Connect with us

Features

US House of Representatives Res. 413 on Sri Lanka

Published

on

by Neville Ladduwahetty

The bipartisan House Res. 413 introduced by Congresswoman Deborah Ross (for herself, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Sherman, and Ms. Manning) on May 18, 2021 was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The Preambular Paragraphs contain the background material from which the initiators of Res. 413 resolved on seven issues to be presented to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

These seven issues are presented below:

(1) acknowledges the 12th anniversary of the end of the war in Sri Lanka and offers its deepest condolences to all those affected by the conflict;

(2) honours the memory of those who died and reaffirms its solidarity with the people of all communities in Sri Lanka in their search for reconciliation, reconstruction, reparation, and reform;

(3) commends the United Nations Human Rights Council for prioritizing the collection and preservation of evidence related to human rights violations, a process that must not be interfered with by the Government of Sri Lanka;

(4) recognizes the bravery and commitment of advocates for justice across all communities in Sri Lanka, including the Tamil families of the disappeared, whose protests and demands for answers have at times been met with threats, intimidation, and harassment by government security forces;

(5) urges the international community to advocate for and protect the political rights and representation of the historically oppressed northeastern region of Sri Lanka and work towards a permanent political solution to address the underlying issues that led to ethnic conflict;

(6) recommends the United States explore investigations and prosecutions pursuant to the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; and

(7) urges the United States to work with the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, and the United Nations Human Rights Council to establish a credible and effective international mechanism for accountability for the grave crimes committed during the war in Sri Lanka.

The Comments presented below are in respect of Resolutions (2); (5); (6); and (7). Resolution (2) is to “honour the memory of those who died…”, Resolution (5) calls upon the international community to “work towards a permanent political solution to address the underlying issues that led to the conflict” and Resolutions (6) and (7) relate to issues of accountability.

RESOLUTION (2) – “memory of those who died”.

COMMENT:

While it is customary to honour the memory of those who died during to the armed conflict, it must be acknowledged that those who died are from all ethnic and religious communities. Therefore, it is natural that the practices adopted by different communities would be in keeping with their respective cultural traits. However, an issue that needs to be acknowledged is that it would be unlawful to publicly display symbols of the LTTE during memorialization procedures in member states that have proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist entity. To permit the display of such symbols is to violate their own provisions under which the LTTE was proscribed.

RESOLUTION (5)

“work towards a permanent political solution…”.

COMMENT:

The permanent political solution introduced by Sri Lanka at the behest of India following the Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987 was the 13th Amendment. The fact that the conflict persisted for the next 22 years until May 2009, despite serious attempts to negotiate a permanent political solution within the framework of the 13th Amendment, demonstrates with absolute clarity that the political rights granted under the 13th Amendment fall far short of the expectations of the Tamil people. On the other hand, leaving aside the fact the people of Sri Lanka also opposed the 13th Amendment, fulfilling the aspirations of the Tamil people to the extent they aspire to, is NOT in India’s own national interests because India cannot accept a situation where the Tamil community in Sri Lanka enjoys political rights in excess of what is granted to the Tamil majority in Tamil Nadu. This being the case, India saw to it that a limit to political power to the Tamil people in Sri Lanka was recognized and accepted by the international community during the recently adopted UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/46/L.1/Rev.1 which stated: “Calls upon the government of Sri Lanka to fulfill its commitments on the devolution of political authority…and to ensure that all provincial councils, including northern and eastern provincial councils are able to operate effectively, in accordance with the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka”.

India’s External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar is reported to have stated during his last visit to Sri Lanka that ‘Delhi insists on the importance of the 13th Amendment in fulfilling the expectations of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace and dignity’ (The Island, January 7, 2021). Therefore, it could be concluded that as far as India is concerned the 13th Amendment is expected to be the upper limit beyond which a permanent political solution would be unacceptable to India. The rationale for this limit is because the “Stability, security, and prosperity of Sri Lanka is (not only) in India’s interest, but also in the interest of the entire Indian Ocean”, as stated by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi during Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa’s visit to India.

The observations of a former President of India, Pranab Mukherjee in his autobiography is of extreme importance. He opined that bilateral ties between India and Sri Lanka had been “greatly influenced by Tamil politics in India, particularly with the emergence of a strong Dravidian party (DMK) in Tamil Nadu since the mid-60s”. Continuing, the report also states “on the concept of Tamil Eelam the former President observed that it was raised by ‘the Tamil population residing on both sides of the Palk Strait…” (Daily News, January 11, 2021).

The perspective presented by the Tamil diaspora is that a political solution based on a federal arrangement with the right of self-determination, is realistically achievable. The hard reality is that such an arrangement is unacceptable not only to the people of Sri Lanka but also to Delhi because any political arrangement beyond the 13th Amendment would impact on the security and territorial integrity of both States. Now that the DMK who supported the aspirations of the Tamils in Sri Lanka is back with a majority in the State Assembly of Tamil Nadu, not only Sri Lanka but also Delhi is deeply concerned that the initiative taken by Res. 413 for a political solution to meet Tamil expectations in Sri Lanka would impact seriously on the security and stability in respect of India’s territorial integrity and that of Sri Lanka as well. Hence, the insistence by Delhi of the importance of the 13th Amendment. Furthermore, any arrangement beyond the 13th Amendment that would have serious implications on the territorial integrity of India would impact on the ability of India to be play an effective role as a member of the Quad that is intended to partner with the US in the security of the Indo-Pacific.

RESOLUTION (6) – “US to explore investigations and prosecutions pursuant to the recommendations of the UN

High Commissioner for Human Rights”.

COMMENT:

Since the Res. 413 is influenced by the recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, it is pertinent that the Resolution pays particular attention to recommendations in Paragraphs 182 and 183 in the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka (OISL).

Paragraph 182 states: “Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflict not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka” AND Paragraph 183 states: “In addition, the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike by relevant rules of customary international law applicable to non-international armed conflict”.

Since Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions have been expanded and incorporated as Additional Protocol II of 1977 applicable to Non-International Armed Conflict and ratified by 168 Member States as of 2020, the conduct of the conflict in Sri Lanka should be evaluated in the context of an Armed Conflict under provisions of Additional Protocol II of 1977. Thus Additional Protocol II should be included within the body of Customary International Law, and any investigations and prosecutions the US intends to explore, should follow the guidelines in Additional Protocol II.

RESOLUTION (7) – The US to work with the UNGA, Security Council and UNHRC to establish an international mechanism to address accountability.

COMMENT:

For the US to work with three organs of the UN namely the General Assembly, the Security Council and the UNHRC is a direct violation of Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations .

Article 2 (7) states: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter…”

The need for Resolution (7) is perhaps because of the prejudice against the domestic mechanism established by the Government of Sri Lanka. In order to convey its credibility key provisions of the mandate of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry as per Gazette No. 2211/55 of 21, January, 2021 is presented below.

“Whereas the decision taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to withdraw from co-sponsorship of 40/1 Resolution on March 2019 on Reconciliation, Accountability and Promotion of Human Rights in Sri Lanka and its preceding resolution 30/1 of October 2015 and 34/1 of March 2017 has been announced at the 43rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on 26th and 27th of February 2020″…

“appoint you Hon A. H. M. D. Nawaz Esq, Judge of the Supreme Court; Chandra Fernando Esquire, Retired Inspector-General of Police; Nimal Abeysiri, Retired District Secretary, to be my Commissioners to investigate and inquire and take necessary action to report on the following matters, namely –

(a) Find out whether preceding Commissions of Inquiry and Commissions which had been appointed to investigate into human rights violations have revealed any human rights violations, serious violations of the international humanitarian law and other such serious offences;

(b) Identify what are the findings of the said Commissions and Committees related to the serious violations of human rights, serious violations of international humanitarian law and other such offences and whether recommendations have been made on how to deal with the said facts;

(c) Manner in which those recommendations have been implemented so far in terms of the existing laws and what steps need to be taken to implement those recommendations further in line with the present Government policy;

(d) Overseen of whether action is being taken according to (b) and (c) above”.

Further, I do hereby authorize and empower you, the said Commissioner, to cause or cause the conduct of necessary investigations and inquiries and require you to transmit to me Interim Reports where necessary and the final Report within six months of the date hereof…”

CONCLUSION

The key intentions of US House Res. 413 are to work towards a permanent political solution to address underlying issues that led to the conflict (Resolution 5) and to address issues relating to accountability (Resolutions (6) and (7).

In the background of India insisting on the importance of the 13th Amendment as the means to address concerns of the Tamil people, the attempt by the US to explore fresh political arrangements is to engage in efforts that run counter to the geopolitical and strategic interests of one of the key partners of the security alliance of Quad. Furthermore, this attempt by the US ignores the rationale for India to initiate the Indo-Lanka Accord judging from the statement made by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. He stated that the Accord had “Prevented the island nation from coming into the orbit of some superpower trying to tighten their hold in Sri Lanka on the pretext of helping to find a solution to the four year old ethnic conflict” (Kodikara, p.147, Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement). As far as India is concerned US Res.413 is nothing but an attempt to get a “hold in Sri Lanka” as warned by a former Prime Minister, even though India is with the Quad security alliance.

As for addressing issues relating to Accountability, any intended action should be cognizant of the fact that from February 2002 until May 2009 the conflict was a non-international armed conflict and therefore applicable provisions of Additional Protocol II that are based on Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions should govern any investigations and prosecutions; a fact endorsed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OISL).

The attempt by the US to work with UN and its Agencies to establish international mechanism to address accountability is not only a violation of Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter because the UN and its Agencies are not authorized to intervene “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any member state….”, but also to question the credibility of the domestic mechanism established by Sri Lanka.

In summary, House Res. 413 appears to be more of an attempt to please its promoters, and in the process the drafters of the Resolution have failed to recognize broader geopolitical ramifications of their proposals and have even gone to the extent of ignoring the fundamentals such as violating the provisions of the UN Charter itself.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Shock therapy for ailing British NHS?

Published

on

Courtesy Ben Jennings – The Guardian

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

That it invariably leads to disaster when politicians attempt to tinker with what they know very little about is well illustrated by what is happening to the British National Health Service (NHS). Unfortunately, the politicians who attempted to reform the NHS over the years, with disastrous consequences, seem to have completely disregarded the aphorism—if It ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Although it is fast heading towards the bottom of the league now, the British NHS once was the best in the world and many countries attempted to emulate it because it was a cost-effective system providing free healthcare to all, irrespective of one’s ability to pay. It stood as a testimony to the socialist foresight of the post-war Labour administration of PM Clement Atlee and his Health Minister Aneurin Beven, considered the ‘Father of the NHS’; he made the ever-true declaration: “No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of a lack of means.”

Although I am not a fan of his, I must admit that Keir Starmer deserves to be lauded for attempting to reverse that trend with his recent announcement. Giving a fillip to his administration, which has been faltering up to now, PM Starmer announced plans to get rid of a resource-draining quango, pointlessly duplicating the work of the Department of Health: NHS England employing 13,500!

Margaret Thatcher seemed very keen to reform the NHS, her motive probably being more political than anything else. She was toying with the idea of introducing a scheme for compulsory health insurance, but her Health Secretary Kenneth Clarke, who was against this idea, persuaded her to introduce a less controversial ‘trust’ system instead, which took hospitals away from the control of District Health Authorities. Despite being a far less successful system, Clarke wanted the UK to ape the Managed Hospital System in the USA! Clarke’s argument was that hospitals needed enhanced management with independence to compete in an internal market and created Hospital Trusts, in stages, beginning in 1990. To anyone with common sense it was a daft idea, especially the concept of hospitals competing with each other, but that is politicians for you! The downward spiral of the NHS started with the trust system and I have no hesitation in referring to this as the ‘Clarke’s Curse’!

Trusts were given further independence with the creation of ‘Foundation Trusts’ and other service providers like ambulance services also converted into trusts during the John Major administration that followed Thatcher’s. Towards the end of this administration a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was set up where the private sector built hospitals and trusts had to pay back regularly with huge interest, like a mortgage. This scheme was enhanced by the Tony Blair administration, but, unfortunately, became a millstone around the neck later, some trusts having to declare bankruptcy!

Keir Starmer

Tony Blair, who became Prime Minister in 1997, could have changed direction to save the NHS but instead opted to continue with the Conservative health reforms. Perhaps, his New Labour was more Conservative than Labour! The most significant political change during the Blair administration was devolution of power, leading to the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales in 1997, followed by the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1998. As health became a devolved subject with these changes, paradoxically, the Health Secretary of His Majesty’s government looks after the health services of England only! However, devolved health systems usually follow the English system but there can be significant differences like the prescription charge. It is only residents of England that pay for their medication, with a fixed prescription charge irrespective of the cost of medication, the current charge being £9.90 per item. Those with exemptions in England as well as residents of the other three devolved nations get all their medication free.

During the disastrous Cameron-Clegg coalition government, the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley decided to give the NHS in England an ‘independent arm’ and NHS England was created in 2013, which currently employs 13,500 staff, three times more than the Department of Health! NHS England is an executive non-departmental public body of the Department of Health and Social Care, which oversees the budget, planning, delivery and day-to-day operation of the commissioning side of the NHS in England and according to its website: “NHS England shares out more than £100 billion in funds and holds organisations to account for spending this money effectively for patients and efficiently for the taxpayer.”

All these reforms made the NHS top-heavy with management and the resources poured by governments went to feed the managers mostly, only dribbles going for patient care, and my experience at Grantham Hospital mirrored what happened across the rest of the country. When I started working at Grantham in 1991, it was a District General Hospital, which has been in existence since 1876, with 300 beds and a large estate with quarters for most employees. It was managed by a General Manager, a Matron, and an Estates Manager. When it became a Trust in December 1994, we had a Chief Executive with Directors in Medicine, Surgery, Nursing, Estates and Operations, all drawing hefty salaries, and many assistants! Later, it joined Lincoln and Boston Pilgrim Hospitals to form the United Lincolnshire Trust. By the time I retired, 20 years later, there were only 100 beds and much of the estate was in the hands of private property developers! Since then, it has become a shadow of its former self: there are no acute beds at all though around 3,000 houses have been built around Grantham during the past two decades. For any acute emergency, Grantham residents must travel to Lincoln, a car journey close to an hour!

Hospital overcrowding has got so bad that many hospital corridors are blocked with beds now. In fact, some hospitals have started advertising for staff to look after patients in corridors! Only thing missing yet are ‘floor patients’, which I presume is an impossibility because of cold floors! In spite of introducing corridor beds, too, patients often have to wait over 24 hours in Accident and Emergency Departments for a bed, lounging in chairs with drips and oxygen tubes! Imagine this happening in one of the richest countries in the world!

One of the biggest drawbacks in UK healthcare is the lack of private emergency care, private hospitals being geared to do elective work mainly. Therefore, even those who can afford to pay are at the mercy of the NHS for emergencies, in contrast to Sri Lanka where emergency care is readily available in the private sector; the fact that even a short stay can bankrupt is a different story!

I may be voicing the fears of the many who are waiting in the ‘departure lounge’ when I state that I prefer death to the ignominy of waiting in chairs or corridors.

Things are so horrible that shock therapy was badly needed. Though he had no choice, it was still brave of Keir Starmer to announce the demise of the redundant, wasteful NHS England. There are claims that job losses will come to nearly 30,000 and cost of the exercise would be in billions of pounds. Perhaps, there is some truth as NHS managers assume duties with water-tight fat severance packages! Even that short-term cost is justified to improve the NHS long-term, as there are no further depths to descend! I can only hope that Starmer’s decision will produce the desired result and, in the meantime.

Continue Reading

Features

Neighbourhood Lost: The End is Nigh for SAARC’s South Asian University

Published

on

South Asian University

Of Man’s First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden …· John Milton (Paradise Lost)

On 26th February 2025, Yashada Sawant, an Indian female student from the South Asian University (SAU), an international University in New Delhi, was publicly assaulted by Ratan Singh, a male student from the same university, along with a gang of goons with clear affiliations to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (All India Students’ Council) a.k.a. ABVP. That ABVP is a right-wing student organisation affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a known Hindu nationalist organisation in India, is no secret.

Their grouse was that fish was being served on Maha Sivaratri and Ms Sawant’s ‘crime’, as the Mess Secretary elected by students to oversee canteen operations, was trying to stop the fish curry from being thrown away by them. This is when the assault ensued, with Sawant being punched in the face and inappropriately touched by these students, who are yet to be punished by the university.

What is of concern is that the university does not have a good track record when it comes to women’s safety. Apoorva Yarabahally, a former legal studies student had earlier lodged a complaint against her Dean of harassment and also described her entire ordeal on X in April 2023. To date, however, the university has failed to take any action.

The university’s canteens have always served both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. On the day in question, special arrangements had also been made for those observing the religious holiday. While there have often been on-and-off caste-based arguments over the ‘purity’ of food, this has never reached the depths of the recent incident. Sadly, this is not a freak mishap.

Since SAU’s current India-nominated President A.K. Aggarwal, who has no experience in running an international university, took over, his tolerance and even sponsorship of absolute parochialism, especially where the Hindutva agenda is concerned, has led to this deplorable state of affairs.

In her recent detailed tweet, Sawant has clearly described the role of different university officials who have attempted to sweep numerous sexual harassment complaints under the carpet. The same Proctor, who was reprimanded by the Delhi High Court in an earlier case for not following SAU regulations, still holds the reins and has been instrumental in pushing the overtly misogynistic agenda in SAU.

SAU’s South Asian sensibility dismantled

SAU was established by the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) as an international university in 2010 with taxpayer’s money from all eight member countries. Therefore, the legal and institutional ownership of the university is with SAARC.

It was meant to be a secular, English language university where no single political ideology, language or any one form of nationalism was to dominate. Its founding provisions and principles were meant to preserve the university’s South Asian character. The intention of the university’s founders was to bring in an element of parity and equality in the broader space of inequity and hegemony in which the university is physically located.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding these laudable efforts, a mere 15 years into its establishment, the downward spiral of the institution is driven by the incumbent president, with alarming signs of an imminent and total crash.

The bottom line is, SAU is no longer effectively owned by SAARC and it is certainly not South Asian by any stretch of the imagination. In cultural and social outlook, it has become blatantly North Indian, to the extent that it is even making students from other regions in India feel extremely unsafe.

While Aggarwal and his handpicked coterie of yes-men and women are dismantling the institution, its academics have hypocritically stood by in tacit support, pusillanimously hiding behind lofty pronouncements in the regional and global conference circuit. Its feminists who call themselves ‘critical feminists’ have fallen silent.

With an overwhelmingly Indian student body at present and very few non-Indian officers in administration, the university has become a largely Indian entity. Among others, the proctor of the university, dean of students, registrar, directors of various departments, deans and department heads and almost all non-academic staff are Indians.

The mandatory student ratio with 50% being Indian and the rest from other South Asian countries, has been breached with the introduction of new India-oriented courses (such as BTech degrees) and the expansion of all intakes benefiting mostly Indian applicants. From 2024 onwards, non-Indian students have been reduced to mere spectators on campus.

This could be the final nail in the coffin for the university’s South Asian Character.

SAARC & SAU Governing Board’s Culpability

As a formal intergovernmental effort in New Delhi, the university’s rapid parochialisation is a telling example of the utter ineffectiveness of both SAARC and SAU’s Governing Board members representing the eight SAARC countries.

The brick-by-brick dismantling of the institution, that held considerable promise until seven years ago, is propped up by their lackadaisical attitude. By extension, this foreshadows the trajectory of what the Indian government claims to be its main vision and strategy in the region – the Neighbourhood First Policy – and is more like the figurative ‘fist’ in the neighbours’ faces.

The manner in which SAU marks the national days of the SAARC member states clearly exemplifies the path it is treading. Until December 2023, national days were not in the university’s calendar of events. Students from different countries, on their own volition, celebrated these occasions of national importance without any involvement of university administration. This was to consciously maintain a distance from politically sensitive occasions in the larger interest of preserving the university’s multinational character.

Aggarwal’s decision to make the national days part of the university’s calendar initially appeared to be a progressive step towards cartographically recognising South Asia. But as it ensued, only India’s Independence and Republic Days were celebrated with pomp and pageantry and the SAU President’s personal participation.

After he initiated this practice by celebrating India’s Republic Day in January 2024, Sri Lanka’s Independence Day which fell a week or so later, was not marked in any manner. I brought this to the attention of the then Sri Lanka High Commissioner in New Delhi. Neither Sri Lanka nor any other diplomatic mission in Delhi with citizens in SAU has shown any interest in rectifying this lapse. Since then, only political events important to India are being celebrated.

I recall suggesting to Aggarwal, it would be best to help minority nationalities observe their national days with university sponsorship, if this was indeed the declared policy of the university, or to stay away from such celebrations altogether in line with the past practice. But this advice was not heeded. My intention in making this suggestion was to establish inclusiveness and not institutionalize exclusion. It is evident, the latter is now the norm, a legacy which no discerning or self-respecting leader or institution would wish to leave behind.

SAU as a Hindi Language and Hindu Enclave

SAU has also become an unapologetic Hindi Language enclave, further crippling the South Asian character of the university. When the International Mother Language Day was celebrated at the university on 21st February 2025, a North Indian student wrote ‘Jai Sri Ram’ on a Tamil poster put up by Indian and Sri Lankan Tamil speakers, leading to a needless scuffle.

The occasion had been peacefully and gracefully celebrated at the university since 2011 until recent times, when every language spoken at the university was celebrated by its speakers, and their histories and literatures brought to the fore. This was a practice introduced by Bangladeshi students and embraced by all others.

The new language chauvinism does not operate in isolation. It is manifesting itself in a situation when the three-language formula of Independent India has effectively been disregarded by the present government. As anticipated, this already led to the reemergence of language nationalism as a counter force in southern states.

Students also do not feel comfortable in approaching the Dean of Students Navnit Jha, who only speaks fluently in Hindi, and whose office has been compromised due to his track record in harassing students who are considered ‘too independent’.

One of the salient features of the current administration is the weaponisation of the offices of the Dean of Students and Hostel Wardens and the deafening silence of the Gender Sensitisation Committee. They have been successful in silencing students with the everpresent threat of expulsion. The same threats to faculty have also succeeded spectacularly, with the suspension of four faculty members in 2023.

Hindi hegemony appears on many other fronts too. SAU’s sports festival this year is called ‘Khel Kumbh’, the word kumbh being written in Hindi on all official posters shared on social media. Khel means sports in Hindi.

Would it not have been more inclusive if the word had been adopted from one of the minority languages represented in the university’s student body? Why not kreeda in Sinhala; viḷaiyâṭṭu in Tamil; Khçlâdhulâ in Bengali; kaayikam in Malayaam and so on? This is one way in which people can be brought into the fold rather than by suppressing them with hegemony.

One should either use only English for such events and posters or the different South Asian languages represented in SAU for different events. But this can only be conceived by a leadership with intellectual sophistication.

In the same way, the word kumbh is also problematic, given its religious connotations with Hinduism via the Indian state sponsored Kumbh Mela in Allahabad. But this is the SAU administration’s ruse to signal to the government that it is looking after its interests given the way the latter has lately culturally upended this important religious festival.

Surely, there would have been many ways to conceptualise and name this sports event and many other university events within the cultural and linguistic plurality India and South Asia have to offer.

But this is not the only association SAU has with Hinduism officially. While freedom of faith existed in SAU, from its inception, it did not involve itself in religion. This very sensible approach was adopted by the two earlier presidents though both hailed from a Hindu background. My own position was that the university can have a dedicated space or spaces for worship for those who required them, while not sponsoring events or ideas belonging to any particular faith. My views came from a more open approach towards faith emanating from my own training and upbringing. But I was overruled on the basis that such openness would lead to intractable inter-religious competition and potential hegemony. They were clearly drawing from their own experiences in India. And seeing what SAU has become, I appreciate my senior colleagues’ foresight at the time. Such enlightenment is no longer prevalent in SAU.

Today, for all intents and purposes, SAU is a Hindu organisation. Though in theory, the university is not supposed to have dedicated places of worship, in practice the situation is different with a shrine informally set up in ‘Block A’, one of the hostel areas for students. But interested staff and faculty also freely visit this place. Though this is known, no opposition has been voiced, which is in effect tacit encouragement for the institutionalisation of Hinduism. If so, why not similar spaces for Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity which are all major faiths in the SAARC landscape and in the university too?

The situation gets worse: For an institution that hitherto has intentionally stayed away from sponsoring religious events, it does now just as consciously. On 19th February 2025, Lila Prabhuji, in collaboration with the educational wing of International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Delhi.

Moreover, the community dance typically associated with ISKCON activities was enacted with the active participation of faculty, staff and students. This can certainly be a regular practice if need be, but it would be non-discriminatory, only if the university also sponsors events by other religions and allows them the same space to practice aspects of their faith as well. This, however, is not the case.

These are just a few well-known examples. But the rot runs deeper, even into the dubious recruitment of teachers and new teaching program designs. Moreover, new ‘professorial’ recruits who are running newly established centres and schools such as the Faculty of Arts and Design and the Centre on Climate Change do not have serious academic credentials. Their academic trajectory of having worked in dozens of institutions of no great repute raises questions about their ability to initiate these centres and schools.

But significant scholarship on these areas have been produced across South Asia. For instance, Arts and Design are fields where Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have excelled in and produced good scholars. They were not even considered for positions in SAU. Moreover, Delhi itself has reputable institutions in these fields from JNU’s School of Arts and Aesthetics to College of Arts, from where well-trained academics or recent graduates could have been recruited.

It is evident that the administration is not interested in placing emphasis on academic rigour or established scholarship. Instead, it is looking for people it thinks can be controlled rather than seeking to benefit from their intellect and experience. This effectively results in the relentless pursuit of mediocrity, entrenchment of yes-men and women, compromising the future of the university in much the same way many other major universities in India have been in recent times.

One could argue, this downward spiral is contained within SAU and is not a reflection of the Indian government, the university’s Governing Board, or the SAARC Secretariat in Kathmandu. But this would not be a valid proposition. India is the only country that has had representation within the university for many years through a staffer of its Ministry of External Affairs. Hence, the Indian government is well aware of the situation in the university, and it’s wishes and diktats are often informally communicated to the SAU administration.

No other country has been accorded this privilege. Moreover, the responsibility of the Governing Board and the SAARC Secretariat is to ensure that the university is run according to the norms, rules and regulations which have already been collectively designed, approved and established, in the interest of the member states.

Regrettably, one cannot see this expected oversight from these mechanisms. Governing Board meetings are effectively mere rituals of scant significance, where members simply fly in from their respective countries for a free foreign trip and a few hundred US dollars per head. No one other than Indian representatives makes any contribution of substance. India for its part, dictates while the rest nod in uniform agreement.

The SAU administration’s self-assuredness in their illegalities and arrogance emanate partly from this situation where it is guaranteed protection by the Indian government come hell or high water, and there is silence from the rest of the board. This also comes from the fact that no other country other than India pays their dues at present, and that too in relatively smaller amounts. This institutionalised ‘loss of face’ by being cash-strapped does not help; nor does the resultant sense of superiority of India.

This combination does not augur well for the professional running of an institution, much like the United Nations which is driven by the vested interests of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) and the organisation’s major contributors.

If SAARC does not own up to its own creation, it should move away from SAU as should all member states so that the undeserving reputation the university is given by this association is formally and legally severed. Hapless students will thus not be misguided to an institution in search of a South Asian enclave in Delhi, and be marginalized and isolated in a toxic space, and end up being victims of the callous lack of regard and interest of their own Governing Board representatives.

On India’s part, it would behoove the government to legalize the de-facto hostile cultural and political coup that has already been allowed to take place. It can graciously do so by formally handing over the funds other member states have already poured into the university since inception. In fact, at an early stage of this de-facto transition, I made this very suggestion to Ramesh Chandra, an MEA functionary who had been appointed Acting President.

I proposed that he communicates this to the Indian government so that the pretense of SAU’s South Asianism can formally end and people like me who had come to Delhi to set up a very different institution can go back home in peace knowing we tried but failed due to India’s Big Brother attitude and other regional governments’ pusillanimity in countering this in an institution they collectively set up.

As far as the rest of South Asia is concerned, SAU should simply be left to its own desires, designs and devices — a mediocre and parochial institution spewing venomous cultural and nationalist ideologies. Let it be another case study of a grand idea doomed for failure, much like the Nalanda University, because of unchecked singular and toxic nationalism. The danger however, is its spillover effect on the neighbourhood, and the potential disruption of regional harmony. This also shows that South Asian countries, including India are incapable of managing a truly international university. The required cosmopolitanism of thought and outlook are absent, and these nations need to accept this reality.

—-
(An earlier version of this essay appeared in The Wire on 8 March 2025).

Continue Reading

Features

The Case of Karu Jayasuriya – II

Published

on

The signage of USAID being removed in Washington. (File photo)

By Rohana R. Wasala

(Continued from Friday, March 7, 2025)

Leaders should lead us as far as they can and then vanish. Their ashes should not choke the fire they have lit. H.G. Wells (1866-1946)

Part I of this article ended with the following two sentences: “When countries are unequal partners, the weaker nations become subject to various forms of subversion (political, economic, cultural, etc.,) exerted by the stronger nations. Willing submission to international subversion seems to be Jayasuriya’s creed”.

The last sentence might be offensive to those who admire the veteran politician, though I am one among them, too. Let me be clear. The operative or the key word in the last sentence is ‘seems’, which prevents it from being a charge levelled against Jayasuriya. He is definitely not guilty of such betrayal of the national interest. His apparent giving in to unwelcome camouflaged foreign interventions and interferences, attempted through aid programmes, is not the reality. It is only an impression. It is not certainly a systematic mode of managing development assistance (received from foreign agencies for the benefit of all the citizens) that he is religiously committed to. We have to appreciate the fact that giving such an impression as a pragmatic accommodation of donor wishes is a necessary evil, for the funds and other forms of help received are welcome, and cannot, and should not, be refused as long as they are available.

As Shamindra Ferdinando pointed out, under the subheading ‘KJ’s USAID project’, in an earlier feature article in The Island, entitled “Costly UNDP ‘lessons’ for Sri Lanka Parliament”/June 22, 2023, the USAID launched in November 2016 a three-year partnership with Parliament, estimated at SLR 1.92 billion (US $ 13 million at the exchange rate of the time) to ‘strengthen accountability and democratic government’ in the country. According to the same article, a US Embassy statement quoted USAID Mission Director Andrew Sisson at the time as having said ‘This project broadens our support to the independent commissions, ministries, and provincial and local levels of government’. This was based on an unprecedented agreement between the USAID and Parliament finalized in 2016. Ferdinando correctly observed in this piece, written almost two years ago, that the USAID projects in Sri Lanka correspond to their much touted free Indo-Pacific concept, which means, in other words, countering growing Chinese influence in the region.

It is unlikely that Karu Jayasuriya is unaware of these facts.

We, senior Sri Lankans wherever we live in the world at present, know that American aid agencies have been active in our country even from before the USAID was established in America in 1961. I well remember how, as schoolchildren in our pre-teens in the late 1950s, we were given milk to drink as part of our free mid-day meal. The milk was made from milk powder provided under the American CARE organization (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere). The crying need at the moment is for those projects to be looked into and suitably managed free from corruption for the good of the general public, without compromising our national sovereignty and self-respect (the only two treasures that, as the late great patriot Lakshman Kadirgamar said, we still possess and should never abandon).

A young independent investigative journalist (obviously with national interest at heart), writing on her website (March 1, 2025), gives the link to access the ChatGPT list of US agencies funding government and civil society entities operating in Sri Lanka 2015-to date (It is freely available on the web for anyone interested to check out, so naturally she won’t like or expect to be identified as making a special revelation). The list categorises the recipient entities, names the relevant USAID agencies, records the funding amounts, and states the programme focuses and the dates. She demands that the government launch an immediate investigation and disclose the truth to the Sri Lankan citizens, a call that we should all join in. It is unfortunate that a bunch of half-baked YouTuber ‘journalists,’ with political axes to grind, pounced on the well meant alert of the young authentic journalist as an opportunity to ‘score hits’ on their channels and increase their dollar income.

USAID agencies have implemented countless development projects in many countries across the world, including Sri Lanka, for over six decades now. As lawful and legitimate programmes, they employ thousands of poor people, providing livelihoods for them. Before stopping the funds, if they must, such affected innocents will have to be looked after and found some compensation. It has already been suggested that President Trump’s moves are likely to be legally challenged in America for this and other reasons. For, whatever happens, the ultimate sufferers will be the poor wherever they happen to be.

As for Sri Lanka, it remains a poor indebted nation after 77 years of heavily qualified (22 years of dominion status + 53 years of fuller) independence. This is not for lack of undaunted patriotic striving after national unity, communal peace and economic prosperity for all citizens through overall comprehensive development by the democratic majority of multiethnic Sri Lankans while facing unavoidable manipulative foreign interventions and interferences, and internal resistance fed by such hegemonic forces. None of the three powers besieging us can be ignored or discounted. Maintaining a proper balance between them without aligning with a specific one among them is always work cut out for political handlers of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy matters. That is an unenviable task that confronts both the parliamentarians and civil servants involved. Judicious, efficient and corruption-free running of foreign aid projects for the mentioned purpose of holistic national development is the need of the hour.

Karu Jayasuriya seems to envision the goal of answering that need, though obviously he is too old to play an active role in achieving that goal. His inspiring mentorship will be of help. He has a history of rising to the occasion when push comes to shove in resolving national issues. In 2007, when the UPFA government, under Mahinda Rajapaksa, was struggling to survive against the underhand dealings of the UNP’s Mangala Samaraweera with the separatists and the JVP’s non-cooperative stance. MR wanted to push the Humanitarian Operation against the separatists to its victorious end. Jayasuriya crossed over to the government side with 17 fellow front-liners of the UNP opposition. Jayasuriya’s timely move paid off. It saved the MR government, and in another two years they saw the end of separatist terrorism. So, Jayasuriya played a heroic role in that situation.

Karu Jayasuriya claimed that the 2015 regime change would not have become a reality but for the leading role played by the National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) of which he was a prominent member. The original name of the campaign launched by the late Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera, the Chief Monk of the Naga Viharaya of Kotte, was the ‘National Movement for a Just Society’ (NMJS). Jayasuriya followed the much respected leading Buddhist monk, a committed patriot, as the organisation’s head after the latter’s unexpected death on November 6, 2015 at a Singapore hospital, aged 73.

A pro-regime-change website of the time (most probably sponsored by a foreign funder), paying a memorial tribute, described him misleadingly as “the monk who ended Sri Lanka’s decade of darkness”. In reality, of course, the 10-year period (2005-15) saw the end of three decades of terrorist violence and the highest economic growth rate ever achieved during that time amidst numerous challenges, and these achievements were made by the nationalist forces that Ven. Sobitha had made common cause with in opposing the neoliberal policies of the West-oriented United National Party (UNP) led by president J.R. Jayawardane, from 1977 to 1988, undergoing even physical harassment in the process. A Sri Lanka-born anthropology professor, trained in America, wrote in an article following his death that the monk was ‘a nationalist turned democratic activist’, wrongly equating nationalism with absence of democracy and representing it as a reactionary force.

Unfortunately, the poor professor was adopting the American definition of ‘nationalism’, which is what you find in the Google Dictionary: ‘identification with one’s own nation and support for its own interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations’. There is a subtle substitution of nation for race. So this definition fits racism, which we all know is primitive and reprehensible. Ven. Sobitha used ‘nation’ to mean all the people living in the country, not exclusively the Sinhalese Buddhists. So to try to denounce the monk as a ‘nationalist’ in the American sense was not right.

Be that as it may. This is no time to further contest the learned professor’s assessment of the upright nationalist Ven. Sobitha who rose up against the war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa when he concluded that the latter, in the flush of victory, had turned authoritarian and was not doing what he had pledged to do as a true nationalist (i.e., in the non-American sense). He disliked the imprisonment of Sarath Fonseka, the General who played the pivotal role in defeating separatist terrorism, and agitated for his freedom. The monk also thought that the executive presidency was a problem and became an advocate of its abolition, which was not very wise.

At this point, unfortunately, Ven. Sobitha was discovered by the foreign-funded regime change agents who had been able to split the victorious nationalist camp, exploiting flaws in MR’s leadership, as ripe for being ensnared into their plot. He soon became the most influential supporter of Maithripala Sirisena as the common candidate of the Opposition. The monk didn’t know that he was participating in a conspiracy without his knowledge. According to Mahinda Rajapaksa, who visited him (presumably, when in hospital) after the 2015 regime change, the monk admitted having been misled by the Yahapalana campaigners. That does not redeem MR. We know that Jayasuriya figured prominently in that camp and had become a fair critic of Rajapaksa for the same reasons as the less worldly wise Ven. Sobitha, though he had earlier helped him to defeat the terrorists.

At the inauguration of the Institute of Democracy and Governance (IDAG), his brainchild, in Colombo on September 30, 2024, Jayasuriya spoke about the alienation of our current political leaders from the noble values espoused by leaders such as D.S. Senanayake, Don Baron Jayatilake, and their successors. Pursuit of self-interest seems to be more important to our current political leaders than serving the public and scandals often damage their reputation, he said. In a newspaper article written to mark the launch of the IDAG on September 30th last year, a day after his 84th birthday, Jayasuriya’s daughter Lanka Jayasuriya Dissanayake, a UK qualified doctor, holding a position in WHO, Sri Lanka as a National Professional Officer, wrote:

‘(The IDAG) … initiative serves as both a celebration of his lifelong commitment to democratic values and as a gift to the nation—a pathway toward building a generation of leaders with the caliber and integrity that Sri Lanka desperately needs’.

The time for active politics is gone for Karu Jayasuriya as it is for many others of his era whose names will spring to your mind. Unlike some of them, however, he has something special to teach the young patriots engaged in politics. So, his assumption of a mentorship role, without just vanishing after having done his duty as a leader, as the great H.G. Wells suggested, is eminently appropriate for these critical but promising times.

To be concluded

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending