Midweek Review

first major political crisis since 2019 prez poll

Published

4 years ago

2021/02/17

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa in conversation in Parliament on Feb 11, 2021. It was President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s fourth visit to Parliament since the inauguration of the new session (pic courtesy PMD)

By Shamindra Ferdinando

National Freedom Front (NFF) leader, Wimal Weerawansa, MP, recently caused quite a political storm by calling for the inclusion of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) decision-making hierarchy. In spite of efforts to settle the issue, amicably, strong statements made by SLPP Chairman Prof. G.L. Peiris and its General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam at the regular weekly media briefing at Waters’ Edge underscored the simmering problem (report on media briefing on page 1)

Weerawansa’s call triggered an extremely angry response from the ruling SLPP with its General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam lambasting the former JVPer. Flanked by Kalutara District SLPP MP Sanjiva Edirimanne and SLPP Administrative Secretary Renuka Perera, Attorney-at-Law Kariyawasam dismissed Weerawansa’s call.

The briefing at the SLPP Nelum Mawatha Office, Battarmulla, revealed unprecedented deep resentment towards Weerawansa whose unexpected appeal took the SLPP by total surprise. Newcomers Kariyawasam, a National List MP and Edirimanne, who polled 105,973 preference votes in the Kalutara district at the last parliamentary election in August 2020, teamed up with Perera. The SLPP ‘blitz’ shook the political scene.

The SLPP primarily targeted Weerawansa on two issues, namely the NFF leader had no right whatsoever to call for removal of SLPP leader Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and the NFF maintained clandestine links with two foreign intelligence agencies.

A section of the media thrived on the unexpected political controversy caused by Weerawansa. The former JVP Propaganda Secretary couldn’t have made that call without realizing the far reaching consequences. Those seeking to exploit the SLPP-NFF dispute tried to capitalise on the situation. The SLPP, too, contributed to that strategy. In its haste to attack Weerawansa over his interview with the Lankadeepa in its Feb 7, 2021 edition, the SLPP forgot the NFF leader wanted a specific political role for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Does President Gotabaya Rajapaksa require a political role? Does he deserve such a role? Can President Rajapaksa be denied a leadership role in the SLFP, undoubtedly the most powerful political party today? Can Gotabaya Rajapaksa ‘operate’ outside the SLPP, thereby depriving him an opportunity to intervene in political matters?

Media ‘blitz’

The SLPP’s drastic response to Weerawansa’s timely suggestion underscored President Gotabaya Rajapaksa lacking much needed political clout. Over a year after the last presidential election in Nov 2019, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa remained a man without SLPP membership. In fact, the SLPP on its own should have considered how to accommodate President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Had the SLPP acted wisely, Weerawansa wouldn’t have had to risk a preventable political crisis. The SLPP actually owed an explanation why it failed to consider a suitable position within the hierarchy. It would be pertinent to mention that Weerawansa secured two other interviews on Feb 7, the day the Lankadeepa published the controversial discussion. Mawbima, published by the Ceylon Newspapers Pvt Limited owned by SLPP National List MP Tiran Alles and Communist Party mouthpiece, ‘Aththa’ (Truth), a name borrowed from the former official Soviet CP newspaper Pravda.

The writer found the Aththa interview conducted by its Editor (name not given) quite critical of the incumbent Rajapaksa administration. In fact, Weerawansa therein asserted that there had been much better internal discussion within the SLFP-led coalition during the previous Rajapaksa presidency (Nov 2005-January 2015). There had been no reference to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa being given a political role whatsoever. The NFF leader who spearheaded a campaign within the SLPP against the hotly disputed government decision to hand over to India 49 per cent stake in the East Container Terminal (ECT) at the Colombo port, in Feb 3, 2021 sought to explain the common stand taken by some parties within the SLPP. Instead, Weerawansa created an enormous political issue that overwhelmed the ruling coalition.

Perhaps, someone should remind Weerawansa how he fired the first salvo against the previous Rajapaksa administration by seeking a consensus with the late Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha. The meeting in the second week of July 2014 set in motion a spate of events leading to SLFP General Secretary Maihripala Sirisena switching allegiance to UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Attack on influential clique

Responding to an Aththa query, Weerawansa explained the weaknesses in the SLPP. Alleging the absence of a regular discussion among constituents of the SLPP, Weerawansa said that though all contributed to the overwhelming victories at the 2019 and 2020 national elections, today a small clique sustained the power. When the actions of that clique caused trouble, the administration sought the help of all others to face the crisis. Declaring he had made his position clear on the extremely unhappy situation, Weerawansa alleged that the government suffered due to lack of internal discussions. Compared to the situation today, the previous Rajapaksa administration handled internal issues better. The views expressed at that time received some recognition. The absence of internal discussions had resulted in challenges to the incumbent administration.

Asked to comment on some SLPP constituents taking a common stand on the ECT issue leading to the SLPP targeting the NFF leader, Weerawansa said that representatives, including lawmakers met at his official residence on January 30, 2021, to take a common stand on the issue at hand. Altogether 10 political parties had participated in the discussion and, at the conclusion, they decided to continue with the grouping. “We decided to meet once a month to discuss developments. Discuss required changes. Discuss the government strategies,” Weerawansa said, revealing they reached a common understanding meant to bring both the government and the country under pressure. The Minister declared that at that time they met to discuss ECT exclusively, subsequently a decision was made to continue with the project. Weerawansa said that they would try to obstruct those trying to take President Gotabaya Rajapaksa on a wrong path.

Weerawansa, in his interview with Aththa, emphasised how the Western powers went even to the extent of exploring the imposition of economic sanctions on Sri Lanka against the backdrop of the 46th session of the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) at a time the country was mired in a deepening crisis due to rising foreign debt. Weerawansa didn’t mince his words when he acknowledged daunting economic challenges and the failure on the part of the government to achieve the much-touted economic objectives. Weerawansa blamed the Covid-19 pandemic mainly for the economic downturn. The former JVP heavyweight warned of dire consequences if the country couldn’t raise over USD 4 bn annually to settle loans obtained by successive governments, particularly the previous yahapalana administration taking commercial loans at high interest rates. Weerawansa alleged the UNP-SLFP administration went for excessively costly loans in the wake of their humiliating defeat at the last Local Government elections on Feb 10, 2018.

In other words, Weerawansa acknowledged that there couldn’t be any justification in ‘boru shows’ at a time of the rapidly developing crisis that could overwhelm the national economy. It would be the responsibility of the SLPP to ensure political stability both in and outside Parliament. An internal crisis within the SLPP now can cause irreparable damage.

Time for politics

Wartime Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa entered active politics in the wake of the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 2015. The 19th Amendment deprived President Mahinda Rajapaksa of an opportunity to seek a third presidential term. One-time SLFP strongman and war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa failed in his hotly challenged bid to secure a third term in 2015. Having launched civil society groups Viyathmaga and Eliya at the onset of the yahapalana administration, Gotabaya Rajapaksa slowly but steadily pursued a political strategy that ultimately paved the way for him to secure the SLPP’s presidential nomination in August 2019. Yet, Gotabaya Rajapaksa didn’t publicly receive SLPP membership. Gotabaya Rajapaksa launched Viyathmaga in early 2016 to take his message to the masses. Viyathmaga was followed by Eliya that focused on countering moves to introduce a new Constitution at the expense of the country’s unitary status.

Viyathmaga emerged as an influential group within the SLPP parliamentary group with eight out of nine contestants gaining entry into Parliament at the August 2020 general election. The SLPP won 145 seats, including 17 National List slots. The Parliament comprises 196 elected and 29 appointed members.

Of the SLPP winners, retired Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera (328,092) and Dr. Nalaka Godahewa (325,479) polled the highest preferential votes in Colombo and Gampaha electoral districts, respectively. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fielded the group on the SLPP ticket whereas former Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal and Dr. Seetha Arambepola were accommodated on the National List.

Of the successful Viyathmaga members, only Weerasekera has represented Parliament before having served the Navy for over three decades and retired as its Chief of Staff. Weerasekera represented Digamadulla electorate during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s second tenure (2010-2015) as the President.

Viyathmaga nominees Prof. Channa Jayasumana (Anuradhapura/133,980), Gunapala Ratnasekera (Kurunegala/141,991), Nalaka Kottegoda (Matale/71,404), Tilak Rajapaksha (Digamadulla/54,203), Dr. Upul Galappatti (Hambantota/63,369), and Udayana Kirindigoda (Mahanuwara/39,904) entered Parliament at the expense of those who represented the last Parliament on the UPFA ticket.

Viyathmaga nominated Businessman Anura Fernando who nursed Colombo (north) electorate failed to get elected, whereas Ali Sabri, PC, who also served Viyathmaga, was accommodated in Parliament through the SLPP National List and not as a member of Viyathmaga.

Can the SLPP continue to ignore the need to bring in President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, formally into the decision- making apparatus of the SLPP?

Mahinda Rajapaksa switched his allegiance from the SLFP to the SLPP less than two weeks after the constitutional coup staged by the then President Maithripala Sirisena in late Oct 2018. Mahinda Rajapaksa received membership on Nov 11, 2018 from SLPP Chairman Prof. G.L. Peiris in the presence of its General Secretary Sagara Kariyawasam. The well attended event took place at Premier Rajapaksa’s official residence at Wijerama Mawatha. Thirty other UPFA lawmakers received SLPP membership on that day.

MR takes SLPP membership

Mahinda Rajapaksa made the surprising move, close on the heels of the Supreme Court suspending President Sirisena’s decision to dissolve Parliament on the night of Nov 9, 2018, and called the general election on January 5, 2019. Sirisena had no other option after the then Joint Opposition and SLFP failed pathetically to prove a simple majority in Parliament. Violence caused by the Joint Opposition in Parliament didn’t serve any purpose other than to bring the entire parliamentary system to disrepute.

The Supreme Court issued its ruling on Nov 14, 2018. Among those who moved the Supreme Court were the UNP, TNA and the JVP. A jubilant UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, while hailing the Court ruling, tweeted that the people have won their first victory. “Let’s go forward and re-establish the sovereignty of the people in our beloved country.”

If the SC ruling went against those who moved the Court, perhaps the political situation would have been much different today. The political situation would have been fashioned on the outcome of the January 5, 2019 general election. Perhaps, the UNP on its own could have secured the largest block of seats in Parliament and form a government with the support of a section of SLFP lawmakers with or without Sirisena. In the last Parliament the UNP had 106 elected under the ‘Elephant’ symbol. The January 5, 2019 general election would have thwarted a disastrous split in the UNP a year later that ultimately led to annihilation of the UNP at the August 2020 general election. The UNP managed to secure just one National List slot. It would be pertinent to examine whether the National Thowheed Jamaat (NTJ) resorted to the Easter Sunday carnage on April 21, 2019 if the general election was held on January 5, 2019 as envisaged by President Sirisena.

Top academic Rajan Hoole speculated in his immensely interesting and controversial ‘Sri Lanka’s Easter Tragedy: When the Deep State Gets Out Of Its Depth’ launched in the run-up to the 2019 Nov presidential election how the failure on the part of the NTJ to secure parliamentary representation at the 2015 general election may have led to the Easter Sunday attacks. If general election was held as President Sirisena wanted the NTJ would have had an opportunity to secure some of its people elected to Parliament via Muslim political parties. Had that happened, perhaps it wouldn’t have resorted to the Easter Sunday attacks, he reasoned.

Who knows spice merchant Mohamed Yusuf Ibrahim whose sons detonated explosives at the Shangri-La and the Cinnamon Grand hotels on April 21 would have found a place in the Parliament. The JVP never explained why Ibrahim was accommodated on its National List at the 2015 general election.

Ibrahim’s sons — identified as Ilham Ahmed Ibrahim and Imsath Ahmed Ibrahim —detonated their explosives at the Shangri-La and the Cinnamon Grand hotels, respectively.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s emergence as the SLPP presidential candidate should be examined against the backdrop of an extremely sensitive political environment following the Easter Sunday carnage. The UNP, the SLFP, JVP, TNA and all political parties represented in Parliament played politics with the issue. A naïve government allowed extremists to go on the rampage weeks after the Easter attacks. The failure to protect the Muslims is definitely as bad as allowing the NTJ to strike in spite of specific warnings received from India. The government never explained how extremists stormed Minuwangoda in the second week of May, 2019. The then Army Commander Lt. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, having failed to prevent the Easter Sunday attacks and anti-Muslim violence, exploited the situation to seek a political career. The Army Commander, too, should have been held responsible for both failures as he also had at his disposal one of the country’s biggest intelligence operations run by the DMI. Senanayake who couldn’t even secure 50,000 votes at the last presidential election, contrary to much publicized promises, refrained from contesting the last parliamentary election. Perhaps he reslised that he had already been badly exposed.

19 A paves the way for GR

If not for the 19th Amendment, Gotabaya Rajapaksa wouldn’t have received SLPP nomination even though a significant section of the electorate appreciated the wartime Defence Secretary’s entry into politics at the highest level. Lawmakers Kumara Welgama, an SLFP heavyweight and Democratic Left Front (DLF) leader Vasudeva Nanayakkara opposed Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s entry. Welgama had the strength not only to take a public stand against Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s emergence as the SLPP candidate but switched his allegiance to the newly formed Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) at the parliamentary election. Welgama entered Parliament from Kalutara.

In utterly appalling Sri Lankan politics, the country shouldn’t be surprised to see the bankrupt SJB and the JVP trying to exploit Weerawansa’s declaration. State Minister Ajith Nivard Cabrral recently reminded the real status of the SJB. Responding to SJB leader Sajith Premadasa’s query on the Katuwana branch of the Bank of Ceylon granting D.S. Gunasekera Company Rs 3.1 bn loan, a smiling former Central Bank Governor asked Premadasa where was he when the BOC subsequent to the then government’s intervention granted the Perpetual Treasuries Limited (PTL) a staggering Rs 10 bn in 10 minutes.

Premadasa formed the SJB after losing to Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the last presidential poll. A section of the civil society in a shameless bid, obviously on behalf of the UNP, moved the judiciary against Gotabaya Rajapaksa claiming he was not eligible to contest. A highly jittery SLPP fielded the then UPFA MP Chamal Rajapaksa as an independent candidate in case Gotabaya Rajapaksa suffered an unthinkable setback. The judiciary ruled in favour of Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the rest is history.

The government tackled the crisis caused by Weerawansa’s intervention. Tourism Minister Prasanna Ranatunga visited the ‘Made in Sri Lanka exhibition’ on Feb 12 on Minister Weerawansa’s invitation where he declared the issue has been settled while issuing a warning to smaller parties. On the following day, Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa visited the exhibition on Weerawansa’s invitation as the top leadership sought to settle the dispute. The SLPP initially hit back hard by calling a media briefing at Ape Gama on Feb 11 where Sanjiva Edirimanna, MP and several others strongly opposed the NFF’s intervention in what they called an internal matter. The government needs to examine contentious matters seriously. In addition to Weerawansa’s stand on the ECT and comment on the SLPP leadership, the former JVP firebrand clashed with the SLPP over the original 20th Amendment as well as an alleged attempt to influence NFF lawmakers. The clash between Weerawansa and SLPP National List MP Jayantha Ketagoda in Premier Rajapaksa’s presence in Parliament highlighted the torrid relationship between the two parties. Obviously all is not well within the ruling coalition. Those who exercised their franchise for the SLPP in 2019 and 2020 expect the ruling coalition to address internal issues, swiftly and decisively or be ready to face the consequences.

All News Advertisement

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.