Midweek Review

Playing politics with national security

Published

4 years ago

2020/09/30

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Security of a country did not depend on its Defence Secretary. There were various structures and it was a matter of collective action, one-time Defence Secretary, Austin Fernando, told the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (P CoI) on Saturday (26).

The P CoI, appointed by former President Maithripala Sirisena, is inquiring into the Easter Sunday attacks. Sirisena named the Commission several weeks before the end of his five-year term.

Fernando further said: “It is not mandatory for the Defence Secretary to have an intimate knowledge of the role played by the Ministry. If that is the case, a fisherman should be the Secretary to the Ministry of Fisheries, and the Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture should be a farmer.”

Let me examine Austin Fernando’s statement, taking into consideration the direct talks between President Ranasinghe Premadasa and the LTTE, during the period 1989-1990 (the late General D.S. Attygalle served as the Defence Secretary from 15.08.1983 to 16.02.1990), outbreak of Eelam War II (General S.C Ranatunga served as the Secretary Defence from 16.02.1990 to 01.05.1993) and the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) with the LTTE entered into by Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe (Austin Fernando functioned as the Secretary Defence from 21.12.2001 to 03.11.2003).

Hemasiri Fernando, who served as Secretary Defence in the run-up to the April 21, 2019, Easter Sunday attacks, is under investigation for criminal negligence. In all four above-mentioned instances, the government apparatus collectively failed, though the circumstances were different.

The only difference is in the case of the disastrous 2002 CFA. The then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga cannot be faulted as Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe blindly signed the catastrophic Oslo-drafted 2002 peace initiative, keeping even his cabinet in the dark.

Austin Fernando is absolutely right. Security of a country does not depend on its Defence Secretary. In fact, a single person cannot guarantee national security, regardless of political clout he or she wielded. However, one person can cause irreparable damage, through irrational and unilateral actions/decisions, as in the case of the CFA. The appointment of retired military officers certainly cannot guarantee national security. The late Gen. Attygalle and Gen. Ranatunga facilitated President Premadasa’s ill-fated strategies that weakened the military. Taking Fernando’s assertion into consideration, it would be pertinent to examine how President Premadasa (1989-1990), Premier Wickremesinghe (2002-2003) and President Sirisena and Premier Wickremesinghe (2015-2019) jeopardized the national security. Those who served under them, too, equally contributed to the rapid deterioration of security by simply giving into political dictates, thereby providing tacit support to despicable political agendas.

Sri Lanka paid a huge price for political and military miscalculations. The political environment, created by Sirisena-Wickremesinghe, cannot be scrutinized without taking into consideration previous situations. In the absence of detailed study, the public tend to consider the Easter Sunday security failure as an isolated case. But, the extraordinary Easter Sunday terror project, perhaps, is part of an insidious political strategy to keep Sri Lanka in perpetual anarchy. Those who had perpetrated nearly simultaneous suicide attacks, in three administrative districts, certainly deliberated the political environment before going ahead with the operation. Who exploited the National Thowheed Jamaat (NTJ) to deliver such a devastating message? Did NTJ succumb to external elements? When did India actually infiltrate the NTJ and what is the status of the Indian intelligence gathering operation in Sri Lanka? Why didn’t Indian intelligence share information on NTJ (Zahran Hashim’s gang) much earlier? And, most importantly, why were both Sinhala and Tamil communities targeted?

Defence Chiefs play ball with Ranasinghe Premadasa

Having secured the presidency, in January 1989, President Premadasa sought an agreement with the JVP. The UNP leader also made an attempt to reach a consensus with Tamil groups, including the LTTE. The President succeeded in reaching an understanding with all armed Tamil groups, except the LTTE. The presence of one-time militant Douglas Devananda, leader of the EPDP (Eelam People’s Democratic Party), in President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s cabinet of ministers, is evidence of Premadasa’s successful political strategy. In addition to the EPDP, Premadasa brought the EPRLF (Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front), TELO (Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization) and PLOTE (People’s Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam) into the political mainstream. However, Premadasa’s bid to reach an understanding with the LTTE ended disastrously, in the second week of June 1990.

At the time, Premadasa initiated direct negotiations with the LTTE, the late Gen. Attygalle had been the Secretary, Ministry of Defence while Lt. Gen. Hamilton Wanasinghe served as the Commander of the Army (16.09.1988- 15.11.91). Did the President consult the Defence Secretary and the Commander of the Army before initiating negotiations with the JVP and the LTTE? Did they approve of releasing from custody of over thousands of JVP suspects in early 1989? Their release resulted in an immediate stepping up of violence though the police, the military and the government-sponsored civilian death squads crushed the JVP, by the end of 1989.

Having captured JVP leader, Rohana Wijeweera, at Ulapane, in the second week of Nov. 1989, he was brought to Colombo, interrogated and executed. Premadasa knew what befell Wijeweera, who led two insurrections, in 1971 and 1987-89.

However, Premadasa’s apparent unilateral decisions, in respect of the LTTE, caused immense harm. Believing in the possibility of successful conclusion of negotiations with the LTTE, Premadasa, hastily announced the hotly disputed decision to request New Delhi to terminate its military mission in the North-East Sri Lanka. Did Premadasa genuinely consult the Defence Secretary, Commander of the Army or at least his Prime Minister, the late D.B. Wijetunga, before demanding the pull-out of the Indian Peace Keeping Force? Premadasa, obviously didn’t believe in consultations. In his capacity as the leader of the UNP and the President, Premadasa largely believed in unilateral decisions. The catastrophic handling of direct negotiations with the LTTE paved the way for terrorists to launch devastating attacks on the Army after obtaining from the then naïve government military supplies, money, as well as building materials. Clearly, the Secretary Defence and the Commander of the Army played ball with Premadasa. In fact, all cooperated with Premadasa. Officials bent backwards to appease the all-powerful President. The then Election Commissioner, the late Chandrananda de Silva, overnight recognized the PFLT (People’s Front of Liberation Tigers) as a registered political party. The writer was among several local and foreign journalists, invited by the late LTTE theoretician Anton Balasingham, to the Colombo Hilton where he made the announcement. Chain-smoking British passport holder Balasingham declared proudly that their emblem would be a Tiger in a red flag of rectangular shape. Premadasa, or late Chandrananda de Silva, had no qualms in the PFLT receiving political recognition in spite of it being armed. The LTTE received political recognition a couple of months before Velupillai Prabhakaran resumed Eelam War II.

Prez playing with fire

Did Premadasa consult the Defence Secretary and Commander of the Army before lifting restrictions imposed on the Northern Province, abandoned Point Pedro and Valvettiturai army detachments, pardoned convicted Maradana bomber Manouri Daniels, along with over a dozen other LTTE cadres, held under the PTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act), and provided weapons and funds to the LTTE. Premadasa did what he wanted to do. The UNP leader was not bothered about security implications. Obviously, his security chiefs remained mum. President felt confident in his political strategy. He was so confident, he ordered law enforcement personnel to surrender after the LTTE surrounded police stations in the East. Premadasa’s decision resulted in the deaths of over 400 officers and men. Did the President consult Gen. Attygalle’s successor Gen. Cyril Ranatunga and the Commander of the Army before the government reached an agreement with the LTTE?

The Army in the East averted a calamity by refusing to surrender, in spite of the senior leadership directing them to do so. General Gerry H. de Silva, who served as the Commander of the Army (1994-1996) in his memoirs titled ‘A most noble profession’ commented on Premadasa’s strategy/the government’s failure to recognize the threat posed by the LTTE. First published in 2011, two years after the successful conclusion of the war against the LTTE, De Silva acknowledged: “We failed to see through the emerging trends and LTTE machinations. Despite constant threats and humiliation meted out to security forces and the police by the militants, the politico-military hierarchy preferred to put up with the ignominy in order not to ‘rock the boat.’

The LTTE capitalized on the situation. A rejuvenated LTTE ‘called the shots,’ and quickly moved into a position of strength, politically and militarily. They were riding the crest of a wave and must have felt that the time was opportune to achieve their goal of Eelam.”

The Gemunu Watch officer is the only Commander of the Army to author a book on his career.

Within a week after the resumption of hostilities, in the second week of June 1990, the ill-prepared Army lost the Overland Main Supply Route (MSR) to the Jaffna peninsula. Premadasa’s ‘honeymoon’ with Prabhakaran lasted 14 months. The Tiger Supremo resumed the war, at lightning speed, just two months after India terminated its military mission here. Sri Lanka was left high and dry after the series of follies by Premadasa, at peace making, and the military couldn’t regain the MSR, till January 2009. Premadasa’s Generals turned a blind eye to what was happening on the ground. When fighting erupted, the Army had just one battalion, plus troops in the Jaffna peninsula. In spite of continuing to build up, the top brass ignored the growing threat until it was too late. So, the mere appointing of a retired General as Secretary Defence cannot guarantee rationale thinking. Premadasa’s strategy was nothing but a massive and unprecedented collective failure that almost resulted in capitulation of the Northern forces. Premadasa turned a Nelsonian eye to the LTTE evicting the entire Muslim population from the Northern Province, in Oct 1990. At the behest of Premadasa, the then Army Commander facilitated coordinated LTTE attacks on rival Tamil groups. The LTTE massacred hundreds of people. The response of Premadasa and his chief negotiator, the late A.C.S. Hameed, to the LTTE threat, caused quite an embarrassment to the government, undermined the State and, basically, allowed the LTTE to transform itself to a conventional fighting force. The then Higher Education Minister Hameed never realized ground realities.

Retired General de Silva’s assessment can be applied to all Presidents. except war-winning Mahinda Rajapaksa, who had faith in his younger brother Gotabaya’s capacity to coordinate the war effort against the LTTE.

Generals Attygalle and Ranatunga certainly owed an explanation as regards their failure to prevent the catastrophe in the North. Obviously, no one dared to challenge Premadasa’s dangerous strategies. Having served as the Commander of the Army, for a decade, and Defence Secretary, General Attygalle received appointment as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in London where he facilitated Kittu’s (Sathasivam Krishnakumar) arrival there. On the orders of Premadasa, the SLAF brought Kittu to Colombo where the British High Commission made arrangements to send the former LTTE Jaffna Commander to receive treatment for his amputated leg. The Generals had no say and Premadasa had his way.

Can you imagine a government facilitating a terrorist’s travel to London where he took over the LTTE’s International Secretariat responsible for running a massive extortion racket? The funds ultimately ended up with arms suppliers who provided the LTTE a range of weapons, T 56 assault rifles to shoulder fired missiles. General Ranatunga, too, received appointment as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in Canberra and then London. Presidential nominees to top diplomatic posts always received parliamentary approval.

Security fiasco in 2002

Not having learnt from Premadasa’s stupidities, Ranil Wickremesinghe too plunged headlong into a similar folly with Austin Fernando et al in tow.

Ranil Wickremesinghe picked experienced administrative service officer Austin Fernando as Secretary Defence within days after winning the Dec 2001 parliamentary election. Wickremesinghe also brought in one-time Attorney General Tilak Marapana on the National List as the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. Wickremesinghe adopted a simple strategy. The UNP leader advocated a policy of appeasement, thereby jeopardizing the entire security apparatus. The LTTE brazenly exploited the situation to its advantage. Prabhakaran stepped up training, recruitment of fresh cadres, as well as forcible conscription of children. The government did nothing. The LTTE intensified protests opposite security forces bases, restricted/interfered with police and military movements whereas the government repeatedly reiterated its commitment to the Oslo-led peace process like a mantra. Wickremesinghe dismissed intelligence assessment as regards the rapid LTTE built up. Wickremesinghe told a hastily arranged Temple Trees meeting, attended by senior officers responsible for intelligence services et al their assessment of the LTTE training 6,000 cadres at the onset of the CFA was wrong. The Premier contradicted his own intelligence apparatus on the basis of what the Indians told him. The then Defence Advisor Senior DIG Merril Gunaratne, who had been among those invited by the Premier, had the strength to stand by his report, based on information/analysis provided by all services. Obviously, Wickremesinghe hadn’t been in a mood to listen to anyone who questioned Prabhakaran’s motives though the continuing LTTE build up was evident.

Wickremesinghe followed his policy of appeasement. In his capacity as Secretary Defence Austin Fernando had no option but to go along with the Premier who authorized the finalization of CFA without proper consultations with the military top brass or the intelligence services.

The then Defence Secretary also provided some hilarious side shows like carrying a basket of fruits to a terrorist receiving treatment at a Colombo hospital.

Fernando himself claimed at the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in August 2010 that he hadn’t been involved in the process leading to the finalization of the document. However, top SCOPP (Secretariat for Coordinating Peace Process) Dr. John Gooneratne subsequently revealed before the LLRC how Norway rejected four proposals made by Sri Lanka. Had those proposals been accommodated in the CFA perhaps Eelam War IV could have been avoided, Gooneratne told the late C.R. de Silva’s Commission. The writer covered the entire LLRC proceedings. Gooneratne revealed the hitherto unknown proposals namely (a) CFA to pave the way for a negotiated settlement (b) prohibition of smuggling of arms, ammunition and equipment (c) freedom of movement for other political parties in areas under the LTTE control and finally (d) halt to forcible recruitment. Sri Lanka never received the backing of Peace Co-Chairs, the US, Norway, EU and Japan to get those just proposals included in the CFA.

The UNP never revealed rejection of its proposals until Gooneratne took advantage of the LLRC to set the record straight. Austin Fernando and SCOPP Chief Bernard Goonetilleke, who appeared before the LLRC could have revealed the truth. The UNP remained mum. Throughout the CFA period, Premier Wickremesinghe tried to suppress information that may have caused embarrassment to his government, the Norwegians and the LTTE. Obviously there hadn’t been any proper consultations among members of the cabinet, parliamentary group or the military top brass regarding the Oslo-led process.

Austin Fernando cannot absolve himself of the responsibility for the UNP government’s actions during the CFA. The person who served as Secretary Defence cannot claim lack of knowledge of a particular situation. The same applies to the Defence Minister. During Marapana’s tenure as the Defence Minister Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI)-run operation was exposed to the whole world with media scenes. In spite of strong protests by the Army, the UNP went ahead with its political project. The exposure of the operation led to the deaths of several operatives. The LTTE also hunted police officers engaged in anti-terrorist operations. When Defence Advisor Merril Gunaratne blamed the LTTE for the killing of Inspector Thabrew at the Dehiwela police station, Premier Wickremesinghe himself questioned the veteran law enforcement officer’s assessment.

The UNP allowed the LTTE to bring in undeclared cargo via the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA). LTTE delegations returning from negotiations with Wickremesinghe’s delegations from various foreign venues and others brought large packages. The foolish government provided air transport. The LTTE brazenly used the opportunity to its advantage. The CFA provided the organization required protection. The LTTE exploited the Oslo arranged CFA, the same way it used direct talks with Premadasa to achieve its targets. High profile assassination of TULF leader Appapillai Amirthalingham is a case in point. Prabhakaran moved a hit team in an SLAF chopper that brought LTTE delegates from the Vanni to Colombo in 1989.

Both political and military leaderships should accept responsibilities for lapses. During Austin Fernando’s tenure as the Defence Secretary, the military was ordered to stop issuing situation reports, suspended ‘Wanni Sevaya’ (special radio that catered to the military and the police), subjected military reports to civilian approval and basically succumbed to LTTE tactics. While closing down ‘Wanni Sevaya’, the government permitted the LTTE to import state-of-the-art radio equipment to upgrade its own propaganda and communication facilities.

If not for the then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s intervention in late 2003, the UNP could have allowed the LTTE build up to continue until it was too late to take counter action. The UNP permitted the deterioration of the situation to such an extent, the LTTE by early 2003 felt confident enough to brazenly quit the negotiating table. The LTTE quit talks in late April 2003 to set the stage for an all-out war. By late 2005, the LTTE was confident it could overwhelm the Army in a large-scale conventional confrontation. The assassination of much-loved Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, in early August 2005, indicated their readiness to take on the government. Had the LTTE succeeded in assassinating Army Chief Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka and Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in late April and early Oct, 2006, the LTTE, perhaps could have achieved Eelam. There cannot be any dispute as regards the role played by the Army Commander and the Defence Secretary to bring the war to a successful conclusion. There had never been previous attempts on the lives of the Army Commander and Secretary Defence. The LTTE knew the government strategy could be aborted by assassinating the two most important men. Their failure brought the war to an end three years later with the LTTE militarily annihilated. If the LTTE succeeded, Sri Lanka’s unitary status could have been jeopardized by now. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe coalition proved the danger in pulling in different directions, lack of vision and strategy as well as pursuing of political agendas inimical Sri Lanka State.

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.