You might ask “how?”. Just throw a stone at a random bush. At least a handful of blokes who call themselves “patriots” will jump out. They know “how”. Now back to the story.

While A and B were going on opposing paths, B said that A was the mastermind behind the murder. This raised the eyebrows of neighboring villages who were trying hard to prove murder allegations but unable to find a clue. But this lone statement was not enough to prove anything. Fired up by B’s statement, A charged B for “betraying” their village. Aha.. here jumps the cat out of the bag.

How do you betray someone for something that never said to be happened? For that you have to throw another stone at a random bush.

After several rounds of allegations and finger pointing games, it was indirectly proved that the “murder” did happen and both A and B are more or less responsible for that. Had A denied B’s initial statement and shrugged off the allegations, this story would have been different. But A was stupid enough to panic like a thief who was noticed by the residents.

Now B is in A’s custody and people who made them heroes several months ago have split and are clashing with each other. There are handful of people for whom neither A nor B were heroes and never backed their acts which made them labeled as “traitors”. Some of them are quietly watching this drama of “patriots” vs “ex-patriots”. One of them thought of writing this post.

“If you live abroad, ask the same question from a Tamil speaking Sri Lankan (preferably an elder) that you would randomly meet on a street.“

“If you live in Sri Lanka, go beyond Anuradhapura and ask the same question from a Tamil speaking Sri Lankan (again preferably an elder) that you would randomly meet.“

After all, this is a silly question to ask and to be answered by a Sinhala speaking Sri Lankan. This shows where we are at after being involved in a deadly war for 3 decades, after losing so many lives and after so much of destruction. We are back in square one!

First of them is the nature of the battle for Presidency. In the Presidential election of 2005, the government declared it as a contest between ‘patriots’ and ‘traitors’. But this time around, it is a contest between ‘patriots’ and ‘patriots’. In other words, it is a contest to select the greatest ‘patriot’. But the government has already labeled the rival candidate as a ‘traitor’ since they own the Patent for the definition of the word ‘Patriot’. However, for the average voter who doesn’t go into that level of detail, this will be a ‘patriot’ versus ‘patriot’ contest.

Another critical factor would be our international relationships. We all know what sort of friends we have on international stage. We have Libya, Iran, Vietnam, Myanmar, Venezuela and few other countries as our direct friends. Are we going to go ahead with them or are we going to win the rest of the ‘important’ countries and move on with all of them? It would be nice to see what kind of a plan the two candidates have towards winning back our ‘lost’ friends. It would be very interesting to see how those countries respond in a situation where our top ranked politicians are either denied or reluctant to enter certain countries, even for highly important international engagements.

As this contest for the Presidency intensifies, more and more war ‘secrets’ might come out because both candidates are so keen to get the credit of the victory written against their names. We already hear top ranks in the military setup and its administration playing the blame game on certain incidents that happened during the war time. In such circumstances, it is more likely those ‘behind-the-scene’ information to come out to gain the upper hand in this tight contest. But it will end up doing more damage to the image of our country.

While the people who supported the war and believed in a military solution will be split between two major candidates, people who were against the war and violence will be stranded in this election. For them, these two candidates would be two sides of the same coin. Anyone who closely observed the conduct of this duo during the war and the aftermath would know it. This was very well explained in the article I suggested to read in my previous post. One might argue that they can vote for a third candidate. But in a two-horse race, what’s the meaning of betting on a pony?

The most critical factor is the Tamil speaking people of Sri Lanka. For the first time in the history of Presidential elections, they don’t have a candidate who can be trust upon. Even if they put aside all the killings, abductions, assaults, harassments and discriminations of the past, can they safely look for the future at the hands of any of these two candidates? The answer is quite obvious when you look at the extremist and fundamentalist groups who are baking the two major candidates.

It wouldn’t be a surprise if they feel like hard done and cornered by the Sinhala speaking majority Sri Lankans when deciding who should lead the country of all communities. They will either be forced to vote for a candidate that they cannot believe in or they will have to stay aside, just being spectators of the drama. I have already heard people sarcastically asking from a few Tamil speaking Sri Lankans who they are going to vote for. To me, it’s not a joke. It’s a very serious concern that they cannot play a decisive role in the election that matters.

Such ignorance and negligence in the past lead to a decades-long war and we all know how much it cost us. Will this be another twist in the history? Only time will tell. For everyone’s sake, let’s hope not.

First one is from Gamini Wiyangoda, one of my favourite columnists. In this article, he has made a good assessment on the current political climate and the candidature of ex-army commander. He makes a very good point on people who once opposed the war and believed in non-violence now selling the military achievement to come out of the political agony they are in.

Read the article in full here.

Next one has been originally published in ‘Ravaya’, the Sinhala weekly and it gives us a point or two to think about the two major candidates running for the Presidency. K.W. Janaranjana, the author of the article, makes an indirect hint about the confusion people who genuinely opposed the war (including myself) are going to be in, when the decision time comes.

Another interesting point this article makes is exactly what I was trying to say in my previous post. It took no time for our famous Facebook Patriots to rename their former war hero “Fonseka” as “Ponseka“. What would happen if their beloved great patriot, the famous brother of the President, cross over to the opposition? Would they do the same for him in case he change his mind?

(If you think such a thing is not possible on this earth, who would have thought the ex-army commander would join hands with people who claimed he’s not eligible to lead even the Salvation Army? Mind you, this is Sri Lanka!)

Here’s the article for everyone to read.

Let’s not worry about the reactions of people with fake doctorates and their henchmen. But the way certain dignitaries, intellectuals, religious leaders and professionals reacted towards it was shocking to me. Not so long ago, he was the hero and the biggest patriot for most of these people. But even before his request for retirement was accepted, they hurried to bring him down from hero to zero. Apart from wide spreading rumors, there was no official announcement about a political involvement, but those ‘patriots‘, who are so good at anticipating things, were quickly out to attack him.

The question is, how can someone who was treated as the greatest patriot become the worst traitor overnight? Another good example for this was when the deputy leader of the main opposition party crossed back over from government ranks. Until that very moment he was a patriot and the moment after, he is a traitor. This clearly shows how disgusting these ‘patriots‘ are and how primary their thinking is.

Even appalling are the people who, in no time, came forward to propose and support him for the next presidency. Do they have any idea what went around when ex-military personnel took over the leadership of a country? Do they have any idea what democracy means and what kind of a democracy exist within military outfits? How do you relate the ability to lead a country with the fact having led an army to victory against a ferocious guerilla organization?

The only way of problem solving these war heroes know is to use the force. Are these people expecting to establish law, order and discipline in this country the same way? Is that how we want to eliminate corruption, waste, bribery and thuggery in our country? How long can you hold a rubber ball under the water? After these latest developments someone very correctly pointed out that he would live under the rule of the most corrupted politician rather than under the rule of the bravest soldier. I think it has a valid point.

As I’ve mentioned many times before, we’ve been so wrong in our decision making. In fact we’ve been so stupid when we decide who should lead this country. Going by our ‘impressive’ track record, I can sense another fatal mistake when it comes to the next decision time.

Source: http://www.lankadeepa.lk/2009/10/21/front_news/03.html

Background:
A and B are high profile characters in a certain country. They were good friends and considered as heroes in that country. However the duo were not in good terms lately since B was considered a threat to A’s position. But this was categorically denied by A. C is A’s ultimate henchman who holds a doctorate from an alien University. C launched an attack on B publically which made headlines in mass media.

Few days later, media reported that A has summoned C and blasted him for attacking B.

Questions:
(i). Who revealed the news of A blasting C for attacking B to the media?
(ii). Why he would have revealed it to the media?
(iii). What is your conclusion of this scenario?

Answers:
(i). The media reports do not indicate the presence of any other person at the time A blasted C for attacking B. C is unlikely to reveal it to the media since he is the embarrassed and ashamed party in the given situation. Therefore A has revealed it to the media.

(ii). Since C is A’s ultimate henchman, C wouldn’t have done anything without the backing of A. When C’s act made headlines in mass media, A wanted to get his hands off the situation. So A summoned C, had a fake go at him and leaked the news to the media to clear his name.

(iii). A and C are smarter than a fifth grader, but none of us are.

When you were taken out the next day, you cried a lot too. We could hardly stop you. I was lost in excitement and didn’t really feel happy or sad. But what a gift you have been since then! I have not been good to you some times but what an angel you have been all the time! Thank you for making our lives so fulfilled and we owe you so much for that. Many happy returns of the day Sweetheart!

Listen it here: http://www.slhits.com/links/songs.jsp?id=452646374 and enjOY!