groundviews » Sarath Fonseka – A potential De Gaulle or Chavez?

Sarath Fonseka – A potential De Gaulle or Chavez?

December 16, 2009 at 7:00 am · Categories: Colombo, Elections, Politics and Governance | by Vasantha Raja

Sarath Fonseka’s dramatic exposure of Gotabhaya Rajapkse’s role at the final stages of the war marks a new turn in the presidential election. From now on the extremist layers among the Sinhala majority will decisively rally round the Mahinda-regime while those layers that do not approve the war’s barbaric conclusion while supporting the LTTE’s military defeat will firmly turn towards the General. Hence, I argue, the socialist forces and the Tamil-speaking minority that presently back alternative candidates should join forces with Sarath Fonseka to try and bring down the government. If not they would in practice be only helping to protect the status-quo.

As I correctly predicted when the “Mahinda-Sarath split” occurred, from now on the battle between the two main candidates will increasingly represent a watershed between the two conflicting forces of Sri Lanka’s changing social consciousness. The Left parties should realize that this is not the time for naïve politics of sheer propagandism.

Sarath Fonseka (SF) doesn’t belong to any mainstream political party; and, he has no deep-rooted political ideology. Contrary to what Minister G.L. Pieris said, both these attributes are positive qualities indeed in a fast changing world. Veteran politicians with fixed views often fail to see a reality in transition.

SF is still a politician in the melting pot. Therefore, he has the potential to become either a Charles De Gaulle [as Mangala Samaraweera predicts] or a Hugo Chavez [as I suggested he should try to become]. Which way will he evolve depends on many global and local factors. I shall not go into all that here. But I shall explain what will happen if he ends up as a De Gaulle.

We all know how De Gaulle’s presidency ended up in 1968. The general strike of the French working class and the student movement brought the entire French society into a standstill and forced De Gaulle to get out of politics altogether.

Remember, when he became the president of France in 1959 global capitalism was going through a boom; thus he could maintain stability until the boom ended in crisis during the 60s. 1968 general strike was the result of that economic doom. His war-time expertise could not handle the gigantic power of the masses.

On the contrary, when Hugo Chavez (with his military background) came to power in Venezuela his primary objective was to eradicate endemic poverty in the country. In comparison with De Gaulle, that’s his big difference. Presently Venezuela’s poverty-problem is steadily evaporating, not because it has oil, but because of Chavez’s socialist approach to economics. Even in Sri Lanka, had there been a socialist regime it would have solved the Tamil problem a long time ago and used the billions of dollars spent on war-destruction for poverty eradication. It’s important to realize that a change from “Trickle-Down Economics” to “Common-Welfare- Economics” involves a paradigm shift.

Now, if Sarath Fonseka wins this election he’ll be confronted with a twin-problem both of which are unprecedented in Sri Lankan terms. One, the issue of democracy; two, the issue of the economy; both are closely intertwined; and, nobody can solve one without the other. I shall show later why socialist economics is crucial in eliminating poverty and creating jobs. [In fact, the inseparability of the democratic & socialist stages is an aspect of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution, as opposed to Stalin’s two-stage theory. Read Lyon Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution.]

Democracy and human rights are in tatters. And, the steadily eroding living conditions of the poor majority are touching intolerable levels. Tamil civilians’ misery and suffocation continue to drag on; innocent Tamil journalists still suffer in prisons. And, the question of a political solution vis-à-vis Tamil aspirations remains unresolved. But, can any government carryout democratic changes in isolation from economic changes? I don’t think so. Any future administration focusing on democratic transformation alone will inevitably renege on their promises and be compelled to return to dictatorial methods to tackle social unrest if the economic issues remained unresolved.

In this context, Sarath Fonseka’s vocabulary and promises at the recent trade-union gathering were quite impressive indeed. But words are not good enough unless he rejects the existing UNP-SLFP economic vision based on the ‘trickle-down’ economics of capitalism; and instead adopts socialist ‘common-welfare economics’. Or else, he’ll be in trouble. The collapsing global economy is not conducive at all for the kind of economic games Sri Lankan governments have been playing since JR Jayawardane launched the open economy. That episode is well and truly over. The ongoing global effort to save private bankers by recklessly offering trillions of public funds will not eradicate poverty. Remember, the economists who advise the states at present never saw the credit crunch coming in the first place. [Ironically, it was Queen Elizabeth who raised this question when she visited the London School of Economics. She wanted to know why nobody saw the crisis coming!]

What this means is: Sri Lankan economists’ approach to the problem of widespread poverty should dramatically change. And that implies: a paradigm shift is necessary – from capitalistic to socialist form of thinking.

Presently, both UNP and SLFP economists promote ‘private investment’ as the driving-force of development. They think the private-profit system would eventually overcome poverty as the profiteers’ wealth gradually trickles down to lower classes. This is a criminal myth that has failed time and time again.

A new economic model based on scientifically-designed, islandwide infrastructure targeting common-welfare should be the driving force of social development. Let me emphasize here that the concept of infrastructure should invariably include nationwide health, education and housing services, on top of modern transport-systems, energy-distribution, water-distribution and communication systems covering all parts of the island. For, people’s health, education and living conditions are as important to productivity as efficient train/bus services, electricity, mobile-phones and computers are. Thus, good health and education of everyone is not just a moral requirement, it’s an economic necessity.

The infrastructure should be the foundation of the economy – the real material base of the economy. The level of productivity in the country as a whole is dependent on this. It is this half of the economy that should constantly be maintained and improved through scientific guidance. Massive state-investments on infrastructure will obviously create jobs all over the country. Easily accessible credit should be made available for the poor to create the demand for private investors to orientate towards. Considering Sri Lanka’s scenic and cultural beauty, tourism, in my view, should become the number-one foreign exchange earner that should be essentially run by public institutions.

Obviously, private-profiteers cannot develop visions for the country as a whole. Only, a social-democratic-state accountable to the masses can develop such visions.

Both UNP & SLFP finance ministers cannot develop such visions because they still maintain rock-solid optimism on the global profit-system. But the reality is different: global capitalism is already crumbling. Pumping in trillions of dollars to prop up bankers is not going to solve the global crisis. The next episode of the economic tsunami is already gathering momentum to hit the shores. There’s only one way to transcend the ongoing economic deadlock: global socialism.

The economic vision I elaborated in relation to Sri Lanka is only a miniature-vision that can be expanded to the globe as a whole. That’s why I keep insisting on the necessity for a global currency, global parliament and a socialist World-Bank.

But where’s the money to do all this? The answer is simple. Look at the way the Sri Lankan state funded the thirty-year war with billions of dollars. In the last four years alone Sri Lanka’s defense spending amounted to 629 billion rupees (5.5 billion US dollars).

The central banks are in a special position to ‘create’ money in so many ways. We’ve seen how the USA unleashed the Marshall Plan to rebuild a war-battered Western Europe after the Second World War. Also, we saw how the states in many countries pumped in trillions of dollars to provide life-support to the crumbling global economy after the credit crunch.

To return to the Sri Lankan issue let me point out that there’s a fundamental difference between raising credit for war on the one hand, and for infrastructure development on the other. The former is spent on destroying things; the latter is spent on creating things; the former is destroying productivity and living standards while the latter is increasing productivity and living standards. Thus, the former is accumulated as state-debt while the latter is instrumental in creating wealth. The former causes poverty to spread and economic turmoil to deepen; while the latter helps eradicate poverty. Accordingly, the central bank with expert advice can scientifically plan development and unleash credit on a long term basis. And that’s the way to wipeout poverty, and not by blindly opening up Sri Lanka’s resources for the profit-hunters to greedily exploit.

Let me come to the million dollar question now: What if Mahinda Rajapaksa wins? Again, the answer is simple. The above elaborated logic applies to him too. He too can either choose the capitalist path, as he’s been doing all along. Or, he can choose the socialist path of eradicating poverty along with democratic change. On my part, I think, Sarath Fonseka has a better chance of metamorphosis than Mahinda Rajapaksa. Whoever comes to power will have to tackle the issues of democracy & economics all at once; if they fail, however, a general strike could well be on the cards sooner than later. Both must not underestimate the big change of mass-perception taking place in Sri Lanka since the Sarath/Mahinda split.

Nobody can be absolutely certain which path Sarath Fonseka would take once he’s in power. Only thing I can say is that he has the potential to either become a De Gaulle or a Chavez. If he picks out the ‘De Gaulle-line’ then – given the existing global and local economic conditions – social struggles will be on the cards, and his vision for democratic change will vanish into the thin air. He’ll resort to dictatorial methods to curtail media freedom and crush the trade unions and people’s protests. If, on the other hand, he succeeds in combining his democratic vision with socialist economics he can emerge as Sri Lanka’s Chavez to enlighten Asia along with China.

I think Sri Lanka’s Left and the trade union movement should give the benefit of the doubt to Sarath Fonseka and help him replace the present regime, because nobody else can do it. But every step during his rule after taking power will have to be closely watched. There’re many unknown factors here than the known ones.

One must realize that I’m not at all saying that SF is definitely going to emerge as a Chavez. With UNP’s influence he might well end up as a De Gaulle. My stance stems from a different perspective: I perceive the ‘SF-MR battle’ as an unprecedented socio-political phenomenon in Sri Lanka’s history. It has created a superb opportunity to contribute to the fast changing Sinhala-Buddhist consciousness in general. I want to bring in democratic and socialist values to the centre of the ongoing debates. I think I’m doing it somewhat successfully, because I stayed with those Sinhala forces that challenge the present regime. [Those Sinhala forces won’t come to support Bahu at this point of their transition. That’s why I think that the Left and the Tamils should have critically (not unconditionally) supported SF’s effort to bring down the government, as I’ve been doing. If SF is going to make a U-Turn on his democratic promises, he’ll be compelled to do that right from the beginning. That’s the time for all progressive forces to come forward with the real alternative. At present Bahu’s propagandist campaign only helps Mahinda Rajapaksa to stay in power. And the Buhu-supporters, in practice, are only ‘masturbating’ for self-satisfaction.]

1,178 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:

The Dynamics of the “War Heroes’ Battle” Undoubtedly, Comrade Wickramabahu will attract a politically mature vote-base around him – particularly those who are disgusted with the Mahinda-regime’s fascistic rule the way it’s been treating the Tamil civilians. This minority consists of convinced opponents of the government, and they’ll be happy to vote for Wickramabahu whose politics appear to be closest to their... Vasantha Raja, December 7, 2009
In defense of the JVP campaign to support Sarath Fonseka The ongoing “Rajapaksa-Fonseka battle” is a blessing in disguise for the Tamil-speaking people and the Sinhalese despite its immediate appearances; because the upcoming debates are bound to change the confused Sinhala consciousness on an unprecedented scale. The JVP’s decision to back the General as a tactical move to get rid of the utterly corrupt Rajapaksa-regime is... Vasantha Raja, November 27, 2009

Permalink | Share this article on Facebook

Nicolai said,

December 16, 2009 @ 10:18 am

You are dreaming if you think there are two possible paths. De Gaulle or Chaves only?
What about Castro or Mussolini? Yes you are absolutely right. Democracy and Human rights are in tatters and the Tamil issues remain unattended. However, unless we are provided with another alternative, I am afraid, we are best off with the status quo and the ‘known’ evil.
By the way SF is a traitor. Yes many bad things probably happened during the war as in any war, but he was part of it and he had no business revealing any secrets good or bad for political gain and power.
He cannot be trusted to look after the best interests of this country. He is soon going to [annoy] the Indians if he has not already. That will not be good for us.

vssubramaniam said,

December 16, 2009 @ 2:11 pm

Fonseka – a military professional of General Harikirat’s moral caliber!
Sarath Fonseka’s disclosure of the Rajapakse brothers’ ordering the killing off of the white flag carrying LTTE leaders for whose surrender international powers including the US and Norway were putting in place a modus operandi for surrender amounts to war crimes. When Rajiv gave his September 1987 order to General Harikirat to kill off Prabhaharan this order to the military was channeled through the accepted (South Block) channels. An upright General Harikirat (a military professional) refused to obey the order for the simple reason that it breached military ethics specifically when the Indian army does ‘not shoot people when they were invited for a meeting’.
In the Sri Lankan case Gothabhaya by-passed Fonseka giving the order direct to the field commander Brigadier Shavendra Silva, Commander of the Army’s 58th Division. His military moral stature was nowhere close to that of the upright General Harikirat that Silva carried out the order without any reservations (military ethics or others). Gothabhaya (a street level politician) by passed an upright Sarath Fonseka (a military professional) to avoid a Sarath refusing to comply with the order on grounds of military ethics. Sarath stature is elevated by this revelation but the stature of the SL military is under a cloud.
The unease felt by the South Block trio is to be expected especially in view of Gothabhaya’s assertions that they were actively engaged in the conduct of the war especially during this phase of the war, thus providing a rational explanation why Delhi voted to kill off any war crimes investigations at the May UNHRC meeting.
vssubramaniam

Vasantha Raja said,

December 17, 2009 @ 1:19 am

Dear Nicolai,

Of course there is infinite number of possibilities for SF would evolve in the future. But I’ve selected two significant possibilities one of which is Mangala Samaraweera’s. The other one (that of Chavez) I merely claim is the more desirable one. And the possibility of that happening is dependent on many global and local factors. That’s what I say in my article; not that SF is going to invariably end up becoming the Chavez of Asia. So please follow the logic of my argument closely.

If you think that he’s more likely to end up as Mussolini, for example, it’s your duty to substantiate your view with logical argument. But, remember that I never claim that SF will necessarily end up as a Chavez. I merely prescribe to him that he should try and become one, for his own good and for the benefit of Sri Lanka as a whole. Get it? [Logic is a difficult subject. Isn’t it Nicolai?

Vasantha Raja said,

December 17, 2009 @ 1:22 am

Dear Nicolai,

Of course there is infinite number of possibilities for SF to evolve in the future. But I’ve selected two significant possibilities one of which is Mangala Samaraweera’s. The other one (that of Chavez) I merely claim is the more desirable one. And the possibility of that happening is dependent on many global and local factors. That’s what I say in my article; not that SF is going to invariably end up becoming the Chavez of Asia. So please follow the logic of my argument closely.

Doomed to Repeat It said,

December 17, 2009 @ 2:37 am

Thank you for writing such an interesting, thought-provoking article. I agree with a lot of what is said. Infrastructure is key to economic growth, etc. The only part I don’t agree with is the link with socialism and the use of Venezuela and China as examples to emulate.

If I understand correctly, socialism refers to a set of economic theories advocating government ownership and administration of the means of production and resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all people. The common man is the focus of socialism, as opposed to social and economic elites. Neither Chavez nor the Chinese are good models for this; in fact rather the opposite, as they only look out for themselves and their allies. They may say they are for social and economic justice, but actions speak louder than words. They have merely replaced one set of social and economic oppressors with another.

It seems to me that there are other examples that we can follow, for example some of the European states. They seem to have followed the best combination of capitalism and socialism found thus far. True, no country has found the perfect solution to economic disparity, but some of European countries have found a better way to balance freedom and human rights with alleviation of poverty. Not perfect, I again say, but better than China or Venezuela.

I suppose it depends one what your priorities are. If all you care about is economic development, then by all means, imitate China.

However, if you also value freedom, on both a social as well as individual level, then Chavez and China are NOT who you want to follow. How do you suppose China would deal with the Tamil question? Probably in the same way it has dealt with Tibet and the Far West; by not addressing the problem but instead trying to overwhelm it to make it go away, along with a heavy dose of police and secret service oppression. And how do you think Chavez deals with pesky reporters that don’t toe his line? In a way similar to the way the current SL government does; not through engagement, debate, and persuasion, but through physical and economic force.

I can’t understand anyone saying China’s economic development, which has only benefited a few people relative to the total population, is successful as defined by socialist theories. It remains to be seen how their experiment will ultimately turn out but China does seem to be increasingly capitalist, doesn’t it? The whole structure depends heavily on force and oppression. It also seems that the divisions between the haves and have-not’s are even greater than ever; hardly a socialist vision for society. I suspect the average European is much better off than the average Chinese, and in more ways than just economically.

Nor do I understand lauding Chavez as a role model. He is a left wing demagogue, which is no better than being a right wing demagogue. A demagogue is a demagogue, no matter how he costumes himself. Chavez is more concerned with his own power than with his country. The fact that he cloaks his raw power in socialist rhetoric only does socialism a disservice by making socialism look bad. (Not to say that his opposition is much better; we can only pity the average Venezuelan, caught between these two alternatives.)

I’m also not convinced that economic development and socialism necessarily go hand in hand. Looking around the world, it seems to me that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes capitalism seems to work, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes in certain situations within a country socialism works better than capitalism, or vice-versa. Perhaps the solution is a moderate and rational combination of the two, depending upon the specifics of a given situation. Of course, this would mean giving up easy slogans and formulas and really thinking flexibly and creatively, and admitting it if something doesn’t work and trying something new. Not many politicians are willing to do this.

China, one could argue, isn’t really socialist, but rather an oligarchy. The same could be said about Chavez albeit with a cult-of-personality twist. Both have, in fact, benefited certain sectors of their respective societies; that can’t be denied. But given their actions, the way they go about doing it, shows that they are less about “the people” and more about preserving their own advantages.

Unfortunately, we seem to have little choice in our election. True, SF COULD turn out any number of ways, whereas it is almost certain MR will stay the same. But just because SF COULD change his stripes doesn’t mean he will. In fact, if history is any guide, he probably won’t. I know it’s cliche, but it’s also true: politics in SL is akin to Animal Farm, and there is no reason to believe that the pigs, should they take over, won’t morph into the oppressors they replaced. I said pity the Venezuelans – heck – I also say pity us!

Nicolai said,

December 17, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

Hello Vasantha:

Ok point taken. I guess we won’t know which path he takes unless he wins.
He scares the heck out of me, so I won’t be crying the blues, if we never indeed do find out. But on the other its like watching a horror movie. I can’t help but keep watching the TV from the corner of my eye to see it to the end.

Vasantha Raja said,

December 18, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

Dear “Doomed to Repeat It”, [Thanks for your lengthy contribution. It’s well presented and good in its own way. Therefore, I don’t think you need to hide behind pseudo-names.]

I have no quarrel with most of the facts you’ve referred to. I’m well aware of the negative & positive elements in the advanced capitalist countries, and in the socialist countries with Stalinist origins. My disagreements arise in the way you try to interpret them and derive ‘a-historical’ and cynical conclusions from them.

I perceive contradictory events at a given moment in history as transient manifestations of evolving social forces. Remember, changing/evolving phenomena are by definition not perfect. Therefore, pointing at faults without deeper analysis will inevitably lead to misinterpretations. That’s why it’s important to find what directions the opposing social forces are headed towards. If the analysts fail to identify the big picture and understand the limitations in the historical context, then they could unwittingly end up as confused cynics; or perhaps find themselves even in the wrong camp.

Let me give an example: A few weeks back [19-21 November 2009] an important international conference took place in Caracas. It was a gathering of left parties and socialist groupings from all over the world. In that Hugo Chavez launched a call for a Fifth Socialist International as a continuation of Trotsky-led Fourth International. He said that the Fifth International should bring together left parties and social movements from all over the world as “an instrument for the unification and the articulation of the struggle of the peoples to save this planet”.

For me, this event is crucially significant because it shows Chavez’s awareness of the global nature of socialism. Socialists know that under capitalism the productive forces were progressively internationalized & developed to a very high level. But, now it has turned into a regressive system. It’s no longer a progressive mode. Lenin identified imperialism as “the highest stage of capitalism”, and he realized that Russia can only develop socialism as part of a future “Socialist federation of Europe”.

In other words, global socialism will have to rescue the productive forces from selfish interests and private ownership via re-orientation through common ownership dedicated to common welfare. [That’s exactly what Chavez did to Venezuela’s imperialist-controlled oil industry in his effort to eradicate poverty. As a result, local & global forces of reaction led by the Bush Administration began to mercilessly hound and bedevil him. Chavez bravely fought back reactionary forces with the full backing of the poor masses.]

Let me comment on the living standards in the west: True, mass movements in the west did force the states to introduce welfare states in several countries. [In Britain, the trade union movement built the Labour Party to defend the working people.] But the bourgeoisie always see the welfare states as a pain in the neck, and try to get rid of them at the first opportunity by hook or by crook; because they correctly see welfare systems as an obstacle for the smooth functioning of the capitalist profit-system.

Finally, let me comment on your point about the Tamil struggle: I think it is totally unfair and inappropriate to speculate and pass judgments on how Chavez would have reacted to a similar struggle. Perhaps, under his rule a separatist struggle would not have emerged in the first place. [China, being a country with Stalinist origins has special problem. I shall not go into all that here. Suffice it to say that China, along with Stalin, shared the delusion of ‘socialism in one county’ which paved the way for many of its blunders.] However, I’ll just add one point: Sri Lankan governments consistently failed to present an attractive political solution to the Tamil problem since Independence to the present day. In this sense, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s war, in my view, was a case of “putting the cart before the horse”. General Fonseka, as an army-chief, successfully carried out the task given to him by the politicians. It’s the politicians who should be responsible for their failure in putting the horse before the cart.

Doomed to Repeat It said,

December 19, 2009 @ 11:55 pm

Hi Vasantha. Thanks for the compliment, and the same back to you. I like my pseudonym, not to hide behind, but because as a history freak it encapsulates how I see things.

My issue was not with socialism; I actually agree with you on most of the economics. But my problem, such as it was, was in using China and Venezuela positively, as if they are countries Sri Lanka should imitate. Or at least that’s how I read your argument; correct me if I misinterpreted.

I think you hit my viewpoint on the head when you used the word “cynical” at one point in your response. I admit it; I am cynical, particularly when it comes to those in power and even more so when they loudly, continuously, proclaim their bona fides to the world. I also believe, cynically, that if someone adopts a certain political perspective merely to maintain their own power, then they are not true believers in what they adopt.

Chavez, for example, cloaks himself in socialism but the plain truth is that he is a power-hungry dictator. The fact that his government is so repressive tells me that power is his real agenda; socialism is merely the tool he uses to do it, as well as make himself look cool/revolutionary in the international arena. Like you, I’m not sure what he would do about a separatist movement, but like I wrote above, I do know what he does to those who disagree with him politically, and it’s similar to what goes on right now in Sri Lanka. Looks like a dictator, sounds like a dictator, acts like a dictator: must be a dictator!

It doesn’t matter to me if someone is a left-wing dictator or a right- wing dictator. Dictators are bad, at least in my thinking.

The same applies to China, which is not really a socialist country. They are an oligarchy. Nor are they for the people, as their capitalist policies seem to show. They (the government/party) are about keeping power.

To pull it back to Sri Lanka, I don’t believe that MR or SF are really Buddhist ultra-nationalists. I believe that MR is using it to keep himself in power, and SF is using it as a way to wrest power from MR and thus soothe his bruised ego. Cynical? Perhaps, but you gotta admit that that is what it looks like.

I’m not sure that you’re correct that the bourgeoisie in the more developed nations see their socialist programs as a pain in the rear that at best they have to put up with, at least not always. Here I’m referring to Europe, not the US. I will admit that I know relatively few Brits as my contacts are Continental; Germany, Netherlands, and Belgium especially. All of my friends there would be considered middle or upper class in their status and lifestyle and to a one they all generally support the social policies of their countries. OK, some of them disagree with some of the details of some programs but you can’t expect everyone to agree on everything. But overall their attitudes are positive. Admittedly, my experience is hardly scientific, but it is my general impression on the ground.

I would love to believe that “global socialism will have to rescue the productive forces from selfish interests and private ownership via re-orientation through common ownership dedicated to common welfare” but I just don’t see it happening. For me, the big problems in achieving this goal are human weakness and human personality. On paper, in a truly altruistic world, it would be wonderful. The reality is that even the best intentioned fail to maintain their altruism when they receive power and control, whatever the political/economic system. There are very few Mandelas and Sr. Teresa’s in the world; mostly there are Mubaraks, Putins, Mugabes, and Rajapaksas. They all act the same way.

That said, I would never say that we should just give up and go home. Despite the odds against achieving anything close to a socialist paradise (assuming we could all even agree on what that would look like), we ought to work towards it, each in our own way, because it’s the right thing to do. We must have compassion for all mankind, and must act accordingly.

But personally I feel that neither China nor Chavez are good role models to emulate.

Heshan said,

December 26, 2009 @ 8:50 am

I like to discuss the following extract:

“From now on the extremist layers among the Sinhala majority will decisively rally round the Mahinda-regime while those layers that do not approve the war’s barbaric conclusion while supporting the LTTE’s military defeat will firmly turn towards the General.”

As soon as SF made the allegations against GR, he (SF) was dubbed a traitor by the extremist Sinhalese. I came to this conclusion after seeing the readers’ response to the above allegations in an article on lankanewspapers.com. However, I am not sure about the second line, that those who did not approve of the conclusion of the war will support the General. So far I have not sensed any vocal outrage from members of the majority community in regards to the conclusion of the war. Certainly, they supported the military defeat of the LTTE, however, they did not really care much as to how such a defeat came about… they were (and still are) more concerned about post-war rehabilitation efforts and outreach efforts as per the minorities. In general, the Sinhalese consensus is that the LTTE was a necessary evil that had to be wiped out all costs. In light of these remarks, I would then state that it is incorrect to assume that SF’s allegations in regards to post-war conduct would have caused a rift among the Sinhalese. Perhaps the author is looking for a way to decide how the Sinhalese will choose between two candidates – which is a separate issue altogether.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI