by Rohana R. Wasala

After Ranil Wickremesinghe and Anura Kumara Dissanayake became President one after the other (in 2022 and 2024 respectively) without any sign of full-hearted public approval, though, their social media admirers shared posts that claimed that they both had made a substantial contribution to ending the separatist terrorism that had plagued the country for decades. They may have their arguments to support their claims. Those who know the facts, however, would hardly agree with them. But there is one distinguished UNP politician, who was opposed to the SLFP-led UPFA, about whom such a claim can probably be safely made. He is none other than Karu Jayasuriya.

In an interview with The Island’s Shamindra Ferdinando (‘Parliament approved USAID and other foreign funded projects: Karu J’/February 25, 2025), former UNP MP and Speaker of Parliament during the Yahapalanaya government (2015-20), Karu Jayasuriya, showed the least awareness of or concern about  the subversive agenda run by the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) projects launched in Sri Lanka. In response to the recent flurry of criticism against the USAID, veteran politician Jayasuriya (84) pointed out that all agreements with the USAID implemented during the 2016-20 period had full parliamentary approval and that there was nothing secret about the projects. He also mentioned that Parliament received assistance and expertise from many foreign countries other than the US, including China.

Jayasuriya refused to comment on domestic criticism in America itself about taxpayer’s money being squandered by the USAID in Sri Lanka on wasteful subversive projects as alleged by Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) newly formed by president Donald Trump. I am not surprised. Jayasuriya is wise. He has one thing in common with Trump and Musk: He’s been a successful businessman like them. Both he and Trump are professional politicians as well; but I don’t think Musk is one. Trump seems to be rewarding him for funding his election campaign as well as speaking at his rallies. Musk has found a chance to avenge himself on the LGBTQ+ lobby and the USAID that supports it for causing him to reluctantly agree as a parent to a sex change operation that turned 18 year old Griffin Musk, his eldest son by his first wife Vivian Wilson, into a woman (dead named Vivian Jenna Wilson) in 2022. Musk called the USAID “a criminal organisation” that ought to be terminated forthwith, for he said, “(It was) … time for it to die!”.

Whereas Trump’s conclusion was different. He didn’t find fault with the USAID itself, but with those who have been running it lately. So, he described it as having “been run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we’re getting them out”. Unlike the younger Musk stricken by personal tragedy, Trump hadn’t forgotten the fact that the USAID was set up in 1961 by president John F. Kennedy to unite a number of US aid agencies into one body and that it is a vital instrument of US foreign policy. A shrewd politician himself, Jayasuriya must have understood whose utterances should be taken more seriously in this context. Clearly, Trump’s utterances indicate the importance Trump attaches to the perpetuation of the USAID itself.

In my perception, during his interview with The Island, Jayasuriya tries to let it appear as if he didn’t have enough information about the controversy to express an opinion about it. However, it can’t be that he is unaware of what actually is the problem about. It involves, as he surely knows, the locally hotly disputed subject of expressly planned promotion of non-binary gender identities ideology that remains culturally unacceptable to the overwhelming majority in our deeply religious {Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and Muslim} society.

The promotion of the LGBTQ+ ideology is allegedly done in ways including teaching young YouTubers and other journalists to avoid the use of the normal, established gender binary in language. The gender binary uses the pronouns ‘he’ for male and ‘she’ for female. LGBTQ+ lobbyists want to avoid using these established masculine and feminine pronouns on themselves in the accepted way as the usual gender binary pronouns (that recognise only the two sexes that really exist) do not accommodate the multiplicity of sexual identities they want to adopt or claim, against nature.

If confronted with an explicit explanation of the controversy and pressed for a response, Jayasuriya might give an evasive answer like ‘Let Americans sort out their own unique gender identity problems, leaving us free to solve our real problems in our own way’. I won’t be surprised by such an answer. But his ignorance of the issue is fake. Jayasuriya was a key local collaborator of the regime change operation of 2015, which was a good example of political subversion by America of a vulnerable small nation that is of strategic importance for maintaining its global hegemony.

Located at a geostrategically critical point in the Indo-Pacific Ocean, Sri Lanka has great attraction for America in pursuing its central goal in the region of containing China’s influence. This harks back to how the perceived need to curb the growing power of the Soviet Union outside its own borders during the Cold War period (1947-1991) gave rise to the setting up of the USAID organisation in 1961, in the first place.

While judiciously avoiding the LGBTQ+ issue, Jayasuriya dwelt on the immense benefits that Parliament allegedly derived from foreign funded programmes. Explaining how this happened, he said that Parliament was able to maintain good relations with both the US and China. He asked the reporter: “Don’t you think having nearly 200 out of 225 lawmakers (get) an opportunity to visit China on a familiarisation tour in groups is an achievement on our part?”.

Jayasuriya stressed that even the parliamentary staff benefited from the various projects implemented with the financial backing of external parties (meaning, no doubt, USAID and others). Both parliamentarians and senior officials were secured laptops from China, justifying which, he said: “An MP may serve one term, but parliamentary staffers may continue for 20 or 25 years. Therefore, they should have received proper training and been given the opportunity to develop contacts”.

Is subjecting parliamentarians who are democratically elected for a short five years and unelected, state appointed civil functionaries like the parliament staffers who serve indefinitely long until retirement to the manipulative influence of powerful foreign governments on equal terms, good diplomacy or sound statecraft?

Strangely, Jayasuriya never once mentioned whether or how or in what form these benefits were transmitted to the general public who should be the true legitimate beneficiary of whatever material help or expertise that a friendly nation makes available to the country. Countries maintain diplomatic relations for mutual benefit. Foreign diplomats work to promote their own national interests, when necessary, even to the detriment of the host country’s interests, which is what Sri Lanka is experiencing today with the US, India and China. When countries are unequal partners, the weaker nations become subject to various forms of subversion (political, economic, cultural, etc.,) exerted by the stronger nations. Willing submission to international subversion seems to be Jayasuriya’s creed. (To be continued)

By Ifham Nizam

Shyam Selvadurai, an acclaimed writer known for his deep and nuanced portrayals of social justice, identity, and historical narratives, continues to push literary boundaries with his latest work, Mansions of the Moon. His storytelling has long been defined by an immersive approach, bringing to life historical and cultural contexts with an authenticity that captivates readers.

Selvadurai’s ability to weave historical accuracy with imaginative storytelling has cemented his place as a literary figure of significance. His works often explore themes of displacement, gender roles, and class struggles, but Mansions of the Moon marks a shift toward Buddhist philosophy and historical retelling, delving into the life of Yasodhara, the wife of Siddhartha Gautama. The novel challenges widely accepted narratives and presents Yasodhara as a strong, intelligent woman, shaped by the influences of the Pali canon and the Mahabharata‘s Draupadi.

In a conversation with The Island, Selvadurai shares insights into his creative process, the challenges of historical fiction, and the thematic depth of his latest work.

Excerpts of the Interview

Q: What inspired you to retell Yasodhara’s story from a feminist perspective?

A: Well, I didn’t think of it as a feminist perspective because certainly in Yasodhara’s time feminism would not have existed. So to have done it from a feminist perspective would have been an anachronism. What I was more interested in was trying to replicate the women that you find in the Pali canon who are very strong and are very smart too and have strong volition. You know, the ability to act is always there and then of course there is also Draupadi, the great heroine of the Mahabharata. So those are more my examples of what I wanted to do than approach her through a Western feminist point of view.

Q: How did you approach the balance between historical accuracy and creative license in the novel?

A: Well, always in order to create a period especially that’s so far back like 600 BCE, you are not going to get all the details. So you take what you can find and a lot of scholars have actually compiled the data from the Jataka stories and whatever, and so it’s there for you to look at. But then you make a leap of imagination too. So there’s a lot of going back and forth. I mean in the end, you have to feel like you’re there, right there present with Yasodhara. So in order to do that, there has to be some sort of creative license there. Also, we don’t really know that much about the lives of these people because the Pali canon is not really that interested in them pre-enlightenment. What they’re interested in is these people post-enlightenment. And also, as I say in my introduction, there are many fictional accounts of Yasodhara and Siddhartha’s life that are now taken to be fact.

Q: What challenges did you face in exploring the emotional and spiritual journey of Yasodhara?

A: I mean, I can’t think of any specific challenges because writing in itself is a challenge. You know this thing you have to do as a novelist which is immerse yourself in the world that you’re trying to create and in the character who’s the protagonist. That takes a lot of, frankly, emotional and spiritual exhaustion, especially for such a big novel.

Q: How does the cultural and religious context at the time influence the narrative?

A: What influences the structure of the narrative is more the Buddhist stories and the way in which they employ narrative tropes as a means to convey Buddhist concepts or as I like to think about them, Buddhist psychology. What I’m particularly interested in exploring through Mansions of the Moon and particularly through Yasodhara is the idea of moha, which is delusion—the idea that we are going to arrive at a place in our lives where everything is going to be absolutely perfect, but that’s wrong. Such a place does not exist. Such a utopia does not exist. And so we put ourselves through an enormous amount of stress, sadness, grief, and greed in order to achieve something that is illusory. That was what I was very interested in exploring through Yasodhara’s point of view.

Q: Did you discover anything surprising about Gautama Buddha or his family during your research?

A: No, I didn’t. What I found was in the Pali Canon, and perhaps I was a bit surprised to find out that the more common story of Prince Siddhartha not knowing that people got old, sick, or died until he was 29 was a comparatively recent invention. But it’s a great invention because, as I said, what really attracts me is this idea of how Buddhist narratives convey Buddhist concepts and psychology. In that sense, it’s a really elegant story.

Q: How does this novel connect to themes in your previous work?

A: It kind of doesn’t really. I mean it looks at social justice to some extent through the points of view of women and it examines injustices based on class, but really it’s just a different novel.

Q: What message do you hope readers take away from this retelling?

A: I don’t usually write with a message in mind. I write to tell a story and to invite readers into that story. I’ve already talked about moha and exploring it through Yasodhara’s journey, but other than that, I don’t like books that have a heavy message.

Q: Do you have any plans for upcoming novels or projects?

A: No, I never share what I’m working on until it’s done.

Q: Are there other historical or religious figures you are interested in exploring through fiction?

A: No, not at the moment.

Q: Which novels or pieces of literature have had the greatest influence on your writing?

A: There is no particular novel or piece of literature that has influenced me more than any other. When I conceive a novel, I look for a “mentor” writer who has tackled a similar area. For Mansions of the Moon, it was Mary Renault, who wrote extraordinary novels about ancient Greece with very little historical information available.

Q: Do you have a favourite book or author you revisit often?

A: No.

Q: What advice would you give aspiring writers, especially those exploring historical fiction?

A: Do your research to the point where you can create a credible world, then ignore it and write. Too much focus on historical details can bog down the plot and make the story pedantic. Keep the plot moving.

How do you see your work evolving over the next few years?

I have no idea. I just go from book to book. I always want to take on new writing adventures and explore different genres. Currently, I’m working on a young adult fantasy novel with strong Buddhist themes and South Asian folklore.

Are there any genres or themes you haven’t explored yet but would like to?

Not at the moment. Who knows what the future will bring?

What do you enjoy reading in your free time?

I read a lot—sometimes a novel a week. I read both for pleasure and to help with my writing. My reading choices are often guided by recommendations from other writers.

Predictably, present US efforts at exercising suzerainty, as it were, over the rest of the West and outside are facing stiff challenges. The foremost counter-challenge to these hegemonic aims comes from the EU. Next in line is an Arab plan to reconstruct and develop the war-shattered Gaza Strip, in an outright rejection of President Trump’s ‘Middle East Riviera’ fantasy.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was forthright and lucid recently in Europe’s decision to stand by Ukraine in the face of the Trump administration’s efforts to implement a so-called peace plan involving, among other things, the selling of Ukraine’s mineral rights to the US. As should be expected of an extreme Right wing US Republican regime, there are no pretensions here to be on the side of principled politics. On the other hand, monetary gain is the uppermost consideration for the regime.

The EU chief said: ‘We are living in the most momentous and dangerous of times. This is a moment for Europe, and we are ready to step-up.’ She had gone on to elaborate to the West on a ‘5 part plan to strengthen Europe’s defense industry and provide “immediate” military support to Ukraine.’

Right now, Europe cannot measure up to the US in terms of the quantity and monetary value of military assistance supplied to the Ukraine and other ‘trouble spots’ that matter to the West, but what is noteworthy is that Europe is losing no time in coming out with viable defense plans to support Ukraine in its wasting war with invasive Russia.

That is, Europe is very much on the ready with a ‘strategic plan’ to implement its international defense commitments with or without the US. It is aptly called ‘Re-Arm Europe Plan’ and is worth 800 billion pounds. In fact, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is already on record as having promised to deploy ‘boots on the ground and planes in the air’, if required, in defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

At present, though, there is recognition on the part of Europe and the US that they need each other for the achievement of their respective international policy aims but Europe’s defense plans for Ukraine amply demonstrate that, going forward, it would not be a question of Europe tamely falling in line with the US.

To express it bluntly, it would boil down to the US not going unchallenged in its efforts at exercising any suzerainty over the rest of the West.

Besides, the world is yet to be informed of any principal peace component in the US’ plans to end the Ukraine war. The sale of Ukraine’s strategic resources to the US does in no way equate with any peace plan which should not only involve Russia getting back to its internationally recognized boundaries with Ukraine but should also feature a recognition by Russia of Ukraine’s sovereignty or its right to self-determination. In the absence of such conditions, any purported peace plan would need to be dismissed as a farcical document.

In fact the Trump administration is right now providing the world with quite a few ‘laughs’. For instance, why should Ukraine be ‘grateful’ or ‘thankful’ to the US? If in the past the US provided military assistance to the Ukraine, it did so for strategic and other reasons that dovetailed with the US’ national interest. It was not a matter of the US bestowing any kindness on Ukraine.

Besides, President Trump cannot expect any excessive cordiality from a visiting head of government by ‘talking down’ to him, which is what the Trump administration did recently when Ukraine’s President visited the White House. Civility in bilateral relations, after all, is a two-way process.

As notable a challenge to the US as that being posed by the EU comes in the form of an Arab plan to take on the reconstruction and development of the Gaza in the event of some peace and stability descending on the region.

Arab leaders at an emergency summit recently in Cairo reportedly evolved a $53 billion reconstruction program for the Gaza, which is seen as outrivaling the US plan to ‘take over Gaza’ and turn it into a ‘Middle East Riviera’. Further, the Arab countries concerned are firmly opposing moves by the US to move out the Palestinian community from the Gaza for the furtherance of its fanciful project.

The latter development is doubly significant in view of the fact that the Arab plan also endorses the ‘Two State’ solution in the Middle East, which for most sensible sections, is the only path to a measure of stability in the region. If the Arab plan meets with wide acceptance, the next step for the Arab world would be to enlist Western support for it. Subsequently the difficult undertaking of getting Israel to agree to it should be taken on by concerned sections of the international community. It goes without saying that the plan should also satisfy the security needs of Israel.

Thus, it would not be a question of the US acting unilaterally or going ahead without being challenged in the implementation of its plans for the Ukraine and the Gaza. The sizeable opposition it would be facing on both fronts would require it to negotiate with the utmost insight with both the EU and the Arab world.

Moreover, there are ‘bread and butter’ issues that ought to stop the US in its tracks and make it think long and deep on the consequences of the cavalier course it is currently taking in international affairs. For instance, stock markets worldwide have been rattled by US plans to slam unacceptably high tariffs on exports from Canada, Mexico and China. Since these tariffs would not go unchallenged by the countries concerned, the world would need to brace for prolonged and destructive trade wars among the above countries which would have the effect of adding to the cost of living bill of citizens the world over.

Needless to say, excessive economic pressures are the ideal breeding ground for stepped-up social and political discontent anywhere. Considering the foregoing, the Trump administration would do well to bring a measure of perceptiveness and foresight to bear in its management of international affairs. Among other things, it would do well to rein-in its fatal tendency to dabble dangerously in populist politics.