Midweek Review

Our Common Heritage – one country – one land – one people

Published

6 years ago

2020/08/5

by Ashley de Vos

Reconciliation is a strange word with multiple meanings when applied in different situations and understandings, but mostly gravitating towards a willingness, a compromise to get together again. As such, it is a process that cannot be forced; it will always and should be a natural process. Four hundred years of colonialism introduced a need to move vertically and not on a horizontal plane only to satisfy false definitions of democracy, based on the divide-and-rule policy of the coloniser.

“Prior to colonialism, the Jathi-varna system in India had little, if anything, to do with race, ethnicity, or genetics. It is better understood as a set of distinctions based on traditional or inherited social status derived from work roles. Jathi is a highly localised and intricately organised social structure. One of the important aspects of Jathi, which was conspicuously overlooked by western Indologists, is its dynamic nature – allowing social mobility as well as occupational diversification” (Malhotra & Neelakandan, 2011, Schwab, 1984). Sri Lanka would have shared a similar vision.

This draconian political need based on ex-colonial recommendations to follow the African, the South African model as a methodology for reconciliation in Sri Lanka, is strange, as in the case of South Africa, reconciliation is between two distinctly different people. The Afrikaners who are predominantly White and of Dutch extraction, have been totally racist in their approach to living in South Africa. They saw the Black African as an inferior being to be used as a slave and treated them as such. The Dutch have a long history of slavery throughout their colonial occupation. Hence the Africans for decades were treated as the lowest of the low, and were beginning to believe what was been instigated. That was to be their lot.

Today, the traditional African tribes, living in South Africa, are forced to sacrifice their human dignity, to dress in colourful beads and dance semi-nude before the camera, for the titillated gratification of some frustrated foreign tourist. This is also a form of cultural slavery that has its roots in the very concept of Cultural Tourism promoted by the Bretton Wood twins, as a new economic break through theory, believed and unfortunately adopted copycat as a way forward, by “Experts” in many countries, including in Sri Lanka.

The Indian community in South Africa, arrogant and believing in their false superiority over the Africans, even though they themselves may have been taken across during the colonial occupation of the African lands, some even as slaves to work the sugar cane fields and as labour in the construction of infrastructure, looked down on the Africans as belonging to the lowest of the untouchable classes. An applied ruling based on a derogative concept judged firstly by the skin colour of the Africans. These Indians aided and abetted the British and white Afrikaner against the Black Africans.

Depicting Indians as “infinitely superior” to black Africans and using the racist pejorative “kaffirs” to describe them, is common throughout Gandhi’s early writings. He routinely expressed “disdain for Africans,” Gandhi described black Africans as “savage,” “raw” and living a life of “indolence and nakedness,” and he campaigned relentlessly to prove to the British rulers that the Indian community in South Africa was “superior” to native black Africans. This is spelt out clearly in “The South African Gandhi: Stretcher- Bearer of Empire” by S. Anand.

In an open letter to the Natal Parliament, in 1893, Gandhi wrote: “I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan. A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are a little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.”(Gandhi – S. Anand). Over time some of Ghandi’s views may have changed, but he remained caste conscious to the end.

Offended and very rightly so, the students at the University of Ghana, Accra, actioned the removal of the Gandhi statue, installed on the campus by the government of India. Law student Nana Adoma Asare Adei told the BBC: “Having Gandhi’s statue means that we stand for everything he stands for and if he stands for these things (his alleged racism), I don’t think we should have his statue on campus.”

Can there ever be reconciliation? Whatever anyone says, we personally don’t think it ever possible. The final black uprising is looming on the horizon; it will arrive within a decade, nay earlier. This will see all white South Africans wiped out. Whether it constitutes a step back is for the Africans to decide. The Indian community will suffer the same fate. The South African experiment with reconciliation is not something that should be copied by anyone, it cannot last. It is but a short-term kite in the sky. It will fly only as long as the wind remains favourable and white, so to speak.

Many White South Africans have realised that the writing is on the wall and are migrating to create a new life for themselves in New Zealand, Australia, and the UK and even to Georgia in the previous Soviet Union. However, the open invitation from New Zealand, Australia and the UK seems to be running into problems, due to the migrant’s dissimilar and non-adoptable behavioural patterns, inconvenience to integrate and the willing creation of close knit ghetto communities built around their inter dependency. It will not be easy for the Afrikaner in any of the new countries as they will miss the African slave to help in whatever they hope to do. As for the experiment in Georgia, it is hoped that it would be successful.

The American exercise of integration, based on reconciliation, even after two centuries has still not worked, as there is no truth or sincerity in the process. They had a President who claimed to be black in colour. So what? That has not improved the general level of the African American people compared to the rest. A few have benefitted while being the routinely discriminated against, poverty stricken; the black community, driven into ghettos, still waits. It is a very long wait for the Martin Luther King’s dream, immobile, a stillbirth; will it ever come to fruition? Chris Hedges in his recent book, “America, The final tour”, referred to “the country being of a mindset that stems from a violent disposition, a war mentality based on promoting a brand of unsustainable ultra-consumerism”. Will the poor continue to be exploited and remain poor? Of course, they certainly will, and according to the grand (sic) scheme they have to.

The mass migration out of the disgusting slums in the eastern cities in the US around 1870s prompted and encouraged the new American migrants to go west to today’s mid-west and further to California. In the process, they decimated the first nation tribes and robbed them of their lands with the help of treaties that were not worth the paper they were written on. These tribes were eventually forced into enclosures called reservations and to ominous drunkenness. The “change-the-(native)Indian- and-save-the-man” policy has robbed them of not only their rich culture based on a deep respect for nature but also their traditional lands, their burial grounds and their rightful place in history. Today, they have been relegated to a subordinate tier in the American society lower than that of the African American.

Unfortunately, the African American who is of greater use to American society will continue to be used with a carrot of false promises dangling in front? While the globalisation experiment referred to by Henry Kissinger, “globalisation is the Americanisation of the world” will continue to spiral. This mass global consumerisation is being further encouraged by the corporate banks with their issue of credit cards, luring those unfamiliar with handling bank credit into a spiral of debt. These innocents carry on merrily paying the minimum, often forgetting that there is a heavy penalty accumulation taking place.

This spiralling debt will eventually engulf the poor in the world, leading to their suffocation and death and an eventual crippling of the traditional banking system. In the past decade, instead of making savings, big business greedily allocated all profits earned, amongst themselves and their shareholders, or in the purchasing of new projects, with little concern for a rainy day. The rainy day has arrived. This will eventually lead to their self-destruction, even begging their governments to prop them up.

The countries whose economies depend on the continuous development of endlessly superior and more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction, will continue to do so. Driven by an insatiabile hunger, a prerequisite would be to frighten the more peaceful countries on the looming of an eminent imaginary enemy or to promote and generate a tyranny, all to ferment and create markets for this merchandise. Even if it entails the starting of wars in specially selected oil rich or strategically located parts of the world, usually far from their own, destroying all normalcy, on a false concept of democracy.

The Western hegemony has a different definition for democracy. A definition that is blinkered on what they as countries do, but at the drop of a hat would be willing to point their fingers in a predetermined direction. Always finding fault with and bullying the smaller more vulnerable and weaker nations, in the process promoting their own idealistic belief of a totally insincere concept, of what democracy is.

After the forced disruption, once they install their puppets and move in, the motive is to install their contractors, to gain free access to exploiting valuable resources that rightfully belong to the people and the nation in the countries under siege, and not to the leadership in these countries.

They will even encourage the leadership to partake in this robbery. This will be the biggest war that will eventually be deposited on the doorstep of the manufacturers of these weapons. A trajectory works in mysterious ways; it has a homing instinct and eventually returns.

While we cannot accept the South African or the US model, both favourites of the Internationally funded NGO community, which sit at the base of the table eagerly waiting for the scraps that may fall their way. Both foreign-based models will surely not work for Sri Lanka. In both examples, one side with presumed superiority is vehemently disinterested in compromise, especially, in their despised disinterest in the other. They expect the other side to accept all their demands and meet requirements.

The world encompassing predominant media hype on the corona virus has thrown a blanket over the more serious issues. The ex-colonial British, especially as they still live in an illusionary superiority even after the loss of empire and believe they are still a lead colonial in charge, will go a step further. They will use promises and rhetoric as a tool to trap a disoriented and obligated refugee society to vote for them at the next elections. They are playing a dangerous short-term game in displaying an acute desperation, in choosing whom to support, when and where.

Singapore is also facing a fraying or the downside effects of the original experiment into secular living. Will it lead to success or to the destruction of the original vision, is to be seen. Canada instead of protecting and supporting the preservation of the first nations in their own countries, spend time in an inferiority based, superior pontificating in the affairs of other nations, in an attempt to entice those living in cultural ghettoes in Canada to win votes in their own district elections.

Considering the above, is there a Sri Lankan model? Yes! There is, but the success in implementation of such a model is hampered by a myriad of self-centred individuals who call themselves, “politicians”, who aspire to use the people they allegedly represent and are expected to serve, for their personal ends. Many see the neo-colonial use of this human asset and its virtue as a lucrative building block for their own survival in this quagmire of sick politics. These politicians need to keep a constant flow of rhetoric, for without the statements they make and the tension they create they will have no role to play to sustain their ego. Without this rhetoric, the ‘generous’ funding by International NGO’s will also come to an end.

As an alternative, we should be looking at a Sri Lankan model that keeps out false prophets and gives people the freedom to interact across the board and learn to live together again. As categorically stated by Dr Abdul Kalm, an eminent past President of India, “A nation is greater than its politics “. In Sri Lanka misplaced arrogance blocks a clear vision.

All who have been displaced due to forced ethnic cleansing should be returned to their original homes; this should not be limited to one group only. The Sinhalese and Muslims displaced in the north should be resettled in their original environments. As in the past, we still hope to see Matara Bakers in the forefront of breadmaking in the North. Those displaced in other parts of the island should also be encouraged to return. Those who have gone abroad will never return, as they and their families now enjoy the economic benefits of their new life. However, they will be routinely enticed to continue to fund and drum beat in their chosen foreign lands, to maintain their status, and to keep the original investment that never produced the promised and envisaged dividend, continuously afloat.

The work of Prof. Kamani Thennakoon, University of Colombo is significant. Her DNA studies, “Comparing both the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, show no large genetic difference, suggesting that both populations have a common ancestry native to the island”. These data have led the team to conclude that contemporary Sri Lankans share very close maternal ancestors.

Race is usually seen as biological, referring to the physical characteristics of a person, while ethnicity is viewed as a social science construct that describes a person’s cultural identity. Ethnicity is created by linguistic, religious and cultural differences rather than by genetic differences. The study indicates no genetic difference between the Sinhala and Tamil speaking community living on this island.

However, there is a difference in the DNA of South India. Even the Tamil spoken in Tamil Nadu is different, it has evolved over time. The Tamil presently spoken in Jaffna has remained static and has its roots in an early form that stems from the 7th – 9th Century. Does this have another interpretation? A well-known scholar’s original thesis, may hold a clue.

In Sri Lanka, the DNA studies show that, we are all one people divided by two languages, forcibly kept apart by location and ego-seeking neo-colonial politicians. A recent statement by Daya Gamage showed that 58% of Tamil speaking people drawn from the north and east are living amongst the Sinhala speaking community in the rest of the island, amongst a very tolerant community. A narrow fragmented false domestic wall, that divided a single people like the bifurcation of Germany after World War ll has been created, nurtured and kept alive by the egotistical neo-colonial politician.

The new condescension of the Islamic population has a short memory; it is a recent foreign influenced input that has blinkered thought. They have forgotten that it was a benevolent Sinhala king that in the 16th C, who invited the Moors to live amongst the Sinhala in the hill country to save them from the persecution by the Portuguese, and even permitted them to marry Sinhala women, giving them access to a broader understanding of a cultural matrix, when they partook in the temple rituals and even offered dana to the Sangha. Robert Knox, during his exile in the Sinhala village, spent his time and earned an income from crocheting skull caps for sale to the Islamic population living in the vicinity of his village. (To be concluded)

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Israeli-US aggression won’t go unanswered -Iranian Ambassador

Published

3 days ago

2026/05/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

Dr. Alireza Delkhosh responds to The Island queries

Iranian Ambassador in Colombo Dr. Alireza Delkhosh says the Islamic Republic of Iran remains fully prepared to face US-Israeli aggression.

In an interview with The Island at the Iranian Embassy, in Colombo, Dr. Delkhosh emphasised that in case of a fresh outbreak of hostilities, the aggressors, as well as those who provided bases for unprovoked military campaign ,should be prepared to face the consequences.

Excerpts of the interview:

The Island: Did Iran anticipate Israel-US launching unprovoked attacks in the midst of indirect nuclear talks between Iran and US in Geneva, mediated by Oman?

Ambassador: Iran’s wall of mistrust towards the US is rooted in decades of hostile policies and, specifically, Washington’s dark record of broken promises. We always welcomed diplomacy in good faith and serious intent, entering diplomatic channels accordingly; yet, we have repeatedly witnessed the US chose the path of betraying diplomacy in the midst of negotiations.

We do not build our foreign policy on optimism toward the US, as we fundamentally do not view the current US administration as a trustworthy party. The recurrence of provocative patterns and coordination with the Zionist regime’s actions during sensitive negotiations indicate a systematic approach to discredit diplomacy.

From our perspective;

“Any coercive or military action taken alongside mediation efforts serves as further evidence of Washington’s lack of sincere will for diplomacy and its attempt to exert pressure under the guise of dialogue—an approach that will not go unanswered.”

The Island: Do you think the latest war and regional developments, such as the UAE pulling out of OPEC, should be examined, taking into consideration the Oct0ber 7, 2023, Hamas attack on southern Israel.

Ambassador: Allow me to rephrase your question: Is there a link between the attacks carried out by the US and Israel against Iran and the Zionist regime’s warmongering policies? My answer is a definitive “yes”.

Any serious analysis of the current regional dynamics must be placed within the broader historical and structural context of the Palestinian question and the continuation of occupation and blockade. Iran has consistently maintained that the developments of October 7, 2023, did not emerge in a vacuum, but are rooted in decades of unresolved injustice, the denial of legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, and the absence of a credible political horizon.

From this perspective, the subsequent escalation in the region reflects a chain of reactions shaped by long-standing structural tensions, rather than isolated incidents. Iran has repeatedly emphasised that sustainable stability can only be achieved through ending occupation, addressing the root causes of the crisis, and upholding the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

Thus, it is important not to reduce complex geopolitical developments to a single starting point. Energy market decisions, alliance shifts, and military escalations are influenced by a broader set of strategic, economic, and political factors.

The Island: What is the status of talks mediated by Pakistan?

Ambassador: A high-ranking Iranian delegation attended an intense day of negotiations, with American negotiators, in Pakistan, on 12th of April, to permanently end a US-Israeli aggression against the country. Iran agreed to participate in the negotiations after US authorities indicated they had accepted Iran’s general conditions as a baseline for peace deal discussions. However, during 20 hours’ intense talks, the US changed its position.

The main sticking point in the talks was the US reluctance to agree to Iran’s legitimate rights to have a peaceful nuclear programme, which Iran has insisted on for years and just before entering the talks, based on the UNSC resolution and the relevant laws.

Iran’s foreign policy is firmly grounded in the principles of dignity, mutual respect, and rejection of coercion or imposed negotiations. Within this framework, Iran has consistently stated that it remains open to indirect diplomatic engagement through mediators, including regional partners, such as Pakistan, provided that diplomacy is conducted in a balanced and credible environment. At the same time, Iran has repeatedly emphasised that the effectiveness of any negotiating track is directly undermined by the US coercive measures, unilateral sanctions, and pressure-based policies.

Sustainable diplomacy necessitates a complete decoupling from pressure tactics; it must be grounded in genuine reciprocity and respect for national rights and interests. Guided by this principled approach, Iran continues to engage in mediation efforts, in good faith, while resolutely safeguarding its sovereign rights and rejecting any framework that resembles ‘dictation under pressure’.”

The Island: The UN has pathetically failed to intervene in the current West Asia conflict. Both Israel and the US simply ignored the UN and the world body seems irrelevant. As a seasoned diplomat what is your opinion on the UN? What is wrong with the global body”

Ambassador: Iran views the UN as an important multilateral institution established to safeguard international peace and security; however, its effectiveness has increasingly been constrained by the selective application of its Charter and the politicisation of decision-making, particularly within the Security Council.

Currently, the international community is witnessing highly dangerous interpretations of ‘peace,’ ‘rights,’ and ‘aggression’ by the US and the Israeli regime. In their lexicon, if they attack a country, it is labelled a ‘peace operation’ or ‘legitimate defence’; yet, if a nation defends itself, it is branded as ‘warmongering.’

“When the innocent people of Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and Iraq are stripped of their fundamental human and humanitarian rights and endure profound suffering due to attacks, genocides, and inhumane sanctions, it is as if—in the prevailing international discourse—’human rights’ are not being violated at all.”

The world witnessed, on many occasions, that when certain permanent members are directly involved, or aligned with one side of a conflict, the UN’s ability to act impartially is significantly weakened.

From this perspective, the current situation does not reflect irrelevance of the United Nations itself, but rather highlights the structural imbalance in the international order, where enforcement mechanisms are often subject to geopolitical considerations. Iran has, therefore, consistently called for fundamental reform of global governance structures, including democratisation of the Security Council and strengthening of multilateralism, based on justice, equality, and respect for sovereignty.

The Islamic Republic of Iran supports a United Nations that truly represents the rights of nations and establishes justice. The current state of global affairs reflects the failure of certain powers to adhere to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

While emphasising the necessity of effective multilateralism to guarantee international peace and security, the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to an international order, based on international law and the principles of the UN Charter.

In conclusion, I must state that: “Unilateralism negates the essential and fundamental principles of the United Nations. Unilateralism is an invitation to injustice, confrontation, and war.”

The Island: In spite of sustained US pressure, its NATO allies declined to join military action against Iran or commit forces to Hormuz Strait. The British and French positions caused an unprecedented rift between them and the US. Do you think NATO countries’ split position on Iran war caused irreparable damage to the largest military organisation in the world?

Ambassador: Differences among NATO members on the use of force in external theatres are not unprecedented. Divergent approaches to specific regional conflicts can place strain on political unity and strategic messaging within this alliance. Whether such differences translate into long-term structural damage depends on how effectively members manage internal consultation and reaffirm shared principles.

Let’s not forget that NATO is fundamentally a military alliance shaped by the strategic priorities of the United States, and differences among its members often reflect not a principled divergence, but rather varying degrees of alignment with Washington’s regional policies.

What is presented as “internal consultation” within NATO is frequently constrained by asymmetric influence, where key decisions on the use of force are effectively driven by the US agenda.

In this context, disagreements among NATO members on external military actions are seen in Tehran less as an institutional safeguard and more as evidence of the alliance’s limited strategic autonomy, particularly in relation to West Asia. Therefore, these divergences do not merely represent tactical differences, but highlight a deeper structural issue: the growing questioning of interventionist policies and the sustainability of military blocs in addressing complex regional crises.

The Island: When did you first hear about the unprovoked US attack on Iran frigate off Galle? (The date and time, please). Who told you about the unfortunate incident? What was your first reaction?

Ambassador: What was particularly concerning was that the IRIS Dena was understood to be undertaking a routine passage in the region, returning from an official visit to India, and was not engaged in any combat or hostile activity. Any incident involving a naval vessel, under such circumstances, is naturally a matter of serious concern and a war crime, especially when it raises questions about maritime safety and the protection of unarmed or non-combat assets.

My immediate priority, upon receiving credible confirmation about this attack, would have been the safety of personnel and the prevention of any escalation. From the first moments of receiving this information, I have been in direct talks and consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other relevant government authorities, while ensuring that no conclusions are drawn until all facts are verified.

The Island: Did you visit the Iranian vessel and sailors now at Trincomalee?

Ambassador: At this stage, I would like to state that the primary responsibility of the mission has been to maintain continuous contact with the relevant Sri Lankan authorities and ensure the safety, welfare, and proper handling of Iranian personnel and assets involved. In this regard, we have been in close and ongoing coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and other competent government institutions to follow up on all necessary arrangements.

Our focus has been on ensuring that all matters are addressed through official diplomatic channels in accordance with international maritime and humanitarian procedures. The well-being of our personnel and the proper management of the situation remain our highest priority.

The Island: Ambassador, you presented your credentials to the then President Ranil Wickremesinghe in late October, 2023. What were the previous diplomatic stations you served before taking over the Colombo mission?

Ambassador: Prior to my mission in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, I served in various diplomatic capacities in Turkey, Sweden, and Uzbekistan.”

The Island:Would you mind stating Iranian red lines about issues that Iran would never give up such as the right to use nuclear power for civilian purposes and control over Hormuz Strait?

Ambassador: Iran’s foreign policy is based on the principles of sovereignty, deterrence, and the rejection of coercion and unilateral pressure, while simultaneously affirming its commitments under international law. In this framework, we have consistently emphasised that the Islamic Republic will never relinquish its inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment for civilian purposes, such as energy production, medical applications, and scientific development. As we continually maintained, this right is fully consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

At the same time, Iran regards the security and management of the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic national responsibility, given that it lies within Iran’s sovereign waters and is one of the world’s most sensitive maritime corridors. Our officials have repeatedly stated that the security of the Persian Gulf and Hormuz must be maintained by regional states themselves, without external militarisation or domination.

However, Iran has consistently expressed concern over certain regional developments in which neighbouring territories have been utilised for the projection of external military power, including by the United States, which, in Tehran’s view, contributes to heightened tensions and undermines regional stability. From Iran’s perspective, such dynamics are among the key factors affecting and jeopardising the security environment of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Within this framework, Iran has emphasised that any threat to its sovereignty, territorial integrity, or strategic security interests would be met with firm and proportionate resistance, while at the same time reaffirming its commitment to freedom of navigation in accordance with international law.

Taken together, from a broader perspective: “The overarching framework of Iran’s foreign policy is built upon three primary pillars: countering diplomatic pressures, maintaining autonomy in strategic decision-making while safeguarding national interests and sovereignty, and emphasising the principle of reciprocity. This approach—rooted in the three guiding principles of ‘Dignity, Wisdom, and Expediency’—reflects Tehran’s explicit opposition to unilateralism and bullying in the global arena.”

The Island: Iran proved that it had the strength and the will power to face daunting military challenges and, in spite of civilian protests, influenced by economic hardships, the public stood by the leadership during the hour of crisis. What is Iran’s message to the world?

Ambassador: Iran is the heir to a great civilisation, spanning several millennia. Iran’s message to the world is that national resilience is ultimately rooted in the bond between the state and its nation, particularly, during times of external pressure and security challenges. Despite economic hardships, the Iranian people have demonstrated that in moments of national crisis, priorities converge around the defence of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national security.

From this perspective, the experience of recent years is a clear testimony that external pressure, military threats, or coercive policies do not weaken national cohesion; rather, they reinforce a shared sense of resistance and the bond between the leadership and segments of society around core national principles. It highlights that such domestic economic issues are addressed within the framework of national stability, not through external intervention.

There exists an inviolable principle: “Sustainable national cohesion is achieved only in the light of full sovereignty over internal affairs and the rejection of any intervention or the politicisation of domestic developments by foreign powers.”

The Island:Wishful Israel-US assessment for regime change, following the Supreme Leader’s assassination failed. Against the backdrop of US success in Venezuela, they seemed to have wrongly asserted the situation and Iranian military response. How do you see the next few weeks as the US and Israel maintain a fragile ceasefire, regardless of some isolated incidents?

Ambassador: The assumptions that external pressure, military action, or targeted scenarios, such as the assassination of its leadership, would lead to structural political change in Iran, have repeatedly proven to be a strategic miscalculation. “Iran’s security architecture is not modelled after classic Western patterns that could be brought down, through sanctions or threats; rather, it possesses its own unique design.

Iran’s strategic decision-making is rooted in institutional continuity, national sovereignty, and a well-established defence and command structure—one that cannot be disrupted by external pressures or short-term military developments.”

Regarding the current situation, the existing ceasefire environment looks to be fragile and highly sensitive. As repeatedly stressed by our officials and leadership, stability cannot be sustained through coercive measures, continued military pressure, or selective escalation. Therefore, any lasting calm depends on adherence to commitments, respect for sovereignty, and cessation of hostile actions.

In the coming weeks, the situation will remain volatile, yet manageable, and Iran will continue to maintain its readiness to respond to any potential adventurism.

Iran continues to emphasise that sustainable regional security cannot be built on failed assumptions of regime change or military superiority, but only through recognition of political realities and mutual respect under international law.

The Island: Finally, the senseless killing of over 150 schoolgirls and teachers at an Iranian school, at the onset of the latest conflict, horrified the world. However, the response of Western governments, and various human rights bodies, seemed inadequate. Some refrained from commenting on the incident. The situation in Lebanon, too, is deteriorating. Why do they act differently when the perpetrators happened to be the US or Israel?

Ambassador: I believe that the disparity in reactions reflects a long-standing flaw in the international system: the selective application of international law and humanitarian principles, based on political considerations rather than universal standards.

As you noted, when incidents involve the US or Israel, many international actors—including certain Western governments and institutions—tend to interpret events through the narratives of ‘security,’ ‘self-defence,’ or ‘strategic necessity.’ The brutal attack on the Minab girls’ school, which resulted in the slaughter of over 168 students and teachers, has pulled back the curtain on the double standards of those who claim to champion human rights. While the smallest incidents in other countries trigger immediate global outcries. We witness a response characterised by silence, projection, and brazen falsehoods regarding this blatant crime—as well as the horrific atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon. These tactics aim at nothing but distorting reality and whitewashing the perpetrators of these tragedies. This pattern has undermined the credibility of international law and the global human rights framework, as it ignores the principle of ‘sovereign equality’ and suggests that accountability is not applied equally to all members of the international community.

This is not merely a legal issue but an expression of a structural imbalance in the international order, where political alliances and strategic interests dictate the interpretation and enforcement of norms. Therefore, I maintain that: “The only way to restore trust in the international system is through the consistent and non-selective enforcement of international law, without exceptions or double standards, regardless of the identity of the parties involved.”

As a final word: “Ibn Khaldun 1332-1406, a famous philosopher and historian, believes that ‘politics is the product of geography.’ The essence of this hypothesis is that the temporary presence of extra-regional powers in West Asia and the Persian Gulf must not lead certain small coastal states of the Persian Gulf into a strategic miscalculation.

The time will come when outsiders are expelled from this region, leaving only the neighbours who are destined to coexist. Instead of focusing on Outsourced Security and legitimacy from distant powers, they must return to geographical realities. They ought to study history to recognise which nation has been the source of security and stability in the Persian Gulf for millennia.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

JVP/NPP government and social media

Published

3 days ago

2026/05/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

‘Aragalaya’ betrayed? ‘The treason of the intellectuals’ in the age of populism – Part III

The JVP/NPP government, which relied heavily on social media to come to power, seems to be deeply afraid that it will be overthrown by a second aragalaya fuelled by social media. The government has been accused of organising and directing forces—including pro-government social media activists—from behind the scenes to prevent criticism of the government’s actions from shaping public opinion against the government through social media. Critics say that the aim is to discourage, silence, and drive away critics of the government through ridicule, insults, obscene statements, and intimidation.

Leaving aside these behind-the-scenes manoeuvers, the news that a group of YouTubers, who are identified as “dhobies” or “washers,” recently attended a private press conference at the JVP party headquarters at the invitation of the President and the Minister of Mass Media and Cabinet Media Spokesperson, is a powerful example of the weight the current government places on social media.

“Dhobies”/”washers”

The intelligentsia and intellectuals in democracies play a key role in shaping public opinion, which is traditionally vital in determining the outcome of elections or in building public protests. In the era of social media ubiquity, the primary location of the intelligentsia engaged in politics has shifted to social media. Influencing social media users is now seen as the key to political victory—hence the significance of the phenomenon identified by the term “dhobies”/”washers” (literally laundrymen).

Manifested as a voluntary social media activity—dominated by Facebook and primarily occurring in the Sinhala medium (this article does not cover Tamil social media)—the phenomenon of “washers” is an unprecedented and unique addition to the political process in Sri Lanka. This is an activity of political significance with a certain level of intellectual content that goes beyond the level of mere social media activism, and is carried out by the intelligentsia and intellectuals. These “washers”, alongside the academics who lead them, emphatically state that it is their responsibility to work vigorously to protect this government—one that they brought to power and which aligns with the ideology they believe in.

This group also includes social media journalists who identify themselves as left-wing political activists and as ‘analytical’ discussion presenters via content creation—podcasts and video interviews—as opposed to being mere social media activists.

To achieve their goal, the “washers” understand their role as “cleaning” or “whitewashing” the government in the face of criticism or controversy. They seek to prove the government right by targeting, attacking, and silencing critics through quibbling and intimidation, thereby “protecting” the government.

Although these attacks primarily come in the form of “intellectual” attacks, the range of attacks unleashed under that “intellectual leadership” includes ridicule, insults, and harassment, which are encouraged to be directed at opponents at various levels. Posts are published subtly or directly inviting the “people” who habituate social media as “friends” to post their emojis—likes, dislikes, laughter, ridicule—which may take the form of reaction images, or verbal “comments” against political opponents who publish their views on social media.

In addition to organised “washers,” there are highly credentialed academics who contribute to the “washing” process on their own Facebook pages, either directly or in tacit, subtle ways. Those who do not actively join indicate their support tacitly as “friends” of the organized “washers”—either via emojis or by participating through seemingly innocuous comments that nevertheless get the job done.

They claim this activity of ‘washing’ is the real ground on which politics is determined today. Their stated argument is that in the current era of social media, ridicule, insults, and harassment are inevitable in politics; therefore, those who cannot face them should not be involved in politics. In other words, in this view, politics dominated by social media seems to reenact Hobbes’”state of nature,” which is “nasty, poor, solitary, brutish, and short,” indicating an unprecedented level to which Sri Lanka’s intellectual culture has descended.

Isn’t it an indictment of academia that the practice of “washing” led by academics comes under serious scrutiny from their academic “friends” on social media, especially in relation to the vocation of intellectuals and their role in politics? Notably, the self-identified intellectual leaders of left populism—some of whom are themselves drawn from academia—circulate within these same social media circles.

What they are trying to protect the government from by silencing their rivals and banishing them from the public arena is a second aragalaya that they and the government seem to firmly believe will build on social media operations if criticism of the government is allowed to spread unabated. Hence, there is the need to somehow suppress criticism while giving the act a veneer of intellectual activity. They are participating in this effort, rallying as both organisations and individuals at different levels.

It needs to be added that while these “washing” activities take place mainly in the medium of Sinhala, related “higher” intellectual content is aired in the English medium as well, mainly in the form of interviews with academics.

Criticising the government from a left political perspective

What has come to be expressed as the essence of this “washing” process is the idea, presented in the form of a theoretical formulation, that when criticising the current government from a leftist political perspective, one should first consider who benefits from it. What it means is that if the current government is criticised from a leftist perspective, it could result in a second aragalaya, leading to the return of those who are currently out of power.

A related question that critics are often asked is this; whom do they see as the leaders of a government that could replace the current government? It is as if citizens should only criticise a government that affects their lives if they have a clear alternative to replace it. It is as if criticism is not something that can be done with the intention of correcting something, or a way to develop an alternative.

This argument rejects the traditional liberal political science argument about bourgeois democracy, which considers holding elections at regular intervals to bring governments to power and changing governments when necessary as positive—which requires accepting as positive the development of a critique of the government in power. Accordingly, it implies that the current government must be kept in power at all costs to prevent the power groups that the people rejected from coming back to power, and that is why the Left should stop criticizing the current government. This is a very strange idea of democracy. It is clearly not the bourgeois liberal democracy we have known so far. So, what kind of democracy is it? As some are wont to do, we can keep on tweaking the term to suit the changing conditions instead of developing a critique in the name of the ideal of democracy. So, what is the new term for what is done with democracy under the new regime? Or, do they think that we have reached an era of post-democracy?

Traditionally, the role of intellectuals and the intelligentsia has been to provide the critical thinking that society needs. But the intellectuals who are engaged in “washing” say that the Left should silence its criticism in order to save the government, and then everything will be fine. Some who support “washing” argue that what the Left should do is not criticize the current government, but push it further to the left. While this argument presumes the government to be Left notwithstanding the Left criticism of it, what it fails to take into account is that one of the reasons the government needs repressive social media forces and “washers” may be that the government is intolerant of criticism that pushes it to the left.

The NPP government came to power by rallying around the NPP organisations and individuals who called themselves liberal, progressive, leftist, radical, etc., outside of the JVP membership. The group that can be called intellectuals among them identified themselves with the NPP through a series of actions—starting from contributing to the work of building the National People’s Power and the formulation of its policies, to taking the leadership of relevant committees at various levels and appearing publicly at various public events of the NPP, even on the election platform. Some of them won the elections on the basis of their identity-based vote blocks or became members of parliament from the national list and even became ministers. Many others, as is customary after an election victory, got themselves appointed to various positions in the government bureaucracy as chairpersons, board/council members, directors, etc., either immediately or later.

Some, whether or not they were appointed, abandoned the critical role they were previously playing in society and have remained silent. Some of them have abandoned the theoretical interventions they were making in the public arena with a view to a “system transformation” until they brought the current government to power, in favour of safe literary or other topics as if the transformation that all those criticisms targeted had been achieved with the coming to power of the current government. Others entered the “washing” business while holding official positions in the current ruling regime. Although not all those involved in the “washing” process are in positions of power, there have been allegations that some of those who are involved without holding positions do so in exchange for payment. Among these groups are those who, traditionally known as independent journalists, are now mostly known as content and/or digital creators, questioning the validity of their claims to represent independent journalism.

Some leftists assume that this will be the last time a left-wing government has come to power in Sri Lanka, and therefore have joined the government believing that they should achieve the maximum good for the people, as if they think that history has ended.

Conclusion: Populism and the treason of intellectuals

In conclusion, returning to the ideology of populism that provided the backdrop for this article, it is relevant to note how some of the key characteristics of populism identified in the literature align with critics’ accounts of the policies followed by the current JVP/NPP government.

At its core, populist ideology presents a dichotomy between a “pure,” idealised conception of the people and a “corrupt” elite. It frames politics as a moral struggle against corruption, seeking to displace the traditional class basis of politics. Being deeply anti-institutional, populism dismisses expert and academic knowledge as elitist.

Driven by a Schmittian logic of friend-versus-enemy politics, populist leaders and the intelligentsia seek to displace the traditional elite, aiming to purge them from politics, academia, and culture with a view to appointing themselves as the new elite.

Populism rejects the democratic state in the name of the people. Political theorist Wendy Brown points out that populism focuses instead on aggressive law and order, statism, and a non-democratic view of liberty—where authority rules, yet individuals claim libertarian freedom.

Globally, populism tends to breed authoritarian leaders who centralise power in the executive branch, stripping judges of their independence and turning elected parliaments into mere rubber stamps. To stay in power, populist movements systematically target checks and balances, the free press, and universities, labeling them as roadblocks against the people’s mandate. Once in control, these regimes use legal gray areas to oppress opposition parties and subvert democracy to ensure they remain in power.

The Treason of the Intellectuals

For the title of my article, I have borrowed the title of a seminal work by the French philosopher and essayist Julien Benda, The Treason of the Intellectuals (1927). Almost a hundred years ago, Benda critiqued the intelligentsia’s betrayal of their vocation as intellectuals, focusing on their abandonment of the Enlightenment ideal of universal humanity. In our case, I would argue that intellectuals have abandoned their vocation in the very name of the “renaissance” and “enlightenment” ideals—or the punarudaya—they claim to stand for, allowing political partisanship to dictate their understanding of the intellectual vocation itself.

In her 2023 book, Nihilistic Times, political theorist Wendy Brown argues that we are living in deeply nihilistic times. Placing this rise in nihilism at the very center of our current political crisis, she warns that it is actively undoing democracy while degrading and confounding both political and academic life. In Brown’s view, nihilism leads to the devaluation of both knowledge and political responsibility—a crisis that is especially clear in academia. She argues that intellectuals have abandoned democracy, the common good, and the pursuit of objective truth, choosing instead to align themselves with whoever holds political or cultural power to serve partisan or authoritarian goals. Ultimately, Brown argues that public intellectuals must act as honest, thoughtful analysts who hold politicians accountable rather than seeking to win their favor. Finally, she issues a direct challenge to left-wing intellectuals to make good on their foundational commitment to true critical thinking.