OUR VIEWS/EDITORIALS

COLUMNS

LONG READS

World Views

The Most/Recent Articles

Why so much ‘Kunu Harupa’ (Filthy Language)? Protect Children from Abuse

There was a time that Sri Lanka very clearly distinguished between adult material and open material. That time the main transmission was limited to films.

by Laksiri Fernando

Sri Lanka celebrated the International Children’s Day on 1 October with several events in  Colombo with the participation of the new Prime Minister, Dr Harini Amarasuriya, and other officials related to children’s issues. Both the PM and the new President, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, issued commendable statements related to broad children’s issues, but the two issues that I am raising here now were not directly addressed.

Representational Photo: School kids in Sri Lanka [ Photo © Javier Saint Jean/ Unsplash ]

One is the so much of Kunu Harupa (filthy language) used by the social media and online program personnel, and the other is the lack of a proper distinction made between ‘adults only’ material and other open material.  

Let me take first the President’s press release for the day. It begins with the statement “The future belongs to our children.” Therefore, “Let’s dedicate ourselves to creating a better world for them.” Immediately thereafter, the statement identified eight significant challenges, focusing mainly on socio-economic issues, and commendably reports on “risks associated with substance abuse and technology misuse.” But these were not explained. What do we mean by ‘substance abuse’? I would consider some peoples’ intentional use of ‘Kunu Harupa’ as substance abuse.

The ‘technological misuse’ is similarly related to the breakdown of limitations between adult material and child material that is one I am focusing on today. It is not merely the use of technology, which is the culprit, but its misuse. This is high in urban areas than in villages. For this situation not only the teachers or the Ministry that is responsible, but also parents.      


There is of course a broader mission advocated in the President’s statement for children. One of them is to ‘free them from the ‘pressures of exam-focused education.’ Whether this is desirable, or practical would depend on the way this is implemented.

In the Prime Minister’s official statement, she opted to cover both the Children’s and Elders’ Day, a little bit confusing the two. Apparently, it was her first statement as the PM. Her speech at the ceremony held at the Nagananda International Buddhist University (NIBU) was much focused and motivational for school students as children. She argued that “Investing in our future means investing in our children.” This appears to be a common vision of the government which appeared both in the President’s and PM’s statements. In her written statement, the PM emphasized “We are committed to providing a high-quality, public education system that benefits every child in Sri Lanka.”


Most relevant to my theme was her statement that “Moreover, we strongly oppose all forms of physical and mental abuse directed at children, particularly within educational institutions.” Only qualification that I can make is that this is not limited to the educational institutions. Family, extended family, neighborhood, apparent friends can be culprits of child abuse. This I have experienced during my own childhood although I managed to resist them strongly and successfully.

I am referring to early 1950s where the situation was quite under control, in my opinion, compared to the present conditions. Under the present conditions, the children’s minds are largely abused before they are physically or sexually abused. During the Children’s Day celebrations at the NIBU, the DIG Renuka Jayasundara who oversees Child and Women Abuse, Investigation and Prevention Division of the Police mentioned that annually they have been receiving over 10,000 child abuse cases in recent times. This is apparently only a small part of the cases and most of the cases are not reported.  


There was a time that  Sri Lanka very clearly distinguished between adult material and open material. That time the main transmission was limited to films. The National Films Corporation used to do this job. Cinemas even used this as a propaganda measure to promote attendance. When a film was advertised as ‘adults only,’ obviously many people (men) used to flock around cinema halls! After the appearance of TV, teledramas and YouTube, this control has gone haywire. No one appears to do this job.

Let me give you one recent example. I was extremely surprised to see, otherwise socially responsible Swarnewahini, broadcasting the teledrama named ‘Reconditioned Kella’ (Girl) without categorizing it as ‘Adults Only.’ It is not merely Urani Noshika’s acting which is adults only, but almost the whole story. It begins with the father of the Kella (Dinu) dies with heart attack and a new doctor (Kusal) in the hospital comes across Dinu during the treatment process.

What transpires thereafter is how gender relations or sexuality work in the village, true or not in Sri Lanka’s village areas. It is not only Bappa (father’s younger brother) who is after the girl, but even several ‘grandfathers.’ There were indications at the beginning that Dinu was apprehensive about her own father for similar or other reasons. To me all these are adult material. Swarnewahini broadcasted the 15th episode yesterday (5th Saturday), when Dinu is ready to go for modeling after coming to  Colombo with the doctor and her mother.  


It is not only ‘Reconditioned Kella’ that is adults only, to my view, among various teledramas, TV shows, movies and other YouTube programs, but so many others. The teledrama called ‘Take Care’ also could be ‘adults only’ considering some of the episodes and the story in general.  ‘National Film Corporation’ or similar institution should better take measure to categorize them ‘Adults Only’ (AO) or require ‘Parents Guidance’ (PG). In Australia, when I open the TV for programs or films, those are categorized as AO or PG. At present, the Australian government is also keen in brining legislation to prevent children (under 14 or 15) from having access to social media completely. This is to prevent their minds getting distorted from various unwarranted material and programs. Violence is also a major concern, even common to Sri Lanka.

Mix up between adult and children performance and dialogues is also controversial in Sri Lanka. For example, Peshala Manoj’s jokes particularly in Champion Star Unlimited program are extremely humorous and enjoyable. But one obvious weakness appears to be his sometimes uttering of adult jokes when children are present or taking even children into the jocular performances. Some of the utterances are also filthy.                   

During our school days at Moratuwa, we were prevented from even uttering ‘Umba Bang.’  This was the case at the University of Peradeniya (1964-68) although some of our friends used to utter that vocabulary. My roommate was so decent, if he was a bit angry with someone, he addressed the person as ‘Yushmatha’ instead of ‘Umba.’ However, it seems that the things have changed a lot today. Perhaps the politicians are the main culprits. In Parliament and in political rallies and platforms, many politicians utter hate speech using sometimes vulgar language. This is also common in some websites.


Sudanththa Thilaksiri who runs a website as ‘Sudaa Creations’ is far extreme in this regard. His behavior is also aggressive or violent when he reports on political events even in the presence of police. A similar website is Sudanthaka Vlog. A strange coincidence is not only their similar names, but their apparent support to AKD and Malimava. There are so many other similar ‘kunu harupa’ programs. Wishwaya Dakimu is another one even without a person appearing on the show. This is against AKD and the government. Gune Aiyage Kamare is also the same.

Although I am not able to write regularly to Colombo Telegraph,  Sri Lanka Guardian or other printed newspapers these days, what I wish to point out to the President and the Prime Minister is the paramount importance of protecting children from adult material and Kunu Harupa (filthy) language spreading in the country.

Laksiri Fernando, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, is a specialist on human rights having completed his PhD on the subject at the University of Sydney. His major books include, Human Rights, Politics and States in Burma, Cambodia and Sri Lanka; A Political Science Approach to Human Rights; Academic Freedom 1990; Police Civil Relations for Good Governance; Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Conflict in the Global Context among others. Having served as Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies (FGS  Colombo), he is a promoter of post graduate studies.

Spy Chief Ousted: Political Sabotage Over National Security?

How Conspiracy Theories and YouTube Stars Are Influencing Public Opinion and Undermining Sri Lanka’s National Security Framework

by Luxman Aravind

The forced discontinuation of Major General Tuvan Suresh Sallay’s service extension as Director General of the State Intelligence Service (SIS), Sri Lanka’s leading intelligence agency, marks a grave moment of fragility in the country’s state decisions—driven by mounting pressure from politically motivated groups fuelled by conspiracy theories. This is not just the sudden conclusion of a decorated officer’s career but an alarming indication of how easily the country’s most critical institutions can be sabotaged by political opportunism, social media misinformation, and baseless conspiracy theories. Sallay’s premature departure was, we believe, not voluntary; it was the result of sustained pressure from political actors and social groups who know little about national security but are determined to control it.

During the 29th-anniversary commemoration of the Military Intelligence Corps (MIC), held in January 2022 at the MIC Headquarters in Karandeniya, Ambalangoda, Maj. Gen. Sallay, the then Colonel Commandant of the MIC, paid tribute to the fallen MIC War Heroes. [ File Photo: Sri Lanka Army]

Major General Sallay’s career is a proof to the dedication and sacrifice demanded of Sri Lanka’s intelligence officers. A highly decorated officer, he joined the  Sri Lankan Army in the 1980s, rising swiftly through the ranks. His expertise in intelligence became invaluable during the country’s civil war, where he played a pivotal role in dismantling the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), one of the most feared terrorist organisations of the time. Sallay was not only instrumental in neutralising key figures within the LTTE but also in securing the defection of Karuna Amman and other senior figures to mainstream politics, thus weakening the group’s internal cohesion.


Among Sallay’s most notable achievements was his role in capturing and rehabilitating Shanmugam Kumaran Tharmalingam, also known as Selvarasa Pathmanathan or KP. KP, who had become the leader of the LTTE after Velupillai Prabhakaran’s death, was the organisation’s chief procurer of arms. He ran a sophisticated global network engaged in weapons procurement, logistics, and money laundering to finance the LTTE’s bloody insurgency. KP had been one of the most elusive figures in international terrorism, and Sallay’s role in bringing him into custody and facilitating his transition into civilian life is nothing short of extraordinary. In the aftermath of the war, KP even went on to establish social initiatives, such as orphanages for war-affected children in the North and East, a project Sallay encouraged as part of his broader mission of national reconciliation.


Yet, despite his decades of service to the country, Sallay has been repeatedly subjected to unsubstantiated allegations. In 2015, during the tenure of President Maithripala Sirisena, Sallay was targeted by a political campaign fuelled by conspiracy theories. Those very political factions, which were in opposition at the time, are now back in power, and rather than honour their earlier praise of Sallay’s contributions, they have fallen back on the same tactics of victimisation and character assassination. The so-called civil society groups and self-appointed social media pundits—who believe they hold the expertise to dictate national security policy—are the very forces that have undermined Sallay’s position and, by extension, the security of the nation itself.


Major General Sallay’s speech at the United Nations High-Level Conference on Counter-Terrorism in June 2023 offers a sobering perspective on the challenges of modern security. “Terrorism has emerged as one of the greatest challenges to international security in the 21st century, undermining stability, affecting social trust, and disrupting peace across the globe,” Sallay warned, pointing to the growing dangers of extremism, organised crime, and the misuse of digital platforms to radicalise populations. His words carry particular weight when viewed in the context of  Sri Lanka’s own struggles with terrorism and the tragic 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, which claimed the lives of 269 innocent civilians. This tragic episode highlights a critical point: political meddling in intelligence matters has deadly consequences.

It is deeply ironic that those who shout loudest about the so-called “deep state” are the ones doing the most damage to the state’s ability to function. The idea of a deep state in Sri Lanka is a complete fabrication—an invention designed to discredit the military, intelligence, and law enforcement institutions that have kept the country stable and secure. If there truly were a “deep state” powerful enough to influence the political landscape, Sri Lanka would not be the vibrant, functioning democracy it is today. Instead, it is the very people who denounce this phantom deep state—YouTube stars, religious leaders, and so-called civil society groups—who are manipulating public opinion and pressuring political leaders to make decisions that undermine the country’s security.


These informal actors, who operate outside the bounds of any formal institution, are the real threat to Sri Lanka’s future. They have weaponised social media to defame individuals like Sallay and have taken it upon themselves to prosecute those they disagree with in the court of public opinion. Their influence over political leadership is deeply troubling. The dismissal of an officer as decorated as Sallay is a clear indication that these forces have far too much power, and their meddling in national security matters is pushing the country toward a dangerous precipice.

Sallay himself articulated the broader dangers of allowing political and social forces to dictate security policy during his UN speech: “We are fast approaching a time when these rising threats may create an even more volatile environment.” The global rise of extremism, the growing influence of organised crime, and the misuse of technology to destabilise governments are all threats that no nation can confront alone. But instead of bolstering its intelligence capabilities and fostering greater cooperation with international allies, Sri Lanka is tearing down its own security infrastructure from within.

If Sri Lanka continues down this path, the country will once again pay a high price for allowing political opportunism to trump sound intelligence practices. The removal of Major General Sallay is not just a loss for the intelligence community; it is a loss for the nation. His integrity, professionalism, and unrelenting commitment to his country’s safety should have made him an indispensable asset in these perilous times. Instead, he has been discarded by a government more interested in pandering to its loudest critics than in safeguarding its people.


Sri Lanka is at a critical and risky turning point.. It can either continue to allow conspiracy theories, social media pundits, and political opportunists to shape its security policies, or it can return to a course of professionalism and integrity. The dismissal of Sallay is a symptom of a larger disease—a growing disregard for the expertise and sacrifice required to keep the nation safe. It is imperative that the country realises the gravity of this moment and works to reverse the damage before it is too late.

In the end, the legacy of Major General Tuvan Suresh Sallay will not be defined by the unproven allegations or the unjust end to his service. It will be defined by the countless lives he protected and the vital role he played in defending  Sri Lanka from the threats that lurk both within and beyond its borders. His contributions to the defeat of the LTTE and his efforts in international counter-terrorism cooperation will not be forgotten. What will echo through history is how, once again, Sri Lanka’s immature politicians, intoxicated by their unchecked power, sacrificed one of their finest for fleeting political gain, leaving the nation vulnerable to imminent dangers. This political shortsightedness has revealed the insidious agendas of conspiracy theorists and exposed the failures of those who have neglected their sacred responsibilities. It is a sobering reminder of how the pursuit of power, when divorced from integrity and foresight, can result in the disintegration of a society.

‘Soldiers of Christ’– The bizarre world of Christian Zionism

The Scofield Bible is the world’s largest-selling Bible version. Over the subsequent decades this “interpretation” of the Bible made it a Christian imperative to support creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This bizarre tie between USA Christian Evangelicals and Israel sheds light on Washington backing, especially by Republicans, for the Netanyahu Israeli military actions against Palestinian Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Iran.

by F. William Engdahl

Praying for Armageddon

It was impossible to grasp how such a drastic foreign policy shift could occur between the time of Eisenhower in the 1950’s and George W. Bush after 2001, without one little-known element: understanding the political power base that a faction of the US establishment created together with the Israeli right-wing Likud Zionist lobby that had built up around the American Christian Born-Again right-wing.

The most striking and paradoxical feature of the Likud-USA strategic alliance was the fanatical backing for the militant expansion of the State of Israel from the side of various nominally Christian denominations and organizations in the United States. Behind the religious façade, was a well-organized political machine directly tied to Tel Aviv and Washington power centers. 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd President of the USA (right) and Winston Churchill (1874-1965), British Prime Minister, meeting in Quebec in 1944. (Colorised black and white print). (Photo by Print Collector/Getty Images)


In 1977, the Israeli intelligence services, under the direction of Dr. Jonah Malachy, quietly began to conduct a detailed profile of all the many different Christian organizations in the United States, and profiled them according to how they regarded the existence of Israel, in terms of their Christian belief. 

The Israeli researchers found their most fertile soil in the Southern US states, which traditionally had been based on cotton or tobacco slavery, and whose white elites had been shaped over generations on a belief in white superiority over blacks, or other whites such as Catholics or Jews. These white protestants, whether Southern Baptist, Methodist or one of the growing number of Born Again charismatic sects proliferating in the South after World War II, were ripe for manipulation on the subject of Israel. All it needed was some fine adjustments of their theology. 


Ironically, many of these Born-Again Christians were anti-semitic, anti-Jewish. Their new Israeli “friends” knew this well, and cynically proceeded to forge a strategic alliance in which the Israeli or pro-Israeli think-tanks they created in Washington would be supported in their Israel political agenda by the growing army of “Born Again” Christian voters. 

Under ordinary conditions, the American Christian Zionists would have remained one of many tiny sects in America calling themselves Christian. The events surrounding the shocking terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and the demagogic manipulation of those events by a nominally Born-Again President George W. Bush, dramatically changed that and made Christian Zionism a far more serious political force within US politics, more so because most of its members were white, upper middle-class Republicans. They had built a highly organized national political machine and had leveraged their influence to an almost decisive factor, often deciding whether a given candidate for national office would win or lose. 


As Jewish scholar Barbara Tuchman documented in her famous account of British Zionism, Bible and Sword, the roots of Christian Zionism went back to the British Imperial ideology, in which certain very prominent British establishment figures including Lord Palmerston, Lords Balfour and Shaftesbury saw support for a Jewish home in Palestine as part of a manufactured or synthetic ideology in which, bizarrely, they claimed the British people to be the ‘Chosen People’, to be the ‘Lost Tribe of Israel.’ It gave British Imperialism a powerful pseudo-religious justification.

The Roots of Christian Zionism

John Nelson Darby, a renegade Irish priest who died in 1881, had created the idea of ‘the Rapture” as he founded a new brand of Christian Zionism. In his vision, special people whom he called ‘Born-Again Christians” would be taken up to Heaven before the second coming of Christ—their ‘rapture.’ Darby also put Israel at the heart of his strange new theology, claiming that an actual Jewish state of Israel would become the ‘central instrument for God to fulfil his plans for a final Battle of Armageddon.’

Darby travelled widely in the United States and won adherents to his bizarre sect, creating the beginnings of American Christian Zionism, including the famous US Bible interpreters Cyrus Scofield, Dwight L. Moody, who founded the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, and the 1930’s preacher, Billy Sunday. In 1909 Scofield published the Scofield Bible, with footnotes interpreting Bible passages according to the Darby Christian Zionist world. By the end of the 20th Century that Scofield Bible was the basis for all US Christian Zionist and Born Again teaching in what was becoming the fastest growing sector of the Christian faith in the USA. 


Christian Zionists like Reverend Jerry Falwell and Rev. Pat Robertson could be traced back to a project of British Secret Intelligence services and the British establishment. That project was designed to use the Zion ideology to advance Empire and power in North America. American Christian Zionists in the period of American Empire in the 1950’s and later, merely adopted this ideology and gave it an American name. It was the religious counterpart of the Anglo-American “Special Relation” which had been built up between Winston Churchill and Roosevelt during World War II. 

The peculiar Christians, who called themselves Christian Zionists, and who formed the core activist voter base of the Bush Presidency in 2000, preached a doctrine quite different from the traditional Christian Gospel of love for fellow men and tolerance. They preached hate and war, a militant brand of belief that had more similarity with the 12th Century bloody Crusades than with modern Christianity. The soil it bred in was the bitter race hatreds of the post-Civil War US South held by generations of whites against blacks and against Catholics and, ironically, against Jews as ‘inferior’ races. Their religion was the religion of a coming Final Battle of Armageddon, of a Rapture in which the elect would be swept up to Heaven while the ‘infidels’ would die in mutual slaughter.

A Palestinian Christian described them: “Christian Zionism, on the political level, is crassly simplistic and unabashedly biased. It is supportive of the most extreme political positions of right wing Israelis, and deliberately ignores political realities, and the interest, or even existence, of other groups, including Palestinian Christians. In its total bias, it also ignores the requirements of international law, ethical principles, violations of human rights, and the requirements of simple justice.”


In the months following the US September 11 attacks, Rev. Pat Robertson openly preached that Muslims were “worse than the Nazis.” On his Christian Broadcasting Network in November 2002, Robertson declared, “Adolf Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse.” Robertson, claiming to be a man of God, refused to retract the hate speech despite much public outcry. In other comments, he compared the Qu’ran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf as a blueprint for world domination. They were hardly constructive words to heal the wounds of a nation still in shock after September 11, or to win friends abroad.

In an October 2002 CBS ‘Sixty Minutes’ TV broadcast, Robertson’s Christian Zion friend, Rev. Jerry Falwell declared, “I think Muhammed was a terrorist, a violent man, a man of war…” Bush’s War on Terror was being defined by his Christian Zionist base as a holy “Crusade” against Islam, Sir Bernard Lewis’s Clash of Civilization, adapted by Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington in a famous 1993 Foreign Affairs article as the “clash of civilizations.”  It asserted that following the collapse of the Soviet Union the main conflict in the world would be between opposing cultural and religious identities. 

In his 1993 article, Huntington had argued, “World politics is entering a new phase, in which the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of international conflict will be cultural. Civilizations–the highest cultural groupings of people–are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. From Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Central Asia, the fault lines of civilizations are the battle lines of the future. In this emerging era of cultural conflict the United States must forge alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible. With alien civilizations the West must be accommodating if possible, but confrontational if necessary.”

The new “enemy image” was being defined by the US establishment as early as 1993, only months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as Islam. It was the prelude to the 2001 War on Terrorism, a thinly-disguised War on Islam. 


Echoing the anti-Islam fervor of Falwell and Robertson, Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the famous Christian evangelist and Bush family friend, Reverend Billy Graham, declared after September 11 that Islam was “a very evil and wicked religion.” The large US Southern Baptist Convention’s former President, Jerry Vines, called the Prophet Mohammed the most vile names imaginable. It was all about stirring Americans in a time of fear into hate against the Islamic world, in order to rev up Bush’s War on Terror. 

Graham, who controlled an organization known as the Samaritan Purse, was a close religious adviser to George W. Bush. In 2003 Graham got permission from the US occupation authorities to bring his Evangelical anti-Islam form of Christianity into Iraq to win “converts” to his fanatical brand of Christianity.

According to author Grace Halsell, Christian Zionists believed that “every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.” It was all beginning to sound far too much like a new Holy Crusade against more than one billion followers of the Islamic faith. 

The Likud’s Christian Zionists in America 

After the Likud government of Menachim Begin realized in 1977 that President Carter was intent on human rights for Palestinians, including statehood, Likud and their neo-conservative allies in the US began to look for support outside the liberal Democratic Party of Carter. The Israeli Labour Party had supported land-for-peace, but the Likud backed a Greater Israel, which would include the occupied Palestinian territories of West Bank and Gaza, which they call Judea and Samaria. The pro-Likud neo-conservatives around Irving Kristol, Richard Perle and others left the Democratic Party at that time to found what they later would call ‘Neo-conservativism’, and to build their base inside the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan, a man who was very much influenced by the Christian Right himself.

In 1978, Prof. Yona Malachy of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published his major research profile on American evangelical Protestant groups, titled, ‘American Fundamentalism and Israel: The Relation of Fundamentalist Churches to Zionism and the State of Israel.’ 


Malachy discovered numerous American Protestant sects, most in the rural Southern states, who linked their theology to the State of Israel, through a strange, literal interpretation of the Bible. Their ministers were typically trained at the Moody Bible Institute or, often, the ultra-conservative Dallas Theological Seminary of John Walvoord in Texas. They diligently read the 1909 Scofield Reference Bible, whose footnotes ‘explain’ the Bible texts in their arcane prophecy terms. 

Leaders of the Likud and select Israeli religious leaders, went to work after 1977 to bring the most charismatic, and often most corruptible, leaders of these US Christian groups to Israel, where they developed direct links between Likud leaders and the Christian Right in the US. 

Menachim Begin began to attend Washington ‘prayer breakfasts for Israel’ with fundamentalist ministers including Rev. Jerry Falwell, then head of Moral Majority, and Rev. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and the Christian Broadcasting Network. When another Jew pointed out that these Christians were anti-semitic, Begin reportedly snapped back to the effect he did not care so long as they supported Israel in the US.

Conservative Christian support for Israel is based largely on various prophecies about the Jewish people during the ‘end-times’ which they believe are found throughout the Bible. They are viewed as playing a major role in ‘TEOTWAWKI’ (the end of the world as we know it). 

Representative of some most often-cited Bible passages used by the Christian Zionists to support their end-times prophesy are the following passages taken from the King James Version of the Bible: 

* Zechariah 12:3: ‘And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.’ The implication is that the Jewish people would return to Israel; this happened in 1948 with the creation of the State of Israel. Later, all the nations of the earth will gather against her. Some believe that we are near that point today. But God will make Jerusalem an immovable rock. This came to pass when the Camp David peace talks found that the future status of Jerusalem became a major stumbling block.

* Zechariah 12:9-10: ‘And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” Many conservative Christians interpret this as saying that Jews will be humbled, will accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and become Christians.

* Revelation 4:4: ‘And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.” Conservative Christians view the 24 as being composed of the patriarchs of each of the twelve ancient tribes of Israel, along with the twelve apostles. To emphasize their unity, they are gathered in a circle around the throne of God. All are believed to be Christians at that time. 

* Revelation 7:3-4: ‘Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.’

* Revelation 14:1-4: ‘And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads….These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb.’

The passages seemed to imply that 144,000 Jewish virgins — their gender was not mentioned — would convert to Christianity and be ‘sealed.’ They would have God’s name written on their forehead, and be followers of the Lamb — i.e. of Christ. Some Christians interpreted these phrases as implying that 144,000 Jews will convert to Christianity and then attempt to convert the remaining Jews in Israel.

The vast majority of American and international Christian churches were highly critical of the theological claims of the Christian Zionists. The Middle East Council of Churches, representing Oriental and Eastern Christian churches in the Middle East, charged that the Christian Zionists, “aggressively imposed an aberrant expression of the Christian faith, and an erroneous interpretation of the Bible which is subservient to the political agenda of the modern State of Israel.” Christian Zionism, they said, “rejects the movement of Christian unity and inter-religious understanding.” 

Rapture for God’s ‘Chosen People’

Christian Zionism existed even before Theodor Herzl founded modern Jewish Zionism in the late 1800’s. Certain Protestant dissenter sects during the English Civil War in the 1600’s believed themselves to be God’s Chosen People, the ‘lost tribe of Israel.’ 

A number of prominent British Imperialists were Christian Zionists, including Lord Palmerston, Lord Shaftesbury, Lloyd George and Lord Balfour, who issued the 1917 Balfour Declaration giving Jews a homeland in British-protected Palestine. For them, the ideology justified British Imperialism as a religious mission. 

Christian Zionists argued that the Land of Israel had been given to the Jewish people by God, and that in order for the Second Coming of Christ to occur, all Jews must return to Israel for a Final Battle of Armageddon, a kind of a Manichean slug-out between the Forces of Good and the Forces of Evil. 

They admitted it would destroy the Earth. They even called it the End Times. But the ‘good news’ for Christian Zionists was that they, the true believers, would be suddenly caught up into Heaven in a holy ‘Rapture.’ They would be spared the messy aspects of a nuclear holocaust at Armageddon.

Their theology was a dangerous brew of Manichean absolutist black and white—good versus evil—which saw the alliance of the USA, under their direction, of course, and Israel, battling the forces of ‘evil’, especially Islam and Muslims. It was reminiscent of the statements by George W. Bush in the wake of September 11, 2001 where he declared, “either you’re with America or you are against us,” as he spoke of a “new Crusade.”

Ironically, behind their pro-Israel facade Christian Zionists like Falwell and Robertson cynically used their links to Israeli Jews to push an anti-semitic agenda of their own. 

Uri Avnery, leader of the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom, describing the theology of these supposed Christian friends of Israel, stated, ‘According to its theological beliefs the Jews must congregate in Palestine and establish a Jewish state on all its territory so as to make the Second Coming of Jesus Christ possible…The evangelists don’t like to dwell openly on what comes next: before the coming (of the Messiah), the Jews must convert to Christianity. Those who don’t will perish in a gigantic holocaust in the battle of Armageddon. This is basically an anti-semitic teaching…,’ namely that Jews who remain true to their Old Testament beliefs will all be killed. 

This organized lobby of the Christian ‘Born Again’ ultra-conservative voters was credited with securing the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 and Donald Trump in 2016. A study undertaken of American voting blocs in 2003 found that the Christian Right comprised the largest active social movement in the United States and the largest voting bloc within George Bush’s Republican Party.

On October 19, 2004 Dr. Daniel Akin, President of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary issued an Open Letter signed by 72 Evangelical leaders urging the American people to ‘use Biblical values in their selection of candidates.’ The letter cited gay marriage, stem-cell research, and Democrats’ alleged defense of ‘terrorists’ as reasons to vote Republican not Democrat. The letter was signed by the most prominent members of the Christian Zion right backing Bush and backing Sharon as, ‘fulfilment of Bible prophesy.’ 

The crucial new element in the emergence of the Christian Right in recent years in America was their focus on organized political influence, not merely on religious life-style and church piety. 

In 1979, Reverend Jerry Falwell, a member of the Committee on National Policy and a Christian Zionist leading figure, launched an organisation known as the Moral Majority with the aim ‘to mobilize the Christian church on behalf of moral and social issues and to encourage participation by people of faith in the political process.’

The Moral Majority quickly became a household name. Through its charismatic public leader, Falwell, the organisation mobilised thousands of churches and millions of registered voters to form a Christian political bloc, and what came to be known as the Christian-Right. 

Falwell was soon sought out by aspiring politicians hungry for his approval and potential votes. Falwell in turn, rated candidates on their acceptability on issues considered of priority to the Israeli Likud, with whom he had in the meantime become quite close. Falwell flew across the US in a luxurious private jet given him as a gift on a trip to Israel by Likud Prime Minister Menachim Begin. 

It was also around this same time, in the late 1970’s that the formal Christian-Right was established and certain Israeli organisations began understanding that an alliance with the Christian Zionists in the US could bolster their image and prominence on the international level through a stronger influence in US politics.

The fervency of the Christian-Right towards support of the State of Israel, coupled with its strong American presence, captured the attention of Israeli interest groups. Though aware of their diametric opposite social and religious views, some Israeli political organisations saw an alliance with the Christian Zionists as a crucial element in promoting a positive image of Israel in US politics and among the American mainstream. 

Jewish-American leaders were initially opposed to an alliance with the Christian-Right and perceived the movement as a possible adversary. However, when the formal establishment of the Christian-Right solidified this movement as an influential political bloc in the US, these feelings of trepidation were soon dissipated and various Israeli groups recognised that an alliance with this bloc would be advantageous to their political interests.

These US religious spokesmen claimed they had been told by God such things as whether the US should go to war against Iraq. In an article, ‘Should We Go To War With Iraq?’ Roy A. Reinhold on February 5, 2003 wrote of his discussion with his God: ‘Many people wonder whether this coming showdown with Iraq, by the USA and a coalition of nations, is worthwhile and whether it is the right thing to do. 

‘On Saturday, February 1, 2003, I lifted my hands to begin praying and the Lord spoke to me… I wanted to know whether the God the Father’s direction was to go to war or not go to war. ..The Lord said, ‘I am saying to go to war with Iraq’.

Reinhold added, ‘I put the above on my message boards and what everyone wanted to know was, ‘what is God’s reason(s) for going to war with Iraq?’ That question hadn’t occurred to me, because I personally just accepted God’s direction.’ 

The raw hate ideology of the US Christian Zionists, claiming personal support from God, represented a dangerous shift in US politics to the extreme right.  Some circles around Bush and his trusted political advisor, Karl Rove, sought to create out of American fears and uncertainty regarding such issues as gay marriage, a core theocratic state, just opposite what most Americans wished. Rove had been the architect of Bush’s relationship with the Christian Zionist fundamentalist Right when Bush was still Texas Governor. 

Rebuilding the Temple of Salomon 

The US Christian Zionists and their allies have a long-term agenda which well might trigger a new World War. Some neo-conservatives say that war began on September 11, 2001. They refer to it as World War IV, claiming that the Cold War was actually World War III.

These circles wanted to destroy the holy Islamic Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and rebuild the Biblical Temple of Salomon on the site, where they would resume animal sacrifice. Michael Ledeen, a close adviser to the Bush White House, was at the heart of the dangerous lunacy. 

During the 1970’s the face of Christian practice in the United States was transformed by new ‘television-evangelists’ with names such as Rev. Jerry Falwell with his organization, the Moral Majority or Rev. Pat Robertson with his tax-exempt TV ‘700 Club’ broadcasts, which bring his organization hundreds of millions dollars a year, or author Hal Lindsey, with his ‘Rapture’ series of fiction novels about the end of civilization around a final Battle of Armageddon in what is today’s Israel. These Born Again Christians, as they called themselves, began to dominate the US airwaves. It later emerged that many of these, including the anti-Islamic Falwell and Robertson, were intimately linked to the Israeli right-wing. Some also had ties to the CIA. 

Grace Halsell, who died on 2000, grew up on the same Texas soil where the Christian fundamentalism that captured George W. Bush, was dominant. She went on to become a White House speech writer in the 1960’s, and later a courageous journalist who devoted her last years to exposing the dangerous ties of Falwell and other so-called born-again Christians to the Israeli right-wing.

During the 1980’s, to understand the Born-Again phenomenon then sweeping across the United States, Halsell went to Israel with a group led by Falwell. As she described it, ‘My inquiry led me to ask why does a Christian such as Jerry Falwell pray for the end of the world? Must we totally destroy this world in order to usher in a ‘new heaven and a new earth?’  Her conclusions were alarming.

She found that Falwell had become a close friend of the Israeli right, when she went on their joint Bible tour of Israel and the Holy Land in 1983. Halsell noted the curious fact that, rather than concentrate the tour on Christian sites in the Holy Land, Falwell’s tour was entirely run by Israeli guides and toured only Israeli sites of interest. Moreover, Falwell was given as a gift by the Israeli government his personal Lear private jet to make his US tours. 

Falwell and other US Christian Born Again fundamentalists said they believed that it was ‘God’s Will’ that Israel move to establish its greater domination in the Mideast, as that will bring the world that much closer to the Biblical ‘Day of Final Judgment,’ when the ‘true-believers’ will be saved in a mystical ‘rapture,’ being swept up to Heaven, as the unsaved perish in the final Battle of Armageddon. That battle, according to Falwell and his friends, will pit Jews against Muslims.

Halsell interviewed a number of Americans actively involved in trying to ‘speed up’ the final Armageddon. One was Terry Risenhoover, an Oklahoma oilman and Born Again Christian Zionist, who was close to the Reagan White House. Risenhoover was open about his views. He financed people in Israel and elsewhere who would rebuild the destroyed Temple of Salomon, the so-called Third Temple, on one of Islam’s most holy sites, the Al-Aqsa Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 

In 1985 Risenhoover was chairman of the American Forum for Jewish-Christian Cooperation, along with its director, Doug Krieger and American Rabbi David Ben-Ami, a close friend of Israel’s Ariel Sharon. Risenhoover was also, chairman of the Jerusalem Temple Foundation, ‘whose sole purpose is the rebuilding of a temple on the site of the present Muslim shrine.’ 

Risenhoover selected Stanley Goldfoot as his International Secretary of Temple Mount Foundation. Goldfoot was a former member of the terrorist Stern Gang, denounced by Ben-Gurion as Nazis. Goldfoot was the person, according to Israeli  newspaper, Davar, who placed the bomb in Jerusalem’s King David Hotel in July 1946 which killed some 100 British citizens. 

Risenhoover boasted to Halsell in an interview on Goldfoot that, ‘He’s a very solid, legitimate terrorist. He has the qualifications for clearing a site for the Temple.’ A Goldfoot deputy, Yisrael Meida, told Halsell, ‘He who controls the Temple Mount, controls Jerusalem.  Who controls Jerusalem, controls the Land of Israel,’ a new twist on the famous dictum of geopolitics of Sir Halford MacKinder: “Who controls Central Europe controls the Heartland; who controls the Heartland (Russia etc) controls the World Island; who controls the World Island controls the world…” 

In 1998, an Israeli newsletter posted on the Voice of Temple Mount website, announced that its goal is the ‘liberation’ of the Muslim shrines around Al Aqsa, and the building of a Jewish Temple on the site. ‘Now the time is ripe for the Temple to be rebuilt,’ they announced. They then called on the Israeli government to ‘end the pagan (sic) Islamic occupation’ of lands where the mosque stands. ‘The building of the Third Temple is near,’ they proclaimed in 1998.

Hal Lindsey, in The Late Great Planet Earth, wrote that ‘there remains but one more event to completely set the stage for Israel’s part in the last great act of her historical drama. This is to rebuild the ancient Temple of worship upon its old site. There is only one place that this Temple can be built, according to the Law of Moses. This is upon Mt. Moriah. It is there that the two previous Temples were built.’

Grace Halsell added, ‘Fanatics who belong to what the vast majority of Christians and Jews might term a crazy minority – and numbering no more than five percent of the total Israeli population – are nevertheless capable of destroying Islam’s most holy shrine in Jerusalem, an act that could easily trigger a worldwide war involving Russia and the United States.’ 

This fanatical Pre-millennial Dispensationalism had come to dominate American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, especially through the influence of Dallas Theological Seminary and the Moody Bible Institute. The movement had grown in popularity within evangelical circles, particularly in America and especially since 1967, coinciding with the Arab-Israel Six Day War and a few years later in 1970 with the publication of Hal Lindsey’s ‘The Late Great Planet Earth.’ 

Crucial to their reading of biblical prophecy, drawn principally from Daniel, Zechariah and the Book of Revelation, was the assertion that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt on the Temple Mount as a precursor to the Lord returning to restore the Kingdom of Israel centred on Jerusalem. This pivotal event was also seen as the trigger for the start of the War of Armageddon. 

These beliefs soured relations between Moslem Arabs and Christian Arabs perpetuating fears of a revived Western military adventurism dating back to the Crusades. 

The 1967 watershed war

The 1967 Six Day War and its aftermath marked a watershed in Evangelical Christian interest in Israel and Zionism. Jerry Falwell did not begin to speak about modern-day Israel until after Israel’s 1967 military victory.

Falwell then changed completely. He entered into politics and became an avid supporter of the Zionist State. In 1967, the United States was mired in the Vietnam war. Many felt a sense of defeat, helplessness and discouragement. Many Americans, including Falwell, turned worshipful glances toward Israel, which they viewed as militarily strong and invincible. 

The combination of the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the capture of Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1967, and the defeat on both occasions of the combined Arab armies, increasingly came to be seen as significant fulfilment of biblical prophecy by a new generation of American and European dispensational pre-millennialists. 

Rev. Billy Graham’s father-in-law, Nelson Bell, editor of the authoritative mouthpiece of conservative Evangelicalism, Christianity Today, wrote in an editorial in 1967, ‘That for the first time in more than 2,000 years Jerusalem is now completely in the hands of the Jews gives a student of the Bible a thrill and a renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the Bible.’

Bush, Christian Zion and Freemasonry

A most difficult area to illuminate regarding American relations to right-wing Israeli Zionists and the ties between Israel and Christian Zionists such as Jerry Falwell, Rev. Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Gary Bauer and other US backers of the Right-wing Israeli Likud policies, was the role of international esoteric freemasonry. 

Freemasonry has been defined as a secret or occult society which conceals its goals even from most of its own members, members who often are recruited naively as lower level members, unaware they are being steered from behind the curtains. The most powerful Freemasonic Order in the United States is believed to be the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite, or the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, with its world headquarters now in Washington, DC. 

Key Bush family adviser, James Baker III, of the Texas law firm Baker & Botts and of the Carlyle Group, was a Scottish Rite high ranking mason. George Bush was known to be a high ranking mason as was his father, George Herbert Walker Bush. 

Freemasonry was the secret network which allows manipulation of much behind the scenes. Were people openly known as masons, their power would vanish as others would see through their blatant schemes such as assassinations, wars, blackmail, fraud and above all, what seems to be a project to destroy real religious belief among ordinary people. 

There was a special role played by one of the two major branches of Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry, that of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Its history goes back far, but in the late 1800’s its leader was a Confederate General, Albert Pike. Pike founded the racist Ku Klux Klan as a secret Scottish Rite project to control the South through race hate and fear, after the American Civil War. 

The Scottish Rite enjoyed an active branch in Israel, even though it was nominally a Christian society. It spoke of its tradition going back to ‘the early masons who built King Salomon’s Temple.’ The fact that American Christian Zionists typically were concentrated in the South and came from the similar white racist strata as the Scottish Rite, and that they actively backed the Israeli fanatics who seek to rebuild the Third Temple of Salomon at the site of the sacred Al Aqsa Mosque and thereby ignite the Final Battle of Armageddon cannot be coincidence. All evidence suggested that the Jewish advocates of destroying Al Aqsa and rebuilding the Temple of Salomon there were being supported by the Scottish Rite masons in the United States and Britain. 

Indeed, there was circumstantial evidence that much of the organized American Christian Right that backs Israeli right-wing policies was secretly backed by Scottish Rite masonry. The Southern Baptist Convention recently had a heated debate over allegations that some 500,000 of their members were also masons, reportedly most Scottish Rite. The Southern Baptist organization is well-known for its racial hatred of blacks. Cecil Rhodes, the man who was backed by Rothschild to create the mining empire of South Africa was a Scottish Rite member as was Lord Palmerston, also himself a British Israelite. 

F. William Engdahl is an award-winning geopolitical analyst, strategic risk consultant, author, professor and lecturer. He has been researching and writing about the world political scene for more than thirty years. His various books on geopolitics—the interaction between international power politics, economics and geography—have been translated into 14 foreign languages from Chinese to French, from German to Japanese.

Premadasa and Anura’s Quest for Power

The 2022 aragalaya arose to once again take someone like Premadasa to the Presidential palace. Although Premadasa’s son Sajith was qualified for this, Anura dressed himself in the image of Premadasa and went to the palace. Sajith, by trying to wear Ranil’s and J.R.’s shoes, went home.

by Upul Joseph Fernando

“Ranasinghe Premadasa, a poor boy, rose to the pinnacle of politics dominated by the aristocracy through the urban labour movement and became the President. He was born in a slum area in  Colombo, and his family came from an oppressed caste in  Sri Lanka. Although caste oppression in Sri Lanka wasn’t as severe as in India, where literacy was less common, Premadasa was an outsider to the land-owning aristocracy that controlled politics. ~ New York Times, 21 December 1988

This is how the New York Times described Ranasinghe Premadasa’s victory when he became President. Exactly 36 years later, the international media describes Anura Kumara’s victory similarly, as a man from a humble family who broke through the political system dominated by elites to become President. However, no media outlet claims that Sajith Premadasa lost because he, like Anura, was an outsider challenging the political system controlled by the elite.

Anura Kumara Dissanayake with Sajith Premadasa [File Photo]


Why?

Because Sajith failed to convince the people that he and his family, including his father, were outsiders to the aristocratic system.

The JVP uprising of 1988–89 was launched against Indian expansionism, but its roots lay in opposition to the aristocratic political system. J.R. Jayewardene believed Premadasa was the best candidate to face the JVP uprising because his close allies, Lalith and Gamini, were seen as part of the elite political system. At that time, the country demanded a small man from a humble family, which J.R. understood perfectly in his political calculations. He knew if Lalith or Gamini were candidates, Mrs Bandaranaike would win because, even though they were major figures in the elite political system, the party she represented, the SLFP, was seen as more progressive than the UNP. J.R. used a man like Premadasa, a small man, to blast away Mrs Bandaranaike, the elite leader of the progressive class. His calculations were correct.


Premadasa used a single slogan throughout his presidential campaign: that he was a small man from a humble family challenging the aristocratic system. He once challenged Mrs Bandaranaike to walk with him along a village dirt road, to bathe in a stream, and to eat in a humble home. By doing so, he implied that he was an ordinary man used to living simply.

Unable to tolerate such talk, Anura once said that his mother didn’t choose to be born into an aristocratic family.

At that time, the people saw Premadasa as a small man from their own class. They thought, “Let’s give this man a chance.” The JVP uprising brought the country to that point. The uprising was fuelled not by the elite class youth but by the young men and women from small families oppressed by caste in rural areas. Listening to their voices, the people made a man from a small family President.


The 2022 aragalaya was also a struggle of small people, the children of small families. They demanded an outsider— not someone who had been corrupted by the political elite system, but someone who stood outside it, untainted.

From that perspective, Sajith was better suited than Anura to be that outsider. Anura’s faction had brought Chandrika, Mahinda, and Ranil to power, protecting the system. But Sajith had no such deals with Chandrika, Mahinda, or Ranil. He was the leader who rebelled against Ranil’s elite leadership in the UNP. While he was leading that rebellion, Mahinda and Chandrika were supporting Ranil. Even Anura Kumara was helping Ranil at that time. In that scenario, Sajith was the real outsider.


So why didn’t Sajith market himself as the outsider?


I don’t know. What really happened is that while Anura was trying to wear Ranasinghe Premadasa’s shoes, Sajith tried to wear Ranil’s and J.R.’s.

The tragedy of Sajith is that he didn’t realise the 2022 struggle was demanding an outsider to change the system. Sajith thought people wanted someone like Ranil or J.R., an elite figure with international connections who could revive the economy. As soon as Ranil became President, Sajith came forward to stand for the struggle, but his party’s leadership advised that the struggle was damaging the economy and should be suppressed, as business leaders were saying.

‘There’s no point in the aragalaya anymore. Now, everyone is talking about the economy…’

This was the advice given by Sajith’s party leaders.

‘Let’s support the IMF. Let’s say Ranil’s economic policy is our economic policy…’

These were the types of suggestions given to Sajith. During the debate on Ranil’s first budget, Sajith and the SJB said the government’s direction was correct.


‘This is our party’s policy. Today, the Pohottuwa party has adopted our economic policies…’

Sajith and the other SJB MPs declared this in Parliament during the budget debate. Anura and the JVP, on the other hand, said they would bring back the wealth stolen by the country’s corrupt elites and build a new economy instead of continuing the failed policies that had bankrupted the country for 70 years. They spoke about the luxury lives of the elite ruling class, their Prado cars, bodyguards, foreign trips, and official residences, contrasting this with the JVP’s simple, austere lifestyle. Anura once mentioned wearing second-hand clothes and clothes with holes, showing they represented the working class. The SJB laughed at this, mocking how Anura and the JVP leaders would negotiate internationally in English.

The 2022 aragalaya arose to once again take someone like Premadasa to the Presidential palace. Although Premadasa’s son Sajith was qualified for this, Anura dressed himself in the image of Premadasa and went to the palace. Sajith, by trying to wear Ranil’s and J.R.’s shoes, went home.
 

The Vanishing of Truth—Sri Lanka’s Attorney General’s Credibility in Jeopardy

In legal doctrine, there is a principle known as res ipsa loquitur—“the thing speaks for itself.” And what speaks louder than the disappearance of a report so vital to the truth?

Editorial

The role of the Attorney General (AG) in any democratic society is to uphold the principles of justice and maintain the sanctity of the rule of law, untainted by political influence. When that role is compromised, it strikes at the very core of national trust. Recent allegations by Father Cyril Gamini Fernando, Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of  Colombo, have cast a dark and damning shadow over  Sri Lanka’s Attorney General’s Department—a shadow so deep that the credibility of this vital institution now stands in ruins.

What makes this situation even more chilling is the content of the report itself, which, according to Fr. Fernando, exposes those truly responsible for the massacre—politicians, security officials, and those who conspired in the darkest corridors of power.

Father Fernando’s claims are nothing short of explosive. He asserts that the report from the Presidential Commission, which delved into the horrific Easter Sunday attacks of 2019, has mysteriously disappeared after being handed to the Attorney General’s Department. Let that sink in for a moment. This is not some innocuous piece of bureaucratic paperwork that has gone astray. This is a report containing critical evidence about an attack that shattered the country, killing hundreds and leaving a permanent scar on its soul. And it has vanished.


What makes this situation even more chilling is the content of the report itself, which, according to Fr. Fernando, exposes those truly responsible for the massacre—politicians, security officials, and those who conspired in the darkest corridors of power. “Several politicians would be behind bars,” he declared, had the contents of the report been fully investigated. These are not the words of a man making idle speculation; they are the voice of an institution demanding justice for its people, yet receiving nothing but silence in return.

At the centre of this storm lies the AG’s Department, now facing an accusation that can only be described as catastrophic—obstructing justice. It is impossible to overstate the seriousness of these allegations. If true, this is no mere administrative lapse; it is a deliberate, calculated effort to prevent justice from being served. Such an act would constitute a gross breach of public duty, an assault on the very foundations of the legal system, and, arguably, an act of treason against the state and its people.


The disappearance of this report raises profound and uncomfortable questions about the integrity of those in power. Is the Attorney General’s office so compromised, so deeply enmeshed in political machinations, that it has ceased to function as an independent legal authority? This is not a question to be taken lightly, for it strikes at the heart of the nation’s ability to trust its own institutions. The AG’s Department is constitutionally bound to operate independently, free from the pernicious influence of the political class. Yet, this allegation suggests that it has become nothing more than a puppet, serving the interests of the powerful while sacrificing the truth on the altar of expediency.


It is said that Fiat justitia, ruat caelum—“Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” This timeless maxim demands that justice must prevail, regardless of the consequences. Yet, in Sri Lanka today, it appears that those entrusted with the delivery of justice have chosen, instead, to shield the guilty. It begs the question: in a nation where politicians can manipulate investigations, where reports can disappear without explanation, can we still claim to live under the rule of law? Or has the law itself become another tool of oppression, wielded not to protect the innocent but to exonerate the guilty?

Fr. Fernando’s claims are not just a cry for accountability but a searing indictment of the structural rot within the Attorney General’s office. This is a department that is meant to act as the final bulwark against corruption, injustice, and impunity. And yet, it is precisely this institution that now finds itself accused of playing a direct role in covering up one of the most heinous acts of terrorism in the country’s history. The allegations do not just threaten the credibility of the AG’s office—they obliterate it.

One cannot help but recall the famous words of Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It seems that those within the highest echelons of power in  Sri Lanka have allowed corruption to seep so deeply into the legal system that even the victims of a national tragedy are denied their rightful justice. This is not just an institutional failure; it is a moral collapse of the highest order.


In legal doctrine, there is a principle known as res ipsa loquitur—“the thing speaks for itself.” And what speaks louder than the disappearance of a report so vital to the truth? This is not a case of ambiguity or conjecture; the facts are damning, and they point directly to a dereliction of duty, a wilful act to obstruct the course of justice. It is an affront not only to the victims of the Easter Sunday attacks but to every citizen of Sri Lanka who believes in the fundamental promise of justice.

It is high time the Attorney General’s Department steps out of the shadows and into the light. It must answer these allegations clearly, definitively, and without delay. Silence, in this case, is tantamount to an admission of guilt. The people of Sri Lanka will not—and should not—accept anything less than full transparency. If the AG’s office continues to hide behind a veil of secrecy, it will confirm what many already fear: that justice in Sri Lanka is not blind, but selectively so, depending on who stands in the dock.

The vanishing of this report is not an administrative hiccup; it is a national disgrace. The Attorney General’s Department must immediately restore its integrity by locating this document, presenting it to the public, and ensuring that all those implicated, regardless of their rank or influence, are held to account. The victims of the Easter Sunday attacks deserve more than hollow platitudes and unfulfilled promises—they deserve justice. The truth cannot be buried forever, and the longer it remains obscured, the deeper the wound in the nation’s soul becomes. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum. Let justice be done, no matter the cost, or face the devastating consequences of its collapse.

Once Again on Stage: Cardinal’s Political Blasphemy

The blasphemy of political collusion is evident, and it is a call for Cardinal Ranjith to reclaim his sacred duty by renouncing his ties to temporal power and returning to the true mission of the Church.

Editorial

The drama is unfolding yet again on the stage, with no end in sight. This morning, at Katuwapitiya Church, where the sacred echoes of worship were once drowned out by the cacophony of violence on that fateful Easter Sunday in 2019, a darker spectre still haunts the hallowed ground. The victims of this unspeakable atrocity continue to suffer, not only from the loss of loved ones but also from the moral and spiritual betrayal festering in political manipulation. His Eminence, Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, who should be a beacon of solace and justice for these grieving souls, now stands accused of political manoeuvring that stains the very cloth of his sacred office.

Fake it until you make it [donec id factus sis, id esse videre]


This morning’s gathering at the same Katuwapitiya Church, attended by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, reeks of opportunism. The symbolism of this meeting is not lost on those who remember the blood-soaked pews and the cries of the innocent. How could a place of such profound loss become the stage for yet another political spectacle? It is not merely a matter of insensitivity; it is a grotesque misalignment of priorities. Cardinal Ranjith, now extending his service under the Vatican’s grace, has allowed the pulpit to become a platform for power, rather than a refuge for truth. The Gospel sternly reminds us in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters.” Yet, here we find the Church, or at least its current leadership, courting temporal power while abandoning the eternal cause of justice.


What is even more disturbing is the Cardinal’s apparent alignment with the very forces that have commodified the Easter Sunday tragedy for political gain. The voice of a survivor—who refused to participate in the Mass upon seeing political figures such as President Dissanayake—rings out as a prophetic cry in the wilderness. This protest, though it may seem insignificant in local media or political circles, speaks volumes about the deep betrayal felt by those who demand accountability, not political grandstanding.

The Church, by its very nature, must be the voice of the oppressed and the marginalised. Christ Himself, in Luke 4:18, declared that He was sent “to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.” And yet, where is the liberation for those who still seek justice for the bombings? Where is the transparency in the financial contributions that poured into the Church after the carnage? The accusations of financial opacity are not just bureaucratic quibbles—they cut to the heart of the Church’s credibility. The very institution that should embody Christ’s call for truth and righteousness has become, in this instance, a pawn in the chess game of political manoeuvring.

It is here that we must confront an uncomfortable truth: the Easter Sunday attacks, a moment of national and spiritual crisis, have been reduced to political currency. Successive governments have failed to provide clarity or accountability, and the Church’s leadership, rather than acting as a moral compass, has allowed itself to be complicit in this obfuscation. Two critical reports, submitted to the Attorney General’s Department by respected committees, remain shrouded in mystery. These reports, we are told, contain vital information about the negligence that allowed the attacks to happen, as well as the facts behind the deeper conspiracies that swirl around the event. Yet, rather than advocating for their release with the fierce determination of a shepherd defending his flock, Cardinal Ranjith remains entangled in a web of political alliances.


This collusion between the sacred and the secular is not only dangerous—it is heretical. The Book of Proverbs warns us in 17:15, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” If the Church continues to play this “pathetic political game,” as some have called it, it risks becoming an abomination in the eyes of God and man. The Church, in its silence, is implicitly condemning the righteous pursuit of truth while justifying the wickedness of political expediency.

Cardinal Ranjith has no shame, for his record of political manipulation and bootlicking is well-documented, favouring whichever politician best serves his personal interests, often at the cost of the Catholic community in Sri Lanka.

The conspiracy theories surrounding the Easter Sunday attacks are not mere flights of fancy—they are fuelled by the very absence of facts. When those in power, whether political or religious, refuse to confront the truth, they leave a vacuum that is quickly filled by suspicion, fear, and extremism. The Church, once a bastion of stability, risks becoming complicit in the very violence it seeks to condemn by allowing these falsehoods to proliferate. For as long as the truth remains hidden, the cycle of violence will continue, not just in the form of bombs, but in the erosion of trust, faith, and justice.

Cardinal Ranjith has no shame, for his record of political manipulation and bootlicking is well-documented, favouring whichever politician best serves his personal interests, often at the cost of the Catholic community in Sri Lanka. His actions betray the very people he claims to shepherd, turning sacred spaces into platforms for power-hungry agendas. This shameful behaviour must be brought to an end. The Catholic Church is not a Hyde Park corner, where every Tom, Dick, and Harry can parade their political battles. It is a sacred place, where the faithful seek justice, freedom, and liberty, and where they must find refuge and confidence, even in their most intimate confessions. To degrade the Church into a political battleground is to desecrate the trust that binds it to the hearts of its people, and this desecration cannot be allowed to continue.

Cardinal Ranjith must, for the sake of his flock and his faith, renounce this unholy alliance with political power. He must demand the full release of the investigative reports and lead a movement of accountability, not just within the political realm, but within his own institution. The Church must return to its true calling—not as a political actor, but as the body of Christ on earth. The words of the prophet Amos ring out with undeniable clarity: “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24). This is the task before the Church—to ensure that justice is not a dry trickle, controlled by the whims of political expediency, but an unstoppable flood that washes away corruption, deceit, and betrayal.

In this moment of profound crisis, the Church has a choice: continue down the path of complicity, or stand boldly for truth, even at the cost of political influence. The Easter Sunday victims deserve more than silence; they deserve the full force of the Church’s moral authority and financial transparency. Cardinal Ranjith, and indeed the entire Catholic hierarchy, must choose whom they serve—God or Caesar. The time for playing games is over. It is time for the Church to rise again as the voice of the voiceless, the defender of the oppressed, and the seeker of truth. Let it be so. Amen!