In the column written by Shanie, in your issue of June 20, reference has been made to the statement made by "A group of concerned Tamils" (The Island June 12, 2009), with the following:

"Typical of majoritarian mindset of many apologists for the current policy, was a criticism of the statement by a senior journalist who writes a political column in a Sunday newspaper". What is unfortunate is that Shanie does not comment on the entirety of the relevant comments made by the "senior journalist". Be that as it may, this writer too responded to the statement of the Group concerned and the relevant letter appeared in The Island on June 16, 2009. Therefore, Shanie’s comments and observations on the points raised by me are most welcome, especially in the absence of any response from the Group concerned, up to now. Shanie also states that "these elements within and outside the major parliamentary parties have derailed every attempt at a political settlement since 1957." What a gross misrepresentation of facts, as will be evidenced below:

Way back in 1966, when Mr. Dudley Senanayake was the Prime Minister, all the Tamil MPs were with the government and with their approval, "Tamil Language Special Provisions" bill was presented in Parliament in January 1966 and approved, in spite of stiff opposition of the politicians of the calibre of Dr. N. M. Perera and Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, who went in procession against the bill calling "Dudlige Bade Masala Wade". However, since the Bill was approved, everybody thought that the problem was solved and that peace would dawn. Then again, District Councils were introduced as a form of devolution in 1982 and again, everybody thought that the problem has been solved. Then again in 1987, Provincial Council bill was approved in 1987 and again everybody thought that it was the final solution to the so called ‘problem’, with a symbolic hand over of a weapon by the LTTE leader to the then Army Commander, a photograph of which appeared in the newspapers. Then everybody thought that the final solution has been found. But the elusive peace was not yet in its way.

Then in February, 2002, the C.F.A/M.O.U, was signed, without caring to ascertain why the previous solutions were arbitrarily jettisoned. In spite of this agreement being blatantly violated over 4000 times, there was not a single group/individual, society or ‘concerned’ people to condemn these violations.

Are we to keep on granting solutions ad infinitum? Where do we stop? What guarantee can any group/individual give that any further solution to that given now, will not suffer the same fate as the previous solutions? Has the international community taken the Sri Lanka government/s as a set of fools to keep on granting solutions at regular intervals? These questions have to be now directed to W. Dayan Jayatilleka (The Island, June 22, 2009) and as well H. L. Seneviratne (The Island, June 23) who has, in his response, endorsed the views of Dayan Jayatilleka, on the subject. Any response to this letter should cover the contents of the book, referred to by me in my earlier letter which appeared in June.