Connect with us

Politics

Innocence and guilt in accusation and punditry

Published

on

by Malinda Seneviratne

It’s a Covid19-dominated week. Well, what week in the last nine months or so has not been dominated by the deadly virus, one may ask. This is true. The numbers pertaining to what is now called ‘The Second Wave’ are far more alarming than those we saw during the initial stages of the outbreak.Covid-19 may not be here forever, but it certainly is going to be around for quite a while. The experts have put together a strategy and various institutions are engaged in doing their parts in combating the pandemic. While there are containment measures being put in place whenever a cluster is identified, there’s no indication of an island-wide lockdown being imposed. Protection protocols are now well known by one and all. They are imposed in various degrees of strictness by all institutions, public and private. Lapses there were, are and will be. This is to be expected and this is unfortunate because all the good work of authorities working tirelessly and at great risk can be undone by one errant individual or a relaxing of protection regimes by any institution.

That’s Covid. Covid or no Covid, as the Opposition has often enough argued, the economy must function. Obviously, this throws sand in the wheels of the Opposition’s oft-expressed horror about constitutional reform. The fact of the matter is that parliamentarians are required to make laws, not administer Covid tests.

So let’s move to the ‘usual’ matters of the week. Last week court absolved the then President’s Secretary Lalith Weeratunga and the Director General, Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of any wrongdoing over the much publicized sil-redi case. This week, former Eastern Province Chief Minister Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pillayan was granted bail by the Batticaloa Magistrate’s Court. Pillayan was arrested on October 11, 2015, more than five years ago. No trial. Hold on to that.

Now we have various people complaining about LTTE cadres being held without trial. Among them are NGO personalities, representatives of various countries and UN agencies and political commentators. None of them saw anything wrong about Pillayan being held for so long. Was it because it was their friends (the Yahapalanists) during whose watch he was put behind bars? Is it then about friends and not about principles?

They appear to have abandoned the LTTE suspects (political prisoners, they call them) and have Hejaaz Hizbullah as their pinup boy of the moment. Hizbullah is being held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. His case has not come up for trial. He could be held for years. Just like Pillayan. If one applied the principle, ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ then one has to be seriously worried about sloth in the judicial system which makes it possible for anyone to be held indefinitely (five years in the case of Pillayan, more than 10 in the case of LTTE cadres and who knows until when in the case of Hizbullah?).

Interestingly, the horror-stricken alluded to above have been and still are comfy in making out that accusation amounts to guilt. The Sri Lankan security forces have been berated over their heads for more than a decade with this twisted club. They don’t seem to realize that the same instrument can be used on Hizbullah.

Interestingly, the twist works in the other direction as well. If accusation does not amount to guilt (as those defending the Sri Lankan security forces often claim) then the patently nasty treatment of Hizbullah is out of order. Out of order too is a government that does not insist that this is unfair. Out of order also on account of the long and unexpected delay on the part of the prosecution with respect to Hizbullah.

This week, we also saw former President, Maithripala Sirisena in the news. He does cut a sorry figure considering that his newsworthiness is solely dependent on appearances at the Commission of Inquiry into the Easter Sunday attacks. Yahapalanists who were crowing that the 19th Amendment effectively clipped the executive wings of the president and made the Prime Minister (that’s Ranil Wickremesinghe) all powerful, ought to defend Sirisena, but they don’t. Neither do they blame Ranil Wickremesinghe. Easter Sunday is an egg laid by some unknown hen, as far as they are concerned.

Speaking of the Easter Sunday attacks, what really happened to that parliamentary committee on national security appointed by the previous government? A sectoral oversight committee on National Security submitted a report ‘for (the) formulation and implementation of relevant laws required to ensure national security that will eliminate “New Terrorism” and extremism by strengthening friendship among races and religions.’ That’s what’s on the title page of over 300 paged report. It was presented to Parliament on February 19th, 2020, days before Parliament was dissolved and the curtain officially fell on the Yahapalana circus.

The committee was chaired by Malith Jayathilake and included Shehan Semasinghe, Vijitha Herath, Weerakumara Dissanayake, Buddhika Pathirana, M.S. Thowfeek, Palitha Thevarapperuma, S Viyalanderan, Dharmalingam Siddarthan, A A Wijethunga, M.A. Sumanthiran, Chandima Gamage, Kavinda Jayawardane, Mayantha Dissanayake, Bandula Bandarigoda, Muhammad Ibrahim Mansoon and Ashu Marasinghe.

Some of the above are still members of the current Parliament. Regardless, it is a comprehensive report with what appears to be pragmatic measures. The President and his party repeatedly said that national security is a ‘Number One Priority’. The report covers important areas such as education, attire that makes identification impossible, national security policy, amendment of immigration and emigration laws to be in line with new national and international developments, media (print, electronic and social), amendment of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act, empowerment of Muslim civil society, non-governmental organizations, amendment of the Waqf Act, stopping the registration of political parties that are based on ethnicity and religion, issuance of national identity cards that affirm a Sri Lankan identity, establishment of a ministry for religious affairs that includes all faith-communities, the conduct of religious schools and centers, guidelines for the use of religious iconography, and Halal certification, Why can’t this report be taken as a base document to formulate relevant acts with ‘national security’ as the desired outcome?

The leaders of the political coalition who pushed for this committee are silent. The government is silent. The silence obviously doesn’t sit well with sections of all ethnic and religious communities that are wary of extremism and suspect that politicians are hedging bets with narrow political objectives in mind.

The government is also cagey on the issue of burials, i.e. the disposal of the bodies of Muslims who have succumbed to Covid19. The Government has not spoken in one voice on this matter. No decision to allow burials, Cabinet Spokesperson and Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella said. It will be allowed, opined Chamal Rajapaksa. A Muslim organization said ‘Justice Minister Ali Sabry said it will be allowed.’ Sabry did bring it up in cabinet, but no such decision was taken. The President has insisted that response to Covid-19 is framed by the advice given by health professionals. Well, the health professionals can give a clear determination on the matter without twiddling thumbs and indulging in navel-gazing. They will have to take into consideration the science which informed the decisions taken by other countries. For the record, almost all countries have sanctioned burials. If issues of water contamination are worrisome, then a way to circumvent the problem can be found, not just for Muslims who died of Covid-19 but in the case of anyone from any community whose family prefers internment to cremation.

The sooner the better. Faith is a personal thing, yes. Faith sparks emotion, more than reason. Fears need to be taken into consideration. Science needs to drive decision-making. Above all, the thinking needs to be logical and moreover communicated clearly, without ambiguity or convoluted arguments. The onus is on the government.

Let’s give the budget some play here. Once again, Harsha de Silva of the Samagi Jana Balavegaya had to bat for the Opposition with regard to foreign policy. Perhaps this is because he was associated with that ministry during the previous regime; Mangala Samaraweera, the subject minister, although he hasn’t retired his mouth, has retired or at least taken a break from parliamentary politics.

De Silva claims that the government has a confused foreign policy. Dinesh Gunawardena didn’t do himself any favors by alluding to the non-aligned concept. De Silva pounced on it. However, the degree and choice of alignment in a complex international system was spelled out recently by the President when he met the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: a) friendly relations with all nations, b) China has been a long-time friend, c) nothing will be done to jeopardize India’s national security concerns, d) investment welcome more than aid. The President didn’t speak on foreign policy during the budget debate obviously, but the position should have been emphasized.

That said, what are De Silva’s credentials when it comes to foreign policy? Back in the day he spoke of ‘economic diplomacy’. It translated into ‘whatever Uncle Sam says.’ However, the Brexit Moment, so to speak, brought this theory and application crashing to the ground. His former boss said ‘We will look East.’ As though he had been sleeping for twenty years!

De Silva claims that diplomacy is about honesty, sincerity, civility and responsibility. That’s a fairytale if ever there was one. In any case, such things were non-existent in the foreign policy doctrine of the previous regime. Servility on the other hand was observed as though it was an article of faith. If his party had got it all right, how come nothing tangible resulted?

De Silva speaks of servility replacing meritocracy and ability. Servility or loyalty (if one wants to be polite) does seem to be a key factor in diplomatic appointments/promotions. The Yahapalana Government was no different (which is not an excuse for the Gotabaya Rajapaksa regime to follow suit). De Silva knows about the appointments of J.C. Weliamuna, Lal Wickramatunge, A.S.P. Liyanage and Lalith Allahakoone among others, as well as rubbishing seniority within the service in promotions. He knows how sovereignty was compromised by Mangala Samaraweera via co-sponsorship of Resolution 30/1. Amazing how one’s skills, knowledge, competence and capacity to govern seem to increase -as soon one leaves the government and sits in the Opposition. He knows how low-ranking US civil servants were offered VIP treatment violating all established protocol. Maybe he believes it is ‘civility.’An FB comment on De Silva is applicable to many in the Opposition including those currently in the Government who once sat on that side of the House: ‘Amazing how one’s skills, knowledge, competence and capacity to govern seem to increase -as soon one leaves the government and sits in the Opposition.’ And this is another comment that says a lot about diplomacy in general: ‘Sri Lanka’s ambassadors have no mandate to serve the host nations interests. They have a duty to uphold ours. There is nothing diplomatically great about begging and pleading big bullies to keep us on their friends lists. His lack of reference to Sri Lanka’s ties with any nation which doesn’t conform to capitalist models is evidence that for de Silva a diplomatic win is only a win with the West. All other victories are not worth talking about. This is also how Colombo liberals think.’In other matters that might have gone under the radar, Russia has pledged to improve ties with Sri Lanka. Sarath Weerasekera, who got the most number of preferential votes from the Colombo District has been sworn in as the Minister of Public Security. More importantly, two ministries have been brought under the purview of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. He will now handle the subjects of Defense and Technology. Perhaps the President has decided it is time to get things moving without allowing Covid-19 to bog him down. A response system has been put in place, as mentioned above. People with decent track records are in charge. He obviously trusts their judgment. They will no doubt do the best they can given constraints of a) resources, b) the need to balance response with economic and social imperatives, c) the as yet unknown factors of how the virus behaves. The President can and should take a break. His leadership is required elsewhere now. malindasenevi@gmail.com.

 

www.malindawords.blogspot.com.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Politics

PROPPING-UP THIS PRESIDENT IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR POLITICAL SUICIDE

Published

on

DR. DAYAN JAYATILLEKA

In one dimension, Sri Lankan politics is a tale of cross-party political collaboration that should have taken place but didn’t, and those that shouldn’t have taken place but did.The two varying yet intermittently intertwining story-lines have widely discrepant endings, though. Collaborations that should have taken place but didn’t are stories of what might have been and wasn’t. What might have been is often better than what actually was.By contrast, stories of collaboration that should not have taken place but did, are stories of disasters that were avoidable but weren’t.

Sometimes the collaborations that should have been preceded those that should not have been but were acted upon. These are particularly poignant because an alliance or political equation that had the potential of leading to something positive, was immediately substituted by an equation which culminated in catastrophe.

There is another, inner connection. It is the causal link between the alliances that should have been made and weren’t, that led to lost potential, which was then sought to be offset by alliances that should not have been entered into but were, with worse consequences than the stagnation sought to be avoided or offset by entering into them.

The Left was never as strong as it was after the General Election of 1947. If the discussion at H. Sri Nissanka’s residence ‘Yamuna’ succeed and a bloc had formed of the three left parties—the LSSP, CP and the BLP—and the independent progressives, Ceylon would have had a left oriented Government which would have taken the country on a Nehruvian or ‘left-Nehruvian’ path.

Having rejected that option, the same leftist parties were later reviled, and correctly so, for having clung to “Sirima’s sari pota” and electorally decimated where they remain to this very day. Just recently, and incredibly, their residues voted for Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Emergency under which the Aragalaya activists are being arrested.

After the magnificent Hartal of August 1953, the political parties that participated and supported it failed to unite in a single bloc. The result was that SWRD’s SLFP fell prey to the temptation of Sinhala Only, lobbied for by a civil society caucus led by Prof GP Malalasekara and the All- Ceylon Buddhist Congress he chaired, riding the surf of the Buddha Jayanthi and the ACBC report.

When SWRD tried to compensate by course-correction through the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact, the Left didn’t come forward to enter a bloc with him in support. Ironically the same left entered a united front with his far less progressive widow and enthroned Sinhala only in the 1972 Constitution.

The Left finally entered a United Front in 1963, accompanied by the unification of the left-led trade union movement. The united left won the Borella by-election that year. In 1964 the LSSP broke the left front and joined Mrs. Bandaranaike’s cabinet. In 1968, in place of a reunified Left, the CPSL joined the LSSP in a coalition with the SLFP, holding a joint rally in Bogambara.The resultant vacuum on the left permitted the birth and rapid growth of the JVP.

Fifteen years after the LSSP’s co-optation and nine years after the CPSL’s, the entire old left had been electorally wiped out, with Philip Gunawardena who had joined a UNP cabinet, having been electorally eliminated earlier in 1970.I could go on. The moral of the story is simple. Left unity is a good thing and left disunity is not. Left and the unity with progressive independents is a good thing and its absence is not. The Left uniting with a center party under left dominance is bad but doing so on an equal footing, isn’t.The Left uniting with a dominant center party, i.e., with the SLFP in 1964 and 1970-1975/’77, is a terrible thing.

A center-left or center party uniting with a rightwing or center-right party is a bad thing. President Sirisena and the SLFP learned that lesson the hard way and the current trend of the SLPP opting for Ranil Wickremesinghe over Dullas Alahapperuma, the SLFP and the 10-parties being drawn into President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s orbit, having voted for his draconian Emergency (the SLFP was absent), will prove electorally fatal.

TAMIL PARTIES

The Tamil parties have a sad history of supporting the rightwing UNP which inevitably winds up unpopular and the target of a huge backlash. The presence of the Tamil parties in a bloc with the UNP, unfortunately facilitates an utterly reprehensible entry of Sinhala chauvinism into the anti-government backlash.

It is utterly counterproductive for the Tamil parties to be in an elitist UNP bloc. It was the presence of those parties in the UNP-led seven-party national Government of 1965-1970 that facilitated the opportunistic or semi-spontaneous injection of Sinhala ethno-populism into the Opposition campaign of the second half of the 1960s, which even more horridly, culminated in the official Sinhala racism after it assumed office, e.g., media-wise and district-wise Standardization of university entrance, the hegemonistic status of Sinhala and Buddhism in the 1972 Constitution.

The Tamil parties should think twice before being enticed into an alliance, de jure or de facto, with the unelected, illegitimate president Ranil Wickremesinghe who will cause a further spike in unprecedentedly high social disaffection by his economic “shock therapy”. It could cause a toxic cocktail as Sir John’s Delft speech did.

TODAY’S OPPOSITION

What would have happened to any Opposition political party that joined, propped up or let itself be drawn into the orbit of the hawkish UNP administration of Sir John Kotelawala after the Hartal of August 1953?

What if SWRD Bandaranaike, having left the UNP in 1951, helped it in 1953, after chairing the Hartal rally on Galle Face Green, though the SLFP didn’t participate in the Hartal?

The answers of these counterfactual history questions are obvious. Any such party which became a de jure or de facto prop (“mukkuwa”) of the Hartal-hit Establishment which had a harder-line post-Hartal leader, would have been committing political suicide.Had SWRD Bandaranaike done so, he would not have been the beneficiary of the anti-Establishment tectonic shift caused or denoted by the Hartal and swept into office through the Silent Revolution of 1956.

Why then are the Opposition parties of today doing or contemplating something even more colossally stupid, of joining, supporting or collaborating with the UNP leader of the Aragalaya-hit Establishment? It is suicidal for two reasons:

Firstly, the leader in question is utterly unelected, totally devoid of a popular mandate, and is therefore a completely illegitimate (though not illegal) ruler.Secondly, he will drive through a controversial and polarizing economic program, which will sink any party associated with it.Meanwhile, the failure of the pro-Aragalaya parties, the JVP, FSP, SJB and TNA, to unite is a repetition of the failure of the pro-Hartal parties to do so in 1953-1956.

Continue Reading

Politics

THE SYSTEM CHANGE THAT CAN ENABLE SRI LANKA TO RECOVER FROM THIS MASSIVE CRISIS

Published

on

by Prof.Tissa Vitarana

The massive crisis that has affected the lives of nearly all classes in our society, specially the poor and middle, in Sri Lanka is not new to us or to most other countries. It is an inherent cyclical feature, occurring at about seven year intervals, due to ‘boom and bust’ nature of the global market driven capitalist economic system brought on by over production. Periodically it may get out of control, like the Asian crisis of 1997 when a whole region was badly affected.

The affected countries that overcame the crisis by their own effort have learned to tide over these crises with minimal disruption. At an international conference in Cairo I had the good fortune to have a lengthy chat with Dr.Mahathir Mohamed (facilitated by us both being doctors turned politicians). He advised against succumbing to IMF pressure at any cost. This was because it is committed to the Prof. Friedman neo-liberal doctrine which facilitates the exploitation of our countries through an import dependent open economy that USA-led Imperialism controls.

The loans given lead to a debt trap which is the root cause of our situation. Sri Lanka’s foreign debt has reached US$ 52 billion and debt servicing last year was six billion dollars and this year seven billion. Hence the shortage of dollars and of essential imports like fuel, gas, chemical fertilizer, medicines and food items. To ensure that at least six months of these imports are obtained the Foreign Exchange Reserve (FOREX) has been maintained at US$ seven to eight billion. Now it is down to zero, and thus causing this severe crisis.

The answer is the development of a national economy with maximum self-sufficiency which is Government regulated in the real interest of all the people, not a few super rich. This was done by Dr. N.M. Perera as Minister of Finance in the 1970/75 SLFP-LSSP-CP coalition government. Since the neo-liberal UNP Government led by J.R.Jayewardene took power in 1977 the country has gone into a situation of economic crisis. While the rich have got richer, the poor have got poorer.

Now it is estimated by nutritionists that about 70% of all families are living below the poverty line and have inadequate food and other essentials. The level of malnutrition has gone up above 20%. It is with great difficulty that the adults of many of these families survive on one meal a day, and provide two meals for their children. Many go to bed at night hungry. The productivity of the economy has gone down and, due to the economic crisis the closure of factories and other work places, has led to massive pay cuts and job losses.

The farmers harvest outputs have dropped due to the shortage and high cost of fertilizer and other inputs. Due to the fall in the import of fuel the shortage and high price has disrupted the transport system, the operation of factories, and the use of machinery in agriculture and in the fishing industry. The economy is on the verge of total collapse.

In the midst of such crisis where the system itself is collapsing, clearly the country and the world requires a system change. Unfortunately those in power are content to tinker with the existing system and make both minor and some major changes, but the outcome has not been adequate. It is my opinion that there needs to be total change of the system that benefits the whole of society and not the few who can manage with the limited but expensive tinkering process.

Society itself needs to be driven not by the profit motive which largely benefits the rich but also by being re-organized to provide the needs of everybody. That is a society based on socialist principles. For instance the high cost of food (due to the massive food inflation) is an outcome of the profit motivated production, distribution and marketing system that exists today. Further, in Sri Lanka for instance due to the high cost of inputs the farmer has to take large loans to cover his cost. He gets into debt and at the time of harvest he has to pay the capital cost along with the interest.

The farmer generally takes big loans from the trader or from institutions (like banks) that provide credit. Many poor farmers in this country find it easier to obtain credit from the traders thereby avoiding the red tape they have to face when they go to institutions that provide credit. But this leads to further problems as the trader often demands that the produce is sold only to him at an amount below the prevailing market price. At times this does not even cover the actual cost of production. And the farmer gets caught up in a cycle of debt from which he has no escape. A majority of the farmers in this country are deeply in debt. They are trapped in a situation of perpetual poverty.

The same problem is faced by small and medium scale entrepreneurs. As a result value added industries too do not develop in the rural sector. There must be a new system which gives the farmers and the entrepreneurs the necessary credit, if possible at no or very low interest at the time that he needs it. This will have to be done by the Government which should ensure that bureaucratic pressures such as the taking of bribes is firmly eliminated.

The LSSP favours a truly cooperative system. There should be producer cooperatives and consumer cooperatives, and they should directly deal with each other without any intermediaries. In the prevailing private enterprise system the producer is exploited by a series of middlemen who jack up the price, so that the consumer has to pay a far higher amount than what the producer gets. This middleman system must be eliminated and the transaction should be directly between the producer cooperatives and the consumer cooperatives.

Thus the consumer will only have to pay the cost incurred in taking the produce between the two without any profit. Such a cooperative system is not a dream but it works in many countries abroad, specially those in Scandinavia. But this has already worked in Sri Lanka too, during the time that Dr.N.M.Perera was Finance Minister in the Government of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike. Unfortunately the cooperatives that are still functioning in this country are cooperatives only in name operated by mudalalis. All the members of the producer and consumer cooperatives must meet and elect reliable office bearers who will function properly at all times. This system change is vital to bring down the cost of living and end hunger and poverty.

Continue Reading

Politics

Twisting the aragalaya into what it is not

Published

on

By Uditha Devapriya

Most analyses approach the crisis in Sri Lanka through the lens of human rights, democratic governance, and accountability. Many of them pin the blame on personalities and parties. Not surprisingly, the narrative has shifted over the last few months. From demonising the Rajapaksas, commentators and analysts now fault President Ranil Wickremesinghe for the country’s problems. More than anything else, they accuse him of trying to harness or tame protesters, citing the raid on Gotagogama in the early hours of July 22.

Internationally, these allegations have found a ready audience. Colombo’s civil society circuits have been given ample time and space on Indian and Western media outlets. The latter have been only too willing to amplify their concerns. In most cases, their narrative follows a set pattern: the government is oppressing protesters, it is using legal and extra-judicial methods to tame them, and it is resorting to militarisation to harness dissent. Such narratives reinforce Sri Lanka’s image as a militaristic State, more or less in line with what was churned about the country at the peak of the separatist conflict.

There is nothing inherently or fundamentally misleading about these claims. Sri Lankans are clamouring for democratic change and they perceive the State and its organs, which include the military, as an affront to their dignity. Yet Colombo’s civil society narratives tend to miss more than a few important points. For instance, they fail to note that while the army has been deployed against protesters, a significant proportion of the latter criticise the army, not for militarising the country, but for acting as vassals of the State. The “People vs Army” line, in that sense, does not really hold when considering how individual soldiers have also joined the protests, to be gleefully welcomed by anti-regime demonstrators.

As far as these analyses go, the military is just the tip of the iceberg. Other narratives include the view that anti-regime protesters all unified under a slogan – #GoHomeGota – because they all had the same demands. These demands included widening access to political power and representation for Sri Lanka’s deprived minorities, not just its ethnic but also sexual minorities. According to this reading, opposition to Rajapaksa brought together different groups, classes, and interests: a welcoming development that can be used to push forward important liberal-democratic political and constitutional reforms.

There is no doubt that, viewed from a certain perspective, and as far as opposition to the State went, the anti-Rajapaksa movement was progressive and liberal. Yet to contend that this alone made the protests progressive would be taking things too far. The truth of the matter is that Gotagogama, out of necessity, lacked a cohesive leadership. This enabled it to play host to different interest groups, not all of whom shared a liberal progressive stance on certain themes and issues. Probably the most important point to take from the protests at Galle Face was that former supporters of the outgoing president formed a significant section there: not really a crowd you’d count on as supporters of liberal causes.

I realised this myself when I paid a visit on July 12, the day before Gotabaya Rajapaksa vacated his office. Towards the evening, when crowds began swarming into Galle Face and emotions were running high, the rhetoric from the centre of the protest zone escalated rather wildly. The centre stood a few feet from a campsite set up for members of Sri Lanka’s LGBTQ community. It was more than a little ironic, then, when an anti-Rajapaksa heckler began shouting slogans which were rather homophobic, throwing words like “butterfly” on the country’s leadership. It was hardly what you’d expect from a protest that was, in every respect, supposed to be aligned with civil society visions of progressive dissent.

In an intriguing essay on the Gotagogama protests (“Sri Lanka’s Next Test”, Project Syndicate), Priyanka Krishnamoorthy raises an important question: was, and is, the aragalaya “a mere marriage of convenience”? In 2019 more than a third of the country gave a whopping majority to Mr Rajapaksa and his party, essentially “endorsing the Rajapaksas’ brand of majoritarian politics.” It goes without saying that the fuel and gas shortages and power cuts have brought them into the streets. But will that by itself be enough to ensure their unity with groups, such as minority rights activists, who have been traditionally viewed with suspicion and tarred as agents for NGO and Western agendas?

In depicting the aragalaya as a swelling of progressive anti-State sentiment, liberals make the same mistake that their nationalist counterparts do: portray the protests as a monolith movement, which it is not. The simple truth is that the aragalaya has hosted gay rights and pro-democracy activists as much as it has homophobes and ultra-nationalists. Liberal outfits may be shy of admitting this, but it’s important to make such a point because the aragalaya needs to be recognised for what it is: a diverse array of political, social, and cultural views and perspectives which do not necessarily cohere with each other, but which came together to oust an unpopular regime: in its simplest sense, a popular uprising.

The same goes for the July 22 raid. By all accounts, the raid was unexpected and, from several standpoints, reprehensible. Yet as the President made it clear, it was his way of demonstrating the State’s commitment to law and order. One may disagree, as I do, with his use of force, and validly concur that it tilted mass opinion against Ranil Wickremesinghe and his government. But then government supporters can claim, as critics like me do not, that in no country has peaceful protests entailed the occupation of public property. This is a deeply divisive debate, one that is yet to be taken forward and concluded.

Civil society and international, particularly Western, media have given the protests the spotlight they deserve. Yet they have also twisted the aragalaya into something it is not. If opposition to the Rajapaksas can be considered liberal, the aragalaya should certainly be lauded for its unyielding stand against the Rajapaksa. Yet to deny its multifaceted character and the complex nature of the situation in the country would be going too far. One must be nuanced in everything. Even when lauding criticism of the State.

The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Trending