Connect with us

Midweek Review

Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Achieving accountability or betrayal of military

Published

on

In response to a query raised by Major General (retd.) Ashok Mehta who had served as the IPKF’s commander in Batticaloa and Ampara in 1987, US Defence Attaché Lawrence Smith defended the Sri Lanka Army. The man in uniform told a seminar in Colombo: “Hello, may I say something to a couple of questions raised. I’ve been the defence attaché here at the US Embassy since June 2008. Regarding the various versions of events that came out in the final hours and days of the conflict — from what I was privileged to hear and to see, the offers to surrender that I am aware of seemed to come from the mouthpieces of the LTTE — Nadesan, KP — people who weren’t and never had really demonstrated any control over the leadership or the combat power of the LTTE.

So their offers were a bit suspect anyway, and they tended to vary in content hour by hour, day by day. I think we need to examine the credibility of those offers before we leap to conclusions that such offers were in fact real.

“And I think the same is true for the version of events. It’s not so uncommon in combat operations, in the fog of war, as we all get our reports second, third and fourth hand from various commanders at various levels that the stories don’t seem to all quite match up.

But I can say that the version presented here so far in this is what I heard as I was here during that time. And I think I better leave it at that before I get into trouble. “

The US State Department tried to disassociate itself with Lt. Col. Smith’s statement. The State Department’s Deputy Spokesman Mark. C. Toner declared at the regular media briefing: Well, just to clarify, the U.S. did decline invitations to participate in that conference as either a conference speaker or panelist. My understanding is that the defense attaché was there as an observer and a note taker. His comments reflected his personal opinions. There’s no change in the policy of the United States, and his remarks do not reflect any change in our policy.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Sole Communist Party (CP) MP Weerasumana Weerasinghe broke ranks with dissident SLPP MPs on January 09 to vote for the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) Bill.

Having contested the last general election on the SLPP ticket, the Matara District MP aligned himself with the Uththara Lanka Sabhagaya (ULS) strongly opposed to the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government. However, the CP had absolutely no qualms in backing the controversial Bill, suspected by many in the South to be a Trojan Horse.

In addition to lawmaker Weerasumana Weerasinghe, Sarath Kumarasiri (Anuradhapura District SLPP) voted for that Bill. In spite of being a member of the SLPP rebel group, that included MP Dullas Alahapperuma, Kumarasiri threw his weight behind the government.

Both MPs told the writer that the pivotal possibility of the ONUR law to facilitate the post-war reconciliation process couldn’t be denied. They stressed the responsibility on the part of Parliament to take whatever measures necessary to achieve reconciliation.

MP Weerasinghe underscored two critically important issues specifically (a) tangible measures to change the education system to ensure understanding among different communities and (b) Jaffna District MP M.A. Sumanthiran’s defeat at the January 21 ITAK (Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi) leadership contest. The CP member asserted that President’s Counsel Sumanthiran’s election could have facilitated reconciliation efforts.

But, Jaffna District MP Sivagnanam Shritharan comfortably won the race. The election was conducted in Trincomalee about two weeks after the enactment of the ONUR law.

MP Kumarasiri said that regardless of his affiliation with the rebel group, he wouldn’t hesitate to stand up with the government on issues he felt would be beneficial to the country. The MP said that he was out of the country on the date the vote on the Online Safety Bill was taken up. The SLPPer said that he would have definitely voted for the much disputed law, as well, though his colleagues opposed it.

Commenting on the forthcoming national elections – presidential later this year and parliament in early 2025, as announced by President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s group, MP Kumarasiri said that their alignment with the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) could be finalized within weeks.

Both Weerasinghe and Kumarasiri declared their wholehearted commitment to the ongoing reconciliation process, spearheaded by the incumbent government. Addressing Parliament during the debate on the ONUR Bill, the CP member appreciated the role played by Justice Minister Dr. Wjeyadasa Rajapakse, PC, to streamline the process by strengthening the new ONUR management.

In addition to the two dissident SLPP MPs, Weerasumana Weerasinghe and Sarath Kumarasiri, only one SJB MP Vadivel Suresh (Badulla district) voted with the government parliamentary group. Unfortunately, the vast majority of government members skipped the vote. Therefore, out of the 225 MPs in Parliament, only 48 voted for the Bill, seven voted against, whereas a staggering 169 were absent at the time of the vote.

Among those who voted for the Bill was Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pilleyan (SLPP Batticaloa district), a former LTTE cadre and one-time sidekick of their celebrated commander Vinayagamoorthy Muralitharan alias Karuna. Pilleyan is the leader of Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP). Only one other Tamil MP Kulasingham Thileepan (EPDP/Vanni district) backed the Bill.

Why did 176 lawmakers (seven voted against and 169 skipped the vote) felt they shouldn’t support the government initiative? Did they fear catastrophic consequences if they took a stand on ONUR?

The UNP owed an explanation as to why its only MP Wajira Abeywardena (National List) conveniently failed to vote for the crucial Bill.

Among those who skipped the vote were M.A. Sumanthiran and Sivagnanam Shritharan, both vied for ITAK leadership and the latter won.

The following lawmakers voted for the Bill: Premier Dinesh Gunawardena, Susil Premajayantha, Bandula Gunawardena, Wijeyadasa Rajapakse PC, Madura Vithanage, Prasanna Ranatunga, Anuradha Jayaratne, Gunatilleke Rajapaksa, Pramitha Bandara Tennakoon, Rohana Dissanayake, Nalaka Bandara Kottegoda, Geetha Kumarasinghe, Mahinda Amaraweera, Cader Masthan, Kulasingham Thileepan, Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias Pilleyan, A.L.M. Athaulla, D. Weerasinghe, Kapila Nuwan Athukarale, U. K. Sumith Udukumbura, Samanpriya Herath, Sanath Nishantha Perera (his last vote before the fatal accident on the Colombo-Katunayake expressway in the early hours of January 25), Ashoka Priyantha, Chinthaka Amal Mayadunne, S.M. Chandrasena, Jagath Samarawickrema, H. Nandasena, Nimal Siripala de Silva, Thenuka Vidanagamage, Maj. Sudarshana Denipitiya, Vijitha Berugoda, Dr. Gayashan Nawanandana, Kumarasiri Ratnayake, Pavitradevi Wanniarachchi, Janaka Wakkumbura, Muditha Prishanthi, Ranjith Siyambalapitiya, Udayakantha Gunatilleke, Dr. Seetha Arambepola, Jayantha Ketagoda, Sagara Kariyawasam, Yadamini Gunawardena, Manjula Dissanayake, Mohamed Faleel (all members of the government group), Weerasumana Weerasinghe and Sarath Kumarasiri (SLPP dissidents) and Vadivel Suresh (SJB).

Lawmaker Weerasumana Weerasinghe didn’t mince his words when he declared that extremists on both sides always opposed reconciliation efforts. The CP representative stressed that the ONUR should have been properly implemented immediately after the successful conclusion of the war in May 2009. The first time entrant to Parliament found fault with the top management of ONUR that had been established during the Yahapalana administration in terms of the 2015 Geneva Resolution for its failure to achieve desired results.

Dr. Wasantha Bandara issues warning

None of the Sinhala lawmakers critical of ONUR and the planned next step to setting up of an independent Commission for Truth, Unity and Reconciliation conveniently failed to vote against the Bill. Perhaps the most prominent among those who skipped the vote were National Freedom Front (NFF) leader Wimal Weerawansa, Pivithuru Hela Urumaya (PHU) leader Udaya Gammanpila and former Public Security Minister Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera. May be they, too, still have a flicker of hope in the latest reconciliation effort, despite having their hopes dashed repeatedly, especially when the West was mollycoddling the LTTE and its ardent backers, while paying lip service to fighting terrorism here.

They, too, however owed the public an explanation regarding their decision to miss the vote. If they really felt that ONUR would pave the way for a fresh disaster, they should have voted against the Bill. Their strategy remains unclear.

The likes of Weerasumana Weerasinghe and Sarath Kumarasiri, are certain to vote for the Bill meant to establish the proposed commission at its final reading.

The Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government can quite easily set up the Commission, through an Act of Parliament, as the main Opposition and a section of the SLPP wouldn’t, under any circumstances, vote against the relevant Bill.

Since the SLPP-led Parliament elected UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe in the third week of July 2022 as the eighth President to complete the remainder of the term of the people’s elected President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, unceremoniously ousted through violent street protests, the government quite comfortably enacted a spate of new laws.

There cannot be a better example than the pathetic performance of the Opposition at the debate and the vote on the ONUR Bill. Those who made bombastic statements and issued warnings over impending catastrophe in case the Parliament established an independent Commission for Truth, Unity and Reconciliation, conveniently failed to take a stand in Parliament.

However, Dr. Wasantha Bandara, on behalf of nationalist organisations in a spate of statements and articles, has explained the circumstances under which the Yahapalana government establishing the ONUR in 2015. We don’t blame nationalists’ fears here, knowing very well what happened to the legitimate demand of the Palestinians for a two state solution even at this late stage, after they were robbed of much of what they had by the arrogant British and placed them at the mercy of Israel, and, thereafter, being lied to them with the above promise for so long by the West, to appease their own consciences for having ill-treated Jews throughout history. And also knowing especially how Mr. Wickremesinghe signed the secret one sided Ceasefire Agreement with the LTTE after it was prepared by the Norwegians without any inputs from our military.

According to Dr. Bandara, the then Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe took the lead in the setting up of that office. The enactment of ONUR law recently is meant to strengthen the process.

Dr. Bandara has explained how the UNP, at the behest of Western powers and in consultation with the TNA, over the years, pursued an agenda severely inimical to the national interest, finally leading to the finalisation of Geneva Resolution on Oct 01, 2015.

Of the eight new laws required to be in place in terms of the Geneva Resolution, with the passage of the ONUR Bill on January 09, 2024, seven Acts are now in place. The enactment of the proposed Bill on the independent Commission for Truth, Unity and Reconciliation will complete the process as demanded by Geneva.

Dr. Bandara asserted that the UNP leader had succeeded in resurrecting the Geneva process and was proceeding rapidly. The SLPP ended up facilitating the process detrimental to the war-winning country.

The following are the laws that were enacted since 2015: (1) Yahapalana government (2015-2019) presented a Bill to establish the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) in Parliament on June 22, 2016 and the Office on Missing Persons (Establishment, Administration and Discharge of Functions) Act, No. 14 of 2016 (OMP Act) was passed in Parliament on August 11, 2016. The then President Maithripala Sirisena operationalised the OMP on Feb 28, 2018 by appointing seven commissioners, headed by Saliya Pieris P.C.

(2) The Yahapalana government in 2017 incorporated the provisions of the ‘International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances’ into the law of Sri Lanka. Clause 8 of the relevant Bill enabled foreign countries to seek the extradition of a Sri Lankan who is suspected, accused or convicted of having caused enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka. In terms of the law Sri Lanka is obliged to inform foreign governments of the measures it intends taking to prosecute or extradite those persons wanted by them. Clause 21 empowered the executive arm of the State to oversee the full implementation of this international convention in Sri Lanka and according to Clause 23 new law superseded all other written law.

(3) Sri Lanka established an Office for Reparations. The then Speaker Karu Jayasuriya certified ‘Office for Reparations Act, No. 34 of 2018 on Oct 22, 2018.’

(4) Parliament on March 7, 2018 passed an Act No 5 of 2018 to give effect to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.

(5) Sri Lanka passed ‘Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Amendment) Act No 24 of 2018. Speaker Jayasuriya certified it on Aug 15, 2018. The Yahapalana administration amended the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act No 25 of 2022.

The failed constitutional coup in late Oct 2018, followed by the Easter Sunday carnage in April 2019 and the change of government at the Nov 2019 presidential poll sort of derailed the Geneva project. However, the return of Ranil Wickremesinghe to power in the wake of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s removal in July 2022 paved the way for the resumption of the Geneva agenda.

(6) After a lapse of several years Sri Lanka in August 2023 enacted ‘Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witness Act of 2023.’

(7) In January 2023 Parliament adopted the ‘Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) Bill’ thereby bringing the overall process much closer to a successful conclusion from their point of view.

Now only the independent Commission for Truth, Unity and Reconciliation remains to be established.

The UNP, SLFP, UPFA and SLPP have fully cooperated to advance the Geneva agenda and within a matter of months the Commission for Truth, Unity and Reconciliation, too, will be established. However, Tamil political parties and civil society groups haven’t been satisfied with the process. They have said so openly.

Dr. Bandara alleged that Tamil political parties, as well foreign-funded civil society groups, pretended that the enacted laws didn’t meet their aspirations. The passage of the Bill that would deal with the proposed independent Commission for Truth, Unity and Reconciliation would be the eighth law and the final.

Grave lapses on Sri Lanka’s part

In spite of much advertised Sri Lanka’s declaration of withdrawal from the Geneva accord of Oct 01, 2015, the Parliament sustained the project.

The then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa announced on the afternoon of Feb 19, 2019 that Sri Lanka would withdraw from the process of implementing UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, which was co-sponsored by the treacherous UNP-led government. The announcement was made close on the heels of the US declaration of a travel ban on then Army Commander Lt. Gen. Shavendra Silva and his family.

Just a week later, then Foreign Relations Minister Dinesh Gunawardena announced Sri Lanka’s withdrawal from the Geneva process. The declaration was made at the high-level segment of the 43 session of Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) leader’s declaration pertained to UNHRC resolution 40/1 and the preceding resolutions 30/1 and 34/1.

Having promised what lawmaker Gunawardena called “homegrown solutions to contemporary challenges,” and declared its intention to work toward the closure of the resolution in conjunction with all members of the UN, Sri Lanka, though slowly has adhered to Geneva dictates. The MEP leader in his capacity as the Premier voted for the ONUR Bill. So did his son, Yadamini, an SLPP National List MP and first time entrant to Parliament. The only other MEP member who entered Parliament on the SLPP ticket, Sisira Jayakody, was not in Parliament at the time of the vote. None of the Rajapaksas, in Parliament, voted against the ONUR Bill.

It would be pertinent to mention that the Yahapalana partners, the UNP and the SLFP never bothered to consult Parliament before Sri Lanka co-sponsored the Geneva Resolution that actually betrayed the war-winning military. The treacherous act took place five years after the Tamil community cleared the military of war crimes allegedly perpetrated during Eelam War IV (Aug 2006-May 2009) by overwhelmingly voting for the warwinning Army Commander then General Sarath Fonseka at the 2010 presidential poll. Fonseka comfortably won all predominantly Tamil speaking districts in the de-merged Northern and Eastern Provinces, but was routed in the South, where the majority lives.

The writer once in the presence of senior Presidential Advisor Lalith Weeratunga and Director General of the President’s Media (PMD) Mohan Samaranayake at a formal meeting at the Presidential Secretariat (Old Parliament) told President Gotabaya Rajapaksa of the need to highlight TNA backing for Fonseka at the 2010 presidential poll and him securing all electorates in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and Tamils dominated major plantation regions. President Rajapaksa’s government never bothered to examine the accountability issue afresh.

The war-winning Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government nor any of the post-war administrations made a genuine effort to counter the false propaganda meant to drag Sri Lanka before the proposed hybrid war crimes court as recommended by Geneva. Sri Lanka could have easily built its defence on the basis of wartime US Defence Attache Lt. Colonel Lawrence Smith’s disclosure at the first Defence Seminar held in 2011 in Colombo that Sri Lanka did not commit any atrocities during the final phase of fighting and those made by wartime British defence Advisor Lt. Colonel Anthony Gash in his secret cables to London in Oct 2017. Those revelations alone could have been used to counter the American led allegations against the country about the closing stages of the war.

But Sri Lanka conveniently ‘missed’ both opportunities while Parliament advanced the Geneva agenda. The bottom line is that Sri Lanka allowed the Geneva operation to continue with the executive, legislature and judiciary extending their fullest support. But still, the same process could have been used cleverly to set the record straight beginning with the Indian terrorism project that ruined Sri Lanka.

What we would like to ask from our estranged Tamil brothers and sisters is whether they realise that by continuing to insist on a pound of flesh they will only help all of us to become a vassal state of India that we have already become more or less with the current leadership that is only interested in their personal survival? Instead as we have said before let us think nationally out of the box and perhaps settle among ourselves for a solution more akin to what we had under the Donoughmore constitution, where all share the pie at the centre instead of perennially fighting over petty issues at the periphery and exacerbating them in the process.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Midweek Review

BASL fears next set of civil society representatives might be rubber stamps of NPP

Published

on

A group of officials from National Audit Office of Sri Lanka attend a capacity building programme in India

CC in dilemma over filling impending vacancies

Sajith Premadasa

Amidst a simmering row over the controversial move to have Deshabandu Tennakoon as the IGP at the time of crucial presidential election, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa alleged: “The Speaker sent a letter to the President, recommending the appointment of Deshabandu Tennakoon as IGP. He distorted the Constitutional Council ruling by interpreting the two abstaining votes of civil society members as votes against Deshabandu and used his casting vote to recommend Deshabandu as the Constitutional Council decision. It is on the basis of the Speaker’s letter that the President made the appointment. The Speaker has blatantly violated the Constitution

.”

Speculation is rife about a possible attempt by the ruling National People’s Power (NPP) to take control of the 10-member Constitutional Council (CC). The only way to take command of the CC is to appoint those willing to pursue the NPP agenda as civil society representatives.

Against the backdrop of the NPP’s failure to obtain CC’s approval to finalise the appointment of the Auditor General, the government seems hell-bent on taking control of it. Civil society representatives, namely Dr. Prathap Ramanujam, Dr. (Mrs.) Dilkushi Anula Wijesundere and Dr. (Mrs.) Weligama Vidana Arachchige Dinesha Samararatne, whose tenure is coming to an end in January, blocked President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s nominee receiving the AG’s position. They took a courageous stand in the greater interest of the nation.

Chulantha Wickramaratne, who served as AG for a period of six years, retired in April 2025. Following his retirement, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake first nominated H.T.P. Chandana, an audit officer at the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation. The CC rejected the nomination. Subsequently, President Dissanayake appointed the next senior-most official at the National Audit Office (NAO) Dharmapala Gammanpila, as Acting Auditor General for six months. Then, the President nominated Senior Deputy Auditor General L.S.I. Jayarathne to serve in an acting capacity, but her nomination, too, was also rejected.

Many an eyebrow was raised when the President nominated O.R. Rajasinghe, the Internal Audit Director of the Sri Lanka Army, for the top post. As a result, the vital position remains vacant since 07 December. Obviously the overzealous President does not take ‘No’ for an answer when filling key independent positions with his minions

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) in a letter dated 22 December, addressed to President Dissanayake, who is the leader of the NPP and the JVP, Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickremaratne and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa emphasised their collective responsibility in ensuring transparency in the appointment of civil society representatives.

Cabinet spokesperson and Health and Media Minister, Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, is on record as having emphasised the urgent need to finalise the appointment. Minister Jayatissa alleged, at the post-Cabinet media briefing, that the President’s nominations had been rejected without giving explanation by certain members, including three representatives of civil society.

Parliament, on 18 January, 2023, approved the former Ministry Secretary Dr. Ramanujam, former Chairperson of the Sri Lanka Medical Association Dr. Wijesundere, and Dr. Samararatne of the University of Colombo as civil society representatives to the CC.

They were the first post-Aragalaya civil society members of the CC. The current CC was introduced by the 21 Amendment to the Constitution which was endorsed on 31st of October, 2022, during a time of grave uncertainty. UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who had been elected by the SLPP to complete the remainder of ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s five-year term, sought to manipulate the CC. Wickremesinghe received the SLPP’s backing though they fell out later.

During Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President, civil society representatives earned the wrath of the then Rajapaksa-Wickremesinghe government by refusing to back Deshabandu Tennakoon’s appointment as the IGP. The then Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena was accused of manipulating CC’s ruling in respect of Deshabandu Tennakoon to suit Wickremesinghe’s agenda.

Amidst a simmering row over the controversial move to have Deshabandu Tennakoon as the IGP, at the time of crucial presidential election, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa alleged: “The Speaker sent a letter to the President, recommending the appointment of Deshabandu Tennakoon as IGP. He distorted the Constitutional Council ruling by interpreting the two abstaining votes of civil society members as votes against Deshabandu and used his casting vote to recommend Deshabandu as the Constitutional Council decision. It is on the basis of the Speaker’s letter that the President made the appointment. The Speaker has blatantly violated the Constitution.”

The NPP realises the urgent need to neutralise the CC. The composition of the CC does not give the Opposition an opportunity to challenge the government if the next three civil society representatives succumb to political pressure. The Speaker is the Chairman of the CC. The present composition of the Constitutional Council is as follows: Speaker (Dr) Jagath Wickramaratne, ex-officio, PM (Dr) Harini Amarasuriya, ex-officio, Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa, ex-officio, Bimal Rathnayake, Aboobucker Athambawa, Ajith P. Perera, Sivagnanam Shritharan, Dr Prathap Ramanujam, Dr Dilkushi Anula Wijesundere and Dr Dinesha Samararatne.

In terms of Article 41E of the Constitution, the CC meets at least twice every month, and may meet as often as may be necessary.

The failure on the part of the NPP to take over Office of the AG must have compelled them to explore ways and means of somehow bringing CC under its influence. The end of the current civil society members’ term, has given the government a chance to fill the vacancies with henchmen.

BASL’s letters that dealt with the appointment of civil society representatives to the CC and the failure to appoint AG, both dated 22 December, paint a bleak picture of the NPP that throughout the presidential and parliamentary polls last year assured the country of a system change. The NPP’s strategy in respect of filling the AG’s vacancy and possible bid to manipulate the CC through the appointment of civil society representatives reminds us of the despicable manipulations undertaken by previous governments.

An appeal to goverment

BASL seems convinced that the NPP would make an attempt to appoint its own to the CC. BASL has urged the government to consult civil society and professional bodies, including them, regarding the forthcoming vacancies in the CC. It would be interesting to examine the NPP’s strategy as civil society, too, would face daunting challenges in choosing representatives.

Civil society representatives are nominated by the Speaker by agreement of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

If consensus cannot be reached swiftly, it would cause further political turmoil at a time the country is experiencing an unexpected burden of dealing with the post-Cyclone Ditwah recovery process.

The term of non-ex-officio members of the Council is three years from the date of appointment. In terms of the Constitution, the civil society representatives should be persons of eminence and integrity who have distinguished themselves in public or professional life and who are not members of any political party. Their nominations should be approved by Parliament.

In spite of the NPP having an absolute 2/3 majority in Parliament, the ruling party is under pressure. The composition of the CC is a big headache for NPP leaders struggling to cope up with rising dissent over a spate of wrongdoings and a plethora of broken promises. The furore over the inordinate delay in finalising AG’s appointment has made matters worse, particularly against the backdrop of the BASL, Transparency International Sri Lanka Chapter and Committee on Public Finance, taking a common stand.

Having been part of the clandestine regime change project in 2022; Western powers and India cannot turn a blind eye to what is going on. Some Colombo-based foreign envoys believe that there is no alternative to the NPP and the government should be given the opportunity to proceed with its action plan. The uncompromising stand taken by the NPP with regard to the appointment of permanent AG has exposed the ruling party.

In the wake of ongoing controversy over the appointment of the AG, the NPP’s integrity and its much-touted vow to tackle waste, corruption, irregularities and mismanagement seems hollow.

The government bigwigs must realise that appointment of those who campaigned for the party at the presidential and parliamentary polls caused deterioration of public confidence. The appointment of ex-top cops Sharnie Abeysekera and Ravi Seneviratne with black marks as Director, CID and Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs, eroded public confidence in the NPP administration.

A vital role for CC

The SLPP, reduced to just three lawmakers in the current Parliament, resented the CC. Having secured a near 2/3 majority in the House at the 2020 Parliamentary election, the SLPP made its move against the CC, in a strategy that was meant to strengthen President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s hands at the expense of Parliament. Introduced in 2001 during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s presidency, the 17th Amendment paved the way for the establishment of the CC. Those who wielded political power subjected the CC to critical changes through 18th, 19th and 20th amendments. Of them, perhaps, the 20th Amendment to the Constitution that had been passed in October 2020 is the worst. The SLPP replaced the CC with a Parliamentary Council. That project was meant to consolidate power in the Executive President, thereby allowing the appointment of key officials, like judges, the Attorney General, and heads of independent commissions.

People may have now forgotten the 20th Amendment removed civil society representatives from the so-called Parliamentary Council consisting of lawmakers who represented the interests of the government and the main Opposition. But such manipulations failed to neutralise the challenge (read Aragalaya) backed by external powers. The role played by the US and India in that project has been established and there cannot be any dispute over their intervention that forced Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country.

Interestingly, Ranil Wickremesinghe, who had been picked by the SLPP to complete the remainder of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s term, restored the CC through the passage of 21 Amendment on 31 October, 2022. Unfortunately, the NPP now wants to manipulate the CC by packing it with those willing to abide by its agenda.

It would be pertinent to mention that the 20th Amendment was aimed at neutralising dissent at any level. Those who formulated that piece of legislation went to the extent of proposing that the President could sack members appointed to the Parliamentary Council by the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader without consulting anyone.

If not for the Aragalaya, the Parliamentary Council that didn’t serve any meaningful purpose could have paved the way for the President to fill all key positions with his nominees.

Recommendation of nominations to the President for the appointment of Chairpersons and Members of Commissions specified in the Schedule to Article 41B of the Constitution.

Commissions specified in the Schedule to Article 41B: The Election Commission, the Public Service Commission, the National Police Commission, the Audit Service Commission, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, the Finance Commission, the Delimitation Commission and the National Procurement Commission.

Approval/ Disapproval of recommendations by the President for the appointment to the Offices specified in the Schedule to Article 41C of the Constitution.

Offices specified in the Schedule to Article 41C: The Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court, the President and the Judges of the Court of Appeal, the Members of the Judicial Service Commission, other than the Chairman, the Attorney-General, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the Auditor-General, the Inspector-General of Police, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) and the Secretary-General of Parliament.

NPP under pressure

In spite of having the executive presidency, a 2/3 majority in the legislature, and the bulk of Local Government authorities under its control, the NPP is under pressure. Their failure to muster sufficient support among the members of the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) to pass its 2026 Budget underscored the gravity of the developing situation. The unexpected loss suffered at the CMC shook the ruling party.

But, the NPP faces a far bigger challenge in filling the AG’s vacancy as well as the new composition of the CC. If the NPP succeeds with its efforts to replace the current civil society representatives with rubber stamps, the ruling party may feel vindicated but such feelings are likely to be short-lived.

Having criticised the government over both contentious matters, the BASL may be forced to step up pressure on the government unless they can reach a consensus. It would be really interesting to know whether the government accepted the BASL’s request for consultations with the stakeholders. Unless consensus can be reached between the warring parties there is possibility of opening of a new front with the BASL and civil society being compelled to take a common stand against the government.

The developing scenario should be examined taking into consideration political parties and civil society confronting the government over the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA). Having promised to do away with the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) in the run up to the presidential election, the NPP is trying to explain that it cannot do without anti-terrorism law. The civil society is deeply unhappy over the NPP’s change of heart.

The National Peace Council (NPP) that has been generally supportive and appreciative of the NPP’s efforts probably with the blessings of its benefactors in the West, too, has now found fault with the proposed PSTA. Dr. Jehan Perera, NPP’s Executive Director commented: “A preliminary review of the draft PSTA indicates that it retains core features of the PTA that have enabled serious abuse over decades. These include provisions permitting detention for up to two years without a person being charged before a court of law. In addition, the broad definition of terrorism under the draft law allows acts of dissent and civil disobedience to be labelled as terrorism, thereby permitting disproportionate and excessive responses by the state. Such provisions replicate the logic of the PTA rather than mark a clear break from it.”

Except the BASL, other professional bodies and political parties haven’t commented on the developing situation at the CC while taking into consideration the delay in appointing an AG. The issue at hand is whether the government intends to hold up AG’s appointment till the change of the CC’s composition in its favour. Whatever the specific reasons, a country that has suffered for want of accountability and transparency, enters 2026 without such an important person to guard against all types of financial shenanigans in the state.

All previous governments sought to influence the Office of the AG. The proposed establishment of NAO prompted the powers that be to undermine the effort. The Yahapalana administration diluted the National Audit Bill and what had been endorsed as National Audit Act, Nov. 19 of 2018 was definitely not the anti-corruption grouping originally proposed. That Act was amended this year but the Office of the AG remains vacant.

The NPP has caused itself immense harm by failing to reach consensus with the CC on filling the AG’s post. Unfortunately, the ruling party seems to be uninterested in addressing the issue expeditiously but is exploring the possibility of taking over control of the CC by stuffing it with civil society members favourable to the current ruling clique.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Towards Decolonizing Social Sciences and Humanities

Published

on

‘Can Asians Think?’

I want to initiate this essay with several questions. That is, are we, in Sri Lanka and in our region, intellectually subservient to what is often referred to as the ‘West’? Specifically, can knowledge production in broad disciplinary areas such as social sciences and humanities be more creative, original and generated in response to local conditions and histories, particularly when it comes to practices such as formulating philosophy and theory as well as concepts and approaches? Why have we so far imported these from Western Europe and North America as has been the undisputed norm?

In exploring the responses and delving into this discussion, I will seek reference from the politics of the recently published book, Decolonial Keywords: South Asian Thoughts and Attitudes edited by Renny Thomas from the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research – Bhopal and me. The book was brought out by Delhi-based Tulika Publishers in December 2025.

Let me first unpack my anxiety over theory and philosophy, which I have talked about many times previously too. Any social science or humanities text we read here or elsewhere in South Asia invariably borrows concepts, theories and philosophical input generated mostly in Western Europe and North America. It almost appears as if our region is incapable of serious and abstract thinking.  It is in this same context, but specifically with reference to India that Prathama Banerjee, Aditya Nigam and Rakesh Pandey have observed in their critical essay, ‘The Work of Theory Thinking across Traditions’ (2016), that for many “theory appears as a ready-made body of philosophical thought, produced in the West …” They argue, “the more theory-inclined among us simply pick the latest theory off-the-shelf and ‘apply’ it to our context, notwithstanding its provincial European origin, for we believe that ‘theory’ is by definition universal.”

Here, Banerjee et al make two important points. That is, there is an almost universal acceptability in the region that ‘theory’ is a kind of philosophical work that is exclusively produced in the West, followed by an almost blind and unreflective readiness among many of us to simply apply these ideas to local contexts. In doing so, they fail to take into serious consideration the initial temporal and historical contexts in which these bodies of knowledge were generated.  However, theory or philosophy is not universal.

This knowledge is contextually linked to very specific social, political and historical conditions that allowed such knowledge to emanate in the first place. It therefore stands to reason that such knowledge cannot be applied haphazardly/ willy-nilly anywhere in the world without grave consequences.  Of course, some ideas can be of universal validity as long as they are carefully placed in context. But to perceive theory or philosophy as all-weather universals is patently false even though this is the way they are often understood from universities to segments within society in general.  This naiveté is part of the legacy of colonialism from which these disciplines as well as much of their theoretical and philosophical structures have been bequeathed to us.

It is in this context that I would like to discuss the politics our book, Decolonial Keywords: South Asian Thoughts and Attitudes entail. Here, thirty South Asian scholars from across disciplines in social sciences and humanities have come together to “discuss words and ideas from a variety of regional languages, ranging from Sinhala to Hebrew Malayalam” encapsulating “the region’s languages and its vast cultural landscape, crossing national borders.” To be more specific, these languages include Assamese,  Arabic-Malayalam, Bengali, Hebrew Malayalam, Hindi, Nepali, Sanskrit, Sinhala, South Asian uses of English, Tamil-Arabic, Tamil, Urdu and concepts from indigenous languages of Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.

Each chapter, focuses on a selected word and “reiterates specific attitudes, ways of seeing and methods of doing that are embedded in the historical and contemporary experiences of the region” keeping in mind “the contexts of their production and how their meanings might have changed at different historical moments.”

In this exploration, the volume attempts to understand “if these words and concepts can infuse a certain intellectual rigour into reinventing social sciences and humanities in the region and beyond.” In short, what we have attempted is to offer a point of departure to a comprehensive and culturally, linguistically and politically inclusive effort at theory-building and conceptual fine-tuning based on South Asian experiences and histories.  We assume these concepts from our region might be able to speak to the world in the same way schools of thought in politically dominant regions of the world have done so far to us. This is a matter of decolonizing our disciplines. But it is still not a claim for universality. After all, our main focus is to come up with a body of conceptual categories that might be useful in reading the region.

When Sri Lankan social sciences and humanities as well as the same disciplines elsewhere in the region thoughtlessly embrace knowledges imported in conditions of unequal power relations, it can never produce forums for discourse from which we can speak to the world with authority.  In this book, Thomas and I have attempted, as an initial and self-conscious effort, to flip the script on theory-building and conceptualization in social sciences and humanities in South Asia in the region’s favour.

We are however mindful that this effort has its risks, intellectually speaking.  That is, we are conscious this effort must be undertaken without succumbing to crude and parochial forms of nativism that are also politically powerful in the region including in Sri Lanka and India. This book presents an array of possibilities if we are serious about decolonizing our social sciences and humanities to infuse power into the discourses we generate and take them to the world instead of celebrating our parochiality like the proverbial frog in the well. Unfortunately, more often than not, we are trained to be intellectually subservient, and mere followers, not innovators and leaders bringing to mind the polemical title of Kishore Mahbubani’s 2002 book, Can Asians Think?

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

The ever-changing river: Chandana Ruwan Jayanetti’s evolving poetic voice

Published

on

Poems from Galle , by Chandana Ruwan Jayanetti, was launched on December 20 at Dakshinapaya, the auditorium of the Chief Ministry of the Southern Provincial Council, Labuduwa, Galle. Head table at the launch (from left): author Jayanetti; Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs Dr. Hiniduma Sunil Senevi; Emeritus Professor Rajiva Wijesinha; and renowned poet, lyricist, and literary figure Dr. Rathna Sri Wijesinghe.

It is said that no man steps into the same river twice, for it is not the same river, and he is not the same man. These words came to mind upon reading Chandana Ruwan Jayanetti’s latest poetry collection, Poems from Galle, which inevitably invites comparison with his earlier work, particularly his first volume of poetry and prose, Reflections in Loneliness: A Collection of Poems and Prose (2015).

In this new collection, Jayanetti is demonstrably not the same poet he was a decade ago. His horizons have widened. his subject matter has diversified, and his thematic range has deepened. The earlier hallmarks of his work, including his empathetic attention to human experience, sensitivity to the natural world, and intimate, reflective tone, remain present. Yet they are now complemented by a stronger defiance, a more deliberate engagement with the political and the cosmic, and a broader mosaic of local and universal concerns. His poetic voice has evolved in scope, tonal range, and thematic ambition.

My own acquaintance with Jayanetti’s poetry dates back to our undergraduate days at Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, where we were classmates pursuing a BA in Languages (English Special). Even then, his work revealed precise observational skill coupled with profound sympathy for individuals. This early sensibility found fuller articulation in Reflections in Loneliness, a collection spanning nearly two decades of creative endeavor.

That inaugural volume traversed a wide thematic landscape: childhood memories; tender compassion toward humans and animals; tributes to the deserving; the joys and sorrows of young love; and reflections on Sri Lanka’s three-decade Northeast conflict, which concluded in 2009. Jayanetti’s verse, written with sincerity and empathy, moves fluidly from deeply personal to universally human. Moments of striking poignancy include the loss of his wife’s mother, the death of a young friend who marched unflinchingly to the warfront, and the bittersweet parting from a lover.

The prose section of Reflections in Loneliness offered a return to the rural simplicity of the 1970s and ’80s through the perspective of a schoolboy. Essays such as We Buy a Bicycle, Television Descends, The Village Goes to the Fair, Bathing Excursions and Hingurakanda evoke a bygone era with unvarnished authenticity. As literary critic Kamala Wijeratne noted, Jayanetti’s prose merited commendation for its perceptive and affectionate portrayal of rural life, written with the authority of lived experience. His meticulous attention to minute details revealed not only the flaws and frailties of human nature but also its loyalties and quiet virtues, articulated with unforced sympathy.

Consisting of 31 poems and five prose pieces, Reflections in Loneliness established Jayanetti as a writer of elegance, precision, and emotional depth. The current collection, however, confirms the Heraclitean and Buddhist insights: both the poet and his poetry have changed. The new work reflects an expansion from the personal to the cosmic, from the intimately local to the globally resonant, a testament to an artist in motion, carried forward by the ever-changing current of his creative life.

Jayanetti’s poetic corpus in the new book Poems from Galle, spanning thirty-five evocative works from They Heard the Cock Crow to A Birthday Celebration, reveals a profound and consistent artistic signature rooted in themes of humanity, nature, history, and social consciousness. Throughout these poems, Jayanetti demonstrates a distinctive voice that is simultaneously empathetic, contemplative, and alert to the complexities of his Sri Lankan heritage and the broader human condition. While maintaining a core of thematic and tonal consistency, each poem enriches this foundation by expanding into new dimensions of experience, whether personal, ecological, political, or historical.

A foundational element of Jayanetti’s poetry is the intimate relationship between humans and nature, frequently underscored by a deep ethical awareness. In poems like From a Herdman’s Life and My Neighbor, he gives voice to the quiet dignity of rural existence and animal companionship, portraying a symbiotic bond imbued with mutual care and respect. Similarly, Fallen Elephant and Inhumanity lament the cruelty inflicted upon majestic creatures, indicting human greed and violence. These poems articulate not only empathy for the natural world but also an implicit call for stewardship, threading a moral sensibility throughout the collection.

This concern extends to the socio-political sphere, as Jayanetti often situates his poems within the fraught realities of Sri Lanka’s history and struggles. Homage to Sir Henry Pedris honors a national martyr, while Confession of a Sri Lankan Cop exposes institutional corruption and personal integrity in tension. Hanuma Wannama and Gone Are They tackle political violence and social upheaval, reflecting the poet’s engagement with national trauma and collective memory. These works enrich the thematic landscape by connecting personal narrative to larger historical forces.

Jayanetti’s choice of subjects is remarkably diverse yet unified by a focus on lived experience—ranging from the intimate (To a Puppy That Departed, Benji) to the grand (Mekong, A Voyage). The poet’s attention to place, whether the Sri Lankan cityscape in City Morning and Evening from the College Terrace or the historic Ode to Galle Fort, anchors his work in locality while evoking universal themes of time, change, and belonging. Even poems centered on seemingly mundane moments, such as Staff Meeting or A Game, are elevated by the poet’s keen observational eye and capacity to find meaning in everyday rituals.

Moreover, Jayanetti often draws from historical and cultural memory, as seen in Ludowyk Remembered, Let Ho Chi Minh Guide You, and Rathna Sri Remembered, positioning his poetry as a dialogue between past and present. This choice expands his thematic range to include legacy, identity, and the power of remembrance, linking the individual to the collective consciousness.

Across the collection, Jayanetti’s tone is marked by a blend of gentle empathy and quiet strength. Poems such as A Companion Departed and To a Puppy That Departed convey tenderness and mourning with understated poignancy. His voice is intimate and accessible, inviting readers into personal reflections suffused with emotional depth.

Yet, this empathy is balanced by moments of stark realism and defiance.

In Corona and Hanuma Wannama, the tone shifts to urgent and accusatory, critiquing social injustice and political decay. A Ship Weeps mourns environmental devastation with an elegiac voice that is both sorrowful and admonitory. This tonal range reveals a poet capable of both consolation and confrontation, who embraces complexity rather than sentimentality.

While many poems explore specific moments or relationships, others invite contemplation on broader existential and cosmic themes. For instance, A Voyage and Mekong traverse spatial and temporal boundaries, evoking the interplay between human journeys and natural cycles. A Birthday Celebration reflects on legacy, learning, and the continuum of knowledge, blending personal homage with universal insight.

Even poems like A Bond and A Game gesture toward symbolic resonance, the former exploring interspecies loyalty as a metaphor for fidelity and duty, the latter invoking sport as a microcosm of life’s challenges and hopes. These works demonstrate Jayanetti’s ability to expand familiar motifs into metaphoric and philosophical territory, enriching his poetic landscape.

Jayanetti’s thirty-five poems in Poems from Galle collectively reveal a consistent and compelling artistic signature that intertwines compassionate engagement with nature and society, a profound sense of place, and an acute awareness of history and memory. His voice navigates seamlessly between moments of intimate reflection and urgent social commentary, creating a poetic landscape that resonates with both specificity and universality.

Each poem adds a distinct dimension to this mosaic. Historical and political awareness emerges strongly in poems like Let Ho Chi Minh Guide You and Homage to Sir Henry Pedris, where the sacrifices of national heroes and struggles for justice are evoked with reverence and clarity. Meanwhile, environmental consciousness is vividly articulated in works such as Abandoned Chena, Kottawa Forest, and Fallen Elephant, where the fragility of ecosystems and the human impact on nature are poignantly explored.

Jayanetti also delves deeply into themes of personal loss and companionship in poems like Benji, A Companion Departed, and In Memory of Brownie, tenderly capturing the bond between humans and animals. Poems like Confession of a Sri Lankan Cop and Hanuma Wannama offer raw social critique, revealing layers of political and moral complexity.

Through this interplay of historical, environmental, personal, and political themes, Jayanetti constructs a body of work that is distinctly Sri Lankan in its cultural and geographical grounding yet profoundly universal in its exploration of human experience. His poetry invites readers to reflect on the interconnected fates of humans, animals, and the natural world, urging a deeper awareness of our shared existence and responsibilities.

by Saman Indrajith

Continue Reading

Trending