Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, July 4, 2016

 A railway enthusiast to a fault

logoMonday, 4 July 2016

Hemasiri Fernando is known in Sri Lanka and abroad as a sports administrator, bureaucrat, banker and entrepreneur. He is little known as a train enthusiast, though it was his hobby from his early childhood. That was because it was kept a secret from the world at large. Only a few who were very close to him were privy to it. But that secrecy surrounding his hobby is no more. It has now been unveiled by Hemasiri himself.

Untitled-3Through two publications, done with extensive research but addressed to laymen like him, he has revealed his obsessive enthusiasm for trains. The first publication – The Viceroy Special – came out of press in 2013 and has run three rounds of printing now. The Second – The Uva Railway: The Railway to the Moon – was out in 2014. They are full of history, rare photographs and tech facts about trains. Thus, they should be collectors’ items for those interested in learning of the country’s railway history.

The Viceroy Special Project

The Viceroy Special was a special edition done by Hemasiri Fernando to commemorate the Silver Jubilee of the refurbished ‘Viceroy Special’ that began to roll along the country’s rails from 1986 demonstrating its heyday magnificence to train enthusiasts. He himself was a part of the Viceroy Special, having worked for 18 months at the Dematagoda Running Shed and Ratmalana Workshop of the Railway Department.

Untitled-6Untitled-4Says Fernando in the preface to the book: “The Viceroy Special is a product that was meant for the upmarket tourists and the first 15 years had been volatile due to the adverse situation in the country. Nevertheless, there were some tours operated, mainly in the Western and the Southern part of the island that were sufficient to keep the project afloat. The Ceasefire Agreement between the Government and the LTTE in 2001 gave new momentum to the Viceroy Operation with a fair amount of tourist arrivals. During this period of 2-3 years, it had reached the optimum level of operation with sufficient revenue. This situation was back in the doldrums after the annulment of the ceasefire agreement.”

Tourist Board’s withdrawal from the project 

The Ceylon Tourist Board was an original stakeholder of the Viceroy Project since it was the main beneficiary. Naturally, it should be so but its subsequent withdrawal from the project showed that it was not on the same wavelength as others in this enterprise.

Perhaps, it would have failed to understand, at that time, an important element in attracting tourists to the country: provision of a variety of entertainment. Except ancient ruins and sandy beaches, there are no other ways of keeping incoming tourists fruitfully occupied.

Read More

Air Force Commander on suspicious tour of Israel duping even defense secretary; Takes a wheeler dealer with him !


LEN logo(Lanka-e-News -04.July.2016, 9.00PM) It is incredible but  true ! it is all happening right before our own eyes in Sri Lanka , the only country where there exists an  Air Force Commander by the name of Gagan Bulathsinghala who goes on junkets abroad at public expense to purchase spare parts  for two Bell 212 helicopters just like how idlers and street loafers roam Panchikawatte to buy spares for vehicles. 
Gagan  left for Israel on the 21 st  saying his mission is to purchase Helicopter spare parts , based on reports reaching Lanka e news inside information division.
This junket is so bizarre and astonishing that it  can be described as  ’ never ever known before’ owing to the following reasons : 
There is no country in the world where the chief of the Air Force or any other  forces spends (wastes) his time like street loafers going from country to country at State expense to buy spares for the aircrafts, war tanks, or Naval crafts  because there is an engineering department exclusively for that , and also a certain procedure  ..The practice is ,the Commander of the forces only gives the  final approval to such purchases. 
Whereas ,  this crafty and corrupt Air Force Commander who has already acquired a notoriety for frauds and corruption , without following the set procedures and with stealthy motives , has gone to Israel citing bogus reasons wasting public funds.
What is more ? the Bell 212 helicopters for which he went to Israel supposedly to purchase spares are  not of Israel make – those are  produced  in America ! Some time ago  these Bell helicopters were made in Canada but the owning Co. is American. Hence , obviously there are no Bell helicopter spares  our Bulathsinghala can buy in Israel. It is therefore being furiously questioned whether Gagan went to Israel to buy spares for his own bells and bottoms after learning (a trifle too late) those are moth eaten. 
Moreover , when a country , an Institution or the Forces purchases or is supplied  with spares for helicopters , the agreement is reached with the supplying Co. at the time of purchase. Therefore there is no need at  all to travel from country to country  in search of spares citing the false excuse of purchasing helicopter spares like how one searches for vehicle spares at Panchikawatte . This is also an index that our Air Force Commander has no honest and responsible work to do though he is paid a salary . 
May be Bulathsinghala is assuming , in this country there exist only rice eating buffaloes , and he is the only  bĂȘtel(bulath) chewing outmoded Singhala. 
Believe it or not , this one and only ‘bĂȘtel chewing’ Commander has informed the defense secretary about his wasteful  junket only after embarking on the tour. He had sent his letter requesting permission only on the 22 nd (Wednesday) , that is the day after he left the country , which is illegal.
The most sly , stealthy ,surreptitious and suspicious part  of the tour  of this ‘one and only’ infamous  Air Force Commander  concerns  the notorious  sidekick who accompanied him . It is not an engineer or an officer of the Air Force he took with him . It is a Muslim national, namely  Thaseem Mohomed a notorious wheeler dealer.

When Thaseem Mohomed arrived at the Air Force headquarters about  a week ago , the Air Force Commander Gagan had instructed not to conduct  any inspection on him .Though Thaseem apparently has no  illicit deal involvements in Israel, for some time he had been carrying on his sly deals and rackets with China. The next question is , then  why did Thaseem go to Israel?
Gagan the Air force Commander who is now in Israel with the wheeler dealer Thaseem ,on the 1 st has informed the Air Force that he has to go to China again . With that intimation  he has let the cat out of the bag.  
The Lanka e news inside information service within the Air Force reports that this bogus tour of Gagan is most suspicion ridden. This is because China  and Israel have been historically engaged in conspiracies to depose lawfully elected   governments.  
The cost of Gagan’s tour is approximately Rs.700,000.00 which is paid out of pubic funds. Thaseem has paid for his air ticket out of his personal funds.
 
---------------------------
by     (2016-07-04 16:20:03)

Undressing The SriLankan Bride


Colombo Telegraph
By Rajeewa Jayaweera –July 3, 2016 
Rajeewa Jayaweera
Rajeewa Jayaweera
According to a circular received by all staff of SriLankan Airlines, based on a recommendation of the Sub-committee on Economic Affairs, the government has decided to handover ground handling activities at Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) to Airport & Aviation Services Ltd. (AASL), operators of the Colombo and Mattala International Airports. Ground Handling Services, hitherto handled by the national carrier SriLankan Airlines includes handling of Passenger and Cargo related services at the airport for all carriers operating into BIA. Sri Lanka’s different national carriers since independence have held a monopoly in ground handling.
According to the circular, employees of the national carrier currently involved in ground and cargo handling (Terminal, Ramp and Cargo staff amount to around 2,550) along with all assets and liabilities if any in respect of Ground Handling will be transferred to the new company. Employees have been informed, the employment terms and privileges of those transferred will remain unchanged. The new company will be a Joint Venture between AASL and SriLankan Airlines. Whether equity contribution by loss making SriLankan Airlines will be by way of transfer of equipment or include capital infusion is not known.SriLankan Airlines
In a separate development, it is reliably learnt, a delegation from the largest handling agent at Dubai International Airport, DNATA, had visited Colombo last week for discussions with AASL.
With the advent of deregulation in the 1990s, most countries privatized their national carriers and opened up ground handling, engineering and catering operations to private companies. Privatized airlines too were permitted to have their own handling arms thus competing with private handling companies. The resulting competition ensures service levels far superior to those provided by national carriers in a monopolistic environment. In a few countries especially in South Asia, national carriers remained state owned and retained a monopoly in these fields especially ground handling, which is a cash cow.

Ambepussa also in an unfortified situation?

Ambepussa  also in an unfortified situation?

Jul 04, 2016
It is reported very reliably that the present stocks of ammunition stored at the Army camp in Veyangoda are to be transferred to the Ambepussa Singha regiment .It is also reported that the ammunition stocks stored at the Welisara army camp are also to be sent to be stored at the Ambepussa Singha regiment army camp.

These stocks of ammunition to be transferred to the Ambepuusa Singha regiment to be stored in some buildings that already exist within the army camp. In order to enhance the security sand mountains are been constructed surrounding these selected buildings.
However in reality in other army camps around the world such buildings where storage of ammunition are made the protection is provided with thick concrete surroundings which is the norm all over the world. With sand mountains the security and safety is only 50% it is reported.
It is also learnt that the stocks of ammunition that are stored at the Veyangoda and Welisara army camps cannot be accommodated at the Ambepussa Singha regiment army cantonment. It is also reported that certain stocks of ammunition  at the Veyangoda army camp that are over 20 years old which are supposed to be rather vulnerable.
In relation to the blast that occurred at the Salawa Kosgama army camp it is said that the Ambepussa  Singha regiment is also dangerous although it is not in a thickly populated area but there are a quite a number of residents in the vicinity. Hence when the ammunition at Veyangoda and Welisara army camps are transferred to the Ambepussa Singha army camp the people in the area would have to live in an environment which is rather vulnerable.

Israel hits Syrian military targets after stray fire on Golan: Army

Israeli army spokesperson says attack on two Syrian military targets was in response to 'errant fire' that damaged security fence
Israeli soldiers take part in a military exercise, which includes infantry, tanks and artillery units, in the northern part of the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights near the border with Syria (AFP)

Monday 4 July 2016

The Israeli army attacked two Syrian military targets on the Golan Heights after stray Syrian fire damaged the security fence along the demarcation line, a military spokesperson said on Monday.

"In response to errant fire yesterday from Syria that hit the border with Israel, damaging the security fence, the IDF (Israeli army) responded and targeted two Syrian military targets in the central Golan Heights," the spokesperson told the AFP news agency.

While Israel has sought to avoid being dragged into the Syrian civil war, it has attacked Syrian military targets when fire from the conflict has spilled over into its territory. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also acknowledged in April that Israel had attacked dozens of convoys transporting weapons in Syria destined for its enemy Hezbollah.

Israel seized 1,200km of the Golan Heights from Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967 and repelled a Syrian offensive to reclaim it during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

It annexed the area in 1981 but the move has never been recognised by the international community.

While the area has been largely peaceful since 1973, violence began to flare up again following the beginning of the civil war in Syria in 2011 as rebel groups took control of territory on the Syrian side of the divide.

Bangladesh says some restaurant attackers were well off and educated


BY ADITYA KALRA AND SERAJUL QUADIR-Mon Jul 4, 2016

Bangladesh police sought more information on Monday from friends and family of the men suspected of carrying out a deadly attack on a restaurant in the capital, and some are believed to have attended top schools and colleges at home and abroad.

The gunmen stormed the restaurant in Dhaka's diplomatic zone late on Friday and killed 20 people, most of them foreigners from Italy, Japan, India and the United States, in an assault claimed by Islamic State.

It was one of the deadliest militant attacks to date in Bangladesh, where Islamic State and al Qaeda have claimed a series of killings of liberals and religious minorities in the last year while the government says they were carried out by local groups.

Whoever was responsible, Friday's attack marked a major escalation in the scale and brutality of militant violence aimed at forcing strict Islamic rule in Bangladesh, whose 160 million people are mostly Muslim.
Islamic State posted pictures of five fighters it said were involved in the atrocity to avenge attacks on Muslims across the world.

"Let the people of the crusader countries know that there is no safety for them as long as their aircraft are killing Muslims," it said in a statement.

Posts on Facebook identified the men, pictured on an Islamic State website grinning in front of a black flag, as Nibras Islam, Rohan Imtiaz, Meer Saameh Mubasheer, Andaleeb Ahmed and Raiyan Minhaj.
Most went to prestigious schools or universities in Dhaka and Malaysia, officials said. One of them was the son of a politician.

A police officer said the pictures of four of the attackers matched the bodies, although he gave a different name for the fourth.

Rohan's father, a mid-ranking leader of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's ruling party, had lodged a complaint in January that he had gone missing since Dec. 30, 2015, a police officer said.
On Monday, there was nobody at the family apartment in an affluent neighbourhood of Dhaka, and a security guard said the parents had left the house on Sunday.

"A majority of the boys who attacked the restaurant came from very good educational institutions. Some went to sophisticated schools. Their families are relatively well-to-do people," Bangladeshi Information Minister Hasanul Haq Inu told India's NDTV.

TRACING ROOTS
Several posts on social media said the man identified by police as Nibras Islam attended Monash University in Malaysia. A friend who knew him while he studied at Dhaka's North South University told Reuters that Islam later went to Monash.

Brexit: America’s next headache

 BY LEXINGTON-Jun 24th 2016

BYINSTINCT Americans cheer declarations of independence, especially when those going it alone claim to be throwing off the shackles of foreign tyranny. A certain note of piquant irony may intrude when the revolutionaries hail from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But no matter: liberty is liberty, and conservative Americans in particular have reacted warmly to the news of the Brexit vote, praising what they hail as an act of understandable pluck, inspired by a familiar concern for national sovereignty.

Figures from several different wings of the American Right have claimed to recognise their specific brand of politics in the vote to leave the European Union. Donald Trump, a man always quick to detect his decisive influence on events, clattered from the skies in a helicopter to visit a Scottish golf course that he has been tarting up on June 24th, and informed the people of Scotland, Britain, America and the world that the referendum result of the night before echoed and vindicated his philosophy of rejecting “rule by the global elite”. “The British people had voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy,” he said in a statement, adding: “I hope America is watching.” Scots being a hard-to-please bunch, Mr Trump was greeted with a certain amount of online churlishness, as citizens of Scotland pointed out on social media that they had mostly voted to Remain (one Scot on Twitter referred to the presumptive presidential nominee as a “clueless numpty“).

Paul Ryan, who as Speaker of the House of Representatives is the most senior elected Republican in America, listened to the cries of “freedom” from 17m Britons and heard an echo of his brand of conservative politics, saying that Americans “clearly understand the thinking” that values sovereignty, self-determination and limited government (Mr Ryan’s list of valued thinking also praised “governing by consensus”, which arguably better describes the Union out of which Britain is now stomping).

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a strict constitutional conservative who came second in his party’s 2016 presidential primary with a platform heavy on law-and-order and demands to secure America’s borders, heard in Brexit a “wake-up call for internationalist bureaucrats from Brussels to Washington, DC” and urged America to learn from the referendum and “attend to the issues of security, immigration and economic autonomy that drove this historic vote.”

The welcome was detectably more tepid on the Democratic side, with President Barack Obama saying in a statement that America respected the British decision, that the special relationship was “enduring” and British membership of NATO remains a “vital cornerstone” of American foreign, security and economic policy. But for readers of tea leaves, there was a coded warning as the statement moved smartly on to the importance of America’s relationship with the European Union, before finally calling the EU and Britain both “indispensable” partners.

Congressional Democrats were cooler still. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Minority Whip, essentially scolded Brexit voters, saying: “This act of self-inflicted instability was fueled, in no small part, by the anti-immigrant, isolationist populism we’re seeing on the rise throughout the world and even here at home.”

American reactions always matter to the British. But transatlantic views of Brexit are especially important for Thatcherite Conservative members of the Leave camp, who made a series of bold promises about how the British would be welcomed into the embrace of an Anglo-Saxon alliance of countries that speak English, take their democratic cues from the Magna Carta, their views of free trade from Adam Smith and would generally rush to offer an attractive free trade agreement to the post-EU Britain in the twinkling of an eye.

These romantic nation-state liberals—figures such as Boris Johnson, the tousle-headed, American-born former mayor of London, his Tory colleague Michael Gove and numerous pundits and columnists—were duly incensed when Mr Obama visited Britain in April and noted, to paraphrase the president, that Brexiteers had been busy writing cheques on America’s bank account, and that British voters might like to ask how exactly those promises were to be cashed.

While it is fair to say that at some point down the line there might be a British-American trade agreement, Mr Obama said, his country was focused for the moment on passing deals with large blocks, notably the EU, so that Britain would be “at the back of the queue”.

The Brexiteers’ response was noisy scorn, as they hastened to assure voters that they knew better than Mr Obama about America’s self-interest, or that he was simply lying at the suggestion of his friend David Cameron. There was a special mini-conspiracy theory about the president’s use of the British word “queue”, rather than the American “back of the line”. Press commentators and politicians thundered, to the accompaniment of Lilliputian toots of self-regard, that the American leader was clearly reading from a London-drafted script.

Boris Johnson wrote a column for the Sun tabloid, accusing Mr Obama of breathtaking hypocrisy for suggesting that British voters should accept a pooling of their national sovereignty in the EU of a sort that Americans would never tolerate. He noted that a bust of Winston Churchill had been moved from the Oval Office by Mr Obama when he took office, adding—with Trumpian deflection—that “some said” (though not Mr Johnson, obviously) that this was a snub by a “part-Kenyan” president with an “ancestral dislike of the British empire.”

Dominic Raab, a Tory justice minister campaigning for Leave, declared his belief that Britons would not be “blackmailed by anyone, let alone a lame duck US president on his way out.” Nigel Farage, the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, asserted that Mr Obama did not understand the difference between the EU and NATO, that he would be out of office soon after a Brexit vote and that “trade deals are of course in both countries’ interest.”

So will those Brexiteers’ cheques now be swiftly and easily cashed? The question is somewhat similar to the larger question of Britain’s future trade relations with the EU. The great claim by Brexiteers is that because Britain buys more from Europe than vice versa, economic rationality means that a future British government will easily secure a deal that avoids almost all barriers to trade while at the same time allowing British firms to avoid costly and onerous EU regulations and permits British labour markets to be sealed to EU workers at will. If some Europeans have the bad manners to cut up rough, Brexiteers assert, then big boys such as the German car-makers will soon step in and impose order, as they wish to carry on selling BMWs and Volkswagens to British motorists.

This claim suffers from a couple of problems, starting with relative scale. To simplify and exaggerate, your blogger buys more from Safeways than Safeways buys from him, and yet does not set terms and prices in that trading relationship. Britain is a hefty country by European standards, to be sure, but some 45% of its exports go to the rest of Europe, while about 7% of other EU countries’ total exports are bought by Britain.

The larger problem is politics. Brexiteers are never happier than when thundering about their own country’s proud sovereignty, their desire to see British interests put first, and the noble willingness of a democratic people to resist bullying by experts and big businessmen and other bullies when their dignity and democratic rights are at stake.

But here is the hitch. Those same Brexiteers are startlingly incurious about what foreigners think and feel, and disdainfully sure that they either love Britain enough to do as requested (cf the cheques written on America’s account) or will submit to bullying by big boys (cf those predictions that BMW will tell Europeans what to do).

The double-standards are striking. Brexiteers take their own political sensitivities exceedingly seriously, but fail to remember that America and other EU nations are democracies, too, with governments that have to answer to their own angry, populist electorates.

To focus on America, it is possible to think that removing all remaining trade barriers with Britain is a splendid idea, and to believe—as Mr Obama suggested—that asking for a new bilateral trade deal now shows quite shockingly bad timing. If Brexiteers think that this is just a problem of having a Democrat in the White House, let them answer these questions. Do they think that a newly-elected President Trump would be willing to put a hold on building a wall with Mexico and slapping tariffs on China to spend political capital and energy on a new pact promoting free trade with Britain? If Mr Ryan is still Speaker in January or Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is still Republican leader in the Senate, do they imagine that their hearts would soar at being asked, as a first order of business, to get a free trade pact through the next Congress? And if Democrats are in charge in Congress, do Brexiteers think it would be any different?
In their navel-gazing parochialism, Brexiteers seem not to have considered that the same populist forces sweeping them to victory in their EU referendum are also sweeping every other Western democracy. It is possible to be a tea-drinking, Downton Abbey-watching senator and not have any desire to offend voters back home by doing Britain a favour on trade. All politics is domestic. Brexiteers are supposed to know that.

The fruit of an ambitious social experiment – South Asian University Holds its First Convocation

Featured image courtesy South Asian University Archives, 2016
sau2
Sri Lankan Sanjeevani Gunawardena receiving her MSC degree in Biotechnology from Mr Kamal Thapa, the Deputy Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister of Nepal while President of SAU, Dr. Kavita Sharma looks on (Image courtesy of SAU Archives, 2016).

SASANKA PERERA on 07/03/2016

As an idea, project and dream of considerable proportions, South Asian University has been discussed for more than a decade among leading intellectuals of the region, including people like Asish Nandy of India, Imtiaz 
Ahmed from Bangladesh, Kanak Dixit from Nepal and many others. 
The initial idea was to set up a university for critical knowledge with different campuses in different cities of the region. What transpired on the ground in 2010 saw the establishment of the entire university in New Delhi, with the undertaking of the Indian government to bear a hundred percent of the capital costs of construction. Different countries still have the right to set up regional campuses of the university in their own countries, should they so wish.  Even in its present form, South Asian University is a significant political and social effort that can only evolve amidst multiple challenges. It is one of the few initiatives of SAARC which has clearly taken off.

The first convocation of South Asian University was held on 11 June 2016 amidst much color, pomp, pageantry and excitement at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. The convocation, which came six years after the university started its operations marks very clearly that the university has formally and physically arrived in South Asia’s intellectual landscape.  This is important when seen in the context of university’s relative invisibility in the region so far.  The university’s present dynamism and visibility, augmented by its campus-construction programs and outreach work is largely credited to the work of its recently appointed President, Dr. Kavita Sharma and her new team.  Taking its South Asian credentials seriously, the University had invited Deputy Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister of Nepal, Kamal Thapa to preside over the ceremony. The Chief Guest was General V.K. Singh, the Minister of State for External Affairs of India. Officials from all member states associated with the University’s statutory bodies as well as those serving in missions in New Delhi had been invited to the event. A number of Sri Lankan officials were among the distinguished invitees including the Vice Chairman of the UGC, Prof P.S.M. Gunaratne, Sri Lanka’s Deputy High Commissioner in New Delhi, Mr. M.R.K. Lenagala, Prof Athula Ranasinghe, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts, University of Colombo, who serves as a member of South Asian University’s Academic Council and Mr. M.H.M.N. Bandara, Director, SAARC Secretariat, Kathmandu and Prof Sasanka Perera, Vice President of the South Asian University.

Over 450 gradates received their degrees. Thirty of them received SAU Gold Medals for excellence in academic performance. Students from all the eight SAARC countries who had completed their degrees were present at the convocation. These included some who had graduated prior to 2016 as well. Though the university has been functioning since 2010, convocation could not be held previously due to a number of logistical issues. The following graduates are among the Sri Lankans who have passed out of the University since its inception up to 2016: Nelum Uttamadasa, Shriyani Douglas, Sunderamoorthy Thushani,Vajira Daluwatta, Kalyani Mala Jayasekera, Mohamed Minver, Unnathi Samaraweera, Ama Wijjweera, Surangika Jayaratne, Samithamby Santhirakumar, Sanjeevani Gunawardena, Mahesh Premarathna, Jean Brenda Soundaralingam,  Thiraviyam Selvamalai, Niththiyanantham Baskaran and Janaka Selvaras.  Some of them attended the convocation on June 11th.

Nepal’s Deputy Prime Minister addressing the gathering described the university as a “testament” to the shared aspirations and collective anticipations of prosperity of all South Asians. He said the university has set a clear example of successful   regional cooperation to the world. In his address to the graduates, General Singh observed, “while the programme at SAU must have armed you with academic knowledge and the most marketable and relevant skills needed for the region and the international job market, your stay at the SAU – the friends you have made, the discussions you had and the activities you have organized – would have helped in experiencing the sense of unity which links all of us in the region.”

In institutional terms, South Asian University (SAU) is an international university established, funded and maintained by the governments of the eight member nations of South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC), which includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. SAU started its operations in   the academic year 2010. The university now offers Masters and Mphil/PhD courses in seven disciplines, which include Economics, Computer Science, Biotechnology, Applied Mathematics, Sociology, International Relations and Legal Studies.

SAU attracts students from all over South Asia, and all the eight SAARC countries formally recognize its degrees. Many of its graduates have already found meaningful employment in the region and others have been offered higher education opportunities in countries beyond South Asia as well. Sri Lanka has been consistently and extensively funding the university since its inception. In 2014 alone, Sri Lanka’s contribution towards the university’s operational costs constituted of US$ 1, 227, 000. Despite this and the availability of good funding possibilities for prospective students, the university has so far not attracted many students from Sri Lanka. Countries like India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Nepal have supplied the bulk of students. Similarly, it has also not attracted teachers or non-academic staff from Sri Lanka. At present, the country has supplied only one faculty member and two non-teaching staff members. Returning gradates and university insiders have noted this is because the university is not well-known in Sri Lanka. Both the university itself and the Sri Lankan government have failed to promote the institution in the country.

The university is currently functioning from Akbar Bhawan, a former five star hotel in Chanakyapuri, which is located within New Delhi’s diplomatic enclave.  Its permanent campus is being constructed over a 100-acre plot in Maidan Garhi, South Delhi. Construction work on the new campus began in late May 2016. It is anticipated that the university will shift to its new premises within the next few years.

'There is no crime': Brazil's ex-president keeps faith in party and justice system

Once a beacon of hope for a fairer global society, the Workers’ party Lula founded is being decapitated by its political enemies. Photograph: Andre Penner/AP- Luiz IgnĂĄcio Lula da Silva walks with Dilma Rousseff in March. Photograph: Igo Estrela/Getty Images
Lula is greeted by supporters after his appointment as chief of staff in March. Photograph: Adriano Machado/Reuters-Workers’ party supporters demonstrate for current Rousseff and Lula in March Photograph: Buda Mendes/Getty Images

-Monday 4 July 2016

As Luiz IgnĂĄcio Lula da Silva faces turmoil within Workers’ party and prospect of a trial, whether the ‘best president ever’ is victim or villain is up for debate

On the night Brazil’s lower house voted to impeach the country’s president Dilma Rousseff, she watched the proceedings on television with her predecessor in office, Luiz IgnĂĄcio Lula da Silva.

Rousseff appeared calm throughout and even ordered popcorn. But Lula – an unapologetically emotional man – broke into tears at least three times.

“It was very sad. I suffered a lot,” the Workers’ party founder recalled in an interview with the Guardian. “I saw the project to transform this country falling apart.”

Once a beacon of hope for a fairer global society, the Workers’ party that Lula founded is being decapitated, and its achievements over 13 years of government in alleviating poverty, increasing access to education and boosting healthcare spending are unravelling as a result of recession and budget cuts.
When he left office in 2010, Lula – as he is universally known – was the world’s most popular president, a charismatic figurehead of a newly confident developing world and the architect of a democratic, centre-left project to reduce inequality in Brazil.

Since then, however, the economy has deteriorated, the global political winds have changed direction from cooperation to competition, and a vast anti-corruption investigation in Brazil has claimed swathes of senior politicians, including several of Lula’s allies.

Today, he knows he could be put on trial any day. The former president is the target of at least four criminal investigations; his private phone calls have been secretly recorded and leaked to the media; police have briefly detained him for questioning. His successor, Roussef,f has been suspended, impeached and so undermined by the interim centre-right government that even though she is still officially president of Brazil, friends have started a crowdfunding campaign to pay for her travel expenses.

The downfall of the Workers’ party government has been of Shakespearean proportions, though whether Lula is the victim or the villain remains a subject of fierce debate.

The question of who is to blame splits the country largely on political fault lines. The right claims Lula is a King Lear-like figure who authored his own demise through economic mismanagement, political mistakes and by fostering a culture of corruption throughout the state sector. The left portray him more as an Othello, a great leader undermined by treachery.

Mass protests earlier this year suggest many voters were tired of a politician and a party that failed to meet rising expectations and became enmeshed in a system they had promised to change.

Lula sees things differently. He believes the Workers’ party’s emphasis on the poor, redistribution policies and increased spending on public education and health were resented by a political class that had grown used to having thing their way.

“I sincerely believe this bothered a lot of people. There are now more (newly middle class people) in the streets, in theatres, in airports. Part of the elite don’t want to share,” he says.

The leaks and investigations, as he sees them, are part of a plot to remove the Workers’ party and to prevent him from running again for president in two years’ time.

“I believe there is an arrangement between some parts of the media, the prosecutors’ office and the police to destroy my image,” he says. “It is all with one objective: to convict Lula. [There are people who believe] ‘we cannot allow this man to run in 2018’.”

Given the broader regional context of recent election defeats for leftwing governments in Argentina, Venezuela and Bolivia, some on the left go further. They see darker forces at work, including plots by the CIA.

But Lula dismisses suggestions the United States is involved in conspiracies to undermine leftwing leaders in the region . “I don’t believe it,” he says. “Venezuelans have reason to suspect the US because of the coup [that briefly removed Hugo ChĂĄvez] in 2002 … But I think the brothers in Venezuela are making a mistake. They need dialogue with all sectors of society.”

Lula was a close ally of ChĂĄvez and of Nestor Kirchner in Argentina. Earlier this year, he reached for a football metaphor to describe the three of them in their heyday as the “Messi, Neymar and SuĂĄrez” of the Latin American left.

Unlike his Venezuelan counterpart, however, Lula preferred negotiation to confrontation and refused to amend the constitution so he could run endlessly for office. Instead, he stood down at the end of his second term and let Rousseff take his place. “I’ve said many times that the most important thing in a democracy is a change in power. I didn’t run for a third (consecutive) term. I don’t believe in people who can’t be replaced. That’s how dictatorship is born.”

This makes him all the more frustrated at the way the Workers’ party has been pushed from power although it has not been beaten in a national election since 1998. In 2014, it won another four-year presidential mandate. Yet less than half way through that term, it has been forced out.

“I lost three elections, but I respected the people’s choice of the winner,” he said. “But the right won’t wait.”

He has not yet given up hope that Rousseff can make a comeback. To survive in the final vote on 17 August, she needs to persuade six senators to change their minds. It sounds like a small number, but Lula acknowledges they will require a huge amount of convincing. Although he doesn’t say it directly, he seems exasperated that Rousseff does not put up more of a fight.

“Dilma needs to say what will happen in Brazil if she returns to the presidency. She has to say what she will do that will be new, how she will build new political relationships. She must say that. I can’t. She must make people believe.”

There has been constant speculation of a rift between Lula and Rousseff, particularly on the right. One former president, Fernando Henrique Cordoso, told the Guardian Lula’s biggest mistake was his choice of successor. Another former president, JosĂ© Sarney, was secretly recorded saying Lula had told him much the same thing. The plea-bargainer DelcĂ­dio do Amaral suggested the relationship between the two Workers’ party leaders is competitive. Adding fuel to this talk was Lula’s decision not to join other senior party members at a farewell press conference for Rousseff at the Planalto presidential palace.

Lula, however, insists he has no regrets. “I’m proud of nominating Dilma and getting her elected,” he says.
It is Lula, however, who has generated the greatest passions. Polls suggest he is still the most popular politician in Brazil, with a 21% support rate, narrowly ahead of the former environment minister Marina Silva, on 19%, and the former pro-business presidential candidate Aécio Neves, on 17%. Rousseff barely scrapes 10%, and the interim president, Michel Temer, according to the most recent survey, has an approval rating of 13%.

Lula - a deeply divisive figure - also has the highest rejection rate of any politician, but he remains the focus of Workers’ party hopes. Many hope he will run and win again. He says the decision will be up to the party.

“I’d like someone else to run. I left with an 87% approval rating. I was the best president in the history of Brazil. It is almost mission impossible to try to repeat that performance. I’d have to compete against myself.”

The decision will also be up to the judges. Lula is the prime target of the Lava Jato (Car Wash) investigation into corruption at the state-run oil company Petrobras. Prosecutors have uncovered a mountain of evidence that directors at Petrobras and other state-owned companies paid over the odds to contractors in return for kickbacks and campaign donations to politicians and parties in the ruling coalition.

Lula’s supporters argue this common practice was ethically ugly but not illegal, adding that it predated the Workers’ party and applied to all the other parties and also private sector deals. Critics say that under Lula, corruption was systematised and elevated to new levels.

There is a reason for that. Unlike the right, the Workers’ party could not call on the private sector to provide the huge campaign funds needed to win elections and buy support in congress. The best that can be said of this is that it was corruption for ideological rather than personal goals. The worst is that it ran utterly contrary to the party’s promise to clean up politics. Instead, the Workers’ party was sucked into the mire.

Lula claims the issue is simply one of campaign funding and could best be cleared up by reform.
“Why don’t they investigate how all political parties raise funds?” the former president says. “The way it has been done, you get the impression that all the money for the PT [Workers’ party] is dirty, and all the money to the PSDB [the rightwing Brazilian Social Democratic party] is clean.”

But regardless of the claim of double standards, shouldn’t Lula – as the former leader of the country and the party who benefited politically from this system – be held responsible for endemic corruption that cheated the public out of billions of reais? That is the charge that has been made by prosecutors, who allege Lula was the mastermind of the illegal Petrobras scheme.

The former president insists this is based on a mistaken assumption.

“There is the theory that ‘the boss must know’ or that we are guilty of incompetence [for not knowing]. But there is no crime,” he claims.

This is not the only threat from investigators. The most advanced case against him is that he obstructed justice and set in motion an attempt to buy off a potential witness against him. The plea-bargainer Amaral told the Guardian he had testified that Lula asked him to “help out” a former Petrobras director, Nestor Cervero, who was arrested last year. This led first to payments to the detained man’s family and then to discussions about how to get him out of the country by plane or boat. Lula says Amaral is lying. “He’s built a fantasy narrative to help himself,” he says, arguing that the judge’s use of preventive detentions to secure plea-bargains is bound to produce distorted testimonies.

Several of these cases are now in the hands of Sergio Moro, a Curitiba-based judge who has become a nationwide celebrity thanks to his willingness to imprison rich and powerful people who were previously able to enjoy impunity. Moro has a reputation for working quickly and ignoring reputations. Many of Lula’s family members and friends fear Moro will soon put the former president on trial.

Lula claims he faces the prospect with equanimity because he believes in the Brazilian justice system.
“There is nobody in Brazil who is as tranquil as me,” he says. “If I face trial, we’ll know whether [the allegations against me] are true or not.”

At 70 years of age, the Brazilian Workers’ party founder may feel he has earned the right to be sanguine. He has experienced far worse. He was brought up in such abject poverty that he sometimes lacked enough to eat as a child. His brother was jailed and tortured during the dictatorship era. He fought alongside British miners in their failed challenge to Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. He lost three presidential elections before a historic win in 2002. More recently, he underwent chemotherapy for throat cancer.

Despite the legal Sword of Damocles hanging over him, Lula feels his place in history is secure. “The major achievements of the past 13 years will not be lost whether I’m on trial or not,” he says. “I don’t plan to change what I am. I was the best [president] ever.”

3 factors that could hold Europe together

A British flag flutters in front of a window in London, Britain, June 24, 2016 after Britain voted to leave the European Union in the EU BREXIT referendum.
Image: REUTERS/Reinhard Krause

Logo d8b23e233f85a1af9093a1946e18cff462b0ca82fcd720e2a9633270e53a0bcdWritten by-Jennifer Blanke-Monday 27 June 2016

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.

- William Butler Yeats

“But we are strong, each in our purpose, and we are all more strong together.” - Bram Stoker

How sad that after 43 years in the cockpit of the European project Britain finds itself at the exit door.
This decision will have major consequences for its economy: Britain will likely experience a prolonged period of tumultuous financial and economic uncertainty, while at the same time facing the massive undertaking of renegotiating bilaterally all its trade agreements both within and outside Europe.

In all the years I have been studying and observing the European project it always seemed there was just one possible direction - expansion and integration. But today there is a real risk that this is the first step towards exodus and disintegration. This will hurt Britain. But mostly it will hurt Europe and the world if nothing is done to stem the flow.

The origins of Europe

European integration has major historical significance. The fundaments of the EU were created for political and security reasons, not economic ones: in the 1950s, and with WWII fresh on the mind, Europe bound its economies together, first through coal and steel, to ensure that there would be no war ever again in the region. The idea of an ever closer union had strong appeal. Beyond security it increasingly represented clear business and economic opportunities for new members. Wave after wave of often poorer countries with shorter democratic histories joined the club, grasping the chance to expand their economies and the opportunities for their citizens. Europe grew larger and richer over the years.

At university in the US in the late 1980s and early 90s I observed this integration process with fascination. This was a time when the Cold War came to a head and the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed and rapidly started to unwind. The European project—at that point well under way—was a beacon for democratic integration and an important alternative future. Not surprisingly it became a magnet for the eastern European countries as they returned to the global fold.

And indeed since its creation there have been no military conflicts between member countries, which are now all vibrant democracies. Europe became in many ways an important example of integration, opportunity and hope that others could follow. Ever closer union seemingly had not just a logic but also a certain inevitability on its side.

So what went wrong?

While ever closer union had intellectual appeal, over time it simply didn’t resonate with the average citizen. Europeans also started to take for granted the benefits of integration as they became all too familiar. Meanwhile, as more and more countries joined the project, somehow the architects in Brussels seemed to grow increasingly distant from the needs and concerns of regular people.

Although still only wielding an overall budget of about 1% of European GDP, Brussels exercised more and more policy-making power, led by an unelected executive branch. The Commission drew up laws that had real impact on people’s lives. Over time, as the laws grew and grew, this gave the impression that more Europe was an end in itself, rather than a means to an end for greater security and prosperity for its citizens. Perhaps not surprisingly, national discourse turned more and more to the threats emanating from Brussels rather than the opportunities of integration. And national politicians had found their perfect scapegoat and punching bag for any difficulties they were facing.

After the last major accession of countries from the former Soviet Bloc, the project increasingly lost its popular appeal, attracting smaller and smaller turnouts to European Parliamentary elections. There were also successive rebukes to its power, such as the Danish rejection of the Maastrict treaty, and the French and Dutch rejection of the European constitution. In the meantime the euro crisis has underlined that Europe is not an optimal currency area; and the inability to deal with the recent refugee crisis threatened to roll back progress on the free movement of people, particularly in the Schengen area.

And finally perhaps the most serious issue is inequality. Recent decades have seen a significant increase in income and wealth inequality across many advanced economies and throughout Europe. Unemployment, particularly among the young, has remained stubbornly high in many countries. At risk is an entire generation who will never have worked. Median incomes are not rising. Growth has simply not been inclusive, and average citizens believe that their lives and those of their children will be worse than those of previous generations. Many have concluded that Europe is to blame.

So what now?

The remaining 27 member countries must now avoid being consumed by a crisis of legitimacy, and remain focused on building a better future for their citizens. Three factors will be critical not only to keep the rest of the union from falling apart, but to construct a solid future.
First, Europe’s leaders must manage Brexit in a way that avoids undoing all of the work of the last 60 years. This will require ensuring a smooth exit of the UK from the union, while taking a firm line on the next steps, in order to ward off even greater euroscepticism and to deter other countries from following its lead. Discussions among the remaining 27 member countries over the next months will be decisive in laying out a plan to this end.

Second, Europe’s political bodies must simplify rules and get closer to the public. For this, the EU requires a more open, democratic and transparent EU decision-making structure to restore the European project’s credibility. Europe’s citizens must have more say in the democratic process, which in turn must be more open to a variety of perspectives. Only by engaging citizens in what now seems like a very distant and elite process managed from Brussels can the EU also respond to the rise of populism and anti-Europe movements.

Third and perhaps most importantly, Europe’s leaders must articulate why an integrated future ensures better prospects than going it alone. Europeans must once again perceive the European project in terms of opportunities, not threats. This requires a new type of social compact for a very different kind of Europe. A Europe of hopes and dreams of a better future as it once was. One that takes into account seriously the concerns of its citizens, and attacks head on the inequalities both within countries but also across the Union. The younger generation of the UK—who we must recall voted to remain in the EU by a large majority—no longer has the opportunity to benefit from the positives of integration.

It is up to Europe’s leaders to ensure that the young in the rest of Europe can continue to count on such a future, one that responds to their aspirations to build a prosperous and secure region that all Europeans are keen to preserve and nurture.