NORWEGIANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT AWAY
Who wants Norway as the so called "facilitator" or whatever of peace negotiations in Sri Lanka. Karuna the leader of the eastern tigers has recently said that the Norwegians are partial towards the Wanni tigers and that they should be left out from any negotiations. Do the Muslims have any faith in the Christian Norway to achieve any peace that is acceptable to the majority of the people in Sri Lanka? Only an year ago the Sinhala people, especially the Sinhala Buddhists voted for the Sandhanaya mainly because they were against the MoU signed between the LTTE and the UNP. They wanted Solheim and others to go back to Norway and to make the MoU null and void. In fact the Sandhanaya campaigned against the MoU though some leaders of the alliance have forgotten it now.
It is basically the UNP, the so called NGOs (they are sponsored by the western Christian governments and political parties, though they are called non governmental organisations), and some Christian churches who want Norway to continue. The vocal minority who get much more than their share in the news media campaign for Norway and the MoU as if the country would perish in the absence of the Norwegians. Some of these political pundits appear to take up an anti LTTE stance. They would write and speak against the LTTE but would finally say that the MoU should be honoured and that Norway should be kept as the "facilitator" of the peace process.
To my mind these people are the most dangerous betrayers. The people are deceived by their anti LTTE writings and by their arguments. If Norway is partial towards the Wanni LTTE as even Karuna has said, if the LTTE is a fascist organisation as some of the anti LTTE "pundits" would argue, then why should they want Norway to continue with the so called peace process. Of course they would say that one of the premises is wrong and they have never said that the Norwegians are partial towards the Wanni LTTE.
These anti LTTE but pro Norway "pundits", in spite of their so called opposition to the Wanni LTTE, in essence work for the latter. They have only one argument, and their position could be formulated in the following manner. The Sinhala Buddhists have been in the wrong at least from the time of Anagarika Dharmapala. They have discriminated against the Tamils and the other minorities including the Sinhala Christians, especially with the (Sinhala) Official Language Act, the 1972 constitution, and the media wise standardisation in respect of University Admission and the Tamils and the others have a cause to fight against majoritarianism imposed by the Sinhalas, especially the Sinhala Buddhists. The west is trying their best to achieve a solution to the problems created by the Sinhala Buddhists, and they have to be supported in their endeavor. We should not do anything that would displease the west in opposing their actions and all that the Sinhala people have to do is to agree to what the west proposes and go along with it.
These pundits must be thinking that the Sinhalas are a stupid lot who cannot see through their writings that appear weekly not in single but in double in the newspapers. They must be thinking that by taking an anti LTTE stance they could deceive the Sinhala people. In Sinhala there is a saying that goes as "Kata boru kiwwath diva boru kiyanne nehe" which means that even the mouth lies the tongue would not. In essence people cannot hide their feelings for ever, and they come out either in the expressions used or in the premises of their arguments.
It is not my intention to counter their arguments as it has been done number of times. However, I would like to mention one or two facts that is not propagated by the NGOs and some members of the Christian Churches. I would begin at the beginning according to the anti Sinhala Buddhist pundits some of who could be anti LTTE as well. It is true that Anagarika Dharmapala has referred to Kochchiyas and Malayalis as foreigners. In the second half of the nineteenth century before the so called pluralism became a standard word among the vocal minority in the news media, who were considered as foreigners and who were considered as natives in the country? Who brought people from Kochin and other places including Tamil Nadu, or who made these people to come to Sri Lanka in search of jobs? Were they foreigners or not in the country and were they a threat to the Sinhalas or not?
The British having imposed western Christian modernity in India, Sri Lanka and other countries made most of the people in these countries depend on the jobs created by the western Christian economic mode which is none other than capitalism. The British were able to take these people especially from Tamil Nadu to other countries not only in Asia but in Africa as well. The Tamils were the most obedient among the Indians, reminiscing how the Hanuman tribe served Rama of the "Aryan" stock against the other native tribes such as Rakshasa in the region. Contrary to the belief that the "Dravidians" were pushed southwards by the "Aryans" who came to India, Ramayanya and other sources reveal a different history according to studies carried out by Chinthan Parshadaya. When the Aryans came to India or Jambudveepa, as there was no India then, there were number of tribes with a Chinthanaya not very much different from that of the Chinese. The whole region from China in the north to Lanka in the South was inhabited by different tribes but with more or less a common Chinthanaya. These tribes were neither "Aryans" nor "Dravidians" as they were terms coined very much later. The invaders who are now termed the "Aryans" defeated most of the tribes at war and built a civilisation which could be called the Vedic civilisation . However it took some time for the Vedic civilisation to reach the east and the south. The Buddha as well as Mahaveera of Jainism were products of ancient tribal cultures that had not lost their Chinthanaya during the process of "Aryanisation". Buddhism or Buddha Sasana to use the correct word survived in Sri Lanka but not in Dambadiva (India) because the Chinthanaya necessary for Buddhism had been gradually ousted from the latter due to the spread of Vedic Chinthanaya, in addition to some political factors. The Sinhala Buddha Sasana took roots as the relevant Chinthanaya had not been wiped out by the semi Vedic people, symbolised by Vijaya, who migrated to Sri Lanka .The Hanuman tribe was a tribe that was not as developed as the other tribes in the south and the east, and they took the side of the Vedic Rama against the other tribes. They developed gradually as a result of serving the Vedic people, at the expense of the other tribes. It may be true that Tamil was spoken in India before the "Aryan" invasion, and hence older than Sanskrit but not as a developed language. How and when Tamil developed and then Tamilised Telugu, Kannada and the other so called Dravidian languages is another aspect of this interesting story.
During the time of Anagarika Dharmapala the Sinhalas who, like others in the region, had ben forced to seek the jobs that the British created after dismantling the Sinhala economic system, had to compete with the foreigners imported by the British for such jobs. If Anagarika Dharmapala was wrong, it was not because of calling those imported as labourers by the British as foreigners (paraya is a word meaning other, the whites were also called para sudda) and pointing out that the Sinhalas lost their jobs for the foreigners, but due to accepting the economic system imposed by the British on the Sinhalas. This was against the Sinhala British convention that was signed in 1815 and Anagarika Dharmapala should have thought of a mechanism to absorb some aspects of the British system without accepting it. Many European nations who are famous for their "humanism" through the way they responded to the Jews have been agitating at various times against foreigners for taking the jobs of the natives in their countries. It has to be reminded that even today not only in Germany, but in France and Britain as well there is a feeling against the blacks, who were by the way not imported by any black race or nation, for robbing the jobs of the whites, however only Anagarika Dharmapala is called a racist.
It is said that the Sri Lankan "government" has to agree to the "joint mechanisms" even if the LTTE does not. Now that the LTTE has not agreed to some of the conditions drafted by Norway, and the Sri Lankan "government" is not under pressure. In any event why should the "government" always has to agree to any proposal made by the western Christian world while the LTTE has the luxury of not agreeing with them. Why is that if the "government" is against the proposals of the western Christian countries represented by Norway it is branded as a move against peace while the LTTE could oppose any proposal in the name of peace. The westerners are clearly partial towards the LTTE while always applying pressure on the "government"
While the west follows this racist attitude against the Sinhala people assuming of course that the "government" of Ms. Kumaratunga represents the Sinhala people, the pundits who take an anti LTTE stance would advice the public that the "government" has no alternative but to agree with the western proposals. This exposes the bogus anti LTTE outlook of the pundits, as they are effectively saying that the government should finally give way to the LTTE proposals. These pundits, I would say, are the worst betrayers, and unless we identify them for what they are the Sinhala people would be in a very difficult position. There is an alternative that the "government" can adopt, The "government" should expose the western Christian countries by openly telling the public the pressure that is being applied, and ask these agents of western Christian colonialism to go to their respective countries and not to interfere in our affairs.
The west is so much happy with the LTTE, that they have welcome the Tamil terrorists in their countries with much fanfare. The terrorists go from one country to another country as if they are the representatives of a future state. The propaganda machinery is with the west, and it is the west that gives publicity to the activities of the terrorists. There is no point in trying to satisfy the west as some "Parliamentary Political pundits" would say because the west would not be satisfied even if an ISGA is given to the LTTE. It is the west that has created the problem and they are "convinced" that the Sinhalas are in the wrong. It is unfortunate that we are yet to understand the partial policy of west towards the LTTE. The moment we understand this partial policy we would have won not only the battle but the frozen "war".
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>