(Monsieur Bergeret in Paris)

 By Tisaranee Gunasekara

Mahinda Rajapaksa, Namal Rajapaksa and Basil Rajapaksa

The draconian land-grabbing Bill is back.
The resurrected Bill empowers the regime to acquire any piece of land, anywhere, by the simple expedient of declaring it of economic, social, historical or environmental import or as a sacred area. The first attempt at enacting the Bill failed because the Supreme Court refused to rule on it. Land is a devolved subject constitutionally, and the Rajapaksas, in their hurry (and arrogance), had not bothered to refer the Bill to the provincial councils.
That failure is being righted: “Provincial Councils are expected to give their consent to the proposed Town and Country Planning Ordinance Amendment before February 8 … The Bill would be presented to Parliament next Wednesday (Daily Mirror – 1.2.2012).
Those Provincial Councils controlled by Rajapaksa acolytes will assent to this Bill – or any other Rajapaksa order – with slavish alacrity. Since the Northern Provincial Council is in abeyance, if the Eastern Provincial Council does not put up a fight, this ultra draconian Bill will become law, ere long.
Once the Bill is through, the Rajapaksas will be able to expropriate any land, from North to South, from East to West. No Lankan, Sinhala, Tamil or Muslim, will be safe from their rapacious tentacles. The poor man’s few perches and the rich man’s many acres will be endangered alike.
Let there be no doubt – the Rajapaksas will not shy away from even the most extreme measure, to appease their land-hunger. After all, who would have thought that the Siblings are planning to grab the land on which the Hulftsdorf courts complex is located (and has been located for over a century)? According to a government decision, “the entire court complex…will be…relocated to another area” (Ceylon Today – 2.2.2012). The land can then be ‘developed’ and sold/leased, probably to a Chinese company. Once the land-grabbing Bill is through, even private lands will become vulnerable to such arbitrary treatment.
Already the Rajapaksas are grabbing lands belonging to the poor and the powerless – from Kalpitiya fishermen to Anuradhapura farmers, from the Northern displaced to the peasants of Hambantota and Moneragala – with no compensation. These lands are being used to build military camps, expressways, car parks and tourist hotels. The Bill is needed to subject the middle classes and the rich, to the same unjust and arbitrary treatment, legally.
The Bill will also provide the Rajapaksas with a deadly weapon against political enemies and ordinary voters. During the recent CMC elections, parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa issued a thinly veiled threat to Colombo’s poor – they will be evicted from their homes if they do not vote for the UPFA. Once the land-grabbing Bill is through, that threat can become a reality, in Colombo, and everywhere else.
Since the Bill presents a common danger, it can be used to unite people of all communities and political-hues. The regime will present the Bill as a pro-development and anti-devolution measure, to render impossible this possible North-South unity.
Will the JVP fall for this ruse? Will the UNP overcome its debilitating divisions to oppose this tyrannical measure? After all, the Bill will be used to punish UNP and JVP activists and voters as well. Will the TNA be able to convince Delhi to put a spoke in this deadly Rajapaksa-wheel, because the land-grabbing Bill, if enacted, will make a mockery of the 13th Amendment, just as it will make a mockery of democracy?

13th Amendment Minus, Minus, Minus…

According to Minister Basil Rajapaksa, the regime has “no plans to allocate land and police powers to the provinces” (Sri Lanka Mirror – 26.1.2012). Naturally; how can the Rajapaksas sustain their financially-encumbered administration and continue with their showy projects, if they do not have monarchical power over all Lankan lands, public and private?
Perhaps the Rajapaksas delayed resurrecting the land-grabbing bill because they needed to enact their customary pro-devolution drama for the benefit of the visiting Indian Foreign Minister.
Did the Rajapaksas don their Bonapartist-mask and pretend that they are committed to 13th Amendment plus, but need time to pacify Sinhala hardliners baying at their heels? Did Mr. Krishna really believe the Rajapaksas or was he too playacting, for the benefit of the Tamil Nadu voters?
According to the ‘Official Government News Portal of Sri Lanka’, Minister Krishna said, “it was heartening to hear from the Sri Lankan President that he was committed to solving Sri Lanka’s national problem based on the 13th Amendment plus approach” (News.lk – 17.1.2012). This statement was made in the presence of Minister G. L. Peiris; if Mr. Krishna misquoted the President, Minister Peiris could have corrected him. There was no such correction, then or later.
Now the President says he never promised 13+ to Minister Krishna: “Oh, No! How can I make promises like that? I have referred the issue to Parliament” (The Island – 30.1.2012). The Rajapaksa plan seems to be to stage another Parliamentary Select Committee charade, even as the land-grabbing Bill is enacted. Eventually a powerless senate will be offered to the minorities, the real purpose of which will be to provide an expensive political-retirement home for those Rajapaksa acolytes past their use-by date.
The land-grabbing Bill is important because it is proof-positive that Rajapaksa actions are motivated solely by Rajapaksa needs. The Rajapaksas are not centrists doing a difficult balancing-act to stay on the middle-ground. They are the real extremists, because their project of Familial Rule cum Dynastic Succession is inimically antithetical to both democracy and devolution.
The Ruling Family’s political project requires individuals and institutions willing to obey unquestioningly every Rajapaksa dictat, including anti-democratic and unlawful ones. This in turn necessitates a police and a judiciary ready to protect those law-breakers who are members/acolytes of the Ruling Family. The other basic Rajapaksa political requirements include an elections commissioner who will ignore blatant violations of elections laws, a bribery commissioner and a human rights commissioner who will turn a blind eye to the criminal deeds of power-wielders, a central bank governor who will manufacture statistics to prove every Rajapaksa claim and a military which will protect Rajapaksa Rule, even against the constitution.
None of this is compatible with democracy or devolution. But all are necessary for Familial Rule and Dynastic Succession.
Therefore the Rajapaksas replaced the 17th Amendment with the 18th Amendment, turning independent commissions into presidential appendages. Therefore the President took over the AG’s Department. Therefore Ajith Nivad Cabral rules the Central Bank. Therefore the Freedom of Information Act was killed. Therefore a variety of means are used to silence the media which tells the country what the Siblings do not want the country to hear.
Those officials who do not want to play along will be compelled to resign honourably, as the Human Rights Commissioner did.  The Rajapaksas want absolute power and absolute control. They will lie and deceive, cheat and cajole, buy and bribe, kill and imprison to achieve these interrelated goals. Their first victims may be those who oppose and expose their dynastic project. But no citizen, however apolitical, will be safe from their kleptocratic-tentacles, as the land-grabbing Bill demonstrates. Vellupillai Pirapaharan was the objective-enemy of Tamil people; the Rajapaksas are the objective-enemy of Lankan people.

A damp squib: The All Party Conference summoned by Rajapaksa in 2006 Picture courtesy: www.asiantribune.com

Rajapaksa since first assuming office in 2005 has come forward with various proposals and actions claiming to find a solution to the ethnic issue.
Given the government’s indecisive approach towards finding a solution to the ethnic issue, opposition political parties are now skeptical and have expressed their lack of faith in the mechanisms proposed by the government.
The actions that have so far been taken and some proposed vary from All Party Conferences, an independent commission appointed by the President, talks with the TNA and a proposal to set up a parliamentary select committee (PSC) to find a solution.
All these actions however have helped the government delay its approach in finding a solution to the ethnic issue.
The first move by President Rajapaksa after assuming office was to convene an All Party Conference with the representation of all political parties in the country to discuss and find a solution to the ethnic issue.
On July 11, 2006 Rajapaksa decided at the All Party Conference to appoint a committee of representatives, the All Party representative Committee (APRC) mandating it to formulate constitutional reforms.
The APRC was asked to propose a “homegrown new constitution” that would provide a “comprehensive approach to the resolution of the national question.”
Simultaneously, Rajapaksa also appointed a panel of experts to make another set of proposals.
The experts’ panel in 2006 presented two reports – a majority report and a minority report.
In January 2008, the APRC Chairman Minister Prof. Tissa Vitharana handed the proposals to the President.
However, the proposals in the APRC report were not implemented and the government discarded the report itself.
The next move by the President was to appoint the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in May 2010 to look into the incidents that took place in the country since 2002 till the end of the war in 2009.
The LLRC was asked to make proposals on overcoming another ethnic issue and ways to deal with the existing issues.
The LLRC report was handed over to the President last year.
Once again the government failed to take any positive action on the recommendations made by the LLRC amidst calls by opposition political parties for its implementation.
The President last year also initiated a dialogue with the TNA to discuss a political settlement.
A government delegation was appointed to discuss with the TNA and even after a year, the discussions failed to reach any substantive agreements with regard to a solution to the ethnic issue.
The talks between the government and the TNA finally came to a standstill after the former withdrew from the discussion table saying the proposed PSC is the only forum to discuss and propose a political solution.
The TNA meanwhile is determined not to participate in the PSC until it reaches a substantive agreement with the government on a political solution.

Back To Square One

It is in this backdrop that Rajapaksa last week announced during a meeting with heads of media institutions that an All Party Conference would be reconvened to discuss the national issue.
He had said such a conference was needed due to the delay in constituting the proposed PSC.
The irony is that Rajapaksa’s statement aimed at highlighting the government’s move forward towards finding a political solution is in fact an indication of the whole process going “Back to square one.”
The main opposition UNP says the government needed to inform its stance on the ethnic issue first.
UNP General Secretary Tissa Attanayake said the government first needed to make known its stance with regard to the solution to the ethnic issue.
He told The Sunday Leader that the President should also work towards implementing the recommendations of the LLRC.
“The government said the LLRC would address the issues faced by the country, but now the report has been released and the recommendations have not been implemented,” he said.
He added that the UNP was prepared to discuss and support the government in its effort to implement the LLRC recommendations.
According to Attanayake, before speaking about reconvening an All Party Conference which had failed previously, the government needed to pay attention to the LLRC recommendations.
The TNA has slammed the President for his move to reconvene an All Party Conference.
The party says that President Mahinda Rajapaksa should stop vacillating in finding a political solution to the ethnic issue and honor the undertaking given to the TNA.
TNA parliamentarian M. A. Sumanthiran told The Sunday Leader that the President should not be changing his stance with regard to finding a solution to the ethnic issue.
“He keeps changing his stance every now and then,” he said.
He explained that the President has given an undertaking to the TNA that a solution to the ethnic issue would be discussed with the party.
“However, he then proposed a parliamentary select committee (PSC) and asked the TNA to submit names to it. The TNA then agreed to provide names after reaching a substantive agreement with regard to the solution in the talks with the government. Now the President is trying to convene an All Party Conference,” he observed.
“It is not good for the President to be changing his stance. He must honor the agreement with the TNA,” Sumanthiran noted.

A Non Starter

The JVP meanwhile dismissed the proposal made by President Mahinda Rajapksa to convene an All Party Conference to discuss a solution to the ethnic issue.
JVP Propaganda Secretary and parliamentarian Vijitha Herath told The Sunday Leader that the All Party Conference is a failure.
He noted that the President had previously summoned an All Party Conference and it was a failure.
“The All Party Conference did not have an agenda and there was no proper outcome from it. It was a failure and there is no guarantee that the same exercise would not be repeated once again,” he said.
“The JVP handed its proposals and an agenda for the talks when the all party meeting was convened by the President last time, but they were not considered,” he added.
According to Herath, the All Party Conference was nothing but a time-buying exercise and a move to engage the international community.
The government’s response to the question on its stance on the solution to the ethnic issue is that the political parties should participate in the PSC to be informed of the matter.
Acting Cabinet Spokesperson, Minister Anura Priyadharshana Yapa had told the Cabinet press briefing that the government would inform its stance on the matter to the proposed PSC.
He had added that the political parties should participate in the PSC if they want to know the government’s stance on the issue.

Tamil Nadu Continues Agitating For Kachchatheevu

The South Indian state of Tamil Nadu continues with its long standing struggle to regain Kachchatheevu, a 285 acre uninhabited island situated between India and Sri Lanka.
Last Friday Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha said that she would not stop her struggle until Kachchatheevu was retrieved.
She observed that the issues faced by the Tamil Nadu fishermen at the hands of the Sri Lanka Navy had to be addressed and regaining Kachchatheevu would be a step in that direction.
Tamil Nadu Governor K. Rosaiah also called on the Central Indian government to regain the island. The Indian government however maintains that there was no issue over the Kachchatheevu Island following the 1974 agreement with Sri Lanka.
The issue over Kachchatheevu has come to the forefront with the increased number of clashes between Sri Lankan and Indian fishermen in the Palk Bay. The Indian fishermen continue to encroach into Sri Lankan waters with Kachchatheevu being used as the grounds for the Indians to fish in the area. The island is located in Sri Lankan waters.
Kachchatheevu was under Indian control until 1974 when India ceded the island to Sri Lanka. However, politicians from Tamil Nadu have continuously pressured the Central government to nullify the 1974 agreement.
They have even gone to the extent of saying that the then Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, had handed over Kachchatheevu due to her personal relations with then Sri Lankan Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike.
The issue over Kachchatheevu first figured in the 1921 conference between the two countries that was held in Colombo on October 24. India and Sri Lanka met to discuss the question of “delimitation of the Palk Straits and the Gulf of Mannar” between the British Government, which administered Ceylon, and the British Government, which administered the Madras Presidency.
As the Conference proceeded the head of the Ceylon delegation, Horsburgh, proposed that the “delimitation should follow the median line, subject to an incursion beyond that line so as to include the Islet of Kachchatheevu and three miles to the Westward”. Horsburgh had quoted from the correspondence with the Government of India in which Ceylon claimed possession of the island and “it was to be inferred, acquiesced in”.
However, on May 17, 1966 the then Indian External Affairs Minister Dinesh Singh had said, “there was a meeting in 1921 in which representatives from the Government of Madras and Ceylon had agreed that while the Zamindari rights of the Raja of Ramnad would continue, the island belonged to Ceylon. The Secretary of State for India does not accept this fact and since then, the dispute has been going on.”
Despite the uncertainty over legal ownership of Kachchatheevu the island remained in Sri Lanka’s possession.

Legal Action

In June 2011, the Tamil Nadu government led by J. Jayalalithaa filed a petition in the Indian Supreme Court seeking the declaration of the 1974 and 1976 agreements between India and Sri Lanka on ceding of Kachchatheevu to Sri Lanka as unconstitutional.
The Court had earlier ruled in the Berubari case that cession of Indian territory to another country had to be ratified by parliament through an amendment to the constitution. Kachchatheevu was ceded to Sri Lanka in violation of the Court order under the 1974 and 1976 agreements without the approval of the two Houses of Parliament.
It is in this backdrop that Tamil Nadu Governor K. Rosaiah last week called on the state government to regain Kachchatheevu Island and restore the lost rights of the fishermen.
Delivering his maiden address to the State Assembly, Dr. Rosaiah had said the government was deeply concerned about the continuing attacks and harassment of fishermen of the State by the Sri Lankan Navy.
“Despite our protests, such incidents are being repeated,” he had said, and urged the Center to take up the issue with Sri Lanka.
Nevertheless, the Indian government maintains that it cannot take back Kachchatheevu from Sri Lanka since it falls on the Sri Lankan side of the international maritime boundary line (IMBL), as well as the fact that India had formally ceded it to the island nation through the 1974 and 1976 agreements.
India also has to pay great attention to the agreement reached with Sri Lanka. The country has already signed maritime boundary agreements with Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Maldives.
Therefore, any violation of an agreement by India would have an adverse impact on its image.
The Indian government’s stance towards the issue has since relaxed and despite pressure from Tamil Nadu, the Central government has opted not to pursue the Kachchatheevu case with Sri Lanka.

A Settled Matter

Indian External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna, last year, made this known in Parliament and simply stated that the matter of Kachchatheevu’s sovereignty is “a settled matter”.
On August 26, 2011 Krishna making a speech on Sri Lanka to the Lok Sabha also referred to fishing rights for Indian fishermen at the Kachchatheevu Island.
“I wish to bring to the attention of the august House that our fishermen have access to visit the Island for rest, for drying of nets and for the annual St. Anthony’s Festival, and that the rights do not cover fishing around Kachchatheevu Island,” he had said.
Krishna had further noted, “We will have to also bear in mind the fact that as per the Agreements we have concluded with Sri Lanka in 1974 and 1976, Kachchatheevu Island lies on the Sri Lankan side of the maritime boundary line. These agreements were laid before the Parliament. Therefore, as far as the Government of India is concerned, the issue of the maritime boundary between India and Sri Lanka, and consequently, that of sovereignty over Kachchatheevu Island is a settled matter.”
The waters off Kachchatheevu Island is an important fishing area used by fishermen from both countries.
However, under the treaty agreement of 1974, Indian fishermen have rights to the fishing grounds around Kachchatheevu in the Sri Lankan territorial waters and could attend the feast at the St. Anthony’s shrine on the island.
Although movements of the Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen were restricted during the period of the war, the situation has now eased with the end of the war in 2009.
The Sri Lankan government meanwhile has opted to ignore the South Indian agitation over Kachchatheevu’s ownership.
Government Spokesperson, Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella noted that Kachchatheevu was a political issue raised by some South Indian politicians.
“There will not be any impact unless there is an issue instigated by some politicians,” Rambukwella said.

Ranil Wickremesinghe and Maithri Gunaratne

UNP Southern Provincial Councilor and Attorney-at-Law Maithri Gunaratne says the outcome of the election for UNP office bearers would have been different if a proper secret ballot had been held. Gunaratne has now challenged the appointment of party leader Ranil Wickremesinghe before court and the case is to be taken up for hearing on the 22nd. Speaking to The Sunday Leader, he said that the value of a secret vote has been destroyed at the election for office bearers last December. He charged that Wickremesinghe is a disgrace to democracy. “He has in fact raped democracy. The IDU should remove him from the Union,” he said in the interview.
Excerpts:

Q: You have filed a case against UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe’s appointment as party leader. On what basis have you challenged his appointment?

A: Article 8.2 of the party Constitution makes provision for the holding of a secret ballot to elect office bearers. The first issue is that there was no secret ballot. The ballot papers were numbered and issued to the 92 member electoral body on the day of the election. There is no secrecy when the ballot papers are numbered because the person who cast the vote could be identified. Although there had been objections raised at the time and attempts to change the system, the ballot paper numbered 1 had been given to Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2 to Karu Jayasuriya and 3 to Sajith Premadasa. It is not a secret ballot when a vote could be spotted.
The second issue is that the election was held in the party leader’s office. There was a power of incumbency there. Party Secretary Tissa Attanayake had organized the election in the party leader’s office in violation of the concept of a secret ballot. Voters are given a message through the holding of an election in the party leader’s office with numbered ballot papers that they need to think sharply before casting their votes. The party Secretary has a separate office and the election could have been held there. The party leader appointed him to parliament through the national list because he could not contest and win an election. He is therefore grateful for this gesture. After appointing him to parliament, the party leader also appointed him as the General Secretary. The party leader appoints the General Secretary annually. According to the party constitution, the party Secretary Attanayake has to perform the duties of a returning officer at the election for office bearers. It is evident that Attanayake had conspired with Wickremesinghe to somehow subvert provisions of the constitution.
Another issue is that only Working Committee members and parliamentary group members were allowed to Siri Kotha on the day of the election, but other members and supporters of Wickremesinghe were allowed into the party headquarters. An environment was not created to hold a free and fair election.
All these actions are similar to President Mahinda Rajapaksa deciding to hold the next Presidential election at Temple Trees. Would that help have a free and fair election?
My contention is that the appointment is illegal.
Wickremesinghe appointed Ravi Karunanayake as the national organizer in violation of the party constitution. The move is being challenged in court. However, the appointment diluted the composition of the Advisory Committee. This Advisory Committee appointed a Working Committee with a composition favorable to Wickremesinghe. It is this illegally appointed Working Committee that has voted for Wickremesinghe’s re-election.

Q: Do you have evidence to prove your accusation?
A: Yes. Two parliamentarians have given affidavits and there are several more are willing to come forward when required.

Q: Do you believe that the outcome of the election for the party leadership would have been different if the issues raised by you had been addressed?

A: Definitely. The voting would have been different if the people were satisfied that no one would know whom they had voted for. That is the importance of a secret ballot. For example, if an election is held when the country is under a terror rule where the voters could be identified will the people vote to dismiss the ruling party? The value of a secret vote has been destroyed. Ranil Wickremesinghe is a disgrace to democracy. He has in fact raped democracy. The IDU should remove him from the Union.

Q: Why have the other seniors and Working Committee members refrained from taking any action about this matter?

A: They have raised objections. But Ranil Wickremesinghe is not too different from Mahinda Rajapaksa, who destroys anyone who dares oppose him. Sarath Fonseka opposed him and ended up behind bars. Whoever opposed Ranil Wickremesinghe has been harassed and penalized. Sajith Premadasa and Karu Jayasuriya have opposed him and they are being harassed and penalized along with their supporters. Wickremesinghe while being in the opposition is doing what Mahinda Rajapaksa is doing in government in a different manner. He (Wickremesinghe) is a dangerous man who should not be given government power.

Q: Have you received the support of other party members to challenge the party leader?
A: Yes. My strength comes from the people and the party members. It was unbelievable to see the number of people who called me and supported my actions.

Q: Do you believe that your actions would help change the party leadership?

A: Yes. All positions of authority have to be held by gentlemen. If there is are persons without any scruples who get their way through any means, they put all citizens at risk with their actions. You have to be careful about who you put in positions of authority. Ranil Wickremesinghe was quick to bring regulations to curb media freedom citing a British example, but he has failed to speak of the other British teachings. He should abide by his school motto – Learn or Depart. He has failed to either learn or leave. He has become a puppet in the hands of the government.

Q: Who do you think could take over the UNP leadership?

A: In the present context I believe Karu Jayasuriya could rally all forces together. He would be able to bring back the Sinhala Buddhist voters who drifted away from the party due to the ridiculing of the war by Wickremesinghe and a few other party seniors. For the first time the four Mahanayake Theros signed and handed a letter to Wickremesinghe asking him to step down and hand over the party leadership to Jayasuriya. It is a great feat for Jayasuriya. I thing Jayasuriya is more accessible and a gentleman. I have no objection to Wickremesinghe remaining as a senior leader of the party. There is no personal animosity against him. The people however are not willing to accept him as the party leader.

Our island was called Lanka in pre King Vijaya times. Valmiki’s immortal Ramayanaya had King Ravana ruling the land from the city of Lankapura. That was almost four thousand years ago. The Arab traders termed it Jaziratul-Yaqut, island of rubies. Some called it Serandip, some Ceilan, from which the Portuguese picked Ceilao and the European map-makers coined Ceylon. Many were the names from the many that came, and they all were collective in their comment in the description of this land. Bar none, everyone agreed and noted in their chronicles that this island was indeed the complete Paradise.
We never gained it. Let us be honest about that part. We simply inherited. The Gods from their celestial dome, in their infinite kindness, gifted this Paradise to us, the beautiful island of Lanka, to the people of Sri Lanka .
The privilege of being born and belonging to such a place can only be rightfully expressed if one can take the turmoil out and look through the veils of disharmony that obscure what lies beyond. The purity of the land, still remains, so much unspoiled. The occupant of Paradise, still smiles, in spite of the battering he had received from the time we were reborn after the colonials left. Mother Lanka dawdles, whilst her sons and daughters drowse in ignorance, somewhat a prelude to the disasters ahead.
Ruben walks daily carrying his Malu Kada following the footsteps of his father and grand-father. His son Saman tags along, apprenticing the trade, helps to weigh the fish, cleans the broad blade knife as his father barters with the housewives, haggling for the bargain. They leave, father and son, with the little boy shouting Malu Malu straining his tender vocal chords. The fishmonger to be, on his first lessons. No change.
Podi Hami prays every day. That is all she can do. She and her son Sirisena, did try every possible means and failed. No they could not get a letter for employment. Wrong party, not our people, that is what the man said. Not that Podi Hami had any inclination of what happened in the parliament or who sat aloft. She merely crossed the ballot papers.
There was always too much controversy in the news and people spoke in such different tones about their leaders that Podi Hami had long given up in her little mind to seek the truth. That was impossible. She merely voted and got branded. Now she sees young Sirisena, a posthumous corporal, beret and braid, in black and white, immortalised in a cheap framed photograph, hanging on the nail infested bedroom wall, boring his eyes at her, a sad and constant memory of a war where mainly the poor make the payments.
A Porsche glitters inside a show room at the Bambalapitiya junction. A young boy pushes his crippled father, looking at the cars. The old man sits crumpled, folded along with his worldly belongings, in a rickety old chair that rolls on warped wheels. Donated by the Lions, says the back. A blind man and his woman share their lunch, seated on the pavement on Dickman’s Road. Someone had been generous. The woman, withered and wasted, raises a buth kata to her toothless mouth and hears the world with sightless eyes, whilst the husband waits his turn, scratching his mottled skin of burnt black – Citizens of Paradise.
The sun goes down and the pavements become the bedchambers for the super poor who pray for the rains to hold till morning.
These are no fairy tales of my redundant imagination. They are the stories of Paradise. The day-to-day events that play sad and silent along the cacophony of achievement. Do not tell me they are isolated, oh no, not by a long shot. They are the unheard, the ignored and the expendable debts of the displaced denizens of Paradise. The stentorians are there, loud and clear, announcing to the world and beyond, the inflated paths of progress, with rainbow visions for the morrow, splashing milk and honey stories. But, isn’t there a big question mark? Isn’t there some straining needed to seek the truth?
I am not talking of devolution and separations, politics do not interest me. I am like Podi Hami, totally confused between right and wrong and where lies the light. I am writing of the core, the very basics that humans search for, Uncle Sam’s stuff, the pursuit of happiness type, the very essence that Paradise should be made of, which I think, is sadly missing at present.
They leave Paradise by the thousands. Why? That is a good question. Look around and you will see the answer. They move out to pursue their happiness elsewhere. Not by choice, but by reasons of sheer necessity. The Sri Lankan Diaspora is everywhere, from the chilly summits of Northern Canada to the dry lands of Tasmania. From sushi land to Swaziland. From the deserts of Dhahran to the lush green valleys of New Zealand. You see them with their little Sri Lankan clubs, clinging on dearly to memories of a homeland, torn between a new life and what they left behind.
It is a love they cannot shed, a romance gone rotten, and they gather and lament, speak in sad nostalgic tones and save miserly to visit and spend a week or two in their much loved and beloved Paradise.
Why do these inheritors leave Paradise? Something must have gone wrong in the system. The exodus only began after we were reborn. Hence, the blame is not with the colonials and their House of Commons. It is ours and ours alone, lying firmly in the Pontius hands of the custodians who were chosen to charter our future, and seemingly have failed in their delivery.
Is it not a fact that there is a mass cry for employment outside. The mason and the maid lead, followed by the waiter, the janitor and the bartender. Name him, and he is there, looking for agents to send him to some far away Valhalla . The banker too, and the medicine man, fill passport forms, standing side by side with the young urban professional and the academic erudite. All looking across the sea, from the shores of Paradise.
There are some consolations too, one cannot be totally paranoid. The factory jobs are there for the tradeless. Foreign Marks and local Spencer make the mint and scope the cream and the poor Paradisians eat the peanut. Still, it is something to keep the kitchen fires burning. The rest of the no skills pawn their souls to go abroad. Local Dick Whitingtons charging into the unknown, exploited at every toll gate (there are many) and slave in alien homes in the Middle East and Asia, sending their carefully hoarded pitiful dirams and dollars to their loved ones, whilst counting agonising days to return home.
Sixty four years have gone by from the day of independence. The blameless blame, the nameless suffer, the shameless go on, ramroding their way to erode and annihilate Paradise. No need to further elaborate, the reasons are obvious. Some things happen to be best left unsaid. Let me be the coward and let discretion become the better part of my limited attempts at journalism.
Call me a fool if it pleases you and I will accept it. But let me trickle some sanity to your thoughts. Just to kindle an interest. Totally non political. I cannot and do not separate the villain from the venerated, the line is too thin and the facts are wildly scattered. The truth certainly is in masquerade. The Lankan Paradise is not lost, not yet. It is certainly misplaced. That much can be clearly seen, lest one be blind. What happens in the end to things that are misplaced? They never get found and as time goes by; it surely will become something permanently missing.
Ours is a Paradise misplaced. Let us all valiantly search, it is not too late. Let us collectively find ourselves and our land, before it vanishes beyond the limit, and becomes a Paradise Lost.

Shehan Karunatilaka

Q: It was just announced that you won the DSC prize for South Asian Literature. How does that feel? Is it something you expected, or is it very surreal?
A: It was not something I expected. I was at Jaipur to meet Oprah and hang out with Rushdie, neither of which I got to do. It is pretty surreal, considering that I when I spent years in a tiny room in Colpetty hammering it out, I did not expect it to be read outside of Colombo.

Q: Where did you draw your inspiration from for Chinaman, particularly for the title character, W. G Karunasena? Was there a person in particular who inspired you?
A: WG is really the soul of the book and it’s his voice that attracted me to the story. While researching it, I spoke to many older gentlemen on their knowledge of Sri Lankan cricket. Yes, many of them happened to be drunk at the time. WG is not really one person, but I suppose he did stem f rom these conversations.

Q: How much work was it to write? Was it something that flowed naturally or did you too have writer’s block, as Karunasena did?
A: Writing is always tough work. Especially when you procrastinate as much as I do. The only solution is to do it everyday, at the same time, for hours on end. Some days it flows, some days it does not. But like any job, you have to turn up on time and stay till the end.

Q: I hear you attended the Jaipur Literary Festival — how was the experience, and how did it compare to the Galle Literary Festival?
A: The Jaipur Lit Fest is a stampede. I think there was around 120,000 people there, double that of last year. While the line-ups are somewhat similar, (apart from Oprah, of course) and both Jaipur and Galle are magical settings, the main difference is that Jaipur is free, so anyone with an interest, or without one, can turn up. While Galle is more intimate and exclusive, Jaipur is more egalitarian and much more crowded. But they are both fantastic events and it is a pity they are held at the same time.

Q: Do you think local writers are adequately represented at the Galle Literary Festival?
A:  I attended a few years ago, when Sunila Galapatti was in charge. Back then, I thought there were plenty of Sri Lankan writers, though perhaps not that many writing in Sinhala or Tamil. I have not been invited back since, so I am not sure I am in a position to comment.

Q: What is your own writing process like?
A: I spend months on research before I write a single word. I have to have the walls covered with notes and ideas before I begin. Then it is just a grind like any other job. I write from 4 a.m till noon every day and read in the afternoons. I try and get a first draft done in a year. Then I spend another year revising it. That is how I did it last time, anyway.
I have only written one book. The next one may take longer.
Q: How easy would you say it is to make a living as a writer in Sri Lanka?
A: As a copywriter, it is reasonably easy. Long hours at times, but decent pay and lifestyle. That is as long as you can stomach being in advertising.
Being a journalist is more challenging, but I guess more rewarding.
And depending on your beat, more dangerous. I did not find it hard to make a livi1ng as a freelancer when I was writing Chinaman. You just have to be organised and have a steady stream of clients who pay on time.
As for making a living as a novelist, I am sure it is possible, but I am not sure many have cracked it, especially if you are writing in English.
I have been searching for Sinhala and Tamil translators for Chinaman for years, but to no avail. It is sad that the book will probably come out in French, Italian and Malay before it comes out in Sinhala or Tamil.

Q: Which authors do you consider to be your inspiration? And which books do you enjoy reading, in your spare time?
A: Reading is no longer a spare time activity. It is an essential part of the gig, if you are writing seriously. You have to be knocking back as many books as possible on a daily basis. Most of my reading is connected to the project I am working on, but the authors I keep returning to are Kurt Vonnegut, William Goldman, Chuck Palahnuik and Neil Gaiman.

Q: Any future novels in the works?
A: Yep. Still in the research stage, but it is  going well. It will be set in Sri Lanka, but I am steering clear of sports and drunks.

APCs galore

We read on Tuesday that President Mahinda Rajapaksa had once again said that he was considering ‘reconvening the APC to discuss national issues!’ He had not enlarged on what his new intentions were.
Frankly, we have to confess losing count of the many APC that were summoned for the same purpose since 1984. We recall the Mangala Moonesinghe parliamentary committee, President Chandrika Kumaratunga (whether she had a committee or not) forwarded her own Amendments to the constitution which were physically torn to shreds in parliament and then the many committees appointed by Mahinda Rajapaksa. Rajapaksa had an APC, an APRC and a committee of experts also appointed by him to make recommendations on the APRC recommendations. Tissa Vitharane presided over the  Rajapaksa appointed committees and is said to have gone through 63 sessions stretching over one and a half years. The APRC report on sessions co-chaired by Vitharane was handed over to President Rajapaksa in 2006 but for seven long years the President has not released the report even though some members released it to the public.
Did the political labours of Tissa Vitharane that could have been as tortuous as that of Hercules himself, come to nought? Even if Mahinda Rajapaksa did not agree with the recommendations he should have released it to the public— the sittings stretching for a year and half being at public expense. Mahinda Rajapaksa once again demonstrated Parkinson’s theory on committees very well. Multiplication is the name of the game.
Shelving the report and forgetting it was easily done with the ‘historic military victory’, celebrations going on for months on end, dancing on the streets and eating ‘kiri buth’. But they were rudely interrupted when ex-patriates Tamils, backed by  Western nations and the UN accused Sri Lankan military leaders of war crimes during the last phase of the war.
Ready answer: Another committee Rajapaksa had a ready answer. He appointed another committee- commission rather – the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Committee.
It was a carefully crafted multi pronged committee whose objectives ranged from analysis of the Ceasefire Agreement of Ranil Wickremesinghe, the conduct of the military in the last stages of the war, the lessons to be learnt and the ways of  reconciliation of the estranged people.
The report raised hearty hurrahs in the Rajapaksa camp, total rejection by the TNA and other Tamil groups while there has been only a few tentative mild half hearted hurrahs from the Western camp.
The LLRC report did a fair white wash of the ‘humanitarian war’ upholding the government view that military operations were conducted  with humanitarian considerations being  given priority but it did call for further investigations into aspects  which was  its main  objective such as: attacks on hospitals by heavy artillery, disappearances  of people taken into custody and firing into ‘no fire zones’. The report   was presented to parliament on December 16 last year but there are no moves to be seen to inquire into areas of investigation suggested by the LLRC.
Instead the full focus has been turned  on the proposed Parliamentary Select Committee to make further recommendations for constitutional amendments: 13th Amendment. The LLRC flag has ceased to flutter and now it is on the 13th Amendment plus or minus. The TNA is being verbally walloped for not agreeing to participate in the parliamentary select committee forgetting the fact that they too are representative of most of the Tamil population. Various dollops in the form of economic development are on the cards they are being told. It does appear that the country has come back to square one where the Tamil  people  are offered what the government thinks they want and denied what they really want.

Delay is success

One of the basic objectives of ‘Commitology’ as described by Parkinson is delay. That is why a camel has been defined as a horse designed by a committee. The UN Human Rights Council is said to be in Geneva this month or somewhat later. They will obviously be told to hold their fire till Sri Lanka completes her investigations.
In conclusion we must confess that we are at a loss to understand how President Rajapaksa will collate the conclusions reached by all his APC committees, the LLRC, the proposed  Parliamentary Select Committee and the APC he had proposed last week. Is he to feed all the proposals of his committees into one of the super-computers of the Sri Lanka government and draw out a solution? We only hope the results will be better than the computerised GCE A’Level results.

Singapore streets ahead of Sri Lanka Picture courtesy : www.blog.growingleaders.com

The architect of Singapore, leading a party with “Socialist” on its masthead, if memory serves me right, went on record when his city state was on the cusp of independence, saying that `it would be modelled on what was then the newly-independent Ceylon.
Sri Lanka had made the transition from Dominion Status to independence with very little fuss and bother, with many seeing us as simply the beneficiaries of the arduous and often violent struggle for independence waged by our big brother across the Palk Strait, India.  D. S. Senanayake and his allies in the United National Party did not have as defined a quasi-socialist policy as Jawaharlal Nehru and his Congress Party did.  While there was a strong nationalist complexion to the politically dominant Sri Lankan entity it was, in the terminology of its Marxist enemies of the time, a comprador bourgeois party and, to ensure that the public did not mistake the UNP for some pinko outfit, the parties of what are now called “the old left,” kept up an incessant stream of vitriol, accusing the party of the Senanayakes, Jayewardenes and Kotelawelas of being representative of capitalism incarnate!  The Stalinist Communist Party and the Trotskyist Lanka Sama Samaja Party and their many subsequent “splits” were consistent in their condemnation of the UNP and its policies, even pooh-poohing such “leftish” policies as the free public health and education  systems and state-owned industries for which the UNP was responsible.
Interestingly, the ultimate beneficiary of the slings and arrows directed at the UNP was a breakaway faction of that very party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party which S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike led to victory in 1956 on a blatantly communalistic policy platform.  To modify that old chestnut somewhat, he “sowed the wind and (we) are still reaping the whirlwind,” and we have not, it seems reached the bottom of that abyss of hate, corruption, discrimination and destruction.
The economic success of Singapore stands out in stark contrast to our Sri Lankan reality and I would venture to say that it can be attributed largely to the level of fiscal rectitude that Lee, his successors and those around them maintained and NOT to the suppression of civil liberties and the squelching of any form of opposition that has been a feature of that worthy’s governance.
Singapore is and always has been an intellectually and politically sterile state  and its recent lack of overt threat to and intimidation of those who don’t worship at Lee Kwan Yew’s altar is because, through many past years of suppression of anything resembling dissent, a pseudo-democratic  state, projecting an aura of good governance, justice and the rest of the democratic virtues has been established.  What Singapore singularly lacks is real freedom, both political and intellectual.  This is an unfortunate fact that many who make invidious comparisons between the current status of Singapore and Sri Lanka conveniently ignore, suggesting instead, for obvious reasons, that we can achieve the seeming peace and prosperity of that nation by suppressing dissent of any kind.  And thereby hangs another hidden agenda!
The  real chasm that separates Singapore from Sri Lanka is that of corruption.
Sri Lanka has succeeded in consistently proving wrong those who figured, every few years, that we had achieved the nadir in corruption and violence in the conduct of our affairs and that we could not sink any lower.
In fact, just when those who had any belief left in such airy-fairy concepts as honesty and moral conduct in running this country began to think that it was truly impossible for things to get any worse, along came the current regime!  The fact that one daily newspaper runs a regular cartoon titled “Banana Republic,” is symptomatic of Sri Lanka’s reality.  The difference, though, between  those late-unlamented countries in South and Central America and our Pearl of the Orient is that the economic rape, pillage and plunder is performed without the help of an Uncle Sam or someone similar but with the post-Iron Curtain, China and Russia providing active support via a mantra that reads, “If you are in power, you may do whatever you wish in your country and to your people and any effort to remove you, constitutes a challenge to national sovereignty, something which we will assist you in resisting in every international forum.”
This seems like an attempted response to the West’s “Responsibility to Protect” with one that could well be defined as an over-riding “Imperative to Support Our (Violent and Venal) Friends.”  India and Pakistan have not been far behind by virtue of those countries practising governance of a similar kind.
Going one better than good men being silent and permitting tyrants to rule, the Russians, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis have made it abundantly clear that they will actively support the current Sri Lankan government, come hell or high water.  What is conspicuously lacking in these relationships is anything even vaguely resembling principle or a moral or ethical code.  It is the crudest form of tyrants hanging together by virtue of a belief that they will, otherwise, hang separately!
What is, increasingly, emerging out  of any comparison or contrast between the economically successful nations and the current basket-cases of this world is that, in the latter, the combination  that has led to that state of affairs is one in which the suppression of dissent and democratic freedoms marches in lockstep with a proclivity for pillaging the public purse.  This combination leads directly to the economic mess in which these nations are mired.
Singapore is an exception to this rule for a single reason: it has succeeded not because of some weird and wonderful financial or economic mantra coupled with a suppression of democratic rights but because Lee Kwan Yew and his successors have not indulged in blatant banditry and thieving.  Instead they have single-mindedly pursed a vision of financial success for all of their people, not just their friends and relations.  Can that contrast be any more obvious to anyone with even the skimpiest knowledge of our two countries?
I suppose I should add a footnote to this piece in which I state very simply that I do not measure “success” by the number of designer coffee-shops in Colombo, the number of over-the-hill entertainers  performing for Sri Lanka’s blue-rinse set, not the number of school children (and others) not getting butchered on the roads of Sri Lanka, or the women avoiding  sexual assault in their homes and elsewhere.  I will leave that kind of measurement to the sycophantic hordes of Sri Lankan journalism!

Sabotage?
An Iranian nuclear scientist was killed in January this year when a magnetic bomb thrown at the car in which he was travelling exploded.
Iranians directly accused the US and Israel for this act. This was the fifth such attack against their nuclear scientists they alleged.
Another alleged act of sabotage was the computer virus Stuxnet which was observed in industrial programmes in 2009 but now, according to some experts, had been ‘precisely calibrated in a way that could send
Iran’s nuclear centrifuges widely out of control’. According to some reports one fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges had been destroyed by this virus but its nuclear programme has not been destroyed. Other attempts of US sabotage cited are: Of nuclear scientist Shaker Amiri who arrived in the US claiming he was kidnapped by the CIA and returning home; former Iranian Deputy Minister Reza Safari disappearing while on a visit to Turkey. Speculation is that this former minister sought political asylum in America and is now in hiding.

Sanctions
American sanctions against Iran for its nuclear programme have been there from the time—since the days of the Bush administration—- but this new round  has been inspired by a report of the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), the UN watchdog in nuclear proliferation. In November last year, reports said that IAEA inspectors had found a ‘trove of new evidence’ that carried out activities relevant to development of a nuclear device and that a project for further development may be underway. The report said that the IAEA has amassed 1000 pages of documents which showed ‘research development and testing activities on a range of technologies that would be useful to develop nuclear weapons’.
Iran strongly rejected the IAEA report and called in ’an American fabrication’ Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad said the report had ‘been dictated by America.’
Nonetheless the IAEA report inspired sanctions have severely affected Iran. The economic sanctions signed by President Obama on December 31 would relate to transactions against all countries and institutions that have dealings with Iran’s Central Bank and other  Iranian Commercial banks.
On January 23, the 27 nations of the European Union agreed to ban oil imports from Iran. They agreed not to sign new contracts with Iran and end existing ones by July 1.Pressures are being applied on China,
India, South Korea and Japan to ban oil imports from Iran but how this works out with these large industrial powers will be seen with American assurances being made that shortfall of Iranian oil will be met with increased oil production by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States.

Defiance
In defiance to all these pressures Iran’s top nuclear official announced in January that the country was on the verge of starting production in its second major nuclear enrichment site at Qom where the nuclear facility is said to be buried deep underground below thick concrete designed to prevent aerial attacks.
Amidst the heated rhetoric some sensibility has also been exhibited. The threat to  close the Straits of Hormuz by Iran in retaliation for attempts to prevent its oil exports appears to have been called off or suspended.

Cooling down
While the fear of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons caused much anxiety in Israel where the possibility of a surgical strike against Iran was publicly debated Defence Minister Ehud Barack cooled the rising tempers with his statement on January 18 that ‘any decision of taking action against Iran because of its nuclear programme was ‘very far off’
Again on January 18 despite escalating Iranian fury over sanctions, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salhei while on a visit to Turkey said that his country was ready for talks and that negotiations were underway to decide on venue and date.
On January 26 controversial Iranian President Ahmedinejad declared his readiness for talks, an AP report said. He had been talking to students in the Southern Iran city of Kerman. He had said that he was ready for negotiations but the new sanctions would not force Iran to give up the programme for nuclear enrichment.

Presidential Election
Iran’s nuclear programme undoubtedly would have a bearing on the American presidential election ten months ahead. The American ‘Right’ particularly  Republicans would favour a surgical strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. But the success of such a strike is doubted because Iran has anticipated Israeli strikes after those made against Iraq and Syria. Facilities have been spread out and buried  in deep impenetrable concrete.
Secondly a Gulf war would send fuel prices even in America spiralling upwards which no American president seeking  re-election would desire.
Thirdly, an aggressive military posture would drive away the liberal Americans who  surprised all by electing him as president.
Commentators have pointed out that geopolitical rivals acquiring nuclear weapons have not prevented an American president from being re elected. They cite the case of President Lyndon B Johnson being contested by arch conservative rival Barry Goldwater  while China exploded its first nuclear device heralding the first Asian nation to become a nuclear power. ‘China will not commit the error of adventurism nor the error of capitulation’, the inimitable Mao Tse Tung had decalred. Lyndon Johnson won the election.
Will Iran too adopted to live with new nuclear powers, just as much as the rest of the world?