Midweek Review
Lanka exposed on eve of Geneva sessions for being taken for a USD 6.5mn ride in trying to influence US
By Shamindra Ferdinando
One-time Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations at Geneva Tamara Kunanayakam says the country has no other option, but to oppose the Core Group’s Resolution by calling for a vote when it is tabled at the 46th session of the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
The Core Group, led by the UK, includes Germany, Canada, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Malawi. Kunanayakam, who served in Geneva (2011-2013) emphasized: “If the Resolution is adopted with Sri Lanka accepting, either directly by co-sponsoring or indirectly by not calling for a vote, it will reinstate the notorious HRC Resolution 30/1. By doing so, Sri Lanka will validate its underlying logic that legitimizes the use of illegal unilateral coercive measures against sovereign states; undermine Sri Lanka’s own sovereignty and the UN Charter-based multilateral order, guarantor of that sovereignty; deprive our allies in the Global South of the opportunity to express their views on a precedent-setting resolution that threatens their own sovereignty; and, isolate Sri Lanka, making it more vulnerable than it already is to foreign intervention and aggression. And that will only benefit Washington’s global ambitions for a unilateral world order under US hegemony.”
The then UNP-led coalition co-sponsored the Resolution on Oct 1, 2015. The then Sri Lanka’s PR there Ravinatha Aryasinha was ordered by Colombo to accept the Resolution on Sri Lanka’s behalf after he initially raised objections to it.
Kunanayakam, who had been Sri Lanka’s top envoy in Havana (2009-2011) asserted: “In fact, under today’s conditions, such a resolution will be worse than the 2015 resolution which could easily be dismissed on the basis that the then Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera had acted without authorization and there had been widespread opposition within the country, especially from political parties. This time, it will be interpreted as there having been not only an international consensus, but a national consensus, with the added argument that the Government in place was elected with a near two-thirds majority.”
The foreign affairs analyst was responding to the writer’s query as to what should be Sri Lanka’s response? And how could the country avoid a vote on the Core Group’s resolution?
UK succeeds US
The UK took command of the Core Group in the wake of the US quitting the UNHRC alleging the Geneva body was a cesspool of political bias. Having succeeded the US, the UK, prodded on by an influential Tamil group of Sri Lanka origin, has mounted a despicable political project meant to humiliate post-war Sri Lanka. The failure on Sri Lanka’s part to counter Western propaganda facilitated their operation. The current administration is no exception. Sri Lanka pathetically failed to exploit disclosures made by Western ‘sources’ since the successful conclusion of the conflict in May 2009 to the chagrin of the oft repeated Western refrain that the Sri Lankan security forces were incapable of crushing the almost invincible military machine of the LTTE. Sri Lanka’s pitiable handling of the Geneva affair certainly made the British project easier.
Sri Lanka should be eternally grateful to Lord Naseby for exposing the British project. The Conservative Party member recently revealed how the British conveniently suppressed information which might have helped the UNHRC to establish the truth. The UK withheld information in spite of it being a member of the 47-nation UNHRC. The availability of such information was made known to the world on Oct 12, 2017 thanks to Lord Naseby.
A parliamentary query raised by Lord Naseby recently revealed the suppression of diplomatic cables from the UK High Commission in Colombo in 2009. If revealed, the cables could have disputed the very basis of the unsubstantiated war crimes allegations leading to Sri Lanka co-sponsoring the 2015 Geneva Resolution against itself.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on Feb 16 answered Lord Naseby’s written parliamentary question, tabled on Feb 4.
Question:
Lord Naseby asked the government whether the UK supplied to the UN Human Rights Council any (1) censored, and (2) uncensored, copies of dispatches written by Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Gash, the former Defence Attaché of the British High Commission in Sri Lanka about events in that country between 1 January and 18 May 2009, relating to the civil war.
Answer:
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said that the UK Government had not received any request from the UN Human Rights Council for copies of dispatches written by the former Defence Attaché at the British High Commission in Sri Lanka, Lieutenant Colonel Gash, about events in Sri Lanka related to the civil war, and had not provided any.
British duplicity
Appearing on ‘Face the Nation’ anchored by Shameer Rasooldeen on Feb 15, defence analyst and lecturer Nilanthan Niruthan explained the British duplicity in handling accountability issues. Responding to Rasooldeen, Niruthan didn’t mince his words when explained the rule of law meant that those responsible for crimes should be promptly and fairly prosecuted. Yet the UK government, while seeking to punish the Sri Lanka military, was pushing for a new law – the Overseas Operations Bill – that would make it nearly impossible to prosecute British soldiers for torture and other war crimes committed overseas, Niruthan said. The British actions showed contempt for the rule of law, violation of the UK’s international commitments to prosecute the worst crimes, and risks creating impunity for grave abuse, the programme was told.
The writer on Monday (22) sought a further clarification from Chennai, born Niruthan as regards the British position to the accountability issues. “The British position,” Niruthan, whose parents fled the Jaffna peninsula sometime after the 1983 anti-Tamil riots, said: “… is like a rat accusing a squirrel of being a pest. The UK has been found responsible for systematic war crimes by the ICC prosecutor but the court could not proceed because the UK refused to cooperate with any further investigations. Worse, the UK is now working on a law that will make its own soldiers immune to the very same international prosecutions they are trying to push against the Sri Lankan military. The fact that they are leading the charge against Sri Lanka is evidence of how hypocritical and corrupt the system is. There is a difference between justice and politics. The UK sponsoring the resolution makes it undeniable that all this is much more about politics than anything related to justice. I hope Sri Lankans of all communities are paying attention to these double standards.”
Niruthan contributes to ‘The Journal of Military Operations and Small Wars’ as well as Asia-Pacific magazine called ‘The Diplomat’. Questioning the response of some countries with vested interests to terrorism and post-conflict Sri Lanka, Niruthan referred to the assassination of his grandfather Rajasundaram Vaithalingam, of Vaddukottai, Jaffna by the TELO (Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization). At the time of Vaithalingam’s assassination in 1985, he had been the SLFP organizer for Jaffna.
Western powers turned a blind eye to Indian intervention causing mayhem here in the 80s. India sponsored terrorist groups, including the TELO, engaged in terrorist acts with impunity. They created an environment conducive for the deployment of the Indian Army here (July 1987-March 1990). India lost nearly 1,500 officers and men during the IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Force) deployment. Nearly 3,000 others received injuries and the rest is history.
Today India represents the UNHRC. Foreign Secretary retired Admiral Prof. Jayanath Colombage on Feb 19 revealed to Hiru TV Sri Lanka’s request to Indian PM Narendra Modi’s backing at the UNHRC. India never bothered at least to apologize for causing massive death and destruction in Sri Lanka though New Delhi from time to time reminded Colombo of its obligations towards the Tamil community.
Indian role in bringing war to an end
Ironically, we have to acknowledge the support provided by India during the Eelam War IV (August 2006-May 2009) as it became patently unable to stomach Tiger insolence to its former patron, for turning its guns on the IPKF and especially after the assassination of its ex-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. It would be pertinent to underscore what one-time Indian High Commissioner J, N. Dixit stated in 2004. Dixit, in his memoirs, ‘Makers of India’s Foreign Policy,’ says that he preferred to call India’s interference in Sri Lanka during 1980-1990 period as ‘Indian involvement.’ Dixit asserted that the decision to give active support to Sri Lankan Tamil militants could be considered one of the two major foreign policy blunders made by the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. But Dixit strongly defended the Prime Minister’s action, while asserting Gandhi couldn’t have afforded the emergence of Tamil separatism in India by refusing to support the aspirations of Sri Lankan Tamils [Chapter 6:An Indo-centric Practitioner of Realpolitik-Makers of India’s Foreign Policy].
Dixit failed to explain how the Prime Minister hoped to achieve her twin objectives by recruiting, training, arming and deploying thousands of Sri Lankan Tamil youth. India also helped Sri Lankan terrorists establish contact with international terrorist groups.
Indian action caused irrevocable damage to Indo-Lanka relations. The Maldives, too, suffered due to Indian intervention in Sri Lanka. Dixit totally ignored the Maldivian factor, though Indian trained PLOTE (People’s Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam) was responsible for a coup attempt in the Maldives in Nov. 1988. India had to send in troops to thwart sea borne Sri Lankan terrorists, who mounted the attack on Male. The UNHRC (previously Commission) or Western powers never showed any interest in the suffering of the northern public until the Sri Lankan military eradicated the LTTE.
However, the war could never have been brought to a successful conclusion without New Delhi’s backing. Sri Lanka also needs to understand the US-Japan-India-Australia axis to meet the growing Chinese challenge as it walks a diplomatic tightrope against the backdrop of Colombo’s continuing dependence on Beijing. The Western moves in Geneva, in a way, reflect their overall strategy to undermine China.
Since the end of the conflict in May 2009, the Western powers pushed hard for an accountability process that enabled them to bring Sri Lanka under their domination. They exploited a joint statement issued in the wake of UNSG Ban Ki moon’s visit to Colombo to initiate a direct intimidation process that kicked off with the accusation of killing 40,000 civilians on the Vanni east front by a virtual kangaroo court handpicked by the UNSG and called the Panel of Experts, whose findings neither could be questioned nor can the accusers be cross examined at least for two decades or more. (Report of the Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka released on March 31, 2011).
Gathering evidence the UN way
In the absence of a steady stream of complaints, the Centre for War Victims and Human Rights launched an online campaign to gather war crimes complaints. The petition was launched about a week before the expiry of the first deadline (Dec 15, 2010). The deadline was subsequently extended to Dec 31, 2010. The organizers posted a detailed communication from the Secretariat to PoE/PoE on a website named ‘Stop Sri Lanka State Terrorism’, obviously giving away the ultimate aim of the project. Interestingly, those who had complained cannot be examined in view of a confidentiality clause that prevented scrutiny of such for a period of 20 years (from March 2011 to March 2031). What is really surprising is that Sri Lanka never challenged the confidentiality clause. Sri Lanka owed an explanation why it continuously failed to take up contentious matters, such as the confidentiality clause or wartime US Defence Advisor Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith’s defence of the Sri Lankan military at the first post-war defence seminar conducted in 2011. Let me reproduce verbatim what the US official said. Smith was responding to Maj. Gen. (retd) Ashok Mehta (IPKF) who queried about the alleged battlefield executions. Query directed to the then Maj. Gen. Shavendra Silva, No 2 in New York was answered by the American.
This is what the American had to say: “Hello, may I say something to a couple of questions raised. I’ve been the Defense Ataché here, at the US Embassy, since June 2008. Regarding the various versions of events that came out in the final hours and days of the conflict – from what I was privileged to hear and to see, the offers to surrender that, I am aware of, seemed to come from the mouthpieces of the LTTE – Nadesan, KP – people who weren’t and never had really demonstrated any control over the leadership or the combat power of the LTTE.
“So their offers were a bit suspect anyway, and they tended to vary in content, hour by hour, day by day. I think we need to examine the credibility of those offers before we leap to conclusions that such offers were in fact real.
“And I think the same is true for the version of events. It’s not so uncommon in combat operations, in the fog of war, as we all get our reports second, third and fourth hand from various commanders, at various levels, that the stories don’t seem to all quite match up.
“But, I can say that the version presented here so far in this is what I heard as I was here during that time. And I think I better leave it at that before I get into trouble. “
The US State Department disassociated itself from Lt. Col. Smith’s statement. State Department’s Deputy Spokesman Mark C. Toner responded to questions raised on the basis of The Island report.
QUESTION:
I have one on Sri Lanka. The senior Defense Attaché at the U.S. Mission in Sri Lanka went public in the newspapers (inaudible) that he questioned the credibility of surrender offers made by senior LTTE leaders who was the head of the (inaudible) last year. Does this reflect any change in the U.S. position on the war crime victims?
TONER:
Right. You’re talking about remarks that were made at a conference in Colombo?
QUESTION:
Yes. Yeah.
TONER:
Well, just to clarify, the U.S. did decline invitations to participate in that conference as either a conference speaker or panelist. My understanding is that the Defence Attaché was there as an observer and a note taker. His comments reflected his personal opinions. There’s no change in the policy of the United States, and his remarks do not reflect any change in our policy.
QUESTION:
So that was a personal opinion?
TONER:
Personal opinion. The United States – and just to reiterate that policy – remains deeply concerned by the allegations in the panel of experts report, and we’re committed to seeing a credible accounting of and accountability for violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. And we believe that the Sri Lankan Government must act quickly and credibly to address these allegations.
QUESTION:
Who was the attaché?
TONER:
I don’t have his name.
QUESTION:
Is he still the attaché? (Laughter.) Was there any discussion —?
TONER:
I believe he’s still there, but I’ll try to get an update.
Smith’s statement contradicted the very basis of the war crimes allegations. For a decade, Sri Lanka conveniently failed to exploit US statements whereas resolutions were moved in Geneva on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. Resolutions were passed against Sri Lanka in 2012, 2013 and 2014 before the US backed change of the Rajapaksa administration that paved the way for the US to move the 2015 resolution. Sri Lanka never took any notice of the US State Department declaration that the US spent USD 585 mn to restore democracy in Myanmar, Nigeria and Sri Lanka. If just one third of that amount had been allocated for the Sri Lanka project in addition to funds made available by the USAID in 2015, who were the recipients? The Geneva project can never be really examined without studying the US political designs here. Backing of General Fonseka and Maithripala Sirisena at 2010 and 2015 presidential polls exposed the US strategy. Wikileaks proved that.
Zuberi affair
The writer had an opportunity to discuss the accountability issue on ‘Sirasa’ ‘Pathikada’ anchored by Asoka Dias. The programme aired live, hours before Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena addressed the 46th sessions of the UNHRC, dealing with the failure on the part of successive governments to respond properly to the Western strategy. The squandering of a staggering USD 6.5 mn in 2014 for a harebrained project to prevent the US pushing Sri Lanka on the human rights front captured front-page attention of some print media a few days before the beginning of the Geneva sessions. The absence of overall strategy, too, was highlighted with scheduling of Pakistan PM Imran Khan’s visit to Colombo amidst Geneva sessions and ongoing controversy of cremation of Muslim victims of Covid-19. But, the cancellation of Khan’s address to Parliament on the alleged fears of him raising the Kashmir issue after making a grand announcement underscored the pathetic state of affairs.
American of Indian and Pakistani origin Imaad Zuberi, who had donated heavily to Democrats before former President Donald J. Trump’s election, pleaded guilty to charges related to a $900,000 donation to Trump’s inaugural committee, the US media reported last week. Having promised to save Sri Lanka for a sum of USD 8.5 mn, Zuberi received USD 6.5 mn in a deal negotiated through the Sri Lanka Embassy in Washington. In the following year, the US not only played a key role in the change of government in Colombo, it got the UNP-SLFP administration to co-sponsor a Resolution against Sri Lanka’s wartime political leadership and the military.
In 2019 New York Times quoted Zuberi as having said: “To open doors, I have to donate. It’s just a fact of life.”
The smooth operator had donated heavily to Democrats, including committees supporting President Barack Obama and then Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, before abruptly switching allegiance to Republicans in the wake of Trump’s victory.
The Yahapalana government never made a genuine effort to probe the controversial deal with the American. Investigations revealed that the political agent who had received a 12-year jail term spent vast amounts of Sri Lankan taxpayers’ money to sustain his luxurious lifestyle. Those who had benefited at the expense of Sri Lanka perhaps will never be punished though the military is in the dock. US declaration of Army Chief Gen. Shavendra Silva a persona non grata in the US is a case in point. The same fate befell Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka and Maj. Gen. Chagie Gallage.
Midweek Review
US funding for Colombo port project involving Adani group and JKH in the balance
In response to US indictment, Adani has declared that his conglomerate is committed to “world-class regulatory compliance.” The international media quoted one of the world’s richest as having said: “This is not the first time we have faced such challenges. What I can tell you is that every attack makes us stronger. And every obstacle becomes a stepping stone for a more resilient Adani Group.”
Adani said so at an awards ceremony in Jaipur.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Dr. Ganeshan Wignarajah, in his capacity as an advisor to the Sri Lankan President, and member of the Geopolitical Cartographer board, as mentioned in the latest Indo-Pacific Defence Forum, dealt with the ongoing economic-political-social crisis here.
Dr. Wignarajah, who had served as the Executive Director of the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute (LKI) during the Yahapalana administration, quite confidently asserted (i) economic mismanagement (ii) Chinese loans and (iii) Covid-19 and other external shocks caused the unprecedented crisis.
The quarterly, published by the Commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, is meant to promote their overall political-military and social strategy in the Indo-Pacific region.
The Sri Lankan-born academic, in his article titled ‘Partners for Progress: Sri Lanka works with India, U.S. to bolster economy, stability,’ examined the developing situation here against the backdrop of, what he called, Chinese debt trap diplomacy. China has strongly refuted such accusations over the years. We haven’t forgotten the verbal battle between Yahapalana Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake and the then Chinese Ambassador Yi Xianliang over the former’s disparaging remarks on interest rates on loans provided by China. This was in late 2016, several months after the second mega Treasury bonds scam, perpetrated by the Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe-led government.
Dr. Wignarajah conveniently refrained from making reference to over USD 10,000 million in new International Sovereign Bonds that had been taken between 2015 and 2019, following the change of government. Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa is on record as having declared procurement of USD 10,000 million, by the Yahapalana leaders, broke the back of the Sri Lankan economy. Instead, the academic cleverly hid the Yahapalana borrowings. Dr. Wignarajah declared (in verbatim): “Sri Lanka’s default demonstrates the risk of imprudent foreign borrowing, with relying on sovereign bonds with high interest rates to finance development projects or high-interest, low return Chinese loans.’’
As the article had been formulated before the presidential election that was held on Sept. 21, 2024, the professorial fellow in economics and trade at Gateway House, Mumbai, missed an opportunity to examine post-national poll developments.
The unexpected emergence of the National People’s Power (NPP), as the dominant political power, at the expense of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and the United National Party (UNP), according to some, may change the dynamics of Sri Lanka’s relations with the US-led grouping that includes India. However, others assert that bankrupt Sri Lanka has no other option but to continue with the IMF agenda and an agreement on economic partnership, signed in July 2023, by Premier Narendra Modi and the then President Ranil Wickremesinghe.
Wickremesinghe, who suffered a humiliating defeat in the presidential poll on September 21, and then at the parliamentary elections on Nov. 14, 2024, emphasized the responsibility on the part of his successor Anura Kumara Dissanayake to fully implement, what he called, the ‘Vision document’ with India.
The Press Trust of India (PTI) quoted Wickremesinghe as having said so on the sidelines of an event he attended at the Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar school recently.
The SLPP-led Parliament that elected Wickremesinghe as the President in July 2022 to complete the remainder of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term, owed the country an explanation whether the former received the approval of the Cabinet to finalize the so-called ‘vision document.’ The latest Indo-Lanka agreement dealt with strengthening maritime, air and energy ties, as well as land connectivity between the two countries. There hadn’t been a proper discourse, at any level, regarding the ‘Vision document,’ though various interested parties promoted the controversial ‘Vision document’ in the run-up to the presidential election.
On behalf of India, Pathfinder Foundation requested the leading candidates at the presidential election, namely Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sajith Premadasa and Anura Kumara Dissanayake, to go ahead with the ‘vision document.’
It would be pertinent to mention that Dr. Wignarajah has ceased to be an advisor to the Sri Lankan President in the wake of Wickremesinghe’s defeat. The advisor had been also involved with Pathfinder Foundation as a senior visiting fellow at the Foundation.
He has had the audacity to even deal in cavalier fashion with India’s intervention in 2022 to save Sri Lanka with reference to the Adani Group’s investments here as well as longstanding US projects, such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation that was rejected by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government.
Essentially, the expert addressed the issues at hand from the point of view of the US-India response to the Sri Lanka crisis.
New developments
The killing of Canada-based Sikh separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar outside his Vancouver temple in June 2023 has caused an unprecedented diplomatic row between New Delhi and Ottawa. The killing that Canada had blamed on India without whatsoever hesitation led to tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomatic staff. Among those who had been expelled were the top most Indian and Canadian intelligence officials based in the respective capitals.
But what really upset New Delhi was the US and the UK throwing their collective weight behind Canadian accusations, thereby undermining the Modi government’s international standing. Perhaps, the harm that had been caused to the relations between Canada and India can never be restored.
International news agencies in Oct, 2024 quoted the spokesperson of the UK’s Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) as having said: “We are in contact with our Canadian partners about the serious developments outlined in the independent investigations in Canada. The UK has full confidence in Canada’s judicial system. Respect for sovereignty and the rule of law is essential.”
“The Government of India’s cooperation with Canada’s legal process is the right next step,” the official added.
On top of the simmering diplomatic row with Ottawa, the US has filed charges against an Indian government employee over his alleged involvement in a failed plot to kill an American citizen of Indian origin. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has identified a New York-based targeted person as a prominent advocate for Sikh separatism.
The US Attorney’s Office for New York declared in Oct, 2024 that it filed “murder-for-hire and money laundering charges” against Vikash Yadav.
Another suspect in the case, Nikhil Gupta, was extradited to the US earlier, in 2024, to face charges, while Yadav remains at large. There hadn’t been such high profile previous cases involving Indian government agents conducting clandestine operations in the West.
Canadian and US investigations have placed India in an utterly embarrassing position. In spite of strong Indian denials, both Canada and the US have maintained that India is under investigation.
The possibility of Canada and the US trying to establish a connection between those who had been involved in operations in their respective territories cannot be ruled out.
The state of crisis of Indian foreign relations with the West has to be discussed, taking into consideration the shocking Canadian declaration that no less than Home Minister Amit Shah, widely believed to be the second most powerful person in the country, sanctioned the Vancouver hit.
Regardless of Indian denial, Canada has refused to change its stand with regards to Shah’s direct involvement in targeting those India considered as a threat. There seems to be no way forward for India on the matter, especially in the West as both Canada and the US pursued investigations.
How could the Canadian and US common stand in respect of clandestine operations undertaken by India undermine India’s once robust relations with the West? Can the West jeopardize their relations with India, at a time they are in conflict with China and Russia?
The Modi’s government obviously has ended up with egg on its face and is struggling to cope up with extremely harmful media coverage. Shah is the chief aide to Premier Modi.
Against the backdrop of Canadian accusations directed at Shah, the US is also likely to probe the possibility of the powerful Home Minister having a hand in the New York operation. Whatever the outcome of Canadian and US investigations, New Delhi will have to address the collective responsibility on the part of the Indian Cabinet in authorizing clandestine operations overseas.
The Adani factor
When Wickremesinghe recently demanded that his successor President Dissanayake goes ahead with the ‘Vision document’ with India, he was probably turning a blind eye to the US indictment of Gautam Adani over high profile accusations regarding the USD 265 mn alleged bribery scam to benefit Indian government officials.
Perhaps, the US move against Adani, one of the closest associates of Modi, may destabilize Indo-US relations. Adani and seven others had been charged over, what the US called, the corrupt solar project. They have been accused of securities fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and wire fraud.
Dr. Wignarajah, in his piece to the US military magazine, praised the Adani projects here to the high heavens. Obviously, as the US indictment hadn’t been announced at the time the academic submitted his piece to the Indo-Pacific command, he couldn’t be faulted for the omission. However, the new Sri Lanka government shouldn’t try to side-step the issue by engaging in delaying tactics.
Unexpected bribery accusations that had been directed at the Indian conglomerate placed a major US funded project here under an extremely difficult situation, particularly because the US was to provide funding to the tune of over half a billion USD. The West Container Terminal at the Colombo port involved Sri Lankan blue chip John Keells and the Adani Group. Other participants are Special Economic Zone Limited and Sri Lanka Ports Authority in the USD 700 mn project.
The NPP government never expected the US to move legal action against the Adani group and may find it difficult to explain Sri Lanka’s continuing partnership with the Indian conglomerate. Unless of course, proper reassessment was made in respect of the Port project as well as other investments, particularly investment of U.S. 1.4 bn for wind power plants.
The US recently disclosed that though they promised over half a billion USD for the Colombo port project, the funding hadn’t been made available so far. Would denial of US funding undermine the implementation of the Port project. Construction began in Nov. 2022, five months after Parliament elected Wickremesinghe as the President.
The US stepped in during Ranil Wickremesinghe tenure as the President after previous plans for the East Container Terminal, involving Japan and India, had to be shelved due to protests. Sri Lanka had no other option but to offer the Colombo West Terminal project to appease New Delhi, furious about unilateral cancellation. The country paid a huge price for such cancellations, having announced mega projects without proper evaluation and consensus with stakeholders. There can be no better example than the idiotic cancellation of the Japanese-funded Colombo light rail project soon after the 2020 general election.
Japan reacted angrily to the unilateral announcement of the cancellation of USD 1.4 bn project funded by Japan through a soft loan.
What would be the fate of the West Container Terminal project in case Adani and JKH had to fund it in the absence of US financial backing? How could the US and India intend to maintain close links as desired by both powers against China in the backdrop of continuing bad press over attacks on Sikhs living overseas and the Adani fiasco.
The Congress-led Indian Opposition disrupted both Lower and Upper Houses of Parliament demanding a joint committee to investigate Adani’s companies in the agriculture, renewable energy, coal and infrastructure sectors. Unless India addresses accusations against Adani in a transparent manner, they can have long term repercussions, both domestically and internationally.
In the wake of the US indictment, Kenya cancelled multimillion-dollar deals with the Adani Group for airport modernization and energy projects. The mega company will also face scrutiny in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
The damage to US-India ties would be much more with legal action against Adani compelling India to play it safe. While the government remained silent on the issue at hand, Amit Malviya, the governing Bharatiya Janata Party’s IT head, declared in a post on the social media platform X that the US charges were “allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.” Critics asserted that this was nothing but a show of support by the Modi government for the Adani Group.
It would be interesting to see how the much weakened Opposition in Sri Lanka Parliament takes up the Adani issue. Parliament meets this week, though the issue is not on the agenda, an Opposition member may take the opportunity to comment on the politically sensitive matter.
Adani is the major Indian investor here. According to available data, Adani’s projects account for nearly 70% of overall Indian investments during the 2005-2019 period.
A story from the past
Undue Indian government intervention on behalf of Adani group was disclosed amidst unprecedented political turmoil here with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa under tremendous pressure in June 2022 with the country unable to finance basic needs with covert groups even having blocked worker remittances through official channels.
The revelation was made by then head of the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) M.C.C. Ferdinando during an open hearing of the Committee of Public Enterprises (COPE) that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa told him that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had insisted that a 500-megawatt wind power project be directly given to the Adani group.
Embattled President Rajapaksa denied the disclosure. Within two days after the shocking declaration in Parliament, Ferdinando claimed that he lied after being overwhelmed by emotion. Of course no one took Ferdinando’s denial seriously for obvious reasons.
“On November 24, 2021, the President summoned me after a meeting and said, India’s Prime Minister Modi is pressuring him to hand over the project to the Adani group,” Ferdinando said, according to a video clip of his testimony made available by Parliament. According to the CEB head, he had received instructions from President Rajapaksa in this regard in Nov. 2021, just weeks after Adani visited Colombo.
Ferdinando was responding to questions posed by the then head of COPE Prof. Charitha Herath and another member about the circumstances the Adani group had chosen to construct a 500 MW wind power plant on the northern coast.
Ferdinando told the committee that he informed the President that the matter didn’t concern the CEB, but the Board of Investments. “The President insisted that I look into it. I then sent a letter mentioning that the President has instructed me and the Finance Secretary should do the needful. I pointed out that this is a government-to-government deal,” Ferdinando said.
During the heated hearings, Prof. Herath asked whether the wind power deal would be considered “unsolicited”. “Yes, this is a government-to-government deal, but the negotiations should take place according to the least cost policy mentioned in the act,” said Ferdinando.
On the following day, President Rajapaksa contradicted the CEB Chief. “Re a statement made by the #lka CEB Chairman at a COPE committee hearing regarding the award of a Wind Power Project in Mannar, I categorically deny authorization to award this project to any specific person or entity,” he tweeted.
“I have withdrawn that statement,” Ferdinando said. The media quoted the CEB Chief as having said that he only realized that he mistakenly made such a comment, when the Minister inquired from him about the matter on Saturday (June 11) morning.
Thereafter, Ferdinando issued a statement to Prof. Hearth on Saturday in which he tendered an apology, saying that due to “unexpected pressures and emotions”, he was compelled to name the Indian Prime Minister.
The public hearing took place on a Friday, a day after Parliament passed an amendment to the 1989 Electricity Act that removed competitive bidding. The main opposition, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), alleged that the primary reason for bringing forward the amendment was to accommodate the “unsolicited” Adani deal. The SJB demanded that projects beyond 10 MW capacity should go through a competitive bidding process.
The amendments to the Sri Lanka Electricity Act were passed with 120 votes in favour of the amendments with 36 voting against in the 225-member Parliament amid strong resistance from power sector trade unions in the state-run Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB). Thirteen MPs abstained in the voting.
The story should be examined taking into consideration Adani’s pow vows with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa in late Oct. 2021 in Colombo.
Midweek Review
Agnotology and ethnic relations
by Geewananda Gunawardana,
Ph.D.
The scientific study of culturally induced ignorance and its effects on society is referred to as agnotology. Regardless of the catchy name, this discipline gives credence to the phenomenon and helps the systematic investigation of this sensitive subject. Ignorance is not a demeaning term, but it is a condition that must be acknowledged and dealt with, just as a sickness needs to be treated. Sri Lankans have another reason to do so: Buddhism teaches it as the root cause of all human problems, even though it refers to a different kind of ignorance. Culturally induced ignorance is becoming more prevalent, particularly with the rise of Artificial Intelligence; for example, the country that has the best education system in the world is not free from it as shown by its recent election of a convicted felon to lead them. In that sense, we the Sri Lankans should be enormously proud of our accomplishment; we have proven our wisdom as a nation. But the job is not complete, there are more dark corners that need illumination.
This type of ignorance results from the intentional dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information for the benefit of an individual, organisation, or a movement (Iain Boal 1992). That does not mean the facts are not available, but they are overridden, hidden, and muddied: “We live in a world of radical ignorance, and the marvel is that any kind of truth cuts through the noise. Even though knowledge is ‘accessible,’ it does not mean it is accessed” (Robert Proctor 1988). Therefore, ignorance is not the lack of education itself, it is the inability to separate fact from fiction. A good example is tobacco use: health hazards of tobacco had been known for a century, but it took that long to overcome the mega industry’s advertising campaign and convince the authorities and public to curtail it.
Myths or misinformation
We have myths or misinformation that are millennia old and are entrenched in our collective memory. It is the practices based on such beliefs that have brought us to where we are. The way we elected our leaders is the prime example. Monarchs ruled us for millennia followed by colonial rulers for another few centuries. After that, the country’s elite took over. This long history has drilled into the nation’s psyche the fallacy that the elite must be venerated. The elite took advantage of this vulnerability: voters were manipulated by using their culturally induced beliefs to fabricate threats so the elites could stay in power and enrich themselves. Our past elections have been fought based on the interests of this elite, and not that of society or the nation. The use of chicanery, violence, all manner of vulgarities, and bribery by the elite had become the norm. We voted according to their wishes and not ours.
We the people owe it to ourselves, and to the future generations, to eliminate this ignorance for good. First, we must stop our habit of venerating our leaders and turning them into a new elite. As mentioned before, challenging the tradition, or culture is not easy; difficult and unpleasant it may be, but change is necessary, and our survival depends on it. This responsibility rests on all of us: adults, teachers, clergy of all faiths, and most importantly the media. As a country with a long history, it has no shortage of culturally inherited misinformation. The most damaging one among them is the myths surrounding ethnicity.
The narration in the great chronicle Mahawamsa on populating the island is accepted as historical facts by the majority. Minorities have countered that with their own versions. The question we must ask is, did the authors on both sides present facts or wrote things that were favourable to a cause that each was pursuing. On the Vijaya episode in the Mahavamsa, a historian has argued that it is not a story about the origins of the Sinhala people, but about the origins of a political elite. Indeed, he suggested, a fully-fledged Sinhala ethnic consciousness only arrived in the British period (Gunawardana 1995). Note that he used the term political elite.
Another historian describes the presence of similar accounts in the mythology of many other countries including Greece and Rome. He sums up the essence of these stories as follows. It is interesting to note that this historian was not aware of the Sri Lankan version.
“The king is an outsider, often an immigrant warrior prince whose father is a god or a king of his native land. But, exiled by his own love of power or banished for murder, the hero is unable to succeed there. Instead, he takes power in another place, and through a woman: princess of the native people whom he gains by a miraculous exploit involving feats of strength, ruse, rape, athletic prowess, and/or the murder of his predecessor.” (Sahlins 1985).
Science unheeded
Unfortunately, both sides of this debate do not pay attention to what science has to say on this matter. What follows is a survey of scientific information available on this topic, but to get closer to reality, one must remove the coloured glasses put on us at birth. The first archaic human species (Homo erectus), evolved in East Africa about two million years ago. Fossil records show that they emigrated out of Africa and populated most of Asia and Europe. Modern humans (Homo sapiens) appeared, also in East Africa, about 300,000 years ago. Sapiens have migrated out of Africa in two waves: the first around 130 to 100 thousand years ago taking a northern route and the second around 70 to 60 thousand years ago taking a southern route, hugging the coastline. These later migrants have both interbred with and or displaced the earlier arrivals while settling in different corners of the globe. There have been several other Homo species, like Neanderthals and Denisovans; while none of them exists today, some human populations carry their genes.
Peopling of the Indian subcontinent, the meeting ground of settlers from several adjoining regions, has been a complex one. Following are the four main population groups involved in this process: a) Aboriginal Indians. These are the members of the second wave of humans that left Africa and settled around fifty thousand years ago; b) Iranian farmers; c) Farmers from Central Asian Steppes; and d) East Asian rice farmers. The farmers from Iran and steppes were wheat and barley growers, and their East- Southeast migration had been slowed for some time as their crops were not ideally suited for tropical climate. While rice farming was adopted by all populations, the East Asian farmers have not made much of an impact in populating the country, except in the Northeast corner.
The accepted migration pattern of these populations is as follows. Iranian farmers who have arrived in the Indus valley around nine- to seven thousand years ago had crossed into India, mixed with the Aboriginal Indians, and moved southward around four thousand years ago. The resulting population is referred to as Ancestral South Indians. Farmers from the steppes moved to Indus valley, mixed with the Iranian farmers. These Steppes farmers, referred to as Europeans but differ from the Germanic Europeans, introduced horses and wheels. This Iranian-Steppes mix moved Eastwards towards the Gangetic valley and mixed with the earlier arrivals. This population is referred to as Indo-Europeans. Their southward migration has been slowed for several reasons. It is accepted that it was this latest group that introduced the precursor to Sanskrit language, Vedic literature, and the four-tier caste system.
Some argue that it was the strict caste system that prevented further mixing and southward spread of this Indo-European group. These classifications and nomenclature have created much controversy and debate. The use of terms like Ancient Northan Indians and Ancient Southern Indians are disputed as their origins are outside of India. The use of Aryans and Dravidians is equally controversial, and arbitrary. And specifically in our case, dangerously misleading.
Now, let us see what happened in Sri Lanka. The maximum depth of the 48 km long Adams Bridge is about ten metres while most of the shoals are less than 1 metre underwater. During the height of the ice age, between 80 to 20 thousand years ago, the sea levels stood about 120 metres below the current level. Therefore, Sri Lanka had been part of the Indian landmass, allowing for the southward migrations to reach the island, until the sea level rose about six thousand years ago.
Archaeological evidence shows that some of the early migrations reached the island as early as 125,000 years ago. Modern human fossils found in Sri Lanka has been dated back to 36,000 years (Deraniyagala 1992). Remarkably, these are the only reports of that antiquity in Southeast Asia. They were hunter gatherers using tools belonging to the middle stone age. They thrived until people skilled in agriculture and cattle breeding arrived around 2,800 years ago.
Narration of chronicles
How does the narration of the great chronicles match with this version? The arrival of North Indian prince Vijaya, with his retinue of seven hundred men, and ruling the country from 543 to 505 BCE is the cornerstone of this narration. There are many associated legends that cannot be verified. Vijaya’s campaign to eliminate the natives, who belonged to Yaksha and Naga tribes, is one. Some report Vijaya being from the Northeast coast of India while the others suggest a Northwest origin. However, linguists and historians see a connection between Sinhala and the languages spoken along the Konkani coast, favouring a Northwest origin. Realistically, there is no reasons to rule out continuous exchanges between India and Sri Lanka along the east and west maritime routes as well as through the shallow seas in the Palk Straits throughout the history. Vijay’s arrival had stood out in the chronicler’s mind as he was a notable person, but he cannot be the first to arrive from India.
Now, let us turn to genetic studies of Sri Lankans. Humans are a genetically homogeneous species; this suggests a population collapse in recent times, leaving a small number of females of reproductive age. Modern technologies developed in the field of genetics can use a type of markers known as mutations to track the genealogy of an individual or a population despite this homogeneity. When a cell divides, its genetic material or DNA is duplicated and distributed equally among the two daughter cells. During this copying process some errors are made. Genes or DNA is a set of instructions written in a language that has five letters: A, T, G, C, and U. The words in this language are made up of three letters. Most of the copying errors are misspellings, typos as we say. The type of errors known as single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) are the most common markers used in genetic studies to trace genetic history.
There are several small-scale genetic studies conducted on Sri Lankans. The most recent open access publication by Singh and others in 2008 provides references to these studies. I am using the set of data reported by Ranaweera (2014) and graphically represented by Chaubey (2014) for this discussion, as these data are representative of the overall findings (Figure 1: Mitochondrial DNA analyses of Sri Lankans).
These are the most striking facts that emerge from these data: the major ancestral share of all Sri Lankans, i.e. those identify as upcountry, low country, and mixed Sinhala; Sri Lankan and Indian Tamil; and Adivasi population, is the Ancient South Indian genotype, which is considered as consisting of 75% Ancient Ancestral South Indian and 25% Iranian Farmer genotypes. All Sri Lankans have over 60% of this type. At the same time, all Sri Lankans, except the Indian Tamils, also carry more than 20% Indo-European genotype. Not surprisingly, considering the island’s geographical location in the East-West maritime route and five hundred years of European occupation, Sri Lankans also carry anywhere from 6 to 14% of other genotypes, which are not identified in this study. Sri Lankan Moors are not included in this data set, but they too carry a high percentage of Ancient South Indian genotype indicating mixing with the other types (Perera 2021).
Baseless proposition
Considering these data, to assign an ethnicity and suggest that one or the other group arrived on the island first is an utterly baseless proposition. This allegiance to one or the other camp had to have happened within the island. For example, Indian mercenaries brought into the country in more recent times have settled down in the south and assimilated without trace after the wars ended; in fact, some of the prominent Sinhala leaders belong to this category. Similarly, just because one group follows a distinct set of customs or speaks a particular language is also not related to their arrival chronology. Such divisions could have easily happened after their arrival. Our ancestors have been living on this island for over three millennia through war, peace, and famine. As can be seen all over the world, interbreeding can happen under any condition, for better or for worse. Not only genes, but words, customs, beliefs, and food were exchanged. The boundaries between so-called Adivasis, Aryans, Dravidians, Moors, or others are porous and have no meaning in the big picture. Genetic studies show without doubt that if one assumes that they belong to the pure Ancient Soth Indian genotype or the pure Indo-European genotype, it would be not only a preposterous idea, but it would be a comical one as well. The bottom line is that we all have lived on this small island for so long, we have become near homogenous genetically. Who knows what languages were spoken or what beliefs were practiced by our predecessors four or five generations ago. What matters is that we all are citizens of this land with the same rights, and we should not leave any opportunity for the wicked elite to divide us and fatten themselves ever again.
Unfortunately, the government policies or the failure to implement “successful, sustainable development projects” over the years has strengthened the divisions based on culturally induced ignorance leading to conflicts and economic disasters (Richardson 2005). If we were to succeed as a nation, there are two things the country must do: the government must have policies for sustainable economic development and give equal access to all, and the people must do their part to reduce the culturally induced ignorance among themselves. Myths surrounding ethnicity is only one issue; there are many others that will have to be addressed at another time. All parties that genuinely care about the nation’s future must engage in this civic discourse and prevent the future generations from inheriting our ignorance. The younger generations must be trained to be critical thinkers and not mere followers. This is an excellent opportunity to do so and missing that will be a grave mistake.
Midweek Review
‘Assisted Dying’ Furore
By Lynn Ockersz
‘Assisted Dying’ is not going away,
In the ‘Mother of All Democracies’,
And, for sure, there are pros and cons,
To this sharply dividing debate,
But let not the world’s hair-splitters,
Forget the most cardinal of truths,
That without the ‘Right to Life’,
And its diligent protection,
Criminality would be given free rein,
And bestiality would be the world’s lot.
-
Editorial7 days ago
Greed for diplomatic appointments
-
News6 days ago
AKD gladdens Ranil’s heart
-
Business6 days ago
Central Bank aware of upside and downside risks to its inflation projections
-
Business7 days ago
Dialog sets new standards in AI-driven creativity
-
News6 days ago
SJB questions NPP over MPs’ perks and privileges
-
Features7 days ago
Compensating a ‘parlour’ owner in Cambodia
-
Features6 days ago
Inside the ancient Indian ritual where humans become gods
-
Editorial6 days ago
Corruption and hypocrisy