Kachchatheevu was not ceded to Sri Lanka, Centre tells court

[Ray]

One can still be a Muslim even if he ate pork and guzzled alcohol!

Jinnah did it all and yet founded the Nation of the Pure, namely Pakistan!

So, if he could achieve such a great feat relishing pork and guzzling alcohol, what is the issue that upset you., my SL wonder boy?

 

[HeinzGud]

So, if he could achieve such a great feat relishing pork and guzzling alcohol, what is the issue that upset you., my SL wonder boy?

Hey Mr. Ray I found out that in England if a person is wished to become the king he should be Protestant. So why you are so upset with only Buddhists will become presidents in Sri Lanka?

 

[Dovah]

Hey Mr. Ray I found out that in England if a person is wished to become the king he should be Protestant. So why you are so upset with only Buddhists will become presidents in Sri Lanka?

King of England is not equivalent to a head of state. Did you read the restrictions on becoming a British PM?

Your rules are akin to Pureland's where only non Kafirs can become head of states.

 

[Mr.Ryu]

Who ratified ? I am really pissed with this govt full of lie and corruption

 

[HeinzGud]

King of England is not equivalent to a head of state. Did you read the restrictions on becoming a British PM?

Your rules are akin to Pureland's where only non Kafirs can become head of states.

Why not head of state is equal to the head of state. Though in India head of state is a titular position unlike in Sri Lanka.

Even though there are no restrictions to become PM in Sri Lanka. Moreover in Sri Lanka anyone can say anything against the state unlike in India.

 

[pmaitra]

Who ratified ? I am really pissed with this govt full of lie and corruption

Nobody ratified. It requires a constitutional amendment, because it involves transfer of territory, and needs 2/3 majority. That never happened.

Moreover in Sri Lanka anyone can say anything against the state unlike in India.

Even in India you can. You can even file a lawsuit against the state. However, slander does not guarantee immunity from prosecution. In other words, exercise your "Right to Free Speech" responsibly.

 

[Ray]

Hey Mr. Ray I found out that in England if a person is wished to become the king he should be Protestant. So why you are so upset with only Buddhists will become presidents in Sri Lanka?

If only you were not so superficial in fact, and had knowledge of history, you would know that England was a Catholic Church for almost a thousand years from the time of Augustine of Canterbury.

Hence the King who headed was a Catholic.

It was, in 1534, during the reign of King Henry VIII, the church, through a series of legislative acts between 1533 and 1536 became independent from the Pope and formed the Church of England, with Henry declaring himself Supreme Head. Henry VIII broke away since he was not given the Papal special dispensation to divorce his wife, since Divorce is not acceptable in the Catholic Church.

England has an Anglican as the King because it is Kingdom where the King is taken to be the Head of State.

Is Sri Lanka a Kingdom with a King or is it a Democratic Republic?

The day Sri Lanka becomes a Kingdom and you have a King who is a Buddhist, Sri Lanka can have a Buddhist King in perpetuity and none will be able to complain or comment.

 

[Ray]

Hey Mr. Ray I found out that in England if a person is wished to become the king he should be Protestant. So why you are so upset with only Buddhists will become presidents in Sri Lanka?

If only you were not so superficial in fact, and had knowledge of history, you would know that England was a Catholic Church for almost a thousand years from the time of Augustine of Canterbury.

Hence the King who headed was a Catholic.

It was, in 1534, during the reign of King Henry VIII, the church, through a series of legislative acts between 1533 and 1536 became independent from the Pope and formed the Church of England, with Henry declaring himself Supreme Head. Henry VIII broke away since he was not given the Papal special dispensation to divorce his wife, since Divorce is not acceptable in the Catholic Church.

England has an Anglican as the King because it is Kingdom where the King is taken to be the Head of State.

Is Sri Lanka a Kingdom with a King or is it a Democratic Republic?

The day Sri Lanka becomes a Kingdom and you have a King who is a Buddhist, Sri Lanka can have a Buddhist King in perpetuity and none will be able to complain or comment.

 

[Dovah]

Even though there are no restrictions to become PM in Sri Lanka. Moreover in Sri Lanka anyone can say anything against the state unlike in India.

Tell that to the Tamils.

 

[HeinzGud]

If only you were not so superficial in fact, and had knowledge of history, you would know that England was a Catholic Church for almost a thousand years from the time of Augustine of Canterbury.

Hence the King who headed was a Catholic.

It was, in 1534, during the reign of King Henry VIII, the church, through a series of legislative acts between 1533 and 1536 became independent from the Pope and formed the Church of England, with Henry declaring himself Supreme Head. Henry VIII broke away since he was not given the Papal special dispensation to divorce his wife, since Divorce is not acceptable in the Catholic Church.

England has an Anglican as the King because it is Kingdom where the King is taken to be the Head of State.

Is Sri Lanka a Kingdom with a King or is it a Democratic Republic?

The day Sri Lanka becomes a Kingdom and you have a King who is a Buddhist, Sri Lanka can have a Buddhist King in perpetuity and none will be able to complain or comment.

It doesn't matter whether the head of the country is king or president what matter here is who is preserving the national cultural in the present context. I do not think that Britons would ever accept some one related to other faith as there king. Like wise in Sri Lanka people will not accept person with other faith to be the head of the state.

 

[ersakthivel]

Tell this to your court not to us.



In Gibraltar and Falklands there are British garrisons and British taxpayers. That's why British rule it. More than that those two territories were gained through conquest. However India do not have a garrison or Indian taxpayers living in Kachchthivu it is a no mans land.



There are no legal right given to Indians to fish around the Kachchthivu island because it lies inside Sri Lankan IMBL. Indian fisherman can only dry their nets in the island if they want to.



Bilateral Indo-Srilankan Accord was broken when IPKF couldn't kept its priority clause of disarming Tamil rebels with in 24 hours and you ask Sri Lanka to keep to its word.

The salient point is the sethupathi kings of Ramnad were having original documents pertaining to their control over Kacha Theevu during independance
And Sri lankan side had no control over it. Subsequently the indian govt suppressed these documents to arrive at an illegal agreement ceding kacha Theevu and now being caught red handed by the court

As the agreement is not ratified by the parliament it has no legal validity. Of course to repeal this agreement and hold Sri Lanka responsible for upholding indo-Srilankan accord the present benami govt must be booted out.



Was there a condition in the agreement that it will be considered broke if IPKF did not kill each and every LTTE cadre in Sri Lanka. Surely not.

the purpose was the agreement is the state of sri lanka accepts to treat tamils as equal citizens and recognizing the north and east is a historical homeland of Tamils with federating units enjoying control over land and police.

In exchange india recognized the one srilankan nation and resolved to not to intervene in the internal affairs of Sri lanka . that was the purpose of
agreement.

you are making it as if the whole purpose of the agreement was to send IPKF to kill LTTE.

you can not be unaware of the mischief committed by Sri lankan armed forces by not handing over the arrested unarmed LTTE fighters to IPKF as per the agreement which led to tiger cadres commiting suicide in custody which resulted in Dillepans fast unto death and the unravelling of the IPKF mission.

So it was the active conspiracy of the Srilankan regime that stalled the IPKF mission not the lack of resolve on behalf of india.

 

[HeinzGud]

The salient point is the sethupathi kings of Ramnad were having original documents pertaining to their control over Kacha Theevu during independance
And Sri lankan side had no control over it. Subsequently the indian govt suppressed these documents to arrive at an illegal agreement ceding kacha Theevu and now being caught red handed by the court

As the agreement is not ratified by the parliament it has no legal validity. Of course to repeal this agreement and hold Sri Lanka responsible for upholding indo-Srilankan accord the present benami govt must be booted out.

Kachatheivu was not part of India. It was a disputed territory. If it was Indian territory then it should have been cleared before the cession. Now there is nothing to

Was there a condition in the agreement that it will be considered broke if IPKF did not kill each and every LTTE cadre in Sri Lanka. Surely not.

the purpose was the agreement is the state of sri lanka accepts to treat tamils as equal citizens and recognizing the north and east is a historical homeland of Tamils with federating units enjoying control over land and police.

In exchange india recognized the one srilankan nation and resolved to not to intervene in the internal affairs of Sri lanka . that was the purpose of
agreement.

you are making it as if the whole purpose of the agreement was to send IPKF to kill LTTE.

you can not be unaware of the mischief committed by Sri lankan armed forces by not handing over the arrested unarmed LTTE fighters to IPKF as per the agreement which led to tiger cadres commiting suicide in custody which resulted in Dillepans fast unto death and the unravelling of the IPKF mission.

So it was the active conspiracy of the Srilankan regime that stalled the IPKF mission not the lack of resolve on behalf of india.

IPKF was sent to Sri Lanka to disarm Tamil militants within 24 hours. And IPKF failed it. So the agreement is nullified because one party has broken it.

 

[Ray]

It doesn't matter whether the head of the country is king or president what matter here is who is preserving the national cultural in the present context. I do not think that Britons would ever accept some one related to other faith as there king. Like wise in Sri Lanka people will not accept person with other faith to be the head of the state.

Again, you seem to be rather ill informed.

Here it is for you:

Her son and heir apparent, Prince Charles, has said he's planning a symbolic change if and when he becomes king by taking the title "Defender of Faith" or "Defender of the Faiths" to reflect Britain's multicultural and multifaith society.
Is British Monarch 'Defender Of The Faith' Or 'Faiths'?

*******************

So, the very person who gets the title is ready to change and so what makes you feel that the British will revolt against the Monarchy en mass?

 

[HeinzGud]

Again, you seem to be rather ill informed.

Here it is for you:

Her son and heir apparent, Prince Charles, has said he's planning a symbolic change if and when he becomes king by taking the title "Defender of Faith" or "Defender of the Faiths" to reflect Britain's multicultural and multifaith society.
Is British Monarch 'Defender Of The Faith' Or 'Faiths'?

*******************

So, the very person who gets the title is ready to change and so what makes you feel that the British will revolt against the Monarchy en mass?

This is because of the British policy of multiculturalism. But today Britishers acknowledge that the multiculturalism has failed in Briton.

Evan Sri Lankan president is saying he is defender of faith. So why you are blaming the Sri Lankan system?

 

[Ray]

This is because of the British policy of multiculturalism. But today Britishers acknowledge that the multiculturalism has failed in Briton.

Evan Sri Lankan president is saying he is defender of faith. So why you are blaming the Sri Lankan system?

You had claimed that the British monarch can only be a Protestant.

I proved it to you that it was a Catholic country prior to Henry VIII, who was initially a Catholic.

The King owned the Nation. Presidents don't.

Right now, the King of GB is a titular owner.

The President of any country is not even a titular owner!

In a multireligious country that does not claim that its Constitution is governed by a single religion law cannot have anyone who can be anointed as the Defender of the Faith.

Why so? Which Faith in a multireligious country? And why a single religion über alles

 

[HeinzGud]

You had claimed that the British monarch can only be a Protestant.

It is not a claim but fact.

I proved it to you that it was a Catholic country prior to Henry VIII, who was initially a Catholic.

Yes it is. But England became protestant to stay independent from Pope's influence. And it resolutely stayed that way.

The King owned the Nation. Presidents don't.

Right now, the King of GB is a titular owner.

The President of any country is not even a titular owner!

What about India?

In a multireligious country that does not claim that its Constitution is governed by a single religion law cannot have anyone who can be anointed as the Defender of the Faith.

Why so? Which Faith in a multireligious country? And why a single religion über alles

No religion is over other religions in Sri Lanka.

 

[ersakthivel]

Kachatheivu was not part of India. It was a disputed territory. If it was Indian territory then it should have been cleared before the cession. Now there is nothing to



IPKF was sent to Sri Lanka to disarm Tamil militants within 24 hours. And IPKF failed it. So the agreement is nullified because one party has broken it.

PLEASE quote any source for the clause in the agreement which states ,"IPKF was sent to Sri Lanka to disarm Tamil militants within 24 hours.And if tamil tigers are not disarmed by IPKF the agreement is considered broken"

I once again repeat that India supported the soverignity of Srilanka only because Srilanka accepted to give same powers given to federal units all over the world like Police powers, law and order, land rights with a iorn clad guarantee that north and east are the histroical homelands of Eelam tamils.

Before that Indian govt armed and supported the LTTE due to the brutal killings of Tamils by the sinhalese . India stopped arming the LTTE once Srilankan govt gave a guarantee that it wont repet the mistakes of the past. SO if Srilankan govt now goes back on the promise it will have no guarantees in future that Indian govt wont support Eelam Tamil's right to live as equal citizens in Srilanka by all means possible.



IPKF was sent since Srilanka requested it as neutral force to disarm the LTTE. Then the Srilankan government showed it's original face by arresting and keeping LTTE cadres under prolonged detention without handing over them to IPKF as per the Indo-Srilankan accord as this was the responsibility of the IPKF.

Since New Delhi refused to hold Srilanka to the accord LTTE felt cheated and started fighting IPKF.

So this sabotage by Srilanankan govt of the day in no way makes the Indo-Srilanka accord a defunct one. If you go back on it , you will be doing it only on your peril, because future Indian govt will have no inhibitions in supporting a separate homeland for Sril Lankan Tamils as indias acceptance of Srilankas soverigninty wont be binding any more.

.Who disputed kachatheevu?

kacha theevu was part of India in 1974 , and pre independance documnets showing the island administered by Sethupathy Kings of Ramnad will be produced in court soon, then you will know who owned Kacha Theevu before it was gifted to Srilanka with Indira Gandhi's illegal generosity , that too with no ratification from parliment .

I don't think all future Indian govt s will be led by compromised leadership like today's UPA govt.

I remember Narendra Modi giving an elction speech in Gujarath distinctly mentioning,"My tamil brothers are being butchered in Srilanka and this UPA govt is doing nothing." in the last election itself.

So you wont have free run to butcher and marginalize the Hindu tamils if BJP comes back strongly to power.

Today's govt led by Italians with a benami Sikh as PM may be waging it's tail to the genocide mongers of Srilanka . But it wont be the norm in future. It will be foolish of Srilanka to play China card either.

Pakistan once played this card and lost it's eastern wings. Since then there is a famous saying in diplomatic circles ,"that Chines will fight india to the last pakistani". So following the same policies that empower minorities as it is being done in India and through out the world and transforming into a respectable member of international community with tamils there living with equal rights as Sinhalese is the only option left.

Today may be there is an immense sense of satisfaction in hardline sinhalese circles with the decimation of tamils of North and east in srilanka. But if Srilanka falls victim to the racist policies adopted by this present Rajapakse regime with a chimera called Chinese card , you will all look into the barrel of the gun in future.

As there is no force on the Earth that can stop India's supremacy in Indian ocean in future , the China card may turn out to be joker card in the end,

If you still have any doubts look at Pakistan it was propped up the mighty US, China and many gulf Shiekdom in its fight against India and look where they are today.

For minnows Srilanaka with hardly 40 or 50 million Sinhaleses population want to dislocate the Ealam tamils future may not be bright for a united Srilanka.

Like the CHez and yugoslav the artificial entity called Srilanka will be just a flash in the pan in the future historical narrative.

 

[HeinzGud]

PLEASE quote any source for the clause in the agreement which states ,"IPKF was sent to Sri Lanka to disarm Tamil militants within 24 hours.And if tamil tigers are not disarmed by IPKF the agreement is considered broken"

Clause no. 2.9 of the Indo-Lanka accord,

2.9 The Emergency will be lifted in the Eastern and Northern Provinces by August 15, 1987. A cessation of hostilities will come into effect all over the Island within 48 hours of the signing of this Agreement. All arms presently held by Militant Groups will be surrendered in accordance with an agreed procedure to authorities to be designated by the government of Sri Lanka.

Consequent to the cessation of hostilities and the surrender of arms by Militant Groups, the Army and other security personnel will be confined to barracks in camps as on 25th May 1987. The process of surrendering of arms and the confining of security personnel and moving back to barracks shall be completed within 72 hours of the cessation of hostilities coming into effect.

Indo - Sri Lanka Agreement 1987

So the IPKF and India couldn't fulfill it's promise. So the accord was broken by India. Then the accord is not legal any more.

Like the CHez and yugoslav the artificial entity called Srilanka will be just a flash in the pan in the future historical narrative.

Tamil eelam and the Jaffna kingdom is the artificial entity in this context.

 

[Ray]

It is not a claim but fact.

It is not a fact.

It is the result of history and tradition.

England follows the religion of the Monarch.

When he was a Catholic, England was a Catholic country.

When he became an Anglican and had his own Church, England became an Anglican Protestant country.

Such a simple issue of history goes over your head?

Yes it is. But England became protestant to stay independent from Pope's influence. And it resolutely stayed that way.

Again, you show your ignorance of history and a lack of eye for details.

England chose to be independent of the Pope, not because they did not want Pope's influence, it was because King Henry VIII was not given special dispensation by the Pope to divorce his wife. So, Henry VIII organised his own Church - the Church of England - made his own rules and ensured legalising his divorce that was not accepted by the Catholic Church.

It was all over legalising divorce of the King and nothing more!

What about India?

What about it?

Do we change our religion based on the religion of our President?

No religion is over other religions in Sri Lanka.

Yet you said Buddhism is supreme and so all should accept that supremacy IIRC.

You also said that your President was a Defender of the Faith,. I asked, which Faith?

You were and are silent over that!

 

[HeinzGud]

It is not a fact.

It is the result of history and tradition.

England follows the religion of the Monarch.

When he was a Catholic, England was a Catholic country.

When he became an Anglican and had his own Church, England became an Anglican Protestant country.

Such a simple issue of history goes over your head?


Again, you show your ignorance of history and a lack of eye for details.

England chose to be independent of the Pope, not because they did not want Pope's influence, it was because King Henry VIII was not given special dispensation by the Pope to divorce his wife. So, Henry VIII organised his own Church - the Church of England - made his own rules and ensured legalising his divorce that was not accepted by the Catholic Church.

It was all over legalising divorce of the King and nothing more!

Then tell me why France and England fought wars with each other? Then tell me why there was bloodshed in Ireland?

What about it?

Do we change our religion based on the religion of our President?

Wrong answer.

Yet you said Buddhism is supreme and so all should accept that supremacy IIRC.

Yes. That because it is the majority religion in Sri Lanka. No one is forced to convert or respect it. But everyone should know that.

You also said that your President was a Defender of the Faith,. I asked, which Faith?

Every faith.