Hello All,

Hope you all had a win on Cup Day.....or at least a nice day off work.

As this is a relatively new book there weren't any book club questions on my google searches so I resorted to coming up with a few questions myself so please be gentle with me.

In an interview Niromi states that violence is no tool or means to achieve resolution. Do you believe this to be true? Is there any scenario/situation in life where violence is the only means to defend a belief or something held dear?


How much do you think she was protected by the other Tamil Tigers? Was this because of her middle class upbringing?


Is her story really one of being a fighter or a protected teenager championing a naive belief? Friends spoke of support for the cause but within her social circle it never translated into action. Why might this be?

Was Niromi brave in not hiding behind the social expectation of the caste system or fear of disappointing her family and the social impact that may have?


Can you understand why Benjamin’s murder by the Tamils was not enough to make her walk away but actually paved the way for innumerable excuses and sacrifices for the Tamil Tigers.


Was Niromi’s honorable intent in joining the Tamils justified or driven by fear?
Can the two be separated in the face of injustice/persecution?


I also came across this article which I thought was rather interesting……
http://groundviews.org/2011/08/31/forbidden-fruits-niromi-de-soyzas-tamil-tigress-noumi-kouri-and-helen-demidenko/


Hope to see you all tomorrow in sunny Reefton.

Irene