That Scoundrel Krishantha Cooray

 

There’s a social media post doing the rounds about Krishantha Cooray. Posted by some individual named Sachin Rathwatte, it is indeed a class act in defamation, not least of all because of the author’s anonymity. The term ‘keyboard veeraya’ comes to mind.

Sachin (I assume it is a man) bases his account on ‘investigative social media platforms’ which he is aware of.

The opening statement (translated here, as are other claims; note: there’s a bit of transliteration to capture essence) is fair enough: ‘there are scoundrels who control governments who have never received a vote from innocent people of this country and who (no one) has ever heard of.’ The rest is of course a load of rubbish, but this intro is classic. It reminds one of the late JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera’s go-to speech-openings where he trots out a whole bunch of known facts such as the name and length of the longest river, the name and height of the tallest mountain, Sri Lanka being an island whose coordinates are such and such, etc., etc., the having established thus that he is not being dishonest, proceeds to utter absolute nonsensical analysis of all things under the sun.

Sachin is correct: ‘such scoundrels should be exposed before society.’  Then he jumps to Krishantha Cooray. There’s some speculation painted as fact (for which no evidence has been provided), for example that ‘he is THE closest friend of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake,’ that ‘[he] wields more power than the prime minister or the cabinet of ministers,’ and ‘[he] is the captain of the government’s business deals.’

Then he proceeds to ‘expose.’

Krishantha is a Cooray, correct. He has family in Payagala, but I know nothing of his alleged connections to what Sachin calls ‘The Panadura Coorays.’ He is by birth a Catholic. Correct. Not any more, says Sachin but fails to back up the claim. Krishantha keeps his faith private. In any case, that’s nobody’s business.

Sachin says, ‘like others who love the role of king-maker (e.g. Thusitha Haloluwa), Krishantha grew up under the watchful eyes of Mangala Samaraweera.’ Rubbish. Krishantha is a political activist who, apart from the time he was in the UNP’s Working Committee, has a record of working tirelessly for candidates or parties of his preference during elections. Like all such activists, he would want his candidate to win. If that is all it takes to deserve the king-maker title, he is but one of several millions. Anyway, Krishantha and Halloluwa are not names one can speak in the same breath. Let me leave it at that. Krishantha was a close friend of Mangala’s but he was no acolyte. If indeed he had a political guru it was Lalith Athulathmudali who was assassinated way back in 1993!  

So yes, he was Mangala’s buddy, which by the way is no crime. I’ve known Krishantha since 2005 and I know for a fact that he was no friend of Mangala or anyone associated with the SLFP or the coalitions that party led. When Krishantha was appointed as the founder CEO of Rivira Media Corporation, Mangala and Krishantha were in two different political camps. That friendship came later. Sachin and the ‘investigative’ social media outfits could have done better with background research.

Sachin claims that it was when he was in newspapers (‘while being with Mangala’ which is a falsehood), that Krishantha first met Harry Jayawardena and, ‘because he was fluent in English and had cultivated powers of persuasion (both correct),’ he had ‘joined Harry.’  

Sachin claims that Harry had got into hot water over some tax issue in the period 2001-2003 and that it was Krishantha who intervened on his behalf. This is toilet wash. Rivira relentlessly attacked Harry and Rivira was established only in 2005. The two became friends much later when Krishantha was forced to leave the country because of threats on his life. Sachin claims that Harry handed over the task of handling media to Krishantha who is supposed to have ensured that nothing adverse to Harry would be published in newspapers (which at the time was the most powerful and dangerous form of media) and that he was handsomely paid for the same. Again, speculation. No evidence.  Other claims are similarly unsubstantiated. Irresponsible one has to conclude but then again the likes of Sachin are clearly unmoved about ethics related to media. Or even general conduct.

During the Yahapalanaya years, Krishantha was indeed the Chairman of both Hilton Colombo and Lake House (or rather ANCL), Sachin is correct. Whether this was due to Krishantha’s friendship with Mangala, I do not know. Again, not illegal and neither was it inappropriate. Krishantha’s credentials in management are way above those of most who held such posts before him and since.

In all the years I have known Krishantha I have not once heard of a ‘friendship’ or a ‘strong friendship’ as Sachin puts it between him and Tiran Alles or Dhammika Perera. If Sachin feels that Krishantha is answerable to alleged wrongdoing perpetrated by either of them, first he has to establish wrongdoing and then prove that Krishantha was or is a part of it. Sachin has not.

He has, on the other hand, spoken about Anura Kumara Dissanayake, at least as far back as the 2010 Presidential Election when both of them supported Sarath Fonseka. I have no evidence that he leveraged that friendship for personal gain or to throw his weight around in ministerial or administrative circles, if Sachin does, he should show. Or shut up.

What do I know of Krishantha Cooray? Our friendship began in 2005 when he invited me to be the Editor of the English paper that Rivira planned to launch. I declined, saying I don’t have the experience or knowledge. I served as Deputy Editor for less than a year and quit in not quite happy circumstances, but we remained friends.

Our preferred political outcomes never coincided. We have had and still have ideological differences. We have argued vehemently and essentially agreed that disagreement need not get in the way of friendship.

In all that he has done, as far as I know, Krishantha has been inspired mainly to serve the people of Sri Lanka, whether or not one agrees with him ideologically or politically. Malice is the last word I would associate with him.  I have known him long enough to know that Krishantha Cooray’s humanity is unmatched. Sachin is obviously unaware of the countless ways in which he has helped people in all manner of distress, total strangers included. He has always been steadfast in his loyalty to his friends. He has been incredibly generous and kind, often sacrificing family-time just to be with a close friend in his greatest hour of need. I can’t think of anyone who has gone to the lengths Krishantha has to stand by his friends and despite his obvious rank ignorance, even Sachin would know how Krishantha put his own life at risk when Keith Noyahr was abducted and tortured.

Of course, logically, it is quite possible that there is a dark side to Krishantha that I am unaware of. If indeed such is the case then the likes of Sachin should come out with fact. And show their faces too, I might add.

Krishantha expresses his opinions and has the decency and integrity to put his name to what he writes. 

It is ironic how often he comes under attack when he has never hidden behind others or resorted to attacking people personally. Regardless, Sachin and his ilk would be challenged to come up with one instance when he, Krishantha, has engaged in character assassination, personal vendettas or dirty tactics.

 Sachin, obviously a fake-name, is different. Sachin and/or the people tossing around these unsubstantiated claims as though they are facts established beyond a shadow of doubt are clearly cowardly, ill-willed and, going by the language in the article and in the comments, uncivilised. What’s their problem? Jealousy? Ill-breeding? We don’t know. If they were to come out in the open and say these things, one might even forgive their uncultured behaviour. Maybe they lack the whatnots to do this. Hiding behind fake-profiles is usually the preferred modus operandi of people who are ignorant, malicious and cowardly. Scoundrel is a good descriptive for such people.

We live in a world of scoundrels. Krishantha is not one. The person who calls himself Sachin Rathwatte or the unholy collective that find the name a convenient shield? Well, he/they would have to work hard and long to shed that tag.

Read more

Swiss Embassy Saga: ball in President’s court to end selective prosecution

Ishanka Malsiri, a young archaeologist, recently published one of the most exhaustive scholarly treatise I’ve read in Sinhala or English from anyone in the social sciences in this country. The title was ‘dutugemunuge harda saakshiyata pilithurak [A response to Dutugemunu’s conscience].’ The title is drawn from what the content is all about, an examination of claims made in Gananath Obeyesekera’s much celebrated essay about the conscience of the principal hero of the grand chronicle, the Mahawansa. What is most interesting and educative about Malsiri’s essay is that he has not only examined Gananath’s arguments, but has also examined the worth of claims made by those whose work Gananath appears to have taken as incontrovertible truths. 

In other words, sometimes we have people deliberately making claims and treating them as fact. Sometimes the errors are unintended. Sometimes some political objective leads people to the error of selectivity and general sloth when it comes to citation. There’s a tendency to refute those arguments that contradict the thesis people want to champion and an equal degree of reluctance to question arguments that support preferred narratives. Multiple and cross citation by scholars, political activists and others do the rest. Even those who claim ‘history is a version’ and go a step further to claim that the Mahawansa was written by racist Buddhist monks forget the subjective nature of narrative. All of a sudden, we have ‘fact’. We have myth that is worked into myth models and then we have ‘history.’

There’s a tendency to ignore something that is very basic to any investigation: reliability of source. This is a phenomenon that’s often evident in history and historiography. It is even more evident in the privileging of narratives in political machinations.

Take for example the narrative that certain political agents have agreed upon to privilege and treat as fact with respect to the last stage of military operations by the Sri Lankan security forces against the terrorist organization, the LTTE. Everything is framed by agenda. Gananath has presumed that Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism is one of the key if not the only cause of inter-communal tensions in the island. He sets out to prove it. Similarly we had Yasmin Sooka, Marzuki Darusman and Steven R Ratner (who made the committee appointed by the UN Secretary General to advise him on issues of accountability and allegations of violations (human rights and humanitarian law), Gordon Weiss (author of ‘The Cage’) and other ‘experts’ on Sri Lanka, conflict, conflict resolution, accountability etc., etc., making all kinds of tendentious claims. 

What were these claims based on? Narratives! Who were the narrators? Well, there were people who had a political interest in portraying things in a particular way. Many of them were clearly disappointed that preferred outcomes had not materialized. They said, essentially, ‘so and so told us’. Who constitute these ‘so and so’? Well, others who were told things by still others. Dig further. Go back. Find ‘original source.' In the end you find a source that is unreliable on account of being politically compromised. For example, a doctor who makes a statement under duress or a combatant whose claims need to be treated with suspicion simply because he or she is in the business of killing unarmed civilians including old people, the sick, pregnant mothers and children.

When ‘reports’ come out, that original source is left out. The story takes off from a let’s say ‘reliable point.’ In the end it’s a UN panel of experts that has the last word. No longer do we have allegations. We have facts. Presumption of innocence is now flushed down a pernicious political toilet bowl. They even go a step further: in order to garnish the feast they say ‘let’s have a trial’. They say that and add ‘by the way, now that we have established (!) that Sri Lanka will not have a judicial process that is clean and independent, we will have a neutral (!) panel of judges.’ Yes, the neutrals are hand-picked. Fait accompli. Lies agreed upon.  

All this is preamble. ‘Allegation amounts to conclusive evidence of wrongdoing’ is essentially the drama enacted by the big bosses of the Yahapalanaya regime between January 2015 and November 2019 the Yahapalana government. It was all about ‘Get that man!’ or ‘Get that woman!’. The objective was clear. What was required was to come up with evidence. Well, they couldn’t find anything tangible. The stories, however, made the rounds. 

Now, it can be argued that not all the movers and shakers were committed to a witch hunt (just as we can’t blame everyone associated with processes to vilify Sri Lanka as conspirators in a vile operation). It maybe that they heard narratives related by people they trusted (just like the Darusman Committee, regurgitating the politically compromised narrative of NGO racketeers who batted for the then Opposition). In other words, they were convinced. They convicted, for all intents and purposes, in that grand and unsavory court called MEDIA.  

Now let’s move to the Swiss Embassy saga. It all began when pro-UNP websites reported a ‘white van abduction’. ‘Sexual assault’ was thrown into the narrative. Spice. The New York Times picked it up. Legitimacy. In the end, when the question of evidence came up, there was a lot of egg on the faces of the narrators, from Sri Lanka to New York through Switzerland.

What happened next? The CCTV evidence was examined. The identity of the ‘abducted’ woman and her movements were investigated. The narrative fell apart. The Swiss backtracked. Damage control.

Naturally, thereafter, the identities, politics and conduct of the players were investigated because it was an incident that could have snowballed into an international matter with seriously adverse effects on Sri Lanka. Four names came up and were even mentioned in court: the ‘abducted’ woman Garnier Banister Francis, former CID Director SSP Shani Abeysekera, Dharisha Bastians (former editor of the Sunday Observer and also a correspondent for the New York Times) and Krishantha Cooray (former Chairperson, Lake House). They made calls to each other, it was claimed.

Garnier Banister Francis is the key individual. It’s her story that the Swiss Embassy officials believed and made so much noise about, only to back off when evidence showed they had been hasty and quite undiplomatic in the statements made (why, though?). Shani Abeysekera’s credentials are at worst questionable at this point. Dharisha Bastians has made a career out of information-jugglery. 

What of Krishantha Cooray? Let me state my biases here. Krishantha was the founding CEO of Rivira Media Corporation (Pvt) Ltd., and hired me as the Deputy Editor (Features) of the now defunct ‘The Nation.’ We have issues with each other’s political preferences. We are friends, nevertheless. I tease him often about me trusting him to trust untrustworthy people. We are friends and we openly criticize each other. Krishantha is sensitive and emotional. He goes out of his way to help anyone in need, even those who don’t identify with his political choices. I don’t agree with the way he ran Lake House or rather the editorial policy of that institution during his watch; he wasn’t worse than his predecessors but he could have been better. And yet, during his term, the company made unprecedented profits.

[I've written about Krishantha on one other occasion, way back in the year 2009 when he fled the country in the aftermath of attacks on Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennekoon: 'It is time to thrust sword into sheath' -- The Sunday Island, September 20, 2009]

Krishantha is obviously not a friend of this Government for he was politically very much a UNPer. He was seen as a key behind-the-scenes person in that regime and that party. Now, his name has been dragged into the Swiss Embassy saga. 

Both the President and the Prime Minister have stated in public that he was involved. Why should anyone make such a claim? Either they have compelling evidence or some person or persons they trusted told them that compelling evidence was indeed available.  That’s trust. Does not necessarily imply reliability in a broader sense. In the end the evidence has to be laid out and assessed.

So far, all we’ve heard mention are telephone conversations. Not the content, but the specific fact of someone calling someone else. Initially it was mentioned that Krishantha and Garnier had 40 odd phone conversations. When? For how long? On this, there’s no evidence that such conversations had indeed taken place.  Court was told that Krishantha had spoken with Shani. On how many occasions? When? We don’t have details. And anyway, what's wrong in these two individuals having a conversation? It is not illegal, is it? 

We need the details. Krishantha was the official Chairperson of Lake House until he tendered his resignation on the 22nd of November or thereabouts. Forget the exact date. He was in charge at least until the morning of the 17th. Dharisha was the editor of a Lake House publication. If all phone records were perused, it can’t be impossible to find out how many times they communicated over the phone every month or every day on average. Nothing intrinsically wrong here.  

Let’s suppose they did speak over the phone even after the election. What’s wrong with that? Now Dharisha is supposed to have spoken with Garnier. When first did they communicate? Now let’s assume that there was heightened communications between Garnier and Dharisha during those ‘abduction days.' Does that implicate Dharisha? Was she part of some sinister plot? 

That’s just suspicion. It does not constitute conclusive evidence of involvement. For instance, Dharisha, given her political preferences and prejudices, may have wanted information, perhaps to file a story in the New York Times. She has on occasion rushed to conjure all kinds of fairy tales based on ‘evidence’ pumped by unreliable sources. That’s poor journalism. That much can be concluded. It does not indicate involvement in some sinister plan to stage an abduction and discredit a government.  

If indeed Dharisha and Krishantha spoke during the same period, does it constitute proof of Krishantha’s involvement as well (assuming Dharisha is guilty as charged)? Not necessarily. It’s one individual discussing something with someone he/she has known for more than 15 years. They could have been talking about the weather. They could have been discussing options for the UNP after Sajith Premadasa was resoundingly defeated by Gotabaya Rajapaksa for all we know.  

The fact is, we do not know. 

We do not know. What we have is speculation. What we have is reference to phone conversations without details being furnished. No dates. Nothing about the length of the calls. And absolutely nothing about what was spoken between the concerned parties.

Gananath Obeysekera indicted the Sinhala Buddhists based on what is now known to be erroneous conclusions drawn by dubious or careless scholars. The UNHRC, the UNP and their NGO adjuncts lynched the Sri Lankan security forces by treating conjecture and narratives from unreliable sources as fact. Is that what is being done to Krishantha Cooray? 

We need the truth. And if truth is being distorted for whatever reason we need to know who is doing that and why.  Otherwise what this government would be doing, simply put, is what the Yahapalana Regime did and what the USA, UK, EU, UNHRC, UNP and their lackeys have done.  

This is a test case for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. He can put an end to the culture of selective prosecution and deliberate vilification. He can be the Ishanka Malsiri of the political firmament. Indeed, we can all try to emulate Malsiri.

malindasenevi@gmail.com.

RELATED ARTICLES

Swiss Embassy in bid to 'white-van' Sri Lanka?

Switzerland is flat, ladies and gentlemen

Read more