Sri Lanka News Updates with Discussions

Yes my friend, you can write chapters explaining what a racist I am and what little knowledge I have about nation building. Yet, it remains a fact that people of your ilk cannot consistently explain why Sinhala becoming official language caused epileptic convulsions among Eelamist Tamils, who, for over 100 years, showed no such animosity towards English.

Pakisothy Sravanamuttu should spell out his policy alternatives to accomodate so called Tamil 'aspirations'!
Jehan Perera is nothing but a traitor who will sell himself to the highest bidder. When will they ever learn!!

Mr. Evans says they were informed officially that some 500 members of the military had been investigated for abuses and 100 had been prosecuted or convicted yet to date there is no evidence to substantiate the claims.

In that, I say you are not a racist in a true sense of the word, but an embodiment of Sinhala Buddhist insecurity in the context of Indian Subcontinent. This fear that, Sinhala Buddhists are in danger of assimilation is one that is driving people like to side with extremism.

Federal Party leaders dwelt constantly on the theme that the Tamils constituted a nation and wished to remain one. They should protect their identity and NOT ALLOW THEM TO BE ASSIMILATED, WHICH THEY ALLEGED WAS THE SINISTER DESIGN OF SINHALA POLITICAL LEADERS. Assimilation would, in any case, place the Tamils at the bottom of the Sinhalese caste ladder, so there was no reason to become part of it. (SJV Chelvanayakam and the Crisis of Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism, 1947-1977. p68)

When questioned, people like you through dubious historical claim of the entire nation!

?Sinhala Buddhists are no different from other groups when it comes to tolerating and perpetrating violence,? is the conclusion of Professor Neil De Votta, Associate Professor of Political Science at Hartwick College in New York. Released this month, his study titled ?Sinhala Buddhist Nationalist Ideology - Implications for Politics and Conflict Resolution in Sri Lanka,? published by the East West Centre Washington, covers very controversial issues in contemporary Sri Lanka including the claim that Sri Lanka is a country exclusively for Sinhalese Buddhists, extreme sentiment against foreign funded Non-Governmental Organizations, and worsening anti-Christian sentiment among others.

According to Prof. De Votta, Sinhala Buddhist Nationalist sentiment is fully embodied and institutionalized as State Policy enabling Sinhala Buddhist majority super-ordination, minority subordination and eventually separatist war. Prof. De Votta's study is clear, well presented and to the point. He has studied the Sri Lankan situation since before 2000 and from a background such as his, the report is hopefully unbiased, although almost saliently none of the currently powerful voices in the Buddhist clergy seem to have been given much say in the theorization and Buddhists ?deep rooted sense of insecurity? is predictably emphasized, rightly or wrongly, perhaps portraying Sinhala Buddhists as a terrified world minority perpetually quaking at the inevitability of ignominious extinction. Predictably a section has been denoted to list out numerous vices Buddhist monks have been alleged to committing ?smoking, drinking, maintaining paramours, taking bribes and ?applying to become lawyers (!)..? concluding that the Sangha is probably no better or worse than clergy of other established religions and expressing concern that such an institution contributes significantly to national policy making, perhaps implying that other clergies do not? Referring to the killing of 17 ACF workers as the worst atrocity against NGOs anywhere in the world, the grim hostility towards foreign funded non-governmental organizations is examined again as part of Sinhala Nationalism, to such a depth practical to this monograph.

A few strangely interesting terms have also crept into his study, (?Buddhist-Muslim clashes? ?Buddhist Taliban? and ?Intellectual Pimps?) and there are a lot of pointers for researchers on where to read from there onwards, but the study itself perhaps presents nothing very radical, simply an underscoring of the idea that Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism based on myth ? history helps perpetuate Sinhala Buddhist supremacy, minority subordination and thus continued separatist war. Sadly it concludes ?continued war and even attacks on Christians and Muslims seem to be in store for Sri Lanka.?

ARIYALAI, given the severity of this allegation, I am more than happy to know a single incident/occasion where I banked on a dubious historical claim to further a claim. Please note that, I am demanding only ONE such example.

Having said that, can you kindly point out which part of your reply addresses the question I raised about Tamils revolting against Sinhala being made the official language, having shown no such animosity towards English that remained the official language for over hundred years.

Why do you think that the Sinhalese felt the need to secure themselves?
What possible social and political reasoning that you can give to explain this?

There is no argument that, the Sinhala language was developed in Sri Lanka, and deep and rich history that is bestowed. However, for you to argue that, the Sri Lankan heritage is exclusively attached to the Sinhala Buddhist is preposterous.

Obviously, you do not want accept that, the English language was common to all subjects in colonised Sri Lanka. As with the Tamils, the Sinhalese also did not have any choice in that either. Like the Tamils, the Sinhalese also had shown no animosity at all towards the English language.