I have been warned by many of my friends for being too harsh towards the individuals I criticize. "This will alienate", they warn me, "any third party, who is interested in the general issues you write about, from engaging in public debates with you because this ruthless terror does not leave any room open for discussion or dissent". My question is simple. Can anyone please show me the "democratic" manner of answering a piece such as Chandrika Siriratne’s other than by completely dismissing it? Cannot it be the case that sometimes one has to dismiss certain things not because one has a taste for making dismissive remarks or laughing at people but because they should, quite simply, be dismissed and laughed at?

Let me give you an example. Siriratne, in his/her piece in ‘The Island’, January 9,responding to one of my articles, makes a distinction between "Marxist ideologies" and "Marxism proper". Although we are not told exactly what this ‘proper’ Marxism is, we are told that Leninism is an ideology! What does this mean? It shows, beyond any doubt, that Siriratne is completely ignorant of the Marxian notion of ‘ideology’. Anyone schooled in the elements of Marxism would not fail to notice that ‘Marxist ideology’ is a contradiction in terms for ideology is the precise ‘thing’ opposed by Marxism.

One can always forgive someone for making a mistake or two, even if the mistakes are as grave as this; after all everyone makes mistakes. But when those who are mistaken about the fundamental concepts they use, challenge us to verify the truth value of their claims and go on to suggest us "further reading"...

Quite frankly, I do not wish to engage in any argument with Siriratne and should s/he wish to reply to this, I would not bother to make any further claims, since, as far as I am concerned, I have made my points clear in my first article, published in the Midweek Review of December 24, 2008. I would also not repeat what I have said before because I work according to a particular agenda and do not interrupt my work for scholastic mumbo jumbo. I would merely add, very briefly, the philosophical rationale behind my criticism of Illeperuma so that I can pinpoint my focus and interest, which might not, I agree, be apparent in the previous intervention.

In my response to Illeperuma, I wanted to defend, discuss, and bring into play, two overlapping points, of which I am deeply convinced: the idea of "universality" and the idea of "truth". The JVP is, I propose, the ground where the idea of truth, in its post-Heideggerian sense of ‘being true to something’, operates in southern Sri Lanka. The question of the medium of instruction, on the other hand, has practical imports to the concept of universality as a ‘universal singularity’. It is neither the time nor the place to fully discuss the contours of these ideas.