Archive for February, 2008
A statement by theRt Revd Duleep de Chickera, Bishop of Colombo
[The Church of Ceylon (E-P) - Ceylon]
The killing of a Pastor and theserious injury to his wife in Ampara by unidentified gunmen must becondemned by all true adherents of all religions. This violent actcallsfor a prompt and impartial investigation by the Police who must dealwiththe perpetrators under the law.I extend the condolences of our Clergy and Congregations to thePastor’sfamily and pray for a speedy recovery for his wife.
May Jesus the GoodShepherd lead you from death to life as you forgive and reconcile withthose who have hurt you so grievously.This murder and certain recent inter-religious tensions in the AmparaDistrict have caused concern amongst small scattered Christiancommunitiesin the area.
Consequently I call upon the IGP to ensure the safety andprotection of Christian Clergy and Congregations in order that they mayfreely practice their Christian faith.If the behaviour of some persons of one religion have hurt the feelingsofpersons of another religion, a responsible inter-religious team shouldbeappointed to mediate and restore harmony. It is this way that religiousdignity and freedom is sustained through conflict in multi-religioussocieties like ours.
Violence and murder is never the answer.Media reports of some Pastors being recently taken into custody forallegedly being in possession of suicide jackets have also causedanxietyamongst Christians. This could lead to a new wave of suspicion andantagonism against Christian Clergy in general.In order that justice may be done by all and inter religious trustrestored soon, I call upon the Police to expedite an impartialinvestigation and to make its findings public.
If the suspects areguiltythey must be dealt with under the law. Christian action that supportswilful death and destruction is a contradiction of the Christian Gospeland is totally unacceptable. In such an event it will also be necessaryfor the particular Church concerned to tender a public apology, and forall Churches to review their procedure of selection and training fortheministry to prevent a repetition of such happenings.
If on the other hand these pastors are innocent they must be releasedandthey and their Church publicly exonerated. The corporate goodwill ofmanywill then be required to eliminate prejudice and restore the good nameofthis church and its members.In the meantime I appeal to those conducting investigations and themediato refrain from releasing bits of information until investigations arecomplete and the full story known.
Some information made public beforeallis known, is improper and can lead to a hasty and unfair judgement ofreligious leaders and communities.The shelling of a church in Mannar by the LTTE in which six soldierswerekilled has led to conflicting reports. Yet regardless of thesedifferentversions, the wilful attack on a place of worship must be condemned.The perpetrators on both sides of this war must take fullresponsibilityfor the wider war culture in which incidents like these occur.
Theabsenceof a neutral monitoring body easily encourages impunity; and thecontinuing disregard for acceptable ethical and humanitarian normseasilyfacilitates the occupation and destruction of places of worship.In these circumstances every death of a soldier, militant cadre orcivilian is a cause for sorrow and regret. While the final solution isforan early ceasefire and peace negotiations, it can never be too late toimplement checks and balances to ensure a humanitarian war till then.
With peace and blessings to all.
The Rt Revd Duleep de Chickera
Bishop of Colombo
19th February 2008
February 20th, 2008
by Dayan Jayatilleka
Ailing revolutionary icon Fidel Castro permanently gave up the Cuban presidency on Tuesday Feb 19th , ending five decades of rule of the island marked by his one-man defiance of the United States. This article was written earlier in celebration of his 80th birthday is posted here to honour Fidel Castro’s retirement
“..that cosmic force called Fidel Castro Ruz..” – Che Guevara (’Cuba: exception or vanguard?’)
“You were the first and greatest hero to appear in the world since the Second War…”
- Norman Mailer
The Cuban leader’s 80th birthday today, his renewed significance in Latin America, and his current illness which may presage the passage of his era, render relevant a re-valuation of Fidelismo.
Fidel Castro is listed in The Routledge Dictionary of Twentieth Century Political Thinkers, the editors of which define those included as ‘important thinkers from the early years of the century to the contemporary period…[whose] ideas have influenced political thought and activity in the twentieth century’.
[Fidel Castro, Cuba's fiery revolutionary patriarch and an international icon of rebellion, resigned as president on Feb. 19, 2008, according to La Granma, the state run newspaper in Cuba-[Photo: NY Times.com]
Fidel not only represents continuity with defining struggles and themes of the twentieth century – capitalism and socialism, imperialism and national liberation, reform and revolution – thereby illumining them in retrospect, he has also a shaped the landscape of the present. “Suddenly Latin America has grabbed the world’s attention”, opines The Economist (London), in its issue of May 20th, 2006, in a cover story entitled The Battle for Latin America’s Soul. According to Newsweek the central symbol in the drama of a resurgent Latin America is Fidel Castro: “Fidel has more fans in the region than he’s had in years…The symbol that has benefited most from the new perspective is …the left’s reigning lion in winter, Fidel Castro…Castro has experienced a remarkable resurgence.”(Joseph Contreras, ‘Latin America: Castro’s Comeback’, Newsweek, March 20, 2006, p.26). The Chicago Tribune confirms recently that “the guidance and support of Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez have helped the political left make a remarkable resurgence in Latin America.” (Colin McMahon and Hugh Dellios, ‘Region shifts to the left’, Chicago Tribune, Aug 8, 2006).
The Cuban leader’s 80th birthday today, his renewed significance in Latin America, and his current illness which may presage the passage of his era, render relevant a re-valuation of Fidelismo, which Prof Donald E Rice defines as “a global perspective…Fidel’s particular construction of Marxism”.
Fidel’s Perspective Commenting on the fall of the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro remarked that it was not a case of homicide, but of suicide. “Socialism did not die from natural causes: it was a suicide.” (Interview by Tomas Borge for Managua’s EL NUEVO DIARIO, 3 June 1992). “The truth is that they destroyed the socialist bloc with the cooperation of the socialist bloc and the USSR. It was a case of suicide and self-destruction” (speech at the concluding plenary session of the Sixth Congress of the Union of Young Communists, Havana 4th April 1992). The comment on the collapse of Soviet socialism was Fidel Castro’s second characterisation of the unravelling of a revolutionary experiment as ’suicide’, i.e. self-inflicted. The first was that of Grenada. The two uses of the term ’suicide’ indicate clearly, the two types of behaviour that Fidel thought self-destructive of revolutions: on the one hand fratricidal strife, internal bloodletting fuelled by political and ideological fundamentalism- as in Grenada – and on the other, endless compromise and dilution; the lack of political will to fight for the survival of socialism and the continuation in power of the revolution – as in the USSR. Castro strove to avoid both extremes, or as the Marxist lexicon has it, ‘deviations’.
[Mr. Castro in 1985-NY Times Multimedia]
Looking back at the Cold war in a CNN/BBC interview (March 19, 1998) years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Castro’s main conclusions constitute a quite distinctive perspective and stance on contemporary history: though Marx, Engels and Lenin did not envisage ’socialism in one country’ the Soviet leaders were not wrong in adopting it because they needed a mobilising slogan and task in an international situation that left them no choice; not only was there no Cuban-Soviet master plan, had one “actually existed, we would have won the Cold War”; the USSR was neither consulted nor informed of the Cuban internationalist mission in Angola; the only instance of coordinated Cuban-Soviet military action was in support of Ethiopia and repelling the Somali invasion; the USSR did not support Cuba’s policy towards the revolution in Latin America; that revolution had better prospects than the ones initially faced by Fidel and the Cuban revolution; had the Latin American revolution won it would have changed the outcome of history not least because of its impact upon the United States which would have equalled that of the Vietnam war; the Latin American revolution did not succeed largely because of the Sino-Soviet struggle and the competing pulls it exercised on the Latin American left movement; the main factor in the defeat of socialism and the victory of capitalism led by the US in the Cold War was the split between the communist parties of the USSR and China. (Fidel Castro, Cold War: Warnings for a Unipolar World, Ocean Press, Melbourne, 2003, pp 20-75)
Fidel Castro’s political thought is original in, among other things, its brand of anti-imperialism. It is in marked contrast to ‘cultural nationalist’ anti-imperialism, which is anti-Western and anti-modern. The Iranian revolution of 1979 is the most prominent example of the latter, though Al Qaeda and other similar organisations are cases in point. This brand of anti-imperialism is not solely Islamic in provenance: most countries of the global South display some variety of it, marked by ethnic majoritarianism and therefore the inability to deal sensitively with internal nationalities and ethno-religious questions.
The global East and South saw forms of anti-imperialism that were non Marxist, pre-Marxist, which while being nationalist or patriotic, were not anti-Western, anti-modern or traditionalist. The main examples would be Cuba’s Jose Marti, China’s Sun Yat Sen and India’s Nehru. These anti-imperialist nationalisms were in a sense modernising ideologies, fighting against the backwardness of their own societies, albeit drawing on dissident traditions of the West. Marti’s patriotism had a continental sweep and went even further, invoking a humanistic universalism.
Fidel’s anti-imperialism based itself on that of Jose Marti but went on, as in most subject areas, to cross cut existing trends and forge a new synthesis. It has a moral and cultural dimension but not in the sense of the extremist ideologues who view Western society as decadent and their traditional culture as both self sufficient and inherently superior. He also wove in the statist nationalism of Stalin, insofar as the defence of the Cuban revolution and the revolutionary state was given emphasis. From Jose Marti and Simon Bolivar he has inherited a continental, Latin American vision, but this he combines with a Tricontinentalism or Third Worldism (which found the most dramatic incarnation in the internationalist missions in Africa). Fidel’s anti-imperialism was not purely Third Worldist or equidistant; it entailed solidarity with the socialist state system.
Most interestingly Fidelismo reached deep into Western society, identifying with youth movements and making an indelible impression on the consciousness of successive generations of Western youth. This it was able to do because of its nuanced, dialectical critique of the West and identification with certain aspects and trends of Western history and culture.
The moral and cultural dimensions of Fidel’s anti-imperialism did not take the form of protectionist Puritanism, as in the case of many Third World nationalisms. He denounced the West in moral terms that were universal: injustice, oppression, poverty, inequality. He also projected the Cuban revolution and Cuban socialism as morally superior in terms that were not culturally circumscribed but could be subscribed to by all humanity: eg the provision of free universal health care and education. Cuba has more doctors serving abroad than do the World Health Organisation or USAID! In the domain of culture, Cuba’s praxis takes the forms of indigenous and contemporary popular music and dance, which do not seek to shut out Western music but can compete with it, while drawing from and contributing to it. The Cuban experiment owes its sustainability in the face of unparalleled odds, to the assertion of the moral within the project of alternative modernity. The figure of Che Guevara shows the imaginative power and continued cultural valency in universal terms, of the combination of the values of reason/modernity and morality.
Fidel, Terrorism and Ethics While in strategic terms the contemporary global picture is bipolar – between the sole superpower and its allies on the one hand, and terrorism of Islamic provenance on the other- it is not necessarily so at a philosophical and ideological level. In this domain the game is not zero-sum, but triangular. In-between the neo-conservatism (and rejection of liberalism) which is the ruling ideology of unipolar hegemony, and the forms of terrorism that challenge that hegemony, lies a third zone.
[Mr. Castro played to the crowd on July 8, 1964: Photo Courtesy of NYTimes.com Multimedia]
In this zone are those alienated, albeit unequally, by both the fanaticism of terrorism and the arrogance of neoconservative ‘market fundamentalism’. The alienated are the offspring of reason and modernity: liberalism, social democracy, reform communism, residual Marxism, and the moderate liberal and progressive currents of religions. Anti-war US Democrats, western European social democrats, Eastern and southern European ex-Communists who are ‘reform communists’ or ‘new social democrats’, the African ex-Marxist ex-guerrillas who are ‘new ‘or ‘emergent democrats’, the dramatically revived Latin American left originating in the Sao Paulo and Porto Allegro forums but now wielding governmental power in a majority of South American states, the anti-globalisation and anti-Iraq war global movements, and Fidel Castro’s Cuba. These are some of the trends and tendencies of a Third Zone.
Gramscian The critique of terrorism cannot be credibly sustained by the neoconservatives with their project of unilateralist militarism, global hegemony and unvarnished economic neo-liberalism. The strength of terrorism, especially its religious variant has been its moral critique and its moral underpinning. The critique of terrorism has of necessity to be a moral and ethical, cultural and civilizational; in a word, Gramscian.
The discussion and debate on terrorism polarises between two main approaches. One is the status quo-ist response. It condemns terrorism out of hand with no reference to its context and causative factors. There is, in short, no attempt to understand the phenomenon. A variant of this is to condemn all forms of anti-Establishment violence as terrorism. The other seeks to set terrorism in its context but in doing so tends either to condone it, or exculpate it as the product of deep injustice and the response of the weak against the oppressor. State terrorism is seen as the root cause of and therefore morally worse than anti-state terrorism. Castro’s response to the 9/11 attacks, contained in his speech of Sept 22, 2001, constitutes a unique ‘third perspective’.
It contains an understanding of the deep, causative roots of terrorism and the culpability of the powerful and privileged in its emergence. However, none of these factors stand in the way of a resolute denunciation of terrorism; a denunciation that pre-empts the argument that there are any extenuating circumstances for its adoption and practice. The moral-ethical criterion operates as an autonomous factor, which is absolute and unconditional. Castro’s country and its revolution are themselves the victims of US policy which has often taken the form of state sponsored terrorism. He is therefore acutely aware of the hypocrisy of the US denunciation of terrorism.
He warns against a militaristic response to terrorism and argues for deep-going structural changes to eliminate its causes. Fidel’s is therefore an unambiguous and uncompromising moral denunciation of terrorism, not relative to or qualified by the socioeconomic or political causes, of which he is nonetheless aware (and goes onto address).
“No one can deny that terrorism is today a dangerous and ethically indefensible phenomenon, which should be eradicated regardless of
its deep origins, the economic and political factors that brought it to life and those responsible for it. ” (Fidel Castro, Sept 22, 2001)
The people of the world disagree with the foreign policy of the US administration especially in its neo conservative variant, but as the response to 9/11 shows, there was a civilizational consensus which rejected those egregious acts of terrorism. A way of life, a way of being – both social and individual – has to be counter-posed to that offered by terrorist ideology. A moral critique of injustice must be part of the rejection of the terrorist response to injustice.
Fidel Castro must be studied so as to derive a ‘typology of morals’ within the traditions of ‘violent politics’ (Eric Hobsbawm) or ‘politico-military’ endeavour, and his guiding values are a necessary prelude to the ‘revaluation of values’ (Nietzsche) within the current upsurge of terrorism, crude anti-globalisation and anti-Westernism.
A new moral synthesis can be based only upon a new synthesis of values, and can emanate only from such a breaking down of the Berlin walls that have existed between the off-springs of reason and modernity. This renders possible a condominium of reason against the forces of moral barbarisms emanating from within the status quo and without.
Reason and modernity alone cannot combat the moral power of both Christian Evangelical fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism. Both these extremisms thrive on a doctrine of struggle and heroism. Therefore an alternative psychology, deriving from an alternative ethic of struggle and heroism, has to part of the synthesis. The Romantic rebellion offers such a source of inspiration, but given the irrational dark underside of that rebellion, it must be filtered through and informed by the values of reason and modernity.
In his Political Romanticism, Carl Schmitt’s critique is that Romanticism in politics introduces aesthetic criteria and in doing so, weakens its capacity for decision and demonstrates a propensity for defeat. Fidel Castro’s synthesis of the traditions of Realism, Reason and Romanticism not merely avoids but demonstrates an aversion to such ‘Hamletesque’ political behaviour. Castro has shown a vocation for (Schmittian) ‘decisionism’. He struggled to win and to defend the gains of victory.
He has succeeded in doing so using criteria other than or supplementary to those of Realism, of power; and introduced precisely aesthetic criteria and values especially in the notion of the heroic. Common to Realism and Romanticism is the centrality of the phenomenon of struggle, of great contestation. In the Realist tradition this is couched in terms of power, its acquisition and retention. In the Romantic tradition, the aesthetic of heroism is defined in terms of struggle. Romanticism often relies on ‘irrational’ criteria of pure feeling, while the Castroist synthesis combines passion with Reason’s reliance on science and logical argumentation, and above all on the labour of convincing, explanation, and persuasion.
The relevance of Fidel Castro’s achievement and contribution, and his political ideas could be contested on the grounds that they belong to an age that has disappeared, the age of socialism and revolution. However, the work of Nietzsche most strongly demonstrates the philosophical and intellectual validity of such excavation. Nietzsche’s critique of existing values was based on or reinforced by his contrast with values of the past, their decline, and an argument not for their restoration but for a new synthesis which would give birth to new values.
[Mr. Castro, right, and Che Guevara, the minister of industry, in Havana in the early 1960's. Mr. Castro overthrew the dictator Fulgencio Batista to gain power in Cuba-NYTimes.com]
His celebration of the Homeric hero, his ambivalence towards Socrates, his discovery of the Dionysian and the dualism of the Apollonian and Dionysian and assertion of a synthesis as the source of Greek dramatic achievement, his final call in The Will to Power for “a Caesar with the soul of Christ”, illustrate this fevered search for synthesis of types and values in the creation of a new mentality and mode of being. Fidel Castro is an example of such a synthesis on the Left end of the spectrum.
His relevance is enhanced by the fact that these alternative values are incarnated and practised by him in two antithetical states of being – as armed rebel, and as ruler. Thus they constitute an all encompassing ethic and morality.
February 20th, 2008
In truth, Nethmi Lavanya Yogendra should have attained fame when the Year 5 scholarship results for 2007 were released late last year. Nethmi was placed second in the Colombo District after securing 190 marks at the scholarship exam held in August last year.
Instead, the little 10-year old seems fated to become a household name because the government has denied her access into Vishaka Vidyalaya on grounds of nothing more than her ethnicity. Nethmi Yogendra is a Tamil. And a Buddhist. Her father, also a Tamil Buddhist, schooled at Ananda College Colombo. During her short life as a student at President’s College, Nawala, Nethmi has studied in the Sinhalese medium.
Like Royal College and Ananda College are the preferred choice for boys, Vishaka Vidyalaya is one of the leading girls’ schools in Colombo, much sought after by scholarship winners from around the island, in particular because of its exacting education standards. Like free education, the Year V scholarship examination is one of the greatest gifts the state of Sri Lanka bestows upon its children, enabling the brightest students from the most remote corners of the island access to the very best schools in the country, based on their performance at the competitive examination held each year.
Little Nethmi would have entertained the same hope when she applied to Vishaka after her excellent performance at the exam. School authorities accepted her application since she had obtained well over the required pass mark, and the little girl’s parents had already paid the facility fees. In fact, everything looked set for Nethmi to continue her promising academic career, before the hefty arm of the State stepped in to stop her in her tracks.
Education Minister Susil Premajayanth claims that he prevented Nethmi from entering Vishaka ‘for her own good.’ Her ethnicity would have caused her much worse problems, he declares. At least he is talking about it. The rest of the government is allegedly in the dark.
Quite apart from being a despicable act of discrimination on the part of the State and the very obvious fundamental rights questions the ‘barring’ raises, the students and teachers of Vishaka Vidyalaya ought to be righteously indignant about the ludicrous assumption the Minister of Education appears to have made on their behalf. To assume that the school made up primarily of Sinhalese Buddhists would reject this little girl of another ethnicity, who has won her rightful place there, is to insult every student and teacher at Vishaka. The school not only has a quota for students of different religions and ethnicities, but accepted Nethmi Yogendra’s application without hesitation. Which brings the question down to who has more interest in keeping Nethmi out of Vishaka? the school authorities or the incumbent administration?
It is bad enough that the best schools in the capital are not open to the Tamil community because they lack a Tamil medium. Students in the Tamil medium who have passed their scholarship exam will never have a place at Vishaka, Ananda or a myriad of other ‘national’ or ‘leading’ schools in the city. But to bar Nethmi, a girl who has studied in the Sinhalese medium, practises Buddhism, and has won her rightful place at any one of the good schools in Colombo hands down, on grounds that she would not be able to integrate, is not only absurd, it is shameful. It speaks of a government and state machinery that is adamant to believe the worst about the Sinhalese people, and worse yet, one that is prepared to do grave injustice to Tamil citizens based on nothing more that this pathetic assumption.
No two words about it-the prevailing state of things is a damning indictment on the government. For a government that already has a poor track record about its treatment of the minority communities, this latest school fiasco is a suicidal move. It would appear in this case that the government is imposing its own anti-minority stance on Vishaka Vidyalaya.
The exclusion of Nethmi is more than just about keeping one child out of a school. One would think that decades of ethnic strife, one bloody and horrific ethnic riot, and the war we have all suffered for more than 20 years would have taught Sri Lankan governments something by now. Stirring the ethnic cauldron again, after Sri Lankans-Sinhalese Tamil, Muslim and Burgher have suffered a collective destiny of conflict that has left us all reeling, is akin to setting the soul of this nation afire once more. As a people, we have risen above such petty differences, even if our governments have not. Given a chance, we have no doubt that Nethmi’s little schoolmates, and her teachers would have embraced her entry into their school. They might have seen her as a gifted and willing student, deserving of her place in that revered institute of learning. It is a tragedy that the government of Sri Lanka sees her only as a Tamil.
[This is a re-production of the editorial which appeared in "The Nation" of February 17th 2008 under the heading "A plea for Nethmi".]
February 17th, 2008
by D.B.S.Jeyaraj
“Ne’er a peevish Boy , would break ;
The Bowl from which he drank in joy;
And He that with his hand the Vessel made
Will surely not in after Wrath destroy”
- Omar Khayyam (Rubaiyat translated by Edward Fitzgerald)
Usually this column devotes itself to issues related to politics, political violence, terrorism, ethnic conflict, war, peace process, power sharing etc. This column departs from this practice this week to focus on an Institution that has been in the news for the past few weeks – The International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES)in Colombo.
At the outset I wish to emphasise that I am both biased and unbiased on this subject.Having been associated with the ICES in the past , I have nothing but appreciative regard and affectionate goodwill towards it.
I owe a lot to the ICES and remain grateful and loyal. Therefore I am firmly biased in favour of the ICES as an institution.I am very much concerned that the ICES is currently enveloped in a tragic crisis.
However I must assert that I am unbiased as far as the personalities involved in the ICES crisis are concerned. Most of the people entwined in this sad , internal strife are known to me. Many are my friends though I have not been touch with some for a while. There are a few with whom I am unfamiliar.
I have spent several days now writing and telephoning the people connected to this crisis in a bid to make sense of the whole thing. Reading and listening to different accounts, I am yet to make up my mind on some matters.
There are some with whom I am yet to make contact. Until this is done I do not want to arrive at any firm conclusion. So I am unbiassed so far about the personalities involved and about apportioning blame individually by name.
However there have been some media reports where people connected to the ICES have given interviews. Some letters and even internal e-mails have been published.
These provide a rough idea of what has happened and what is going on. On the basis of these reports it is clear that some form of internal differences are at the root of the crisis.
I had heard of these developments before but thought these were inevitable hiccups in a period of transition. I never thought it would reach this stage.
[Dr. Rama Mani]
Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy had been with the ICES from the beginning. She goes off to the UN as under secretary – general and Dr. Rama Mani a non – Sri Lankan without close links to the ICES in the past, takes over.
It is indeed a problem when Dr. Coomaraswamy who has been an institution within the ICES institution leaves. In such cases people feel the void cannot be filled easily.
It is also a tricky situation when insiders are given the hope that they can fill the void and rank outsiders are brought in. There is bound to be friction and misgivings. But one would have expected the ICES to overcome these trials of transition. Sadly it did not.
One is unsure of what exactly the specific causes of friction were. It is also unclear as to what the remedies prescribed to resolve contentious issues were . The overall consequences however have been tremendous.
Whatever the causes . the one definite consequence in all this is the immense harm done to the ICES as an institution. While some persons acting perhaps with the best of intentions sling mud at each other the institutional image of the ICES sinks deeper and deeper into mud.
Immeasurable and probably irredeemable harm is being done to the ICES as an institution. It does not matter as to who “wins” or “loses” in this essentially fratricidal clash.
Any “victory” can only be Pyrrhic! The fruits of success will be rotten and unfit for consumption.The ultimate loser will be the ICES.
I do not want to write in detail at this time about the genesis of this fratricidal clash and the intimate details of how it is being played out.
I am very unhappy about this whole ICES issue receiving such wide and negative publicity. As a journalist I cannot be opposed in principle to the concept of media disclosures .
Nevertheless I must say that all this media publicity is not in the best interests of the ICES.
Washing all this dirty linen in public is affecting the institution. I do wish the people concerned had not resorted to this course .
Whatever the validity of their grievances, I do feel some restraint could have been adopted instead of publicising a private and internal issue of the ICES.
While refraining from going into the knitty – gritty aspects of the ICES crisis at this juncture , I want to dwell on certain larger and troubling issues. Before doing so I want to refer briefly to what I think is the core of this unfortunate crisis.
What has happened in a nutshell is that an essentially internal dispute of succession, transition and administration has spilled over into the public domain.
Unfortunately the public domain is being pervaded by national security consciousness bordering on paranoia. There is a national security state in formation today.
A dominant viewpoint influencing this paranoid state of affairs is the opinion that a global conspiracy was afoot to divide the Country.
Most foreign – funded NGO’s working for peace, reconciliation and state re-structuring were seen as the cutting edges of this conspiracy.
Nowadays there is a sense of triumphalism in the air. A total victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is being anticipated.
There is whipped up hysteria that international elements are conspiring to prevent such a victory and rescue the LTTE from destruction.
Moreover there is much misunderstanding and mis – interpretation over the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle. It is perceived as an infringement of national sovereignty.
The conspiracy theorists also hold that sinister plans are being designed where UN forces will invade Sri Lanka under cover of “R2P” and usher in a separate state.
These suspicions and fears can be understood but not accepted. Much of this hyper – frenzy is founded on ignorance and wilful distortion.
This whole thing about R2P and conflicting perceptions surrounding it is an issue that warrants in -depth study. This column intends doing so on another occasion.
As of now, the paranoid mis – perception surrounding the “R2P” concept has made the ICES extremely vulnerable.
The fact that its past and present executive directors are members of the advisory board of the newly set up New York based Global Centre for the Responsibility to protect has added grist to the rumour mill.
Compounding the matter further are the ethnicity and gender factors.
Both Dr.Radhika Coomaraswamy and Dr.Rama Mani are Tamils by ethnicity. While Dr.Coomaraswamy is Sri Lankan Dr. Mani is from Tamil Nadu but a French national now. As Tamils, it is easy to vilify them and attribute anti – national motives.
Their gender also makes them more vulnerable. Reading much of the sexist attacks against both one cannot but wonder about what their detractors would have done if the past and present ICES executive directors were males?
The state owned “Daily News” carries an article where derogatory references are made to Dr. Coomaraswamy’s “pottu”! This is both ethnic hatred and gender bias.
On the other hand references are often made to Dr. Mani’s physical beauty. One website run by state intelligence has affixed Dr. Mani’s face on to the body of an exotic dancer with explicit remarks of a sexual nature.
This evokes memories of similar events in the not so remote past when India was the whipping boy of our pseudo – nationalists.
Laxmi Puri was the Information secretary at the Indian High Commission from 1984 to 88. She was a beautiful woman too.
In those days there was no internet but the media was full of innuendo and dirty remarks about Laxmi trying to push the Indian agenda through her wiles and charms. There were scurrilous leaflets also.
Puri was depicted as a modern Mata Hari! A handsome cabinet minister who played a big role in promoting better relations with India , was often referred to as her “victim”.
Once again in the case of Dr.Rama Mani the same pattern is visible. Only Dr. Mani is not seen as an Indian agent (aren’t we all bhai – bhai with “loku Aiya” now) but a tool of western “imperialism”.
She is the evil enchantress trying to lead the invading UN armies into Sri Lanka under the “R2P” banner.
This patently, blatantly distorted image would have been a source of mirth but for the fact that it has been taken seriously at a very higher level.
The controller of Immigration and Emigration canceled her visa and ordered that she leave the Country by Feb 7th. This was on the basis of an intelligence agency report. It would be interesting to find out whose input went into the so called intelligence report.
Attempts to raid her house were stalled due to an intervention by the Indian High Commission. There were also plans to humiliate her by forcibly removing her from Sri Lanka if she overstayed.
She left on the 7th itself with her 12 year old son to the Air port in a French embassy vehicle. A French diplomast accompanied her to the Air port.
There was a Kafkaesque element in this sordid drama. The manner in which this woman who left a $ 153,000 dollar annual salaried job and came over to Colombo as ICES director for much reduced remuneration was treated is nothing but crudely unjust and shabbily callous.
I do intend writing more in detail about the Rama Mani affair at a later date. But for now I wish to state the whole exercise was due to the politicisation of a private, institutional matter that was wrongly and maliciously made into an issue purportedly impacting in an adverse manner upon the sovereignty, national security and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.
In this respect one feels that the entire incident as well as the related anti – ICES campaign smacks of what seems to be a personal vendetta. But a dangerous precedent has been set where the concept of national security has been resorted to and misused /abused to settle personal scores.
Instead of being at the forefront in opposing the state’s “intrusion” into certain spheres, efforts have been made by sections of the liberal “intelligentsia” to co-opt “officialdom” under the pretext of national security to harass, intimidate,vilify and drive away somebody who was seen as an obstacle.
There has been for long attempts by powerful elements to suppress dissent and enforce a uniformity of thought on others.Terror tactics and character assassinations are a familiar ruse used in this regard.
Among those resisting such moves have been intellectuals, scholars, human rights activists and humanitarian liberals. These form a sensitive and sensible community.The ICES forms part of such a community.
Sadly there is visible here a failure on the part of some to abide by the values and ideals they have subscribed to over the past years.
Those concerned about the rise of Xenophobic tendencies and a Sri Lankan form of “intellectual Mccarthyism” cannot but be troubled by recent events concerning the ICES .
What is most disappointing and depressing is the fact that some kindred souls seem to have gone over to the “enemy” for personal reasons. This is a painful experience.
Referring to an old fable one read as a schoolboy will not be irrelevant here. This is the story of the trees and the wood – cutter
. When the wood – cutter came to the forest with only the blade of the axe in his hand the old , experienced trees remained ool but the young inexperienced trees panicked. The wood – cutter went away without inflicting damage.
On the following day he returned after having fixed a wooden handle to the axe – blade. The young trees remembering the previous day’s happening were not worried. But the old trees were agitated.
They told the young trees “yesterday the wood – cutter could do nothing because none of us were with him. Today he can harm us because one of us (the wooden handle) is with him”.
This then is the lesson to be learnt. In the on going tussle between the exponents of authoritarian tyranny and the champions of individual liberty, the ICES community has been on the side of the latter.
Tragically some members of one side seem to have colluded with the other side today. The wood – cutter has been empowered to wreak havoc!
This does not mean that the other side has warmed up to the dissidents. No sir ! not at all! The other side may exploit divisions on this side to do more damage but it will not clasp the turncoats to their bosom. Traitors are utilised but not embraced.
A recent article by a well – known critic of the ICES illustrates this situation vividly. The article refers to the conflict within the ICES and correctly describes it as a family feud.
The article simply laughs at this spectacle with amusement and does not take sides. It perceives both factions as virtual tweedledum and tweedledee.
This is the harsh truth that seems to have eluded some members of the ICES family. Even if you squabble and cross over to the other side to gather extra – strength, the traditional opponents recognize the “conflict” for what it is.
It is no clash of policy or principle but that of personalities in a family feud.Thus the ranks of Tuscany do not cheer but jeer!
The ICES is in the throes of a crisis. It is one within and without. The internal “malcontents ” have re-inforced the external opponents. A pattern is discernible.
Initially there is a media campaign to blacken the ICES name and image. Those in a leadership position are targeted by sections of the media. National security related conspiracy tales are spread
Then the state steps in. On the strength of a dubious intelligence report Dr. Mani’s visa is revoked by immigration authorities and a “quit Sri Lanka” order imposed. There is no due process. She tries to appeal.
Then the national Socialists step in. Wimal Weerawansa raises the issue in Parliament and uses Parliament as a forum to attack Dr. Mani and Dr. Coomaraswamy and the ICES. The Prime Minister re-iterates that Dr. Mani’s visa will not be extended. She leaves.
But then the ICES is summoned by the Parliamentary Select Committees probing NGO’s. On February 21st the ICES will be presenting itself. Most probably the ICES will be represented by Sri Lanka’s eminent historian Dr.Kingsley de Silva and one of its distinguished civil servants Mr. Bradman Weerakoon.
It is an open secret that the PSC headed by the JVP’s Vijitha Herat has been extremely harsh towards NGO’s and have grilled representatives extensively. All sorts of details including statements of accounts dating decades back are demanded.
Against this backdrop the ICES is very likely to be put on the hot seat by the PSC. Judging by the on going efforts by some elements to co-opt state institutions in their vendetta against ICES officials there is suspicion that some “inside” ammunition will be supplied to the inquisition to fire at the ICES.The wood – cutter has the wooden handle.
The “trial” conducted through sections of the media may place the ICES in the dock. Despite media assertions to the contrary the institution is above board and cannot be impeached on questions of impropriety or integrity. It will most probably weather out this storm.
At what cost? remains the question. The negative publicity and recent goings on are demoralising. Funding is likely to be affected in the long run. Many of the staff and reserachers disillusioned by the divisions within are likely to move elsewhere. Given the witch hunt against Dr. Rama Mani few non – nationals of high calibre are likely to take up the challenge afresh.
Against this backdrop the ICES is likely to suffer a lean period. The organization will cease to function in Colombo only if it is formally banned. But it can certainly malfunction if it does not have adequate resources or talented personnel.
Moreover there is also the danger that sinister forces could “take over” the institution . This could result in a transformation of all what the ICES has stood for all these years.
There is no denying that the ICES is a successful institution. It owns the property on which it stands. It has a large, independent financial endowment. It has one of the finest libraries.
The ICES has from the time of its first staff researcher Nirmala Salgado produced an impressive body of work that has enriched the world of knowledge.
Though based in Sri Lanka it is an “international” institution and enjoys much prestige and respect in academic and research circles.
It is certainly a fact that the ICES was undergoing a “liquidity” problem in recent times. This was mainly due to the transitional phase. But to the credit of Dr. Rama Mani , the problem had been resolved and adequate funding obtained.
She was on the verge of finalising the new funding arrangements when she was victimised so horribly by sections of the ICES, media and finally the state.
Still the ICES remains the jewel of the NGO crown in Sri Lanka. This makes it the object of both envy and resentment. On the one hand there are elements who covet control of the ICES. On the other there are forces who wish to destroy the ICES as an example.
Ironically, those who want to capture the ICES are collaborating with those who want to undermine it. They think the external input is necessary to combat the internal competitors. The end however could be something entirely unforeseeable.
As I stated earlier most of the people involved in this crisis are known to me personally and many are my friends. I cannot but recall with wistful nostalgia the happy times from 1985 – 1988 at the ICES.
It was virtually a second home to me. I learnt a lot and was exposed to the finest minds both nationally and internationally through the ICES. The frank and open exchange of differing views amicably and politely made a huge impact on me. To use two cliches the “ICES broadened my horizons” and “shaped my attitudes”.
[International Center for Ethnic Studies, @ 2 Kynsey Terrace-Pic by MiFolliott]
The ICES then was located in the ground floor of No 8 Kynsey terrace. It re- located later to the spacious premises of No 2 Kynsey terrace. Though living in Canada I always read about events at the ICES and yearn for the long awaited journey back to Ithaca.
Thinking of the ICES revives sad memories of its co – founder and the man responsible for linking me up with the ICES. Dr.Neelan Tiruchelvam’s soul must indeed be troubled at what is happening in the ICES today.
The ICES was co – founded by Prof. Kingsley de Silva and Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam. Both of them were members of the Commission on Devolution appointed by JR Jayewardena in 1979. Victor Tennekoon was the head.
During sittings both discovered that there was paucity of research material on ethnic oriented issues. This led to their establishing an institute devoted to ethnic studies.
The ICES was founded in 1982 with two distinct offices established in Kandy and Colombo. These two offices have a common Article of Association, Board of Directors, and Chairman.
Prof.Kingsley de Silva was and remains its chairman. Dr.Neelan Tiruchelvam was the Director. Dr.Stanley Samarasinghe was associate director Kandy and Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy associate director Colombo.
After Dr. Tiruchelvam’s assassination by the tigers Dr. Coomaraswamy became Executive Director Colombo and Dr. Samarasinghe ED in Kandy.
What was remarkable about both this partnership and division of labour was the “differences” between Kandy and Colombo.
Prof. de Silva was a biographer of JR Jayewardena and close to the UNP. Dr. Tiruchelvam was a TULF member and MP. Later Dr. Tiruchelvam was considered to be close to Chandrika Kumaratunga.
In spite of this both Kandy and Colombo got on amicably. Both Prof . Kingsley and Dr. Neelan did not let their politics invade the ICES. The duo was a model of unity in diversity.
Kandy ICES focussed more on issues related to history, economics and geography. Colombo ICES concentrated more on Law, Anthropology and Gender studies.It also played a role in the Literary, Arts and cinema fields.
ICES functions as an international centre of excellence located in the global south to conduct research and develop policies and mechanisms to address issues of ethnicity, pluralism, and the prevention and management of conflict.
It has historically played two roles, one of research and the other of policy and advocacy.
Following extensive academic, legal and political involvement in the constitutional reform process and policy formulation in Sri Lanka, and strong advocacy in the areas of gender and human and minority rights, ICES has been well established among the international community for its capacity to generate high quality research which is politically relevant nationally, regionally and globally.
It has always provided space for and encouraged creative expression as a vehicle for political and social change.
Its mission statement pledges to deepen the understanding of ethnicity, identity politics and conflict, and to foster conditions for an inclusive, just and peaceful society nationally, regionally and globally, through research, publication, dialogue, creative expression and knowledge transfer.
ICES has always been more than just a research institution. It has functioned as a space where individuals with diverse positions and points of view have been able to co-exist and engage in debate without acrimony.
To me , the ICES ethos and spirit was that of pluralism and tolerance. This was the vision of Neelan. The greatest casualty in the recent crisis is the fracturing of this vision, ethos and spirit
All what the ICES stood for in the past crumbled when individuals belonging to the “ICES family” aired their quarrels in public and sought state intervention overtly and covertly.The Lakshmana Rekha was crossed.
Today the ICES is being portrayed and depicted as an insidious and conspiratorial institution. Unfortunately the ” revelations” made by insiders have also contributed to this.
The truth however is starkly different. The ICES has from the time of its inception played a very positive role. It continues to do so notwithstanding the current crisis.
When writing positively about the ICES one is painfully aware that the dice is loaded against such assertions. The goals, objectives and activities of the ICES can be perceived negatively because of the current political climate.
Indeed that is what is happening today.Reality is often different from perception . But we live in a time where mis-perception is substituted for reality.
There are silver linings too.One factor overlooked in this dispute among ICES Titans is the mindset of the staffers at the ICES.
From all what I heard and read the ICES staff in Colombo has stood firmly behind Dr. Rama Mani in this crisis. They released a public statement to the media and exerted pressure to have her re-instated.
Dr. Rama Mani’s “deportation” was something beyond their control but the staff members came out in full to give her a send – off.
Subsequently they have raised strong objections to the provisional administrative arrangements at the ICES and called for the removal of some “lokkas”. There are “rumblings of discontent” within the Kandy ICES too
The ICES has over the years built up a community of loyalists, friends, admirers and well – wishers. This global fraternity is shocked and saddened at what is going on now. Many remain silent but are extremely concerned about the future of the ICES.
I, too belong to this group.
[@ ICES, 2 Kynsey Terrace Office-Pic by MiFolliott]
I know that I am voicing the sentiments of this silent majority when I wish the ICES well at this time of trouble and extend my unstinted support and express my whole-hearted solidarity to the Kynsey terrace Institution that I hold in high esteem.
February 16th, 2008
by D.B.S.Jeyaraj
If Philip Upali Wijewardena was among the living he would have reached the biblical life span of three score and ten today (Feb 17th).
Alas, this was not to be as he disappeared twenty-five years ago just four days before his forty-fifth birthday.
This article is written as tribute to the man in this eventful week of significant anniversaries.
Legally Upali Wijewardena is presumed dead though his body was never found. He was travelling in his own lear jet from Malaysia to Sri Lanka when the plane disappeared.
The disappearance continues to linger in the collective memory of the nation as an unresolved myatery. There are people who ask me even now “I say what really happened to Upali? Dont know, no?”
Upali Wijewardena was a man who achieved much in the short period of his life. He was perhaps Sri Lanka’s first indigenous tycoon who captured the imagination of the masses.
Despite his privileged background Upali was basically a self – made man who reached the pinnacle through his own efforts.
The Nation at large recognized this and was proud of him. Though he hardly ever visited Jaffna the people of the peninsula appreciated him greatly. They admired his commercial success.
Needless to say the South was proud of Upali too.The flamboyant business magnate was to many a symbol of success and a role model to be emulated.
The name Upali Wijewardena became familiar to the Country in the early seventies. Yet it was in the late seventies that he was really well – known .
This was when he assumed duties as Director – General of Sri Lanka’s first “Free Trade Zone” the popular name for the Greater Colombo Economic Commission. The GCEC has transformed into BOI nowadays.
I first came to know Upali Wijewardena personally after he became head of the GCEC. I was then a journalist on the Tamil daily “Virakesari”. run by express newspapers ceylon Ltd.
Our chairman then was the well – known industrialist AYS Gnanam. When the GCEC was formed AYS Gnanam was made a deputy – director general by President Junius Richard Jayewardena.
Chairman Gnanam apparently did not inform his newspaper company of the appointment. When news of the GCEC appeared in other papers the “Virakesari” had “missed” it.
When the GCEC held its first press conference at the Upali group premises on Bloemendhal road I was assigned to cover it. I was also asked by my editors to get an exclusive interview with Upali Wijewardena..
When I approached Upali for the interview he agreed immediately.
When I went to see him the following day his greeting was “So you missed the story about your chairman being in the GCEC and now you are trying to make amends by doing a belated write – up”
He then guffawed heartily! I warmed to him immediately.
He was a wonderful subject to interview. He answered each question informatively and at times wittily. He did not bullshit!Pelee Muhandhiram who disaapeared along with Upali was present throughout as a silent observer.
The interview turned out well and my editors were pleased. Upali got it translated and was happy too. Thereafter I was assigned the GCEC as one of my regular beats.
The GCEC was something new and controversial. The “Shannon” experiment was catching on in many parts of the world. The leftists were firmly opposed to the concept.
The idea of providing massive tax concessions and financial incentives to foreign “capitalists” to come and invest in Sri Lanka was a novel project at that time.
One of the attractions was our skilled yet cheap labour. “Exploitation” thundered the left. JR’s famous comment “Let the robber barons come” did not help either.
The fact that a well known “dhanapathi” was heading the GCEC aided the “vahamanse sahodharayo” to attack the project.
It was a difficult time for the pioneering venture. Looking back I think Upali was the ideal man for the job at that time. The GCEC went about its task methodically and diligently.
The much travelled Upali undertook many foreign trips to promote the FTZ. On one such occasion he was in Singapore. At a press conference Upali was asked about the Tamil minority being discriminated against in Sri Lanka.Upali responded to it in his inimitable style.
“Gentlemen” he said “Seated on my right is deputy – director general Raju Coomaraswamy; on my left is Treasury secretary Chandi Chanmugam. Further down is our High Commissioner to Singapore C. Gunasingham.. I am the minority here”Everyone laughed. That was Upali!
It was my duty then to record its progress regularly in the columns of the “Virakesari”. Because of the Gnanam connection the GCEC received top billing in the paper.
I interacted a lot with Upali while covering the GCEC. When working for a Tamil newspaper I have come across many Sinhala persons who simply did not care a hoot about the Tamil media.
I have also come across many Sinhalese who were extremely concerned about what appeared in the Tamil newspapers.Upali Wijewardena belonged to the latter group.
I met him on more than one occasion then.Also he was always ready to answer my questions whenever I telephoned him. Sometimes I pestered him but he didn’t seem to mind.
I remember once Mrs. Wijewardena gently admonishing me on the phone “He is a busy man you know and you shouldn’t disturb him like this”.
Little did I realise then that one day I would be working on Upali Wijewardena’s newspaper “The Island”and that someday Mrs. Wijewardena would become my chairperson
The opposition papers used to regularly publish negative stories about the GCEC. I remember one particular news item in the Communits party’s “Forward”. I asked him some questions based on the news item.
He started chuckling and said ” You have read the “Forward”. Sheepishly I said “Yes”. He then proceeded to answer. This demonstrated that Upali was keeping abreast of all the media reports on the GCEC.
Though he could not read Tamil he got his Tamil employees at Upali group to inform him of what was appearing in the “Virakesari”. Thus he was happy with my work and perhaps due to that made himself easily accessible.
As I stated before the GCEC was a novel project and there no Lanka based precedents to go by in writing about it. Still I managed to write regularly on various aspects concerning the GCEC.
There was very little about the GCEC in the Tamil language then.
But the GCEC became a question at the GCE Advanced level Economics paper. I was immensely gratified when many teachers and students from Tamil schools wrote to me and the paper saying that they had only relied on the “Virakesari” for the exams.
Incidents like those makes journalists feel that they are doing something worthwhile instead of writing about third – grade persons masquerading as political leaders.
Vijitha Yapa who later became the pioneering editor of “The Island” was media liaison officer at the GCEC. Ranjan Perera was Upali’s secretary.He was very helpful. As most journalists know the secretaries can cut you off literally and metaphorically.
One of the biggest criticisms against the GCEC then was that our workers were being exploited by the global capitalists. Being somewhat left of centre in my political beliefs during the days of my youth, I felt this was perfectly valid.
My perspective changed when I interviewed many of the girls employed at the FTZ. Though factory workers many of them were well educated in the Sinhala medium and politically conscious. But they were realists.
One of them observed pithily in Sinhala that she knew she was getting only half a plate. If she agitated for a full plate then she may lose even this half – plate and go hungry.Their families depended on them.
For some reason Upali used to talk freely on many matters with me. Perhaps he was at ease with me a young journalist on a Tamil newspaper.
There was much speculation then in the media about his political ambition. I thought then that he would focus on Kelaniya but I was surprised when he said “No the South”.
It was then that I came to know of his Southern roots from his mother’s side and the Sarath Wijesinghe relationship. Later he earmarked the Kamburupitiya electoral division and began nursing it.
When I was working on the “Virakesari” I once asked Upali how he would resolve the ethnic crisis if he became Sri Lanka’s head. Of course the problem was not as bad it is today.
He thought a while and said that all people should be able to study and communicate with the Government in their own language, Official administration to be done in all three languages and no person to be discriminated on grounds of race or religion.
Subsequently I left the “Virakesari” and joined “The Island” . Upali had nothing to do with my entry into English journalism. My joining “The Island” was due to Ajith Samaranayake, Ravindran Casinader, Gamini Weerakoon and Vijitha Yapa.
Upali did not interfere with recruitment of personnel for the editorial.I also never approached him.
My interaction with Upali ceased after I became his employee. . I ran across “Mr. Wijewardena” a few times. We simply smiled. He seldom visited the editorial then.
I remember Upali speaking to me only once after I started working at “The Island”. This was about my column.
At the Island I was put on the “Tamil” round by Vijitha Yapa.After a trip to Jaffna I began a series of articles for “Sunday Island”.
Vijitha Yapa then made it a permanent column. That was the “Behind the Cadjan curtain” column. It was quite popular then.
VIjitha Yapa;s instructions to me about the column was simple. “Remember that you are writing for a pre- dominantly Sinhala readership in English” he said. “Explain the problems of the Tamils to them. Think of it as building a bridge between the communities”, Vijitha Yapa said then.
One day I saw Upali at a distance. He was about to get into the car.Pelee Muhandhiram beckoned to me. When I went near Upali praised my column and said that he liked it. “Keep it up” he said. That was all.
Naturally I was thrilled.A few months later came their fateful “end”
“The Island” burst upon the media scene then like a burst of fresh air. Upali had undertaken a market survey which indicated there was no room for a new English paper.
But Upali being Upali he simply went ahead. It was indeed a great challenge then working for the paper
The new kid on the block achieved tremendous success within a short time. Two older kids on the block went out of business gradually.
The paper’s plus point in one respect was the colour and modern printing technology.
On another level it was due to its editorial and news content.
The paper covered events fearlessly and provided space to all points of view. One of its strong points then was its coverage of the ethnic crisis.
This was both good journalism and good business. In this the paper reflected the world view of both Upali Wijewardena and Vijitha Yapa
“The Island ” was a runaway success in Jaffna then. One reason was that the Late City Edition was put on Upali Airlines and sent to Jaffna. The “Colombo” edition was available in Jaffna by noon.
I recall then Jaffna Government Agent Devanesan Nesiah telling me happily ” Thanks to the Island we are able to read the latest sports news without delay”.
The main reason for the paper’s editorial success was the free hand given to Vijitha Yapa. This was possible then only because Upali owned the paper. A lesser man would have interfered unnecessarily.
In those days there was only one sacred cow – Upali’s uncle President JR Jayewardena.. All others were fair game. Open season was declared on Upali’s political rivals Ranasinghe Premadasa and Ronnie de Mel.
It was said that Ronnie de Mel felt Upali was eyeing the Finance minister portfolio. Premadasa thought he was trying to supplant him as Prime Minister.
This was a time when Upali was building a circle of supporters in the ranks of the UNP. But when “The Island” began its fearless journalism many shenanigans were exposed. Several of these stories were about Upali’s supporters.
Since the journalists were not told to lay off we went about our reporting without fear or favour. Those affected complained to Upali. But to Upali’s credit he never instructed the editorial “hands off”!.
One exciting night was when Upali himself became a “reporter” for “The Island”. One day President Jayewardena had taken an important decision about deciding on the criteria for staging by – elections.
Urged by the editor , we the reporters , contacted all our sources to find out the details. We failed.
A desperate Vijitha Yapa appealed to Upali Wijewardena. It was night time.
Still the Upali newspapers chairman went to see his uncle the President. He got the information from the horse’s mouth about the formula to be adopted for by – elections. It was a scoop.
Upali was pleased with himself and joked with the editor that his reporters were useless because the chairman had to personally get the story.
At the initial stages Upali himself wrote the popular A’Pura Diaries. Being a Wijewardena, printing ink ran in his veins.
The incredible achievement of the newspaper was symptomatic of the man’s golden touch. Whatever venture he launched became a roaring success within a short time.
Philip Upali ,born on Feb 17th in 1938 was the son of Don Walter and Anula Kalyanawathie Wijewardena.
He studied initially at Ladies College and then Royal College where he captained the cricket second eleven.
He then went on to England and graduated from Cambridge.
Upon his return Upali began working at Lever Brothers as a management trainee. He quit in disgust when his expatriate boss accused him unfairly of lies and deception over preparing a report.
Upali started out on his own with 15,000 rupees as capital and an old house as his only business asset.
That was the time of a state controlled economy but incentives were provided in some areas including confectioneries. Upali ventured into what was called derisively as “seenibola” industry. He began manufacturing candy and toffee.
One man who stood by him in those days was R. Murugaiah an up-country Tamil. It is said that the name “Delta” was adopted for Upali’s sweets because Murugaiah was born on Delta group estate. Murugaiyah was responsible for marketing the products then.
Years later Upali was to quip publicly “behind every successful man there is a woman but behind every successful Sinhala businessman there is a Tamil” and pointed to Murugaiah walking behind him.
Embarking on a career as industrialist Upali never looked back. The confectioneries developed and soon he acquired “Kandos” chocolates from his maternal uncle Sarath Wijjesinghe.
Then came consumer produts like “Sikuru” and “crystal” soap.Upali also pioneeered the assembling of radios, clocks and TV’s under the “UNIC” brand name
He also went into automobiles . The UMC Mazda and Upali Fiat were assemebled here in Homagama.
In those days the import duty for cars was 300 % but only 100% for motor spares.
Upali brought in automobile parts as motor spares with lesser duty and then assembled them into vehicles. He avoided paying extra duty and remained competitive as a result of this stratagem.
Later in a media interview he was asked about this. Upali replied that he wandered to the edge of legal limits but never crossed them.
Upali also went into aviation and began local helicopter and airplane services.I was present when the Jaffna – Colombo flight commenced.
President Jayewardena and several senior cabinet ministers were present. Jayewardena’s affection towards Wijewardena was clearly visible.
Upali also bought up estates in Sri Lanka and Malaysia. He also had many business concerns in Singapore and Malaysia.
The “Kandos man” was hugely popular in Singapore.During Upali’s heyday more than 33,000 people were employed in his worldwide enterprises.
Upali was married on 7th November 1975 to Lakmini, daughter of Dr and Mrs Seevali Ratwatte.
Dr. Seevali being Mrs. Bandaranaike’s brother and Upali being JR’s nephew the marriage was seen then as a dynastic union.
They had no children.But Upali had two nieces and six nephews through his two sisters Anoka Wijeysundara and Kalyani Attygallle
He had a wide range of interests including race horses, pedigreed dogs and motor racing. His horses ran at Aston and Derby winning laurels. Lester Piggot rode some of his winners.
His ribbon winning canines were Labradors and retrievers.
As a young man Upali raced his mother’s “Opel Kapitan” at the Katukurunde Races in early 60s.
Later he imported an “M.G.A. Sports Twin Cam”, which he raced at the Mahagastota Hill Climb.
His also bought a “Mitsubishi Lancer” to be raced at the Nuwara Eliya Road Races and Mahagastota Hill Climb in 1980.
Upali had a luxury S-Class Mercedes Benz 126 from Malaysia. This was the first car of this type in Sri Lanka.
There were also his private Lear jet and helicopter.
He would conduct a business meeting in the afternoon in Colombo, helicopter to Nuwara – Eliya in the evening for golf and return to Colombo again for dinner.
He would fly in his own plane to England to engage in the sport of Kings. Upali had a permanent suite in a prestigious London Hotel.
Upali maintained a flamboyant lifestyle that his countrymen relished. The people were proud that one of their countrymen had really made it and was on par with the best “suddhas”.
When Upali disappeared the nation was shocked. For many months people believed that he would return dramatically. There were also many rumours of a “kehelwatte” plot and also of an international conspiracy.
A song composed in his honour was a popular favourite then. Its chorus was “Upalee Wijewardena, Upalee Wijewardena”.
Finally the Country realised that Upali was not going to return and was gone for ever. Perhaps he is in the locker of Davy Jones!
The mystery however remains still. The Upali Wijewardena mystique will continue to linger in the popular imagination for many more years.
It was my good fortune to have interacted with him as a journalist and also break into English jounalism through the newspaper he founded.
He was an impressive personality and unforgettable character.
February 16th, 2008
by D.B.S.Jeyaraj
It was Tuesday February 12th. An explosion occurred shortly after 10. 30 pm in Tantheem Kafer Souseh , a suburban area of Damascus in Syria. It was a prosperous neighbourhood with an Iranian school and Police station in the vicinity.
A car parked near the Iranian school was the target of the explosion. The black sports utility vehicle. was blown up as a bomb was detonated from underneath. The S.U.V was badly damaged in the attack .
“Like a shredded metal can,” according to Housham Nasaiseh, 19, who worked in a sweets shop nearby and who arrived at the scene a few minutes after the explosion. About ten to fifteen other vehicles were damaged.
The police were removing a body from the vehicle when he arrived, Nasaiseh told newspapers.. Within an hour, the shattered vehicle had been towed away. By morning the scene had been cleared, and the only signs of the attack were a black mark on the ground and scars on the sidewalk and nearby buildings
It was in the early hours of Wednesday Feb 13th morning that the identity of the man killed in the attack was known. It was Haji Imad Fayez Mugniyah , a top Commander of the Lebanon – Syria based Hezbolla organization. He was also linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
Imad Mugniyah
A television station run by Hezbollah, Al Manar, hailed Mr. Mugniyah as a hero. “With pride and honor we announce that a great jihadi leader has joined the procession of martyrs in the Islamic resistance,” said a statement read on the station. “The martyr was killed at the hands of the Israeli Zionists.”
According to news reports Israel officially distanced itself from the killing and, without specifically naming Mr. Mugniyah, said that it was looking into the attack in Syria.
But some former Israeli security officials did not hide their satisfaction at Mr. Mugniyah’s assassination. Danny Yatom, a Labor Party lawmaker and a former chief of the Mossad intelligence agency, called Mr. Mugniyah’s death “a great achievement for the free world in its fight on terror.”
In a statement, the office of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said, “Israel rejects the attempt by terrorist elements to ascribe to it any involvement whatsoever in this incident.”
Gideon Ezra, a minister from Israel’s governing Kadima Party and a former deputy chief of the Shin Bet internal intelligence agency, told Israel Radio on Wednesday that many countries had an interest in killing Mr. Mugniyah but that “Israel, too, was hurt by him, more than other countries in recent years.”
Mr. Ezra said, “Of course I don’t know who killed him, but whoever did should be congratulated.”
There was satisfaction in Washington too. “The world is a better place without this man in it,” said the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack.
There was reason for Mccormack’s observation because until Osama Bin Laden “exploded” on the scene on Sep 11th 2001 It was Mugniyah who was considered the most wanted “terrorist” by the US.
If Carlos was better known as “The Jackal” Mugniyah was referred to as “The Fox”. A reward of US $ 25 million dollars was announced for the head of “The Fox”.
Several US and Canadian newspapers outlined the alleged offences and crimes perpetrated by Mugniyah.
Mugniyah, who was also known as Hajj Rudwan, was one of the world’s most wanted men. American prosecutors charged him in the hijacking of the T.W.A. jetliner in 1985, during which a United States Navy diver, Robert D. Stethem, was shot dead and dumped onto the tarmac of Beirut’s airport.
He was also accused of arranging shipments of arms from Iran to Palestinian groups. American officials say Mugniyah was behind the 1983 bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut, in which 241 service members were killed. A car bomb at the American Embassy there in the same year killed 63 people, including 17 Americans.
The United States also asserts that he was behind the torture and killing of William Buckley, the C.I.A. station chief in Beirut, in 1984; the kidnapping and killing of Lt. Col. William R. Higgins of the Marines, who was on peacekeeping duty in Lebanon in 1988; and in his capacity as leader of the Islamic Jihad Organization, the seizure of a number of Western hostages in Beirut during the 1980s.
Israel accused him of helping to plan the 1992 bombing of its embassy in Buenos Aires, in which 29 people were killed, and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in the city, in which 85 people died.
The embassy bombing in Beirut was a particularly sharp blow to the United States because a regional meeting of C.I.A operatives was under way and crucial personnel were killed.
Media reports said that, although Mugniyah had not been accused of planning new attacks in more than a decade, American officials referred to him and his Hezbollah peers as the “A” team of international terrorism because of their cold professionalism and secrecy.
Widely believed to have undergone plastic surgery to avoid detection, . Mugniyah had not been seen in public for years and was thought to have moved between Iran, Syria and Lebanon at various times. Before 2001, he had been involved in more terrorist attacks against Americans than any other person, newspapers said in reference to $25 million American bounty on his head.
Who was “The Fox” what was his background? What is his life story?
I draw extensively from a paper written by Carl Anthony Wege in 2006. It is titled “Iran’s terrorist asset: A history of Imad Mugniyah”. Here are summarised extracts -
“During the last quarter century, it was Haji Imad Fayez Mugniyah that helped to guide Hezbollah’s covert operations and who served as an operative for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Born in Tayr Dibbuth near Tyre in southern Lebanon on July 12, 1962, he was the oldest of four siblings from the extended family of Sheikh Muhammed Jawad Mugniyah, a prominent Lebanese cleric of the Musawi clan.
During Imad’s childhood, his family moved to the Bir al-Abed section of Beirut and he was barely a teenager of 13 years when Lebanon’s civil war broke out in 1975.. The crucible of the war transformed Imad Mugniyah into an effective terrorist. He apparently joined Fatah in 1975 (where he served until 1982) and shortly thereafter was recruited by Fatah’s Force 17.
Due to his young age, the opportunities in Force 17 were necessarily limited but it was probably around this time that Mugniyah had his initial exposure to bomb construction through his later brother-in-law, Mustafa Badr al-Din. Mugniyah and his brothers Faud Mugniyah and Jihad Mugniyah all stayed behind after the PLO evacuation of Beirut following the Israeli invasion of 1982.
Thereafter, Shiite militants from Islamic Amal, Lebanon’s Daw’ah and the Association of Muslim Ulema in Lebanon formed the Hezbollah organization under the auspices of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
Shiite clans such as the Hamiya, Musawi, Aqeel, Shahadehs and Ezzedeen facilitated the Guards’ incorporation into Lebanon’s Islamist movement . Imad Mugniyah’s familial relationship with Shiekh Muhammad Jawad Mugniyah cemented his religious ties within the Musawi clan and to the larger Shiite community.
This, combined with his experience in Fatah, facilitated his entry into the new Hezbollah organization where he was responsible for the personal security of Hezbollah spiritual leader Sheikh Fadlallah in Beirut. Mugniyah may have first become acquainted with Fadlallah through hearing his sermons at Beirut’s Bir al-Abed Mosque located in the district of Beirut where Mugniyah grew up.
In 1983, Imad Mugniyah married his cousin, Sa’ada Badr al-Din, and had two children during that decade. The children were Fatima Mugniyah, born in August 1984, and Mustafa Mugniyah, born in January 1987. In September 1991, Mugniyah’s wife and children were moved to Tehran for security reasons.
Mustafa Mugniyah, Imad’s son, is now coming to an age where various intelligence services will have an interest in him, but currently there is little concerning him in open literature.
Imad Mugniyah’s most important patrons were found in the al-Quds Force, a special operations unit part of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, and various elements of Iran’s intelligence organs. The direct operational link between Mugniyah and the Revolutionary Guards is likely through the Protection and Intelligence Department supporting the al-Quds headquarters facilitating external operations
Mugniyah was involved in operational supervision of multiple Hezbollah terrorist activities throughout the 1980s . In the aftermath of the 1985 TWA 847 hijacking, he left the security of Fadlallah to his brother Jihad Mugniyah and moved into the Hezbollah Security Apparatus It was this entity that initiated the hostage taking and other operations under Hezbollah auspices using the name Islamic Jihad (al-Jihad al-Islami) throughout the mid-1980s.
Mugniyah was personally absent from Lebanon during the later part of 1987 when he was in northern Iran. He went to Qum in January 1988 and returned to Lebanon in 1990. Mugniyah became progressively more distant from day-to-day Hezbollah operations and more closely associated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
The relationship between Imad Mugniyah and the Revolutionary Guards was one of mutual exploitation. Mugniyah acted as a Guards asset by filling an important niche in many operational environments furthering Iranian foreign policy goals.
Conversely, Mugniyah had a great patron in the Guards with the infrastructure and resources of a state to facilitate Mugniyah as a notable in his own right both in Hezbollah and within the Musawi clan. This enabled Mugniyah to create his own client and patronage networks as a terrorist facilitating his operational capabilities.
By the early 1990s, Iran’s foreign operations extended to Sudan where Mugniyah was said to have been introduced to Osama bin Laden in 1993 . Throughout the 1990s, Mugniyah apparently worked to establish Hezbollah support cells everywhere from North Carolina to Latin America to Africa.
Mugniyah’s current age and value as an operational asset for the Revolutionary Guards preclude his direct involvement in risky operations. The kidnap operation against Israeli Defense Force soldiers that ignited the recent Israeli-Lebanon war, for example, was unlikely to have merited his participation. If he was involved, his actual role would have likely been mentoring the commanders who did carry out the operation.
With the dawn of the new century, Mugniyah acquired some maturity as a terrorist archetype. His elevation to such maturity is witnessed by his accompanying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Damascus to meet with Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad earlier this year to discuss security issues for both states .
Yet details and particulars about his personal life are scant, and reports lacking public documentation concerning him are plentiful . Although the passage of time may degrade Mugniyah’s ability to directly engage in operations, his longevity has created in him a sense of strategic vision.
Demonstrating Mugniyah’s operational maturity, Hamid Zakiri, a defector from the Guards’ al-Quds Force, argued that Mugniyah himself facilitated the escape of senior al-Qaeda personnel to Iran after September 11.
This included some of Osama bin Laden’s close family members. Zakiri also alleged that Mugniyah took an active role in organizing Shiite resistance in southern Iraq .
The resiliency of Hezbollah in its conflict with Israel shattered the strong confidence in Israeli arms and is becoming a source for inspiration and tactical doctrine among Islamists. The unexpected ability of Hezbollah to withstand a rather concerted Israeli effort to rout the organization and pacify southern Lebanon was built in part by Imad Mugniyah.
According to media reports Mugniyah had eluded capture, because other nations in the region showed little interest in joining the hunt for him. For example, American officials discovered in 1995 that . Mugniyah was on a commercial flight that was supposed to stop in Saudi Arabia, but Saudi officials refused to allow the plane to land, frustrating the attempt to arrest him.
In recent years, American officials sometimes received information on his whereabouts in Beirut. But according to several former American officials, the United States did not act on such tips, apparently out of caution about conducting a dangerous operation to capture Mr. Mugniyah in Beirut.
The C.I.A long considered Mugniyah’s organization more dangerous than Al Qaeda, largely because his group was backed by Iran, even as Al Qaeda began to attack American targets in the late 1990s.
Some reports said that American intelligence officials believed that Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad Organization, working with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, had a list of American facilities around the world they were prepared to strike whenever they received orders from Tehran.
But those attacks never materialized, and many American officials became perplexed in recent years over whether Iran had decided not to use terrorism as a weapon against the United States, at least outside the war zone in Iraq. As a result, it is unclear how big a threat Mugniyah posed, at least directly to the United States.
Mugniyah, a Shiite allied with Iran, and . bin Laden, a Sunni from Saudi Arabia, would not seem to have been natural allies, yet there is evidence of contacts between them. They held at least one meeting in the 1990s, possibly to discuss a terrorist relationship, according to statements made in federal court by a former close aide to bin Laden.
Mugniyah’s funeral was held on Thursday Feb 14th.
Accusing Israel of killing one of his top commanders, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah the leader of Hezbollah, has threatened to intensify his group’s conflict with Israel and to retaliate against Israeli targets anywhere in the world said media reports.
Sheik Nasrallah, who has been in hiding since 2006 because of Israeli assassination threats, spoke to thousands of mourners via a televised image.
A band played the Hezbollah anthem, then the Lebanese national anthem. After prayers a letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was read out by Tehran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki.Then Nasrallah appeared on the screen, bringing the audience to its feet. Many wept.
At crucial moments during the speech, audience members pumped fists in the air and chanted “Labayka, Nasrallah!” — roughly, “Nasrallah, we are ready to fulfill your commands.” Outside the hall, loud bursts of celebratory machine-gun fire echoed in the streets.
Nasrallah during his belligerent speech . called the killing of Mugniyah a “big mistake” that would be avenged. “The blood of Imad Mugniyah will eliminate them,” he said, referring to the Israelis.
According to analysts, If Hezbollah were to strike at Israel outside the borders of the two countries, it would be a sharp departure from the group’s current policy.
Ironically, the last time it did so was in the mid-1990s, when Mugniyah was accused of planning bombings of Israeli targets in Argentina.
February 16th, 2008
Amnesty International today called on the Sri Lanka government to make human rights the priority by allowing the organisation into the country to make an impartial assessment of its and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) human rights record, following accusations from Defence spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella that the organisation was biased against the government.
[Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International]
“Amnesty International’s role is to monitor and report on human rights abuses by all parties to the conflict. The organisation has repeatedly requested that the government should facilitate this role by allowing us access to the country,” said Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International.
Amnesty International also rejected claims by the Defence spokesman that it had failed “to utter a single word’ against recent bomb attacks. In the last month alone the organisation made several statements condemning the targeting of civilians including one on 4th February 2008 entitled: Sri Lanka: Right to life of civilians disregarded as conflict intensifies.
“The situation in Sri Lanka has deteriorated and both the government and the LTTE stand accused of serious human rights abuses. All parties should immediately stop targeting civilians and uphold their commitments to international human rights law,” she said.
The rule of law continues to be undermined and the culture of impunity persists. The government must make protection of human rights the top priority. Instead, human rights defenders have also been increasingly attacked or threatened. At such a time attacking the messenger distracts from the overriding responsibility for serious action to address the problem.
February 16th, 2008
Court of Appeal today gave an interim order to increase Western Peoples Front Leader Mano Ganesan’s security to eight personnel with a security back-up vehicle. Security of Mano Ganesan MP was cut down by the government along with those of late parliamentarian T. Maheswaran and SLMC leader Rauf Hakeem MP immediately after the budget voting in the parliament. Mano Ganesan is the Convener of Civil Monitoring Commission which is very critical of the government’s human rights record. Ms. Hina Jillani, special representative of the UN secretary general for the defense of the human rights defenders had expressed her deep concern over the reduction of security to Mano Ganesan and had said in her letter to the government that ‘She is concerned for the life and security of Mr. Ganesan, which is more at risk without adequate security. The security reduction to Ganesan is linked to his high profile work against human rights violations and may be an attempt to curtail his HR work”.
Ganesan won the runner up award for his human rights campaign from the US department of state. Secretary of state Condeliza Rice made the relevant announcement in last December on the international human rights day December 10th. However Sri Lankan defense ministry headed by Gotabaya Rajapakse, himself a US citizen, reduced Ganesan’s security on December 18th.
Judges Sri Bhawan and Rohini Perera ordered the IGP to increase security as an interim measure and postponed further hearings for 3rd March.
February 14th, 2008
by Dayan Jayatilleka
Unfair criticism must be met with fair counter-criticism. If the criticism is private, so too should be the counter-criticism. Insofar as the criticism is public, so too should be the defence, and the counter-criticism. No self respecting state can respond in private, to criticism of it in public.
The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was gracious enough to issue a statement on Sri Lanka’s 60th anniversary of Independence. He said:
‘The 60th anniversary of Sri Lankan independence is a time to reflect on the health and welfare of the nation and its people as it moves forward in the 21st century. The cycle of violence in Sri Lanka has worsened in recent weeks. Civilian lives have been lost from all communities and regions of Sri Lanka. The end of the formal 2002 cease-fire agreement does not remove the obligation of all parties to the conflict to protect civilian life.
[British Foreign Secretary David Miliband-Photo via Yahoo! News]
‘I wholeheartedly condemn these attacks upon civilians and those responsible. My thoughts and condolences are with the victims of the attacks, and their families. I call for an immediate end to practices which target civilians or put them in peril. I urge all in Sri Lanka to take steps to safeguard the civilian population and find ways to reduce the violence.
‘Violence can never provide an answer to Sri Lanka’s problems. People in Sri Lanka need to find space to realize their many similarities, rather than becoming further polarized by their differences. A sustainable solution to Sri Lanka’s conflict can only emerge through a just political process involving all communities.’
The statement does not congratulate or wish Sri Lanka well on its important Independence Anniversary. It moves straight into a little homily commending reflection, a reminder from the former colonial master on the need for such a practice. While it bewails and bemoans civilian deaths, the three paragraph statement makes no reference to the LTTE, terrorism or separatism. It contains not the slightest hint of solidarity in the struggle against terrorism, from a fellow democracy. It concludes with the unctuous observation that “Violence can never provide an answer to Sri Lanka’s problems.” This leaves one wondering if violence can ever provide an answer to Iraq’s or Afghanistan’s problems, because in both countries British troops are present, engaging in the practice precisely of violence! Neither country is part of Britain. In both countries British troops are invaders. Neither country did any harm to Britain. In the case of one, Britain led the pack in lying to the world and its own people about WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) as a prelude to invading and occupying it.
Sri Lanka is fighting a war that is just by any criteria. It is a war against separation of a small island. It is a war of a democracy against an enemy that is both totalitarian and terrorist.
How well are the Sri Lankan armed forces doing against the LTTE? The evidence is in a professional, four page, diagrammatically illustrated special report in one of the most respected and arguably the best known South Asian magazine, India Today. Check out the latest issue with its frank interview with President Rajapakse and its report on the war and the Sri Lankan armed forces, entitled ‘Getting Prabhakaran’.
It is said that each generation has to re-fight the battles not of their fathers but of their grandfathers. The matter is all rather simple. Sri Lanka is fighting a war to prevent separation, to unite the country, to maintain it as a single territory, to make the writ of the state run from West to East, North to South of our little island. This is a struggle undertaken by many societies at an earlier stage of their history. It is part of what is known as the bourgeois democratic revolution, i.e. those tasks undertaken or completed by the rising bourgeois class of those nations. In the global South, this task of national unification often comes up against the opposition of the Western powers (as it did in China). This seems to be the case in present day Sri Lanka too. In such historical situations, the tasks of national unification combine with the struggle to win or defend national independence and sovereignty.
The task of national-territorial unification intertwine with the left over or reactivated task of defending national independence against Western intervention, hegemonism and diktat, or in a word-old fashioned but accurate-imperialism. It is a term that David Miliband’s highly (and deservedly) respected father, Marxist political theorist Ralph Miliband, was not afraid to use. In these twin tasks, the national capitalist leaderships of the East play a role, sometimes a leading role, unlike those in the West. This is what led Lenin to speak paradoxically of an “Advanced Asia and Backward Europe”. Even more striking was the development of this idea by Stalin, who concluded in the 1920s, that inasmuch as he stands up against Western imperialism for his nation, despite his ideological backwardness, “the Emir of Afghanistan is more progressive than the British Labor Party”. This is certainly true of many a Third World and Eurasian leader including those of Sri Lanka, in relation to the British (New) Labor Party!
Sometimes the task of national unification takes a particularly enlightened multilingual, multi-religious character, but in many, even most cases, the struggle requires the mobilization of the peasantry and the nationalist intelligentsia and therefore takes a majoritarian nationalist, even religio-nationalist, character. The Year 1848 which witnessed radical democratic revolutions throughout Europe was called the Springtime of Nations and that season spilled over into a conflict of nationalisms. Uneven development dictated different ratios of Reason and Romanticism, of secularism and religiosity, of forward looking and backward looking elements in each democratic upheaval or nationalist movement. While the American Revolution of 1776 was exemplarily enlightened, an earlier experience of enormous progressive import in English-and Western-history, the Cromwellian Revolution, had a religious charge and a dark downside in Ireland.
British Foreign Secretary Miliband’s advice to Sri Lanka, which reeks of retro-chic in that it seems to forget that it is sixty years since Britain ruled us, must be matched against some excellent advice he received recently from the Foreign Minister of Russia, Sergei Lavrov, probably the most impressive Foreign Minister in service today (whose twin lectures at the UN in Geneva I greatly look forward to attending this week). Incidentally his early years as a diplomat were spent in Sri Lanka, beginning in 1972. When the British Ambassador to Moscow dug in his heels over the presence of the British Council in St Petersburg and said something to the world’s media to the effect that (as the old protest song went) “we shall not be moved”, the British found that in fact they were, the very next day. Commenting on the episode, Russia’s Foreign Minister said that Britain had not obtained Russia’s permission to set up these British Council offices. More importantly he made an observation of the statements emanating from the British Foreign Secretary and the UK govt, remarking that “this is not the language with which to speak to Russia, some people have not got over their colonial frame of mind and are still nostalgic for their colonial past.”
If any country takes a stand that is tilted against us or is ambivalent in this most fundamental of struggles, then we must recognize that there exists an incompatibility of interests between those countries and ours. Such states are not firm friends or staunch allies. It should be made clear to them that their stand today directly influences the role they will or will not have in influencing the post-war, post-conflict order in Sri Lanka. Those who stand against us, who threaten or attempt to intimidate us; those who vacillate and temporize during this war, have forfeited the chance to play a role in the peace. They must be limited to a strictly diplomatic presence. There are on the other hand, states that have uncritically supported us during this war, or have voiced their misgivings and advice in private. They are the ones with whom we have a basic identity of interests. These are our friends, allies and partners. They are the extended family to which we truly belong.
Some choices are easy. The Sri Lankan people are politically among the most sophisticated in the Third World and even the newly emergent democracies of the Second World, given not only our levels of literacy but also the exercise of universal franchise from 1931. A recent Nielsen poll conducted in cooperation with the Sunday Times contained some important judgments by a representative sample of the Sri Lankan people. They rated the greatest leaders of Independent Sri Lanka in the following order: (Founding Father) DS Senanayake, President Ranasinghe Premadasa and incumbent President Mahinda Rajapakse. (I am proud to have supported and worked with two of the three).The people unerringly discern synchronicity where the pseudo-intelligentsia does not. The poll also placed President Rajapakse way ahead of his current competitors, with former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (economic neoliberal, peacenik and darling of the West) and former President Chandrika Kumaratunga (darling of the Tamil liberals) scoring a truly pathetic 1% each! Set these figures along the results of recent polls which show figures of a massive majority ( 85%) identifying separatist terrorism as the most important issue and supporting the military efforts of the incumbent, and you get the overall picture of where the Sri Lankan people stand, and just how isolated the Colombo “comprador” critics are.
What we must do is renew our commitment to and reactivate “really existing devolution”, that is provincial level devolution as contained in the 13th amendment. The issue is not whether such devolution is intrinsically desirable. The issue is that we cannot afford not to do so. If we do not want a replay in some form or the other of the bitter experience of 1987, when the advancing Sri Lankan Army under General Gerry de Silva and more famously Brigadiers Kobbekaduwa and Wimalaratne, were stopped in theirs tracks by external intervention, we must devolve. Tamil Nadu, the DMK factor, the coalitional character of governments in Delhi, and elections in India this year or next, are facts that we cannot ignore. We cannot afford South India becoming once again a safe haven or rear base for the LTTE. We can still less afford anti-aircraft rocketry being smuggled in through South India to the LTTE. We need India to play a more active role in cooperating with us to put down Prabhakaran who has cost both our countries so much. The lowest price we have to pay is the full and immediate implementation of the 13th amendment.
February 13th, 2008
Public Radio International (PRI), producer of radio programs for public radio stations across the US featured Bathiya and Santhush, on its ‘Global Hit’ segment of weekly night broadcasting – ‘The World’, on Tuesday, Feb 12th.
Here is the full text of the feature, as presented by Anna Sussman:
Today’s Global Hit comes to us from Sri Lanka. That’s where the musical duo Bathiya and Santhush have provoked controversy. They’ve ruffled feathers by adding back-beats and pop vocals to traditional Sri Lankan music. And it doesn’t help that their music regular tops the charts. Anna Sussman recently caught up with them in the capital Colombo.
SANTHUSH: “We started experimenting with Sri Lankan pop music and trying to create a bridge between the Sri Lankan ethnic sounds and the pop western sounds, so we basically fused both sounds together and came out with a different flavor.”
That new flavor didn’t go over very well at first.
SANTHUSH: “The Sri Lankan music right from the start it was a very conservative industry, up to now, we were the people who kind of shaked the place and say hey man, young people rock. Right at the start they were saying that we were trying to destroy the culture and that we were not adhering to the norms.”
Newspapers ran lengthy critiques of their music. Radio and TV stations aired debates on the deterioration of Sri Lankan heritage. But their sound struck a chord with young people. Bathiya and Santhush became a massive pop sensation despite the controversy.
SANTHUSH: “It was excellent actually, for us it was a good thing, we were confident that we were not doing anything wrong… the only different thing was our music had energy, people danced. So when the youngsters realized, hey man, they have got some energy, a whole lot of youngsters started following us. It was a revolution.”
They say they’re bringing ancient Sri Lankan music to the world stage by popularizing traditional Sri Lankan sounds with contemporary pop loops. And they’re among the few Sri Lankan artists to sign with an international music label.
This song, Denna Denna, is inspired by ancient ceremonial folk songs used to drive demons from the home.
SANTHUSH: “Those sounds are maybe around 1,200 years old 1,600 years old and it has been coming through generations, but for some reason those sounds, the music hasn’t come to the world. Not even to India. It has been lying inside Sri Lanka in like a treasure box, so we thought lets open it out and share it with the world.”
Bathiya and Santhush say thier music builds bridges in Sri Lanka, by overlapping diverse sounds and languages. The duo sing in English, and Singhalese, broadening their audience to both an educated and poor Sri lankan fan base, and they produced a Hindi version of most their recent album for their Indian neighbors and they say they are learning to write songs in Tamil the language of Sri Lanka’s ethnic minority. As civil war continues to escalate on the small island, Bathiya and Santhush say they feel an acute need to address the nation’s bitter ethnic divide, with their music.
[click to listen audio of this report on PRI]
February 12th, 2008
Next Posts
Previous Posts