Author: X.T.M

By Sbarrkum

Every country carries its wounds, but some of us carry them in our bodies. I rarely speak about Sri Lanka’s civil war on this blog, because most of us have learned, painfully, to move on. But sometimes a comment or a casual reference to the LTTE pulls open a door that many of us have spent decades trying to close gently.

For me, this is not rhetoric. It is family history.

Two of my cousins were killed in the late 1980s; one by the LTTE, the other by the Army. Two more relatives were tortured. During the worst years, mobs came to burn down our home because they suspected we were Tamil. My mother stood outside, spoke to them calmly in Sinhalese, and convinced them to leave. That is how close violence came to us; literally to our doorstep.

I myself was arrested twice on suspicion of being an LTTE operative. I spent two days in police remand and was beaten with a belt. Friends who happened to witness the arrest intervened and contacted someone who could get me out. Had I remained until Monday, I would have been taken before a judge and sent to the notorious Boosa Prison. Many never returned from there.

I also lost people I cared about deeply. My late partner’s parents were among the sixty villagers killed in a single LTTE attack. In the area where I live, nearly every family lost someone; a brother, a father, a cousin, a neighbour.

Most Sri Lankans have made their peace with the past. We have had to. The country could not function otherwise. But when the conflict is invoked lightly or abstractly, without awareness of the cost paid by ordinary people, it reminds me how easily those of us outside the centre of global conversation are forgotten.

This is not a demand for silence. It is simply a reminder:

For many of us, this history is not theoretical. It is personal, lived, and unbearably real.

I removed a few disruptive authors from the BP roster recently, primarily because some interactions had crossed into personal abuse. That’s not something I’m willing to absorb or normalise.

What continues to surprise me is how quickly discussions become ideological flashpoints, even when my own approach has consistently been one of congeniality and openness.

That said, the overall atmosphere on the blog already feels lighter and more functional with fewer volatile personalities in the mix. It’s a reminder that BP only works when the space is manageable and not dominated by ego or hostility.

Also to the current Commentariat; stick to the facts, not inflammation please. So reflect on whether your comment is adding more light or heat beforehand.

It is wrong to dehumanise anyone. One of the recurring issues on BP is this histrionic insistence that individuals “own” the truth. The truth is broad, multi-layered, and something we all approach imperfectly. No single person has a monopoly on it.

I obviously reject racism in every form; that should go without saying. But I also find it nonsensical to claim that it is a moral imperative to call a racist “sub-human.” That is a classic moral slippery slope. Once you begin dehumanising others, even for views you find repugnant, you simply replicate the logic you oppose.

What I’ve noticed recently is that people are increasingly confusing ego with ideology. That never ends well. This is a blog. Nothing here is existential. We should be able to disagree fiercely without crossing into territory that strips others of their humanity.

I am now going to manage the blog more actively.

Everyone please behave. I have restored all deleted comments (I haven’t read them).

I’ve also realised that the Commentariat are actually manifestly ungrateful.

I expect everyone to adhere to civility; if I don’t like the tone of a comment, I will simply trash it. This is a no-nonsense policy that applies to ALL.

Also to all authors, contributors and editors please make sure you are above board; don’t descend into the pettiness.

An internal note I sent earlier to all authors/contributors/editors: Continue reading I am back

In the never-ending saga of BP, we may have just hit one of the more outlandish claims:

“Like I said, I’m not defending his comments. I wouldn’t have made them.

Regardless of any provocation, calling someone ‘subhuman’ and ‘neanderthal’ is not on—especially when those words are used by a Brahmin. It’s casteist.”

I’m fully in favour of interrogating caste. But the idea that the twice-born must exercise an extra layer of self-censorship before using a generic insult is excessive. An insult is an insult; attaching caste-specific moral disclaimers to ordinary online behaviour doesn’t clarify anything. It just adds ritual guilt where none is needed.

I support the critique of caste bias, but my fundamental sympathies are with Dharmic civilisation; precisely because Dharma is pluralistic enough to allow a hundred flowers to bloom. That pluralism should extend to how we discuss caste, not collapse into moral policing tied to someone’s birth category.

Congrats to Furan who was mentioned in this Five lessons for India’s Opposition from Zohran Mamdani’s triumph.

Born a Shia Muslim, he spoke to the Indian Eye of being raised in an interfaith family. “My mother’s side of the family is Hindu” he said, “and I grew up celebrating Diwali, Holi and Raksha Bandhan. Though I identify as Muslim, these Hindu traditions and practices have shaped my worldview…” His mother named him Zohran, which means the first star in the sky.

Zohran does seem to be a product of Love Jihad.