The true Civil Society!

The so called "Civil Society" which was until recently being trumpeted as "THE" Civil Society from rooftops is crumbling slowly but steadily with its true nature exposes. A Civil Society can never be a foreign funded paid "Civil Society" of which members live thousand miles above the ground.

A true Civil Society should be a one firmly rooted with the value systems of the particular country, which is not being controlled by the whims and fancies of interested countries or parties who have their own sinister agendas. This latest article by Malinda Seneviratne is quite insightful as have always been his articles. He unravels the true nature of the so called "Civil Society" among other things. He gives a fine example of what the real Civil Society is and of which voices that must be heeded when deciding the country's future. I below quote a part of his insightful article.

"A couple of weeks ago, however, a significant section of the real 'civil society' expressed their views on this report.  These were not 'invitees'.  Neither were they paid to participate.  They did not belong to a small circle who hobnob with the high and mighty in diplomatic circles or sip cocktails in elegantly crafted lawns in Colombo 7.  They came from all parts of the country, represented all communities and all religious faiths. Some were old, some were young. Half were men and half were women.  They came together as elected representatives with considerable social standing and sway in their communities.  They were asked what they made of the above report. They unanimously rejected it. I am, by the way, a member of one of these societies and have personal shares too (comparatively abysmal, I might add). I wasn't present at the AGM and had no idea that such a resolution would be tabled.

Let's check the numbers.  This was, ladies and gentlemen, the Annual General Meeting of the SANASA Development Bank.  Now this bank grew out of the largest and most widespread thrift and credit movement in the country, one with a history that goes back to 1906 and which anticipated and practised 'microfinance' decades before it became a development buzz word.

From a movement which counts over 8000 primary societies or groups devoted to the subject of thrift and credit, with social, cultural and moral upliftment embedded into agenda, SANASA counts more than 5000 entities that are active and hundreds with assets and business that easily are the  best branches of well-established commercial banks.   A total exceeding 3800 own shares in the SANASA Development Bank. Each of these societies has 100-2000 members, with the average exceeding 400.  Even at an average membership of 200, this acounts for 740,000 people being represented at the AGM.  Throw in an average of 3 adults per family and you get over 2 million people being represented, for, typically, SANASA membership and operations are associated with households and communities.

That's as accurate as one can get in ascertaining the sentiments of civil society this side of a national referendum, I contend.  These people, let me repeat, are elected representatives of grassroots organizations.  I am willing to wager that if all such elected organizations were brought together and their views on such issues obtained through secret ballot, the result would not be any different.

There are lessons here.  This should indicate for anyone interested in using the report as an instrument to affect regime-change the kinds of cost this country would have to incur. It should tell people  that this report cannot be used to further the cause of 'reconciliation' because it is considered a piece of garbage by vast sections of the population.  Thirdly, it is time that the real civil society stood up and got counted in ways broader than a vote on a resolution at a corporate entity's AGM.

It tells something to the regime too.  The recommendations of the report's backers, namely and principally 'devolution based on the 13th Amendment', should be summarily dismissed as politically untenable". 

13th amendment is an outcome of a threat to invade Sri Lanka...

I re-publish below my previous post on 13^th Amendment which is an ill conceived, forcefully imposed 'solution"  by India hell bent to destroy Sri Lanka. My post on the subject was published on 13^th June 2009. Almost 02 years later India is back again in its usual business of threatening and arm twisting Sri Lanka to achieve its ulterior motives.

----    

Following the total elimination of the LTTE terrorists there is much discussion going on in electronic-print media and public forums on 'the political solution to the so called "North & East problem". 13th amendment to the constitution is being projected as one of the solutions.
 Even the government ministers are parroting about 13th amendment without having an iota of idea about the grave consequences that will befall if this foreign imposed system of governance is introduced. 
 It is an undeniable truth that the 13th amendment is an outcome of a threat to invade Sri Lanka by the then Indian leaders. And also it was a design of the politicians of India with imperialist mindset.
 Therefore, the 13th amendment to the constitution is rather impediment to have a sustainable peace in the country. Forming of system governance dictated by another country will be one of the most heinous betrayals for the members of the security forces who have made supreme scarifies to preserve the territorial integrity of the country. Therefore, we should under no circumstances undermine the sacrifices made by them by leaving no chance for dividing the country.
 In this well informative article by Mr.Nanda Godage, a distinguished and erudite scholar and a former ambassador of Sri Lanka has graphically illustrated the bad effects of this ill conceived forcefully imposed 'solution". He also suggests in his article a from of home grown governance system that should be suitable for our country. Please find below some excerpts from his article for your easy reference.         
  "The situation afforded the Indian government with the opportunity to circumscribe our sovereignty; India did this through Indo-Lanka Agreement and the Letters exchanged between Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and President JR Jayewardene. In terms of the Indo-Lanka Agreement:
 1) We were required to base a solution on the negotiations between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Government of India between 01-05-1986 and 19-12-1986.
 2) We were required to accept that the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka were areas of historical habitation of the Sri Lanka Tamil speaking people (which included the Muslims) though the Eastern Province was never an "area of historical habitation of Sri Lanka Tamil speaking people. The present Eastern Province was a part of the Kandyan Kingdom (there are over 150 Buddhist Archaeological sites in the present EP). Tamils too came over from India and settled in parts of the north and east over centuries. There was also an overflow from the peninsular after the Tobacco cultivations failed there and excess labour brought by the British to work in the plantations also settled in the east.
 3) The Muslims were given refuge in the present EP, from Portuguese persecution by King Senarath in 1648. There were subsequent migrations from the Coramandal coast into the present Eastern Province.
 4) We were required to permit the Northern and Eastern Provinces to join to form a single administrative unit. This was because India wished to make a minority of the Muslims (in the combined North-East Province) who today number almost 40% in he EP but would be reduced to 20% in a combined Province. (The fear was that Muslim militancy was gaining ground in the EP, with the help of the Pakistani ISI and that the Muslims of our EP would linkup with their counter-parts in Tamil Nadu to subvert that country.
 5) The President was required to grant an amnesty to LTTE cadres held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
 6) The GOSL was required to accept and abide by the above provisions and expect all others to do likewise,
 The GOSL was also required to implement the relevant proposals forthwith.
 In terms of the Letters exchanged certain conditions were imposed on this country, they were as follows:
 (a) We undertook not to employ foreign military and intelligence personnel;
 (b) Trincomalee and other ports cannot be made available for military use by any country;
 (c)The Trincomalee oil tank farm will be restored and operated as a joint venture only with India;
 (d) Sri Lanka had to agree to review agreements with foreign broadcasting organizations (we had agreements with VOA and Radio Deutchewelle)."

This article by S. Akurugoda too throws light to the bag effects of this foreign imposed 'solution'. 

Indian thug is back in his usual business to destroy Sri Lanka

As has always been the case Sri Lanka has been taken complete off guard again and taken for a good ride by hypocritical India. It was too late Sri Lanka to learn that India was playing a huge role to punish her through the 'Darusman Report' on 'war crimes' alleged to have been committed by Sri Lankan armed forces at the last stages of the war. India has not only joined hand in hand with the UN, the West and the USA in this endeavor but it has also been major persuader in this campaign. It is clear that India which has been engaged in a mega destabilizing project on Sri Lanka for quite some time after independence is back in the usual business in this time around with steely determination. India's thugary towards Sri Lanka has cost her dearly. Two out of three armed conflicts that destroyed the country was caused by India. It was India who thrust the 13th Amendment, a stepping stone for Tamil racists to divide this country down our throats. Now it is back again in the fray to force us to go for more than 13^th Amendment.

As pointed out in an earlier article there are three major forces hell bent to destroy Sri Lanka's peaceful existence: Eelmists, Muslim fundamentalism cum expansion and India's aggressive interferences in Sri Lanka's internal affairs. These forces' principle target group is Sinhalese and they are working overtime to deny Sinhalese Buddhists their rightful position in this country who can boldly and undisputedly claim that their presence in the country in more than two millennia made significant impact in its culture and society.        

Sri Lanka is the only patch of land that Sinhalese can live in and die. They have no other land to go as Tamils and Muslims do nor do they have brothers and sisters to demonstrate on behalf of them in all over the world at the drop of a hat. The rural Sinhalese foot soldier goes to the battle front with one thing in his mind. If he is defeated the only place left for him is the deep blue sea. So he fights until last drop of blood. In fact there will be no peace in Sri Lanka as long as Sinhalese feel insecure. The more they are being harassed by whoever else be it Tamils or Muslims or India or the West or the USA the greater their will power to fight back to win their precious right to live in their beloved mother land. Sinhalese also do have an equal right to live in anywhere in the country be it in Giranike (Killinochchi) or Mooladoowa (Mulaitheev) or Hunugama (Chunnakam) or Samapura (Sampoor) or Vavnimawa (Vavniya) or Thambalagamuwa (Thampalakamam) or Minipe (Manipai) or Kadurugoda (Kantharodai) or Vanagamua (Vankamam) as not only those areas were originally inhabited by them but they also do have a right to live those areas as Tamils and Muslims enjoy rights to live any other part of the country.     

Sinhalese have survived more than 2500 years withstanding so many perils such as huge invasions from the South India and the West alike who were hell bent to wipe out them from the face of the earth. They will continue to fight however mightier their advisory might be. When Sinhalese are pushed to the wall, as it is going to happen again, they have fought back ferociously and preserved their race, their motherland and the religion.   

‘Triumphalism’ Vs Celebrations

When Sri Lankan people came to the street to cheer the hard-fought victory achieved by our valiant security forces against megalomaniacal mass murderer terrorist leader Prabhakaran, it was termed as 'triumphalism' by local NGO Peace Muladlali dollar Kakas and LTTE supportive INGOs. But when the flags waving USA citizens who came to the streets shouting their country's name aftermath of Bin laden's killing is simply termed as 'celebrations'. This hypocrisy on the part of ant-Sri Lankan, LTTE supportive hordes is well described by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka in his article appearing in today's Island (04^th March 2011). I below quote the particular part in his brilliant article. The article titled 'Osama Bin Laden and Sri Lanka's WMD moment' highlights the hypocrisy of the Darusman's report. 

"One joins the USA in its celebratory sentiments and President Obama in his ringing reassertions about Bin Laden, but these are as valid or even more so, with regard to Sri Lanka and the Tigers. How come its 'celebration' in the USA when people spontaneously shout the name of their country and express pride in its armed forces and wave flags outside the White House and 'triumphalism' when it happens in Sri Lanka? It is fine when people gather outside Ground Zero and praise the death of Bin laden as justice served for the victims of the Twin Towers, but it is bad form when Sri Lankans, who have been victims of large scale terror and murders of their leaders, express relief and happiness at the death of the man and the destruction of the militia that plagued a generation? Is it that it is fine when it is the citizens of the North who do it but terrible when it is those of the global, ex-colonial South? Or is it that the sentiments of the people of certain communities can be 'hurt' by expressions of relief, congratulations and triumph, but not those of certain others? Why should Sri Lanka play by these hypocritical hegemonic rules?

To pre-empt any sly assertion that the killing of Osama did not entail civilian casualties, we must recall that it was preceded and is still accompanied by a protracted conventional war in Afghanistan, which spills over into neighbouring Pakistan, and has entailed quite significant civilian casualties -- not even the most surgical tactic, Predator drone strikes, are devoid of them when the terrorist leaders are embedded among their kinfolk and tribes.

Analysts and contemporary historians must not forget that the core of the civilians who were with the Tigers were those who had chosen to leave Jaffna with them in 1996 after it had been liberated by the Sri Lankan armed forces in Operation Riviresa, and most Tamils had stayed behind or moved precisely from Tiger control to army controlled areas." 

How Bin Laden and Prabakaran died-Some dissimilarities!

  1.  Bin Laden did not use civilians as a shield to protect himself when he was being encircled. But Prabakharan who proclaimed as the savior and the only representative of the Tamil people used the very same people to protect himself putting them at great risk.

2.     As per the news coming out, Bin Laden did fight back the American forces and was shot at his head. He refused to surrender while Prabkaran died cowardly fleeing the fighting and sending his body guards/suicide carders to fight the SL army. As per the account of the Copral  Ranbanda who apparently shot dead  Prabakaran the latter was shouting in filth at his suicide carders to explode themselves against SL army.

3.       It was the ground forces of Sri Lankan army that killed  Prbakharan unlike Americans who used mainly its Air Force to kill Bin Laden in fear of losing its ground forces. One of primary reasons for SL forces to use her ground forces was to protect the civilians while losing their own men in great numbers.