Reference to Nan’s article titled "Praise another country and you are a traitor" (Sunday Island 02/08/09) in response to my letter (Australia’s Concentration Camps" Island 22/7/09) please allow me an opportunity to reply which I am doing almost immediately.

Before getting down to responding to clarifying specific matters mentioned by Nan I must say that one need not descend to the level or name calling and like abuse of those whose views differ from one’s own. Instead of just meeting an opposing view point by point, argument against argument etc, she has gone beyond and indulged in a bout of abusive name calling.

Exploiting the weekly slot allotted to her in the "S/Island" she has abused that privilege. If that is her style of debate/discussion she is welcome to it. In responding, I will not descend to that level but will only meet her arguments point by point, and/or make other relevant comments.

In this regard, one must admire the manner in which Ms. Anne Abayasekara has replied to Mr. Tissa Devendra’s letter of 03.07.09 (Island) to which mine was by way of a supplementation. Polite, moderate, even generous to a writer who had chided, in a sense, AA’s views, she has responded to TD in a very decent manner. No doubt TD’s response, if any, will be as decent, devoid of abusive name calling.

Getting to my letter, for the record let me say it’s title was not mine but the Editor’s but mine had the same meaning, so let it pass. Two, Nan says mine was a "long" letter. Mine was on one side of ‘legal size’ paper that too reduced by the Editor to three small sized columns, as against Nan’s of almost a full page!

N says I have left out "conveniently", (meaning ‘wilfully’) the "upper class" in referring to the "middle and upper middle classes", and the cocktail, club, social circuits etc. From this she infers that I have placed the Prez and family in the "UC" and so never to be faulted! Here is a classic case of "leaping to conclusions" of which I am accused of. If that is her inference, ‘N’ is again welcome to it. Mine was a reference to the most politically conscious classes generally. Besides, the cocktail, golf and social circuits I referred to also take in many of the upper classes. The Prez & family was never in my mind there. And I had left out the ‘lower middle class too’ N has missed that omission!

In another bit of hair splitting, my reference to the phrase "poor ole Sri Lanka" is interpreted by ‘N’ as if that is my view of Sri Lanka! Most people who may have read that portion of my letter will understand and realize that in the context and sense in which that phrase was used, with its tinge of sarcasm, the phrase reflected what I believe Lankans who tend to degrade this country think their country is, that its not my view of my country.

Nan thinks my views are "lopsided" and "prejudiced". As to whether they are is of course a matter of opinion. Many may agree with her, no doubt. Many may not. Indeed some may think N’s views "lopsided" and "prejudiced", many may not. What I have stated are my own impressions and conclusions from what I have read, heard and discussed. I stand by my view that a general trend in, and a common trait in conversations, talks, discussions in the circles referred to, is to degrade this country.

Though there are similar problems, defects, political chicaneries in other countries too, some consider these happen only here. Watch NDTV and one may see commonalities in political, social behaviours abound all over. Perhaps this is what TD also had in mind in his letter, which I supplemented with more examples.

This "readiness to believe the worst about their homeland, Sri Lanka" as TD puts it, is indeed common in those circles. Even the brilliant and humane rescue of Tamils held hostage by the LTTE in mid-May 2009 is overshadowed or hardly mentioned as against a constant barrage to release the IDPs almost immediately, as if the Govt. was not doing its best to do so, faced with the need to ensure proper demining, identifying LTTE cadres hiding among civilians etc.

My reference to the ‘degrading’ Sri Lanka feature has led Nan to conclude that I "leap" to conclusions. Mine was not a "leap" but a conclusion cumulatively arrived at from the plethora of writings, discussions, talks that abound today. I have referred above (poor ole of Sri Lanka") that "N" seems to have made herself. Besides that leap, here is another leap by "N’. She alleges that if one praises another country, one is deemed a "traitor". Nowhere in TD’s or my letter has that allegation been made or the word "traitor" used. On her own inferential methods this too would be "leaping" to conclusions. Yet, perhaps its not a "leap", as she too would have arrived at that view on a cumulative basis regarding writings, discussions, talks etc., as I have.

"If you are not with me, you are against me" is "a new trend or ethos" that N claims "is insidiously creeping in... leaving no space to the neutral, to the independent who prefers to stay distant from extreme". This new trend/ethos is according to Nan (the context so shows) the dictum set out in the headline to her article: "Praise another country and you are a traitor". Sure, there may be many who think so. I don’t my view being that political skulduggery, narrow mindedness, distorted views etc., abound in all parties here, and in all countries.

But Nan has missed, (or ignored?) a like "trend or ethos" that has also crept in "leaving no space for the neutral..." This I may refer to as follows: "If you speak up for the majority, you are a chauvinist, a majoritarian supremacist."

I will not accuse Nan of having "conveniently" meaning (wilfully) omitted this other new and insidious trend or ethos (though she alleges I have regarding the omission of the "Upper middle class" see above) in warning us of the new insidious trends or ethos. Yet an exposition by Nan of this other new trend would also be welcome, as like the ‘traitor’ trend, the ‘chauvinist’ one too needs, to use Nan’s own warning, "to be nipped in the bud".

A final accusation is that I have descended to the "vulgar". This is regarding my reference to many Lankan returnees tending to make very unfavourable comparisons of their native country vis-a-vis the foreign country they had come from. This tendency I described as "defecating on their own country". I cannot help it if Nan chooses to interpret that word/phrase literally. It was a purely metaphorical description of the sometimes savage, unfair, vituperative condemnations of their own country many returnees indulge in, some even after only one trip abroad! Yes, comparisons are acceptable, but must be made fairly, taking account of the inherent differences, such as material resources of the other country as against ours, size, population etc. etc. This is often ignored and the bold comparison becomes totally unfair.

Generalising from the particular and making conclusions therefrom ("biased", "prejudiced", "leaping to conclusions" etc.) is deceptive, inaccurate. Neither I, nor TD perhaps nor many others deny that many things are wrong here. Corruption, political abuse thuggery, nepotism, wastage etc., abound here. These need to be pointed out, and correction sought for its own sake. The pity is that many talk as if these skulduggeries occur only or mainly in Sri Lanka, and that it is mostly heaven in other countries! The fact is that these misdemeanours occur all over the world in varying degrees. Here, they have been committed by all parties and likely will whoever stays or comes to power. Each Govt. out does it’s predecessor in political misconduct, it seems!