Vijaya’s blighted political legacy

(February 19, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The 23rd anniversary of Vijaya Kumaratunga’s assassination was marked last week in Katunayake with many old Mahajana Party stalwarts in attendance. The members of the Mahajana Party during Vijaya’s time are now scattered throughout the political party system and former Vijaya loyalists can be found both in the government and in the opposition. As such, last week’s commemoration was attended by Minister Rajitha Senaratne, who is an SLFP cabinet minister as well as Shanthini Kongahage who is now a UNP provincial councillor and the head of the UNP Women’s Front. Even the man who had swept the party office had been present. Prof. Carlo Fonseka, Vijaya’s political guide and close kinsman, was also a prominent participant. One former Mahajana Party provincial councillor asked the present writer whether I was not invited. Well, I was not.

On 16 February 1988, I was at the Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue, an institution belonging to the Anglican Church, doing research for my first book. Though it was a Christian institution, the EISD had the Complete Tripitaka, the Pali version as well as the English Translation published by the Pali Text Society London. That was long before the Nedimala Buddhist bookstore opened and a complete translation of the Tripitaka was available only in a few places - that too in highly restricted special collections. The EISD was one place where I could access this material with minimum red tape, so I was there reading the English translation of the Tripitaka to collect material for my book. Fr Kenneth Fernando who later became Bishop of Colombo was then the Director of the EISD. It was his son, Shani, who opened an upper story window of his house and shouted to me as I was sitting alone in the library of the EISD that Vijaya had been shot dead. I took in the news and continued with my research.

Even Vijaya’s death was not going to distract me from my single minded quest to finish my book. Anybody associated with the left movement at that time, was a marked man, and I certainly never expected to live through it. The assumption was that we were all going to die, and before I got killed, I wanted to finish my book as my legacy to posterity. I was at that time a left wing political activist, in the middle of a Marxist armed rebellion by the JVP, incongruously doing research into the indigenous entrepreneurial tradition from southern Sri Lanka and the capitalist orientation of Buddhism. Despite everything that was happening around me, my book did see the light of day more than a year later. It was printed at the Star Press in Maradana belonging to the Lanka Sama Samaja Party. While it was being printed at the Star Press, its manager, P.D.Wimalasena, told me that Hector Abhayawardana who ran the Press on behalf of the party had come on a visit and seeing my manuscript on Wimalasena’s table, had looked through it and been highly impressed.

A couple of days later, I came again to the Star Press at around 7.00 in the evening and as I approached the place I sensed something was wrong. The printer who was handling my book went past me with some policemen in a van and there were a few people standing near the entrance to the press and smoke was coming out of the premises. When I got there, I saw Wimalasena lying across the doorway clad only in his underwear. He had been shot through the eye. Just minutes earlier, a JVP hit squad had raided the place, and found Wimalasena taking a shower at the back of the press. He had been dragged out and shot dead. The others who were there were spared because they were employees and not necessarily members of the LSSP. Then they had poured petrol all over the press and set fire to it.

I stepped over Wimalasena’s corpse, went into the press, collared the printer and wanted to know where my book was because what happened to Wimalasena could happen to me next and I wanted that book out before it happened. The sight of comrade Wimalasena’s dead body in the doorway was not going to distract me from my single minded purpose. Miraculously, the printed pages of my book were untouched. All other printed matter in the press had been destroyed except for my book. The JVP hit squad had spattered petrol over my book as well and only the first few sheets had to be discarded due to staining. It was published in August 1989. Three months later, the JVP insurrection ended.

While doing research for my book on the JVP insurrection, I gave a copy of my book to J.R.Jayewardene who was then in retirement. Two days later, he called me and told me to meet him again. When I went to Ward Place, he effusively complimented me on my book. Some of the theoretical problems that he had been grappling with for over half a century had been clarified in my book foremost among which was that capitalism was not alien to Sinhalese culture and Buddhism itself was capitalistic. The fact that JRJ was so taken up by my book was justification for all the trouble I had undergone to get it out.

Even Vijaya’s death was not going to distract me from my single minded quest to finish my book. Anybody associated with the left movement at that time, was a marked man, and I certainly never expected to live through it. The assumption was that we were all going to die, and before I got killed, I wanted to finish my book as my legacy to posterity. I was at that time a left wing political activist, in the middle of a Marxist armed rebellion by the JVP, incongruously doing research into the indigenous entrepreneurial tradition from southern Sri Lanka and the capitalist orientation of Buddhism. Despite everything that was happening around me, my book did see the light of day more than a year later.

It was with difficulty that we managed to survive physically between December 1986 and December 1989. Many of my colleagues and friends in the left moment were done to death by JVP death squads. What the United Socialist Alliance comprising of the Mahajana Party, LSSP and CP came out of was a baptism of fire no less. Those were years of immense heroism. As far as the LSSP and CP were concerned, perhaps their finest moment after the 1940s when they confronted the British government was in the late 1980s when they stood firm in the face of JVP death squads. During those years, I never heard anyone in the left parties even suggesting that we should soften our stand and listen to the ‘youth’ of the country. All we needed to do to escape death was to describe the Indian army as a ‘monkey army’, and the threat to our lives would have disappeared. Yet all those in the left movement preferred to face the death squads rather than compromise on principles.

Less than five years after this heroic resistance, the leader of the United Socialist Alliance who formed the party over her husband’s dead body became the leader of the country. One would think that a regime built on such sacrifice and steadfast heroism would produce something that the country could be proud of. Yet what it produced was a complete horror – the most repressive, corrupt and incompetent government in the post-independence history of this country. The country was led by a president who insisted on talking like a basket woman and whose full time occupation during the first seven years of her reign was to harass the opposition. Sometime around 1997, a photographer attached to our newspaper was standing with me at the entrance to the Upali Group compound on Bloemendhal Road and pointing to the Sugathadasa Stadium in front of us, he said "We know that Chandrika will not build half of this even if she rules the country for 25 years, but we still vote for her." That was the assessment of a die hard supporter of the People’s Alliance about their own president! And he was absolutely right. During her tenure in power Chandrika did not build even half a Sugathadasa stadium.

Vijaya was a man who built a political career out of sincerity and humaneness. The government of his widow was an insult to Vijaya’s memory. His widow’s government even appointed a commission to foist the blame for Vijaya’s murder on the UNP and to absolve the JVP. The way Vijaya’s widow behaved after capturing power was akin to the behaviour of an illiterate working class woman who had suddenly come upon unexpected wealth. Her crowning act of insanity was trying to imprison the leader of the opposition in order to win the parliamentary election of 2000. With that Viyaya’s widow nearly presided over the demise of democracy in this country. If one leader started the practice of imprisoning the opposition leader, every subsequent leader would have done the same and that would have been the end of the democratic system as we know it. Perhaps what ITN did was right - to celebrate Vijaya’s career as an actor not as a politician. Any mention of Vijaya’s short lived political career will remind people of CBK, which would be an insult to his memory.

Read More

Must Professionals dance to politicians' tune ?

l by Shanie


"Out of a broken window
of a damaged car -
dead driver -
the radio.....unscathed
on a commercial break
a man’s pleasant voice announced
that big or small, insurance
protects them all."

(February 18, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Vivimarie VanderPoorten, who teaches English at the Open University of Sri Lanka, is a sensitive poet who was awarded the Gratiaen Prize five years ago. Written in the aftermath of the Central Bank bombing, this last stanza of her poem captures the utter incongruity of the advertiser’s jingle on the radio extolling insurance protection amidst the mayhem and carnage around. It also perhaps epitomises the kind of warped values that prevail in our society. Amidst the reality of abject poverty and economic and social insecurity experienced by many throughout the country, including the war-displaced, we have many who go about leading extravagant lives and proclaiming that Sri Lanka is on the verge of becoming the wonder of Asia.

The challenge before the professionals and the civil society leadership today is to provide an apolitical and responsible perspective on issues of good governance. In recent years, under several regimes, political decisions have been made that undermined the rule of law and set back the economic and social development of the country. The professionals have either chosen to remain silent or shamelessly acquiesced with such political decisions. They need to have the strength of character and of their convictions to take an independent stand on issues within their areas of expertise. In many areas, we need a change of course if governance issues are not to lead the country to chaotic levels that we have seen in some other countries in recent times. Such a change can about only if the professionals who have the capacity to influence political decision-making are willing to put the national interests before personal ones. In the long term, taking a principled stand will not only enable them to stand tall but also ensure that the country moves away from a political, social and economic downward slide.

A Strong Bench and a Strong Bar

The newspapers this week have carried some significant opinion columns that focus on governance issues. Javed Yusuf, a respected educationist and civil society activist, castigates the legal professionals for failing to take a stand when the rule of law and the administration of justice were threatened by political action. He refers to J R Jayawardena’s UNP government, in the aftermath of a huge victory at the 1977 General Election enacting a new constitution the following year. Giving the excuse of a new constitution, senior Supreme Court and High Court Judges were sacked, promoted or demoted by the political authority. The Executive Committee of the Bar Association at that time, despite consisting largely of political supporters of the UNP (Mr H W Jayawardena, brother of JR) was elected President in 1975), passed a resolution condemning the political action affecting the independence of the Judiciary. Today, laments Yusuf who has been a long standing supporter of the SLFP, the Bar Association has been reduced to a shadow of its proud self. When the 18th Amendment with its wide ramification was presented in Parliament, the BASL made no analysis of the amendment to guide either the country or the government. Yusuf also laments that it was left to the LLRC to comment and make recommendations on human rights violations, the rule of law, disappearances, etc when it was the professional duty of the BASL to do so earlier.

The election of a new President to the BASL takes place next Wednesday. One of the candidates has quite rightly stated that ‘when grave violence is done to the Rule of Law, the Bar Association, which by reason of the commitment of its membership to uphold and defend the Constitution, must intervene and convert such issues into public interest litigation with all its implications, and, for this specific, the membership of the Bar Association must be as one, irrespective of political, ethnic, religious or other differences.’ We have no doubt that the other candidate, despite his political affiliations, will also agree. We hope that the BASL will restore their earlier pre-eminent and independent position as legal professionals. The same candidate at next week’s election quoted former Supreme Court Judge Das Edussuriya as having stated that ‘a strong Bar begets a strong bench’. Nothing could be truer. It is only a strong and independent Bar living up to its professional role that can stand by and encourage the independence of the Judiciary and the safeguarding of the rule of law.

Police and Political Interference

Another revealing article in the week-end newspapers was by the outspoken retired Senior Superintendent of Police Tassie Seneviratne. Today, political interference coupled with the sycophancy of some senior police officers has eroded the professionalism of our law enforcement authority. There have been instances in the past of Inspectors General of Police who refused to accede to political requests to do something unprofessional even when it came from the highest in the land. Seneviratne refers to the assassination of Vijaya Kumaratunga in 1988 during the southern insurgency. Despite the unsettled times, the sleuths of the Police Crime Detection Bureau had been able to crack the case and arrest the suspected assassin who had confessed to the murder not only of Vijaya Kumaratnga but also of several other including Colombo Vice Chancellor Professor Stanley Wijesundara. It was at this stage that the then Defence Minister Ranjan Wijeratne ordered the CDB’s SSP Gamini Perera who was handling the case to transfer the suspect to the CID. Perera pleaded with Ranjan Wijeratne to let him handle the case which was coming to a successful conclusion and he was confident of obtaining a court conviction. But to no avail. The accused was transferred to the CID. Frank de Silva, later IGP, was then senior DIG/CID and he was transferred out of the CID and replaced by a compliant DIG/CID. The upshot of this was that the accused in the Vijaya Kumaratunga murder simply disappeared. It was in keeping with the political policy then of insurgent suspects being extra-judicially killed. This, Seneviratne says, put paid to the professional manner in which the Police were conducting the investigations.

There was a sequel to this sordid tale. After the change of government in 1994, a Commission of Inquiry was appointed to probe the assassination of Vijaya Kumaratunga which, for known reasons, never came to trial. By then, Kumaratunga’s widow had become the President of Sri Lanka. The Commission comprising two Supreme Court and one High Court Judge implicated, contrary to the findings of the Police investigations, former President Premadasa and Minister Ranjan Wijeratne in the assassination. Justice Alles commented at that time that the findings of the Commission were ‘a concept completely alien to established principles of criminal law.’ Was that another case of the Judiciary sacrificing their independence to please the political leaders of that time?

Politics in the University System

Earlier, many of them protested about the orientation being given to new entrants at military camps. Many also protested when the University Grants Commission ordered that security services in the Universities be handed over to a newly set-up a security company under the Ministry of Defence, violating the provisions of the University Act. But sadly most of the Vice Chancellors chose to go along with the political decisions being made by the bureaucrats in the University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Higher Education.

Higher education is another area where professionalism has been found wanting. Prior to the last Presidential Election in 2010, we had the disgraceful spectacle of the Chairman of the University Grants Commission and several Vice Chancellors appearing at a Press Conference and pledging support to one of the candidates, the incumbent President Mahinda Rajapakse. That was unpardonable and unprofessional. The only silver lining was that the Vice Chancellors of Peradeniya and Moratuwa, Professors S B Abeykoon and Malik Ranasinghe, refused to participate at this Press Conference, obviously not wanting to abuse their professional position. About twenty senior academics wrote an open letter condemning the collective participation of the Chairman of the UGC and the Vice Chancellors as a betrayal of the very raison d’etre of a University; and complimenting the Vice Chancellors who did not participate. But it is a pity that only twenty academics were brave enough to sign that letter. This was a matter of academic integrity and there should have been many more who should have signed that letter.

But it was encouraging to learn of the protests by the Peradeniya University Teachers’ Association to the heavy-handed response of the Police and Army to recent student agitation at the Galaha Road Junction. Earlier, many of them protested about the orientation being given to new entrants at military camps. Many also protested when the University Grants Commission ordered that security services in the Universities be handed over to a newly set-up a security company under the Ministry of Defence, violating the provisions of the University Act. But sadly most of the Vice Chancellors chose to go along with the political decisions being made by the bureaucrats in the University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Higher Education. We do not wish to ascribe motives, but it is unfortunate that, for whatever reason, many of the Vice Chancellors choose to dance to the advertiser’s jingle in VanderPoorten’s poem (in this case the politician’s tune) while academic integrity, freedoms and rights are being violated under their very noses. The deterioration in academic standards in our Universities over the last few decades is directly related to political interference in the university system.

The true professional must stand by his conscience. He/She must not get trapped by the politics of our time, cajoled by politicians into action that is clearly wrong and violates their own conscience. Sri Lanka can move forward towards good governance and sustainable peace only when the professionals take a principled stand on these issues.

Read More

Inclusivity and Pluralism – indispensable for reconciliation and reconstruction

by Shanie

"Development means good governance – that is the efficient management of government. This would include a rational, effective vision of development, translated into a workable action plane, implemented with transparency and integrity. The vision for development must be founded on scientifically assessed national needs and not on the whims of a few individuals nor their corrupt intentions of self-aggrandizement. For this one needs to operate within a political framework of democracy and individual freedoms and the free and full participation of all citizens in the development process. In the absence of this, government would soon deteriorate into dictatorship or anarchy and development into a farce, enacted to further the ends of a powerful few."

"Let us have the humility to admit that we Sri Lankans have failed as a nation. Let us look truth in the face, have the honesty and the courage to accept our mistakes and the generosity to make amendments. Continued denial of proven facts and abuse of our honest critics will not resolve the problem for anyone. Our leaders must take the lead in the noble task of reconciliation and reconstruction."

When she spoke last week in her Justice Palakidnar Memorial Lecture of development as good governance, workable only within a framework of political democracy with the participation of all people in the development process, she was only reiterating what has been her vision and that of her late husband Vijaya Kumaratunga ever since they together launched their political struggles forty years ago. They also stood for justice for the ethnic and religious minorities in our country. It was this vision that enabled her to gain a sweeping victory in the Presidential Election in 1994.

(July 30, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga is one of the few political leaders we have had in independent Sri Lanka who have had a vision for an inclusive pluralist society that would bring justice and dignity for all people, particularly the disadvantaged and the marginalised of all communities. When she spoke last week in her Justice Palakidnar Memorial Lecture of development as good governance, workable only within a framework of political democracy with the participation of all people in the development process, she was only reiterating what has been her vision and that of her late husband Vijaya Kumaratunga ever since they together launched their political struggles forty years ago. They also stood for justice for the ethnic and religious minorities in our country. It was this vision that enabled her to gain a sweeping victory in the Presidential Election in 1994. She did initiate major economic and educational reforms and also proposed constitutional reforms both to abolish the Executive Presidency and a consensus solution to the National Question. She had some success with the former but failed in the latter. In her lecture last week, she has explained the reasons why her constitutional reforms failed. If she had better skills as a political manager and if her late husband was still around, her Presidency would probably have been marked with greater success on this front.

Vijaya Kumaratunga was assassinated by the southern insurgents and Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga herself barely survived assassination by the northern insurgents. The motives of both sets of insurgents were the same – eliminate those who were a threat to what they considered was their sole right of monopoly to their political agenda. The southern insurgents considered Vijaya Kumaratunga as having the capacity to lead the disadvantaged and the marginalised to justice in an environment that respected democracy and individual freedoms. That would have clashed with their revolutionary struggle to capture the organs of state power with arms. The northern insurgents considered Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga as one leader at the centre who had the capacity to bring about a settlement to the National Question with justice to all. That would have prevented their own leader's ambition to be the undisputed (but unelected) leader of a separate state carved out of Sri Lanka. Hence the assassination of one and the near assassination of the other.

Lop-sided Development

But to come back to Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga's lecture. It was about the need at the present moment in Sri Lanka for reconciliation, inclusivity, pluralism, transparency and integrity if Sri Lanka is to move forward with its development goals. The above comments are offered only to place her remarks in the proper context. In her lecture, she pointed out to the need to have a cohesive and inclusive society, where everyone, irrespective of ethnic, religious, political or any other differences, would feel satisfied that they dignity, rights and the space to lead their own lives. Leaders and all citizens should be encouraged to cherish the value of diversity, to rejoice in its richness and limitless potential and strive to build unity within diversity. That was the only way to ensure peace and a participatory democracy.

As Kumaratunga correctly pointed out the benefits of development programmes must not only be distributed evenly to all regions and all communities but also implemented with transparency and integrity. It is a shame that this cannot be said of some of the major projects undertaken by this government. An international sea port, an international airport, an international cricket stadium and now a venue for the Commonwealth Games are all being sited in the south eastern corner of the island in President Rajapaksa's home district of Hambantota. This would have been alright if there had been transparency and integrity in the selection process and independent experts found Hambantota as the most viable site for all these projects. But there has been no such transparent process. No feasibility report on the sea port project has been released to the public. If such a report was in fact commissioned, who were the experts who prepared it? Did they not envisage the problems to be caused by rock formations at the entrance to the harbour? What is the reason for the Port to be still non-operational eight months after its opening? Have the international underwriters agreed to provide insurance cover to ships wishing to call at this port? When these same questions were raised some months ago, the Ports Authority issued a statement that did not answer any of the questions but simply stating that they assumed responsibility for 'the safety of the port'.

Such statements issued by a politically appointed authority has done little to reassure either the Sri Lankan public or the those concerned with international shipping. This is why transparency and integrity are integral to any development programme.

The same goes for two of the other projects sited in Hambantota. Were feasibility studies undertaken by experts in the relevant field before choosing to build the international cricket stadium at Hambantota, Can the viability of this stadium be sustained over the years. Of course, it is good to have international venues spread throughout the country; their viability will have to depend on various factors like the number of international matches scheduled to be played in Sri Lanka, the facilities for the players and spectators to travel and find accommodation at the different venues, the weather and ground maintenance factors, etc. Transparency and integrity will require the public to be informed of the experts who picked on Hambantota as the most suitable venue. Already, despite a lot of money and effort having gone into developing them, the Dambulla, Asgiriya and Wanathamulla Oval are hardly being used for international matches. The same charge of a lack of transparency and integrity can be levelled at the selection of Hambantota district as the site for building a second international airport. The public have not seen any feasibility study by any expert/s in this area.

The latest is the move to build up the infra-structure for the holding of the Commonwealth Games in Hambantota in 2018, if Sri Lanka is successful in its bid to hold the Games here. Environmentalists and wild life conservationists have already lodged a strong protest at earmarking thousands of acres of land in the region for this project. This is land that is home to a variety of fauna and flora in the country including endangered species like the Ceylon Leopard and the sloth bear. Was this site which encroaches on the Yala National Sanctuary the only site available in the country for the Commonwealth Games? Of course, it was not surprising to see some prominent personalities holding important public positions being associated with Sri Lanka's bid to hold the Games at this venue. One has ceased to attach any credibility to these persons who seem to feel that promoting the interests of their political masters is more important than the national interest.

Environment and wildlife conservation

On the question of environmental and wild life conservation, two reports this week have caused considerable concern. One is a proposal to build a road through the Sinharaja Nature Reserve. Sinharaja is one of our last remaining primeval rain forests and is a world heritage site. Prof. Senake Bandaranayake has observed that it is unique in that a greater part of it has never been affected by human activity nor, for millions of years, by any natural calamity. Scientists believe that it represents a botanical and zoological environment whose evolution has been undisturbed for at least the last one hundred million years. Prof Savitri Gunatilleke, one of our foremost scientists who has made extensive studies on Sinharaja stated in a paper she once presented to the Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science: 'The bulk of the forest comprises endemics, which makes our rain forests quite exclusive to the island – nowhere else in the world is there this particular combination of species, this gene pool not only of plants – whose medicinal and agricultural potential has yet to be studied – but also of animals and micro-organisms.' it is this national treasure that some young political adventurer is seeking to destroy by constructing a road through the forest. Are there no thinking men of character in the government who have the courage to stop the destruction for all time of the rich bio-diversity of our country?

The other news report refers to the alleged discovery of a fresh leopard skin at the home of a young government Minister, the scion of an important political family in the North Central Province. This discovery followed the handing over of three motherless leopard cubs from Wilpattu to wild life officials, leading to suspicion that the leopard skin is that of the mother who has been killed. Despite a search, wild life officials have found neither the mother nor the carcass of a killed leopard. The Ceylon leopard is an endangered and protected animal and the possession of the leopard skin is a criminal offence. The head of Wild Life Conservation whose officials conducted the raid and discovered the skin has now been removed from his position. One does not know if the transfer of this official had anything to do with this raid; but the important question is will the inquiry into the Minister's possession of the leopard skin be quashed and will he continue to illegally retain the leopard skin. Going by past instances of such cases involving political figures, probably nothing will happen: the Attorney General will find that there is insufficient evidence to proceed.

The Algerian-born Albert Camus, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature, was part of the French resistance during the second world war. In a critical essay he wrote shortly before his death in 1960, he spoke of the need to safeguard the democratic liberties the world now enjoys and which were won after centuries of revolutionary struggles. Choosing freedom is also choosing justice. 'If someone takes away your bread, he suppresses your freedom at the same time. But if someone takes away your freedom, you may be sure that your bread is threatened. Poverty increases insofar as freedom retreats throughout the world, and vice versa.' Kumaratunga's lecture last week was on the same lines. Camus concluded his essay: 'Freedom is not a gift received from a State or a leader but a possession to be won every day by the effort of each and the union of all.'

Read More