Neither has a clean record, yet the eventual choice wasn’t too surprising
On their relationship with India, being extreme in nature:
Rajapaksa: “India is our neighbour.
We must have good relations whether in war or in peace.”
< Fonseka: “Now we have a daunting task to protect our motherland from India”
Their views on Presidential election and results:
Fonseka: “Government violated election laws, manipulated & misled people.”
Rajapaksa: “This is why the people trusted us and continues to trust us. You should ensure its continuity.”
On freedom of Press, social justice and democracy:
Fonseka: “if elected President, will ensure that Sri Lanka enjoys democracy, social justice as well as freedom of the media.”
Rajapaksa: “We never subjugated the path of democracy. We did not believe in alternative routes and did not mislead the people by holding bogus referendums.”
Admittedly, the two opponents have drastically different agendas on their minds. And they clearly don’t have characters you’ll boast to your grandmother about (Fonseka is even a convicted rapist). But even if one assumes that both of them really do not mean what they speak, whom should India choose to side with? The answer is a clear no-brainer with Rajapaksa winning the sweepstakes.
Rajapaksa statements have – at the least – attempted to provide a sensible outlook to his people. After the election, when questioned on his work post the war, he said, “There is no point in having just peace, we need to be efficient and have fast growth... We have to build an efficient and productive country.” Compare that to Fonseka’s global agenda after the war, “I am not going to save anyone who has committed war crimes... The country has been suffering for too long. Now that the nation has got rid of terrorism, you cannot leave the country in the hands of a dictator.”
The crux is while Rajapaksa’s victory doesn’t make him the unanimous choice of common Sri Lankans, Fonseka was not a glorious choice for the future of Sri Lanka either, perhaps less so. Given that, as has been the rigmarole rote rule across the world, it is better to try one’s luck with an evil one has tasted, than with one right off the gates of hell...
Rajapaksa: “India is our neighbour.
We must have good relations whether in war or in peace.”
< Fonseka: “Now we have a daunting task to protect our motherland from India”
Their views on Presidential election and results:
Fonseka: “Government violated election laws, manipulated & misled people.”
Rajapaksa: “This is why the people trusted us and continues to trust us. You should ensure its continuity.”
On freedom of Press, social justice and democracy:
Fonseka: “if elected President, will ensure that Sri Lanka enjoys democracy, social justice as well as freedom of the media.”
Rajapaksa: “We never subjugated the path of democracy. We did not believe in alternative routes and did not mislead the people by holding bogus referendums.”
Admittedly, the two opponents have drastically different agendas on their minds. And they clearly don’t have characters you’ll boast to your grandmother about (Fonseka is even a convicted rapist). But even if one assumes that both of them really do not mean what they speak, whom should India choose to side with? The answer is a clear no-brainer with Rajapaksa winning the sweepstakes.
Rajapaksa statements have – at the least – attempted to provide a sensible outlook to his people. After the election, when questioned on his work post the war, he said, “There is no point in having just peace, we need to be efficient and have fast growth... We have to build an efficient and productive country.” Compare that to Fonseka’s global agenda after the war, “I am not going to save anyone who has committed war crimes... The country has been suffering for too long. Now that the nation has got rid of terrorism, you cannot leave the country in the hands of a dictator.”
The crux is while Rajapaksa’s victory doesn’t make him the unanimous choice of common Sri Lankans, Fonseka was not a glorious choice for the future of Sri Lanka either, perhaps less so. Given that, as has been the rigmarole rote rule across the world, it is better to try one’s luck with an evil one has tasted, than with one right off the gates of hell...
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Prof. Rajita Chaudhuri's Website
domain-b.com : IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
Arindam Chaudhuri's Portfolio - he is at his candid best by Society Magazine
IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
IIPM B-School Detail
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Prof. Rajita Chaudhuri's Website
domain-b.com : IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
Arindam Chaudhuri's Portfolio - he is at his candid best by Society Magazine
IIPM Best B School India
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM's Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri - A Man For The Society....
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
IIPM B-School Detail
