What do you think?
Rate this book
Sri Lanka: the New Country
The thirty-year-long civil war in Sri Lanka which ended in 2009 shook the island-nation. Now there is peace, rapid development - and a new government. But questions remain. What do Tamils and Sinhalese feel about their new country? What are their dreams for the future?Sri The New Country is insightful and unusual reportage from the dispassionate eye of a foreign correspondent who covered the bloody conflict for two decades. It is anecdotal narrative at its about ordinary Sri Lankans, former Tamil Tigers, meeting LTTE chief V. Prabhakaran, princes, 'secular clergymen', army generals, Tamil Buddhists, Sinhalese Tamils, politicians and sailors wary of ghosts. As the writer traverses Sri Lanka's formerly embattled north and east, internationally stereotypes about the nation are challenged. The book is a tribute to a wonderful people, as they pick up the pieces of their fragmented national identity and get on with building a new country.
- GenresNonfiction
393 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 15, 2015
3 people are currently reading
38 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 20, 2015
one of most balanced assessments of post war sri lanka
May 18, 2022
Padma Sundarji delivers what seems to be a fair and interesting story on the current state of Sri Lanka and the ambitions of Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese going forward, however she presents a ridiculously biased view of the Sri Lankan civil war and is quite guilty of constantly pushing an agenda that is pro Sri Lankan Army.
To start with the positives: The book involves vivid descriptions of Sri Lanka, making it a useful handbook for prospective tourists, it takes the effort to cover how the authors experience of these places change over the various phases of the civil conflict to today, which helps readers understand the impact of the war and what the recovery process looks like. The author has also clearly put a lot of effort in speaking to both politically powerful individuals and the common person - be they Sinhalese or Tamil, Sri Lankan Army of LTTE, Politician or small business owner in a restaurant. In doing so the author pieces together enough evidence to convince me of a consistent claim made regarding the LTTE - they may well have started out a noble resistance movement which cared for the people and tried to help their people by achieving secession, but as the war pressed on they violently oppressed those they claimed to fight for - using their labor to fund LTTE activities, and their children to fill their ranks.
On the less positive side, there are several times when the author showcases blatant disregard for established international evidence of abuse by the Sri Lankan military and also makes arguments that are in such bad faith that it leads me to lose faith in her ability to tell an impartial story on the matter. The author claims to ask "hard questions" to army personnel, but in truth these are nothing more than the very shallow questions that the army has surely been prepped for - (like the question of Prabhakaran's youngest son potentially being killed by Sri Lankan Army forces), she gets a very simple and scripted answer in response and decides to push no further. When asking about excessive civilian casualties she lets the interviewee get away with incredible mental gymnastics (he takes the UN report 30,000-40,000 people killed and just subtracts a whole 29,300 who the military rescued as if the UN report was not aware of the presence of this "well documented 29,300 rescues" and then claims that since 40000-29,3000 is approximately 7000 that is the true number of casualties). I do not blame the author for not pushing if she felt like the Major General would not give any meaningful follow up, but she does absolutely no work in pointing out the issues with these responses. When Prabhakaran says at a press conference that "child soldiers were not needed at the moment" she (correctly) describes it in a negative light and heavily implies he is intentionally lying. But when the Major General tries to wriggle out of hard issues she lets him get away with it and even implies she is convinced by his answers in the end. This is not how an impartial journalist should write. Even worse, is that the author perhaps seems aware that she is not really trying to give an accurate picture of the atrocities committed by the army, when she says the following about claims of their brutality- "The world has seen and read about all those well-publicized tragedies, I don't need to add to the plethora of claims and counterclaims the Internet and media are awash with". The problem here is that the author doesn't tell us whether she thinks these brutalities actually happened (indeed she latter heavily implies that Britain's Channel 4 had faulty journalism behind the alleged rape and murder of a female LTTE cadre) and as a reader I am growing increasingly worried that the book I am reading is written by someone who wants to "tell the story from another side" and hence only tell half the story.
My worries grow into a straight mistrust of the author when I see her using horrible arguments in an attempt to make international criticism of Sri Lanka look like they are politically motivated. She points out the hypocrisy of the U.S and West in general of calling out "genocide" in one country when they have deadly military campaigns elsewhere (which is fair enough but is an argument in favor of the West holding itself more accountable, not letting the Sri Lankan atrocities go unquestioned), but then the author launches a super weird attack on Canada, implying that because they were racist to Chinese people in 1923 they lose the right to call out what could be a genocide in another country. I have no problem with the author pointing out hypocritical condemnations, I have a huge problem with the author making an argument that essentially implies that since there is no country in the world that is not in some way complicit to a horrible act, no country should speak up if they see what they think is a genocide. The author also does this odd attempt at character assassination of the Tamil diaspora by saying "It is important to note that many 'economic refugees' from other parts of Sri Lanka unaffected by the war too fled overseas using the conflict as a smokescreen and a passport to asylum in an affluent country" when actually this claim is not only completely unquantified (what percentage of the diaspora does she think fits this category, because if its not a big percentage it literally doesn't matter) but is also just clearly an attempt to make the reader view the diaspora members as slightly opportunistic.
An impartial author does not use extremely bad arguments or character assassination to motivate her claims on the state of the world, this one does. These are just two of many examples that lead me to completely lose trust that this author is being honest when she reports how people feel about diaspora or the effect the international community has had on Sri Lanka, she clearly has an agenda she wants to sell to me and in a book where most of the claims are evidenced by "I heard someone say it", this is terminal.
To start with the positives: The book involves vivid descriptions of Sri Lanka, making it a useful handbook for prospective tourists, it takes the effort to cover how the authors experience of these places change over the various phases of the civil conflict to today, which helps readers understand the impact of the war and what the recovery process looks like. The author has also clearly put a lot of effort in speaking to both politically powerful individuals and the common person - be they Sinhalese or Tamil, Sri Lankan Army of LTTE, Politician or small business owner in a restaurant. In doing so the author pieces together enough evidence to convince me of a consistent claim made regarding the LTTE - they may well have started out a noble resistance movement which cared for the people and tried to help their people by achieving secession, but as the war pressed on they violently oppressed those they claimed to fight for - using their labor to fund LTTE activities, and their children to fill their ranks.
On the less positive side, there are several times when the author showcases blatant disregard for established international evidence of abuse by the Sri Lankan military and also makes arguments that are in such bad faith that it leads me to lose faith in her ability to tell an impartial story on the matter. The author claims to ask "hard questions" to army personnel, but in truth these are nothing more than the very shallow questions that the army has surely been prepped for - (like the question of Prabhakaran's youngest son potentially being killed by Sri Lankan Army forces), she gets a very simple and scripted answer in response and decides to push no further. When asking about excessive civilian casualties she lets the interviewee get away with incredible mental gymnastics (he takes the UN report 30,000-40,000 people killed and just subtracts a whole 29,300 who the military rescued as if the UN report was not aware of the presence of this "well documented 29,300 rescues" and then claims that since 40000-29,3000 is approximately 7000 that is the true number of casualties). I do not blame the author for not pushing if she felt like the Major General would not give any meaningful follow up, but she does absolutely no work in pointing out the issues with these responses. When Prabhakaran says at a press conference that "child soldiers were not needed at the moment" she (correctly) describes it in a negative light and heavily implies he is intentionally lying. But when the Major General tries to wriggle out of hard issues she lets him get away with it and even implies she is convinced by his answers in the end. This is not how an impartial journalist should write. Even worse, is that the author perhaps seems aware that she is not really trying to give an accurate picture of the atrocities committed by the army, when she says the following about claims of their brutality- "The world has seen and read about all those well-publicized tragedies, I don't need to add to the plethora of claims and counterclaims the Internet and media are awash with". The problem here is that the author doesn't tell us whether she thinks these brutalities actually happened (indeed she latter heavily implies that Britain's Channel 4 had faulty journalism behind the alleged rape and murder of a female LTTE cadre) and as a reader I am growing increasingly worried that the book I am reading is written by someone who wants to "tell the story from another side" and hence only tell half the story.
My worries grow into a straight mistrust of the author when I see her using horrible arguments in an attempt to make international criticism of Sri Lanka look like they are politically motivated. She points out the hypocrisy of the U.S and West in general of calling out "genocide" in one country when they have deadly military campaigns elsewhere (which is fair enough but is an argument in favor of the West holding itself more accountable, not letting the Sri Lankan atrocities go unquestioned), but then the author launches a super weird attack on Canada, implying that because they were racist to Chinese people in 1923 they lose the right to call out what could be a genocide in another country. I have no problem with the author pointing out hypocritical condemnations, I have a huge problem with the author making an argument that essentially implies that since there is no country in the world that is not in some way complicit to a horrible act, no country should speak up if they see what they think is a genocide. The author also does this odd attempt at character assassination of the Tamil diaspora by saying "It is important to note that many 'economic refugees' from other parts of Sri Lanka unaffected by the war too fled overseas using the conflict as a smokescreen and a passport to asylum in an affluent country" when actually this claim is not only completely unquantified (what percentage of the diaspora does she think fits this category, because if its not a big percentage it literally doesn't matter) but is also just clearly an attempt to make the reader view the diaspora members as slightly opportunistic.
An impartial author does not use extremely bad arguments or character assassination to motivate her claims on the state of the world, this one does. These are just two of many examples that lead me to completely lose trust that this author is being honest when she reports how people feel about diaspora or the effect the international community has had on Sri Lanka, she clearly has an agenda she wants to sell to me and in a book where most of the claims are evidenced by "I heard someone say it", this is terminal.
August 25, 2017
I eagerly started reading this book from a experienced Journalist Padmo Rao Sundarji.But, I felt it was NOT a balanced book at all.
I read a review of this book later and to quote the seasoned reviewer:
1. "Unfortunately, genuine "debates" with Sri Lankan military officials do not actually appear in this book.(as claimed by author)"
2. "the book is laced with references to the misguided notion that Sundarji (and others) have fabricated. Namely, that the Sri Lankan government is wise to maintain current troop levels in the northern and eastern provinces...
(main reason I'm not recommending this book, sorry.)"
Link to HuffingtonPost review:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-...
Having said that I'd recommend well balanced book by Author Rohini Mohan which happens to be selected by US NPR books:
http://tinyurl.com/nr22xd3
If you know of other balanced books, please recommend?
I read a review of this book later and to quote the seasoned reviewer:
1. "Unfortunately, genuine "debates" with Sri Lankan military officials do not actually appear in this book.(as claimed by author)"
2. "the book is laced with references to the misguided notion that Sundarji (and others) have fabricated. Namely, that the Sri Lankan government is wise to maintain current troop levels in the northern and eastern provinces...
(main reason I'm not recommending this book, sorry.)"
Link to HuffingtonPost review:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-...
Having said that I'd recommend well balanced book by Author Rohini Mohan which happens to be selected by US NPR books:
http://tinyurl.com/nr22xd3
If you know of other balanced books, please recommend?
May 26, 2018
A MUST READ if you want to understand SriLanka as it is today after the world's longest civil war.
As I planned a trip to SriLanka, came the absolute necessity to read n research about the country (obviously beyond the trip advisor notes)... I went through writings from 3 different authors on the country - European, Indian and native Sri Lankan. This one by Padma Rao is by far the best of them - well rounded and well researched.
It was a pleasure to read such a well researched book from an Indian author and a matter of great pride too - specially in this age of 'shout your opinion from the roof top' kind of media attitude all over the country. She has held back personal opinions and presented facts fairly and realistically woven across the 30 years of Civil war in the country.
She covers and represents all sides- the country men, the tigers, the army cadre, the politicians and of course the tourists who form an integral part of the country at any time (lack or overflow, unequivocally)
As I planned a trip to SriLanka, came the absolute necessity to read n research about the country (obviously beyond the trip advisor notes)... I went through writings from 3 different authors on the country - European, Indian and native Sri Lankan. This one by Padma Rao is by far the best of them - well rounded and well researched.
It was a pleasure to read such a well researched book from an Indian author and a matter of great pride too - specially in this age of 'shout your opinion from the roof top' kind of media attitude all over the country. She has held back personal opinions and presented facts fairly and realistically woven across the 30 years of Civil war in the country.
She covers and represents all sides- the country men, the tigers, the army cadre, the politicians and of course the tourists who form an integral part of the country at any time (lack or overflow, unequivocally)
March 21, 2018
I was very curious about Sri Lankan politics and the civil war of 30 years. This book provided me a good insight into the Sri Lanka post war and even during. I'm now confident about picking another more thorough political writing.
What I mean by the last line is that this book was easy to read and understand, despite having no clue about the matter at hand. Padma Rao has managed to paint a balanced picture of life in Sri Lankan in the new millennium. There have been instances were a lot of jumping back and forth in timeline takes place, usually to explain the link between the events. The narrative can get confusing at such times, but, if one is persistent, they won't face a problem following. I for one was totally hooked in spite of that.
The book is indeed detailed reportage of the new SL rising from the cinders of war and tsunami.
What I mean by the last line is that this book was easy to read and understand, despite having no clue about the matter at hand. Padma Rao has managed to paint a balanced picture of life in Sri Lankan in the new millennium. There have been instances were a lot of jumping back and forth in timeline takes place, usually to explain the link between the events. The narrative can get confusing at such times, but, if one is persistent, they won't face a problem following. I for one was totally hooked in spite of that.
The book is indeed detailed reportage of the new SL rising from the cinders of war and tsunami.
June 23, 2020
An account of post-conflict Sri Lanka : story largely from the 'other' side!
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews