5 Responses to “An election supplement to “Rajapakse, regional politics, “Eurocentric Developmentalism” and the western hegemony. Part 4”

1. Fran Diaz Says:
   April 7th, 2010 at 7:19 am

   Geethanjana’s article is full of exciting new possibilities. We thank him for these views and hope that the President & GoSL will take serious note of it.

2. Priyantha Abeywickrama Says:
   April 7th, 2010 at 5:48 pm

   I fully agree with your article content. Before going to write my comment, I would appreciate if you could drop the Buddhist idea that Sinhala people exploded into existence, just after Buddhism, a pure myth, and to dig deep into pre-Buddhist history of Sinhala people. I am reading a book written by someone called Dr. Sooriya Gunasekara for a very specific technological comparison, which could be a good start. It is very hard to put together historical notes without some other knowledge, but it gives a proper account of some historical events found using another specific process.

   You say “We must dream, must dream big, without loosing the ground.” It is a good start. I like to see it more like we must do big things BY OURSELVES, such as finding alternatives to what we do today (may be one of the hardest or the easiest), to live a long life ( a virtual life), creating the perfect being and to find space to live in other planets (to humanise the whole universe). One benefit of such endeavours is that we come up with things more tangible in the short term and never go to waste in the long term. Westerners who tried their best to be the Best by buying into other people’s knowledge have miserably failed and are trying to take us down to abyss with them. Obviously, what they do never work because their approach is fundamentally flawed.

   You mentioned about “Aqua phobia”, something that I am suffering from and about “the need to build our own ships ”. It has an interesting, or more accurately some horrible origin, that drove fear into our conscience. Aqua-life for humans is essentially a very high risk challenge. The technology that we have is essentially primitive and enhances our fear. As well, it is a life and death choice that we would hardly make. Having tried a lot to find my own fear, I can tell that we have new technology (I cannot dream as I am not warranted due to my professional obligations), that takes off all the risks to life. Imagine you travel in a craft that sinks to the bottom of the sea and still you survive. We have to be within our cultural precincts to judge ourselves. We, as a nation, never encourage risking life in any form or shape, for good or bad, something special, that is ignored in other cultures.

   Apparently, one of my contentions, a desire to build what humanity offered during the last ten thousand years is adopted by some of your politicians though they are not different to the Colombian group you mentioned. Just think of how they do things with aliens. Being more close to the area of building and conceptualisation (dreaming), I can say that it is very practical and applicable to our people who have the desire to learn and live. If we had our way as we planned just after the victory of MR, we are already in the process to achieve much more than what you envisage. Sadly, people you see are not the people they actually are who try to be … Unfortunately, we are still short of finding a way to feed knowledge and skills to people who do not have it or not willing to acquire. I do not think that giving up is our nature though there are many among us of alien extraction who made us to look like that.

   Your reference to the ocean is very appropriate. If your politicians (in this case CBK) were willing to do something good for the country, you could have home-grown oil exploration technology, both onshore and offshore as early as by 1994-96. Nobody can give any thing if you do not want it.

   When you say “Can’t”, it has some truth in it. Those who say “can’t” should be acknowledged for what they are. Any body can tell that we need this and that. Only a few can deliver. It is a fact, both in the East and the West. Being involved in such tasks labelled by others as can’t, both in the East and the West, I must admit that we need to have something special to say “Can”. It is very easy to acquire if you go back in history and figure out how we started to do things that we take for granted today. In fact we should say “Can do better”.

   It is great to hear that “We need people who can be a part of this dream, and set realistic targets to reach our goals.” By the way, can you tell me any target that is unrealistic? I doubt we have the human capabilities to tell things beyond what is essentially realistic.

   Unfortunately, biggest problem is not what we can do, but how we can protect what we offer. I have already experienced the pain of giving things to the country. You know very well that intellectual property is very valuable and westerners can get it for money just the way they got many of our ancient knowledge in medicine and technology with the help of low life living among us taking many shapes and forms, from top academics to lowly treasure hunters. The worst is to see some political scum ruining such value added proposals by misunderstanding/not understanding.

   Aqua Phobia is a result of a great calamity that has a greater importance to direct us to some very important historical event that turned us into what we are today. Our history is not just what we say about ourselves. But there are other who tell about us. Sometimes, they know better because calamities that affect us did not affect them and they remained to tell our story. I suggest you to follow this hint to find more about our ancient ship building capacity and this tragedy of our own making probably because at that time we were more adventurous. As I said in my last feed back, we can do much more than what we really think. Only problem that stand in our way is the lack of opportunity for those who can do it.

3. Ratanapala Says:
   April 9th, 2010 at 3:37 am

   I am taking liberty to attach below a fine article by Kamalika Pieris – Sailing Craft in Ancient Sri Lanka – that might throw some light on the lost technologies of our ancestors.

   I quite disagree with Priyantha above on his denial of the central role played by Buddhism that brought about the golden age of Sri Lanka.

   There is no argument that whom we call Sinhalese are a throughly mixed race of people. We are the assimilation of thousands of years of human migration through our land including when our land was one with the Indian continent during the ice ages only 10,000 years ago. It is easily seen in our history, our faces and in our demeanor. We are a people who became Sinhalese ( very much similar to those who are becoming Americans today) rather than an imaginary pure race of people inhabiting the island from times immemorial with no assimilation.

   Our common identity and trademark is Sinhala the language that we speak and our Sinhala (Hela Buddhist) Culture. It is the advent of Buddhism to the island that gave our culture its final polish and shine. The whole of the Buddhist cannon – the Tripitaka was in Sinhala before it was translated to Pali two thousand years ago.

   We have a fair share of Dravidian blood as well as of many others in the region. Even today there are those who are in the process of becoming “Sinhalese”! The strength of the Sinhala identity is its inclusiveness and not vice versa. All of us together we have something to be proud of that requires sustenance and protection.

   It is this very fact that our distracters, mainly the Christian Church and the Christian Powers cannot tolerate and are at pains to deny our very identity and uniqueness through their agents who come in various guises. They come with many concocted theories to cause distraction to the unwary.

   The trouble with Ealamist Tamils (who now make up not more than 10% of the population) is that they are trying to negate this reality to suit their lack of a viable history and the agenda of the Western Christian powers for the region.

   Let the new regime understand this reality and take requisite measures to protect and foster what makes the Sri Lankans, their history, culture and inclusiveness truly unique among peoples of the world.

   Sailing craft in ancient Sri Lanka
   by Kamalika Pieris
   C W. Nicholas remarked that the first thing that the early immigrants to Sri Lanka had to know was how to cross the sea, because that was the only way they could get here. The distance by sea was about 1500 miles. Therefore, the settlers had to be expert seafarers who knew shipbuilding and the art of navigating. Once they got here the numerous bays, harbours, estuaries, and navigable rivers in the island would have encouraged further use of sea and river transport. (Nicholas p 79)
   References to sea-going craft are available from about first century AD. The Pali text Summohavinodini talks of a raft used by monks to go to India in the reign of Vattagamani (103 BC). This raft which was constructed at Jambukola had three decks. Monks were on the second deck while the third held the luggage. The first deck was below water. The voyage was so perilous that some monks decided not to go. Paranavitana found an inscription in Duvegala in Polonnaruwa district that carried a picture of a vessel with high prows and a single mast. Pliny writing in the first century AD said that the ships of Sri Lanka had a capacity of 75 tons. They had prows at each end to enable them to avoid turning in treacherously narrow straits. (Gunawardana p 3-5)
   Two inscriptions dated to the 1st century BC or earlier, one in Paramakanda in Peravili Hatpattu of the Puttalam district and the other at Maligatanna in Kurunegala district refer to highborn persons who were mariners. From the latter inscription, we also know that Sinhala mariners engaged in voyages to the western parts of India. Pliny confirmed that mariners from Sri Lanka were sailing in the Indian Ocean. (Gunawardana p 3-4)
   Diplomatic missions and clashes with kings of other countries indicate that the Sinhala kings used ships to a considerable extent. The Mahavansa is full of sea journeys. King Bhatika abhaya (22 BC – 07 AD) sent a diplomatic mission to Rome. The Sinhala kings also sent diplomatic missions to Byzantium (Turkey), China, Indonesia, Medina, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam. According to the Chulavamsa, voyages between Sri Lanka and Myanmar had become quite frequent by the time of Parakramabahu I. There were many missions to China in the 7th and 8th centuries. (Gunawardana p 6).
   Ships were also used for coastal surveillance. Mogallana I (495-512 AD) and Silakala (518- 531) instituted a ‘watch of the sea’ for which they would have had to employ many ships. Sinhala kings had on several occasions intervened in South Indian politics by sending armies across. Sena II (853- 885) sent troops to support the Pandyan king Varaguna II. Nissanka malla (1187-1196) sent a naval force to Rameswaram. Parakramabahu V (1412-1467) sent another to Adriampet, South India because Sinhala traders had been humiliated there.
   Parakramabahu I (1153-1186) had a sea fight with Gajabahu of Rajarata. He also carried out an invasion of Burma, using a flotilla of ships. He dispatched armies to South India as well. These kings did not have a navy. They simply mobilised merchant ships, many of them privately owned, whenever they needed them. (Nicholas p 90, Gunawardana p 13).
   For a long time, the Sinhalese took their commodities by sea to the ports in India to be sold there. This would have called for seaworthy craft. Then in the sixth century, Sri Lanka, having become the centre of east-west trade, started to send its own ships to China, Java, Malacca, Myanmar, Thailand and other Asian countries, to bring back goods for re-export to the west. Cosmas, an Egyptian traveller, recorded in the sixth century that Sri Lanka had sent out many trading ships to foreign ports. Procopius also writing in the same century said that silk from China was conveyed in Indian and Sri Lankan ships. (Gunawardana p 20) An inscription at Tiriyaya, dated to seventh or eighth century, talks of merchants in sailing vessels navigating the sea skilfully. (Ariyapala p 335.)
   In the eighth century, it was reported that of all the ships in the Indian Ocean, the ships from Sri Lanka were the largest. They were about 200 feet long and were able to carry seven to eight hundred men. They had stairways for loading and unloading which were several tens of feet in height. (Sri Lanka and Silk Road of the sea p 30-31, 127.) The ships continued to stay large. In the 12th century, they were used to get down elephants from Burma. On one particular journey, 14 elephants were imported, not necessarily in the same ship. In the 13th century, the Pujavaliya referred to mariners sailing in the ocean with raised sails fastened and adjusted by cords, carrying oars and spars on board and guided by the stars. Sri Lanka’s position in international trade started to fade by the end of the 14th century. (Gunawardana p 10. 24.32-33.)
   A thriving ship building industry developed between 11th and 13th centuries. Arab ships from Oman and Yemen used to visit Sri Lanka in the 11th century to obtain items needed for ships such as rope, timber for planing and trunks of coconut trees for masts and to place orders for ships which were to be constructed there. In the 13 century Bhuvanekabahu I contacted the Mamluk rulers of Egypt and offered to construct twenty vessels each year for them saying that he had sufficient timber for the purpose. This provides a clue to our ship building capability of the time. The sultans would have wanted large ships. (Gunawardana p 11-12, 27.)
   A wide variety of timbers suitable for making ships were available in Sri Lanka, particularly ‘in the south-western ports of the island. They included del., domba and kos. Domba was valued for its flexibility. Del had a lime content in its fibre, which made it resistant to shipworms. Certain types of timber used for masts were considered by later shipwrights to be superior to those found in the west coast of India, which was the usual source for such supplies. Sailing craft were constructed without using nails. They were held together by coir yam and wooden pins. The country best known for coconut cordage was Laccadives, but Sri Lanka came a good second. Coir is saline friendly. Cordage was also made from creepers and barks of trees and coconut oil was used for oiling the ropes. (Gunawardana p 11-12, Uragoda p 192.)
   Three specimens of ancient craft have been found in recent times. A very large boat with outrigger attached dated to 3rd century BC was discovered at Kelanimulla ferry in 1952. Then came the discovery at Attangalu oya of a big ship with walls and a room, about 60 feet long, dated to 9th century AD. Thereafter the gem miners in Kuruwita found a craft considered to be older than the first two. The first two items are in the Colombo Museum and the third is at Ratnapura Museum. (Devendra. 2004 p 141)
   Somasiri Devendra states that the Sinhalese had a long-standing tradition of shipbuilding technology. They were interested in shell based watercraft that derived buoyancy from the whole vessel and not from that of its individual parts. Starting with a hollowed out log, they moved on to the outrigger canoe and thereafter to shell built, caravel planked ships. This was not an accidental process. It was based upon experience and experimentation. Sri Lanka was at the centre of the sea routes and therefore our shipbuilders could observe shipbuilding technologies of other countries. They developed technical devices that are admired even today. The ancient ship builder, he said, was no primitive experimenter. The sailing craft they designed have been in use in the island up to the middle of the 20th century. (Devendra 2004 p 142)
   The traditional modes of river transport known to us today are the pahura, (raft) teppama, (log raft) paruwa, (flat-bottomed barge), and angula (double canoe). For sea going there was the oruwa (outrigger canoe) and the yatra dhoni. Devendra says our watercraft evolved from oruwa to paru to yatra dhoni. They all stem from a log boat tradition. The madel paru, which is used to transport seine net from the river to the sea, is unique to Sri Lanka. It is not found anywhere else in the world. A ‘purely Sri Lanka genesis’ may eventually emerge for the paruwa as well. The paruwa is primarily a cargo carrier for rivers and canals. (Devendra, 1.992, 1995)
   The ‘oruwa’ is undoubtedly the most versatile item in this group. The ‘oru’ ranged in size from the frail and simple pila oru about five feet in length, which could be rowed easily over shallow waters to the sturdy 30-ft hadi oru or bala oru of the western and southern coasts, that could carry a crew of eight and weather monsoonal storms of the open sea thirty miles from land. The oruwa was used for deep-sea fishing as well as fishing in bays, lagoons, estuaries and the inland tanks. It was also used for net fishing and in certain localities, for taking the seine net to out to sea. (Vitharana. p. vi. 19)
   James Hornell, who had served in Ceylon in the 1930s, and was a specialist in the comparative study of watercraft, called the oruwa, the ‘national and dominant design.’ The oruwa is a dug out log, mounted with a vertical pair of wooden boards that flank the opening of the hull from stern to stem. This increases the depth of the boat, improves its capacity, and prevents waves breaking in. A pair of arched wooden spars connects and permanently fixes the outrigger to the hull. This single outrigger craft is the fastest traditional craft in the world.
   This canoe is extensively used in the Polynesian, Melanesian and Micronesian regions of the Pacific Ocean, the Andaman, and Nicobar Islands, Pakistan, Kerala and Sri Lanka. It is considered to be of ancient origin. Vitarana compared the different types and concluded that the oruwa probably originated in Sri Lanka about 2000 years ago and the idea was thereafter picked up by other countries in the Indian and Pacific Ocean. The word ‘oru’ and the terminology connected with it are indigenous. F. J. Mount in his book on the Andaman Islands suggests that the Andaman canoe was a copy of the Sinhala one. Cordiner, Tennent, and Cave referred to this canoe as Sinhalese fishing boat. (Vitarana p vii 15, 16, 59)
   The oruwa has been praised as elegant, original, neat and correct in principle. (Uragoda p 193). It had been designed to suit local conditions. The Sri Lankan sea had shallow waters, with heavy surf close to land. There were off shore reefs and sand spits at the mouth of the lagoons. The Arabian sea and Bay of Bengal met in Sri Lanka and the island had strong currents that changed abruptly within short distances and short periods of time. A shallow draught vessel, with a tough hull was required. The oruwa was of extremely shallow draught and able to skim over the surface of the sea. It was flexible enough to take the inshore waves head on and tough bottomed enough to cross sand spits at low tide. Use of coconut fibre cords resistant to degradation in salt water, provided the strength to deal with the surf. The oruwa did not need an anchor, it stood upright on the shore.
   The boats were usually built by those who used them and the techniques were passed down by oral tradition. Each component of the oruwa was made out of a choice of two or three carefully selected types of local wood. There was del and kos for the hull , kohomba and lunumidella for the outrigger, domba or mara for the oru handle. The result was a rich variety of timbers ranging from heavy wood like jak to the lighter katu imbul or lunumidella. In addition to strength and durability at sea, availability close to the sea would also have affected the choice of wood. In one instance, 28 types of wood were used for 11 separate parts of the ship. C. G. Uragoda remarked that ‘centuries of experimentation would have gone into the adoption of an acceptable formula for the size, weight and, variety of timber used for these components.’ The oruwa could stand up to the worst weather and if well built, would last for about 25 years, with a little maintenance. (Uragoda p 193-194, Vitarana p. ii 30, 37, 39, 55, 59, 60)
   Vitarana did a survey and found that the oru was known to the majority of the fishing villages. It was in use along the west south and east coast starting from Kandakuli near Puttalam, passing Galle, Batticaloa and finishing up at Trincomalee. He does not give the date of the survey. The Sinhala fishermen were very dextrous and adventurous in the use of the oru. They would go out regardless of the distance, weather, time, or nature of the sea. Until recently, in the south-western region, an oru could be found in practically every house which was close to a river. The oruwa was at one time exported to the Ramnad area in India. (Gunawardana p 5. Vitarana p 30, 55-56, 59-60)
   The outrigger canoe design was also used for the construction of a larger craft known as yatra oruwa or yatra dhoni. This yatra is the most advanced of the indigenous sailing craft. It had two masts and a single outrigger. There are others like it in the belt from East Africa to Oceania but the rest all have two outriggers. There is no information as to when the yatra dhoni first evolved in Sri Lanka, but Vitarana says that the yatra is also of ancient vintage. He says that products from the east coast found their way to the south for centuries by yatra. (Vitarana p 67,72)
   The yatra was in use until the end of the 1930s after which it went out of vogue. They were used as cargo ships between India, the Maldives, and Malacca. They also transported goods along the shores of Sri Lanka. Salted fish, cloth, tea and rice from Burma were conveyed from Galle to Tangalla by yatra. One merchant had had his own vessels for the purpose, which he also used for transporting salt from Hambantota to other parts of the south coast. There is a 100-year-old yatra dhoni at Kumarakande Pirivena, Dodanduwa, built around 1890, Dodanduwa has been the leading yatra port. It had served about 40 yatras in the 1930s, Dodanduwa also had a dockyard where they built yatra. (Vitarana p 65-66, Devendra 2004 p 132)
   R. A. L. H. Gunawardana challenged the statement made by August Toussaint in 1966 that Sinhalese were not interested in seafaring and that its navigators were foreign and so were its boats (Toussaint p 4.). He pointed out that it was not possible for a people living in an island located in the middle of the Indian Ocean to show no interest in the sea, particularly when that island was also an important centre of international commerce and trade. Shipbuilding continued into modem times, but in a diminished form. An involution had set in, pushing back our knowledge of shipbuilding to what it had been long before the 8th century, when the largest ships arriving at Chinese ports were from Sri Lanka. (Gunawardana p 1, 33.)

4. Priyantha Abeywickrama Says:
   April 10th, 2010 at 6:42 am

   Refer comment by Ratanpala, I can say one thing about sea craft. Who better knows than someone who has developed a brand new way of sea travel to tell the history. Please try to find a brand new way for sea travel to realise how clear the history is for you. Most of the content in your historical attachment are very recent in historical terms. Have you seen any documentary on how English build sea craft using timber? Have you noticed how close the techniques are to native Sinhala wood working methods (I mean people who do it according to their inherited traditions)?

   I can not tell exactly what kind of “central role played by Buddhism” other than saying it did exactly what other alien religionists trying to do? I wish you had read my previous comments on this aspect. We lost our history, our original alphabet, many of our people and almost the country in the pursuit of this belief. There is a big difference between Kavun (knowledge) and Kavun lazed with deadly poison though they may look the same. Historical events that led to our current plight tells exactly who contributed most. If you read the Mahavamsa (Maha vansa), the tone of the text in the early part tells a lot more about the history than anything else.

   The claim “There is no argument that whom we call Sinhalese are a thoroughly mixed race of people.” is naive and an insult to humanity. Did you borrow this suicidal concept from English? We need a mother and a father to make a child. Though we call the offspring is their child, the truth is it has its own way and never equals to half of father or half of mother. EVERY LIFE IS UNIQUE. We always had migrants who came and went. What happens today is also history if someone fast forward the time by few thousand years. The argument that what is not true today was true yesterday is very silly. I even suggest that time has no effect on humanity. Unfortunately I can not reveal some facts that would highlight your fallacy. But, have you forgotten that we are made of what we eat, in the first place? So you tell that every creature is the same. Or every animal is made as a mixture of every animal and tree. Then why they are unique and different? If you follow this hint you will find something more interesting to prove my comment. So what makes people to claim ethnic identity? If you think mixing occurs, then you forget that there is rejection. Obviously your naive comment suggests that you have no close relationship with native Sinhala families. How much dissent we carry towards mixed people is even evident from migrants who live in the west. I hear very funny dissenting words from some parents living in the west though they could meet your description. To say the least, the vast majority of the people who migrate are the once who become strangers in their own birthplace due to mixing. Please read Travel notes by Shelton and tell why he went to US after being fed up in AU. We speak for ourselves. Migration is a big fat lie propagated by English to hide their crime. What happened was very slow natural expansion globally, not migration. All those migrants who came to settle down in Lanka died within a short time and took away many Sinhala lives who got mixed. Instead of propagating western and alien hubris, why you can not see for yourself on how people treat others? Out true history, our faces, our conduct etc. tell a very strange story. In fact, I can offer very clear means to find authenticity of a human who may claim to any identity. Thinking is one of the prominent tools that define uniqueness of humanity and it is not transferable from parents to children. Only a Sinhala can Think like Sinhala. That applies to every other ethnic group as well. If it was not the case, we could have been like photocopies.

   You say “We are a people who became Sinhalese (very much similar to those who are becoming Americans today) rather than an imaginary pure race of people inhabiting the island from times immemorial with no assimilation.” This is a sign of repeating the same things going beyond this life time. Repetition does not make us smart. Are you out of your mind to equate Sinhala people with Americans. What do Americans speak? Do they speak Americana? Again, you are caught up in English propaganda designed to hide their heinous crimes. Most of NESB migrants are just the modern version of slaves going to become English subjects. So all sorts of migrant scum came to Lanka and created Sinhala language, only language that does not use breathing to pronounce words (try my surname), which I consider the most advanced language for my own reasons. Essentially migrants carry nothing except cultural baggage to the next destination. Their children give way to new culture. Why not check yourself from migrants, not just Sinhala, but from many ethnic backgrounds.

   “Buddhism gave Sinhala culture its final polish and shine”. It may be why Buddhist monks bless those going to war (It is for killing), quite contrary to their religious doctrines. Some even dared to push a king over a cliff to protect Sinhala people. I wish you read comments made by local people during the baby elephant saga. I suggest that Sinhala are very tolerant as long as anyone toes their line. Why not try telling them to practice your principles by asking to give away the north and east to gain a lot of “pin”. You can definitely see the true Sinhala face. Do you know why other alien religionists failed to convert Sinhala people? If Sinhala people know what other religions preach, they will be history. You are accommodated because your religion carries a lot of ancient Sinhala wisdom. But only a few knows that it also carries some Hindu venom. I do not understand why Sinhala people need these alien faiths because they have the best of the best beliefs that humanity can ever expect. I mean the belief in life and living longer. That is what “Ayubowan” means.

   Going back to ship building, there is a reference in another very ancient civilisation on supply of a large fleet of ships by Sinhala people long before the saviours coming to mix and match the Sinhala civilisation. If Sinhala people become aware of how ingeniously their history was erased slowly but surely, those holding high moral grounds will be running away with nothing. They lost the best of their people due to a calamity of their own making as I said in my earlier comments (There is a claim of loosing 11/12 of land to sea according to info from Alexandria National Museum?). The shock is rooted in our conscience. Unfortunately, I cannot tell more on that due to technical and other aspects. What we try to attribute ourselves is nothing compared to the truth that is there in bits and pieces, which will give us our due place among the humanity.

5. Ratanapala Says:
   April 21st, 2010 at 3:19 am

   It would be a good thing if Priyantha can say something about the Pure Sinhala people he is speaking about and where they can be found in present day Sri Lanka. It is clear from what he is writing that he has something to grind about Buddhism and its influence on the Sinhala people that I am talking about – those who speak Sinhala,follow the tenants of Buddhism and are proud of their heritage. I would be very happy to read about how Sinhala people he is talking about influenced Buddhism.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site. All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of LankaWeb.com.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 7th, 2010. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response.