Philip wrote:
Here both nations stand to gain immeasurably if they enter into a mutual security treaty as was proposed with only the signatures emaining to be affixed
Fond hopes and a giant wish-list. But I am willing to wait to see what shape or form such a treaty will take. Given the history between SL and India, given the past baggage of how the Soulbury and Donoughmore Constitutions were even instituted in the first place, given how the Sinhalese squatted the idea of a federation with India because of their fears of what the Tamils could do to them (!), given how such fears have been articulated on this very forum by aamchi Sinhalese, given how the anti-India card is a convenient bogey for SLFP when UNP is in power and vice versa alongwith the likes of JVP, not-to-mention the assorted and virulent terrorist groups among the Tamils, given how playing one for "pragmatic" purposes has happened time and again, let me belch my afternoon lunch right here....
It is inconceivable that a govt. in the island will enter into security relationships with powers inimical to India which can switch on ethnic strife in the island if it so wishes.
This is the kind of self-security that assures anyone and everyone. You really dont need SL to enter into a security relationship with a non-Indian subcontinental power (which is none other than India) to cause trouble for India. Any war that is going to be fought to the finish in any context will be a world war. Given that scenario, the main concern is what costs do I impose on my enemy to ensure that mutually assured deterrence kicks in. In the light of this, anyone and everyone who strengthens the cards on the china side is doing an anti-Indian act. Whether it is just refueling facilities like as in 71 war, or a naval facility such as UK had from 47 through the 56 elections, or like the Diego Garcia presence that the US has, it really does nt matter. An act inimical to Indian strategic concerns is an act of war (or a hostile act with male fide intentions as JND or SP Jalota would like to put it), there are no two things about it.
Regarding switching on and off ethnic strife, that is as bullshit as bullshit can get. Ethnic strife cant be switched on and off unless there is a real issue on the ground. That something on the ground can either be self-induced behavior that sees themselves as superior (as in J&K) or a back and forth between two communities that results in a complete loss of trust and is going to take years to heal (as in the case of Sinhalese vs. Tamils). Blaming India for ethnic strife is a position that is convenient, but not correct on the ground, even as per stuff that just me alone would have posted on this thread. In other words, get over your damn scapegoating and figure out the real reasons.
For years the island's intellectuals have understood this fact of life and have advised their respective govts.
Funny to me
. When intellectuals voice concern about stupid acts that could lead to a lot of trouble in the future, they are drowned out and labeled as LTTE sympathizers. I can give you tons of examples of what Junius Jayewardene and S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike did and spoke in the House of Representatives over the years. Its been a complete flip-flop and these were some of the most Anglicized (Westminsterized) elites of the country, the less said about mere mortals, the better.
These days the economic relationship is becoming as important as the security one and the GOSL have invited "Big B",in the island right now,to bat for Lanka!
Should we now dance that Big B has been invited to SL and the next IIFA will be held in SL. Thank god, for more intelligent people who run the strategic affairs in the South Block.
The following is OT, but I will indulge you anyway. Egregious and bullshitty remarks need to be contested, thats why I am not afraid of a ban or a warning for going OT.
thusitha wrote:
Before any one can support Tibets independence, one should ask whether what they are doing is right or wrong. That is the essence of Buddhism. We are not taught to support another person merely because the other person is Buddhist.
And you learn that the chinese are right and Tibetans are wrong by looking at wikipedia, which has been bombarded with official CCP propagandoo. Hello, wake up. If the official CCP propagandoo is allowed, so is the following:
http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/tibet.html
The reason for this is, Tibet was never an independent state. They were always under Chinese leadership.
My arse, that is the official propagandoo. Just like what you have in your Mahavamsa, the Tibetans have their own chroncile. For what the Tibetans think of themselves, see
http://www.tibetanyouthcongress.org/fac ... tibet.html
http://www.tibetancommunityinireland.com/Tibet.html
http://www.friendsoftibet.org/databank/ ... beth2.html
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/autocod ... 275956.htm
Even the biased beeb puts in a note of caution:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7299221.stm
Bottomline: you can believe any amount of propagandoo, but that does nt alter the basic facts on the Tibet case. And Sri Lanka, both as a fellow Buddhist nation and as a responsible and mature socialist democracy, has been found WANTING in its foreign policy vis-a-vis china.
So, it has always been considered as part of China. Because Dalai lama suddenly with the help of the West etc. decide to create an independent state does not mean that we should support it. If this is the case, then we should support independence of Xinjiang province etc. etc.
Unfortunately, Sri Lanka predicates support to Tibet in terms of what ramifications this would have on the Tamil issue. The facts are clear here. Sri Lanka lost a HUGE opportunity to embrace its Tamil population in the 40s through now. The question is: will it learn from its past mistakes? The answer is not clear. Regarding china, as long as the imperialist and dictatorial CCP rules china, and as long as the "middle kingdom" discourse dominates the podium, the fall from the cliff is imminent. And that is a lesson that every sensible nation has to learn. Especially china...
