and they have the guts to say we discrimnate…………………….
some one should write a piece here comparing our handling of minorities with such issues in the west

In UK the governments approach in fighting Islamist terrorist was to make sure that the Muslim community are not alienated. As the results show arrests are intelligent lead often with information given by the Muslim community. The recent arbitrary arrests of many Tamils in Colombo will only drive even the most resonable and moderate Tamils into the hands of extremists, exactly what the LTTE wants.

The real losers are the future generation of Sinhalese and other communities. There will never be victors in this conflict, there are enough examples from history of other nations. If we were to apply the majority argument globaly, Sri Lanka is a very small island and economically a dependent country. We have already lost a great deal in economic progress compared to our neighbours.
I hope and pray that Sinhalese leaders with vision will emerge in 2008,otherwise soon it will be Sinhalese fighting Sinhalese like what is happening in Pakistan.

You can fool some people some time but not all people all the time.

Plain truth, a little known fact:

Only an Anglican can become the head of state of England. Thus, not only are non-Christians (Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims) barred from that position, so are Christians that belong to other denominations such as Catholics. Besides that, only Christian holy days are officially celebrated and provided with national holidays. So yes, I would say that England is a Christian country — a Christian country that officially discriminates not only against Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims, but also non-Anglican Christians.

And yet, according to some, apparently Sri Lanka is not up to the great “British Standard”

The Presidency, as you outline, is in a strong position through its hegemonic control over identity rhetoric, perception, and debate. Its major fault-line would be the cost of living, and corruption. Those are facts that are impacting on everyone, including government-supporting voters. (Unfortunately human rights violations and breakdown of law and order are less pressing, because they’re not affecting the majority of vote-bank supporters directly.)

What might happen if the fault-line splits, the economy becomes even worse, and corruption more blatant? Will that change the political alignment? If it takes place, it will be in a different way from the early part of this decade. But how?

You’re right, the JVP has been trumped by the government taking on its agenda, and are staring at the mirror image of themselves writ large (nice metaphor). However they do still have a strong stand against corruption, probably the most consistent of all the high-profile parties. Perhaps they’ll be able to build on this if the fault-lines start to show. If they can, they could become a stronger and more autonomous political presence once again. If they can’t, maybe it will indicate how much their position and their votes are tied to identity issues, rather than policy and program. Such a failure would show their limitations as an organization, and perhaps would be no surprise.

It’s hard to imagine disgust with corruption leading to more support for the UNP, or anything else, apart from near-total simultaneous failure on both the military and economic fronts. In spite of decades in opposition, the leadership there still seems to believe power is their right, and are simply waiting for it to fall into their hands, rather than trying to win it (or, heaven forbid, earn it).

Is the JHU really finished and irrelevant? Maybe it depends on how they are defining their agenda. They certainly need to safeguard a parliamentary presence. But their activities through the Ministry of the Environment are interesting. Declaration of land reserves that appear pro-Sinhala, or at least are interpreted that way on the ground; the Green Tax proposed in the budget; even the Ministry’s apparent role in Karuna’s diplomatic visa, point to a clever insertion into and use of the machinery of government. It may be that the JHU is happy with maintaining their role as an ideological vanguard within the government, and with their ability to use administrative facilities to forward their agendas. So long as they can maintain some kind of effective parliamentary presence, even a reduced one in the future, they may not need strong popular support that differentiates them from the current regime. If they can build up enough patronage networks through government machinery over the next few years, maybe they will be able to sustain that. So perhaps JHU personal and political agendas are nicely served by the status quo, without the long-term difficulties that confront the JVP. What do others think?

The LTTE is stuck, it seems. They may come back from apparent big defeats with dramatic and damaging attacks, as has happened before. But on the face of it, they are suffering from decades of operations that put their political strategy only at the service of military goals. In some ways, it feels like they have maintained politics only at the level of tactics. Post-9/11, that has cut the ground from under them internationally, for a range of reasons. No-one will cut them any slack now that larger governments are ramping up the ‘war on terror’ rhetoric for their own reasons. Simply on the level of ideology and convenience, it makes no sense for Washington or the UK to provide any kind of wriggle-room for the LTTE now, notwithstanding Tamil diaspora influence in a few electorates. It’s extremely naïve of the Wanni to hope otherwise.

Previous actions taken purely on a military basis have taken away their possibility to develop new strategies, with the classic one still remaining the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. How much more room would they have to move now, if they hadn’t taken that decision?

ps: Sanjana… Plain Truth has not heard about Voltaire…who said ‘I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!’….sanjana I prefered MOJU…but thats no more…i like what your doing…Esto pe petua (Be thou forever)

You win the Plain Truth award for the day
“By making a hullabaloo about Buddhism you’re only making the Sinhalese Buddhist majority become more defensive and suspicious of minority agendas. It’s only going to hurt the minority cause. The Sinhalese will never compromise on Buddhism, they haven’t for the past 2500 years.”

This is the plain truth. If the minority can accept that, conflict resolution is easy.
The reality is … it is tough to change a whopping majority just because their numbers are huge.

Of cause if one is over ambitious, has the lobbying money and NGO’s ears,
you get the feeling that you can change the majority behavior.

“Also Plain Truth…Sri Lanka is NOT a Buddhist country! Sri Lanka is a country with a ‘Majority of Buddhists’! Don’t forget that there are Hindus, muslims (who profess Islam) and Christians also living in Sri Lanka!

Sri Lanka can only become a Buddhist country if 100% of the population is Buddhist! ”

Your point is well taken. My definition is a loose one like saying bread is made out of flour without talking about the fat/salt.water/etc. What is the point of view of a minority about England or USA as far as the religion is concerned? Aren’t they Christian countries for them? That’s all.