Hindustan Times Reporter Seems To Have "Tripped On His Coat Tails!"
Periscope-Global Sinhala Village For LankaWeb.
Hindustan Times journalist P.K. Balachandran in a seemingly vague attempt at causing mischief while also being viewed by many as the officially ubiquitous pro LTTE propagandist representing the Hindustan Times in Colombo suggests that " The India-Sri Lanka Joint Statement issued at the end of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa's four day visit to India on Friday, hints that Rajapaksa may be moving away from his fixation about finding a solution to the ethnic conflict within a "unitary" state, to considering some federal options."
While it has to be noted that these are unwelcome speculations and verbiage based upon his own conclusions, freedom of expression notwithstanding. His choice of preferences, being a Tamil himself sticks out in the manner of a sore thumb towards obvious bias and he probably needs to be advised that his calculations about the so called 'fixations' and mindset of the President of Sri Lanka could be a gross misconception and perhaps intended to mislead the general public as well as the international community as at no stage of his address has the President of Sri Lanka ever detracted from what he has always percieved to be The Importance Of a Unitary State.
The writer then continues in saying that "The Joint Statement says that the President of Sri Lanka briefed the Indian leadership on his approach to the peace process to achieve maximum devolution which preserves the unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka." and in his seemingly confused state of mind suggests that "What is noteworthy here is that the term "unitary" is missing."
In what seems to be a clear cut case of tripping over his tailcoats in a manner that is fast becoming indicative of his pro LTTE leanings, Balachandran is trying a bit of incongruous wordplay with the term "UNITARITY" and making a feeble attempt to extract a concept of contradiction, hesitancy or both on the part of the President when the fundamentals of the English Language alone bears testimony to the proof that the man (Balachandran ) seems somewhat confused.
While drawing an obtusely irrelevant analogy to the fact that only a day earlier "The President of Sri Lanka had used the term in his speech at the banquet hosted by his Indian counterpart, APJ Abdul Kalam" the writer goes on to make a hash of the reality that 'Unitarity' is the key word of the Presidents objectives as far as Sri Lanka is concerned while blatantly also quoting in deference to his rhetoric about the missed "Unitarity" that the President has also said that "Our end objective will be to develop a broad consensus where maximum power could be devolved within a unitary State," President Rajapaksa had said in that speech." so is not the 'Unitarity' aspect of the dialogue still prevalent Mr. Balachandran?
Be it craft, metaphor or manipulative suggestion, Balachandran's rhetoric does not truly gel with the reality that the term devolution of power within a united Sri Lanka can indeed be relevant and applicable to a situation involving the Tamil people of Sri Lanka led by a rational and humane leader or leaders rather than a bunch of proscribed and virtually condemned terrorists comprising of ruthless murderers and criminals with no love for neither the Tamil Community nor Sri Lanka beyond their own measly survival needs who by no means represent all of the Tamil people as he is trying to suggest and what also appears to be the case.
In the section in his submission captioned India returns to federalism
"After a long time, India too has returned to federalism, as a possible........ solution to the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict." where the writer in his haste to get his impervious point across seems to have missed inserting the word' comparative.
The hasty conclusion about "The last time, India proposing a federal solution being under the India-Sri Lanka Accord, way back in July 1987." and that "Until the visit of President Rajapaksa, India's standard formulations on a solution to the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict would scrupulously avoid mentioning the term "federalism" or a "federal solution." is once again a vague speculation regardless of the emphasis on the term scrupulously which would perhaps have sounded better if the term " diplomatically" was chosen as a better alternative as once again it seems to constitute innuendo on the part of the writer where he has the affront to unilaterally conclude that "In Friday's Joint Statement, however, the Indian side had used the term "devolution" which is a term associated with federal constitutions rather than unitary constitutions." And who is Balachandran to make this conclusion? the term devolution having many diverse applications according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary involving, deputing, delegation, decentralization etc which add to the de-trop nature of Balachandran's comments which he should learn to contain within his own mindset rather than dabble in a verbosity unbecominf of a journalist representing a News Journal as esteemed as the Hindustan Times which in turn is hoped not a cheap rag voicing pro LTTE sentiments!!
Perhaps as a cover up, Balachandran's speculative trend of thought seems to have mellowed as he goes on to say that "According to the Joint Statement, the Indian side expressed the hope that a political settlement of the ethnic issue based on devolution, openness, transparency and inclusiveness would emerge through negotiations between the parties concerned, so as to ensure a peaceful and bright future for all Sri Lankans in an undivided and democratic Sri Lanka." He has perhaps 'inadvertenly' missed out saying " Negotiations between the Tamils and their true representation involving sane and non criminal individuals at the helm which would then pre-empt the likes of the now seemingly defunct Velupillai Prabhakaran, Anton Balasingham and the loose tongued S.P.Thamilselvam and all the LTTE proxies which falsely represent the Tamil People of Sri Lanka!
"India having officially, and at the highest level, offered intellectual and academic resources to help Sri Lanka" does not necessarily equate to nor constitute the foundation for a suitable model of devolution as Balachandran has tried to portray as there seem to be a few important contingencies missing. There can be no question of devolution of power to Internationally Condemned and Proscribed Terrorists the LTTE whose despicable acts of terror and cowardice are fast becoming more perceptible to the world and have no legitimate right under any circumstance to assume their authority over the Tamil Community of Sri Lanka! They have even been warned about their current campaigns of terror by many world leaders including the European Union and the International Aid Donors!
Sri Lanka has not accepted any offer which would entail being subjugated by ruthless terrorists who are armed, belligerent even in spirit and it has to be her bounden duty to primarily initiate a means of protecting Sovereign Sri Lanka from the threat of subversives leaving aside the Psalms ands Sankies of the obstreperous pundits such as Balachandran who tend to mislead rather than provide accurate coverage of the realities involved!.
While Sri Lanka has indeed to be appreciative of the Indian offer to provide intellectual and academic resources in support of the Peace Process there has to be a degree of dissapointment by the Staus Quo that India has not fully conceded the importance of activating and implementing a recent joint treaty of regional defence and surveillance signed by both countries, to its fullest capabilities which would extend a greater emphasis towards regional defence and something which the Indian Government has always been conscious of yet seem to be backpedalling on lately.
Something which Hindustan Times Writer P.K. Balachandran seems to have
conveniently missed documenting also!
© 1997-2004 www.lankaweb.Com
Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.