What is your preference, citizen: pillow talk or public concerns?

Should public figures have private lives? This is probably a question that has been asked and answered countless times across time and space. 

A related question would be ‘can public figures have private lives?’ Again an old question but one to which the ‘possible’ response has and is becoming increasingly muted courtesy technological innovation and surveillance complexities that are hard to notice and even harder to keep track of. 

It is not the case that people didn’t know about others’ lives prior to privacy-wrecking innovations.  People talk. People notice. People put two and two together. People perceive. People draw conclusions. And if the perception are negative, all other factors being equal, it could cost the perceived. 

Politics is an unforgiving vocation when it comes to privacy. This negative is known and politicians probably weigh the possible fallout against the potential benefits. Some have little to hide. Others who have skeletons, do their best to keep the cupboards locked and give the impression that there are no cupboards and no skeletons either. Some are careless. Some try to cover up and get away with it, either because they are clever or have the necessary leverage. Some make things worse by attempting to conceal the in-concealable. Regardless, in general, the old adage, ‘there’s no such thing as bad publicity,’ seems to have held.

The original question, then, is one that is as much about ‘the public’ as it is about politicians. The key word is ‘should’. Should or should not, that’s the question that needs to be considered. If the public and the private are for all intents and purposes inextricably entwined, do we consider them to be one and the same? Even if the lines are blurred, don’t we have a choice about which element to privilege in our considerations, either the private or the public? 

Let’s leave aside the despicable and utterly unethical nature of UNP parliamentarian Ranjan Ramanayake’s conscious practice of recording phone conversations. Let’s leave aside the childish after-the-fact defense of ‘exposing the system.’ Essentially the content in leaked tapes can be divided into two broad categories: a) that which is of relevance to the general public since institutions, processes, representatives and officials are implicated, and b) that which is strictly personal and has such relevance. 

There are no sanctions when it comes to the perusal of such things. To each his/her fascination, one could argue. The problem here is that there’s content that’s of serious public concern and content that’s not. The fascination with the latter could trivialize, displace and even make irrelevant the former.  

We need to acknowledge, as flagged at the beginning, that ‘the sordid’ can have a bearing on the political, it can damage a personality and the party/coalition and even ideology to which the particular individual subscribes. That ‘political’ element however is of marginal worth when one considers the larger implication of the leaks.

The sexual dalliances of any individual is his/her business. If anyone is interested in what another person does behind closed doors that’s voyeurism. ‘Political voyeurism’ if one wants to call it that, is cheap. It can cause damage to the ‘seen’ but it doesn’t exactly cover the ‘seer’ in glory. 

Take the sordid allegations that Prageeth Ekneligoda leveled at Patali Champika Ranawaka. Is it anyone’s business? Was it all true, in the first place? Ranawaka didn’t care to respond at the time, but he cannot be faulted. Those who pen such notes crave response, after all. The reason why it all became serious was the fact that Ekneligoda disappeared or was disappeared. If he was indeed disappeared, then the immediate question is, ‘who had a motive?’ If the allegations were true, then Ranawaka had a motive, we could surmise: vengeance. However, to even name Ranawaka as a suspect, one has to be able to conclude that no one else had any motive to get rid of Ekneligoda, for vengeful or other reasons. The truth is that Ekneligoda made many enemies. He was, all things considered, a shady character and not only because keyhole-journalism was one of his passions (note: such journalism doesn’t require one to peep through keyholes or — a vivid imagination and a deranged mind are adequate ‘journalistic’ tools).

The problem with the Ekneligoda story and the politics that ensued is that the claims are not substantiated. Secondly these unfounded allegations had an extremely negative impact on Ranawaka’s family, including two daughters of schooling age. Thirdly there is no evidence of Ranawaka having had anything to do with Ekneligoda. 

So we have wild speculation. So we have speculation painted as fact. So we have ‘facts’ used to attack Ranawaka politically. As things stand it is highly unlikely that the Ekenligoda piece in and of itself could cause any significant damage to Ranawaka. Even if he did have something to do with Ekneligoda’s disappearance, it is not the truth of the narrative but the damage it has done to Ranawaka and his family that could have generated ‘motive.’ Lots of ‘ifs’ there, take note. 

What is interesting here is selectivity. The allegations were made when Ranawaka was a minister during the second presidential term of Mahinda Rajapaksa. That camp didn’t utter a word then; some in the then Opposition did make some noice. The pohottuwa camp resurrected  Ekneligoda’s article only AFTER Ranawaka moved to the Yahapalana Coalition. And those in the then Opposition who had made an issue of it went silent. 

Thus, it all came down to political loyalties (or otherwise). Not even the sordidness (which itself wasn’t proven and which in any case is certainly not a public-interest matter).

All this is what we expect from politicians in a political culture that’s childish at best and even then only sporadically and an absolute stink at worse. What of the public though?

Why do the public mimic politician? Conversely, is it that the politician is a true representative in that he/she mirrors the priority-confusion and a preference for the sordid on the part of the represented?

The more serious issue pertaining to Ranawaka is the allegation that he fled the scene of an accident which involved a vehicle he was allegedly driving and the allegation that he deliberately misled the law enforcement agencies. Note, ‘allegations’. Remember, presumption of innocence. Such pertinent issues are seldom raised. It’s no different from the behavior of those making a song and dance about ‘war crimes’. Allegations. Presumption of innocence. Such caveats are not flagged. 

Still, this accident-issue is surely more important than the spawn of Ekneligoda’s warped mind. And yet, Ekneligoda wins the day. The personal elements in the leaked tapes win the day over everything that point to serious decay in the institutional and processual arrangement of the state.  

Whose fault? Well, if we want to enjoy the ‘personal’ circus then let’s surrender ourselves to a long sojourn in a land where mismanagement, misappropriation, misrepresentation and other such vile creatures have a ball and rake in the bucks from the public kitty. Let’s not complain.

This was first published in the DAILY MIRROR [January 16, 2020]

malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com.

Read more

Let us exhume, ladies and gentlemen!

When the koha calls we know it is avurudu. When certain names are mentioned over and over again, we know elections are around the corner. Yes, Thajudeen, Lasantha and Ekneligoda. Throw in Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennekoon if you like. And of course white vans.  The first two were killed. The third disappeared. Keith and Upali were attacked; Keith in fact might well have been killed had not it been for the untiring efforts of the CEO of the newspaper house he worked for at the time. They both live in other countries now.

All of these things happened when Mahinda Rajapaksa was the President, his brother Gotabhaya was the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Sarath Fonseka was the Army Commander.  It was natural that they became poster boys of all political campaigns of the United National Party (UNP) and its allies. 

There’s a problem though. Well, two problems certainly (and probably more). First, in the case of the first three, they are all dead. There’s a need to bring to justice their killers. There’s a need for truth to triumph over deceit, lies, foot-dragging and duplicity. There is a need for ‘exhumation’ literally and of course metaphorically. And yet, there’s a certain indecency that borders on or moves into the despicable in exhumation and burial followed by re-exhumation and re-burial ad nauseam. 

There’s a second issue that also demonstrates disrespect for the dead. Selectivity.  

It is not unnatural, just as the Rajapaksa-haters do, for those who are against this regime to dig up the past. They too can talk of abductions. They too can talk of extra judicial killings. They can talk of proxy arrests, torture, the operative equivalent of ’white-vans’ in the late eighties, the tyre pyres’ and the numerous vigilante groups. Then there was censorship. 

It’s all old hat. Right? Wrong. For two reasons (and possibly more). First, the perpetrators of those crimes, their approvers or staunch loyalists of the relevant parties, are all still around. Secondly, THAT time has been invoked by a would-be presidential candidate of the United National Party (UNP), Sajith Premadasa. 

So let’s get some perspective here. 

There’s ‘concern’ over Lt Gen Shavendra Silva being appointed as Army Commander. Who is upset? Well, officially, the USA, Canada, the EU and the UNHRC. Two thing (and possibly more). First, that’s our business. Second, the cause of concern that they’ve stated, ‘accused of war crimes,’ is as of now just an allegation. We assume innocence until guilt is proven. That’s what the Book of the West (aka ‘Book of the White Man’) says. 

Second, these ladies and gentlemen had no issues whatsoever when Barack Obama literally ‘oversaw’ the capture and murder of Osama bin Laden. Extra-judicial killing. Same goes for Col Gaddafi. 

Ok, here’s a third. Ranil Wickremesinghe is accused of overseeing terrible events in 88-89. Did any of these people or rather their predecessors in the relevant country or UN agency ever express similar concern? 

No. Ok?

Censorship? There was a name that was known to all journalists. Ariya Rubasinghe. He facilitated the production of the strangest newspapers in the world: full of entire columns, boxed off in black. Censored. That however hardly warranted ‘concern’. There was much worse. 

Right. Let’s talk exhumation.  For that, there has to be burial, but let’s take liberties and extend it to incineration. Cremation, if you want to be cute about it. Yes, all this has to be preceded by ‘death’. And so, there are names. 

Wimal Surendra. Photojournalist of the ‘Divaina’. Abducted, murdered. His helmet was found in the house of a prominent UNPer and a minister in the present cabinet. He took a photograph of a ‘lady’ playing netball. Was that his ‘crime’?

H.E. Dayananda, a freelance contributor for the ‘Divaina’ who wrote a column titled ‘vame kathava’ (The story of the Left). Killed outside the petrol shed on Union Place. 

Richard De Zoysa. Poet. TV presenter. Dramatist. Abducted. Killed. 

Rohana Wijeweera was captured, allegedly tortured, tossed into the incinerator at the Borella Cemetary AND BURNT ALIVE. 

Add to all this, 10,000 Thajudeens, 10,000 Ekneligodas, Noyahrs and Tennekoons, but let us not forget Rohana Wijeweera.

No issue there? No concern? All ok? Alright! 

Then we have what the ‘revolutionaries’ did, i.e. the uncles of Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the brothers of Tilvin Silva. They showed the way to their long lost but later found cousins in the UNP.  Here's a very, very short list: Nandalal Fernando, Harsha Abeywardena, Premakeerthi De Alwis, Sagarika Gomes, Prof Stanley Wijesundera, Lionel Jayatilleka, Vijaya Kumaratunga, Thevis Guruge, Prof Chandraratne Patuvatavithana, Daya Pathirana, A. Jayantha, Chandrawimala, Devabandara Senanayake. 

Was Chandrika Kumaratunga 'clean'? Ask Rohana Kumara. Wait. He was 'done in' during her tenure. Dead men don't talk. 

But that’s the story of abduction, torture, murder, burial/cremation and ‘exhumation’ ladies and gentlemen. You either want the entire sordid story or else you want none of it. If you want some of it, then you are indulging in political humbuggery. Seriously. Thajudeen, Lasantha, Ekneligoda, Richard, Wimal, Rohana and of course the 10,000 plus Thajudeens, 10,000 plus Lasanthas and 10,000 plus Ekneligodas who are just numbers and not names and whose memories deserve something better than this burying-exhuming circus that we are seeing come election time.

malindasenevi@gmail.com, www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more

On Ekneligoda, in spite of Ekneligoda and his pals

Six years ago, I wrote about Prageeth Ekneligoda in the state-owned 'Daily News'. This around the time he was picked up as the poster-boy of NGO racketeers strutting around as champions of human rights.  Ekneligoda, as someone recently observed, was no journalist.  He drew some cartoons and they were nice, but there was nothing unique in them.  He wrote soft-porn for dodgy websites.  He has never been seen at a press conference.  But that's how it is.  It is 'received wisdom' that if you want to defend a dodgy character it is useful to call him/her a journo.  Smart.  Today Ekneligoda is back in the news.  Today we are also seeing the 'new', 'different', 'good' government of Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe meddling with the media in ways that Mahinda Rajapaksa did only towards the tail-end of his tenure.   It won't be called 'white-vanning' but whatever label picked it might very well come to pass that those 'dealt with' in that way would not be 'journalists' but journalists! 

Some years ago a newspaper whose editor and editorial policy was so uncritically pro-UNP and operated on the my enemy’s enemy is my friend that it was full of pro-LTTE content, observed, editorially, that a Government with a 5^th class media policy cannot complain about 3^rd rate journalism.  I think I a reverse of those figures would be more apt.

The Government does not have a first rate media policy but we’ve certainly seem far worse situations over the past 30 years or so.  My contention has been that the Government is overly worried about criticism because the critics, apart from a handful of people like Rajpal Abeynayake and Namini Wijedasa, are absolutely compromised by corruption, fraud, political loyalties and even complicity in the designs of the LTTE.   All the Government had to do was give them enough rope and watch them hang themselves.

The main outfits whining for media rights, such as the Free Media Movement and the Working Journalists Association, are full of people who don’t deserve to be called journalists and who, by their political preferences and shady operations, were the laughing stock of the general public.  Sure, there were some who were more principled than the herd, like Uvindu Kurukulasuriya, but by and large these bunch of jokers should not have been perceived as a threat. 

The latest ‘case’ is the disappearance of a man by the name of Prageeth Ekneligoda, a journalist attached to the website referred to as ‘lankaenews’.  Lankaenews is not just an anti-Government website. It is anti-Rajapaksa, anti-civility, anti-dignity, anti-integrity etc etc., and sometimes one wonders if it is a porn site.  The people who run the site have absolutely no ethics and I doubt if they have ever heard of a term called ‘responsible journalism’.  Personally, I think the website did more damage to the Government’s opponents than it did to the Government. 

Now there are people, largely anti-Rajapaksa and pro-LTTE, bent on destabilizing Sri Lanka who are using Ekneligoda’s disappearance as ‘another example’ of the Governments (alleged) witch hunt of media personnel.  I don’t consider Ekneligoda a journalist nor lankaenews a serious media operation.  A fifth-grade jungle paper (kelae paththare) would show more professionalism and media ethics than lankaenews.  And yet, there’s no getting around the fact that Ekneligoda is ‘missing’.

I don’t buy the view that all journalists and self-titled journalists that go missing or are beaten up are ‘victims’ of violence sourced to high ranking members of the political leadership.  On the other hand, since the Government is mandated to ensure rule of law and guarantee the security of all citizens, there is some culpability that slips to the state when such things happen.

We don’t know if Ekneligoda was abducted or is in hiding.  Gayan Kumara Weerasingha, writing in the Sunday Lakbima News of February 28, 2010 details various theories about Ekneligoda’s whereabouts and doings.  Nothing is confirmed.  We are asked to wait and see, and assured that the true story will come out soon. 

I am disturbed by this disappearance and I am sure the Government is too, especially if there’s no involvement of anyone in high ranking places in the regime.  We need to know what happened to this man.  If indeed he’s the charlatan that he appears to be, then the true story behind this ‘disappearance’ will embarrass all those media-vultures who think the sun shines out of their ‘you-know-what’.  On the other hand, if indeed he is a victim of a more sinister operation, then the Government really needs to take serious note of unruly, indiscipline and vile elements within its fold.

What really harms Ekneligoda and those who wax lyrical about him and rights issues is the fact that the man is not a principled journalist in the first place.  Lankaenews, for example, ran a story about a politician’s sexual exploits that should get the award for the most vicious and irresponsible piece of writing during the year 2009.  Ekneligoda was supposed to have written the piece.  He had weaved in enough ‘facts’ to make it clear who he was talking about.  He doesn’t have the guts to come out and say this is Mr So and So.  That’s character assassination.  And pornography. 

Ekneligoda then is not a journalist, but a man with a perverted mind and badly requires a visit to a psychiatrist, along with his pals at lankaenews.  Still, he is a citizen and deserves all the rights and guarantees that the state owes the rest of the citizenry.  ‘Where is Ekneligoda?’ then is a legitimate question and one which we hope will be answered soon.

Had Ekneligoda been a serious and responsible journalist or an exemplary citizen this ‘disappearance’ could have really embarrassed the Government. But Ekneligoda is Ekneligoda and lankaenews is lankaenews.  Don’t believe me.  Read lankaenws. The website carried a letter purportedly written by Ekneligoda as reply to a letter written to him by the daughter of a friend who had been ‘disappeared’ during the UNP-JVP bheeshanaya of the late eighties.  Ekneligoda is supposed to have authored this after he was abducted and released in August last year (that his abductors have not been identified is also a problem, not because he is a ‘journalist’ but a citizen; again a black mark that the Government can do without).

What is interesting in this missive is the fact that Ekneligoda deems it necessary to fall on his knees and worship, again and again, a man called Sunanda Deshapriya, a charlatan of the first order who made bucks out of activism and stole bucks from the Centre for Policy Alternatives and dares not step into Sri Lanka for fear of arrest for perpetrating numerous acts of fraud.  Sunanda is Ekneligoda’s hero.  Need I say more? 

What this goes to show is the poverty of anti-Government activism in this country.  Intoxicated by hatred, petrified by monsters of its own creation, bedding with men and women who have absolutely no integrity and are largely discredited in the eyes of the general public, these people need to do a serious re-think about who they are, what they do and what they can achieve.  As things stand, they are not in a position to help Ekneligoda; each time they open their mouths they hurt him. 

We need to know where Ekneligoda is, let me repeat, in spite of who he is, what he did/does for a living and who his friends are.  We need to know where he is because he is a fellow-citizen.  We should not let the antics of lankaenews distract us from this important quest.

And we need brand organization to champion the cause of media rights.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

National Security is no theatre

Once a pawn of the Tiger rump
and now one of professional rivalry/jealousy?

In a society where there is justice and it is reflected in the entire gamut of activities and processes that come under ‘law and order’ two things can be expected.  First, the crime rate will be low. Secondly, those guilty of wrongdoing will be brought to book.  We don’t live in such a society.  While it is fashionable to blast the Government or, if it’s a new Government, the previous one, for crimes of omission and commission, we’ve certainly come a long way from the days of proxy arrests, illegal detention, routine and policy-directed torture and summary execution.  

‘Better,’ however is not coterminous with ‘okay’.  ‘The Nation’ has consistently called for action on complaints, investigation of allegation etc.  Foot dragging, we have pointed out editorially, naturally prompts suspicion of concealment and implies sanction from ‘the top’. ‘The Nation’ has also treated with suspicion the numbers trotted out by dubious NGO racketeers regarding journalists and others supposedly ‘disappeared’ by state agencies.  For two reasons.  First ‘journalist’ is not license to do wrong and get away with it.  Secondly, such inflation only detracts from the investigation into authentic cases, for example that of Lasantha Wickramatunga.  

Prageeth Ekneligoda was no journalist.  He did come up with interesting illustrations, but to call him a ‘journalist’ is an insult to the tribe.  His involvement with the LTTE is coming out only now.  All that is irrelevant to the matter of investigating his disappearance.  If, as alleged, he was killed, the truth must be sought relentlessly because he is a citizen.  If he was murdered, the murderers should be brought to book.  If, in the process, it turns out (as some have alleged) that he was not the journalistic or rights advocacy guru he’s been made out to be, it can’t be helped.  His so-called friends may get egg on their faces.  Can’t be helped.  

The important thing is to investigate to conclusion.  And that’s not just about Prageeth Ekneligoda but every citizen of this country who, if the law is inefficient, inadequate or prone to interference ‘from above’, is another Prageeth waiting to be disappeared.  

Prageeth’s case has from Day One been politicized. The silence and inaction on the part of the state only helped the usual suspects from the whining brigade of the NGO community that unabashedly acts in cahoots with the LTTE rump overseas.  Now that there’s ‘regime change’ (of sorts) such impediments as may have existed are gone.  Today it’s a different political game and one that has nothing to do with machinations against the Sri Lankan state (and consequently the people of Sri Lanka).   

If Prageeth’s dubious past helped discolor investigations the current exercise is being blurred by what has to be identified as professional jealousies.   The war is between military intelligence units and the Police. Since the entire case is framed by security issues this is unfortunate and even repulsive.  

As ‘The Nation’ has editorially pointed out wrongdoers must be brought to book.  In the proper manner.  Just as the vilification of Ekneligoda does not serve the cause of seeing justice done, oneupmanship when it comes to the pursuit and arrest of suspects does not help either.

Every suspect has to be considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.  Making a song and dance about operations where the military intelligence units are concerned can only be detrimental to national security.  We cannot overemphasize the terrible lessons learnt from the equally despicable Millennium City operations during the short-lived UNP Government of 2001-2004.  

If any intelligence operative is found guilty the law should be applied.  But neither ‘intelligence’ nor ‘national security’ are subjects that deserve to be treated as items in a circus.  The nation is bigger than gung-ho police officers and revenge-seeking politicians. 

It’s a simple enough brief:  you are paid to do a job, so do it, self-aggrandizement is neither rewarded nor applauded.  Investigate, find the truth and if there’s wrongdoing punish the culprits.  Keep it clean.  Keep theatrics out of it.  

Read more

Farah Mihlar and others tossed cats out of the bag in Geneva

They say that if you give some people enough rope they will hang themselves with it.  On March 19, 2012, in Geneva, no one needed give any rope to several individuals who came to talk about ‘Rule of law and human rights violations in Sri Lanka’.  They came with enough rope and a scaffolding to boot, so to speak.

The event was one of the many side-shows at the 19^th Sessions of the UN Human Rights Council.  It was ‘show’ alright and began before it all began.  Fahrah Mihler, who I have met just a couple of times and who, courtesy a mutual friend, invited me for dinner in Geneva during the Govt-LTTE talks in Celigny, 2006, came and said hello.  She said she had watched me debate Callum Macrae (Channel 4) and Bob Templer (International Crisis Group) on the Sri Lankan conflict in an event hosted by the Asia Society in New York in December 2011 (I participated via skype).

I said ‘they were spouting a lot of bullshit’.

Farah agrees: ‘I know!  In fact I was in my mind thinking out the responses you should make.’

So Farah agrees that what Macrae and Templer said was bullshit. And what did they say?  Macrae regurgitated Channel 4 lies (agreed upon, I should add) and Templer spat out stuff that Channel 4 and the Darusman Panel had stuffed down his gullible (I am being generous here) throat.  In short, taking as fact the claims made by unreliable witnesses, believing exaggerations, having no regard for the principles of proportionality and showing rank ignorance of or showing no respect whatsoever to that little uncomfortable thing called ‘context’.  Farah knows context. 

Then came the next show which was a no-show.  The moderator announced that the much anticipated screening of Channel 4’s latest ‘production’ on Sri Lanka was not going to happen.   Now that ‘new’ film was nothing more than a re-hash of the earlier ‘documentary’ called ‘Killing Fields’ whose toilet-wash worth was more than revealed in ‘Lies Agreed Upon’, where Channel 4’s collusion with the LTTE rump and its long history of glorifying terrorism was laid out without frill or clever juxtaposition and splice.  Perhaps the organizers knew that there were people in the audience who knew better than to believe anything anyone says and had evidence in hand to counter all the claims made in that second film including the stories of the tall-story spinners showcased. 

Then came Farah’s main show, which began with another classic disclaimer.  Ms. I Agree That Channel 4 Is Spouting Rubbish says ‘I am not against Sri Lanka’.  What was coming was apparent.  There was a ‘but’ to come of course, but not before it made me think that it’s like a sodomiser telling intended victim ‘this is good for you..enjoy!’ 

‘We are supporting the US Resolution on Sri Lanka’ she said, not surprisingly; the apologies, caveats, shy-making twisting, turning and squirming fooling few. 

Representing Minority Rights Group, London, Farah did the now boring tokenism number, glossing over LTTE atrocities.  This fluent operator was slick enough to toss out numbers tossed out before in the lie-construction industry, but as a doctoral student she slipped because she showed she had never heard the words reliability.  If one were to believe her argument, then we wouldn’t have seen people walking out of the No-Fire Zone (rendered a joke by the LTTE moving heavy weapons into the area and firing on the Government troops from there and then shooting to kill civilians held hostage as they sought to flee); no, we would have seen ghosts or skeletons.   She’s such a meticulous researcher that she missed the endorsements and words of praise accorded to the Government by the ICRC and top UN officials (Ch 4, by the way, continues to treat as biblical truth the opinions of disgraced UN officials, most of them clearly sympathetic to the LTTE and having axes to grind on account of preferred outcome not materializing).  

Farah’s presentation seeks to give some ‘first hand’ evidence.  When the frills are taken out, however, it’s all hearsay, littered with ‘I was told’, and nothing at all by way of numbers; just random statement that are not offered with even a semblance of substantiation.  There was nothing to indicate anything systemic or policy-driven.  If that’s being ‘academic’ then I seriously question the credentials of her supervisors, especially those who taught her research methodologies. 

Here’s more context she missed:

Sri Lanka is emerging after a brutal war against terrorism.  It is easy for a globe-trotting, neither-here-nor-there fly-by-night operator to pick and choose juicy bits that will titillate the ears of the uneducated and misinformed, but for us here in Sri Lanka, it makes absolutely no sense to defer in favour of sorry as opposed to safe.  Considering the virulent hate-mongering of Farah’s think-alikes (namely the LTTE groups in the West), the delicate that is post-war Sri Lanka cannot be underestimated.  Demilitarization is a process and the relevant time-table cannot be set by those who necessitated militarization and certainly not by their apologists.  Like Farah. 

She spoke of rape and vulnerabilities.  She didn’t mention that soldiers found guilty of rape  have been tried and punished (not whitewashed like Staff Sgt Robert Bales, who is not being media-pardoned on account of insanity).  She fails to make the case that these alleged violations were systemic or widespread or of a magnitude that is above national average or at levels exceeding those in similar situations elsewhere in the world.  She doesn’t say a word of the insecurities and vulnerabilities these very same women had to suffer at the hands of the LTTE.  She knows, but will not admit, that life pre-Mat 2009 was hell.  She expects Sri Lanka to move from hell to heaven in record time. 

Here’s  more context.

The United States, which tabled the resolution which she so ardently supports, walked into Iraq in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and is still there almost a decade after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.  The USA overthrew the Taliban years ago and is still discharging hell-bombs.  Sri Lanka is targetted though.  ‘For her own good,’ she reminds us. 

Farah was followed by Anna Van Gall of the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights, Berlin.  Anna talked about gender-based violence.  Anna probably has no idea of geography for had she even the slightest clue, she’d be camped out in places like Saudi Arabia instead of going for easy pickings.  Unlike Farah, she can be excused for she has no idea what Sri Lanka is about, the status of women, the problems of women, what’s being done and what needs to be done.  It’s the same song: nothing is perfect is Sri Lanka so everything must be wrong. 

Theodor Rothgeber of the Forum for Human Rights, Geneva, was a treat.  The man said that he himself could not have come up with as ‘soft’ a resolution as the one the USA came up with.  Again, his annoyance is sourced to unreliable and corrupt ‘evidence’ trotted out by the likes of Colin Macrae and Bob Templer, the people who Farah agreed ‘talk rubbish’.   The man needs to do some reading about the history of resolutions, country-specific and otherwise, find out who has vetoed what, voted against what/whom, and how ‘softer’ resolutions and indeed no-resolutions led to monumental crimes against humanity. 

Now all three panelists and the moderator kept talking about their ‘colleague’ Sandya Ekneligoda’s presentation, but she was saved for the last.  There was a reason, which I will come to; just wanted to flag that.

Next came Ms. Giyoun Kim of the Asian Forum of Human Rights, Bangkok.  Poor lady.  She let her colleagues down badly and I am convinced that this is because she was honest.  Naïve yes, but honest.  She admitted that she was brought along for the show in order to indicate to the world that it was not a ‘West’ thing.  Poor thing, she didn’t realize that she had been tagged to give a ‘global’ look to a Western project, just like South Indian forums in the West always have a token Pakistani, Sri Lankan or Bangladeshe (key word: ‘or’) amidst a host of Indian, just to make it look non-Indian. 

More interestingly (and hilariously too), she found herself ‘getting emotional’ as she begged (yes!) Sri Lankans in the audience not to ‘attack’ her beautiful/wonderful partners in the human rights advocacy racket in Sri Lanka.  She named them: Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Sunila Abeysekera and Nimalka Fernando.  The little girl didn’t know that all of them have been amply exposed as frauds.   Giyoun can be forgiven for ignorance but Farah cannot be, especially since the entire panel was so infuriatingly self-righteous from beginning to end. 

After the event, Giyoun was duly informed about the antics of these people, but she refused to believe they were anything less than angels.  I will come to that later.

Sandya Ekneligoda was introduced and re-introduced as the wife of Prageeth Ekneligoda (a ‘journalist’ who has disappeared).  No one, including Sandya, mentioned that Ekneligoda had once self-disappeared himself. No one mentioned the fact that Ekneligoda was not a journalist or that his ‘journalism’ was limited to the occasional cartoon and a lot of irresponsible, unsubstantiated and tasteless fantasies that bordered on cheap pornography.  No one seemed to have read the excellent undressing of what could be called the ‘Ekneligoda Saga’ by Uvindu Kurukulasuriya.  Now I’ve written about the incident and the debate and I shall not repeat it all here (‘On Ekneligoda, in spite of Ekneligoda and his pals’ in the Daily News of March 1, 2010: http://www.dailynews.lk/2010/03/01/fea02.asp) where I touched upon the issue and noted, inter alia, the following:

‘What is interesting in this missive is that Ekneligoda deems it necessary to fall on his knees and worship, again and again, a man called Sunanda Deshapriya, a charlatan of the first order who made bucks out of activism and stole bucks from the Centre for Policy Alternatives and dares not step into Sri Lanka for fear of arrest for perpetrating numerous acts of fraud.  Sunanda is Ekneligoda’s hero. Need I say more?’

That man Sunanda!  Sunanda Deshapriya sneaked into the discussion at the tail end.  ‘The translator is here, the translator is here!’ the moderator was clearly excited.  Yes, he was to translate Sandya.  The moderator might not have known, but Farah could not have not known what Sunanda has been up to.  Had it been Farah who moderated and had she had any integrity, she might have said ‘the translator-crook is here, the translator-crook is here’.  Sunanda’s love for the LTTE aside (the LTTE killed his driver, but he never once pointed a finger at Prabhakaran) his stubborn refusal to subject himself to the accountability doctrine he so vociferously espouses (he robbed money from Saravanamuttu’s organization and the lovely man Sara, Giyoun should know, cited ‘lack of clarity’ when Sunanda was hoofed out) has been amply exposed by Uvindu Kurukulasuriya (http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2012/02/26/sunanda-saga-states-of-denial-and-ngo-accountability/ and http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2012/03/04/how-sunanda-robbed-the-money-and-ngo-accountability-fmm-still-not-submitted-audited-accounts-for-rs-30-9-million/).  There’s more to come, I hear.

Interestingly, Sunanda’s dollar greed and dollar theft has been facilitated by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and its big names including Jacqueline Park.  The IFJ is frequently cited as an authoritative source about media rights in Sri Lanka.  Sunanda’s ‘Journalists for Democracy’ (JFD) has apparently submitted ‘evidence’ (doctored, it has been proven) to Channel 4.  And who endorses this evidence, but another JFD stalward, Rohitha Bashana who is said to have edited the LTTE’s Sinhala paper ‘Dedunna’ (Rainbow).  And who showcases Rohitha Bashana?  Channel 4!  The ‘evidence’ of a terrorist is aired to the world as though it’s the word of some pious priest of unblemished virtue. 

So Sunanda got late.  Why?  The man had gone with camera in hand to photograph a demonstration against the US Resolution.  The police were informed that his presence, with camera, was an act of provocation.  I wouldn’t disagree, knowing his links with the LTTE.  He was duly taken away for questioning and got late.  Hence the delay in getting Sandya to speak.

Sandya told her story.  The jist:  my husband disappeared and if I, a Sinhalese can’t find him, what more of Tamils who have loved ones that have gone missing?  Valid point, but an incomplete story.  It took 2 years for a suspect associated with the attempt to assassinate the Defence Secretary was found, just to keep perspective.  Those who disappeared in the middle of a brutal war will take finding.  Some may have died in combat, some may have fled.  Names and numbers are needed and exercises to this end are rubbished as though the rubbishers could do a better job themselves, which is what rubbish really is.  Channel 4, for example, neatly clouds the source of some numbers trotted out (Official Census of 1981!), for if they didn’t do that they would have to count ‘in’ those who fled the North and East (to the Western Province, USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and India in the main). 

Much needs to be done, no doubt, but as I have said before, just as much as Sri Lanka is no Paradise on Earth, neither is it the Hell on Earth that the likes of malicious and self-promoting individuals who lack integrity (Farah, for example) make it out to be. 

I feel for Giyoun, who was almost in tears.  I feel for her because I think she was the only honest person on the panel.  She does not know (and can be pardoned for not knowing) that Sunila’s commitment to preventing gender-based violence was amply demonstrated when a close political associate beat his wife regularly.  The wife had told Sunila and she had asked her to ‘be patient’.  Anna Van Gill would be appalled to know.  There are police records of complaints, I hear.  As for Giyoun’s darling Nimalka, the lady’s venom against Sri Lanka is well recorded, bending backwards to a) legitimate the LTTE and b) get the Government to stop the military offensive, not to mention a concerted vilification campaign all over the world.  

None of these three people would get more than a handful of votes in an election.  They are not under any threat.  No one needs to vilify them.  They do a good job of it themselves.  Most importantly, Saravanamuttu and Sunanda, both of who write regularly to newspapers (freely and without holding back punches) have never once responded to cogent critiques of positions taken and, more importantly, substantiated charges of wrong doing, including hanky-panky with finances.  Giyoun can google, I am sure. 

The entire panel was bombarded with charges of duplicity and double standards.  Farah and others were forced to say that they would not hesitate to take issue with human rights violations by the USA.  Just two hours before this event there was another on human rights violations in Afghanistan (the panel included a Human Rights Watch representative and a UN official) where the blatant and horrific crimes against humanity perpetrated by the USA were pussy-footed around.  None of the panelists were seen there.  On the following day there was a similar discussion on Iraq where the Amnesty International representative beat a hasty retreat, fleeing when questioned about double standards.  None of the panelists were seen at either event.  So much for across-the-board concern for human rights. 

Farah said that if Sri Lanka or anyone else brings a resolution against the USA, she would support it.  She said ‘the resolution has been brought by the USA, yes, but 53 countries get to vote’, in a sad exposing of rank ignorance about global political economy.  This lady still believes that the UN is about one member, one vote! 

Giyoun might learn and med her ways. Farah?  I doubt it.  She’s thick.  She knows what rubbish is (she admitted) but has no qualms about dishing it out as delicacies.  It all came out in Geneva.  Unintentionally. 

Read more