Connect with us

Midweek Review

All praise for Lanka’s saviours!

Published

on

Julie Chung with Ranil Wickremesinghe, a week after Parliament elected him President

By Shamindra Ferdinando

President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is also the Finance Minister, recently named three persons – all women -whose intervention supposedly brought relief to bankrupt Sri Lanka.

UNP leader Wickremesinghe paid glowing tributes to Indian Finance and Corporate Affairs Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, US Secretary of State Janet Yellen, and IMF Managing Director and Chairman of the Executive Board Kristalina Ivanova Georgieva-Kinova. The IMF Chief is Bulgarian.

Wickremesinghe declared that Sri Lanka would have experienced extreme difficulties if Sitharaman, Yellen and Georgieva-Kinova had not thrown their weight behind Sri Lanka.

The President said so at an event held at the Waters Edge Hotel, Battramulla, on March 08 to mark International Women’s Day.

It would be pertinent to mention that Sitharaman, Yellen and Georgieva-Kinova are all economists. The Indian Minister, and the IMF Chief, received top posts, in 2019, before the economic crisis gripped Sri Lanka, whereas Yellen was sworn in as US Treasury Chief, on January 26, 2021. Yellen is the first person, in American history, to have led the White House Council of Economic Advisors, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury Department.

Wickremesinghe attended the event, on the invitation of actress turned lawmaker Geetha Kumarasinghe, Minister of Women and Child Affairs. Kumarasinghe successfully contested the Galle District, at the last parliamentary elections, on the SLPP ticket, after she was previously ousted from Parliament on the basis that she was a dual citizen. Kumarasinghe thereafter gave up her foreign citizenship, which she had obtained when she was married to a foreigner.

Wickremesinghe declared that Sitharaman loaned Sri Lanka USD 3 bn in spite of Colombo being declared bankrupt. in April 2022. Wickremesinghe described Sitharaman’s response to the Sri Lanka crisis as very brave. The UNP leader said that there was a need for him to explain the situation on the ground because if India didn’t make available USD 3 bn, within three to four months, our country would have simply collapsed.

US Ambassador, in Colombo, Julie J. Chung, whose interventions in not so ‘mysterious ways’ in support of a high profile protest campaign, that led to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s ouster, on July 14, 2022, was among the guests. Wickremesinghe succeeded Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa on May 12, three days after the latter resigned. Wickremesinghe received appointment as the Minister of Finance, Economic Stability and National Policies, on May 25. We will give the benefit of any doubt we now have about New Delhi being aware of the not so mysterious interventions here, by Washington, as we are almost certain that mandarins in New Delhi would be naturally aware how gleefully the West is looking forward to a bust up between China and India as it would be like disposing two their certain successors in the world

The US support for Sri Lanka, at the IMF, seems natural against the backdrop of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director William Joseph Burns’s recent clandestine visit to Colombo, in the dead of night. The US group flew in two C 17 Globemasters iii, on February 14, around 7-7.45 pm, and departed on the following day, around 3-3.40 pm. But the country is still in the dark as to what was unloaded from those two giant flying Trojan Horses, just as much as the human cargo. Beware when Americans bear gift horses!

The continuing foreign exchange crisis is broadly attributed to flawed policies, such as tax cuts, debt monetization, banning fertiliser and agrochemical imports, real appreciation of the exchange rate, etc. However, the issues at hand can be also characterized as a liquidity trap in the foreign exchange market, enforced by the economic structure and exploitative market structure, in the import and export sector of the economy, in the long run.

Wickremesinghe’s references to Sitharaman, Yellen and Georgieva-Kinova should be examined, taking into consideration early Indian and US support for the USD 2.9 bn IMF bailout package for Sri Lanka. All stakeholders made such a noise, over the IMF facility spread over a period of four years, that some ordinary people may have felt the country was down on its knees, before the Washington-based lender, for the first time.

In fact, we have secured IMF packages on 16 previous occasions and could have avoided the crisis if President Gotabaya Rajapaksa took the warning signs seriously and the plotters, surrounding him, had not overwhelmed him with the help of outside evil forces. Unfortunately, the wartime Defence Secretary, who handsomely won the November 2019 presidential election, allowed the deterioration. The sharp drop in tourist arrivals, in the wake of the April 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, and the overall shrinking of the global economy, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, made matters worse for Sri Lanka.

What may have sealed his fate must have been how those conveniently called peaceful protesters, by the likes of Julie Chung, and local NGO quislings, etc., went on the rampage across the country, with meticulous intelligence, from the evening of last May 09, targeting Opposition politicians and their supporters. In fact that afternoon/evening, the US Ambassador even issued a media release, literally ordering the armed forces and the police not to touch those “peaceful protestors”. How convenient?

This also brings us to the question whether our comrades, too, had done a deal with the real devils in Washington. Can anyone imagine how these comrades, who literally burnt down the country, in the wake of the JRJ government, under military pressure from Delhi, signed the Indo-Lanka Accord that brought in the controversial 13th Amendment, are now pretending to be innocent babes and got their proxy Harini to say it is alright to fully implement that piece of legislation, almost in unison with Ranil Wickremesinghe!

And who could have furnished so many foot soldiers to cause so much spontaneous havoc across the country and, especially, against government politicians, many of whom have still not recovered? We do accept the fact that like all politicians in general they were no angels, either, but they had come up playing the available corrupt system through legitimate elections.

Dr. Indrajit Coomaraswamy, one-time Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (July 2016-Dec 2019), blamed the current crisis on the failure on the part of successive governments to manage the expenditure since the country gained Independence. Sri Lanka had been plagued by a toxic combination of populist politics and an entrenched entitlement culture among the people, Dr. Coomaraswamy told the writer, in response to a query posed during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency. Dr. Coomaraswamy added: “Time and again, the electoral calendar has undermined fiscal discipline.”

However, according to critics Dr. Coomaraswamy only told one side of the truth. What he didn’t say was that as the CB Governor, he was also directly responsible for the Yahapalana government borrowing a record USD 12.5 billion from the international bond market, at high interest rates, from private lenders, primarily in the West. So what did that government achieve with such huge borrowings? All that the Yahapalana regime achieved, with all that money, we cannot see, except to lay the foundation for the current debt crisis?

Central Bank Governor, Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, too, delivered a lecture, to the members of Parliament, on the same lines. Dr. Weerasinghe launched a no holds barred attack on the irresponsible political party system, several weeks after Wickremesinghe succeeded Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Pointing out that measures that had been taken by the Yahapalana government (2016-2019), following an agreement with the IMF, were disregarded by those who regained power, in 2019/2020, Dr. Weerasinghe said if the government/Opposition reneged on the latest arrangements, the country would face a similar crisis, in three years. Dr. Weerasinghe issued the warning on August 31, 2022, in the presence of Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena.

A fraudulent partnership

President Wickremesinghe has now appreciated the role played by three economists in Sri Lanka’s economic recovery. The President should also take tangible measures to investigate political parties, and individuals, responsible for the economic meltdown.

A group, representing trade union and civil society, collective, recently raised quite an important issue that had been largely ignored by successive governments, over the past decades. They called for tangible measures to tackle the well-organized influential public–private sector partnership engaged in ‘over invoicing’ and ‘under invoicing’ of imports/exports, with the blessing of successive governments.

Their invitation for a discussion with the print and electronic media didn’t attract sufficient attention. The briefing, and discussion, at the Centre for Society and Religion, Maradana, Colombo, attracted just a few journalists. However, economic analyst Dhanusha Pathirana, civil society activist Tharindu Uduwaragedara and Attorney-at-Law Lakmali Hemachandra explained how ‘over invoicing’ and ‘under invoicing’ contributed to the economic crisis.

They didn’t mince their words when they discussed the ongoing high profile operation that involved both the private and the public sector.

Pathirana asserted that a sharp reduction of capital, as a result of mispricing by importers, in respect of duty/tax free goods and taxable imports, was far more serious than the parking of funds overseas by exporters.

The group underscored the need to examine capital flows, through four forms of trade mis-invoicing, namely import over-invoicing and under-invoicing and export over-invoicing and under-invoicing.

Responding to queries raised by the writer, they alleged that regulatory mechanisms were not being implemented, regardless of the continuing economic decline. The failure on the part of the government to act on such disclosures is really disturbing. The country is in such a precarious state, those having regulatory powers should go flat out against the culprits, unless they were part of the fraudulent capitals flows.

Pathirana was adamant that absolutely nothing had been done so far to address the issue at hand.

Culpability of Cabinet

The Parliament continues to ignore extremely serious disclosures, pertaining to economic mismanagement. Shocking revelations that had been made before the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) in late May, last year ,hadn’t been investigated at all. Instead, the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government has sought to manipulate the parliamentary watchdog, much to the dismay of the public. In fact, the powers that be had no qualms in interfering in all three watchdog committees, especially the Committee on Public Finance.

The COPE, during the courageous leadership of Prof. Charitha Herath was told how the then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, who also served as the Finance Minister, in spite of receiving warnings in March-April 2020, on the impending financial crisis of unprecedented magnitude, chose to ignore the advice.

Mahinda Rajapaksa held the Finance portfolio till early July 2021. By the time Basil Rajapaksa succeeded, the economy had suffered irreparable damage.

The parliamentary watchdog was told how the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had warned the then Governor of the Central Bank, Prof. W. D. Lakshman, and Treasury Secretary S.R. Attygalle, of the country’s inability to procure loans, unless the country undertook debt restructuring, immediately.

The COPE members received a briefing, on the circumstances leading to the crisis, when senior officials of the Central Bank appeared before the all-party body. CBSL Governor Dr. Weerasinghe declared that the IMF warning hadn’t been heeded at all.

The COPE received confirmation of what has been widely speculated, hours after Wickremesinghe was sworn in as the new Finance Minister.

Janakantha Silva, Director Legislative Services/Director Communication, Parliament, quoted Dr. Weerasinghe as having told COPE that following technical talks held in terms of the Finance Act, pertaining to the IMF’s stand, recommendations were made to the then Premier and other senior officials. Dr. Weerasinghe has stated that the relevant decisions should have been made by the Premier, in his capacity as the Finance Minister and the entire Cabinet of Ministers.

The IMF has made its position clear after having asserted Sri Lanka lacked debt sustainability.

Asserting the failure on the part of those who managed the economy for causing a massive crisis, Prof. Charitha Herath called it a crime. The first time entrant to Parliament recommended the setting up of a Special Parliamentary Select Committee to probe those who neglected their responsibilities, thereby causing the current debilitating crisis. Prof. Herath blamed those few who managed the economy during that period.

But, absolutely nothing has been done. The disclosures before COPE had been quite conveniently forgotten.

SLPP National List MP Basil Rajapaksa succeeded Mahinda Rajapaksa, in July 2021, as the Finance Minister, whereas President Gotabaya Rajapaksa brought in SLPP National List MP Ajith Nivard Cabraal as the Governor of the Central Bank, in Sept 2021. Cabraal quit in March, 2022 to pave the way for Dr. Weerasinghe, the former Bank Deputy Governor, to return from retirement in Australia, as its new Governor.

Dr. Harsha de Silva has repeatedly pointed out how the then Finance Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa delegated his responsibilities to the then State Finance Minister Cabraal, who refrained from briefing the Parliament as regards the actual situation. Dr. de Silva is on record as having said that the IMF’s declaration of debt sustainability should be examined against the backdrop of the revenue cut imposed on the recommendation of the then Secretary to the President and one time Central Banker and Treasury Secretary Dr. P.B. Jayasundera that deprived the Treasury of Rs 600 mn in taxes.

Dr. de Silva asked who decided on the tax cut in spite of the IMF specifically advising the government not to do so. The top SJB spokesperson has asked who decided on such a reckless course of action.

When the COPE raised a contentious issue of the Central Bank wasting precious funds to prevent depreciation of the Sri Lanka Rupee, Dr. Weerasinghe said this was the responsibility of the Monetary Board, comprising five persons. The then Monetary Board member Dr. Ranee Jayamaha has revealed that the then Governor Prof. W.D. Lakshman, Treasury Secretary S.R. Attygalle, and nominated member Samantha Kumarasinghe, decided on that course of action in spite of her and Sanjiva Jayawardena, PC, opposing them. They had registered their protest in writing.

However, can Dr. Jayamaha and President’s Counsel Jayawardena absolve themselves of the responsibility? They remain members of the Monetary Board.

The proposed Special Parliamentary Select Committee should have also summoned Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, deposed President’s Secretary. But, the Yahapalana decision to repeal the time-tested Exchange Control Act No 24 of 1953 remains a mystery. A section of the Opposition alleges enactment of Foreign Exchange Act, No. 12 of 2017, during Wickremesinghe tenure as the Prime Minister, facilitated ‘parking’ of export proceeds, overseas, to the tune of billions of USD. Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, is on record as having said that well over USD 50 bn had been stashed overseas. But what has he done to convince the Cabinet-of-Ministers to restore the repealed Act.

Former State Minister Jayantha Samaraweera (National Freedom Front) recently told this writer that Basil Rajapaksa, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, rejected their leader Wimal Weerawansa’s proposal to restore the old Act.

The Yahapalana government passed the new Act on July 25, 2017. The Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), as well as the SLFP, voted for the new Act. Altogether 94 voted for the new Law, whereas 18 voted against. Then Speaker Karu Jayasuriya certified the new Act.

Contrary to reports, the new Act was brought in during the late Mangala Samaraweera’s tenure as the Finance Minister. Samaraweea succeeded Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake, on May 22, 2017.

Another matter that needed attention is Sri Lanka’s International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs) as of USD 15.5, USD 12.5 had been obtained during the Yahapalana administration (2015-2019) or, in other words, in Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the Prime Minister.

In late January, 2022, the then Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal told US-based CNBC that Sri Lanka had to pay USD 12.5 bn of debt in ISBs’ over the next seven years. Cabraal resigned three months later.

The country is in a catch-22 situation. Caught up in US Indo-Pacific strategy, the political leadership here is struggling to avoid the scheduled Local Government polls for obvious reasons. Contrary to the US call for holding of LG polls, the superpower perhaps may facilitate their overall strategy. A certain defeat at the mini-polls is sure to weaken Wickremesinghe’s hold, hence the decision to sabotage the polls. Regardless of the Opposition efforts to galvanize public protests to pressure the government over the LG polls, the incumbent administration seems confident a gradual turnaround of the economy may facilitate its efforts to keep the situation under control, for the time being.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Midweek Review

Batalanda and complexities of paramilitary operations

Published

on

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent combative ‘Head-to-Head’ interview with British-American Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera has opened a can of worms. As to why Hasan raised the Batalanda Presidential Commission report, during a 49-minute interview conducted at the London’s Conway Hall, with a clearly pro LTTE audience, remains a mystery. This must be yet another notorious way to show how even-handed they are as in the case of its coverage of Russia, China, Palestine or Ukraine for their gullible viewers.

Recorded in February and aired in March 2025, the interview is definitely the most controversial the UNP leader, who is also an Attorney-at-Law, ever faced during his political career; always used to getting kid glove treatment, especially after taking over the party in 1994.

The continuing public discourse on Batalanda should provoke a wider discussion on Sri Lanka’s response to separatist Tamil terrorism, since the cold blooded murder of Jaffna SLFP Mayor Alfred Duriappah, which signalled the beginning of the LTTE terror campaign that ended in May 2009 with the crushing military defeat of the Tigers on the banks of the Nathikadal lagoon, as well as two southern insurgencies in 1971 and 1987-1990.

As Nandana Gunatilleke (one time JVP General Secretary and ex-MP), Dr. Wasantha Bandara (ex-JVPer and close associate of the slain JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera), Indrananda de Silva (ex-JVPer, incumbent Central Committee member of Frontline Socialist Party [FSP] and ex-military photographer) and Uvindu Wijeweera (Rohana Wijeweera’s son and leader of Dewana Parapura) agreed during the recent Hiru ‘Balaya’ discussion, conducted by Madushan de Silva, the Batalanda operation was in line with the overall counter-terrorist/insurgency strategy of the then government.

The issues at hand cannot be discussed at all without taking into consideration the JVP terrorism that, at one-time, almost overwhelmed the UNP’s unbroken rule, since 1977, carried out while openly brushing aside most of the universally accepted genuine parliamentary norms. The country’s second Republican constitution, promulgated by the UNP regime with a 5/6 majority in Parliament, in 1978, had been amended no less than 13 times by the time they were finally ousted in 1995. This was mainly to facilitate their continuous rule. Unfortunately, all stakeholders have sought to take advantage of Batalanda, thereby preventing a proper dialogue. Quite surprisingly, none of the guests, nor the interviewer, bothered, at least, to make a reference to the JVP bid on President J.R. Jayewardene’s life in Parliament on the morning of July 18, 1987. At the time, JVPer Ajith Kumara, working in the House as a minor employee, hurled two hand grenades towards JRJ, with the then Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa seated next to JRJ. While one government MP lost his life, several others suffered injuries, including then National Security Minister Lalith Athulathmudali, whose spleen had to be removed.

At one point, Gunatilleke declared that they assassinated UNP MP for Tangalle Jinadasa Weerasinghe on July 3, 1987, in response to the government killing well over 100 people, in Colombo, protesting against the signing of the Indo-Lanka accord on July 29, 1987. The parliamentarian was killed near the Barawakumbuka-Welangahawela bridge on the Colombo-Rathnapura-Embilipitiya Road. The UNPer was killed on his way home after having declined Premier Premadasa’s offer to make an SLAF chopper available for him to reach home safely.

Against the backdrop of MP Weerasinghe’s assassination and the grenade attack on the UNP parliamentary group that claimed the life of Keethi Abeywickrema (MP for Deniyaya), the government had no option but to respond likewise. The operation, established at the Batalanda Housing scheme of the State Fertiliser Corporation, constituted part of the counter-insurgency strategy pursued by the UNP.

Those who called Batalanda complex Batalanda torture camp/ wadakagaraya conveniently forgot during the second JVP inspired insurgency, the military had to utilize many public buildings, including schools, as makeshift accommodation for troops. Of course the UNP established Batalanda under different circumstances with the then Industries Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe providing political authority. Batalanda had been an exclusive police operation though the Army had access to it whenever a requirement arose.

Those who had been suddenly withdrawn from the Northern and Eastern Provinces, to meet the rapidly evolving security threat in the South, required accommodation. FSP CC member Indrananada de Silva had received unhindered access to Batalanda in his capacity as a military photographer and the rest is history.

As to why Indrananda de Silva switched his allegiance to the FSP should be examined, taking into consideration his previous role as a trusted military photographer, formerly a Lance Corporal of the Military Police. An influential section of the JVP, led by Kumar Gunaratnam, formed the FSP in April 2012 though it didn’t receive the much anticipated public support. Both Indrananda de Silva and Nandana Gunatilleke, who aligned himself with the UNP, found fault with the JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) over its handling of the Batalanada issue.

Paramilitary operations

Paramilitary operations had been an integral part of the overall counter-insurgency campaign, directed at the JVP responsible for approximately 6,600 killings. Among those death squads were PRRA primarily drawn from the SLMP (Sri Lanka Mahajana Party) and SRRA (the socialist Revolutionary Red Army). PRRA had close links with the Independent Student Union (ISU) whose leader Daya Pathirana was slain by the JVP. The vast majority of people do not remember that Daya Pathirana, who led the ISU during the turbulent 1985-1986 period, was killed mid-Dec. 1989. The second insurgency hadn’t started at that time though the JVP propagated the lie that they took up arms against the UNP government following the signing of the Indo-Lanka peace accord on July 29, 1987.

In addition to PRRA and SRRA, the government made use of paramilitary groups, namely Kalu balallu, Ukkusso, Rajaliyo, Kaha balallu, Kola koti, Rathu Makaru, Mapila, Gonussa, Nee, Keshara Sinhayo, Le-mappillu and Kalu koti.

The UNP also involved some elements of Indian trained Tamil groups (not of the LTTE) in paramilitary operations. Such operations, that had been backed by respective Cabinet Ministers, were supervised by local law enforcement authorities. Paramilitary operations had been in line with psychological warfare that was meant to cause fear among the JVP, as well as the general population. Military operations that had been combined with paramilitary actions received the blessings of the political leadership at the highest level. In the case of Batalanda (1988-1990) President J.R. Jayewardene and Ranasinghe Premadasa knew of its existence.

Even after the eradication of the top JVP leadership, by Nov. 1989, police, military and paramilitary operations continued unabated. Former JVPers appearing on ‘Balaya’ agreed that counter-insurgency operations were actually brought to an end only after D.B. Wijetunga succeeded President Ranasinghe Premadasa after the latter’s assassination on May Day 1993.

After the LTTE resumed war in June 1990, just a couple of months after the withdrawal of the Indian Army (July 1987-March1990), the UNP authorized paramilitary operations in the northern and eastern areas. Members of TELO, PLOTE, EPRLF as well as EPDP were made part of the overall government security strategy. They operated in large groups. Some paramilitary units were deployed in the Jaffna islands as well. And these groups were represented in Parliament. They enjoyed privileged status not only in the northern and eastern regions but Colombo as well. The government allowed them to carry weapons in the city and its suburbs.

These groups operated armed units in Colombo. The writer had the opportunity to visit EPDP and PLOTE safe houses in Colombo and its suburbs soon after they reached an understanding with President Ranasinghe Premadasa. Overnight at the behest of President Premadasa, the Election Department granted these Tamil groups political recognition. In other words, armed groups were made political parties. The Premadasa government accepted their right to carry weapons while being represented in Parliament.

It would be pertinent to mention that thousands of Tamil paramilitary personnel served the government during that period. There had been many confrontations between them and the LTTE over the years and the latter sought to eliminate key paramilitary personnel. Let me remind you of the circumstances, the EPRLF’s number 02 Thambirajah Subathiran alias Robert was sniped to death in June 2003. Robert was engaged in routine morning exercises on the top floor of the two-storeyed EPRLF office, on the hospital road, Jaffna, when an LTTE sniper took him out from the nearby Vembadi Girls’ high school. The operation of the Norway managed Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) made no difference as the LTTE removed Robert who led the party here in the absence of leader Varatharaja Perumal, the first and the only Chief Minister of the North-Eastern Province.

In terms of the CFA that had been signed by Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, in Feb. 2002, the government agreed to disarm all paramilitary personnel. Many wouldn’t remember now that during Premadasa’s honeymoon with the LTTE, the Army facilitated the LTTE onslaught on paramilitary groups in selected areas.

Muthaliff’s role

During the ‘Balaya’ discussion, the contentious issue of who shot JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera came up. Nandana Gunatilleke, who contested the 1999 Dec. presidential election. as the JVP candidate, pointing to an article carried in the party organ that dealt with Wijeweera’s assassination said that he wrongly named Gaffoor as one of the persons who shot their leader whereas the actual shooter was Muthaliff. The headline named Thoradeniya and Gaffoor as the perpetrators.

Declaring that he personally wrote that article on the basis of information provided by Indrananda de Silva, Gunatilleke named Asoka Thoradeniya and Tuan Nizam Muthaliff of the Army as the perpetrators of the crime. Thoradeniya served as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in the Maldives during the Yahapalana administration, while Muthaliff was killed by the LTTE in Colombo in late May 2005. The shooting took place at Polhengoda junction, Narahenpita. Muthaliff was on his way from Manning town, Narahenpita, to the Kotelawala Defence University.

The programme was told that the JVP had over the years developed close relationship with Thoradeniya while Indrananda de Silva accused Dr. Wasantha Bandara of duplicity regarding Muthaliff. How could you recognize Muthaliff, slain by the LTTE, as a war hero as he was actually one of the persons who shot Rohana Wijeweera, the latter asked.

At the time of his assassination, Muthaliff served as the Commanding Officer, 1 st Regiment Sri Lanka Military Intelligence Corps. The then parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa was among those who paid last respects to Maj. Muthaliff.

At the time of Rohana Wijeweera’s arrest, Muthaliff served as Lieutenant while Thoradeniya was a Major. Indrananda de Silva strongly stressed that atrocities perpetrated by the police and military in the South or in the northern and eastern regions must be dealt with regardless of whom they were conducting operations against. The former JVPer recalled the Army massacre in the east in retaliation for the landmine blast that claimed the lives of Northern Commander Maj. Gen. Denzil Kobbekaduwa and a group of senior officers, including Brigadier Wijaya Wimalaratne, in early Aug. 1990 in Kayts.

Dr. Wasantha Bandara warned of the Western powers taking advantage of what he called false narrative to push for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

It would be pertinent to mention that the LTTE also used the underworld as well as some corrupt Army personnel in planning high profile assassinations. Investigations into the assassination of Muthaliff, as well as Maj. Gen. Parami Kulatunga, killed in a suicide attack at Pannipitiya, in June 2006, revealed the direct involvement of military personnel with the LTTE.

Indrananda de Silva disclosed that soon after Anura Kumara Dissanayake won the presidential election last September, the FSP, in writing, requested the JVP leader to inquire into killings during that period, including that of Rohana Wijeweera. The FSPer alleged that President Dissanayake refrained from even acknowledging their letter. Indrananda de Silva emphasized that Al Jazeera never disclosed anything new as regards Batalanda as he exposed the truth years ago. The former JVPer ridiculed the ruling party tabling the Batalanda Commission report in the wake of Wickremesinghe’s Al Jazeera interview whereas the matter was in the public domain for quite some time.

Indrananda de Silva and Nandana Gunatilleke exchanged words over the latter’s declaration that the JVP, too, was subjected to investigation for violence unleashed during the 1987-1990 period. While the FSPer repeatedly declared that those who carried out directives issued by the party were arrested and in some cases killed, Nandana Gunatilleke took up the position that the party should be held accountable for crimes perpetrated during that period.

The interviewer posed Nandana Gunatilleke the question whether he was betraying his former comrades after joining the UNP. Nandana Gunatilleke shot back that he joined the UNP in 2015 whereas the JVP joined UNP as far back as 2009 to promote retired Army Chef Sarath Fonseka’s presidential ambition even though he wiped out the JVP presence in Trincomalee region during the second insurgency.

JVP’s accountability

Nandana Gunatilleke is adamant that the party should accept responsibility for the killings carried out at that time. The former JVPer declared that Vijaya Kumaratunga (Feb. 16, 1988), first Vice Chancellor of the Colombo University (March 08, 1989) Dr. Stanley Wijesundera, Ven. Kotikawatte Saddhatissa thera (Aug. 03, 1988) and Chairperson of the State Pharmaceutical Corporation Gladys Jayewardene (Sept. 12, 1989) were among those assassinated by the JVP. SPC Chairperson was killed for importing medicine from India, the former Marxist aligned with the UNP said, while actor-turned-politician Kumaratunga’s assassination was attributed to his dealings with President J.R. Jayewardene.

According to Nandana Gunatilleke, except for a few killings such as General Secretaries of the UNP Harsha Abeywickrema (Dec 23, 1987) and Nandalal Fernando (May 20, 1988), the vast majority of others were ordinary people like grama sevakas killed on mere accusation of being informants. The deaths were ordered on the basis of hearsay, Nandana Gunatilleke said, much to the embarrassment of others who represented the interest of the JVP at that time.

One quite extraordinary moment during the ‘Balaya’ programme was when Nandana Gunatilleke revealed their (JVP’s) direct contact with the Indian High Commission at a time the JVP publicly took an extremely anti-Indian stance. In fact, the JVP propagated a strong anti-Indian line during the insurgency. Turning towards Dr. Wasantha Bandara, Gunatilleke disclosed that both of them had been part of the dialogue with the Indian High Commission.

It reminds me of the late Somawansa Amarasinghe’s first public address delivered at a JVP rally in late Nov. 2001 after returning home from 12 years of self-imposed exile. Of the top JVP leadership, Somawansa Amarasinghe, who had been married to a close relative of powerful UNP Minister Sirisena Cooray, was the only one to survive combined police/military/paramilitary operations.

Amarasinghe didn’t mince his words when he declared at a Kalutara rally that his life was saved by Indian Premier V.P. Singh. Soft spoken Amarasinghe profusely thanked India for saving his life. Unfortunately, those who discuss issues at hand conveniently forget crucial information in the public domain. Such lapses can be both deliberate and due to negligence.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Independent Monitor

Published

on

You may think sloth comes very easy,

To your kingly monitor of the shrinking marsh,

As he lies basking smugly in the morn sun,

But he is organized and alert all the while,

As he awaits his prey with patience infinite,

Free of malice, a professional of a kind,

His cumbrous body not slowing his sprite….

But note, he’s no conspirator spitting guile,

And doesn’t turn nasty unless crossed,

Nor by vengeful plans is he constantly dogged,

Unlike those animals of a more rational kind,

Whose ways have left behind a state so sorry.

By Lynn Ockersz

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Rajiva on Batalanda controversy, govt.’s failure in Geneva and other matters

Published

on

Wickremesinghe responds to Hasan during the controversial interview recorded in London

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera’s ‘Head-to-Head’ series has caused controversy, both in and outside Parliament, over the role played by Wickremesinghe in the counter-insurgency campaign in the late’80s.

The National People’s Power (NPP) seeking to exploit the developing story to its advantage has ended up with egg on its face as the ruling party couldn’t disassociate from the violent past of the JVP. The debate on the damning Presidential Commission report on Batalanda, on April 10, will remind the country of the atrocities perpetrated not only by the UNP, but as well as by the JVP.

The Island sought the views of former outspoken parliamentarian and one-time head of the Government Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha on a range of issues, with the focus on Batalanda and the failure on the part of the war-winning country to counter unsubstantiated war crimes accusations.

Q:

The former President and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe’s interview with Al Jazeera exposed the pathetic failure on the part of Sri Lanka to address war crimes accusations and accountability issues. In the face of aggressive interviewer Mehdi Hasan on ‘Head-to-Head,’ Wickremesinghe struggled pathetically to counter unsubstantiated accusations. Six-time Premier Wickremesinghe who also served as President (July 2022-Sept. 2024) seemed incapable of defending the war-winning armed forces. However, the situation wouldn’t have deteriorated to such an extent if President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who gave resolute political leadership during that war, ensured a proper defence of our armed forces in its aftermath as well-choreographed LTTE supporters were well in place, with Western backing, to distort and tarnish that victory completely. As wartime Secretary General of the Government’s Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (since June 2007 till the successful conclusion of the war) and Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights (since Jun 2008) what do you think of Wickremesinghe’s performance?

A:

It made him look very foolish, but this is not surprising since he has no proper answers for most of the questions put to him. Least surprising was his performance with regard to the forces, since for years he was part of the assault forces on the successful Army, and expecting him to defend them is like asking a fox to stand guard on chickens.

Q:

In spite of trying to overwhelm Wickremesinghe before a definitely pro-LTTE audience at London’s Conway Hall, Hasan further exposed the hatchet job he was doing by never referring to the fact that the UNP leader, in his capacity as the Yahapalana Premier, co-sponsored the treacherous Geneva Resolution in Oc., 2015, against one’s own victorious armed forces. Hasan, Wickremesinghe and three panelists, namely Frances Harrison, former BBC-Sri Lanka correspondent, Director of International Truth and Justice Project and author of ‘Still Counting the Dead: Survivors of Sri Lanka’s Hidden War,’ Dr. Madura Rasaratnam, Executive Director of PEARL (People for Equality and Relief in Lanka) and former UK and EU MP and Wickremesinghe’s presidential envoy, Niranjan Joseph de Silva Deva Aditya, never even once referred to India’s accountability during the programme recorded in late February but released in March. As a UPFA MP (2010-2015) in addition to have served as Peace Secretariat Chief and Secretary to the Disaster Management and Human Rights Ministry, could we discuss the issues at hand leaving India out?

A:

I would not call the interview a hatchet job since Hasan was basically concerned about Wickremesinghe’s woeful record with regard to human rights. In raising his despicable conduct under Jayewardene, Hasan clearly saw continuity, and Wickremesinghe laid himself open to this in that he nailed his colours to the Rajapaksa mast in order to become President, thus making it impossible for him to revert to his previous stance. Sadly, given how incompetent both Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa were about defending the forces, one cannot expect foreigners to distinguish between them.

Q:

You are one of the many UPFA MPs who backed Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo perpetrated the despicable act of backing the Geneva Resolution against our armed forces and they should be held responsible for that. Having thrown your weight behind the campaign to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa’s bid to secure a third term, did you feel betrayed by the Geneva Resolution? And if so, what should have the Yahapalana administration done?

A:

By 2014, given the total failure of the Rajapaksas to deal firmly with critiques of our forces, resolutions against us had started and were getting stronger every year. Mahinda Rajapaksa laid us open by sacking Dayan Jayatilleke who had built up a large majority to support our victory against the Tigers, and appointed someone who intrigued with the Americans. He failed to fulfil his commitments with regard to reforms and reconciliation, and allowed for wholesale plundering, so that I have no regrets about working against him at the 2015 election. But I did not expect Wickremesinghe and his cohorts to plunder, too, and ignore the Sirisena manifesto, which is why I parted company with the Yahapalanaya administration, within a couple of months.

I had expected a Sirisena administration to pursue some of the policies associated with the SLFP, but he was a fool and his mentor Chandrika was concerned only with revenge on the Rajapaksas. You cannot talk about betrayal when there was no faith in the first place. But I also blame the Rajapaksas for messing up the August election by attacking Sirisena and driving him further into Ranil’s arms, so that he was a pawn in his hands.

Q:

Have you advised President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government how to counter unsubstantiated war crimes allegations propagated by various interested parties, particularly the UN, on the basis of the Panel of Experts (PoE) report released in March 2011? Did the government accept your suggestions/recommendations?

A:

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

I kept trying, but Mahinda was not interested at all, and had no idea about how to conduct international relations. Sadly, his Foreign Minister was hanging around behind Namal, and proved incapable of independent thought, in his anxiety to gain further promotion. And given that I was about the only person the international community, that was not prejudiced, took seriously – I refer to the ICRC and the Japanese with whom I continued to work, and, indeed, the Americans, until the Ambassador was bullied by her doctrinaire political affairs officer into active undermining of the Rajapaksas – there was much jealousy, so I was shut out from any influence.

But even the admirable effort, headed by Godfrey Gunatilleke, was not properly used. Mahinda Rajapaksa seemed to me more concerned with providing joy rides for people rather than serious counter measures, and representation in Geneva turned into a joke, with him even undermining Tamara Kunanayagam, who, when he supported her, scored a significant victory against the Americans, in September 2011. The Ambassador, who had been intriguing with her predecessor, then told her they would get us in March, and with a little help from their friends here, they succeeded.

Q:

As the writer pointed out in his comment on Wickremesinghe’s controversial Al Jazeera interview, the former Commander-in-Chief failed to mention critically important matters that could have countered Hasan’ s line of questioning meant to humiliate Sri Lanka?

A:

How could you have expected that, since his primary concern has always been himself, not the country, let alone the armed forces?

Q:

Do you agree that Western powers and an influential section of the international media cannot stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism?

A:

There was opposition to our victory from the start, but this was strengthened by the failure to move on reconciliation, creating the impression that the victory against the Tigers was seen by the government as a victory against Tamils. The failure of the Foreign Ministry to work with journalists was lamentable, and the few exceptions – for instance the admirable Vadivel Krishnamoorthy in Chennai or Sashikala Premawardhane in Canberra – received no support at all from the Ministry establishment.

Q:

A couple of months after the 2019 presidential election, Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared his intention to withdraw from the Geneva process. On behalf of Sri Lanka that announcement was made in Geneva by the then Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, who became the Premier during Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President. That declaration was meant to hoodwink the Sinhala community and didn’t alter the Geneva process and even today the project is continuing. As a person who had been closely involved in the overall government response to terrorism and related matters, how do you view the measures taken during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s short presidency to counter Geneva?

A:

What measures? I am reminded of the idiocy of the responses to the Darusman report by Basil and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who went on ego trips and produced unreadable volumes trying to get credit for themselves as to issues of little interest to the world. They were planned in response to Darusman, but when I told Gotabaya that his effort was just a narrative of action, he said that responding to Darusman was not his intention. When I said that was necessary, he told me he had asked Chief-of-Staff Roshan Goonetilleke to do that, but Roshan said he had not been asked and had not been given any resources.

My own two short booklets which took the Darusman allegations to pieces were completely ignored by the Foreign Ministry.

Q:

Against the backdrop of the Geneva betrayal in 2015 that involved the late Minister Mangala Samaraweera, how do you view President Wickremesinghe’s response to the Geneva threat?

A: Wickremesinghe did not see Geneva as a threat at all. Who exactly is to blame for the hardening of the resolution, after our Ambassador’s efforts to moderate it, will require a straightforward narrative from the Ambassador, Ravinatha Ariyasinha, who felt badly let down by his superiors. Geneva should not be seen as a threat, since as we have seen follow through is minimal, but we should rather see it as an opportunity to put our own house in order.

Q:

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake recently questioned both the loyalty and professionalism of our armed forces credited with defeating Northern and Southern terrorism. There hadn’t been a previous occasion, a President or a Premier, under any circumstances, questioned the armed forces’ loyalty or professionalism. We cannot also forget the fact that President Dissanayake is the leader of the once proscribed JVP responsible for death and destruction during 1971 and 1987-1990 terror campaigns. Let us know of your opinion on President Dissanayake’s contentious comments on the armed forces?

A: I do not see them as contentious, I think what is seen as generalizations was critiques of elements in the forces. There have been problems, as we saw from the very different approach of Sarath Fonseka and Daya Ratnayake, with regard to civilian casualties, the latter having planned a campaign in the East which led to hardly any civilian deaths. But having monitored every day, while I headed the Peace Secretariat, all allegations, and obtained explanations of what happened from the forces, I could have proved that they were more disciplined than other forces in similar circumstances.

The violence of the JVP and the LTTE and other such groups was met with violence, but the forces observed some rules which I believe the police, much more ruthlessly politicized by Jayewardene, failed to do. The difference in behaviour between the squads led for instance by Gamini Hettiarachchi and Ronnie Goonesinghe makes this clear.

Q:

Mehdi Hasan also strenuously questioned Wickremesinghe on his role in the UNP’s counter-terror campaign during the 1987-1990 period. The British-American journalists of Indian origins attacked Wickremesinghe over the Batalanda Commission report that had dealt with extra-judicial operations carried out by police, acting on the political leadership given by Wickremesinghe. What is your position?

A:

Wickremesinghe’s use of thugs’ right through his political career is well known. I still recall my disappointment, having thought better of him, when a senior member of the UNP, who disapproved thoroughly of what Jayewardene had done to his party, told me that Wickremesinghe was not honest because he used thugs. In ‘My Fair Lady,’ the heroine talks about someone to whom gin was mother’s milk, and for Wickremesinghe violence is mother’s milk, as can be seen by the horrors he associated with.

The latest revelations about Deshabandu Tennakoon, whom he appointed IGP despite his record, makes clear his approval for extra-judicial operations.

Q:

Finally, will you explain how to counter war crimes accusations as well as allegations with regard to the counter-terror campaign in the’80s?

A:

I do not think it is possible to counter allegations about the counter-terror campaign of the eighties, since many of those allegations, starting with the Welikada Prison massacre, which Wickremesinghe’s father admitted to me the government had engendered, are quite accurate. And I should stress that the worst excesses, such as the torture and murder of Wijeyedasa Liyanaarachchi, happened under Jayewardene, since there is a tendency amongst the elite to blame Premadasa. He, to give him his due, was genuine about a ceasefire, which the JVP ignored, foolishly in my view though they may have had doubts about Ranjan Wijeratne’s bona fides.

With regard to war crimes accusations, I have shown how, in my ‘Hard Talk’ interview, which you failed to mention in describing Wickeremesinghe’s failure to respond coherently to Hasan. The speeches Dayan Jayatilleke and I made in Geneva make clear what needed and still needs to be done, but clear sighted arguments based on a moral perspective that is more focused than the meanderings, and the frequent hypocrisy, of critics will not now be easy for the country to furnish.

 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Trending