Midweek Review

Tear Gas Cinema and Rukmani Devi

Published

4 years ago

2022/07/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

BLINDFOLDING THE STATUE:

Part two

(Continued from Last Wednesday)

By Laleen Jayamanne

Sinhaya from Sinhabahu

It would appear that at least some Sinhala participants of GGG uprising and those sympathetic to it across the country have at last realized the historical dead end of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism, espoused and elaborated by the Rajapaksa regime for nearly 15 years, which they had themselves supported enthusiastically. That regime made political capital out of the Sinhala-Buddhist supremacist ideology and linked it to a powerful militarized state to win the war and maintain their power in the post-war era and amass immense wealth for the family, which has led to the current economic and political crisis. It is the current state of extreme material deprivation and political instability that has made some Sinhala folk realize the violence of the Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist ideology and myths first mobilized, politically, by SWRD, with the Tamil people, and their language identified as the main historical enemy.

Sinhala folk with their newfound commonality with Tamil and Muslim people marked the 18th of May (which is the anniversary of the end of the civil war), as a day of mourning and remembrance of the victims of the war – Tamil, Muslim and Sinhala. At GGG, as elsewhere, multi-ethnic religious groups lit lamps and gathered together in a quiet act of remembrance. The Rajapaksa victory day celebration of war heroes appeared to be a thing of the past. Heartening as these symbolic acts of reconciliation are, one wonders about the conspicuous presence of the national flag, with its emblematic lion holding a sword, at GGG and the street marches. Is this a way of telling the Rajapaksas and their followers that they can no longer control the narrative of the Lankan, multi-ethnic nation? But the lyrics of an Aragalaya song, sung with a lot of gusto by a group of men, found on YouTube, made me wonder what their politics are: “Sinhayanmen ekwi sitimu…” (Let us stay united like lions)! I thought a word like Sinhaya would be used with some care in crafting a song, especially for the Aragalaya. In terms of both gender and ethnicity, the lyrics of the song are at best thoughtless, at worst ominous. Besides, are lions pack animals or loners? But the lion on the flag is an emblem of the myth of origin of the Sinhala folk, though, according to Professor Gananath Obeysekere, it was in fact taken from a Dutch emblem! So much for Aryan purity! Also a reporter on an Aram video (15/5) affixed a small Lankan flag on his shirt and continued his commentary in Tamil, at GGG, and interviewed people in all three languages. So, the national flag which gives us Sinhala folk the ‘lion’s share,’ does at least acknowledge the Tamil and Muslim citizens,` as well as other minority groups, through its colour coding. But, during the Rajapaksa regime, in the TV framing of the flag for national occasions, it has been carefully folded so that nothing but the lion and the sword are visible. GroundViews has done a brilliant visual analysis of this with illustrations and made the point that the flag manufactures are having roaring sales, thanks to the Aragalaya. But when I glimpsed a shot of an actor dressed as the lion in Sinhabahu, wearing his wonderful headdress, but bare bodied and in shorts, brandishing a toy sword, I knew there were actors there who had a greater sense of irony and play than the singers of the ‘Lion song’ drumming up the mythical idea of the powerful lion-race with their noble Sinha-ley (blood of the lion). The overwhelmingly masculinist ideology of the song was undercut by the actor, with his lovely sense of humour.

TEAR-GASS CINEMA GALLE FACE

The Tear-Gas Cinema, erected at Galle Face, is a wildly creative idea, responding to the violent attack (on the GGG Village by the Rajapaksa mob), with an extraordinarily imaginative displacement of it. Instead of hitting back, people erected a cinema (soon after the 9th of May attack), to share a collective art form, such as film, which belongs to all. The eyes of the Gas mask (its emblem), are two celluloid film reels. So the violence of the mob is registered visually and deflected by screening a Ken Loach film and Chaplin’s the Great Dictator. In the 1940s, it was mockingly noted that Hitler copied Chaplin’s mustache and now it’s clear that Mahinda Rajapaksa copied both, with history returning as grotesque farce played out in the Parliament! The Tear Gas project at GGG has also encouraged young filmmakers to make short films, based on the uprising, I gather. Hitler hated Chaplin and called him ‘that Jewish clown!’ Chaplin was a great epic actor; he played both the little Jewish Barber and also Hynkel, the dictator, in his film The Great Dictator (1940). He was the very first globally famous and loved film star who created the little tramp as a modern Everyman. He also visited Ceylon during his world tour in 1932.

TEAR GASS FILM PROGRAMME – A WISH LIST

Dr Farah Mihlar has written an important article, “Representation of the North and East is Critical for a Genuinely Transformative Aragalaya,” in The Daily Financial Times (3/6/22), that should be widely read, in my opinion. While she is appreciative of GGG Aragalaya and has visited Galle Face (she teaches human rights issues at Exeter University), she cautions against the forgetting of the victims of the war in the North and East and their continuing demands for Justice.

With this history in mind, it would be well worth screening a local independent film by Sumathy Sivamohan’s, Putu Saha Piyavaru (Sons and Fathers, 2016), on an interracial marriage and interracial artistic collaboration within the Lankan film industry. It is perhaps the only film that has dealt with the ’83 pogrom against the Tamils and also memorialises the murder of Venkat, the Lankan Tamil film director of Sinhala films. Young Lankan filmmakers and cinephiles should know that he was burnt alive, by a Sinhala racist mob, in his car. An understanding of that history is important for Lankan cinephiles even as they enjoy the latest international films. And that the film is in Sinhala, and directed by Professor Sivamohan, a Tamil, makes it most unusual on several counts within the local industry. Sivamohan’s recent short documentary, Amidst the Villus (2022), has a lot to teach us about the sudden expulsion of 90,000, Muslims of the North by the LTTE during the civil war in 1990 and the numerous difficulties they have encountered with the State and ecologists as well, in recent efforts to return to their homelands. All effort should be expended to learn by teaching ourselves the history of the struggles that have left Lankans more divided and ready to kill each other than work and live together. I have always found it easier to first learn about history from films.

Dharmasena Pathiraja’s documentary film In Search of a Road (2006), made during the civil war, is an informative film to show the interweaving of Tamil and Sinhala lives through the image/motif of the famous Colombo-Jaffna railway line, opened in 1905, and destroyed by the LTTE during the war. It interweaves documentary footage and dramatized vignettes to bring out a multiplicity of stories of interethnic relations under duress. The voice-over narration, written by Sivamohan and spoken by Tissa Abeyesekera, gives the film an overarching narrative coherence linked to the various policies of the Sinhala-Buddhist Nationalist State. It would have taken a lot of courage and hope to make this film during the war, with no end in sight.

RUKMANI DEVI

Film can be a great mentor in this process of understanding our recent past. GGG village on Galle Face will fold sooner or later and now the President, too, has gone. But films will no doubt linger on in our memory with its promise of happiness, as ‘Democracy’s Theatre’, the great ‘Art of The People’, the utopian art form of the 20th Century. Given that Buddhist monks, Christian priests and nuns and Muslim imams have also marched together, has added another rare image of inter-religious harmony. The Tear Gas Cinema should take this opportunity to encourage a historical understanding of our cinema and its exceptional multi-ethnic composition at all levels of production, distribution, exhibition, technical personnel and most significantly, musicians and actors.

Screening a film by Rukmani Devi, a Tamil, and the leading star of the early Lankan cinema, could also be a way of discussing race and ethnicity and cultural production in our popular cinema in its first two decades. Besides, it would have been wonderful to hear Rukmani Devi’s incomparable voice reverberate in Galle Face under a starry sky, to the echo of waves. “Mavila penevi rupe hade…”, she sang, a renewed vision of a multi-ethnic Lanka. Rukmani Devi, or Daisy Daniels, could not read Sinhala. She read her Sinhala scripts and lyrics of songs written in what’s called the ‘Roman alphabet’, used for English. But she certainly would have passed that diabolical test if asked (by an excited racist mob), to pronounce the Sinhala word for bucket, ‘baldiya’.

Encoding an idea of creative resistance, The Tear Gas Cinema of the Lankan uprising ranks with other great political cine-events and cine-manifestos of the 20th Century, even though it will have lasted only for a very short time. Here are some of the essential historical names of cinema as resistence: Kino-Pravda, 1917, Bolshevik Revolution; the Dziga Vertov Group, Godard and Gorin, May ’68, Paris; Third Cinema – Camera as a Gun Shooting 24fps, 1968, Solanas and Getino, Argentina; Aesthetics of Hunger, Glauber Rocha, 1965, Brazil; Towards an Imperfect Cinema, Garcia Espinosa, 1960s, Cuba. In all of these cases, creativity, understanding and collective enjoyment were produced by imaginatively resisting deprivation and political violence.

Voices from the North and the East

It is sobering to hear what two visitors from the North and East have had to say when interviewed at Galle Face at the height of the uprising. The last words, culled from the internet, should be theirs’ for us Sinhala folks to dwell on.

“When asked what positive changes one can take from the protests at Galle Face, Vanie Simon recognizes that people here are for the first time holding the Rajapaksas accountable. For the most part, it is the economic crimes, maybe, but that is still some sort of accountability.

“He was a person that was untouchable for so long. Now, he is being held accountable by the majority, so we have some hope that some of our concerns and demands will be heard amidst all this as well.

“It’s a change that the collectives here, and indeed anyone in the North and East, could not have expected. A change nevertheless, that’s taken with a pinch of salt. We feel like we have no say in GotaGoHome, to be honest, because we never asked him to come in the first place!”

Kamala Vasuki says. “For communities and family back home, it is still too early to say if the protests at Galle Face will effect in bringing changes that are needed in the North and East. Even if this marks the end of the Rajapaksa era in Sri Lanka, much of the injustices perpetrated and weaponized by the regime are systemic and deep rooted. It’s a system that’s been historically against Sri Lanka’s Tamil and Muslim communities.

“It is very different here in Colombo. There is a lot of open anger and insults. People aren’t afraid to voice these out even in front of the police and the military. There is open intimidation in the North and East, so there is a big difference here and the places that we are in. There is a big difference in how the government and even the military is fearful of the people. They are very concerned and afraid of an uprising in the South. They don’t care about that in the North and East. They don’t even consider us as people who are protesting.”

“A Sri Lanka without Gotabaya Rajapaksa, a steady supply of basic commodities and a stable economy may be major demands for many Sri Lankans in the South, yet for a real, lasting and comprehensive change across the board, difficult histories and harsh truths need to be engaged with, reflected upon and be made aware about. These must provide the nucleus of the Sri Lanka we wish to witness.

“What’s to be taken back from visiting the protest site at Galle Face?

“The question elicits some guarded answers. There’s certainly solidarity and hope in the messages that will be conveyed to some (understandably) skeptical communities back home. Yet the memory of fear and repression that Gotabaya Rajapaksa built his name on is still fresh in the mind of Simon”.

“The terminator may have been rescaled and disarmed by the collective spirit that continues to fuel the GotaGoHome movement in the South, but what is to happen outside the reaches of Colombo, in the North and East is still in the unknown. The Bar Association’s lawyers don’t line up and rush to Court to fight injustice after injustice there, where constant repression, surveillance and intimidation are ingrained into a citizen’s mind. It informs the cautious answer Simon leaves us with.

“We never wanted Gota, you are telling him to go home, so we came here to show our solidarity. But what happens after all this, if Gota does not go?

“He will finish us off.”

I wrote this before Gota went, but now that he has fled leaving Lanka in the hands of Ranil, who declared himself to be Grusha, who selflessly saved the baby, the prospects for democracy are not good. A YouTube video is now making the rounds with a montage of Ranil at various state occasions with adoring subjects ready to worship him, accompanied by a mocking song on him becoming king and about to carry, what Boopathy Nalin called, a ‘desapalana malwattiya’ to the temple.

(Laleen Jayamanne obtained her BA from the University of Ceylon Peradeniya (1968), an MA in Drama (1973) from New York University and a Ph.D. (1982) from NSW University, on ‘Female Representation in the Lankan Cinema 1947-79’. She taught Cinema Studies at the University of Sydney and enjoys writing on the intersection of art and politics for The Island in her retirement.)

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.