Midweek Review

Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act jolts Opposition

Published

2 years ago

2023/06/7

New laws contemplated by the government appears to have caused much concern among Opposition political parties for obvious reasons. The constitutionality of the proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill is expected to be challenged in the Supreme Court. The whole process of law making raised quite a stir in the wake of the recent shocking Supreme Court determination that one-third of the Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ is contrary to the Constitution and several dozens of amendments are required to pave the way for its passage with a simple majority. It also shows that our judges have a backbone and are not easily swayed by the incumbent all-powerful Executive President, who is only there on a ‘contract’ to complete the remainder of the previous President Gatabaya Rajapaksa’s term after he was ousted by violent protests instigated from outside.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government, continuing to struggle on the economic front, is keen to consolidate its position, both in and outside Parliament.

The media has emerged as the major challenge to the government due to the failure on the part of the Opposition to adopt a cohesive political strategy.

Both the government and the Opposition seem to be in disarray and unable to come to terms with the continuing political-economic and social crisis, fuelled by external forces.

The move to introduce a controversial Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act should be examined, taking into consideration current political and economic challenges faced by the incumbent administration.

Did the Justice Ministry or the Media Ministry, at least, informally consult President Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is also the Minister of Defence, in addition to being the Finance Minister and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, on the proposed Broadcasting Regulatory Commission Act, at least after being so thoroughly educated by the highest court in the land on the ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka’ Bill? A section of the Opposition believes the President hadn’t been aware of this move.

However, former External Affairs Minister and SLPP rebel Prof. G. L. Peiris and Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) spokesman Pubudu Jayagoda didn’t mince their words when they alleged the whole exercise was for the benefit of President Wickremesinghe. Prof. Peiris has alleged that the President intended to rein in media in line with his overall political strategy to consolidate his power whereas Jayagoda explained how the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government launched the project soon after the UNP leader’s election as the President in late July last year. Jayagoda insists that the Cabinet has cleared the Bill.

The Broadcasting Regulatory Commission and the committee tasked to investigate complaints against television and radio stations would be dominated by the President’s men to such an extent, it couldn’t be expected to discharge its responsibilities in an impartial manner. Jayagoda pointed out how two persons of the Regulatory Commission could take far reaching decisions regardless of the consequences. In case any member failed to carry out directives received from the President, he or she faced the axe.

Jaygoda questioned the absurdity in appointing the commission for a period of five years in line with the five-year presidential term. Both Prof. Peiris and Jayagoda emphasized the grave danger posed by the President exercising power over the media regardless of some sections of the media pursuing politically motivated agendas.

Against the backdrop of fierce criticism of the proposed law, Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, on 02 June came up with the face saving reply that no final decision has been taken in this regard.

The former President of the Bar Association said that the issue at hand was still under discussion and a set of proposals, pertaining to the proposed Broadcast Authority Act, were in the public domain. The Minister insisted that the relevant bill is yet to be prepared.

The Colombo District lawmaker said so in his capacity as the Chairman of a Cabinet sub-committee tasked with preparing a regulatory mechanism in this regard. The Cabinet-sub-committee consists of Media Minister Bandula Gunawardena, Labour Minister Manusha Nanayakkara, Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and Ports and Shipping Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva.

The media raised the proposed Bill with Minister Rajapakse at a briefing in the Justice Ministry especially called to address issues pertaining to the Office of the Missing Persons (OMP) established in 2016 during the Yahapalana administration.

Dr. Rajapakse has assured that media organizations would be given an opportunity to make representations in this regard.

The latest controversy over the proposed Bill with a set of proposals outlining its possible content already in the public domain, should be examined against the backdrop of strong opposition to the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill and Bill titled ‘Central Bank of Sri Lanka.’ In addition to those disputed and much discussed Bills, a major debate is likely over the proposed Budget Office. The text of the Bill meant to specify the powers, duties and functions of the Budget Office is now in the public domain. The government certainly owed an explanation as to why it cannot seek a consensus with the Opposition at the relevant consultative committee/sectoral oversight committee in this regard. The country is in such a desperate situation, it cannot under any circumstances afford further political turmoil.

Unfortunately, the government appears to be hell-bent on bulldozing its way through the legislature, regardless of whatever consequences.

The recent sacking of Janaka Ratnayake, the outspoken and highly ambitious Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission underscored the government strategy.

Ratnayake is on record as having said before a parliamentary watchdog committee that he received the influential position for serving the Rajapaksas. But, he was removed by the Rajapaksas’ SLPP at the behest of President Ranil Wickremesinghe. Altogether 123 lawmakers voted for the motion to remove Ratnayake whereas 77 opposed. Government member Ali Sabri Raheem voted against the motion to protest against the failure on the part of President Wickremesinghe and Premier Dinesh Gunawardena to intervene on his behalf after he was caught with undeclared gold and smartphones worth Rs 74 mn and Rs 4.2 mn, respectively, while coming through the VIP/VVIP channel at the BIA, where such people are normally whisked through without any checks.

Rebel SLPP lawmaker Prof. Charitha Herath mounted a no holds barred attack on the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act. At his regular briefing at Nidahasa Jathika Sabhawa (NJS) office at Nawala. The one-time Media Ministry Secretary explained how the proposed law could be utilized against television and radio stations which refused to toe the government line.

The NJS comprises 13 MPs elected and appointed on the SLPP ticket/accommodated on its National List.

Acknowledging the need and the responsibility on the part of the government to introduce the Broadcasting Authority Act, National List lawmaker Herath questioned the intention of those behind what he called a despicable move.

The country’s radio and television stations are allowed to operate in terms of the Ceylon Broadcasting Corporation Act (No 37 of 1966) and the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation Act (No 06 of 1982), respectively. Herath also explained how the Telecommunications Act applied to broadcasting operations.

The MP said that no one could dispute the need to introduce a new law to regulate radio and television stations. But the proposed Bill now in the public domain revealed the government’s intention to suppress those who would dare to challenge it on whatever issue, lawmaker Herath said, warning the government of dire consequences if it pursued such a strategy.

Asked to explain, MP Herath alleged that the proposed Act dealt with radio and television stations in a manner that they were yet to be established in Sri Lanka. The architects of the new law conveniently ignored the fact that radio and television stations were in operation here for several decades and couldn’t be subjected to a new law the way it dealt with a new entrant.

“The bottom line is that the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act completely ignored Article 14 of the Constitution that guaranteed the freedom of speech and expression, including publication. If the enactment of the proposed Broadcasting Authority Act takes place as it is, that will deliver a deadly blow to democracy. We do not want a North Korea type situation here.”

Referring to the composition of the commission, MP Herath questioned the rationale in restricting the total number of members to five and the quorum three. Pointing out that of the five members of the proposed commission, two – a Secretary to a Ministry (most probably Media Ministry) and the Director General of Telecommunication Regulatory Commission were ex-officio, the lawmaker said the President would name three remaining members subject to the approval of the Constitutional Council.

Alleging that this commission would be nothing but a highly dangerous tool in the hands of those at the helm of political power, lawmaker Herath said that it could be used selectively against any media organization that took a stand contrary to that of the government in respect of any issue – ranging from national security to what the architects of this destructive piece of legislation called the national economy. The operations of the offending media could be either suspended or permanently closed down, the academic said, urging the print and electronic media to vigorously take up this issue.

MP Herath lambasted the government for seeking to prohibit the media taking up economic issues. Alleging that such provisions were political, the lawmaker said that the issue is who would interpret the term ‘national economy’ in an economically ruined country. Would it be President Wickremesinghe, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, Governor of the Central Bank Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, State Finance Minister Shehan Semasinghe or the International Monetary Fund, he asked

Prof. Herath expressed serious concern over the proposed committee consisting of three persons headed by the Director General, TRC, to investigate complaints directed at radio and television stations. Pointing out that there is ambiguity pertaining to the appointment of such a committee, the MP questioned how two out of the three-member committee could decide either to suspend or permanently close down operations of an ‘offending’ broadcaster.

Impact on Parliament

However, MP Herath didn’t discuss how the proposed new law could even hinder the coverage of parliamentary proceedings as well as the reportage of shocking disclosures at parliamentary watchdog committees. Depending on the stand taken by the government on a particular issue, in terms of the Broadcasting Authority Act, action can be initiated against a television station for its reportage on a matter even discussed in Parliament.

The UNP may use the new law to suppress reportage and discussion on Treasury bond scams perpetrated in 2015 and 2016 under its watch. The SLPP may find the new law useful to pressure the media over the reportage of circumstances leading to the economic ruin due to a spate of ill- advised decisions taken by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

The committee tasked with investigating complaints against media organizations may find even the exposure of serious lapses on the part of the bureaucracy offensive. A case in point is the shocking disclosures made in the relevant parliamentary watchdog committees how the officialdom addressed critical issues at hand. The recent revelation that taxes, interest and penalties amounting to Rs 904 bn hasn’t been collected by the Inland Revenue underscored the need to address this issue urgently.

During the media briefing lawmaker Herath explained how the media could be targeted on the basis of alleged abuses in the coverage of issues. In the absence of interpretation of the term abuse of power, the committee headed by the Director General, TRC would be able to find fault with any broadcaster to appease his/her political master. It would be pertinent to mention that just two out of a three-member committee is authorized to decide on the fate of a media organization. Even the criticism of the controversial postponement of the much delayed Local Government polls indefinitely may attract the attention of the Broadcasting Authority as the government propagated the myth that economic recovery should be given priority, therefore election process can wait.

Prof. Herath explained how members of the commission can be removed in case they didn’t toe the government line. Instead of the very purpose a Broadcasting Authority is required to primarily have a level playing field, the one proposed can be a threat to media freedom. In the hands of politicians who pursue destructive self-aggrandizing strategies regardless of consequences, therefore the proposed Broadcasting Authority can be a tool to harm the free media. Prof. Herath regretted that the previous attempts to establish a Broadcasting Authority hadn’t been successful.

Harsha takes a strong stand

Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) front liner Dr. Harsha de Silva is another MP who came out strongly against the proposed law. The former UNP non-Cabinet minister flayed the government over the move at a media briefing held at the Opposition Leader’s Office on Sir Marcus Fernando Mawatha.

The top SJB spokesman warned that this legislation, touted as an effort to advance the mass media, actually would serve as a tool for the government to crack down on and manipulate the media to suit its own agenda.

According to Dr. de Silva, the proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill contained provisions that enabled the government to exert pressure on and control media outlets that do not align with its ideology. Such measures, the economist argued were fundamentally incompatible with the principles of a democratic society.

“One of the cornerstones of a democracy is the freedom to hold differing opinions. The media cannot be subject to the whims of a particular authority that operated at the behest of the government. The media should enjoy the independence to express their views”, Dr. de Silva asserted. “This right to free expression is a fundamental tenet of any democratic society. The proposed Broadcasting Authority Act aims to stifle the media, and we will not stand for it”.

Dr. de Silva further cautioned that the government’s motives behind this legislation mirror its previous attempts to suppress the media through the failed Anti-Terrorism Act. The MP asserted that, having faced resistance to their oppressive measures, the government is now seeking alternative avenues to fulfill its objective of muzzling critical voices, and the Broadcasting Authority Act is their latest attempt to do so.

The concerns raised by Dr. Harsha de Silva who was once widely tipped to be the Finance Minister of the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government, underscored the need for a robust and independent media, one that could act as a vital check on governmental power and foster a thriving democratic society. The MP stressed the pivotal importance policymakers and citizens alike closely examine the proposed legislation and its potential implications on press freedom, ensuring that any changes made to media regulations did not infringe upon the democratic principles that underpin our society.

SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has alleged that the government’s latest bid was meant to create an environment in which only those who propagated the government line could operate.

Lawmaker Premadasa has said that the move to throttle the media seemed to be a critical part of the government’s overall strategy and should be considered as an extremely dangerous move against the backdrop of indefinite postponement of Local Government polls. MP Premadasa, like his opposition colleagues Prof. Herath and Dr. de Silva, alleged the licenses were to be issued on the basis of the media organizations’ loyalty to the government.

Censorship

Several decades ago, Sri Lanka exercised censorship to control the media, at a time television posed no real challenge.

Having joined The Island in June 1987, the writer remembered how print media had to submit all ‘copies’ that dealt with security and political issues to the government censor for approval. Successive governments imposed censorship to cover up military reversals in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and part of the overall strategy to deal with the second JVP-led insurgency 1987-89.

Successive governments harassed the print media and attacks directed at journalists and private media institutions over the years were part of that despicable strategy. Whatever the provocations, the assassinations of journalists cannot be condoned. Perpetrators of such heinous crimes had never been arrested. The assassination of The Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickremetunga on January 08, 2009 is perhaps the case that attracted the most media coverage though there were many other attacks.

Keith Noyahr, Defence correspondent at the now defunct The Nation newspaper earned the wrath for his critical weekly column titled ‘Military Matters.’ His abduction and subsequent release in May 2008 exposed the then government though the investigation was never brought to a successful conclusion even after the defeat of that government in January 2015!

The proposed Broadcasting Authority Bill has taken the government’s battle (whichever party in power) to a new level. Now political strategy is aimed at closing down whole television or radio stations.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Broadcasting Regulatory Commission

Up Next

Off the Beaten Track

Don't Miss

Jayantha Dhanapala (1938 – 2023)

Sahan Weerasooriya

Click to comment

Midweek Review

Impact of US policy shift on Sri Lanka

Published

5 days ago

2025/02/19

Sahan Weerasooriya

Early honeymoon period after mission accomplished with toppling of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Julie Chung shares a light moment with Ranil Wickremesinghe during a three-day visit to Nuwara Eliya and Ella in early July 2023. Ella Odyssey was part of Sri Lanka’s commemoration of 75 years of independence. Colombo-based foreign heads of missions and nine heads of mission, based in New Delhi, joined the journey (pic courtesy PMD)

President Trump has unceremoniously overturned US foreign policy. His decision to deport illegal Indian migrants just ahead of a summit with Premier Narendra Modi, underscored the tough stance taken by the new US admiration. The much-touted US-India strategic partnership didn’t deter Trump from carrying out the much-publicized humiliating deportations of Indians. US Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, recently, indicated that Trump has terminated his special relationship with Europe and is charting his own course. The upcoming Trump and Russian leader Putin’s meeting stressed that the US policy wouldn’t be shaped by European concerns over Russia. Against that background, the US is very much unlikely to pursue the Biden policy as regards bankrupt Sri Lanka. Actually, Sri Lanka’s political leadership will have to do some serious thinking and re-examining our position as Trump redraws US foreign policy.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Since the successful conclusion of the war in mid-May 2009, despite all the naysayers, and even the likes of the then British Foreign Secretary David Milliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, rushing here at the eleventh hour with the hope of getting President Mahinda Rajapaksa to halt the offensive to enable them to evacuate the LTTE supremo, his family and their surviving fanatical terrorist band to safety abroad, the US appointed five Ambassadors to Colombo. Of them four were women, namely Patricia A. Butenis, Michele J. Sison, Alaina B. Teplitz and incumbent Julie J. Chung. Between the tenures of Sison and Teplitz, the only male Atul Keshap, of Indian origin, served here for a period of four years (Aug. 2015-July 2018) during the Yahapalana administration.

Ambassador Chung oversaw President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s forced ouster in 2022. In spite of her denial, Amb. Chung’s role in President Rajapaksa’s removal is clear and cannot be disputed. Amb. Chung will soon be replaced by Elizabeth Kathryn Horst, currently the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for Pakistan, yet another country in which Washington is mired in regime change operations in the region.

Amb. Chung presented her credentials on Feb. 25, 2022, to President Rajapaksa, at the Janadhipathi Mandiraya. The President was flanked by State Foreign Minister Tharaka Balasuriya and Presidential Secretary Gamini Senarath. The new US envoy took office close on the heels of a major crisis within the government that compelled the President to ask for his Secretary Dr. P.B. Jayasundera’s resignation. Just five weeks after Amb. Chung took over the mission, the ‘GotaGoHome’ campaign got underway and a President, elected with over 6.9 mn votes on the SLPP ticket, was thrown out of office within four and half months by violent mobs armed with meticulous intelligence as to which politicians’ houses were to be ransacked and torched, along with those of their close supporters in a matter of a few hours, especially on May 09, 2022. Exactly two months later they completed their despicable mission by storming the Presidential palace.

The SLPP, both in and outside Parliament, accused Amb. Chung of staging the ouster of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Award-winning author Sena Thoradeniya (Galle Face Protest: System Change or Anarchy) and (Nine: The Hidden Story) by National Freedom Front (NFF) leader Wimal Weerawansa, MP, dealt with Amb. Chung’s sordid involvement.

However, the writer believes that the whole exercise should be examined as another arrogant US intrusion rather than Amb. Chung’s private agenda. Her job was to do the bidding of Washington. Let me stress that the US made a serious but an abortive attempt to bring President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s reign to an end in 2010. Thanks to Wikileaks we know how the US used a UNP-led coalition, that included the wartime LTTE ally the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), and the JVP, to back retired General Sarath Fonseka at the presidential election. That gamble failed. The war-winning Army Chief ended up with egg on his face with an unforgettable thrashing from the overwhelming southern electorate.

Eyebrows were raised when the outgoing American envoy recently expressed her desire to meet Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) leaders at the Nelum Mawatha party office as she never bothered to do so since her arrival in early 2022.

Contrary to speculation, the outgoing US Ambassador had sought a meeting about two weeks ago before the unprecedented public exposure about the USAID’s (United States Agency for International Agency) sinister operations here and worldwide in the wake of the new US administration deciding to curtail drastically its operations for being a white elephant as America itself is being confronted with a fast developing and yet to be fully fathomed economic crisis, which might even exceed the worldwide Great Depression that came with the 1929 stock market crash. On her arrival at Nelum Mawatha last Friday (14) Amb. Chung was received by SLPP General Secretary and Attorney-at-Law Prasad Kariyawasam. The SLPP delegation was led by its National Organizer Namal Rajapaksa and one of the three lawmakers in the current Parliament. Having accused her of being in the thick of the regime change, the SLPP’s readiness to meet Amb. Chung, too, is a mystery.

It would be pertinent to briefly explain the USAID’s global objectives as the vast majority wrongly believed the agency is meant for humanitarian work. It is definitely not a charity. Its main objective is to strengthen capabilities of US agents, or assets, at local and regional levels regardless of the status of Washington’s relationship with the targeted country.

These agents, or assets, are available for the US at any time as Washington desired. Pentagon, the State Department or even the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) used its resources under whatever circumstances. If we closely examine the pattern of USAID operations, as well as other related organizations that had been active here over a period of time, even our legislature is within the sphere of their influence. In other words, they obviously have direct access to politicians and officials who wield power over key institutions. The private sector, too, became part of the US operation carefully expanded countrywide.

By the time Amb. Chung arrived here. US assets were in place at different levels ready to carry out directives. Those who pointed a finger at Amb. Chung never bothered to examine the background and comprehend the gradual build-up that allowed the gathering of all elements, under the social media fuelled ‘GotaGohome’ campaign.

The US mission here had done a tremendous amount of work, especially beginning with the Amb, Keshap’s time, to enhance the capacities of their existing assets and identify and develop new assets.

What really prompted Amb. Chung to suddenly seek a meeting with the SLPP? Did National List MP Namal Rajapaksa’s call for the setting up of a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to probe USAID funding, influence her decision? But that cannot be as the US Embassy made the request before the USAID controversy. Perhaps, SLPP General Secretary Kariyawasam expressed concern over Amb. Chung’s frequent visits to the JVP headquarters at Pelawatte, whereas she ignored the SLPP.

Appearing on a live television programme, Kariyawasam pointed out that Amb. Chung had plenty of time for the JVP, a party with just three MPs, while the SLPP, in spite of being represented by 145 MPs, never received the US envoy’s attention.

Perhaps Amb. Chung didn’t really feel the requirement to visit Nelum Mawatha as she maintained a close contact with the SLPP founder Basil Rajapaksa.

Ambiguity over objectives

It would be pertinent to ask both the sponsors and recipients whether various foreign-funded projects achieved their objectives.

The following are some of the USAID-funded projects launched, beginning 2017: [1] USD 19 mn social cohesion and reconciliation project implemented by Global Communities (July 2018-Dec, 2023) [2] Analysis of social cohesion and reconciliation implemented by US Institute of Peace at a cost of USD 700,000 (Aug. 2018-Feb. 2024) [3] USD 15 mn project implemented by Chemonics International Inc. to strengthen the justice sector, including the Justice Ministry and Office of Attorney General (Sept. 2021-Sept. 2026) [4] USD 17 mn project carried out by National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute and International Foundation for Electoral System in support of Parliament and other government institutions, including the Election Commission (June 2020 – June 2024) [5] USD 14 mn worth project in support of civil society meant to achieve good governance reforms and strengthen accountability. Implemented by Management Systems International (Feb. 2018-Aug. 2024) [6] USD 7.9 mn scheme to strengthen media implemented by International Research and Exchanges Board Inc. (Aug. 2017-April 2023) [7] SAFE Foundation implemented a programme at a cost of USD 3.9 mn aimed at combating human trafficking (Oct. 2021-Sept. 2026) [8] USD 1.6 mn project to enhance protection for those threatened by gender-based violence (Oct. 2021-Sept. 2026). Implementing agency Women-in-Need [9] USD 3.6 mn project for the benefit of plantation community implemented by Institute of Social Development (June 2022-June 2027) and [10] a staggering USD 19 mn project meant to strengthen the civil society by unnamed private agencies (Sept. 2022-August 2027).

Interestingly, high profile USAID operations implemented in collaboration with successive governemnts covered the Justice sector (Justice Ministry and Office of Attorney General), Parliament as well as the Election Commission.

Over the years USAID with a massive budget that even exceeded the CIA’s and allied organizations have built up a system that served the interests of the US. That is the truth. Sri Lanka has cooperated not only with the US but other organizations, such as the UNDP, to allow them influence in Parliament. The USAID and UNDP have ‘secured’ Parliament by lavishly spending funds on various projects. In spite of spending millions in USD with the 2016 agreement between Parliament and USAID being the single largest project, what they have achieved here is nothing but a mystery.

Successive governments have encouraged USAID, UNDP and other interventions. They felt happy as external sources provided the funding. Let me give an example of how the UNDP stepped-in for want of sufficient public funding for vital government initiatives. Sometimes, they advanced their political project in the guise of helping the government of the day.

On May 13, 2021, the then Attorney General Dappula de Livera, PC, opened the USAID funded state-of-the-training facility that included a boardroom, auditorium, computer laboratory, and other facilities. The outspoken AG also launched an electronic system to track cases and legal files. The launch of the training facility, electronic diary and file management system, and the Attorney General’s Department website were also attended by Supreme Court Judge Justice Yasantha Kodagoda P.C., Acting Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam P.C., the Secretary of the Ministry of Justice M.M.P.K. Mayadunne, and virtually by DCM Kelly and USAID Mission Director Reed Aeschliman.

The US Embassy, in a statement issued on that quoted AG Livera as having said: “This is another first in the 136-year history of the Attorney General’s Department. The opening of the training centre is a notable, salutary achievement that meets a long-felt need for continuous learning and professional development.” The AG was further quoted as having said these new tools would “drive the institution from strength to strength.”

If such facilities were so important why on earth the Attorney General’s Department failed to take tangible measures to meet that particular requirement.

Those who demand investigations into USAID must realize that their role is much more complicated than alleged and reported in some sections of the media. Among the beneficiaries were the Sri Lanka Judges’ Institute.

American Corner in Jaffna

The US Embassy established an American Corner in Jaffna with the collaboration of Jaffna Social Action Centre (JSAC), an NGO that particularly promoted women and children rights. Formed in 2003 in the North as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was preparing to launch Eelam War IV, JSAC, over the years, developed into a recipient of US funding. JSAC is among the groups promoting LGBTQ in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. JSAC annually participates in the much-touted 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Based Violence campaign. The then US Ambassador Butenis attended the opening of the American Corner. JSAC, in its website, has revealed an impressive list of partners and donors.

Perhaps JSAC should explain how it served the interests of ordinary people, especially during the 2003-2009 period when the LTTE stepped up forcible recruitment of children, including girls. Forced conscription continued unabated as the military slowly but steadily rolled back the LTTE fighting formations, towards the east coast, until they were trapped in a sliver of land in the Mullaitivu district.

Sri Lanka should be grateful for US assistance over the past decades. The ordinary people benefited from such help but later Washington weaponized the setup as various interested parties queued up to secure lucrative contracts.

Amb, Chung, in late Sept. 2022, moved the American Centre in Colombo, that had been in existence for over seven decades, to the new US Embassy building. This was a couple of months after Aragalaya (March – July 2022) forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of office. The American Centre in Colombo had been first located at the Millers Building in Colombo, then at Galle Face Court, followed by Flower Road, before moving to the Sri Ramya at 44, Galle Road.

The American Corner in Kandy was established in 2004. In addition to Jaffna, Colombo and Kandy, there are similar facilities in Matara and Batticaloa.

The recent declaration by Bharatiya Janata Party MP Nishikant Dubey, in the Indian Parliament, that the USAID had been funding organisations with a view to creating unrest cannot be ignored. The BJP’s declaration underscored the gravity of the situation. Those who discarded repeated accusations by National Freedom Front (NFF) leader Wimal Weerawansa as regards US interventions here must take a fresh look at the developments taking place since Donald Trump’s return for a second term.

Dubey alleged the USAID funded organizations that carried out protests against the Agniveer initiative of the government, backed caste census, and supported Naxalism in India.

On behalf of the BJP, Dubey asked for a probe into whether Congress and the Gandhi family-controlled Rajiv Gandhi Foundation had received USAID funds through George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) for conducting activities, including the campaign for a caste census and against the Agniveer scheme introduced by the government. The MP claimed OSF received ₹5,000 crores from USAID to “break up India”. He raised the issue during zero hour.

The BJP MP’s accusations seemed somewhat surprising as India, under Narendra Modi’s leadership, established close relations with Washington and is a member of the four-country Quad, comprising the US, Australia, Japan and India meant to counter Chinese expansion.

Why subvert India? Is the question in everybody’s mind? President Trump, during a joint press conference with Premier Modi, speculated about the possibility of USAID role in the Lok Sabha elections last year. Perhaps Trump is playing politics even at the expense of the US as he sought to dismantle USAID.

The Trump administration has imposed a global stop-work directive on USAID, suspending most aid initiatives, except for critical food relief programmes.

However, India, too, had been blamed for interfering in internal affairs of other countries. Recently Canada alleged that India intervened in its electoral process. Canada named China as the other offender. India has strongly refuted the Canadian allegation. It would be pertinent to mention that Canada had been playing politics with Sri Lanka for many years as major political parties sought to exploit the post-war developments for their advantage. New Delhi also accuses Canada of encouraging Khalistan separatists operating from there.

Canadian Parliament, in May 2022, unanimously declared that Sri Lanka perpetrated genocide in a bid to appease Canadian voters of Sri Lanka origin.

The expansion of the USAID project here should be examined against the backdrop of Geneva adopting a US accountability resolution, co-sponsored by the treacherous Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government in 2015. The US backed Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election. That was in line with their overall strategy to end the Rajapaksas rule, perceived to be China-friendly. The US funded the 2015 UNP-led campaign that involved the TNA and JVP as well. A group of civil society groups, led by the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ), backed Sirisena’s candidature, who switched sides at the last moment having been in the Rajapaksas camp throughout his political career and it was done after having a hopper feed with them the previous night.

Having betrayed his own party in 2014, Sirisena has ended up politically irrelevant. That is the price the one-time SLFP General Secretary had to pay for switching sides for personal gain. The former President is most unlikely to get an opportunity to re-enter Parliament ever again.

The NPP will have to be cautious how it handles the situation against the backdrop of developing political and economic upheaval in Washington as we may have never seen hitherto. The way the new administration addressed much more complicated issues, such as the Russia-Ukraine war in a manner seriously inimical to the European powers and pullout from the Geneva-based UNHRC and WHO meant that Trump has already turned US foreign policy upside down.

Midweek Review

Revisiting Humanism in Education:

Published

5 days ago

2025/02/19

Sahan Weerasooriya

Tagore

Insights from Tagore – III

by Panduka Karunanayake

Professor in the Department of Clinical Medicineand former Director, Staff Development Centre,

University of Colombo

The 34th J.E. Jayasuriya Memorial Lecture

14 February 2025

SLFI Auditorium, Colombo

(Continued from18 Feb.)

Tagore had an important answer to the question of whether the economic or the political should enjoy the primacy of place, in designing educational policy. He said: “Economic life covers the whole base of society, because its necessities are simplest and the most universal. Educational institutions, in order to obtain the fullness of truth, must have close association with this economic life.”

Sometimes I have difficulty understanding why Tagore, in spite of his appreciation of science and disdain for superstition, still lavishly exalted his traditional dieties and the scriptures. I think he did so because he saw a remarkable practical utility in them for the organisation of society and because they carried innumerable lessons for human conduct – for which science and technology, or even modern administration, had not yet furnished any suitable alternative.

Besides, it is clear that he admired religion’s potential to bring peoples together. In The Religion of Man, he wrote: “On the surface of our being we have the ever-changing phases of the individual self, but in the depth there dwells the Eternal Spirit of human unity beyond our direct knowledge.” But of course, religion seldom brought humanity together. And whenever it played the divisive role, he did not blindly follow its precepts.

The stickiest issue in India for the modern philosopher is probably its caste system, and Tagore had no qualms about repudiating it:

“…differentiation and separation of vocations and trades, professions and callings on which the caste system originally rested has become totally extinct and it is altogether impossible to maintain it any longer. Yet all the taboos, external restrictions and customs associated with the varna system are still in place, static and intact. It seems we must put up with the cage with all its iron bars and fetters though the bird for which it was made is dead and gone. We provide bird feed every day but no bird feeds on it. In this way, due to the cleavage between our social life and social customs, we are not only being inhibited and obstructed by unnecessary, outmoded arrangements, we cannot live up to our professed social ideals, either.”

Prof. Carlo Fonseka / Dr. Abrahm T. Kovoor

I wish that for our country, we could replace the phrase ‘caste system’ with our own ‘outmoded arrangements’ – such as astrology, superstitious rituals and harmful so-called healing practices – and carefully re-read that quote. Sadly, our populace is filled with superstition, myth and pseudoscience – as a cursory glance at the supplements of any weekend Sinhala newspaper would show. Here, the high literacy rate actually works against the nation! Our public intellectuals must also take the blame, because they have failed to sustain the good work that had been done in the 1970s by intellectuals like Dr E.W. Adikaram, Abraham Kovoor and Professor Carlo Fonseka.

Another interesting point in his ideas is his desire to see education as a tool for everyone, not just the educated few. Reminding us on ancient Indian education and learning, he said:

“There was a regular traffic between specialised knowledge and ordinary knowledge. Scholars, pundits or learned society did not have an antithetical relationship with the less learned segments of society…There was hardly a place in the country where the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Puranic myths and religious discourse did not spread in a variety of ways. Even the theoretical philosophical issues which were rigorously, relentlessly discussed and debated in philosophy and metaphysics always filtered down to the mind of the people…In those days learning was the asset of the entire society and not the acquisition of the learned few.”

In our own country, in contrast, I wonder whether expanded access to education has had a similar effect. In spite of decades of education in swabhasha and wide access to education, knowledge is a tool of separation, seclusion and self-aggrandisement for the few who win the lottery. Is this the fault of the education or the educated? Perhaps both. The educated use their learning as a weapon rather than as a tool to serve, a manifestation of the fierce competitiveness and the fixed mindset that pervades the successful products of our education. At the same time, as Tagore pointed out, it is the fault of education too:

“The rains of our education are falling a long distance away from where the roots of our whole life lie…Our ordinary daily life has no use for the education we acquire…It is unjust to blame this on students. Their world of books and the world in which they live everyday are poles apart…That is why it is seen that the same person who has formidable erudition in European philosophy, science and ethics tenaciously clings to the age old superstitions…We are no more amazed when we see that on the one hand he is separately enjoying literature full of varied sentiments while on the other he is busy only with making money…”

These are a few fundamentals that can be gleaned from Tagore’s second phase. They aren’t many, and perhaps they aren’t as earth-shattering as one might expect. But I feel that they are exactly what we are lacking today and prevent education from playing a nation-building role. If we can get these right, we actually need to get very little else right.

Phase 3: ‘Freedom from bondage’

Tagore’s role and position as an unrepentant internationalist at the time when India was demanding swaraj is well known. He was opposed to nationalism, and in fact correctly identified colonialism itself as a manifestation of the nationalism of the British – so he asked, if one were anti-colonialist, how could one be nationalist also?

But his internationalism was not a rootless existence floating aimlessly in the air. He was clear that one must be rooted in one’s own soil, strongly and firmly – it is from here that one must reach out to the wealth of the world. In another beautiful simile, he urged us not to fear the wind, and to open the windows of our house to let that wind in. He would assure us that we would be able to retain the good that the wind blew in and get rid of the bad. He also said that as long as our house had a firm foundation, the wind will not blow it away. So for him, the first step of being an internationalist is studying one’s own soil and placing a firm foundation for one’s existence. He admired and studied tradition without being a traditionalist.

With regard to Indian universities of his day, he lamented the fact that these were European grafts and nothing like India’s ancient intellectual heritage, such as Nalanda, Wikramshila or Takshasila. He lamented the type of intellectual this would produce. He wrote in 1932:

“We receive European learning as something static and immutable and consider it the height of modernity to cull and recite sentences from it. For this reason we lack the courage to reconsider it or think about it from a new angle. Our universities have nothing to do with and are cut off from the acute questions, dire necessities and extreme hardship facing the people of the country…Like parasites our mind, attached to text books, has lost its ability to find its food and invent by itself.”

These words seem no less relevant to our own universities, 90 years after they were written.

Tagore’s belief in internationalism and its effect on his philosophy of education is captured by his description of Visva-Bharati, the higher education institute he set up in 1921 using the Nobel Prize money: “Visva-Bharati represents India where she has her wealth of mind which is for all. Visva-Bharati acknowledges India’s obligation to offer to others the hospitality of her best culture and India’s right to accept from others their best.”

Conclusion

Prof. J. E. Jayasuriya / Dr. E. W. Adhikaram

Ladies and Gentlemen: I am afraid time would not permit me to cover the whole breadth of Rabindranath Tagore’s complete educational philosophy, and I wouldn’t even pretend to cover it in depth. For example, I didn’t touch on other important aspects that Tagore spoke of, such as school administration, advice for teachers, maintaining discipline without corporeal punishment, carrying out research and promoting creativity, women and education and so on. Forgive me for only scratching the surface. But the topic of Tagore’s educational philosophy is so vast that nothing wider would be possible in a short time.

You will also note that my talk was not filled with anecdotes of incidents and peculiarities at Santiniketan – like how classes were conducted under trees or how the gurudev once conducted a class in the rain for cattle when the students didn’t want to come out and get wet. These are not the timeless substance of the tale; they are only its time-sensitive ornaments.

If, on the other hand, I have been able to whet your appetite for his educational philosophy, and also convinced you that he had patiently worked on and presciently invented an antidote to today’s problems of education, I would be content for now. Balance was his antidote. My goal this evening was to place the seeds of his ideas in your minds, and hope that they will grow, be nourished and be pruned and manicured into a contextually appropriate shape in the months or years to come.

Selected bibliography

Dasgupta, U. (2013). Rabindranath Tagore: A Biography. Oxford University Press. (Translated by hiisß ckl l=udr- mßj¾;l (2024).rúkaøkd;a ;df.da¾-udkj ksoyi iy úúO;ajh kqf.af.dv iriú m%ldYlfhdaව)

Dore, R. (1976). The Diploma Disease: Education, Qualification and Development. London: George Allen & Unwin (republished in 1977 by Institute of Education, University of London).

Gunasekara, P. (2013). moaud .=Kfialr – kkaofiak .%duSh wOHdmk l%uh^1932-1939) lkakka.r;=udf.a wu;l l< fkdyels w;ayod ne,Sula fld<U iQßh m%ldYlfhda: කන්නunasekara, S.P. (2012). iuka mqIamd .=Kfialrම(2012). rúkaøkd;a ;df.da¾ fld<U tia f.dvf.aසහiyifydaorfhda(Basedon Rabindranath Tagore: The Myriad Minded Man (1995) by Krishna Dutta and Andrew Robinson, and other works.)

Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling Society. USA: Harper & Row (republished in 1973 by Penguin Education, Harmondsworth, England).

Iyengar, K.R.S. (1987). Rabindranath Tagore: A Critical Introduction. London: Oriental University Press.

Kripalani, K. (1961). Tagore: A Life. New Delhi: National Book Trust, India (author publication, republished in 1971 by National Book Trust, India).

Maithra, S., translator (2014). Education as Freedom: Tagore’s Paradigm. New Delhi: Niyogi Books.

Navaratnam, R. (1958). New Frontiers in East-West Philosophies of Education. Calcutta: Orient Longmans.

Neogy, A.K. (2010). Santiniketan and Sriniketan: The Twin Dreams of Rabindranath Tagore. New Delhi: National Book Trust, India.

Samuel Ravi, S. (2024). Philosophical and Sociological Bases of Education (2nd edn). Delhi: PHI Learning. (Chapter 13: ‘Rabindranath Tagore’, pp. 163-179.)

Sarathchandra, E.R. de S. (1942). ‘Through Santiniketan eyes’. Kesari People’s Weekly (Jaffna) serialised from 2(9) to 2(17) and compiled by Goonetileke, H.A.I., also available translated to Sinhala ^iqpß; .ï,;a-mßj¾;l ප(2001). ශYdka;s ksfla;kfha weiska fld<U tia f.dvf.a iy ifydaorfhda).

Venn, G. (1965). Man, education and work. In, Cosin, B.R., editor: Education: Structure and Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. (Chapter 6, pp. 97-107.)

Venn, G. (1971). Preparation for further preparation (editorial). Educational Leadership 1: 339-341.