Connect with us

Midweek Review

Playing politics with national security



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.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Midweek Review

Inaugural NDC symposium: Focus on contemporary security issues



November 11, 2021: President Gotabaya Rajapaksa arrives at the NDC for its inauguration

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s two years in office – a period of unprecedented political turmoil, uncertainty and further deterioration of Parliament – should be thoroughly examined. In fact, the UNP, with the support of the then President Maithripala Sirisena, paved the way for Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s candidature, at the 2019 presidential election, by blocking Mahinda Rajapaksa’s path to contest another term. The yahapalana government brought in the 19th Amendment, in 2015,limiting the presidential terms to two, to deprive Mahinda Rajapaksa the opportunity to contest the presidency again. The 19th Amendment also prevented dual and foreign citizens from contesting presidential and parliamentary polls, under any circumstances. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, whose entry into active politics had been facilitated by civil society organizations, ‘Viyathmaga’ and ‘Eliya’, gave up his US citizenship, to enter the fray.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The Defence Ministry couldn’t have chosen a better person than Lalith Chandrakumar Weeratunga (72), former Principal Advisor to ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa (73), to discuss contemporary security issues and related matters with the military, the police and the academia.

Weeratunga will deliver the keynote address at the inaugural National Defence College (NDC) symposium 2022 at the auditorium of the Faculty of Graduate Studies, Sir John Kotelawela Defence University, on August 17. Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, General (ret.) Kamal Gunaratne, will be the Chief Guest.

UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who received the parliamentary endorsement as the eighth President (to complete the remainder of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term), re-appointed the battle-tested Gajaba Regiment veteran Gunaratne as the Secretary, Ministry of Defence. Perhaps, it was the first re-appointment of a Secretary to a Ministry, made by the new President, amidst unprecedented turmoil.

Colonel Nalin Herath, Officiating Director, Media, in a statement, dated August 03, stated: “The event is exclusively designed to promote defence research culture and create an environment to explore research ideas, related to the discipline of national security and strategic studies.”

As the Principal Advisor to the ex-President, Weeratunga, who had joined the Sri Lanka Administrative Service (SLAS), in 1977, can speak authoritatively of the entire gamut of developments since the last presidential election in Nov 2019, thereby helping the public understand what really went wrong, if he cares.

The NDC has allocated Weeratunga approximately 30 mts for his speech, to be delivered after Gen. Gunaratne addressed the gathering. The former General Officer, Commanding the 53 Division that had been credited with killing LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, on the morning of May 19, 2009, too, can help throw light on the issues that brought the curtain down on President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in a worldwide shocking situation. Gunaratne is one of those ex-military personnel who campaigned for Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in the run-up to the November 2019 election, from his retirement.

As one of the key members of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s team, Weeratunga, embroiled in controversial ‘sil redi’ case during the previous Rajapaksa administration, had been involved in the overall operation, at the highest level, and was seen almost at every meeting chaired by the ex-President at the Presidential Secretariat, the primary target of the public protest movement. Weeratunga had been always by the ex-President’s side, during the high profile ‘Gama samaga pilisandarak’ project, meant to provide relief to remote villages. Weeratunga accompanied the then President at the inauguration of the project, on September 25, 2020, at Welanwita, Haldamulla.

In spite of clear warning signs, the political leadership allowed the situation to deteriorate and absolutely no effort was made to address the issues at hand. Instead, the government engaged in a propaganda offensive meant to suppress the ugly truth. Unfortunately, even after public protests erupted, the government lacked the political and financial will to undertake reforms required to bring relief to the suffering and increasingly irate public.

Having blocked the Presidential Secretariat (old Parliament) in early April, protesters overran it on July 09, soon after they brought the President’s House under their control.

Contemporary security issues here cannot be discussed without taking into consideration how overall negligence, on the part of the administration, caused such rapid deterioration of the national economy, probably with a mysterious foreign hand, from behind the scene, activating the protest movement with unlimited funds and required intelligence, especially to keep its nerve centre at Galle Face going as an overt non-partisan and peaceful movement. It was more like a copy book case of what was done to oust Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi, by Western powers, with the help of their local quislings. The mistake Gaddafi made was to attempt a legitimate counter strike amidst overwhelming odds stacked against him by Western powers, who plotted his ouster. He stood no chance and he was lynched by Western-hired mobs, joined by ignorant locals, who fell for Western propaganda, in public, no sooner he was captured, despite him being such a benevolent leader to his people. Ousted Iraqi Leader Saddam Hussein was at least given a show trial and hanged, despite a majority of the members of the Western coalition, that invaded Iraq, abhorring capital punishment.

The well-orchestrated supposed public anger exploded at the private residence of the then President, at Pangiriwatta, Mirihana, on March 31. Wartime Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, had no other option but flee from the country and resign just 14 weeks after the first violent protest, without even a single bullet being fired against the violent mobs, whether on March 31, May 09 or July 09, whom interested parties painted as legitimate peaceful protesters, especially by the holy Western media.

Having served Mahinda Rajapaksa during his short tenure as the Prime Minister (April 2004 to Nov 2005) and President (November 2005 to January 2015), Weeratunga was then appointed as Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Principal Advisor, a position that carried immense weight. Weeratunga once played the role of a journalist when he interviewed President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in late April 2020. The interview dealt with the economic recovery, while battling Covid-19. By then, a section of the government knew the country was facing a rocky road ahead. Weeratunga certainly can share his experience, pertinent to the issues under discussion, at the NDC symposium.

IMF warning ignored

At the time of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s triumph over Sajith Premadasa, Sri Lanka was already on the verge of experiencing a balance of payments crisis, mainly caused by the collapse of the vital tourist industry, in the aftermath of a series of suicide attacks by Muslim extremists, on Easter Sunday, 2019. Presidential Secretary, Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, a veteran central Banker and a long time Treasury hand, who advised the then President on economic matters, couldn’t have been unaware of the impending crisis. It would be pertinent to ask whether the ex-President consulted Weeratunga on matters relating to the economy, as well.

Appearing before the parliamentary watchdog, Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) on May 25, Central Bank Governor, Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe, didn’t mince his words when he explained the circumstances that led to the economic crash. The outspoken official described the political leadership’s response to the impending crisis. The then Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa cum the Finance Minister, though been briefed, in March-April 2020, on the developing situation of unprecedented magnitude, had foolishly chosen to ignore the dire warning.

The COPE was told how the IMF warned the then Governor of the Central Bank, Prof. W.D. Lakshman, and Treasury Secretary, S. R. Attygalle, of Sri Lanka’s inability to procure loans, unless the country undertook debt restructuring immediately. The IMF also asked the government not to go ahead with a massive tax cut that deprived revenue to the tune of Rs 500-600 bn.

Massive tax cut must have been granted with good intention to encourage new investments by the private sector that benefited from it. However, the unexpected coronavirus pandemic, that affected economies worldwide, should have alerted the then government to immediately reverse it.

May be all this happened because they relied too heavily on soothsayers’ advice as happened to the previous Rajapaksa administration. How are we to know whether soothsayers, too, were on foreign payrolls?

Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe declared that the IMF warning hadn’t been heeded at all. Dr. Weerasinghe stated that the relevant decisions should have been made by the Premier, in his capacity as the Finance Minister, and the entire Cabinet of Ministers. The IMF has made its position clear after having asserted Sri Lanka lacked debt sustainability.

Perhaps, the COPE should also take into consideration that the ruinous tax cut had been included in Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s much publicized election manifesto, thereby implicating every person either elected on the SLPP ticket or appointed on the SLPP National List. Weeratunga can discuss what really prompted the Rajapaksa administration to go ahead with a tax cut, in spite of economic difficulties caused by (i) sharp drop in foreign remittances due to Sri Lankan working, overseas, returning home, due to Covid-19 eruption (ii) Decrease in tourism arrivals as a result of Covid-19 hitting rich countries, as well, and the 2019 Easter Sunday massacre and (iii) drop in exports.

The Russia-Ukraine war, that erupted in late February, 2022, caused sharp increases in prices of crude oil, wheat and other commodities. Sri Lanka suffered badly.

Ali Sabry, PC, in early June, disclosed how those who had advised President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on economic matters, deceived the leader and the Cabinet-of-Ministers. The reference clearly alluded to Dr. PBJ, Secretary to the Treasury S.R. Attygalle and CBSL Governors, Prof. W.A. Lakshman (November 2019-September 2021) and Ajith Nivard Cabraal (September 2021-March 2022).

The prohibition of chemical fertiliser imports, in May 2021, and the subsequent ban on agro chemicals, devastated the agriculture sector. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa never recovered from the utterly reckless decision on the fertiliser and agro-chemical ban. Instead of reversing the decision, the government pressed ahead with this project to substitute with organic fertiliser, overnight. The circumstances, leading to Sri Lanka having to pay USD 6.7 mn, in December, 2021, to a rejected Chinese carbonic fertiliser load, and accusations pertaining to the alleged interventions made by Dr. PBJ and Gamini Senarath, the then Secretary to Premier Mahinda Rajapaksa, in the import of fertiliser, from India and China, respectively, brought pressure on the government (both senior officials denied allegations made against them.)

Prez opens NDC

Lalith Weeratunga, Principal Advisor to the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, explains the status of high profile govt. project to meet the Covid-19 threat

The then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa inaugurated the NDC, located at the Mumtaz Mahal building (former UNP Headquarters), that had been under the purview of the Ministry of Defence, at Galle Road, Colombo 03, on November 11, 2021, at a time his government was grappling with the menacing economic issues. Defence Secretary Gen. (ret.) Gunaratne and Principal Advisor Weeratunga were among those present on that occasion. The NDC has been dubbed the highest seat of learning on national security and strategy.

In spite of warnings issued by the Opposition, the government proceeded with its activities. Warnings were ignored. Did those responsible for national security ever make an attempt to warn of the impending crisis the country was heading into? Political stability depends on responsible management of the economy. The pathetic performance, no doubt, came under extraordinary circumstances, caused by the Easter Sunday attack of 2019, followed by the pandemic and the Ukraine conflict delivering body blows to the economy. Those who had been waiting to undermine the Rajapaksa presidency, swung into action. The high profile destabilization project should be examined, taking into consideration the Swiss plot against President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, within a week after his triumph at the November 2019 presidential election. Things that happened to Gotabaya Presidency was more like a Greek tragedy with faults in his character compounding his fate.

The Swiss government made a despicable bid to trap President Gotabaya Rajapaksa by falsely implicating security authorities, in the staged abduction of a Swiss Embassy employee, Garnier Francis, former Siriyalatha Perera. The Swiss ended up with egg on their face and quietly gave up attempts to hold the government responsible for abduction and rape of an Embassy employee. The President thwarted an attempt by the Swiss to evacuate the Embassy employee in an air ambulance, which they had on standby at the BIA tarmac, no sooner the fake incident was reported. Had that happened, they would have been able to make highly damaging accusations stick from abroad. We, being a poor third world country, the Swiss got away with another dastardly act like how they always get away with handling blood money, even when their leading banks are exposed for some of those outright criminal acts.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed retired Major General Amal Karunasekera as the first Commandant of the NDC. The President had to flee the country, within 10 months after the inauguration of the institute. Former infantryman and one-time Director of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI), Karunasekera, were among those arrested by the CID in connection with the abduction and assault on Keith Noyahr in 2008. Karunasekera was taken in April 2018 just a couple of weeks after his retirement having served the Army for over 35 year in an unblemished military career.

Ranil Wickremesinghe, during whose premiership (January 2015-November 2019) the CID investigated the Noyahr abduction, is the President cum Minister in charge of the defence portfolio. At the time President Gotabaya Rajapaksa inaugurated the NDC, Wickremesinghe completed just six months as the UNP’s only National List Member of Parliament. A toxic combination of economic, political and social issues, some definitely caused by foreign actors, and their local quislings, forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country, thereby upended the political set up. The ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) has managed to somewhat consolidate its position by engineering Wickremesinghe’s victory at the July 20 presidential contest in Parliament. In spite of having just one seat (Wickremesinghe’s vote) in Parliament, the UNP leader secured 133 votes thanks to the majority SLPP support, despite its internal splits, that led to its dissidents fielding their own candidate, with the backing of the SJB.

Obviously, Wickremesinghe is the SLPP’s man, though lawmaker Mahinda Rajapaksa, for some strange reason, declared soon after the July 20 vote that the party backed the defeated SLPP dissident candidate Dullas Alahapperuma, the Matara District MP obtained 82 votes.

Clear re-assessment needed

 The NDC can undertake real re-assessment of challenges faced by the country against the backdrop of major international controversy over Sri Lanka being forced to withhold permission for the docking of a high-tech Chinese research vessel at the strategic Hambantota port. New Delhi raised concerns over the Chinese move. New Delhi has been deeply upset over the then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government handing over the Hambantota port to China, in 2017 on a 99-year lease. The then Ports and Shipping Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, who signed on behalf of Sri Lanka, has been rewarded with a plum diplomatic post as Sri Lanka’s top envoy in Washington.

The Chinese space and satellite tracking research vessel ‘Yuan Wang 5’ was scheduled to dock at the Hambantota Port from August 11 to 17. China received Sri Lanka’s permission on July 12 in the wake of the protest movement seizing control of the President’s House, Presidential Secretariat and the PM’s Office.

The forthcoming NDC sessions can be utilized for this purpose. The former Principal Advisor to the exiled President can certainly help in this endeavor. The sessions include a presentation on ‘post-independence foreign policy of Sri Lanka’ by Brigadier W.A.S.R. Wijedasa and SSP E.M.G. Seram and ‘National security concerns of Sri Lanka amidst current geo-strategic perspectives and economic crisis: challenges and vulnerabilities’ by Brigadiers, C.S. Munasinghe and R.K.N. C. Jayawardene.

New Delhi’s strategy, implemented in line with the overall Quad policy, has placed bankrupt Sri Lanka in an unenviable situation. Quad widely considered as Asia’s NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) consists of the US, Australia, Japan and India.

China, embroiled in a deadly ‘battle’ with the US, may not accept Sri Lanka’s stand on the research vessel. In fact, China may consider Sri Lanka action ‘hostile’ and respond accordingly. That would definitely jeopardize ongoing efforts at debt-restructuring in line with the understanding reached with the IMF.

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Credible Leadership And Governance Shakespeare’s Relevance To The Present



by Dr. Siri Galhenage


Once upon a time, in the isle of Serendib, a soldier-turned politician was offered the reins of governance by popular choice. The chosen ruler commenced his journey with a pledge to reshape the nation against the backdrop of an ancient monument, reminiscent of past glory. He embarked on his mission with a vision for prosperity, riding his favourite stallion named ‘patriotism’, and was accompanied by his kith and kin, a sprinkling of war lords, a few learned courtiers and a large coterie of foot-soldiers, with varying degrees of intellect. The plebeians rejoiced: giving lyrical expression to their joy and painting colourful murals on ramparts. Renowned men of letters portrayed the new leader as an incarnation of a legendary monarch of yore who helped to vanquish the foe.

The vision turned out to be an illusion. The mission failed as a result of poor governance: bad decisions, alleged corrupt practices, and the refusal of the leader to wear the cloak of humility. The lilies that sprung up along the wayside, withered in their bud. The nation was thrown into an abyss of despair, debt and depravity, of unprecedented depth. A proud nation – endowed with an ancient cultural and spiritual heritage, a wealth of human potential, and a land like no other – was brought to its knees, having to swap the sword for a begging bowl.

The plebeians felt deceived; they poured out into the streets in large numbers, and the corridors of power were inundated. ‘Bernham wood did come to Dunsinane’. The protesters were mostly peaceful but some errant individuals displaced their anger onto property causing wanton destruction; their identity remaining illusive, covered in a veil of smoke.

The ruler, after a period of procrastination, fled the country, handing over ‘the baton’ to a tried and tested leader, resulting in the perpetuation of agitation amongst the plebeians.

The hapless plebeians remain in a state of perplexity, scraping the bottom of the barrel for credible leadership and good governance. Vultures from the east and the west, and from the north, hover over our resplendent isle, and the nation remains curled up and vulnerable with only the dumb sea to the south to escape to.

A Shakespearean Tragedy

I am no ‘upstart crow in borrowed feathers’ but the above synopsis is not dissimilar to a tragedy in a Shakespearean sense. The theme is consistent with most of Shakespeare’s tragedies – the passions of men and women, and the transgressions they lead to, weaving the web of their own fate, and of their state. In Shakespeare, there were no unflawed or ideal leaders; their inadequacies are instructive in imagining the leadership we look for.

At a time when a nation struggles as hard as now to find solutions, regarding political leadership and good governance, one could draw lessons from Shakespeare’s insights by reflecting on some of his characters that dominated the stage. It is the central concern of this brief essay, at a time when stable, effective, ethical, and, most of all, sensible, leadership is in short supply. It is a measure of Shakespeare’s stature, not only as the world’s greatest playwright, but also as an equally great analyst of human behaviour and motivation, that he provides a window to matters of the state, so perceptively. He remains meaningful and relevant to many of the political challenges we face today, and has a way of throwing light on the darker places we fear to tread.

Despite the scarcity of records, regarding his early education, Shakespeare appears to have drawn heavily from Greek and Roman classical literature, and from the historical records of medieval Britain. He wrote scripts that projected the social and political realities of his time and engaged with the deepest desires and fears of his audiences. Sensitive contemporary issues were addressed in alien or historical settings in order to avoid political censure. He succeeded in linking past history to events of the day. And his timeless work with universal appeal is of relevance to us in the 21st century as never before.

Shakespeare is not didactic and does not offer solutions to the challenges we face. But he is educational in the way of parable, inference, and demonstration. At a time when he thought was dangerous to speak out, he found it safer to communicate through dramatic expression by locating his plays in medieval Europe. He presented controversial issues wearing a mask of innocence! ‘Play’s the thing’, for him.

Political Power – Its Use and Misuse

Political power is of the essence in the delivery of governance; its energies meant to be utilised for common good. Such honourable intensions, with a community focus, are not foremost in the minds of many who pursue a career in politics today: personal aggrandisement and pecuniary interest being their primary motive, bringing politics and politicians into disrepute. Many distort the truth and tap into people’s ignorance and prejudices to gain power, and some may even be prepared to sacrifice the lives of fellow human beings in the pursuit and maintenance of power. No wonder politics and politicians are treated pejoratively at the present time.

Pursuit of Power in Politics

Shakespeare went back to medieval Scotland to discover a story that depicted such ruthless ambition for power, in MACBETH, a story that spoke to his own times.

A ‘war hero’, whose innate desire for power, ignited by the cryptic prophesies of three witches, is driven on a path of destruction to achieve his goal and maintain it, bringing about a collapse in moral order. He is made to suffer and eventually destroyed. Enemy forces encircled and invaded his castle resulting in him losing his head, both metaphorically and in reality. Power misused does not bring in peace, but inner and outer turmoil: “In the affliction of these terrible dreams/ That shake us nightly: better be with the dead/ Whom we, to gain our peace/ Than on the torture of the mind to lie/ Is restless ecstasy”.

Political Machinations in Vying for Power – Hypocrisy and Deceit

The propensity to manipulate the truth, through political machinations, is a common strategy in vying for power in affairs of the state, given dramatic expression by Shakespeare in ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caesar’, bringing forth the moral depravity in politics. “Men may construe things after their fashion/ Clean from the purpose of things themselves” [Cicero: Act1 -1.3.34-5].

The plot depicts the assassination of Caesar as the pivotal event of the play. Caesar emerges as a formidable leader but with a paradoxical mixture of characteristics of arrogance and vulnerable physique. Cassius, malcontent and conniving, instigates a plan to remove Caesar from power and hatches a plot to draw Brutus and others to conspiracy, claiming that Caesar would ‘soar above the view of men’ and would establish a new monarchy. Brutus says to Cassius: “Let not our looks put on our purposes/ But bear it as our Roman actors do/ With untir’d spirits and formal constancy”.

Opportunistic alliances

Following the fall of Caesar, Antony, a Caesar loyalist with his own leadership ambitions, outshines Brutus in a rhetorical contest. In the aftermath of Caesar’s death, the newly formed alliances [Brutus and Cassius on the one hand and Antony, Lepidus and Octavius on the other] take up arms against each other. Antony emerges as victor.

Drawing from Roman history, Shakespeare brings to life the so-called heroes, traitors, conspirators, betrayers, hypocrites and opportunists, who often cluster on the political stage, not to mention the gullible masses who constantly get carried away with the tide of rhetoric. Shakespeare makes himself our contemporary by bringing forth issues such as patriotism; authoritarianism; militarism; fact and fiction in political rhetoric; personal interest versus common good; violence and war as a continuation of politics [as Clausewitz aphorized]; and lack of permanent friends or foes, in the affairs of the state.

Moral Virtues and Failings in Politics

Drawing from a collection of biographies [‘Parallel Lives’] by Plutarch, the Greek essayist who took up Roman citizenship, Shakespeare illustrates the moral virtues and failings of a legendary Roman military leader turned politician, Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus, in one of his most political of tragedies.

Coriolanus was a ‘war hero’ in the true sense of the title: a valiant soldier credited for the sacrifice he made in the defence of Rome [“Every gash of mine was an enemy’s grave”] and for his military achievement in Corioles against the invading Volscians, and entering into a lone battle with the enemy leader, Aufidius. Coriolanus emerges victorious.

Coriolanus was nurtured to be a fighter by his mother who lived vicariously through his triumph, and, to the rulers, he was a symbol of strength in averting any future threat to the security of their land. After his military success, Coriolanus was urged to take up politics by the rulers and by his mother. He was expected to relocate his ‘inner strength’ from military prowess to political acumen – a misrepresentation of the notion of strength for political expedience. And, therein was the rub.

Pressure was put on the reluctant soldier ‘to don the gown of humility and present his wounds to the people’, and woo them for votes. But Coriolanus was reluctant. “It is a part/ That I shall blush in acting [2.2.144-5]. “’Why did you wish me milder? Would you have me/False to my nature? Rather say I play/The man I am” [3.2.14-16] “You have put me to such a part which never/I shall discharge to th’ life” [3.2.105-106]. His mother, Volumina suggested, “Seem/ The same you are not” – in other words, to put on an act!

Although Coriolanus preferred to keep his honour and his principle together as a soldier and defend his homeland, he succumbed to the pressure from his family and the rulers. He reluctantly took up politics and alienated the public due to his obstinacy. They rescinded their vote, and is banished from Rome. He became vengeful and unpatriotic and was ultimately destroyed.

Despite its simple narrative, the play Coriolanus is about politics, politicians and ‘policy’. It is about the pressure placed upon a politician to project himself as what he is not.

Coriolanus was expected to present his ‘policy’ [principles of governance] in which political expediency was to be placed above morality, with the use of craft and deceit to gain power, in a Machiavellian sense. He defied all such pressures and wished to be true to himself. His personal choice of truth was put to death and was carried away in a coffin.

Power and Privileges in Politics

An ageing ruler wishing to cling on to power and privileges despite his failing health is not an uncommon scenario in political circles, greed being at the heart of such motivation. Such a scenario was given dramatic expression by Shakespeare in his play the tragedy of KING LEAR. Lear, a legendary ruler of Britain, thought to be a man of ‘knowledge and reason’, transferred his sovereignty to his progeny contingent upon the expressiveness of their love towards him, with no intension of relinquishing his authority and privileges. He commands that Britain be divided equally between his two elder daughters [and their respective husbands] but with the condition that they accommodate him in turn along with his entourage of hundred knights. Having taken over the reign, the two daughters treat their father with disdain, refusing to fulfil their commitments.

Stripped off his sovereignty, the old monarch is reduced to madness and beggary, failing to negotiate between the polarities of ‘integrity’ in the face of diminishment and despair. He ends up in a ‘desolate field’ in a ‘raging storm’ accompanied by his court jester, ‘the fool’, with a corrective satire. The fool quips, “Thou shoudst not have been old before you hadst been wise”!

Regime Change

Regime change is a favourite theme in the Shakespeare canon. Abdication, abandonment, usurpation, military overthrow, political upheaval and even assassination are some of the common circumstances that are given dramatic expression by the bard. One of the most popular narrative poems by Shakespeare which culminates in a significant regime change, which I hope to present in an allegorical sense, is the ‘RAPE of LUCRECE’.

Drawn from a story by the Roman Historian Livy, the poem wrings pathos from the hapless exposure of Lucrece, a woman of exceptional beauty and virtue [which I equate to my motherland] to rape by a member of the ruling class. She laments: “My honey lost, and I, a drone like bee/ Have no perfection of my summer left/ But robb’d and ransack’d by injurious theft/ In thy weak hive a wand’ring wasp hath crept/ And suck’d the honey which thy chaste bee kept”.

Enraged by the assault on this ‘incomparable woman of worth’, the masses pour out into the streets of Rome, carrying her body, demanding to avenge her death and to overthrow the regime. By public acclaim the ruling monarchs were rooted out and political power handed over to people of their choice.

Moral Enhancement Away from the Precincts of Power

Often referred to as the pastoral drama, Shakespeare’s ‘AS YOU LIKE IT’ unfolds in a rural setting close to nature – the Forest of Arden – the domain of simple folk, the shepherds, far removed from the brutal precincts of power where politicians prowl. Duke Senior, banished from court by his brother, Duke Frederick, takes refuge in the forest with several of his faithful followers, to be purified and returned to where they came from, or to be retained in the wilderness! To be interpreted allegorically, the Forest of Arden acts as a milieu for purification and regeneration, and for redemption and restoration of order. It is a great leveller where the corrupt and ambitious rulers are brought together with the simple but honest folk with basic needs, living close to nature, to instil a sense of moral wisdom. ‘Then there is mirth in heaven/ when earthly things made even’. [Hymen]

Five years before his death, Shakespeare bid farewell to the stage having written his last solo-authored play, The TEMPEST, thought to be his parting song, with a complex allegory, open to a variety of interpretations. To me, it conveys a lesson in moral enhancement to those who occupy positions of power.

Shakespeare transforms the stage to a ‘desolate island’ somewhere in the Mediterranean, and places his leading character Prospero to use his ‘magical art’ to combat his inner turmoil.

Prospero [‘the one who prospers’] has once been the Duke of Milan, a learned man constantly in pursuit of further study of ‘liberal arts/ without a parallel’ dedicated to ‘closeness and bettering the mind’. For him the ‘library was dukedom large enough’ and was so immersed in his books that his brother, Antonio, found it easy to depose him and grab power. Prospero with his three-year-old daughter, Miranda, was set adrift on the open sea in a boat with neither sail nor mast. Carrying a few provisions and some of his prized books, thrown in by Gonzalo, a kindly courtier, they drifted at the mercy of wave and tide, finally to be deposited on the shores of an island.

Living with his daughter in a cave in the island, part of which converted to his study, Prospero was in pursuit of bettering his mind through the study of ‘liberal arts’ – the art of inculcating wisdom, virtue and ethical practice, and the art of respectful dialogue – many a bibliophile is unable to achieve!

To cut a long story short, Prospero mobilises the services of Ariel, the winged spirit, to conjure up a storm that wrecks a passing ship and disperse its distraught passengers around the island, while ensuring their safety. The passengers happened to include his usurper and his fellow conspirators, giving Prospero the opportunity to exercise his compassion and forgiveness over vengeance, to bring about reconciliation, and to let go of power and possession.

‘King Becoming Graces’

Following the damnation of Macbeth, in the play by the same name, Macduff requests Malcolm, the new monarch, to outline what he believes to be ‘king becoming graces’. Malcolm enumerates them as, ‘justice, verity, stableness/ Bounty, perseverance, mercy, lowliness/ Devotion, patience, courage, fortitude’, admitting that he has ‘no relish of them’, but adds, ‘Nay, had I power, I should/ Pour the sweet milk of concord into hell/ Uproar the universal peace, confound/ All unity on earth’. A tall order!


The ancient Greeks, the lettered race, pioneered the notion of tragedy. Despite the hardship and agony caused by a tragic experience, they recognised its potential in bringing about a moral order – evil is beaten back, and truth emerges with the restoration of peace and harmony. The religious faith of Shakespeare is subject to conjecture, but the central moral principle – justice, redemption and grace – embedded in many of his tragedies, may guide us move from darkness to light, whichever faith we belong to.

Source Material

The Complete Works of William Shakespeare [The Alexander Text] Introduced by Peter Ackroyd [2010] Collins

New Statesman April 22-28, 2016. “Shakespeare 400 Years Later”

Bell, John 2022: Boyer Lecture: “Order versus Chaos”. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio

Galhenage, Siri: 2020: “Shakespeare and the Human Condition”. S. Godage & Brothers [Pvt] Ltd.

Galhenage, Siri: “A Window to a Literary Landscape” [in manuscript]


Continue Reading

Midweek Review

The Moribund State



By Lynn Ockersz

Bone-thin bodies drift ashore,

In a solemn funereal tempo….

Bullet holes gape out of foreheads,

Gagged mouths and bound limbs,

Greet passers-by dashing for queues,

Bringing back harrowing memories,

Of the Mailed Fist of past years,

But what’s plain and beyond doubt,

Is that there’s a growing Black Hole,

In the minds of the isle’s overlords,

That makes history-learning a lost cause.

Continue Reading