Midweek Review

We, the people, must pay more taxes

Published

5 years ago

2021/02/17

by Usvatte-aratchi

Everyone, including voluble politicians, give tongue that ‘the last government’, no matter which, was responsible for the crippling debt burden that we have suffered from for well over 30 years. No matter which party ran the government, the present debt burden is the accumulation of overspending by the PEOPLE under the baleful leadership of shortsighted governments. None, university professors and pundits included, have blamed us the people who have lived beyond our means. Joan Robinson, who came here in 1958 (?) politely upbraided us somewhat. The government is but us organized for the purpose of governing ourselves democratically. If government overspends and borrows domestically or abroad, it is we who borrow to spend beyond our means. We, the people, will pay back the loans.

Our government leaders kiss babies and shout out loud their deep concern for the next generation. Yet at the same time they set huge loads of debt on the slender backs of presently five-year-olds to pay back when older, huge amounts of taxes to pay interest on accumulated debt and the debt itself. Think about it: government who act as agents of the people have the alternatives of either collecting revenue out of taxes or loan proceeds. In the absence of government income as profits or rent, there are no other sources of revenue. Our governments receive 98 percent of its revenue from taxes and loans. Loans are repaid by people as much as taxes are. They are two different ways of taxing the same public: tax the living or tax the unborn. (You ‘tax the dead’ if there are death duties.) To shout out that they care for future generations and at the same time to leave them burdens paying back what we now consume is either utter folly or contemptible hypocrisy. The people who cheer them and hold them as parodies of statesmanship are similarly not using their minds. The people must realise that either as taxes or as loans they part with their income to the government. When the people permit a government to borrow, they simply agree to pay another part of their income to the rich whether here or abroad who lend to government. Payments to government whether as taxes or loans are certain as death, with some payments to government, unlike death, shiftable in time. I remarked that government is but an agent of the people. On the principle that the principal is responsible for actions of the agent, we the people are responsible for all actions of government. Our constitution goes on to lay down: sovereignty lies with the people and it is inalienable. All authority, legislative, executive and judicial is derived from the people. When Parliament decides to tax you or borrow on your behalf, it is you with government behaving as your agent, as the law permits. You have no exit from your responsibility that it is you who decide to borrow and pass on the costs of your profligacy to the younger generations whose wellbeing that you so volubly attempt to promote. Stop lying and being hypocritical; tax yourself; pay for the garbage trucks that help keep your corner of the street clean.

Last week, I paid my municipal rates. I had noticed that the trucks that collect garbage on my street were gifts from the people of Japan and the people of Sweden. We are a city that cannot pay for the collection of its garbage. And yet city taxes here are pitifully low. I understand that taxes are hard to pay but it is harder to live in garbage dumps, unless you are Oscar the monster who devours garbage and lives in a garbage can in Sesame Street. It might surprise Oscar that there live and mightily prosper in this land whole clans of garbage (jarawa) monsters, although of different feathers. To connect up with the earlier paragraph, it is borrowing that generates far more garbage than tax revenue. Loans are often tied to large infrastructure projects, the execution of which is undertaken by an organization in the lending country itself that generates so much garbage (jarawa). Oscars that live here on Main Street in the city and in magnificent mansions in back-of beyond, grow in mass with surprising velocity. (Simply keep an eye on members of Parliament, who become ministers. It is a fundamental law of physics that faster an object moves, the heavier it grows.) When the lending country itself is mired in garbage, this arrangement blesses both the lender and the receiver. That often explains why large and expensive infra structure projects are so popular with our politicians, the loot they collect is a percentage of the cost of the project, larger the loan the larger the garbage (jararawa) collected. The people must understand that they or their progeny pay the taxes with which to service these loans and eventually pay back the loans. If the collector of the garbage lives on a street other than Sesame, well then, he grows rich on the loot and flies back to the temperate climes far north, ‘where …. and the buffalo roam… and where the sky is not cloudy all day.’ Here it is cloudy always, at least in the afternoon. The darkness helps theft.

There is a highly influential large group of economists who would say that I am out of my mind. Their ideal society is one in which the state is minimal. Leave it to the market, cut down government interference to the minimum and innovation and enterprise in competitive markets will maximize public welfare. The models they run are perfect and even beautiful in their elegance and simplicity. However, new research has solidified widely prevalent suspicions that those models produced societies where inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth are beyond tolerable levels. The situation in the US is the best researched and known: ‘… black American households earned around 60% of what White households did, and the typical Black family had less than 10% of the assets of a typical White family’. But more stunning in the face is China, which once was poor and almost everyone was poor and rapidly became rich mostly in southern China and that along the coast, with Xingjian, Qinghai, Heilong Jian in the east and the north and Yunnan in the south-west, all of them yet mostly poor. In China in 1981, GDP per capita was about $2,000 and the Gini coefficient was 0.31 and in 2016, $ 6500 and 0.46, respectively. Gini coefficient is and index of the degree of inequality in a set of data: the closer it is to 0, the less inequality and higher the number is and closer to 1, the closer to complete inequality. While China grew richer it also nursed a more unequal society. Jack Ma and others rival Ambani and others in India. Society in that land mass now identified as India has been for millennia one of inequality and a land of epic inequality, whether in wealth holding or in income and in social distancing. (It is but the other day, thanks to Covid-19, that social distancing stopped being a dirty word that was ostracized in civilized company.)

I am not raising a question about capitalist or socialist economies. Those are decisions that the people must take. I am talking about priorities in spending. Huge amounts of money spent by the government of the United States is actually used by private corporations like Boeing or Ford and General Motors. Large research funds generated by government are spent in labs in non-government research institutes, including those in universities. Government revenue may foster private enterprises.

Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez brightly highlighted the rising inequality in the distribution of income and wealth in countries which by and large emulated the ‘free market’ model. Emmanuel Saez’s Distinguished Lecture before the American Economic Association last month demonstrated the importance of factors other than free markets in the efficient functioning of economies.

We must grant that ideology the credit that the enterprise and innovation in regimes where freedom was high permitted the rapid growth of income and standards of living in the long run. Yet we cannot deny that the ‘causes of the great divergence’, from roughly 1700 to 1950 between say Great Britain and China was ‘the role and function of the state’ (Peer Vries, 2017). Daniel Kahneman in 2002 was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for demonstrating that motivations of people as economic agents were quite different from those were different from those commonly assumed by free market economists. In my mind there is no contesting that the way governments function is determining in the growth and development of economies. Where governments are periodically elected by the people, the PEOPLE are responsible for what happened in their economies. Stop blaming political leaders; look into your mirrors and see the culprit: you. It is not by accident that Singapore elected Cambridge educated lawyer Lee Kuan Yu as their Prime Minister nor Malaysia elected University of Malaya and UK trained physician Mohammed Mahathir as their Prime Minister.

These were both multi-ethnic poor societies which under the leadership of these two great men achieved spectacular prosperity admirable peace among communities. We who had better educational facilities when Singapore and Malaysia were poor continue to elect persons well below those in the greater society. Move a bit further west on the Indian Ocean and you come to Mauritius. It has a population which is as mixed as we are: 68 % Indian, 27% African, 3% Chinese and 2% French. (Google.) James Mead of Cambridge in 1952 headed a Committee that looked into the society and the economy of Mauritius, then a British colony. It was a very poor country with malaria raging all over. It was riven by interethnic rivalries. Its GDP per capita in 1985 was $ 1100 and in 2019 $11,100. The average expectation of life at birth in Mauritius is 75 years. These three societies managed inter-ethnic relations far better than we did, even after a disastrous civil that ate up massive resources and we missed three decades of spectacular growth in the rest of this part of Asia. The leaders that they elected to office there were learned and wise. Learning that matured wisdom helped them overcome what seemed impossible odds to forge poor and splintered societies into united and prosperous ones. We as a people distinctly were not very bright in selecting our leaders. And continue to be so. Our predecessors were right to provide state sponsored education, especially of women.

They were splendid to provide state paid for health services. Fortuitously, food came to be distributed equitably and at a controlled low price. Malaria was effectively controlled with chemicals applied by trained and committed public health personnel. Infant mortality fell rapidly from 141 per 1,000 in 1939-40 to 71 in 1955; it is now about 6 per 1000 live born. Infant mortality fell precipitously from 1939 t0 1949. (N.K.Sarkar has a lovely graphic bringing this out.) There is no way that government expenditure in this land can be cut down except by the action of the public who refuse to pay for it. If we don’t pay taxes, why ask our children to pay for our needs. Borrowing, no matter from where, is only another and dishonest way to rob future generations from their entitlement to their earnings. If you do not pay more in taxes, you will have to cut down public services. Corruption on the part of those whom you elect to office takes a large chunk of the taxes you pay. If you eliminate garbage Oscars you will pay so much less in taxes; or better you have so much more money to do other desirable things. The remedy is to run them out of town rather than make heroes of them on various irrelevant grounds. That they have not been found guilty in courts is a more a tale of wholly inadequate judicial administration. The evidence stands glaring you in the face. On balance, a decision to drop someone out of suspicions of corruption is a less costly choice than weakening incentives to pay taxes for public services.

If the public do not pay taxes, there is no choice but to cut down public services. Don’t be fooled with the paniya that self-appointed kapuva, driven by evil kali yakkhini, offer us. If you want more universities, pay for them. If you want to get to Mahanuvara faster, pay for the highway. Drive away garbage monsters. Their progeny, as you can see already, will have grown manifold by the time your five-year-olds can vote. You cannot expect your children to pay for these. If anyone is honestly interested in the benefit of the next generation, build a better education for them, construct roads and harbours and establish research labs and pay for them. Let them complete and add to them. Don’t talk of benefitting them, whilst at the same time, with cunning subtlety, you rob them of a part of their future income. We, the people in this generation, must pay more taxes.

All News Advertisement

Features

Handunnetti and Colonial Shackles of English in Sri Lanka

Published

1 day ago

2025/12/10

Thilina Walpola

Handunetti at the World Economic Forum

“My tongue in English chains.
I return, after a generation, to you.
I am at the end
of my Dravidic tether
hunger for you unassuaged
I falter, stumble.”
– Indian poet R. Parthasarathy

When Minister Sunil Handunnetti addressed the World Economic Forum’s ‘Is Asia’s Century at Risk?’ discussion as part of the Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2025 in June 2025, I listened carefully both to him and the questions that were posed to him by the moderator. The subsequent trolling and extremely negative reactions to his use of English were so distasteful that I opted not to comment on it at the time. The noise that followed also meant that a meaningful conversation based on that event on the utility of learning a powerful global language and how our politics on the global stage might be carried out more successfully in that language was lost on our people and pundits, barring a few commentaries.

Now Handunnetti has reopened the conversation, this time in Sri Lanka’s parliament in November 2025, on the utility of mastering English particularly for young entrepreneurs. In his intervention, he also makes a plea not to mock his struggle at learning English given that he comes from a background which lacked the privilege to master the language in his youth. His clear intervention makes much sense.

The same ilk that ridiculed him when he spoke at WEF is laughing at him yet again on his pronunciation, incomplete sentences, claiming that he is bringing shame to the country and so on and so forth. As usual, such loud, politically motivated and retrograde critics miss the larger picture. Many of these people are also among those who cannot hold a conversation in any of the globally accepted versions of English. Moreover, their conceit about the so-called ‘correct’ use of English seems to suggest the existence of an ideal English type when it comes to pronunciation and basic articulation. I thought of writing this commentary now in a situation when the minister himself is asking for help ‘in finding a solution’ in his parliamentary speech even though his government is not known to be amenable to critical reflection from anyone who is not a party member.

The remarks at the WEF and in Sri Lanka’s parliament are very different at a fundamental level, although both are worthy of consideration – within the realm of rationality, not in the depths of vulgar emotion and political mudslinging.

The problem with Handunnetti’s remarks at WEF was not his accent or pronunciation. After all, whatever he said could be clearly understood if listened to carefully. In that sense, his use of English fulfilled one of the most fundamental roles of language – that of communication. Its lack of finesse, as a result of the speaker being someone who does not use the language professionally or personally on a regular basis, is only natural and cannot be held against him. This said, there are many issues that his remarks flagged that were mostly drowned out by the noise of his critics.

Given that Handunnetti’s communication was clear, it also showed much that was not meant to be exposed. He simply did not respond to the questions that were posed to him. More bluntly, a Sinhala speaker can describe the intervention as yanne koheda, malle pol , which literally means, when asked ‘Where are you going?’, the answer is ‘There are coconuts in the bag’.

He spoke from a prepared text which his staff must have put together for him. However, it was far off the mark from the questions that were being directly posed to him. The issue here is that his staff appears to have not had any coordination with the forum organisers to ascertain and decide on the nature of questions that would be posed to the Minister for which answers could have been provided based on both global conditions, local situations and government policy. After all, this is a senior minister of an independent country and he has the right to know and control, when possible, what he is dealing with in an international forum.

This manner of working is fairly routine in such international fora. On the one hand, it is extremely unfortunate that his staff did not do the required homework and obviously the minister himself did not follow up, demonstrating negligence, a want for common sense, preparedness and experience among all concerned. On the other hand, the government needs to have a policy on who it sends to such events. For instance, should a minister attend a certain event, or should the government be represented by an official or consultant who can speak not only fluently, but also with authority on the subject matter. That is, such speakers need to be very familiar with the global issues concerned and not mere political rhetoric aimed at local audiences.

Other than Handunnetti, I have seen, heard and also heard of how poorly our politicians, political appointees and even officials perform at international meetings (some of which are closed door) bringing ridicule and disastrous consequences to the country. None of them are, however, held responsible.

Such reflective considerations are simple yet essential and pragmatic policy matters on how the government should work in these conditions. If this had been undertaken, the WEF event might have been better handled with better global press for the government. Nevertheless, this was not only a matter of English. For one thing, Handunnetti and his staff could have requested for the availability of simultaneous translation from Sinhala to English for which pre-knowledge of questions would have been useful. This is all too common too. At the UN General Assembly in September, President Dissanayake spoke in Sinhala and made a decent presentation.

The pertinent question is this; had Handunetti had the option of talking in Sinhala, would the interaction have been any better? That is extremely doubtful, barring the fluency of language use. This is because Handunnetti, like most other politicians past and present, are good at rhetoric but not convincing where substance is concerned, particularly when it comes to global issues. It is for this reason that such leaders need competent staff and consultants, and not mere party loyalists and yes men, which is an unfortunate situation that has engulfed the whole government.

What about the speech in parliament? Again, as in the WEF event, his presentation was crystal clear and, in this instance, contextually sensible. But he did not have to make that speech in English at all when decent simultaneous translation services were available. In so far as content was concerned, he made a sound argument considering local conditions which he knows well. The minister’s argument is about the need to ensure that young entrepreneurs be taught English so that they can deal with the world and bring investments into the country, among other things. This should actually be the norm, not only for young entrepreneurs, but for all who are interested in widening their employment and investment opportunities beyond this country and in accessing knowledge for which Sinhala and Tamil alone do not suffice.

As far as I am concerned, Handunetti’s argument is important because in parliament, it can be construed as a policy prerogative. Significantly, he asked the Minister of Education to make this possible in the educational reforms that the government is contemplating.

He went further, appealing to his detractors not to mock his struggle in learning English, and instead to become part of the solution. However, in my opinion, there is no need for the Minister to carry this chip on his shoulder. Why should the minister concern himself with being mocked for poor use of English? But there is a gap that his plea should have also addressed. What prevented him from mastering English in his youth goes far deeper than the lack of a privileged upbringing.

The fact of the matter is, the facilities that were available in schools and universities to learn English were not taken seriously and were often looked down upon as kaduwa by the political spectrum he represents and nationalist elements for whom the utilitarian value of English was not self-evident. I say this with responsibility because this was a considerable part of the reality in my time as an undergraduate and also throughout the time I taught in Sri Lanka.

Much earlier in my youth, swayed by the rhetoric of Sinhala language nationalism, my own mastery of English was also delayed even though my background is vastly different from the minister. I too was mocked, when two important schools in Kandy – Trinity College and St. Anthony’s College – refused to accept me to Grade 1 as my English was wanting. This was nearly 20 years after independence. I, however, opted to move on from the blatant discrimination, and mastered the language, although I probably had better opportunities and saw the world through a vastly different lens than the minister. If the minister’s commitment was also based on these social and political realities and the role people like him had played in negating our English language training particularly in universities, his plea would have sounded far more genuine.

If both these remarks and the contexts in which they were made say something about the way we can use English in our country, it is this: On one hand, the government needs to make sure it has a pragmatic policy in place when it sends representatives to international events which takes into account both a person’s language skills and his breadth of knowledge of the subject matter. On the other hand, it needs to find a way to ensure that English is taught to everyone successfully from kindergarten to university as a tool for inclusion, knowledge and communication and not a weapon of exclusion as is often the case.

This can only bear fruit if the failures, lapses and strengths of the country’s English language teaching efforts are taken into cognizance. Lamentably, division and discrimination are still the main emotional considerations on which English is being popularly used as the trolls of the minister’s English usage have shown. It is indeed regrettable that their small-mindedness prevents them from realizing that the Brits have long lost their long undisputed ownership over the English language along with the Empire itself. It is no longer in the hands of the colonial masters. So why allow it to be wielded by a privileged few mired in misplaced notions of elitism?

Features

Finally, Mahinda Yapa sets the record straight

Published

1 day ago

2025/12/10

Thilina Walpola

Clandestine visit to Speaker’s residence:

Finally, former Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena has set the record straight with regard to a controversial but never properly investigated bid to swear in him as interim President. Abeywardena has disclosed the circumstances leading to the proposal made by external powers on the morning of 13 July, 2022, amidst a large scale staged protest outside the Speaker’s official residence, situated close to Parliament.

Lastly, the former parliamentarian has revealed that it was then Indian High Commissioner, in Colombo, Gopal Baglay (May 2022 to December 2023) who asked him to accept the presidency immediately. Professor Sunanda Maddumabandara, who served as Senior Advisor (media) to President Ranil Wickremesinghe (July 2022 to September 2024), disclosed Baglay’s direct intervention in his latest work, titled ‘Aragalaye Balaya’ (Power of Aragalaya).

Prof. Maddumabandara quoted Abeywardena as having received a startling assurance that if he agreed to accept the country’s leadership, the situation would be brought under control, within 45 minutes. Baglay had assured Abeywardena that there is absolutely no harm in him succeeding President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in view of the developing situation.

The author told the writer that only a person who had direct control over the violent protest campaign could have given such an assurance at a time when the whole country was in a flux.

One-time Vice Chancellor of the Kelaniya University, Prof. Maddumabandara, launched ‘Aragalaye Balaya’ at the Sri Lanka Foundation on 20 November. In spite of an invitation extended to former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the ousted leader hadn’t attended the event, though UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was there. Maybe Gotabaya felt the futility of trying to expose the truth against evil forces ranged against them, who still continue to control the despicable agenda.

Obviously, the author has received the blessings of Abeywardena and Wickremesinghe to disclose a key aspect in the overall project that exploited the growing resentment of the people to engineer change of Sri Lankan leadership.

The declaration of Baglay’s intervention has contradicted claims by National Freedom Front (NFF) leader Wimal Weerawansa (Nine: The hidden story) and award-winning writer Sena Thoradeniya (Galle Face Protest: System change for anarchy) alleged that US Ambassador Julie Chung made that scandalous proposal to Speaker Abeywardena. Weerawansa and Thoradeniya launched their books on 25 April and 05 July, 2023, at the Sri Lanka Foundation and the National Library and Documentation Services Board, Independence Square, respectively. Both slipped in accusing Ambassador Chung of making an abortive bid to replace Gotabaya Rajapaksa with Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena.

Ambassador Chung categorically denied Weerawansa’s allegation soon after the launch of ‘Nine: The hidden story’ but stopped short of indicating that the proposal was made by someone else. Chung had no option but to keep quiet as she couldn’t, in response to Weerawansa’s claim, have disclosed Baglay’s intervention, under any circumstances, as India was then a full collaborator with Western designs here for its share of spoils. Weerawansa, Thoradeniya and Maddumabandara agree that Aragalaya had been a joint US-Indian project and it couldn’t have succeeded without their intervention. Let me reproduce the US Ambassador’s response to Weerawansa, who, at the time of the launch, served as an SLPP lawmaker, having contested the 2020 August parliamentary election on the SLPP ticket.

“I am disappointed that an MP has made baseless allegations and spread outright lies in a book that should be labelled ‘fiction’. For 75 years, the US [and Sri Lanka] have shared commitments to democracy, sovereignty, and prosperity – a partnership and future we continue to build together,” Chung tweeted Wednesday 26 April, evening, 24 hours after Weerawansa’s book launch.

Interestingly, Gotabaya Rajapaksa has been silent on the issue in his memoirs ‘The Conspiracy to oust me from Presidency,’ launched on 07 March, 2024.

What must be noted is that our fake Marxists, now entrenched in power, were all part and parcel of Aragalaya.

A clandestine meeting

Abeywardena should receive the appreciation of all for refusing to accept the offer made by Baglay, on behalf of India and the US. He had the courage to tell Baglay that he couldn’t accept the presidency as such a move violated the Constitution. In our post-independence history, no other politician received such an offer from foreign powers. When Baglay stepped up pressure, Abeywardena explained that he wouldn’t change his decision.

Maddumabandara, based on the observations made by Abeywardena, referred to the Indian High Commissioner entering the Speaker’s Official residence, unannounced, at a time protesters blocked the road leading to the compound. The author raised the possibility of Baglay having been in direct touch with those spearheading the high profile political project.

Clearly Abeywardena hadn’t held back anything. The former Speaker appeared to have responded to those who found fault with him for not responding to allegations, directed at him, by revealing everything to Maddumabandara, whom he described in his address, at the book launch, as a friend for over five decades.

At the time, soon after Baglay’s departure from the Speaker’s official residence, alleged co-conspirators Ven. Omalpe Sobitha, accompanied by Senior Professor of the Sinhala Faculty at the Colombo University, Ven. Agalakada Sirisumana, health sector trade union leader Ravi Kumudesh, and several Catholic priests, arrived at the Speaker’s residence where they repeated the Indian High Commissioner’s offer. Abeywardena repeated his previous response despite Sobitha Thera acting in a threatening manner towards him to accept their dirty offer. Shouldn’t they all be investigated in line with a comprehensive probe?

Ex-President Wickremesinghe with a copy of Aragalaye Balaya he received from its author, Prof. Professor Sunanda Maddumabandara, at the Sri Lanka Foundation recently (pic by Nishan S Priyantha)

On the basis of what Abeywardena had disclosed to him, Maddumabanadara also questioned the circumstances of the deployment of the elite Special Task Force (STF) contingent at the compound. The author asked whether that deployment, without the knowledge of the Speaker, took place with the intervention of Baglay.

Aragalaye Balaya

is a must read for those who are genuinely interested in knowing the unvarnished truth. Whatever the deficiencies and inadequacies on the part of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration, external powers had engineered a change of government. The writer discussed the issues that had been raised by Prof. Maddumabandara and, in response to one specific query, the author asserted that in spite of India offering support to Gotabaya Rajapaksa earlier to get Ranil Wickremesinghe elected as the President by Parliament to succeed him , the latter didn’t agree with the move. Then both the US and India agreed to bring in the Speaker as the Head of State, at least for an interim period.

If Speaker Abeywardena accepted the offer made by India, on behalf of those backing the dastardly US backed project, the country could have experienced far reaching changes and the last presidential election may not have been held in September, 2004.

After the conclusion of his extraordinary assignment in Colombo, Baglay received appointment as New Delhi’s HC in Canberra. Before Colombo, Baglay served in Indian missions in Ukraine, Russia, the United Kingdom, Nepal and Pakistan (as Deputy High Commissioner).

Baglay served in New Delhi, in the office of the Prime Minister of India, and in the Ministry of External Affairs as its spokesperson, and in various other positions related to India’s ties with her neighbours, Europe and multilateral organisations.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to examine who deceived Weerawansa and Thoradeniya who identified US Ambassador Chung as the secret visitor to the Speaker’s residence. Her high-profile role in support of the project throughout the period 31 March to end of July, 2022, obviously made her an attractive target but the fact remains it was Baglay who brought pressure on the then Speaker. Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena’s clarification has given a new twist to “Aragalaya’ and India’s diabolical role.

Absence of investigations

Sri Lanka never really wanted to probe the foreign backed political plot to seize power by extra-parliamentary means. Although some incidents had been investigated, the powers that be ensured that the overall project remained uninvestigated. In fact, Baglay’s name was never mentioned regarding the developments, directly or indirectly, linked to the devious political project. If not for Prof. Maddumabandara taking trouble to deal with the contentious issue of regime change, Baglay’s role may never have come to light. Ambassador Chung would have remained the target of all those who found fault with US interventions. Let me be clear, the revelation of Baglay’s clandestine meeting with the Speaker didn’t dilute the role played by the US in Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s removal.

If Prof. Maddumabandara propagated lies, both the author and Abeywardana should be appropriately dealt with. Aragalaye Balaya failed to receive the desired or anticipated public attention. Those who issue media statements at the drop of a hat conveniently refrained from commenting on the Indian role. Even Abeywardena remained silent though he could have at least set the record straight after Ambassador Chung was accused of secretly meeting the Speaker. Abeywardena could have leaked the information through media close to him. Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe, too, could have done the same but all decided against revealing the truth.

A proper investigation should cover the period beginning with the declaration made by Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government, in April 2022, regarding the unilateral decision to suspend debt repayment. But attention should be paid to the failure on the part of the government to decide against seeking assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to overcome the crisis. Those who pushed Gotabaya Rajapaksa to adopt, what they called, a domestic solution to the crisis created the environment for the ultimate collapse that paved the way for external interventions. Quite large and generous Indian assistance provided to Sri Lanka at that time should be examined against the backdrop of a larger frightening picture. In other words, India was literally running with the sheep while hunting with the hounds. Whatever the criticism directed at India over its role in regime change operation, prompt, massive and unprecedented post-Cyclone Ditwah assistance, provided by New Delhi, saved Sri Lanka. Rapid Indian response made a huge impact on Sri Lanka’s overall response after having failed to act on a specific 12 November weather alert.

It would be pertinent to mention that all governments, and the useless Parliament, never wanted the public to know the truth regarding regime change project. Prof. Maddumabandara discussed the role played by vital sections of the armed forces, lawyers and the media in the overall project that facilitated external operations to force Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of office. The author failed to question Wickremesinghe’s failure to launch a comprehensive investigation, with the backing of the SLPP, immediately after he received appointment as the President. There seems to be a tacit understanding between Wickremesinghe and the SLPP that elected him as the President not to initiate an investigation. Ideally, political parties represented in Parliament should have formed a Special Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to investigate the developments during 2019 to the end of 2022. Those who had moved court against the destruction of their property, during the May 2022 violence directed at the SLPP, quietly withdrew that case on the promise of a fresh comprehensive investigation. This assurance given by the Wickremesinghe government was meant to bring an end to the judicial process.

When the writer raised the need to investigate external interventions, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) sidestepped the issue. Shame on the so-called independent commission, which shows it is anything but independent.

Sumanthiran’s proposal

Since the eradication of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009, the now defunct Tamil National Alliance’s (TNA) priority had been convincing successive governments to withdraw the armed forces/ substantially reduce their strength in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. The Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK)-led TNA, as well as other Tamil political parties, Western powers, civil society, Tamil groups, based overseas, wanted the armed forces out of the N and E regions.

Abeywardena also revealed how the then ITAK lawmaker, M.A. Sumanthiran, during a tense meeting chaired by him, in Parliament, also on 13 July, 2022, proposed the withdrawal of the armed forces from the N and E for redeployment in Colombo. The author, without hesitation, alleged that the lawmaker was taking advantage of the situation to achieve their longstanding wish. The then Speaker also disclosed that Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella and other party leaders leaving the meeting as soon as the armed forces reported the protesters smashing the first line of defence established to protect the Parliament. However, leaders of minority parties had remained unruffled as the situation continued to deteriorate and external powers stepped up efforts to get rid of both Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe to pave the way for an administration loyal and subservient to them. Foreign powers seemed to have been convinced that Speaker Abeywardena was the best person to run the country, the way they wanted, or till the Aragalaya mob captured the House.

The Author referred to the role played by the media, including social media platforms, to promote Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s successor. Maddumamabandara referred to the Hindustan Times coverage to emphasise the despicable role played by a section of the media to manipulate the rapid developments that were taking place. The author also dealt with the role played by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) in the project with the focus on how that party intensified its actions immediately after Gotabaya Rajapaksa stepped down.

Disputed assessment

The Author identified Ministers Bimal Rathnayaka, Sunil Handunetti and K.D. Lal Kantha as the persons who spearheaded the JVP bid to seize control of Parliament. Maddumabanda unflinchingly compared the operation, mounted against Gotabaya Rajapaksa, with the regime change operations carried out in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Ukraine. Asserting that governments loyal to the US-led Western block had been installed in those countries, the author seemed to have wrongly assumed that external powers failed to succeed in Sri Lanka (pages 109 and 110). That assertion is utterly wrong. Perhaps, the author for some unexplained reasons accepted what took place here. Nothing can be further from the truth than the regime change operation failed (page 110) due to the actions of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana and Ranil Wickremesinghe. In case, the author goes for a second print, he should seriously consider making appropriate corrections as the current dispensation pursues an agenda in consultation with the US and India.

The signing of seven Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with India, including one on defence, and growing political-defence-economic ties with the US, have underscored that the JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) may not have been the first choice of the US-India combine but it is certainly acceptable to them now.

The bottom line is that a democratically elected President, and government, had been ousted through unconstitutional means and Sri Lanka meekly accepted that situation without protest. In retrospect, the political party system here has been subverted and changed to such an extent, irreparable damage has been caused to public confidence. External powers have proved that Sri Lanka can be influenced at every level, without exception, and the 2022 ‘Aragalaya’ is a case in point. The country is in such a pathetic state, political parties represented in Parliament and those waiting for an opportunity to enter the House somehow at any cost remain vulnerable to external designs and influence.

Cyclone Ditwah has worsened the situation. The country has been further weakened with no hope of early recovery. Although the death toll is much smaller compared to that of the 2004 tsunami, economic devastation is massive and possibly irreversible and irreparable.

By Shamindra Ferdinando