The political outlook of our country has not kept pace with the unprecedented changes that have swept across the modern world today.  It still stagnates at   an unprogressive level where the ideological backwardness of politicians reigns supreme. Although, Prabakaran had been removed from the political scene of the country, the various schools of political ideologies do not seem to have changed their perception on the issue commonly referred to as the Sinhala Tamil problem.  They still look at this problem the way they used to see it when Prabakaran was alive. Those who look at this issue from the point of view of the Tamil people believe that, at the least the provisions enshrined in the 13^th amendment should be implemented while those representing the point of view of the Sinhala people are against the indiscriminate grant of all the provisions of the 13^th amendment. However, those representing Marxist or liberal points of view are of the view that provisions in the 13^th amendment should be granted in toto  if a lasting solution is to be found for the problem.

All four schools of thought mentioned above have identified the problem as a mere   inter racial issue. They have failed to perceive it as a more complicated one which is intricately connected with inter-caste relations and religious differences that have got entangled with the political system. Consequently, they have failed to envision a need for a complete transformation or reorganization in the social and political system of the country; their expectations are narrowly confined to effecting a change that impacts only on the inter- racial issues.

As I see it, those who look at this problem from traditional points of view can see only one aspect of a multi-faceted problem; in other words, they have missed the forest for a few trees that they see superficially. Undoubtedly, the trees they see are a part of the forest, but not the forest itself.

The Root of the Problem

The root of the problem lies in our failure to create a united nation and a democratic society which are essential prerequisites for successful sustenance of the national state and the democratic system of governance that we inherited from the British colonial rule.

It is true that everything that the British rule bequeathed us were not wholesome and beneficial. But, from a historical sense the nation state and the democratic system of governance that the British conferred to us are more beneficial and progressive concepts than the system we had before the colonial rule in which the country was divided into a number of kingdoms without clear borders and was governed by feudal rulers who owed their positions to a system of inheritance.

In order to reap the benefits and ensure progressive march of the nation state and the democratic system of governance that was bequeathed to us, two essential conditions must be fulfilled, namely the establishment of a united nation and creation of a democratic society

Yet, there was no indication to show that the successive governments that ruled the country after independence had heeded these conditions. Instead, all of them steered the country without attempting to create these two cardinal conditions. It is unfortunate that all the national leaders have equally failed to realize the need for ushering a united nation and a democratic society. It was only the political parties which commanded the majority support in terms of race, castes and religion had the capacity to secure the power to rule.

Sometimes, they adopted a policy of favoring the people of the race, caste and the religion they represented thereby completely ignoring the interests of the people belonging to the other communities, castes and religions. This situation created unrest and dissatisfaction among the minority groups. It eventually caused a distortion in the relationship among and between different racial, castes and religious groups as well as in the system of governance.

It is against this backdrop that the militant social groups that refused to accept the authority of the government emerged and attempted to capture political power by force to create a separate state. The armed struggles that they launched and the military suppression of them eventually resulted in a large scale blood bath in the country. One way or the other, the racial, castes and religious differences have influenced the emergence of these rebel   groups.

Distancing and exclusion

The independent movement in Ceylon lacked a clear vision for building a united nation.  The minority groups were not sure of their place in an independent Ceylon. They had a serious doubt about their fate. Non Sinhalese communities were afraid of the emergence of Sinhala domination. The Minority caste groups in the Sinhala community were worried about the emerging domination by the Govigama caste. Equally, the non Buddhist religious groups were skeptical about the emergence of Buddhist majority dominance. They even expressed their doubts and sentiments before the Donoughmore and Soulbury Commissions. The Burgher community deeply felt that in the post independent Ceylon, they would loose the recognition that they enjoyed previously under the colonial rule. It was an Anglo Ceylonese community. By physical appearance they resembled Europeans. By faith they were Christians and spoke English language.

The burgher community had made a significant contribution to enrich different   spheres such as law, journalism, politics, arts & literature and athletics. Richard Francis Morgan, Charles Lorenz, Alfred Bultjens, Peter Keuneman, Lionel Wendet, George Keat, and Duncan White were among the prominent people of the burgher community that made an outstanding contribution in their respective fields of journalism, politics, photography, painting and athletics respectively. The other communities were jealous and spiteful of the burgher community because of the excellent display of their talents. They often mocked at them contemptuously nicknaming them as “Tuppahies”and Kerapothu Lansis. Burghers were the first to leave the country in large numbers immediately after independence. Our national leaders were not the least bothered   about them leaving the country. They did not make any attempt to stop them. The spiteful attitude prevailed towards the burgher community was not confined to the majority Sinhala community only. The minority communities too, equally shared it. Next, the pressure came upon the Indian estate labor force which remained the lifeblood of the plantations sector. Even the Tamil leaders in the North of the caliber of   Ponnambalam and Sundaralingam supported the program launched by D.S.Senanayaka, the first Prime Minister of independent Ceylon to deprive the estate workers of their civic rights. There were only two Tamil   parliamentarians viz. Chelvanayagam and Wanniasingam who opposed the move. Then came the phase in which the Tamils were deprived of their language rights. The displeasure and unrest generated by the language issue was not confined only to Tamil community. It caused   an implicit unrest among the other minority castes and religious groups as well.

Impasse of the System of governance 

Although the new constitution introduced by president J.R.Jayawardena in 1977 marked the climax of the process of degeneration and distortion of the System of governance, this process, however, had already commenced and has been developing since independence. The laws enacted depriving the civic rights of the estate workers of Indian origin and the language laws introduced in 1956 depriving the language rights of the Tamil people were contrary to the fundamental principles and safeguards enshrined in the Soulbury constitution. Both these instances could be reckoned as incidences of violation of the constitutional safeguards. Thereafter, in 1972, the coalition government led by the SLFP carried this process forward and to further heights. They abolished the Public Service Commission thereby shattering the backbone of the public service, depriving it of capacity and power for independent functioning. The SLFP led coalition government, in the name of safeguarding the national sovereignty also abolished the right to appeal to the Privy Council against judgments passed by the Supreme Court without introducing an alternate mechanism to review such  judgments. This had resulted in the loss of an important element in the judicial system that ensured the sanctity of the rule of law, justice and impartiality in meting out justice. Since then, the process of degeneration and distortion of the system of governance was accelerated. It reached the climax with the introduction of the new constitution by J.R.Jayawardena in 1977. Consequently, we are now left with a political system that kills the creative impulse and the effectiveness of the nation due to extreme politicization, bribery and corruption, rampant wastage, lack of discipline, inertia and lawlessness that reign supreme under the current system.

Further, the violent struggles that sprang up in the interim and their protracted nature invariably deprived the country of the opportunity to review the situation and make necessary amendments and fundamental changes to transform and reorganize the political system. These violent struggles caused to eclipse the vision of the political society and the society in general in correctly perceiving the major problems that the country had encountered.

Despite the continued degeneration in the political system of the country, right from the beginning, the attention of the people was primarily focused more on the violent struggles of the disgruntled groups than on the other issues.

Under the circumstances, it was only after defeating terrorism that the opportunity has dawned for effecting fundamental changes to the political system and making a fundamental reorganization of the system. In other words, it was only after defeating terrorism that the people were able to see clearly and realize the level of degeneration into which the country had been plunged into. This situation in turn, has led the society in general to yearn for a fundamental change and reorganization in the political system and the system of governance. Accordingly, the historical moment for changing the system of politics and that of the governance and rebuilding the nation in a manner that promotes creative impulses of the nation has now dawned.  It is time now for all political leaders, intellectuals; all those who are having grievances and those dreaming for a congenial Sri Lanka to focus their attention on this need.

The Problem as a whole

In my opinion, at this historical juncture , we should not confine ourselves to providing a solution only for the Tamil problem which caused  an enormous  blood bath  over past thirty years; instead, we must take cognizance of  all  other issues as well i.e. the distortion caused in the inter racial, caste and religious relations among the people and the great distortions extant  in the system of governance  and the administrative system and  address them  concurrently and in  concert in  effecting  a creative reorganization of the nation and the state.

In my opinion, under the modern context, none of the communities living in Sri Lanka, namely, Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim can be considered as fully fledged nations. None of them is in a position to claim full nation status separately and of their own capacity. Under the circumstance, the full nation status could be established only through the unity of all communities and building a common Sri Lankan identity based on equality principle whilst at the same time safeguarding the identity of each other. In the New Nation thus created, there should not be room for any caste, communal and religious differences. It should inculcate proper understanding and tolerance among the different communities, religions, languages, and cultures.

The attempt to rebuild the state and transform the system of governance & the administrative system should be pursued in a manner that would be consistent with the demands of the new state thus created. In this endeavor, it is important that special consideration be given for provision of facilities and adequate safeguards to ensure the effective functioning and existence of the emerging new Sri Lankan nation. Also, it should introduce adequate measures to promote national goals conducive to maximizing creative capacities of the nation. The consensus for these changes should be reached not by force but through the basis of equality and democratic means.

The elements of equality, justice, mutual understanding, respect and trust should form the basis of the bond that binds them together. A constitution alone cannot build a nation. It can only validate and grant sovereignty for the new nation. In my view, the current institutional system is no longer valid for the present. Tamil problem is an important issue to be resolved. But any solution found confined only to that problem would not prove to be strong and sustainable. Therefore, we must adopt a stance that takes the system as a whole and critically review it in an attempt to build a new Sri Lankan nation. In this process, the state and the entire social system should be reconstructed in consistence with the ambitions and the needs of the new nation. This is not a condition to be achieved in a few days. It might take a longer period, perhaps extending over four to five years.

I wish to highlight below some important points that should go into the agenda of proposed reorganization program.

1. Principles and organizational methodologies  to be adopted
• To  eliminate  the present distortion in the inter racial, caste and religious relations that prevail  among the people and  forge  one common  nation with a strong Sri Lankan identity which fosters  mutual respect and care between  the different groups of people.
• To eliminate social acceptance of the caste differences that prevail in Sinhala and Tamil social groups both explicitly and implicitly.
2. Adoption of  a series of national policies for education, public health, transport, science & technology, art & literature,   energy & power , agriculture & industry, environment and foreign policy that don’t change with the change of the  governments
3. Formulation of an accepted national policy for government jobs.
4. Identification of social groups that needs special care and protection and adopt a clear-cut policy on relief granted to them.
5. Formulation of
• Appropriate policies and organizational methodologies to overcome the menace of politicization, bribery, corruption and wastage.
• A methodology and a policy that helps eradicate the importance accorded to money in politics than the knowledge, experience and competence of the people.
6. Adoption of appropriate policies and methodologies
• To eradicate the lumpanisation process permeated into the political scenario.
• To ensure the transparency in all institutional systems.
• To reduce the anomalies in income distribution.
• To promote the share of women’s participation in political organizations.
• To ensure fundamental human rights including the freedom of expression and right of access to information.
• To restructure the salaries of the government servants in keeping with the modern needs.
7.  Re-define the duties and responsibilities of all institutions and professions.
8. Reorganization of
• The institutional system that ensures justice and implements the law and order of the country.
• The election system and election laws.
9. Identification of people affected by violence and methodologies to be adopted to uplift their lives.
10. In consistence with  the modern needs of the country, adoption of a  democratic  system of government that  respects the rule of law and be efficient, effective and conducive to promoting respect and the faith of the people.

This is not a complete list. There may be many other issues that should go into it. The range and the size of this agenda clearly speak of the largeness of scope and the complexity of the issues to be addressed in reshaping and reconstructing the nation and the state.

In my view, what the country needs today is not a parochial movement aimed at changing the government but a strong national movement for recreation of the nation and the state of that nation. Such a movement should involve a wide and varied range of forces such as the government including the head of the state, the opposition including the leader of the opposition, professionals and professional organizations, trade unions and people’s organizations. It should be an inclusive movement that does not exclude anyone. It must be made a national renaissance movement which embraces every citizen of the country making them respectful partners and shareholders of the movement. It should be a movement that should discard all suspicions, hatred, ill will that prevail between and within the political parties and various social groups. It should also be capable of conferring peace upon everyone.

I am of the view that if the entire system is not reorganized in some way or the other, it is unavoidable that the system itself might make the change. The present system has reached near its climax and languishes in the verge of collapse, being unable to move forward.  Taking cognizance of this situation, if the present system is not reorganized before it becomes dormant and inactive of its own, the eventual breakdown of the system will push the country into a greater crisis. The repercussions and the impact of such an eventuality are difficult to be predicted in advance.

(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.

By Tisaranee Gunasekara

The militarization of Sri Lanka

Some walls should never be built; some should never be breached.
Many of Sri Lanka’s most devastating ills emanated from our habit of building unnecessary walls, and demolishing necessary ones.
Our school-system, marred by de facto segregation, is structurally incapable of creating Sri Lankans. Most schools are ethnically/religiously uniform; as jealous preserves of a single community they reinforce our primordial identities. Consequently, many children spend their formative years without any association with their ethnically/religiously different compatriots. Most of them would carry their ignorance and its offspring, prejudice, into adulthood.
S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, in his quest for power, turned the state into the property of the majority community. His widow removed the wall between the state and the majority religion (that the architect of the 1972 anti-secular constitution was the same man who in 1956 warned of the danger posed by ‘Sinhala Only’ to national unity is a sad demonstration of the degeneration of the once principled Lankan left). It took a war and the threat of an Indian invasion to remove the linguistic-bias; the state-religion nexus might lead to an even greater catastrophe, ere saner counsel prevails.
The Rajapaksas, in the pursuit of their dynastic agenda, are bringing down another wall vitally necessary for the very survival of democracy. By letting the armed forces into civil spaces, they are causing the steady militarization of almost every aspect of Lankan life. The result is a society in which the jackboot-print is becoming ever more pervasive.
Human rights and the Rule of Law are among the first casualties in any war; their restoration is a sine-qua-non for a lasting peace. A military accustomed to the power of the gun and being a law unto itself, needs assistance to adapt to peacetime conditions. Helping the military to deal with psychological problems (such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) is another necessary task. The Rand Corporation conducted a path-breaking study on the psychological damage caused to US military personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to its report, “unlike physical wounds of the war, these conditions are often invisible to the eye …. (They) affect mood, thoughts and behaviour; yet these wounds often go unrecognised and unacknowledged” (Invisible Wounds of War). The Report argued that providing scientific (‘evidence based’) care is a “cost-effective way to retain a ready and healthy military force for the future”.
Post-war, a mammoth military is a financial burden and a politico-social danger. A system of voluntary retirement, based on the ‘golden handshake’ model’ (combing a monetary grant and the pension with skills training) could have been a fair solution to this problem. A generous retirement scheme may have had many takers since poverty and unemployment are the two main reasons most youth join the military. A programme to treat the ‘invisible wounds’ caused by the war is another neglected necessity. The recent spate of violent incidents involving serving military men (including rape and lethal attacks on superiors, comrades and family members) signals the danger of allowing these ‘invisible wounds’ to fester through denial and neglect.
It is this numerically intact and psychologically unreconstructed military which is being enmeshed with society.
A largely mono-ethnic/religious military (with a Sinhala-Buddhist ethos) becoming enmeshed in an ethno-religiously pluralist society is an especially combustive development.

Their Common Rampart

According to a WikiLeaks cable, “Basil and Gotabhaya appear not to get along very well… (But) Basil often relies on Gotabhaya to provide the necessary ‘muscle’ to get things done” (Colombo Telegraph – 7.1.2012). The Rajapaksas have their separate and competing power-projects; expanding the role of the military into civilian spaces might be the only way Gotabhaya Rajapaksa can prevent his eventual eclipse by his other ambitious relatives. But militarization is of seminal importance to the larger Rajapaksa project as well. The Rajapaksas would know that voters are fickle beings and the SLFP is unreliable; thus they need an entity which can guarantee their power even after they lose their current popularity. The military is expected to be the Ruling Family’s supporter and protector of last resort, its impregnable rampart against SLFP discontent and voter anger, in lean times.
In return, like in other actual and nascent tyrannies, the military is being encouraged to create its own economic/business empire. The plan to set up a separate company by the army to carry out ‘development and construction at cost’ is a case in point. The argument that such practices are saving public-funds is a specious one since far greater amounts of public-funds are being spent on maintaining a gargantuan military totally apposite with peacetime needs. Furthermore the military involvement in infrastructure projects negates a key economic benefit of public works – that of employment and income generation. This could have a particularly pernicious impact in the North where the military involvement in construction projects is depriving local people of much needed jobs. The resultant exacerbation of local resentment and discontent cannot but be non-conducive to peace and stability.
A militarised society discourages critical thinking and dissenting outlooks. As Victor Jara, who as a young man was a conscript in the Chilean military, explained, “…I remember having to polish an officer’s boots or do the cleaning in his house and I thought it very natural…indeed, I thought it almost a privilege to be called upon to do it, because it meant that I was a very disciplined bloke who could be trusted to do the job properly.  But looking at it now, without innocence, I think it was a conditioning – it conditions the servility of the private, just as it conditions the superiority of the officer” (Counterpunch – 28.8.2008). Such conditioning in unquestioning obedience is inimical to democracy but vitally necessary for tyranny. Since Sri Lanka has a volunteer military, the Rajapaksas are using programmes such as ‘Leadership Training’ (for university entrants in military camps) to condition Lankan society in these pro-authoritarian attitudes.
The myth of humanitarian operation justified, ipso facto, everything which was done to win the war. The notion of a perfect military – a military which is incapable of doing wrong because it is incapable of doing wrong, is a part of this myth. That fallacious notion is now being expanded to include developmental-attributes such as total efficacy, absolute incorruptibility and unlimited capability, to justify the steady militarization of the administration and the economy. The underlying assumption is that civilian officials are inept and corrupt, and thus unworthy, unlike the pure and efficient military. This romanticisation of the man in uniform is a key psychological premise of military rule.
There is a folk tale of a Buddhist monk who summoned a demon to build a temple wall. The demon, having fulfilled his task, began hounding the monk demanding more chores. The pithy Sinhala saying ‘Yaka bendagaththa wage’ (like having a demon as indentured-servant) stems from this tale. Bringing the military into civilian spaces and feeding its ambitions is a dangerous game. When a military’s perception of its own role changes, once it becomes an autonomous agent and a propertied-caste, what prevents it from intervening in politics, to defend its own interest, even against its one-time masters?

By Tisaranee Gunasekara

Picture courtesy: www.english.readsrilanka.com and Picture courtesy: www.visualphotos.com

Good warriors often make bad leaders. Those who are good at winning wars are not necessarily good at governance — “with their serial signature fiascos…”
The AL results imbroglio is, and seems destined to remain, unresolved. That fiasco has two components – faulty district rankings and an erroneous Z-score. The investigative Committee appointed by the President was mandated to study only the minor issue – district rankings. The major issue of a faulty Z-score (an allegation backed by several experts) remains un-investigated. This is an indefensible failure since Z-score is the password of entry to a Lankan university — the desired goal of most AL students.
The Committee did not look into allegations of an erroneous Z-score because the Committee was not mandated to do so, according to its head, Dhara Wijethilake. Any investigation into the AL results imbroglio cannot be complete unless it covers the Z-score issue. By limiting the Committee’s mandate to the issue of district rankings, the President effectively prevented a full and credible investigation of the fiasco. Was it an oversight? Was he wrongly advised (one cannot reasonably expect the Rajapaksas to know or care much about Advanced Levels)? Or was it intentional, a deliberate attempt to sneak past the problem without resolving it, a classic Rajapaksa tactic? Was this Committee intended for elusion rather than resolution, as was IIGEP, the APRC, the LLRC or the Committee into the 2010 killing of FTZ worker Roshain Chanaka?
The AL results fiasco is symbolic of Rajapaksa governance and the illimitable damage it can do to all Lankans. Those students wronged by an erroneous Z-score would belong to families from all ethno-religious communities, all classes and all political persuasions. Children of parents who vote for the Rajapaksas would be victimised as much as children from anti-Rajapaksa or apolitical families. Actual and nascent tyrants kill and persecute their opponents; but they also cause irreparable harm to the living conditions and future prospects of their supporters (and those who are indifferent to them). Just as adulterated petrol damaged the cars of Rajapaksa supporters and opponents alike, the administrative, economic and political imbroglios to come will harm Lankans across all spectra, including the pro/anti-Rajapaksa one.
Rajapaksa governance is degenerative. Its monomaniac focus on the Dynastic Project makes it favour Rajapaksa kith and kin and place a far greater premium on servility than on qualification or ability. If this process continues, the Rajapaksas will, advertently or inadvertently, cause the debilitation of every major Lankan institution, including the military and the Sangha Sasana. The obvious harm that is being done to the education sector is an early indication of the havoc Rajapaksa governance will wreak, in the years to come.
Democracy is not just about elections. Giving rulers carte blanche in between elections is not democratic. Citizens have a right, duty and responsibility to remain vigilant, to weigh, assess and analyse the actions of their leaders and protest non-violently whenever necessary. Politics is inescapably relevant to the everyday life of even the most apolitical citizen; politics will not leave us alone, however much we may want to divorce ourselves from it. Therefore professional politicians who are in politics for power, money and prestige cannot be allowed to monopolise politics and exclude citizens from having any say in how their country is run, in between elections.
The issue before us is not regime change. It is about adulterated fuel which damages our vehicles, corrupt deals which increase our indebtedness and education mishaps and health failures which endanger the future of younger generations – issues which should concern Rajapaksa opponents and supporters alike, as well as the politically indifferent. It is about myopic, inept, unintelligent governance, which damages the country and all those who live in it – including the most diehard Rajapaksa supporters. It is about preventing Sri Lanka from becoming a dysfunctional country which is incapable of performing such basic everyday tasks as ordering a consignment of fuel or conducting an examination, without mishap. It is about preventing inefficiency and corruption from becoming administrative and societal norms. It is about safeguarding the credibility of key institutions. It is about surviving as a reasonably efficient, just and lawful – and thus a liveable – state.

Learning from the Rulers

Queen Victoria’s German husband brought the Christmas tree into England; that custom then spread into British colonies and beyond. Most puritanical cultural norms revered by many a Sinhala Buddhist as our very own came to us from our Victorian colonial rulers. Leaders set trends, both good and bad. This is especially so in actual or nascent tyrannies where Rulers maintain a constant presence in the lives of the ruled, in the guise of wise guides and indispensable arbiters.
The Rajapaksas are intolerant of what should be tolerated and tolerant of what should not be tolerated. They are intolerant of Democratic freedoms and human rights, peaceful protests and minority aspirations, power-sharing and international humanitarian norms. They are tolerant, often boundlessly, of corruption and waste, inefficiency and favouritism, cupidity, sloth and violence, so long as the perpetrators are their own. Additional Magistrate Prasanna Alwis has decreed that parliamentarian (and monitoring MP of the Defence Ministry) Duminda Silva must remain on the list of suspects in the Kolonnawa multiple-killings. Will the AG’s Department instruct the Police to follow up on the Court Order, at least now? Will the President order his party man to come back? Will Interpol be informed about Mr. Silva? Or will he evade justice, because he is still in possession of his VVIP patrons? What will such a blatant manifestation of impunity teach us – and future generations – about justice, law and morality?
When a video depicting four US marines urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters surfaced on the YouTube, the Obama administration did not dismiss it as enemy propaganda nor reject it as an impossibility. Instead a high level investigation was conducted and the culprits identified, within days. The administration then condemned that atrocity in no uncertain terms, neither trying to excuse it not dismissing it as a miscellany. The US Marine Corps are to launch their own ‘holistic’ investigation which will seek to unearth the factors which enabled this abhorrent deed by posing the question, “What happened in the Marine Corps that this happened” (ABC News – 13.1.2012). This mature US response is in stark contrast to the manner in which the Rajapaksas have responded to every allegation of error and misdeed, from the AL fiasco to the Channel 4 videos.
By facing the scandal head-on, the Obama Administration took the first indispensable step towards getting over and beyond it. By resorting to evasions, excuses, justifications and denials whenever allegations of mistakes and misdeeds crop-up, the Rajapaksas ensure that we can never put those issues behind us. The allegations of human rights violations will continue to haunt Sri Lanka until they are credibly investigated. If allegations of an erroneous Z-score are ignored, AL results will join other indisputable truths desecrated by the Rajapaksas, such as Central Bank statistics. This is not a safe path for Lankans to traverse ­— in trust or in indifference.

Tony Judt (Reappraisals: Reflections on the Forgotten 20th Century)

By Tisaranee Gunasekara

J. R. Jayawardene, Colombo in flames - Black July 1983 Courtesy: sangam.org and Rajiv Gandhi

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has spoken: the dead Tiger might arise.
If the Tiger does rise from the ashes of an annihilating defeat, a lion-share of the credit for that near-miraculous resurrection would belong to the Rajapaksas.
Can the re-emergence of the LTTE – or some approximation of it – be forestalled by ringing the North with tri-forces camps? By delaying a political solution indefinitely while hollowing out the 13th Amendment? By violating the fundamental rights and ignoring the basic needs of the Tamils?
By keeping the North quiescent at gun-point?
Mr. Rajapaksa is critical of those who criticise the post-war military build-up:  “Unfortunately, there are some parties…that question why the Defence establishment continues to be so large and why so much money is allocated in the national budget for the Defence Ministry. These parties seem to have forgotten the lessons of the recent past. We all know how the LTTE sprang up from being a small group of armed militants into one of the world’s largest and deadliest terrorist organisations within a short number of years” (Public Lecture at the SLFI).
The Tiger was born because successive administrations instituted discriminatory measures against Tamils and failed to address their politico-economic-security fallouts. The Tigers’ first great leap forward was enabled by Black July. Without that carnage, the Four-Four Bravo operation may have become the LTTE’s swan song. Even after Black July, had the Jayewardene administration apologised to the Tamils, offered them compensation and a political solution, the long war could have been avoided. But that regime took refuge in lies and denial, in Sinhala supremacism and repression – actions tailor-made for the advancement of the LTTE.
This history is absent in Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s long peroration. Naturally; the Rajapaksas reject the existence of an ethnic problem. According to their worldview, the Tamils did not face any discrimination or injustice; the war could have been avoided had previous administrations adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards Tamil nationalism and beefed-up the military. Devolution may have made some sense to the Rajapaksas as a sop to the LTTE; that need vanished with the elimination of the Tigers. In the Rajapaksa book, the way to prevent a Tiger-resurgence is through enhanced militarization: keep them in line by keeping them down.
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa correctly accuses Diaspora groups of attempting to turn international opinion against Sri Lanka. What Mr. Rajapaksa fails to understand is that he and his Siblings are aiding and abetting these efforts, substantially. Had they shifted to a ‘soft power’ strategy, post-war, the pro-Tiger Diaspora groups would have found themselves with no political feathers to fly with. The Rajapaksas did the opposite. They refused to acknowledge the reality of civilian casualties and rights violations (thus giving the pro-Tiger elements a life-saving injection). They incarcerated 300,000+ civilian Tamils in camps. They turned the North into a de facto occupied territory. Instead of making political concessions they heaped gratuitous insults on Tamils such as the reintroduction of the Sinhala Only National Anthem.
According to Gotabhaya Rajapaksa (and his Siblings), the North is speeding towards unprecedented development and prosperity. The reality is otherwise. The Rajapaksas’ strategy prioritises the building of army camps, cantonments and grandiose infrastructure projects which have little relevance to a populace struggling to survive: “They are talking of development. Right along the main A9 road, nice buildings are coming up. Who wants a stadium? Who wants a mansion for the government agent to live in? …. Palaces, they are building palaces! The army is spending lavishly on guest houses…for their own use. Houses are built for the army alone, not for civilians… There are no housing schemes, except from some NGOs…” (Lakbima News – 8.1.2012). That damning assessment carries conviction because it comes not from a Tiger supporter but from the very anti-Tiger V. Anandasangaree.
After the 1958 anti-Tamil riots, Tarzie Vittachi asked, “What are we left with? A nation in ruins, some grim lessons which we cannot afford to forget and a momentous question: Have the Sinhalese and Tamils reached the parting of ways?” (quoted in ‘Tigers of Sri Lanka’ – M. R. Narayan Swami). His prophetic words fell on deaf ears, then. More than half a century, innumerable deaths and immeasurable destruction later, that inability to comprehend reality, let alone find solutions, remains unchanged. With each Sinhala supremacist or repressive act, the Rajapaksas present the pro-Tiger Diaspora elements ammunition to be used against Sri Lanka.

Devolution Charade and India

The Rajapaksas want to keep all power in Rajapaksa hands; they oppose devolution primarily because they do not want to share power with any non-relation.
Sinhala supremacism is the politico-ideological plinth on which the Rajapaksas have mounted their anti-devolution policy. They embrace Sinhala supremacism out of conviction and as the way to defeat devolution and centralise all power in their hands. The Siblings labour hard to maintain the myth of an anti-devolution South, even though opinion surveys indicate a different reality. The Rajapaksas need the image of Sinhalese foaming-at-the mouth against devolution as an excuse to delay a political solution indefinitely.
The anti-Accord riots were not spontaneous; they were engineered by the JVP and the SLFP. Mahinda Rajapaksa was at the forefront of those efforts to ignite the country, in the name of patriotism. President Rajapaksa continues to use similar methods to evade Indian/Western pressure to resolve the ethnic issue. He used his Sinhala-hardline acolytes to discredit the Majority Report of the Expert Panel and to negate the APRC recommendations. Once the LLRC Report has served its purpose (deflecting international pressure/buying time) it too will be interred using identical tactics.
Indian leaders would have to be remarkably dense not to realise that the Rajapaksas will not share power. But starting a fight with Colombo on behalf of Lankan Tamils is not on Delhi’s agenda. India’s main concern is keeping China’s footprint in Sri Lanka from growing any bigger. Delhi’s pressure for a political solution is sourced primarily in its own electoral needs. Indian pressure ebbs and flows, according to the electoral almanac. Knowing this, the Rajapaksas have become quite adept at producing sops, whenever politico-electoral pressure compels India to ratchet up the rhetoric. It is a smoke-and-mirrors show both parties engage in knowingly.
A pillar of the Rajapaksa economic model is selling/leasing land. The proposed amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act was aimed at giving the regime absolute power to grab any land it wanted, any time it wanted. The Supreme Court refused to countenance that draconian law because land is a devolved subject thanks to the 13th Amendment. That is why the Rajapaksas will move to dilute the 13th Amendment, by shifting land and police powers from the devolved list to the concurrent list.
The Siblings will present this anti-democratic dilution as a development necessity and as a precaution against a Tiger-resurgence. Will the South see beyond these patriotic shibboleths and realise that this measure will be as inimical to Sinhalese and Muslims as it is to Tamils? Will Southern and Northern opposition join hands to defeat a measure which will empower the Rajapaksas by disempowering all Lankans?

Sampath Chandrapushpa - alleged murderer Courtesy: http://www.lankaegossip.com and Namal Rajapaksa - loyal friend

“Nothing is closer to the law of the jungle than a system of distorted laws and procedures”
Haaretz Editorial (2.1.2012)
President Rajapaksa won the Eelam War, with the help of countless others (including the imprisoned Gen. Fonseka). In fairytales, the hero who saves a country from some deadly peril is rewarded with kingship and a happy ever-after ensues. In real life, when heroes claim countries as their reward, tyranny beckons and tragedy happens.
The 18th Amendment transformed independent commissions into Presidential appendages. The politicisation of the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC) is one more step in that Rajapaksa-drive for borderless power. During the Eliyanthe White scandal, the SLMC courageously condemned the antics of that Presidential-quack. Such principled conduct may be beyond the SLMC in the future because it has suffered the same fate that befell the independent commissions and the Attorney General’s Department: “A treasury circular was issued some months ago informing medical organisations about a decision to list the SLMC as a public enterprise…” (Daily Mirror – 26.11.2011). Last week Prof. Carlo Fonseka was foisted on the SLMC as its head, arbitrarily, sans any consultations, even though “the GMOA with 40 other institutions connected to the medical professions wrote to the President…requesting not to appoint Prof. Fonseka to the post” (Colombo Page – 3.1.2012). As the GMOA pointed out, “According to the Medical Ordinance the SLMC Chairman should have no political affiliations to be able to function independently” (Daily Mirror – 30.12.2011). Though an accomplished medical professional, Prof. Fonseka is very much a man of political affiliations. But the real danger lies in the politicisation of the SLMC. If Prof. Fonseka acts autonomously, thus in a manner displeasing to the regime, he can be removed as arbitrarily as he was appointed and replaced with an unaccomplished yes-man. (The sad fate of the Central Bank under its accountant-cum-failed politician Governor is a warning to all other institutions).
Gramsci wrote that though in pre-Revolutionary Russia, “the state was everything and civil society was primordial and gelatinous”, in the West “the state was only an outer ditch, behind which there stood a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks…” (Prison Notebooks). In Sri Lanka, civil society was closer to the Western rather than the Russian model. Autonomous entities such as the SLMC were important components of that civil society, while measures such as the 17th Amendment were aimed at further strengthening it. But such a civil society is inimical to the Rajapaksa project. Thus the Siblings have launched a ‘war of manoeuvre’ to weaken and occupy this ‘system of fortresses and earthworks’. Only total power will satisfy the Rajapaksas; no institution is safe from the reach of their grasping fingers.

AL Fiasco, Tangalle-Lynching and Rajapaksa Governance

Development is the current Rajapaksa-mantra – the regime’s quid-pro-quo for Familial Rule. But is it possible to believe in this promise after the AL results fiasco? If an administration cannot do what all its predecessors did, and release the results of the most crucial examination in the education system without massive errors, it indicates a degree of ineptitude which cannot be dealt with by sacking a single official or blaming overworked computer operators.
Anyone who sat for the AL exam would know the effort which goes into it and the hopes which ride on it. Perhaps the regime’s irreverent attitude to education (symbolised by the appointment of a tuition-merchant as the Education Minister and a Neanderthal as the Higher Education Minister) would be explicable if a recent WikiLeaks cable is accurate. According to the cable, Mahinda Rajapaksa “did not complete his Advanced Level…education, instead leaving his job as a clerk at the library at Sri Jayawarendapura University…to run for his late father’s seat…. Taking advantage of a decision by the then-Justice Minister to allow MPs to enter law school, whether or not they had the necessary educational qualifications, Rajapaksa graduated from Sri Lanka Law College…” (Colombo Telegraph).
Criminals exist in all societies but not every society is plagued by criminals enjoying impunity because of their political positions/connections. Tourists dying or getting killed is not uncommon, but tourists being lynched and raped by political chieftains is singular. The chilling account by a Canadian tourist paints a word-picture of a lynching of an unarmed man by bloodthirsty thugs, unmoved by either the agony of their victim or the gravity of their deed. Kharum Shaikh “was walking and hunched over hugging himself. Things were being thrown at him and he was being beaten while he was walking. He made it to end of the pool area where they caught up to him. Three guys were bearing down on him and then attacked him. This is where I believe he was again wounded severely by the broken bottle and they slashed his throat. He only made it another 15 feet where he collapsed and did not get back up’” (Rochdale Observer – 30.12.2011).
When Sampath Chandrapushpa, an important cog in the Rajapaksa politico-electoral machine in Hambantota, became implicated in the killing of an elderly woman during the 2010 Presidential election, the police informed the court that he was ‘mentally ill’. That assessment seems correct. According to neuroscientist Dr. Kent Kiehl, a psychopath is someone “suffering from a disorder…someone who scores high on traits such as lack of empathy, guilt and remorse… They are very impulsive: they tend not to plan or think before acting” (BBC – 15.11.2011 ). Had the authorities taken the next logical step and committed Sampth Chandrapushpa to institutionalised-care, society (and tourists) would have been safe from his brutal excesses. Instead the authorities freed him, gave him nominations and elevated him to the head of a local government body. Even his guns may have come at public expense!
So far no Rajapaksa has condemned the alleged crimes (murder and rape) of their henchman; nor has he been suspended from the UPFA or removed from his position as Chairman. Incidentally, many people saw Minister Mervyn Silva tying a public official to a tree. But none came forward to testify against him. Is there any guarantee that a similar miscarriage of justice will not happen in the Tangalle case, especially if Sampath Chandrapushpa is given bail?
The AL results fiasco is only the latest in a series of politico-administrative bungling, such as the hedging deal and the importation of substandard fuel. The Tangalle lynching is a milestone in a process of transformation which turns key Rajapaksa political acolytes into warlords with a law unto themselves. Both outrages are intimately connected to Rajapaksa governance. Every institution is being ‘occupied’ and rendered not just servile but also inept. Any bureaucrat who is willing to kowtow to the Rajapaksas can be reasonably confident of advancement; those who are unwilling to do so can expect stagnation at best.
It is not true that in dictatorships trains run on time; dictatorships are better at effacing the reality of delayed-trains than democracies. Efficacy, honesty and legality are non-essentials in such a system. Under Rajapaksa governance, the essential virtue is subservience; sins of omission and commission (including crimes) are forgiven if the perpetrators are loyal acolytes. If this modus operandi remains, other fiascos and other crimes, of even greater magnitude, will follow, endangering public safety and subverting economic development.

By Tisaranee Gunasekara

Impunity is illimitable.  

Mahinda Rajapaksa, Chamal Rajapaksa, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, Basil Rajapaksa, Namal Rajapaksa, Yoshitha Rajapaksa and Rohitha Rajapaksa

If the law was allowed to take its normal course after the Kolonnawa mini-war, the Christmas Eve murder of a British tourist in Tangalle may not have happened. If the regime did not protect parliamentarian Duminda Silva so blatantly, Tangalle Pradeshiya Sabha Chairman Sampath Chandrapushpa may not have thought that he too could get away with murder.
If not for the message of impunity sent by l’affaire Kolonnawa, Khuram Shaikh, a prosthetic-limb expert who managed the ICRC’s physical rehabilitation programme in the embattled Gaza, might still be alive.
News reports point to an attempted cover-up, especially of Mr. Chandrapushpa’s lead-role in the loathsome incident. “Journalists in…Tangalle have received death threats following their coverage of an attack on a tourist couple” (BBC – 25.12.2011). Perhaps the trigger-happy local SLFP leader’s real mistake was that his victim was a Western tourist. A Westerner is more likely to have something most Lankans lack – a government interested in seeing that justice is done – and an embassy unafraid to push, prod and ask awkward questions.
Harming Sri Lanka’s reputation is a charge the regime loves to hurl at its opponents. But one T56-toting political thug doing a Rambo on tourists can do more damage to the country’s reputation than all the anti-Rajapaksa tracts put together. As the head of the Tourist Hotels Association said, “Even during the 30-year conflict we told the world that not a single tourist was harmed. However, it is of serious concern that the first murder of a tourist took place in peaceful times… Swift action against those responsible will prove that the Government does not condone such violent acts” (Financial Times – 27.12.2011)
So will there be swift action? Will justice be done? Or will one more Rajapaksa acolyte get away with murder? “A group of persons identifying themselves as law abiding citizens of Tangalle, have complained to the…IGP in writing that there are attempts by some elements with vested interests to undermine investigations… ‘It is learnt that the hotel management is under pressure to withdraw the statements made,’ the organisation says…. Besides, the organisation says that the main suspect’s name was connected with numerous other crimes in the recent past” (Daily Mirror – 29.12.2011).
A country which is placing so many of its development-eggs in the tourism basket cannot afford to condone lawlessness. The initial lackadaisical official response compelled many tourists to leave Tangalle and prompted the President of the Tangalle Tourist Hoteliers Association to criticise “the authorities for not initiating legal action against the culprits immediately” (Colombo Page – 27.12.2011). This is an early warning of the immeasurable harm lawless Rajapaksa acolytes can do to the economy.
The road to a gargantuan disaster is often paved with smaller acts of impunity. Had Mervyn Silva been punished for tying a public official to a tree, publicly, Duminda Silva may have conducted his political turf-war with less violence. Had the AG’s Department (which functions under President Rajapaksa) honoured the Acting Magistrate’s order and instructed the CID to arrest Duminda Silva, Sampath Chandrapushpa may not have used a lethal weapon against a tourist. If Sampath Chandrapushpa gets away with this crime, other Rajapaksa minions will feel emboldened to treat Sri Lanka as their very own ‘Land of Do As You Please’ and the resultant empowerment of trigger-happy thugs will turn this country into an unliveable place for the rest of us.

Denying Reality; Evading Accountability

Days after the 2010 Presidential election, the ITN held a musical show, titled ‘Jaya Jayawe’, consisting of panegyrics to Rajapaksa Rule. The first song of the evening was billed as a lullaby Lankan mothers will sing to their sons a century from now. The lullaby celebrated the ‘heroic saga’ of ‘King Mihindu’ and his ‘Chief General Gotabhaya’ who defeated the ‘demons’ threatening the motherland.
The Rajapaksa-centric narrative of the Eelam War contained in that paean is to become official history of Sri Lanka. A new volume of Mahawamsa will contain three chapters on President Rajapaksa but nary a mention of Gen. Sarath Fonseka, as The Sunday Leader reported last week. The new Mahawamsa will thus be a Rajapaksa-wamsa, a twisted historical narrative written to extol the Rajapaksas and bolster their rule. Perhaps that is not all that inapposite, since the original Mahawamsa’s original hero was Vijyaya, described by the Chronicles themselves as “of evil conduct and his followers, were even (like himself) and many intolerable deeds of violence were done by them…”
Rearranging the past is a necessary precondition for the success of the Rajapaksa project, but not a sufficient one. It is equally necessary to rearrange the present, since a phenomenally successful present is a sine-qua-non for the paradisiacal future the regime promises the nation. Mistakes are fundamentally incompatible with the claims of infallibility the Ruling Siblings make for themselves. If errors and misdeeds are impossible, accountability becomes unnecessary. This approach, which premiered via the Fourth Eelam War, is now becoming a fundament of Rajapaksa governance, as the sorry saga about examination results demonstrates. To admit that the A’Level results are flawed is to admit to a level of unprecedented inefficiency and incapacity totally at variance with the constant boast about development miracles. So the regime must deny reality, even though claims of flawless A’Level results or decreasing cost of living sound as unconvincing to Southern ears as the zero-civilian casualty claim does to Northern/international ears.
The cancer of Familial Rule is leading to a general systemic dysfunction, as the disastrous performance of the hitherto successful Examinations Department indicates. This fiasco has destroyed the implicit trust Lankan people had in the A’Level exam as an accurate depiction of a student’s educational attainments. The resultant loss of credibility matters little to the Rajapaksas who tend to retreat increasingly to a world of their own, in which nothing goes wrong except as a result of ‘enemy action’ (and organising Leadership Training is more important than giving accurate A’Level results). As years go by and problems mount, reality will be excluded totally from this make-believe world. The infantile response of the Central Bank Governor to a warning by Fitch Ratings (about the vulnerability of the Lankan financial system to global financial contagion) is totally compatible with this illusion-mongering and reality-denying form of governance.
As Robert Trivers points out, in ‘The Folly of Fools’, self-deception is costly “because it drains energy from our immune system”; this diagnosis is equally applicable to countries which embrace ‘false historical narratives’. Denying reality prevents a country from solving existing problems, forestalling future missteps or undertaking course corrections; all its energy is wasted on maintaining appearances. When Kim Jong Il died, official accounts claimed that “the skies glowed red above sacred Mount Paektu and the impenetrable sheet of ice at the heart of the mystical volcano cracked with a deafening roar” (AP – 22.12.2011). Behind the tinsel-façade, the ‘Dear Leader’ left a starving nation (armed with nuclear weapons) and a successor-son. That is one way a country, which allows its leaders to shun reality and embrace illusions, can end.

LLRC Chairman handing over its report to Mahinda Rajapaksa

“… From the very beginning there was a very clear military plan and in parallel…a plan for humanitarian assistance”
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa (Testimony before the LLRC)
“….the Commission is satisfied that the military strategy that was adopted…was one that was carefully conceived, in which the protection of the civilian population was given the highest priority.” (The LLRC Report)

A perceptive analysis of past errors and some judicious recommendations for the future constitute the strongest aspects of the LLRC’s much-awaited report. The Report, for instance, warns against disallowing the singing of the national anthem in Tamil, because such a ban will “create a major irritant which would not be conducive to fostering post-conflict reconciliation”. Its final recommendations argue that “the practice of the National Anthem being sung simultaneously in two languages in the same time must be maintained and supported…”
‘The practice of singing the National Anthem in two languages’ ended early this year; under orders from Colombo, provincial authorities compelled students of Jaffna Hindu College and Vambadi Girls School to sing the National Anthem in Sinhala. That order was a result of a cabinet decision (of 8.12.2010) which banned the singing of the national anthem in Tamil.  President Mahinda Rajapaksa justified his ‘Sinhala Only National Anthem’ proposal with the factually incorrect argument that “in no other country was the national anthem used in more than one language”; he defined the practice of singing the national anthem in Tamil as a “shortcoming that must be rectified” (The Sunday Times – 12.12.2010).
Was the LLRC unaware that the ‘practice of singing the National Anthem in two languages’ is dead, has been dead for almost a year? Did the Commissioners not know that this practice was killed on Presidential orders? The Commissioners could not have been ignorant of this reality unless they suffered from collective and targeted amnesia. But acknowledging the truth about the national anthem would have been tantamount to an indirect critique of the President, the Commission’s appointing authority. The fate of Gen. Fonseka teaches that that hell hath no fury like a Rajapaksa opposed/criticised, especially when the dissident is a former official/acolyte. Caught between the rock of reality and the hard place of Rajapaksa ire, the LLRC turned contortionist; it warned of the danger of abandoning the bilingual national anthem as if this is a future pitfall and not a Rajapaksa-wrought fait accompli.
This episode is symbolic of the LLRC and its report. The Commission’s real mandate was to provide the Rajapaksas with a plausible fig-leaf. Last week, President Rajapaksa “…filed motion in the war crimes suit against him in the District Court of Washington DC” (Lanka Standard – 18.12.2011). This is one more indication of the Sibling’s desperate need to make peace with the West, without undermining their project of Familial Rule and Dynastic Succession. The LLRC too was born out of this desire; its job was to deflect international criticism and forestall a UN inquiry. Conscious of this raison d’être, the LLRC seemed to have worked while looking over its collective-shoulders at the Ruling Siblings. The Report faithfully reflects this anxious concern to please the powers-that-be. Minister Professor GL Peiris was dead right; the Report is a ‘true mirror of the humanitarian operation’ because that was what the Rajapaksas wanted it to be.
Most depositions by civilian Tamils mentioned in the Report present a picture which is almost totally at variance with the ‘humanitarian offensive’ myth. They detail the atrocities of the Tigers; they also tell of how No Fire Zones became Free Fire Zones. Tamil after civilian Tamil maintains that they were shelled by both sides. One civilian states that “there were aerial attacks by the air force” on the third NFZ.  But true to its real mandate, the LLRC ignores this civilian evidence and embraces the myth of a ‘humanitarian operation’ peddled by its star (and most quoted) witness, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. Unsurprisingly; if the LLRC is chary of telling the truth about and apportioning responsibility for something as relatively innocuous as the scrapping of the Tamil language national anthem, will it have the courage to tell the truth about far more dangerous issues, especially if that truth discredits the Commander-in-Chief and his Brother?
By toeing the Rajapaksa line shamelessly, the LLRC deals a body-blow to the claim that the Rajapaksas can carry out an unbiased investigation of their own deeds. The LLRC’s pussyfooting approach thus inadvertently justifies the demand for an international investigation. Perhaps aware of this lacuna, the Commissioners juggle desperately to intersperse a largely incredible report with some credible insights and comments. So the Report advocates devolution while carefully refraining from mentioning the term ethnic problem, a Rajapaksa anathema. It is outspoken in its criticism of the EPDP and the TMVP for engaging in rights-violations, but religiously omits to mention that this impunity is granted and guaranteed by the Lankan Forces and the Rajapaksa Siblings. Post-war, these outfits have become key cogs in the Rajapaksa politico-electoral machinery, as symbolised by the transformation of Mr. Iniyabarathy, convicted criminal and alleged abductor, into a Rajapaksa-electoral organiser in the East. His ‘Deshamanya’ title, bestowed by President Rajapaksa this November, is symbolic and symbiotic of this amoral nexus.
Unfortunately the LLRC’s efforts may prove futile. A key witness in the Washington case against President Rajapaksa is reportedly a former Lankan major general who had ‘high security clearance and close contact with some of the army’s most powerful figures’. He had already given a deposition stating that Gotabhaya Rajapaksa passed on “some instructions to a field commander to get rid of those LTTE cadres who are surrendering without adhering to normal procedure…” and that “Mr. Rajapaksa sanctioned the creation of a ‘hit squad’…..” (Daily Telegraph – 18.12.2011).
By vindicating the Lankan Forces (and by extension the Rajapaksas) on all essential counts, the LLRC discredited itself and defeated its own purpose. A less blatantly partisan report could have been more successful at countering international criticism. But such a report would have infuriated the Rajapaksas and, that is a risk none can expect the LLRC to run, given the fate of Gen. Fonseka.

Abduction, Rape and Land-grabbing  

19 months after defeating the LTTE and despite a mammoth defence budget, existence remains unsafe, unjust and brutish for many Lankans. This month human rights activists Lalith Kumar Weeraraj and Kugan Murugandan disappeared in Jaffna. In the South the regime is planning the next logical step in its land grabbing exercise. According to Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva, “Lands given to farmers under state grants, Mahaweli and Swarna Bhoomi deeds would be acquired if they have not been developed and used productively” (Sri Lanka Mirror – 21.12.2011). The Rajapaksas and their local minions will decide which lands are underutilised – an ideal way of acquiring fertile land for foreign agribusinesses and of threatening/punishing anti-government farmers.
December’s toll of this climate of impunity included a seven year old child who was abducted and raped; “The girl, who is a resident of the Kodikamam area was at her home with her family when she was abducted around 11 p.m. by a group” (Sri Lanka Mirror – 20.12.2011). If we are not outraged by this horror, and undisturbed by the deadly future it portends, will we not deserve that future?

“….an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies”.
Avraham Burg (International Herald Tribune – 6.9.2003)

Facelift for farmers and their gunny bags? (Courtesy: www.blogs.redcross.org.uk)

The ‘plastic crates saga’ is a quintessentially Rajapaksa tale.
Arbitrariness is a hallmark of the ‘Johnston Law’, decreeing plastic crates mandatory in transporting vegetables and fruits. Amidst the furore over this inane law, Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa told its maker, Minister of Cooperation and Internal Trade Johnston Fernando, “if grass roots level stakeholders are involved a lot of problems can be avoided” (Daily Mirror, December 14, 2011).
Minister Fernando’s doppelgänger law is unintelligent because it ignores actual conditions and is indifferent to real-life problems of small-scale traders and farmers who struggle to eke a liveable income. In talking to Derana TV, these grassroots-level stakeholders argued that this law would make farming more expensive and life more precarious. Traders explained that two or three crates would be needed for what could be carried in one sack. An elderly farmer lamented that though he can walk the long distance from his plot to the road carrying a gunny bag on his back, carrying two or three plastic crates will be beyond his capacity.
Another said that several gunny bags could be strapped onto a bicycle easily but not several crates. Upcountry vegetable farmers pointed out the dangers involved in carrying crates downhill (especially on slippery or uneven tracks). These problems should have been obvious, had the power-wielders considered the issue with just a pinch of sense and a drop of sensibility.
The law criminalised what is harmless, normal and cheap. A trader who transported some papayas in sacks was reportedly fined Rs.8,000. When farmers and traders started protesting, the regime reacted as if they were national enemies. Protesters were tear-gassed and scores arrested. The army was called in and the Dambulla Economic Centre and the Manning Market occupied, under the guise of providing security. The Minister, a UNP defector turned Rajapaksa-favourite, threatened to transfer the Manning Market to Narahenpita, immediately, “if the vendors in the Manning Market continue their protest” (Lanka Page – December 14, 2011).
For the Rajapaksas, development is mostly facelifts. This beauty-parlour approach to development, which prioritises appearances even at the risk of economic fundamentals, is central to the Rajapaksa plan of imposing a First World façade on a Sri Lanka languishing in Third World conditions.
The resultant delusionary-development is a concomitant of the Rajapaksa project of building a one-family state behind a Democratic façade.
The ‘Johnston Law’ fits in well with this approach: colourful crates are easier on the eye than gunny bags/sacks; they seem ‘First Worldish’ unlike gunny bags/sacks which carry an unmistakably underdeveloped aura!
Even the Southern Expressway is not immune to this psychological-malaise. Last month, the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) issued a public statement warning that it informed the authorities of shortcomings in the Expressway but did not receive a ‘noteworthy response’. The CILT also wondered whether “vital safety features have been compromised in design and cost cutting”).
The Rajapaksas have a habit of making bad laws, arbitrarily. The failed amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act is an excellent case in point. As Namini Wijedasa revealed, the amendment did not specify what a ‘sacred area’ is; this seminal omission would have given the Minister of Buddha Sasana and Religious Affairs a boundless right to declare anything a ‘sacred area’ and rendered legal remedies impossible: “How would one argue that one’s property is not ‘sacred’, if the law does not explain what ‘sacred’ means? (Lakbima News – December 11, 2011).
The indifference to the problems and concerns of ordinary people, a common condition of North-Eastern existence, is becoming increasingly manifest in the South as well. For instance, the regime is planning to build a 1,435 acre sports village in Suriyawewa by filling six tanks! Recently Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa appealed to the Minister of Sports to “be more sensitive to the needs of the farmers affected…..” (Daily Mirror – December 9, 2011).
The sports village will cost the people of Suriyaweva far more jobs and income than it can ever create. And one can imagine how many livelihoods and lives will be endangered by closing six dry zone-tanks and replacing them with a water-guzzling sports village (it would also raise the human-elephant conflict to new highs).
The regime says it will provide the affected families with alternate sources of water. Which irrigation scheme will be used for the purpose? At what cost to the nation and the people will this water be provided, if it is provided?
The Rajapaksa regime carries a makeup box in one hand and a gun in the other. When political/economic facelifts do not suffice, repression comes into play. Last week 45 human rights activists from the South were arrested in Jaffna, when they tried to join a protest to mark the International Human Rights Day. Disappearances too are mounting. The deployment of the army to counter Democratic protests by traders and farmers indicates why new military bases are mushrooming, post-war.
The President has agreed to postpone the implementation of the ‘Johnston Law’ by a month. Will the regime do the sensible thing and allow this asinine law to lapse into oblivion by disuse? Or will it use that month to break the will of the farmers and traders through acts of targeted repression?

Corruption and Inequality

‘Who will get the commission for the crates?’ read a poster held aloft by a Manning Market protester against the ‘Johnston Law’. It was an apposite question. According to former Chief Justice Asoka de Silva, “the country’s development rate has dropped by 2% due to the increase in corruption…. Corruption costs Rs.100 billion to the country which in turn affects the poverty levels” (Sri Lanka Mirror – December 12, 2011).  Mr. de Silva is not only a former Chief Justice; he is also a current Presidential Advisor. Therefore his critique, made at a ceremony to mark International Anti-Corruption Day, cannot be dismissed as a piece of anti-Rajapaksa propaganda. Mr. de Silva is very firmly on the Rajapaksa side of the political divide and his remarks indicate that the regime’s outré conduct disturbs its more perspicacious supporters.
The former top judge turned presidential advisor drew attention to another dangerous malaise – income inequality: “The per capita income stated by the government in the budget is earned only by about 4% of the country’s population while the rest of the people earn around US$5 or 6 (daily)” (ibid). There is a connection between the exacerbation of inequality and the ubiquity of corruption. The beneficiaries of corruption are mainly the powerful and the rich; the poor and the middle classes lose, because the money so stolen/frittered could have been used in alleviating poverty and improving services. The injection of more than Rs.3 billion of public funds to Mihin Lanka in just three years is not just a measure of Rajapaksa profligacy. It also indicates how governing by the Rajapaksas for the Rajapaksas can undermine national economic-health and popular living standards.
Even as traders were protesting against the ‘Johnston Law’ in Pettah, hectic preparations were going on in adjoining Fort for a game of night-races, reportedly a pet-project of the Rajapaksa Sons. Two antithetical worlds, which cannot co-exist, fated to collide….

Lady Macbeth was right after all; in the end, even the most expensive reputation launderette cannot cleanse a ruler who must heap crime on crime just to survive, in power.

Hitler swallowed the boundless adulation. He became the foremost believer in his own Führer cult”
Ian Kershaw (Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris)
“Here’s the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand” lamented Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth. Modern rulers know better. They hire expensive public relations firms to cleanse them of stains and smells. One of the most noxious practitioners of this unscrupulous trade is the British firm Bell Pottinger, the Rajapaksa regime’s reputation launderette of choice.
Bell Pottinger is currently struggling to launder its own reputation. Two journalists of the British newspaper ‘The Independent’, posing as Uzbek government agents discussed image remaking possibilities with top Bell Pottinger executives. In the recorded conversations, the executives brag about their prowess at using ‘all sorts of dark arts’. As part of Bell Pottinger resume, Public Relations Chairman David Wilson, boasts that his team wrote the 2010 UN speech of the Lankan president: “We were writing a speech at the same time as (President Rajapaksa) was asking his foreign office to write a speech as well, and he chose to use our speech despite several attempts by the foreign office to change the tune” (The Independent – 6.12.2011). The Rajapaksa administration has angrily denied the story; naturally. The revelation sits rather ill with a regime which takes its nationalism to absurd extremes, such as cutting down willow tree on Independence Avenue because they are non-indigenous.
Megalomania is a malady few despots are resistant to. President Rajapaksa’s fondness for such panegyrics as ‘High King’ and ‘Lord of the Three Sinhala Lands’ and his habit of naming mega structures, from ports to  stadiums, after himself are manifestations of his willing embrace of this psychological quirk (the newest addition is ‘The Lotus Pond: Mahinda Rajapaksa Visual Arts Theatre’). Being the lord and master of Sri Lanka is just one part of this monstrous conceit; achieving recognition as a titanic figure on the international stage is the other. Thus his propagandists’ eagerness to heap such encomiums on the President as ‘Universally renowned Lord’ and ‘Leader who conquered the World’. But these fevered imaginings are a far cry from the reality. Thanks to the emblematic democracy-deficit, human rights-deficit and devolution-deficit of his rule, President Rajapaksa is not a welcome guest in Western capitals.
Mahinda Rajapaksa is no Hugo Chavez who is genuinely contemptuous of the Western powers. His craving for recognition makes him pay millions of dollars of public-funds every year to Bell Pottinger to arrange trips to Western capitals, to plant ghost-written articles in Western papers and to persuade Western leaders to welcome him (last years’ Oxford fiasco resulted from this yearning.) His ire at their unfriendly mien is understandable. After all, Western leaders unhesitatingly embrace Third World tyrants when it is in their interests to do so. If Sri Lanka is discovered to be the repository of substantial reserves of petroleum/natural gas, Mahinda Rajapaksa too will be able to stride into the good graces of Western leaders, jumbo entourages and all. But in the absence of such a fortuitous development, he will have to win the West the hard way, by paying a king’s ransom to reputation launderettes.
So the Rajapaksas were willing to waste billions of dollars on the 2018 Commonwealth Games and will waste millions of dollars on the 2013 Commonwealth Summit, just to play host to an Elizabeth Windsor, a David Cameron or a Julia Gillard in their family-fief of Hambantota. Who can doubt that giant billboards of President Rajapaksa with the Queen of England and non-Third World commonwealth leaders will adorn every Lankan roadside for years to come, as an eternal reminder of a ‘crowded hour of glorious life’?

Discarded Ballot Papers and Indelible Stains

The 62 ballot papers marked in favour of opposition candidate Sarath Fonseka and found abandoned near the Ratnapura Technical College are not photocopies, as the regime claimed. They are real ballot papers, according to the testimony of the retired Questioned Documents Examiner at the Elections Department. This revelation causes serious doubts about the legitimacy of the Rajapaksa victory at the 2010 Presidential election. It also demonstrates the anti-democratic lengths to which the Siblings are willing to go to stay in power.
The Rajapaksas can survive only as malefactors of great power (to paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt). They can pursue their Familial Project only along a despotic path. Democratic measures, such as re-establishing the independent commissions or releasing Gen. Fonseka, will improve Sri Lanka’s international image more than all the ‘dark arts’ of Bell Pottinger. But such measures are impossible, because they will undermine the Rajapaksa raison d’être: familial rule and dynastic succession.
A political solution to the ethnic problem can help win the West. But devolution is anathematic to the Rajapaksas not only because they are Sinhala Supremacists but also because devolution normally strengthens democracy. For instance, a new law aimed at empowering the government to expropriate private lands by invoking economic, social/religious, environmental or historical necessity was withdrawn from parliament last week. The Supreme Court had refused to consider the bill because it was placed on the Order Paper without “complying with the constitutional requirement that it be first referred to the provincial councils for their views” (The Sunday Times – 4.11.2011). So the devolutionary 13th Amendment impeded the Siblings from introducing a profoundly tyrannical law. (Had the Northern provincial council been functional, the law could have been blocked permanently. Currently the Rajapaksas can resurrect the law by getting their underlings in other councils to accept it).
A credible investigation into human rights violations will improve Lanka’s image. A recent media report indicates why this possible change is impossible for the Rajapaksas. A top Lankan military official has testified in New York that “he was informed that the Defence Secretary had passed on ‘some instructions to a field commander to get rid of those LTTE cadres who are surrendering’…..  The source admitted to the existence of ‘white vans’ that were allegedly used for kidnappings…. The source alleges that the 12-year-old son of Villai Prabhakaran, the late leader of the Tamil Tigers, was interrogated and killed.
The source states: ‘I got to know at the latter stages that they found out where Prabhakaran is, through his son… And subsequently, I got to know that [the boy] had been killed’…. The military source also stated that he was aware of threats or actual killings of journalists who criticised the government, including that of Lasantha Wickrematunge…”  (The International – 30.11.2011).Using the negative-example of Sri Lanka, Bell Pottinger executives explained to the undercover journalists that the success of their efforts depends on the client’s willingness to change: “If a government says it wants to change but won’t change then sorry that will come back and hit them. And I probably need to say any more about the reputation of Sri Lanka” (The Independent – 6.12.2012). But the Rajapaksas cannot change without undermining the very existence of their rule, without abandoning their dynastic ambitions, without endangering their own freedom. Perhaps Lady Macbeth was right after all; in the end, even the most expensive reputation launderette cannot cleanse a ruler who must heap crime on crime just to survive, in power.