Cut it off and kill it
By Dayan Jayatilleke
A patriot would feel a thrilled quickening of the heart at the news that a spearhead of the Sri Lankan armed forces is nearing Kilinochchi. A traitor would not. A realist would know that there’s a long way to go before the war is won and many a pitfall to avoid. A fool would not.
I am in no position to venture an opinion as to whether our Wanni offensive has reached a point of irreversibility, and we have checkmated the LTTE. I do know however, that there are several things we have to watch out for.
The IPKF once dominated all the areas we are seeking to recapture from Tiger control, but that did not prevent the LTTE from prevailing. The difference between the Sri Lankan armed forces and the IPKF is, however, obvious. The IPKF was under the constraints sourced in the influence of Tamil Nadu. The Sri Lankan security forces operate under no such constraints. Even more basically, the IPKF had India to go back to, but the Sri Lankan forces have no country to retreat to.
The war is not won by the Sri Lankan state nor lost by the Tigers so long as Prabhakaran remains alive, just as the war in Afghanistan was not won so long as Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri and Mullah Omar stayed alive. Instead of finishing the job in the Tora Bora Mountains , the US-led allies diverted their attention needlessly and heedlessly, to Iraq .
We must be wary of the efforts by the LTTE to mislead, delay and divert. The Tigers will use any intermediary—both sincere and insincere—adopt any guise and any combination of carrots and sticks, to confuse us so they can escape and live to fight another day.
In 1995, when Operation Riviresa was nearing completion and Jaffna was about to be liberated, an approach was made using an eminent religious intermediary to permit the people to evacuate. This was agreed upon without due heed to the possibility that the LTTE would exfiltrate together with the people. This cunning exodus of the LTTE to the Wanni in the wake of Riviresa was followed the very next year by the overrunning of the Mullaitivu camp.
This had its more dramatic antecedents, though. In 1987 Prabhakaran’s escape from Operation Liberation was facilitated by Indian intervention, itself catalysed by pressure from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MG Ramachandran. One year later, IPKF jawans were dying at LTTE hands, and a few years later Shri Rajiv Gandhi was blown to bits on Tamil Nadu soil by an LTTE suicide bomber. In his effort to retrieve Sri Lankan sovereignty from the IPKF presence, President Premadasa also contributed to saving Prabhakaran from the IPKF, and paid the supreme price at Prabhakaran’s hands on May1st 1993.
Therefore, what should be Sri Lanka ’s attitude and policy towards the Tiger army now trapped in its own lair except for the occasional foray? It should be that of Gen. Colin Powell, the topmost US military officer during Gulf War One –Desert Storm—which was under the operational command of Gen Schwarzkopf. When asked about his strategy for fighting and defeating the Iraqi armed forces, Powell replied: “First we cut it off; then we kill it.” That, rather than territorial acquisition, must be the primary goal of strategy.
This is not to say that the liberation of territory is insignificant. Here two distinctions must be drawn. The first is between primary and secondary. The primary goal of strategy must be “the annihilation of the living forces of the enemy”, which is North Vietnam’s General Vo Nguyen Giap, anticipating and practising decades before against the French and US forces, what US commander Colin Powell was to articulate more crisply decades later during the Gulf war: cut it off and kill it.
The second distinction that we must observe is between war and politics. In politics, unlike in war, the territorial consideration is of primary significance. The reunification of the national territorial space by the Sri Lankan security forces under the political leadership of President Mahinda Rajapakse (assisted by Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse), building on but going far beyond the contributions of his two elected predecessors, is an achievement of historic proportions. That assertion is not a jingoistic hurrah but a simple, literal application of the late Edward Said’s interpretative recapitulation of Antonio Gramsci, (among other things) the finest political scientist of the last century:
“On the other hand, far more than Lukacs he was political in the practical sense, conceiving of politics as a contest over territory, both actual and historical, to be won, fought over, controlled, held, lost, gained.” (Edward Said, `History, Literature and Geography`, in Reflections on Exile).
This may come as something of a surprise to the Sri Lankan intelligentsia, a noisier one of whose number recently opined that an obscure Trotskyite trade unionist named Ted Grant, not a single of whose writings are taught in the Political Science courses of any university of my acquaintance on four continents, was a vastly better political thinker than Carl Schmitt, who is present in any serious scholarly debate on political theory. Schmitt’s seminal work was pre-Nazi takeover, during the Weimar Republic, and decades later in the 1960s, while his Nazi affiliation is as relevant to his status as a political thinker as Martin Heidegger’s was to his status as a philosopher. Carl Schmitt major contribution to the field of political theory was nothing less than to define the essence of “the political”.
I digress, but not too far. The liberal intelligentsia is continuing to foster, even at this late hour, a dangerous myth, namely that the Sri Lankan state has been pushed to devolve power due entirely or primarily to the military campaign of the Tigers and that with the weakening of that factor, the poor Tamils will be left naked to their enemies.
This not only fails to correspond to the facts, but what is worse, the facts line up to contradict that assertion. The military campaign of the Tigers and other Eelam guerrilla groups in the early 1980s did not push the Sri Lankan state into devolving power, as plainly evidenced by the APC of 1984 and the GOSL stand at Thimpu in 1985. In the 1990s, the Tigers conventional or quasi-conventional military capacity did not squeeze any reform from the Sri Lankan state, be it under Premadasa or Chandrika. They merely pushed back the latter’s proposed reforms by generating a Southern backlash. The LTTE’s proto-state, which a Colombo political science academic recommended be accorded parity of status, did not scare any radical or structural reform out of the state.
The allied notions of Tamils enjoying self –respect because of the LTTE, and the fear of the Tigers preventing a repeat of July ’83, belong in the same trash-can of nonsensical argumentation. Be it devolution or deterrence, there was and is one factor at play, and that is most certainly not Prabhakaran or the LTTE. The repeated renewal of the war by the Tigers has left the Tamil people in unprecedented disarray and decline, with their self-respect dented by the kind of security measures that any country imposes against suicide bombers drawn from one identifiable community. As for deterrence, the citizenry have taken everything the Tigers can throw at them by way of terrorism and are prepared to take more, until victory.
What the Colombo columns and Diaspora-driven drivel fails to recognise is the massive fact that is responsible for all the positives attributed to the LTTE: India . The Sri Lankan state was well on its way to dealing with the Tigers military capacity during Operation Liberation in 1987, when it was rudely interrupted by its neighbour. Devolution was the result. When the Sri Lankan parliament endorsed the 13th amendment and actually held Provincial Council elections, the military power of the Tigers which so enthrals the Tamil (and Sinhala pacifist) intelligentsia was being suppressed by the IPKF-- so the LTTE was not the propellant or source of those reforms. It’s not Kilinochchi; it’s Delhi , stupid.
This too has to be understood dialectically. The fact of that devolution was the result of Indian pressure while the limits of that devolution (provincial autonomy within a unitary state) were the result of Sri Lankan counter-pressure. Therefore Tamil pressure on India and Indian pressure on Sri Lanka cannot yield reforms beyond a certain point, and that point is the limit imposed by public opinion. Unrealistic commentators argue that the followers of the two major parties accept that which is laid down by the party leaders -- but this view is a snapshot of the conduct of the parties’ loyalist base, not in any way a reading of public i.e. broad national opinion. This is why leaders such as President Chandrika, who brought forward advanced ideas of state reform, did not and could not implement those ideas. That is also why the majority voted against a bipartisan elite consensus in favour of federalism and in favour a frankly unitary platform at the Presidential elections of 2005.
Liberal opinion on Sri Lanka, be it Sinhala, Tamil or Muslim, local or foreign, has to ask itself whether we need yet another enlightened proposal for reform which remains on the drawing board, or a realistic proposal which is supported by public opinion polls and has a chance of making it past the Parliament, the courts and a referendum if needs be. What is most prudent in the short term is an APRC proposal that does not require that risky third step of a referendum – given the axiomatic character of the absence of bipartisan consensus in Sri Lanka .
If the Indian factor has its limits, what then is the internal lever in post-war Sri Lanka , which can deliver realisable reform in the field of interethnic relations? Is there one? Contrary to the “culture of complaint” (again Edward Said, citing Robert Hughes) of Colombo ’s cosmopolitans, there is indeed. The electoral marketplace, the value and weight of minority votes in a system of proportional representation and elections at four tiers of the polity, from municipal to presidential. In a word, democracy.
(These are the personal views of the writer)
51 Comments
Dayan speaks like George Bush - Friend or Enemy; Patriot or Traitor;
Sinhala Apartheid regime has committed unspeakable crimes against Tamils and Humanity. If Dayan is honest and fair, he should advocate for War Crimes Investigations in Sri Lanka otherwise Dayan is considered supporting crimes against humanity.
Sri Lanka is truly a failed state, an unavoidable occurrence when national leaders derive their support purely from ethnic nationalism instead of promoting a Sri Lankan identity. The LTTE is an insurgent group, regardless of recent military successes, until Tamil grievances are addressed the LTTE will continue act as the manifestation of forgotten Tamil grievances. Holding vast real estate is not the goal of a guerrilla organization like the LTTE, which will continue to operate out of dense jungles as long as the Sri Lankan state continues to treat its Tamil citizens with contempt. Instead of constantly predicting the end of the LTTE and "flip-floping" with delayed predictions of victory, the president and government officials like yourself should formulate a plan which allows Tamils an inclusive role in the Sri Lankan state, which would result in a peaceful resolution away from militant alternative options such as the LTTE. As for the latest unimpressive rhetoric regarding implementation of the 13th amendment, which should have been implemented in accordance with the CONSTITUTION, you will have to do better then that if you want to make a dent in the LTTE's support base. Unless government officials like yourself realize that first and foremost the Tamils must be offered a credible political solution, possibly federal, you can expect to fight the LTTE for the next 100 years.
It is shame that Dayan writes about LTTE, Al Qaida, Osama Bin Laden but fails to write about the VICTIMS - Eelam Tamils, Muslims, Iraqis, Afgans,...
Eealm Tamils are demanding to end the occupation of Apartheid Sri Lankan regime and their Crimes Against Humanity. Many including Human Rights Watch released on War Crimes committed by the GOSL. Tamils all over the World should jointly demand the International Comminity for War Crimes Investigations in Sri Lanka.
Who imagined that S Ossetia and Abkhazia will be independent in 2008? Obama clearly understands the sufferings of Eelam Tamils. Indenpendence for Eelam is not far from now.
IMHO, Dayan's trademark posturizing aside, this article is of interest for one sentance.
Dayan states:
"The repeated renewal of the war by the Tigers has left the Tamil people in unprecedented disarray and decline, with their self-respect dented by the kind of security measures that any country imposes against suicide bombers drawn from one identifiable community."
If we were to break that in two, to take a close look at it...
It is true that the Tigers have overplayed their cards (think Kenny Rogers in 'The Gambler') and as a result have let their own people be dragged into a worse fate than when they first set out to do something about it in the 1980s.
Second, and more revealing, is Dayan's JR'esque acknowledgement that it is inevitable that the Tamil community suffers at the hands of the majority community/state.
It is difficult to fault Dayan on both of the above assertions, for they are both true.
That said, the second half of that statement will sadden and infuriate any decent member of the majority community. The government's actions against the Tamil community, are not at the behest of the Sinhalese. JR tried to pin the blame for the 1983 riots on the Sinhalese (when it was he who willed his cabinet minister to plan and execute it). Now its Dayan's turn to tar us with that brush.
Disgusting!
If Dayan expects the Tamils to be patriotic towards the Sinhala regime which has been descriminating, bombing, killing, starving, imprisoning, abducting,restricting their movement and livelihood,just because they are Tamils, he must be either a FOOL or trying to fool others!! I am leaving it to the readers to guess!!
It is very clear from this Sinhalese Supremacist who was one time pseudo friend of Late D.Sivaram, that the whole island belongs to Sinahla Buddhists first and then to Sinhalese and the other minorities are not entitiled for any thing and the latter can exist only on the mercy of the majority. There is no home land for the minorities and the registration they are carrying out in Colombo based where the Tamils come from is only temporary and once the war supported by the foreign countries are won, the Sinhalese armies will occupy these areas and there will be colonisations.
He is also warning that the Sinhalese will go after the Tamil diaspora with the help of some Tamil machangs and the foreign governments so that both self determination and federal ideas are crushed for ever even among the diaspora.
With the help of India and China the GOSL will make sure the Tamil Nadu Tamils become assimilated with others in India or under the control as second class so that they can not help the Tamils in Srilanka.
Once that is also achieved they will say good bye to India and that is probably the reason he has started to blame India already.
Dayan Jayatilleke is just one of them and there are millions like him in the south who will become more vocal very soon and will start consolidating the Sinhala empire they are planning to build. Mahinda has started donating the state lands to promote hsi empire.
Aha! Democracy!
That we have had for decades. An useful tool to beat down minorities and drive them from hearth and home. Democracy it was that brought us to where we are now, democracy it is that justifies genocide and democracy it will be that legitimizes the horror that is rising from the womb of the motherland. First cut it out and then kill it if you can for it hides itself effectively under the mantle of democracy - democracy that is the god of all mankind and in whose name all atrocities are washed clean of blood. "First cut it out. Then kill it", poor Tamils of Sri Lanka, arising serpent like from the voice that despoiled thy daughter even as you sought to save its life, these words may well be your epitaph
As a Buddhist country, we would like to know whether Sri Lanka’s goal is to follow the strategy of “First cut it off; then kill it” or the Buddhist philosophy of “Rehabilitation”. No doubt the LTTE is a ruthless organization which have left a legacy of brutality. But what is Dayan’s answer to neutralize the current tension. Is it the Federalism on the Canadian model (even USA or India) or the outdated Unitary concept which had miserably failed and was instrumental for the corruption of the politicians. Further, at some point Dayan misled the fact because there was an incident where a large contingent of Sri Lanka troops was about to be annihilated if not for the timely intervention of the Indian Forces which responded to a SOS call. The stark naked fact is that a proxy war is been waged against the LTTE. The broad national opinion would have been blown to pieces if not for Indian intervention. Remember, this war will prolong yet for some more months until Sri Lanka’s treasury becomes bankrupt or the Armed Security Forces are tired of it, because in war nothing is certain. Moreover, instead of focusing on good governance Sri Lanka is pursuing a policy of licensed thuggery, robbery, abduction and murder against the innocent Tamils on the pretext of doing a military research to wipe out terrorism. As a Buddhist country, we would like to know whether Sri Lanka’s goal is to follow the strategy of “First cut it off; then kill it” or the Buddhist philosophy of “Rehabilitation”. No doubt the LTTE is a ruthless organization which have left a legacy of brutality. But what is Dayan’s answer to neutralize the current tension. Is it the Federalism on the Canadian model (even USA or India) or the outdated Unitary concept which had miserably failed and was instrumental for the corruption of the politicians. Further, at some point Dayan misled the fact because there was an incident where a large contingent of Sri Lanka troops was about to be annihilated if not for the timely intervention of the Indian Forces which responded to a SOS call. The stark naked fact is that a proxy war is been waged against the LTTE. The broad national opinion would have been blown to pieces if not for Indian intervention. Remember, this war will prolong yet for some more months until Sri Lanka’s treasury becomes bankrupt or the Armed Security Forces are tired of it, because in war nothing is certain. Though it is boasted that Security Forces are posed for a victory, it is surprising that the LTTE cadres are still active and unmoved. Moreover, instead of focusing on good governance Sri Lanka is pursuing a policy of licensed thuggery, robbery, abduction and murder against the innocent Tamils on the pretext of doing a military research to wipe out terrorism.
The writer’s allegation that Lanka has been pushed to devolve power due entirely or primarily to the military campaign of the Tigers is absolutely baseless and false. The germination of devolution of power has already given its birth before the introduction of the Soulbery Constitution, where the suitability of a Federal Constitution was considered for which SWRD and JRJ too had suggested. Later when the matter took a different direction, it is the FP who stood for Federalism in order to bring unity in the country. Unfortunately unscrupulous politicians seized the opportunity for power and started campaigning falsely that Federalism leads to or is separation. The lack of far-sighted thinking of the politicians ultimately led the country to bleed. It is in this context of the situation, Sri Lanka is unable to see its true patriotic sons and daughters.
The writer’s allegation that Lanka has been pushed to devolve power due entirely or primarily to the military campaign of the Tigers is absolutely baseless and false. The germination of devolution of power has already given its birth before the introduction of the Soulbery Constitution, where the suitability of a Federal Constitution was considered for which SWRD and JRJ too had suggested. Later when the matter took a different direction, it is the FP who stood for Federalism in order to bring unity in the country. Unfortunately unscrupulous politicians seized the opportunity for power and started campaigning falsely that Federalism leads to or is separation. The lack of far-sighted thinking of the politicians ultimately led the country to bleed. It is in this context of the situation, Sri Lanka is unable to see its true patriotic sons and daughters.
A.Rajasingam
It is interesting that this man who claims to be a leftist is writing so much anti-tamil rhetoric in the name of democracy. He cites Edward Said a palestinian scholar who argues for disempowered minority peoples and turns it around to argue for the case of Sinhala chauvanism. Is there greater irony than this. Does he think that all tamils cant read english? and that tamils dont have scholars in the social sciences?
Well Said Mr. Jaythilaka. You cannot Tame a Tiger. It will lick you before tearing you into pieces and eating. Indians, Premadasa and many more ppl have fallen into these traps.
However I would like to differentiate Tamils & Tigers. The tigers should be evaporated and Singalese and Tamils should live in peace. I was told by a tamil person in London that he is from a rural village in Sri Lanka and his mother did not have enough breast milk when he was small so the next door singalese mother only breast fed him.
These times should be brought back.. the times where indians used to come to work in thousands in Sri Lanka because it was so properous.
Sout asia should all be free of terrorism.
-South East Asian
Dayan has me reaching for the sick bag again with his first paragraph. Oh, how I hate those words "Patriot" and "Traitor"! They so depend on which side you are on dont they? If your own nation is waging a war of oppression against another nation is it patriotic to support it and traitorous to oppose it? Is there no room for a conscientious objector? Is Presidential candidate McCain a "Patriot" for bombing Vietnam in a bombing campaign that dropped more bombs in tonnage than both sides did in World War II, killing an estimated 4 million people? Is Muhammed Ali a traitor for refusing to serve claiming "I have no quarrel with the Vietnamese".
The war against the LTTE is patriotic upto a point but when it passes that point it becomes a war of opperssion. The LTTE and its supporters believe the Tamils have superior land rights to the Sinhalese and therefore I believe it is "patriotic" for the Sinhalese to fight them to achieve parity. However when we pass that point and bring Jaffna which is 100% Tamil under Army occupation and start killing scores of people in order to bring other 100% Tamil towns under Govt. (and effectively Sinhalese) control, a decent human being might become a consciencious objector, even at the expense of being branded a "Traitor" by Neo Con - Dyan Jayatilleke.
It is very clear from this Sinhalese Supremacist who was one time pseudo friend of Late D.Sivaram, that the whole island belongs to Sinahla Buddhists first and then to Sinhalese and the other minorities are not entitiled for any thing and the latter can exist only on the mercy of the majority. There is no home land for the minorities and the registration they are carrying out in Colombo based where the Tamils come from is only temporary and once the war supported by the foreign countries are over, the Sinhalese armies will occupy these areas and there will be colonisations. He is also warning that the Sinhalese will go after the Tamil diaspora with the help of some Tamils and the foreign governments so that both self determination and federal ideas are crushed for ever. With the help of India and China the GOSL will make sure the Tamil Nadu Tamils become assimilated with others or under control as second class so that they can not help the Tamils in Srilanka.
Dayan Jayatilleke is just one of them and there are millions like him in the south who will become more vocal very soon and will start consolidating the Sinhala empire they are planning to build.
Professor Vitharane has explained in India what Dayan Jayatilleke has echoed here. Only eastern province style devolution will be the final solution in 2 to three months times and they have to appease the Sinhalaese majority that there is no federalism or self determination for Tamils in the NE. He wants India to underwrite the estern province style devolution so that Tamils can be bullied both in SL and India by the majority. Later Sinhala empire can take over the Southern India with the help of foreign powers.
Sarath Fonseka is not Colin Powell and Mahinda Rajapakse is not Bill Clinton and Sri Lanka is not the USA with plentiful resources, to "Cut it off and kill it" as the writer portrays. Anyway, Fidel Castro as a war hero of Cuito Cuinavale of Angola is not in the picture now !!!
War mongering messages will surely massage the ego of the Sinhalese but the academics will always look into pragmatism and reasoning.
Plato said that the difference between a wise man and a fool is that a wise man will speak because he has something to say but a fool will speak because he wants to say something.
A patriot would NEVER ever feel a thrilled quickening of the heart at the news that a spearhead of the Sri Lankan armed forces is nearing Kilinochchi. He would be extremely sad that lives of citizens are being lost and people are being treated as animals.
A traitor would be happy when the troops reach Kilinochhi because he would be happy that the country would be soon divided into two, people are getting killed and money is being wasted for nothing.
A realist would know that there’s no way for a guerella war to be won and would seek a negotiated settlement.
The writer appears to fit into the second category of traitors !!!
You said it Dayan, The Tamil pressure, Indian / International pressure, nor the liberal thinking political pressure will not make any change beyond certain point, and that point is the limit imposed by public opinion. What is this public opinion, justification of Sinhala Buddhist hegemony? This is not democracy; it is dictatorship of the majority. It is no different from what is practiced in other fundamentalist countries. It cannot be justified in Sri Lanka where claim of the Tamils to the country and its history is equal as that of the Singhalese. Your claim justifies the accusation of the LTTE that no respectable solution will be given to the Tamils by pacts and agreements.
The weight of minority vote never paid dividends to the Tamils even though they played king maker role in several elections. Now with the long war which has reduced the Tamil population and if any military victory by the government may silence them forever. There situation will be similar to that of vanishing aboriginal communities. A patriot would be thrilled at the news of Sri Lankan armed forces is nearing Kilinochchi you say. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
There certainly should be a WAR CRIMES Tribunal. All captured LTTE TERRORISTS should be Tried, Found Guilty, and Hung expeditiously...
It would be good to Execute Prabhakaran, but sadly we all know that coward will consume Cyanide than face the music.
An article from former EPRLF (Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front).
The national forces of Sri Lanka mainly grown up with 95-98% of Singhalese without any balance to the present demographic and ethnic segregation commit crime against humanity especially against the Tamils without any check for over 3 decades expecting the minorities to celebrate the liberation of mere land in the hands of LTTE who the Tamils & Muslims are in turn actually want to enjoy all the rights the majority enjoying is a mere joke to me. I doubt the writer who is from a majority community whether knows what is suffering.
To draw attention please look back what is Govt of Sri Lanka said when the Mavilaru Anicut operation started. The same govt wants the international community, Tamils and everyone to digest the fact when a nation engage in a war humanity issue is inevitable.
Just to get an upper hand in the war against LTTE, air force head telling they have dropped more than 6000kg of explosive so far in vanni and army using even more superior fire power in a daily basis. In such a circumstances even if the forces over run the LTTE power they can only witness the blood, dead bodies, suffering of the people and demolished towns. So is he wants to celebrate the victory of LTTE by forgetting all these unimaginable hardship and sufferings of the mother Lanka’s own citizen. If so why they have to? Is it because majority people over power the minority?
Not only him, but everyone from the south echoed the fact that political solution can not be put forward and implement in the presence of LTTE. Though a little truth in it, I would like to ask all these people; from 1945 till now you majority people cannot unite and put forward a decent proposal acceptable to all how on earth wants to believe all of a sudden is possible upon defeating the LTTE. The naked truth is policies and law enacted from the parliament who in turn elected mostly from the majority so far not ready with a political solution and not even in future. That mean Tamils continue to suffer. Therefore if not Prabaharan at least after may be 10-20 years you have to face some X, Y or Z leader of Tamil who may or may not be a arm leader.
Without engage in costly war, seriously thinking on put forward a political solution first and then if LTTE not agreed to that we can go against crushing them. But it is never going to work out in other way by any means.
I hate to comment on an article written by a pathetic sycophant and a chameleon. But this repeated claim by Sinhalese commentators that Operation Liberation would have cornered the LTTE if not for Indian intervention is pure hogwash. The LTTE had only minimal losses in that operation and contrary to Sinhalese claims, VP himself was not cornered there. Even if India had not intervened with its trooops, Tamil militancy would have grown by leaps and bounds.
Nobody should ever support the war.
Foreign powers and foreign agencies will exploit our internal conflict for their own interest. They have conquered us.
At this point a confederate solution can work beautifully. A confederate solution provides us with a unique opportunity to lock in a very weak center, while simultaneously solving the Tamil issue.
You don't have to give all the land, you can get the Tigers to settle for the North + Trinco, and Batti.
And you could even negotiate a situation in which Sri Lankan troops are stationed in Trinco Naval Base, Palaly, Thallady. This can enable the South to use war as a credible threat against secession, because military assets/troops will be stationed at bases in the North East.
A weak center can be to our advantage if we want to lock in a capitalist/ free market system. Also a weak center can enable us to form a free society. Currently, we have two fascist states. (registering Tamils in Colombo reminds me of a police state. Conscripting one child per house in the Vanni is disgusting)
It is not too late for this island to become for India what Hong Kong is for China.
I could write a huge laundry list about the crimes of the Sri Lankan state and what is terrible about the Tigers. I could write a laundry list about how the war sucks blood from the South and destroys the North East.
It is important to remember that foreign powers have often exacerbated the situation. And currently Colombo whores itself to these foreign powers so that foreign powers will help Colombo defeat the Tigers.
It should hurt one's self dignity to see Sri Lanka as an indebted, whore of foreigners.
It also hurts one's dignity to know that Jaffna is a wasteland that is occupied by the SL army and terrorized by the EPDP.
Let's use our intelligence to first realize that the war is ruinuous.
The leadership will never tell you this, because both sides depend on war and hatred to retain power.
You don't have to support a confederate solution. I am just saying that we need to stop the war, because it is the ruin of everybody.
Despite war mongers in the media and leadership, the people must not support the war. The war will lead this island further into the abyss.
We have not learned from our history when the Portugese took Jaffna and Kotte, and the British took Kandy. Foreigners are once again subtly taking over the island.
The war and the conflict creates two centers of power on the island. Foreign powers manipulate these multiple centers of power to their advantage.
First stop the war, through a confederate solution.
Then we can work towards re-building national unity. After sometime, we can re-centralize power. But this must occur only after we have created a terminal Ceylonese or Sri Lankan identity. Only after loyalty to Ceylon or Sri Lanka trumps all other loyalties (ethnic, religious, regional).
First, the people must support peace.
Don't believe the pro-war propaganda.
Dear friends,
1. Bush, McCain, Muhammed Ali : Vietnam, like Iraq, was someone else's country. Sri Lanka's war is an anti-secessionist war, to prevent the separation of part of one's own country, a small island.
2. apartheid: look guys, don't be silly. that was entrenched minority rule by a white elite which descended from british and dutch who migrated to and colonised rhodesia and south africa. the tamil leaders opposed universal franchise ( majority rule) remember? and i didn't know that sinhalese and tamils couldn't use the same benches or toilets.
3. dense jungles, armed forces fatigue, bankruptcy: the sri lankan army is already in those dense jungles. the special forces have been operating deep inside them for while now. and the armed forces don't look like they're getting tired. recruitment is at an all time high. the voters seem willing to absorb the financial hardships, going by elections and public opinion polls. so, clutch at strwars and dream on...
4. no way for guerrilla/national liberation wars to be won by the state? c'mon, haven't any of you heard of chechnya?
5. operation liberation/vadamaarachchi/IPKF saved SL army : please quote me any Indian general who has said that.
Dayan, thank you.
You should write more, revealing your identity. We, Eelam Tamils well aware of the Sinhala mindset of ruling elite. Trio-Thugs will learn their lesson soon.
Sri Lanka must be the only country where diplomats have two "views" :- Official and Personal.
Dayan is 'singing for his supper'. His servility reached a new high level when he criticised the UK foreign minister for "not congratulating sri lanka on its sixtieth birthday" !
Tamils have been struggling for equality and justice first by peaceful means and later by the use of arms to survive the brutal Totalitarian State which has practised State Terrorism in the name of Sinhala Buddhism, against minorities, especially the tamils.
Accrding to him, those who resist are traitors, and those who acquiesce are patriots.
If tamils lose in this struggle, they will become servile inmates of the open prison called sri lanka, with the exception of those who will choose to benefit from the 'crumbs which fall off the table' - there are many such, even now.
Genocide in Sri Lanka(SL)is the intention of the Sinhalese to adversely harm the ethnic Tamil people and exterminate them in stages. And the present war in the North East(NE) is a collective intent of the Sinhalese to do just that, though, the war was started as "war on terrorism".
Genocide intent can never be kept secret.
Radovan Karadzic, while addressing the Bosnian Parliament said that the independence bid would take Bosnia "to hell and Muslim people to extermination". He carried on with the brutal war in Bosnia and caused genocide of Bosnians.
This inhuman attitude of Karadzic "qualified" him for indictment for war crimes committed in Bosnia.
When Dayan Jayatilaka, a Sinhalese, a former representative of the UN Human Rights Council, Kicked out from it with disgrace, writes "take it and kill it", refering to the Tamils and freedom fighters who are in an independence bid for Tamil Eelam, it has exactly the same intent as Kardzic and deserves arrest and a trial in the Hague.
Colin Powell might have said as Chief of Staff or the head of the US Military to "take it and kill it" but as Secretary of State in September 2004 he also told a senate hearing that genocide has been committed in Darfur and might still be occuring there.
He recognised unequivocally that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed militias were "taking and killing" the people of Darfur. This genocide is exactly waht Dayan and the Government of Sri Lanka(GOSL) desire the Sinhalese soldiers to do in Kilinochchi. Dayan is expresing in clear terms the genocidal policy of the GOSL.
The Sinhalese now realise that the claim of the GOSL about "liberating the East" was nothing but a sham to initiate genocide by boosting the ego of the Sinhalese. Combats between soldiers and the LTTE combatants are almost a daily occurence there now, with the soldiers shamefully on the losing side.
Kilinichchi will definitely not be different, even if the hearts of "patriots" are warmed up, if and when the soldiers capture it.
One thing is very clear and that is; the GOSL wants to tell the world by its defiant actions that NE will be ruled by it with violence, Human Rights abuses and genocide and not by anything else. The GOSL challenges even the UN and the International Community on this matter.
If a person tries to break a hard rock with his head, it is the head that will break. Never the rock. It is the foolish who resort to such stupidity.
why do all these comments and analyzis forms around a static status. sri lanka is a more fluid place than most other places on earth if anybody care to look into. a polarized mentality of present context does not mirror true wishes of our communities. perhaps tamils took a que from muslims and worked toward integration they would have been in a more dominant position, considering what jvp achieved through prop. rep. prosperity is the key now.
I felt sick to read this brutal paper by a so-called senior diplomat at the UN.
The diplomat has not uttered a single on unfolding human calamity in Vanni as a result of this brutal war.
Only when I read article such as this I am reminded that Sinhalese and Tamils cannot coexist in this island.
I can see that Dayan's equipped with good English literature, but what I don't understand is that why transcurrents is publishing people like Dayan's articles.
please do not sell transcurrent.com to the SL government and people like Dayan.
Thank you.
"1. Bush, McCain, Muhammed Ali : Vietnam, like Iraq, was someone else's country. Sri Lanka's war is an anti-secessionist war, to prevent the separation of part of one's own country, a small island."
I agree. Best not to talk about other countries and stop parroting little known quotes from Castro, Che, Ho, Powell, Swarzkoff and Stalin..
But what is so sacred about an anti-secessionist war? And what is so evil about secession? If people cant live together, they must live apart. So lets do it in the fairest possible manner.
"but what I don't understand is that why transcurrents is publishing people like Dayan's articles."
No.. No.. you got it all wrong. Please keep publishing them so we can point out the holes in his arguments.
Dear all,
while it is certainly true that the Tamils have many legitimate grievances and aspirations, it would be helful all round if you were to stop living in a world of fantasy and paranoia eg apartheid, genocide, darfur, karadzic etc. face facts, please: at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, Sri Lanka hardly came up, except for a standard mention in the EU statement. At the UN General assembly sessions there has been not a word of criticism of Sri Lanka. for my own part I am the chair of the Intergovernmental working group on the effective implementation of the Durban declaration and programme of action, i.e. the declaration of the UN World conference against racism and racial discrimination. i am also a member of the Consultative Committee of the UN Human Rights Council, the committee which makes recmmendations on Special rapporteurs. So, Sri Lanka's profile worldiwde is totally different from your conception of it. True Sri Lanka lost memembership of the UN HRC in an election in NEW York, but it got over 100 votes in a competitive election, and Spain too lost! So please get things in proportion. The world does not regard sri Lanka as an apartheid state, or a colonial power, or an empire or a one party state or a military dictatorship, or a monarchic autocracy --which are the only conditions under which a separatist struggle is given legitimacy. Sri Lanka is seen for what it is: as a long functioning electoral democracy, an independent country which is a republic, beseiged by a separatist movement which uses terrorism. Don't you ever wonder why the tamil eelam struggle not only has no recognition from any state, inclduing those that came to power through liberation struggle ( eg Cuba) but from any national liberation or guerrilla movement? Think about it. Live in a world of reality. Get a life.
Dear Dayan Jayatilleka
I think you are a confused man. On the one hand you write like a statesman:...."while it is certainly true that the Tamils have many legitimate grievances and aspirations"... but on the other hand you spit blood under the title of "cut it off and kill it"
The fact of the matter is that the Tamil militancy is the direct product of dirty tricks and evasive behaviour of the successive GOSLs to solve the problem of "while it is certainly true that the Tamils have many legitimate grievances and aspirations" in good faith. The Tamil militancy came into the equation only after 35 years of non violent struggle was suppressed with an iron fist by the GOSL.
If there had been a comprehensive political solution on the table and if the LTTE had refused to corporate then one might quite rightly argue that the military operation is justified. But nothing is on the table.
The sons of Appuhamy and Appapillai are dying in vain in the battle field because grown up and educated people like you are not mature enough to solve this conflict politically. While your fellow Sri Lankans are dying in the battle field I cannot understand how you can boast about it.
In my opinion some members of the GOSL and some Tamil militants have committed war crimes and one day they will have to face justice. The only question is when.
Dayan, you are now on the path where you should have been. Lost yur way at times but you realize the folly now. Lots of people in Sri lanka wanted to be recorded their names as or akin to Dutugemunue alias Dushtagamini (in Tamil Version) and evrey one of them fell flat face down. None of these arguments is going to help the country. If you could spearhead the fight of elimination of corruption,nepotism and political favouritism you have done something good for the country. I know and I feel that you have the capability and the right feeling of being the "TRUE PRESIDENT OF SRI LANKA"
"The world does not regard sri Lanka as an apartheid state, or a colonial power, or an empire or a one party state or a military dictatorship, or a monarchic autocracy --which are the only conditions under which a separatist struggle is given legitimacy"
Sri Lanka is not an apartheid state, or some sort of dictatorship, true. But Sri Lanka is a racist oppressive state that has ignored minority concerns since independence. The extent of Sri Lanka's racist attitude is evident in its state institutions. Recently the top commander of the Sri lankan Army stated that he believes the whole island belongs to the Sinhalese and that the Sinhalese are willing to live with minorities in the island. What is this comment supposed to mean? Is he suggesting that Tamils are illegal aliens who should be grateful to their Sinhalese masters for allowing them to stay? If the top commander of the SLA openly makes such racist comments, I fear that his soldiers fighting in the Tamil majority north will apply such ideologies to their actions during war. Tamils, not just the insurgent group LTTE, raised arms against the Sri Lankan state because it is a oppressive racist state to the core of its institutions. The LTTE will continue its insurgency as long as Sri Lanka treats its minority population with contempt and the vast majority of tamils have no other option but to support the violent LTTE as long as Sri Lanka continues its oppressive policies. In the eyes of the majority of tamil people, the LTTE derives its legitimacy through the oppressive actions of the Sri Lankan state.
"Sri Lanka is seen for what it is: as a long functioning electoral democracy, an independent country which is a republic, "
Mr. Dayan Jayatilleka, perhaps you are unaware of the crucial components of a democracy. A country cannot be labeled democratic solely based in the functioning of a electorate, a claim which is debatable, I'm referring to the alleged deal between the President and the LTTE, which effectively denied minority voting rights. The LTTE is an insurgent group which employs terrorism. The strength and longevity of the LTTE is derived from Sri Lanka's oppressive attitude towards minorities. Tamils do not support the LTTE because we enjoy ricking havoc in Sri Lanka, Tamils feel they have no other choice but the LTTE due to the policies of successive Sri Lankan governments. You speak of Sri Lanka as if it is a successful state, and that the current war path and continued unitary state is justified because it is backed by a functioning electorate which is fundamentally a Southern electorate that does not experience war on a daily basis. Of course, a few bombs explode in the south, but individuals still live a relatively normal life; their children go to school and they don't have to worry about becoming an internally displaced person due to intense warfare. Sri Lanka is a failed state because it blatantly tramples on minority human rights on a daily basis and has been unable to defeat an insurgency for 25 years neither politically or militarily. I don't know what is more disgusting, your continued denial that this ethnic conflict requires a political solution or your support for war while you live comfortably as a representative of a failed state.
"Think about it. Live in a world of reality. Get a life. "
Reality? Do you want to know why there has not been increased attention on Sri Lanka for its conduct towards minority groups? No one cares about our insignificant island. Its an unfortunate truth. As far as the world is concerned, Sri Lanka falls under the geopolitical influence of our useless neighbor, India. Although we will hear concern from now and then, there will not be any real concrete action against Sri Lanka unless India voices discontent. Do not think too highly of Sri Lanka, the only reason there has not been a lot of global discontent is due to the fact that Sri Lanka does not appear on the global radar at this time because of other problems such the the US financial crisis. But I assure you as your government continues this war, discontent will only grow.
Please do not distort the truth for the benefit of state propaganda.
"And what is so evil about secession?" asks dingiri. whaat? you gotta ask?
try checking out lincoln. or putin (chechnya). or evo morales ( re: santa cruz, bolivia). or the chinese leaders (tibet). or india's ( kashmir, assam, nagaland, mizoram).
Sorry Mr. DJ, UN did not condemn LTTE either. That does not make LTTE is right.
The problem with this current war is that the Sinhalese Extremists are winning over Tamil Extremists.
By next year, most of you (including yourself) will be writing against Sinhalese Extremism.
Dayan, when are you going to concede that you are defending the fascists that gave rise to Tamil seperatism in the first place. Your position is no different from Sinhala Urumaya or any other Sinhala fascist organization. How you can posture as an anti-racist when you are the very incarnation of racism against the Tamils is what i find hard to believe.
then again if Bush is tolerated by the UN I guess your presence there is not surprising either.
dear Aratai,
if I criticse sinhala extremists next year it may be news to you, but it won't be news to the editor of this website, because I have been doing so for 30 years, including in my most recent articles on this website (see "the politics of winning in the wanni").
dear velupillai george,
man, don't be daft. when did the JHU or any other "sinhala fascist" organisation as you put it, support the full and speedy implementation of the 13th amendment, still les 13 Plus, as i have consistently done? the sinhala extremists may have given rise to tamil separatism, but there were many opportunities , chiefly the indo-lanka accord and the ipkf presence to give up separatism. the Tigers didn't.
Dear nitharshan,
what matters is not your interpretation or mine, but that which is officially the case in the international system. the US State department, to name just one source as an illustration, long recognises Sri Lanka as a "functioning democracy". the point is that every state in the international system recognises sri lanka as a democracy and the Tigers as a terrorist organisation.
Dear Aratai,
you seem to have missed my main point. what kind of liberation movement functions for three decades, is very well known, but is unrecognised by any other liberation movement (or state -- including ones which issued from liberation struggles)?
This is a venomous and dishonest piece of writing by Dayan Jayatilleke. At least General Sarath Fonseka was direct and honest.
Also I see that Dayan Jayatilleke likes to pretend that he is a well read intellectual. But, for example, when and where did Said or Hughes condemn democracy per se? There is certainly a case to condemn pretend democracies, but those criticisms are to be understood in context.
So the question is: is Dayan Jayatilleke a true patriot or a scoundrel taking refuge...?
Dear N2,
What the heck are you on about?
You write "But, for example, when and where did Said or Hughes condemn democracy per se? There is certainly a case to condemn pretend democracies, but those criticisms are to be understood in context."
Where on earth did I say that "Said or Hughes condemned democracy per se"? Or anything tantamount to it? Or remotely resembling it?
Please answer by citing from my article above. Or else i would have to conslude that you cannot comprehend the meaning of certain words.
One minute he is saying Sri Lanka should not be compared to the rest of the world..
"Bush, McCain, Muhammed Ali : Vietnam, like Iraq, was someone else's country. Sri Lanka's war is an anti-secessionist war, to prevent the separation of part of one's own country, a small island." ---Dayan J
Next minute he's gone back to lecturing us on similar separatist conflicts elsewhere in the world. Presumably he is trying to say if it is alright for them. Its alright for us.. The Russians blitzed Grozny
so its fine to flatten Killinochi.
"....try checking out lincoln. or putin (chechnya). or evo morales ( re: santa cruz, bolivia). or the chinese leaders (tibet). or india's ( kashmir, assam, nagaland, mizoram). " --Dayan J
Is it wrong to try to arrive at a consensus where they stay on their side of the fence and mind their business while we stay on our side and mind ours? I guess man is by nature greedy for nother man's land, and Dayan is no exception. Which is why he has no qualms about sacrificing a generation of Tamils and Sinhalese so the Sinhalese can be masters of Jaffna and Killinochi.
Dayan Jayatilleka, may I suggest that you re-read 'your' article if cannot remember suggesting that Said and Hughes have disagreements with or are disdaining of and so (by implication) condemn democracy.
(Hint: look at the last paragraph).
Or perhaps someone else wrote it for you?
OK, I'll help you out!
"Contrary to the “culture of complaint” (again Edward Said, citing Robert Hughes) ... there is indeed [an internal lever in post-war Sri Lanka]....In a word, democracy."
By the way the word "contrary" means opposite or opposed to.
I know, I know, you are going to say that it is not you who is claiming that Said and Hughes have views contrary to the possibilities of democracy, but "Colombo’s cosmopolitans".
Dayan Jayatilleka: “Or else i would have to conslude that you cannot comprehend the meaning of certain words.”
Is that a feeble attempt to combine threat (as if what you conclude makes the slightest difference to the truth) with insult?
Dear tamil friends,
Please let me know a single family migrated to developed world, sending their children to fight this war. You all argue and contradict while poor innocent tamil leftovers getting cleansed thanks to your sun god. There is a large amount of tamils ( may not be the majority) who think that tamils and sinhalese can live together, Do not we do it in UK? My son is looked after by a decent tamil lady. Some tamil friends helped us better than sinhalese. I think when I read these comments, you are no better than sinhala racists.
When you talk about genocide do not forget about innocent poor people/infants hacked to death by LTTE, Machine gunned in Anuradhapura ( watch youtube ).
People in Sri Lanka both tamil and sinhalese want to end this war and live respectably. We need to educate both sinhalese and tamils to achieve this. This is the future, whether you like it or not. Rather than trying to sling mud at Dayan try to analyse tamil comments where hatred is pouring out.
Tamils in Europe,America Now is the time for you to take a plane and got to Mulativu and fight for what you so stand for.
Else keep promoting hatred, Soon there will not be any tamil living in SL, I think already they are third majority. As somebody said learn from Muslims.
dear Dingiri,
Dear Dingiri,
You seem to suffer from a bad case of amnesia. The Sinhalese would have had no chance to be "masters of jaffna and kilinochchi" had prabhakaran-- cheered on doubtless by those like yourself-- not waged war against the IPKF. in Sept 1987 he was granted an overwhelming majority of the interim administration, and the sri lankan armed forces were confined to barracks in the north-east ( with many units having been withdrawn to the south to combat the jvp). similarly, the sinhalese would not be "masters of jaffna and kilinochchi" if Prabhakaran did not go to war against the premadasa and chandrika administrations--- or prevented the tamil people from voting at the last presidential election.
so, if you have a problem with the state of thing and their direction, blame prabhakaran, the LTTE and their supporters and sympathisers.
Janaka: "People in Sri Lanka both tamil and sinhalese want to end this war and live respectably."
This is absolutely true.
Janaka:"We need to educate both sinhalese and tamils to achieve this."
Most of all we need to educate the Sinhala leaders (e.g. Sarath Fonseka, Mahinda Rajapakse etc.) and the violence prone Sinhala-Buddhist cheering squad not only that Lanka belongs to all those who have their roots in that place, but also in the case of Anti-Tamil resentment the Sinhalese need to be educated that the Tamils have been part of the social history of the island for as long as the Sinhalese if not longer.
Janaka: "This is the future, whether you like it or not."
As Digiri and many others note, there is nothing wrong with the Sinhalese going their way and managing their affairs on their part of the island, while Tamils go their way and manage their affairs on their part of the island. That would be the most peaceful and amicable future where all live together in peace on the island.
Janaka: "Rather than trying to sling mud at Dayan try to analyse tamil comments where hatred is pouring out."
The reason why there is so much antagonism toward Dayan Jayatilleke is because he is advocating more violence as a solution to the present war, and he dishonestly claims that it is Parabakaran and the LTTE who are to blame for ALL the problems. Only the most naive (or some empathy and conscience lacking psychopath who believes that others are gullible and there to be conned) would say something so silly such as if not for Prabakaran and the LTTE democracy would bloom in Lanka.
The whole problem stated because the Sinhalese leaders and Sinhala-Buddhist extremists were unwilling to be truly democratic. Since the same mentality holds the strings of power even today, proper democracy (which would encourage "a culture of [reason and] complaint") is impossible in present Lanka.
Dear N2,
Here are my references to Said and Hughes:
"That assertion is not a jingoistic hurrah but a simple, literal application of the late Edward Said’s interpretative recapitulation of Antonio Gramsci, (among other things) the finest political scientist of the last century:
“On the other hand, far more than Lukacs he was political in the practical sense, conceiving of politics as a contest over territory, both actual and historical, to be won, fought over, controlled, held, lost, gained.” (Edward Said, `History, Literature and Geography`, in Reflections on Exile).
....If the Indian factor has its limits, what then is the internal lever in post-war Sri Lanka , which can deliver realisable reform in the field of interethnic relations? Is there one? Contrary to the “culture of complaint” (again Edward Said, citing Robert Hughes) of Colombo ’s cosmopolitans, there is indeed. The electoral marketplace, the value and weight of minority votes in a system of proportional representation and elections at four tiers of the polity, from municipal to presidential. In a word, democracy."
Now N2, here is what you say about what i am supposed to have said on Said and Hughes:
"Dayan Jayatilleka, may I suggest that you re-read 'your' article if cannot remember suggesting that Said and Hughes have disagreements with or are disdaining of and so (by implication) condemn democracy.
(Hint: look at the last paragraph).
Or perhaps someone else wrote it for you?
OK, I'll help you out!
"Contrary to the “culture of complaint” (again Edward Said, citing Robert Hughes) ... there is indeed [an internal lever in post-war Sri Lanka]....In a word, democracy."
By the way the word "contrary" means opposite or opposed to."
Will N2, or somebody, anybody, please tell me the relationship or any connection whatsover between what i have written in the article and what N2 says i have written with regard to Said and Hughes?
The first Said reference is with regard to his summation of Gramsci on territory as central to politics. that has nothing to do with democracy. the second reference is his use of hughes' phrase "the culture of complaint" which i usein relation to the attitude of Colombo cosmopolitans. That too is not a criticism of democracy.
Obviously neither reference asserts or implies a critique of democracy by either Said or Hughes.
This is why I say that N2 has a problem of the comprehension of the English language...!!!
Dayan Jayatilleka: "The first Said reference is with regard to his summation of Gramsci on territory as central to politics. that has nothing to do with democracy."
But I never referred to this. So why mention it?
But since you have brought it up, it is clear that you have completely misrepresented and/or misunderstood Antonio Gramsci’s views as well as Said’s interpretation.
Dayan Jayatilleka: “The second distinction that we must observe is between war and politics. In politics, unlike in war, the territorial consideration is of primary significance.”
Confused rubbish! The point being made (by Gramsci/Said) is that war and politics and territorial control are intertwined.
Dayan Jayatilleka: “In politics, unlike in war, the territorial consideration is of primary significance.”
Not at all! In both war and politics territorial consideration is of significance, but in politics which can be played from afar and through intermediaries it is of indirect significance but war is direct and so territory is of primary significance. If you have followed, note that this is the opposite of what you have said.
Dayan Jayatilleka: “That assertion is not a jingoistic hurrah but a simple, literal application of the late Edward Said’s interpretative recapitulation of Antonio Gramsci, (among other things) the finest political scientist of the last century”
Antonio Gramsci would most certainly and vehemently disagree with Mahinda Rajapakse’s and Gotabhaya Rajapakse’s attitudes and methods which are intended to assert Sinhala/Rajapakse-gang hegemonic control over the Tamils.
Your false praise – “Antonio Gramsci, (among other things) the finest political scientist of the last century” – cannot save you or your jingoistic nonsense or your pretend-intellectualism.
Dayan Jayatilleka: "the second reference is his use of hughes' phrase "the culture of complaint" which i usein relation to the attitude of Colombo cosmopolitans. That too is not a criticism of democracy."
If you look at my earlier comment (N2 | October 2, 2008 02:49 AM) you will see that I anticipated this comeback by you.
(N2: "I know, I know, you are going to say that it is not you who is claiming that Said and Hughes have views contrary to the possibilities of democracy, but "Colombo’s cosmopolitans".")
In fact Dayan Jayatilleka, among my points (N2 | September 30, 2008 07:55 AM) was that you are a name dropper who likes to sound intellectual, as demonstrated by your attempt to include Said and Hughes (and Hughes' "Culture of Complaint") in relation to "the attitude of Colombo cosmopolitans".
Why didn't you write something plainly like: 'Contrary to the attitude of Colombo’s complaining cosmopolitans, there is indeed....democracy.'? Then you could have had a go at those you refer to as the Colombo cosmopolitan crowd (which you are not a part of) and at the same time not exposed yourself!
Mentioning Hughes' “Culture of Complaint” in that context makes no sense for that was not his point at all, and I doubt was even Said’s interpretation for Said would most certainly have been able to understand Hughes.
I suspect that you have seen the word "complaint" and wanting to attack the Colombo cosmopolitans as a complaining lot (as they are in your way and disagree with your thinking and the methods you advocate), thought to add that in to look impressive.
Anyway in regard to the possibilities of democracy in Lanka: it was the impossibilty of democracy in the mindset of the Sinhala-Buddhist extremists that brought about the war: and as long a they hold the strings of power and as long as people like you misrepresent the underlying issues, democracy will remain impossible.
If you really must "cut it off and kill it" start with the Sinhala-Buddhist extremists and those who believe that more violence is the solution, (and those pretend-intellectuals who misinterpret Gramsci).
Dear N2,
you have written: "Confused rubbish! The point being made (by Gramsci/Said) is that war and politics and territorial control are intertwined."
Then you quote me as follows:
Dayan Jayatilleka: “In politics, unlike in war, the territorial consideration is of primary significance.”
Then you go onto say:" Not at all! In both war and politics territorial consideration is of significance, but in politics which can be played from afar and through intermediaries it is of indirect significance but war is direct and so territory is of primary significance. If you have followed, note that this is the opposite of what you have said."
Now this is the quote from Said on Gramsci, which I repeat:
“On the other hand, far more than Lukacs he was political in the practical sense, conceiving of politics as a contest over territory, both actual and historical, to be won, fought over, controlled, held, lost, gained.” (Edward Said, `History, Literature and Geography`, in Reflections on Exile).
I draw your and readërs attention to the phrase in that sentence: "...conceiving of politics as a contest over territory..."
Please match that with my interpretation which you reject:"In politics, unlike in war, the territorial consideration is of primary significance.”
Also match it with your interpretation: :" Not at all! In both war and politics territorial consideration is of significance, but in politics which can be played from afar and through intermediaries it is of indirect significance but war is direct and so territory is of primary significance. If you have followed, note that this is the opposite of what you have said."
Whether this gibberish or my interpretation more closely matches Said on Gramsci ( "conceiving of politics as a contest over territory, both actual and historical, to be won, fought over, controlled, held, lost, gained") is for the reader to judge.
What is fairly obvious is that you do not comprehend Said, Gramsci, logic, or the English language.
dear dingiri,
" Neo-Con dayan jayatilleka", you wrote.
Could you please do me the favour of naming one NeoCon whose essay on che guevara was featured last year in the official paper of the central committee of th cuban communist party, Granma, and whose essay on fidel castro appears on the website of the Cuban foreign Ministry?
political disagreements are one thing but political illiteracy is a bit annoying.
Dayan Jayatilleka: "I draw your and readërs attention to the phrase in that sentence: "...conceiving of politics as a contest over territory...""
OK then, let me draw attention to the rest of the quote rather than the bit you have selected out to push your views.
“...conceiving of politics as a contest over territory, both actual and historical, to be won, fought over, controlled, held, lost, gained.”
(Edward Said, `History, Literature and Geography`, in Reflections on Exile).
Note the words "...to be won, fought over, controlled, held, lost, gained."
That's right "...won, FOUGHT OVER, controlled ..."
The point being made is that, as I said earlier, war and politics and territorial control are intertwined. The idea being put forward is that war is (or can be seen as) an extension of politics.
There is NO distinction being made between war and politics as you have made out: in fact to the contrary!
This is an example of what I meant by you being a name dropper who does not really understand those you are quoting in your efforts to appear intellectual and impressive. (This still won't get you admission to the Colombo cosmopolitan crowd).
And as I also noted Gramsci would most definitely be against Mahinda Rajapakse’s and Gotabhaya Rajapakse’s attitudes and methods which are intended to assert Sinhala/Rajapakse-gang hegemonic control over the Tamils.
But you Dayan Jayatilleke have written as though Gramsci would be in agreement with that sort of fascist/neo-con thinking.
So this again shows that you seem to have no idea as to what those whose name you drop are saying. (But of course you resort to the rhetorical device of praising Gramsci to pretend that you do.)
OK I'll help you out a bit more.
Now Gramsci's point about war being an extension of politics must be seen in the context of his times. (Go do your homework and you might find out why).
On the other hand war and politics can also be seen as different.
That is, there confrontational, oppressive, hegemonic politics in which context war is ever possible if not inevitable – here war is the logical extension of politics.
This is the kind of politics that the Sinhala-Buddhist extremists, you and the Rajapakse clan believe in.
And this is the kind of politics (as practised by the Sinhala politicians since independence) that led to the present war.
But there is also democratic and good neighbourly politics. This is probably beyond your (extremist/fascist) mindset, but there may be hope so I'll briefly explain.
Actually if you had really followed what Hughes wrote you may have understood, but I see you have only mentioned his name and "Culture of Complaint", to appear intellectual!
Anyway, in this kind of politics there is fair debate and reasoning based on mutual respect or at least some recognition of the rights and dignity of people. (Thus it can also engender a culture of complaint, which is not very practical or even worthwhile but at least a sign of socio-political health.)
In this kind of politics territorial control is not the significant feature at all, and territorial governance is not at all about territorial control; governance is here accepted voluntarily for it is seen as a good thing.
However with the fascist, oppressive, hegemonic, confrontational style of politics territorial control is seen as important and war is merely its extension. Here, inseparably, war or politics it is all about territorial control and so human control.
In order to assert (or deny in the case of defence) that control, the political strategy of war focuses on the tactic of direct destruction of the enemy.
So here war is a direct and in-your-face attempt to assert (or deny) that territorial and human control, for once one kills the enemy one also politically controls the territory (and so enslaves (or saves in the case of defence) the people).
Perhaps it is your narrow minded, fascist, neo-con, oppressive approach to politics that has got you muddled about Gramsci and the rest.
Dayan Jayathilake is a Patriot and not a Traitor. But these patriots never waged war against the British when Sri Lanka was under the British domination.
At that time we had another set of patriots who were collaborators of the British imperialism and obtained independence as a byproduct when others in the region resorted to violant and non violent means and got rid of foreign domination.
Then these patriots became democrats and argued that democracy means majority rule and therefore the Sinhala Buddhists are the sole owners of this island.
Dayan please note that Sinhalese Christians were excluded from this arrangement.
Please also note that the Sinhala Christians like Tamil collaborators are tolerated and made used of until Tamil militancy is completely wiped out.
This is the country of Sinhala Buddhist.
You admit that unlike Sri Lanka IPKF was worried about the sentiments in Tamil Nadu Because Indian democracy considered Tamil Nadu as an integral part of India unlike Sri Lankan democracy being majoritarian democracy does not recognize Tamils even as human beings with human rights.
This great democratic tradition commenced in 1956 then 1958,1977, 1981,1983 and then human rights violation in wide scale with indiscriminate aerial bombardment and artillery shelling etc.
And world recognizes Sri Lanka as a democracy.
Cuba is also having periodic elections. Does USA consider Cuba as a democracy?
Dayan also claims that “it’s not Kilinochchi,.it is Delhi stupid” .
This is the language of Bill Clinton.
Dayan is a realist he changes to suit to the current fashion,
Once upon a time he was talking the language of Marxists.- Castro, Che Quevara, Marx, Engels ,Mao, Lenin ,Stalin,
Ho Chi Mnh, Padmanaba, Varatherejaperumal, Premadasa. Now he talks about FBI, CIA, Collin Powel, Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and so on…..W hat next….
Dayan says that devolution was entirely due to India. It has nothing to do about Tamil militancy?
This is only a short response.
Dayan Jayatilleka: "I draw your and readërs attention to the phrase in that sentence: "...conceiving of politics as a contest over territory...""
OK then, let me draw attention to the rest of the quote rather than the bit you have selected out to push your views.
“...conceiving of politics as a contest over territory, both actual and historical, to be won, fought over, controlled, held, lost, gained.”
(Edward Said, `History, Literature and Geography`, in Reflections on Exile).
Note the words "...to be won, fought over, controlled, held, lost, gained."
That's right "...won, FOUGHT OVER, controlled ..."
The point being made is that, as I said earlier, war and politics and territorial control are intertwined. The idea being put forward is that war is (or can be seen as) an extension of politics.
There is NO distinction being made between war and politics as you have made out: in fact to the contrary!
This is an example of what I meant by you being a name dropper who does not really understand those you are quoting in your efforts to appear intellectual and impressive. (This still won't get you admission to the Colombo cosmopolitan crowd).
And as I also noted Gramsci would most definitely be against Mahinda Rajapakse’s and Gotabhaya Rajapakse’s attitudes and methods which are intended to assert Sinhala/Rajapakse-gang hegemonic control over the Tamils.
But you Dayan Jayatilleke have written as though Gramsci would be in agreement with that sort of fascist/neo-con thinking.
So this again shows that you seem to have no idea as to what those whose name you drop are saying. (But of course you resort to the rhetorical device of praising Gramsci to pretend that you do.)
OK I'll help you out a bit more.
Now Gramsci's point about war being an extension of politics must be seen in the context of his times. (Go do your homework and you might find out why).
On the other hand war and politics can also be seen as different.
That is, there confrontational, oppressive, hegemonic politics in which context war is ever possible if not inevitable – here war is the logical extension of politics.
This is the kind of politics that the Sinhala-Buddhist extremists, you and the Rajapakse clan believe in.
And this is the kind of politics (as practised by the Sinhala politicians since independence) that led to the present war.
But there is also democratic and good neighbourly politics. This is probably beyond your (extremist/fascist) mindset, but there may be hope so I'll briefly explain.
Actually if you had really followed what Hughes wrote you may have understood, but I see you have only mentioned his name and "Culture of Complaint", to appear intellectual!
Anyway, in this kind of politics there is fair debate and reasoning based on mutual respect or at least some recognition of the rights and dignity of people. (Thus it can also engender a culture of complaint, which is not very practical or even worthwhile but at least a sign of socio-political health.)
In this kind of politics territorial control is not the significant feature at all, and territorial governance is not at all about territorial control; governance is here accepted voluntarily for it is seen as a good thing.
However with the fascist, oppressive, hegemonic, confrontational style of politics territorial control is seen as important and war is merely its extension. Here, inseparably, war or politics it is all about territorial control and so human control.
In order to assert (or deny in the case of defence) that control, the political strategy of war focuses on the tactic of direct destruction of the enemy.
So here war is a direct and in-your-face attempt to assert (or deny) that territorial and human control, for once one kills the enemy one also politically controls the territory (and so enslaves (or saves in the case of defence) the people).
Perhaps it is your narrow minded, oppressive approach to politics that has got you uncomprehending and muddled about Gramsci and the rest.
... and what was that about "political illiteracy" being "a bit annoying"?