The Legitimacy Of The Armed Struggle Of The Tamil People Essays

The Legitimacy Of The Armed Struggle Of The Tamil People Essays The legitimacy of the armed struggle of the Tamil people Democracy may mean acceding to the rule of the majority, but democracy also means governments by discussion and persuasion. It is the belief that the minority of today may become the majority of tomorrow that ensures the stability of a functioning democracy. The practice of democracy in Sri Lanka within the confines of a unitary state served to perpetuate the oppressive rule of a permanent Sinhala majority. It was a permanent Sinhala majority, which through a series of legislative and administrative acts, ranging from disenfranchisement, and standardisation of University admissions, to discriminatory language and employment policies, and state sponsored colonisation of the homelands of the Tamil people, sough to establish its hegemony over people of Tamil Eelam. These legislative and administrative acts were reinforced from time to time with physical attacks on the Tamil people with intent to terrorise and intimidate them into submission. It was a course of conduct which led eventually to rise of Tamil militancy in the mid 1970s with, initially, sporadic acts of violence. The militancy was met with wide ranging retaliatory attacks on increasingly large sections of the Tamil people with intent, once again to subjugate them. In the late 1970s large numbers of Tamil youths were detained without trial and tortured under emergency regulations and later under the Prevention of Terrorism Act which has been described by the International Commission of Jurists as a 'blot on the statute book of any civilised country'. In 1980s and thereafter, there were random killings of Tamils by the state security forces and Tamil hostages were taken by the state when 'suspects' were not found. The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: "Whereas it is essential if man is not compelled as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law." The rise of the armed struggle of the Tamil people constituted the Tamil rebellion against a continuing Sinhala oppression over a period of several decades. The gross consistent and continuing violations of the human rights of the Tamil people have been well documented by innumerable reports of human rights organisations as well as of independent observers of the Sri Lankan scene. Walter Schwarz commented in the Minority Rights Group Report on Tamils of Sri Lanka, 1983 "...The makings of an embattled freedom movement now seem assembled: martyrs, prisoners and a pitiful mass of refugees. Talk of 'Biafra' which had sounded misplaced in 1975, seemed less unreal a few years later... As this report goes to press in September 1983, the general outlook for human rights in Sri Lanka is not promising. The present conflict has transcended the special consideration of minority rights and has reached the point where the basic human rights of the Tamil community - the rights to life and property, freedom of speech and self expression and freedom from arbitrary arrest have in fact and in law been subject to gross and continued violations. The two communities are mow polarised and continued repression coupled with economic stagnation can only produce stronger demands from the embattled minority, which unless there is a change in direction by the central government, will result in a stronger Sinhalese backlash and the possibility of outright civil war". David Selbourne remarked in July 1984: "The crimes committed by the Sri Lankan state against the Tamil minority - against its physical security, citizenship rights, and political representation -are of growing gravity.. Report after report by impartial bodies - By Amnesty International, By the International Commission of jurists, By parliamentary delegates from the West by journalists and scholars - have set out clearly the scale of growing degeneration of the political and physical well being of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka... Their cause represents the very essence of the cause of human rights and justice; and to deny it, debases and reduces us all". A Working Group chaired by Goran Backstrand, of the Swedish Red Cross at the Second Consultation on Ethnic Violence, Development and Human Rights, Netherlands, in February 1985 concluded: "There was a general consensus that within Sri Lanka today, the Tamils do not have the

Slideshow English

Slideshow English Slideshow English Slideshow English By Maeve Maddox Although I know they are a time-suck, slideshows with intriguing titles or photos often lure me in. The most recent to attract my attention was about â€Å"freaky coincidences.† Because the format was the kind that requires two clicks for each slide–one for the photo and one for the caption–I was ready to stop after the second slide, but the first sentence of the second caption prompted me to continue: A man saved the same baby’s life twice on accident. Always on the lookout for material, I felt I had found a possible source of nonstandard English, so I kept going. I was not disappointed. If the slideshow was created by a non-native English speaker for personal amusement, the numerous errors are understandable. If the captions are the work of a professional writer whose native language is English, they reflect a serious lack of revision. The show’s 14 slides yield 16 examples of nonstandard usage and punctuation. I won’t comment on punctuation. 1. A man saved the same baby’s life twice on accident. Although often heard, â€Å"on accident† is unidiomatic. The standard expression is â€Å"by accident†: â€Å"A man saved the same baby’s life twice by accident.† 2. In 1930, a baby fell out of a window and Joseph Figlock broke the land. The writer is thinking of the baby’s landing. â€Å"Broke the landing† would do the job, but â€Å"broke the baby’s fall† would be better. 3. In 1858, a man was shot dead while playing poker as an act of vengeance. Correcting this sentence requires rearranging phrases and changing as to in. The man was not â€Å"playing poker as an act of vengeance.† He was â€Å"shot as an act of vengeance.† Why the man was shot is not as important as the fact that he was shot: â€Å"In 1858, a man playing poker was shot dead in an act of vengeance.† Changing as to in subordinates the reason for the shooting to the act of shooting. Context for the next item: The man who was shot left $600 on the table. Another man appropriated the $600 and continued playing, increasing the amount to $2,200. 4. When the cops heard word of this [the fact that the dead man’s winnings had been used by a subsequent gambler] they demanded the $600 was given to the next of kin to the deceased. This sentence requires editing in segments. i. When the cops heard word of this The idiom is â€Å"to have word of something.† For example, â€Å"I just had word that our team lost by one point.† Two ways to edit the original sentence: â€Å"When the cops heard of this, they demanded† â€Å"When the cops learned of this, they demanded† ii. they demanded the $600 A that is needed to introduce the noun clause that follows demanded: â€Å"they demanded that the $600.† Without the that, the reader is led to believe that the police were demanding the $600 for themselves. iii. demanded [that] the $600 was given to the next of kin The noun clause requires a verb in the passive subjunctive: â€Å"The police demanded that the $600 be given to the next of kin.† iv. given to the next of kin to the deceased The expression â€Å"next of kin† means, â€Å"nearest relation,† usually of a deceased person. For that reason, the prepositional phrase modifying kin is overkill. If another phrase were needed to explain the relationship with kin, the preposition would be of, not to: â€Å"the next of kin of the deceased.† 5. In 2002, two identical twin brothers were killed on the same road, from two different accidents i. two identical twin brothers The word twin conveys the meaning of two. ii. killedfrom two different accidents People are killed in accidents. They die of injuries. They suffer from diseases. And, again, the two is unnecessary. We already know that there were two people involved in separate accidents. 6. Later, Ziegland went to go chop down the tree that the bullet was inside. It’s enough to say, â€Å"went to chop down the tree.† The idea of â€Å"going† is contained in the verb went. 7. Coincidentally, their father was in the same hospital from recovering from a surgery. This sentence is meant to convey the idea that the father just happened to be in the same hospital his two sons were brought to following their accidents. The phrase â€Å"from recovering† seems to mean, â€Å"because he was recovering.† The indefinite article is not needed before the word surgery, at least not in American English. Edited: â€Å"Coincidentally, their father was in the same hospital, recovering from surgery.† An American speaker would use an article with the word operation: â€Å"recovering from an operation.† 8. Robert E Lee himself showed up at the cottage to request its use as a formal place of surrender. The contraction it’s stands for two words: it is. The context calls for the possessive adjective its. Edited: â€Å"Robert E Lee himself showed up at the cottage to request its use as a formal place of surrender.† Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Writing Basics category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Math or Maths?40 Synonyms for â€Å"Lie†10 Terms for the Common People