යුද්ධය හා ජනවර්ග අර්බුදය

Written for the Tamil-language Veerakesari at that paper’s invitation, and it begins by placing its author: the man writing to a Tamil paper about what the Tamil people face after the war is not a Tamil but a Sinhalese — and not a Sinhalese born in a Sinhala area but one born in Batticaloa, who drove his pen to build Sinhala opinion in recognition that a grave injustice had been done to the Tamil nation.

බුද්ධිමය අවංකභාවය හා බුද්ධිමතකුගේ සදාචාර අර්බුදය (ආචාර්ය සුනිල් විජේසිරිවර්ධනට පිළිතුරක්)

Ivan questioned one idea from Dr Sunil Wijesiriwardena’s interview, not to put him in difficulty but because he believed it would put a wrong view into a reader’s head. The reply came, and this is Ivan’s answer to the reply — which begins by noting that the reply insists repeatedly that it is not a reply.

ප්‍රභාකරන්ගේ විනාශය

Prabhakaran’s organisation was thought unbeatable and fell like a great tree. Ivan argues
that had he accepted defeat as Hitler did — taking his own life to release his followers —
the war could have ended without harm to the civilians, and that instead he made them his
shield. Setting him beside Wijeweera, he finds two able men whom a particular political
climate turned cruel, and asks what kind of country would not have done that to them.

ප්‍රගතිශීලිත්වය හා ප්‍රතිගාමිත්වය

A philosophical and historical reflection by the author on their controversial support for the state’s harsh military suppression of both the JVP insurrection and the LTTE. Drawing comparisons to the non-violent civil rights movements of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, the author argues that when armed rebellions become devastatingly brutal and jeopardize society, state counter-violence can sometimes be a progressive necessity rather than a reactionary evil.