Opinion
Easter Sunday carnage: Fr. Cyril Gamini and CID
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/89482/894826b1c1059f6ebb01c125f29641fcccbc9bb4" alt=""
I read with interest the article published by Dr. Laksiri Fernando concerning the CID investigations into the allegations made by Fr. Cyril Gamini. Dr. Fernando professes that his article consists of an independent opinion, albeit known to Fr Cyril Gamini (Fr.CG) since 1996. However, there are several conclusions and points of view expressed by Dr. Fernando in his article, which belies the claim of an independent opinion, and is demonstrably and palpably biased and prejudiced, especially towards the Law Enforcement Authorities.
The article commences with a claim of harassment – that Fr.CG had to undergo two days of questioning for “no valid reason”. If an individual claims to have knowledge of the mastermind of the Easter Bomb attack, and, in fact, insinuates that the Head of State Intelligence was hand in glove with a terrorist, is that not a valid reason for the CID to question the accuser, at length, and give all opportunity and ample time to produce such evidence? The allegations of Fr CG, made a few years after the Easter Bombing (2019) and at a public forum, and not to the relevant law enforcement authorities investigating the matter, is, indeed, a serious issue affecting the National Security of the Country.
The allegation is directly contradictory to the contents in Zahran Hashim’s video recording aired on Swarnavahini and presented before the PCoI, where the authenticity of the same had been confirmed by the Government Analyst Department. In the said video, Zahran Hashim refers disparagingly to the state intelligence officers, calls them “dogs’ ‘ trying to destroy the cause and proudly declares their missions have no help from non-believers, which is polar opposite to the stance of Fr CG. Furthermore, such allegation is made by Fr CG in a background where over 350 intelligence reports had been issued during the period 2015-2019 to “the powers that be” by the State Intelligence Officers, citing the names of most of the suicide bombers, including Zahran Hashim, and their possible modus operendi (Vide: Dr. Rohan Gunaratne’s television interview where the Zahran Hashim video was aired in full as well as PCoI records). Such conduct certainly does not appear to be the actions of persons acting in concert with terrorists. Therefore, isn’t the CID justified to question Fr CG on what evidence he possesses to insinuate that the State Intelligence Authorities were hand in glove with Zahran Hashim, and which divine power gave him knowledge about the alleged mastermind?
If Fr CG is evasive in his disclosures, is the CID not entitled to question him repeatedly on this most vital issue? We have seen in the past, many ministers, ex- ministers, ordinary citizens, public officials being summoned to the CID (and even the illegal FCID) and being questioned for well over two days on various issues. This is nothing unusual in an ongoing investigation, not only in Sri Lanka, but in parallel law enforcement procedures worldwide. If Fr. CG is genuine about assisting the investigations into the Easter Bombing, he should be more than happy that the CID is meticulously questioning him on all aspects of the issue. Instead, he is now attempting to vilify the CID, and claiming that he is being questioned unnecessarily. Can he decide what is necessary and unnecessary And, what superior knowledge does Dr. Fernando have, to pen his article on the firm belief that Fr.CG had been subject to undue inquisition? Was he present at the CID, observing the manner of questioning?
What is truly shocking is that Dr. Fernando has unequivocally asserted that Major General Suresh Salley, as the Head of SIS, is apparently exerting undue influence, regarding these cases, on the CID. On what basis is such a serious allegation made against the Head of SIS? Dr. Fernando fails to support his declaration with an iota of proof. Surely, as a professional, he knows better than to make loose cannon statements for public consumption? He blatantly faults Major General Suresh Salley for instigating the CID to harass Fr. CG! As a member of the public, I feel the contrary is true! Major General Salley is unnecessarily harassed and defamed by not only Fr CG but by the Dr. Fernando himself, who has obviously written this article whilst on cuckoo land!
Dr. Fernando has then focused his attention to what he considers as the “mysteries” in this entire saga. In writing the mystery series, Dr. Fernando appears to have closed his eyes to the facts already well documented and on record, both at the PCoI and Zahran Hashim’s own video, where much of the motive for the bombing and the manner of execution is lucidly explained.
Dr. Fernando claims to be puzzled why churches and hotels were targeted and states that there is no nexus as Muslims and Christians lived in harmony! Well one only has to listen to Zahran Hashim himself for the mystery to be unveiled, as he firmly cites the famous New Zealand massacre of Muslims inside their place of worship – the Mosque – as the reason why churches were targeted. As to why the hotels were targeted, that, too, is explained by Zahran Hashim himself. If Dr. Fernando cares to recollect, all Five Star Hotels in Sri Lanka were full to capacity with tourists during that period, and on this particular Sunday most hotels held Easter Celebrations. Zahran, in his video, demands from his comrades not to let the foreigners “get away” and to remember what Allah said about non-believers …. He declares that the foreigners have killed “their people” and are now in Sri Lanka holidaying. He claims that these foreigners are the people who abused Allah, wrote the name of Allah on the backs of pigs and called Allah a Neuter. Surprisingly, when penning this all-important article for public consumption, Dr. Fernando appears to have no clue of this video aired on TV, presented to PCoI and accessible to us, the ordinary public. Did the Dr. Fernando at least file an RTI application and seek this information, before writing his mystery series and creating unrest in the mind of the general public!
Dr. Fernando then claims that the security organisations had been doing nothing since 2014 whilst these terrorist organisations were operating freely. Sir, how then do you explain the 350 odd reports, prepared during 2015 -2019, and sent to the Head of the State, the Prime Minister and the Police? No one can deny the existence of these reports clearly identifying the culprits, as the reports were dispatched and found in the offices of the relevant authorities. Most were presented before the various commissions. Does Dr. Fernando think these reports were written magically, with the waving of a wand by a fairy godmother, whilst the state intelligence agencies slept? Where is the ‘apathy’ and ‘indifference’, which Dr. Fernando speaks of relating to the state intelligence? Does he understand the role of an intelligence service in the first place? Their role is information gathering and submitting the same to the relevant authorities for action. In what manner had they shirked their responsibilities, when over 350 reports identifying correctly the culprits and the possible threats, have been sent to the relevant authorities? The PCoI recommendations, which Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith himself demanded implementation, had not faulted the State Intelligence Services. They fault those responsible for enforcing security measures. But now we have a “Dr. Fernando” in his wisdom blaming the blameless.
I find humour in Dr. Fernando’s observation that the security apparatus has failed to act on “the early warnings”, when the earliest and consistent warnings have been given by none other than the Military Intelligence and State Intelligence Services! Need I say more? He faults Major General Suresh Salley for lodging a complaint at the CID about the potential threats he may receive to his life and that of his family. Is it hisposition that holders of government office or the members of the law enforcement authorities cannot resort to the grievance procedures and protection of the law enforcement agencies that are available to all citizens of the country? Don’t or shouldn’t the State Intelligence Officers enjoy equal rights or the equal protection of the law?
Dr. Fernando proceeds to extol the virtues of Fr CG and states he had every right to express his views. But dear sir, it is not only “views’ ‘ he expressed! He claimed to know the identity of the “Mahamolakaraya” of the Easter Bombing, and insinuates Major General Suresh Salley having a clandestine association with him to the detriment of the nation! Surely, Dr. Fernando knows the difference between opinion and views that are based on true facts, as opposed to slander, mischief, or inciting the public by false rumours?
Finally, Dr. Fernando states he is not clear in what context Major General Suresh Salley’s name is mentioned by Fr. CG. This means that Dr. Fernando had not even listened to Fr. CG’s interview, prior to donning his garb as the gallant knight ready to defend the so-called victim!
Dr. Fernando and Fr.CG appear to be two peas in a pod!
MANORANI JINADASA
Opinion
Dr Don Robert Seneviratne
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e165f/e165f314795ad499dec4570fc8bdeeb4c0ed3580" alt=""
My father Don Robert Seneviratne was born in 1887. Having had his early education at Prince of Wales College, Moratuwa, he entered the Medical School in Colombo and passed out with a LMS (Licentiate of Medical School). After a few years he proceeded to the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow earning their Licentiates.
When he returned to Ceylon and to his birthplace Kaluwana in Homagama, he was warmly welcomed by the people as being the first person from the village to have gone abroad and qualified in the UK. My mother recalled that he was welcomed by pandals of plaintain trees.
After a long tenure in government service as a District Medical Officer in places like Deniyaya, Elpitiya, Pimbura and Galle where he served as Judicial Medical Officer, he was appointed Police Surgeon to the Police Department in Colombo. He died suddenly in 1946 after a heart attack and was accorded a Police funeral.
This is a very belated tribute to my father. Whatever I am today and whatever I may have achieved in life is due to the very close and devoted upbringing given to me by my father and my mother, Laura Seneviratne.
May they both attain the Supreme Bliss of Nibbana.
Nihal Seneviratne
Opinion
How to write a research paper
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e7205/e7205e3710981058c9c84936d8d6f2b23484bcb9" alt=""
Key Steps and Best Practices
BY Gamini Keerawella
Conducting research and writing a research paper are distinct yet interdependent exercises. In the Social Sciences, a single research project can yield multiple papers, each exploring different dimensions of the central inquiry. A well-executed research project does not automatically translate into a well-crafted research paper. Writing is an art—one that requires practice, patience, and a structured approach. Transforming research findings into a coherent, compelling, and readable paper demands adherence to established methodologies and best practices. Over time, researchers have identified key steps that capture best practices, ensuring clarity, logical flow, and academic integrity. This essay outlines these essential steps for effectively structuring and producing a research paper. However, this should not be taken as a rigid straitjacket; rather, it serves as only a guide to writing a research paper. Before writing your essay, it is essential to identify your main audience. Additionally, the structure of your research paper may require slight adjustments depending on where it will be presented. Many annual research conferences organised by Sri Lankan universities follow a rigid, standardised format, requiring you to fit your content accordingly. However, my focus here is to provide guidelines for writing research articles intended for research journals and the academic sections of newspapers, where writers have more freedom to develop their ideas and structure their content.
Title of Research Paper
The first step in writing a research paper is selecting an appropriate title to align with the scope and central argument of the paper. In turn, a well-crafted title serves as a guiding framework, helping to structure paper’s arguments effectively. When formulating a title, clarity and precision should be the primary focus. It is important to use clear, straightforward language and avoid jargon or overly complex terminology in title that might confuse readers. Additionally, the title should be concise—an excessively long title can dilute the focus, while an overly short one may lack essential details. A compelling title should capture the reader’s interest and encourage further exploration of the paper. Depending on the nature of the research, the title can be framed as a statement or a question, capable of stimulating curiosity and prompting engagement with the content.
Objective of the Paper
First and foremost, you must have a clear understanding of the paper’s objective(s). The next step in writing a research paper is clearly presenting the research question/issue that you are going to explore. If the issue is too broad, the paper may turn into a general essay; if too narrow, it may not give you necessary depth to develop a strong argument. Striking a balance is essential. This step is crucial as it distinguishes research essay from a general essay. A well-defined research problem provides direction for the study by establishing its scope—determining what aspects will be covered and what will be excluded. Rather than simply restating the central research problem, focus on identifying and refining a specific question that your paper aims to address. It is imperative that the research problem be clear, precise, and researchable, enabling systematic investigation and meaningful analysis. Additionally, it is essential to briefly explain the significance of the problem—why it is being raised, and its contribution to the existing body of knowledge. A well-defined research problem not only justifies the study but also provides a strong foundation for developing a compelling argument and drawing evidence-based conclusion
Concepts
When writing a research paper, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the analytical concept that forms the foundation of your argument. Analytical/theoretical concepts will help you to organise your evidence and develop your argument. The level of detail and the way you introduce this concept will depend on your target audience and the nature of your subject matter. Your research may either develop a new analytical framework or test the validity of an existing concept through empirical data. In either case, offering a concise overview of the core idea behind the concept is crucial. This helps establish a solid analytical foundation for your argument and ensures that readers can follow the reasoning that underpins your research. Providing such context also allows for a more meaningful engagement with the data and enhances the overall coherence of your study. Depending on your research focus and publication venue, you may briefly outline your data collection methods.
Scope/Parameters of the Paper
In a research paper, you are not supposed to cover every thing related to the topic. It is essential to clearly define the scope in alignment with the paper’s objectives, as this is fundamental to a focused and coherent analysis. The scope outlines the boundaries of the essay; what aspects will be covered and what will be excluded. This helps in maintaining clarity, avoiding unnecessary diversions, and ensuring that the study remains aligned with its intended purpose. The parameters vary according to the objective (research problem) and the subject mater of the paper. It is essential to have a clear idea of the extent to which the paper will examine its core themes, concepts, or issues. You need to decide whether the focus is theoretical, empirical, or policy-oriented or hybrid. Depending on the research it is better to indicate the period under study, whether it spans a specific historical timeframe. Clearly stating what aspects will not be covered—and justifying these exclusions—helps set realistic expectations for readers while acknowledging constraints such as data availability, methodological limitations, or thematic relevance. Defining the scope with precision ensures that the analysis remains structured and aligned with the core research questions.
Structure into Main Sections/Parts
Once you have precisely defined the scope of your paper and clarified the key concepts, the next crucial step is organising it into well-structured sections. Dividing your paper into clear parts strengthens its structure, enhances readability, and ensures logical argumentation. Outlining the main sections at the beginning helps guide the reader and sets clear expectations. The number of parts will depend on the scope of the paper. However, excessive segmentation can overwhelm the reader and disrupt coherence. It is essential to strike a balance, ensuring each section serves a distinct purpose without unnecessary fragmentation. Each section should logically build on the previous one, reinforcing the central thesis while maintaining clarity. A well-organised structure ensures that every section contributes meaningfully to the argument, enhancing both clarity and persuasiveness.
Subheadings
A key element of a research essay is the use of subheadings in major sections. Subheadings structure a research paper by breaking main sections into manageable parts, improving logical flow and guiding the reader through the content. Well-crafted subheadings enhance coherence by ensuring smooth transitions between ideas and maintaining a clear organisational hierarchy. They enhance the readability of the paper by providing a clear sense of what each subsection covers. To be effective, subheadings should be thoughtfully designed, directly connected to the main heading, and reflective of the paper’s structure. A strong subheading is both descriptive and aligned with the section’s content, improving clarity and readability. By using subheadings strategically, a research paper becomes more accessible, well organized, and engaging for the reader.
Building Argument
The most important aspect of a research paper is the construction of a clear and compelling argument. Unlike a general essay, which often serves a descriptive purpose, a research paper is fundamentally analytical and seeks to establish a position on a specific issue. This requires not only a logical structure but also a deliberate effort to develop an argument step by step.
A well-structured paper does not automatically make for a strong research paper. Structure serves as a framework for presenting an argument cogently, but it is the depth of reasoning, coherence of ideas, and evidence-based support that determine the strength of the argument. Without a clear argument, even the most well organised paper remains ineffective.
A research paper does not aim to cover every possible aspect of a subject. Instead, it requires a focused approach, identifying a specific issue or problem that is outlined at the outset. This issue forms the foundation of the argument, guiding the research and analysis. Building an argument is a step-by-step process. The argument must stem from a clearly defined research question or problem statement. Understanding previous explanations or theories related to the issue helps situate the argument within the broader discourse. The paper must take a clear stance—whether by introducing a new perspective or challenging an existing one. Logical reasoning, empirical data, and theoretical insights must be used to substantiate claims. The argument must be developed progressively, ensuring that each section builds upon the previous one in a logical sequence.
Presenting information alone does not constitute a research essay; rather, research is about constructing a well-reasoned argument. Whether by advancing a new explanation or critically engaging with existing ones, argumentation lies at the heart of scholarly inquiry. A structured approach enhances clarity, but the true strength of a research paper depends on the depth of its argument and the rigor of its analysis. Research does not always require formulating an entirely new argument; at times, critically examining and questioning prevailing explanations drive scholarly progress. Challenging an established thesis can pave the way for academic breakthroughs.
Organising Evidence
The strength and validity of an argument depend on how effectively one presents evidence to support it. Organizing evidence in a coherent manner is, therefore, a fundamental aspect of a research essay. Without sufficient and well-structured evidence, mere interpretation risks being perceived as opinionated rhetoric rather than rigorous academic analysis. Conversely, evidence without interpretation remains sterile and directionless. A well-balanced integration of evidence and interpretation is the hallmark of sound scholarship.
Beyond the mere presence of evidence, its organisation and presentation are equally crucial in strengthening an argument. In critically examining and presenting evidence, two key factors must be considered: authenticity and relevance. Authenticity ensures that the evidence is credible and verifiable, while relevance determines its applicability to the specific focus of the paper. The relevance of evidence is contingent on the research question; therefore, selecting appropriate supporting materials is essential.
Relying on a single piece of evidence is a novice mistake, as it weakens the foundation of an argument, leaving it vulnerable to scrutiny. While a primary or principle piece of evidence may serve as the central pillar of the argument, it must be substantiated with supplementary and corroborative evidence. This layered approach not only reinforces the argument but also demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.
Additionally, presenting counter-evidence—evidence that supports opposing interpretations—is an effective scholarly practice. Engaging with alternative explanations and refuting them through critical analysis enhances the credibility of the argument, showcasing a well-rounded and intellectually rigorous approach. A research essay, therefore, is not merely about advocating a viewpoint but about engaging with evidence in a nuanced and methodical manner to construct a compelling, defensible argument.
Language Clarity
Language is the primary vehicle for communicating structured thoughts and research findings. The clarity, precision, and coherence of writing directly impact how effectively arguments are conveyed and understood. A well-articulated argument, supported by clear and logical reasoning, strengthens the credibility of scholarly work. Conversely, ambiguity, redundancy, or poor organisation can undermine even the most compelling research.
In academic discourse, language is not just a tool but also a benchmark for evaluating scholarly work. Clarity and precision in writing are crucial for publication, as journals expect adherence to strict linguistic and stylistic standards. Academic writing defined by its formal structure, evidence-based reasoning, and objective tone, demands conciseness and readability. Frugal word use prevents redundancy and sharpens arguments, ensuring ideas remain clear and impactful.
For non-native English speakers, writing in English demands careful attention to linguistic accuracy and coherence. Since English is not our first language, we must be especially mindful of grammar, vocabulary, and syntax to ensure precision and professionalism. Good writing is, at its core, the art of rewriting. The process of drafting, revising, and refining is indispensable. Thorough editing before submission is essential to meet academic standards and effectively convey the intended message
Referencing in Academic Writing
Referencing is a crucial component of academic writing. It ensures the integrity of scholarly work by acknowledging previous research and writings. Proper referencing not only upholds academic honesty but also helps to avoid plagiarism, which is considered intellectual theft. Presenting someone else’s ideas, arguments, or written sections as your own without proper acknowledgment constitutes plagiarism, a serious ethical and academic offense.
There are two primary methods of referencing: direct quotations and footnotes/endnotes. A direct quotation involves using the exact words from a source to substantiate or support an argument. When incorporating direct quotations into your writing, they must be enclosed in quotation marks and followed by a relevant citation. In some cases, direct quotations can also be used to present an opposing argument before refuting it. However, excessive reliance on direct quotations should be avoided, as academic writing values analysis and synthesis over mere reproduction of existing material. In some instances, rather than quoting directly, you may need to paraphrase a long section from another source to maintain conciseness and clarity. Paraphrasing involves restating the ideas of others in your own words while preserving their original meaning. Even when paraphrasing, it is essential to provide a reference to the source to give due credit to the original author.
It is important to note that commonly accepted facts and general truths do not require citations. These include widely known historical dates, scientific laws, and universally acknowledged principles. However, when in doubt, it is always best to provide a citation to maintain academic credibility.
There are several established citation styles used in academic writing, including APA (American Psychological Association), MLA (Modern Language Association), and Chicago style. The choice of citation style depends on the academic discipline and institutional guidelines. Regardless of which citation style you follow, it is important to be consistent and avoid mixing different styles within a single document.
Conclusion
A conclusion serves as the logical summation of a paper, bringing the discussion to a meaningful close. While there is no universal formula, its structure and content depend on the nature of the essay. The primary purpose is to address the central research question or issue posed at the outset, offering a final perspective based on the arguments and evidence presented. Rather than summarizing every point, the conclusion should reinforce the most significant arguments supporting the thesis, ensuring clarity without redundancy. It is not the place to introduce new points, counterarguments, or evidence but should build on the existing discussion to provide a sense of closure. While it does not introduce new arguments, it can briefly suggest directions for future research, especially if there are unresolved questions or broader implications. A well-structured conclusion leaves a lasting impact, reinforcing key insights while maintaining logical coherence.
Bibliography
A bibliography is an essential component of any research paper, providing a comprehensive list of the sources that contributed to the development of the argument. It serves multiple purposes, including giving credit to original authors, ensuring transparency, and allowing readers to verify and further explore the sources used.
If you relied on specific databases to locate sources, these should be mentioned, especially if they played a key role in shaping your research. This helps demonstrate the depth of your literature review and the credibility of your sources. Every source that appears in footnotes or endnotes must be included in the bibliography. This ensures consistency and proper acknowledgment of the works that directly informed your study. Any book, article, or document from which you have taken direct quotes or paraphrased ideas should be listed in the bibliography. This is crucial for maintaining academic integrity and avoiding plagiarism. As with references, there are three main bibliography styles, and the chosen style must align with the one used for footnotes.
Beyond direct citations, it is useful to include major works that influenced your arguments. These may not be explicitly quoted but were significant in shaping your understanding of the subject. While compiling the bibliography, it is important to exercise selectivity and sound judgment. Not every source consulted needs to be included—only those that substantially contributed to the research. The goal is to maintain a focused, relevant, and authoritative list of references rather than an exhaustive or redundant compilation.
(This is based on a discussion the writer had with its Research Staff of the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies (BCIS) on 13 June 2024.)
Opinion
How Chinese capacity building and USAID slush funds reveal ideological biases of our media
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/36438/364388e6dcb1d6bc64ee5eed6a0d1394d5b13c13" alt=""
by Shiran Illanperuma
On 9 February, an article titled “Sri Lanka’s Undisclosed Pact with China Worries Media”, which was produced by the Union of Catholic Asian News, was carried in the Sunday Island. The article, which is full of speculation and insinuations, refers to the fact that several MOUs on capacity building are to be signed between Sri Lankan and Chinese state-owned media institutions.
One of the journalists quoted in the article raises concerns over Chinese media being “state-controlled”, while another suggested that partnerships with China would “compromise local media integrity and align it with foreign interests”. The irony is that this news comes in the wake of recent revelations by the Trump administration’s newly minted Department of Government Efficiency, that USAID spent 7.9 million US dollars to train Sri Lankan media.
It reveals a lot about biases in the media profession that partnerships with institutions from China, a rising Global South country that is constantly demonised by the Global North’s media monopolies, is seen as something dangerous and worth campaigning against. Meanwhile, the influx of millions of dollars from a US institution with deep roots in Cold War counterinsurgency and regime change operations is tacitly ignored or underplayed by the so-called defenders of free media.
Double standards
The double standard here is the implicit notion that training, grants, and technical support is ideologically and politically neutral (or positive even!) when the Global North does it. However, if China (or for that matter Russia, Iran or some other designated enemy of the Global North) does it, then of course it is immediately associated with mal-intent. This double standard is nothing but a modern-day manifestation of the trope of oriental despotism.
The easy retort to concerns over media partnerships with China is the simple observation that contemporary China does not seek to export its ideology and institutions. On the other hand, there is ample academic and journalistic evidence on the role of USAID in promoting US interests during the Cold War and beyond. Consider the example of Cuba, where The Guardian reported that the USAID funded a Twitter-like social network to promote content that would encourage the formation of “smart mobs” to “renegotiate the balance of power between state and society”.
There are other examples of USAID’s handiwork in the Global South. One is the case Dan Mitrione, a USAID contractor who worked for the agency’s Office of Public Safety Program in the 1960s. Mitrione oversaw the arming and training of scores of police officers under right-wing governments in Brazil and Uruguay. Mitrione would become notorious for training police officers in the art of torture, with classes on human anatomy, and electroshock and psychological torture.
Decolonising media
The Egyptian Marxist Samir Amin characterised imperialism through five key prongs of domination, one being the control over knowledge. This is why the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement pushed for a New World Information and Communication Order at the 19th Congress of UNESCO in 1970. This process culminated in the 1980 UNESCO report titled ‘Many Vices One World’ which was demonised as an attack on ‘free press’ by the US and UK. The report pointed out the alarming concentration and commercialisation of media, and recommended that countries strengthen their independence and self-reliance. This report so outraged the US that it was one of the reasons for its withdrawal from UNESCO in 1983.
What is striking is how little things have changed in the sphere of media and communications. With the fall of the Soviet Union and China’s shift away from attempting to export revolution, the entire edifice of the Global North’s media and communications monopoly built up during the Cold War continues basically unchallenged today. In addition to traditional media, there is now the dominance of new media companies such as Meta and X (formerly Twitter), which are private monopolies with opaque algorithms, access to sensitive user information from around the world, and close ties to the US government.
In the context of the Global North’s enduring hegemony over media and communication, South-South cooperation in media capacity building is something to be welcomed as a breath of fresh air.
Two traditions
Our understanding of the role of the media in society remains deeply Eurocentric, shaped as it is by the mythology of liberalism where so-called free (i.e. privately owned) media emerged as mouthpiece of the emerging capitalist class in their struggle against feudalism. However, the other side of this coin is the long history of private media in information warfare and suppressing working class and national liberation movements around the world.
The historical role of the media at the weaker links of capitalism is decidedly different. In many of these cases media emerged in the process of decolonisation, and in direct opposition to colonial pedagogy. In China for example, the Xinhua News Agency has its roots as the Red China News Agency in the Ruijin Soviet established by the Communist Party of China in Jiangxi in 1931. The agency was basically forged in fire during the Long March and, following establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, had to function more like an embassy due to the diplomatic isolation imposed by the Global North.
In Sri Lanka too, the true history of the media and its oligarchic owners is yet to be written. While there are certainly shortcomings in the way the nationalised media was managed, there is also an untold story of how important state-owned media was for the proliferation of popular education, health awareness programmes, and uplifting cultural programming for the masses.
In this latter tradition, the state-ownership of media is inseparable from the process of constructing a new society from the detritus of imperialism. How do we even begin to compare this ‘illiberal’ tradition of media that is deeply tied to projects of anti-colonial and socialist state building, to the ‘liberal’ media monopolies of the West which have constantly waged hybrid wars against sovereign states, from Cuba to Venezuela, Iraq to Libya, and yes, even Sri Lanka.
One need only look at recent bias reporting on the US-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza to understand the true face of the Global North’s liberal media monopolies.
(Shiran Illanperuma is a journalist and political economist. He is a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and a co-editor of Wenhua Zongheng: A Journal of Contemporary Chinese Thought. He is also a co-convenor of the Asia Progress Forum. He has an MSc in Economic Policy from SOAS, University of London.)
(Asia Progress Forum is a collective of like-minded intellectuals, professionals, and activists dedicated to building dialogue that promotes Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, development, and leadership in the Global South. They can be contacted at asiaprogressforum@gmail.com).
-
Features6 days ago
Don’t betray baiyas who voted you into power for lack of better alternative: a helpful warning to NPP – II
-
News4 days ago
Commercial High Court orders AASSL to pay Rs 176 mn for unilateral termination of contract
-
Sports3 days ago
Sri Lanka face Australia in Masters World Cup semi-final today
-
Features6 days ago
Two films and comments
-
Features5 days ago
USAID and NGOS under siege
-
Features5 days ago
Doing it in the Philippines…
-
News3 days ago
Courtroom shooting: Police admit serious security lapses
-
Business5 days ago
Dialog delivers strong FY 2024 performance with 10% Core Revenue Growth