The book also points out the leadership factors of Veluppil Prabhakaran as well as the anti-social characteristics of him. Commenting on the book, consultant Psychiatrist Sarath Panduwawala points out that the author reveals the hidden psychological aspects of Prabhakaran.
ප්රභාකරන් සාධකය පිළිබඳ මනෝ විද්යාත්මක විශ්ලේෂණයක් එළි දකී
වෛද්ය රුවන් එම්. ජයතුංග විසින් ලියනලද ප්රභාකරන් සාධකය පිළිබඳ මනෝ විද්යාත්මක විශ්ලේෂණයක් නම් කෘතිය ගොඩගේ ප්රකාශකයන් විසින් එළිදක්වා තිබේ.
මෙම කෘතියෙන් වේළුපිල්ලේ ප්රභාකරන් තුළ තිබූ නායකත්ව සාධක මෙන්ම ඔහු තුළ තිබූ සමාජ විරෝධී පෞරුෂ ලක්ෂණද පෙන්වා දෙනු ලබයි. මෙම පොත පිළිබඳ අදහස් දක්වන විශේෂඥ මනෝ වෛද්ය සරත් පඩුවාවල පෙන්වා දෙන්නේ ප්රභාකරන් සාධකයේ සැඟවුණු මනෝ විද්යාත්මක පාර්ශ්වයන් කතුවරයා විසින් හෙළි කරන බවයි.
Rajiv Gandhi’s IPKF Folly
Beginning and the End
by Sachi Sri Kantha, May 21, 2010
Simply told, despite the propaganda of New Delhi mandarins and bucket carriers (such as the ‘House of Hindu’ scribes and Indian academics) to New Delhi Brahmins, Rajiv Gandhi was not keen on helping the Eelam Tamils. He acted to guard India’s military interests and the then Congress Party’s political interests. This also partly explains why Mervyn de Silva, among all the Sinhalese, had a ‘soft corner’ for Prabhakaran, and the feature I provide here reinforces this view. While other Sinhalese parties, namely SLFP and JVP, some elements in the UNP including the then prime minister R. Premadasa, the Sinhalese military elements, Buddhist clergy and the jingoist press were vociferous in their anti-India protest, only the LTTE leader stood up to Indian-bullying, in military terms. Dayan Jayatilleka’s piece is also revealing in that while the LTTE got the bum-rap as a spoiler, he shows that the Rajiv-Jayewardene Accord was first spoilt by the grandstanding of Gamini Dissanaiyake (an active proponent of the Accord), who was in his element of racial rabble rousing, and who defended his Sinhala colonization policy by stating that Rajiv Gandhi was made aware of his strategy and Rajiv did not object to it.
The 20th anniversary of Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) returning from Sri Lanka in March 1990 passed by relatively unnoticed. Here is a roundup of basic facts. In 1990, the ruling party in India was not Congress, the ruling party in Sri Lanka was not the SLFP. Both Congress Party and SLFP were in the opposition then. But, Karunanidhi’s DMK party was in power in Tamil Nadu. He boycotted the return of IPKF soldiers, for political reasons. Today, Karunanidhi’s DMK and the Congress Party are allies and form the ruling alliance. Though both Congress Party and SLFP are holding hands now, during 1987-90 phase SLFP strongly opposed the induction of IPKF. The current leader of SLFP, Mahinda Rajapaksa, was a nominal back-bencher without much gravitas, having returned to the parliament in 1989 after a 12 year gap. I cannot find any record that Mr. Rajapaksa deviated from the party line, and welcomed the IPKF in the island. Politics make strange bedfellows, isn’t it? For this reason alone, I should record the beginning and end of Rajiv Gandhi’s IPKF folly.
Many political follies can be listed during the five year period (1984-1989) that Rajiv Gandhi spent as the prime minister of India. Among these, I’d label the induction of IPKF in Sri Lanka as the prime folly. Bofors arms scandal was the second. Propping up Chandrasekhar Singh’s (1927-2007) minority cabinet of breakaway Janata Dal in 1990 and then pulling its political plug at appropriate time on flimsy grounds was the third. Prompting Chandrasekhar to dismiss Karunanidhi’s DMK cabinet in 1991 was the fourth. Prompting the Central Government to dismiss Janaki Ramachandran’s AIADMK cabinet in January1988 was the fifth. The list goes on.
For dissecting Rajiv’s IPKF folly, I have chosen to provide 4 items of archival interest that cannot be conveniently traced now, after 20 years.
Item 1: J.N. Dixit for the official Indian (pro-Rajiv) view,
Item 2: Mervyn de Silva and Dayan Jayatilleka for Sinhalese view,
Item 3: Time magazine feature by Lisa Beyer, for ‘rest of the world’ view, and
Item 4: Prabhu Chawla, for a not-so-flattering Rajiv view.
Prabhakaran Praised by Mervyn de Silva (in 1990)
by Sachi Sri Kantha, June 17, 2009
I think that one reason why Mervyn de Silva had an incisive depth on the Sinhala-Tamil conflict was that he mainly viewed Prabhakaran from his lens as a recent product of ethnic tensions and not as the prime cause of conflict. While many pundits and journalists demarcated the year 1983 as the ‘turning point’, Mervyn de Silva traced the origins of the conflict to the British colonial period in 1919 – almost 90 years ago.
Front Note by Sachi Sri Kantha
Mervyn de Silva (1929-1999), the erudite editor of the (now defunct) Lanka Guardian fortnightly, had a keen eye in shifting the kernels from the chaff. June 22nd marks his tenth death anniversary. To pay homage to his memory, I’ve prepared here a signed feature on Velupillai Prabhakaran that he published in his magazine on January 1, 1990. He chose Prabhakaran as the ‘Man of the Decade’, who influenced the events in Sri Lanka and nearby India.
Mervyn de Silva drops quite a few names in this commentary of approximately 1,440 words. While reading this tribute to Prabhakaran, note that the names of those who are currently preening their feathers in glory are missing. Not that they were idling in the 1980s. Guys like Mahinda Rajapakse (b.1945), Gotabhaya Rajapakse (b.1949) and Sarath Fonseka (b.1950) were older than Prabhakaran. But, they were obscure non-entities then and hardly got registered in the eyes of Mervyn de Silva or in his fortnightly journal Lanka Guardian. Two of Prabhakaran’s penchant critiques (Dayan Jayatilleka and Narasimhan Ram) make cameo appearances in Mervyn de Silva’s commentary. While reading Mervyn de Silva’s commentary, you can also note that between 1989 and 2009, Prabhakaran was consistent in his ideals and objective. But such consistency was flaky for his two critics, Dayan Jayatilleka and Narasimhan Ram. It is an open secret that the Sri Lankan politician, identified by Mervyn de Silva in the third paragraph, was none other than the then President R. Premadasa. de Silva’s bottom line was: “Our choice of Prabhakaran as man of the decade is no value judgment. It is a compelling historical verdict based on the turn of tumultuous events…”.