Gotabaya Rajapaksa interview: 'This government is very complacent; I will run for president'

Interview/ Gotabaya Rajapaksa, former defence secretary, Sri Lanka


 By Lakshmi Subramanian May 04, 2019 12:41 

AS DEFENCE SECRETARY in his elder brother Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government, Gotabaya Rajapaksa played a ruthless role in wiping out the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which had waged a civil war for three decades in Sri Lanka. A few days after the terror attacks on Easter Sunday, THE WEEK met Gotabaya in his small bungalow in Nugegoda near Colombo. Putting aside the book The Future is Asian by Parag Khanna which he was reading, he spoke on the return of terrorism and on his determination to become the country’s president. Excerpts:

What do you have to say about the Easter attacks?

It is very sad and shocking. Especially so for me, as I was one of the leading personalities responsible for ending the war. I never thought Sri Lanka would witness [such] a violent incident after 2009.

Mahinda Rajapaksa said this would not have happened if he were in power.

For the Rajapaksa government, the top priority was national security. Every time there was a threat, we took action to identify the threat to prevent this type of [attacks]. After ending the war in 2009, we had to act differently to identify the threat. We did that. We found there were [remnants] of the LTTE, which could regroup, reorganise and restart their campaign. Then we saw the radical Islam group as a potential threat. We worked towards preventing it. And then the next threat was drugs.

What would you have done if you were the current defence secretary?

We gave freedom to the intelligence agencies for monitoring and surveillance. I sent senior officers to the US for training [to fight radicalisation]. They were well trained to collect intelligence, and to monitor groups and cyberspace. To monitor cyberspace, we set up a centre with all the infrastructure. We recruited people in intelligence and at the cyber centre to monitor Islamic radicals; they were also trained in Arabic. We did not allow radical preachers from other countries to come in. A hundred preachers were deported. I was criticised, but till the end of 2014 there was no spot of violent preaching.

I was always security conscious. We were prepared. And because I had the intelligence knowledge, we neutralised the LTTE. Similarly, we would have monitored this (radicalisation), too, and would have controlled it with the mechanism we had. If they (the current government) had monitored it, they could have arrested them and broken the network.

Do you think it was an intelligence failure? Or was the intelligence ignored?

It is clear that the authorities and the government did not take the information seriously. The intelligence information was always there. Because the intelligence network was broken, the authorities were not aware of it. You know, they are very complacent. The government is not considering the security of the country as a priority. So how can others? This is the problem.


Family first: Gotabaya with Mahinda Rajapaksa | AP

It is said that India shared intelligence about possible attacks with Sri Lankan authorities.
I think they gave the information on April 10; they had [done so] previously, and also two hours [before the attacks]. It is unfortunate that we could not act upon it.

Has India always helped Sri Lanka in terms of intelligence?

Yes. Especially after the Mumbai attacks (in 2008), I got information from the Indian intelligence agencies, on numerous occasions, that certain people from various countries come here and meet people from India. I stopped them from coming into the country. I arrested them. India’s intelligence has been helping Sri Lanka and vice versa.

When you were defence secretary, how was your rapport with India?

I had a very good rapport with India (smiles). I don’t know if you have read the book Choices. (He picks up the book by former foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon from his huge bookshelf and opens a chapter marked in green ink.) It has a chapter on Sri Lanka. It describes me, a chapter on Gota. It explains our relationship. We met outside the normal channels, out of the foreign ministry, and created a different channel to have this relationship. Three people from here and three people from there, including myself and [presidential adviser] Basil Rajapaksa, Shivshankar Menon, [national security adviser] M.K. Narayanan and [foreign secretary] Vijay Singh. We met very regularly. We exchanged ideas at different times, very sensitive times, and we solved those issues. We had a very close relationship.

How useful was this relationship for Sri Lanka?

It was very useful. I believed working with India closely was very important to Sri Lanka.

But now it seems like Colombo has taken China’s side and has started ignoring India. This tilt started during your rule.

We were blamed for [this] during the later stage [of our rule]. But I think it was misunderstood. The geopolitical analysts analysed it in the wrong way, because they did not have the correct information. Of course the China-Sri Lanka relationship was a diplomatic relationship. It was very old. But during our period, after the war, there was a lot of Chinese investment in Sri Lanka. That was purely a commercial arrangement, because after the war we needed quick development in the country. We got assistance from China mainly on infrastructure development. We never forgot about the national security issues and our relationship with India; we categorically said that we will not allow any country to have military presence in Sri Lanka and that we will not do anything that will [cause] any security concerns for India.

Have you ever felt that India acted like a big brother in its diplomatic relationship with Sri Lanka?

No. I did not feel that because of the way Narayanan and Menon acted. They had a very friendly attitude. I thought we always had the opportunity because ours is a small country and if we worked properly, India has a very big market for our products, and we can get assistance in many areas. I think we can benefit because of India.

You said geopolitical analysts have got it wrong when it comes to Sri Lanka. Does geopolitics play a major role in politics in Sri Lanka?

It looks like that because, again, I feel it is a misunderstanding of this China factor. Geographically, we are in a very strategic location in the Indian Ocean, which itself is very important as it links the east and the west. And both sides need to use the Indian Ocean, especially for shipping and sea links. China, Japan and all the industrialised countries need energy that is coming from the Middle East.

Also, China needs a lot of minerals from Africa. At the same time, the products produced by these countries have to go to these markets, whether it is Europe or Africa or the Middle East. So they need to keep this access open. When they see the Chinese involvement, they get worried about [whether there will be] a sort of China domination in the Indian Ocean. They all want to be part of this region. But we will definitely react.

Do you think Sri Lanka is slipping once again when it comes to peace?

It has already slipped. We never expected this to happen after 10 years. Now I think the government must put things together and immediately put a stop to this.

The civil war was over in 2009. But there was a lot of bloodshed. Some even look at you as a villain.

Yes. But I am worried about the country, the people. I know the majority of the people respect me as a hero, and because I did what a lot of people couldn’t do for a long period. I did not start the war. It was started in late 1979. And when I took over [as defence secretary in 2005], the war was at a critical juncture. I didn’t create the LTTE. It was a strong terrorist group by that time. It is not the Rajapaksas who created the war. The previous governments and their mistakes did it. [The unrest] started during the United National Party rule, during the J.R. Jayewardene period.

Actually, one reason I think it started was the economy. You see, before 1977, the Jaffna farmer was very rich. Chillies, onions, tomatoes, potatoes, fish and tobacco were coming from the north. So, those days, we were self-sufficient. But after 1977, when the Jayewardene government introduced economy without any control, we began importing these things, and the economy of these people collapsed. The UNP government could not control it.

What they did was, they collected all the people here and sent them to Jaffna. They are the people who strengthened the LTTE. That was when the Tamil diaspora was created. So, again, the UNP is responsible. The Jaffna Public Library burning (in 1981), it is the UNP [that did it]. Then the District Development Councils brought a solution and the [1982 presidential] election was held. But it was rigged by the UNP. The Sri Lankan Freedom Party government didn’t do anything against the Tamil people. I don’t understand how the Tamil National Alliance can support the UNP.

We did not start this whole thing. We stopped the war. Now what you see in the east and the north are the results of stopping the war. There is development. Instead of [taking up] weapons, [children] are going to school. The people are not worried about their children joining the LTTE. I don’t understand why people point fingers at me.

During the last stages of the war, did LTTE chief V. Prabhakaran try to contact you or did you reach out to him?

No. He never did. Because he is a different kind of leader. We monitored his conversations with KP (LTTE leader Kumaran Pathmanathan) several times. Even during the last stages, KP wanted to take him out [of Sri Lanka]. But he never agreed.

Will you run for president?

Yes.

Is it because Mahinda cannot run?

Yes. The most popular leader in this country has been Mahinda Rajapaksa. But he cannot contest [because of the 19th amendment to the constitution]. That is why he wanted me to [contest]. [There are also a] lot of people who see me as a person who can deliver, because I have delivered on whatever responsibility was given to me, whether it was urban development or law and order. And, generally, there is frustration and dissatisfaction with the traditional politicians in Sri Lanka. Maybe that feeling is there all over the world. I am somebody out of traditional politics. I think it is my duty and responsibility to serve the country and that is why I decided to contest.

You have dual citizenship. Is that not a hindrance?

I have renounced it (US citizenship).

JOINT URGENT APPEAL TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR REFUGEE AND ASYLUM SEEKERS IN SRI LANKA

“Work with UNHCR to ensure the welfare of the many small children among the refugees”. Image (c) s.deshapriya.

10/05/2019

We, the undersigned organisations, write with concern for the safety of refugees and asylum seekers in Sri Lanka in the wake of the Easter Sunday attacks. Over 250 people were killed, and hundreds injured in the Easter Sunday attacks on April 21, 2019.

We condemn these attacks and call upon the authorities in Sri Lanka to identify and prosecute the perpetrators and take steps to prevent further attacks. The authorities in Sri Lanka should also take steps to maintain order and prevent retaliatory vigilante actions.

Unfortunately, refugees and asylum seekers have been unfairly targeted and displaced after the attacks, with landlords under local pressure to evict them from their homes. Sri Lanka has a history of providing sanctuary to South Asians and others fleeing persecution in their home countries.

However, after the recent attacks, out of approximately 1,600 refugees and asylum seekers currently in Sri Lanka, about 1,200 people from Pakistan and Afghanistan, most of them identified as Muslims, have fled their homes due to the fear, threats and intimidation they experienced in their neighbourhoods. Additionally, refugees and asylum seekers from Iran also fear for their safety.
There are also several Christians that have been displaced. Some refugees and asylum seekers from Pakistan and Afghanistan have also experienced property damage, mob violence and threats. Those who have fled their homes have, at present, found temporary shelter and protection with Sri Lankan law enforcement authorities and religious places of worship.

We recognise and welcome these gestures to share spiritual and professional spaces in order to provide protection in times of crisis. Their future at these shelters however, is extremely insecure as they are not only at risk of being turned out of these spaces, they may be at risk of deportation.

The refugees and asylum seekers at risk include members from the Ahmadi and Christian communities from Pakistan, Shi’a Hazaras from Afghanistan, and refugees from Iran who fled religious ethnic and political persecution in their countries. Sri Lanka has provided refuge and hosted these communities while their cases are processed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Some others have had their claims rejected and there is concern that Sri Lanka may want to send them back. There is intense anti-Ahmadiyya violence and discriminatory laws in Pakistan, often exacerbated by the government’s pandering to groups using inflammatory language against the Ahmadis.

In these circumstances we appeal to the government of Sri Lanka to:

• Ensure that refugees and asylum seekers are not deported or otherwise forced to return to their countries of origin or any other place where their lives or freedoms would be at risk, which would represent a violation of the international legal principle of non-refoulement;

• Deploy adequate law enforcement officers to ensure the protection and security of vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers, especially those who are now displaced, and provide basic humanitarian assistance including food, water, shelter, sanitation, and other social services in line with the minimum core content of their economic, social and cultural rights;

• Urgently relocate the refugees sheltering in a police station and places of worship to appropriate locations with adequate sanitation, sleeping space, and security. Work with UNHCR to ensure the welfare of the many small children among the refugees;

• Seek UNHCR assistance in managing settlements so that they are not de facto detention camps and make efforts to ensure their safety; Clarify publicly that any attacks on these vulnerable groups will not be tolerated, and reiterate that these attacks will be investigated with the view of bringing perpetrators to justice;

• Work with third countries who have already agreed to resettle some of the refugees to urgently expedite the settlement process. We call upon the UNHCR to support the government in ensuring refugee protections.

Organisations: Amnesty International; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA); Franciscans International; Freedom from Torture; Human Rights Watch; International Commission of Jurists; International Human Rights Committee; International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR); Medico international; Minority Rights Group; South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR); Sri Lanka Advocacy in Germany; The All Survivors Project; The International Working Group on Sri Lanka; The Sri Lanka Campaign, UK; The US Counsel on Sri Lanka

Individuals: Bob Rae , Professor, Munk School, University of Toronto, Senior Counsel, OKT LLP Law Firm Toronto, Canada Jennifer M. Green Associate Professor Human Rights Clinic University of Minnesota Law School USA Judith Large, Senior Research Fellow, The Conflict Analysis Research Centre University of Kent, Canterbury UK Malcolm Rodgers, former Head of International Affairs, the British Refugee Council. UK Mytili Bala Former Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Fellow USA

Mainstream Muslims must unite to bring about a progressive Islam

Muslims praying for peace in a mosque in Kattankudy - AFP

10 May 2019

The Easter Sunday terror attacks have opened the Pandora’s Box of questions on various aspects of Islam, its teachings and commands, amid an avalanche of Islamophobia, hate speech, distrust and scorn. 

When the 9/11 terror attacks happened, a similar wave of Islamophobia swept the United States and the Americans began to ask questions about Islam and its alleged association with violence. Some white supremacists went to the extent of promoting nuking the Muslims. 

In Sri Lanka’s mainstream and social media, a topic that was being discussed with much interest and the ridicule it rightly deserved is the reward of 72 virgins for the killers of hundreds of innocent people, including children. Does Islam preach this? Religious scholars will not be able to answer this question.  The best they could say is that the Quran, the primary source of Islamic teachings, does not say anything about 72 virgins. True, it is not found in the Quran, which, the Muslims believe, is a compilation of the messages the Prophet received from God throughout his 23-year ministry, during which he and his followers suffered persecution, ostracisation, attacks and exile.


But the promise of 72 virgins is found in a book of Hadeeth, a term that refers to the sayings of the prophet and his traditions. Some Ulemas or religious preachers will not have the intellectual courage to admit this.  This is because they still believe that Sunni Islam’s six main Hadeeth books were compiled by ‘infallible’ imams, even after modern-day Hadeeth scholars have dismissed thousands of ahadeeth -- plural of hadeeth -- as fake or falsely attributed to the prophet. The so-called reward of 72 virgins is found in a hadeeth book called Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, also known as Sunan al-Tirmidhi. Notwithstanding the presence of fake ahadeeth, both the Sunni and Shiite streams have their own canons. The Sunnis have six and the Shiites two. 

It must be said here that in Islamic history, one of the biggest scandals is the hadeeth literature. Islam’s first four Caliphs, who assumed leadership of the Muslim community after the prophet’s death, opposed attempts to compile the sayings of the prophet. 

The first to compile a book of hadeeth was Imam Bukhari, who was born in Bukhara in Uzbekistan some 200 years after the prophet had passed away. By this time, Islam had been highly politicized with rulers misusing and misinterpreting religious teachings to consolidate their hold on power. 

From the people who he met, during his 16-year travel through the Arab-Persian region, Imam Bukhari began collecting the sayings correctly or falsely attributed to the prophet. The process began when he was only 16. He collected some 600,000 ahadeeth and, sifting through this large volume, he selected only about 7,000. His students claimed the selection was made on strict criteria such as the reliability of the chain of narrators or Isnad which usually goes all the way to the time of the prophet. Imam Bukhari’s compilation came to the public domain through a disciple’s disciple, after his death.

"The so-called reward of 72 virgins is found in a hadeeth book called Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, also known as Sunan al-Tirmidhi"

Following Imam Bukhari, several Hadeeth collectors appeared. They claimed they adopted a similar method to select or reject the sayings attributed to the prophet. Today, the hadeeth literature is analyse by intellectuals who say some ahadeeth are fake and incompatible with the Quran. An enlightened and famous hadeeth scholar was Sheik Muhammad Nasir-ud-Dīn al-Albani , who died in 1999 in Jordan. He opposed extremism and did not associate himself with any school of thought.
He spent his scholarly life identifying thousands of fake ahadeeth found in the so-called canons. The learned sheikh had classified the hadeeth on 72 virgins as ‘Munkar’ which means it needs to be denounced. Hadeeth scholars acknowledge that fake ahadeeth were the creation of the Zanadiqah or the heretics, sectarian fanatics, favour seekers, storytellers, ignorant ascetics and hyper-zealous preachers.

Using modern research methodology, Muslim academics have deducted that some ahadeeth do not conform to the text and the spirit of the Quran while some contradict each other. For instance, they point out that hadeeth literature about the punishment in the grave after one’s death was contrary to the Quranic teachings, just as the carnal claim of 72 houris for the martyr.  It needs to be stressed here that, according to the Quran, those who kill innocent people while killing themselves are not martyrs, but serial killers of humanity as a whole. Suicide bombing is a late 20th century innovation or bid’a and it needs to be rooted out from Islam, though a handful of theologians have taken pains to endorse it strictly in the context of a fight against an occupying force or an invading army.

Given the damage ISIS and its followers have caused to Islam by their un-Islamic acts, the priority for Muslim theologians today is to gear Islamic learning towards intellectualism and rational thinking. Intellectualism demands respect for opposing views and ideas, while reason or rational thinking will enable to weed out false ahadeeth, such as the myth about the 72 virgins.

Rational thinking and intellectualism are not new to Islam. Described as the Mutazila or the rational school of Islamic theology, it flourished from the 8th to the 10th century in Iraq, the seat of the Abbasid caliphate. It was during this period that the Muslim world reached the peak of learning, making major strides in medicine, astronomy, mathematics, law, philosophy and literature. The fall began with the emergence of the Ash’ari theology, named after its founder Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari. It grew as a counterforce to the Mutazila and soon dominated Sunni Islam, producing in its wake Jihadi Imams such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Abdul Wahab and Syed Kutub.  These imams’ teachings have become a manual for modern day terror groups such as ISIS. 

To address the multiple problems the Muslims of this country face, Mainstream Muslim scholars, both religious and academic, representing different groups, need to unite to bring about a progressive Islamic theology based on the rationalist and traditionalist foundations. This is perfectly in tune with the spirit of Islam. 

In the wake of the Easter Sunday massacres, the need to de-radicalise those who are romanticizing with a dangerous and inhuman suicide ideology has become not only a security priority but also a religious responsibility upon every right-minded Muslim theologian and civic-conscious Muslim in Sri Lanka. In Singapore, I understand, the deradicalisation process is carried out with the help of local Muslim scholars. Singapore’s state policy and surveillance systems aimed at communal harmony have also helped that nation to curb hate speech, inflammatory preaching and avert terror attacks.

Institutes linked with ‘Sharia Uni’ to come before COPE

METHMALIE DISSANAYAKE- MAY 10 2019

Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) Chairman and JVP Parliamentarian Sunil Handunnetti today (10) said he hopes to summon the Board of Investment (BOI), University Grants Commission (UGC), Vocational Training Authority (VTA) and all other institutions which have links with the controversial ‘Sharia University’ project in Batticaloa before COPE on 21 May.

Handunnetti made this remark while participating in the Adjournment debate on the current security situation after the Easter Sunday terror attacks.

He queried, “This institute is attempting to register as a university. Now the Government tries to evade from this problem by saying that this controversial project was started by the former Government. Let us say that, that is true. But then, why did the current Government allow the project to continue without any investigation? Leader of the House and Minister Lakshman Kiriella earlier made some remarks about leasing 35 acres to the Sri Lanka HIRA Foundation (SLHF) for building this so called university in 2013. That land was owned by the Mahaweli Development Authority.

How is it possible for a State Department to hand over lands to a Non-Government Organisation of this nature? He forgot to mention that fact. The other thing which Kiriella evaded mentioning is as to who the owner of this SLHF is and who has shares in the ‘Sharia University’ project. Is he afraid to say that the SLHF is owned by none other than Eastern Province Governor M.L.A.M. Hizbullah?”
Kiriella who spoke before Handunnetti said 35 acres of land was leased to the SLHF in 2013 to set up a training centre for an estimated lease of Rs 491,200 per year. Taxes amounting to this were also paid.

“However, it was later found that the SLHF was registered in 2014, despite it getting 35 acres of land to establish the training centre in 2013,” Kiriella noted.

He further said the Government put aside the proposal to accept the said training centre as a university, which was presented by then Higher Education Minister Dr. Sarath Amunugama on 3 July, 2015.

Handunnetti stressed that President Maithripala Sirisena stated that this institute would be established as a private university with degree awarding status.

“I wonder under whose ownership the President wishes to establish this so called institute. Is he hoping to transfer the ownership of it to Governor Hizbullah like Dr. Neville Fernando owned the Medical Faculty of the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine? We should investigate these things thoroughly. That is why I hope to summon all the relevant institutions related to this project before the COPE. I am doing it within the powers I have as the COPE Chairman. Everyone related to this project should be questioned,” he added.

On 9 May, State Minister of Defence Ruwan Wijewardena said that an investigation has been launched to determine as to how the son of Hizbullah secured shares worth Rs 500 million in the controversial education institute which is funded by Saudi Arabia.

Burqa, Nikab Or Hijab – Dangers Of Hasty Law Making

By Mass L. Usuf –MAY 9, 2019

Mass Usuf

This column is not to question the Rule on the non-concealment of the full face. What it aims to do is to examine the circumstances and consequences of this Rule.

Let me begin by saying that covering the face using a garment or the vizor of a helmet or in any other way can be a hindrance to establish the identity of a person. Therefore, it has to be removed. Let me also state at the outset that national security is of utmost important. In this context, if a female has to reveal her face for purpose of identification, it is imperative that such identification is facilitated.

Ours is a country which had experienced a war spanning nearly three decades which ended in 2009. Those who lived through this brutal period of mayhem and pandemonium would recollect how the entire country was living in mortal fear. Our courageous armed forces were then fighting one of the cruellest separatist movements in the world. There were suicide bombers at that time too. Their atrocities over the period of war saw the destruction of the country’s infrastructure and the gruesome annihilation of innocent human lives. The death toll increasing with every attack. They were so daring that their suicide bombers did not hesitate to take away even the life of a sitting President, the late R. Premadasa. 

Colour Code ‘Red’

There were security barriers and check points all over the country. Random checks of private vehicles, public transport and other commercial conveyances were almost a daily occurrence.  Cordon and search operations were common. Such was the heightened state of security in the country. If it was in the United States, the threat level would have been raised to ‘Severe risk’.  This is the highest threat level colour coded, ‘Red’ in their threat level scale which consists of five colour-coded threat levels. 

Here lies an interesting anecdote. This country which had experienced such testing times and in a Red Alert situation almost throughout, never found it expedient at that time to ban the full-face cover – an attire worn by the Muslim woman.

It is well known that the declaration of emergency law was triggered by the despicable attack on 21st April 2019. A Proclamation was made by His Excellency the President by virtue of the powers vested in him by Section 2 of the Public Security Ordinance (Chapter 40) (as amended) by Gazette No. 2120/3 of 22 April, 2019 declaring that the provisions of Part II of the Public Security Ordinance shall come into operation. In layman terms declaring a state of emergency in the country.

By a further Gazette Notification No. 2120/5 of 22 April, 2019, he published the Regulations made under Section 5 of the Public Security Ordinance (Chapter 40).  These Regulations were called the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulation, No. 1 of 2019.

The Ban On The Full Face Cover

Following the above Gazette notifications, on 29 April 2019 by Gazette No.: No. 2121/1, he chose to make certain amendments to the Gazette Extraordinary No. 2120/5, of April 22, 2019.  The amendment was by way of the insertion of the following new regulations immediately after regulation 32, which shall have effect as regulation 32A. The relevant Rule, read as follows:

“32A. (1) 

(a) No person shall wear in any public place any garment, clothing or such other material concealing the full face which will in any manner cause any hindrance to the identification of a person. 

(b) For the purpose of this paragraph – 

 “full face” means the whole face of a person including the ears;

Well, were the attackers of Easter Sunday concealing their full faces? No such evidence can be elicited from the various video footages that were shown on television.  Here lies the question, why then was the face cover banned? And, banned so swiftly.

It is useful to the analysis to note that only a minute fraction of the women used to wear the face cover. Humour has it that since the attackers were wearing jeans and t-shirts and were carrying haversacks, these are the items that should have been banned.

Government And The Media

This country had witnessed several blunders been committed by the authorities during the recent past. One more in this streak of carelessness is the government’s failure to explain clearly to the public about the ban on face cover. Especially in relation to the practice of the Muslim women. 

Try asking an average Sri Lankan Sinhalese or Tamil person whether he or she knows the meaning of all these terms – ‘Burqa’, ‘Nikab’, ‘Hijab’, ‘Head Scarf’ or ‘Shawl’? Whether he or she knows the differences between these? The response will certainly draw a blank face. The reason is that they have no need to know. Their ignorance is fair and reasonable.

When the public is ignorant of it, is it not the responsibility of the government to ensure that people understand what they are communicating to the people as laws?  After all the rule has been gazetted to apply to the citizens of this country. The public does not access the Gazette notification to ascertain the detailed information about the nature of the ban. They will neither be interested to get an understanding of the definition of what is meant by ‘full face’ as referred to in the amendment. Therefore, they obviously are in the dark in relation to the nature of the ban.

Being well aware of the ignorance of the people in this regard, is it not the duty of the media to educate the people? Aggravating the situation, at a highly sensitive time like this, was the gross irresponsibility of the media. They were not concerned about educating public about what represents a ‘Burqa’, ‘Nikab’, ‘Hijab’, ‘Head Scarf’ or ‘Shawl’.

Read More

‘Ready to face investigations’-Rishad

In a special statement, Rishad says allegations are false, not supported

(Lanka-e-News- 10.May.2019, 4.35PM)  In a special statement, Minister Rishad Bathiudeen and Leader of ACMC clarifies various allegations made against him, stressing that they are attempts to accuse him falsely. “I am ready to prove that I am correct” he adds.

The full statement by Leader of ACMC and the Minister of Industry, Commerce, Resettlement of Protracted Displaced Persons, Cooperative Development, Skills Development & Vocational Training Rishad Bathiudeen MP is given below:

“Various people made allegations against me saying I ran away from Sri Lanka when I was recently for official work. Some people and media made these allegations. They made the allegations without checking the facts about this tour.  With some other Ministers in Oman, we discussed about multi-billion rupee project for Sri Lanka with Omani government officials. After I returned from Oman, they have stopped the allegations. They also aimed other allegation against me and these allegation were so dangerous and insulting I had question back from certain media institutions as to why they are identifying myself with terrorists.

These allegations too were similar to the allegation that I ran away from Sri Lanka. These allegations had no basis, nor were supported by facts. They alleged one of my Secretaries were arrested with detonators and released.  The alleged arrested person is not a Secretary of mine. He was a candidate in last Pradeshiya Sabha in the last PS election. He got elected. Even though he was arrested on suspicion, at the courts hearing it became clear that he was not guilty, and he was released. It was also speculated that a brother of mine was arrested and released. Both security forces and the Police conducted search operations in Mannar recently. My brother, at that time, was staying in a tourist bungalow in that area. This bungalow was also searched and my brother was questioned, vehicles thereat were searched. These were the only events that took place. Anyone can talk to Mannar Police and find out what happened.

Another accusation against me is a house belonging to my sister was rented out to terrorists. My sister and her husband have been living in Canada for the last five years. Her husband’s house was given to a caretaker. This caretaker advertised it on a website to rent it out after the previous tenants vacated the house in February. The house was then rented out for a year. I had no personal knowledge of any of these developments. Please try to think whether it is even reasonable to accuse me on this. The allegation that Ibrahim, father of bombers, had business dealings with my brother too is totally false and unfounded.  Ibrahim and Colombo Traders Association of which he is the Chairman officially met me and my officials several times with CTA members to discuss their issues. My brother has no business dealings with Ibrahim’s businesses. There was another grave accusation saying that I had provided certain raw material to terrorists. The IDB under my Ministry releases different raw material to small and medium industries at different times. IDB also assists in marketing and technology transfer to them. Since 2005, through a newspaper advertisement IDB registers applying companies asking for raw material.  Each applying company is issued with raw material based on their need. 300 companies were registered by IDB this year. The raw material for these companies were issued following proper procedures and legally.

Even though certain individuals asked us to give special preferences to their Wellampitiya factory, we did not extend such preferences, and did not act I violation of law.  As a result, we appointed an independent committee headed by our Ministry Secretary and obtained their report as well. The report has been handed over to HE President and Prime Minister. If there is any violation, then action will be taken based on this report. Some people who make accusations on discovery of explosives and arms from Wilpattu jungles, falsely announce that this location is under my electorate. Vanathavilluva, where these were found, is not within my electorate. This is another attempt to accuse me falsely. The father of a bomber’s wife is a member of our Party’s Executive Committee. Is that a justifiable reason to accuse me?  Ibrahim , the father of suicide bomber is a National List MP of JVP. Is that a justifiable reason to accuse the JVP of terrorism? Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka showed how a person who cooked for him for five years became his suicide bomber but tried to assassinate him and could not.  President Premadasa too was assassinated by Babu, who was frequenting Sucharitha. Can these facts be used to say that either Field Marshal Fonseka or late President Premadasa were terrorists? Accusations are levelled at my businesses and income sources. SB Dissanayake holding press conferences lies in this regard. Since  I did not accept his invitations during the 52 day coup, taking revenge from me in this way is playing cheap politics. However I want to stress that I have given my assets and liabilities statements since the day I entered politics. Anyone can inspect these statements. I am also ready face any investigation. Also I have made arrangements to take legal action against people and media institutions who make false accusations against me. They will be compelled to  prove their allegations in front of law. I am ready to prove that I am correct. The people who make allegations against me knowingly or unknowingly safeguard the real terrorists and fundamentalists. Their actions results in myself highlighted while the attention on the real terrorist shifts. We are strong believers of Islam. Allah does not approve terrorism nor fundamentalism.  I  am not connected to terrorists nor support it. I myself am against terrorism. I was a victim of terrorism. I  am connected to fundamentalism nor support it and against it. I am profoundly shocked of the loss of lives due to this terrorism and fundamentalism. I express my condolenes to the dead. I wish speedy recovery for the injured. I bow my head with gratitude to all who committed for peace and reconciliation at this difficult moment.

Especially I express my honor to His Eminence Cardinal Malkolm Ranjith. Also express my gratitude to Venerable Mahanayaka Theros, Ven Hindu clery and Moulavis. We also thank the security forces, police, civil society leaders and all village leaders for their prompt actions preserve peace.This is our country. We live as children of one mother. Our responsibility is to develop, safeguar and build our country. Let us discerningly commit to it. “

---------------------------
by     (2019-05-10 11:10:35)

Moving Beyond the Easter Carnage

By Harim Peiris-May 9, 2019, 8:28 pm 

As this article is being penned, the Parliament of Sri Lanka is engaging in a two-day adjournment debate on the devastating massacres launched against innocents on Easter Sunday in Colombo, Negombo and Batticala. In the course of the debate, President Sirisena, as Minister of Defense and Minister of Law and Order expressed confidence, that the security forces have got on top of the situation, arresting not only the conspirators but also negating the capacity for terrorism of the remaining culprits. The Commander of the Army echoed similar sentiments calling on the civil population to resume their normal day to day activities and that security has been reestablished. A relatively quick return to normalcy after the devastating terrorist massacres.

A legal framework and oversight of intelligence operations

We could only hope that parliamentary debate would reveal why intelligence information from India, was not acted upon, why as alleged by no less than government ministers our own intelligence services was allegedly paying off, the accused leaders and some members of the National Thowheed Jamath besides other unsavory organizations such as the Bodu Bala Sena. Making the accused persons, actually assets of our intelligence agencies. It is clear that unlike the uniformed security services, there is insufficient oversight of the intelligence services and an inadequate legal framework for their work. The United States for instance as a global superpower has serious congressional oversight of intelligence operations, besides the executive, ensuring that intelligence services, whose work is secretive and covert by nature, is not unaccountable to civilian authority in a structured and legal manner. In a highly politicized society like ours, good oversight and accountability prevents or manages politicization of the intelligence services.

Deradicalization of extremists

In the wake of the deadly Easter Sunday massacres, Muslim leaders themselves have been complaining that they have for over a decade been informing and seeking to get remedial action by the relevant authorities regarding the extremist elements in their midst and their potential for violence. Particularly the most recent call to arms and violence by National Thowheed Jamath leader Zaharan, now freely available on social media, had previously been brought to the notice of the authorities, but to no avail. The reason one suspects, is political. The extremist elements were seen as political opponents of their more moderate political leaders and therefore nurtured, including through intelligence service payoffs, as alternate leaders and given the space to grow and operate. Sri Lanka’s unfinished nation building exercise means, that the focus of the state establishment, is to weaken and keep at bay, the political leadership of minority communities, where Tamil or Muslim and this has meant that potential alternative leaders, though more extreme, are nurtured. For instance, In the case of the Tamil community, the LTTE remnants in Sri Lanka, KP, Karuna and Piliyan are not with the moderate ITAK dominated TNA, who will have nothing to do with them, but with the so called national parties, dominated by the majority community, particularly its more nationalist ones, who are the most keen to keep the minorities divided. A dubious policy with potentially disastrous consequences.

But the deradicalizing of those Sri Lankans who claim to kill in the name of Islam, whether identified with ISIS, another foreign terrorist group or not, is something that has to come from within the Sri Lankan Muslim community itself and their leadership, especially their religious leadership. Within any faith community the interpretation of scripture will always have a degree of diversity, otherwise there would be no need for institutions of religious study and scholarship. However, what cannot and is not allowed in any civilized society, is the law of the jungle with murderous random violence against innocents. Preventing the violence, is a state security responsibility. Challenging any understanding or articulation of theology which provides a cover for that violence, is the responsibility of that religion’s scholars and religious leaders. A challenge with considerable work to do in the future.

The debate on the Counter Terrorism Bill (CTA) vs the PTA

Dragged into the debate following the Easter Sunday attacks has been the proposal to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), with the Counter Terrorism Act (CTA). The government is rather keen to see the enactment of the CTA, committed as it is to fight terrorism within international best practice and in cooperation with the international community of nations. This undertaking has also been given in terms of the UNHRC process. There are however valid concerns regarding the proposed CTA, including the definition of terrorism which is so broad as to make any political dissent, a terrorist offence and these need to be amended. But it is a big improvement on the existing PTA.

The SLPP and Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapakse has been attacking the proposed CTA, which rather like many of their other attacks on policy matters, seems high on rhetoric, low on specifics and designed to inflame passions, especially in an election year. Fishing in troubled waters, may be the rather uncharitable way to describe it. The rather obvious objective of seeking to prevent the enactment of the CTA, is to retain the PTA, which in the past has been a tool of political repression, like in the imprisonment of journalist Tissanayagam. The PTA when introduced was meant to be temporary. Sri Lanka requires a new legal framework for anti-terror security and the Easter Sunday massacres should not be allowed to derail much needed and long overdue legal reforms.

The Sixth Executive President of our Republic

They hail me as one living,

But don't they know

That I have died of late years,

Untombed although?

I am but a shape that stands here,

A pulseless mould,

A pale past picture, screening

Ashes gone cold.

….. Yet is it that, though whiling

The time somehow

In walking, talking,

smiling,

I live not now.

– Thomas Hardy’s Dead Man Walking 

Friday, 10 May 2019

The Sixth Executive President is the ‘title’ and the subject of this essay. Dead man walking is a euphemism for a person trapped in an untenable position and is about to lose his exalted roost.

Fifteen days after the carnage on Easter Sunday, President Maithripala Sirisena appeared before Parliament on Tuesday 7 May.

With ill-disguised condescension he told Parliament: “I am the sixth person to hold this office.” ‘Oh! Didn’t you know?’ was the implied refrain.

Then in unbelievable audacity and contempt he posed his damning rhetoric: “Am I the first president under whose watch bombs exploded?”

His spine-chilling gambit has a logic and a purpose. He has convinced himself that he bears no responsibility for the blood bath.

The ‘whisper’ or the implicit message is clear. Come October, he intends to seek a second term. Self-delusion is not his exclusive preserve. There are others.

The Indian intelligence warning reached our powers that be on 4 April. On 16 April Sirisena left the island on his pilgrimage to the Tirumala temple to perform the ‘Suprabhatha’ ritual and offer prayers to the presiding deity of Lord Venkateswara in the early hours of Wednesday 16 April. He returned in the early hours of 22 April via Singapore.

That makes him the first President who was out in Singapore, shopping with his immediate and extended family, when terrorists struck multiple points in a coordinated attack with the highest toll on human lives in a single day in this benighted land.

He is the first President and Minster of Defence who left the island when the State he presides over had already received a serious warning from our giant neighbour India whose spying technology is as good as its ability to explore outer space. To India, Islamic fundamentalist terror is more than a ‘thinkable threat’. It is an unthinkable threat. To Indian Intelligence agencies, Islamic fundamentalism is an imminent, immediate and real threat.

Intelligence throws light on what exists but obscure. A rather complex proposition to a ‘Grama Sevaka’ mind conditioned to catch the culprit with the bunch of bananas. (I deeply regret voting for the swan on 8 January 2015).

Sirisena is the first President who alleged that an intelligence arm of the Indian State was hatching a conspiracy to eliminate a serving president of Sri Lanka.

He is the first President who swore in the Leader of the Opposition as the Prime Minister with no notice to the incumbent Prime Minister in a cloak-and-dagger operation. He is the first President whose executive act of dissolving Parliament was held as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

He is the first President to claim that an action held to be unconstitutional was undertaken with a mind of untainted purity – ‘Sathbhavayen’ – with advice from erudite lawyers who were also President’s Counsel.


He is the first President of Sri Lanka who got our permanent representative to the United Nations to vacate his seat for his son to watch ‘papa’ addressing ‘universal mankind’.

As for ‘firsts,’ President Maithripala Sirisena has carved his niche in the history of our dysfunctional democracy.

It was scary listening to him in parliament on Tuesday. Politically speaking he is dead as a dodo. Mahinda Rajapaksa will not agree to make him the anti-UNP common candidate.

It was scary to watch a man elected to high office with the hopes of six million two hundred thousand men and women explaining the inexplicable.

It was agonising in the wake of the carnage of Easter Sunday to listen to a man totally dead inside no longer feeling any sadness but driven only by an agenda to cling on to power. I am expressing my opinion. Criticism is not mudslinging.

To be alive and unfeeling? It's impossible for me to contemplate that it is a natural condition of a politician in the pursuit of power. It is frightening. Hence my resort to the poetic description of Thomas Hardy’s ‘Dead Man Walking.

The dead man is "untombed" and merely a "shape that stands here," a "pulseless mould."

Rewind, dear reader, to the House proceedings last Tuesday. The House listened in detached discomfort. The members were singularly conscious of the unfeeling of the speaker.
This writer believes in Hobbes’s dictum that the purpose of the state and the role of the president of a state is to prevent ‘war of every man against every man’. In that sense this President is politically finished. But finished men don’t feel pain.

As Thomas Hardy voices in profound poetry, he is nothing more than “a shape that stands there.”

That the shape stands there is the work of the self-obsessed super strategist Ranil Wickremesinghe – another subject of another essay for another day.

The nation now awaits the key findings of the special three-member committee appointed to probe the Easter Sunday terror attacks. The President has promised that it will be made available to all parties. If it is not doublespeak, all parties should include ‘we the people’.

There is a question that demands an unambiguous answer. We were warned of the possible attacks. Why didn’t we stop them?

There are questions that need to be answered by either the committee of inquiry or by the defence establishment headed by the President.

What was the routine and standard operating procedures adopted after receiving the first warning and subsequent updates from the Indian agencies?

What was the form of the existing organisation and most importantly the role of the key decision makers in the organisation?

The nation awaits with bated breath to learn how decisions were made by policy actors and operational actors.

What is most vital to know, is the truth that explores “the influence of unrecognised or undeclared assumptions upon the thinking” that led to the first official knee jerk response that the magnitude of the disaster exceeded their threat assessment.

Such blunders are not triggered by a unitary actor such as the Defence Secretary or an IGP partial to parade his proclivity to act the bozo. His present stance indicates that beneath the bozo lies a brave spirit. We must await unfolding events.

There should have been some discussions on the reports received and some bargaining of ideas within the organisation structure that reaches up to the commander in chief.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa put in place an efficient intelligence outfit. Robert Blake is right. It served the State in fighting the war against terrorism.

After the war GR abused it for political purposes which again is a different subject to be explored another day.

Efficient or otherwise, our intelligence mechanism was politicised and key individual decision makers with varying degrees of influence shaped the organisational actors. The President has already briefed us about his cultural disconnect with Prime Minister Wickremesinghe. Hemasiri Fernando is the President’s personal pick. Just as he holds Ranil to be responsible for his selection of Arjun Mahendran, the President is responsible for replacing Secretary Waidyaratne with Secretary Fernando.

It is possible that Sirisena’s cultural connectivity with the suave cosmopolitan Hemasiri Fernando was not based on a bonhomie as strong as his cultural intimacy with some other good people in the defence outfit whose unalloyed native instincts managed to stir deeper heart strings in the simple peasant mind.

We already know that Hemasiri was capable of discerning the difference between the ‘Ranaviruwa’ and the ‘Mineemaruwas’. A distinction on which Sirisena had his own convoluted views.

In the business of state security and intelligence gathering, I tend to agree with Graham Allision, the Harvard Don, whose seminal study ‘Essence of Decision’ based on the Cuban Missile crisis is now a standard text book on national intelligence and crisis management.

Decision-makers in the inner sanctums of intelligence have different perceptions, priorities, commitments and organisational positions. Where you stand depends on where you sit. We can only hope that the committee of inquiry has determined who sat where and who stood up to what and when.

Mainstream Muslims must unite to bring about a progressive Islam

“Whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution Office was beforehand with all the public departments in the art of perceiving – HOW NOT TO DO IT.” 
— Charles Dickens, Little Dorrit

10 May 2019

The response of civil society, the harbingers of political radicalism, was telling. It took days for the activists (and I don’t mean the Friday Forum, English-speaking, Colombo ones) to get up on stage and condemn what happened. We expected outrage, and pleas for a permanent peace, from the speakers.

But instead we got Deepani Silva, calm as a cucumber, calling the terrorists honda ugath daruwo. The narrative she invoked there was that of children from educated backgrounds being led wayward, and compelled by circumstances beyond their choosing to unleash rivers of blood. 

To begin with the ISIS recruits were not being led wayward: they knew what they were doing, they were not engaged with a secular just objective, and the cause for which they were fighting had been drilled into their heads from early on. Jason Burke in The Guardian suggests that when it comes to Islamic extremism, one cannot tell when radicalisation occurs, since there have been cases of drunkards and nightclub dwellers who were later recruited. They may have come from any background; but predominantly perhaps, the ugath background that Silva alludes to. 

The case of one of the first ISIS recruits from Sri Lanka is a case in point: when asked to describe Sharhaz Nilam, who had served as a karate instructor and principal of an international school, some said he was “liked by everyone” and others that his only drawback was that “he reported to work late every day.” These were people you and I would meet and chat with everyday. It’s still hard to separate the radicals from the moderates, but what we do know now, from all the attacks we’ve seen so far, is that they calculated their moves; they were not, in other words, “compelled” to do what they did, because they completely subscribed to their cause. It’s not the kind of ideological brainwashing one saw in, say, the LTTE project. 

The response of the likes of Deepani Silva, and more than them the Colombo-centric liberalwaadeen, thus lacks the relevance and the empathy towards the victims that it should entail. The ISIS is not waging a war against a hateful, bigoted State, and if it were, I am yet to hear from the leader of that organisation admitting that they were. As things stand, it is no less than a civilisational clash, a new extremism (new to us) which does not deserve the political dichotomisations that the Civil War merited. 

"ISIS does not want a Marxist-Leninist State, nor does it want to eradicate a Sinhala Buddhist leadership. It wants an extremist Salafist Caliphate "

The solution to the problem, in other words, is to eradicate the problem. Just why this is so hard to understand, or come to terms with, I do not know. 

Roughly the same argument could have been made of the LTTE itself, despite it coming from different circumstances: it waged a war against a fascist State, but when it turned fascist and obliterated the possibility for dissent later on, there was no other option: between an elected State and an aggressive terrorist outfit, the scales weighed in favour of the former. What we have here, now, is an altogether worse enemy: more ruthless, more unpredictable, and not limited to a specific terrain. 

In the absence of a reason for the existence of this terrorist outfit, a military solution, with the necessary caveats of proportionate action, must therefore precede a political solution. One must contrast this with the LTTE, which was born in part from Sinhala and Tamil chauvinism: in the J.R. years, which gave us 1983, there was a compelling reason to side with the terrorists, even if you were not Tamil. 

The State tried to show it as an anti-government outfit; Jayewardene himself claimed that all it wanted was a Marxist  State (which caused many on the Left to gloss over its excesses). In contrast, ISIS does not want a Marxist-Leninist State, nor does it want to eradicate a Sinhala Buddhist leadership. It wants an extremist Salafist Caliphate. It did not arise because of a racist State; it arose because of a weakened State.

As pointed out last week, consequently, it wasn’t the PRESIDENTIAL system that led us to this mess. Quite the contrary: it was the SKEWING of that system. 
That is why it still boggles me when, while calling for solidarity with all Muslims and non-Muslims (which is what should happen), the liberalwadeen give off warnings about the imminent rise of rightwing authoritarian strongmen. The reference of course is to Gotabaya Rajapaksa, though the logic of the reference confounds me. 

Here are some unpalatable truths. The State security apparatus got weakened because we did not listen to experts such as the much respected, much downplayed, Professor Rohan Gunaratne, though their credentials were impeccable and free from the sort of prejudices one would expect from the Rajapaksas. We did not listen to them because we were pussyfooting on terrorism, and dismantling anti-terrorism legislation in the name of international commitment. As if this weren’t enough, we went on to humiliate ourselves to meet those commitments; we were hence not the kind of self-respecting sovereign republic the situation demanded. 

Which brings us to the most obvious conclusion: it was antipathy to the Rajapaksas that led to a reversal of the security policies they had enacted. And when vital policy considerations like this are thrown away in the interests of shifting political loyalties, one can only expect a disaster, if not a carnage. 

That is why it is ironic, to say the least, that those who watched from the sidelines and facilitated the weakening of the State are now requesting us to be cautious about the return of the Rajapaksas. To be sure, one has to agree that the timing of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s announcement of his candidacy was telling: he chose the right moment, though not the most amenable circumstances, to announce his campaign. But then a sugar high does not last; in contrast to the hype surrounding his announcement, his interview with Derana, in which he outlined an action plan to eradicate radicalism upon his coming to power, was surprisingly glum. 

As with civil society and those opposed to the Rajapaksas, the narrative we got from the former Defence Secretary there was self-serving: a refutation of the allegations levelled against him by the present regime that he’d overlooked the rise of radicalism in his time. Then again, the way he announced his candidacy was suspicious: it was the man, and not the party, who made the announcement. Does it indicate a rift between the Rajapaksa brothers? If not an unwillingness on the part of the likes of Vasudeva Nanayakkara to accommodate him? If not controversy over his citizenship? 

"The State security apparatus got weakened because we did not listen to experts such as the much respected, much downplayed, Prof. Rohan Gunaratne, though their credentials were impeccable and free from the sort of prejudices one would expect from the Rajapaksas. We did not listen to them because we were pussyfooting on terrorism, and dismantling anti-terrorism legislation in the name of int’l commitment"

We don’t know, and in any case, we don’t care. The country wants a strong State. The country wants the politicians, all 225 of them, out. This is not the time to indulge in what-might-have-beens and this is not the time to talk about what-could-have-beens. There is a need for a broad national consensus. That includes everyone, from Ranil to Maithripala to Mahinda to Gotabaya to Fonseka. 

Still, what’s ironic with all this is that those who saw in the likes of Sirisena and Wickremesinghe the only hope the country had are now claiming that “all politics is bad,” showing their disdain both for the men they propped up and those who oppose them. It comes to no surprise, also, that those levelling allegations against Mahinda for having been informed of the Easter attacks are conspicuous by their former kapuwath kola support for the Maithri-Ranil regime. Their antipathy to political ideology reveals their dismay at the betrayal of the illusion by the reality of what is supposed to have transpired after 2015; I shall return to this in a later column. 

The Easter Sunday bombings showed us just where we went wrong: we hedged our bets on the wrong guys, and tried to find solace in alternative political outfits: the JVP, the SLPP and so forth. Neither the JVP nor the SLPP has mobilised and galvanised a proper front against the problem. But I doubt people want such a front anyway. What they want is action. Fast. And civil society, by turning it into a series of hand-holding anti-Rajapaksa theatrics, is simply not helping.