NeutralCitizen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 0
Prof. K.M. de Silva, the doyen of historians states that it took 13 years for Dutugemunu to regain lost territory and establish total sovereignty over Sri Lanka. But it took less than three years for President Mahinda Rajapaksa to achieve the same goal.
Historical comparisons are inevitable because the similarities can explain the confused present with the experiences and the meanings of the more settled past. In one sense, it can be argued that Mahinda Rajapaksa has repeated all over again the history of Dutugemunu. Both felt choked by the prevailing political forces restricting territorial integrity and national sovereignty. Both were engaged in the identical kind of wars to defend the nation. Both adopted down-to-earth strategies to defeat enemies of the nation. Both fought to restore territorial integrity and national sovereignty over every inch of land. Both were committed to reinforce the principle that this island belongs to those who were willing to call it their home, no matter from where they came. Both rejected the idea of dividing the nation into mythical fragments.
Both embraced Tamils as a respectable part of the nation. When Dutugemunu erected a monument to King Elara he not only paid the highest tribute to the Tamils but also confirmed that the Tamils too have a dignified place in Sri Lankan culture. In my childhood pilgrimages to the Sacred City I still remember the drummers silencing their drums as we all filed passed the tomb of Elara, carrying alms to the neighbouring temple. It was solemn moment that instilled in me tolerance and respect for another culture, another religion, another non-Sinhalese who deserved our respect for being a just and fair human being.
However, in comparing Rajapaksa with Dutugemunu - a comparison drawn not to sound triumphalistic trumpets but to assess their roles in shaping the history of Sri Lanka - the question arises as to who could be greater. Future students of history sitting for the examinations are likely to face questions like: Compare and contrast the achievements of Dutugemunu and Rajapaksa. Despite possibilities of this question being invidious and controversial - in the prevailing political climate it even has racial undertones -- it is an issue that is bound to crop up in future assessments of their roles, considering that the tasks they faced in regaining Sri Lanka were gigantic. My firm bias is to declare Mahinda Rajapaksa as the one who outshines Dutugemunu.
Some of the common and differentiating factors faced by both will affirm this assessment:
Dutugemunu did not have a minority, backed by foreign forces, to appease.
Dutugemunu never had to face the might of the foreign superpowers of the day which went all out to tie the hands of Mahinda Rajapaksa every inch of the way.
Dutugemunu never faced internal hostile forces as Mahinda Rajapaksa did from the UNP and even Chandrika Kumaratunga, the head of the party.
Dutugemunu did not have to face a hostile Parliament or a misguided media baying at him, going all out for his blood.
Though both wars had the popular support of the people Dutugemunu did not encounter the financial threats coming from abroad to wage the war.
By and large the international dimensions of the war, which involved the foreign-funded NGOs, foreign media, and foreign interventionists who stepped in as "facilitators" and openly sided with the enemies of the nation, were absent in the war waged by Dutugemunu.
No foreign or local entity intervened to stop the war until it was fought to a finish.
In the case of Dutugemunu the modalities of waging a war were not restrained by issues of human rights and other instruments of international interventions. Issues of human rights were self-imposed and it was exercised by Dutugemunu when he proposed a one-to-one combat to avoid an unnecessary blood bath. Mahinda Rajapaksa granted two humanitarian pauses to let the Tamil civilians out.
The only opposition came initially from his pacifist father, Kavantissa, and later from his ambitious brother, Tissa, who challenged Dutugemunu's claim to the throne.
But as opposed to Tissa, Mahinda Rajapaksa had the active backing of all his brothers which is comparable to the Kennedy family who rallied behind their iconic John Kennedy. The Rajapaksa family (which the UNP derided as Rajapaksa Bros & Co) proved to be one of the best blessings that sustained and carried the nation through the rough and tough times. .
Dutugemunu had ten giants. Mahinda Rajapaksa had only five: a) Gotabaya Rajapaksa; b) Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, the Army Commander, c) Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda; d) Roshan Gunathilake, the Air Force Commander and e) Basil Rajapaksa.
Both came from the south and marched up to end the illegal occupation of territory by anti-national forces.
Both faced Sinhala generals in the northern camp. But Mahinda Rajapaksa faced Sinhala generals not in Prabhakaran's army but in NGOs, academia, churches and media. In the guise of protecting human rights and the political rights of only one minority community in the north - the most privileged community at that - they fought ideological battles both at home and abroad to weaken the centre and strengthen the periphery in the north and the east.
Both exuded the confidence of a driven leader determined to end the forces that crippled the nation.
Both jumped into the war with both feet, determined to define the nation as they knew it to be, or ought to be.
Considering the forces opposing Mahinda Rajapaksa within the nation his decision to take on "the invincible" political deity of the North was a huge gamble. The prevailing wisdom had surrendered to the belief that Prabhakaran had fortified himself solidly inside an impregnable fortress built by the popular will of the Tamils and consolidated by a military balance commensurate with that of the Sri Lankan forces. This belief was reinforced by the failure of his predecessors to defeat Prabhakaran. The general consensus was that Mahinda Rajapaksa had Buckley's chance of winning the war. The diplomats in Colombo, bamboozled by briefings of NGO pundits and media hacks, were positive that Mahinda Rajapaksa would end up with a "bloody nose" and withdraw into a no-win stalemate.
He began hesitantly but as he matured with his "gahuwoth gahanawa" (if-you-hit-me-I'll-hit-you) policy he took on just not Prabhakaran but the whole world, His greatness outshines that of any other leader purely on the strength of defying the global powers and waging a war that could be won only on the power and the will of the people. This makes his decisive victory over Prabhakaran almost a bonus of secondary importance. At the end of see-sawing battles, with meddlesome interlopers prescribing recipes that never worked, he decided to end the bloody war once and for all his way - and he did it.
He arrived on the scene as the right man, at the right time, in the right place with the right attitude and the right lieutenants to back him all the way. There is, of course, this conundrum in history, which is not yet settled, as to whether the evolving historical forces make the man or whether the man makes history. It is possible to argue on both sides and conclude that the outcome is a combination of both factors.
There are also various schools of thought in history propounding various theories as to what happened in history. Anyone is free to pick their own fanciful theory, from divine intervention to materialist concept in the Marxist school. Though the arguments are plausible none of these is yet to find the key to unlock the mysteries of history. In its own subterranean ways, history has a way of picking its man to fit the needs of the moment. How open-ended history which has the potential to go every way suddenly stops and decides to pick a man from nowhere to shape the destiny of humanity (Example: Jesus who came from an obscure manger had an impact on history in a way that all the kings and queens born in palaces, the centers of power, could never achieve) is a mystery that is yet to be resolved. It baffles me no end.
Mahinda Rajapakse is one such leader picked by history. At this critical moment in Sri Lanka it is unarguable that the forces that made Mahinda Rajapaksa and unmade Prabhakaran ran on parallel lines. There was a symbiotic, ying-yang relationship where the two forces wrestled with each other and only one won because, as determined by the laws of history, at the very top there is room only for one and not two. This confirms the old Chinese adage which says that there can't be two tigers in one mountain.
The arrival of Mahinda Rajapaksa on the Presidential throne was in itself an intriguing saga. The intricate and the invisible hand that moved all the pieces on the chessboard, leading finally, through a seemingly open selection process, to pick him out of the competing rivals, both within the confines of the Party and finally in the open and deciding electoral arena, is something close to an act of destiny working in mysterious ways. It is as if that inexplicable "Hidden Force" in history that processes and selects from the mass of men the chosen historical figures to fulfill its missions, had bestowed all its blessings on him as the man destined to deliver Sri Lanka from the curse of a 33-year old war.
What is remarkable about President Rajapaksa is the role he played as the magnet to attract the forces that were necessary to put together a wining team to liberate Sri Lanka. Equally remarkable is the way he defeated all the hostile forces that came up against him. No doubt his main target was Prabhakaran but to get to Prabhakaran he had to fight many forces on the way to Killinochchi and finally to the beaches of Nanthikadal where the guns were silenced ceremoniously on May 20 by the forces who had heroically finished the task assigned to them. .
The war was costly. But the peace that follows would offset all the costs. The silencing of the guns on both sides was possible only because of the war waged by Mahinda Rajapaksa. War was inevitable for the simple reason that separatism and violence are inseparable. No sovereign state would yield any part of its territory to an armed group that is bent on imposing their will, overriding the democratic will of all the peace-loving peoples.
It is, therefore, unarguable that the Jaffna Tamil leadership which provided the ideological, financial and political backing to the war declared in the Vadukoddai Resolution must accept full responsibility for the consequences faced by the people they misled. The subsequent war waged by successive governments was necessary to end the violent politics of one armed group that refused to abide by the international, regional and national peace agreements. The ultimate path to end the war was led by President Rajapaksa. Whether we like him or not, whether we agree with his politics and tactics or not we have to agree that we owe him an eternal debt of gratitude for ending the carnage.
To him I offer this hand-picked lotus - the symbol of peace in our culture.
Historical comparisons are inevitable because the similarities can explain the confused present with the experiences and the meanings of the more settled past. In one sense, it can be argued that Mahinda Rajapaksa has repeated all over again the history of Dutugemunu. Both felt choked by the prevailing political forces restricting territorial integrity and national sovereignty. Both were engaged in the identical kind of wars to defend the nation. Both adopted down-to-earth strategies to defeat enemies of the nation. Both fought to restore territorial integrity and national sovereignty over every inch of land. Both were committed to reinforce the principle that this island belongs to those who were willing to call it their home, no matter from where they came. Both rejected the idea of dividing the nation into mythical fragments.
Both embraced Tamils as a respectable part of the nation. When Dutugemunu erected a monument to King Elara he not only paid the highest tribute to the Tamils but also confirmed that the Tamils too have a dignified place in Sri Lankan culture. In my childhood pilgrimages to the Sacred City I still remember the drummers silencing their drums as we all filed passed the tomb of Elara, carrying alms to the neighbouring temple. It was solemn moment that instilled in me tolerance and respect for another culture, another religion, another non-Sinhalese who deserved our respect for being a just and fair human being.
However, in comparing Rajapaksa with Dutugemunu - a comparison drawn not to sound triumphalistic trumpets but to assess their roles in shaping the history of Sri Lanka - the question arises as to who could be greater. Future students of history sitting for the examinations are likely to face questions like: Compare and contrast the achievements of Dutugemunu and Rajapaksa. Despite possibilities of this question being invidious and controversial - in the prevailing political climate it even has racial undertones -- it is an issue that is bound to crop up in future assessments of their roles, considering that the tasks they faced in regaining Sri Lanka were gigantic. My firm bias is to declare Mahinda Rajapaksa as the one who outshines Dutugemunu.
Some of the common and differentiating factors faced by both will affirm this assessment:
Dutugemunu did not have a minority, backed by foreign forces, to appease.
Dutugemunu never had to face the might of the foreign superpowers of the day which went all out to tie the hands of Mahinda Rajapaksa every inch of the way.
Dutugemunu never faced internal hostile forces as Mahinda Rajapaksa did from the UNP and even Chandrika Kumaratunga, the head of the party.
Dutugemunu did not have to face a hostile Parliament or a misguided media baying at him, going all out for his blood.
Though both wars had the popular support of the people Dutugemunu did not encounter the financial threats coming from abroad to wage the war.
By and large the international dimensions of the war, which involved the foreign-funded NGOs, foreign media, and foreign interventionists who stepped in as "facilitators" and openly sided with the enemies of the nation, were absent in the war waged by Dutugemunu.
No foreign or local entity intervened to stop the war until it was fought to a finish.
In the case of Dutugemunu the modalities of waging a war were not restrained by issues of human rights and other instruments of international interventions. Issues of human rights were self-imposed and it was exercised by Dutugemunu when he proposed a one-to-one combat to avoid an unnecessary blood bath. Mahinda Rajapaksa granted two humanitarian pauses to let the Tamil civilians out.
The only opposition came initially from his pacifist father, Kavantissa, and later from his ambitious brother, Tissa, who challenged Dutugemunu's claim to the throne.
But as opposed to Tissa, Mahinda Rajapaksa had the active backing of all his brothers which is comparable to the Kennedy family who rallied behind their iconic John Kennedy. The Rajapaksa family (which the UNP derided as Rajapaksa Bros & Co) proved to be one of the best blessings that sustained and carried the nation through the rough and tough times. .
Dutugemunu had ten giants. Mahinda Rajapaksa had only five: a) Gotabaya Rajapaksa; b) Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, the Army Commander, c) Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda; d) Roshan Gunathilake, the Air Force Commander and e) Basil Rajapaksa.
Both came from the south and marched up to end the illegal occupation of territory by anti-national forces.
Both faced Sinhala generals in the northern camp. But Mahinda Rajapaksa faced Sinhala generals not in Prabhakaran's army but in NGOs, academia, churches and media. In the guise of protecting human rights and the political rights of only one minority community in the north - the most privileged community at that - they fought ideological battles both at home and abroad to weaken the centre and strengthen the periphery in the north and the east.
Both exuded the confidence of a driven leader determined to end the forces that crippled the nation.
Both jumped into the war with both feet, determined to define the nation as they knew it to be, or ought to be.
Considering the forces opposing Mahinda Rajapaksa within the nation his decision to take on "the invincible" political deity of the North was a huge gamble. The prevailing wisdom had surrendered to the belief that Prabhakaran had fortified himself solidly inside an impregnable fortress built by the popular will of the Tamils and consolidated by a military balance commensurate with that of the Sri Lankan forces. This belief was reinforced by the failure of his predecessors to defeat Prabhakaran. The general consensus was that Mahinda Rajapaksa had Buckley's chance of winning the war. The diplomats in Colombo, bamboozled by briefings of NGO pundits and media hacks, were positive that Mahinda Rajapaksa would end up with a "bloody nose" and withdraw into a no-win stalemate.
He began hesitantly but as he matured with his "gahuwoth gahanawa" (if-you-hit-me-I'll-hit-you) policy he took on just not Prabhakaran but the whole world, His greatness outshines that of any other leader purely on the strength of defying the global powers and waging a war that could be won only on the power and the will of the people. This makes his decisive victory over Prabhakaran almost a bonus of secondary importance. At the end of see-sawing battles, with meddlesome interlopers prescribing recipes that never worked, he decided to end the bloody war once and for all his way - and he did it.
He arrived on the scene as the right man, at the right time, in the right place with the right attitude and the right lieutenants to back him all the way. There is, of course, this conundrum in history, which is not yet settled, as to whether the evolving historical forces make the man or whether the man makes history. It is possible to argue on both sides and conclude that the outcome is a combination of both factors.
There are also various schools of thought in history propounding various theories as to what happened in history. Anyone is free to pick their own fanciful theory, from divine intervention to materialist concept in the Marxist school. Though the arguments are plausible none of these is yet to find the key to unlock the mysteries of history. In its own subterranean ways, history has a way of picking its man to fit the needs of the moment. How open-ended history which has the potential to go every way suddenly stops and decides to pick a man from nowhere to shape the destiny of humanity (Example: Jesus who came from an obscure manger had an impact on history in a way that all the kings and queens born in palaces, the centers of power, could never achieve) is a mystery that is yet to be resolved. It baffles me no end.
Mahinda Rajapakse is one such leader picked by history. At this critical moment in Sri Lanka it is unarguable that the forces that made Mahinda Rajapaksa and unmade Prabhakaran ran on parallel lines. There was a symbiotic, ying-yang relationship where the two forces wrestled with each other and only one won because, as determined by the laws of history, at the very top there is room only for one and not two. This confirms the old Chinese adage which says that there can't be two tigers in one mountain.
The arrival of Mahinda Rajapaksa on the Presidential throne was in itself an intriguing saga. The intricate and the invisible hand that moved all the pieces on the chessboard, leading finally, through a seemingly open selection process, to pick him out of the competing rivals, both within the confines of the Party and finally in the open and deciding electoral arena, is something close to an act of destiny working in mysterious ways. It is as if that inexplicable "Hidden Force" in history that processes and selects from the mass of men the chosen historical figures to fulfill its missions, had bestowed all its blessings on him as the man destined to deliver Sri Lanka from the curse of a 33-year old war.
What is remarkable about President Rajapaksa is the role he played as the magnet to attract the forces that were necessary to put together a wining team to liberate Sri Lanka. Equally remarkable is the way he defeated all the hostile forces that came up against him. No doubt his main target was Prabhakaran but to get to Prabhakaran he had to fight many forces on the way to Killinochchi and finally to the beaches of Nanthikadal where the guns were silenced ceremoniously on May 20 by the forces who had heroically finished the task assigned to them. .
The war was costly. But the peace that follows would offset all the costs. The silencing of the guns on both sides was possible only because of the war waged by Mahinda Rajapaksa. War was inevitable for the simple reason that separatism and violence are inseparable. No sovereign state would yield any part of its territory to an armed group that is bent on imposing their will, overriding the democratic will of all the peace-loving peoples.
It is, therefore, unarguable that the Jaffna Tamil leadership which provided the ideological, financial and political backing to the war declared in the Vadukoddai Resolution must accept full responsibility for the consequences faced by the people they misled. The subsequent war waged by successive governments was necessary to end the violent politics of one armed group that refused to abide by the international, regional and national peace agreements. The ultimate path to end the war was led by President Rajapaksa. Whether we like him or not, whether we agree with his politics and tactics or not we have to agree that we owe him an eternal debt of gratitude for ending the carnage.
To him I offer this hand-picked lotus - the symbol of peace in our culture.
