A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Monday, April 28, 2014
India’s 16th National Elections And Its ‘Behaviour’ Towards Sri Lanka
In last Saturday’s (19 April 2014) Island, Gunadasa Amarasekara, the
venerable veteran of ‘patriotic nationalism’, alerted the readers to
‘India’s behaviour’ as a critical factor in asking the question: “Has a
new approach been developed to divide the country following the Geneva
session.” The article is all about the Geneva resolution and India’s
non-voting on it, and has nothing at all about what seems to have
happened after the resolution to raise alarm in Sri Lanka. In fact,
nothing much has happened after the Geneva resolution except
of course the plethora of speculations and analyses. Even the “new
approach” that seems to be causing concern is nothing other than the
much maligned 13th Amendmentand
the unfortunate misunderstanding that its implementation will
ultimately divide the country. The strategic patriotic thinking is that
by abstaining on the vote in the resolution, India (with US connivance)
has positioned itself to quietly coax, rather than overtly confront, the
electorally invincibleMahinda Rajapaksa to implement the 13th Amendment
in full. Otherwise, it is asked, what business has 13A in a human
rights resolution? As if the patriots would have accepted a pure human
rights resolution if it was not sullied by 13A at India’s behest. The
supreme patriotic task now is to make sure that the President is not
deceived by this ‘new approach’. In other words, make sure that 13A is
rejected before India or anyone else tries to revive it. What is new
here?
What is new – can lead to a different discussion three weeks from now when the results of India’s 16thnational
elections would be known, and a different government would likely take
office in Delhi. India’s elections did not figure at all in Dr.
Amarasekara’s article probing into ‘India’s behaviour’. He may have
thought it was premature to comment on the elections that were not even
half way through when he wrote his piece. There was no such hesitation
in the weekly political commentary that appeared the next day (The
Sunday Island, 20 April) – the familiar mishmash of hurriedly read and
ill digested information – this time on Indian federalism, paranoia
about the dangers to Sri Lanka lurking in the outcome of India’s
elections, and a wrap-up call for a defence agreement between Sri Lanka
and China. The only reason why we should not laugh this off as lunatic
journalism is that it might really be a scoop into the thinking of
someone substantial in the government. That does not make such thinking
less absurd, but it should warn us to the danger of insanity in politics
and in policy.