The Rajpal Abeynayake Column:

Though Prabhakaran might settle to end the war - THEY WON'T

In Muttur Jaffna and Kantale, the worst aspect of the fallout from renewed hostilities manifests as the creation of refugee camps; the human suffering that ensues from the conflict.

In Colombo, it is different. The worst aspect of the conflict comes in a more benign but unrecognisably couched form. Black on white.

If all the words that are written about the renewed hostilities can be suffered gladly by you, we hand you a peace prize.

There have been enough failed rebellions, but the amount of failed and mediocre writers coming through the woodwork, now that there is grist to their mill in the form of renewed hostilities, is something else.

Are there any ideal solutions to issues that relate to ethnic cohabitation? Not really, is it not??

The Sikhs' onslaught after the massive siege on the Amristrar Golden temple etc, was nothing more that an italicised footnote in history. Thousands of Asian immigrants continue to live in hostile environments in countries such as Great Britain which have become hotbeds for Islamophobia. Try telling these people that their conflict with the adopted country is of a lesser currency than ours, because their conflicts are relatively new?

But the nirvana-fan type writers that have crept up from the woodwork, advocate solutions that are the approximation of the ideal here for Sri Lanka.

It's something like this in the end:

If Prabhakaran wants to stop the war, these guys don't. If Prabhakran feels for instance that there could be a military solution to the Sri Lankan conflict and doesn't mind if it is settled in Sri Lanka's favour in a direct and fair confrontation, the nirvana-fan club could push for a nirvana like solution to Sri Lanka's crisis. What's worse than their verbosity is their mendacity, and what's worse than their mendacity is their humbuggery.

A nirvana-fan like solution is one that is utopian (hence nirvana-fan) and does not consider the reality that some conflicts could be eventually subsumed.

If some problem can disappear, and if the problems of Asian immigrants in European countries do not so much as surface totally and visibly, isn't there some mendacity - - and a great deal of humbuggery - in expecting the Sri Lankan problem to wind down to an ideal solution?

There is no Holy Grail resolution in this conflict - - or in any conflict.

If it resolves itself in a manner that's militarily advantageous to one party, that winner would write the history. The winners wrote the history in all wars including World War 11, and if they didn't I'd probably be writing this article in Japanese.

How many would castigate the United States today for Atom bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not many, save for a few Japanese perhaps.

But the winner of that very big and pivotal war very quickly wrote its history, and it's that history which evolved and placed the world's post WW2 states in its current conjuncture.

"Our country now ranks between Lebanon and Dafur as a place in which the distinction between civilians and combatants has blurred considerably,'' says Pakiasothy Sarvanamuttu, from the sidelines of the UN summit in New York.

He accused the government and the Tamil rebels of using civilians as human shields, says a wire service report.

Being portly doesn't give Mr Saravanamuttu the licence to take these kinds of liberties with scale. Did the killing for instance, of a good-looking but innocent Brazilian youth in a denim jacket on a London southbound metro make Great Britain a Dafur?

More importantly, was there any portly NGO layabout who went all the way to the UN, when Mr Blair addressed the UN sessions to claim that England had become a Dafur?

Rights violations placed out of perspective in the manner that Mr 'Sothy has done, makes his pronouncements appear as if they have come straight out of the nirvana-fan outlet.

Anybody who writes a dull diatribe that makes out that there could be no solution to the Sri Lankan conflict other than in their utopian prototype (federalism, a merged North East etc.,) is speaking in a climate of verbal impunity.

How can one detract from the Sri Lankan forces' right for instance to 'win'' the war if Velupillai Prabhakaran, the instigator of the war, is willing to grant that right??

He is willing to say that in a no holds barred fight, 'the Sri Lankan forces could vanquish me.' It's where this confrontation ends.

That's why he said famously to Anita Pratap that he does not ''want Eelam on a platter.'' End of story.

A man who does not want Eelam on a platter is self evidently willing to fight the war to and end - and willing to win or lose that battle.

This does not mean that a purely military solution is advocated by myself, or anybody who shares kindred views.

But if we are saved the war, would we have saved ourselves from (A) the reams of diatribe/verbal discharge that tell us about a genteel solution to an execrable conflict (B) from the polite (oops over-polite, unctuous really...) apologies for the LTTE by those such as 'Sothy who surely do not want to end the conflict even if Prabhakaran signals its end??

Please.

Even if any deity or higher power saves us from Prabhkaran, would He be able to save us from these?