Why are there 'Traitors Everywhere'?
In the following post, widely circulated in this forum, L. Jayasooriya (LJ) says that no country in the world has as many traitors, both within the ruling circles as well as in the opposition, as in Sri Lanka. I do not want to contest this view. However like many others who bemoan this fact there is no explanation given for this phenomenon. Most of these traitors are Sinhelas (q.v), not Tamils or Muslims. So the question arises: Why is it that the Sinhelas have become the most traitor-prone nation in the world? There is no answer for this in LJ's post. However I have been advancing a hypothesis which explains this unpleasant fact. Before I come to this I must look at some of the logic in LJ's post.
LJ wants to compile a list of traitors who could be sent to a 'People's Court' for "diagnosis and treatment". Perhaps this People's Court could dispense justice like Pol Pot's or Castro's People's Courts! To identify traitors we need a definition of the term and LJ conveniently provides one. He suggests two criteria:
For one who wants to send the traitors to face a People's Court one would expect that some specific persons would be mentioned. The first person mentioned is Akashi who LJ says has threatened SL with UN troops. But Akashi has been accepted as a person mediating the "peace process" by GOSL! As a Japanese diplomat it may be difficult to arraign him before the People's Court. LJ next mentions Prof G.L. Peiris as the person who introduced devolution. LJ is wrong here. Devolution was introduced by none other than the Solomon Banadarnaike the father of Great Hela Revolution (q.v) to get out of a tight corner of his own making. But since GLP has become a "bankaloth perakadoruwa" his place has been taken by Tissa Vitharana , the Chairman of the All Party Representatives Committee. But this gentleman owes his position to GOSL.
LJ seems to have made an exception of President Rajapakse. One would have thought that the advocacy of "maximum devolution" in the Mahinda Chintanaya would make its author come within the devolution criterion of LJ's definition. He attributes all this to the UNP and to "traitors within the Government". But the jumbo Cabinet, which presumably contains persons LJ would treat as traitors, is a unique creation the President and he should take responsibility of persons within it, just as he has taken responsibility for sacking a few of them recently. Herein lies the inexplicable contradiction in LJ's logic.
We may conclude in looking at why the Sinhelas have become the most traitor-prone nation in the world. This is simply a consequence of the abandonment of classical Sinhala values and the adoption of racist and religionist values as a result of the Portuguese encounter in the sixteenth century. This has led to the rise of what we have termed the neo-Sinhala mentality (q.v). An aspect of this mentality which became very pronounced after the its triumph in the Great Hela Revolution is the development of a mercenary attitude based on pure greed. I have termed this phenomenon dhanapalism (q.v). Many of the Sinhelas who have become Helakoti (q.v) or Jesuhela (q.v) have done so by succumbing to material inducements offered by those wanted to destroy the classical Sinhala culture and values. With the rise of the Sinhelas they have actually succeeded in this.
So while LJ drawing attention to "TRAITORS EVERYWHERE" is certainly timely, his analysis of the phenomenon leaves much to be desired.