rajapakse. It’s time India reviewed its position.

EDITORIAL:Bangladesh - PM Sheikh Hasina ’s mind wandering

Stop the hide and seek game;

It’s time to implement genuine investigative procedures on crimes

| by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

( April 30, 2012, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) The time has come to respond from our side on an ongoing debate in Bangladesh over our recently published articles which have created fresh political ideological debate while questioning the present regime in the country. As usual, like other South Asian nations, the Dhaka government is playing foul game to hide their corrupt ferocious acts against their own citizens. Why are there so many distracting questions about the Sri Lanka Guardian, instead of conducting genuine investigations, based on facts, on the problems we surfaced through our reports? What we have done is to directly say to the “ostrich”, hiding its head in sand ‘it doesn’t work; your nudity is showing in public. Just lift your head out and face the need to restore freedom, justice and fraternity in the country, within genuine institutional framework.

One of the local language daily newspapers based in Dhaka has carried the story while quoting a source of the Sri Lankan High Commissioner’s office in Bangladesh, saying that the Sri Lanka Guardian doesn’t exist. It seems that the “source”, told the paper there is no such paper published from Colombo. The person’s claim is correct in term of wording as we have been operating from abroad since 2009 due to the present regime’s policy on freedom of expression. Otherwise the “White Van” is likely to solve the problems in its way, similar to how the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) in Bangladesh acts. But the person seems to not recognize that well known Sri Lankan diplomats have been contributing to the Sri Lanka Guardian since its inception in August 2007. We are not going to talk now, about our (Sri Lankan) diplomats; how they were appointed and how they are working towards weakening our foreign policy.

The Dhaka government and/or its allied news agency do not need to fear the Sri Lanka Guardian, but their own inhuman activities against unarmed innocent civilians and dissenters. What we have facilitated is to highlight factual reality in the country while allowing few contributors including pro- Awami league writers, who have different political ideologies to the Government, to share their wisdom with wider public through their contributions to the Sri Lanka Guardian.

Recently Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina soughed in public that no one has the right to play with people’s fate. Unfortunately she and the others who are benefiting from her side are portraying themselves as being innocent on the stage but one sees an alien behavior behind the screen of “patriotism” and “national security”. In other words, the present regime of Bangladesh is using their fellow citizens as the medium to get rid of their personal banalities.

There is documented evidence that 31 persons have been killed extra judicially in the first three months of this year. It has been reported, that among the 31 persons killed extra judicially, 26 were killed in ‘crossfire/encounters/ gun fights’. Among the deceased, 17 were allegedly killed by the RAB, three by the Police, two jointly by the RAB and the Police, and four jointly by the RAB and the Coast Guards. Torture in custody persists while forced disappearances are continuing. During the three months (January-March) 2012, three persons were allegedly tortured to death. It has been reported a Dhaka University teacher was beaten by RAB, which is the rough murderous unit setup by the regime in the name of national security. As we compare, there are more similarities between the White Van syndrome in Sri Lanka and the RAB in Bangladesh which is reported to have tortured and killed dozens of people. Ms. Hasina, this is real nudity of your ‘alien (barbarian) governance against your own people, while claiming that no one has the right to play with people’s fate. This is a tragic joke.

We stand with the people of Bangladesh and we will continuously publish balanced factual reports on the country as well as other countries if required. As declared in our mission statement, we adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political considerations over professional ones.

It would be surprising if the Dhaka government decides to block the Sri Lanka Guardian for its viewers in Bangladesh, as did the paranoid Sri Lankan government for our dear readers in Sri Lanka. Killing the messenger is popular tactic used by many failed governments trying to stay in power. However, it has been proven that our reports hit the nail on the head and expose failure of the government’s puny dopey politics against the people. Like the present regime in Sri Lanka, the Dhaka government also is following what, the Bangla proverb says, “The deer has enemies because of its flesh”. People of Bangladesh will look and take necessary objective actions against the subject on time unless the Dhaka government blindfolds its people in Bangladesh before then. In other words, “the eyes are the mirror of the mind” (Chokh Moner Ayna). We are not asking for Justice when justice can be bought; we will never ask people to act when there are no people. We surface questions because we see possibilities of the dawn of justice in the horizon.

Click here to read more reports on Bangladesh

( April 30, 2012, Katmandu, Sri Lanka Guardian) Police say a bomb exploded in a busy market area in a southern Nepal town and killed at least four people.

Police said the explosion occurred in Janakpur during the Monday rush hour. There were 10 more people wounded, but details were sketchy.

Police are investigating and confirmed it was a bomb that had exploded.

The town is about 200 kilometers (125 miles) southeast of the capital, Katmandu.

Religious Extremism: The Post- War Reality in Sri Lanka

| by Rameez Aboobacker

( April 30, 2012, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian) There is a lot of debate and controversy in the public discourses over the last few days following the malicious attack on a Mosque in Dambulla by a group of extremist Buddhist led by monks in robes, hampering to perform Muslims’ Jummah prayers on Friday, 20th April 2012, and claiming that the mosque should be demolished or relocated immediately since, what they regard, it is located in a Buddhist sacred area, but the Muslims, on the other hand, rebut the claim saying that the mosque is in existence over the last 60 years with a legal registration. The mosque was also fire-bombed the night before, but fortunately no body was harmed. This incident, considering the gravity of the issue, became a hot topic of public debates not only in the local media, but in the global media as well, and the Muslims across the country became extremely alarmed over what happened to their religious symbols, a mosque in Dambulla and began to raise their concerns, including their political representatives in both ruling parties and opposition parties. In fact, this unfortunate incident shocked and confounded the Muslims across the country and their political representatives since they have recently extended their unstinted support to the government, which was grappled with enormous issues in the domestic and global arenas, in its pursuit of defeating the resolution moved by the US in Geneva as it was constituted as an infringement on the sovereignty of the country by the global forces.

Sri Lankan Muslims take part in a protest against the planned relocation of a mosque after congregational Friday prayers in Colombo on April 27, 2012. - Getty Images

Furthermore, their political representatives and the members (clerics) of All Ceylon Jamiyathul Ulema lobbied vigorously to garner the support of Muslim nations in Geneva to defeat the resolution and they have explicitly succeeded in their attempt of doing so, though the resolution was passed in the end against the Sri Lankan government. This being the case, what happened in Dambulla to their religious symbol baffled the Muslims. Just like the other countries around the world, Sri Lanka is also not immune to the religious extremism that emanated especially in the post independent era. The following section deals with extremism and its dynamics in politics.

Extremism and its dynamics in politics

Despite the fact that it is very difficult to define the religious extremism in absolute term, it can be represented that the people who are too religious or too strict in their religious orientation are regarded as extremists. It is also noted that the extremists are lying on the fringe as they draw their religious orientation within a literal perspective, not necessarily bothering about the contextual perspective. As such, the extremists can be characterized by the following traits: 1) rigidity, 2) exclusiveness, 3) excessive kind of spiritualism, 4) anti-materialism, 5) intolerant of other religion or religious orientation, and 6) anti-western in nature.

The world witnessed a great deal of calamities as a result of the provocative actions of these extremist forces. For instance, Jewish extremism in its quest of establishing the kingdom of God is pushing for dispossessing the Palestine and the West Bank at the expense of perpetrating a heinous crime against humanity, decimating the unarmed and innocent Arab civilians. Christian Zionist movements, Taliban, Moist, Jathika Hela Urumaya, to name a few are some of living examples of the extremist forces in the contemporary world as they fall in line with the traits signified above. In the world history, the extremism, however, has also emanated in the form of Nazism as well as democracy in order to perpetuate its ideologies in the world.

Religious extremism in Sri Lanka

It is significant to note that Sri Lanka had massively suffered over the last 3 decades due to the civil war that occurred between the government forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam(LTTE) on account of number of factors. One of the factors that laid a solid foundation to the civil war was the implementation of ‘Sinhala Only Act’ in 1956, primarily mooted by the Buddhist extremist forces. It is also believed that the Prime Minister SWRD Bandarnayake was shot dead by a member of these extremist forces in 1958 for embarking on a dialogue with Tamils over the power devolution.

This Buddhist extremist ideology in Sri Lanka is fundamentally founded on the following dimensions: 1) advancing the Sinhala Buddhist nationalist ideology 2) upholding the Sinhala as the official and national language and propagating Buddhism as the official religion, and 3) protecting and promoting the national economy of Sinhalese. These characteristics more or less fall in line with the traits of extremist groups signified above. Besides, they have shown intolerance to other religions or religious orientation and resorted to violence as a means of perpetuating their ideology in certain instances. This is a cogent manifestation of the Sinhala Buddhist extremist ideology. Interestingly, not all the Buddhists in the country subscribe to this extremist ideology as the majority of Sinhalese are peace loving, fair minded and pluralistic in nature. Thus, it should be emphasized here that this Buddhist extremist orientation is not representative of all the peace loving Sinhalese Buddhists in the country who are bounded by the teaching of Buddha on social justice, tolerance, non-violence and so on. Interestingly, these Buddhist extremist forces have not been able to appeal to the Sinhala masses with their policies over the years and their entry into politics have not brought any conspicuous and significant success in politics. However, they became a dominant coalition partner of the present government in which one of their representatives holding an influential cabinet position and rendered their irrevocable support to the government in its attempt to defeat the war on terror that came to end in 2009. Clearly speaking, the hegemony of this extremist force became so dominant during the present regime. The sudden decision to strike the Dambulla mosque by these extremist forces advancing the proposition of sacred land might have been stoked on account of a number of factors.

Factors of the attack on the Mosque

There many reasons that can be attributed to the attack on the mosque in Dambulla by the extremist forces on the pretext of its being constructed in the Buddhist sacred zone. Firstly, there is a popular impression among the people in Sri Lanka that Muslims are prosperous in terms economy and assertive in expanding their geographical and economic means across the country. An anecdotal report of the 2012 census indicates that the Muslims have become the first minority in Sri Lanka, outnumbering the Tamils. There is no reason to believe that this perception might have spared these extremist forces. Secondly, Muslims have the habit of expanding their mosques when it is not accommodative to all devotees (mosque goers). It is believed that the attempt made by the administrators (mosque trustees) to renovate the mosque physically might have enraged the extremist forces. Thirdly, in the name of Buddhist sacred land, they might have resorted to expel the Muslims and their religious and business locations from Dambulla, which might provide a room for Buddhists to firmly establish their economy in the area. Fourthly, with the domineering perception of promoting Buddhist nationalistic ideology, they might increasingly have alarmed over the presence of large number of Muslims in Dambulla, which is a sacred area for them. This might be constituted as a fear psychosis among the extremists of losing the Buddhist land contemplating that if this trend continues to persist. Finally, these extremists are under the impression, especially in the post war context that the end of civil war is end of conflict and the issues of minorities and they can continue to marginalize them as much as they can. In their sustained pursuit of subjugating the minorities, firstly they have overwhelmingly succeeded decimating the LTTE, and secondly they may tend to do the same with Muslims, and thirdly with Christians and others as well. This mentality has something to do with the psyche of extremists and suggests their rigidity, exclusiveness, and intolerance.

Argument on Buddhist Sacred land or area

It is a valid argument of the perpetrators that the unauthorized building should be relocated or destroyed in the Buddhist sacred land. However, Muslims are of the view that Mosque has been in existence long before than the decree or resolution on Buddhist sacred land introduced in 1981 and they have a valid legal documents to prove their claim. Even if the argument of perpetrators is valid, in some sense, that the unauthorized building is illegal in Buddhist sacred area, one wonders why they took a long time, almost 31 years since the introduction of the decree, to either destroy or relocate the mosque in Dambulla, let alone the argument of Muslims that the mosque is 60 years old. What is even more surprising is that Kataragama has also been demarcated as a sacred area where one would find that the Buddhist Temple, Hindu Kovil, and Mosque located in close proximity and these places of worship are functioning harmoniously with a significant number of devotees. Arguably, the sacred thesis has never been applied to Kataragama so far. Moreover, as the Buddhists in the country and around the world respect and regard their religious symbols (Temples and other holy elements) as sacred, Muslims also do in much the same way as the Buddhists, regarding their Mosques. In fact, if this sacred thesis is advanced, and then no one with rational thought can deny or refute the claim of Muslims’ perception of sacredness of their mosques. That is to simply say that the label ‘holy land’ applies to the ‘holy mosques’ and ‘holy temple’ (kovils) too. On the other hand, even if the extremist forces claim that Buddhist sacred area should be exclusively demarcated with only Buddhist sacred buildings, then other non-sacred places such as bar and posh hotels should be relocated immediately. Other significant critique of this vexed issue is that had the extremist forces perceived that this mosque was illegally constructed in a sacred area, it should have been legally challenged to establish the fact that the construction or location of the mosque was illegal and be relocated immediately. Instead, taking the law in one’s hand to demolish the mosque in a violent and callous way means that the person or group completely disregards the law and order of the country and thus these perpetrators are entitled to be prosecuted under a number of offences in the country’s judiciary system. Contrary to all arguments, Minister of land and land development, Janaka Bandara Tennakon accented that the mosque lies outside the sacred area declared by a gazette notification in 1981. This contention of the minister discounts all the arguments made by the extremist forces concerning the existence of the mosque.

Government’s approach

Sadly, these extremist forces have attempted to vandalize the mosque in the presence of the law enforcing officials who were idly watching as they became helpless to take measures to bring the situation under the control. However, it should be applauded that the timely actions of armed forces averted a mass destruction on the mosque. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s abrupt decision without the consultation of Muslim stakeholders to order mosque’s removal in Dambulla and to relocate elsewhere out of the sacred area escalated uproar and tension among the Muslim community across the country and has become a cause of worry on the part of Muslims over the lopsided policies of the government on religious freedom of every ethnic group which has been guaranteed in the constitution of the country. While the Prime Minister wanted the mosque relocated as is located inside the sacred area, Minister Janaka Bandara Tennekon categorically asserts that the mosque lies outside of it. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the government is in a great confusion over this issue. One may inevitably wonder what the exact policy of the government is on this fracas. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the government to take a firm and principled stance to ensure the legitimate religious freedom of minorities in this country without being subdued by these extremist forces.

Surprisingly, this is not an isolated incident in the post war context. Last year a Muslim shrine was destroyed in the sacred city of Anuradhapura, even sadly in the presence of legal enforcing officials. There are numerous reports of Hindu temples and Christian churches being destroyed in some parts of the country by these extremist forces too in the recent past.

Conclusion

Some argue that the politicisation of Buddhism as the state religion and the intervening influence it has in politics and social affairs continues to threaten non-Buddhist minorities and hinder peaceful coexistence of all communities. Moreover, failure of the government as a responsible entity in the center to prevent all attack on places of worship, whatever faith, and to fail to take measure to ensure that all religions are accorded with the same treatment and respect will demonstrate a negative perception of the government not only in the domestic level, but in the global level as well. Meanwhile, turning a blind eye by the government to succumb to these kinds of extremist forces, which is a part of the government now, to carry out its ideologies even to the extent of resorting to force and violence as a means will add manifold dimension of entrenched thesis of what we notified above. Therefore, it is appropriate on the part of the government to timely intervene into the Dambulla Mosque issue to restore the trust among the Muslims, minorities and majority peace loving Buddhist in the country, without exacerbating the issue by calling on the Muslims to relocate the mosque. It is also of paramount importance on the part of the government to take measures to curb the growing trend of intolerance of these extremist forces and to act immediately to build confidence among all communities to ensure that the minorities feel secure in every way as people of this country. In the post war context, this is of the utmost importance for reconciliation and peaceful co-existence. It is also imperative on the part of the government to foster an ideal of ‘cultural pluralism’ or ‘melting pot’, especially in the post war context in the best interest of developing the country, regardless of differences based on ethnicity, religion, class, caste and so on. At the same time, this is the high time for religious and community leaders to initiate inter-faith dialogue at all possible levels to ensure that the people of all religions are equipped with an objective understanding of all the religions in Sri Lanka.

The writer is a lecturer in Sociology at the South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, presently a PhD scholar at the National University of Singapore. He could be reached at aramees2001@gmail.com

Oh, Douglas Devananda!

Where is your adventurous sailing to India!

| by Rajasingham Jayadevan

( April 30, 2012, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) There was huge publicity on the claim by the paramilitary leader and the government minister Douglas Devananda that he will be storming Tamil Nadu with 5,000 Tamil fishermen from Jaffna to protest against poaching by the Indian fishermen in the territorial waters of Sri Lanka.

The government mouth piece Sunday Observer on 22 April 2012 published an article titled ‘Over 5,000 Lankan fishermen on sailing protest to Rameswaram’ written by K T Rajasingam - a controversial and crooked journalist based in Helsinki who is a close connect of President Mahendra Percy Rajapakse. He claimed ‘Five thousand fishermen from the North in one thousand boats will enter Rameswaram (India) shortly on a sailing protest and to seek the immediate halt of poaching by the Indian fishermen in the Sri Lankan waters.’

Douglas Devananda (sitting left)
was a Tamil rebel now a
government backed paramilitary leader

Such a hyphened claim even attracted the worldwide media. One would expect the move to be executed ‘shortly’ to bring about ‘immediate halt’ of poaching as reported by the government’s nefarious and scrumptious media man K T Rajasingam. As claimed the protest voyage should have reached the shores of Rameswaram by now. The news was highly pitched and adduced that the paramilitary leader Douglas Devananda was almost on the verge of leading the protest voyage. Days have passed and a week has gone and the much publicised adventure still remains a mission to be accomplished by the claimants.

Browsing through the paramilitary EPDP website did not give any news or press release on the adventuress claim. A press release or an appeal for northern Tamil fisherman to join him would have indicated that the paramilitary leader is serious about his business. Since his hyphenated claim of 22 April 2012, he appears to be hibernating over his undigested local gourmet dosa without even a remark through his posterior.

Government’s scrumptious
media man K T Rajasingam

Even the modern day money laundering Sri Lankan obsequious and rogue Shylock of Helsinki is maintaining silence, since his hyphened claim of unaccomplished misdemeanour to his client Douglas Devananda who channels funds from his rogue businesses to whip up his hype.

In weeks time, the paramilitary leaders claim would have lost its value and following that fully buried or cremated as it would have lost its news worthiness by then.

Both the Shylock of Helsinki and the paramilitary bandit Douglas Devananda will be contemplating another hit story for their survival and to fatten their purses with their uncouth politics and deception.

What India denied Sikhs India will deny Tamil Nadu and Tamil Eelaam

| by Shenali Waduge

( April 30, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) India’s problems are many though it hides behind a claim that it is a country united in diversity. As a sovereign country, it is not our concern how India runs its country or treats its people. Naturally, we expect India to respect Sri Lanka’s sovereign status as well. Nevertheless, the issue of Tamil Nadu wanting to separate and India promoting Tamil Eelaam in Sri Lanka has turned into triangular battle for which India stands accountable. The similarities in the Sikh struggle for a Khalistan and Tamil Nadu’s own quest for separatism is evident while India continues to deny the Sikhs, India’s gameplan for Tamil Nadu’s quest was to transport the separatist struggle to Sri Lanka and pretend to be friends of the Tamils of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. It is now time Tamils in both Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka open their eyes and realize that India has been making fools of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan Tamils for over half a century.

Leader of the opposition and right-wing Hindu party Bharatiya Janata Party member Sushma Swaraj leaves with delegation members at the end of a news conference in Colombo April 21,2012. - Image REUTERS

Of the 30m global Sikhs 19m of them live in India but the Sikhs number just 2% of India’s population. Of the 72m global Tamils, 65m live in Tamil but number just 5% of India’s population. In Sri Lanka, Tamils were 2.4m of the total 20m but with 1m now living overseas it is believed that the Tamil population in Sri Lanka is likely to be less than 1.5m.

While acknowledging the domino effect of colonial divide and rule policies accounting for the dissent that has prevailed in both India and Sri Lanka. Ideas for “separatism” were given birth by colonial rulers combined with their indoctrination through Christian and Catholic missionaries. This is how they first created the boundaries amongst people thus the idea that Muslims and Hindus must live in 2 distinct nation states. Instilling such thought processes was meant to encourage other ethnicities to demand their rights too. What also needs to be reiterated that politicians on both sides of the spectrum have without solving the divides when they could, used them to advance their own political power bases misguiding and manipulating the masses to suit their programs.

As with Sri Lanka the colonial education and prominence to English and Catholic education meant indigenous language and religion were given less or no prominence. At independence, Hindi became the exclusive language with Punjabi being abandoned. During colonial rule, Sikhs formed 14% of Punjab’s population alongside Muslims and Hindus and partition of land in 1943. The Sikhs even approached the British like the Tamil leaders to ask for a separate state. But at independence in 1947, 2 countries were created – India and Pakistan thus dividing the Sikh population leading to a lot of bloodshed thought to be over 500,000 lives. 12m moved out of west Punjab while the Muslims in east Punjab migrated to Pakistan. The partitioning made Sikhs loose much fertile land and over 140 shrines. Sikhs were to form the majority in the new Indian Punjab.

The Tamils of Sri Lanka comprise those from Kerala, Karnataka, Andra Pradesh while the South Indians brought to work on the plantations during the British empire were later referred to as Estate Tamils. Despite, the Tamils being less than 700,000 in total they were provided the best of American and British missionary English education and absorbed into the state apparatus enjoying higher privileges than the majority Sinhalese. With Independence and unitary nature of the constitution the Tamil political parties were aware that decades of privileges unfairly enjoyed by them would be questioned and the best way to camouflage the past and protect their present and future was to decry their fate on the “ethnic” platform. The ethnic dimension was planned immediately after the dawn of independence and in many ways was converged with Tamil Nadu’s own dissatisfaction with Hindi dominated India. It suited Tamil Nadu, Sri Lankan Tamil politicians and even the Indian Government to launch a separatist movement for a sovereign Eelaam in Sri Lanka which was plotted by the Indira Gandhi government helping arm, train and financialy support several Tamil rebels movements in Sri Lanka with LTTE emerging the most ruthless having eliminated the other Tamil movements.

The Sikh demand for a separate Sikh state (Khalistan) were made through the years 1946, 1958, 1972, 1984 with Akali Dal agitating against the Indian Government. The momentum soon spread amongst Sikhs. Sovereign Khalistan, a movement first announced in London with Khalistani flag raised in Birmingham in late 1970’s. London is also the LTTE’s international head quarters.

Both the Sikh and Tamil Diaspora have invested heavily upon a sovereign state. The momentum helped by 2 key incidents – the storming of the Golden Temple in 1984 and the 1983 riots in Sri Lanka. While the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards as a revenge for the Golden Temple incident, India went on to experience a wave of anti-Sikh riots throughout India. Again the similarities were that certain political patronage was involved in the incidents that took place against ordinary civilians in both India and Sri Lanka. India seems to have forgotten the tens of thousands that India killed for assassinating Indira Gandhi. What both events created was a notion that the ONLY requirement was a separate state and no Sikh and no Tamil were expected to think outside of this realm. Thus both Sikhs and Tamils living abroad started to roll the propaganda and fundraising efforts. In the case of Tamil Eelaam it is simply to be a “day dream” and India’s concerns for Tamils is nothing but a pretence to delay but deny the inevitable creation of Eelaam.

It suited India to have Eelaam insurgency launched in Sri Lanka while it took care of the Sikh insurgency in India. Both ironically launched in the 1980s. Both with militant groups and backed by a camouflage using the “ethnic” label which has helped mobilize people by force or by virtue of having no other choice.

The Sikh nationalist struggle turned into an armed struggle after Bhinddranwale became leader in the 1980s after taking refuge in the Golden Temple to avoid arrest. Tamil Eelaam struggle too was turned into an armed struggle by Velupillai Prabakaran usurping all control from the Tamil political realm which had to save face by pretending to be its mouthpiece internationally and locally.

Just as India played a hand in militarizing the Eelaam struggle in Sri Lanka by training numerous Sri Lankan Tamil groups, Indira Gandhi to split the Akali Dal political party helping to create Bhindranwale. Bhindranwale however was eliminated in June 1984 when Indira Gandhi ordered the army to storm the Golden Temple along with 37 other Sikh religious shrines. Nevertheless a cornered Prabakaran in 1987 was forced by India to be released uncaptured. Eventually, 2 Sikh bodyguards assassinated Indira Gandhi while her son Rajiv was assassinated by the LTTE in Tamil Nadu.

The storming of the Golden Temple was enough reason for the Sikh Diaspora to go on a diplomatic offensive and seek financial support and it also opened doors for other foreign elements to fuel the situation further. In Sri Lanka the situation was no different which begs to question whether a foreign hand could have been involved in the 1983 riots that spurred the Tamil Diaspora into action globally. Both the Sikh militants and the LTTE were soon to gain training for its cadres, able to procure arms legally and illegally and its “officials” gaining VIP status by foreign governments.

In 1946 the Shiromani Akali Dal passed a resolution claiming a “Sikh homeland” in Punjab under the leadership of the Akali Dal. In Sri Lanka, the Vaddukoddai Resolution was passed on similar grounds though LTTE Leader Prabakaran twisted aspects of this vision to suit only his needs which in reality has distanced any prospects of forming an Eelaam in Sri Lanka thus raising the question of whether LTTE was responsible for wasting 30 years and ruining prospects of a Tamil Eelaam.

Both Sikh and Tamil Diaspora currently lobbying overseas though pretending to pursue a “homeland” quest certainly have their differences which have at times turned violent. Yet for propaganda purposes both Sikhs and Tamils have managed to bury their differences and participate in demonstrations overseas calling for a separate homeland.

LTTE wiped out all other Tamil militants to call itself “sole representative” and made Tamil politicians fear to even speak against them.

Sikhs and Tamils have similar methods in collecting monies to fund their militant movements. In fact LTTE has links with both Khalistani Sikhs and Indian Maoists.

It is everyone’s question how a banned terrorist movement has been able to run 40 offices in the very countries that have banned it and openly canvass and lobby their cause with foreign MPs even attending these events and not shy to even bring up their demands on the floor of their parliaments! Some of these charities though banned seem to operate quite freely under other names with money transferred with ease. It is beguiling to even think how foreign governments would allow their own citizens to be fleeced by these LTTE charities!

India is questioning and continues to question Sri Lanka on its treatment of Tamils. When India stormed the Golden Temple and 37other Sikh shrines in 1984 with orders given to the Indian military to “remove terrorists, criminals and their weapons” leaving thousands of women and children among those “removed” and the shrines severely damaged including priceless manuscripts and literature. In Sri Lanka going back prior to the 1983 riots the burning of the Jaffna library was a UNP instrumental incident just like the 1983 riots where led by UNP goons though the involvement of Indian intelligence is not ruled out.

What is interesting is how the Sikh and Tamil Diaspora are rigorously pursuing a “separate sovereign homeland” to which they are unlikely to even come and reside in. So what is the really gameplan unless it they are benefitting commercially and personally from running a remote controlled movement for separatism from overseas. In the case of the Tamil Diaspora while they have been making over USD300m none of that money ever went towards uplifting a single life of a poor Tamil, improving infrastructure or basic needs when they could have easily done so as LTTE their hero was running a defacto state of their own till 2009.

Like the TNA and the LTTE, the Akali Dal exploited the contradictions and the problems that prevailed by turning them into communal and giving the spin to make every issue appear to be communally and ethnically inclined as it would favor their survival.

Just as the TNA and Tamil Diaspora continue to promote a separate state, the Akali Dal presented its proposal to the New Delhi Government – A. devolution of powers with a federal structure. B. transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab and Punjabi speaking areas to Punjab C.allocation of river waters, farm product prices, central and provincial taxation and financial powers, quota for Sikh recruitment to the armies. D. Indian gurudwaras to be managed by an elected body of Sikhs, sacred city status for Amritsar, broadcast of scriptures from the Golden Temple. The TNA are now lobbying for devolution, federal structure, land and police powers …. We know where the trend is going.

The Indian response to these demands were to use one of manipulation to gain Congress wins in the Punjab. Ironically, it was Rajiv Gandhi who signed the “Punjab Accord” just as he forced Sri Lanka to sign the “Indo-Peace Accord” in 1987 also forcing Sri Lanka to change its constitution to create the provincial council system by adding a 13th amendment. In both cases, the militancy took over. The Akali state government was dismissed in 1987 on the grounds it was “secessionist” and we can recall how President Premadasa had to annul the North Provincial Council when its first head Vartharaja Perumal declared a unilateral Eelaam state even printing letterheads to that effect.

What is extremely important to note is that after 1983 there has been no single attack upon Tamils despite over 200 dastardly and brutal attempts of killings by the LTTE. However, the Indian Government continued to unleash terror on Punjab with another attack on the Golden Temple just 4 years after the first attack in 1984 with over 15000 Sikhs being killed.

Just as the LTTE was running a parallel government through the gun, the Akali Dal did the same. To be also noted is that whilst the Akali Dal entered democratic framework contesting elections, the LTTE preferred to use the TNA politicians to push for their demands on the grounds that most of the TNA politicians belonged to the high caste educated elite and since caste factor was a major issue amongst the Tamil people.

However unlike the Sikhs whose grievance center around the undue prominence given to Hindu communities and to Hindi’s in particular where they claim there is disproportionate recruiting for Hindus/Hindi in civil, military, government, with laws monopolized the Tamils of Sri Lanka have had no solid reasons to decry any discrimination for despite being only a small percentage of the total population, Tamil has been made an official language, its ethnicity is denoted on the country’s national flag, all government documents, circulars are in Sinhalese and Tamils, national events are covered in both Sinhalese and Tamil. Tamils live amongst the Sinhalese than they do amongst their own people which hardly promotes and suggests and form of discrimination.

However, we know that Tamil Nadu on the other than is very much disheartened just as the Sikhs about the Hindis running the entire country and it is this anger and resentment that spurred the Sikh independence struggle as well as the Tamil Eelaam struggle though it was very artfully transported to Sri Lanka to delay the quest starting off in India. Who can deny that a Tamil homeland has to ideally be located in the place where the most concentrated population of Tamils exist? Tamil Nadu is that place with over 65m Tamils… how can there be a Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka where there is hardly 1.5m Tamils? It is practically insane and ludicrous to even suggest such and it is obvious that the Eelaam quest in Sri Lanka is just a ruse to deter and defer the Tamil Nadu quest from being launched.

Alongside the Sikhs the Muslims of India too face issues. One such being the demolition of the Babri Masjid Mosque in Ayodya in 1980.

About 1m of Sikhs and Tamils live abroad. This is certainly a large proportion. Most Sikhs live in an extended family, marriage partners are chosen across continents, dowry is a must as in Tamil marriages. Yet, the Diaspora of both Sikh and Tamils are anything but united. Divisions often are covered up but clearly visible and many instances have led to even death and violence even in nations where the rule of law is upheld. Amongst their own especially the Tamil Diaspora there is enormous wrangling all related to caste factors now emerging as seen in life amongst Tamils post-LTTE defeat. The wave of rapes, crimes, robberies and blackmails are all due to caste differences amongst the Tamils and these need to be continuously highlighted for the Tamils had cleverly concealed their own differences by using the Sinhalese as a scapegoat.

Both Sikhs and Tamils are making their demands clear overseas as well – afterall they have brought many mediocre foreign politicians into their parliaments as a result of their vote. So payback is naturally a must. In the UK, wearing the turban was waved when riding motorbikes. Similar cases regarding the turban has prevailed throughout US, Canada and the UK. Amongst the Tamils, their lobbying has generally stuck to “discrimination” tag enabling them status amongst foreign emissaries and representatives and the ability to influence organizations they set up to continue to run illicit campaigns that leave a significant portion into their own accounts.

What is clear is that a handful of self-centered individuals have been taking “dreams” and trying to turn them in to reality not so much for any deep concern for the rights and dignity of their own people but such “homeland” calls have benefitted these people personally, commercially and politically giving them more status than they could aspire to achieve without such a quest.

These quests have been facilitated by the UN whose recognition of “self-determination” bids have only served to make the situation tense and countries unstable. This is possibly a ploy amongst those that rule the UN in order to control countries that suffer from such “self-determination” bids.

Will peace prevail just because a “homeland” is created and a turban is worn or “eelaam” is created? Will Tamils living amongst the Sinhalese all leave and reside in this Eelaam for in creating a separate Eelaam no Tamils have any right to live amongst the other ethnicities. But how many of these Tamils now residing happily in the South of Sri Lanka are willing to even consider living amongst their own when already bickerings, violence, rape and blackmail are taking place primarily due to the caste factor which Tamils are making great efforts to hide?

Dreams are nice but political dreams are nothing short of an utopia and Tamils in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka need to sooner or later realize this and to finally accept that India has been and will continue to fool them pretending to pressurize the Sri Lankan Governments to take seriously the Tamil “aspirations” but in reality India is only pursuing its own agenda and it has nothing to do with Tamils.

Buddhism gone berserk

Political, economic and social suicide

| by Pearl Thevanayagam

(April 30, 2012, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Dambulla Mosque fire-bomb attack on April 22 is a political, economic and social suicide attempt which will have very serious repercussions just as the country is urged by the international community to mend fences and progress towards reconciliation. When all hell was breaking loose the Muslim, Malay and Burgher communities steered clear of the ethnic conflict except to act as mediators be it in the media, judiciary, police or commissions of inquiry and kept the fragile and fractured isle together barring the odd skirmishes resulting from trade conflicts and suspicions - perceived or otherwise - of acting as moles for both the government and Tamil militants during the war.

The Muslim community have always had considerable influence over the island's economic status since the 1500s when they arrived here from the Middle East to trade in spices and several hundred years later from India bringing in textiles and other exotic goods.

These communities remained calm and carried on with their duties while the warring Tamils and Sinhalese were gouging each others' eyes out in the pretext of nationalism and their respective ethnic identities. It now seems the Muslim community will not be silent forever in the wake of unprovoked attack on their Holy Mosque and are garnering support from fellow Muslims all over the world.The 35 year old ethnic strife has left some metastases in the body parts of the island where pockets of elements touting false national and religious pride are threatening to tear up this island emerging from the wounds of war.

The sacrilege instigated and carried out by the Sinhalese mobs including Buddhist monks on a place of worship should not be taken lightly and fobbed off just another mob attack. This was a calculated crime resulting from religious intolerance and instigated by Sinhala extremist politicians as can be gleaned from media reports. The Muslim community have always had considerable influence over the island's economic status since the 1500s when they arrived here from the Middle East to trade in spices and several hundred years later from India bringing in textiles and other exotic goods. Many chose to set up home here and have remained peaceful and showed a lot of bonhomie in their adopted motherland. The community also produced some excellent scholars and professionals.

Some key politicians are threatening to withdraw support for the government as a result of this unfortunate incident. If the LTTE almost succeeded in seceding a portion of the island for the ethnic Tamils who were deprived of their inalienable rights then it is now the turn of the Muslim population to fight to carry on their religious convictions and their rights as dutiful citizens to practice their faith without hindrance. Islam is a tolerant religion no matter how adversely the West misinterprets. The West did not intervene in the Middle East until it found an opportune time when oil was discovered in the 1930s. The oil-rich lands of the Bedouins became several kingdoms and they began to supply the developed nations with the much needed oil which in turn dictates the strength of their economic indicators. The West's approach to the Middle-East crisis since the '70's has never been totally altruistic. It pitted governments against opposition parties, nations against nations.

Deeds or no deeds it is no excuse to desecrate a place of worship.

The writer is Asia Pacific Journalism Fellow at UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, California and a print journalist for 22 years. She can be reached at pearltheva@hotmail.com)

The Morning after the FUTA Strike

The politics of a broader agenda in 2012

| by Andi Schubert

( April 30, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) re-launched its trade union action on Thursday the 26th of April with a token strike and rally. In the context of the renewed attention in tertiary education and the threat of further trade union action by FUTA, this article seeks to draw out some questions that FUTA will have to deal with if it is to avoid the debacle of its last trade union action.

FUTA Strike 2011

The FUTA strike of 2011 was a high watermark in the recent history of State universities in Sri Lanka. On May 9th 2011, FUTA members resigned from their administrative posts in the universities as part of its trade union action to demand higher wages for university academics. However in the build-up to May 9 and in its immediate aftermath it became clear that the issue of higher wages was not the only issue that was a concern for FUTA. The final clarion call for the allocation of 6% of GDP on education (it is currently less than 2%) marked a key moment for the trade union as it highlighted a shift away from the narrow demands of better wages, to a larger concern for the future of higher education in Sri Lanka. It is perhaps no coincidence that these developments also arose in the backdrop of government plans to introduce private medical colleges (as seen by the furore created by the SAITM campus at Malabe). The broader concern for the higher education sector in Sri Lanka gave way to "an academic spring" and led many to believe that "a sleeping giant" had been awoken.i

However, the sudden suspension of trade union action in July on the agreement made by the FUTA leadership surprised many, especially due to the terms of the final agreement that was reached between FUTA and the government. The three agreements that were made at the time were the removal of conditions on components of the salaries of academics (particularly the research allowance), a committee comprising representatives from FUTA and the government would be formed to resolve salary anomalies, and finally the withdrawal of a circular that made it mandatory for academics to give three months notice when resigning from voluntary administrative positions.

Noticeably many of the broader issues raised during the trade union action were not part of the agreement reached between FUTA and the government and the agreement reflects a concern that is almost exclusively focused on the wages of permanent lecturers within the university system. Due to this it would be easy to take away an impression that FUTA was not really concerned about the larger issues facing the higher education system in Sri Lanka and was finally only interested in securing better salaries for its members (a laudable but somewhat narrow goal given the issues raised during its Trade Union action).

FUTA Strike 2012: A Broader Agenda?

In a letter to President Mahinda Rajapaksa regarding the resumption of its trade union action, FUTA has outlined a number of serious and pertinent concerns about tertiary education in the country including the lack of funding for State Universities, politicization and political interference in the university system and the suppression of student activism. Once again it would appear that FUTA is calling for larger reforms to the tertiary education system and has not limited itself to discussions around salary anomalies alone.

The fact that FUTA has opted for this strategy from the outset is also a reflection of the evolution that took place during its last (failed) trade union action in 2011. This development is indeed laudable and should be appreciated. It is hoped that FUTA continues to maintain this broader commitment to the issues facing (and crippling) the higher education system in Sri Lanka and succeeds in defining the parameters of the debate in a broader context. However, the shift that this entails raises a number of interesting questions for FUTA.

FUTA’s Role in a Broader Agenda

One of the biggest questions that this shift raises is as to who the stakeholders in this process should be. Or to put it more succinctly who should speak for these stakeholders and what are the politics involved in doing so? When approached from this angle it becomes clear that FUTA is only one of many stakeholders whose voices should be heard viz. the current debates on the future of the higher education system in Sri Lanka. Just as much as lecturers play an important role in the universities, it is pertinent to recall that student unions, non-academic staff unions, and other groups that have not been organized on these lines including students and visiting lecturers, should all be important stakeholders in discussions on the future of the university. If FUTA is to succeed in broadening its agenda, then it must be willing to open itself up to the issues faced by other groups within the university system as well. In this context what is the role of FUTA as a spokesperson or actor calling for reform of the university system? A broader agenda for trade union action must involve the realization then that FUTA can and must play a wider role that is more of a facilitator than leader in these discussions. This is in spite of the fact that FUTA represents the academics within the system and therefore sit atop the hierarchy in the university.

It also requires FUTA to seriously think of what it really wants this trade union action to achieve. As an umbrella organization FUTA will have to grapple with concerns that its own voice will be lost and the interests of academics will be diluted in the process of achieving this broader agenda. It must therefore either decide to tackle these issues head on and convince its members of the need for this broader agenda from the outset. If it changes its mind like it did during the last trade union action, FUTA will find itself again struggling to be relevant and "awake."

FUTA, Power Politics and Alliances

It might also help FUTA to be reflexive on their own notions of power and hierarchy within the system and ask itself questions for example at which points would FUTA be reluctant to share a stage with other unions (especially student unions) and what the power politics of this reluctance entails? FUTA may find itself grappling with the hierarchical nature of the university system. The conceptions of the exalted stature of the teacher within the university may well be threatened particularly by seeing student unions as being equal partners in a struggle rather than as students in a classroom. This may also require a serious reflection on the terms on which these alliances are made and who should decide on them. For example, in response to some of the questions posed in public discussions, some academics have strongly argued for a commitment from student unions to stop ragging as a prerequisite for an alliance. However, one wonders what commitments FUTA is willing to make on its part in exchange for this commitment from student unions. (This is not to say that ragging is good but to point out the politics through which alliances are built)

One way in which FUTA may be able to create a broader alliance is by putting in place mechanisms that could encourage this process. One example of this is the exploration of the possibility of FUTA adopting a resolution to support trade union action of other unions by not working on days when other strikes have been called, especially when relevant to the broader agenda outlined by FUTA. Another example of this could be a commitment to bettering pedagogy and moving away from archaic curriculums where possible in order to provide students with a higher quality education. While these may seem rather radical steps, they are suggested as examples of some of the thinking that FUTA would have to consider in order to pursue its commitment to a broader agenda.

The lack of media attention for the FUTA token strike on the 26th (also overshadowed by the student protest against the Malabe Medical College) suggests that FUTA will have to work hard to return to the levels of debate, attention and discussion that it generated during its last trade union action. While FUTA’s commitment to a broader agenda is laudable, it is important that the process and politics of this agenda be discussed and dealt with from the start. The failure to do so will see FUTA repeat its performance from last year and struggle even further to be a voice that can speak truth to power.

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )