Sri Lanka: Remember? Remember!

The country was almost destroyed, not by the Accord or the provincial councils but by the insanely violent manner in which they were opposed.

by Tisaranee Gunasekara

“The Accord triggered mass nationalist hysteria among the Sinhalese… ‘This is it,’ one rabid young monk remarked at a demonstration beneath a sacred bo tree. ‘We must be prepared to sacrifice our lives.’” ~ William McGowan (Only Man Is Vile: The Tragedy of Sri Lanka)

( October 22, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) ‘Motherland is in danger,’ it is claimed, again. The words are familiar, echoes from the late 1980’s. Sixty-thousand died in the South, it is said, during that time. The dead were men and women of every political persuasion and none. Some understood the issues at stake. Others didn’t. A story from that time tells of how at a demonstration against provincial devolution, participants cried, “Pala baba apata epa (We don’t want Pala baby). They would have been told to cry, ‘Palath Sabha apita epa,’ but the term Palath Sabha (provincial councils) would have been an unfamiliar one. That story demonstrates the plight of ordinary people dragged into a situation they neither understood nor wanted to be a part of. But saying no to men with guns was not a sensible idea, not in that time when intolerance reigned supreme and murder was as common as dirt.

For those who did not live through those blood-soaked years, it would be hard to fathom how provincial councils were feared and hated. Today they are as familiar as the parliament. Costly, corrupt, inept – these are the adjectives many people would use to describe them, not dangerous. The idea of provincial councils as an express way to separation would not have many takers today; such a claim would elicit a shrugged shoulder or a blank look, not murderous, murdering rage.

Things were far otherwise in the late 1980’s. Then provincial councils were depicted as the greatest possible evil, Eelam in another name and guise, a conspiracy devised by traitors and imperialists to destroy the ‘Motherland’. The political leaders who launched the campaign against the Indo-Lanka Accord, the 13th Amendment and provincial devolution would have known that equating provincial councils with Eelam was an outright lie. With them it was a matter of expediency. But their followers, like the monk quoted in William McGowan’s book, believed those fervid, mad claims, believed enough to kill, enough to die, enough to turn the first ever PC poll from a common or garden electoral contest into a mini-war.

Provincial Councils, then; Draft Constitution, now

The first provincial council election was held in 1988. It was held on a staggered basis, in four rounds, not out of choice or expediency but out of desperate necessity. The election was boycotted by the JVP, the SLFP and the MEP in the South and the LTTE and the TULF in the North. Anyone participating in the electoral exercise, be it as candidate, activist or voter, was deemed a traitor – to the Sinhala cause or the Tamil cause, to unitary Sri Lanka or to future Eelam. The punishment was death.

Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa would well-remember that past. Though not a parliamentarian (he lost his seat in 1977), as a close confidante of Anura Bandaranaike, he played a major role in that bloody drama. He was a visible presence at the Pettah Satyagraha which unleashed a cycle of violence and counter-violence in the South, of unprecedented ferocity. He was one of those who claimed that the Accord and provincial devolution will destroy the country. He was one of those who transformed the stance on Accord and provincial councils into an indelible line separating patriots from traitors.

The country was almost destroyed, not by the Accord or the provincial councils but by the insanely violent manner in which they were opposed. 60,000 lives were lost, it is claimed. Those lives could have been saved if the opposition to the Accord and provincial councils took place within democratic and rational confines, with arguments rather than bullets.

The secretive manner in which the government of JR Jayewardene signed the Accord didn’t help, but even if the process had been as open as the sky and as transparent as glass, it wouldn’t have mattered. The SLFP and the JVP were opposed to any political concession to Tamils – decentralisation or devolution, home-grown or externally-pushed. Their plan was simple: ignite Sinhala anger, and use the consequent protests as a battering ram against the Jayewardene administration. That was to be their path to power. The two parties had only one serious disagreement – which would eventually doom their alliance. That disagreement was not over the killing of unarmed proponents of devolution; it was about who should be the monkey and who the organ-grinder.

This past is relevant because it is being resurrected – deliberately, opportunistically, cynically – by Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Joint Opposition and their ultra-racist fellow travellers. Just as the SLFP-JVP-MEP combo saw in the Accord and the 13thAmendment a fast-track to power then, today the Rajapaksa-led Joint Opposition is seeing in the new draft-constitution a means of regaining their lost universe, ahead of 2020. The draft constitution of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government is the new provincial councils. Going by the rhetoric, the plan is not to defeat the draft-constitution democratically, in the parliament and/or at the referendum. The plan is to use the constitution to unleash chaos in the South.

The signs are clear. The old-old ‘Motherland is in danger’ screech is back in play. Forces are being gathered, from monks to students. The GMOA is in the fold too, claiming that enhanced devolution via a new constitution would endanger national health. Galagoda-Atte Gnanasara is there as well, demanding that the authors of the new constitution be driven out. Fortunately for the country, neither the JVP nor its offshoot FSP seems interested in joining the virulent bandwagon. That is the only silver line in the gathering darkness.

The point cannot be made often enough. The new constitution can be opposed democratically. It can be defeated democratically, especially at a referendum. The best time for the new constitution would have been the first year after the historic presidential election, when the government was still popular. Currently, the government’s popularity is heading down, in tandem with broken promises. Any referendum is likely to become a vote not on the merits and the demerits of the new constitution but the government’s performance in general, and its economic performance in particular. The electorate is bound to use a referendum to express its displeasure at the government’s penchant to do what it promised not to and refrain from doing what it pledged to.

Mahinda Rajapaksa and his cohorts cannot be unaware of this possibility. So why try to unleash hysteria and mayhem? Why try to recreate the spirit of the 1980’s?

Last week GL Peiris claimed that “it is clearly visible that a separate country has practically being created in the North,”[i]and that the police in the North are being controlled by the TNA. It is hard to believe that Prof. Peiris believes such a preposterous lie. So why say it?  The decision by a group of top-ranking monks to oppose not just a new constitution but even an amendment to the existing constitution is indicative of fanaticism at play. Someone should tell the venerable monks that Sri Lanka is not a hieratic system, not yet.

A seminar was held last week, titled, ‘Don’t turn Lanka into an Orumitta Nadu’. Orumitta Nadu is the Tamil translation of the Sinhala term Ekeeya rata – in the draft constitution, Sri Lanka is defined as an Ekeeya rata/Orumitta Nadu. But for those who don’t know – the majority of Sinhalese wouldn’t know, especially since the government hasn’t bothered to explain – Orumitta Nadu would sound like Eelam, Malaya Nadu and Nasiristan, a Tamil-Muslim paradise created by shattering Sinhala Sri Lanka. The title would have been picked deliberately, precisely to create such an incendiary impression. The seminar, an exercise in fear-mongering a la 1987-89, was attended by many JO heavyweights, including Dinesh Gunawardane and, most tellingly, Basil Rajapaksa. On the internet, the organ grinders could be seen sitting at the back, watching the monkeys on the stage perform.

Thirty years ago, Mahinda Rajapaksa was one of those who virulently opposed the first PC poll, denouncing it as a bridge to separation. People were murdered in cold blood in 1988 for defending provincial devolution and taking part in the first PC poll. The country was set on fire in the name of opposing the 13th Amendment. Provincial devolution was equated with federalism which was equated with separation. Provincial councils were denounced as tools of separatism.

Today Mr. Rajapaksa would admit that the 13th Amendment and provincial councils are not akin to separation. He would have to, since he, very correctly, opposes the government’s craven attempts to postpone PC polls. He would have to, since he, very correctly, wants the first round of PC polls held, sans delay. And he owes the country an explanation for his changed stance, not least because many of the charges which he and his acolytes are levelling at the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration’s draft-constitution today are near-identical to the charges hurled at the 13th Amendment and the system of provincial councils in the blood-soaked years of 1987-1990.

Who is ‘Strengthening the Devil’?

Responding to the less than cordial reception he got during his latest visit to Jaffna, President Sirisena warned the Tamil people not to weaken him as if would strengthen the ‘devil’, a not so oblique reference to Mahinda Rajapaksa, who, during the presidential election campaign, told Tamils to vote for the ‘known devil’. Given current political realities, Mr. Sirisena’s warning is not incorrect. The only really existing alternative to the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration is a triumphant return of the Rajapaksas.

But the president is wrong to blame the electorate for that possibility. It is not the electorate which has given the twice-defeated Rajapaksas a new lease of life but the President, his prime minister, his ministers and his government. The recent examples include the shenanigans of Shalila Moonesinghe and his patron Ravi Karunanayake as well as the inexplicable decision by President Sirisena to give an electorate organiser-ship to a provincial politician who gained national notoriety by forcing a teacher to kneel in her own class.

The Rajapaksas might be willing to set the country on fire to clear a path to power for themselves, but it is the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration that is providing kindle for that conflagration. Not only did the government fail to take up the promise of a new constitution in the first two years of its existence. Not only did it fail to build a national coalition to actively back a new constitution. It also failed to capitalise on unexpected favourable developments – such as the decision by the Supreme Court that federalism cannot be equated with separatism and the outspoken words of support by the Malwatte Mahanayake for a new constitution which aims to resolve the problems of the Tamil people.

The failure of the government is enabling the Rajapaksa-led Joint Opposition and its ultra-racist fellow travellers to denounce devolution as evil redefine patriotism as unequivocal and absolute opposition to devolution. Just as the Accord, the 13th Amendment and the provincial councils constituted the adamantine line separating enemy from friend in the late 1980’s, the proposed new constitution is being turned into the sole means of separating patriot from traitor today. Shrill invective is replacing rational arguments.

The government can still prevent a return to the old madness. It needs to explain the why, the what and the how of the new constitution to the public. It needs to expose the cynical attempts by the Rajapaksa-led JO to ignite mass-hysteria in the South and benefit from it. It needs to meet Rajapaksa invectives with rational arguments and provable facts. If it fails, the ‘Devil’ will indeed return, masquerading as the ‘Saviour of Motherland’. If that disaster occurs, the government would have none to blame but itself.

[i] http://www.adaderana.lk/news/43676/separate-country-already-created-in-the-north-gl

SLFP shake up and polls rivalry ahead

Saturday, October 21, 2017 - 01:00

The image of carrying on the fight against corruption will also need much more speedy legal action against those accused, charged with, or publicly known for fraud and corruption under the previous government. It also calls for stronger action against the agents or forces of corruption that remain within the present ruling coalition, especially those who came over to the Sirisena camp after General Election in August 2015, several of them after their own defeat as UPFA candidates from the SLFP, under Mahinda Rajapaksa’s leadership

The removal of key SLFP electoral organisers who are in the Rajapaksa camp has led to the biggest shake up in the party since it was established in 1951, and shows the move to major divided party contests in the coming elections to the local authorities, whenever they take place.

Of the two major democratic political parties in the country - the UNP and SLFP – the SLFP has had several breakaways, but never a clean up by the party leadership itself, as one sees today. There were breakaways from the party first led by CP de Silva, which defeated the Sirima Bandaranaike Government, and later the departure of Chandrika Kumaratunga to join her husband Vijaya Kumaratunga’s Sri Lanka Mahajana Party, and the breakaway of Anura Bandaranaike to join the UNP. It did not take very long for both Chandrika and Anura Bandaranaike to return to the party, then led by their mother. The major difference in the current move is that members are being removed by the party leadership, by party leader President Maithripala Sirisena himself, bringing to an end the efforts at party unity through political reconciliation between Mahinda Rajapaksa and Maithripala Sirisena.

The members being removed have been key supporters of Mahinda Rajapaksa after his defeat by Sirisena in the January 2015 Presidential Poll, and also strong movers in the Joint Opposition, who have been seen as major oppositional activists to President Sirisena. Another aspect of importance is that several of those removed in the current move have been associated with and also charged under the law, on major issues of fraud and corruption. This is certainly a move, even though belated, to show that President Sirisena, as the party leader, is now giving more thought to the pledge given to fight corruption in his presidential bid against Mahinda Rajapaksa, and thus keep the public who opposed the corruption of the Rajapaksa regime with him.

The image of carrying on the fight against corruption will also need much more speedy legal action against those accused, charged with, or publicly known for fraud and corruption under the previous government. It also calls for stronger action against the agents or forces of corruption that remain within the present ruling coalition, especially those who came over to the Sirisena camp after General Election in August 2015, several of them after their own defeat as UPFA candidates from the SLFP, under Mahinda Rajapaksa’s leadership.

Poll delay

The present clean up the SLFP is certainly being expedited with the expected arrival of the Local Government polls, so far unofficially expected to be held in January 2018, but with new indications it will be further delayed, due to the change of electoral districts within the Nuwara Eliya District. This delay in the Local Government polls is certainly not helpful to the government, and the official SLFP led by President Sirisena, seen as yet another expression of the government’s fear to face the people at the polls. The government, and especially the Ministry of Local Government and Provincial Councils, have very little cause to justify this further poll delay, as the changes in electoral districts now being envisaged could very well have been done months ahead.

The fact that Minister Mano Ganeshan, leader of the Democratic People’s Front and the Tamil Progressive Alliance is making this demand now shown as the cause for this delay. But there is no reason why these demands could not have been acted on earlier. This once again leads to a major opposition to the government over delays in the polls, where the Minister of Local Government and Provincial Councils stands out as the political/administrative image of delayed polls.
A rival force

Whatever the polls delay, the clean up of the SLFP of forces ranged against President Sirisena’s leadership, will lead to a rival force, other than the UNP challenging the SLFP at the local government polls. This will be the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), formally led by academic and Prof. G. L. Peiris, with his poor electoral record, but in fact led by Mahinda Rajapaksa, with his excellent record of electoral strategy, in more than forty years in politics. His defeat at the last presidential poll certainly moved him away from his role of party leadership, and electoral strategies.
But, his leadership capabilities will certainly be challenged by President Sirisena holding the formal leadership of the SLFP, and being in a position to extend the required official support to the now electoral organisers he is appointing. There is no doubt that politics in Sri Lanka has much to do with the capabilities of those in power to manipulate politics. This was clearly seen in the near ten years of the Mahinda Rajapaksa presidency. The SLPP as the rival force to the SLFP and President Sirisena will certainly have to face this reality.

This situation, as well as the legality of a member of parliament having membership in a different party than what the member was elected from, is why Mahinda has still not announced his leadership of the SLPP. Instead, the organisational leadership has been given to his brother Basil Rajapaksa, who has already claimed the SLPP will win 200 councils in the coming local polls. Basil’s leadership, even temporary, is certainly not in the best interests of the SLPP. Firstly, it displays again the family bandyism of a Rajapaksa leadership. Next, it is no secret that Basil R is not much liked by members of the Joint Opposition, especially those in the SLFP there, who have clearly blamed BR for the defeat of MR in the presidential poll; and also the corruption allegations against BR are among the major contributors to the overall corruption charges against the Rajapaksa Regime. This will not help much in building up popular support for the SLPP with BR’s organisational leadership.

Another issue that would threaten the position of the SLPP is the action the government would be taking against the forces of corruption of the last regime. The indications that new action would be taken to appoint special courts to expedite the indictment of those accused of fraud and corruption, and moves bring to book those apparently protected during the time of former Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, will certainly be a threat to the public appeal the SLPP expects to gain in the current political context. President Sirisena will certainly have to move ahead with the promised action against corruption, which may even be a big challenge to the UNP, for the current political clean up of the SLFP to bear the best results.

Constitution debate

As the parliamentary debate on the Steering Committee Report on proposed constitutional reform approaches, the debate on the report is getting much heated, but with little substance on the material of the debate. There is growing opposition thinking to the very idea of any constitutional changes, with the latest comment on this coming from the Joint Council of the Malwatta and Asgiriya Chapters of the Siyam Nikaya, stating the country does not need a new constitution. They also want the Executive Presidency to be continued, and expresses concerns that a new constitution may create divisions among communities.

This is largely supportive of the propaganda against the Steering Committee proposals which make it out as a draft of a new constitution, and not a report for public and parliamentary debate before any draft of a new constitution is prepared. The parties of the Joint Opposition are also in this position, and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa has also taken the position that no new constitution is needed.

This is a major reversal from the public position which led to the election of President Sirisena in January 2015, and also the continuous demands for a new constitution, with clear removal of the Executive Presidency, that was supported by the SLFP, and its allies in the UPFA through more than the past decade, and the SLFP and the People’s Alliance, for nearly a decade before that. The opposition to a new constitution is carried with allegations that the new proposals would lead to a federal state, with the possible division of the country in the future, and also a claim that the new proposals in the Steering Committee Report threaten the present position of Buddhism in the Constitution.

As the public debate, led by the political parties in the JO, sections of the Maha Sangha, and civil society and professions groups that have a largely majoritarian point of view on constitutional issues make headway, the government is certainly faced with a major issue of winning public support for any constitutional changes that could help in building a better democracy in the country. It will certainly need a much more active publicity and organisational support by the government to bring about a new constitution that the people voted for in January and August 2015. 

UNP offshoot party and Sirisena’s machinations

Maithri Gunaratne and officials of the new party at the inaugural press conference

 by C.A.Chandraprema-October 21, 2017, 7:25 pm 

The offshoot of the UNP the United National Freedom Front which held its first press conference some days ago, after gaining recognition as a political party by the Elections Commission could have serious implications for the UNP at any elections held in the future. This new political party is a natural outgrowth of the ‘kurundu polu clash’ that occurred in Matara in October 2014. This was to prevent a long march organized by Maithri Gunaratne and Shiral Laktilleke from Devinuwara to Colombo demanding that Ranil Wickremesinghe resign from the UNP leadership. The pada yathra began in Devinuwara with religious observances at the Devundara devale amidst disruption by pro-Ranil loyalists and got no further than the centre of Matara town when it had to be called off due to a mini-war between the UNP dissidents and Ranil loyalists armed with peeled cinnamon sticks. Thereafter the anti-Ranil movement died a natural death as the anti-Rajapaksa campaign picked up momentum.

 When the 2015 January 8 change of government took place, both the opposing sides in the kurundu polu clash in Matara found themselves on the same side and while the UNP led by Ranil Wickremesinghe runs the government, both Maithri Gunaratne and Shiral Laktilleke hold positions under President Maithripala Sirisena. The cohabitation has been uneasy. News coming down the grapevine indicates that Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has on various occasions tried to pressurize President Sirisena to get rid of Maithri and Shiral but Sirisena had refused saying they had helped in the campaign to defeat the Rajapaksa government. RW was perhaps right in being wary about having an enemy inside the tent.  Things would be OK so long as he had the upper hand but once things start unravelling as they inevitably do after a while, the enemy within the tent will become a formidable adversary. For the UNP, that moment seems to have arrived.   

 This is a period in which support for the UNP is waning in the country. The situation today is far worse than it was in early 2004 when they lost power after having won at the end of 2001. At that time, the entire government was in the hands of the UNP and a few goodies could be distributed to party supporters. Today however, having less than half the government (after providing two thirds of the votes to topple the previous one) the UNP has not been able to do anything significant for its supporters and the party organization is in a bad way. The UNP has been short-changed by Sirisena and the UNP voter in turn has been short changed by their party. There will still be the block that mechanically votes for the UNP no matter what. But there will be an inevitable falling off of voters. The most disappointed segment of the UNP is its activist base, the people who go around the village organizing and enthusing ordinary voters. The new party launched by Maithri Gunaratne obviously seeks to make use of this simmering discontent within the UNP to make its mark in politics. For this purpose the United National Freedom Front seems to be projecting itself as the revival of the old UNP that party stalwarts miss so much.

 In addition to the rot that has set in as a result of being short changed by President Sirisena, the UNP has been shaken to its foundations by the revelations made by the Bond Commission. The party rank and file and indeed even a good number of its elected representatives feel that while they have got next to nothing for their pains, a small cabal in the party has been making money hand over fist. The amazement with which Ajith P. Perera spoke of the kickbacks amounting to over Rs. 390 million given to an individual in the Employee’s Provident Fund by PTL just for inside information is symptomatic of this growing feeling within the UNP. We wrote in this column some weeks ago, that President Sirisena’s own continuation in politics as a factor to contend with depends on the destruction of the UNP as a political party so that the displaced voters will have no option but to support him at the Presidential elections in 2019. One could see that the Bond Commission has been largely independent but not independent enough to be able to pose any questions to Ministers Malik Samarawickrema and Kabir Hashim.

 How does one explain the manner in which Ravi Karunanayake was grilled and the complete absence of questions for Samarawickrema and Hashim? The Attorney General’s Department by refusing to ask them any questions made it painfully obvious to the whole nation that they had been prevailed upon not to give the latter two a hard time. The way the AG’s Dept. registered their protest was by not asking them any questions at all. Be that as it may, Sirisena has just about destroyed the UNP firstly by giving the best ministries to the SLFP and to his loyalists who contested on the UNP list and giving the UNP proper just the leftovers and then by appointing this Bond Commission which has destroyed the public image of the entire UNP hierarchy. All that remains to be done now is to initiate court action based on the findings of the Bond Commission and the process will be just about complete.

 The biggest irony is that while Mahinda Rajapaksa never appointed any commissions against the UNP, the very President that the UNP so enthusiastically brought into power has appointed a commission that has cast a shadow over the entire UNP hierarchy and has even sought written clarifications from the Prime Minister himself. The UNP was in fact much better off under the Rajapaksas than they are under Sirisena. Even the ministerial portfolios the UNP has got from Sirisena could easily have been obtained from President Rajapaksa without going to all the trouble of overthrowing his government. The entire UNP hierarchy is going to rue the day they decided to field Maithripala Sirisena as their presidential candidate.

 But its already too late to stop what is happening. With the disappointment that is spreading within the UNP due to the lack of patronage for the party rank and file, and the scandal involving Perpetual Treasuries, the United National Freedom Front has fertile ground to work on. The disadvantages it has is firstly, that it does not have any front rank UNPers in it - meaning those who have held cabinet rank. Maithri Gunaratne and Shiral Laktilleke hold no elected office at present and both got no further than the provincial council in electoral politics. Even though they have not been UNP front rankers, they make up for that by being educated professionals. In any event, the present front rankers in the UNP are such nonentities that not being a front ranker is more of an advantage than being one - especially when one is trying to present a new alternative for the UNP rank and file.

 The present front rankers in the UNP are looked upon with contempt by the party rank and file as people who betrayed their trust. So not being a front ranker may not be much of a disadvantage as one may think. A significant advantage the new party will have is that Maithri Gunaratne has always been with the UNP and has never joined any other party - thus his message of wanting to restore the UNP to its former glory will ring true to the dazed and disappointed UNP voter. However the UNFF will face a real challenge when it comes to money and personnel to be able to carry out a country-wide organizational effort. If they are able to get their act together on those fronts, there is no doubt that the new party will make its mark on the political scene. In the long run, this new party may be of help to the UNP by preventing a proportion of their voters from going completely to the other side through the provision of an alternative UNP.

It takes a world to end violence

From Left to right : Miss, Thien from Myanmar. Ronnie from the Philippines, David from Sri Lanka and Miss Meghla from  Bangladesh. Speaking on Youth involvement in ending violence against children. 

2017-10-21

Faith leaders and youth advocates joined by child-rights activists from 15 countries issued a call in Colombo to end violence against children in the Asia Pacific during the October 16 launch of a Global Campaign by the international aid agency, World Vision titled It takes a world to end violence against children.

More than 150 participants joined from multiple global faith networks, regional bodies, Governments, NGOs and youth leaders.   

Dr. Rinchen Chophel, Director General of the South Asia Initiative to End Violence Against Children, challenged child-rights activists and agencies to unite.   

“The time of working in isolation in compartments is over,” announced the medical doctor trained in international humanitarian law.   

“This campaign may have a big approach, but it needs to be meaningful to small constituents,” he said.   

Chief Guest Chandrani Senarathne, Secretary of Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Women and Child Affairs said that the violence against children included all forms of physical, sexual and mental violence.   

“We know the goal to end violence against children may sound too ambitious, after all we are not only aiming at reducing violence, but actually saying ENDING Violence against children! And, we believe it can be done in this generation,” she said.   

Youths nominated to attend from Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Philippines, Bangladesh and Myanmar shared their experiences living through and advocating against violence, encouraging leaders to do more.   
“I feel so sad that there are many girls or children like me who are victims of child marriage and other forms of violence. It took me a lot of courage to speak up. If I had not spoken to my teacher, I wouldn’t be here today. That’s why I encourage youths to share their views and feelings,” said Meghla Akter from Bangladesh.   

Faith network panellists included: Brahmachari Darshan Chaitanya from the Hindu Organisation Chinmaya Mission.   

Daniel Selvanayagam, World Vision’s Senior Director of Operations for East Asia, cited research from the US-headquartered Pew Centre of how more than four out of 10 countries had an official State or preferred religion, and more than eight out of 10 individuals globally identified with a faith.   

Ven. Galkande Dhammananda from the Buddhist Walpola Rahula Institute based in Colombo; Atallah Fitz Gibbon from the UK-headquarted humanitarian organization, Islamic Relief Worldwide, and; Moses Akash De Silva, an orphan-turned-pastor with the Sri Lankan non-profit, Voice for Voiceless Foundation.   

Facilitator and reverend, Christo Greyling, World Vision’s Director of Faith Partnerships for Development, opened the panel by striking a note of honesty. 

“I can only speak for Christianity, but we have to be honest that sometimes faith leaders are part of the problem [of perpetuating violence against children],” he told the audience. “For any child who has been hurt by a faith leader, I apologise to you.”   

“Children may have a biological father and mother, but they belong to all of humanity,” added Brahmachari Darshan Chaitanya from Chinmaya Mission.   

“Religious leaders play a great role in changing the thinking and behaviours to end violence against children. We are all responsible for their well being.”   

Daniel Selvanayagam, World Vision’s Senior Director of Operations for East Asia, cited research from the US-headquartered Pew Centre of how more than four out of 10 countries had an official State or preferred religion, and more than eight out of 10 individuals globally identified with a faith.   

“Whatever the news headlines may have you believe, we are a people and polity driven by faith, not violence,” he said.   

The event concluded with all participants signing a personal pledge that concluded, “It takes a world to end violence against children and I want to be a part of that.”   

World Vision is rolling out the campaign with partners across 17 Asian countries with a focus on ending child marriage, sexual abuse, child trafficking, child labour, physical violence in schools and the home, and corporal punishment.   

Participating countries include: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Myanmar, Mongolia, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.   

World Vision is a Christian relief, development and advocacy organisation committed to helping children enjoy life in all its fullness. In the Asia Pacific region, World Vision works in 17 countries in nearly 600 project areas. It serves 1.25 million children who are sponsored by donors, along with their families and communities.

Dozens killed as Congolese soldiers fire on DR Congo refugees

by Malcolm Webb-21 Oct 2017
At least 39 people were killed when soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo opened fire on Burundian refugees last month.

Almost 100 people were wounded in the violence that happened after a protest held by the refugees.

The Congolese army says it began firing after the refugees attacked its men. But the refugees deny this.

Al Jazeera's Malcolm Webb reports from Kamaniola, Democratic Republic of Congo.

Raqqa Destroyed to Liberate it

Like Fallujah in Iraq and Mosul, Raqqa was flattened by US air power, a stark message to those who would defy the American Raj. The ruins of Raqqa, the IS capital, were occupied by US-led forces.

by Eric S. Margolis-Oct 21, 2017

( October 21, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian ) The so-called Islamic State organization was primarily a bogeyman encouraged by the western powers. I’ve been saying this for the last four years.

I asserted, as a former soldier and war correspondent, that IS would collapse like a wet paper bag if proper western ground forces attacked their strongholds in Syria and Iraq. This week, the western powers and their local satraps finally took action and stormed the last IS stronghold at Raqqa. To no surprise, IS put up almost no resistance and ran for its miserable life.

The much-dreaded IS was never more than a bunch of young hooligans and religious fanatics who were as militarily effective as the medieval Children’s Crusade.
In the west, IS was blown up by media and governments into a giant monster that was coming to cut the throats of honest folk in the suburbs.

IS did stage some very bloody and grisly attacks – that’s what put it on the map. But none of them posed any mortal threat or really endangered our national security. In fact, the primary target of IS attacks has been Shia Muslims in the Mideast.

Many of the IS attacks in North America and Europe were done by mentally deranged individuals or were initiated by under-cover government provocateurs, such as the 1993 bombing of New York’s World Trade Center. IS was notorious for falsely taking credit for attacks it did not commit.

Other ‘lone wolf’ attacks were made by Mideasterners driven to revenge after watching the destruction by the US and its allies of substantial parts of their region. Think Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, and the murderous brutality of Egypt’s-US backed regime.

IS appears to have been shaped by western intelligence in an effort to duplicate its success with the Afghan mujahidin in the mid 1980’s that helped defeat the Soviet Union. CIA, Pakistani and Saudi intelligence, and Britain’s MI-6 recruited some 100,000 volunteers from across the Muslim world to wage jihad in Afghanistan. I observed this brilliant success first hand from the ranks of the mujahidin.

The western powers, led by the US, sought to emulate this success in Syria by unleashing armies of mercenaries, disaffected, unemployed youth, and religious primitives against the independent-minded regime of President Bashar Assad. The plan nearly worked – at least until Russia, Iran, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement intervened and reversed the tide of battle.

The canard promoted in the west that IS was a dire military threat was always a big joke. I said so on one TV program and was promptly banned from the station. I’m also the miscreant who insisted that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction and was consequently blacklisted by a major cable TV news network.

The CIA cobbled together two small armies, one of Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, and the other of Iraqi mercenaries. Both were directed, armed, equipped and financed by Washington. Shades of the British Empire’s native troops under white officers. The Kurds and Iraqi Arabs are now in a major confrontation over the Kirkuk oil-rich region.

Raqqa and Mosul were so close to western forces that they were merely a taxi ride away. But it took three years and much token bombing of the desert before a decisive move was made against IS. Once the US-led campaign against Damascus failed, the crazies of IS were no longer of any use so they were marked for death.

Like Fallujah in Iraq and Mosul, Raqqa was flattened by US air power, a stark message to those who would defy the American Raj. The ruins of Raqqa, the IS capital, were occupied by US-led forces. This historic déjà vu recalled the dramatic defeat by British Imperial forces at Omdurman in September 1898 of Sudan’s Khalifa and his Islamic dervish army.

The remnants of IS had melted into the Euphrates Valley and the desert. They will now return to being an irksome guerilla group with very little combat power. Anti-western IS supporters still cluster in Europe’s urban ghettos and will cause occasional mayhem. A few high-profile attacks on civilians may be expected to show that IS is still alive. But none of this is likely to influence the course of events. IS’s rival, al-Qaida, is likely to resurface and lead attacks to drive the west out of the Mideast.

The Islamic State bogeyman was very useful for the western powers. It justified deeper military involvement in the Mideast, higher arms budgets, scared people into voting for rightwing parties, and gave police more powers. By contrast, these faux Muslims brought misery, fear and shame on the Islamic world. We are very well rid of them. And it’s about time.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2017

Russia puts British Putin critic on Interpol wanted list

Vladimir Putin said to have agreed to move against Bill Browder, who has battled Moscow over ‘Magnitsky Act’


Bill Browder, US-born British businessman and critic of President Vladimir Putin. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

Mark Townsend-Sunday 22 October 2017 

Russia has placed a prominent British businessman on the Interpol wanted list. President Vladimir Putin is understood to have sanctioned the move against Bill Browder, who has led an international campaign against Russia over the killing of the jailed Moscow lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky.

On Wednesday Canada became the latest country to pass a “Magnitsky Act”, targeting officials “who have committed gross violations” of human rights. The move infuriated Putin, who accused Canada of playing “unconstructive political games” and later name-checked Browder for pursuing what the Russian president described as “illegal activity”.

On Saturday it emerged that Russia had placed the US-born British citizen on Interpol’s list, exploiting a loophole that lets countries unilaterally place individuals on its database used to request an arrest. Browder said he was alerted to the move by an email from the US department of homeland security, stating his “global entry status” had been revoked. Further calls confirmed he had been added to Interpol’s list via an arrest demand, known as a “diffusion”.

Moscow has a habit of using Interpol against its enemies and has previously used the global police organisation to pursue what many western governments view as a vendetta against Browder. Putin tried three times between 2012 and 2015 to get Interpol to issue arrest orders against Browder, but failed to convince the organisation that it did not have political motives.

The Council of Europe last year criticised Russian attempts to seek Browder’s arrest through Interpol, calling the efforts “abuses” of the system.

“Putin is so rattled by the spreading Magnitsky sanctions around the world that he’s ready to run roughshod over all rules and western norms,” Browder told the Observer. He has been battling the Russian government for over a decade, alleging that Russian law enforcement stole £174m, which his company had paid in taxes. Magnitsky died in Russian custody in 2009 amid allegations he had been tortured after uncovering a huge fraud that implicated government officials. His death prompted Browder to work with the US Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act, which levied targeted sanctions against powerful players in Russia.

Based in France and involving 190 countries, Interpol describes its purpose as enabling “police around the world to work together to make the world a safer place’.”

Madrid to impose direct rule in Catalonia to quash independence bid

Julien Toyer, Sam Edwards-OCTOBER 21, 2017

MADRID/BARCELONA (Reuters) - The Spanish government will impose direct rule on Catalonia, firing the regional government and forcing a new election, it said on Saturday, unprecedented steps that brought thousands of pro-independence protesters onto to the streets.

Catalan President Carles Puigdemont, who made a symbolic declaration of independence on Oct. 10 after a referendum that Madrid declared illegal, joined the protests in Barcelona and was due to speak at 9 p.m. (1900 GMT).

By getting rid of Puigdemont, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy hopes to end what has become Spain’s worst political crisis in four decades and has prompted Madrid to reduce growth forecasts for the euro zone’s fourth-largest economy and raised fears of prolonged unrest.

It is the first time since Spain’s return to democracy in the late 1970s that the central government has invoked the constitutional right to take control of a region.

Rajoy acted with backing from the main opposition party in Madrid and King Felipe, who said on Friday that “Catalonia is and will remain an essential part” of Spain.

“We will ask the Senate, with the aim of protecting the general interest of the nation, to authorise the government ... to dismiss the Catalan president and his government,” Rajoy told a news conference.

Spain’s upper house of parliament is scheduled to vote on the plan next Friday, giving Madrid full control of Catalonia’s finances, police and public media and curbing the powers of the regional parliament.

But that may give the independence movement room to manoeuvre.

The Catalan parliament is expected to decide on Monday whether to hold a session to formally proclaim the republic of Catalonia.

Catalan media have said Puigdemont could also dissolve the regional parliament and call elections before the Spanish senate makes direct rule effective. Under Catalan law, those elections would take place within two months.

“LET‘S PROCLAIM THE REPUBLIC”

Puigdemont and his cabinet marched in Barcelona on Saturday wearing yellow ribbons in support of two senior independence campaigners who have been jailed on charges of sedition.

“Freedom! Freedom!” protesters chanted as they waived independence flags and signs reading “Defending our land is not a crime” and “Let’s proclaim the republic.”

“(Rajoy) triggering this article will not resolve anything,” said 38-year-old builder Abel Fernandez, attending the demonstration with a pro-independence flag tied around his neck.

“They won’t be able to keep quiet the half of Catalonia that is in favour of independence and those who favour the right to decide.”

People wave placards which read "Freedom for the Jordis" and "We want them home" in Catalan during a demonstration organised by Catalan pro-independence movements ANC (Catalan National Assembly) and Omnium Cutural, following the imprisonment of their two leaders Jordi Sanchez and Jordi Cuixart, in Barcelona, Spain, October 21, 2017. REUTERS/Ivan Alvarado

Pro-independence parties said Rajoy’s move showed the Spanish state was no longer democratic.

“The Spanish government has carried out a coup against a democratic and legal majority,” Marta Rovira, a lawmaker from Catalan government party Esquerra Republica de Catalunya, tweeted.

Anti-capitalist party CUP, which backs the pro-independence minority government in the regional assembly said: “Taken over but never defeated. Popular unity for the Republic now. Not a single step back.”

Catalan authorities said about 90 percent of those who took part in the referendum on Oct. 1 voted for independence. But only 43 percent of the electorate participated, with most opponents of secession staying at home.

TERRITORIAL UNITY

The independence push has met with strong opposition across the rest of Spain and divided Catalonia itself. It has also and prompted hundreds of firms to move their headquarters out of the region. Rajoy on Saturday urged them to stay.

His centre-right People’s Party (PP) government received unequivocal backing from the opposition Socialist Party.

“Differences with the PP on our territorial unity? None!” said Socialist leader Pedro Sanchez.

Rajoy said he did not intend to use the special powers for more than six months.

“Our objective is to restore the law and a normal cohabitation among citizens, which has deteriorated a lot, continue with the economic recovery, which is under threat today in Catalonia, and celebrate elections in a situation of normality,” he said.

Madrid has insisted that Puigdemont - who has threatened to press ahead with independence unless Madrid agreed to a dialogue - has broken the law several times in pushing for independence.

“The rulers of Catalonia have respected neither the law on which our democracy is based nor the general interest,” the government said in a memorandum to the Senate. “This situation is unsustainable.”

Pro-independence groups have mustered more than 1 million people onto the streets in protest at Madrid’s refusal to negotiate a solution.

Heavy-handed police tactics to shut down the independence referendum were condemned by human rights groups, and secessionists accused Madrid of taking “political prisoners”.

Hacking group Anonymous on Saturday joined a campaign called “Free Catalonia” and took down the website of Spain’s constitutional court.

Spain’s national security department had said on Friday it was expecting such an attack to take place, though nobody was available on Saturday to confirm it.

Many Trump voters who got hurricane relief in Texas aren’t sure Puerto Ricans should

By Jenna Johnson October 20 at 9:25 PM

HOUSTON — Sitting on Mary Maddox’s back porch, which flooded with 22 inches of water when Hurricane Harvey hit nearly two months ago, is a Lady of the Night plant from Puerto Rico that a friend gave her. Ever since Hurricane Maria ravaged the island, she says, she has paused at the blooming plant when she passes it, rubbing a leaf and saying a prayer for those still without water or electricity.

Often, the prayer is accompanied by frustration with President Trump, whom she voted for and who visited this neighborhood after Harvey.

“He really made me mad,” said Maddox, 70, who accused Trump of trying to pit those on the mainland against Puerto Ricans, even though they’re all Americans.

“I don’t know,” said her husband, Fred Maddox, 75. “I think he’s trying.”

He continued: “It’s a problem, but they need to handle it. It shouldn’t be up to us, really. I don’t think so. They’re sitting back, they’re taking the money, they’re taking a little under the table. He’s trying to wake them up: Do your job. Be responsible.”

The divide in the Maddox household is one playing out across the country, as those who voted for the president debate how much support the federal government should give Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory without a voting member of Congress that is not allowed to vote in presidential elections.

Some supporters of the president, like Fred Maddox, agree with Trump that Puerto Rico’s infrastructure was frail before the storm; that the crisis was worsened by a lack of leadership there; and that the federal government should limit its involvement in the rebuilding effort, which will likely cost billions of dollars. But others, like Mary Maddox, are appalled by how the president talks about Puerto Rico and say the United States has a moral obligation to take care of its citizens.

[A tale of two Puerto Ricos: What Trump saw — and what he didn’t]

A survey released last week by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a majority of Americans believe that the federal government has been too slow to respond in Puerto Rico and that the island still isn’t getting the help it needs. But the results largely broke along party lines: While nearly three-quarters of Democrats said the federal government isn’t doing enough, almost three-quarters of Republicans said it is.

It has been two months since Hurricane Harvey hit Texas and Gulf Coast states, and more than a month since Hurricane Maria slammed into Puerto Rico.

On Oct. 3 — two weeks after the storm — Trump toured a neighborhood outside San Juan, Puerto Rico, and has repeatedly proclaimed, against much evidence, that his administration had a “tremendous” response to Maria. He gave his administration a “10” during a White House appearance with Puerto Rico’s governor this week. “I think we did a fantastic job, and we’re being given credit,” he said.

In fact, conditions remain dire throughout much of the island. Nearly 80 percent of Puerto Ricans still lack electricity, and 30 percent do not have access to clean drinking water.

Residents of San Juan had strong words after President Trump tweeted on Oct. 12 that relief workers would not stay in Puerto Rico “forever.” (Hector Santos Guia, Patrick Martin/The Washington Post)

Here in the Maddoxes’ neighborhood of Sageglen, by contrast, life is slowly returning to normal. On Sept. 2, just after the storm, Trump briefly toured Sageglen — a middle-class enclave on the southern edge of Houston — and announced in a cul-de-sac piled with Sheetrock debris and trash bags: “These are people that have done a fantastic job holding it together.”

There’s still a near-constant sound of construction in the neighborhood, which is filled with ranch-style and modest two-story homes. But there are no longer mountains of debris on the curbs, thanks to the local municipal utility district, which shared the cost of removal with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There are brand-new cars sitting in several driveways, thanks to car-insurance companies quickly totaling flooded vehicles and local dealers offering flood deals.

Those in the neighborhood without flood insurance were able to apply for and receive assistance from FEMA — including the Maddoxes, who recently had $14,000 in federal money land in their checking account.

[Lost weekend: How Trump’s time at his golf club hurt the response to Maria]

In the nearly two decades that the Maddoxes have lived in their ranch house on Sagelink Circle, they had seen no need for flood insurance. And, after recently helping one of their daughters pay legal fees for a divorce, the couple’s savings isn’t what it once was.

“I’m very appreciative to FEMA. I really, really am,” said Mary Maddox, who has been married for more than 50 years and raised five children. “I was just so excited when I saw that they loved us.”

‘They don’t live deprived’

On a recent afternoon on nearby Sagelink Court, David Hogg stopped by the driveway of his neighbor Donna Ramirez, showing her the latest handful of screws he had collected from the cul-de-sac.

Hogg and his wife, Patsy Hogg, have had flood insurance for decades after watching water come dangerously close to flooding the first floor of their two-story home soon after they moved to the neighborhood in the late 1970s. They now pay about $450 per year.

Ramirez and her husband also said they thought that they had flood insurance on their home, which they bought a year ago, only to learn weeks after the storm that they did not.

To Ramirez, the role of the government is to broadly coordinate relief efforts and ensure that insurance companies are fulfilling their obligations to policyholders, but that people should take personal responsibility for their property or look to churches or charities for assistance.

“Do other people think that other people should pay for me to fix my house? Because it’s not their fault that I flooded,” said Ramirez, taking a break from sorting through soggy research documents in her garage.

Ramirez, who describes herself as a “throw-the-dice-type voter,” said she reluctantly voted for Trump in November — although her support deepened after meeting Trump in her cul-de-sac about a month ago.

“In person, he’s totally different than on TV, and he gave us just such a feeling of confidence, like we weren’t forgotten about,” said Ramirez, who has one grown daughter. “He talked directly at a lot of people in the crowd, and his word for me was: ‘Don’t lose hope, you’re going to be all right.’ ”

[Trump threat to abandon Puerto Rico recover sparks a backlash]

Ramirez worries that when the government makes money easily available after a natural disaster, there’s an opportunity for corruption and a chance that some people will take more than they need. And she thinks that media coverage of the crisis in Puerto Rico has lacked context, especially in reporting that nearly all of the island is still without electricity.

“Guess what? There’s a big chunk of the population that lives without electricity all the time,” Ramirez said, saying she was sharing the experiences of a friend who has family on the island.

Hogg, 76, nodded his head in agreement: “They never had it. Never had it.”

“They don’t live deprived, because it’s a beautiful environment,” she continued. “The weather is nice, the climate is good most of the time, so it’s different from here . . . It works there because of the climate. It wouldn’t work here.”

About 96 percent of Puerto Rico’s electricity customers had service before Maria made landfall, according to federal data; many of the rest had no power because of Hurricane Irma two weeks earlier.

Ramirez said the government should encourage those living in the hardest-hit areas to move to the mainland, out of the direct path of hurricanes and into communities with more-reliable infrastructure.

“I object. I object. They should stay where they are and fix their own country up,” Hogg responded softly, shaking his head, wrongly referring to the U.S. territory as a separate nation.

‘No mercy’

Later in the day, as Hogg and his wife sat in their garage workshop, they again debated where the government’s role starts and ends. Patsy Hogg said she’s trying to figure out where, exactly, she stands. She’s worried about the ever-growing national debt, but she can’t stand to see people suffer.

Both are longtime Republicans, although lately they consider themselves first and foremost “Trumpsters.” Patsy Hogg described meeting the president and his wife, who gave her a hug, as a blessing from God.

“We love Trump,” she said. “We voted for him. We pray for him every day.”

The couple agrees that the president needs to be more careful with what he says on Twitter, especially when it comes to Puerto Rico.

But David Hogg, a retired electrical engineer who once worked at NASA, also said that Puerto Ricans’ “lack of responsibility is not an emergency on my part.” The same goes for Texans without flood insurance, he said.

[Desperate Puerto Ricans line up for water — at a hazardous-waste site]

His wife frowned, stared at him and asked: “So you have no mercy?”

“Uh-uh. No mercy,” he said. “They should do what I do: Spend the money, get insurance.”

Patsy Hogg said one of their friends at their Baptist church, a retired single woman, didn’t have flood insurance when her two-story townhouse flooded and that FEMA quickly provided her with some money.

“I was glad that they did that. That made me feel good,” Patsy Hogg said. “She’s certainly not destitute, but I’m just really glad that they did that. If that’s my tax dollars at work, I’m okay with that.”

She then came to her husband’s defense: “And he’s not really as hardhearted as he sounds. He was very glad when he learned that they had given her money.”

The Maddoxes, who live in the next cul-de-sac over from the Hoggs, were away from home when Trump visited. They struggled to get back into the neighborhood until after his motorcade had left.
The couple, both “cradle Catholics” and longtime Republicans, cannot remember a time when they disagreed about politics, like they do now. Mary Maddox has hit the point where she believes Trump needs to be impeached and replaced with someone who will unite and heal the country.

“I get so disgusted,” she said, sitting at her dining room table. “He is like a 13-year-old girl, tweeting and everything. I just want him to act his age and be nice to people and bring the country together. I voted for the man, but I’m just — I want our country to be friendly.”

Fred Maddox, who is retired from inspecting commercial airline planes, says he doesn’t agree with many of the things Trump flippantly says, but he still believes in the president and would vote for him again. He likes having a businessman in office, especially one who’s not afraid to speak the painful truth — even if that means publicly calling out Puerto Rican officials during a crisis.
“It’s time,” he said, “we had someone in there to fight for us.”

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.