@Godman @Nilgiri @surya kiran.. PDF never ceases to humor me, From one extreme accusation to another
That probability is nil, Given he was a bloody terrorist and was responsible for the muder of thousands, But this is a equation on leadership, Which he wins hands down over any post independence Sri Lankan leader to date
Ashoktroll/rangila/mehbook/insert accountname/etc.. is a rabid one with too much time on his hands.
When he isn't busy changing his location flags, creating and posting under new accounts or spamming anti-Modi threads....he ventures out to spread his nonsense in other threads.
Now coming back to the topic. Prabhakaran was definitely a leader, problem is all the qualities that make politicians in general were refined in him dangerously to the max. This means having no notion of compromise at all....which in any leader will outdo any of their positive attributes in the long run. Their decisiveness and charm/appeal thus become their dominant persona and eventually their only relevant attributes...and that is very unbalanced in the long run.
We often tend to associate compromise with weakness, its human nature after all. But compromise is what keeps civilisation and society functioning in a matrix of relative peace and prosperity. When its disrupted, much suffering ensues.
It takes a particular sort of person to enter politics/leadership in the first place. You need some noticeable degree of narcissism above an average person right off the bat. Above anything this is the quality that is most concentrated and refined in characters like Prabhakaran and the more famous Hitler and Stalin....and they eventually evolve into various shades of sociopath and psychopath as they surround themselves eternally with echo chambers forcibly. Rather than retreat to the vast green pastures of compromise and long term prudence, their nature dictates they charge further down the tunnel of the deepest darkest recesses of the human psyche to compensate for the wearing off from the major addictive rush that they originally experienced during the process of acquiring and expanding power and control.
Thus they lead their people to much bloodshed and doom because their very existence destroys the availability of choice for the common person, till the persona does not exist anymore. The average person has been shown to be relatively weak, we prefer to go along with virulent extremists, provided they are virulent enough.
When we are desperate enough due to whatever prevailing socio-economic factor, that threshold is further diminished and vulnerable to exploitation. The resulting struggle among those that are in position to exploit this always inevitably leads to a Prabhakaran persona....the one that can stake and risk more than the others, be more ruthless than the others and of course have enough luck on his side as well....while expanding/enshrining his cult of personality to ensure short and mid-term dominance.
You can call that leadership, but it is merely one facet of something much darker and destructive.
The sad story of human history is that the destruction engulfs countless other people's lives well before the persona himself.
