The intersection of reconciliation and history

2018-03-30 

In any given society, the Great Reconciliation Game will be played between two factions; the nationalists and the cosmopolitans. The former will decry any attempt at changing the social fabric and landscape on which ethnic hegemonies and numerical majorities thrive, while the latter, logically enough, will try to change those hegemonies and majorities. The former would be content in seeing a rosy picture of history from their textbooks, while the latter will strive to present, project and perpetuate an alternative narrative that, unfortunately, is often at odds with historical realities. In other words, both sides are doomed to commit error after error, while the illusions of the former, the nationalists, will be forever vindicated by attempts made by the latter to forcibly change it, however sincere those attempts are. It’s a dichotomy that needn’t really exist or thrive here.   

Tradition and modernity   

At one level, it’s an offshoot of the (equally unnecessary) rift between tradition and modernity. You don’t have to be a cultural puritan to oppose the modernist economic and social discourse and paradigm, just as you don’t need to be a lotus-eater to oppose the backward elements of our past. I think the main problem we’ve almost always committed here is the choice of leaders we’ve gone for when it comes to supporting both sides of the divide. We pick the worst such leaders to lead the movements that stand for those two; the chauvinist on the one hand and the rootless cosmopolitan on the other. As long as these are the choices we make in terms of the leadership of the debates surrounding these contentious themes, we will forever be fighting without going anywhere. It’s the same story when it comes to reconciliation; those opposed to it are chauvinists who are known for spewing racist vitriol, while those who side with it are in the pay of certain vested interests that have no clue as to what they’re dealing with.   

If reconciliation is to be more than a movement imposed from above, if it’s to be seen as something other than the arbitrary ideology it has come to be seen as today, we need an across the board, all encompassing movement that does away with ethnicity and addresses the grievances and concerns of each and every identity. Jehan Perera was absolutely right when he observed that Sri Lanka was composed of many nations. To get those many nations together, naturally, we need to think beyond the federalist-devolutionist discourse that’s coloured the debate so badly, and not ignore the Sinhalese Buddhist demographic. The Sinhalese Buddhists, on their part, have to embrace certain structural changes, beginning with the way they’re taught the history that we take for granted. 

 
A curriculum that is run on the lines of memorisation and complete deference to authority cannot and will not yield a history syllabus which can enrich different communities to get together as one. All it will do is create chauvinists on the one hand and rebels on the other, both of whom falsify historical realities in order to embrace their warped definitions of reconciliation and so on. The best index for historiography we have, right now, is one that evokes compassion for the many players in our history, regardless of ethnic and religious affiliations. Such a historiography has never been the norm in our classrooms, now or then, purely because we have been taught that the subject is nothing more than a series of dates and times to be memorised and put out. Imagine how different our history would seem, then, if we were to instead go for the annals of school/method pioneered by that great writer himself, Fernand Braudel! When one reads Braudel, one is moved by the scope he unearths and the connections he makes, as opposed to the divisions which tend to form the evolution of any civilisation. Such a broad worldview is missing in our textbooks. Sadly. 

As long as these are the choices we make in terms of the leadership of the debates surrounding these contentious themes, we will forever be fighting without going anywhere. It’s the same story when it comes to reconciliation; those opposed to it are chauvinists 

The best antidote

 A reconciliation that is rooted in historical realities is the best antidote, I think, to the purism we are asked to embrace from Day One at our schools. Going beyond the victorious/defeated mentality that, again, we are asked to embrace is a necessary precondition to this. For that to happen, we need to stop painting or tarring figures from our history as good or bad; the Sinhalaya (a Sinhalese) versus the Demala (a Tamil), for instance. Would it interest our schoolchildren to know that Saradiel, that irrepressible and indefatigable Robin Hood of Sri Lanka, had a confidante and sidekick in Mammalay Marikkar, who was arrested along with the latter, by the British? Would it interest them to know that far from being the benefactor of Buddhism he’s typically portrayed as, Valagamba dithered, out of expedience, to continue the campaign against the Five Emperors, because of personal clashes? History is not always about saints pitted against devils, though it’s written by the winners (this is applicable to sacrosanct documents like the Mahavamsa, by the way).   

Braudel was concerned with nearly facet to history that he thought would inspire empathy and interest from the ordinary reader, which is why his writings are full of references to not just art forms

Bringing communities together Learning history without at the same time learning to love the arts and culture is pretty much like learning a language without learning to love literature; on both counts what is privileged is the ability to recall, at the cost of the humanist undercurrents of what is being learned in the first place. Cultural artefacts and art forms have a way of bringing communities together, of celebrating togetherness and diversity, in ways that dates and times and conflicts between ethnicities as coloured by our history textbooks cannot and will not match. The frescoes of Sigiriya, the masks of Ambalangoda, the architecture of mosques and kovils, and their intrusion on other communities; these can help bridge differences, if at all because they open up your world beyond the purism you’ve been forced to affirm at face-value. It’s the same story, obviously in another sense, with language and literature: the one has to do with getting your grammar right, but for the ability to wield it and win the world, you cannot do without the other.   

Braudel was concerned with nearly facet to history that he thought would inspire empathy and interest from the ordinary reader, which is why his writings are full of references to not just art forms, but also social practices, economics, and even biology, which leads him to the conclusion, among the many others he draws, that Sri Lanka, then Ceylon, was never a part of the Indian civilisation. When we read into such conclusions, we are somewhat taken aback by the eye we see them through. It’s not the crass, ethnically driven histories that are spouted by, for instance, the Hindutva publications in India, but an embracive, open approach to the way civilisations interact(ed) with each other. It affirms a firm grasp of everything that makes up the way we’ve evolved, and I for one would like to see it being used, and resorted to, here in Sri Lanka. For a history that embraces, that does not constrict in the name of maintaining hegemonies and ideologies, then, the Annales School is one school we should all be at, and in.   

We’ve missed out on a lot of things. Like the arts. Or culture. Or a proper grasp and appreciation of the connections between material reality and abstract ideology that Braudel effortlessly pinpointed in book after book. We’ve become a nation of professionals – of engineers, doctors, accountants, lawyers, and so on – without being a nation of human beings. That, I think, is one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why we refuse to approach our own history with a pinch of salt: because we tend to see it as yet another subject to pass, to get into University with. Without a love for the culture, for what breathes life into our identity, however, there can be no reconciliation, no togetherness, no amity. The problem, now that I’ve stated it down, is, at the end of the day, as simple as that.   

Don’t Cry For Me Sri Lanka

By Suranimala Umagiliya –MARCH 30, 2018

“We are what we do repeatedly. Excellency, therefore is not an act but a habit” 

Oh what a country Sri Lanka is. On the surface everything seems Hunky Dory. Scratch the surface if you will and Lo and behold the worst is in plain sight. Warts, burns and scars. God bestowed a natural bounty and asked the simplistic peasants to enjoy it. They became thespians over time.

Lasantha

Hark back to the recent history of this nation. Vile as any can be. Led by politicians whose only focus is to gain and retain power, they appealed to the basest instincts of man. Having jostled a majority to fall in line with narrow, divisive politics in addition to a few through crumbs being thrown their way, the politicians helped themselves to disgraceful amounts of money through graft, bribery and corruption. Of course they justified the corruption as a necessary evil to raise party funds for their re election which will ensure that the peasants get a few more crumbs thrown their way.
The icing on the cake is that the peasants yet have faith and belief in them. And so as time went by it became worse and the loot got inflated. Another dangerous game was invented. Divide the people between the majority and the rest. Add religion to the race if you must, to bolster the equation. That is what we face, in Sri Lanka today.

With each President the levels of accountability, good governance slipped downward.

Corruption and the amounts involved climbed upwards. Greed has reached “No Limit”, a la the clothes outlet. Add to that murder, abduction and the infamous white vans, not to speak of murdering a journalist or few along the way are necessary evils to “Save the nation” from being divided. Can a country survive in this fashion? Yes. Subject to the vilest amassing filthy money and retiring in comfort, within the country or without, leaving the peasantry to eke out an existence. Generation after generation. The rest of the world will give us loans.

Prageeth

The Burghers were chased out in the late 50’s and 60’s. They went to UK and Australia. The third generation of Burghers are Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Public servants,living comfortable lives. They pay their taxes and their adopted countries give them living wages and more, to enjoy a very comfortable retirement with five star medical benefits.

The Tamils were accepted into more countries in the West after 1983. Their next generation are in Universities if not already serving as Doctors, Lawyers and Accountants. They too will get a more than a living wage, own houses, pay taxes, bring to them their extended families, who will also become Doctors, Accountants, Lawyers. All of them too will pay their due taxes and will benefit by getting a comfortable retirement with five star medical treatment.

Read More

Reconciliation, reparations and ‘domestic compulsions’

By N SathiyaMoorthy-March 29, 2018, 10:19 pm

Independent of what UNHRC in Geneva may have to say on the war-crimes probe, reconciliation and reparations (not to miss out on the ‘Office of the Missing Persons’) back home, it may be time that the incumbent Government thought and spoke about certain ground realities – and sought to convince the international community on ‘domestic compulsions’. It is more so, whatever the fate of the current no-trust motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, or the future of the government-composition, whichever party or leader wins the twin-polls to the Presidency and Parliament, due by 2020.

The need for such ‘open-speak’ as against all forms of ‘double-speak’ that this Government and the predecessor Rajapaksa regime had purportedly indulged in post-war is not far to seek. If the international community accused the Rajapaksa regime of ‘shifting the goal-post’ every now and again, the successor Maithri-Ranil duo leadership has only been offering symbolism, if not tokenism of legislative and procedural mechanisms, which by itself may take time to put in place and make them work. When such mechanisms, starting with the OMP now and the reparations process, is on stream, there is going to be fresh elections, and a possible changes in the Government leadership(s), though it may be too early to predict.

There is no denying that ‘governments’ do not change in the eye of the international law and commitments, with every change of leadership at the helm. This means future governments would inherit the commitments of the present one. The incumbent government inherited the burden from the past, in the name and form of UNHRC Resolution of 2012 on war crimes probe and the rest. It celebrated it as a great victory when it ended up co-sponsoring Resolution 30/1 of October 2015, when Sri Lanka became a co-sponsor of a process which would culminate in ‘punishing’ its soldier-citizenry especially for ‘war crimes’ for which the nation had honoured him only months/years earlier.

In private, at least some of the responsible leaders in the present dispensation would admit that they should have worked with the Rajapaksa regime on the international commitments on war-crimes probe and the rest. Whether or not the Government leadership at the time sought took them into confidence, sought their cooperation or shared ‘international advice’ with them, they were indifferent to the entire scheme, as it was embarrassing their political adversaries of the day, and was also weakening the latter’s international standing, if any.

No free lunches

Looked at even more comprehensively, the processes that the present Government, especially of the UNP ignored at the time, also meant that Sri Lanka was pitted against the West, calling itself the ‘international community’ when the discourse is on human rights and the like. It also flowed from such a construct that Sri Lanka very badly needed ‘international partners’ who would defend them without asking questions or drawing down conditions – at least on paper and beforehand.

If China had thus fitted the bill, some sections of the present Government, including those in the then UNP Opposition, too, would not have been unhappy for it. It was known by the time the 2012 resolution went to vote in UNHRC, China had worked on some of its ‘allies’ to vote for Sri Lanka, which itself was not a voting-member at the time. Earlier, China and Russia, two veto-members in the UN Security Council, had ensured that allegations of war crimes did not become an ‘agenda item’ in the UNSC. It thus became a compulsion for the West to take Sri Lanka to Geneva, possibly an alternative UN mechanism, outside of the UNSC and veto-powers.

There are no free lunches in international diplomacy and politics. It was not as if the Rajapaksa regime or establishment Sri Lanka did not know this reality. In their perception, the democratic West did not leave them with other options, with the result Sri Lanka was pushed into the hands of China, which already had Hambantota on its lap as an ‘investment proposition’. If later on the Government cleared Chinese submarines to berth at Colombo Port for whatever reason or justification, it did queer the pitch with the larger Indian neighbour, whose security concerns in the matter was real and palpable.

Needless to point out, later on when the present-day Government accepted the ‘Hambantota equity deal’ with China, the seeds for the same had been sown when they were smiling to themselves the Rajapaksa regime’s discomfort on the UNHRC front. The West and other traditional allies of the nation, otherwise pitted against China on the geo-strategic front, could only look the other way, likewise, when the Maithri-Ranil duo went about explaining the swap deal as an economic reality, inflicted by the Rajapaksa regime in its time.

‘Boy Scout’ honour

The question is this: Granted that the present Government leadership, or the core, in the form of the UNP and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe continued in office post-poll, do they seen any possibility of being able to carry forward the UNHRC commitments that they undertake half-heartedly, and seek to enforce, with even less enthusiasm. If nothing else, they are now steeped so deep in domestic politics, and the realities and compulsions of domestic politics, in turn, will also be more on their minds in the coming months than the ‘Boy Scout’ honour that they might otherwise have – if at all.

Should there be a change of Government, needless to say, that it could well centre on the Rajapaksa leadership and family – at least, as it looks now. If in Elections-2015, war-crimes probe and ‘international embarrassment’ did influence at least a section of the ‘majority Sinhala-Buddhist’ voters, any victory for an alternative political leadership to that in Government would mostly be based now, on issues of domestic governance, and nothing else.

In such a backdrop, the ethnic issue, racial violence (including the recent Kandy episodes) all would play a lesser part, unless there is some visible pre-poll moderation in the way the Sinhala majority looks at the poll than the way they have since voted in the LG polls of 10 February. It also remains to be seen if anyone in the current Government dispensation has any mechanism or method to woo back all those Tamil and Muslim voters, who had helped them vote out Rajapaksa in 2015, even if the stand-alone SLT vote for Fonseka did not vote in Elections-2010.

More to the point, the farther the voters move away from war and its consequences, and questions begin to be asked and thrashed out in individual drawing rooms, the halo of war victory may become less and less relevant for the Sinhala voter (or any other) to make his automatic choice. In such a scenario, they will also question themselves about the rationale behind the Tamils voting Fonseka against Rajapaksa, both they should have otherwise charged with ‘war crimes’, and how even under the present duo, the TNA has had no reservations to the Field Marshal becoming a minister.

Even such a construct is based on the premise that the Tamils and the TNA got to know details of war crimes only from the Darusman report and the like, even though they could readily conclude that the Rajapaksas were to blame for all those avoidable killings, if any, in Mullivaikkal.

This apart, any Government in the place of the incumbent, post-LG polls, would be tempted to revive the forgotten Constitution-making process, if at least to impress the ‘minorities’ and also the ‘international community’. That way, they could try and re-focus their political efforts from their government-failures of the past four years. If so, it could become an election issue, again, where the Sinhala majority could well get divided and polarised all over again.

With the TNA leadership seemingly fighting a battle for survival within the Tamil clan with its back to the wall, that will be saying a lot – but which way is the dice loaded, for the TNA leadership and for the present Government leadership, is what could well decide the fate of reconciliation process. It is already packaged ungainly in the form of a new Constitution, leaving aside the OMP and reparation processes, with the latter hopefully putting some money into the hands of many, not only Tamils and possibly Muslim victims of the LTTE, but also the Sinhalas in the South, victims from and of the JVP, from the seventies on.

(The writer is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation, the multi-disciplinary Indian public-policy think-tank, headquartered in New Delhi. email: sathiyam54@gmail.com)

Picking out the racist beam in our own eyes

 
Sunday, March 25, 2018

There is a cheery though dangerously complacent view articulated by senior Muslim politicians, (andechoed by others),that the recent communal violence in Ampara and Kandy was perpetrated through organised attacks by ‘outsiders’ on Muslim residents of those areas.

Only part of the truth


As is often the case, this explanation is only part of the truth. Certainly thugs masquerading as monks and racist organisations wrapping the banner of ‘Sinhala Buddhist militants’ around them, (surely an oxymoron if there ever was one) engaged in illegal hate speech and were responsible for bringing organized mobs to attack innocent people. The Government has assured that the ringleaders have been arrested but more needs to be seen than mere arrests.

The legal system must be allowed to work unhindered and at its fullest strength. Convictions must ensue for hate speech and for incitement to violence as well as the committal of violence on persons and property under existing laws that are more than sufficient for the purpose. As importantly, members of the police and the Special Task Force (STF) complicit in the violence either though acts of omission or commission need to be severely dealt with in terms of the criminal law. That needs to be yet seen.

But to return to the nature of debates around these unfortunate occurrences,it is wretchedly shortsighted to frame the matter as if ‘mobs from the outside’or a ‘law and order breakdown’ were the only factors in the equation.More is at issue than this simplistic summing up.Let us be clear on that fact at least.

A mistake to only blame ‘outsiders’

That said, Election Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya’s somewhat flamboyant assessment made at a recent workshop promoting ethnic harmony, if reported correctly that, ‘most Sinhalese (were) happy about recent attacks’ (Daily Mirror, 20, 03, 2018), inclines to the other extreme. Liberties may have been taken with the translation and with the heading of that news story on what he may have held forth in his customary blunt style.

But what he has said needs to be contextualized quite properly as a caution not to be too misty eyed in blaming ‘outsiders’ for the recent violence. In that regard, it is difficult to disagree with Mr Deshapriya when he categorically dismisses as ‘wrong’, claims that ‘a majority of the Sinhalese’ were against the recent attacks on Muslims.His observation that ‘a majority of Sinhalese had been happy to see the Tamils too being attacked in 1983, only to regret it a few years later’was made in similar vein.

These sweeping generalizations of the Elections Commissioner in speaking ‘for the majority’ may be objected to by some and quite rightly so. Regardless, a kernel of uncomfortable truth lies in these statements. The warningscame in the background of his reminders to the Sinhalese discounting the myth of a ‘pure race’ and reminders to the Muslims that adhering to fundamentalist aspects of Arab culture in Sri Lanka can only lead to disaster for their communities.

Why are monks allowed to spew hatred?

These are forthright exhortations which we would do well to take to heart. Only the exceedingly naïve would fail to recognize that, during the past decade,the peddling of communal hate by racist mobs like the Mahasohon Balakaya and Bodu Bala Sena has been underpinned by muttered discontent in Sinhala communities towards the economic prosperity of ‘closed’ Muslim neighbourhoods. Even so, I have been taken aback by the repetition of canards such as ‘infertility pills’ and ‘gel oozing undergarments making Sinhalese women barren’ by educated Sinhalese, including by those in the legal fraternity.

And it remains shocking that despite Buddhist monks spewing race hatred as captured on television cameras and recordings, there is little action taken by the senior clergy other than the belated issuing of statements. Returning from Myanmar last month, it is hardly reassuring to contemplate the many points of similarity regarding the quick rise of religious tensions in both countries.

At least in Myanmar,AshinWirathu the monk known as the face of ‘Buddhist terror’ for his fiery anti-Muslim tirades was banned from giving sermons for one year in March 2017 following a special meeting of the State Sangha Maha Nayaka comprising Myanmar’s most senior monks. The reason given for the ban was that he had‘repeatedly delivered hate speech against religions to cause communal strife and hinder efforts to uphold the rule of law.’If that logic was applied here, how many monks would be liable to a similar ban being slapped on them? Myanmar’s influential clergy has been far more outspoken in their criticism of Wirathu than what we see in Sri Lanka in respect of uncouth fellow companions of the Wirathu-kind.

Increased insularity of some Muslim communities

On the other side of the divide, the increased insularity of some Muslim communities coupled with undeniable signs of fundamentalism in parts of the East must also be recognized. Whether this arose as a reaction to the toxic brew of ultra-Sinhala majoritarianism coupled with post-war triumphalism that flourished during the Rajapaksa Presidency or otherwise is beside the point. The fact is that this is the reality and must be confronted as such.

Lest we forget, the beam in the eye which prevents clear vision can be equally on the part of a majority which continually feels itself as beleaguered or on the part of a minority which sees only itself as the victim. In truth, this is the self-infliction on the part of both that needs to be corrected.
Meanwhile, an ordinary individual may magnificently rise above suspicion and distrust between communities on calamitous occasions. This is inspiring by itself. In Kandy,the efforts of ordinary Sinhalese villagers and monks in preventing the escalation of violence to the extent of physically safeguarding Muslim residents sheltering in places of safety is inspiring. But it must not be forgotten that even during the horrific July 83 riots where innocent Tamils were killed and burnt in great numbers, ordinary Sinhalese sheltered Tamil people in their homes.

The poisonous thread in our society

In other words, the courage displayed by enlightened Sinhalese when acts of barbarity take place should not blind our eyes to communal tensions that run like a poisonous thread through the fabric of our society. ‘Organised mobs’ may wreak mayhem on these occasions but there is an enabling of such actions within the societal context, brought about through ignorance, prejudice and stupidity, which is now becoming apparent.

Recognising this is essential for effective strategizing and devising of future deterrents to prevent the next conflagration across communities in Sri Lanka. Resting secure in cozily comforting perceptions would be unhelpful, to say the least.

This is a brutally honest truth that must be acknowledged.

Three who dare not face Presidential Election For these two the boxing ring would be large enough to spend time shadow boxing for at least another whole year.

Mainstream politics in Sri Lanka is so bankrupt, none of the two main political leaders can ever face the next 2020 Presidential Election with grit and confidence. 

The third, Mahinda Rajapaksa is ruled out on 19A, as he had already completed two terms. 

2018-03-30

President Sirisena, who was elected with a promise to scrap the Executive Presidency, has since been saying he would consider a second term, but could never contest and win unless Rajapaksa backs him. 

But that thought is as cheating as a shooting star, and would never happen. Recent LG Elections would have taught him a bitter lesson in going out on his own without Rajapaksa. 

His ‘Unity’ Government partner, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe contested once in 2005 November, when he lost to Rajapaksa and thereafter had avoided contesting the Presidential Elections twice, going behind ‘Common Candidates.’ 

All because, the UNP fears to contest at a Presidential Election, with him as UNP candidate. 

We thus have three leaders, one denied the chance to contest and the second who would not have election platforms to begin their campaign with convincing popular support

We thus have three leaders, one denied the chance to contest and the second who would not have election platforms to begin their campaign with convincing popular support.

If offered an opportunity to contest a Presidential Election without tenure counts, it is Mahinda Rajapaksa who would jump on it, before anyone else. 

But that needs an amendment to the Constitution. Both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe would never allow such an amendment to the Constitution. Nor would concerned people of this country consent to such amendment. 

That compelled few urban middle-class Sinhala Buddhists and a few ex-military officers to believe Gotabaya Rajapaksa could be an ‘alternative’ to Mahinda Rajapaksa. 

Most unfortunately for Gotabaya, he is not even endorsed by his own Rajapaksa family to declare himself a presidential candidate at the 
2020 election. 

Despite allegations of heavy corruption and court cases against Basil Rajapaksa, he remains the most politically savvy organiser among Rajapaksa siblings. 

Most unfortunately for Gotabaya, he is not even endorsed by his own Rajapaksa family to declare himself a presidential candidate at the 2020 election

He also carries with him the ‘anti-UNP’ stamp, having been arrested and remanded by this UNP led ‘Unity’ Government. A situation Gotabaya is mortally afraid of facing and has been evading arrests through judicial rulings obtained. 

During the past year, two attempts by Gotabaya to prop himself up in politics, first with Viyathmaga (Intellectual Path) and thereafter with Eliya (Light) fizzled off without any public interest. 

A clear message, Gotabaya is not accepted by the Sinhala Buddhist majority. 

He is not recognised as one who could give leadership to the Sinhala Buddhists sentiments that Mahinda Rajapaksa has rallied around himself. 
Gotabaya also carries with him a baggage that makes him look a dreadful despot in power.

In short, Gotabaya is not accepted within the Sinhala Buddhist majority, even to the extent, Basil is still tolerated. That is also why Mahinda Rajapaksa continues to have confidence in Basil as the necessary organisational prop for his popular Sinhala image.

Thus, it was Basil who was chosen by Mahinda to organise the new party, the SLPP and not Gotabaya. The SLPP swept the LG Elections without Gotabaya in sight, but with Basil managing the election campaign for Mahinda. 

It proves that Mahinda Rajapaksa still remains the irreplaceable popular Sinhala Buddhist leader for more years to come.

For Mahinda Rajapaksa to reach the pinnacle of political power once again, he needs a Parliamentary Election and that should come before the 2020 Presidential Election too. 

One option would be to have a resolution passed in Parliament with a two-thirds majority. For now, to have that resolution passed with a two-thirds majority seems a dream that cannot be given feet. 

The Joint Opposition is in a tiring struggle to find adequate numbers to have their No-Confidence Motion passed in Parliament on April 4. 
A man who always loves to walk on secured paths and would work on them patiently, Mahinda does not seem to be wasting time with that option of a resolution in Parliament for elections. 

My guess therefore is, Mahinda is stealthily working on a different option, he perhaps thinks is more pragmatic and solid. 

This leads the country into a political knot that Wickremesinghe tied with 19A. 

Mahinda Rajapaksa no doubt is eyeing that knot, Wickremesinghe would now want to untie, to his advantage. With mutual agreement or not, they both seem to be on the same page, in having  Parliamentary Elections, before a Presidential Election. 

The Constitutional knot Wickremesinghe tied with 19A to keep this ‘Unity’ Government going for four-plus years with him as PM, now seems an uneasy knot for him too to live with. 

As it is, four-and-a-half years from August 2015 would count beyond March 2020 for Parliamentary Elections. On the same 19A, the Presidential Election would come in January 2020. 

If Wickremesinghe cannot be assured victory at that Presidential Election, he will dare not contest the 2020 Presidential Election, to be defeated once again. 

Such assurance is hard to come for Wickremesinghe, even from his own party. 

In a situation where there is no guarantee on a Presidential Electoral victory for him, he will not have any other contesting the Presidency from the UNP. 

Worst is, there is also none in the UNP for now, who could stand up to a Presidential Election, except Mangala Samaraweera. 

But Mangala is still not accepted as a finely groomed UNPer to be allowed that privilege by the UNP hierarchy. 

The dilemma for the UNP that avoided the two previous Presidential Elections is, they cannot once again go behind a ‘Common Candidate.’
Where would this leave the UNP and Wickremesinghe and how does Rajapaksa come on their page? Their page is not very complicated to read. If the UNP and Wickremesinghe cannot be certain they could win a Presidential Election with Wickremesinghe as the candidate, then Wickremesinghe would opt to have Parliamentary Elections, with a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Executive Presidency and would allow for Parliamentary Elections. 

Thus, it was Basil who was chosen by Mahinda to organise the new party, the SLPP and not Gotabaya. The SLPP swept the LG Elections without Gotabaya in sight, but with Basil managing the election campaign for Mahinda

Presidential Election can then be scrapped to elect a non-executive President as in India through Parliament. 

In fact, for the UNP that would be a more pragmatic move to claim power at an election as a single political party. 

Then comes Rajapaksa, who is denied a third term and would, therefore, want a Parliamentary Election with the same Constitutional amendment. 
More so, because he now has proved he can lead the race, even without the support of the Sirisena faction of the SLFP. 

That is how all other things seem to be now falling into place. Rajapaksa is perhaps working on a dual strategy. The No –Confidence Motion against the PM is what the Joint Opposition (JO) is working on to forge unity with the Sirisena group of the SLFP that wants to be seen as ‘anti-UNP.’ 

That would compel Sirisena to allow his men to vote in favour of the No-Confidence Motion, without any disciplinary threats. 

He is also seen further consolidating his power over economic policy of the Government, right or wrong. 

On the other side of the No-Confidence Motion, Rajapaksa avoided giving it his own popular identity. 

His strategy was to project an ‘I’m not there. I’m there’ image by presenting it to the Speaker, without his signature. 

Thus he has already made certain, the No-Confidence Motion would allow the JO and other UPFA MPs in the Government to go ‘anti-UNP’, but does not seem to want UNP dissidents to join the No-Confidence Motion to oust PM Wickremesinghe for he needs Wickremesinghe as PM to push through a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Executive Presidency with a two-thirds majority and then the UNP to win the people’s Referendum that would follow. 

Mahinda Rajapaksa still remains the irreplaceable popular Sinhala Buddhist leader for years to come

PM Wickremesinghe too needs Rajapaksa for the same reasons. 

Perhaps Wickremesinghe believes he could win a Parliamentary Election with minority support, while Rajapaksa believes he could win the Parliamentary Electionon his Sinhala Buddhist platform, even if President Sirisena would opt to keep away from an alliance with his SLPP. 
He has already morphed his SLPP into a novel SLFP at grassroots. LG bodies have shown, there is an organic anti-UNP front taking shape, with Sirisena’s SLFP joining the SLPP to keep the UNP out of office even in places where they led the vote.

For President Sirisena, his new arrogant ‘anti-UNP’ stance within this Unity Government, will not open any better window to see a better future than what Wickremesinghe -Rajapaksa agenda would offer a compromise to abolish the Executive Presidency to be President and a nominal head of State, elected by a Parliament, dominated either by Wickremesinghe or by Rajapaksa. 

For these two the boxing ring would be large enough to spend time shadow boxing for at least another whole year.

Most Sinhalese Happy About Recent Riots! 

By Mohamed R. M. Farook –MARCH 29, 2018

Mohamed R. M. Farook

The claim by Elections Commission (EC) Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya that ‘Most Sinhalese Happy About Recent Riots’ that appeared in Daily Mirror of 20th March 2018 is a serious matter for concern and disappointment not only for the Muslims (affected and others) but also for the large majority of peace loving Sinhala Buddhists and others too. It is regrettable that he made that claim whatever occasion or for whatever reasons that could have prompted him to do so.

If he had said that he is ‘happy’ without dragging the Sinhalese then it becomes a single person’s viewpoint and we could forget about it once and for all. But to drag ‘most’ Sinhalese tag is the dangerous element in his claim. Is that claim EC Chairman’s wishful thinking? Did he do a survey (research) and if so what was his sample and sampling method? Of course if he has gathered his data (which he could portray as information) from persons directly, remotely and also stage-back involvement in the recent riots, then he must be ashamed of dragging the educated, religious (Buddhism), peace-loving majority Buddhist Sinhalese who practise tolerance as per the Buddhist way of life in a pluralistic society and uphold the major elements of the Five Precepts viz: abstain from taking life, abstain from taking what is not given (what is not yours), abstain from sensuous misconduct, abstain from false speech (hate speech), to abstain from intoxicants as tending to cloud the mind. Does Deshapriya contend that most Sinhalese are happy over violence inflicted on Muslims, their possessions robbed, property destroyed and Mosques damaged? What is your logic/philosophy? Aren’t you a Buddhist?

Next the EC Chairman states that Muslims here are embracing Arab culture and that is fanning distrust – we presume he is referring to the dresses worn by Muslim women in particular and also Muslim men. Nothing of that sort. Arab culture and our culture are completely different. But the religion of Islam is one for all. In this present Global Village concept and Digital / Internet age, each person in any community could see the ‘fashions’ or ‘trends’ prevailing in their other brotherly / sisterly communities and could (or would) ‘copy’ such trends and of course these trends will change with time. For example, Muslims (Moors) men wore Fez headgear a generation ago, today it is scalp caps or no covering of the head. Please correct yourself from believing that Muslim girls are insulated from others – they are fully with the girls with other communities and speak good Sinhala. The girls (and also boys too) attend Muslim International schools because some government schools (not all), both Buddhist and Christian, give step motherly treatment to Muslims in their admission procedures.

Read More

UNP WORKING COMMITTEE THROWS WEIGHT BEHIND PM

Disna Mudalige-Friday, March 30, 2018

UNP Parliamentarians were upbeat about defeating the No-Confidence Motion (NCM) against the Prime Minister following a two hour Working Committee meeting yesterday.

The Working Committee meeting was chaired by Prime Minister and UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe at the Sirikotha UNP Head Office to discuss the NCM and the way forward for the party.

“The UNP will defeat the NCM and immediately undertake major party reforms of leadership structure,” National Policies and Economic Affairs State Minister Dr. Harsha de Silva said.

Party sources said the Working Committee has decided to consecutively sit from April 5-7 to finalise party reforms and implement them within two months.

“It was unanimously agreed to vote en bloc to defeat the NCM against the Prime Minister and the Government brought by the Joint Opposition. It is expected that all UNP MPs, except perhaps one or two who are not with the party, will vote against the NCM,” Dr. de Silva said in a note on his official Facebook account.

A resolution to back the PM during the NCM on April 4 was passed unanimously at the meeting.

Party sources confirmed that State Minister Palitha Range Bandara, who initially suggested the idea of bringing a No-Confidence Motion against PM Wickremesinghe, has also agreed to vote against the motion.

“If any MP goes against the unanimous decision of the Party, he will face stern action,” UNP sources explained.

Dr. de Silva further said in his note that PM Wickremesinghe at the meeting undertook to implement the recommendations given in the reports of the three committees appointed in the aftermath of the Local Government Elections. The three committees were chaired by Minister Sajith Premadasa, State Minister Ruwan Wijewardene and MP J.C. Aluwathuwala.

The first committee has come up with 38 recommendations on matters related to policies and the second committee has come up with 27 recommendations on party reforms. The Third committee has looked into the issues faced by backbenchers and party organisers.

“The recommendations will be implemented with amendments if necessary to ensure UNP is reinvigorated to become a strong party that can win elections” he added.

State Minister Sujeewa Senasinghe had proposed at the meeting that the UNP should not support a common candidate at the next Presidential election.

The working committee had also discussed about the recommendations of the Committee headed by Tilak Marapana, which was appointed to examine the report submitted by the Commission of Inquiry into the Treasury Bonds issue. UNP sources close to MP Ravi Karunanayake said the working committee was of the view that there was no basis for the recommendation of Marapana Committee that MP Karunanayake has to be removed from the post of Assistant Leader of UNP.

“It was pointed out at the meeting that the Attorney General has not yet taken any legal action against the MP. MP Karunanayake has also informed the committee that he would not quit his position,” sources added.

At the meeting UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe had asked his Deputy Leader Sajith Premadasa to think beyond provincial level politics and take up national level issues.

“Be ready to go around the country and solve people’s problems without being restricted to Hambantota” he had told Premadasa.

“Many members discussed the pros and cons with several voicing their opinions on the need to ensure the party reforms are done as soon as possible and they must be significant; unlike the Cabinet reshuffle. It was argued that we must listen carefully to what our party cadres across the country as well as what the general public sympathetic to the UNP are saying out loud. It was also agreed to take on board the proposals made by our allies making up the UNF upon discussions with them,” Dr.de Silva commented.

“All agreed to start discussions on party and policy reforms on April 5 soon after we defeat the NCM on April 4 and conclude the discussions hopefully by the close of business on April 8. The term of office of all office bearers were only extended until April 30. A hard deadline has been set,” he summed up.

Sri Lanka unrest: Police, politicians backed by Mahinda Rajapaksa aided anti-Muslim riots, reveal witnesses, CCTV footage

 File image of Mahinda Rajapaksa. AFP

Mar 25, 2018 

Kandy, Sri Lanka: Police and politicians backed by the country’s former strongman president Mahinda Rajapaksa joined anti-Muslim riots that rocked Sri Lanka’s Kandy district this month, according to witnesses, officials and CCTV footage reviewed by Reuters.

Sri Lanka unrest Police, politicians backed by Mahinda Rajapaksa aided anti-Muslim riots, reveal witnesses... by Thavam on Scribd

Road to further disgrace Expect further shameless coalitions calling each other thieves and traitors

It is the numbers game that is going to decide the veracity and the validity of the motion

The infighting of the UNP is the direct result of the election defeat

From a moral perspective, the UNP, SLFP and SLPP are in a difficult situation.

When the allegations that a fraud running into billions of rupees in the process of a Central Bank bond sale in February 2015 was first levelled by Opposition Parliamentarians, the United National Party (UNP) would not have thought that the issue would have the potential of deciding its fate.  

2018-03-30

Therefore, they denied the allegation and defended those who were accused of the fraud, even writing books on the matter.  

However, the bond scam turned out to be the main cause for the humiliating defeat of the UNP at the recent Local Government Elections, the first test of its popularity, three years after it came to office in 2015.  

The party lost about a staggering 1.5 million votes, though they seem to have been drifted towards its partner in Governance, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) led by President Maithripala Sirisena and not towards the Opposition.  

The election defeat of the UNP, the main party in the ruling coalition seems to effect a chain reaction at the forthcoming Provincial Council Elections and the two national elections-the Presidential and Parliamentary elections -scheduled to be held in 2020.  

The fighting within the UNP and between the two coalition partners of the Government is likely to prevent the possibility, if any, of reversing the trend.

The infighting of the UNP is the direct result of the election defeat of the party, which has also aggravated the already simmering bickering between the two parties in the ruling coalition.

The 19th Amendment has redefined the powers and functions of the President and the Prime Minister but is silent on the removal of the Prime Minister by the President…

The situation came to a head when President Sirisena reportedly called for the resignation of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is also the leader of the UNP, in the wake of the Local Government Elections last month.  

He even said to have sought the opinion of the Attorney General on the possibility of dismissing the Prime Minister.  

The Joint Opposition, while demanding the removal of the Prime Minister, argued that the President had the power to do so.

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution brought in by the present Government in April 2015 has redefined the powers and functions of the President and the Prime Minister but is silent on the removal of the Prime Minister by the President, in spite of it referring to “Removal from office or resignation of the Prime Minister” and “Prime Minister ceasing to hold office by death, resignation or otherwise.”

The President has been at odds with the UNP since last year on the grounds that the latter has been seen as delaying or stalling the high profile corruption cases against the leaders of the Rajapaksa regime and later over the Central Bank bond scam on which he appointed a Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI).  

The fighting within the UNP and between the two coalition partners of the Government is likely to prevent the possibility, if any, of reversing the trend

Apart from the Joint Opposition attacking the UNP over the bond scam, the President himself launched a scathing attack on his coalition partner during the local council elections. This, some say, along with the retaliation by the UNP was another factor that contributed to the poor show by the two main parties in the government in the local elections.

After weighing up several options of alternative alignments of political parties, in order to get rid of the Prime Minister in the aftermath of the Local Government Elections, President Sirisena and the SLFP succumbed to the situation and agreed to put up with the so-called National Unity Government with the UNP, led by the same Prime Minister.  

It is against this backdrop that the Joint Opposition had handed over the No-Confidence Motion against  wthe Prime Minister to Speaker Karu Jayasuriya last week.  

UNP, in a moral point of view, would find it difficult to face the motion as the acts and omissions by the party and the Prime Minister, in respect of the bond fraud, are the main allegations contained in it.  

Startling revelations have already been made during the proceedings of the Presidential Commission on the bond scam and two powerful figures in the bond market Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena have been arrested, while the former Governor of the Central Bank and the father-in-law of Aloysius, Arjuna Mahendran seems to be evading possible arrest.  

The debate over the No-Confidence Motion is most likely to be a continuation of the last month’s Parliamentary debate over the reports of the Bond Commission

It is a tight spot for the UNP. However, they would attempt to shield them with the allegations of large-scale corruption against the former Government during the debate on the No-Confidence Motion.  

From a moral perspective, not only the UNP but also the SLFP and the SLPP, the party that has presented the motion are in a difficult situation.
President Sirisena and the other leaders of the SLFP, who wanted to remove Ranil Wickremesinghe from the post of Prime Minister a month ago on the same allegations, cannot now defend the same person. 

On the other hand, they also have to justify their decision to continue with the so-called Unity Government, after their failed attempt to
oust Wickremesinghe.  

They cannot absolve their responsibility in the bond issue as the Constitution requires them to hold the collective responsibility as a Cabinet.
Also, it was the President, in spite of him acting in consultation with the Prime Minister, who brought the Central Bank under the purview of the latter, an allegation contained in the No-Confidence Motion.  

It was President, who technically appointed Mahendran, again in consultation with the Premier, as the Governor of the Central Bank, another allegation in the motion.  

The continuation of the SLFP Ministers to be the members of the Cabinet would be further difficult if the No-Confidence Motion is defeated.
Nevertheless, they might use that situation to curry favour with their former boss, Mahinda Rajapaksa, in the light of unfolding trend in the aftermath of the Local Government Elections.  

Therefore they would continue with their silent approval of the corruption committed during the last Government in spite of the UNP and the JVP dragging those incidents into the debate on the No-Confidence Motion.  

Despite the leaders of the SLPP hoping to hold the moral high ground through the No-Confidence Motion, their credence is also at stake.
They have failed to prove, beyond doubt their credibility in respect of high profile corruption cases involving Avant Garde company, Hedging transaction, Greek Bond transaction to name a few.  

Besides, already, there are court cases against Namal Rajapaksa, Yoshitha Rajapaksa, Mahindananda Aluthgamage, Wimal Weerawansa, among others over their assets.  

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) had first said that it would support the motion only if the allegations against the leaders of the previous regime are also included in the motion.  

But now they have decided to support the motion, while stating that they would bring in an amendment, apparently to include the allegations against the former regime, during the debate on the motion.  Therefore the debate over the No-Confidence Motion is most likely to be a continuation of the last month’s Parliamentary debate over the reports of the Bond Commission and the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into serious acts of Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power (PRECIFAC) which investigated into the corruption charges against the leaders of the
Rajapaksa administration.

Nevertheless, it is the numbers game that is going to decide the veracity and the validity of the motion and not the merit of the allegations contained in it.

Thus, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) turning to be the decisive factor seems to be inevitable, unless a considerable number of UNP members vote for it, as State Minister Range Bandara predicts. There is a possibility of the same numbers deciding the Government after the motion is disposed of as well.  

The SLPP coming to power soon after the motion is disposed of is a remote possibility unless Range Bandara’s prediction comes true.  

Since Parliament cannot be dissolved prematurely “until the expiration of a period of not less than four years and six months” from the date of the first meeting of it, one would witness, after disposal of the No-Confidence Motion further shameless coalitions with parties running the Government calling each other thieves and traitors.