The scramble for post-election bragging rights

Wickramabahu Karunaratne of the Nava Sama Samaaja Party (NSSP) has claimed that ‘the working class fulfilled a massive task’ in securing the victory of Maithripala Sirisena.  What is implied here is that class consciousness was what compelled this particular populations segment to vote for Sirisena.  ‘Bahu’ as usual inscribes a lot of ‘motive’ on the actions of all kinds of people. There’s no way to figure out who exactly ‘the working class’ voted and why after all.   Still, it is a claim, never mind the fact that Sirisena doesn’t exactly stand for anything even remotely associated with the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

Bahu, however, is not alone.  He sits well, on stage and in sentiment, with other victory-claimants, including rank right wingers (the UNP and most of the SLFP), shady politicians (Ravi Karunanayake included), thugs (Mervin Silva), all those other bad people in the SLFP who supported Mahinda Rajapaksa including Duminda Silva, Eelamists, Jihadists, Sinhala Buddhist extremists, Christian fundamentalists etc., etc.  This is, ladies and gentlemen, the moment when people are falling over each other to claim bragging rights.

Some Tamils, Eelamists included, claim that it was the Tamils that defeated Mahinda. Other Tamils, mostly Eelamists, actually called the community to boycott the election.  Muslims voted overwhelmingly for Maithripala.  So did the Christians.  UNP supporters are in a chest-beating frenzy believing that it was the UNP that is in power, quite forgetting that it was a SLFPer who contested and won, and that the UNP couldn’t even field its own candidate.  The Bodu Bala Sena backed Mahinda, but there is no doubt that Champika Ranawaka was ‘The Voice’ of the Maithripala campaign, both on television and on stage. 

Then there are people who are very active on social media, especially Facebook, who are convinced that their 24/7 ‘campaign’ was the deciding factor.   Government Servants including those in the Army and the Police Department who ensured there was no hanky-panky can also claim bragging rights.  If not for them, they could argue, this would not be the outcome. Then there are the voters themselves.  They can clamor (although they don’t) for a piece of the Claim Pie.  And finally there’s Mahinda Rajapaksa, his campaign managers and team of campaign workers – it can be argued that they, more than anyone else, helped defeat him.  

So yes, it can be called a victory by all the people, except of course for that little uncomfortable fact that Mahinda got 5.8 million votes and that this counts for 47.58% of total valid votes cast.  But in this ‘democracy’ such things are brushed aside with rhetoric and ironically with numbers as well. Today, barely 10 days after edging out Mahinda, Maithripala enjoys the support of the entire Parliament. 

He came to power on the votes of the UNP, the Tamils and Muslims as well as the Sinhalese. He won the support of the class-conscious workers as well as the reds 4^th Internationalists such as Bahu love to call CIA-agents (the JVP that is). He had an army of FB veerayas (heroes) backing him voluntarily.  The state media that could have previously been called ‘Rajapaksa Media’ is now operating as though it is ‘Maithripala Media’.  More than all this he has taken control of his opponent’s party! Ever heard anything like that anywhere, at any point in history, except in this Miracle of Asia, folks?  He has appointed the Prime Minister of his choice and he has a Leader of the Opposition who is also from his party.

It happened almost overnight and the cynic in me whispers ‘they are all playing go-with-winner’.  That’s good and bad.  When everyone’s a winner, everyone will think this government will do what he/she wants or elected it to do.  Obviously everyone is not on the same page.  At best the edges of all pages (say the top or bottom right or left hand corners) came together for a few hours.  That’s it.

It is good to cheer, good to feel good, good to beat chest and turn a few cartwheels for good measure.  Sooner rather than later, illusions will be buried and the weight of the powerful in the overall political economy will emerge and prevail.  If we get better governance sometime soon, law and order, and proper regulations on all matters including environmental safeguards, that’s consolation enough.  If we have the same development paradigm, if we are driven by the same neo-liberal economic ‘logic’ and if the clueless about history, heritage, geography, demography and ground realities try playing placate-the-communalists (or religious fundamentalists for that matter, and there are such in all faiths, let us not forget), we wouldn’t have moved much. 

So let’s brag to our heart’s content.  Who knows, it might very well be all that we have for a long time to come. 

      

Read more

Kolombia and Kolombians all the way!

Done.  Finally.  I hate elections.  Elections are about a lot of people getting excited.  They are about inflated self-importance.  It’s the one moment when the riff raff actually think this country belongs to them.  They strut around as though are the king-makers (and occasionally queen-makers of course) when it fact it’s not the kings and queens that get elected but those who temporarily manage systems that by, with and for Kolombians.

I just can’t deal with this misplaced excitement.  The worst part of it is that most of the noise is made right here in Kolombia.  This is our land, our turf, our happy-hunting-ground.  Why must these yakkos come here to defecate, I ask you!  No, I am not talking about Gota’s excellent work and the pains taken to keep Kolombia looking nice for us Kolombians, never mind the fact that non-Kolombians also use the walkways. I am talking about the use of Kolombo for political activity.

What are these rallies, demonstrations, shows of support and musical shows all about?  I don’t know.  All I know is that they are not about me, not about Kolombo and not about Kolombians.  Elections are about voting.  So why on earth can’t people just do that without making a song and dance about it?  We are not saying they shouldn’t, are we?  All they needed to do was to quietly stand in line, cast their votes and go home. 

I was particularly upset by what’s happening on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites.  Every second person who can string three or four words into a sentence suddenly turned into political commentators.  As someone pointed out to me the other day ‘pseudo intellectuals have hopped on the soap box that is FB to spew their rhetoric’.   He added, ‘shut the eff up and get on with trying to make a positive difference somewhere,’ but I think that’s going a bit too far. 

What was upsetting about all this is that these pundits and those they back to ‘lead’ (sic) this country are going on and on and on without a word about us.  There’s no mention of Kolombia.  There’s no reference to Kolombians. 

Now it’s done.  They’ve had their day in the sun.  They’ve crawled in and out of ballot boxes.  They have smiled and laughed and felt good about themselves.  That’s fine.  I won’t deny them such small mercies.  Now they can shut up.  Done.  Dusted.  

Let me remind everyone.  You may have elected the President of Sri Lanka, but the President of Sri Lanka is a servant of the Kingdom of Kolombia.  You’ve just elected the guy who gets to look after our interests for a few years.  And now that you’ve done it, just go home along with your illusions, will you?   And while you are at it, change your FB profile pics and cover photos, ok?  I am sick of seeing mug shots of the candidates.  Sick of campaign slogans.  Replace them will pictures that correspond to your sorry lives instead.  That would be the honest thing to do. 

Just remember, now and always, this is our game, our land, our way, baby.  ‘Kolombia and Kolombians all the way and forever!’  That’s the true outcome of this election. 

Everyone takes note.  Some keep notes.  Some in diaries and journals.  Some in their minds and hears.  Some of these are shared via email or on Facebook or blog; some are not.  Among these people are Kolombians, people from Colombo who know much -- so much that they are wont to think that others don't know and can't think. This is the twelfth in a series published in 'The Nation' under the title 'Notes of an Unrepentant Kolombian'.

Other articles in this series:

Have a free lunch on Election Day

Shortcuts to becoming a Kolombian
A Kolombian's worst nightmare
The Bourse is ours!
You name it, Kolombians own it
We shall not be re-named
Get off my walkway!
Thank you Mahinda for the Avacado Prawns!
English is a feel-good thing na?
Dear Percy, your membership card is ready
Forget Mahinda and Maithree, Alistair Cook is the Kolombian choice!
One day we will acquire 'class conciseness'!
Mahinda, Maithripala and their Money-Pestos

Read more

The Nation above all

An election was held.  Someone won and someone lost.  Accordingly, those who voted for the winner would consider themselves shareholders of the victory and those who backed the loser would partake of the defeat. 

On the other hand, the winners do not automatically become special and the losers lesser citizens.  Maithripala Sirisena is the President of the entire country, never mind the fact that almost 6 million did not vote for him, of which 5.7 actually voted for other candidates.  Preferences change over time and this translates into reward or punishment when people get to vote again. 

Winners typically transfer victory-credit and bragging rights to ‘the people’.  Typically also, the people and their votes recede to some cobwebbed corner of the political victors and remain there until the next election comes around.  Let us hope this will not happen. 

The new President has pledged in manifesto and platform (and reiterated the fact in his speech following induction) to correct constitutional and institutional flaw to ensure better governance.  For this he is applauded.  He will receive greater accolades once word turns into deed.  To his credit, Maithripala Sirisena has locked himself to the pledged agenda in two ways.

First, he announced that he will not be sworn in as President again.  In other words, either the Executive Presidency will be abolished during his tenure or else he will not seek re-election.  More importantly, by promising a maithree paalanaya (A government of compassion or compassionate governance), his every act will have to be underlined by this attribute.  Compassion.  That’s a tough ask.  Some might say that it is promising the impossible, but it is a laudable standard to set oneself.  If there is honesty in effort, errors and frailties will be forgiven.  Indeed, anything better in the matter of governance compared to the previous regime will be applauded by what is fortunately or unfortunately an electorate ever ready to forget and forgive. 

The nation won and not for reasons we’ve heard the victors utter over the last few days.  This country proved to all its detractors (let’s not fool ourselves that the venomous sections of the international community wanted Mahinda Rajapaksa out because they loved the people of this country) that we can do the needful on our own, thank you very much. 

We got ‘regime-change’.   At our own pace.  The way we wanted it.  This is something those who have been hauling Sri Lanka over the coals in international forums should take note of.  No coups.  No ‘Gaddafying’ of Mahinda Rajapaksa.  No pound of flesh, no blood flowing in the streets of Colombo. 

Both the newly elected President and the Prime Minister he appointed immediately after being inducted, have clearly acknowledged the immense services rendered to the nation by Mahinda Rajapaksa.  He recovered the nation for the citizenry, including those who voted against him.  He made a tomorrow possible.  That he forfeited the right to guide the country to other tomorrows is another matter. 

He went with grace*.  As someone pointed out, that should not deserve extra applause.  That’s what he has to do.  The reason why it is applauded is perhaps because there was so much hype about ‘The Rajapaksas’ not going out without a fight. That hype was created clearly by those who do not know Mahinda Rajapaksa and worse, underestimate the democratic spirit of the citizens and their sense of timing.  Mahinda Rajapaksa knew this better than most. 

In any event, the signal to the country’s enemies is clear: do not interfere, we don’t need your help, we know what we want and don’t want and we will do what is best in our interests in a manner of our choosing.  

To the new President, we say the following:

‘Congratulations and may you be true to the promise to be compassionate, and may your compassion be coupled with wisdom.  You have set yourself some tasks and they are all people-friendly.  We will watch, we will cheer when you deserve applause and will critique where necessary.  But Mr President, you also have unfinished tasks.  Even as you get moving on your 100-day program, you cannot postpone two important concerns close to your heart:  the National Drug Policy and the fight against the tobacco industry.  Finish what you started, Your Excellency.  That will give us confidence that you have indeed put the nation above all else.’ 

*The above is the Editorial of 'The Nation' of January 11, 2015.  Now it seems that Mahinda Rajapaksa, probably following the same kind of ill-advice that led to his downfall, was exploring unconstitutional ways of remaining in power.  Thankfully (most of all in his interest) all this came to naught. 

Read more

How Maithripala Sirisena became First Citizen

He was one of the few seniors in the Sri Lanka Freedom Party to openly back Mahinda Rajapaksa when the latter first ran for President in 2005.  Although by dint of seniority, popularity within the party, dynamism and energy, and proven organizational skill he ought to have been in the running for the post of Prime Minister whenever it was considered ‘up for grabs’ (i.e. after a Presidential or General Election), he was overlooked in favor of others. 

One reason was what could be called the D.B. Wijetunga Principle.  ‘DB’ was picked as PM by Ranasinghe Premadasa after the latter succeeded J.R.Jayewardene as President in 1988.  It was believed that Premadasa didn’t want to be overshadowed by equally dynamic and popular leaders such Lalith Athulathmudali and Gamini Dissanayake.   ‘DB’ was aging.  Safe.  Chandrika Kumaratunga’s choice of Ratnasiri Wickramanayake, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s persistence with Wickramanayake and later opting for another ‘vintage’ party man, D.M. Jayaratne are all seen as leaves out of the Premadasa book. 

However, as the longest serving General Secretary of the SLFP, Sirisena had the keys to the party machinery and the network of organizers.  He had standing.  He was respected.  He was loyal to his leader, until the end. 

So when he broke ranks, he wrecked the political equation.  Whereas in 2010 Sarath Fonseka was expected by some to split the Sinhala vote, the man didn’t have a party and party still counted.  In this instance, Sirisena’s decision to challenge Rajapaksa with the support of the main opposition, the tacit support of the JVP and the special skills of Rev Athureliye Rathana and Champika Ranawaka of the JHU amounted to a challenge that had a much better chance than in Fonseka’s efforts five years previously. 

The rest, as they say, is history.  Let's recap, though. 

The moment Mahinda Rajapaksa used the two-thirds majority that the United People’s Freedom Alliance enjoyed in Parliament to get the 18^th Amendment passed and thereby secured the constitutional right to go for a third term, it was clear that an election will be held towards the end of 2014 or at the beginning of 2015.  The ‘early call’ was predictable, considering possible regime/incumbency-fatigue as the term dragged on. 

The question was, who would stand up to a popular President, a man during whose tenure a 30 year long armed conflict was brought to a close and who had a lot of development to show.  It was not easy.  Ranil Wickremesinghe, Leader of the Opposition, would have been ‘obvious choice’ except for his poor record in major elections and the calories he has had to keep burning to keep rebels in his party at bay.  An outsider was tried in 2010.  Sarath Fonseka was bested and by a massive margin.

Five years later, under different circumstances with war-victory more of a ‘thing of the past’ a similar candidate might have made a run, but Fonseka’s experience meant that there wouldn’t exactly be people fighting to be that candidate. 

The idea of a ‘Common Candidate’ was in the air for several months. Ven Madoluwawe Sobitha Thero, with his tireless campaign to abolish the executive presidential system was a name that was discussed.  Karu Jayasuriya, who shared the Thero’s sentiments and was seen as a unifier who could obtain the support of the JHU and JVP, was another ‘possible’.  Shirani Bandaranayake, the ‘Ousted CJ’ as well as her predecessor the inimitable Sarath N Silva were also talked of as potential Common Candidates.  No one thought, ‘How about Maithripala Sirisena?’

Today there are many who claim to have been instrumental in getting him to contest.  One thing is certain.  Rev Athureliye Rathana firing some salvos and the JHU leaving the Government with absolutely nothing to fall back on (there was no ‘candidate to support’ at the time, and anyway elections had not even been called) infused some courage into the broader opposition.  Chandrika Kumaratunga, for all her flaws (she was a big liability during the campaign with the venom she spouted being antithetical to the ‘compassion’ line that underlined the Sirisena campaign), probably gave Sirisena that little extra boost of courage to say bye-bye to the leader he once loved and clearly admired.  Whether or not the 'international community' had a say in the matter, we don't know.  It is hard to purchase Dayan Jayatilleka's tale about political lost-causes such as Rajitha Senaratne and Mangala Samaraweera doing the moving and shaking.  The conspicuous absence of the Saravanamuttus and Jehan Pereras in the whole drama should indicate that what we saw is what we got, nothing more nothing less.

 But it finally came down to Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNP.  Only Ranil (given the UNP constitution and given his personality) could decide whether or not Sirisena would be a viable candidate.  Tellingly, Sirisena had to wait until the UNP’s Working Committee had pledged to support him to announce his candidacy.

Then other pieces fell into place.  Key individuals crossed party lines.  The JVP offered de facto support by telling people not to vote for Rajapaksa.  The SLMC and other key figures in the Muslim community offered support.  The TNA likewise pledged the Tamil vote. 

Then came a hard fought campaign.  The incumbency edge had to be nullified.  The abuse of state resources, an unfortunate ‘given’, had to be met with that much more effort.  Not all of it came from concerted, well-planned marshaling of resources.  The work of volunteers, almost all operating on their own and in small groups the ‘high command’ probably knew nothing about, counted.  It all came together. 

The rest, as they say, was history.

Read more

The way we got to this (result)

Maithripala Sirisena has been elected as the sixth Executive President of Sri Lanka.  A few months ago few would have envisaged this result.  Indeed, a few months ago no one even considered Maithripala as a possible challenger to the incumbent, Mahinda Rajapaksa.  The not-thought-of happened.  Some may say that this was less a vote FOR Maithripala than a vote AGAINST Mahinda.  Some would argue that Maithripala was not Maithripala but a proxy for a collective, a gathering of dissent and dissenting.  At the end of the day, however, Maithripala Sirisena is the First Citizen.  He holds the most powerful political office in the country.  Congratulations are called for.  Best wishes too.

It is easy to list reasons for victory (or defeat, in the case of Mahinda Rajapaksa).  It is harder to assign value to the various factors.  At this point, definitive claims would be presumptuous.  A few important factors could be discussed though.

First the compositions of the two main camps.  On one side there was Maithripala with a significant section of the SLFP, Ranil Wickremesinghe with a UNP that might have shown more enthusiasm had the party put forward a candidate but showed more interest than they did in 2010 (even with Sajith Premadasa pouting), the JVP ‘supporting without saying it’, the SLMC and TNA tagging themselves to a possible winner and the JHU providing in quality what they could not in quantity.  On the other side there was Mahinda Rajapaksa.  Isolated.  Burdened by ills he could ill afford, the ghosts of things not done and indeed things done (of the despicable kind), fatigued and giving reasons to bolster regime-fatigue. 

While track record had pluses to balance the negatives, Mahinda had a handicap that proved to be fatal.  He was surrounded by (or he surrounded himself with) a bunch of hangers-on who had hung around for so long and had fattened themselves to slothfulness.  They seemed to have a simple formula: lokka cannot lose – all we have to do is ‘something’ so that we can say, after he wins, ‘we did it for you’.   It is one thing to be slothful when victory is assured, and quite another to fudge when the going gets tough.  The quite-another happened.  And so it was ‘Mahinda and his Handicaps vs The Rest’ and that was always going to be tough. 

What of the issues?  The talk was ‘good governance’.  Its Sinhala equivalent, ‘යහ පාලනය’ (yaha paalanaya) was for the Sinhala electorate at least as foreign as Patricia Butenis, Robert O Blake, Navi Pillay or David Cameron.  Abolishing the executive presidency or, as Maithripala re-qualified it to ‘abolishing the executive presidential system’ following his understanding with the JHU was certainly not a widely held ‘concern’.  Perceptions of misrule, arrogance, extravagance, conspicuously lavish lifestyles of progeny and absolute contempt for the rule of law may have been far more ‘real’ to the electorate. 

It was not that the voters did not love Mahinda.  In many elections they voted for his party even while cursing most of these things.  One reason was that there was no one in the opposition they could trust to do better.  Maithripala was different and so, even as they felt sorry for Mahinda, they voted him out. 

Mahinda didn’t help his cause by moving so far away from the personality that endeared him to wide sections of the electorate, that he became unrecognizable.  There was hardly any humility in word, tone and expression. There was anger, frustration, desperation and arrogance written all over him.  Had he given the voter some reason to think that he was at the core the same accessible, one-of-us kind of President it might not have come to this. 

There was also a non-issue which, in absence, is of remarkable political significance.  This is the first presidential election since 1982 where ‘minority issues’ were not taken up.  There was no talk of devolution. No talk of the 13^th, 13-Plus or 13-Minus.  The TNA didn’t make demands.  Neither did the SLMC.  While the SLMC had everything to gain by backing a winner, the TNA had little hope of reward (of the kind it has always wanted).  This is why the TNA’s intervention is significant.  For the first time, a Tamil communalist party put aside identity-related issues for what has to be read as larger interests of the overall citizenry. 

As interesting is the absence and silence of the usually vociferous good-governance peddlers who quite pompously call themselves ‘civil society’.  This time around, it was the ‘bad boys’, i.e. those they call extremists, hawks, racists, chauvinists etc, etc, who not only talked the talk but walked it.  In the end, it would seem, it’s those who walk the earth and talk earth-talk at the right time standing with the right people who deliver; certainly not the paid mouthpieces of that shady bunch called ‘the international community’. 

Speaking of the international community, what of their constant battle cry for the past five years: regime-change?

The electorate has answered them: ‘Regime change, yes; but at our own pace, the way we want it and with whom we want it.  These international thugs would think nothing of destabilizing the country to the point where anarchy reigns just to get a point across and of course to get a toehold onto the country.  Perhaps they’ll now learn that there are many ways to skin the proverbial cat and that there are less bloody and more wholesome methods than what they prefer.  Let them also remember that it is likely that the only part of this result they can be happy about is the fact that Mahinda Rajapaksa is out of office.  Other things are on hold.  

Read more

The (quick) ‘ethnicization’ of the result

In 2005 when Mahinda Rajapaksa was elected President, it was argued that he won because of the LTTE ordering Tamils living in areas controlled by that organization to boycott the election.  Had they voted, Mahinda’s opponent Ranil Wickremesinghe of the UNP would have got that ‘extra something’ needed to win, it is argued. 

Decent enough argument, although it is presumptuous to speculate about the ‘may have’ of voter-choice.  However, stressing the point somehow devalues the votes that did get cast.  It is ridiculous, for example, to place higher value on votes un-cast than one those that were counted. 

Today we see a similar under/over valuation of ethnic-composition with respect to the result of the Presidential Election.  Not surprisingly these are exercises indulged in by those fixated by identity politics.  They assume, erroneously, that people are essentially one dimensional and they make choices based solely on notions of identity, ethnic or religious.

The reason for this is the fact that the Northern and Eastern Provinces went to Maithripala Sirisena, who was supported by the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and the Tamil National Alliance.  The strengths of these parties being in the above mentioned provinces clearly give credence to the claim. 

There are separatists, federalists and devolutionists of various hues who have re-hashed the 2005 argument, claiming ‘Tamils (and Muslims) made Maithripala the President’.  On the other hand, ardent Mahinda loyalists or rather the diehard Sinhala Buddhists in that camp argue that the result is a victory for Eelamists, federalists and devolutionists based on, ironically, the same (mis) reading of voting patterns. 

The truth is that Tamils in the Northern Province did not vote en bloc for Sirisena.  He got close to 400,000 from Jaffna and Vanni.  Mahinda Rajapaksa polled a little over 100,000 in these electoral districts or approximately 20% of the total votes cast.  That 100,000 are not Sinhala Buddhists.  It is different in the Eastern Province of course, with the more multi-ethnic nature of the province.

How about applying this logic to the districts that Maithripala did not win?  When you just color districts on the map without the relevant vote breakdown, you get a very skewed and distorted picture of voting patterns.  Mahinda Rajapaksa won Kalutara, Galle, Matara, Hambantota, Moneragala, Ratnapura, Kegalle, Matale, Kurunegala and Anuradhapura, but Maithripala Sirisena secured more than 40% in each of these districts except Hambantota (35.9%) and Moneragala (37.45%).  They were not ‘all blue’ so to speak.  Similarly, Mahinda was only a close second in Gampaha (49.49%), Badulla (49.15%) and Puttalam (48.97%), while polling over 40% in Colombo, Kandy and Polonnaruwa.   These districts, then, were not ‘all green (with apologies to Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNP of course)’. 

Here’s what really puts the matter to rest.  Of those who voted for Maithripala, only 6.2% were from the North and 9.4% from the East, keeping in mind that Sinhalese make up 23% in the latter province.  So, the ‘minority’ share of ‘victory’ is just 15.6%.  It is ridiculous to think that Maithripala will let this segment wag the 84.4% of the rest, keeping in mind, also, that he is President for all, not just those who voted for him.   

We can leave all this aside and ask the question, ‘are Tamils not citizens?’  They certainly are.  And they can vote for who  THEY like and don’t have to vote for who ‘Sinhala Nationalists’ prefer.  Remember also, that in this election, it was the Tamils who were harassed most in getting to the polling stations and this by TAMIL backers of Mahinda Rajapaksa. 

In short, Maithripala could not have won without the Sinhala Buddhist vote.  And he might have even lost if Champika Ranawaka and Rev Athureliya Rathana Thero were not part of his equation, considering the fact that the JHU’s ‘departure’ was a key precipitating factor and more than this the fact that Ranawaka was the strongest voice in the entire campaign. 

Anyway, arguing that the TNA is ‘Eelamist’ (if it is not, the TNA certainly has done little to lay that perception to rest) and therefore the ‘Tamil vote’ is a vote by Eelamists for Eelam with Maithripala in tacit acknowledgment of all this is simplistic.  It assumes that people want nothing else represented other than such objectives, that they are not interested in law and order, good governance, dealing with crime and corruption, the cost of living, employment opportunities, better access to healthcare and education etc.  It I like saying that since known thugs backed Mahinda Rajapaksa all those who voted for him in electorates where the campaign was organized by these thugs were themselves thugs. 

What’s forgotten in all this is that this was the first presidential election where ‘ethnic issues’ took a back seat. Indeed, there was little or no mention of that which had dominated all presidential elections since 1982.  No talk of devolution. Nothing of the 13^th Amendment.  Nothing of ‘minority rights’.  The only ‘ethnic’ or ‘religious’ factor was that two parties that prey on identity, the TNA and SLMC chose to support a particular candidate.  No agreements.  No MoUs.  Indeed, one can fault both candidates for leaving this vexed issue out of the story because you can keep it out of manifesto and speech but you can’t make it go away. 

The fact remains that the winner clearly stated that there would be no change in the national security status quo and that the unitary character of the state will not be touched, that sovereignty and territorial integrity will similarly be kept intact.  So, if we flip the communal argument, one can even say that by backing a candidate, coalition and manifesto that so strongly affirmed these elements that are so clearly identified with Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime, the TNA was essentially ‘backing off’

While an ethnic-privileging reading of results is certainly useful, it is perhaps more useful to read certain trends about other issues that matter for the people.   It was pointed out by someone that the particular candidate lost the electorates from which those who defected to his side belonged.  Dambulla, Mihintale and Seruwila were all won by Mahinda.  And Maithripala secured Tissa Attanayake’s electorate. Interestingly, Maithripala lost Attanagalle, the stronghold of Chandrika Kumaratunga, whose role in the entire election has been widely overrated. 

Interestingly also, the same commentator pointed out, the poorest electoral division in Sri Lanka, Anamaduwa, voted solidly for Mahinda.  Now that’s a line of analysis that the ‘ethnicists’ are avoiding. 

Clearly there is a call for a de-ethnicization of politics, which means that the ‘ethnic’ component of national concerns should be realistically proportioned and not allowed to balloon according to the inflationary whims of ‘ethnicists’.  Perhaps the current focus on bestowing meaning to citizenship (through institutional reform that yields better governance) will help.  All power to the new President in this.

Read more

මහින්ද ට කෙටි පණිවුඩයක්

'අති ගරු', 'තුමනි' යනාදී විශේෂණ බැහැර කොට නිකම්ම නිකම් 'මහින්ද' ලෙස ආමන්ත්‍රණය කිරීම ගැන අමනාප නොවේ යැයි සිතමි.  ඒ ඔබ බොහෝ කලකට පසු ව නැවත ඔබගේ (අපට) හුරු පුරුදු පුරවැසි භාවය ලබා ඇති බැවිනි.  එනම් 1994 ට පෙරත්, 2001-2004 අතරත්, ධූර කාලයේ මුල් අවදියේ දී ත් අප හඳුනා ගෙන තිබුන 'මහින්ද' ගේ ඡායාවක් නැවතත් ඔබ සතු වී ඇති බැවිනි.

විශේෂයෙන්ම ජනතා තීන්දුවට අවනත වී සමස්ත ඡන්ද ප්‍රථිපල නිකුත් වීමටත් ප්‍රථම පරාජය භාර ගෙන නිල නිවාසයෙන් නික්ම යෑම අගය කරමි.  කල යුතුව ඇති දේ කිරීම විශේෂ නොවුනත් එසේ නොකරාවි කියා අනුමාන කිරීම ට බොහෝ හේතු ඔබ විසින්ම සැපයු බව කිව යුතුය (18 වන ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝදනය මීට එක් නිදසුනක් පමණි).  ඊට අමතරව ඔබට එරෙහි වූ බොහෝ බලවේග සහ දේශපාලන විචාරකයෝ ඔබ පිලිබඳ ගොතා ඇති කතන්දර බොහෝය. එලෙසම පරාජය වූවහොත් අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම රට අරාජික තත්වයකට පත් වන ආකාරයට තනතුර හැර දමා නොයනු ඇති බවට ඔවුන් අනාවැකි ඉදිරිපත් කලෝය.  විශේෂයෙන්ම බල පෙරලිය අරාබි-වසන්ත ය ට හසුවූ රාජ්‍යයන් මෙන් ම ප්‍රචණ්ඩත්වය හා ලේ වැගිරීම් වලින් පමණක් සිදු කල හැකි බවට තර්ක කල එවැනි පිරිස් මවිත කිරීමට ඔබ සමත් විය.  එය අගය කල යුතුවේ.  ඒ නිසාම පහුගිය කාලයේ ඔබම නැති කරගත් ගෞරවයෙන් යමක් ඔබට නැවත දිනා ගත හැකි විය.  අප හඳුනන මහින්ද ව නැවත අපට මොහොතකට හමු විය.

ඔබ සර්ව සම්පූර්ණ ජනාධිපති වරයෙක් නොවින.  එලෙසම අසාර්ථකම ජනාධිපතිවරයාද නොවේ.  අවශ්‍යම අවස්තාවලදී ඔබ ඍජු ව සිටියේය.  ඔබගේ ධූර කාලය තුල අපට නැවතත් රටක් හිමි වූයේය.  එම රට අපට අහිමි වූවාට වඩා සිදු වූයේ අහිමි කිරීම යැයි මට සිතේ -- පාලකයන් ගේ පටු දේශපාලන උවමනා සාක්ෂාත් කිරීමට ගත උත්සාහයන්ගේ ප්‍රතිපලය එය විය.  නැවත හුස්ම ගැනීමට, බියෙන් තොරව ජීවත් වීමට අවශ්‍ය වටපිටාවක් ඔබ නිර්මාණය කළේය -- වෙනත් ආකාරයේ භීතිය ක් ඉන් පසුව උත්පාදනය කල බවද කිව යුතුමය.

ඒ කෙසේ වෙතත්, ත්‍රස්තවාදය මෙරටින් තුරන් වූයේ ඔබ ගේ ධූර කාලයේ බවත් ඒ සඳහා ඔබගේ දායකත්වය විශේෂ වූ බවත් පිලිගනිමි, අගය කරමි.  ඔබව ප්‍රජාතන්ත්රවාදී ආකාරයෙන් පරාජය කිරීමට අවශ්‍ය වටපිටාවක් ඔබම සකසා දුන් බවද කිව යුතු ය.  ඒ අර්ථයෙන් ඔබ ගේ විරුද්ධවාදීන් කියන සේ ඔබ බල තන්හාවෙන් මත් වූවෙක් යයි කීම අසාධාරණ වේ.  ඒකාධිපති පාලකයෝ ගැන අප නොදන්නවා නොවේ.  මේ විදිහට 'ගෙදර යන' එකාදිපතියෝ ගැන නම් අසා නැත.

තව බොහෝ දේ ඔබට කල යුතුව තිබුණි.  නොකර සිටිය යුතු දේ ද බොහෝය. ඒ වා ගැන කතා කල යුතුය.  මේ ඒ සඳහා මොහොත නොවේ.  ඔබ ගේ හැකියාවේ දැනුමේ සීමාවන් තුල කල දේ හොඳට ම ඇති.  ඒ සීමාවන් තුල පවා ඔබට ජනාදරය දිනාගත හැකි විය.  ඔබට එරෙහිව ඡන්දය පාවිච්චි කල බොහෝ දෙනා අද (ඊයේට වඩා) ඔබ ව ආදරෙන් සිහි කරනු නොඅනුමානය.  බොහෝ කරුණු හේතු කොට ගෙන ඔබ වීරයෙක් යැයි කිව හැක.    දෙවියෙකු වත් මාර්ග ඵල ලද්දෙක් නොවේ ඔබ. එය අප දනිමු.

ඔබගේ හෙට දින කෙබඳු වේ දැයි අප නොදනිමු. එය ඔබ සතු දෙයකි.  දැන් ඔබ විශ්‍රාමිකයි.  දේශපාලනයේ ඉහලම ස්ථානයට පැමිණියා ට පසුව, ඒ ධූරයෙන් සමු ගත්  පසු නැවත දේශපාලන අනාගතයක් ගැන සිතීම ට ඔබට අයිතියක් ඇත. මා සිතන විදිහට එවැනි අදහසක් ඇති නම් මෙම මොහොතේ අප නැවත හඳුනා ගත් මහින්ද නැවතත් අතුරුදහන් වනවා ඇත.  මේ රටේ ඉතිහාසයේ ගෞරවනීය සඳහනක ට ඔබට උරුම කම් කිව හැක. දැනට.  ඔබගේ ආදරණීය මැදමුලනේ සතුටින් සිටීමට කාලය පැමිණ ඇත.  අපට මොනයම් හෝ ආකාරයක සුභ අනාගතයක් ගැන සිතීමට ඉඩක් නිර්මාණය කල ඔබටද සුභම සුභ හෙට දවසක් පතමි.

Read more

Elections are not (just) about Candidates and voters

What are elections about if not candidates and voters, someone might ask rhetorically, leaving the answer ‘nothing else!’ hanging in the air.  That’s so wrong.  What do politicians do apart from asking for a vote in a thousand different ways, using all media available and spending all resources at hand?  And what do voters do apart from taking the trouble to get to the relevant polling station, standing in line, getting ballot paper, having the pinky colored purple, marking a cross and stuffing a folded piece of paper into a ballot box? 

We are not trying to make light of all this of course.  Politicians have to sweat.  Voters have to deliberate.  Calories are burnt by both parties.  And yet, politicians and voters are just individuals on one side of the overall election story.  Well, there are the backers, campaign managers, ‘troops’ on the ground and so on of course.  They all play a part and are no doubt important but we are not talking about such people here. 

This is about those who work to make it possible.  Let’s raise a cheer therefore for those who don’t get mentioned. 

First and foremost there is the Man of the Moment, Commissioner of Elections, MahindaDeshapriya.  Whoever holds his post is ‘legitimate’ target for the losing side.  He can do nothing right.  Every error is seen as complicity in some devious plot to cheat the voter and subvert democracy.  Few, if any, know the limits of his powers or the resource-limitations he has to work within.  The man can only do his best.  He went out of his way.  He has employed all available resources efficiently.  Effectively too, one must add.  He stood tall and this is something the saner sections of both camps will acknowledge.  Thank you sir.

He doesn’t work alone.  The voter knows of a single polling station.  The voter sees a handful of officials.  There were 12,314 polling stations located in the 22 administrative districts.  Approximately 300,000 Government Servants were deployed to ensure that things are done right and your franchise protected.  They’ve been trained.  That training they put to use.  They’ve done a thankless job.  Just think.  Of those who voted, on this occasion and previously, how many have talked about the person who answered questions about where exactly you had to go to vote, the person who asked your name and checked your ID, the person who marked your finger, the person who handed you the ballot paper, the person who stood at a respectful distance from the place you marked an ‘X’ and from the ballot box into which you thrust the ballot paper? Think about them.  Say ‘Thank you’ or 

පිං සිද්ද වෙච්චාවේ  (may you acquire merit) or anything else that expresses gratitude.  They deserve it.

And how about those who have to do the counting; the officer in charge and all those under him/her?  Have you wondered if they were tired, say?  There were 303 centers to count postal votes.  There were 1,109 main counting centers in a total of 44 locations.  There were people in these places and they were all part of the aforementioned 300,000.  They too deserve our salute.  Thank you!

Is that all? No.  There’s the Police.  In this election, without the strength that came from the 17th Amendment, the Police Department covered itself with glory.  We had the most peaceful presidential election since the first one, held in 1982 and they helped make this possible.  If anything they showed, that with or without constitutional provision, professionalism and decency and get the job done.  Let us say ‘Thank you!’ to the 71,000 police officers who were on duty.

Pics by Chandana Wejesinghe and Ravindra Dharmathilake.

Read more

A note to Mahinda

Dear Mahinda,

You will forgive us for dropping all those lovely titles.  We are confident of this simply because in conceding defeat gracefully you recovered for yourself dignity that you let slip away a few years ago.  We are confident because in that very moment you became recognizable as the leader, the fellow-citizen and the one-of-us who was loved like few leaders are loved. 

You were not a perfect President.  You were certainly not the most imperfect President we’ve had either.  You stood tall when it mattered.  During your tenure you gifted back to the people of this country a land they had lost or rather their leader had squandered due to ignorance, arrogance and the mad pursuit of narrow political objectives.  You recovered for us the right to breathe.  You banished a culture of fear. 

You could have done much more, but this is not the moment to go into all that.  You did much.  You did enough.  Enough to be remembered.  Enough to be remembered as a hero, a simple man of simple ways, who did what he could to the best of his ability and knowledge framed of course by his infirmities and human frailties.

 

Go well, Mahinda.  You’ve earned your place in our history.  You deserve a time of peace in your beloved Medamulana home. 

Read more

Love and hate in post-election Sri Lanka

After the 'fact' of election, voters who were 'makers' turn into 'recipients of generosity' for the most part.
If they are lucky.  Life does not stop, though.   [pic from www.sportskeeda.com]

This was first published in the Daily Mirror on February 4, 2010, just after the last Presidential Election.  It spoke to the political culture we live in, which we by crimes of commission and omission sustain and even make worse.  Perhaps things haven't changed much in the five years that followed.  Perhaps we can look forward to something better.  If we were to reflect.  'Self-reflect,' that is. 

There could be a country where perfect elections are held, a country where there are solid election laws, where society is so flat that contenders have no choice but to operate on an even playing field, a country that is so fiercely independent and the media so neutral and responsible that the outcome will depend on the consideration of three things, essentially: candidates’ track records, manifestos and trustworthiness as perceived by the voter. 

In that country, candidates would execute clean campaign free of mudslinging without letting rhetoric and emotion subvert respect and reason, an informed citizen would vote early and frequently, there would be a violence-free campaign and an incident-free election-day, smooth operations at polling stations and counting centres and a sober and dignified acceptance of the people’s verdict by winners and losers. 

I don’t think such countries exist.  We live in social, political and cultural landscapes that are anything but flat and orderly and where people go about in the dispassionate manner described above.  We live in societies that are fractured along lines of class, caste, gender, age, region, ethnic and religious identity and ideological bent. 

These social formations are further compromised by institutional structures that empower politician and dwarf citizen, privilege the powerful and by an overall political economy that allows those who do no have the vote to influence the voter and allows forces that operate against the national interest to employ carrot and stick as befits political moment to engineer result. 

There is so much division, so much anger, so much frustration, so much greed, so much bitterness, many axes to grind, such high stakes, so little integrity, so little wisdom, such inability to treat things with equanimity that we should be surprised that elections only result in scarring walls, bruising egos, some fisticuffs and a few deaths. 

We have come far from the time of voter impersonation, switching ballot boxes and the kind of intimidation of voter and elections official we saw in 1988 when some 800 people were killed on election day alone.  In a certain sense we have gone further than the USA where despite appearances fraud takes place long before election day, continues after polls close, and where computer-voting not leaving a paper trail to investigate possible fraud has been a serious concern and may have cost both Al Gore and John Kerry presidential terms.  And yet, we have a long way to go still. 

The recently concluded election was about a lot of things but they can all be collapsed in a sense to two things: love and hate.  There was after all a subtext to the process that dwelled on things like patriotism and treachery.  While one is not exactly required to love one’s political opponent, this particular election was marked by a kind of hatred that was absent in previous presidential races.  This was evident in the rhetoric, the tone, the emails and text messages that were floated around, the websites constructed specifically to support the candidates, the posters, the advertisements and especially in the case of the state media, the advertorials. 

When the stakes are as high as they were in this election it is not unnatural for human beings to slip to such levels and adopt a by-any-means-necessary approach to the task at hand.  When this happens campaigns quickly change gears and tend to draw from that which is worst in society.  It leaves a bad after-taste and the foul odours take a lot of time to go away. 

Today we are in a post-election moment and two things that could have helped restore sanity and bring closure to what was an ugly and distasteful two months seem to be hard to come by: the grace to accept defeat and humility in victory.  It is not wrong to be jubilant in victory, especially after a long, grueling campaign where pre-election hype inflated considerably the key contender’s chances.  It is not wrong to feel cheated when one thought one could to fly and realized that one can only jump. There is however a difference between jubilation and gloating, just as there is a difference between disappointed and being a sour loser.  Sadly, it the gloating and the sour-loser syndrome that have been most apparent in the days following the election.  It is so apparent that enumerating instance and commenting on example are unnecessary. 

What is important, in the end, is the love, not hatred.  Hatred engenders hatred, love disarms the detractor.  Emotion discolours reason and when logic is compromised by passion the chance for error is enhanced.  If those who have lost and who feel robbed are serious about recovering territory conceded/usurped, then they have to choose carefully their companions on this new and more arduous journey.  They can recruit a million individuals but it will not matter if they fail to get Mr. Sobriety onboard.

Indeed, Mr. Sobriety is someone that the winners would do well to acquaint themselves with as well.  They’ve all gone overboard here.  There are posters out in Colombo that are utterly distasteful and I am convinced that had the boot been on the other foot, we would have seen a similar outpouring of puerility. 

Then there are the citizens.  We are being entertained by all this, even though entertaining us is probably not the intention of the entertainers on the political stage (‘Shh….they don’t know they are clowns’ did someone say?).  Hatred takes us nowhere.  That’s best left to politicians.  If we are forced to pick one or the other, I doubt if anyone will hesitate before choosing love over hatred.  The is a question, however, that comes attached to ‘love’ in the political manifestation of the term: what are the prerogatives of love?

Let us take for instance the case of those who voted for the winner.  What does ‘love’ entail, how does one express it, make it real?  There are many ways. There is ‘salutation’. That’s the basic, easy and in the end the most pedestrian way of showing solidarity.  Do it if you want, if it makes you feel good, but I wouldn’t stop there. Going beyond this means that one has to recognize that ‘support’ does not stop with victory but actually begins there.  If one voted for face and not agenda, party colour and not track-record, on account of gratitude and not preferred future, person and not country, then one can sit back and play ostrich, if ostriching is necessitated, or be a cheerboy/girl if cheering is warranted. 

On the other hand, if choice of candidate was determined by love of country and hope for a different and better future for our children, then the word ‘motherland’ has to be accompanied by three things: work, work and work. 

What is this ‘work’?  First and foremost, if we profess love for country, then we cannot be shirkers. We cannot bend rules for ourselves and charge others with wrongdoing. We cannot complain that so and so is taking commissions if we pinch a few rupees ourselves, for thieving is thieving whether it is pick-pocketing or grand larceny.  We are thieving when we don’t do justice to our job description. We rob when we do not give back to society something for having given us opportunity to learn, to be healthy and to be free of fear.  We are lesser citizens when we look the other way when looking the other way is convenient, we are undeserving when we are lenient with friends and strict with others.  That’s the kind of love-work I am referring to.

There is more to this ‘love’ business, especially for those who voted for the winner, for while they can legitimately claim credit for the good, they must at some level take the blame for error and wrongdoing even if they picked the winner as default option.  This means that the work of the voter involves both support as described above as well as scrutiny.  If love is to work then it must include an honest commitment to appraise the winner on all counts, to point out error and suggest alternative. 

One cannot be showing greater love to the President, I believe, than when one is his harshest critic, provided that the criticism in honest, is not motivated by crass self-interest and is free of malice.  If we can be that kind of critic, then would indeed be reiterating support for the man we chose as president, for let us not forget he’s president of the entire nation, those who voted for him an those who voted against him. Even if we hated him and voted for someone else, we still have to recognize that he is the President of the country we love or profess to love or in the very least the country we are citizens of and therefore to which we have certain responsibilities.  We need to support him if we want to support our country.  We are not required to love him, but we are required not to colour of criticism with ‘sourpussness’ for that would detract from our effort, our nation and ourselves.  That would be ‘hate’ and not ‘love’.

This is the bottom line. We can love or hate anyone, that’s our business, but our love for our country should be above all this.  We can love the President for example, but we have to keep in mind and he has to understand that we love our country far more than we love him.  And that love, for country, for history, heritage, civilization, memory of ancestor, and future for children, imposes certain prerogatives including the responsibility to be critical of very move that our leaders, our governments make.  And all this should be touched by one thing: tenderness. It should be devoid of one thing: malice. 

Malinda Seneviratne is the Editor-in-Chief of 'The Nation' and can be reached at msenevira@gmail.com

Read more

මහින්ද ද මෛත්‍රී ද ඔබ ද මම ද?

ඡන්ද පොලේ බෝම්බ තියෙයි ද, පලමුවටම ඡන්දය දාන කෙනාට වෙඩි තියයි ද යනාදී සිතුවිලි වලින් තොරව ඡන්දය පාවිච්චි කරන්න පුළුවන් වාතාවරණයක් අප රට තුල පවතී.  මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ ධූර කාලය තුල එවන්  වටපිටාවක් නිර්මාණය වුනි.  එහි ගෞරවයෙන් යම් කොටසක් හෝ ඔහුට හිමි විය යුතු වේ.  එනම් ඔහුව පරාජය කිරීමේ අයිතිය වෙනුවෙන් ද ඔහුගෙන් යමක් ඉටුවී ඇත.  ඔහුගේ ධූර කාලය තුල ජනතා විරෝධී ක්‍රියාදාමයන් ද තිබිණ.  කල හොඳ අකටයුතු සඳහා වන වරමක් නොවන බවද අමතක නොකළ යුතු වේ.  ඡන්දාදායක අපට පවතින සමාජ ආර්ථික දේශපාලන ක්‍රමය තුල ඇත්තේ හීන් ම හීන් හඬක් පමණි.  ඒ හඬ අප හෙට දින අපගේ මනාපය වෙනුවෙන් අවදි කරමු.  

Read more

මෛත‍්‍රීපාලගේ ජයග‍්‍රහණයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

ජයග‍්‍රහණයේ කතාවන් දීර්ඝය. පරාජයේ ප‍්‍රකාශයන් ද දීර්ඝය. එය සාමාන්‍යයෙන් උද්වේගකර සහ අනෙකාට ඇඟිලි දිගු කරනා කියමන්වලින් ද සපිරිය. එය තමන්ට උදව් කළ සැමට ස්තුති කිරීම්වලින් ද සපිරිය. එකී කතාව තුළ පපුවට අත් ගසා ගන්නා උද්වේගකර කොටස් තිබුනාට කම් නැත. තම පරාජයට බලපෑ හේතුකාරණා ප‍්‍රකාශ කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් වුව ද එය එසේය. ඒ තුළින් තමා පරාජයට පත් වුව ද, තම කණ්ඩායමේ චිත්ත ධෛර්යය නොබිඳුවා තබා ගත හැක. නමුත් එවැනි කතාවන්ට ඇතුළත් නොවන දේ ද බොහෝ ඇත. යම් හෙයකින් මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන මහතා ජයග‍්‍රහණය කළහොත්, ඔහුට මෙහි කියවෙන අදහස් ද යොදා ගත හැකි වනු ඇත. 

මම මෛත‍්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන. අපේ ඡන්ද ව්‍යාපාරයේ තේමා පාඨය වූයේ 'මෛත‍්‍ර‍්‍රිය' යන්නය. එබැවින් අද පටන් අප පෙන්නුම් කරනා මෛත‍්‍රියෙහි අඩුපාඩුකම් නිසා යම් සිදු වීමක් සිදු වුවහොත්, එය අපේ ජනතාව අත් විඳින්නා වූ බරපතලම අසාධාරණය වන්නේය. 

වෛරයට දැන් ඉඩක් තිබිය යුතු නැත. පලිගැනීම්වලට ද දැන් ඉඩක් තිබිය යුතු නැත. ගෙවුණු කාලයෙන් අප උගත යුතු යමක් වේ නම්, ඒ අප ආදරය කළ නායකයන් ඇතුළු අප හැම දෙනාටම වැරදීම් සිදු විය හැක යන්නයි. අපි හුදු පාරිශුද්ධවන්තයෝ නොවෙමු. අප හැම සතුව ද වැරදි තිබේ. අප පුද්ගලයන්ට වඩා ආයතන සහ නීතිරීතිවලට වැඩි අවධානය යොමු කළ යුත්තේ එම නිසාය. අප සතුව නිවැරදි ආයතනික සැකැස්මක් සහ නිවැරදි නීති රෙගුලාසි පද්ධතියක් තිබේ නම්, මිනිසුන් වැරදි කිරීමේ හෝ මිනිසුන්ට වැරදි සිදු වීමේ අවස්ථාවන් විරල වේ. එලෙස පවතින විට ද වැරදි සිදු වන්නේ නම්, ඒ සඳහා ගත යුතු පිළියම් ද කඩිනමින් අප ගත යුතුය. එමනිසා ඉදිරි කාලය තුළ නීතිරීති සහ ආයතනික ව්‍යුහයන් නිවැරැදි තත්වයට පත් කරලීම සඳහා මම ඇපකැප වන්නෙමි. 

මෙම ජයග‍්‍රාහී මොහොතේ මට පෙර බලය හෙබවූ ජනාධිපතිවරයා පිළිබඳව ද වචනයක් කිව යුතුය. මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා තරම් ජනතාවගේ ආදරය දිනාගත් වෙනත් නායකයකු නැති තරම්ය. ගුවන් යානයෙන් බැස, දෙදණ බිම තබා, අප මාතෘ භූමිය සිප ගත් මොහොත මට අද මෙන් සිහියට නැගේ. මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ වැනි නායකයකු ලැබීමට තරම් අපි වාසනාවන්ත වීය යන්න මාගේ අවංක හැඟීමයි. 

ඔහු වීරයෙකි. එසේම ඔහු වීරයෙක් ලෙස සදා හිඳිනු ඇත. ඔහුගේ නම ඉතිහාස පොතෙන් කිසිදා නොමැකෙනු ඇත. කළ හැකි උපරිමය එතුමා ඉටු කළ අතර කඨෝර සහ නිති වෙනස්වන සුළු දේශපාලනයට සමු දී සතුටින් විශ‍්‍රාම සුවය ගත කිරීමේ හැම අයිතියක්ම එතුමාට ඇත. එතුමා කලක් මගේ නායකයා මෙන්ම මගේ මිතුරා ද විය. අප සැම වෙනුවෙන් එතුමා උදාකර දුන් ජයග‍්‍රහණය, වඩා අර්ථවත් කිරීම සඳහා සිදු කළ යුතු ප‍්‍රතිසංස්කරණ සඳහා වූ මාගේ ව්‍යායාමයට එතුමාගේ ද සහයෝගය ලැබෙනු ඇත යන්න මාගේ පරම විශ්වාසයයි. 

තරඟ කිරීමට කාලයක් ඇත. වාද කිරීමට ද කාලයක් ඇත. ප‍්‍රීතිඝෝෂා කිරීමට ද කාලයක් ඇත. වැඩ කිරීමට ද කාලයක් ඇත. මේ උදා වී ඇත්තේ එලෙස වැඩ කිරීමේ කාලයයි. 

හැකියාවන්ගෙන් සපිරි සහ හදවතින් උසස් මිනිසුන් මා සමග ඇත. මා සමග තරඟ කළ අනෙක් පාර්ශවය තුළ ද ඒ හා සමානම අය ඇත. ඔවුන් හැමටම මේ රට අයිතිය. රටේ අනාගතය ද ඒ හැමගේ එකමුතුව වැඩකිරීමේ ගුණය මත රඳා පවතිනු ඇත. මට එරෙහි වූ සැමට මා මේ මොහොතේ මිත‍්‍රත්වයේ උණුසුම් දෑත් දිගු කරන්නෙමි. එය පිළිගන්න. අපි ඉදිරියට පියනගමු. එකමුතුව සහ එකාවන්ව. 

[දමයන්ත මුණසිංහ විසින් පරිවර්තනය කරන ලද මෙය http://dmunasingha.blogspot.com වෙබ් අඩවියෙන් උපුටා ගතිමි]

මෙම මැතිවරණයට අදාළ වන වෙනත් කතා:

මහින්දගේ ජයග‍්‍රහණයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

මෛත‍්‍රීපාලගේ පරාජයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

මහින්දගේ පරාජයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

Read more

මහින්දගේ ජයග‍්‍රහණයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

ජයග‍්‍රහණයේ කතාවන් දීර්ඝය. පරාජයේ ප‍්‍රකාශයන් ද දීර්ඝය. එය සාමාන්‍යයෙන් උද්වේගකර සහ අනෙකාට ඇඟිලි දිගු කරනා කියමන්වලින් ද සපිරිය. එය තමන්ට උදව් කළ සැමට ස්තුති කිරීම්වලින් ද සපිරිය. එකී කතාව තුළ පපුවට අත් ගසා ගන්නා උද්වේගකර කොටස් තිබුනාට කම් නැත. තම පරාජයට බලපෑ හේතුකාරණා ප‍්‍රකාශ කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් වුව ද එය එසේය. එමගින් තමා පරාජයට පත් වුව ද, තම කණ්ඩායමේ චිත්ත ධෛර්යය නොබිඳුවා තබා ගත හැක. නමුත් එවැනි කතාවන්ට ඇතුළත් නොවන දේ ද බොහෝ ඇත. යම් හෙයකින් මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා ජයග‍්‍රහණය කළහොත්, ඔහුට මෙහි කියවෙන අදහස් ද යොදා ගත හැකි වනු ඇත. 

මම පරිපූර්ණ ජනාධිපතිවරයෙකු නොවෙමි. ජනාධිපතිවරයා වශයෙන් මාගේ ධුර කාලය තුළ බොහෝ දේ කෙරෙහි මාගේ අවධානය යොමු නොවුුණු බව මම නිහතමානීව සහ අවංකව පිළිගනිමි. දීර්ඝ කාලයක් මුළුල්ලේ විශේෂයෙන්ම 1977 න් පසුව, අපේ ජාතිය පීඩා විඳි අවනීතිය පිළිබඳ කාරණය මා වෙතින් නොසළකා හැරුණකි. මම සියල්ල දුටිමි. නමුදු ඒ කිසිවක් මා අනුමත කළා නොවේ. සත්‍යය නම් මාගේ අවධානය යොමුව තිබූයේ වෙනත් දේ කෙරෙහි බවය. පැහැදිළිවම නීතියේ ආධිපත්‍යය තහවුරු කිරීම සඳහා මා විසින් ඍජු සහ ශක්තිමත් පියවර ගත යුතුව තිබුණි. නමුත් මට එසේ කළ නොහැකි විය.  

පුරවැසි අයිතිවාසිකම් භුක්ති විඳින සහ බොහෝ විට දේශපාලනඥයන් කෙරෙන් සිදුව ඇති දුරාචාරයන්ගෙන් ඔවුන්ව වියුක්ත කෙරෙන නව ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් සකස් කිරීම කෙරෙහි මම ජනතාවට ණයගැති වෙමි. නීතියේ ආධිපත්‍යය වැජඹෙන රටක ජීවත් වීමේ අභිමානය ලබා දීම කෙරෙහි මම ඔවුන්ට ණයගැති වෙමි. 

අප රටේ ජාතික සංස්කෘතික ආචාර ධර්මයන් ඉමහත් සේ පිළිබිඹු වන පරිදි සහ ජාතික ආරක්ෂාව, භෞමික අඛණ්ඩතාව, ස්වෛරීභාවය සහ රාජ්‍යයේ ඒකීයභාවය සුරැකෙන පරිදි අපේ පුරවැසියන්ගේ ආර්ථික අවශ්‍යතා සහ සමස්ත ශුභසිද්ධිය පිණිස ව්‍යවස්ථාව සංශෝධනය කිරීමට ද මම මාගේ තෙවන වාරය තුළ කැප වී කටයුතු කිරීමට බලාපොරොත්තු වෙමි.

මා පරිපූර්ණ නොවන්නා සේම මා සමග සිටින අය ද මට එරෙහි අය ද පරිපූණයෝ නොවෙති. අප සැමදෙන ළඟ දෝෂ ඇත. අප හැම දෙනා සතුව ශක්තිය ද ඇත. මගේ ප‍්‍රධාන ප‍්‍රතිවාදියා වූ, මෛත‍්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන මහතා මගේ පැරණි මිතුරෙකි. අප දෙදෙනා එක්ව අතීතයේ බොහෝ අරගල සිදු කර ඇත්තෙමු. හැකියාව ඇති නායකයකු ලෙස මම ඔහුව පිළිගන්නා අතර මේ තීරණාත්මක සන්ධිස්ථානයේදී ඔහුගේ සහයෝගය ද මම අපේක්ෂා කරමි. අවාසනාවට ඡන්ද ව්‍යාපාරය හා බැඳුණු අංගයන් බවට පත් වූ සියලූ නිශේධයන් පසෙක ළෑමට මම සූදානම්ය. ඔහුට ද මෙය කළ හැකි බව මම දනිමි.

විපක්ෂය පැහැදිළිවම මාගේ සියලූ වැරදීම් පෙන්වා දී ඇත. ඒවා නිවැරදි කර ගැනීමට මම කටයුතු කරමි. හොඳ මිනිසුන් අපට අවශ්‍යය. එක් පසෙකින් හොඳම බුද්ධිමය සම්පත් ටික ද අප සතු වීම අවශ්‍යය. මේ මොහොතේ මට ඔබ සැමගේ සහයෝගය අවශ්‍යය. විශේෂයෙන්ම මෛත‍්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන මහතා ඇතුළු කණ්ඩායමේ සහයෝගය ද මට කොතරම් අවශ්‍ය ද යන්න අමුතුවෙන් අවධාරණය කළ යුතු නැත.

මාගේ උපරිම දැනීමේ හැටියට කළ හැකි දේ කළ මම, සරළ සහ ප‍්‍රායෝගිකවාදී මිනිසෙකි. මම වියපත් වෙමින් සිටින්නෙමි. මින් පසුව යළි සුපුරුදු මැදමුලන වෙත මම පියනගන්නෙමි. මම තබා යා යුතු එකම උරුමය වන්නේ නීතියේ ආධිපත්‍යයෙන් හෙබි, සාමකාමී රටකි. එවන් උත්කෘෂ්ඨ ජාතියක් ගොඩනැගීම සඳහා මට ඔබ සැමගේ සහයෝගය ලබා දෙන්න.  

[දමයන්ත මුණසිංහ විසින් පරිවර්තනය කරන ලද මෙය http://dmunasingha.blogspot.com වෙබ් අඩවියෙන් උපුටා ගතිමි]

මෙම මැතිවරණයට අදාළ වන වෙනත් කතා:

මෛත‍්‍රීපාලගේ පරාජයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

මහින්දගේ පරාජයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

මෛත‍්‍රීපාලගේ ජයග‍්‍රහණයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

Read more

මහින්දගේ පරාජයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

ජයග‍්‍රහණයේ කතාවන් දීර්ඝය. පරාජයේ ප‍්‍රකාශයන් ද දීර්ඝය. එය සාමාන්‍යයෙන් උද්වේගකර සහ අනෙකාට ඇඟිලි දිගු කරනා කියමන්වලින් ද සපිරිය. එය තමන්ට උදව් කළ සැමට ස්තුති කිරීම්වලින් ද සපිරිය. එකී කතාව තුළ පපුවට අත් ගසා ගන්නා උද්වේගකර කොටස් තිබුනාට කම් නැත. තම පරාජයට බලපෑ හේතුකාරණා ප‍්‍රකාශ කිරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් වුව ද එය එසේය. එමගින් තමා පරාජයට පත් වුව ද, තම කණ්ඩායමේ චිත්ත ධෛර්යය නොබිඳුවා තබා ගත හැකිය. නමුදු එවැනි කතාවන්ට ඇතුළත් නොවන දේ ද බොහෝ ඇත. යම් හෙයකින් මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා පරාජයට පත් වුවහොත්, ඔහුට මෙහි කියවෙන අදහස් ද යොදා ගත හැකි වනු ඇත. 

උපන්නා වූ අප සියලූ දෙනා, කෙමෙන් දිරාපත් වෙමින් සිට මියැදෙන්නෙමු. අප කිසිවෙකුත් අමරණීය නැත. වරෙක අපි නැගී සිටින්නෙමු. වරෙක අපි ඇද වැටෙන්නෙමු. මා පරාජය අත් විඳි පළමු අවස්ථාව ද මෙය නොවේ. සැබවින්ම මෙය මා බලාපොරොත්තු වූ අවසානයක් ද නොවේ. එසේම එය මට පිළිගත නොහැකි ප‍්‍රතිඵලයක් ද නොවේ. කෙසේ වුව මම පරාජයට පත් වුණෙමි. මා කළ වැඩකොටස තක්සේරු කර, ඒ අනුව රටත් ජනතාවත් ඉදිරියට ගෙනයාම සඳහා මට ඇති හැකියාව පිළිබඳ විශ්වාසය පළ කිරීමට රටේ ජනතාවට මම අවස්ථාව ලබා දුනිමි. ඔවුන් තීරණයක් ගෙන ඇත. එම නිසා ඔවුන්ගේ තීන්දුව මම නිහතමානීව පිළිගනිමි.  

මෛත‍්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන මහතා තරම් අපේ සදාදරණීය මව්බිමට නායකත්වය දීමට තරම් වඩා සුදුසු වෙනත් නායකයකු පිළිබඳව මට සිතා ගත නොහැකි බව මම මෙහිදී ප‍්‍රකාශ කළ යුතුමය. මා මෙන්ම, ඔහු ද ජනතාවගේ හදගැස්ම මැනවින් හඳුනන අයෙකි. ඔහු කෘතහස්ත දේශපාලනඥයෙකි.  ඔහු හොඳ මිනිසෙකි. මා විසින් ත‍්‍රස්තවාදී ඝෝර හස්තයෙන් මුදවා ගත් මව්බිම ඔහු යටතේ ද සුරක්ෂිතය යන සහතිකය සමගින් මට නික්ම යා හැක. ඔහුටත් ඔහුගේ කණ්ඩායමටත් මම සුභ පතමි.   

බලය සමග ලැබෙන බොහෝ දේ ඇත. ඒ සියල්ල මා අතැර යන්නෙමි. ගමේ හැදුනු මම නගරයට පැමිණියෙමි. නගරයේ ජීවත් වුනෙමි. ගම විසින් මා අත්හැර දමා නැත. එබැවින් යළි නිවස වෙත යාමට මට අපහසු නැත. ආදරය කළ මව්බිමටත් රටේ ජනතාවටත් කළ හැකි වැඩකොටස ඉටු කළා වූ, ඔවුන්ගේ ආදරය සහ විශ්වාසය නොමඳව අත්විඳි සහ මේ කිසිවක් සදාකල් නොපවතින බව පසක් කරගත් තෘප්තිමත් මිනිසෙකු ලෙස මම යළි නිවස බලා පියමණින්නෙමි.  

වැඩ කිරීමට කාලයක් ද විශ‍්‍රාම යාමට කාලයක් ද ඇත. ක‍්‍රියා කිරීමට කාලයක් ද ඒ පිළිබඳ ආපසු හැරී බැලීමට කාලයක් ද ඇත. මේ උදා වී ඇත්තේ එසේ ආමග දෙස ආපසු හැරී බැලීමේ කාලයයි. 

ඔබට සුභ පතමි.

[දමයන්ත මුණසිංහ විසින් පරිවර්තනය කරන ලද මෙය http://dmunasingha.blogspot.com වෙබ් අඩවියෙන් උපුටා ගතිමි]

මෙම මැතිවරණයට අදාළ වන වෙනත් කතා:

මහින්දගේ ජයග‍්‍රහණයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

මෛත‍්‍රීපාලගේ පරාජයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

මෛත‍්‍රීපාලගේ ජයග‍්‍රහණයේ කතාව (කෙටුම්පත)

Read more