06 July 2018
Chauvinism for South & Terrorism for North?
[What a load of unadulterated crap.
Any one supporting the LTTE ideology should rethink .What of the future of the youth and the People of the North who chose to stay in the North and fend for their existence. Those that will support the resurgence of the Terrorism are either those in Colombo or those who are comfortably and selfishly settled overseas.
Whether it be southern chauvinism or Northern terrorism it is all to do with selfish aspirations of a few at the cost of many.]
The above response came from a member of a group I consider to be ‘professional Sri Lankans’ – i.e. common by knowledge through discriminative thinking.
My response to the above was:
Thank you for responding. It was the ‘unadulterated crap’ that induced your response. Crap would invoke crap.
Gajalakshmi-producer of ‘unadulterated crap’ who has now become your opposition at ‘crap’ level. This is what democracy is all about
The same person responded to me on 21 April this year but unlike the above that was not copied to others: That topic was ‘Is Terrorism a thing of the Past?’
[Where Ignorance is Bliss It is Folly to be wise
Don't caption your article with the word Terrorism
In this country and perhaps in others as well, writers have liberally used the word Terrorism. Applied it to all manner of violations of discipline, social discipline and get away saying it is Terrorism
Quite frankly if the definition were to be applied loosely Terrorism begins with the parents who at times Terrorise the children in order to discipline them or for other reasons
What about teachers in schools and then in civil society the Law enforcing authority Terrorises you as they were the authorities of Terror. There is no greater Terrorist than the countries Police Force. Don't they terrorise the general public.
Take it easy
Terrorism has many faces]
Likewise, chauvinism also has many faces. Mrs Vijayakala Maheswaran also showed one face in Colombo and another in Jaffna. The latter is more close to her nature. Likewise ‘telling me – a Tamil - is more close to the above person’s nature’. That is also extended to the People of North – expressed as follows:
‘Any one supporting the LTTE ideology should rethink .What of the future of the youth and the People of the North who chose to stay in the North and fend for their existence.’
The above person condemns the ideology of the LTTE and not the pathway. Their ideology was Separatism. Is the above author also not practicing the same separatism ideology – by eliminating or demoting a Tamil who is contributing to Sri Lankan Governance at policy level? I took a stand against Mrs Maheswaran precisely because I have been actively contributing to self-governance in Northern Sri Lanka – through Common Policies inclusive of but not limited to Northern borders or Sri Lankan borders. The question ‘What of the future of the youth and the People of the North who chose to stay in the North and fend for their existence’ confirms that he is a foreigner to Jaffna and is driven by hearsay. It is far more difficult for a person like myself to go back and be part of the North as it is NOW and know the Truth as they would know if they used discriminative thinking, instead of emotions – the risk inherent in Mrs Maheswaran’s speech. Those difficulties become natural structures that lead those of common faith to become part of wider environments – eventually to become global citizens. Those who downgrade such Service values – naturally shrink their own world. That is the way of Dharma.
My continuous sharing with this email group confirms my Service contribution. By ignoring such and then pouncing on something that shows off his ‘hearsay’ knowledge confirms ‘plagiarism’. THAT was what was wrong with the LTTE ideology. They separated the Politicians and intellectuals but used the Vaddukoddai Resolution as if they were the developers of that outcome. This is exactly why I described them as ‘Dowry takers’. Had they remained a quiet supporting force – North would have progressed. But by taking the front seat by showing visible benefits after suppressing politicians and intellectuals – they separated intellectuals from rulers by the gun. The parallel of this at media level is to use sensational information after suppressing research based reports as to why something happened. The above person’s ‘People of the North who chose to stay in the North and fend for their existence’ NEED that kind of terminology – dowry and muthusum/inheritance – due to practice of Thesawalamai including as a law. Ideology is ‘foreign’ language to them.
To my mind the resignation by Mrs Maheswaran influenced this person to ‘warn’ intellectual Tamils from adding themselves to the LTTE and calling them dowry-takers instead of Terrorists. Gamblers in labels would call the same action by their group as Chauvinism while calling it Terrorism when practiced by another group. The distance is the cultural gap.
Interestingly though – when we read at Energy level – LTTE which helped Mr Rajapaksa win the Presidential elections in 2005, seems to have come to his rescue again – as reported by the Daily Mirror under the heading ‘Vijayakala overshadows NY Times revelation’ at http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/Vijayakala-overshadows-NY-Times-revelation-152246.html
As a Tamil of Northern Sri Lanka – Mrs Maheswaran is entitled to the protection of the principles and values of Thesawalamai law. In a recent case – Mallakam District Judge insisted that our Brother in law be the first petitioner and his wife the second – as per the law of Thesawalamai which protects women from being cheated by outside men. Since Mrs Maheswaran acted in her husband’s position – which loss was also attributed also to LTTE – Sinhalese and Sri Lankans are even in this instance. Further legal action or social gambles such as the above would be in breach of Dharma.