Midweek Review

Are we now moving towards a new Sri Lankan political culture?

Published

5 years ago

2020/08/12

Rev. Fr. Vimal Tirimanna, CSsR

The general election of 2020 has become historical for many reasons. The Sri Lankan voters have overwhelmingly voted for the SLPP for the second time in just nine months, knowing well that in the process, they were freely approving the holding of the two most important public offices in Sri Lanka – the posts of President and Prime Minister – by two Rajapaksa brothers. Not only have they given an unprecedented mandate to them, but they have also decisively voted to send the oldest active political party in Sri Lanka – the UNP – into political oblivion. This particular election has many other salient features. To begin with, it is the election that was declared in April and took some four months before it could be really held. This was partly due to the Covid-19 threat and partly due to the alleged Constitutional blocks to holding an election (propelled by the understandable election phobia of most of the Opposition political parties). It’s also reported to be the most expensive Sri Lankan election thus far. It also will go down in history as the one that had so much of medical precautions surrounding the process of voting and counting the votes in view of the Covid-19 threat at a time when thousands of people are killed daily all over the world by the deadly virus. But one also needs to note that this was the election with least amount of violence in recent history in our country, a fact which is corroborated by all the election monitoring groups. As a matter of fact, no killing linked to elections was reported which is surely a major positive development. By conducting a peaceful general election under very strict health precautions (even though this cost so much of money) Sri Lanka has become a model to the entire world under the present trying conditions of health and economy all over the world. To those pessimist Sri Lankans (both within the country and outside of it) who always tend to see only what is negative in Sri Lankan ethos, the 2020 General Election is a clear indication that even with regard to local politics, there are quite a number of positive points that should never be ignored. As a matter of fact, this election could well be the moment of transition which marks the beginning of a new political culture in the country.

The massive mandate

No reasonable political pundit could ever imagine the ultimate result of this election, especially the margin of victory with which the SLPP won. Ever since J. R. Jayewardene master-minded the present proportionate system of electing members to parliament, and that too, under the preferential system of voting, at every General Election (except in 2010 when Mahinda Rajapaksa’s UPFA won immediately after the historical military defeat of the LTTE) it was hard for a single political party to muster even a workable majority to rule the country. Consequently, after each General Election, the winning political parties had to dilute their own manifestos and agendas to please those of the other parties with whom they were forced to form coalition governments. The fact that it was within such a crippling system of elections (which rarely reflected the overall will of the voters) that the SLPP won not just a simple majority but a nearly two-thirds majority, is surely a record. Only a massive wave of popularity could do this. Of course, during the election campaign, the SLPP clearly appealed to the voters to grant them a two-thirds mandate to right the wrongs and to untie the legal knots of the haphazardly formulated 19th amendment by the previous “Yahapalana” government. However, one wonders whether even the SLPP itself ever dreamt of coming closer to that target, realistically speaking. The fact that a vast majority of the voters as one block (so to say) have responded collectively to this call single-mindedly is itself a sign that they themselves freely chose to give a workable mandate to realize the agenda which the SLPP placed before them. This overwhelming voter response is also a flat refutation of the fears and phobias expressed continuously in the media and the Opposition political stages that granting such a two thirds majority would be unhealthy to democracy. It appears as if, a vast majority of voters en bloc had instead concluded that they rather need to give such a majority to the SLPP to correct those constitutional clauses of the 19th amendment which held the country at ransom during the last couple of years. As a matter of fact, the Sri Lankan masses were first hand witnesses to the glaring reality as to how the hands of the Executive President they elected with such a thumping majority hardly nine months ago were tied, thanks to the notorious 19th amendment. In short, this massive mandate is not only the Sri Lankan polity’s reaffirmation of the benevolent, well-intentioned policies of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa but it is also their clearing all potential obstacles for him to realize his dreams for the country. Now the President and his SLPP government will surely have no excuses not to realize the agenda they themselves had put before the voters.

The high voter turnout

True to its firm belief in democracy, the Sri Lankan citizenry also kept to its usual high percentage of voter-turn-out, thanks this time to the Election Commission and the Health authorities who defied all prophets of doom with regard to the threat of Covid-19, and assured the voters of their safety and that of the others. Sure, as usual in Sri Lanka, at this general election too, there has been a noticeable drop in the percentage of voters using their right to vote, compared to the Presidential elections (except the one in 1988 under the JVP insurrection when it dropped to less than 30%). Yet a 71% of overall voter-turn-out at this election is something very commendable, especially when one considers the trying conditions under which the recent election was held. Not even in those so-called “Western democracies” (some of whom habitually try to give lectures on democracy to nations such as Sri Lanka) does one notice such a high percentage of voting even under normal conditions. Thus, in the USA, the voter turn-out at Presidential Elections remains around 60% while in Britain it has been less than 68% at all the recent General Elections. Perhaps, this high voter turn-out in Sri Lanka could be attributed to the important value our voters assign to elections based on the long tradition of exercising the franchise in Sri Lanka which goes back to 1930’s. However, as already mentioned, since 1978 Sri Lanka has had one of the complicated voting systems in the world. Yet thanks to the high literacy rate, as well as the experience in democratic traditions, the vast majority of voters seem to have not got lost in the polling booth in choosing their candidates so far.

The massive mandate given at this election has demonstrated once again that a winning political party need not always depend on minority political parties even when it means sabotaging their own agenda for the country for which the people had voted them. The unjustified clout which the minority political parties in our country (most of which are based on ethnic or religious foundations) had been enjoying since 1994 (a clout that usually held at ransom the will of the majority of voters in the last parliaments for nearly 26 years), had been neutralized by the voters at this election just as they did in the November Presidential elections. The winning party now need not depend on the minority parties and dance according to their tunes. While there is no denying that keeping to the best of democratic traditions the voices of both majorities and minorities ought to be represented and heard in parliament, in no way should this mean that using the political clout (in the form of the number of seats they have in parliament) the minority parties should dictate terms to the whole country as it has often happened in Sri Lanka during the last few decades. Lest this writer be misunderstood or misinterpreted, it needs to be repeated that minority representation in parliament and their involvement in the country’s decision-making are non-negotiable but in no way should it mean that they can suffocate the legitimate collective aspirations of the Sri Lankan voters as expressed at an election.

Unrealistic election promises

Promises by political parties during election campaigning is normal in any democracy. As a matter of fact, the voters need to know what the respective political parties would do if they were to be elected. A positive point of the recent General Election that should not escape the attention of any political analyst is the way the ordinary Sri Lankan voter (however poor and miserable his/her socio-economic condition may had been) has flatly refused to be hoodwinked by the unrealistic election promises of various political parties. Gone are the days when they would vote for two measures of rice or eight kilos of grain, as promised by political leaders of the caliber of the late Sirimavo Bandaranaika and the late J.R. Jayawardena, respectively. Just as at the last Presidential elections, at this election too, the voters have refused to be taken for rides by such cheap promises. If not, they ought to have elected with a thumping majority the newly formed SJB of Sajith Premadasa who continued to make bizarre election promises which could not be realistically maintained with our weak economy. The promise to give each person 20,000 rupees is an example in this regard. There were also others who were trying to keep pace with him but to a lesser degree. The promise of the UNP leader, Ranil Wickremasinghe to give “money in the hand” of every citizen, was one such example. The very high cost of living and the dwindling of job opportunities due mainly to the Covid-19 epidemic did not tempt the voters (especially those in the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder who form the bulk of the voters in Sri Lanka) to be hoodwinked by such enticing promises. Rather, they seemed to have been more interested in long-term, realistic programs aimed at promoting the common good of the country, first of all, by eliminating corruption and poverty. This surely is a mature sign of a nation in transition towards a new political culture.

New faces in Parliament

In spite of the great trust the Sri Lankan citizens have consistently placed in democracy, especially in elections (of which the Opposition parties had a phobia), they have been continuously disappointed by the type of persons they themselves had elected. Not only did those members of parliament fail to keep what they had promised, but more so, their uncivilized, arrogant behaviour and highly corrupt practices in enriching themselves (such as the robbing of the Central Bank in broad day-light), and their other glaring abuses of power (such as letting free the real culprits of the Easter bomb attacks) had been disgusting to the majority of Sri Lankans, so much so that quite a number of them even opting never to vote again! Things in this regard had deteriorated so much that many citizens have come to believe

that the easiest way to enjoy power and status, and at the same time mint money at one’s will (and that too, often, without any professional qualification or hard work) is to become a member of parliament. In short, people had come to perceive that to be elected to parliament was the easiest way for ‘nobodies’ to become ‘somebodies’. It is in this sense that a vast number of Sri Lankans, both rural and urban, had been longing to see a new political culture, especially among their elected representatives. As is well-known, there has been a clamour in the country for some time now for new faces in our parliament, replacing the hackneyed corrupt and unruly political lot, and thank God, at this election a good number of new faces have been elected who hopefully will not disappoint their electors. At the same time, more than 70 members of the last parliament have been defeated. Another gratifying aspect is the amount of professionals that have been elected. Although the mere fact of being a new face or a professional is no guarantee of decent and ethically respectful politics, at least the voters have placed their trust in the new faces and professionals they had elected, hoping that they would not rob our national assets in aggrandizing themselves as it had been happening in recent decades, thanks to some hooligans and uneducated riff raff entering parliament. The new faces and the professionals, together with two newly formed political parties, the SLPP and the SJB as the main political parties (though both of them still have some corrupt and useless members of the bygone years) in this new parliament, we Sri Lankans now have a good opportunity to re-kindle our hopes for a new political culture in Sri Lanka.

A Mandate to change the 19th Amendment/ the Constitution

One of the main mandates asked by the winning SLPP from their General Election platforms had been the request to grant them a two-thirds mandate to change the Constitution, especially to change the disastrous 19th amendment which was hurriedly enacted immediately after the general election in 2015, mainly to keep Mahinda Rajapaksa from coming to office again.

It was so haphazardly drafted with this single intention that even the noble democratic elements that were used to camouflage it (such as the establishment of Independent Commissions) paled into an insignificant horizon. Moreover, the 19th amendment crippled the functioning of that very “yahaplana government” itself, especially in the latter part of that government. The many unprecedented legal knots and riddles with regard to the constitutional matters during the past few years sprang forth mainly from that notorious 19th amendment. Now that the people have given a resounding mandate to change it, the new government should not hesitate to do so as early as possible, but at the same time taking precautions to safeguard those positive aspects of it, such as the establishment of Independent Commissions, and making sure that under the new Constitution, the members appointed to those Commissions be really “independent”.

One of the main factors that paved the way towards the deterioration of the well-establisehd democratic political culture in our country was the introduction of the proportionate system of voting and electing members to parliament in 1978. The preferential system of voting which came along with it had been mainly responsible for the in-fighting even within the same political party, thus, paving the way to a violent political culture in our country since then. It is high time to put an end to this root cause of political violence at elections, which the country had suffered for more than four decades. Also it would be imperative for any new Constitution first of all to respect the will of the voters that is normally expressed through their franchise. As such, the recent phenomenon of MP’s getting elected from one political party and then crossing over to another after the elections should be stopped at any cost because this is a brutal betrayal of the voters, especially under the present system of elections. If this is not checked through some provisions to the Constitution, it could lead to a serious erosion of people’s confidence in democracy and in elections.

Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, a fact which no Constitution can afford to ignore. Fair representation for the ethnic and religious minorities in the country’s decision-making is a must. It is in this sense that the new Constitution should assure that those ethnic and religious minorities be given seats in parliament through what is now known as “the National List” or some other list similar to it, so that those minority ethnic and religious groups (who cannot get their representatives elected at the elections) would have their representation in parliament. Under the first Constitution of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) there was a list of reserved seats for this purpose under the title “Appointed MP’s”. The 1972 and the 1978 Constitutions also wished to continue this practice through what came to be known as the “National List”. But unfortunately, for the past four decades or so, instead of giving representation to those minorities of our country through that list, what we have witnessed is the shameless practice of filling this list with the cronies who are supporters of the respective political parties, or still worse, with those defeated candidates. We witnessed this shameless act at the last parliament, when the ruling UPFA appointed six of its defeated candidates to fill their National list, while the UNP and the JVP, too, did the same. This is nothing but a thundering slap on the face of the Sri Lankan voters (and eventually on democracy) – namely, to bring in the very persons whom they had rejected at elections! The new Constitution ought to prevent such shameless, undemocratic practices.

The Need for a Benevolent “Dictator”

To get out of the messy political culture we had been in, we, the Sri Lankan citizens need a political leadership with a firm and resolute will. This is what most of the citizens in ordinary parlance intend when they say “We need a benevolent dictator”. Of course, we need a “dictator” in Sri Lanka, but not a dictator with the true literal sense of the word, but someone who acts like a dictator using his/her legitimate authority but always well within the Constitution. Such qualifications may sound as a tautology, but what is meant is that we need someone who can take decisions for the common good of the country, with firm and resolute will, ignoring all political party affiliations and favouritisms. He/she ought to be someone who upholds law and order, irrespective of the status or political affiliations of persons. Ever since his election in November 2019, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has shown many signs of such resolute and impartial leadership for the good of the country. His commendable way of coordinating the available persons and resources in our country in the fight against the world-wide threat of Covid-19 is a case in point. The unprecedented mandate given to him at this General election is a clear endorsement of the style of leadership he has been exercising during the past nine months. Now that he is given what he wanted, namely – a parliament that would cooperate with him in implementing his programs for the common good – one hopes that he would continue this style in exercising his role as President of our country (as the head of State) in the coming years too so that at last we as a nation could now begin our journey realistically towards a new political culture in our beloved motherland. We as a nation that believes in democracy and elections cannot afford to be disappointed again!

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Impact of US policy shift on Sri Lanka

Published

3 days ago

2025/02/19

Sahan Weerasooriya

Early honeymoon period after mission accomplished with toppling of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Julie Chung shares a light moment with Ranil Wickremesinghe during a three-day visit to Nuwara Eliya and Ella in early July 2023. Ella Odyssey was part of Sri Lanka’s commemoration of 75 years of independence. Colombo-based foreign heads of missions and nine heads of mission, based in New Delhi, joined the journey (pic courtesy PMD)

President Trump has unceremoniously overturned US foreign policy. His decision to deport illegal Indian migrants just ahead of a summit with Premier Narendra Modi, underscored the tough stance taken by the new US admiration. The much-touted US-India strategic partnership didn’t deter Trump from carrying out the much-publicized humiliating deportations of Indians. US Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, recently, indicated that Trump has terminated his special relationship with Europe and is charting his own course. The upcoming Trump and Russian leader Putin’s meeting stressed that the US policy wouldn’t be shaped by European concerns over Russia. Against that background, the US is very much unlikely to pursue the Biden policy as regards bankrupt Sri Lanka. Actually, Sri Lanka’s political leadership will have to do some serious thinking and re-examining our position as Trump redraws US foreign policy.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Since the successful conclusion of the war in mid-May 2009, despite all the naysayers, and even the likes of the then British Foreign Secretary David Milliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, rushing here at the eleventh hour with the hope of getting President Mahinda Rajapaksa to halt the offensive to enable them to evacuate the LTTE supremo, his family and their surviving fanatical terrorist band to safety abroad, the US appointed five Ambassadors to Colombo. Of them four were women, namely Patricia A. Butenis, Michele J. Sison, Alaina B. Teplitz and incumbent Julie J. Chung. Between the tenures of Sison and Teplitz, the only male Atul Keshap, of Indian origin, served here for a period of four years (Aug. 2015-July 2018) during the Yahapalana administration.

Ambassador Chung oversaw President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s forced ouster in 2022. In spite of her denial, Amb. Chung’s role in President Rajapaksa’s removal is clear and cannot be disputed. Amb. Chung will soon be replaced by Elizabeth Kathryn Horst, currently the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for Pakistan, yet another country in which Washington is mired in regime change operations in the region.

Amb. Chung presented her credentials on Feb. 25, 2022, to President Rajapaksa, at the Janadhipathi Mandiraya. The President was flanked by State Foreign Minister Tharaka Balasuriya and Presidential Secretary Gamini Senarath. The new US envoy took office close on the heels of a major crisis within the government that compelled the President to ask for his Secretary Dr. P.B. Jayasundera’s resignation. Just five weeks after Amb. Chung took over the mission, the ‘GotaGoHome’ campaign got underway and a President, elected with over 6.9 mn votes on the SLPP ticket, was thrown out of office within four and half months by violent mobs armed with meticulous intelligence as to which politicians’ houses were to be ransacked and torched, along with those of their close supporters in a matter of a few hours, especially on May 09, 2022. Exactly two months later they completed their despicable mission by storming the Presidential palace.

The SLPP, both in and outside Parliament, accused Amb. Chung of staging the ouster of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Award-winning author Sena Thoradeniya (Galle Face Protest: System Change or Anarchy) and (Nine: The Hidden Story) by National Freedom Front (NFF) leader Wimal Weerawansa, MP, dealt with Amb. Chung’s sordid involvement.

However, the writer believes that the whole exercise should be examined as another arrogant US intrusion rather than Amb. Chung’s private agenda. Her job was to do the bidding of Washington. Let me stress that the US made a serious but an abortive attempt to bring President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s reign to an end in 2010. Thanks to Wikileaks we know how the US used a UNP-led coalition, that included the wartime LTTE ally the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), and the JVP, to back retired General Sarath Fonseka at the presidential election. That gamble failed. The war-winning Army Chief ended up with egg on his face with an unforgettable thrashing from the overwhelming southern electorate.

Eyebrows were raised when the outgoing American envoy recently expressed her desire to meet Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) leaders at the Nelum Mawatha party office as she never bothered to do so since her arrival in early 2022.

Contrary to speculation, the outgoing US Ambassador had sought a meeting about two weeks ago before the unprecedented public exposure about the USAID’s (United States Agency for International Agency) sinister operations here and worldwide in the wake of the new US administration deciding to curtail drastically its operations for being a white elephant as America itself is being confronted with a fast developing and yet to be fully fathomed economic crisis, which might even exceed the worldwide Great Depression that came with the 1929 stock market crash. On her arrival at Nelum Mawatha last Friday (14) Amb. Chung was received by SLPP General Secretary and Attorney-at-Law Prasad Kariyawasam. The SLPP delegation was led by its National Organizer Namal Rajapaksa and one of the three lawmakers in the current Parliament. Having accused her of being in the thick of the regime change, the SLPP’s readiness to meet Amb. Chung, too, is a mystery.

It would be pertinent to briefly explain the USAID’s global objectives as the vast majority wrongly believed the agency is meant for humanitarian work. It is definitely not a charity. Its main objective is to strengthen capabilities of US agents, or assets, at local and regional levels regardless of the status of Washington’s relationship with the targeted country.

These agents, or assets, are available for the US at any time as Washington desired. Pentagon, the State Department or even the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) used its resources under whatever circumstances. If we closely examine the pattern of USAID operations, as well as other related organizations that had been active here over a period of time, even our legislature is within the sphere of their influence. In other words, they obviously have direct access to politicians and officials who wield power over key institutions. The private sector, too, became part of the US operation carefully expanded countrywide.

By the time Amb. Chung arrived here. US assets were in place at different levels ready to carry out directives. Those who pointed a finger at Amb. Chung never bothered to examine the background and comprehend the gradual build-up that allowed the gathering of all elements, under the social media fuelled ‘GotaGohome’ campaign.

The US mission here had done a tremendous amount of work, especially beginning with the Amb, Keshap’s time, to enhance the capacities of their existing assets and identify and develop new assets.

What really prompted Amb. Chung to suddenly seek a meeting with the SLPP? Did National List MP Namal Rajapaksa’s call for the setting up of a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to probe USAID funding, influence her decision? But that cannot be as the US Embassy made the request before the USAID controversy. Perhaps, SLPP General Secretary Kariyawasam expressed concern over Amb. Chung’s frequent visits to the JVP headquarters at Pelawatte, whereas she ignored the SLPP.

Appearing on a live television programme, Kariyawasam pointed out that Amb. Chung had plenty of time for the JVP, a party with just three MPs, while the SLPP, in spite of being represented by 145 MPs, never received the US envoy’s attention.

Perhaps Amb. Chung didn’t really feel the requirement to visit Nelum Mawatha as she maintained a close contact with the SLPP founder Basil Rajapaksa.

Ambiguity over objectives

It would be pertinent to ask both the sponsors and recipients whether various foreign-funded projects achieved their objectives.

The following are some of the USAID-funded projects launched, beginning 2017: [1] USD 19 mn social cohesion and reconciliation project implemented by Global Communities (July 2018-Dec, 2023) [2] Analysis of social cohesion and reconciliation implemented by US Institute of Peace at a cost of USD 700,000 (Aug. 2018-Feb. 2024) [3] USD 15 mn project implemented by Chemonics International Inc. to strengthen the justice sector, including the Justice Ministry and Office of Attorney General (Sept. 2021-Sept. 2026) [4] USD 17 mn project carried out by National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute and International Foundation for Electoral System in support of Parliament and other government institutions, including the Election Commission (June 2020 – June 2024) [5] USD 14 mn worth project in support of civil society meant to achieve good governance reforms and strengthen accountability. Implemented by Management Systems International (Feb. 2018-Aug. 2024) [6] USD 7.9 mn scheme to strengthen media implemented by International Research and Exchanges Board Inc. (Aug. 2017-April 2023) [7] SAFE Foundation implemented a programme at a cost of USD 3.9 mn aimed at combating human trafficking (Oct. 2021-Sept. 2026) [8] USD 1.6 mn project to enhance protection for those threatened by gender-based violence (Oct. 2021-Sept. 2026). Implementing agency Women-in-Need [9] USD 3.6 mn project for the benefit of plantation community implemented by Institute of Social Development (June 2022-June 2027) and [10] a staggering USD 19 mn project meant to strengthen the civil society by unnamed private agencies (Sept. 2022-August 2027).

Interestingly, high profile USAID operations implemented in collaboration with successive governemnts covered the Justice sector (Justice Ministry and Office of Attorney General), Parliament as well as the Election Commission.

Over the years USAID with a massive budget that even exceeded the CIA’s and allied organizations have built up a system that served the interests of the US. That is the truth. Sri Lanka has cooperated not only with the US but other organizations, such as the UNDP, to allow them influence in Parliament. The USAID and UNDP have ‘secured’ Parliament by lavishly spending funds on various projects. In spite of spending millions in USD with the 2016 agreement between Parliament and USAID being the single largest project, what they have achieved here is nothing but a mystery.

Successive governments have encouraged USAID, UNDP and other interventions. They felt happy as external sources provided the funding. Let me give an example of how the UNDP stepped-in for want of sufficient public funding for vital government initiatives. Sometimes, they advanced their political project in the guise of helping the government of the day.

On May 13, 2021, the then Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC, opened the USAID funded state-of-the-training facility that included a boardroom, auditorium, computer laboratory, and other facilities. The outspoken AG also launched an electronic system to track cases and legal files. The launch of the training facility, electronic diary and file management system, and the Attorney General’s Department website were also attended by Supreme Court Judge Justice Yasantha Kodagoda P.C., Acting Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam P.C., the Secretary of the Ministry of Justice M.M.P.K. Mayadunne, and virtually by DCM Kelly and USAID Mission Director Reed Aeschliman.

The US Embassy, in a statement issued on that quoted AG Livera as having said: “This is another first in the 136-year history of the Attorney General’s Department. The opening of the training centre is a notable, salutary achievement that meets a long-felt need for continuous learning and professional development.” The AG was further quoted as having said these new tools would “drive the institution from strength to strength.”

If such facilities were so important why on earth the Attorney General’s Department failed to take tangible measures to meet that particular requirement.

Those who demand investigations into USAID must realize that their role is much more complicated than alleged and reported in some sections of the media. Among the beneficiaries were the Sri Lanka Judges’ Institute.

American Corner in Jaffna

The US Embassy established an American Corner in Jaffna with the collaboration of Jaffna Social Action Centre (JSAC), an NGO that particularly promoted women and children rights. Formed in 2003 in the North as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was preparing to launch Eelam War IV, JSAC, over the years, developed into a recipient of US funding. JSAC is among the groups promoting LGBTQ in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. JSAC annually participates in the much-touted 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Based Violence campaign. The then US Ambassador Butenis attended the opening of the American Corner. JSAC, in its website, has revealed an impressive list of partners and donors.

Perhaps JSAC should explain how it served the interests of ordinary people, especially during the 2003-2009 period when the LTTE stepped up forcible recruitment of children, including girls. Forced conscription continued unabated as the military slowly but steadily rolled back the LTTE fighting formations, towards the east coast, until they were trapped in a sliver of land in the Mullaitivu district.

Sri Lanka should be grateful for US assistance over the past decades. The ordinary people benefited from such help but later Washington weaponized the setup as various interested parties queued up to secure lucrative contracts.

Amb, Chung, in late Sept. 2022, moved the American Centre in Colombo, that had been in existence for over seven decades, to the new US Embassy building. This was a couple of months after Aragalaya (March – July 2022) forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of office. The American Centre in Colombo had been first located at the Millers Building in Colombo, then at Galle Face Court, followed by Flower Road, before moving to the Sri Ramya at 44, Galle Road.

The American Corner in Kandy was established in 2004. In addition to Jaffna, Colombo and Kandy, there are similar facilities in Matara and Batticaloa.

The recent declaration by Bharatiya Janata Party MP Nishikant Dubey, in the Indian Parliament, that the USAID had been funding organisations with a view to creating unrest cannot be ignored. The BJP’s declaration underscored the gravity of the situation. Those who discarded repeated accusations by National Freedom Front (NFF) leader Wimal Weerawansa as regards US interventions here must take a fresh look at the developments taking place since Donald Trump’s return for a second term.

Dubey alleged the USAID funded organizations that carried out protests against the Agniveer initiative of the government, backed caste census, and supported Naxalism in India.

On behalf of the BJP, Dubey asked for a probe into whether Congress and the Gandhi family-controlled Rajiv Gandhi Foundation had received USAID funds through George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) for conducting activities, including the campaign for a caste census and against the Agniveer scheme introduced by the government. The MP claimed OSF received ₹5,000 crores from USAID to “break up India”. He raised the issue during zero hour.

The BJP MP’s accusations seemed somewhat surprising as India, under Narendra Modi’s leadership, established close relations with Washington and is a member of the four-country Quad, comprising the US, Australia, Japan and India meant to counter Chinese expansion.

Why subvert India? Is the question in everybody’s mind? President Trump, during a joint press conference with Premier Modi, speculated about the possibility of USAID role in the Lok Sabha elections last year. Perhaps Trump is playing politics even at the expense of the US as he sought to dismantle USAID.

The Trump administration has imposed a global stop-work directive on USAID, suspending most aid initiatives, except for critical food relief programmes.

However, India, too, had been blamed for interfering in internal affairs of other countries. Recently Canada alleged that India intervened in its electoral process. Canada named China as the other offender. India has strongly refuted the Canadian allegation. It would be pertinent to mention that Canada had been playing politics with Sri Lanka for many years as major political parties sought to exploit the post-war developments for their advantage. New Delhi also accuses Canada of encouraging Khalistan separatists operating from there.

Canadian Parliament, in May 2022, unanimously declared that Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide in a bid to appease Canadian voters of Sri Lanka origin.

The expansion of the USAID project here should be examined against the backdrop of Geneva adopting a US accountability resolution, co-sponsored by the treacherous Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government in 2015. The US backed Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election. That was in line with their overall strategy to end the Rajapaksas rule, perceived to be China-friendly. The US funded the 2015 UNP-led campaign that involved the TNA and JVP as well. A group of civil society groups, led by the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ), backed Sirisena’s candidature, who switched sides at the last moment having been in the Rajapaksas camp throughout his political career and it was done after having a hopper feed with them the previous night.

Having betrayed his own party in 2014, Sirisena has ended up politically irrelevant. That is the price the one-time SLFP General Secretary had to pay for switching sides for personal gain. The former President is most unlikely to get an opportunity to re-enter Parliament ever again.

The NPP will have to be cautious how it handles the situation against the backdrop of developing political and economic upheaval in Washington as we may have never seen hitherto. The way the new administration addressed much more complicated issues, such as the Russia-Ukraine war in a manner seriously inimical to the European powers and pullout from the Geneva-based UNHRC and WHO meant that Trump has already turned US foreign policy upside down.

Midweek Review

Revisiting Humanism in Education:

Published

3 days ago

2025/02/19

Sahan Weerasooriya

Tagore

Insights from Tagore – III

by Panduka Karunanayake

Professor in the Department of Clinical Medicineand former Director, Staff Development Centre,

University of Colombo

The 34th J.E. Jayasuriya Memorial Lecture

14 February 2025

SLFI Auditorium, Colombo

(Continued from18 Feb.)

Tagore had an important answer to the question of whether the economic or the political should enjoy the primacy of place, in designing educational policy. He said: “Economic life covers the whole base of society, because its necessities are simplest and the most universal. Educational institutions, in order to obtain the fullness of truth, must have close association with this economic life.”

Sometimes I have difficulty understanding why Tagore, in spite of his appreciation of science and disdain for superstition, still lavishly exalted his traditional dieties and the scriptures. I think he did so because he saw a remarkable practical utility in them for the organisation of society and because they carried innumerable lessons for human conduct – for which science and technology, or even modern administration, had not yet furnished any suitable alternative.

Besides, it is clear that he admired religion’s potential to bring peoples together. In The Religion of Man, he wrote: “On the surface of our being we have the ever-changing phases of the individual self, but in the depth there dwells the Eternal Spirit of human unity beyond our direct knowledge.” But of course, religion seldom brought humanity together. And whenever it played the divisive role, he did not blindly follow its precepts.

The stickiest issue in India for the modern philosopher is probably its caste system, and Tagore had no qualms about repudiating it:

“…differentiation and separation of vocations and trades, professions and callings on which the caste system originally rested has become totally extinct and it is altogether impossible to maintain it any longer. Yet all the taboos, external restrictions and customs associated with the varna system are still in place, static and intact. It seems we must put up with the cage with all its iron bars and fetters though the bird for which it was made is dead and gone. We provide bird feed every day but no bird feeds on it. In this way, due to the cleavage between our social life and social customs, we are not only being inhibited and obstructed by unnecessary, outmoded arrangements, we cannot live up to our professed social ideals, either.”

Prof. Carlo Fonseka / Dr. Abrahm T. Kovoor

I wish that for our country, we could replace the phrase ‘caste system’ with our own ‘outmoded arrangements’ – such as astrology, superstitious rituals and harmful so-called healing practices – and carefully re-read that quote. Sadly, our populace is filled with superstition, myth and pseudoscience – as a cursory glance at the supplements of any weekend Sinhala newspaper would show. Here, the high literacy rate actually works against the nation! Our public intellectuals must also take the blame, because they have failed to sustain the good work that had been done in the 1970s by intellectuals like Dr E.W. Adikaram, Abraham Kovoor and Professor Carlo Fonseka.

Another interesting point in his ideas is his desire to see education as a tool for everyone, not just the educated few. Reminding us on ancient Indian education and learning, he said:

“There was a regular traffic between specialised knowledge and ordinary knowledge. Scholars, pundits or learned society did not have an antithetical relationship with the less learned segments of society…There was hardly a place in the country where the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Puranic myths and religious discourse did not spread in a variety of ways. Even the theoretical philosophical issues which were rigorously, relentlessly discussed and debated in philosophy and metaphysics always filtered down to the mind of the people…In those days learning was the asset of the entire society and not the acquisition of the learned few.”

In our own country, in contrast, I wonder whether expanded access to education has had a similar effect. In spite of decades of education in swabhasha and wide access to education, knowledge is a tool of separation, seclusion and self-aggrandisement for the few who win the lottery. Is this the fault of the education or the educated? Perhaps both. The educated use their learning as a weapon rather than as a tool to serve, a manifestation of the fierce competitiveness and the fixed mindset that pervades the successful products of our education. At the same time, as Tagore pointed out, it is the fault of education too:

“The rains of our education are falling a long distance away from where the roots of our whole life lie…Our ordinary daily life has no use for the education we acquire…It is unjust to blame this on students. Their world of books and the world in which they live everyday are poles apart…That is why it is seen that the same person who has formidable erudition in European philosophy, science and ethics tenaciously clings to the age old superstitions…We are no more amazed when we see that on the one hand he is separately enjoying literature full of varied sentiments while on the other he is busy only with making money…”

These are a few fundamentals that can be gleaned from Tagore’s second phase. They aren’t many, and perhaps they aren’t as earth-shattering as one might expect. But I feel that they are exactly what we are lacking today and prevent education from playing a nation-building role. If we can get these right, we actually need to get very little else right.

Phase 3: ‘Freedom from bondage’

Tagore’s role and position as an unrepentant internationalist at the time when India was demanding swaraj is well known. He was opposed to nationalism, and in fact correctly identified colonialism itself as a manifestation of the nationalism of the British – so he asked, if one were anti-colonialist, how could one be nationalist also?

But his internationalism was not a rootless existence floating aimlessly in the air. He was clear that one must be rooted in one’s own soil, strongly and firmly – it is from here that one must reach out to the wealth of the world. In another beautiful simile, he urged us not to fear the wind, and to open the windows of our house to let that wind in. He would assure us that we would be able to retain the good that the wind blew in and get rid of the bad. He also said that as long as our house had a firm foundation, the wind will not blow it away. So for him, the first step of being an internationalist is studying one’s own soil and placing a firm foundation for one’s existence. He admired and studied tradition without being a traditionalist.

With regard to Indian universities of his day, he lamented the fact that these were European grafts and nothing like India’s ancient intellectual heritage, such as Nalanda, Wikramshila or Takshasila. He lamented the type of intellectual this would produce. He wrote in 1932:

“We receive European learning as something static and immutable and consider it the height of modernity to cull and recite sentences from it. For this reason we lack the courage to reconsider it or think about it from a new angle. Our universities have nothing to do with and are cut off from the acute questions, dire necessities and extreme hardship facing the people of the country…Like parasites our mind, attached to text books, has lost its ability to find its food and invent by itself.”

These words seem no less relevant to our own universities, 90 years after they were written.

Tagore’s belief in internationalism and its effect on his philosophy of education is captured by his description of Visva-Bharati, the higher education institute he set up in 1921 using the Nobel Prize money: “Visva-Bharati represents India where she has her wealth of mind which is for all. Visva-Bharati acknowledges India’s obligation to offer to others the hospitality of her best culture and India’s right to accept from others their best.”

Conclusion

Prof. J. E. Jayasuriya / Dr. E. W. Adhikaram

Ladies and Gentlemen: I am afraid time would not permit me to cover the whole breadth of Rabindranath Tagore’s complete educational philosophy, and I wouldn’t even pretend to cover it in depth. For example, I didn’t touch on other important aspects that Tagore spoke of, such as school administration, advice for teachers, maintaining discipline without corporeal punishment, carrying out research and promoting creativity, women and education and so on. Forgive me for only scratching the surface. But the topic of Tagore’s educational philosophy is so vast that nothing wider would be possible in a short time.

You will also note that my talk was not filled with anecdotes of incidents and peculiarities at Santiniketan – like how classes were conducted under trees or how the gurudev once conducted a class in the rain for cattle when the students didn’t want to come out and get wet. These are not the timeless substance of the tale; they are only its time-sensitive ornaments.

If, on the other hand, I have been able to whet your appetite for his educational philosophy, and also convinced you that he had patiently worked on and presciently invented an antidote to today’s problems of education, I would be content for now. Balance was his antidote. My goal this evening was to place the seeds of his ideas in your minds, and hope that they will grow, be nourished and be pruned and manicured into a contextually appropriate shape in the months or years to come.

Selected bibliography

Dasgupta, U. (2013). Rabindranath Tagore: A Biography. Oxford University Press. (Translated by hiisß ckl l=udr- mßj¾;l (2024).rúkaøkd;a ;df.da¾-udkj ksoyi iy úúO;ajh kqf.af.dv iriú m%ldYlfhdaව)

Dore, R. (1976). The Diploma Disease: Education, Qualification and Development. London: George Allen & Unwin (republished in 1977 by Institute of Education, University of London).

Gunasekara, P. (2013). moaud .=Kfialr – kkaofiak .%duSh wOHdmk l%uh^1932-1939) lkakka.r;=udf.a wu;l l< fkdyels w;ayod ne,Sula fld<U iQßh m%ldYlfhda: කන්නunasekara, S.P. (2012). iuka mqIamd .=Kfialrම(2012). rúkaøkd;a ;df.da¾ fld<U tia f.dvf.aසහiyifydaorfhda(Basedon Rabindranath Tagore: The Myriad Minded Man (1995) by Krishna Dutta and Andrew Robinson, and other works.)

Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling Society. USA: Harper & Row (republished in 1973 by Penguin Education, Harmondsworth, England).

Iyengar, K.R.S. (1987). Rabindranath Tagore: A Critical Introduction. London: Oriental University Press.

Kripalani, K. (1961). Tagore: A Life. New Delhi: National Book Trust, India (author publication, republished in 1971 by National Book Trust, India).

Maithra, S., translator (2014). Education as Freedom: Tagore’s Paradigm. New Delhi: Niyogi Books.

Navaratnam, R. (1958). New Frontiers in East-West Philosophies of Education. Calcutta: Orient Longmans.

Neogy, A.K. (2010). Santiniketan and Sriniketan: The Twin Dreams of Rabindranath Tagore. New Delhi: National Book Trust, India.

Samuel Ravi, S. (2024). Philosophical and Sociological Bases of Education (2nd edn). Delhi: PHI Learning. (Chapter 13: ‘Rabindranath Tagore’, pp. 163-179.)

Sarathchandra, E.R. de S. (1942). ‘Through Santiniketan eyes’. Kesari People’s Weekly (Jaffna) serialised from 2(9) to 2(17) and compiled by Goonetileke, H.A.I., also available translated to Sinhala ^iqpß; .ï,;a-mßj¾;l ප(2001). ශYdka;s ksfla;kfha weiska fld<U tia f.dvf.a iy ifydaorfhda).

Venn, G. (1965). Man, education and work. In, Cosin, B.R., editor: Education: Structure and Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. (Chapter 6, pp. 97-107.)

Venn, G. (1971). Preparation for further preparation (editorial). Educational Leadership 1: 339-341.