Opinion

A brief history of two monk activists

Published

4 years ago

2020/08/26

By ROHANA R. WASALA

In my opinion, Ven. Athuraliye Ratana and Ven. Galaboda-aththe Gnanasara were following two different lines of activism in the arena of inclusive nationalism until their recent joint pratfall in the mire of dirty politics. The first appears to be a shrewd politician who is trying to get involved in issues that should not be politicized; the second is a sincere idealist passionately committed to a worthy cause, but constantly defeated by his own uncontrolled temper and unguarded tongue.

Though both are university products, their areas of study were not the same. The first studied philosophy at Peradeniya, while the second focused on Buddhist studies at the Kelaniya and Sri Jayawardanepura universities. Ven. Ratana was among the founder members of the Jathika Hela Urumaya party formed in 2004. The formation of the party was broadly a response to Buddhist-targeted unethical conversions and Christian fundamentalist activity issues. He was one of the nine members of the party returned to parliament under the UPFA at the election held that year. Ven. Gnanasara founded the Bodu Bala Sena in 2012, mainly to counter the steady growth of multifarious Islamic extremist groups that eclipsed the still active Christian fundamentalist activities in the public consciousness. Defensive reaction by the victimised majority to the tyranny of racist minority politics of Tamil separatists has long been misinterpreted in the biased global media and in the international (Western) diplomatic space relating to Sri Lanka, as unwarranted Sinhalese discrimination against Tamils in general. In the same prejudiced way, they have successfully demonized Buddhist monk activists who are actively opposing both covert and open religious fundamentalist aggression, and this has affected the honest but naive Gnanasara Thera more than it has the worldly-wise Ratana Thera. It looks as if the former is now caught in the vice-grip of a stratagem set up by the latter.

Ven. Galaboda-aththe Gnanasara Thera’s Bodu Bala Sena organization was formed in 2012 for the purpose of exposing the subversive activities of Christian and Islamic fundamentalist sects, and alerting the authorities and the Ven. Mahanayakes to the danger posed to the whole nation by them. He endeavoured to do this in the calm and composed way characteristic of a Buddhist monk, without expecting any reward in return (= ‘nissaranadyashayen’ as he used to put it). He has had no political or other materialistic ambitions. For many years he tried to explain his case to politicians in power and those in the opposition to address the problem without politicizing it. In a few instances, peaceful marches organized by the BBS led to clashes between Buddhists and Muslims, for which only the former were blamed. In the biased media, Muslims were portrayed as the victims and the Buddhists as the aggressors. The true situation was otherwise. Buddhists never initiated any violent incidents. Some unruly elements from the Muslim side started the trouble. For example, in 2014, some young Muslim men threw stones from the roof of a mosque at a peaceful Buddhist procession at Aluthgama and this led to violence, which quickly spread to a number of other towns (including Panadura, Beruwala, Welipenna, etc) in south-western Sri Lanka. There were social media videos showing this provocative act – stone throwing by some young Muslims – at the time. On that occasion, thousands of innocent Muslims and and similarly innocent Buddhists were affected and their shops, houses, and places of worship were attacked. Though the then Mahinda Rajapaksa-led government did its best to stop the violence and restore normalcy, the incidents were not adequately investigated, and not enough was done to clear the name of the BBS, which was solely blamed for all that happened. The involvement, on that occasion, of a crafty politician in the garb of a patriotic ally of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, but with a personal agenda of his own that was inimical to the latter’s policies, added a political tone to the naive monks’ (Ven. Gnanasara’s) peaceful protests, and biased reportage turned him into a bogeyman.

The leaders of successive governments didn’t take Ven. Gnanasara seriously enough, because they thought that if they took any decisive action, on his word, against the handful of powerful communalists among minority politicians who, intentionally or unintentionally, either facilitated or provided a cover for questionable acts such as anti-Buddhist subversion, illegal felling of trees in the state forest reserve in Wilpattuwa, alleged settling of illicit Muslim immigrants from certain Islamic countries in the same reserve, encroaching on and even vandalizing historic Buddhist places of worship in the North and East, and so on, they would lose the support of the mainstream Christian and Muslim communities, which being minorities, naturally tend to form themselves into ‘block vote’ bases at the instance of opportunistic politicians. The majority of ordinary Muslims do not want to support communalist politicians, but they are often in the thrall of those politicians, because of the latter’s ability to ‘deliver’, whichever major party or alliance happens to be in power.

The polity consisting of the majority community (Sinhalese) cannot behave like this. In any country, it is normal for the majority community to be unconsciously undermined by a false sense of security vis-a-vis the minorities, whereas the latter feel a bit paranoid with or without justification. The Sinhalese voting public are always divided into rival parties, and at parliamentary elections, under the existing electoral system, it is extremely rare that a major party is able to form a viable government without the assistance of one or more minority parties; a situation where the latter become kingmakers despite the insignificance of their numerical strength. The slightest movement towards redressing the balance in favour of the disadvantaged majority Sinhalese in any anomalous situation, would invariably earn the individual Sinhalese activist or the group behind that initiative the label racist or extremist or chauvinist. So, the Sinhalese (Buddhists, particularly) get criticised and condemned as racists, tribalists, etc., while in reality being victims of the racism, fanaticism, and extremism of groups within the minorities. This applies to Ven. Gnanasara as well, who is engaged in the performance of the duty that has historically devolved on him as a Buddhist monk, a duty that is above politics, pragmatic or otherwise.

Ven. Gnanasara Thera approached the Most Ven. Mahanayakes in Kandy and pleaded with them beseechingly, not once, but several times, and explained to them this problem with video evidence of outrageous Buddhism-bashing speeches of Wahabist zealots, to no avail. Once, a few years ago, the monk led a large procession of well disciplined young activists (more than 2000) from Getambe to the Sri Dalada Maligawa, and then they proceeded to the Malwatu Vihara, the monastery of the Ven. Mahanayake of the Malwatte Chapter. The Mahanayake Thera, at first, very unfairly, refused him an audience. Later, having found that they were not ready to leave without seeing him, he allowed Ven. Gnanasara and a few of his companions to come before him. Nothing resulted from that meeting.

The BBS leader wanted the Maha Sangha to play their historic role as Buddhist monks without stooping to politics, and was determined to resolve the Islamic extremist problem through rational dialogue with the participation of the clergy of other religious groups (which is what he has always wanted to do because even groups of traditional Muslims, he claims with evidence, approached him and pleaded with him to rescue them from Wahabist and Salabist extremists). Unlike him Ven. Athuraliye Ratana Thera seems to be adopting a political approach in his one man political crusade against Islamist extremists. Just before the recent 2020 general election Ven. Gnanasara gave up his non-political stance, probably under someone’s persuasion.

The April 21, 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist bombings led to a heightening of public awareness about the Islamist problem that had been brought to light by monk activists before; the issue began to receive attention from the clergy of other religions , as well. The then UNP national list MP Ven. Ratana took the opportunity to visit the construction site of an alleged Sharia university in Batticaloa in the east, being built without proper authorization from the Sri Lankan government and financed by suspicious foreign sources; he succeeded in forcing the Yahapalana government of which he was a prominent member at the time, to suspend the construction work for the time being. Under the same pretext, he staged a ‘fast unto death’ in the vicinity of the Dalada Maligawa, in Kandy. It was tantamount to claiming exclusive credit for creating a groundswell of popular opposition against Islamist extremism. I, as a journalist, wrote at the time that his maverick intervention in the latter instance (the uncalled for gatecrashing of the protest movement with a fast) was bound to undermine the emerging unity among the Maha Sangha in the face of adventitious ISIS terror.

I expressed the opinion that the activism of Buddhist organizations, including Ven. Gnanasara Thera’s BBS, facilitated this awakening among the Buddhist clergy and that it could help form a united Sanga community that spoke with one voice on matters that came within their purview. But it appeared that Hon MP Ven. Ratana, most probably, wanted to edge out the leaders of that movement and assume control of it, with a view to playing a powerful dual role in the corresponding political power structure that would evolve: the traditional role of a representative of the Maha Sangha as the guardian of the Buddhist moral-cultural establishment, the nation (the people), and the country (territory) of unitary Sri Lanka on the one hand, and the acquired role of party politician on the other.

Thus, Ven. Ratana seemed to be trying to play a two-in-one function combining both those roles. However, the role traditionally assigned to the Maha Sangha has been above that of the king or, in modern times, the government. The ruler assigned a higher seat to the monk and paid him obeisance. The monks didn’t dabble in policy making or in governing, but advised the ruler on how to rule in the righteous way according to the Dasa Raja Dharma or the Ten Duties of the King. The question of a problematic religion state relationship did not arise. Buddhism is not a political religion. The only politics it advocates is democracy. The Maha Sangha is a perfectly democratic social entity. In the modern world it is considered essential to keep religion and the state separate from each other in order to ensure democratic governance of the Western type (This is more relevant to societies dominated by political religions.) So every secular democracy can be regarded as broadly consistent with Buddhist principles and vice versa.

Ven. Ratana cannot provide the political leadership that the country needs, nor can he provide any spiritual leadership either, because of his attempted dabbling in statecraft and priestcraft simultaneously. A Buddhist monk is not likely to make a good president or prime minister. The impression among political analysts is that Ven. Ratana is a typical politician and a pragmatic political strategist (Pragmatism is amoral, or rather not moral, but it is part and parcel of realpolitik that a politician can rarely avoid). That he is clever at dissembling was evident to the less gullible onlookers during his ‘fast unto death’ before the Sri Dalada Maligawa (He took care not to die, by drinking water, as the Catholic priest who joined the fast revealed, probably inadvertently). It was obvious that he was not alone in staging the show. The Ven. Mahanayake Theras severely criticised him after the event. He had approached them beforehand and told them about his intention of staging a fast, but cunningly he did not reveal the venue to them. Had they been told that he was going to have his fast in the hallowed precincts of the Maligawa, they would not have permitted him to do so; that would have been a serious setback for him.

Because of Ven. Gnanasara’s exertions, unprecedented prospects of different religious communities standing up to the common enemy of murderous religious extremism were brightening. We were witnessing the first stirrings of a spring in the Sangha Sasana, that is potentially freed from abominable Nikaya divisions, which are based on caste, in stark contradiction of the compassionate Buddha’s teaching. Ven. Gnanasara made arguably the largest contribution to this most positive development. However, his entanglement with Ratana Thera has cost him his reputation.

The monks do not relish the idea of establishing a Buddhist theocracy, which is, in any case, inconceivable, considering the spirit of absolute democracy that characterizes the Maha Sangha. Buddha praised the system of government followed by the Licchavis of Vesali of his time, who were his relations of his own warrior caste. It was a form of a republican system of government by common consent, an ancient version of what we call democracy today. However, the monks’ staying above mundane politics doesn’t mean that they don’t have anything to do with secular politics (or how the country is run). Buddhist monks in the majority Buddhist Sri Lanka have been the custodians of the country’s Buddhist cultural heritage for over two thousand two hundred and fifty years according to written records. By the way, which other country in the world can boast of such a long unbroken singular spiritual cultural tradition? Shouldn’t the United Nations Organization make special recognition of this fact in the name of human civilization, which is currently being threatened with annihilation by murderous religious extremism?

By the influence of its humane spiritual values, Buddhism ensures, not only the peaceful coexistence of the various communities who live in the country, but also the unhindered enjoyment and protection of their freedom of belief and worship. However, Buddhists will not accept the alleged divine right of adherents of any particular religion to kill or persecute those who don’t share their beliefs and practices, or to discriminate against them. What Ven. Gnansara proposed to the Maha Sangha is that they unite and provide the necessary moral guidance for the rulers to rule the country righteously, whatever political ideologies they subscribe to. This does not involve any violation of secular democracy in governance. He says that the Sri Lankan society today is sick in every way. To heal the society, the Maha Sangha must unite and provide guidance to the rulers. He quotes the Buddha’s teaching: ‘sukho sanghassa samaggi’ ‘Happy is harmony among the Sangha’.

Ven. Gnanasara Thera predicts that when the Maha Sangha are united, the politicians and the people will fall in line, and a suitable lay political leadership will emerge. Ven. Ratana’s intervention in his capacity as an MP monk probably produced some limited positive results in the immediate context, but in the long run, it will be counterproductive. He is only doing more of what he did in the past. And we all know what he did has led to. His involvement will be an obstacle to the functioning of the lay political leaders that the whole country approves of as being capable of fixing not only the problem of Wahabist incursion, but also the infinitely greater issue of external interference in the country’s domestic affairs that, in the first place, as the media reveal, inflicted it on our nation under the Yahapalanaya. It is not that he is not aware of what he is doing. We may be sure that he will make amends in some way.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

What is Jathika Chinthanaya?

Published

6 days ago

2024/04/11

Thilina Walpola

A response to the ‘Anatomy of a movement: Jathika Chinthanaya’

by Dr. Sumedha S. Amarasekara

This article is a response to the question- ‘If the failure of the left was what portended Jathika Chinthanaya, what would the sterility and decay of Jathika Chinthanaya portend?’ asked by Uditha Devapriya (UD) at the end of his article: ‘Anatomy of a movement: Jathika Chinthanaya’ (The Island 15.03.2024).

In his article, UD analyses the reasons for the failure of the Left and the fallout from it. Though he is unable to specifically tie in the ‘demise of the Left’ with the ‘relevance of Jathika Chinthanaya (JC), he maintains this to be the case, more or less on the lines that nature abhors a vacuum. Despite the title, UD does not seem to discuss the anatomy of JC, and in the absence of this, it is difficult to ascertain what UD means by ‘the JC of today is no longer the JC of yesterday’. UD instinctively sees a connection between the introduction of an open economy and the aftermath that followed, and the relevance of JC. However, UD does not seem to have been able to corelate these separate concepts meaningfully, especially in the absence of a meaningful ‘definition’ of JC.

In order to answer UD’s question, one must understand the concept of JC and then look at the Left movement in this country from that perspective, it is only then that a sensible answer can be arrived at.

JC can be best described as an ideology based on a ‘civilisational consciousness’ that we have acquired over the last two and a half thousand years. According to Anagarika Dharmapala people of this country guided by this civilisational consciousness lived ‘a contended life’. Each family had a plot of land and the forest and the grasslands were open to the public for their use. The people followed the Sangha who lived a collective life. Collectivism, and not individualism, was the aim of their existence.

Our kings who ruled our country were not tyrants or despots (in a general sense, though a few of them may have been). They were guided by an ethical code – Dasa Raja Dharma, the political /economic system that had evolved over centuries guided by a civilisational consciousness; the Buddhist ‘way of living’ that we had right up until the time we came under the dominion of the British in 1815. What is critical to grasp is that even throughout the rule of the British this ‘civilisational consciousness’ remained intact throughout the villages of this country. It is this civilisational consciousness that was flourishing in the village life that is depicted in the novels by Martin Wickremasinghe (MW) and Gunadasa Amarasekera (GA). In fact, one could argue that MW is the one who started the dialogue of JC, albeit at a subconscious level.

What happened between 1815 and our Independence in 1948, changing the destiny of our country (any many other countries) was the Industrial Revolution. To appreciate the recent (during the last 200 years) economic/political changes in the world, it is pertinent to understand that despite a myriad of scientific advances and break throughs, right up until the industrial revolution there were no real changes in the day to day living.

For example, Julius Cesare arrived in Alexandria, Egypt in 48 BC riding in a ‘horse driven vehicle’ and 2000 years later Abraham Lincoln came to the White house in 1860 still in a ‘horse driven vehicle’. The industrial revolution changed all of this in an unprecedented manner and speed. The industrial revolution-starting in the 19^th century- leading to a capitalistic society swept across the world and its propagation happened in this country according to the wishes of our colonial masters, the British- their ideology, expectations and beliefs.

The traditional Left movement in Sri Lanka coincided with the development of the Left movements in the rest of the world- which were an alternative response to the ‘capitalistic society’ which followed the industrial revolution and the increasing ownership of private wealth. Central to these movements was the ideology expounded by Karl Marx (1818- 1883) who saw a socialist state as the next stage in the economic development where workers would own the production process (and benefits) which would lead to the eventual abolition of private property. It was this anti-capitalistic sentiment in the Left movement which resonated in both Gunadasa Amarasekera (GA) and Prof. Nalin de Silva (NdS), which is the explanation as to why both of them were sympathetic towards a Left cause.

In 1948 when we were granted independence; the United National Party (UNP) which came into power, was the de-facto ‘British party’ carrying out the economic policies for a capitalistic society with the Left political parties lined up against this. It was SWRD Bandaranaike who made the first conscious step away from this capitalistic model forming the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) in search of our own model. If Anagarika Dharmapala’s movement is considered as a national awaking of the JC, the SLFP could be considered as the beginning of a political party representing the JC.

The 1970 ‘s government under Mrs. Srimavo Bandaranaike (United Front coalition with the Left movement) was a further step away from the capitalistic direction. Despite the criticisms levelled at her government, it was the first and last time that we, as a nation achieved true economic independence under the guidance of Dr. N.M. Perera as the Minister of Finance and probably had the best foreign policy we ever had-the non-aligned policy.

In 1977, under the auspices of JR Jayewardene, our country embraced an open economic policy in a diametrically opposite path, to what had been taken up to that time. The economic path was Right centred to such an extent that the traditional Left movements became obsolete. As UD states in his article it was the open economic policies of the UNP government that paved the way for the terrorist movements in the South by the JVP and the North by the LTTE. It was a country plunging into disarray that triggered the buried ‘civilizational consciousness ‘of GA in search of our JC.

This search preceded the events in 1977. The splintering of the coalition in 1975, changed the then existing political climate and it looked as if we were leaning again towards a capitalistic path- if not lost our way. It was this feeling of impending gloom and doom that pushed GA to write ‘Abuddassa yugayak’ in 1976. This was the start of his journey towards JC.

‘Anagarika Dharmapala Marxwadida’?

which came out in 1980 embraces the ideological dialogue that GA has with the Left movement/Marxism and JC. This book is probably the most significant political analysis /review that has been done with regard to the role played by Anagarika Dharmapala and provides the deeper understanding to the political movement initiated by SWRD Bandaranaike. ‘Ganaduru mediyama dakinemi arunalu’ published 10 years after the ‘1977 – dharmishta society’ signifies the completion of GA’s study of JC. It was during this time that NdS also seemed to have moved away from his Left leanings.

At that time GA saw the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) as an umbrella group that consisted of the educated youth of this country who were unhappy with the current politics of this country. In Ganaduru mediyama dakinemi arunalu GA discusses the ideological clashes between JC and the traditional Left/ Marxist movement in great detail and as to why they failed in this country. Ganaduru mediyama dakinemi arunalu was in fact, an invitation for this group to embrace their heritage of JC and start a new path. It is probably the concept of JC that influenced politicians such as Wimal Weerawansa who were originally with the JVP to lean away from the Left /Marxist views towards nationalism.

The mid to late 1980’s can be described as a time where there was a huge debate raging throughout the country on civilisation and civilisational consciousness. This was partly due to the opposition by the Tamil separatists (militant and otherwise) and foreign powers who were out to divide this country and the NGOs that funded them. They opposed JC on two fronts, working towards this common goal of a divided Sri Lanka. One front argued that we were all part of humanity and that in reality there was no such thing as an ethnic/national identity!

The other front took the pendulum to the other end and portrayed JC as based on the ethnic consciousness of the Sinhala people and that it is a ‘Sinhala Jathika Chinthanaya’ – an ethnic nationalism based on an ethnic consciousness. GA pointed out the inherent contradiction in the term ethnic nationalism and maintained that ethnic consciousness based on culture cannot take the place of civilisational consciousness based on the harmonious co-existence of different ‘ethnic consciousnesses’ and cultures. This is what we had prior to the advent of the foreigner. There were no clashes among the ethnic groups – no fighting among them. The fights were with the invaders.

GA and NdS had to fight hard against this misconception promoted by the NGOs. It was during this period, as a medical student, that I had the privilege of being exposed to the brilliant oratory of Prof. NdS, who was then at the Department of Mathematics of the University of Colombo. Being born in 1993, UD as well as almost all of our younger generation, unfortunately would have missed these brilliant arguments given in the style of Nagasena Wasthuwa.

The issue of a national identity had an enormous impact on the country and especially the army that was fighting the war. True the army was fighting against the LTTE, but what were they fighting for? One fights for one’s family or one’s country: and here was a situation where the people as well as the world outside were made to believe that we fighting the Tamils and this was an ethnic war.

GA, NdS as well as many other national movements worked tirelessly during this period to counteract this vicious propaganda and create a sense of nationalism. It was especially in this context that the Left movements proved to be impotent. The Left movements identified only with class. They had no inherent national identity. How does a movement that does not identify with the concept of a nation support a national cause? JC was the ideology that provided the answer to this question.

The JVP movement despite being a ‘homegrown movement’ did not appreciate this fact either.

The founders of JC were able to get their message across to the people with the backing of such movements like the Patriotic National Movement and the Manel Mal movement. It was this JC movement that gave the impetus for Mahinda Rajapakse to finally win the war against the LTTE in 2009. It is the same sentiment that gave such an enormous victory to Gotabaya Rajapaksa in 2019. The focus of the manifesto ‘saubagyaye dekma’ was ‘santhosayen inna pawulak’ – a happy family. The concept comes from Buddhism where happiness is seen as the ultimate wealth – ‘Santhutti Paramang Dhanang’. It is a concept of wealth that excludes money /ownership.

So, in response to UD’s article it can be seen that there is no JC of yesterday that is different to the JC of today. It is the same civilizational consciousness that comes through. Certainly, it can evolve over time. But time in this case needs to be measured relative to the civilization, in centuries, if not in millennia. As a civilizational consciousness, JC is not a movement- political or otherwise. It exists in us whether we like it or not. GA showed it and defined it for us, so that we could now consciously recognize it, acknowledge it and embrace it. The failure of the Left was its inability to recognize/comprehend JC -not that the failure of the Left portended JC.

And to finally answer the question raised by UD at the end of his article – what would the sterility and decay of Jathika Chinthanaya portend? In other words what would the sterility and decay of a civilizational consciousness portend? It will portend the end of a civilization. This is how civilizations get fossilized and disappear. And how nations get swept of the earth. In this case it portends the end of our nation. As GA would say, when he is in a pessimistic mood – ‘Maka ma dakinne may Jathiye, Rate awasanya widhiyatai’

Will it happen to us, to Sri Lanka? Have we reached the end?

Opinion

Massacre of innocents and hypocrisy of West

Published

6 days ago

2024/04/11

Thilina Walpola

A file photo of a Palestinian mother holding her child killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza.

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

I, too, have been watching, like many millions with a conscience around the world, with a sense of helplessness, hopelessness and frustration, the indiscriminate massacre of thousands of innocent civilians, including children and the sick in Gaza by Israel Defence Forces (IDF) with the help of the West. I find it very difficult to comprehend what is worse: the persecution of a hapless group of innocents by another group which faced persecution in the past or the excuses given by leaders of the West who seem to be turning a blind eye, interrupted at times by vain gestures to indicate their disapproval! Excuses given by some of them reminds one of the well-known Sinhala saying Kanna hitunama Kabaragoyath Thlagoya venavalu which translates roughly as “When you want to eat, even a Water Monitor becomes a Land Monitor”

True, it all started with 07 October Hamas terrorist attack on Israel killed 1,139. About 300 Israelis were taken hostage. Whilst it deserved outright condemnation and a response from Israel, what is worrying is the haphazard nature of the response with glaring excesses giving the impression that Israel is hell-bent on obliterating the Gaza strip. In this venture, it is supported by USA, which seems to work on the dictum that Israel can do no wrong! Israel’s covert, and not-so-covert, plans of illegal expansion in to Palestinian territories have been legitimised by the use of its power of veto by USA, at every UN Security Council resolution.

Things started changing somewhat after the April 1st IDF drone attack on three SVU vehicles of World Central Kitchen (WCK) which killed 7 aid workers (3 British and one each of Australian, Palestinian, Polish and US-Canadian citizens) attached to the charity WCK, based in USA and run by Jose Andres, a Spanish-American chef and restaurateur. President Biden condemned the attack but the very next day USA announced further arms shipments to Israel!

Jose Andres, in addition to setting up WCK, is a professor and the founder of the Global Food Institute at George Washington University and was awarded the National Humanities Medal at a ceremony in White House in 2016. Speaking to Reuters, Andres had stated that the seven workers were “targeted deliberately” and killed “systematically, car by car” and added that the war in Gaza is “not a war against terrorism anymore” but a “war against humanity itself.” Very strong words, indeed!

Not being able to disregard this strong reaction by a respected American, President Biden had ‘strong words’ with the PM of Israel, in a telephone conversation but left it for the IDF itself to investigate the incident! IDF issued a report admitting that mistakes were made and that 2 officers were dismissed and some others warned. In response, WCK issued a statement which stated: “We demand the creation of an independent commission to investigate the killings of our WCK colleagues. The IDF cannot credibly investigate its own failure in Gaza.

It’s not enough to simply try to avoid further humanitarian deaths, which have now approached close to 200. All civilians need to be protected, and all innocent people in Gaza need to be fed and safe. And all hostages must be released”. Worryingly, the statement ends by saying that operations remain suspended.

Perhaps, this is what Israel wants; to starve the population to death! The West has remained silent, unmoved by the death over 30,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children. Hospitals have been targeted and many health care workers have been killed. As mentioned in the WCK statement, almost 200 aid-workers have sacrificed their lives in their selfless attempts to serve the oppressed which has not moved the cold stone hearts of Western leaders to any action, till the killing of the seven WCK workers as their chief has a voice!

In spite of three British aid-workers being killed, the largest number from any one country, condemnation from the British PM has been very mild, to say the least. It was reported that David Cameron, the Foreign Secretary wanted a strong response but was prevented from doing so by No.10 Downing Street! It was also reported that more than 600 lawyers, including former justices of Supreme Court had written to the government stating that weapon exports to Israel must end because the UK risks breaking international law over a “plausible risk of genocide” in Gaza. Interestingly, the British government is refusing to release the legal advice received! Of course, Israel denies genocide. It is genocide or holocaust only when it happens to them!

It was hilarious watching a news programme where one of the ministers was giving the lame excuses that stopping weapon exports to Israel serves no purpose as British sales amounted to less than a percent of Israeli arm imports. He overlooks the principle involved and it is heartening note that it is not only Sri Lankan politicians who are bereft of principles! The disgraced former PM Boris Johnson has gone a step further by stating that it is shameful to call for UK to end arm sales to Israel. Rich, coming from a man who knew no shame during the pandemic, getting fined for having parties in No. 10 Downing Street!

In fact, many lost confidence in Rishi Sunak on the day after the Rochdale by-election which was held on 29th February, won by the pro-Palestinian candidate George Galloway, which was no surprise as nearly a third of Rochdale population is Muslim. Sunak made a statement outside No. 10 waning about the rise of Islamic extremism but did not care even to mention the catastrophe in Gaza despite it being the same day that 112 died and more than 750 people were injured when IDF fired at a crowd of starving Gaza citizens chasing for morsels of food from an aid-convoy.

IDF claimed that it only fired warning shots and deaths were due to trampling but medics reported that deaths were due to gunshot injuries. Why could not he say that he would make inquiries from Israel, at least? No inquiry seems to have been held regarding this barbaric act. Subsequently, a Canadian doctor working in Gaza declared that she had seen many children shot in the head and accused IDF of targeting children. Mans inhumanity to man seems to have no bounds!

How the West deals with Israel is diametrically opposite to how they dealt with us when we fought terrorism! I do not have to go in to details of their hypocrisy, as much has been written on the subject, except to remind how UK and France sent their Foreign Ministers to rescue the Tiger leader. They were sent off with a rebuff so that the job of eradicating terrorism could be completed. Of course, we had a few traitors of our own who belittled!

I am afraid that the massacre of the innocents and the hypocrisy of the West will continue as long as it suits their purpose. Unfortunately, we live in a world devoid of fairness!

Opinion

Is JVP/NPP signalling left and turning right?

Published

1 week ago

2024/04/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Lasanda Kurukulasuriya

Since their visit to India at the invitation of the Indian government in February, leaders of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna-led National People’s Power coalition have become the poster-boys and girls of a complicated Sri Lankan political landscape, in a pre-election period. The once-marginal parliamentary group’s leader is now viewed as a potential future president. Looking beyond the optics of the party’s ongoing image makeover, what is the message behind the Indian ‘invite?’

“The message is in the invitation” JVP/NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake said, on Sirasa TV. “Our response is that we are ready. We are not an extremist project (aanthika deshapalana viyapaarayak nove) We are a project ready to work with any state that will allow us to advance the aspirations of the people without conflicts.” Though AKD’s remarks in this interview by Wasantha Maasinhage on 15.02.24 were wide-ranging, the party has otherwise been reticent about discussions they had with Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, NSA Ajit Doval, Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra and others they met from 5th to 9th Feb. Asked what they discussed with the Indian government, JVP Propaganda Secretary Vijithat Herath is reported as saying their talks had been ‘mostly on regional security issues.’

It appears the JVP has not only moved away from its earlier anti-Indian rhetoric, but made a startling turnaround on Indo-Sri Lanka relations. On the subject of foreign policy, the JVP leader stressed the need to understand and accommodate India’s sensitivities in dealings with other countries. The following exchange is from the interview:

AKD: “India is most interested in Trincomalee and the North. We cannot progress without taking this into consideration, It’s like this – it’s not an ‘Indian’ project. The project has to be within our national policy framework, and within that, we should go for an agreement with India.”

Sirasa: What do you mean.. ‘agreement with India..’ – Without calling for tenders?

AKD: At the very least, call for tenders within India

Sirasa: Only within India.. ?

AKD: At the very least, only within India. That’s not how it’s done right now, is it? The first option should be, consider if we can do the project ourselves. Second option, can we find a state without links to India or China?

Third option is to do the project, within our policy framework, calling for tenders within India.”

Looking back at agreements entered into with India over the past couple of years however, it’s clear that several projects, some of which included a grant component, had conditions, requiring that they be implemented only by Indian companies. Some were defence related, like the project for setting up a Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre in SLN headquarters in Colombo, through an agreement with Bharat Electronics – a company under India’s defence ministry. Facing a crippling economic crisis in 2022, and in desperate need of a US$ 1 billion loan for emergency supplies, Sri Lanka was not in a position to negotiate as an equal partner with India. Terms were dictated by the regional hegemon, with its own strategic objectives in this location, that has become a geopolitical flashpoint.

Renewable energy

During this period, India also consolidated its hold on Sri Lanka’s renewable energy sector – to the dismay of the local industry. Among some controversial MoUs signed in March 2022, were the unsolicited wind power projects in Mannar and Pooneryn, approved by the BOI in February last year, to be given to Adani Green Energy Ltd. The CEB chairman (who later resigned) revealed at a COPE hearing in June 2022 that then president Gotabaya Rajapaksa was under pressure from Indian PM Narendra Modi, to give the project to the Adani group. Indian tycoon Gautam Adani is said to be a close associate of the Indian PM.

Scientists and environmental experts have with one voice condemned this project for its ruinous environmental impact. They point out it does not make economic sense either, with purchase price being negotiated in US dollars at many times the market rate, for a 25 year contract period. While it has been suggested that alternative locations with wind power potential could be sought, it is unlikely the Indian side will agree to this, because it is precisely the site’s location that makes it important to them. In 2021, India’s objections led to the suspension of a contract won by China through an ADB-backed competitive bidding process, for a renewable energy project on three islands off Jaffna. India offered a grant to carry out the same project, and an MoU was signed during a visit by Minister Jaishankar, 28-29 March 2022. This contract was signed last month with U-solar Clean Energy Solutions, chosen through a competitive bidding process for Indian firms, conducted by GoSL, according to The Hindu.

Against this backdrop, the JVP leader’s stance that project tenders should be called ‘only within India,’ becomes deeply problematic. Is he saying, that the lop-sided style of project structuring that emerged at the height of the economic crisis, will become a ‘principle’ in the NPP’s programme? Few would dispute his critique of the manner in which governments see-saw between India and China, with corrupt politicians seeking ‘deals’ (on projects) for personal gain. But his position that projects should, as a matter of policy, be given to Indian companies is naïve at best. While he says that a local contractor would be the first option for a project (‘to do the job ourselves’), wouldn’t there be a large project area outside the scope of local expertise, such as in advanced technology? Besides, giving Indian firms preference for important projects would amount to an unquestioning acceptance of Indian strategic calculations. How would the fallout of such a policy affect Sri Lanka’s foreign relations – especially if it claims to be ‘Non-Aligned,’ as NPP ideologues have suggested, in published articles?

Sovereignty concerns

Another problematic MoU signed in 2022 relates to a large INR grant for a Unique Digital Identity (SL-UDI) programme for Sri Lanka, based on the Indian Aadhaar system. At a press briefing on 14.07.23 State Minister of Technology Kanaka Herath announced that tenders had been called for the project, to collect face, eye, fingerprint and ‘several other biometric data’ of all persons, with bidding limited to large Indian companies. The data would be stored in a centralized system, and the government of India would oversee the software development, he said.

Though the JVP/NPP delegation on Feb. 6 visited the Unique Identification Authority of India (that issues the Aadhaar number) it has been silent about this part of its tour. It was Dissanayake who raised concerns over SL-UDI in parliament last year. He is reported to have said his party had no objection to the project, but had concerns over sovereignty and the protection of citizens’ data. The Frontline Socialist Party warned that giving an Indian company access to the population’s biometrics posed a national security threat. However, neither the JVP/NPP nor FSP addressed the risk nearer home, that once the population’s biometric data is collected by government in a centralized, state-controlled database, it could potentially be used for mass surveillance of the citizenry.

While government statements vaguely suggest this project will ‘modernize’ Sri Lanka and make the delivery of state services more efficient, there is a worrying lack of public awareness and debate on the issues surrounding the introduction of such a scheme. For example privacy concerns have not been addressed, nor the question of whether the UDI will be mandatory in order to get welfare benefits and other state services. In India the Aadhaar scheme has been the subject of many supreme court rulings on issues raised by civil liberties groups. The European Parliament in October 2021 voted to back a total ban on biometric surveillance, in accordance with a report from a parliamentary committee on civil liberties.

The Sri Lankan UDI project has been dogged by controversy from the outset. When State Minister Herath announced the call for tenders, he indicated that the software systems would be ‘installed under the full supervision of the Information and Communication Technology Agency of Sri Lanka (ICTA).’ Within days of his press briefing the Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprise (COPE) exposed bigtime fraud and corruption at ICTA. Three months later AKD alleged in parliament that the tender process had been manipulated to the advantage of a particular company. The two Indian companies that bid for the contract have since then been reportedly disqualified.

As an opposition party, the JVP has often called out corruption in government. With elections on the cards, if it has set its sights on coming to power, it will have to live up to expectations of voters accustomed to its anti-corruption rhetoric and demands for transparency etc while in opposition. How will it navigate issues surrounding the ongoing Indian projects? It has been conspicuously silent on the subject. With regard to ‘Amul’s plans to buy NLDB and Milco’ however, Dissanayake told Sirasa, they had clearly expressed their opposition, and would protect the local industry.

The question arises as to whether the Indian side sought assurances that their plans would not be disrupted, in the event of a significant change in their power status. Was this possibly the thinking behind FSP’s Education Secretary Pubudu Jayagoda’s remarks posted on Youtube, where he asked “Was it a trap that was set to invite the JVP? They have the government party on side, so now they have to get round the opposition”?