Sri Lanka, BJP and AIADMK

Banda

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
115
Likes
12
There is no risk to the Army or business interest at all.

Notwithstanding, war is not an answer to solve issues.
Going to war is taking a risk to one's army. And of course the business interests of indian companies in SL is huge.

War is not a way to solve issue, exactly my point. tell that to insecure indians here
 

Banda

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
115
Likes
12
Ya economy being the primary competition. Indians' outlandish belief in the near-magical powers of a single man Modi perhaps results from high expectation that he offers concrete, personified hope to escape from the present economic conundrum. Then they overload Modi's agenda with redundant tasks like taking on SL
I too agree indian's believes in near magical powers of modi is hilarious.
 

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,558
Likes
1,070
Country flag
Time for you to bone up before commenting.
I gave you facts that show the Ceylonese Tamils were taken to Malaya because they were industrious and diligent. I also indicated what a Chinese (who are also very hardworking and industrious) leader, the Singapore Mentor Minister has to say about Ceylonese Tamils.
Obviously British needed servants who do what ever they say. That shouldn't be mistaken. There were Bengali's also who were well educated. Have you ever thought why British gave precedence to Tamils over Bengali's in that matter?


How is it special opportunities being provided for the Tamils by the British?

You had the opportunity and you did not seize it. The Tamils did and rose by their sheer diligence and determination.
Well, when the schools which produced English speaking students were located mainly at Jaffna, how would you say it was not an special privilege. How do you think locally educated students coped with their English speaking counter parts in pursuing government jobs?

To rise by their sheer diligence and determination they needed a system that functioned well. Do you think Tamils built it?

I do not say British were specifically provided Tamils with better education. But when British arrived to Sri Lanka Tamils were enjoying a better educational system created by the Dutch. This was not the case elsewhere in the island.

Don't you think that is a special privilege for Tamils?


I love that. Singalese wanting to oust British. Tell that to the Marines.

Quit deluding yourself.
I wonder how can a person like you who knows Sri Lankan history say such a thing. You are extensively biased Mr. Ray. You are purposefully neglecting the facts.


Possibly because they thought they would get more justice under them and could foresee what has happened to them under the Singalese majority as is of now.
I wonder same thing happened in India also. Tamils should have asked British to say. Did they Mr. Ray?
 

SajeevJino

Long walk
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,017
Likes
3,364
Country flag
Indian central gover doesnt say any fishermen killing by SL navy, if you really look at their opinion. It is the TN state govern, TN media which say so. Even on Katchatheevu case, i hope you know your central gover's stand. Not different to that of SL's :)
The government on Friday submitted in the Madurai bench of the Madras high court that there had been 167 incidents of shooting on Indian fishermen by the Sri Lankan navy between the years 1991 and 2011. As many as 85 fishermen had been killed and 180 injured in these incidents which took place within the Indian waters.
85 fishermen killed by Sri Lanka in 10 years: Govt - The Times of India

Show me a single reliable source for fishermen killing by SL navy recently.
There are Sveral Clashed only in Recent Times ..No more Kills

Fishermen cross the boundary mistakenly. but TN fishermen cross the boundary knowing very well. Fishermen do not mistakenly cross in thousands. Your PM, president also acknowledge it as a problem.
Yes even the Early Government Reports when Pakki Soldiers Beheaded our Hero's ..Our Minister says those are Terrorists

If you arrest SLn fishermen for crossing to your side, we have no problem arrest them and you will not see such a stupid protest from SL side. because we respect the boundary unlike you.
That's how we both Deal with Them ..But ramming their Vessels Firing Rounds and Cutting their Fishing nets is not a Good Deal like you

The claim that TN fishermen mistakenly cross is a big fat lie. Watch the video i pasted. It has tamil in it.
How do you Know that ...does everyone Do it even Knowing the truth ...

what LTTE threats? LTTE cant rise in SL again, the last time they did we finished it off.
Hope so ..!!!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Obviously British needed servants who do what ever they say. That shouldn't be mistaken. There were Bengali's also who were well educated. Have you ever thought why British gave precedence to Tamils over Bengali's in that matter?
Rather vacuous.

The fact that the Dutch and then the British colonised Ceylon makes one servants, be he a Ceylonese or Tamils?

That way, wherever their were a colonial power, the indigenous people would be servants as per you, right.

Bengalis were in great numbers in Burma as the core of the middle level and lower level of British administration there.


Well, when the schools which produced English speaking students were located mainly at Jaffna, how would you say it was not an special privilege. How do you think locally educated students coped with their English speaking counter parts in pursuing government jobs?
British rans schools are located where people are ready and willing to learn.

In Jaffna, there were more than willing to have education.

It is obvious that the British would recruit those who were familiar with English for govt jobs.

Now, why did the other Celyonese not take the opportunity is most surprising.



T
o rise by their sheer diligence and determination they needed a system that functioned well. Do you think Tamils built it?
The system was British. And the Tamils made the best of that system thorugh hard work and diligence.

I do not say British were specifically provided Tamils with better education. But when British arrived to Sri Lanka Tamils were enjoying a better educational system created by the Dutch. This was not the case elsewhere in the island.

Don't you think that is a special privilege for Tamils?


So, if the Tamils were taking advantage of an education system made by the Dutch, while the other Ceylonese didn't, it just shows how great their hunger to learn and be industrious.

Education was for all who grabbed it and the Tamils did. That is not special privileges.




I wonder how can a person like you who knows Sri Lankan history say such a thing. You are extensively biased Mr. Ray. You are purposefully neglecting the facts.
I would sure be delighted to learn how the Buddhist Ceylonese wanted to throw out the British, and if they tried, I sure would love to know of such incidents.



I wonder same thing happened in India also. Tamils should have asked British to say. Did they Mr. Ray?
I can only guess.

Maybe the non Muslims felt that they would get justice from the British that they were not getting from the Mughal Kings and satraps.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
LTTE had firepower like a small conventional army, naval force and even an air force. LTTE fought conventional warfare at the last battle. LTTE was a conventional army.

It is stupid to compare Maosits with LTTE. Unlike in the case of Sikhs and Maosits, there were militarty targets that can be attacked from air. Of course you dont have to be in the army to know that, but when a person in the army compare LTTE warfare with that of Maoists that is both hilarious and sad
It is you who raised the issue of Maoist, not I. Check it out.

If LTTE was a conventional army, then you would say the guerilla warfare is conventional warfare.

And also that Mao and Che were conventional Generals!

Military annals do not subscribe to that view.
 

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,558
Likes
1,070
Country flag
Rather vacuous.

The fact that the Dutch and then the British colonised Ceylon makes one servants, be he a Ceylonese or Tamils?

That way, wherever their were a colonial power, the indigenous people would be servants as per you, right.
Yes you are right. When the hammer of the invaders fall upon the indigenous. Indigenous become servants.

But if there are people who would do what ever they can to appease the invader then they will become the favorite of the invader.

Bengalis were in great numbers in Burma as the core of the middle level and lower level of British administration there.
Burma can be accepted being so close to Bengal. But why not Malaya? Why were Bengalis ousted by Tamils for Malaya? What was the Specialty among Tamil (Ceylonese) which lacked in Bengali?

British rans schools are located where people are ready and willing to learn.

In Jaffna, there were more than willing to have education.
Then why British never bothered to educate Tamils in Vanni regions, Mannar, Eastern Sri Lanka and Central hill country? Were they willing to learn? Or did those Tamils were as lazy as the Sinhalese?

It is obvious that the British would recruit those who were familiar with English for govt jobs.

Now, why did the other Celyonese not take the opportunity is most surprising.
That is because there were very few schools for Sinhalese to learn English and prepare themselves for the civil service jobs.


I do not say British were specifically provided Tamils with better education. But when British arrived to Sri Lanka Tamils were enjoying a better educational system created by the Dutch. This was not the case elsewhere in the island.

Don't you think that is a special privilege for Tamils?


So, if the Tamils were taking advantage of an education system made by the Dutch, while the other Ceylonese didn't, it just shows how great their hunger to learn and be industrious.
For Christ sake. Dutch could built a good schooling system in Jaffna. This didn't happen all over the island of Sri Lanka. Because Sinhalese were at war with Dutch unlike Tamils.


I would sure be delighted to learn how the Buddhist Ceylonese wanted to throw out the British, and if they tried, I sure would love to know of such incidents.
Great Rebellion of 1817–18 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just one.

I can only guess.

Maybe the non Muslims felt that they would get justice from the British that they were not getting from the Mughal Kings and satraps.
So Tamils in India was against British while Tamils in Sri Lanka was welcoming them. What an irony. I thought for once Tamils were hard working, hungry for education and industrious lot.
 

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,558
Likes
1,070
Country flag
That's how we both Deal with Them ..But ramming their Vessels Firing Rounds and Cutting their Fishing nets is not a Good Deal like you
You know in America they shoot illegal immigrants if they cross the border.
 

SajeevJino

Long walk
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
6,017
Likes
3,364
Country flag
You know in America they shoot illegal immigrants if they cross the border.
Not only in America ..all over the world It's Happens

But No one Kills Fisherman ..This is too Happens all over the World Except Sri Lanka , DPRK ,
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Yes you are right. When the hammer of the invaders fall upon the indigenous. Indigenous become servants.

But if there are people who would do what ever they can to appease the invader then they will become the favorite of the invader.
No quibbles there.

But what is unique is to use the appeasement and turn the tables.

The Indian National Congress did that when it was formed in 1885 by Allan Octavian Hume, but turned the tables on the British!


Burma can be accepted being so close to Bengal. But why not Malaya? Why were Bengalis ousted by Tamils for Malaya? What was the Specialty among Tamil (Ceylonese) which lacked in Bengali?
Maybe because the Tamils are more adventurous. However, the ties, I believe between Burma and Bengal were before even the British arrived,

Then why British never bothered to educate Tamils in Vanni regions, Mannar, Eastern Sri Lanka and Central hill country? Were they willing to learn? Or did those Tamils were as lazy as the Sinhalese?
Could it be because they were better to run the British enterprises there and educating them would not be wise for the British? Are you sure the others were not educated? Any links?

The Eastern were Moors and they were averse to education etc,


That is because there were very few schools for Sinhalese to learn English and prepare themselves for the civil service jobs.
Would you waste money where there is no returns?

Why have schools when none want to be educated.


For Christ sake. Dutch could built a good schooling system in Jaffna. This didn't happen all over the island of Sri Lanka. Because Sinhalese were at war with Dutch unlike Tamils

Great Rebellion of 1817–18 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.
It was organised by the Nayakars, who were related to the Madurai Nayak dynasty and to the Tanjore Nayak dynasty.

Keppetipola Disawe was the successor of Sri \Vikrama Rajasinha ( born Kannasamy Nayaka) the last of four Kings, to rule the last Sinhalese monarchy of the Kingdom of Kandy in Sri Lanka. The Nayak Kings were Telugu Buddhists that spoke Tamil,

So Tamils in India was against British while Tamils in Sri Lanka was welcoming them. What an irony. I thought for once Tamils were hard working, hungry for education and industrious lot.
Neat twisting of what I replied.

I stated that maybe the Hindus felt that the British would be more fair in dispensing justice than the Mughals.
 
Last edited:

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,558
Likes
1,070
Country flag
No quibbles there.

But what is unique is to use the appeasement and turn the tables.
For what ? That appeasement was not a communal effort it was a solitary efforts for personnel gains. What a fascinating table turning. India should have learnt from those Tamils on how to turn tables on British. In that way they could have saved many lives.

The Indian National Congress did that when it was formed in 1885 by Allan Octavian Hume, but turned the tables on the British!
Total different scenario to compare but did British yielded to Hume? No. In the end congress was at square one. So that is how Indian appeasement went on.

Maybe because the Tamils are more adventurous.
Correction should be added. Ceylonese Tamils not just Tamils.

But again another issue arises if Ceylonese Tamils were adventurous why didn't British use them to run India? Why brought them to Malaya?

Could it be because they were better to run the British enterprises there and educating them would not be wise for the British? Are you sure the others were not educated? Any links?
If Ceylonese Tamils were so good as you say British should have used every bit of them for their gains by educating. Why waste so much valuable human resource?

British could have run their enterprise by importing Tamil coolies from India. Just as they did in central Sri Lanka.

The Eastern were Moors and they were averse to education etc,
Now do you believe Tamil homeland concept of North and East of Sri Lanka is a false one?


Would you waste money where there is no returns?
Then why didn't British let Tamils run Sri Lanka? It would have been much easier that way just as they did in South Africa.


It was organised by the Nayakars, who were related to the Madurai Nayak dynasty and to the Tanjore Nayak dynasty.
Where were Nayakars when British took them away? Who organized the revolt? Do you accept Sinhalese fought for British?

If you still do not, read this Matale Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keppetipola Disawe was the successor of Sri \Vikrama Rajasinha ( born Kannasamy Nayaka) the last of four Kings, to rule the last Sinhalese monarchy of the Kingdom of Kandy in Sri Lanka. The Nayak Kings were Telugu Buddhists that spoke Tamil,
Mr. Ray those Nayaks came to power in Kandy because Sinhalese welcomed them to use as puppets in power politics. The move backfired of course. But the real power laid with Sinhalese. That is why Sri Wikramarajasinghe had to surrender to British.

Neat twisting of what I replied.

I stated that maybe the Hindus felt that the British would be more fair in dispensing justice than the Mughals.
You twisted what you said. You said Muslims felt that the British would be more fair in dispensing justice than the Mughals.

How does it connect to this.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
For what ? That appeasement was not a communal effort it was a solitary efforts for personnel gains. What a fascinating table turning. India should have learnt from those Tamils on how to turn tables on British. In that way they could have saved many lives.
Great in hindsight, but not in those contemporary times.

If life is well and good, why turn table?

Total different scenario to compare but did British yielded to Hume? No. In the end congress was at square one. So that is how Indian appeasement went on.
Did the British not yield?

The Indian National Congress went from strength to strength.

Why be lazy? Read it up. Don't be a typical Sri Lankan letting others take over your right to education as history bears it out.

Correction should be added. Ceylonese Tamils not just Tamils.
Correct.

They also descended from the Moon!

But again another issue arises if Ceylonese Tamils were adventurous why didn't British use them to run India? Why brought them to Malaya?
Because Indians were equally good.

If Ceylonese Tamils were so good as you say British should have used every bit of them for their gains by educating. Why waste so much valuable human resource?
They did.

They gave them a British education so that they could vibe. Heard of MacCaulay?

British could have run their enterprise by importing Tamil coolies from India. Just as they did in central Sri Lanka.

Now do you believe Tamil homeland concept of North and East of Sri Lanka is a false one?
Discrimination has strange bedfellows.

Then why didn't British let Tamils run Sri Lanka? It would have been much easier that way just as they did in South Africa.
South Africa was run by Africans?

Then why was there a Nelson Mandela?

Are you daft?

Where were Nayakars when British took them away? Who organized the revolt? Do you accept Sinhalese fought for British?
Nayakars were of Indian orgin.

They organised the revolt and not the Buddhist Sri Lankan as you.

Though I will accept that they were as Sri Lankan as the Tamil of Jaffna are today.

Mr. Ray those Nayaks came to power in Kandy because Sinhalese welcomed them to use as puppets in power politics. The move backfired of course. But the real power laid with Sinhalese. That is why Sri Wikramarajasinghe had to surrender to British.
I presume they were welcomed as the Sri Lankans welcomed the Dutch and the British. The only difference is that they stayed and became a part of Sri Lanka, while the Dutch and the British quit.

You twisted what you said. You said Muslims felt that the British would be more fair in dispensing justice than the Mughals.

How does it connect to this.
Yes I did and you twisted!
 

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,558
Likes
1,070
Country flag
If life is well and good, why turn table?
Ask it from yourself.

Correct.

They also descended from the Moon!
Derailing when there is nothing to say. It is just like your circular logic.

Because Indians were equally good.
Then again why not Bengali's were selected over Ceylonese Tamils. Bengali's were greater in number Ceylonese Tamils


They gave them a British education so that they could vibe. Heard of MacCaulay?
Who gave them who and No I can't say I know of MacCaulay. But please elaborate I might get the drift.


Discrimination has strange bedfellows.
do you believe Tamil homeland concept of North and East of Sri Lanka is a false one?

South Africa was run by Africans?

Then why was there a Nelson Mandela?

Are you daft?
why didn't British let Tamils run Sri Lanka? It would have been much easier that way just as they did in South Africa.

Please open your brain beyond Mandela.

Nayakars were of Indian orgin.
Yes indeed.

They organised the revolt and not the Buddhist Sri Lankan as you.
Please elaborate more.

Though I will accept that they were as Sri Lankan as the Tamil of Jaffna are today.
Me too. Both came as immigrants but the different is Tamils think they had a independent homeland in SL.


I presume they were welcomed as the Sri Lankans welcomed the Dutch and the British. The only difference is that they stayed and became a part of Sri Lanka, while the Dutch and the British quit.
You presume. Mr. Ray dedicate your time to learn history. You are ill fed on information.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
@HeinzGud,

Simply stated, it is sagacious to eschew obfuscation

The mark of your ignorance of facts is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,558
Likes
1,070
Country flag
@HeinzGud,

Simply stated, it is sagacious to eschew obfuscation

The mark of your ignorance of facts is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy.
I have same thing to say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top