REPLY TO DR. DAYAN JAYATILLEKA.
I am surprised at the response of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka to my reply appearing in The Island of 31st July 2008. He has deviated from his original subject of “In defence of Hon. Douglas Devananda” to a new subject. “In defence of devolution within a Unitary State”. Having said all that appeared in his imaginations about me, some of which are far from the truth, he is now trying to explain to me about devolution in a Unitary State, which is a subject discussed or debated almost everyday in the media. Further more I wish to tell him that I have a clear understanding of the difference between a Federal Constitution and a Unitary one. Enough had been also said for and against these two doctrines but my problem is devolution of power in a Unitary State in relation to our country and the problem we face.
I do not want to enter into a debate on this subject either with Dr. Dayan or with anybody else. My ideas are not new. I had been writing all these years very carefully without hurting anybody and without causing embarrassment to anyone or getting into any controversy. I have written hundreds of articles making my views known to the people of Sri Lanka. I had also repeatedly and convincingly given my reasons for holding those views explaining clearly as to why I take this stand. Hardly anyone including Dr. Dayan criticised me all these years for holding views against the Unitary Constitution in relation to Sri Lanka. There was absolutely no need for Dr. Dayan to defend me at any time. Anything good he said about me in the past was spontaneous and in appreciation of my views. It is he who has changed now and not I. Even those writers who had views radically opposed to mine had very politely drawn my attention to their views and to the disadvantages of the system I support, as they understood it. Contrary to this approach Dr. Dayan’s outburst appears to me as something gushing out from his heart due to some sentimental compulsions. Dr. Dayan must be the last person to criticise me for my views, as a journalist, because he knows very well my views for a number of years and had more than once, sincerely suggested to the authorities, that my participation in finding a solution to the ethnic problem, will help. I should have under normal circumstances ignored his reference to me. But unfortunately since Dr. Dayan is now on a very important diplomatic assignment, I had to exonerate myself from his allegations, which the International Community would have believed as coming from the Ambassador representing Sri Lanka. It could also be interpreted as Government views. His unwanted comments had considerably damaged my reputation as a moderate senior Tamil Politician of some standing. Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka should have diplomatically avoided getting involved in defence of Hon. Douglas Devananda.
I wish to tell Dr. Dayan that I do not dispute his right to say any thing in praise of Hon. Douglas Devananda. But he should not have unnecessarily dragged me into this controversy to boost him at my expense. He should know that I could have written much more about him but I did not do so for reasons best known for everybody. Dr. Dayan should know that I am not running after positions but only want to re-install Democracy, which got eroded to a great extent with Hon. Devananda’s entry into Parliament in 1994, with eight others, obtaining a total of only eight thousand odd votes, out of a total of over five hundred thousand votes. Let Dr. Dayan not make things worse by dragging in, His Excellency the President into this mess created by him. I am contended that I have done some good to His Excellency the President by giving him a timely warning. The President is fully aware that Democracy had been kept in pitch Dark in the North, for a considerable period. The people who had lost their democratic rights now want to enjoy all rights
I plead with Dr. Dayan to leave me alone to continue with my task I am engaged in, at very grave risk to my life. I humbly request him to go through a few of the many articles written by me and he is sure to find the answers that he wants. As to who is a moderate acceptable to all can be left to the people to decide. I may be wrong, but I am of the opinion that in fairness to the Sri Lankan society, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka being a Diplomat should avoid writing anything and calling it as “The views expressed here are the writers personal ones”.
Mr. Stanley Weerasinghe of Pannipitiya wants to know something about me. I request him also to enjoy the liberally of criticising me after reading atleast some of my articles most of which appeared in the form of letters. Only then one will know what I really say and why I say so.
Once again I reiterate that whatever solution found should be within a United Sri Lanka and a permanent one acceptable to all, without leaving room for any future agitation. I love this country as my own where I like to live and breath my last peacefully, which is possible only in a contended society where we all can live as Sri Lankans, enjoying all rights equally with the others and not as Sinhalese or Muslims or Tamils. If I am wrong in yearning for it I many be hanged at Galle Face. I do not want to reply anybody anymore on this subject.
V. Anandasangaree,
President – TULF.
