Connect with us

Features

The presidential election and Premadasa forcing JR to go back on his promise to Mrs. B

Published

on

JR Jayewardene and his wife at their home

JVP murders proponents for third term; JR advised to continue by Rajiv and Lee

(Excerpted from volume ii of Sarath Amunugama autobiograph

The third Presidential election was due in 1989 and JRJ was under pressure to decide on his party candidate in good time. Premadasa was taking an early lead for the nomination supported by Ranjan Wijeratne who was, as mentioned earlier, appointed the President and Secretary of the UNP and also, as an army volunteer officer the leader in the fight back against the JVP military wing.

At this stage JRJ got a message from Rajiv Gandhi that he should contest the forthcoming election as the implementation of the Indo-Lanka accord would need his steadying hand. This was reinforced by a call from Lee Kuan Yew that JRJ should continue for another six years as President if Sri Lanka was to emerge from its crisis-ridden present. In all likelihood Lalith and Gamini who were wary of the Prime Minister would have encouraged the old man as did his coterie of intimate friends who were loath to relinquish all that power if there was a change of President.

JRJ was in two minds but he allowed a study of the constitutional implications of such a move, as his own constitution had restricted a President’s terms of office to two. Menikdiwela, a firm advocate of the third term, then collared two loyal MPs, Lionel Jayatilleke and Merril Kariyawasam, to propose that JRJ should run for a third term. He would never have done that without JRJ’s blessings. However both proposer and seconder were gunned down by the JVP within days and with Premadasa’s belligerence JRJ was forced to give up the idea, especially because his wife strongly opposed such a move and probably thereby saved his life.

Mrs. Jayewardene consistently backed Premadasa and saved him from the internal battles that have marked other political parties .Another key factor was the unstinted support given to the PM by Ranjan Wijeratne who almost single-handedly battled the JVP to the bitter end. He told JRJ that only Premadasa had a chance of giving a fight to Mrs. Bandaranaike who was to be the Opposition candidate. This was accepted by JRJ who knew that Mrs. B would loath to be defeated by Premadasa for both political and social reasons.

I was present in JRJ’s office in Braemar on November 5, 1988 when Premadasa and Ranjan barged in, in an aggressive manner and began arguing with JRJ who had just concluded a negotiation with Mrs. B to dissolve Parliament simultaneously with the calling of nominations for the Presidency. He had assured her and through her the Opposition, including the JVP, that the election would be fair. The JVP had asked for an all-party monitoring committee to oversee the election.

This decision, taken without consulting the main interested party namely Premadasa, naturally infuriated him and he and Ranjan burst into JRJ’s office and rudely criticized the President for this decision which they said undercut UNP chances of winning the election. Premadasa said that he was withdrawing his nomination and JRJ could field anyone he wanted in the forthcoming election. He wanted to contest the Presidency as the incumbent PM with a two third majority in Parliament and if that was not possible he was out of the running.

Ranjan also strongly backed Premadasa and said that the party would fare badly with any other candidate. JRJ then simply stared at the two heavyweights and made a typically bold instantaneous decision. He got Mrs. Bandaranaike on the line and told her that he was withdrawing his pledge to dissolve Parliament. “Premadasa is here in my office protesting against my decision”, he told Mrs. B, “so I have no choice but to go back on my word”.

She did not have a long response but apparently protested and cut the line. Her dismay is seen in the following paragraph of her letter sent the following day. “To my astonishment you telephoned me about one and a half hours later to inform me that after talking to the Prime Minister and some other ministers you were no longer able to fulfill the undertaking you gave me a short time before, unless the JVP agreed to serve in the interim cabinet”.

After the volte face JRJ smiled weakly at his PM and party secretary and ambled out of his office and went upstairs. But obviously that was the decisive moment when the President was outmaneuvered, and the initiative passed on to Premadasa and his well-oiled propaganda machine led by Sirisena Cooray. Notwithstanding these humiliations JRJ and his wife believed that it was only Premadasa who could deliver victory to the UNP, and they were proved right.

He got Lalith and Gamini to propose Premadasa’s name as the UNP candidate and addressed his inaugural meeting in Kandy. Tempted by Premadasa’s cynical offer of the Premiership to them both, the young aspirants .campaigned hard for him, which enabled the UNP to present a united front. Only Ronnie de Mel, who never liked the PM, changed sides and earned the wrath of Premadasa and the UNP. His role as a front ranker in the local political scene was over though later from time to time, he held several portfolios under other Presidents.

The third presidential election was held in December 1988 with Premadasa and Mrs. B as the key contestants. It was an election in which the contestants had to wade through a river of blood as the JVP used all their strength to sabotage it. It took great courage for Premadasa to carry out his election campaign amidst much difficulty. The odds were stacked against him. Mrs. B was the opponent who had the advantage of the anti-incumbency factor.

Many private sector bigwigs who normally fund the UNP crossed over to her camp especially because Ronnie de Mel was her chief fund raiser earning for himself the eternal hatred of Premadasa. All the skills that Premadasa had mastered in Colombo Central stood him in good stead. His chief of staff was Sirisena Cooray, and all decision making was devolved on him. He used the resources of the Colombo Municipality for his campaign as he was the mayor.

In spite of the naysayers, Cooray decided to hold their inaugural meeting in Kandy. He employed `Soththi Upali’ a gangster and Municipal contractor to rival the JVP in launching their poster campaign throughout the country on one night, thereby challenging the ‘mystique’ that the JVP assiduously cultivated as the ‘second government’ which could enforce its will countrywide.

The mammoth Kandy meeting was a game changer. Usually a UNP stronghold, its Kandy supporters welcomed the new populist approach of Premadasa and ignored the death threats which were by now familiar tactics of the armed wing of the JVP. In Kandy, Premadasa was helped by the support extended by the new Chief Minister of the Central Provincial Council and its members in spite of the fact that the PM had opposed the formation of Provincial Councils.

It was also a poignant moment for JRJ since it was his last major political intervention which ended a long and distinguished career. He called on the party to work hard for Premadasa whom he endorsed publicly as the winning candidate. By this time Premadasa had made it clear that JRJ would be a liability for his campaign and was not at all enthusiastic about his participation. When JRJ returned to President’s House in Kandy after the meeting, he knew that the leadership had moved to the PM, and he was to be a mere spectator. He took it with his usual inscrutability.

In addition to his courage and ambition, Premadasa planned his campaign with his usual panache. He persuaded Ossie Abeygunasekera, a Vijaya Kumaratunga loyalist, to contest the Presidency. A brilliant speaker, Ossie concentrated on attacking Mrs. B and drawing away her votes. TheJVP too attacked her which added to her lackluster performance during the election campaign. Premadasa who was eight years younger than Mrs. B, exploited the age factor which would have been a liability if JRJ had contested.

When the results were declared Premadasa had squeaked in with a much reduced poll. Ossie had also drawn a significant number of votes and added to Mrs. B’s embarrassment. When the results were announced she refused to come to the counting centre to make her concession speech thereby confirming JRJ’s prediction that she was socially uncomfortable to be challenged by an outsider like Premadasa.

In a sense this election marked the eclipse of both JRJ and Mrs. B. The former retired from the scene while the latter hung on but did not have the unquestioned authority she wielded in her halcyon years.

Soon after his victory the new President called for a parliamentary election in February which was in any case due in 1989. For the Presidential election Premadasa had wooed the minorities, especially Ashraff, who had emerged as the leader of the Eastern Province Muslims and was able to drive a hard bargain in reducing the ‘cut off point’ for eligibility for election, from the previous eight to five percent, thereby opening a Panaoras box 61 small ethnic parties which could bargain for ministerial positions, ambassadorships and state corporation jobs in exchange for their crucial support in Parliament.

These transactions or ‘deals’ became a regular feature of Sri Lankan politics and have added to the corruption which is now endemic in Sri Lankan politics.



Features

Viktor Orban, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump: The Terrible Threes of the 21st Century

Published

on

Orban (center) Trump and Netanyahu

In the autumn of 1956, Hungary staged the first uprising against the 20th century Soviet behemoth. Seventy years later, in the spring of 2026 Hungary has delivered the first electoral thrashing against 21st century right wing populism in Europe. The 1956 uprising was crushed after seven days. But the opposition scored a landslide victory in Hungary’s parliamentary election held on Sunday, April 12 and. Viktor Orban, Prime Minister since 2010 and the architect of what he proudly called “the illiberal state”, was resoundingly defeated. Orban who has been a pain in the neck for the European Union was a close ally of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump even dispatched his Vice President JD Vance to Budapest to campaign for Orban. After Orban’s defeat, Trump and his MAGA followers may be having nightmares about the US midterm elections in November. Similarly, Orban’s defeat has reportedly caused “great concern in the halls of power in Jerusalem.” Netanyahu has lost his only ally in the European Union and the opposition victory in Hungary does not augur well for his own electoral prospects in the Israeli elections due in October.

Ceasefire Hopes

Trump and Netanyahu have bigger things to worry about in the Middle East and among their own political bases. Trump is going bonkers, blasphemously imitating Christ and badmouthing the Pope, launching a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and strong arming more talks in Islamabad. Netanyahu has been forced to sit on his hands, pausing his fight against Iran while pursuing peace talks with Lebanon. The leaders and diplomats from Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey are shuttling around drumming up support for another round of talks in Islamabad and a prolonged extension of the ceasefire.

Further talks in Islamabad and potential extension of the ceasefire received a new boost by Trump’s announcement of a new 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The background to this development appears to be Iran’s insistence on having this secondary ceasefire, and Trump insisting on ceasefire abidance by Hezbollah in return for his ordering Netanyahu to stop his brutal ‘lawn mowing’ in Lebanon. All of this might seem to augur well for a potential extension of the primary ceasefire between the US and Iran. There are also reports of the narrowing of gap between the two parties – involving a potential moratorium on Iran’s uranium enrichment, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s access to its frozen assets estimated to be $100 billion.

Meanwhile the IMF has released its latest World Economic Outlook with a grim forecast. “Once again, says the report, “the global economy is threatened with being thrown off the course – this time by the outbreak of war in the Middle East.” Before the war, the IMF was expected to upgrade its growth forecasts for the global economy. Now it is going to be weaker growth and higher inflation with oil price optimistically stabilizing around $100 a barrel in 2026 and $75 a barrel in 2027. In a worst case scenario, if the oil prices were to hit $110 in 2026 and $125 in 2027, growth everywhere will further weaken and inflation will go further up in countries big and small.

In a joint statement on the Middle East, the Finance Ministers of the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, Spain, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Poland and New Zealand have called on the IMF and World Bank “to provide a coordinated emergency support offer for countries in need, tailored to country circumstances and drawing on the full range and flexibility of their tool kits.” They have also welcomed “advice on domestic responses that are temporary, targeted, and effective, and encourage work to identify steps needed to protect long-term growth.”

Subversion from the Right

The two men, Trump and Netanyahu, who started the war and precipitated the current crisis are not being held accountable by anyone and they are still free to do what they want and as they please. The third man, Victor Orban, who did not have anything to do with the war but extended wholehearted ideological and political support as a faithful apprentice to the two older sorcerers, has been democratically defeated. Together, they formed the terrible threes of the 21st century, spearheading a subversion from the right of the emerging liberal status quo of the post Cold War world. Orban’s defeat is a significant setback to the illiberal right, but it is not the end of it.

The three emerged in the specific historical contexts of their own polities that are both vastly different and yet share powerful ingredients that have proved to be politically potent. The broader context has been the end of the Cold War and the removal of the perceived external threat which opened up the domestic political space in the US, for locking horns over primarily cultural standpoints and climate politics. This era began with the Clinton presidency in 1992 and the election of Barack Obama 16 years later, in 2008, created the illusion of a post-racial America.

In reality, the right was able to push back – first with the younger Bush presidency (2000-2008) pursuing compassionate conservatism, and later with the foray of Trump (2016-2020) threatening to end what he called the “American Carnage.” Of the 32 years since the election of Bill Clinton, Democrats have controlled the White House for 20 years over five presidential terms (Clinton – two, Obama – two, and Biden -one), while the Republicans won three terms (Bush – two, Trump – one) spanning 12 years.

Trump has since won a second term for another four years, but already in his five+ years in office he has issued executive orders to roll back almost all of the liberal advancements in the realms of civil rights, equality, diversity and inclusion. All that the celebrated acronym DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) stands for has been executively ordered to be banished from the state, its agencies and its programs.

In Europe, the European Union became the champion and bulwark of liberalism and subsidiarity, which in turn provoked the rise of right wing populism in every member country. Brexit was the loudest manifestation against what was considered to be EU’s overreach, but after Britain’s bitter Brexit experience the populists in the European countries gave up on demanding their own exit and limited themselves to fighting the EU from their national bases.

Viktor Orban became the face and voice of anti-EU nationalists. But he and his political party, the Christian Nationalist Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance, are not the only one. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in Britain and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally Party in France are becoming real electoral contenders, while right wing presidents have been elected in Argentina and Chile.

The rise and fall of Viktor Orban

Of the three terribles, Orban is the youngest but with the longest involvement in politics. Born in 1963, Viktor Orban became a political activist as a 15-year old high schooler, becoming secretary of a Young Communist League local. He continued his activism while studying law in Budapest, visiting Poland and writing his thesis on the Polish Solidarity movement, giving lectures in West Germany and the US as a potential future Hungarian leader, and undertaking research on European civil society at Pembroke College, Oxford.

At the age of 26, Orban gained national prominence with a speech he delivered on June 16, 1989 in Budapest’s Heroes’ Square to mark the reburial of Imre Nagy and other Hungarians killed in the 1956 uprising. Imre Nagy was the leader of the 1956 Hungarian uprising against the puppet Soviet Union outpost in Budapest.

To digress and make a local connection – the pages of Sri Lanka’s parliamentary Hansard of 1956, contain an impressive record of the political debate in Sri Lanka over the events in Hungary. The LSSP’s Colvin R de Silva eloquently led the Trotskyite prosecution of the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the suppression of its freedoms. Pieter Keuneman of the Communist Party used his wit and debating skills to defend the indefensible. GG Ponnambalam, the unrepentant anti-communist, used the opportunity to take swipes on both sides. Finally, for the government, Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike deployed his own oratorical skills to empathize with the uprising without condemning the USSR. The four men were Sri Lanka’s foremost verbal gladiators and they used the occasion to put on quite a display of their talents.

Back to Hungary, where Orban began his political vocation identifying himself with Imre Nagy and demanding the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Hungary and calling for free elections in that country to elect a new government. That same year in 1989, Fidesz was recognized as a political party; Orban became its leader four years later in 1993 and led the party and its allies to their first victory and formed a new government in 1998. At age 35 Orban became the second youngest Prime Minister in Hungary’s history.

During his first term, Orban started well on the economy, reducing inflation and the budget deficit, was welcomed to the White House by President George W. Bush, and led Hungary to join NATO overruling Russian objections. But the slide into authoritarianism and corruption was just as quick, including the attempt to replace the two-thirds parliamentary majority requirement by a simple majority. By the end of the term the ruling coalition disintegrated and Orban lost the 2002 election and became the leader of the opposition over the next two terms till 2010.

Orban returned to power with a two-thirds majority in 2010 and immediately introduced a new constitution that set the stage for ushering in the illiberal state. What had been previously a communist state now became a Christian state where ‘traditional values’ of gender rights, sexuality, and exclusive nationalism were constitutionally enshrined. The electoral system was changed reducing the number parliamentarians from 386 to 199 – with 103 of them directly elected and 93 assigned proportionately. Orban went on to win three more elections over 16 years – in 2014, 2018 and 2022 – each with a two-thirds majority, and used the time and power to transform Hungary into a conservative fortress in Europe.

The new constitution and its frequent amendments were used to centralize legislative and executive power, curb civil liberties, restrict freedom of speech and the media, and to weaken the constitutional court and judiciary. It was his opposition to non-white immigration that made him “the talisman of Europe’s mainstream right”. He described immigration as the West’s answer to its declining population and flatly rejected it as a solution for Hungary. Instead, he told his compatriots, “we need Hungarian children.” His ‘Orbanomics’ policies restricted abortion and encouraged family formation – forgiving student debt for female students having or adopting children, life-long tax holiday for women with four or more children, and sponsoring fixed-rate mortgages for married couples.

Orban wanted to make Hungary an “ideological center for … an international conservative movement”. Orban heaped praise on Jair Bolsonaro for making Brazil the best example of a “modern Christian democracy.” He endorsed Trump in every one of Trump’s three presidential elections, the only European leader to do so. In return, Orban has been described by US MAGA ideologue Steve Bannon as “Trump before Trump.” Orban’s attack on universities for being the citadels of liberalism have found their echoes in Trump’s America and Modi’s India.

For all his efforts in making Hungary a conservative ideological centre, Viktor Orban’s undoing came about because of Hungary’s growing economic crises and the depth of corruption and systemic nepotism that engulfed the government. The economy has tanked over the last three years with rising prices and the national debt reaching 75% of the GDP – the highest among East European countries. Orban’s critics have exposed and the people have experienced systemic corruption that enabled the siphoning of public wealth into private accounts, the creation of a ‘neo-feudal capitalist class’, and the enrichment of family and friends. Orban’s corruption became the central plank of the opposition platform that Peter Magyar and his Tisza Party presented to the voters and caused his ouster after 16 years.

The Prime Minister elect is not a dyed in the wool liberal, but a member of a conservative Budapest family, and a politician cut from the old Orban cloth. Magyar (literally meaning “Hungarian”) was once a “powerful insider” in the Fidesz government – notably active in foreign affairs, while his ex-wife was once the Minister of Justice in Orban’s cabinet. Mr. Magyar may not fully roll back all of Orban’s illiberalism, but he has committed himself to eliminating corruption, increasing social welfare spending, limiting the prime ministerial tenure to two terms, and being more pro-European, EU and NATO.

EU and European leaders have openly welcomed the change in Hungary, and may be looking for the new government to change Orban’s vetoing of a number of EU initiatives, especially those involving assistance to Ukraine. In return, the new government in Hungary will be expecting the unfreezing of as much as $33 billion funds that the EU extraordinarily chose to freeze as punishment for Orban’s illiberal initiatives in Hungary. For Trump and Netanyahu, the defeat of Viktor Orban removes their only ally and supporter in all of Europe.

by Rajan Philips

Continue Reading

Features

ICONS:A Dialogue Across Centuries

Published

on

Sky Gallery of the Fareed Uduman Art Forum is dedicated to bringing audiences, cultures, and time periods together through meaningful and accessible art experiences to create the closest possible encounters with the world’s greatest paintings. Previous exhibitions include, Gustav Klimt, Frida Kahlo, Paul Gauguin, Vincent Van Gogh, Salvador Dali.

ICONS is conceived as “a dialogue across centuries” bringing together over a dozen artistic geniuses whose works span the Renaissance to the modern era. These works at their original scales of creation changes the conversation. You can finally stand in front of a life-size Vermeer or a monumental Monet and feel the dialogue between artists who never met but shaped each other across time. Each exhibit is meticulously presented on canvas, hand-framed, and finished at the exact dimensions of the original masterpieces, preserving the integrity of composition, texture, brushwork, color and scale.

At the heart of the exhibition is Jan van Eyck’s ‘Arnolfini Portrait’, a work that epitomizes the detail, symbolism, and human intimacy that have inspired generations of artists. Alongside it, visitors will encounter paintings that shaped the renaissance, impressionism, modernism, and the evolution of visual storytelling by Munch, Matisse, Monet, Degas, Da Vinci, Renoir, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Cézanne, Caravaggio, and more. The exhibition invites audiences to experience a rare conversation across centuries of artistic brilliance.

By bringing together works that are geographically and historically dispersed, ICONS creates a compelling space for comparison, reflection, and discovery. Visitors are invited to move beyond passive viewing into a more engaged encounter—tracing artistic influence, identifying stylistic shifts, and uncovering unexpected connections between artists who never shared the same physical space, yet remain deeply interconnected across time.

Designed and curated for both seasoned art enthusiasts and first-time visitors, ICONS offers an experience that is at once educational, immersive, and accessible—removing many of the traditional barriers associated with global museum-going.

Exhibition Details:

Dates: April 24 – May 3
Time: 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM (Monday – Sunday)
Venue: Sky Gallery Colombo 5

Continue Reading

Features

Our Teardrop

Published

on

BOOK REVIEW

Ranoukh Wijesinha (2026)

Published by Jam Fruit Tree Publications.
82 pages. Softcover. ISBN 978-624-6633-81-3

The author is a graduate teacher at St. Thomas’ College, Mount Lavinia; his alma mater. On leaving school he read for a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English Language and English Literature at the University of Nottingham (Malaysia). On graduating, in 2024, he went back to his old school to teach these same disciplines. There seems to be a historic logic to this as his grandfather, a notable Thomian of his day, also started his working career as a teacher at the College before moving on to the world of publishing; as a newspaper journalist and sub-editor.

On his maternal side, Wijesinha’s grandfather was an accomplished journalist, thespian and playwright of his day, and his mother is also a much sought after teacher of English and English Literature and, as acknowledged by him, his first, and foremost, English teacher.

Ranoukh Wijesinha and friends at STC

Though there are some well-written, almost lyrical, pieces of prose in this publication, it is the poetry that dominates. Written with a sensitivity to people and events he has either observed himself, or as described to him by those who did, it also encompasses all genres of poetic verse, from the classical to the modern, including sonnets, acrostics, haiku to free and blank verse, the latter more in vogue today. All in all, it presents as a celebration of English poetry and its ability to, sometimes, express depth of thought and feeling far better than prose.

Dedicated to his mentor at St. Thomas’, his Drama and Singing Master had been a great influence on Wijesinha His sudden, premature, death understandably came as a shock to the still developing student under his tutelage. The poems “The Man who Made Me” and “The Curtain Called” best demonstrate this. In addition, it is apparent that Wijesinha has endured much mental trauma in his young life. Spending much time on his own, the questions these moments have raised are expressed in “When No One is Listening”, “There was a Time”, “Midnight Walks” and the prose “A Ramble through Colombo”.

However, the majority of the poems concern ‘Our Teardrop’, Sri Lanka, for whom the writer has a great love. He explores its history, its natural wonders, its people, its tragedies, its corruption and the hope that things will get better for all its people. “Bala’ and “Dicky” address a time of violence from days gone by when there were few glories, just victims. “Easter Sunday” brings this almost to the present time.

There also is humour. “Ado, Machang, Bro, Dude” celebrates his friends and friendships in a way that will reverberate with all the present and previous generations of those who are, or were once, in their late teens and early twenties.

There is little to criticise in this first of the writer’s forays into published works except, as referred to previously, to re-state that the prose quails in the face of the power of the poetry. It is all well written, filled with passion and compassion, and gives comfort that there still are young Sri Lankan writers who can be this brave, and write so powerfully, and profoundly, in English. It is hoped that this is just the first of many from the pen of this young writer.

L S M Pillai

Continue Reading

Trending