Betrayal of Buddhism by Buddhist monks

Sometime back the country has experienced Buddhist monks coming into direct politics. In recent times the country has experienced Buddhist monks grouped under various names rampaging in the streets, engaging in violence against other religions.
The topic, whether it is appropriate for Buddhist monks to engage in politics, was debated for a long time. In the 1940s Buddhist monks attached to Vidyalankara Pirivena took a bold step not only to engage in so-called politics as they interpreted but also to actively engage with it. The academic staff of the Vidyalankara Pirivena unanimously made a declaration dated 13th February 1946 which was subsequently called the Vidyalankara Declaration, justifying the reasons why Buddhist monks should engage in politics, which term was defined by them. The declaration was issued under the name of Kiriwaththuduwe Pragnasara who was the Head of the institution at that time.
There were very prominent monks who contributed immensely to the education and knowledgebase of this county in the Vidyalankara academic staff at that time, including Yakkaduwe Pragnarama, Kotahene Pannakiththi, Naththandiye Pannakara, Bambarande Siri Sivali and Walpola Rahula. At this time it is appropriate to discuss the contents of Vidyalankara Declaration against the behaviour of the present day monks who rampage in the streets.
Vidyalankara Declaration
About 60 years back Buddhists in this country did not wish to attain nibbana in this very life. Their intention was to attain nibbana after hearing sermons from the next Buddha Maithree. The Vidyalankara Declaration in the outset stated as follows as translated from Sinhala:
“It should be accepted that the economic, political and social status prevailed during the time of Buddha was changed very much now and therefore the life of monks also changed very much. In those days the intention of the monks was to attain nibbana in the same life. Intention of the bhikkus lived much later worked towards the benefit of themselves and others with the intention of attaining nibbana at a later life. It is very clear that the life of a monk changed very much later because of this shift of the basic intention.”
This situation was changed gradually with the Buddha Jayanthi, the 2,500th anniversary of the parinibbana, passing away of Buddha in 1956. In the Kandyan era Buddhism was lost in Sri Lanka and ordination to monkhood was carried into the country from Thailand and Burma.
Unlike in Sri Lanka in those two countries there were vipassana meditation systems passed on over a period from one generation to another without interruption. These meditation systems were spread around the world after the Buddha Jayanthi in 1956. When the Mitirigala Nissarana Vanaya Monastery was incorporated in 1967 by the late Asoka Weerarathne (later Ven. Mitirigala Dhammanisenthi) with most venerable Matara Sri Gnanarama as the abbot, it was the intention to facilitate the resident monks of the monastery to achieve nibbana in this very life. There is a considerable number of lay persons and monks who meditate to achieve this objective today in Sri Lanka let alone Burma and Thailand.
At the time of Vidyalankara Declaration and before that the education and knowledge of this country was concentrated around the Buddhist temple. The monks who thought in the pirivena established throughout the country were knowledgeable in various subjects. The influence of the monks was started diminishing after the establishment of the universities Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara after 1956. Presently the recognition to the subjects such as modern sciences is higher than that to the subjects where monks are conversant.
Validity in question
The Vidyalankara Declaration takes liberty to justify the political activities of the bhikkus by the statement, “Intention of the bhikkus lived much later served themselves and the others with the intention of attaining nibbana at a later life.”
The reason for this statement was that at the time of Vidyalankara Declaration the economic and social life was different to that of the time of Buddha. However the situation today is different to the time of Vidyalankara Declaration. Hence the validity of that declaration today is a question.
The main intention of the Vidyalankara Declaration was to liberate the common man who was suppressed by the then elites of the society. The monks who contributed to the Vidyalankara Declaration have done immense service to the education of this country. They were progressive, fearless and impartial.
At one point when there was no alms given to the Vidyalankara Pirivena by the laymen, under the influence of the powerful persons, Ven. Yakkaduwe Pragnarama had written a series of books Pancha Thanthra. The Thera had to face the anger of the then Prime Minister by stating at one place of the book that if one wants to go to hell, one has to do the job of the prime minister. Fearlessness does not mean to damage Muslim or Christian religious places with the support of the ruling elite.
Benefit of the common man
In the Declaration it was stated as follows as well: “We believe that every work done for the benefit of the common man belongs to politics. It is the duty of the monks to work towards the progress of the religion. The growth of the religion is depending on the growth of the people who believe that religion. It was proved by the history that at the times of Sinhala Buddhists were doing well Buddhism also was doing well. Therefore if there is any activity which contributes to the benefit of the common man of this country it is appropriate to for the monks to involve with that activity without damaging the monkhood whether the name of that activity is politics or otherwise.
“We accept that it is the duty of the monks to work for the progress of the common man and also work against the forces which would be a hindrance to the progress of them. For instance to work against the forces which try to destroy the free education which is beneficial to the common man and establish the free education is a paramount duty of the monks.”
Although at the time of Vidyalankara Declaration and around 10 years thereafter Bhikkus of this country did not enjoy adequate political power, Bhikkus who pioneered the Vidyalankara Declaration did not engage with any activity which affected the believers of other religions or damaged the monkhood.
Violent conduct
We have to examine the conduct of the monks who are engaged in violent activities, harming Buddhism and the monkhood in this background. These monks do not belong to progressive camp in the political sense. They do not work towards the general progress of the common people in the country. They are communalists. They try to safeguard the religion just like the foolish companion who tried to chase away the fly who was on the body of the king by attacking the fly with a sword.
They are oppressors. They by any chance do not represent the oppressed. This behaviour is completely against the way recommended by the Buddha and the way followed by the monks who authored the Vidyalankara Declaration. They are also indifferent to the spiritual direction taken by the Buddhism in this country after the Vidyalankara Declaration. They work against the nibbanic way. They create a hindrance to propagation of Buddhism in the world at large.  Although the monks who authored the Vidyalankara Declaration did not work towards nibbana in this life, they were engaged in progressive acts benefiting the common man of the country. On the contrary, these monks are reactionaries. Knowingly or unknowingly they work towards the political benefit of the rulers and mislead lay Buddhists. They betray Buddhism and monkhood for petty political purposes and hence their actions should be condemned and stopped. The day they will be thrown to the dustbin of the history is very close.
True Buddhists of this country should be very vigilant to ensure that the Buddhism of this county will also not be thrown into the dustbin at the same time.

Published in Daily FT 17th Jan 2014

To bridge trade deficit, Sri Lanka’s approach should be offensive

After the presentation of the Government Budget for the year 2014 by the President, the Secretary to the Treasury in a public speech, responding to the criticisms of the Budget, stated that the economic policies of the Government were not defensive. The reason for this remark was the allegation that the Government was trying to take the country’s economic policies back to the 1970s by increasing tariffs on certain imported products in order to encourage domestic production of the same.
Sri Lanka had been experiencing a trade deficit for a long time. A trade deficit means the amount paid for the imports to the country exceeds the income generated by the export products. There are simple remedies for this. One is to increase the export income and the other is to decrease import expenses. In order to increase the income the approach should be offensive and in order to decrease the import expenses the approach should be defensive. It appears to be that the Government prefers to be on the defensive.
Whether it is in trade or in sports or in war or in politics, to be successful one has to be in offensive mode. It has to be implemented while preserving one’s own defence. Then from the beginning he is in the winning mode. He has to work to establish his success. If one is basically in defensive while in offensive wherever possible, then he is in the losing mode from the beginning. He has to work to convert his possible failure to a success. The war which was ended four-and-a-half-years back was won because the commanders and the Government adopted an offensive policy towards it.

Focus on State sector
The Government works with placing a higher weight to the State sector. The slogan that the private sector is the engine of growth which was adapted sometime back appears to be no longer valid. The State sector is being strengthened and there are more and more graduates employed by the Government.
Employment opportunities of the State sector are not preferred much by the young graduates and there is an ideology that their qualifications and the capabilities do not match the requirements of the private sector.
The Government acquired some of the privatised ventures. Using the Employees Provident Fund in the stock market, the Government acquired a considerable number of shares especially of commercial banks and influenced the management of those banks by appointing directors in proportion to its shareholdings.

Export enterprises
Governments of Sri Lanka have been maintaining a budget deficit for a long time. As a result there is a tendency that domestic interest rates and rate of inflation would increase and thereby exporters would be affected since the cost of production would rise. Exporters in general used to set-off this adverse effect against the depreciation of rupee, which is inevitable due to the policy framework. Since the present Government manipulates the exchange rate artificially, exporters are severely affected.
Export enterprises continue to export raw materials without any value addition, with certain exceptions. For instance, cinnamon is largely exported in the same form we exported it in the Dutch period. There are a very few exporters with a broader vision
The Government keeps the income tax rate for exporters at a lower rate of 12%, which is commendable. Commercial banks do not offer any concessionary interest rates to exporters. Although the Government encouraged the commercial banks to give long-term loans to the business community, the banks wish to settle on short-term loans. The main criterion the banks consider when granting a loan is the collateral, especially to the small and medium scale entrepreneurs. Neither the strength of the project proposal nor the ability to repay the loan is considered as the primary criterion.
In a country if the banks are in the top slots of leading companies, the development of that country should be lopsided. That is what happened in Sri Lanka.
Government usually strengthens the State sector while promoting import substitutes. To promote exports the Government has to strengthen the private sector including the small and medium scale entrepreneurs.

Remittances
The other major receipt of the country is the remittances from mainly the poor who go abroad for employment. These remittances are being increased but successive governments failed to do anything substantial for this group of people.
In comparison to the income from the tourist industry and the cost incurred by the Government in this sector, the foreign remittances the country receives from the persons in foreign employment and the cost incurred by the Government for the betterment of their conditions, the difference of treatment is evident abundantly. The reason is that this group is less affluent and unable to lobby the Government for favourable conditions.
The foreign exchange policy of the Government adversely affects this group of people although the whole country including the rich is depending on them for the lavish import expenses. The Government pays less attention continuously to improve the productivity of the local labour in foreign countries by using education.

Private sector has failed
The private sector of the country has failed to make a considerable influence on the Government. They keep praising the Government for the comparatively insignificant benefits they get. They have failed to analyse and criticise the overall economic policy of the Government. The private sector today comprises a bunch of people without straight talk and with submissive behaviour.
The table gives important economic data of a few Asian countries for 2012. It appears to be that the other countries also achieved much-talked-about economic gains of the country.
All the countries other than Pakistan have achieved an economic growth over 5%. Budget deficits of Indonesia, Thailand and Bangladesh are comparatively lower. Inflation is lower in Indonesia and Thailand and then in Sri Lanka. Once again in those two countries the prime commercial lending rate is low; thereafter it is low in India.
The lowest unemployment rate is in Thailand and then it is low in Vietnam. Contribution of exports to GDP is high in Vietnam and Thailand. In those two countries the gap between imports and exports is low and exports are more than the imports.
In Sri Lanka, public debt is alarmingly high. Across the globe Sri Lanka is among the countries whose debt to GDP ratio is very high. In order to develop the country there is no doubt that debt has to be obtained, but the issue is whether we get the best terms and whether the funds are utilised effectively.

Uneven income distribution
The higher Gini index reveals that the income distribution is uneven. Other than Thailand, this is higher in Sri Lanka. This is one reason for the political turmoil in Thailand. In Sri Lanka in the recent past the poor were taxed by the Budget proposals and certain concessions were given to the rich. Tax revenue of the country has reduced and the rumour that there would be a tax on wealth did not materialise.
A major portion of the tax revenue comes from the indirect taxes including VAT and the contribution of the direct taxes keeps on coming down. As a result the contribution of the poor to revenue is going up and the same of the rich is coming down. This bitter pill is sold to the people with the coating of Sinhala-Buddhism.
Among the above countries Sri Lanka provides the lowest percentage of GDP for education and Vietnam provides the highest percentage.

Staggering public debt
The economic benefits Sri Lanka has gained after the end of war which was a grand opportunity were not sufficient and we cannot be proud of the achievements. In fact we should be afraid of the staggering public debt.
For the long-term benefits of the country, it is mandatory to increase exports. The Government failed to have a considerable impact on this. In addition to that, the attitude of the private sector, the commercial banks and the Secretary to the Treasury towards this objective is not correct.

(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

 Published in Daily FT on 9th Jan 2014

David Cameron: Should he be condemned or commended?

CHOGM was over. As expected the British Prime Minister David Cameron was engaged not only in a tough conversation but also in a tough tour. Although the British Labour Party was of the view that the Prime Minister should boycott the summit he decided to come here and question the actions of the Sri Lankan Government.
The actions of the British Prime Minister were questioned by many. One said that he still thinks that Sri Lanka is a British colony. In response to a question asked from him the President said people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. One was of the view that the country should protest against his behaviour via diplomatic channels. One said that CHOGM was degraded to the level of human rights summit due to his behaviour. One accused that he was visiting Jaffna without attending executive meetings and thereby not contributing to the summit. Another questioned the double standards of Britain.
In an article written to Sunday Times, UK it was sarcastically stated that he struck the right tone when he addressed his Sri Lankan counterpart.  After the bilateral meeting with the President, what was expressed at the press conference by the Prime Minister was balanced, once he praised the President.
He said that there was a lot of work done after the war. No one else praised him for this except the government-owned ITN television channel. ITN reported on the day of the press conference that he praised the Government and nothing else. It implied that his so called tough conversation failed and the President tamed him. Those who criticise the double standards of Britain and Callum Macrae of Channel 4 are of this calibre.
Politicians of this country most of the time think of themselves first and then about the country. Their main issue is how to be in power continuously. If they can do so, in lieu of that, they are not hesitant to sacrifice the long term interests of the country. In this context there is no difference between the governing party and the Opposition, or for that matter the so-called third force. Kings who lived centuries ago worked towards fulfilling their own objectives rather than the objectives of the country. History has proven this.
The President expected to hold the CHOGM here in order to boost his own image. In Sri Lanka when one becomes the President, the law cannot be exercised against him and when one becomes the Chief Justice, cases cannot be filed against his dishonourable behaviour. Similarly, the President might be under the pretext that when he becomes the President of the Commonwealth Nations, the strengths of the allegations of human rights violations would be diluted. Heads of state do unwise things on and off. Kings who lived centuries ago also did so, on and off. History has proven this as well.
When people of this country think about an event of this type, they first tend to think about the benefits ensued to the country and then about the benefits to themselves. They feel that the aggressive behaviour of the British Prime Minister damaged badly the prestige of the country. Much later they would realise that they were hit by the recent budget proposals. Unlike the heads of state, the general public do unwise things very often too.
A quote by Abraham Lincoln defining democracy being a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” will have to be interpreted in Sri Lanka in a different manner. It should be redrafted as a “government of the people by the people for those who govern and for the people as well”. This status quo has prevailed in this country for a long time beyond this regime. It is up to the people of the country to get the democracy of this country upgraded to the level Lincoln expected.
There was a lot of criticism against the double standards of Britain. Everybody other than those who have attained high spiritual levels have double standards. This is because of the concept of “I” as a separate entity. One treats his own child differently to someone else’s child. One’s cares well for his own car or pen compared to someone else’s car or pen. This is the source of double standards. Double standards are active on a personal level as well as in diplomatic levels. Those who maintain double standards claim that others use double standards. Ordinary people should evaluate and see whether what Britain is trying to point out, although there is a double standard, is advantageous to them.
People also as politicians should be concerned about themselves ahead of the interests of the country. It would help to fulfil their intentions. The British Prime Minister did not speak about the human rights of British but of Sri Lankans. Tamils also are Sri Lankans. The LTTE and not the ordinary Tamils were in battle with the Government. Human rights violations of LTTE were at very high levels and the state is not on par with a group of armed rebels.
One reason why the LTTE was moved away from the negotiations with the Government was that the international community did not consider them on par with the Government. Therefore a government has a much more responsibility towards its citizens compared to that of a bunch of armed rebels. Hence if there are allegations that the human rights of Tamils were violated  it is the responsibility of the Government to investigate it, since they are Sri Lankans not British and not second class citizens but first class citizens. When the human rights of Tamils are not safeguarded the same rights of the Sinhalese would also not be safeguarded since both would be treated in similar manner. Therefore the efforts of the British Prime Minister, who is concerned about the human rights of Sri Lankans, should be appreciated and commended. People should first think of their rights. If the rulers safeguard the human rights of the people, the self-respect of the people and that of the country will be safeguarded.
In this country, law and order is also implemented properly with the influence of the international community. The case against a political goon who killed a British national and raped his girlfriend was taken up hurriedly after it was reported that Prince Charles was concerned about it. The ordinary people of this country who face difficulties caused by political goons are denied of justice. People should think about the gravity of this situation. If the endeavours of the British Prime Minister would be successful, law and order would be re-established in this country. Citizens of the country would get a direct benefit and also an indirect benefit out of this. Foreign investors who are much sought after by the Government would come here since their investments would be safeguarded with the prevailing law and order. As a result there will be tremendous impact to the economy of the country.
Therefore we should commend and praise the acts of the British prime Minister who visited our country and who met and discussed with various types of people without following the Canadian Prime Minister and without listening to the British Labour Party. We should not criticize or condemn his acts.
(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

Published in Daily FT 5th Dec 2013

Benefit of holding CHOGM in Sri Lanka

It was reported that Aung San Suu Kyi, who met British Prime Minister David Cameron in London, said at a news conference in response to a question whether Cameron should attend CHOGM that he should go there and engage with all those who are involved, all the other stakeholders not just the Government.
Cameron agreed and responded that he should go there and would engage with a tough conversation with the Government of Sri Lanka about their human rights record and post conflict behaviour. Justifying his participation in the Colombo summit, he further said: “No one is going to be listening to the British Foreign Secretary and the British Prime Minister if we’re not there.”
Will CHOGM be beneficial?
There are debates going on whether CHOGM would be beneficial to the citizens of Sri Lanka. Most of the liberal intellectuals are of the view that taking into consideration of the human rights record of the Government and the behaviour of the Government institutions including the Judiciary in comparison with the values adored by the Commonwealth, in the first place CHOGM would not have been held in Sri Lanka, let alone the benefits. It was pointed out that mass scale deceiving process is going on, whitewashing the sins of the Government.
For example, although ahead of UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay’s visit the Government announced the reopening of the case of 17 aid workers in Muttur and arrested 12 security forces persons for the killing of five boys in Trincomalee, after the departure of Pillay, the progress of the cases is very slow. It is also suggested that hurried process of the murder case of British tourist would have a similar fate after CHOGM.
Delayed payments
Suppliers of goods and services to the Government experience the firsthand benefits of CHOGM these days by indefinite delays of Government payments from almost all the Government departments and affiliated institutions. Payments by the Government are delayed usually but at present all Government departments cite the reason as expenses on CHOGM for delaying of payments.
We were told that with the attendance of several delegates and business leaders of the respective countries the country should be able to solicit a large amount of Foreign Direct Investment. Some of the business writers suggest that we should concentrate on tourism in line with CHOGM, citing the examples of Lonely Planet naming Sri Lanka as the number one destination in the world to visit in year 2013 and National Geographic listing Sri Lanka at No. 2 of the 25 best new trips for 2010 .
Tourist arrivals did not increase as expected although there was an improvement. The reason can be given in the form of an example. There was a travel advisory in the UK against Sri Lanka citing that the country was unsafe. The country has done very little about the killing of a British tourist and raping his companion by a political goon. Therefore, the real issue boils down to governance and absence of law and order.
Calling casinos
The Government has to invite international casino moguls to the country with excessive tax concessions hitherto unprecedented in any other country since the expected investors in industry are not coming.    At this juncture foreign investment is much needed to turn the wheels of the Government, whether it is black or white. Therefore if the desired investors are not coming, the Government will have to invite any one even by selling the soul of the ordinary public of the country for survival.
The Government of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike prohibited betting on horse races, resulting in the closing down of race courses in Colombo and Nuwara Eliya. This was done since betting was against basic principles of Buddhism. However, the Government is trying to go against all these values and bring foreign investments.
Governance
Why aren’t foreign investors coming here at expected levels despite the bold statements of the Government? One reason may be the prolonged recession experienced in the West. However, the real issue is nothing else but governance. Investors would invest money if there is mechanism to safeguard their investments. There should be a reliable Judiciary of which the members should be respected independent persons rather than puppets.
The system of maintaining law and order including the Police should be free of influence of political goons. The Government should have a consistent policy. They should not nationalise the private ventures based on political interests while asking for foreign investments, giving confusing signals to the investors. Investors will not come to strengthen the Government.
We should note that it is with international pressure especially from India that the Northern Provincial Council election was held prior to CHOGM without amending the Constitution to dilute the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
It is with international pressure that the country is able to keep the Sinhala extremists at bay and as a result ethnic harmony is budding to emerge. It is with international pressure that the Government implements law and order even with whitewashing tactics. It is with international pressure that we do the basic things any wise statesman do.
International pressure
By having CHOGM here this international pressure can be kept on the Government consistently. It would be like appointing the naughty boy the monitor of the classroom.
At this point I would like to quote Gene Sharp in relation to foreign intervention from his landmark book, ‘From Dictatorship to Democracy’: “…but there are grave problems with the reliance on an outside saviour. Such confidence may be totally misplaced. Usually no foreign saviours are coming and if a foreign state does intervene, it probably should not be trusted… International pressures can be very useful, however, when they are supporting a powerful internal resistance movement.” Therefore it is the duty of Opposition and the civil society to build up a powerful non-violent resistance movement against the unwanted behaviour of the Government.
Leaders of the Government are obsessed with having some sort of international event here. We should be happy that the country missed the Commonwealth Games sometime back, which would have been a massive loss to the country if held in Sri Lanka although the economic pundits of the Government – who were also of the view that there would be no loss to the country if we were to lose GSP+ facility from European Union but were proved wrong by the recent acknowledgement of the Government – tried hard to get it.  As discussed, CHOGM would be beneficial since compared to any other event it would have potential to keep the Government at watch.
Engagement over abandonment
As Cameron and Suu Kyi pointed out, engagement is more recommended than abandoning. If abandoned by the civilised world, as signalled by the President himself with his series of foreign visits to the international rascals which raised many eyebrows, the country would be aligned with an evil axis, probably with the blessing of the so-called Sinhala Buddhists.
Therefore from the point of view of the ordinary masses of this country, irrespective of their ethnicity or religion, holding CHOGM here is better for the country even with a massive cost.
(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

Published in Daily FT on 30th Oct 2013

The value and importance of political gestures

After winning the Northern Provincial Council elections, the Tamil National Alliance by arranging for Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran to take oaths before the President has given a strong political message to the south that they are willing to go along the reconciliation path quite contrary to the picture portrayed by the southern extremists.
Selecting Colombo-based Wigneswaran as the chief ministerial candidate primarily by R. Sampanthan, the Leader of the TNA, and subsequently by the decision making authority of the TNA after much deliberation, was itself a message that they were willing to go along the reconciliation path. These are strong political gestures.
Sampanthan
Soon after the end of the bloody war, Sampanthan has given a similar type of message to the south by arranging to hoist the National Flag and sing the National Anthem in Tamil at a function but not only was it ignored by the south, it was also negated by the Government by prohibiting the singing of the National Anthem in Tamil, citing that it was against the Constitution, which is violated frequently by persons in power.
We should keep in mind that during so-called rule of the LTTE in the north, it was prohibited to sing the National Anthem or hoist the National Flag. Therefore Sampanthan’s act should have been highlighted and supported rather than prohibited.
Sampanthan is not carrying out these deeds with ease; rather he is doing so with great resistance from the rank and file of the TNA supported by Tamil extremists who are of the view that they can politically gain very little from the Government which has a predominantly Sinhala base.
This dictum was proved over and over again in the history of ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka starting from the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact. Therefore it is the duty of the southern moderates to support the Sampanthan-Sumanthiran-Wigneswaran trio in their endeavours, as pointed out by many political commentators.
Wigneswaran
After being sworn-in before the President, in a brief speech Wigneswaran said: “It is the need of the hour that we remove the misunderstandings and doubts that have crept into the minds of various communities. I sincerely ask the Sinhala people to realise that to the same extent the Sinhala people cherish and respect their language and culture, so do the Tamil speaking people cherish and respect their own language and their traditions. There is no place for violence in this realisation. None could force such realisation. It is such sincere realisation that would take us all on the path of peace and brotherhood. Therefore let my simple symbolic act today pave the way for the unity of the people of the two communities in our island.”
The path of reconciliation which is being opened gradually should be supported, as the President suggested in his response. One needs immense courage to go along this path.
Dutugemunu
Dutugemunu at the end of the war with Elara erected a tomb for the slain leader. He then ordered that anyone who passes the tomb of Elara should walk rather than using any means of transportation.
His younger brother Saddhathissa’s youngest son Walagamba had to get down from the carriage and walk when he was passing the tomb of Elara when he was running away to escape from the Chola invaders. As a result the invaders were nearing and one of his wives Somadevi volunteered to get down in order to reduce the weight of the passengers and allow the carriage to move faster. Walagamba escaped with a great sacrifice and that happened as a result of the strong order given by Dutugemunu and the way it was accepted by the people including the subsequent rulers.
This symbolic act of Dutugemunu paved the way for the much-needed reconciliation at that time. Although Elara was a foreigner, there were Tamils and Sinhalese serving for him. The Mahavamsa describes that the rule of Elara was with justice toward friend and foe, on occasions of disputes at law. According to the Mahavamsa, once he ordered the severing of the head of his only son for killing a calf by running his vehicle over it. This act of Dutugemunu, who was one of the greatest statesmen produced by Sri Lanka, was to win the hearts of the people who respected the great slain leader.
Nelson Mandela
If we were to take a more recent example, Nelson Mandela after serving a prison sentence of 27 long years for getting involved in freedom struggle and after being elected first black President in South Africa, initiated the idea of Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This was a court-like body and witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences. Offenders of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution.
This way of operation was heavily criticised by the native South Africans citing the fact that offenders can get away from the criminal acts they have carried out by just tendering an apology. But this act of Mandela was acclaimed internationally and locally as only the way out of hatred which was imbedded into the day-to-day life of South Africans.
A well known speech given by J.R. Jayewardene as the then Finance Minister representing Sri Lanka at the San-Francisco conference held after World War II, declaring that Sri Lanka did not need any compensation from Japan for the crimes that country had committed against humanity while other nations were demanding compensation, can be cited as being in line with the political gesture of the South African President.
Mandela, rather than giving speeches, expressed several political gestures such as taking steps to unite the divided nation by promoting the South African national rugby team which mainly comprised whites and hence supported by whites only, as a national symbol supported by whites as well as blacks at the World Rugby Cup matches sponsored by South Africa. At the final match against New Zealand which was won by South Africa, as the Chief Guest, Mandela wore a Jersey of the South African team, symbolising nation-wide support to the team which was hitherto unprecedented.
Sri Lanka
Unfortunately, soon after the end of war, the leadership of Sri Lanka adopted a short-sighted policy of national de-reconciliation supported by Sinhala extremists. It was well proved by the results of the Northern Provincial Council that reconciliation is not just economic or infrastructure development but treating all as equals and helping the Tamil community to heal the wounds of war.
The Government after the war has given the impression that it has defeated not only the LTTE but also the Tamil community in large by various political gestures such as commemorating the winning of the war year after year. The Government keeps excessive forces in the north hampering the day-to-day civilian lives of the people and in contrast to that Dutugemunu did a similar thing by placing Buddhist monks in the areas acquired by his Army. The difference is sheer arrogance against matured diplomacy.
Had the Government gone along the path of reconciliation right from the beginning soon after the war, the international pressure built up on the Government would have been eased to a great extent resulting in lesser dependence of the country on China although it is not a simple equation. Hence the Government should respond positively to the political gestures of the TNA and its Chief Minister. We should really appreciate it coming from the minority community after winning a relatively less important provincial council election considering the fact that such gestures hardly came from the Government after winning the war against the LTTE irrespective of the fact that local as well as international great political leaders used the same for greater reconciliation between communities within the respective countries.

(The writer is a Chartered Accountant by profession and holds a Master of Business Administration degree awarded by the Postgraduate Institute of Management of University of Sri Jayewardenepura.)

Published in Daily FT 23rd Oct 2013

History of Indian Tamil separatism

By Harsha Gunasena
There were debates in respect of the election manifesto of the Tamil National Alliance in relation to northern provincial council elections. The majority Sinhalese in this country is having a deep fear of devolving power to the minority Tamils. The Tamils of this country have to launch a struggle in order to enjoy the provisions of the Constitution of the country after the end of the three-decade-old bloody war.
The TNA won 30 seats out of 38 seats in the Northern Provincial Council. This is well above the expected 2/3 majority. Also against the indirect forecasts of well-known political commentator, D.B.S. Jeyaraj, C.V. Wigneswaran obtained the highest preferential votes in Jaffna District. At this juncture it is appropriate to discuss in brief about the rise and fall of the separatist movement in Tamil Nadu. We can learn valuable lessons out of this historical Indian experience.
Separate Dravidian
State concept
The concept of a separate Dravidian State received political patronage after the Justice Party came into power in Madras the presidency in 1921. Not only the Tamils but also the users of other Dravidian languages such as Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada were part and parcel of this Dravidian State. The origin of this concept was in the movement against the Brahmins and their authority in Madras presidency in the latter part of 19th century.
Prominent Tamil leader Periyar was of the view that after the invasion of the Aryans, there were social inequalities in the Dravidian areas which were non-existent in the early stages. Periyar worked against these social inequalities and supported inter cast marriages and love marriages against the traditional Hindu marriages. The origin of magnificent economic development experienced by the state of Tamil Nadu today may be the equality concept of Periyar and the other Tamil leaders.
Periyar was against the Brahmin authority of the Indian National Congress and the usage of Hindi language in Dravidian areas. Periyar expounded Ramayanaya as a disguised historical account of how the Aryans subjugated the Tamils ruled by Ravana. Together with Mohamed Ali Jinnah, the creator of Pakistan, Periyar stated that India should be divided to four, Hindustan, Pakistan, Dravidastan and Bangalistan. The independence of India in 1947 was defined by him as transition of power from British to Aryans.
At the time of independence Indian states predominantly divided based on the demarcations of British rulers and the areas acquired from the former Maharajas. South India was divided as Madras presidency which was under British and the states acquired from Maharajas namely Mysore, Hyderabad and Travancore-Cochin. These divisions were not done based on ethnicity.
Demarcation based
on language
Subsequent to the political pressure to demarcate the states based on the languages used, in 1953, 16 provinces using Telugu language in Madras presidency were clustered and a new state called Andra state was created. The States Reorganisation Act was enacted on 31 August 1956 and based on that all the states in India were re-demarcated in line of the languages used.
Following were the changes experienced by South India: Hyderabad state and Andra state were combined and Telugu speaking Andra Pradesh was created. Travancore-Cochin state and Malabar provinces of Madras presidency were combined and Malayalam-speaking Kerala state was created. Tamil-speaking Southern provinces were amalgamated with Madras presidency which was renamed as Tamil Nadu in 1968. Kannada-speaking provinces of Hyderabad state and western Bombay state were combined with Mysore state, which was renamed as Karnataka in 1973.
These changes were carried out with the blessing of leaders of the Dravida Nadu movement as well. After these re-demarcations the demand for a separate Dravida Nadu was diminished in the states of Andra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. At that time, Annadurai who was in power after Periyar brought the slogan Dravida Nadu is for Dravidians and Tamil Nadu is for Tamils. Subsequently Tamil leaders abandoned the idea of Dravida Nadu as a result of war with China in 1962 and 16th Amendment to the Indian Constitution in 1963 which prohibited demands for separate states.
This is an interesting point. In 1962 while Indian National Congress won majority seats in Madras presidency, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party won only 50 seats. In 1967 after the abundance of separatism the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party won 138 seats while Congress won only 50 seats. Hence Congress lost the power first time in Madras presidency and Annadurai became the Chief Minister.
Language policy
It was Annadurai’s achievement to establish bilingual policy, English and Tamil, in Tamil Nadu whereas trilingual policy, English, Hindi and native language, was implemented at that time in other Dravidian states. Indian leaders were very careful and accommodative in their language policy. When Annadurai and the Tamil leaders were protesting against the use of Hindi language in 1960s, then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made an announcement in Parliament that English will continue to be the coordinating language. Later Indira Gandhi made both English and Hindi official languages.
After Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister, in 1966 policy of demarcation of states based on the languages used was continued. At the request of the Akali Dal party of Punjab, new state Haryana was created with the Hindi speaking provinces of Punjab and non-Sikh north eastern areas of Punjab were amalgamated with Himachal Pradesh.
Indira Gandhi adapted a policy which strengthened the centre and weakened the states. Jawaharlal Nehru was willing to deal with strong chief ministers of the states where Congress had power, in contrast to Indira Gandhi who preferred to appoint persons loyal to her as chief ministers. In one instance she dissolved the states of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat where Congress did not have power. Prime ministers who came to power after her did not continue this policy. This also resulted in weakening of separatist trends of Indian states.
Therefore it is evident that demarcation of states based on ethnicity and the language used reduces the desire for separatism.
Sri Lanka
This experience questions the stand taken by Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna against the creation of provincial councils based on ethnicity and devolving power to those. The reality faced by India was exactly the opposite of the ideology of the Sinhala extremists that devolution of power to the Northern Provincial Council would result in the creation of separate state in the northern part of Sri Lanka. These ideologies of Sinhala extremists influence the thinking pattern of the so-called Sinhala Buddhists who can be easily provoked.
Subsequent to the re-demarcation of states based on the language used, the separatist movement in Tamil Nadu was reduced to a mere demand by the politicians without the blessing of the masses. This is evident in elections results of Tamil Nadu in 1962 with the slogan of separatism and in 1967 without the slogan of separatism.
There is a debate going on currently in Iran whether the Iranian President Rouhani accepted the Holocaust by condemning the crime against the Jews as reprehensible according to CNN’s translation. Former Iranian President Ahmadinejad called the murder of estimated six million Jews by the Nazis a myth. Iranian hardliners interpret that Rouhani did not accept the Holocaust. This shows the blindness of the extremists to the reality. They wish to interpret history and the current affairs according to their whims and fancies.
The same thing happens in Sri Lanka. Sinhala extremists are of the view that the 16th Amendment to the Indian Constitution alone crushed the separatist movement in Tamil Nadu and in relation to the Northern Provincial Council, the Sri Lankan Government has given separatists what they wanted on a platter after a separatist war. This dictum was disproved totally by the detailed discussion we had.
At this critical juncture, if the Government of Sri Lanka behaves as usual, giving into the pressure of the Sinhala extremists well positioned within it, there is a possibility of taking the country towards the direction of Kosovo, East Timor or South Sudan, where separate states were created with the blessing of the UN, or if the Government of Sri Lanka acts with wisdom considering the Indian experience as well, there is a strong possibility of creating an independent, if it is precisely expressed not governed by the international community as at present, and strong nationalist state in Sri Lanka.
published in Daily FT 9th Oct 2013

මරියකඩේ රාජ්‍ය තාන්ත්‍රිකත්වය සහ නොබැඳි රාජ්‍ය තාන්ත්‍රිකත්වය

එවකට කලවාන මන්ත්‍රීවරයා වූ ඩිව් ගුණසේකර සිය ඡන්ද කොට්ඨාසයේ සංචාරයකින් පසුව රෑ බෝවී නිවසට පැමිණ මඳක් විවේක ගත්තා පමණි. රාත්‍රී 11 1/2 ට පමණ එවකට ජනාධිපති වූ ජේ.ආර්. ජයවර්ධන ඔහුට දුරකථනයෙන් කතා කර හදිසි කාරණයක් සම්බන්ධයෙන් වහාම පැමිණ තමන් හමුවන ලෙස දැනුම් දුන්නේය. මෙය දුරකථනයෙන් සාකච්ඡා කළ නොහැකි කාරණයක් බව ජනාධිපතිවරයා දැනුම් දුන් හෙයින් සහ මෙසේ සාකච්ඡා කිරීමට ගොස් නොයෙකුත් අපවාදයන් තමන් වෙත එතැයි සැක සහිත වූ හෙයින් එවකට විපක්ෂ මන්ත්‍රීවරයකු වූ හෙතෙම සිය පක්ෂයේ එනම් කොමියුනිස්ට් පක්ෂයේ එවකට නායකයා වූ පීටර් කෙනමන් සමඟ දුරකථනයෙන් මේ ගැන සාකච්ඡා කළේය. ඔහුගේ අනුමැතිය ලැබුණ පසු එවකට විපක්ෂ නායක අනුර බණ්ඩාරනායකගෙන්ද හෙතෙම මේ පිළිබඳව විමසීය. තමන්ටද ජනාධිපතිවරයාගෙන් දුරකථන ඇමතුමක් ලැබුණු බවත් එහි යාමට සූදානම් වන බවත් විපක්ෂ නායකවරයා කියා සිටියේය.

ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ වෝඩ් පෙදෙසේ නිවසට ඔහු පැමිණෙන විට එහි සිටි ආරක්ෂකයන්ද ඔහුගේ පැමිණීම දැන නොසිටි බව පෙනෙන්නට තිබුණි. අවසානයේදී ජනාධිපති හමුවට ඔහු ගිය විට එහි සිටියේ ඉතා සීමිත පිරිසකි. එවකට අගමැති ප්‍රේමදාස, ඇමති ලලිත් ඇතුලත්මුදලි, විදේශ ඇමති ශාහුල් හමීඩ් සහ ජනපති සොහොයුරු එච්.ඩබ්ලිව්. ජයවර්ධන ඔවුන් අතර වූහ. පසුව අනුර බණ්ඩාරනායක සහ දිනේෂ් ගුණවර්ධන යන විපක්ෂ මන්ත්‍රීවරුද ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ ආරාධනයෙන් එහි පැමිණියහ.

සාකච්ඡා කළ කරුණ වූයේ එවකට ඉන්දීය අගමැති රජීව් ගාන්ධිගෙන් ලැබුණ ලිපියකි. එහි සඳහන් වූයේ උතුරේ එවකට පැවැති හමුදා මෙහෙයුම් හේතුවෙන් උතුරට අවශ්‍ය ආහාර ද්‍රව්‍ය හිඟයක් පවතින බවත් මෙම තත්ත්වය තමිල්නාඩුවේ දැඩි සැලකිල්ලට භාජනය වී තමන්ට තමිල්නාඩුවෙන් බලපෑමක් ඇති වී දැන් එය තමන්ගේ ප්‍රශ්නයක් බවට පෙරළී ඇති බවත් වහාම මේ පිළිබඳව පියවරක් නොගතහොත් තමාට මෙයට මැදිහත්වීමට සිදුවන බවත්ය. ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ මතය වූයේ මේ සම්බන්ධයෙන් පිළිතුරක් දීමට සුදුසුම ස්ථානය පාර්ලිමේන්තුව බවත් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේදී අගමැතිවරයා විසින් මේ ගැන ශ්‍රී ලංකා රාජ්‍යය වහාම පියවර ගන්නා බවට ප්‍රකාශයක් කළ යුතු බවත්ය. ඔහු විපක්ෂ මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් කැඳවා තිබුණේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේදී මේ ගැන විවාද කරනවාට වඩා කල් තබාම ඔවුන්ගේ අනුමැතිය ලබා ගැනීමටය. මෙහිදී අදහස් දැක්වූ ඩිව් ගුණසේකර තමන් ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ යෝජනාවට එකඟ බවත් තමන් විපක්ෂ මන්ත්‍රීවරයකු වුවත් මෙය ජාතික ප්‍රශ්නයක් බැවින් මේ දුෂ්කර අවස්ථාවේදී තමන් රජයට සහයෝගය දෙන බවත් ප්‍රකාශ කළේය. අනුර බණ්ඩාරනායක ද දිනේෂ් ගුණවර්ධන ද මේ ගැන එකඟත්වය දැක්වූහ. මේ අනුව ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් පසුදින පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ විශේෂ සැසිවාරයක් පවත්වන ලෙස එවකට කථානායක ඊ.එල්. සේනානායකට ඒ අවස්ථාවේදීම දැනුම් දෙන ලදී. එමෙන්ම පසුදින අගමැතිවරයා විසින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේදී කළ යුතු ප්‍රකාශය කෙටුම්පත් කිරීමද එම අවස්ථාවේදීම සිදු කරන ලදී.

පසුදින පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේදී අගමැතිවරයා ඩිව් ගුණසේකර තමන් වෙතට කැඳවා ඔහු ලවා සභා ගර්භයේදී මේ පිළිබඳව ප්‍රකාශයක් කරවා ගැනීමට උත්සාහ කළේය. එහිදී මන්ත්‍රීවරයා තමන්ගේ ස්ථාවරය පෙරදින ප්‍රකාශ කළ බවත් නැවත පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේදී ප්‍රකාශයක් කිරීම අනවශ්‍ය බවත් කියා සිටියේය.

අවසානයේදී අගමැතිවරයා ප්‍රකාශය කිරීමට නැගී සිටියේය. කලින් පිළියෙල කරගත් ප්‍රකාශය නොකියවූ ඔහු ඉතාමත් දරුණු ලෙස ඉන්දියාව විවේචනය කළේය. මේ අවස්ථාවේදී ඉන්දීය රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රික නියෝජිතයෝද ගැලරියේ අසුන් ගෙන සිටියහ. අගමැතිවරයාගේ පැයක පමණ ප්‍රහාරාත්මක කතාවෙන් පසු පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් නිවෙස් බලා යන විට ඉන්දීය හමුදා ශ්‍රී ලංකා ගුවන් සීමාව ආක්‍රමණය කරමින් උතුරට ගුවනින් ආහාර ද්‍රව්‍ය හෙලන බව ගුවන් විදුලිය මගින් ඔවුන්ට දැනගන්නට ලැබුණි.

හොඳින් විසඳා ගත හැකිව තිබූ ප්‍රශ්නයක් අගමැති ප්‍රේමදාස විසින් අනා දමනු ලැබුවේ ඒ අන්දමටය. ඉදිරියේ එන මැතිවරණයේදී තමන්ට ලැබෙන ලාභ ජනප්‍රියත්වය වෙනුවෙන් රටේ අනාගතය ඔහු විසින් කැප කරනු ලැබුවේ ඒ අන්දමටය. බණ්ඩාරනායක මැතිනිය අනුගමනය කළ නොබැඳි රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රිකත්වය ද ජේගආර්. ජයවර්ධන විසින් අනුගමනය කළ අසාර්ථක වූ මිතුරන් සමඟ සිටීමේ රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රිකත්වය ද වෙනුවට මරියකඩේ රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රිකත්වය ආර්. ප්‍රේමදාස විසින් උත්කර්ෂයට නංවනු ලැබුවේ ඒ අන්දමටය. ඩිව් ගුණසේකර ඇතුළු විපක්ෂ මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් තිදෙනා දැක්වූ දේශප්‍රේමිත්වය, පරිත්‍යාගශීලීත්වය සහ විචක්ෂණභාවය අගමැති ප්‍රේමදාසට නැතිවූයේ ඇයි? දේශප්‍රේමිත්වය වරදවා වටහා ගන්නා මුග්ධයන් පිරිසක් මෙරට ඡන්දදායකයන් වශයෙන් ඔහුට ඇහුම්කන් දීමට කැමැත්තෙන් සිටි නිසාය.

අද මෙරට ඇත්තේද මෙම තත්ත්වයයි. ජිනීවා මානව හිමිකම් සමුළුව එළඹෙන මාර්තු මාසයේදී රැස්වෙයි. එහිදී යුද අපරාධ සම්බන්ධයෙන් ජාත්‍යන්තර විමර්ශනයක් සඳහා වන යෝජනාව සම්මත වුවහොත් එය මෙරට ස්වෛරීත්වය අතික්‍රමණය කිරීමකි. ඉන්දියාව ගුවනින් පරිප්පු හෙළා මෙරට ස්වෛරීත්වය අතික්‍රමණය කළේ ඒක පාක්ෂිකවය. නීති විරෝධීවය. එනමුත් ඒ පිළිබඳව විරුද්ධවීමට ජයවර්ධන ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ මිතුරන් උත්සුක වූයේ නැත. ඔවුන් විසින් ඉන්දියාව සමඟ ගනුදෙනු බේරා ගන්නා ලෙස අපට අවවාද කරන ලදී. අද තත්ත්වය එයට වඩා බොහෝ සෙයින් බරපතළය. ජිනීවා යෝජනාව සම්මත වුවහොත් එය වැඩිදෙනාගේ අනුමැතිය ලද නීත්‍යනුකූල යෝජනාවක් වනු ඇත. මෙය හදිසියේ ඇතිවූ තත්ත්වයක් නොවේ. කාලයක් තිස්සේ වර්ධනය වූ තත්ත්වයකි. මෙම කාලය මුළුල්ලේම ශ්‍රී ලංකා රාජ්‍යය විසින් කරමින් සිටියේ අගමැති ප්‍රේමදාස එම තීරණාත්මක අවස්ථාවේදී කළ දේ ය. එනම් උගත් වුවද නූගත් වුවද ඉතා අවාසනාවන්ත ලෙස සාමාන්‍ය බුද්ධිය නොමැති වූද දේශප්‍රේමිත්වය පිළිබඳව අබමල් රේණුවක තරම්වත් අවබෝධයක් නොමැතිව තමන් දේශප්‍රේමී යැයි කියා ගන්නා වූද මුග්ධ ඡන්ද දායකයන් පිරිසක් සන්තර්පණය කිරීම සඳහා මෙරටට පැමිණෙන විදේශ රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රිකයන් මරියකඩේ ශෛලියෙන් විවේචනය කිරීමයි. මෙම මුග්ධයන් සන්තර්පණය කිරීම සහ එයට හිලව්වට තමන් බලයේ සිටීම වෙනුවෙන් සමස්ත ශ්‍රී ලංකා ජනතාවගේ ස්වෛරීත්වය කැප කිරීමට බලධාරීහු මැලි නොවෙති.

ප්‍රේමදාස අගමැතිවරයාගේ දේශද්‍රෝහී ප්‍රකාශයෙන් පසුව ඉන්දියාව අපගේ ගුවන් සීමාව ආක්‍රමණය කළ පසු ජයවර්ධන ජනාධිපතිවරයා කියා සිටියේ ඉන්දියාවට අප රට ආක්‍රමණය කර ජයගත හැක්කේ මිලියන 18 ක් වන ජනතාව සමඟ තමන්ද මියගිය පසුව බවය. එදා තිබූ තත්ත්වය අනුව ඔහු එය අදහස් කරන්නටද ඇත. ඔහුට එසේ කීමට සිදුවූයේ තමන්ගේ අගමැතිවරයා විසින් කටයුතු අවුල් කරනු ලැබූ පසුවය. රාජපක්ෂ ජනාධිපතිවරයාද තමන් රට වෙනුවෙන් විදුලි පුටුවට යාමටද සූදානම් බව කියයි. ඔහු එසේ කියන්නේ තමන්ගේ අනුදැනුම ඇතුව කටයුතු අවුල් කරනු ලැබූ පසුවය. ඔහු එය අදහස් කරන බව පෙනෙන්නට නොමැති අතර චෝදනා කරන කිසිවකු එවැනි තත්ත්වයක් බලාපොරොත්තු වන බව පෙනෙන්නේද නැත. ඔහුගේ එම ප්‍රකාශයද අවුලේම කොටසකි.

එබැවින් සැබෑ දේශප්‍රේමිත්වය යනු කුමක්දැයි ජනතාව විසින් වටහා ගත යුතුය. දේශප්‍රේමය යනු නිදා සිටින මිතුරු රජුගේ සිරුරේ වැසූ මැස්සා එළවා දැමීමට ඌට කඩුවෙන් කෙටූ අඥාන මිත්‍රයාගේ ක්‍රියාවට සමාන එකක් නොවේ. මෙරට නිලධාරීන් සහ දේශපාලනඥයන්ගේ දේශප්‍රේමිත්වය එවැනි එකකි. දේශප්‍රේමිත්වය යනු දේශය අනතුරින් ගලවා ගැනීමට ක්‍රියා කිරීමයි. අනතුරේ හෙළීම නොවේ. මේ සඳහා බුද්ධිමත් විය යුතුය. විචක්ෂණ විය යුතුය. ආවේගශීලි නොවිය යුතුය. උපායශීලී විය යුතුය. ඕනෑවට වඩා නිර්භීත නොවිය යුතුය. ඉරානයේ හිටපු ජනාධිපති අහමදි නෙජාඩ්ගේ සහ වර්තමාන ජනාධිපති රවුහානිගේ ඇමෙරිකානු ප්‍රතිපත්තිය විමසා බැලීමෙන් මෙය වටහා ගත හැක. බටහිර රාජ්‍යයන් සමඟ ශ්‍රී ලංකාව ඇතිකර ගෙන තිබෙන රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රික අවුලට අදාළව අද මෙරටට අවශ්‍ය වන්නේද රවුහානිගේ වැනි ප්‍රතිපත්තියකි∎

හර්ෂ ගුණසේන

Published in Samabima 31st march 2014