Midweek Review
Province-based Devolution in Sri Lanka: a Critique
by G H Peiris
1. Preamble
This article is prompted by the recent announcement that the Cabinet will soon consider a proposal to conduct Provincial Council (PC) elections without delay. The article is intended to urge that the PC system should be abolished and replaced by constitutional devices to ensure: (a) genuine sharing of political power among all primordial, áscriptive and associational groups that constitute the nation of Sri Lanka; and (b) the statutory protection of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and territorial integrity which the PC system, as long as it is permitted to last, will remain in dire peril. The article is also intended to stimulate the memory of those who appear to have forgotten the circumstances that culminated in the enactment of legislation in 1987 to establish PCs. There appears to prevail a measure of complacency among some of our present political stalwarts based on the notion that, with their two-thirds majority in Parliament, and with the 20th Amendment in place, they ought to let the status quo remain intact. This, I think, is quite silly. Apart from the fact that landslide electoral victories tend often to be brittle, those who were in the forefront of empowering the present regime are already reacting with dismay to the decision to re-establish the PCs.
2. Indo-Lanka Accord – the Indian Intervention
It is often forgotten that the government of India employed the most diabolical forms of diplomatic, military and economic coercion a powerful country could conceivably brought to bear upon a supposedly friendly nation with which it shares many cultural traits.
Omitting (for the sake of brevity) the vicissitudinous political career of Smt. Indira Gandhi during the 1970s, my elaboration of the foregoing observation begins with the commencement of her second spell of office as Prime Minister of India (January 1980 to October 1984) in the course of which she made no secret about her intense antipathy towards the JRJ-led government of Sri Lanka. This prompted certain emissaries of the ‘Tamil United Liberation Front’ (TULF) to suggest to her the desirability of launching an armed intervention in Sri Lanka of the type she had so successfully achieved at the “Liberation” of Bangladesh in 1971. That did not happen, probably because the JRJ regime had the backing of the West and the tragic end of her life in 1984. Regarding her malignant imprint on the constitutional affairs of Sri Lanka, however, it is worth citing the testimony of J. N. Dixit, Delhi’s High Commissioner in Colombo when (in his own words) he was “… involved in the most important and critical phase of Indo-Lanka relations; a period during which India’s mediatory efforts reached its peak culminating in the signing of the Indo-Lanka Agreement of 29 July 1987”. (Dixit, 1998: xvi):
“Once Mrs. Gandhi decided to be supportive of the cause of Sri Lankan Tamils on the basis of Indian interests and strategic considerations, the rest of the process which culminated in the Indo-Lanka Agreement and the induction of the IPKF was more or less inevitable”. (emphasis added)
Several reasons, partly conjectural, have been adduced for Smt. Gandhi’s hostility towards the government of Sri Lanka. For instance, She might have been resentful of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy leanings towards the ‘West’, and the reciprocal support which JRJ was attracting in abundance from some of the leading global powers for the mammoth development projects being implemented within the framework of ‘economic liberalisation’. Another explanation is that, with the worsening of relations between the Federal government and State governments of Punjab, Kashmir, Assam and West Bengal, Smt. Gandhi placed priority on consolidating her electoral support in Tamilnadu, which meant, among other things, greater concern on the demands of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. My own hunch is that it was a Shakespearian display of “Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned” towards JRJ, allegedly for an absurd insult he had hurled at her in the course of an ‘After Dinner’ speech as the Janatha government’s PM, Moraji Desai’s, guest of honour.
Be that as it may, Smt. Gandhi began to provide clandestine aid (financial, material and training in guerrilla offensives) to groups of Sri Lankan Tamil insurgents, even after it was made public knowledge through prestigious Indian journals. This is relevant background to an understanding of the disastrous anti-Tamil riot that occurred in Sri Lanka in July 1983.
The riot caused extensive damage to life and property, and a massive displacement of the Sri Lankan Tamil population in the Sinhalese-majority areas ̶ one which included a large outflow of refugees from the country. It disrupted the economy aand brought the ‘liberalisation’ boom to an abrupt end. It tarnished the image of Sri Lanka abroad, generated a global tide of sympathy towards the Tamils, and attracted international attention and concern towards Tamil grievances. It paved the way for the direct intervention of India (untrammelled by pressures from the ‘West’) in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka, culminating in the introduction in 1987 of a massive Indian Peace-Keeping Force (IPKF). It also represented a major turning point in the history of Tamil politics in Sri Lanka, with the militant groups and their strategy of armed confrontation and terrorism gaining ascendancy over the older Tamil political parties and their proclaimed commitments to peaceful agitation and protest. The militants became a power in their own right, abandoning their earlier role as the ‘boys’ of the Tamil leadership in the political mainstreams.
Indian Intervention after the Convulsions of ‘Black July’
Smt. Indira Gandhi’s offer to “mediate” in the Sri Lankan imbroglio (pre-empting other global powers from claiming that role) could not have been turned down by the beleaguered President Jayewardene.
The process of mediation commenced with the arrival of the Indian diplomat, Parthasarathi Rao. It took the form of coercing the Sri Lanka government to change its policy of decentralisation of ‘development administration’ to devolution of political power, and to change the spatial framework for such devolution from the District to the Province, along with an amalgamation of the Northern Province and the Eastern Province. His “mission” ended with the production of document referred to in subsequent negotiations as ‘Annexure C’ which he took back to Delhi. To what this document was annexed, and whether there were other “Annexures” are not known.
‘Annexure C’, and Sri Lanka government’s own proposals were presented to an ‘All Party Conference (APC) summoned by JRJ at which there was vehement opposition to certain sections of that Annexure. But the government extracted from the APC proceedings a draft Ordinance providing for (a) “a revitalised District Councils” system and (b) the establishment of a Second Chamber, and tabled the drafts for further dialogue with the TULF (the SLFP delegates having withdrawn from the APC). Up to about the end of the year, the TULF leadership maintained that the draft ordinance did form the basis of an acceptable settlement. But, thereafter, in a sudden volte-face, they rejected it outright.
Smt. Indira Gandhi was assassinated by Sikh militants on 31 October 1984. Her son, Rajiv was sworn in as PM later on the same day. Critics have maintained that this caused a change in Indo-Lanka relations in the sense that Rajiv tended to be less “imperial” than his late mother in his approach to conflict resolution both within and outside India.
Despite Rajiv’s affable demeanour, the policy transformation brought about by his succession was less tangible than what most observers would have us believe.
For instance:
(a) the Delhi government made available through the State government of Tamilnadu a grant of US$ 3.2 million to the LTTE leadership; (b) as Lalith Athulathmudali (Sri Lanka’s Minister of Security and Defence) had observed, a leaked RAW document indicated the continuing existence of training camps and bases for Sri Lankan Tamil separatist activists and; (c) despite repeated requests by JRJ, Delhi did not adopt coastal surveillance measures to curtail clandestine movement of people and commodities across Palk Strait.
Meanwhile the Tamil militants escalated their terrorist onslaught, the most horrendous event of which was the slaughter by LTTE operatives of 148 devotees (most of them elderly women) at the premises of the Sri Maha Bōdhi shrine in the sacred city of Anuradhapura, and another 16 civilians in the course of their retreat into the wilds of Wilpattu on May 14, 1985. There was media speculation that firearms used by the Tigers in this massacre were purchased by the LTTE with the aforesaid Indian grant.
Romesh Bhandari, Rajiv’s Foreign Secretary, initiated peace negotiations between the government and delegates of the secessionist groups at a forum staged in July/August 1985 in the capital of Bhutan, and thus labelled as the ‘Thimpu Talks’. It provided a forum to Tamil militants for worldwide propaganda for their ‘liberation’ demands that were set out as follows (lawyer N. Balendran acting as their spokesman):
“It is our considered view that any meaningful solution to the national question of the island must be based on the following four cardinal principles:
(1) Recognition of the Tamils of Sri Lanka as a distinct nationality,
(2) Recognition of an identified Tamil homeland and the guarantee of its territorial integrity,
(3) Based on the above, recognition of the inalienable right of self-determination of the Tamil nation,
(4) Recognition of the right to full citizenship and other fundamental democratic rights of all Tamils, who look upon the island as their home.”
The Sri Lanka delegation response, as presented by H. L. de Silva (recorded in Balendran’s monograph on the ‘Thimpu Talks’) was as follows:
“First, we observe that there is a wide range of meanings that can attach to the concepts and ideas embodied in the four principles, and our response to them would accordingly depend on the meaning and significance that is sought to be applied to them. Secondly, we must state quite emphatically that if the first three principles are to be taken at their face value and given their accepted legal meaning they are wholly unacceptable to the government. They must be rejected for the reason that they constitute a negation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka; they are detrimental to a united Sri Lanka and are inimical to the interests of the several communities, ethnic and religious in our country”.
The collapse of ‘Thimpu Talks’ prompted Bhandari, in barely concealed personal disgust at the arrogance and recalcitrance of Mr. Balendran and his entourage of secessionist militants, to summon a follow-up negotiations in Delhi at which he restricted Sri Lanka participation to delegates of the government and of the TULF. At the conclusion of that effort in August 1985 a document named the ‘Delhi Accord’, “initialled” by representatives of the two governments, was released to the media by India’s Foreign Office. It claimed that a measure of consensus was reached on ‘Province’ as the unit of devolution’ and on the powers to be devolved. The Delhi Accord was rejected by the LTTE. By the end of the year the TULF leadership had also rejected the ‘Delhi Accord’.
Thereafter there was a series of discussions between representatives of the two governments. A. P. Venkateswaran, appointed Foreign Secretary in January 1987, attempted unilaterally to make the ‘Delhi Accord’ more acceptable to the TULF by bringing the Accord offers close to a federal form of government.
Perhaps the greatest betrayal of the trust which the government of Sri Lanka had placed in the Rajiv regime was represented by Delhi’s reaction to the military campaign termed ‘Operation Liberation’ launched by the government on 26 May 1987 in the face of which the Tiger cadres, abandoned their Thalaivar’s bravado, and fled in disarray. An SOS appeal conveyed by the LTTE leadership to Tamilnadu resulted in a flotilla of fishing vessels sailing out in the guise of a “spontaneous” civilian response but, in fact, with the backing of the central and state governments. That maritime invasion was foiled by the Sri Lanka Nsavy. Thereupon, in a blatant violation of international law and Sri Lanka’s air space, a convoy of Mirage-2000 combat planes dropped 20 tons of food and medical supplies on Jaffna, ostensibly as a ‘mercy mission’, but in reality, a demonstration of what Delhi could do unless Sri Lanka obeys. At the commencement of ‘Operation Liberation’, Dixit informed Lalith Athulathmudali that India would not stand idly by if the Sri Lanka Army attempts to capture Jaffna (K. M. de Silva, 1994: 631).
The JRJ-Rajiv dialogue at the ‘SAARC Summit’ conducted at Bangalore in early 1987; discussions between Indian VIPs like Dinesh Singh and P. Chidambaran and Sri Lanka ministers like Lalith Athulathmudali, Gamini Dissanayake and A C S Hameed; and, more geerally, the enforcement of his will on senior bureaucrats in Colombo by J N Dixit (who, by this stage, had earned for himself the epithet ‘India’s Viceroy’) were among the Indo-Lanka interactions that brought about the signing of the agreement.
What I have sketched above is only the bare outline of how and why the aging President JRJ, nudging 80, succumbed to the ruthless Indian onslaught, disillusioned as he was, by the disintegration of his inner circle of loyalists, the aggressive extra-parliamentary campaign led by Sirimavo Bandaranaike, and the ethos of anarchy and violence created by the JVP whose oft repeated theme, disseminated through the calligraphically unique poster campaign, was ‘jay ăr maramu’ (‘let’s kill JR’). Soon after the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord, the JVP almost succeeded in doing that in a grenade attack on UNP parliamentary group meeting.
Indo-Lanka Accord’: Its Political Backdrop in Sri Lanka
Politics of insurrection gathered momentum in Jaffna at least from about a decade earlier than the signing of the said ‘Accord’ when the mainstream Tamil parties began to pursue a strategy of nurturing insurgent groups, and inculcating the notion of Sinhalese oppression (rather than inequities inherent to the mismanaged economy being experienced by all ethnic groups, and the blatant Caste-based oppression endemic to the Sri Lankan Tamil social milieu) being the root cause for their deprivations. It should also be recalled that the benefits of economic buoyancy that ushered in by the policy transformation of ‘liberalization of the economy’ from the earlier pseudo-socialist shackles, initiated by the government elected to office in 1977, were scarcely felt in the predominantly Tamil areas of the north.
It was in the context of intensifying turbulence that the leaders of Ilangai Tamil Arasi Kachchi (ITAK), All-Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC) and Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC) formed a coalition named the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF). At its inaugural session conducted in May 1976, the TULF adopted the so-called ‘Vaddukodai Resolution’, the opening statement of which reads as follows:
“The convention resolves that the restoration and reconstitution of the Free, Sovereign, Secular state of TAMIL EELAM based on the right of self-determination inherent to every nation has become inevitable in order to safeguard the very existence of the Tamil Nation in this Country”.
The concluding paragraphs of that ‘Resolution’ (copied below) should, in retrospect, be understood as epitomising a formal decision to launch of an ‘Eelam War’.
“This convention calls upon its ‘LIBERATION FRONT’ to formulate a plan of action and launch without undue delay the struggle for winning the sovereignty and freedom of the Tamil Nation.”, followed by more specific belligerence,
“And this Convention calls upon the Tamil Nation in general and the Tamil youth in particular to come forward to throw themselves fully in the sacred fight for freedom and to flinch not until the goal of a sovereign state of TAMIL EELAM is reached”.
The campaign rhetoric of the TULF was somewhat more vicious than its belligerence at Vaddukoddai.. At a public rally conducted shortly after the formation in 1976 of the ACTC-ITAK alliance with qualified support from Arumuga Thondaman’s ‘Ceylon Workers Congress’, the person who could have been called the ‘First Lady’ of that alliance said in the course of her speech: “I will not rest until I wear slippers turned out of Sinhalese skins”. Unbelievable? If it is, look up the ‘Report of the Commission of Inquiry’ into the communal disturbances of 1977 conducted by a former Supreme Court Judge (a person belonging to the Burgher community), published as Sessional Paper XII of 1980.
The data tabulated below show that the TULF appeal did not get the expected response even from the people living in the ‘North-East’. It is, of course, true that all contestants fielded by the TULF did win their seats in the Northern Province, securing comfortable majorities in the districts of Jaffna, Kilinochchi and Vavuniya; but elsewhere in the province, the margins of victory were wafer-thin. The polling outcome of the Eastern Province probably shocked the TULF leadership and certainly caused widespread surprise, especially since less than one-third of the voters of Batticaloa District (where Tamils accounted for 72%, and the ‘Sri Lankan Tamils 71% the district population) only 32% had endorsed the ‘Eelam’ appeal.
By the early 1980s, several groups had taken control over acts of terrorism and sabotage in Jaffna peninsula. The violence perpetrated by the insurgents and the retaliatory acts of the security forces reached fever-pitch on the eve of elections to the newly instituted District Development Councils. It resonated in other parts of the country in the form of two relatively brief waves of mob attacks on Tamil civilians, one in 1980 and the other in 1981. The victims included ‘Indian Tamils’.
The economic upsurge in the first 6 years of the JRJ-led government was short lived, and the political hopes proved to be illusory. The Jaffna peninsula turbulence was perceived by the government as a ‘law and order problem’ ̶ which a police contingent led by a Deputy Inspector General of Police Rudhra Rajasingham, a Tamil officer of impeccable repute, was ordered by the President to “eradicate within three months”. It failed in the face of massive protest campaigns, intensifying guerrilla attacks on government institutions and the security forces, and harsh retaliatory action by the security forces.
The ‘Eelam War’ for which the groundwork had been laid by the TULF was triggered off by the anti-Tamil riot of unprecedented brutality that took place in July 1983. Its damning repercussions were referred to earlier in this memorandum. JRJ reacted by proscribing several parties and incarcerating a few among his more articulate detractors, some, on the basis of barely credible evidence. Yet another blunder by him at this state was the holding of a national referendum in order to extend the life of the parliament (with the 4/5th majority under his command) by another 6 years. Apart from the rampant malpractices that features this poll, it did look like the fulfilment of his euphoric pledge in the aftermath of his victory to “roll back the electoral map”.
The youth unrest in the Northeast which was mobilised for electoral gain by the TULF began to be replicated in earnest elsewhere in the island in the form of the second wave of insurrection launched by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP/Peoples Liberation Front). In the economic recession that prevailed, and with the incessant Television displays of unattainable luxury restricted to the life styles of a small minority, increasing numbers of youth suffering from “frustration aggression” were attracted to the JVP fold. By 1985, they engaged in raids for the collection of money and arms, crippling the economy with frequently enforced curfews, and a range of terrorist violence such as intimidation, torture and the murder of persons identified as collaborators of the government.
The Province as a Unit of Devolution
The Colebrooke-Cameron Reforms of 1833 that introduced a network of 5 Provinces was intended to consolidate British rule over the island which remained tenuous even after the suppression of the rebellion of 1818. The spatial pattern of provinces was changes from time to time until it was finalised in 1889 against the backdrop of the mid-Victorian imperial glory and the absence of any challenge to British supremacy in ‘Ceylon’. The population of the island at that time was only 3 million; and, despite the ongoing deforestation of the Central Highlands, at least about 70% of the island territory was uncharted wilderness.
To be Continued
by Professor Athula Sumathipala
Two elections went without much fuss unlike in the past, particularly without any post-election violence. The new cabinet of ministers have sworn in, especially with a Minister for Science and Technology and the parliament has started its business. However, cannot be ‘business as usual’.
During the inauguration of the first session of the tenth parliament, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake reiterated the role of science, technology and research in nation building. He stated that “we believe that the area where our economy can undergo a significant transformation is science and technology. If we examine the developed countries around the world, each has invested a substantial portion of its annual budget in new research”.
He also went on to say that “our goal is to make a significant leap in the field of scientific research. This is why we have established a dedicated Ministry of Science and Technology and appointed former Professor Chrishantha Abeysena from the Ragama Medical Faculty, who has vast experience in the field”. We have also appointed individuals like Prof Gomika Udugamasuriya, who has conducted major research in the United States and brought international recognition to Sri Lanka, as the Advisor to the President on Science and Technology. We expect this transformation in science and technology to bring about a major impact”.
The two-thirds mandate received by the President was ensured by the floating voters paving the way for a new political culture. The strong powerful message via a two-thirds mandate is not only for the politicians. It sends a strong signal to the government officials, and it does not stop there. It’s an equally strong, message for intellectuals, academic, and scientists.
It is also important to realise that the positions given to people in top research institutions are not privileges to be abused based on personal agenda, and the issue of zero tolerance for corruption and abuse of power is equally applicable to them too. Similarly, the message to the researchers is not just ‘publish or perish’. It’s not going to be business as usual and therefore the new slogan is, culture shift – research for peoples benefit; research for service and product development.
Research & Development, Innovation and Technology Transfer
The post-industrial knowledge economy of today clearly displays the close correlation among economic growth, innovation and indigenous research capacity. University-based research has been the most effective driver of such economically-relevant innovation. As a result, leveraging the public investment in universities and other institutions to stimulate innovative research and development (R&D) is now a critical need for a country to remain competitive in the global arena.
Most high-ranking universities in the world are not just teaching universities but they have transformed into to research universities. However, Sri Lanka needs a paradigm shift to make research and innovation core components of and not just in postgraduate education, but also in undergraduate to produce individuals with both a creative vision for innovation as well as sufficient intellectual breadth and depth to realise that vision. There is a clear association between a country’s health, research and development investment.
What is a strategy?
To me, a strategy is about capturing opportunities arising in a dynamic world, as scientific opportunities cannot always be foreseen. The flexibility to respond to novel ideas with solid potential is therefore crucial for success. For example, the Covid-19 pandemic created an unprecedented window of opportunity for research worldwide. Sri Lanka requires innovative R&D contributions to re-stabilise the economy, to ensure national security and for sustainable development in strategically important areas.
Therefore, a ‘culture shift’ is a must if research is for peoples benefit.
Culture shift – what does it entail?
Any culture shift demands change in thinking, feelings and behaviours; the triad. According to the cognitive theory thoughts are central to any feelings or behaviour. The way people think determine how they feel and behave. Therefore, ‘attitudes’ which is a significant component of thinking need to change for any modification in thinking or behaviour to happen.
What is success?
At the end of the day what we all want, either as individuals or as a society is ‘success’. It’s also crucial to understand that success is not a destination but it’s a journey But how do you define success?
The definition of ‘success’ is determined by one’s attitude towards ‘success’. Does it mean personal success or material gains for one’s own benefits or does it mean the public good arising from one’s efforts? Therefore, the resulting vision, strategy, focus all heavily depend on the attitude towards success, which is the driving force.
But that success should essentially be beyond “self”. Hence if one gets his attitude wrong, the resulting vision, strategy, focus all can be directed towards a ‘success’ which may even be a destructive one. The classic example is the LTTE separatist war, the war that brought destruction to every one irrespective of the language one spoke. Similarly, where knowledge is power and that too can cater to a destructive end.
Success in research
For a researcher, an institution where he is affiliated may have a proud history, may be a place of research excellence with a reputation for cutting edge research, an institution supporting future research leaders. But what does it mean to an ordinary citizen? What would such an institution offer for them? The ‘so what’ question, for the ordinary citizen.
It’s high time to reflect on this – research for whose benefit?
An academic or research institution can be a place that can offer a degree, a job, better life, promotion, good marriage, patent, opportunity to see the world through academic travel, publications, a thesis to hang dust in a library. However, let’s question over selves – what is there beyond us and for public good.
Serious reflection on what is beyond us is an urgent need; that is what the culture shift – research for people’s benefits demands. A paradigm shift in the way we look at the benefits and impact of research one does. In simplest term, impact is making a difference to people’s lives.
Why beyond us? Because we are products of free public education, we use public funds for research, and even public knowledge; the knowledge is also on most occasions is something others have left behind and we are enriching them through research.
Therefore, we have a moral and ethical obligation to think beyond us. It’s not only the politicians who should be transparent and accountable. We academics too are answerable to the public. This is the salient feature not recognised enough by the academia.
This is the culture shift I am talking about. Therefore, in the journey towards a ‘culture shift’, the ethos and the attitudes are crucial. Bad attitude is like a flat tire, you cannot go anywhere without changing it. Hence attitude change is central to everything.
Please also do remember change is generally resisted and challenging the ‘norm’ may be faced with significant animosity, especially from ego centric, self-centred, especially insecure personalities and power brokers.
In order to achieve an attitude change, it has to come within. Such an internal change will ignite the change externally. It’s a synergistic process. That is where agents of change are needed, it’s a prerequisite for a culture shift.
Hence to make this ‘culture shift; research for peoples benefit’, the agents of change should be scientists and researchers themselves. We need far sighted future research leaders, to be role models and genuine and committed research leaders. Such leadership attributes will count much more than academic brilliance. Hence a serious reflection of the attitudes of scientists of our time is demanded by the prevailing circumstances; especially in the current context.
In doing so we need to realise that, an action without a vision is drudgery and vision without action is only dreaming. Never dream, because those can easily be forgotten, instead we should have targets. Hence such a vision coupled with action can change the word.
We should remember any such change especially, a culture shift in research for peoples benefits need good teams and ethos to ignite transferable and sustainable changes. In such teams we need visionaries, theoreticians, but also pragmatists and activists. All these attributes will be rare in one person, and that is why we need teams. However, in a team; a true leader is different from a manager or a boss. Leaders manage the future and managers manage the day to day ‘mess’.
However, a ‘boss is even different to a manager. A true leader is a coach, a mentor, relies on goodwill, generates enthusiasm among the team members, say we, develop people, give credits to others and share benefits while accept the blame and defeat. They bind team members together. However, a ‘Boss’, demand and rely on authority only, says I, use people, take credit for success but blame others for failures, and thinks only about ‘my way’, and are ego centric and self-centred people.
The art of science is very much different from science. Most of the scientists are generally very good at their science. But what they lack is the art of science. That is the art of delivering scientific benefits by communicating about them to policy planners for public good and converting them into products and services. Ironically the conceptual frame work is non-existent in majority.
That is why there is plenty of research describing the problem (descriptive research) but no intervention research to rectify the problem. There is so much of descriptive research on CKDU (chronic kidney disease of unknown origin) but people continue to suffer from kidney failure and finally die short of their life. There is a load of research on human and elephant conflict but people continue to die being attacked by elephants. People still have to talk about monkeys challenging human life.
That is why a culture shift – research for people’s benefit is needed. But what should be the process.
The new government has a Ministry science and technology. However, is it only the duty of the Minister, the Ministry officials and the scientist and the far-sighted research leaders? No, the public also has an equal duty and responsibility. Why?
The public has an equal responsibility as they should not be expected to be passive recipients of the benefits. But a critique may say ‘do the general public have any insight into the word research’. Such an attitude is also a serious misperception that needs to change if one is expected to have a tangible culture shift. But is it a utopia?
Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) or community engagement in medical research is firmly established in the West. It is now extending as a fundamental element of health research in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). It place public contributors at the centre of research and its outcomes, and helps ensure that its scope, processes, and evaluation are more relevant, appropriate and beneficial to the end users of research. There is overwhelming research evidence that the public frequently prioritise themes topics for research that are different to those of academics and health professionals. Research evidence also demonstrates that the quality and appropriateness of research is enhanced and the likelihood of successful recruitment to studies increased, and implementation of the findings is improved when the public are involved and engaged in research.
It is a process of active partnership between researchers, professionals, and members of the public in prioritising, designing and delivering research. It is defined as “research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them”.
The above is an absolutely essential component if one is serious in making this culture shift- research for peoples benefit.
Beyond any doubt what so ever we have brilliant researchers’ world leading in terms of conventional indicators of ‘success’ entirely from and academic point of view. However even that is also fragmented and patchy. There has to be an overarching research culture but even that will not deliver as it will be ‘business as usual’.
Finally it also demands not working in silos but in a truly respectful and mutually beneficial partnership. In such an ethos plagiarism (taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.) should be thoroughly condemned as it is a moral violation of research ethics. Patents will never be the sole protection against plagiarism. The silent good majority should be educated and empowered. Such a collective effort with public engagement and involvement will pave the way for the culture shift- research for peoples benefit which is a slogan of a minority right now. But it can be made ‘infectious’.
So once again let me reiterate – we need a culture shift – research for people benefit
Let’s work collectively not just to make Sri Lanka the granary of Asia, but also the intelligence warehouse/hub of Asia.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
On the eve of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Shavendra Silva’s retirement, Defence Secretary Air Vice Marshal (retd.) Sampath Thuyacontha declared the National People’s Power (NPP) government’s intention to review the armed force structures to ensure, what he called, optimal utilization of resources.
AVM Thuyacontha also proposed to enhance the armed forces operational efficiency by implementing targeted recruitment and focusing on quality over quantity in personnel selection.
Reforms in our opinion, too, are a must, especially knowing that many made a business out of the war against the separatist terrorists for it to drag on unnecessarily for so long, with the country suffering immeasurably in terms of lost lives and limbs, broken families, etc., etc. But such reforms should not have any kind of political connotations other than to fight wastage and corruption.
Defence Secretary Thuyacontha made the announcement at a Navy passing out parade at the ‘Naval and Maritime Academy’ (NMA) in Trincomalee on the evening of Dec. 28.
Present on the occasion were the then Navy Commander Vice Admiral Priyantha Perera and Commandant of the NMA Commodore R Joseph, a former Sri Lankan Defence Advisor at the Sri Lankan High Commission in New Delhi.
Against the backdrop of NPP leader Anura Kumara Disanayake (AKD) achieving the impossible at the presidential and parliamentary elections in September and November, last year, respectively, the new turn of events is certainly not surprising.
AVM Thuyacontha, who had been blacklisted by the SLAF, in March 2023, at the behest of the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government for throwing his weight behind the NPP, is now at the helm of the country’s war-winning security forces. The then government found fault with the SLAF veteran for appearing on the NPP political platforms at a time the then government was fighting back the growing political threat posed by AKD. Along with the AVM, the government blacklisted two more SLAF personnel. They were barred from even entering any military facility.
The decorated helicopter gunship pilot successfully moved the Supreme Court against the SLAF decision and in early Sept. 2023, the SC bench, comprising Justices Yasantha Kodagoda and Arjuna Obeysekera, ordered that Thuyacontha be granted all retirement benefits he was deprived of a couple of months before. The government and the SLAF top brass ended up with egg on their faces.
Another senior retired officer, targeted by the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government, is Maj. Gen. Aruna Jayasekara, as he, too, earned the wrath of the government for publicly declaring his support for the NPP.
The government, as well as the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), politically feared the grouping of retired military and police officers openly supporting NPP. Action directed at Thuyacontha and Jayasekara was meant to discourage not only the retired but serving armed forces and their families. While Thuyacontha, in Sept. 2024 received appointment as the Defence Secretary, Jayasekara, one-time post-war Security Forces Commander, East, emerged as Deputy Defence Minister. AKD brought Jayasekara into Parliament through the NPP National List to ensure continuous supervision.
Whatever the differences between them, Wickremesinghe and Premadasa realized the unprecedented political threat posed by the retired armed forces fraternity and the serving military being supportive of NPP against the backdrop of Aragalaya activists overthrowing President Gotabaya Rajapaksa through unconstitutional means and nearly overrunning the Parliament thereafter.
By the time Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s successor moved against Thuyacontha, in March 2023, the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) had already lost its politically commanding position over the retired armed forces and police. Following the eradication of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), in May 2009, the Rajapaksas consolidated their position vis-a-vis armed forces. In fact, the process began during the 2007-2008 period as the then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s Army turned things around in the Eastern and Northern theatres.
But let me stress that wouldn’t have been a reality without supportive and strategic roles played by then Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda’s Navy and then Air Vice Marshal Roshan Goonetilleke’s spearheading those two services. Even though Fonseka wanted to collect all the trophies for himself, it was the frontline military commanders that did the bulk of the work, undoubtedly very ably led by Fonseka, from Colombo, after he miraculously survived an attempt on his life by a female LTTE suicide bomber inside the Army Headquarters complex in April 2006.
AVM Thuyacontha, in his capacity as the Commanding Officer of No 09 attack helicopter squadron, earned a name for himself at the risk of his life. What really prompted Thuyacontha to throw his weight behind the NPP after his retirement?
AKD’s agenda
When the writer recently sought an explanation from an authoritative source regarding planned changes, without hesitation he underscored President Disanayake’s decision not to grant extensions to incumbent service commanders Lt. Gen. Vikum Liyanage (Army), Vice Admiral Priyantha Perera (Navy) and Air Marshal Udeni Rajapaksa (Air Force).
Although, the government hasn’t disclosed or given any indication yet regarding the proposed review of armed forces structures or what it intended to achieve, President Disanayake has effected changes. Lt. Gen. Liyanage and VA Perera were on their second extension and weren’t considered for further extensions. They were replaced by Lt. Gen. Lasantha Rodrigo, Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief of Staff VA Kanchana Banagoda.
Army Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Dinesh Nanayakkara hadn’t been considered for the top post. Nanayakkara, one-time Military Liaison Officer (MLO) at the time Gen. Kamal Gunaratne had served as the Defence Secretary, obviously failed to earn the confidence of the new political leadership.
Air Marshal Rajapaksa will retire on January 29, this year, and the obvious replacement is Chief of Staff AVM Sampath Wickramaratne, a celebrated fighter pilot.
In line with the overall changes in the defence sector, the NPP government may abolish the Office of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) thereby paving the way for the Defence Ministry to enhance its overall role. Perhaps, those who had been crushed by AKD at the presidential and parliamentary elections may have believed he would opt for a civilian Defence Secretary. They may never have thought AKD was going to accommodate a retired Maj. Gen. on its National List and make him Deputy Defence Minister.
AKD’s strategy should be examined with that of President Maithripala Sirisena (2015 January to 2019 November) who dealt a deadly blow to the defence setup by appointing four civilian defence secretaries, B.M.U.D. Basnayake (2015 Jan.-2015 Sept.), Karunasena Hettiarachchi (2015 Sept.-2017 July), Kapila Waidyaratne, PC (2017 July to 2018 Oct), and Hemasiri Fernando (2018 Oct. to 2019 April). The deterioration that had been caused by the Yahapalana political leadership that created an environment for the National Thowheed Jamaat (NTJ) to carry out the Easter Sunday carnage during Hemasiri Fernando’s tenure.
Perhaps the Easter Sunday massacre could have been averted if the post of Defence Secretary was held by a retired military officer. The pathetic way Sirisena had handled Defence proved that he simply lacked even the basic knowledge in handling the vital subject, in spite of his experience as a Cabinet Minister.
After the humiliating security debacle, Sirisena brought in retired Army Commander Gen. Shantha Kottegoda. The country was in such turmoil with Sirisena at loggerheads with his Prime Minister Wickremesinghe at that time, he couldn’t fill the Secretary Defence post immediately after Fernando’s removal. Hemasiri Fernando was removed on April 25. Kottegoda received his appointment on April 29th.
AKD, who is also the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peremuna (JVP) that waged two unsuccessful terror campaigns in ’71 and 1987-1990, in a bid to grab power, did something no previous President had done. The President who holds the Defence portfolio brought in a retired senior officer to Parliament on the National List, specifically to serve as his Deputy. AKD also holds a Finance portfolio and, over the past couple of months, proved that regardless of his critics repeatedly questioning his experience is equal to the task, despite some serious blemishes in the form of shortages of basics, like quality rice and coconuts.
New appointments
AKD has declared that State Ministers wouldn’t be appointed. This decision is based on the NPP’s assertion that appointment of State Ministers is meant to appease lawmakers and nothing but a waste of public funds.
Since the presidential election AKD has made some key appointments/changes: (1) Within a week after winning the presidential election, Senior DIG Priyantha Weerasooriya was appointed as the Acting IGP. The appointment sealed the fate of Deshabandu Tennakoon who enjoyed the backing of the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government, but was unceremoniously suspended by the Supreme Court on July 24, 2024. The SC declared that the order would be effective until the final determination of nine Fundamental Rights applications filed challenging his appointment as IGP. That dealt a severe blow to Wickremesinghe’s presidential election campaign. For the first time in our history, a national election was conducted in the absence of an IGP. Police headquarters handled the security admirably.
Weerasooriya’s appointment will be made permanent once the SC announced its determination in respect of FR applications filed against Tennakoon.
(2) In the first week of Oct., 2024, AKD replaced State Intelligence Service (SIS) head Maj. Gen. Suresh Sally. Intelligence services veteran Sally who had held the top post since 2019 after the presidential election, was replaced by DIG Dhammika Kumara. The SIS had been always run by a senior police officer until Gotabaya Rajapaksa brought in Sally in place of Senior DIG Nilantha Jayawardena, the man in the centre of controversy over the failure on the part of the Yahapalana leadership to thwart the Easter Sunday carnage.
Successive governments bent backwards to appease influential Jayawardena to such an extent the senior DIG was able to continue in police regardless of proven allegations against him in respect of the Easter Sunday security failure. The National Police Commission (NPC) sent him on compulsory leave only in July 2024, five years after near simultaneous NTJ suicide blasts claimed the lives of 270 Lankans and foreigners and caused injuries to over 400 others.
(3) In December last year, Brigadier Deepatha Ariyasena received appointment as head of Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI), the premier intelligence arm of the government. Like the new head of SIS, Dhammika Kumara, Brig. Ariyasena, in spite of not having an intelligence background, is expected to build up the respective ‘formations.’ Ariyasena replaced Brigadier Chandrika Mahathanthila.
(4) Maj. General Ruwan Wanigasooriya was brought in as new Chief of National Intelligence (CNI), a post held by Maj. Gen. Ruwan Kulathunga since June 2019. The Yahapalana administration erred in bringing in a retired senior policeman, much respected investigator DIG Sisira Mendis as CNI. Coupled with the appointment of civilians as Secretary Defence, the appointment of the retired DIG Mendis as directed by the then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, too, contributed to the overall intelligence failure that led to the horrific Easter Sunday carnage.
Regardless of various investigations, at different levels, the country still does not know why the Easter Sunday carnage couldn’t have been thwarted. Although many questioned the failure on the part of the intelligence community to act on specific information provided by India, perhaps sufficient attention hadn’t been paid to the pathetic way the government disregarded its own investigations.
SS retirement
Gen. Shavendra Silva, wartime General Officer Commanding (GoC) of the celebrated 58 Division, in his farewell message made reference to only one other officer who served with him. That was military leader and strategist Chagie Gallage, who retired in late August 2018. Both Gajaba Regiment veterans played crucial roles in the war against the LTTE and as Gen. Silva recalled his senior colleague had been the war-winning Army Chief Sarath Fonseka’s first choice as the Commanding Officer of Task Force 1 established to conduct offensive action on the Mannar theatre.
Due to sudden illness that befell Gallage, Silva was named the TF 1 commander and the rest is history. Like Gallage, Silva, too, retired while facing unsubstantiated war crimes accusations. Gallage remained to date the only officer to boldly raise the contentious issue at the time he delivered his farewell speech at the regimental headquarters.
A week after his retirement on Aug. 31, 2018, Gallage praised the Gajaba Home at Saliyapura, Anuradhapura: “Gajaba was engraved in golden letters in the annals of the history of the Sri Lanka Army, if not in the history of Sri Lanka … and I’m certain it will never be reversed by any.”
“So, I’m happy to be retired being a tiny particle of that proud chapter of our history, though designated as a ‘War Criminal.”
In a few lines, Gallage delivered a devastating attack on all those who had shirked their responsibility for countering lies propagated by interested parties until sections of the Army were categorised as war criminals. Gallage’s was a case in point.
Gallage dealt with a range of issues on the eve of the 35th anniversary of the Gajaba Regiment. There had never been a previous instance of an officer having the courage to question at a farewell banquet, about him being unfairly categorized as a war criminal. It would be pertinent to examine why Gallage declared: “So, I’m happy to be retired being a tiny particle of that proud chapter of history, though designated as a ‘War Criminal.’”
Now that the new government has declared its intention to review the armed force structures to ensure what he called optimal utilization of resources, it should without further delay pay attention to war crimes accusations. Mahinda Rajapaksa’s war-winning government, as well as subsequent governments, pathetically failed to build a proper defence on the basis of Lord Naseby’s revelations in Oct. 2017, made two years after the treacherous Yahapalana leadership betrayed our war-winning valiant armed forces at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
Led by Sirisena and Wickremesinghe, it became the only government in the world to move resolution against its own armed forces before the world.
Australia denied a visa to Gallage during the Yahapalana government. The government did nothing. The US declared a travel ban on Silva in Feb. 2020. Let me reproduce the declaration made by the then US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, on Feb. 13, 2020: “I am designating Shavendra Silva making him ineligible for entry into the US due to his involvement in extrajudicial killings during Sri Lanka’s Civil War. The US will not waver in its pursuit of accountability for those who commit war crimes and violate human rights.”
Sri Lanka never had a cohesive action plan to defend its armed forces, thereby allowing those who couldn’t stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over the Tiger terrorist and their supporters’ project to relentlessly pursue war crimes accusations against the country. Lord Naseby’s disclosure, based on information obtained from the UK government, proved that Sri Lanka never pursued a policy meant to kill Tamils and 40,000 civilians didn’t perish as alleged by the UN Panel of Experts in March 2011. Not only that Sri Lanka also disregarded wartime US Defence Advisor Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith’s declaration against the unsubstantiated claims of battlefield executions. In other words, the US official contradicted retired General Sarath Fonseka’s utterly irresponsible and treacherous accusations pertaining to battlefield executions carried out by the 58 Division.
Gen. Silva, on the eve of his retirement, mentioned battlefield exploits of his Division. But, what really interested the writer was his denial of serving the interests of foreign powers bent on ousting Gotabaya Rajapaksa in line with US-India geopolitical strategy as alleged by National Freedom Front (NFF) leader Wimal Weerawansa. The economic, political and social crisis created by the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government as ruled by the Supreme Court facilitated external interventions. Under no circumstances can we forget that no less a person than then Speaker Mahinda Abeywardena declared in Parliament that external power made an overt intervention and, according to Weerawansa, that was the US.
By Lynn Ockersz
‘The World’s Mightiest Democracy’,
In star-gazing tycoons has kept its faith,
Hoping that the ‘trickle-down-theory’,
Would somehow take full effect,
And that the voting and hoping millions,
Would come by some morsels of food,
Falling off the banquet tables of the rich,
But alas, it has forgotten the wise adage,
That a ‘Camel’ cannot wriggle through,
The ‘Eye of a Needle’ and has lost sight,
Of the prophetic truth of scientific bent,
That a ruler’s economic condition,
Would shape his mind or Consciousness.
COYLE: Championing innovation and entrepreneurship in 2024
Hayleys Animal Health leads the way in quality and safety
Nigeria military kills 16 civilians in air strike ‘mistake’
-
Midweek Review6 days agoUnfolding AKD security strategy
-
Latest News5 days agoMembers of Parliament Prof. Chrishantha Abeysena and Shanakiyan Rasamanickam elected as Co-Chairs of the Parliamentary Caucus for Open Parliament Initiative
-
Sports6 days agoZumri steps onto a field of rugby magicians
-
Features7 days agoThe future is female
-
Features7 days agoThree Great Editors: Mervyn, Gamma and Ajith
-
Business6 days ago‘Unbundling’ of electricity sector to figure in sweeping energy reforms
-
Business7 days agoDialog brings ‘The Future.Today’ to life as Sri Lanka’s first Drone Countdown takes flight
-
Editorial7 days agoFor God’s sake …
