Why is it that our people fall for propaganda? Are they not intelligent enough to see the lies in propaganda? What is the difference between an Australian voter and a Sri Lankan voter where propaganda is concerned ?

“The mindset of the average citizen in Colombo, suburbs or in villages is not chauvinist.
If the above is the case where would you place the “Colombo lady(of foreign origin but who has lived in this country for a very long time) and is known to me who said ” the Tamils should go and live in India because that is where they belong.”

Thank You for your replies to some of the comments I had made. I shall get hold of the Marga series that you have refered to when I have the time.

Recently a Colombo lady(of foreign origin but who has lived in this country for a very long time) and is known to me said ” the Tamils should go and live in India because that is where they belong.”
Where would you place that type of comment? Why is it that people say such things when the need is for reconciliation and unity?

I am a Sinhalese christian but this type of comment is unacceptable. If you ask me it smacks of racism.
I have lived in the UK in the past and I can tell you that such racial remarks will not be easily tolerated over there.

I am not trying to “patronise the Tamils” in any way as you claim nor am I trying to set moral standards.
However, the point I am trying to make is that the Sinhala community as the majority community has a responsibility to see that the minorities are looked after. I believe that in the past the minorities got a bad deal. In no way am I trying to put the minorities down or sound patronising by saying so. The south has to get its act together. This also applies to the North now that the war is over.

Having read some of Michael’s articles recently, like the one justifying internment of tamils – I beg to differ.

Now, you call the Kandyans delusional. I call them rational. They recognized that there are three fundamentally distinct regions in the country, and that governing each particular region in accordance with the customs unique to that region would avoid a lot of future conflict. The only model that would fit such criteria is federalism. Secondly, it is incorrect to say that SWRD mentioned federalism simply to get support from the Kandyans – the Kandyans were also supporting the demand of the Tamils to get federalism, for over 2 decades.

Ignoring the Tamil demands was not an option. Tamils were bound to lose many of the gains they had made during the colonial administration, once the Sinhalese came to power in ’48. The goal should have been to ease this process of adjusting to a lower status. Instead, the colonization, language acts, riots, standardization, etc. was a sign that the majority was ready to flaunt their superiority. It is the same situation we are facing today.

Thank you for the cut-and-paste.

“The ethnic issue as we know it did not exist in the 1920’s.”

If the ethnic issue did not exist in the 1920s, then why did you bring up what SWRD said in that decade???

SWRD brought up federalism to get more support from the up-country Kandyans, who back then had delusions about being superior and separate from everyone else. The issue was resolved after everyone ignored the Kandyans and their demand for federalism fizzled out.

One could argue that the best solution to address the Tamil separatists’ demands would be to ignore them, instead of getting emotional and overreacting with violence. How do you feel about that?

I never claimed he was a racist in the 1920′s. The ethnic issue as we know it did not exist in the 1920′s (save perhaps for the venom of Dharmapala and the occasional riot, e.g. 1915). Anyway, the following remarks are worth reading:

“The seed of Federalism was planted in the North and East as far back as 1926.

None other than the Oxford-educated SWRD Bandaranaike was once invited by the Tamil Youth Congress to address them.

The subject he chose on that occasion was, “Federalism as the only solution to the political problems”. This was, in fact, his response to the British Government when it handed its reins over to the Sri Lankan politicians with these words: “Divide and Rule”.

One reason for the Tamils not opting for “Federalism” at that time was because the Colombo based elite made up of educated policy makers and other large number of Tamils enjoying prestigious professions like Government jobs and other commerce in the Sinhala areas, perceived the community being “all island” rather than regional!

Furthermore, for these people Federalism meant a break with the rest of the country: for it implied the Tamil businessmen, the doctors, lawyers, politicians and government employees to cut themselves off from their comfortable places and positions.

And so, the idea of power sharing at the centre through holding portfolios seemed more lucrative than sharing power at the periphery through “Federalism”.

And what is more the Tamil elite also had the opportunity of sending their own kith and kin to prestigious Colleges and Convents at the centre-a stepping stone for their children’s higher education abroad.

But whereas the other lower classes which constituted the 70% of the Tamil population at the periphery were saddled with other inhuman realities such as caste system, dowry system etc, which prevented equal opportunities in education and social uplifting until one morning they woke up to hear the alarm bell, “Sinhala in 24 hours”.

One will readily understand the astuteness of SWRD for he knew that the only way out to help to unify the country was to free himself from the UNP fetters to find his own party to steer his way through to become the Prime Minister.”

http://federalidea.com/focus/page/41

So in other words, you actually have no evidence that SWRD Bandaranaike was not a racist (or was pro-Tamil) in the 1920s.