06 August 2018

Gota, Caligula and Hitler: a Yahapalanist’s phantasmagoria



When a high-ranking Bikkhu of the Asgiriya Chapter made a reference to Hitler, many recoiled in horror. There was much spit thereafter, mainly from but not limited to the yahapalana tribe.  It’s a fair guess that the moralizing was due to the reference being made at an event where Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was present. Indeed the name was linked to Gotabhaya. The ‘high-rank’ was also a factor, obviously. 

Two facts was overlooked in the rush to attack Gotabhaya (more than attacking the bikkhu). The bikkhu, observing that Gotabhaya was being compared to Hitler, said that ‘if that’s the case then be a Hitler and salvage this country (probably) from the rut it has got stuck in.’ Secondly, the bikkhu said that Sri Lanka needs a dharmika leader. That’s ‘righteous’ and not ‘theocratic’ or a ‘religious fundamentalist’ as was erroneously (deliberately?) translated.

Around the same time Gotabhaya was compared to Caligula in one of the English newspapers. Clearly that author doesn’t know much history; not about Caligula, the Rome of his time nor the concerted vilification of the man. When one picks a pip here and point similarity to a pip there, one can say ‘voilà! It’s one and the same!’ but that’s a fruit that is common in a season of silliness, nothing more. 

Let’s get back to Hitler and Gotabhaya.

Now ‘Hitler’ does not sit well with ‘righteous’. That, to me, is the principal issue with the bikkhu’s take on the political present and recommendation. There were many aspects to Hitler’s character and very few are laudable traits. Among them is the notion of ‘a strong individual’ which of course is not necessarily at odds with ‘righteous’ because it is about being straight, firm, disciplined and having a no-nonsense attitude. Whether or not Gotabhaya is or will be any of that can of course be debated. What’s difficult to dismiss, however, is the need constantly argued and from many quarters for a strong, firm personality. 

About two years ago a senior member of the Yahapalana Cabinet made an interesting observation.  I didn’t agree with his preferred characterization because it was too much of a caricature, but the point was intriguing. 

‘When a tyrannical ruler is ousted and a democratic leader put in place, that democratic leader has to deliver. If that doesn’t happen then there arises a demand for a tyrannical ruler.’

The word used was මැරයා (meraya), which could mean strong person, a thug or a dictator. I asked him if he was referring to any particular person or persons, tossing out a couple of names including that of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. We are friends. He laughed. I left it at that.

That was two years ago. We need not take his prediction as the last word on how the political equation is to be resolved of course, but one thing we can say with certainty is that the democratic leadership (so-called) has failed. It is not righteous. It is not democratic. It is confused. It is corrupt and incompetent. It is weak. Not only has it not delivered, it is patently clear that it cannot deliver. 

It’s all this that is creating a demand for a decision-maker, someone who is seen as a doer rather than a talker.  Throw in the inability to combat crime and absolute silence on the brinkmanship demonstrated by racists such as C.V. Wigneswaran and tendentious posturing by the likes of M.A. Sumanthiran, the need is upped to ‘a doer who is unwavering’. The downside of this is of course the possibility of getting a pied-piper; will do the one thing and use the same method to do what’s not wanted. That’s a different story of course. If we are talking about political fortunes, such things don’t really count.

What seems clear is that the Yahapalanists, just cannot get enough of Gotabhaya ‘the Caligula Avatar,’ ‘Gotabhaya the Sri Lankan Hitler’ and ‘Gotabhaya What Have You?’ Scratch their political correctness (which is a thin layer, by the way) and you get fear about the real possibility of either losing power or their favorites doing so. That’s a different matter. What’s pertinent is that they don’t seem to be aware of the growing perception that the country needs a firm hand. If you want to call ‘firm hand’ by other names, such as Hitler or Caligula, that only adds to this need transforming into support for a Gotabhaya presidency.  They’ve already put up Gota-posters; hate-Gota posters if you will (never mind the nonsense they spout about hate speech legislation). They seem to working tirelessly to give the Gota brand visibility. 

In short, where there is a call for strength and where the yahapalanists are as weak as they come, vilification of strength and putting a name to it to boot is silly. Then again, when one is emotional, reason suffers; and when one is short of reason in the first place, you are asking for trouble. Politically, speaking.

The most serious outcome of all this is makes it that much harder for an alternative, regardless of the camp it rises from or decides to take residence in or is adopted for purposes of political expedience. 

Perhaps the yahapalanists should do a survey and test the impact of vilifying Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. I am willing to wager that they will be surprised and disappointed. 




01 August 2018

The specter of ‘The Outsider’ in a Presidential Election



A little over a year ago when I announced that I would be contesting the next Presidential Election, some people laughed, some took it seriously and many, including those who know me, were confused. 

‘Are you serious?’ was a common question. My response was simple: ‘when I think about all those who were serious about contesting, including the winners, when I think about their track records and what they actually did after the particular election, I am wary of using the word “serious”.’ 

A good friend, after speaking with me on the subject for about half an hour, said ‘I am not sure if you are serious or not!’ I responded, ‘neither am I’.  We both laughed. Let’s leave my presidential ambitions and their seriousness aside. It’s not important. Let’s talk instead of the outsider-phenomenon.  

‘Outsider’ can be understood in many ways. Maithripala was an outsider to the party machinery that backed his campaign in 2015. Sarath Fonseka was an outsider in that he was not a politician when he decided to take on Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2010. Mahinda Rajapaksa was treated like an outsider by the leader of his party in 2005. Chandrika Kumaratunga was an outsider to the SLFP not too long before that party decided to back her candidacy in 1994. Ranasinghe Premadasa was an outsider to the UNP’s inner circle despite the positions he held in that party; support was offered grudgingly. 

In other words being an outsider doesn’t necessarily mean that the odds are stacked against you.  However, what’s common about the above personalities is that they were all placed in the driving seat of a big vehicle, i.e. either the UNP or the SLFP or coalitions led by one of these two parties. Those who drove smaller vehicles were non-factors; they couldn’t prevent eventual winners from getting the 50%+1, an eventuality that would have required consideration of the second preference.  

There are names doing the rounds. From the major parties there is Ranil Wickremesinghe (UNP) and Maithripala Sirisena (SLFP). The latter’s chances hinge on a replay of 2015 and this under severely reduced circumstances. The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) has not announced a candidate, but it seems likely that Gotabhaya Rajapaksa would be the choice of that party.  Gotabhaya is an outsider but less so than Fonseka was.  Patali Champika Ranawaka is spoken of as a possible UNP candidate in the event that Wickremesinghe declines on account of probable defeat.  

Then there are the ‘total outsiders’ (as of now). Nagananda Kodituwakku and Rohan Pallewatta have already announced that they would contest, the latter registering a party and hiring an advertising firm to do brand positioning (for now). Kodituwakku is a strident and relentless voice against corruption and has made the courts his battle ground, even taking the custodians to task.

Kumar Sangakkara’s name has come up but he hasn’t said ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (so far). Then there is Halpage Madhusanka Nuwan (Madhu Roxz) claims on his Facebook account that he is an actor, singer, lyricist, music producer and film maker. Madhu Roxz has also ‘announced’. 

This morning (August 1), a young man named Ravisha Thilakawardana posted a status update on Facebook that has generated a lot of comments. This is what he said: ‘If you want to take revenge on anyone, all you need to do is say that the person is going to take on Gotabhaya Rajapaksa at the next presidential election; immediately that person would be ridiculed before the entire country by bayyas (roughly, Rajapaksa supporters) who would sling mud beginning from the time the person defecated in the pants in the kindergarten.’ 

Someone made a post to the effect that the UNP’s Working Committee has decided to nominate Ravisha to represent the liberal camp headed by the UNP at the next presidential election. This prompted many posts supporting Ravisha. There were congratulatory messages, expression of support and some neat ‘campaign visuals’ of the man.  

As someone said, the success of Maithripala Sirisena has made any idiot think that he/she can become President. It also seems that the anti-Rajapaksa camp is stumped; they simply can’t find a candidate who has a reasonable chance of defeating Gotabhaya Rajapaksa — hence the Kumar Sangakkara ‘Option’. Whether Pallewatte’s campaign ends up with him being the choice, we do not know. As of now, he is indicating (like Kodituwakku insists) that he wants to steer clear of the two major political parties and/or the coalitions led by them.  Madhu Roxz echoes these sentiments. 

While part of all this is pure fun and part of it is clever media work to test waters as well as throwing off balance the perceived political ‘other’, some of it is dead serious. Just because those who didn’t get into a big vehicle failed, there’s nothing to say that this would always be the case. 

The rise of ‘outsiders’ in other parts of the world have made many believe that such a phenomenon is not impossible in Sri Lanka. Those who for whatever reason back the major parties have already started asking ‘well, can he win?’ which implies that the particular ‘he’ is not unsuitable. The counter question is also being asked: ‘shouldn’t we be thinking more about whether someone is suitable, rather than focusing on whether a person can win?’ After all the winnability-factor hasn’t exactly delivered a civilized, democratic country where the fundamentals of good governance (yahapalanaya) have been consecrated.  

What all this indicates to me is that people are now getting sick of ‘same old, same old’. Sure they’ll vote for the candidate put forward by the major parties if that’s all the choice they have. Many will no doubt let ‘winnability’ and ‘worse evils’ frame thinking when it comes to it. However, if anything was learned in the 2015 ‘decision,’ it is that there’s room for surprise. 

While on paper the SLPP seems poised to win, the very fact that the yahapalanists are in disarray means that an outsider can make a decent run. What’s crucial is for the outsider to remain outside. If there’s momentum created then such a momentum-creator could be wooed by the anti-Rajapaksa camp. Then it boils down to a battle between personal glory and genuine need to turn things around. If the former is chosen, then we are at ‘same old, same old,’ but if the particular person declines, there is that outside chance that his/her campaign will get an extra boost which could wreck the political equation. 

Once that happens, who knows? There is palpable disgust at the two major parties (and I could the SLPP as more blue than any other color, taking into consideration the recent political fortunes of the SLFP). So here’s to Rohan Pallewatta, Nagananda Kodituwakku, Ravisha Thilakawardana and Madhu Roxz: steer clear of the UNP and SLFP/SLPP so we can hope that a different future can be charted for our nation.


Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com

මරණ දඬුවම නොහොත් 'මරුවා සමඟ වාසේ අංක 2'

ඇන්ටන් ජෝන්ස් කියන්නේ 'ලංකාවේ සත්‍ය සිද්ධීන්' ගීතයට පෙරළු ජනප්‍රිය ගායකයෙක්.   'මරුසිරා' යනු ඔහුගේ ගීත වලට පාදක වූ එක් 'සත්‍ය සිද්ධියක' ප්‍රධාන චරිතයකි.

උප්පැන්න සහතිකේ සඳහන් නම දෙද්දුව ජයතුන්ගලාගේ සිරිපාල වුනත් ඔහු රටටම 'මරුසිරා' වූයේය.  මිනීමරුවෙක්. සිරගෙයින් කිහිප වතාවක් පැනගිය මැරයෙක්. මරුසිරාට මරණ දඬුවම නියම කළේ 1974 මාර්තු මාසයේ. 

බෝගම්බර සිරගෙදර අබිරහස් ලෙස මරුසිරා මරණයට පත් වුණේ 1975 වසරේ අගෝස්තු 7 වැනිදා. මරුසිරා කෙසේ හෝ පැන යතැයි සිතු ජේලර්වරු ඔහුට අගෝස්තු 5 වැනි දා ක්ලොප්‍රෝමසින් පෙව්වේ ඔහුව අඩපණ කිරීමේ අදහසින්. ඔහුට සිහි නැති විය.  ඊට දවස් දෙකකට පසුව එල්ලුවේ සිහි නැති මිනිසෙකි. මියගියේ සාමාන්‍ය විදිහට එක සැනින් නොවේ, හුස්ම හිරවීමෙනි. ඇතැම් අය කියන්නේ ඒ 'විෂ' කාලයක් තිස්සේ එකතු කර කලින්ම සිය දිවි හානි කර ගත් වගයි. 'උඹලට මාව එල්ලන්න දෙන්නේ නැහැ' කියා ජේලර්ලට කී බවත් මේ කතාවේ කොටසක්.

'එල්ලාද මැරුවේ මරලාද එල්ලුවේ...මේ ප්‍රහේලිකාව කව්ද විසඳුවේ?' ඇන්ටන් ජෝන්ස් එසේ අසන්නේ මරුසිරාගේ මරණය ගැන විවිධ මත තිබුන නිසා විය යුතුයි. 

කෙසේ වෙතත් මරුසිරාගේ මරණයෙන් පසුව ලංකාවේ නීත්‍යනුකූල මිනී මැරුම් සිදු වුයේ නැත.

ඉන්පසු විටින් විට විවිධ අය මරණ දඬුවම යළි ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීම වෙනුවෙන් හඬ නගා ඇත.  අද ඒ වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටින්නේ පල්ලෙවත්ත ගමරාලලාගේ මෛත්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන. ජනාධිපති. අතිගරු.  අතිගරු ජනපති ගේ මතය ඇමති මණ්ඩලය ද දරන බව කිව යුතුයි. එනම් මෛත්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන මෙන්ම රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ ඇතුළු සියලු ඇමතිවරු නිත්‍යානුකූල ඝාතන අනුමත කරන්නෝය.

මේ කාරණය සාමාන්‍යයෙන් මතු කෙරෙන්නේ අපරාධ, විශේෂයෙන්ම දරුණු අපරාධ, වැඩි වැඩියෙන් සිදුවන අවස්ථා වලදී, නැතහොත් දරුණු අපරාධ වැඩි වැඩියෙන් සිදුවෙනවා යැයි සිතෙන දැනෙන අවස්ථා වලදී (අදාළ දත්ත කියන සත්‍යය කෙසේ වෙතත්).  ප්‍රවණතා කෙසේ වෙතත් පොදුවේ බොහෝ දෙනා ගේ සිත් කළඹන අපරාධයක් (සාහසික මිනීමැරුමක්, ළමා දූෂණයක් වැනි) සිදුවන අවස්ථා වල ද 'මුන්ව උල තියල මරන්න ඕන' වැනි ආවේගශීලී අදහස් ප්‍රකාශ වේ. සමහරු 'මරණ දඬුවම ක්‍රියාත්මක නොකරන නිසා' වැනි 'හේතු' ඉදිරිපත් කරති. 

ජනපති සිරිසේන ට ප්‍රශ්නයක් වී ඇත්තේ මේ කිසිවක් නොවේ. ඔහු ට ප්‍රශ්ණයක් වී ඇත්තේ මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය යි.  ඔහු ගේ විශ්වාසය වන්නේ මරණ දඬුවම ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීමෙන් මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය වෙළඳාමට සම්බන්ධ ලොක්කන් මෙන්ම සොක්කන් ද එම ව්‍යාපාරයෙන් ඉවත් වන බවයි. ඒවගේම මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය වලට ඇබ්බැහි වීමත් අඩුවෙතැයි ඔහු සිතයි. 

මෙවැනි ව්‍යාපාරවලින් යැපෙන බොහෝ දෙනා පාතාල කල්ලි වලට සම්බන්ධ අය වේ.  ඔවුන් සෑම මොහොතකම මරණය බලාපොරොත්තුවෙන් ජීවත් වන බව සත්‍යයකි.  ජේලර්වරු, පොලීසිය, මැති ඇමතිවරු මෙන්ම නඩුකාරයෝ ද සාක්කුවල දමාගන්න වත්කමක් ඇති මොවුන් එල්ලුම් ගහට බිය වීමට හේතුවක් නැත. 

ඒ කෙසේ වෙතත් මේ 'මරණ බය' ගැන විමසීම වටී.  තර්කය බිය වැද්දීම නම්, නීත්‍යානුකූල මරණ සිදු කළ යුත්තේ ප්‍රසිද්ධියේ ය.  බෝගම්බර හෝ වැලිකඩ බන්ධනාගාර වල අඳුරු කුටියක නොවේ ගාලු මුවදොර පිටිය වැනි විවෘත තැනක ය.  ක්‍රිකට් තරඟයක මෙන් සජීවී විකාශනයක් රූපවාහිනී සහ ගුවන්විදුලි නාලිකා වල ප්‍රචාරණය කළ යුත්තේ විස්තර විචාරයක් සමග ය.  දැවී යාමක රීප්ලේ එකක් මෙන් ස්ලෝ මෝෂන් විකාශනයක් ද අවශ්‍ය වේ.  ප්‍රිවිව් රිවිව් ද අවශ්‍ය වේ.  එල්ලුම්ගසට නියම වූ පුද්ගලයා සමඟ සම්මුඛ සාකච්ඡාවක් ද අවශ්‍ය වේ. අපරාධය සිදු කළ දින සිට මරණ දඬුවම ට ලක් වන දිනය දක්වා ඔහු හෝ ඇය කළ නොකළ දේ, සිතුම් පැතුම්, පස්චත්තාපයන් යනාදියද විස්තරාත්මකව ඉදිරිපත් කළ යුතු වේ.  'බාල වයස් අයට නුසුදුසු දසුන් අඩංගු විය හැකිය' වැනි අනතුරු ඇඟවීමක් සමග විකාශනය කිරීමට අදාළ බලධාරීන් වග බලා ගත යුතු වේ. 

අදාළ විශේෂාඥයින් ගෙන් මරණය සිදුවන ආකාරයද, වේදනාව ද, මරණය ට පෙර මානසික තත්ත්වය ද විමසා එම මත ජනගත කළ යුතු වේ.  මේ සියලු කාරණා පාසල් වල විෂය ධාරාවන් තුළට එකතු කළ යුතු වේ. එසේ කළහොත් ඇතැම් දරුණු අපරාධ වල ඵලවිපාක ගැන හැමෝම කල්පනා කරාවි යැයි අනුමාන කළ හැක.   "මරපියව්! මරපියව්!" යන ඝෝෂාව මතුවෙන්නේ  කිසි දෙයක් නැරඹීමට අකමැති සමාජයකින් බව මගේ වැටහීමයි.

ඒ කෙසේ වෙතත් බොහෝ දරුණු අපරාධ වලට කෙනෙකු පොලඹවන්නේ ආවේගය වේ. ආවේගකාරී මොහොතේ තර්කයට ඉඩක් නැත. ආදීනව ගැන සිතන්නේ ද නැත.  මේවා ගැනද සිතිය යුතු වේ.

දඬුවම වරදට අනුරූපී විය යුතු වේ.  පොකට් කාරයෙකුට මරණ දඬුවම බර වැඩි මෙන්ම මිනීමරුවාට රුපියල් දහයක වන්දියක් ගෙවීමට නියම කිරීම සැහැල්ලු වැඩියි.  ඇසකට ඇසක්, උණ්ඩයකට උණ්ඩයක්, ලේ බිඳුවකට ලේ බිඳුවක්.  එසේම විය යුතු නම් මිනී මරුවා මිනීමැරුම පහත සඳහන් ආකාරයට සිදු කළ යුතුය.

මිනීමැරුම සිදුකරන මොහොත, ස්ථානය සහ ඒ සඳහා භාවිත කරන උපකරණ කට්ටලය සවිස්තරාත්මකව පැහැදිලි කළ යුතු වේ.  අනතුරුව ඔහුව හෝ ඇයව අවුරුදු ගණනක් කිසිවෙකු හමුවිය නොහැකි ස්ථානයක රඳවා තැබිය යුතු වේ.

ඒ බියකරු මොහොත පැමිණෙන තුරු අදාළ පුද්ගලයාව මොහොතක් මොහොතක් පාසා නොමරා මරණ බවද පැහැදිලි කර දිය යුතු වේ. 

පෝරකය ගැන විශිෂ්ටතම සටහන තැබූ ඇල්බෙයා කැමූ ("Reflections on the Guillotine" නොහොත් "පෝරකය ගැන සිතුවිලි") මෙවැනි පැනයක් ඉදිරිපත් කර ඇත: 'කුමන මිනීමරුවා ද  තමා ඝාතනය කිරීමට යන පුද්ගලයා මෙවැනි තත්ත්වයකට පත් කරන්නේ?'

අධිකරණයේ විශිෂ්ටත්වය ගැන කතා නොකරමු.  කෙසේ වෙතත් ඉතාම සාධාරණ උසාවි තුළත් වැරදි සිදුවේ. දක්ෂම විනිසුරුවන් ද සාවද්‍ය තීන්දු දෙති.  වෙන දඬුවම් මෙන් නොව, වැරදි නිවැරදි කර වන්දියක් නියම කිරීමෙන් අසාධාරණය ට ලක් වූ පුද්ගලයා ට අස්වැසිල්ලක් සැලසිය හැකි දඬුවමක් නොවේ ය මෙය.  මේ ගැන ජනපති මෙන්ම 'මරව් මරව්' කියා කෑ මොර ගසන සුද්දවන්තයින් සිතුවෝ ද?

ඇසිය යුතු තවත් ප්‍රශ්න ඇත. මිනීමරුවෝ සහ වෙනත් දරුණු අපරාධකරුවෝ නීතියේ සිදුරු ඇති නිසා හෝ තමන් වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටින්නට දක්ෂ නීතිඥවරුන්ගේ සේවාවන් මිලදී ගැනීමට තරම් වත්කම් ඇති නිසා හෝ අදක්ෂ දූෂිත විනිසුරුවන් ඒ නඩු විභාග ඇසූ නිසා හෝ නිදැල්ලේ සිටින රටක් මෙය.  අහුවෙන එකා එල්ලලා මැරීමත් බලපුළුවන්කාරකම් තියෙන එවුන් නිදැල්ලේ සිටීමත් යුක්තිසහගතද? 

දරුණු අපරාධකරුවන් සියල්ල එල්ලා මරන්න බැරිවුනත් එකෙක් දෙකෙක් හරි මරණ එක යහපත් කියා කෙනෙකුට තර්ක කළ හැක. ඒ තරමින් සමාජය අනතුරු වලින් ආරක්ෂා වනවා යැයි ඔවුන් පෙන්වා දෙනු ඇත.  මීට වසර 50කට විතර පෙර අ(ර්)නෙස්ටෝ චේ ගුවේරා ලියු 'කියුබානු විප්ලවීය සටනේ මතක සටහන්' නම් කෘතිය මතක් වන්නේ 'මරණ දඬුවම' පිළිබඳ ඔහුගේ අදහස් ඒ මතකයන් අතරේ සටහන් වූ නිසා වේ.

සියෙරා මයෙස්ත්රා කඳු අතර බැටිස්ටා ගේ හමුදාවට එරෙහිව සටන් කරන අතර සතුරන්ට ඔත්තු සපයා අසුවූ පුල්ගලයෙක් පිළිබඳව චේ ට තීන්දුවක් ගන්න සිදුවූයේය. 

'වෙනත් යුගයක, වෙන තත්ත්වයන් යටතේ මොහු ඇතැම් විට අපේ අරමුණු වෙනුවෙන් බොහෝ දේ කරන කෙනෙක් වෙන්නත් ඉඩ තියෙනවා. ඒත් ඒ මොහොතේ ඔහුව රඳවා තබා ගැනීමට පුළුවන් කමක් තිබුනේ නැහැ. අනික ඔහුව නිදහස් කළා නම් සතුරාට අප ගැන තොරතුරු නොදේවියි කියල හිතන්නත් අමාරුයි.  එහෙම වුනා නම් අපේ කණ්ඩායමට ලොකු අනතුරක් වෙන්නත් පුළුවන්. මේ හැම දෙයක් ම කල්පනා කරලා ඔහුව මරන්න තීන්දු කෙරුව.'

ඒ ආයුධ සන්නද්ධ අරගලයක අතුරු කතාවක්.  චේ ට මුහුණ දෙන්න සිද්ධ වුන ගැටලුව රාජ්‍යයකට ප්‍රශ්නයක් නොවේ. සමාජය ආරක්ෂා කරනු වස් දරුණුම අපරාධකරුවන් ජීවිතාන්තය දක්වා වුවත් සිර කර තැබිය හැක.

එසේනම් නීත්‍යනුකූල මිනීමැරුම් යනු වෛරය පිරිමසා ගැනීමක් ද? එනම් රාජ්‍යය ද, නීතියද ඇත්තේ හැඟීම් සමනය කිරීමට ද? රාජ්‍යය, නීතිය කෙසේ වෙතත් ජනාධිපති-අගමැති ප්‍රධාන යහපාලන ආණ්ඩුව ගත් මේ තීන්දුව අතාර්කිකයි.  එය තුළ ගැබ්ව ඇත්තේ නොහැකියාවයි, වෛරී චේතනාවයි. ඇබ්බැහි වුවන් පුනරුත්ථාපනය කිරීමට සාර්ථක වැඩපිළිවෙළක් නැත. මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය ජාවාරමේ මහා මොළකරුවන්, මහා මුදලාලි ලා ට එරෙහිව වැට බඳින්නත්, ඔවුන් නීතියේ රැහැනට ගැනීමට වැඩපිළිවෙළක් වත් නොමැත. අධිකරණය ද නීතිය ආරක්ෂා කරන සහ ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන ආයතනික පද්ධතිය ද අකාර්යක්ෂමයි, දූෂිතයි.  තත්ත්වය මෙසේ තිබියදී 'අහුවෙන එකා ගේ බෙල්ල කපන' නීතිය විහිළුසහගතයි. ප්‍රශ්නයට විසඳුමක් නොවේ.  'කුඩු ප්‍රශ්නයට' සීමාවුන අර්බුදයක් නොවේ මෙය. සියලු දරුණු අපරාධ වලටද මෙය සාධාරණයි. 

ඇසකට ඇසක්, උණ්ඩයකට උණ්ඩයක්, ලෙයට ලෙය වගේ බොළඳ තර්කයකට මේ බරපතළ සමාජීය, මානුෂීය ප්‍රශ්නය ලඝු කරලා කිසිදෙයක් විසඳෙන්නේ නැත.  වන්දියක් නම් එය සාධාරණ ද නැත.  අනාගත අපරාධකරුවන් බියවැද්දීමක් බලාපොරොත්තු වනවා නම් එයද සිදුවන්නේ නැත. දැවැන්ත වැරදි සිදුවන සහ සිදු කරන සමස්ත නීති පද්ධතියක් වැරදි තීන්දුවක් දුන්නොත් පසුව වන්දියකින් සහ නිදහස් කිරීමෙන් නිවැරදි කර ගත නොහැකි දෙයකි මේ මරණ දඬුවම.

මේ සියළු කරුණු කාරණා වලට අමතරව දඬුවම අවභාවිතයේ යෙදවීමේ අනතුරක් ද ඇත. මත්ද්‍රව්‍ය ළඟ තබාගැනීම මරණ දඬුවම නියම විය හැකි වරදක් නම්, දේශපාලන බලය විසින් නීතිය දැනගස්වීමට හැකි සංස්කෘතියක් සහ ආයතන පද්ධතියක් ඇති රටක දේශපාලන සමීකරණයෙන් සතුරන් ඉවත් කිරීමට කදිම උපක්‍රමයක් බව තේරුම් ගත යුතුයි.  අවශ්‍ය වන්නේ 'සුදුසු' සාක්ෂි නිර්මාණය කිරීම පමණි.  මතක තබා ගත යුතු වන්නේ මරණ දඬුවම ක්‍රියාත්මක නොකරන මේ රටේම සිරගෙවල් තුල මෙන්ම පොලිස් ස්ථාන වලද සිරකරුවන් රැඳවියන් ඝාතනය වන බවයි.

2015 වසරේ ජනවාරි 9 දා ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ජනාධිපති හැටියට දිවුරුම් දීමෙන් අනතුරුව මෛත්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන ජනාධිපති ධම්මපදයේ ගාථාවකින් ඔහු ගේ ප්‍රථම නිල කතාව කෙරුවේ ය.

නහී වේරෙන වේරානි
සම්මන්තීධ කුදාචනං
අවේරේනච සම්මන්ති
ඒස ධම්මො සනන්තනෝ

මේ ලෝකය කවරදාකවත් වෛරයෝ වෛර බැඳීමෙන් නොසන්සිඳෙත්. මෙය හැම කල්හිම නොවෙනස්ව පවතින දහමකි.

එදා මෙදා තුර කතාව සහ ක්‍රියාව නොහොත් න්‍යාය සහ භාවිතය අතර විශාල පරතරයක් ඇති බව එතුමා බොහෝ අවස්තාවලදී  ඔප්පු කර ඇත. මෛත්‍රී යුගයක් ගැන බොහෝ දේ කිව්වත් වෛරය ඔහුගේ ද පොදුවේ යහපාලකයින්ගේ ද ප්‍රධාන මෙහෙයුම් සාධකයක් බව කනගාටුවෙන් වුවද කිව යුතුමයි.

මරුසිරා ගේ කතාව පාදක කරමින් චිත්‍රපට දෙකක් 70 දශකයේ අග භාගයේ නිර්මාණය විය. එකක් අමරනාත් ජයතිලක ගේ 'සිරිපාල සහ රන්මැණිකා'.   රඟපෑවේ රවින්ද්‍ර රන්දෙණිය සමග මාලිනී ෆොන්සේකා. අනෙක ටයිටස් තොටවත්ත ගේ නිර්මාණයක්. රඟපෑවේ විජය කුමාරතුංග සහ ගීතා කුමාරසිංහ.  චිත්‍රපටයට නම ගත්තේ මරුසිරා ගේ පපුව හරහා කොටපු පච්චයකිනි.  'මරුවා සමඟ වාසේ'.

දෙද්දුව ජයතුන්ගලාගේ සිරිපාල නොහොත් මරුසිරා අද ජීවතුන් අතර නැත. 

අද මරුවා සමඟ වාසය කරන්න ආරාධනා කරන්නේ පල්ලෙවත්ත ගමරාලලාගේ මෛත්‍රිපාල සිරිසේන. මැරුණේ සිරිපාල. මරන්න හදන්නේ සිරිසේන.

නැවතත් ඇන්ටන් ජෝන්ස් ගේ සින්දුව මතක් වේ.

නිර්භීත මරුසිරා කියන්නේ කව්ද සුමිතුරා
මිනී මර මරා හැංගි සිටියා රට පුරා
සිරිසේන නම් එයා මරුසිරා යයි කියා
ඉතිහාසෙට නමක් එක් කළා

සින්දුව ඔය විදිහට කිව්වොත් මම නම් පුදුම නොවෙමි.

 





28 July 2018

Remember when the Yahapalanists came up with the name ‘Maithri Yugaya’?



MAITHRI ERA BEGINS. That was the bold and single headline of a special issue of ‘The Nation’ on Friday the 9th of January, 2015. I had forgotten all about this special edition until that particular page, torn, was about to be used for some household purpose by my wife. Out of curiosity I read it. 

On the front page there was a big picture the smiling newly-elected President, his hands clasped in the manner of the traditional greeting. Under the picture was the headline.  On the opposite side there was an Editorial with a short note to Maithripala Sirisen’a predecessor, the defeated Mahinda Rajapaksa.  The Editorial took the form of a letter and was titled simply, ‘Dear Mr President’. Here are some excerpts: 

As a seasoned politician and as a one-time staunch supporter of your predecessor, you are eminently qualified to understand the challenges ahead as you think about delivering the promises made to the people of this country.  

The road to the Presidency was rocky. There were pitfalls and booby traps. You walked not alone, but you would know as well as anyone that we live in times where friend turns foe and vice versa without warning. You took on a strong leader, a proven competitor and a man who is probably the most loved national leader this country has known since D.S. Senanayake. You went against a candidate in a political culture and an institutional arrangement which gave him a massive edge. You prevailed.

These very people (who supported you), as you know well, backed your opponent on two historic occasions. He lost their confidence and their support. Nothing, Mr President, is guaranteed to last forever. If you look around you, you will see many who were once best friends with your predecessor You know of salon-doors. You know that politicians just as they are made of promises, are also made of self-interest. Trust, Mr President, is a good thing. In moderation.

There will be praises sung today. And tomorrow. There will be criticism too. Well-intentioned and anger-made. You can put aside the love and hatred and obtain the critique. You need it. Make it your best friend.

You came with a promise. You came with a tag, you promised that compassion will be the signature of your tenure. You set yourself high standards and this is good. Sometimes we need to trap ourselves in frames which force us to be better than we usually are. You will err, you will falter and even fall. We will forgive. As long as we are confident you are walking in the right direction and taking us with you.

May you always be blessed by the Noble Triple Gem, in which you’ve taken refuge. 

If the results of the February 2018 local government elections are anything to go by, Maithripala Sirisena’s popularity has declined dramatically.  Such a decline in such a short time is unprecedented. Even an A/L student could write a fairly decent essay on the reasons for this decline. We need not go into details. Suffice to say that Sirisena got a lot of things wrong.  

Bad friends. Bad advice. Huge gap between rhetoric and practice to the extent that one has to wonder if he ever believed (or knew!) the stuff he mouthed during that election campaign. Absence of initiative, rank incompetence, injudicious statements, an admitted cluelessness about important issues including who authored his own manifesto (!), a penchant for contradicting himself and a fascination with vengeance. That’s Maithripala Sirisena. He portrayed himself as a humble, mature, accommodating man of the people who harbors no grudge. All those frills fell and quickly too. 

And it is not just Sirisena. Indeed it is unfair to blame everything on the President. Even back then, i.e. in late 2014, it was clearly apparent that his chief backers, especially Ranil Wickremesinghe, envisaged a more or less ceremonial role for Sirisena. After one of the key pledges was to abolish the executive presidency, which, if done within the first 100 days after Sirisena assumed office would have in effect put Wickremesinghe (at that time with only a few dozen parliamentary seats under his command) in the executive seat.  

That didn’t happen. Neither did Sirisena come into his own. The yahapalana-arrangement went ahead with understandable difficulty given histories of antagonism between the two parties that Sirisena and Wickremesinghe led.  There was innuendo and veiled threat. Minions were deployed to badmouth one another.  However, the two entities remained political Siamese Twins, joined at the hip.  Together and separately they’ve turned that would-be empowering term, yahapalanaya (good governance) into a joke. Together and separately they’ve presided over rank incompetence, abuse of privileges, nepotism, thuggery and corruption.  

There are brownie points for bringing the Right to Information Act and for doing away with the anti-democratic 18th Amendment. No cookies for the much-celebrated ‘freedom to criticize’ because that is par for the course whenever there is a regime change. There are, however, black marks for everything else.  

It was to be expected; after all Sirisena campaigned in the shadow of two people who had poor political track records and it was with the ‘old(er)’ rogues that he had to run, even if he himself turned a new leaf (which he obviously has not). 

Looking back it is abundantly clear that there’s no maithri (compassion) or a Maithri (Sirisena) that is wholesome in this ‘yahapalana’ era. And we are not talking about his chest-beating, feet-stomping fire and brimstone speeches about capital punishment, which by the way absolutely contradicts the recitation from the Dhammapada by his upaka avatar on January 9, 2015 [නහී වේරේන වේරානී - සම්මන්තිධ කුදාචනං අවේරේනව සම්මන්තී – එස ධම්මෝ සනන්තනෝ or ‘Hatred never ceases through hatred in this world; through love alone it ceases — this is an eternal law’]. 

Coincidentally, not long after I re-read that scrap of paper, I got a call from Saman Samarakkody, former Editor-in-Chief of ‘Randiva’.  Interestingly, when Sirisena (the candidate) invited newspaper editors for a ‘suhada hamuwa’ or ‘informal meeting’ about a month before the election, only he and I turned up. One editor did come, but when he realized there was just two other editors, he left. 

There were some reporters assigned to cover this ‘event’ and of course radio and television crews. Saman and I asked the questions. At one point, the candidate reminded us that it was a ‘suhada hamuwa’ and not a media conference, thus bringing the event to a close. 

I walked up to Sirisena and said ‘Today you looked presidential but your first press conference was a disaster; and anyway you are the main opposition candidate, you need not be under the shadow of Chandrika (Kumaratunga) or Ranil (Wickremesinghe).’

He smiled, I smiled. He patted me on my back.

As I was walking away, Saman laughingly said ‘lokkata kiyanava’ (I will tell the boss). The boss, of course, was Mahinda Rajapaksa. 

‘He probably knows, already!’ I laughed. 

Then Saman got serious and said ‘mark my words, if he wins, all those who didn’t come today will be running after him and you and I won’t be able to get anywhere close.’

Interestingly, less than a year later, Saman and I lose our jobs, the owners of our respective publications perhaps in order to please the new ‘boss’ deciding that regardless of yahapalana pledges regime-critique was not on.

The Maithri Era is over. It did not end yesterday or a few weeks ago. It ended within a few months of Sirisena assuming office. Wait, it is not only the ‘Maithri Era’ that ended. ‘Yahapalanaya’ was is also dead. That death took place around the same time. 

Saman Samarakkody knew.  Even before January 8, 2015.

26 July 2018

Coughing up sovereignty, Yahapalana-style



Sovereignty is about authority. In usage it is about a people or a nation or a state being able to control affairs independent of outside influence.  In this globalized world there are no sovereign states, if you really think about it. 

What we have is the appearance of sovereignty even in the best of cases; if you think for example that the USA has it, then delve into the history of the US Federal Reserve and of course its present day operation.  

The truth is that if one digs deep enough ‘people’ as a collective have little say. It’s ‘some people’ who have authority or who exercise it on behalf of other people not necessarily identifiable as being part of those whose sovereignty is being discussed.  So what we have are degrees of sovereignty or states of sovereignty compromised in various ways. 

It’s a word that gets quite a bit of carry from time to time. We had the usurpation of sovereignty and the usurpers returning it without really letting go, putting in place a system, grooming loyal agents of sovereignty-retention and creating a culture of servility. They gave us democracy, a neat anesthetic that moreover had all the trappings of sovereignty without much substance. And they fixed us well and good with the Bretton Woods institutions. 

We had alignment, non-alignment and re-alignment.  We had J.R. Jayewardene opening doors ‘to the robber barons’ and later genuflecting before Indian hegemony, agreeing to (in Rajiv Gandhi’s words) ‘the beginning of the Bhutanization of Sri Lanka.’  The sovereignty-usurpers were invited and kept by successive governments. 

The words are fine. For example, three years ago, commenting on the US-authored UNHRC resolution which Sri Lanka co-sponsored, Rajitha Senaratne said ‘The US initiated resolution clearly recognizes sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.’ In effect it was a shameless agreement to force Sri Lankans to inhabit the so-called international community’s version of Sri Lanka’s reality.

Just the other day, we had Kabir Hashim using the word. He claimed that Mahinda Rajapaksa had not only accepted a bribe from China Harbor Engineering Company, but had violated the country’s sovereignty ‘by getting into a framework agreement with the Chinese company’ which by the way is owned by the Chinese state. The problem he says is that the framework ‘had clauses which denied Sri Lankan Navy the access to Hambantota Port.’ He adds that after Rajapaksa was defeated ‘Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was able to change the agreement and see to it that Sri Lankan Navy had access to the Hambantota Port.’

When a country funds politicians of another country it is a problem, especially if there are benefits to the funding nation. China is not the first. We have it from John Kerry, former US Secretary of State, that the United States gave money to campaigns that sought to overthrow the government. That’s not a first for the United States of course, but let’s not get into all that.  It’s wrong. Period. 

Here’s the key question: is access of the Navy to Hambantota the only issue pertaining to sovereignty-loss? Would Hashim or anyone else in the Yahapalana Government care to detail the contents of the draft ‘Colombo International Financial City Law’?  

We are talking about 239 hectares leased for almost 200 years (99+99). Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe who is also the Minister of National Policies and Economic Affairs is to be in charge of regulating the ‘financial hub’ that the government envisages the Colombo Port City to become. We are told that there’s an ‘Operations Office’ regulating the legal framework and the operations methodology to be pursued in bringing about the International Financial City.

Nothing of the legal framework has been made public so far. Now what if the entire agreement will come under British law with disputes to be resolved in British courts, outside the purview of Sri Lanka’s judicial system? What if there are clauses that require relevant lawyers, judges and professionals to be British qualified?

Let’s ask some more questions. 

Is it true that the US based multinational law firm Baker & McKenzie was hired to draft the laws, quite in contradiction of accepted procedure and indeed in violation of the constitution? Let us note here that Baker & McKenzie works lockstep with the US State Department and has been working with China to forge partnership agreements in Europe.

Is it true that the Chinese company paid them US $ 2.3 million for their services? Did this company operate out of Temple Trees and Cinnamon Grand Hotel in violation of the Rules of Supreme Court and in contravention of Article 169 (foreign lawyers cannot be employed)? Is it true that a local company funded by Chinese and US interests is advising the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development on these matters and that among the directors is a former Attorney General, former Chairman of BoI and a former Secretary to the Treasury who is also a senior advisor to the Prime Minister? What would that tell us about the levels at which treachery is being perpetrated? What would that tell us about the nature of the threat at hand?

Perhaps those in the know would share with the general public all relevant details so that we can come to informed conclusions regarding the true state of our sovereignty.  We do need to know because if, for example, this Law sanctions the annexing of any territory in Sri Lanka in a context where the same terms and laws referred to above are applicable, then Rajapaksa ‘coughing up a port’ is a mere tickle in comparison.  

Hypothetically, China could under this law annex the Trincomalee Harbor and trade operating right to India in return for, say, concessions in the South China seas, for example India’s drilling operations off the coast of Vietnam. Of course the President would have to ratify such a move, but then again since Independence we’ve had many leaders who were weak, corrupt, unimaginative and happily servile. We can reasonably expect that in the next 200 years there will be many leaders who through purchase or arm-twisting will sign relevant document to facilitate such annexing.  

For those who are puzzled by the China-US connection in all this, let’s offer some ‘bullet points’. Barrack Obama touching on foreign policy in his inauguration speech clearly stated that the USA and China will not be on a collision course any longer.  A top level team headed by Hillary Clinton hammered out the details of what was called ‘The pivot to China’ with Chinese counterparts. Part of the agreement was that China would control of the region and along with the USA would ‘globalize the world’ which is another way of saying ‘ensure that the super rich will continue to call the shots and become richer’.  It was about burying all vestiges of sovereignty and not just that of Sri Lanka.

As we said, our leaders have coughed up bits and pieces of sovereignty for decades, either for reasons of personal gain or because of ignorance, timidity and a marked reluctance to trust the people.  We’ve had outright invasion by the Europeans, retention through proxy post-1948, India playing schoolyard bully, the slick maneuvering through the Bretten Woods institutions and we’ve had democracy, that cost-effective anesthetic that lulls into complacency through the inducing of myopia.  The Colombo International Financial City Law may not facilitate guns-in-booty-out operations, but it could be a coughing up of sovereignty that’s unique in character and possibly of unprecedented proportion. 

Let’s see the document.  Kabir Hashim, sir, will you oblige? Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, sir, can we see the draft?

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

22 July 2018

There are patriots and patriots, realists and mavericks, progressives and charlatans


It is often held, erroneously, that all those who champion culture, heritage and especially language, which is the vehicle that carries these things across the troubled and uneven territories of time, are "traditionalists" or worse, chauvinists and racists. Such labels are of course applicable to demagogues and petty politicians who, lacking minds of their own and hampered by a manifest absence of creativity and vision, latch on to the politically remunerative caravan called "identity". If they happen to be gifted with the power of articulation, they are quite capable of persuading the masses to follow them. Typically, the journeys they chart go nowhere and what movement occurs leaves a trail of bloodshed and mayhem.

"Patriots", like Marxists, Catholics, and other fundamentalists, come in different hues. Unfortunately, the colours that distinguish them do so in such a subtle manner that it is not easy to develop a fool-proof equation that anyone can grasp and use as protection against the mavericks, the quick-fix artistes and downright opportunists. Wisdom, in these things, comes late. Indeed, quite often, it comes too late in the day.

Still, life is about learning lessons and resolving not to make the same mistake twice. One must learn to assess those who aspire to be heroes and champions of the people as well as those who clearly enjoy heroic status in terms of the utopias proposed, the strategies laid out and most importantly the means adopted.

I am always suspicious of those who want to celebrate heritage and culture without saying why such salutation is important. Religious and cultural revivalism as ends in themselves set off warning bells in my mind, perhaps because I am at that age when cynicism is supposed to make a serious effort to obliterate all else, especially dreams.

Celebrating Sinhalaness, for example, if justified by a simple "because it is who we are, and because this is the Sinhala Nation" is just not enough to get the adrenalin running in my veins. By the same token, "Tamilness", proposed on account of historical "fact" (even if a case could be made), rings hollow and not just because the term is now, sadly, associated with tyranny and anti-intellectual claims and practices.

There is a difference between a revivalist and a reformer. Revivalism can be a tool (and one could argue that it is an imperative) used by a reformer, but reform is not necessarily included in the agenda of the revivalist. This is why I consider both Anagarika Dharmapala and Cumaratunga Munidasa to be revolutionaries, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike a creature of a lesser breed, certainly of an order lower than both D.S. Senanayake and Sirimavo Bandaranaike.

I’ve just finished perusing an elegant copy of Munidasa’s "Kumara Gee Ethulu Lama Pedi" published by Visidunu Publishers (Pvt) Ltd., and so I shall leave out Dharmapala, Senanayake and the Bandaranaikes for a later occasion.

Cumaratunga Munidasa is widely recognized for his life-long work on the Sinhala language and his meticulous efforts to derive the "Hela" by weeding out what he believed to be Sanskrit impurities. His immaculate edition of ancient texts in this regard and his commitment to do a comprehensive untangling of the Sinhala verb alone makes him a grammarian of the highest order. His experiments with verse and his many stories place him among the greats of modern Sinhala literature. He was obviously fascinated by his language, so he loved it, cherished it, nurtured it, cured it, if you will, and sought to preserve it.

Reading "Kumara Gee", I cannot help but conclude that Cumaratunga Munidasa, much as he loved the language of the Sinhalese, he loved it less than he loved his nation and his people.
He was obviously perturbed by the state into which the Sinhala nation had deteriorated. He was convinced that redemption lay in the hands of the people. Most important, he believed that the people cannot be empowered if their language, the vessel wherein the cultural ethos is best preserved, is not resurrected.

Thus it was that he propounded the idea that the preservation of the "basa" was the necessary precondition for the strengthening of the "resa", the people, and that it was only then that one can dream about freeing the nation. This is a lesson for all time, I believe and perhaps never more pertinent in a pragmatic sense than for the struggles of today.

Cumaratunga, even as he resurrected and celebrated his language, was therefore eminently political in a pragmatic and visionary way that has since been unmatched, except perhaps by Martin Wickramasinghe who, although probably guided by the same truths, approached the task differently.
And his politics, tender and nourishing as is always the case when a person of vision takes on the task of social transformation, is probably most evident when he employed his considerable command of the language to mould the children of this land. 

He wanted nothing less than to help develop a child rich in wisdom and compassion. His verses serve to inculcate even in the smallest child positive attitudes, a cognizance of and love for the world that surrounds him or her. The songs teach us how to take on the challenge of deciphering complex truths and empower us to face the vicissitudes of life with fortitude. He was, in short, preparing an entire generation to take over the matter of rediscovering itself, its heritage and thus empowered to rebuild the nation.


More than half a century after his death, we have clearly lost our way and this needs no elaboration. Suffice to say that we will all benefit from a return to Cumaratunga’s work. There is much study to be done. Let us not squander our time. Let us shed the sloganeering and empty talk of a splendid past and rediscover the true body of the patriotic. In our language. That would indeed be an auspicious first step.

First published in the Sunday Island (September 14, 2003)

21 July 2018

Buddhist-Bashing Mangala Samaraweera, the Friday Forum and fraternal tribes

'I am against it, but stand with those who are for it (Cabinet)'

Minister of Finance and Mass Media Mangala Samaraweera has stated that he is against the death penalty. In his opinion, the death penalty, even if implemented, will not stop drug barons. He has said, however, that despite his personal opinion on the matter he stands by the collective decision of the cabinet to implement the death penalty. Noble of him, and honorable too when it comes to the notion of collective responsibility.

Samaraweera pointed out that it is wrong to paint all drug offenders with the same brush. He is correct. An addict is different to a peddler, to a trafficker and a drug lord. He proposes more rehabilitation for addicts. Reasonable. He says, ‘the best solution is to implement the law,’ and one assumes he is referring to enforcers doing their job without being subdued by corrupt and compromised superiors or powerful politicians. We can’t agree more.

However, Samaraweera forgets that a call for the implementation of the law is also a call for implementing the death penalty which, he should know, is part of the law. Someone will inform him one day and then perhaps we can expect the honorable and conscientious minister to present a private member’s bill to axe capital punishment.

He has said that the police operates as judge, jury and murderer, and argues that therefore it is hard to believe that the death penalty would help rid the country of the drug menace. We do not know if he has prevailed on party and relevant friends to question the Police Commission on what’s being done about this sorry state of affairs he has described. 

That’s not all. Samaraweera believes that those who are said to run the drug business from prisons, as alleged, are only second tier operatives. The bigwigs, he said, ‘are members of Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs and Buddhist organizations.’  When he made this sweeping ‘disclosure’ he left out politicians. However, a few days later, Samaraweera rendered an unreserved apology to those involved in Lions and Rotary clubs. ‘It was inadvertent,’ he confessed. He did not, however, say a word about the Buddhist organizations. No regret, no apology. Intentional, then, we have to conclude. 


What are ‘Buddhist Organizations’? Well, it would include the entire Buddhist order and by association castigates the Maha Nayaka Theros of the three Nikayas. Included also is the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress (the Bauddha Sammelanaya as he put it), the YMBA, the pirivenas, daham pasal and even the Buddhist Societies in schools all over the island.  

Let’s assume that some other blundering minister had let slip something like this: ‘the drug lords can be found in Christian organizations’ (including Catholic and non-Catholic entities such as the Anglicans, Methodists and even the plethora of evangelical outfits registered under the Companies  Act). We would have ‘civil society’ outfits screaming in horror about religious intolerance, theocratic intent of religious majoritarianism and other choice labels.  

This is Mangala, however, and he’s ‘kosher’ in the book of honorable men and women in such organizations or in Western diplomatic missions or UN agencies. This is Mangala and moreover it’s a broadside at Buddhists and that too is legitimate in their book.

I call it tribalism, and this brings me to a rant by an organization that fits the above description, the Friday Forum (FF).  

A Sunday newspaper picked from the bottom of the text of a FF missive the following headline: Eliya to andura and on to a vipath maga. That’s nothing more than a cheap crack at two organizations, ’Eliya’ and ‘Viyath Maga’. The former concerns itself with constitutional reform and the latter with mobilizing the intellectual resources that a future government would require.  

Prominent individuals in these forums are not exactly fellow-travelers with those belonging to the FF and fraternal outfits. Nevertheless, they can’t be rubbished on account of that alone. Both groups go easy on the Rajapaksas and appear to favor a Gotabhaya Presidency. On the other hand, the Friday Forum as well as related ‘civil (sic) society’ groups are virulently anti-Rajapaksa and are ‘tokenish’ when it comes to wrongdoing and related complicity on the part of Yahapalanists. Their memories begin in 2005 for they are even loathe to revisit Chandrika Kumaratunga’s tenure leave alone the bloody UNP regimes of the 1980s; indeed they’ve even forgotten their own outrage during Kumaratunga’s time [FF came later but their members were alive back then and quite ‘professional’ too].    

Anyway, the cheap shot alluded to above, betrays the poverty of civility and compromises the intellectual posturing of the FF. Let’s move to the substance of that piece. 

FF strains to revive a now old and tired tirade regarding a reference to Hitler made by a bikkhu at a ceremony attended by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. The bikkhu, Ven Vendaruwe Upali, the Anunayaka Thero of the Asgiriya Chapter, calls for a dharmika leader or a righteous leader. Those who castigated the bikkhu either don’t know Sinhala or are mischievous for that word was translated as religious and taken to mean ‘Buddhist’.  FF merely piggybacks on the rant. Sure, they’ve thrown in Vijayakala Maheswaran’s slip regarding the LTTE, but that’s essentially tokenism. 

FF has also referred to comments made by Rear Admiral (Rtd) Sarath Weerasekara on Dr Deepika Udagama, Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL).  Weerasekera’s criticism of Deepika Udagama was clearly out of order. It is simplistic and wrong to call anyone supportive of a new Constitution a ‘traitor’ (as Weerasekera has done). It is worse to call for trial and execution, although many in the tribe that the FF belongs use the same narrative when it comes to ‘war crimes’ [‘allege crime and punish the named and shamed’].  

However, anyone who advocates ‘devolution’ without delving into ‘grievance’ and without taking into account geographical, demographic, historical and economic realities is as more more simplistic, and indeed, given the armed land-theft drive of Tamil nationalists, it is a recipe for a divided state. That’s what spokespersons for FF have regularly done. 

FF for example sees devolution of power ‘as a necessity’. Others don’t have to agree, but calling those who are opposed ‘extremists’ or accusing them of engaging in ‘adversarial and divisive politics’ is downright silly. Their opponents could very well use the same descriptives on FF. 

FF once said ‘Cynical exploitation of sectarian fears and insecurities obstruct our common search for truth, justice and reconciliation.’ Well, that’s exactly what FF does, one can argue, except that the sectarian fears and insecurities they exploit are those of non-Sinhala and non-Buddhist communities. 

Udagama stated, ‘I observe the alarming silence of decent people; the brashness of tribal voices that once again wish to unleash ethnic violence.’

What’s ‘decent’ and who is ‘decent’? The FF and its ilk? Well, I see brashness and tribalism in FF statements as well as statements issued by political fellow travelers. No one acknowledges a wish to ‘unleash ethnic violence’. That’s Udagama’s fantasy. However, there are many ways in which ethnic violence can erupt and one can argue that pandering to Eelamists is one such way. The FF and Udagama can be called out for just that too.

She is upset about the silence of the decent. And among the indecent according to her are ‘professional bodies that play politics and abandon ethical obligations’ and ‘opinion makers who think of winning an argument for the moment, and abandon responsibility for the future.’  
The FF is made of many professionals. Doesn’t the FF play politics? Does it adhere to ethical obligations? Are they not about scoring debating points? The truth is they are no different from those they criticize. They are as tribalistic. They are as ‘clubbish’. They are as selective. They are as irresponsible. 

There’s an easy way to find out. Flip the script. Ask ‘how would you respond if the Rajapaksas did this or that (that the yahapalanists do)?’ or simply check the issues that the FF concerned itself with during the previous regime. Immediately the grouse about ‘being partisan’ sounds silly. 

Where, for example, is the righteous rant from the FF about the utterly counter-democratic nature of the yahapalanists regarding elections? And will the FF take Mangala Samaraweera to the cleaners for his crass statement about ‘Buddhist organizations?’  Let’s see.


Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene. 

18 July 2018

I was not close to Chitrasena, but he was close to me


Amaratunga Arachige Maurice Dias better known as 'Chitrasena' died on the 18th of July 2005. This article was written for the Sunday Island and was published in that newspaper on the 24th of July 24.
I sent a text message to a beautiful friend, Nayana, whose childhood was made of a household visited by and which visited Panibharatha, Chitrasena, Amaradeva and others that defined an age and indeed the rarest kind of cultural blossoming this country has known in recent times. Those encounters, for her, had been unsolicited visitations. These encounters had also been accompanied by factors that did not leave unblemished marks and markers in her memory screens. I just said, "Chitrasena died last night". She replied with a question, "Were you close to him?" I answered, "No. But he was a root."

I never saw him dance. He was, to me, "Chitrasena Maama". He was someone who turned up at our one-room annex down Pedris Road in the early seventies to go sea bathing at Kinross on certain Saturdays with my Appachchi. Years later I learnt that in fact he was a distant uncle of my father's and as such he should have been "Chitrasena Seeya". Appachchi called him "Chitra" so he remained "Maama" to the end, even though he was not a Maama whom I saw frequently.

My next significant memory of him was in 1978 (I believe) when "Ustad" Podiappuhami gave a sitar recital at the Lionel Wendt. This was the second time I attended one of his concerts, the first being in 1977. Appachchi took us. I liked North Indian music, but I always fell asleep. In fact I fall asleep at all classical concerts, perhaps because I didn't really understand what it was all about, even though I found it pleasant to the ear. 

Anyway, at that recital Podiappuhami was bested on the tabla by the late Shelton Perera. Appachchi took aiya and I to the Arts Centre Club where all the artistes had gathered. The "Ustad" was livid and was drunk. Chitrasena Maama was quite high as well and for some reason was angry with the "Ustad" who I believe was staying with him at that time. I remember his sauntering across the tennis courts of Women's International berating the Ustad in the choicest filth. All I knew at that time was that Podiappuhami "did" music and that Chitrasena Maama danced. I didn't see why they should quarrel.

I have never actually talked with him. I have for the most part been just another person in the same room. I never danced. Never really understood dance either. No, I wasn't close to him. I interviewed him on the occasion of his 80th birthday for the Sunday Island during an exhibition of his memorabilia at the National Art Gallery. But the closest I got to him was in the last couple of months when I took him to get some tests done and when I visited him at Durdans Hospital a couple of times. We just talked the things people usually talk in such situations. "How are you feeling today?" I would ask and he would respond honestly enough. He showed irritation but never complained.

The last time I saw him was a few days before he passed away, at his daughter's place in Bambalapitiya, Appachchi made one comment which I believe said all that needs to be said of the man known to all as Chitrasena: "The way he has borne his illness and his suffering tells just one thing: he will not have to go through anything like this throughout sansara." His expression did not change, not the eyes that said he knew much and not the half-smile that placed him several strata above the rest of us in spiritual terms. These were elements that described a condition he must have inhabited for many decades. In fact, from the early seventies to the early 21st century, that was a constant, come to think of it.

I was not close to him. Those who were will know more. Those who also knew his stage presence in its many forms will say much, I am sure. Even those who didn't but know about this country, its history and heritage will have much to say by way of appreciation. My friend Anuruddha Pradeep, lecturer in Political Science and one of the most perceptive readers of the political scene I know, for example, told me, "He was the person who took caste out of the dance equation; he lifted it out of those tight frames and kept it in an exalted place."

But was it just "dance"? I have lived much in the years that followed the incident at the Lionel Wendt, long enough to know at least instinctively that art is without bounds, and that dance and music and even theatre are not separate or separable forms of experience.

Anuruddha recently told me about Nadeeka Guruge who is probably one of the brightest composers of his generation. He had met the man at some workshop and asked him to sing an old Hindi song, the title of which escapes me now. Nadeeka had said, "mama sindu kiyanne nehe; mama vindinnam, umbala kemathinam ahagena hitapang" (I won't sing for you; I will experience it, you may listen if you like), and had proceeded to whistle the tune while strumming his guitar. Anuruddha and the others present had been mesmerized. 

The true artiste, I believe, must play to satisfy himself/herself, for the personal need to discover self in and through experience. Chitrasena, by all accounts, was like that. And it is for this reason that he became who he was, and will continues to be long after the memory of the man is obliterated by time. It is also for this reason that we are "close to him". He did things to figure out "self" and therefore, and therefore alone, he was able to "give".

I was not close to him, but he was indeed close to me, because he was a root in the fullest sense of the word. He drew from the soil in which his feet were firmly planted, he did not distinguish art forms from one another except in their trivialities and in the practicalities of compartmentalisation. 

Watching a re-run of an interview of the man in the program "Uragala" the day after his death, listening to his descriptions and recounting of his work, his philosophy and his time, I realised the depth and the limitlessness of his creativity. I also realised how hollow is what passes for "dance" and "music" and "drama" today. Much of it will not reveal us to ourselves for the simple reason that the exponents are not interested in self-discovery or the pursuit of perfection in the broadest sense possible.

My father, Chitrasena's nephew, friend and companion in the long hours prior to departure, was right. The man had somehow gone beyond our reach, as per our current capabilities. The man was a root, and by this very fact, imparted a simple but profound lesson in terms of what anyone, even one ignorant of dance and music like me, can do to shed mediocrity. Let us lament the passing of a great one. Let me remember always his half-smile and his gaze that looked back into millennia and so could produce for generations to come something that enhances that which we casually and carelessly call "life".

READ ALSO: