Jousting with the JO: Let the real opposition do its duty to the country

March 2nd, 2017

By Rohana R. Wasala

Kumar David (‘First trounce the Joint Opposition’/Sunday Island/February 19, 2017), speaking for those whom he calls ‘many experts’, asserts that ‘if amendments to the constitution live up to what is really needed, they have to be substantial and hence need to be approved at a referendum. If an entirely new constitution is to be enacted it will of course require a referendum’.

By ‘what is really needed’, doesn’t he mean a camouflaged federal constitution? the federal seed inside unitary seed coat of the constitutional rice grain, as one Joint Opposition MP puts it?

Kumar David’s concern about a referendum being defeated shows that the amendments that he and his ilk envisage are such that the resultant document will be nothing but a new constitution.

According to Kumar David, ministers from the Sirisena faction of the SLFP are among the majority of those who believe that a referendum cannot be won, though ‘political radicals seem confident of victory’. But the point, he says everybody has missed, is ‘that the Joint Opposition (JO) and hate-mongering chauvinists have to be confronted and defeated BEFORE the referendum.

This hate-mob has to be shattered now before it goes on the rampage.

Once the JO is politically broken the referendum will be plain sailing’.

Kumar David warns that if ‘chauvinist “terrorism” runs riot and law and order is undermined it may not even be possible to conduct a referendum’. He claims that there can be seen ‘on every side incitement, disruptions and street actions, some genuine and justified, others JO instigated attempts at sabotage’.

To make such utterly false, misleading and malicious statements, Kumar David has to be boiling with  unquenchable hatred against the JO and the patriotic forces and the masses it represents (whose ranks have swollen two or three-fold over the past two years since the uncalled for ‘change’ in January 2015).

If, as Kumar David implies, the JO is full of chauvinists and hate-mongers, then the millions of currently disgruntled ordinary citizens who support it and the thousands who attend its rallies amidst obstacles placed in their way by the powers that be must be assumed to approve of racist chauvinism and hate-mongering.

The failure of Ven. Gnanasara Thera (who is normally attacked as a racist and fanatical rabble-rouser) to attract a crowd of more than a few hundreds shows that unlike Tamil and Muslim leaders, who explicitly urge the exclusive interests of their respective communities, Sinhalese leaders who choose to do the same for their fellow Sinhalese quickly go out of circulation.

Ven. Gnanasara’s recent Bodu Bala Sena organized Nugegoda rally was poorly attended, and the firebrand monk was visibly upset and demoralized by the  fact, and he vowed there and then to keep away from his accustomed awareness-raising activities for a time!

Of course, he is not of the JO. Even the former president was a target of his attack in that speech.

(Ven. Gnanasara’s problem, as I see it, is mainly the undeniable truth of his message – that the unitary state of Sri Lanka and the Buddhist culture that is inbuilt in it and defines it are both facing serious threats to their survival from federalists on the one hand and from religious fundamentalists on the other;  his fiery temper doesn’t help.

Though his message is genuine, the manner of his communicating it puts people off. I know that few people expect to hear anything positive said about this monk and as a result I am running the risk of being censored for saying this. But the truth must be told. To anti-Sinhalese racists, he sounds like a racist; besides, Buddhist monk bashing is today a global phenomenon.)

Kumar David makes a pathetically frivolous attempt to argue that JO rallies are not so well attended as claimed. Like me, thousands of others must have seen these rallies live online broadcasts, from various points across the world. Only those who refuse to see miss what is obvious to others who view things unbiased.

No foreign authority is necessary for us to deny, in emphatic terms, false allegations (about chauvinism, hate-mongering, terrorist violence etc) leveled against those in the JO.

Kumar David says that the JO is ‘a bloated corpse’. That is one of his many baseless anti-majority assumptions without a shred of evidence to support them.  The federalists are exhuming the putrefied carcass of the tiger.

At least 80% of the ordinary people of Sri Lanka (including all communities) would not approve of the present dysfunctional government’s indecently hurried attempts to introduce a new constitution drawn up by some nondescript ‘constitutional experts’, who don’t  have any empathy with the ordinary people of the country.

In reality, the JO is a legitimate political entity that the country will not agree to turn against, simply because foreign NGO backed anti national marginal elements would like to write it off as a mob of mischievous troublemakers.

As for Kumar David, he surely should know better than to denigrate those whom he doesn’t agree with, or to betray in his own make-up qualities that he maliciously attributes to others he chooses to personally dislike for their views.

The millions of ordinary Sinhalese he disparagingly calls ‘Citizen Bandas’ and ‘Jane nonas’ and has already injured by helping engineer the ouster of the national leaders who restored normalcy to the country, despite undue obstructions, after decades of terrorist violence against them, are not likely to have even heard of him. Can such a person lay down rules for the free sovereign citizens of a democracy?

The nascent political stability and economic progress achieved under independent local initiative in a newly terror-free secure environment  in May 2009 were undermined by global and regional interventionist forces pursuing their respective geopolitical ends, making use of the minority of extortionist separatists among thousands upon thousands of migrant  Tamils in Western countries who had earlier been living in and outside particularly the terrorist-ravaged areas of Sri Lanka, but who had wanted to escape actual poverty, not any real persecution by the Sinhalese, camouflaged as war refugees. (This false pretext stood the latter in good stead; but the same stratagem had condemned the vast innocent majority of Sri Lankans left behind to decades of untold suffering on account of the separatist war).

Trouncing the JO won’t be ‘plain sailing’ this time around. It won’t be easy to defeat the nationalist forces that are against the coalition of the accidentally rejuvenated comprador class and the few frustrated old Marxists long since rendered hors de combat, who are on their last legs, determined to destroy a nation that consistently refused to accept either group for sound reasons.

Kumar David was the Marxist mastermind that conceived of the evil ‘Single Issue Common Candidate’ (SICC) mobilization strategy (later repudiated by the late Ven. Sobhita Thera, one of its prominent backers, on his deathbed). The idea was adopted by the foreign backed agents of the 2015 ‘regime change’, though there was no groundswell of rational opposition to the then incumbent that justified such a change.

The need for a ‘common candidate’ was created because the United National Party (UNP) leader, who was losing elections at an incredible rate, had no chance against the justifiably popular then Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) leader who was also successfully leading the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). The marginal victory secured after making a mountain out of a molehill of a ‘single issue’ was  going to be decisively reversed by a quickly disillusioned electorate at the parliamentary election that followed the much touted ‘change’, but this was cunningly prevented by certain acts of omission and commission of the new SLFP leader which were prejudicial to the preceding one. This demoralized a substantial proportion of the pro-UPFA voters who had supported the ousted president. They decided to keep away from voting on the D-day (August 17, 2015).

Had the former president been denied SLFP nomination, the UNP would have easily trounced the SLFP making use of his absence in the fray as well as the ‘jump on the bandwagon’ atmosphere that emerges after a presidential election, that is favourable to the party of the winner (notwithstanding the fact that, in this case, the winner had to temporarily quit the party to win the election).

The UPFA got 95 seats even after those manipulative actions and non-actions, almost entirely due to the popularity of the former head. Pre-election opinion polls had predicted 117 seats for the UPFA, 4 in excess of the critical 113 required in a house of 225 members to form a government. Even with such lowly scheming, the yahapalanists missed by miles a popular mandate comparable in its strength to the legitimate  electoral victories of 1972 and 1977 scored respectively by the SLFP-led coalition of left parties and the UNP, nor even to the parliamentary majority built up by the then UPFA  in 2010 solely on the basis of a call for national unity for dealing with the aftermath of the devastating civil conflict that had just been ended.

Kumar David boasts about alleged gains made through his SICC mobilization ploy and sounds a warning:

‘Remember the ‘Single Issue Common Candidate’ mobilisation? We did not get everything we wanted; the executive presidency was downgraded, not abolished. But what victories we have scored; removed Rajapaksa, safeguarded democracy and now we have a chance to pursue a constitutional option which may overcome the worst transgressions on the national question. If like then, we get a fairly decent even if not perfect constitution by broadening mobilisation, it would be a big step forward. But to repeat, be warned, unless the JO and its goons are FIRST defeated, we will have no constitutional options at all!’

The ordinary masses know the nature and extent of the achievements made after the ‘change’. Whatever gains are claimed to have been made due to the ‘change’, they may not be impressive enough to dissipate the growing public disaffection with the government. The indefinite postponement of provincial elections, suppression of dissent, witch-hunt of political opponents, stepmotherly treatment of security personnel who sacrificed their life and limb for the unity and safety of all communities, and humiliation of Buddhist monks on the slightest pretext cannot be hailed as safeguarding democracy. Opposition politicians remind us that if  people’s democratic right to express their criticisms of a government that they think is inept and corrupt through peaceful means is denied, then they will feel forced to take to the streets as has happened in some countries already. No amount of calling the JO a bunch of racists, chauvinists, hate mongers, etc will be of any use.

However, there’s no need for street protests to be staged if the ruling politicians act wisely; such demonstrations are not developments that anyone could relish, for obvious reasons.  The government’s responsibility is to meet the just demands of the masses, and desist from implementing policies that the majority think are unwise, and prevent such untoward eventualities.

What Kumar David is trying to do is to interpret public agitations that he anticipates in his wisdom as acts of thuggery and sabotage instigated by the JO. According to some critics of the government, such public displays of democratic dissent seem inevitable due to  the wrong policies of a set of blundering ‘strange bedfellows’ at the helm who have begun feuding among themselves, that too in public, lately. Needless to say, on the other hand, Kumar David’s warnings can

have ominous implications for oppositional forces. For, who is he addressing in this article (as can be inferred from the paragraph quoted above from the same)? Obviously, not the ordinary masses who are supposed to be sovereign in the country, nor the genuinely concerned, more enlightened sections of the Sri Lankan society, but the international ‘gallery’.

What does ‘broadening mobilisation’ mean? Who is there to mobilize to do or achieve what? Does he expect to mobilize the majority against itself to agree to a plan that divides the country into several mutually non-cooperative ethnic enclaves? (Implicitly, the mobilization he talks about is for the purpose of defeating alleged Sinhala racism. But we know that the Sinhalese are not racist unlike their accusers.)

Does it mean some cancerous extra-parliamentary extension of the 2015 scheme (whatever form it metastasizes into, including, Heaven forbid! a return to armed conflict)?

Not an encouraging extrapolation of possible future events! Or maybe the importunate change advocates behind the constitution making project have something up their sleeve to make use of as a last resort to prevent the return to power of the forces that are represented in the JO, such as launching a rival party under a ‘friendly’ defector pretending to champion a nationalist agenda to rival that of the JO, thereby dividing the nationalist electorate and weakening it.

(Please await a sequel to this essay. – RRW)

Written February 22, 2017

The claims and counter-claims of intransigence

March 2nd, 2017


 Leader of the Opposition and the senior citizen of Tamil Nationalism R Sampanthan in an adjournment motion has made some interesting points.
“All people who lived in Sri Lanka, irrespective of their ethnicity, religion, or any other difference, whether Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim or Burgher made their fullest contribution to the achievement of independence. It is almost 70 years since Sri Lanka attained Independence from Colonial Rule. Ethnic strife had plagued the country from shortly after it attained Independence. Pacts entered into between Prime Ministers and the Tamil Political Leadership to help resolve such ethnic strife and enable all citizens to live together in peace and amity, with equality and justice were not fulfilled by the ruling elite. As a result of such ethnic strife and ethnic violence against the Tamil people in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and thereafter, up to 50 per cent of the Sri Lankan Tamil population were compelled to leave their own country largely on grounds of insecurity and take up residence in different countries the world over.”
Some of the above is true, some can be contested.  Yes, people from all communities contributed to the achievement of independence, but it was the Sinhalese or rather the Sinhala Buddhists who sacrificed lives, over and above ‘the call’ of demographic slice.  The ‘other contributions’ came much later.  They were important, though.  
Yes, ethnic strife has plagued the country.  Pacts between Tamil political leaders and various governments have collapsed, yes.  On the other hand it is not the case that what was contained in the pacts died natural deaths.  Some of it survived and was even enshrined in constitutions later on.  Still, the objective of peace and amity, equality and justice, were not achieved, and not just as far as the Tamils are concerned.  
Sampanthan implies that successive governments are to blame, first for not resolving the ‘problem’ and secondly for being unsuccessful in stopping attacks on Tamils.  He is correct.  
On the other hand, it is not that the Tamils have been blameless in all this.  When you paint aspiration as grievance, when aspiration includes a desire to take control of one third the land mass and half the coast, when myth is called history and fiction called fact, you are essentially robbing your cause of legitimacy.  When you deliberately feed anxiety to the point that it evolves to self-righteous objection to perceived hurt, when you are silent as the demons unleashed by you turn into blood thirsty terrorists who will not stop at abducting your own children and holding your own community hostage, you are not helping your cause.  
Things then are not pretty.  Maybe this is why Sampanthan says, ‘Ethnic violence against Tamils is an imminent danger unless and until there is a political resolution of the conflict.’  In other words, he believes that if there’s no ‘political resolution’ to ‘the conflict’, then Tamils would get attacked.  This brings up two issues.   First ‘the conflict’ and secondly, the inability of successive governments to resolve it.  
Why have government’s failed?  The common explanation is that successive governments have ‘capitulated to pressure from extremist Sinhalese’ (sometimes called ‘Sinhala Buddhist extremists’ or chauvinists or racists).  Sometimes the ‘extremist’ qualifier is dropped and it’s blamed on the entire community or else the entire community is described as ‘extremist’.  Even the ‘state’ as well as particular governments have been described as ‘Sinhala’ or ‘Sinhala Buddhists’, never mind the fact that neither the state nor governments have exactly been kind to these communities, butchering them on occasion by the thousands.  
One possible reason, however, for ‘Sinhala intransigence’ is the absurdity of Tamil demands.  Just because you want something, it doesn’t mean that others are supposed to desist from assessing the fairness of the demand.  You can say they are ‘racists’ for saying ‘no’, but then again that’s crass politics, nothing more. 
We can interpret all this as a simple matter of politicians who depend on votes desisting from doing something that might get them thrown out of office.  We can also bring in the pertinent reality of political parties playing political cards ‘right’ to retain or regain political edge.  For instance, oppositions have typically opposed the bad as well as the good, clearly for reasons of political expedience.  And this kind of choice is not the preserve of Sinhala politicians.  Tamil politicians, as Sampanthan knows only too well, have upped the nationalist ante just to secure votes.  Exaggeration is a useful tool in anxious times, we should not forget.
It is prudent to take fixations of communal identity as givens.  It is silly to paint one community as villains and others as innocents. Given these realities, we need to understand that anxieties as well as the fact that extremists are best served by falsehood and not the truth with respect to grievances.  This is where Tamil politics has failed.  Sinhalese cannot be expected to swallow a tall story.  
This is also where successive governments have floundered.  The homeland myth has not been unpacked.  The issue of lines arbitrarily drawn by the British being taken as the boundaries of this mythical homeland has not been challenged.  The contradiction between claiming discrimination and the reality of half the Tamil population choosing to live outside the so-called historical homelands has to be taken up. 
It is time for a historical audit.  Otherwise, we will continue to have people like R Sampanthan disappointed and claiming that Tamils are running out of patience.  The truth is that the Sinhalese have been patiently listening to fabrications tossed out by Tamil extremists for decades.  It is time to stop keeping everyone in suspense.  It is time that the Government did the hard thing: get the homeland story, shake it, strip it of frills and obtain its true dimensions.   Until then we will have Tamil nationalists talking about the intransigence of Sinhalese and Sinhala nationalists returning the favor, charging that their Tamil counterparts are charlatans trying to shove fictions down the throats of Sinhalese to serve a land-grab objective.  It will be a ‘they are the bad guys’ back and forth that takes no one anywhere any time soon.  


March 2nd, 2017

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka Courtesy The Daily Mirror

A funny thing happened in-between the reconvening of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly (Feb 21) and the adjournment motion on the Constitution held the next day in Parliament. TNA MP MA Sumanthiran and target of an assassination attempt by the LTTE, struck a discordant note in his speech at a seminar on “The Constitution, Reconciliation & You”, organized by Sri Lanka Inc. and held at the Buddhist Cultural Center auditorium on February 21st evening. His speech and mine (which came much later) triggered off a heated debate that kept the event going until 9:30 p.m.

Mr. Sumanthiran spoke second, following upon Prof GL Pieris. My own speech took on more of an edge than it otherwise would have, in response to the latent note of intimidation vis–a-vis the Sinhala majority struck by both Suma and former Chief Secretary of the North Eastern Provincial Council, Dr. Wigneswaran.

When criticizing the concept of majority rule based on the principle of one man one vote, Mr. Sumanthiran chose to quote from the remarks in Parliament of Mr. C. Sundaralingam, a pioneering Eelamist (he called it “Eylom”) who stood for a separate state even when the TULF did not, and ran for election on that slogan. More curiously, but quite revealingly, Mr. Sumanthiran chose a quote in which Mr. Sundaralingam’s critique of democratic majority rule included an explicit threat of physical violence.

Addressing the Speaker of the House who was of the Islamic faith, Mr. Sundaralingam had said that a parliamentary majority, reflecting the country’s demographics, may legislate that the Hon Speaker cannot wear his fez cap in parliament, but if such a majority attempted to legislate that he, Mr. Sundaralingam, could not wear holy ash on his forehead in the precincts of Parliament, his “fist would meet their faces, and it would then be a matter, not of counting heads but of cracking of heads!”

If Mr. Sumanthiran wished to quote a Tamil parliamentarian in his speech at a public event on the eve of the parliamentary adjournment motion for a new Constitution, he could surely have quoted Neelan Tiruchelvam. Instead, his choice of source and quote demonstrated just how far he was from the Harvard educated intellectual and genuine moderate Neelan Tiruchelvam.

When a moderate invokes the discourse of physical violence against the principle of majority rule, it tells me that something is going on. When a moderate behaves in that manner under a liberal government a few weeks after he has been the target of an assassination attempt by separatist terrorists, it tells me that something is rotten—or remains rotten—in the (separate?) state of Tamil politics.
This was not a one-off reference that evening. Both Mr. Sumanthiran and Dr. Wigneswaran brandished the threat of external pressure and intervention. In the Q&A spell Mr. Sumanthiran approvingly quoted a Rwandan Bishop who visited Sri Lanka and warned the Sinhalese that if they couldn’t treat their Tamil brother as an equal, the Tamil brother’s older brother living overseas would ensure that the Sinhala brother could not live in peace.

I replied saying that in a democracy, no minority can be the political equal of the majority as a collective, but that as individual citizens everyone should enjoy equal rights and opportunities and that this is why I had called in my speech for a powerful Bill of Rights, anti-discrimination legislation and an Ombudsman, which I dubbed the Soulbury Plus model (meaning a reinforced Section 29 C). I pointed out that the majority community on this island had taken the worst that the Tamil Big Brother outside the island could throw at it during a thirty years war which had included an episode of foreign intervention, and yet the Sri Lankan State had prevailed.

Dr. Wigneswaran’s threat came in the course of his speech, not the debate session. Dr. Wigneswaran reminded the audience that the 13th amendment was due to Indian intervention and cautioned that we risk external intervention yet again if we do not agree to a new Constitution which goes beyond the 13th amendment. He rhetorically queried as to whether we want foreign intervention.

The most important thing that happened that evening, and it is of truly national importance, is that the real strategy and battle-plan of Tamil nationalism was revealed or uncovered. I had made the point in my speech that Sri Lanka needed constitutional change but not a change of Constitution. I drew the distinction between ‘structure’ and ‘system’, making the case for structural reform but standing firmly against the replacement of the state system, the state form as enshrined in the Constitution.

Arguing against me and much more importantly against the perspective of the SLFP and the JO as stated in Parliament and outside, Mr. Sumanthiran challengingly queried as to why we were opposed to a referendum at which the Sinhala majority had the opportunity to shoot down the new Constitution, and why we were for a mere reform which could be enacted by a two thirds majority in parliament. Addressing Parliament on Feb 22nd in a 90 minute long speech (a written text) Mr. Sampanthan pushed the case for a new Constitution and a referendum. He was assisted by UNP Minister Mangala Samaraweera who made a 30-minute speech (also from a written text).

The real question was not why the SLFP and JO were against a new Constitution but why the TNA preferred a risky referendum at a time in which incumbent administrations were losing referenda to nationalist-populist protest votes throughout the world. Why did the TNA not prefer the far safer and surer option of one or more amendments that could be enacted by a two thirds majority in parliament?
At the previous evening’s seminar, I ventured an answer to the riddle—and neither Mr. Sumanthiran nor Dr. Wigneswaran rebutted me. I expressed the view that what was more important for Tamil nationalism was not winning or losing at a referendum but the very holding of the referendum! For the Tamil nationalist project what matters more than a new Constitution is the referendum itself!

At a referendum the Tamils can be counted on to vote en bloc for a non-unitary model and call it a plebiscite which rejects living in a unitary state. It could be billed as an assertion of Tamil sovereignty and self-determination as a nation, and a huge endorsement obtained in the North and parts of the East. The Tamil nationalists pulled the same number at the general election of 1977 at which they called for a vote on the single slogan of a ‘an independent, sovereign, secular,socialist state of Tamil Eelam’ and swept the board in the North as well as part of the East. It is that electoral result that was hawked throughout world as a mandate for Tamil Eelam.

Theirs is an exit strategy from Sri Lanka—let’s call it ‘TEXIT’ (for ‘Tamil Exit’).Either (A) the new constitution is passed at a referendum, in which case they will have the benefit of a weak, non-unitary, de facto federal state in which the majority will fragment along provincial lines under Chief Ministerial warlords while the Tamil-speaking North and East will be magnetically drawn by the demographics and geography of neighbouring Tamil Nadu into a separate existence, or (B) the Constitution will be shot down by the Sinhala majority but the massive ‘yes’ vote in the North and East (Trincomalee district) will be the stepping stone for a Kashmir-style permanent civic uprising and a call for external intervention. Given that Tamil Nadu is to Sri Lanka what Florida is to Cuba, with its attendant electoral dynamics, a Bangladesh/Kosovo outcome down the road is almost inevitable.The referendum is the first step in the process.

– See more at:

BASL should not interfere in the appointment of judges – Hemantha Warnakulasuriya, PC

March 2nd, 2017

The standoff between the Judicial Services Association and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka over the appointment of Ramanathan Kannan as a High Court judge still remains unresolved with the BASL not taking any action to have the appointment reversed as requested by the JSA. The most serious allegation against the new High Court judge is that he had on an earlier occasion, been recommended for appointment to the judiciary by an unnamed political party. In this interview, The Island staffer C. A. Chandraprema speaks to one of the most senior members of the private bar President’s Counsel Hemantha Warnakulasuriya about this unprecedented situation that has arisen within the justice system.


Q. There is this still unresolved controversy over the appointment of Mr Ramanathan Kannan as a High Court judge. The President claims that the appointment has been made according to the existing provisions of the constitution with the recommendation of the Judicial Services Commission and the concurrence of the Attorney General. But there are serious questions about this appointment, one of them being the involvement of the private bar in making this appointment.

A. Neither the constitution of the country nor the constitution of the BASL gives the Bar Association the power to be involved in making such appointments. The only instance when the Bar Association appealed to the executive was over the appointment of President’s Counsel. PCs are appointed by the president without reference to anyone. When I was the Secretary of the BASL, a very junior counsel with about 18 years of practice was appointed as a PC and the BASL passed a resolution requesting the President to consider the criteria of at least 20 years of practice when appointing PCs and to consult the President of the BASL before making such appointments. But we have never intervened in the appointment of judges. No President consulted the Bar Association and the private bar interfering with judicial appointments was unheard of.

Q. However in this instance, the President of the BASL did intervene to get Ramanathan Kannan appointed.

A. Geoffrey Alagaratnam the President of the BASL has made this recommendation to the President. The President stated at the National Law Conference that he was given the recommendation in writing. When the BASL Executive Committee wanted to examine the letter written by Alagaratnam, to the President, he is supposed to have said that the letter from the Batticaloa Bar Association had been forwarded to the Presidential Secretariat with a covering letter. But even a copy of this letter was not in the file. The President also said that he had initially declined to appoint Kannan and a reply was sent to the BASL to that effect. Alagaratnam said there was no such letter but the Assistant Secretary of the BASL said that there was an acknowledgement that a letter had been received from the Presidential Secretariat in the inward register but this letter is now missing. The letter to the President was written by the BASL President without the Secretary and the others not knowing about it. If this was such a straight forward matter, why are these letters being concealed from the membership? Even if there was the problem that there are no Tamil judges or Tamil speaking judges, then that is a matter that could have been gone into properly and applications called from all over the country. Why was a candidate chosen only from Batticaloa? There are eminent Tamil speaking lawyers in Hatton and other places, who may like to serve at least for a short time as a High Court judge.

Q. Kannan is obviously being backed by an influential lobby.

A. The question is why is Lal Wijenayake supporting this candidate? I am told that Ramanathan Kannan’s father was a dentist and an important person in the Samasamaja trade unions and Lal Wijenayake was very close to him. That is why he is supporting this appointment. Lal Wijenayeke also says that only the President of the BASL should have the sole right to nominate judges because if it is discussed in the Executive Committee or the Bar Council that would amount to canvassing and campaigning for appointment. These are the very people who campaigned against Mahinda Rajapaksa for appointing judges, saying that such decisions must be made by a Constitutional Council. They don’t want that power wielded by the executive of the country who is elected by the people, but they want the president of the BASL to wield that power without referring to any of the decision making bodies in the BASL. Obviously they are only interested in getting judges appointed so that they can get judgments in their favour.

Q. Is there any justification to the claim that there is no suitable Tamil speaking person of sufficient seniority in the judicial service or the AG’s Department to take up this position?

A. The senior-most judge who should have been promoted was D. L. A. Manaf.

Q. A certain website published an article stating that Judge Manaf had not been considered because of an alleged prior wrongdoing on his part. Firstly, he is supposed to have served on the Council of the Eastern University without the permission of the Judicial Services Commission and while he was there, an employee had been sacked and Judge Manaf had then heard the case against the University filed by this employee.

A. I am told that Manaf was never on the Eastern University Council. Furthermore, if an employee is sacked, he has to go to the Labour Tribunal, not to the District Court. This allegation against Manaf is an absolute lie. They can say anything against any judge and get away with it because the judges cannot defend themselves in the media or any other public forum. These falsehoods are being propagated by people who claim to be champions of democracy. They want the word to go around the entire judicial service “Look here, I am the person who appointed this judge, I can do anything with the President and the CJ, so when I appear before you, you had better heed my submissions.”

Q. Mr Alagaratnam now has a High Court judge who is beholden to him.

A. Absolutely. H. W. Jayewardene was a good lawyer. A lot of his juniors joined the judiciary. They were highly qualified people but non-UNP lawyers were very critical of those appointments because H. W. Jayewardene used to appear before them in court. How can that be correct? But HW was not making those recommendations as the President of the BASL. He was doing it as the President’s brother. But here the President of the BASL has done something wrong and people are trying to defend him. A former President of the BASL Upali Gunaratne, PC, said at the Bar Council meeting last Saturday that the President of the BASL cannot act independently. That is shown by the fact that the first address made by the President of the BASL at the Convocation should be written and approved by the Executive Committee. So the question is whether the President of the BASL can recommend judges without the knowledge of the Executive Committee? People come to the Bar Council and discuss malfunctioning toilets but not these important appointments. Furthermore, the President of the BASL has deceived the President and made him believe that the BASL had wanted this appointment made. Amal Randeniya the Secretary was shocked. He said they had not made any such recommendation. Normally it’s the Secretary who writes the official letters of the BASL, not the President.

Q. The Judicial Services Association claims that the Minister of Justice had told them that this Mr Ramanathan Kannan had on an earlier occasion been recommended for appointment as a High Court judge by a certain political party.

A. I asked Mr Wijedasa Rajapaksa and he confirmed that a political party had contacted him but that he declined to make the recommendation. Sources from the Presidential Secretariat said that Geoffrey Alagaratnam had met the President twice to canvass for Kannan’s appointment not with members of the BASL Executive Committee but with some outsiders. This was denied by Alagaratnam at the last Executive Committee meeting where he had said that he did not meet the President and that His Excellency may have been mistaken about his presence! It is this same group of people who are involved in appointing judges and are also having judges who don’t toe the line attacked through certain websites.

Q. The BASL is a highly politicised body. At one point the President of the BASL was a sitting UNP parliamentarian. After that the President of the BASL was appointed Chairman of the BOI by a UNP government. Where will things end up if a body like this is given the power to recommended the appointment of judges?

A. Upul Jayasuriya is my good friend and I fully endorse the role he played during the impeachment, (of Shirani Bandaranayake) but I told him that it was not correct for him to accept that appointment as the President of the BASL. The point however is that neither Wijedasa Rajapaksa nor Upul Jayasuriya got involved in the appointment of judges.

Q. The first draft of the 19th Amendment had a provision saying that the Constitutional Council should consult the BASL when appointing judges to the superior courts. This was shouted down at that time, but the same proposal has resurfaced in the Constitutional Council’s Subcommittee report on the Judiciary. The same group that promoted Ramanathan Kannan is also promoting the constitution.

A. You can see that. They want to intimidate the judges and get them to rule in their favour and they attack those who do not fall in line, through various websites. There was a news item that said that a High Court judge in Ratnapura had assaulted a stenographer and had broken her collar bone. Then this mafia had got worked up about it and told the BASL President. Alagaratnam should have first consulted the Ratnapura Bar Association and found out what it was all about. But he wrote a letter to the Chief Justice and the CJ got upset and transferred this High Court judge to Moneragala pending inquiry. Then the Ratnapura bar made representations about this matter and ultimately, the police investigation found that the supposed victim had been lying. So look at the damage that was done by the president of the BASL writing a letter to the CJ without consulting anybody. The other example is Kanishka Wijeratne the Nugegoda Magistrate. There was a news item saying that he had given preferential treatment to another magistrate Tilina Gamage who was granted bail over the baby elephant affair. The story was that he had taken Gamage in the judge’s lift to his chambers and granted him bail. Once again the BASL President wrote a letter to the CJ. What saved Kanishka Wijeratne was that he had installed CCTV cameras all over the place including his chambers. On examining the footage, the JSC was able to ascertain that the news reports were false. Furthermore there is only one lift in the courts complex without a special lift for judges. Then there was the complaint that Shiran Gunaratne the High Court Judge made to the effect that his telephone has been tapped, I asked Geoffrey Alagaratnam what he is going to do about this but I did not get a proper reply. I told Alagaratnam that he should go to see Shiran Gunaratne and find out whether this was true or not. He said he can’t do that. When I wrote about this matter to the Executive Committee of the BASL, he had told them to ask me whether I had a personal interest in this matter.

Q. The President of the Batticaloa Bar Association has recommended one of his colleagues for appointment to the High Court and now he has a judge in Jaffna who is beholden to him.

A. There was an unusual number of lawyers from Batticaloa at the BASL meeting last Saturday to defend Alagaratnam. I was totally against the impeachment of Shirani Bandaranayake and I am totally against the appointment of Kannan as well

Q. The Judicial Services Commission also has to be even handed. In January this year, a newly recruited magistrate one D. M. A. I. Dissanayake was sacked on the allegation that he was politically involved. Now however there is a High Court Judge whom the Minister of Justice himself says was recommended by a political party. It was the same NGO crowd including Ranjith Keerthi Tennakoon of CAFFE who is fighting on behalf of Kannan that was agitating for Dissanayake’s removal. How can the JSC be justified in applying different standards to different individuals?

A. At the time the appointment was made, the JSC was obviously not aware of these things about Kannan that have subsequently come to light. I noticed that the mafia that has been promoting Kannan has been speaking of a similar appointment that was made when Sarath N.Silva was the CJ. That was in 2007 when the High Court judge in Jaffna retired and no other Tamil speaking judge was willing to go there out of fear. One of the things that the LTTE wanted was for the courts to cease functioning so that there was no state apparatus operating in the North. Then Sarath N Silva went to Jaffna, and appointed S. Paramarajah a highly respected senior lawyer as a High Court judge. The Jaffna Bar Association and The BASL was not informed that such an appointment was being made. Paramarajah was posted to the Eastern province and the Eastern province HC judge was posted to the North. That was a special appointment made in difficult circumstances by the JSC so as to keep the Jaffna courts functioning. You have to look at all this from the point of view of the members of the judicial service. Those who join the service as Magistrates serve in various difficult areas and gradually get promoted. Their ultimate aim is to reach the superior courts, after which they retire. That is their chosen career path. To deprive any one of them of a justly earned promotion by appointing an outsider is a crime.

Lawyer’s statement recorded on impeachment of Chief Justice Complaint against former CIABOC chiefs et al

March 2nd, 2017

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has recently recorded a statement from attorney-at-law Nagananda Kodituwakku regarding the circumstances leading to the impeachment of Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake on January 11, 2013.

Dr. Bandaranayake was reinstated on January 28, 2015 and she retired the following day following the change of government on January 8, 2015.

The CIABOC has called Kodituwakku nearly a year after he sought its intervention to have three former commissioners, the then Director General and the Attorney General investigated in terms of the Bribery Act (Section 70) for contradictory positions taken in respect of three cases filed against Justice Bandaranayake in Colombo Chief Magistrate court in respect of Bandaranayake’s cases. On the basis of the CIABOC action, the court charged Bandaranayake on two counts in three different cases under Section 9 (1) of the Declaration of Asset and Liabilities Act No 01 of 1975.


Kodituwakku has pointed out the CIABOC after having moved the Colombo Chief Magistrate court against Bandaranayake during the Rajapaksa administration had withdrawn the three relevant cases in Feb. 2016.

The then Chief Magistrate Gihan Pilapitiya exonerated her and directed that her passport be returned to her immediately.

President Kumaratunga appointed Dr. Bandaranayake to the Supreme Court in Oct 1996, President Rajapaksa elevated her Chief Justice in May 2011.

Kodituwakku has told the CIABOC that on the basis of the case filed in the Colombo Magistrate’s court, the then government had the Chief Justice impeached to pave the way for the then Chief Legal Advisor to the Cabinet Mohan Peiris, PC, appointed the Chief Justice. Kodituwakku has alleged that the CIABOC Commissioners, its Director General and the AG abused office.

The civil society activist has informed the CIABOC that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on January 30, 2015 in Parliament declared the entire impeachment process initiated by President Rajapaksa illegal.

Responding to a query by The Island, Kodituwakku said that the application made by the AG to the Chief Magistrate Court on Feb 19, 2016, seeking permission to withdraw all charges against Bandaranayake on July 12, 2013, had proved the gross abuse of above mentioned officers.

In his complaint to the CIABOC, Kodituwakku claimed that Bandaranayake had incurred the wrath of President Rajapaksa for declaring several Bills including Basil Rajapaksa’s Divineguma Bill presented to court not consistent with the Constitution.

Kodituwakku further stated that Local Government and Provincial Council Minister Faizer Musthapa had recently admitted in an interview that members of the then Cabinet had been left no option but to go along with President Rajapaksa’s decision to impeach Bandaranayake.

Prez inquiry on bond scams: Official confirms Mahendran entered public debt dept. Auction extended following Primary Dealer’s request

March 2nd, 2017

Top Central Bank official Dr. M. Z. M. Aazim yesterday told the Presidential Commission of Inquiry that Governor Arjuna Mahendran had entered the Public Debt Department on the tenth floor of the CBSL building at 10.45 am on Feb 27, 2015 while an auction of treasury bonds was taking place.

Dr. Aazim was the Additional Superintendent of the Public Debt Department at that time.

In answer to a query from Senior Deputy Solicitor General Priyantha Nawana, Dr Aazim said that during the time he served at the Public Debt Department, Mahendran’s predecessors had never entered that section.

When Supreme Court judge Prasanna S. Jayawardena asked whether a Governor visiting various departments was normal, Dr Aazim said he had not seen a Governor visit the Public Debt Department earlier while an auction was on.



Dr. Aazim said that he couldn’t recall the exact time the Governor had left the Public Debt Department. The top official stressed that the Governor hadn’t been accompanied by any other official. Dr Aazim confirmed reports that the auction had been extended by five more minutes on a request made by a primary dealer though the auction was scheduled to end at 11 am.

Dr Aazim said that the Governor had also entered the office of Superintendent of Public Debt department Deepa Seneviratne and made inquiries about the auction.

Dr Aazim further said that the Governor had insisted that funds required for payments in respect of road development work be raised through the auction though the practice was to use a combination of two methods—auctioning of treasury bonds and direct placements.


March 2nd, 2017

By Ram Madhav, RSS Akhil Bharatiya Sah Sampark Pramukh Courtesy  SAMVDA

New Delhi March 28:

Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) – a Buddhist organisation many wish to call as Right or Ultra Right – is a new phenomenon in Sri Lanka. One may prefer to brand them in any manner one would like to. But the fact remains that this new outfit is slowly growing in stature and popular support in the country’s Buddhist-dominated areas.

It came into prominence due to its public opposition to the Halal mark on all products marketed in Sri Lanka. This was the demand made and achieved by the less than 10% population of the Muslims of the island. Halal mark has been made mandatory to all products in Sri Lanka due to the pressure of the Muslim leadership although a large population of the country – Buddhists, Hindus and Christians – who constitute around 90% of the population don’t need it at all. All producers of food products have been forced to manufacture Halal products and approach a Muslim council for Halal certification. While this rule has become a revenue earner for the Ulemas it has become a burden on the manufacturers whose majority clients don’t need this mark.

2.Ram-Madhav-2Ram Madhav

BBS’ opposition to this issue had led to the Ulema council withdrawing the mandatory demand for Halal certification. However the story didn’t end there. The BBS has turned its attention to growing Islamisation and Christianisation of the Island nation.

Like everywhere else, there is a spurt in Islamic identity politics in this country too causing alarm to the local population.

The Muslim population in Sri Lanka is growing fast. Muslim parties won elections in the country’s East province, which was one of the strongholds of the LTTE’s second-in-command Karuna. In fact in spite of Hindus – Tamils – being the majority in that province, which was ruled by a henchman of Karuna until last year, elections saw the Muslim party securing majority in the local provincial council and forming the Government.

There are mosques and madrassas sprouting everywhere in the country. A rough estimate suggests that of the 1.2 million Muslim population every 50 households have a mosque. In Colombo itself a new magnificent mosque is coming up, so are in many other places. Increasing number of burqa-clad women and skull cap-wearing men can be sited on the streets of Sri Lankan cities and towns now.

Changing demographics in many villages, districts and even provinces has rung alarm bells in the Buddhist community. A recent media report indicated high rate of growth among the Sri Lankan Muslims compared to other groups like the Sinhalese and the Tamils. According to that report Muslims had outstripped other ethnic groups in Sri Lanka in population growth between the censuses of 1981 and 2011.

During this period, the majority Sinhalese had grown by 38 per cent (from 10,979,400 to 15,873,800); Sri Lankan Tamils by 20.3 per cent (from 1,886,900 to 2,270,900) and the Indian Origin Tamils by 2.8 per cent (from 812,700 to 842,300). But the Muslims grew by 78.6 per cent (from 1,046,900 to 1,869,800). Increase in Muslims had been significantly higher in the districts of Colombo (73.7 per cent), Kandy (74.1 per cent), Matale (76.4 per cent) and Nuwara Eliya (43 per cent).
This almost double growth rate of Muslims has naturally attracted the attention of even the ordinary citizens. It has triggered fears of the possibility of the minorities in general and Muslims in particular dominating the Sinhalese over time. BBS clearly represents that popular resentment against growing Muslim influence on Sri Lanka. Increasing presence of the Pakistanis and the ISI also are an important factor.

The BBS essentially talks about protecting the Buddhist culture of the country from foreign religions. By this it also means the Christian missionaries who are trying to convert people. It is interesting here to note that in Sri Lanka there exists a gentlemen agreement between the Buddhist and Christian leadership that each would not disturb the flock of the other. This agreement was agreed upon by the Catholic Bishop of Colombo who is Simhalese. Of course the non-Catholic denominations don’t recognise it. Also, the Tamil-origin Bishops and priests in Jaffna, Trincomali etc do not pay any heed to it. In any case their targets are the Tamils of the North. The entire Tamil Eelam movement, right from its inception to the LTTE until its wiping out in 2009, was actively supported, if not sponsored, by the Church in Jaffna. It continues to control the Tamil National Alliance leadership – a group of parties that essentially represents the Tamils of the North and East.

The BBS is opposed to Christian conversions also. But so far the BBS has maintained that Hindus and Buddhists of the country should work together on these issues. Recent anti-Sri Lanka campaign in Tamil Nadu and unfortunate attacks on two Buddhist monks in Chennai, which were very widely and vividly discussed in Sri Lankan media, were enough for this body to turn heat on India and Tamils. Fortunately that didn’t happen. BBS restricted itself to marching in a procession to the Indian High Commission in Colombo and submitting a memorandum. But the risk remains.

So far, the issues raked up by the BBS are worthy of active and sympathetic consideration. BBS is able to capture the attention of the Buddhist population of Sri Lanka. This may lead to tensions between the Muslims and Sinhalese there. Naturally any such tensions in the neighbourhood will be a matter of concern for India too. After Myanmar and Bangladesh anti-Muslim campaign in Sri Lanka is certainly causing concern to our intelligence agencies too.

We should not prohibit Demonstrations but charge for the national losses 

March 2nd, 2017

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Yesterday I was passing by the road way in front of President’s office and noted some  union members of Tamil community  holding demonstrations. By 12 noon I was going back and police was trying control another group of people holding placards protesting about something else . Doctors and some medical staff were demonstrating in front Gampaha railway station inconveniencing the public.

We see that it is daily occurrence in our life

We also  heard that  under the principles of Yahaplanaya ,government is planning to allocate certain designated areas for Demo’s  in order to minimize the inconvenience to the public .We all know that there is massive loss to the country because of loss of man hours of  working people and over consumption of fuel due to traffic jams caused  by road blocks .

There is a solution to avoid or minimize the losses if we carry out following

Government should do a simple calculation of 500-1000 vehicles which burn fuel ( i,e 10 litres per vehicle for 2 hours costing 1500 Rs per vehicle and for 1000 vehicles cost will be Rs 1,500,000 )  .Loss of productive man-hours  ( i.e  3000 people at Rs 200 per manhour costing Rs 400×3000 = Rs  1,200.000 )

Total loss  is minimum  Rs 2,700,000 /= without considering the cost of police force and water used for  cannons !) .You may add  another 2,300,000 Rs for maintaining law order including filing action against violators of public peace)

Total cost of one single demonstration for two hours will be 5 million Rs and if one carry on demo  for 10 hours in will cost 50 million Rs to the country .

My golden suggestion is allow registered unions or political parties to hold demos other than in designated  areas and impose a charge of 5 million Rs for two hours –say in Lipton Circle or  Lotus round about .This amount should be paid to National Development fund.Total contribution to  the national  development  fund for a month will exceed  one billion Rupees.  ( unions  and parties can hold demo’s free during weekends !)

Unions may have to increase membership fees for members including party members to cover the payment charges for holding demo’s !!

I am sure this action by the government will be praised by IMF and World Bank .ADB ,OECF .JAICA etc rather than increasing taxes and price of essential goods .

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on his Mission to Sri Lanka, from 29 April to 7 May 2016

March 2nd, 2017

The Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva

 Human Rights Council

34th Regular Session

 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on his Mission to Sri Lanka, from 29 April to 7 May 2016

 Presented under the Agenda Item 3,

Clustered Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders

Statement by

H.E. Mr. Ravinatha P. Aryasinha

Ambassador / Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka

(Geneva, 2 March 2017)

Clustered Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

2 March 2017

Mr President

As this Council is aware, since the January 2015 Presidential Election and August 2015 Parliamentary Election, the National Unity Government in Sri Lanka pursues a policy of frank and active engagement with the UN and its systems and procedures. It is our firm belief that such engagement and deliberation will help us identify the problems and challenges faced in human rights and related areas, thereby enabling us to find solutions to problems, to ensure that we take the steps that are necessary for the promotion and protection of rights of all in our country. It also helps us identify specific areas where we require technical assistance for capacity building.

In keeping with this policy, in December 2015, Sri Lanka extended a standing invitation to all Special Procedures Mandate Holders.

We were accordingly pleased to have received the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as well as the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers on a joint visit from 29 April – 7 May 2016, at the invitation of the Government.

In addition to the visit of these two Special Rapporteurs, Sri Lanka also received the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances from 9 – 18 November 2015 and the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues from 10 – 20 October 2016.

These visits reflect the Government’s commitment to address, in all sincerity, its obligations to the people of Sri Lanka with respect to the promotion and protection of their human rights.

In keeping with our commitment to transparency and honest engagement, the Special Rapporteur on Torture was granted unrestricted and unhindered access to all places that he wished to visit, and practically all the meetings requested, were secured. The Special Rapporteur and his team had unrestricted access to all places of detention and unimpeded access to meet with detainees in private, in any part of the country. We are extremely pleased that the Special Rapporteur has acknowledged this in his Report and we wish to continue this level and nature of engagement with all Special Rapporteurs who visit our country.

We are also pleased that the Report has acknowledged the positive developments that have taken place in Sri Lanka since January 2015. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, a few days ago, on 28th February, addressing this Council, elaborated on some of the steps that have been taken by the Government towards the promotion and protection of human rights in the country, and the process of reconciliation. On the specific matter of incidence of torture, the National Unity Government is firm in its commitment to a zero-tolerance policy on torture, which was demonstrated by the participation of the President’s participation in a walk against torture organised by the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka last year. The Minister, giving voice to the Government’s approach in this regard, stressed that even one incident of torture is one too many.

Mr. President,

We take note of the Report submitted by the outgoing Special Rapporteur, to this Council, on his visit to the country, at an important transformative time in Sri Lanka. We are studying the Report with due diligence. Our end objective and aim is to prevent and combat torture and we are committed to taking steps towards this end. In seeking a comprehensive approach to address issues raised, we have drafted, through a wide-ranging consultative process, the National Human Rights Action Plan 2017-2021, which has been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in January. Apart from that, we are currently in the process of deliberating on establishing an effective mechanism for constant and continuous follow-up and implementation of recommendations by Special Procedures and other human rights mechanisms.

Some of the steps taken so far include the following:

  • Issuance of directions, in June 2016, by the President, who is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and Minister of Defence, requiring the Armed Forces and the Police to,

(1) ensure that fundamental rights of persons arrested or detained are respected and that such persons are treated humanely; and

(2) assist and facilitate the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka to exercise and perform its powers, functions and duties.

  • Depositing a Declaration with the UN Secretary-General under Article 22 of the Convention Against Torture in August 2016. This allows Sri Lanka to participate in the communication procedure of the Committee Against Torture;
  • In February 2015, the Parliament unanimously enacted the Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act. The Ministry of Justice has established a Committee to undertake a review of all the provisions of this Act and to recommend amendments based on that review;
  • In keeping with its pledge to the people to uphold, promote and protect the human rights of all, and in accordance with international treaty obligations, the Government approved a National Human Rights Action Plan for the period 2017-2021. Prevention of Torture is one of the thematic areas of focus in the Action Plan;
  • The Right to Information Act that was approved by Parliament on 24 June came into effect on 3rd February this year;
  • The Cabinet of Ministers approved an Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code providing for a suspect to have access to legal counsel.
  • Following the visit of the Special Rapporteur, a Committee was established in July 2016 by the Ministry of Law and Order to visit / examine and take preventive measures on allegations of torture,
  • requiring the Police to forward a monthly report to the Committee in respect of torture cases reported to the Police during each month;
  • providing tools, mechanisms, methodologies in order to enhance the capacity to investigate and trace scientific evidence;
  • providing suggestions and recommendations to improve the skills of investigation officers on modern investigation methods;
  • adopting best-practices and modern methodologies followed by police forces elsewhere;
  • studying the sociological and psychological factors that lead to the practice of torture; and
  • implementation of a monitoring mechanism to prevent torture

Experts on torture prevention, representatives of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, the Attorney-General’s Department, and senior members of the Sri Lanka Police are on this Committee.

The ICRC in Sri Lanka has been granted access and visits persons detained in prisons, based on a MoU between the ICRC and the Government. This Agreement primarily focuses on persons held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. However, in practice, Sri Lankan authorities have provided broader access to all detainees held in places of detention.

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka receives complaints; conducts investigations pertaining to incidents of torture; regularly monitors activities in places of detention, and makes recommendations. Pursuant to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed in April 2015, the Commission has been strengthened further as an independent institution. With a view to facilitating the effective discharge of its functions, the Government has taken steps to increase the resources allocated to the Commission, with Rs. 192 million allocated for 2017.

Towards facilitating the investigation of allegations of torture, we would be grateful for further information being provided to the Government to ensure investigation and justice.

In the context of the concern raised by the Special Rapporteur in para 15 of his report regarding the definition of torture, we wish to inform that there is a clear jurisprudence in Sri Lanka where the Supreme Court, which is the Apex Court, observed that the definition of torture is sufficiently broad to cover the aspect of ‘suffering’ and that no ambiguity exists in that regard.

On the specific issue of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the draft policy and legislative framework for the Counter terrorism Act was approved by the Cabinet in January 2017. It seeks to effectively and comprehensively respond to contemporary manifestations and threats of terrorism, consistent with principles of democracy, good governance and the rule of law. The role and contributions of the UN Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED, OHCHR and UNODC were useful in this regard and we appreciate their contributions. The Government expects to continue its collaboration on technical assistance with the CTED as the work on the draft counter terrorism legislation progresses.

Mr. President

The issue of arrest of suspects by the TID – those arrested are produced before the JMO within 24 hours and a report is obtained. Similarly, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, the ICRC Sri Lanka, and the Next of Kin are informed of the custody.

Prison overcrowding is an issue that has seized our attention very much in recent times, as work is being carried out to introduce a new Prison Administration Act. Further, a new circular that was issued encourages sending more prisoners to the Open Prison Camp to reduce overcrowding.

At present, in line with the relevant 2007 Government Gazette, three detention centres are being maintained, namely, in Colombo, Boossa, and Vavuniya.

A Policy Framework and National Plan of Action to address Sexual and Gender–based Violence (NPoA) was officially launched in November 2016 to provide a holistic policy guideline and to comprehensively address the issue of violence against women through a three-pronged approach of prevention, intervention and policy advocacy.

Mr. President

Consistent with the HRC resolution 30/1, the Government continues to make progress on the reconciliation mechanisms. The Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms handed over its report to the Government in January, and this report is presently being studied with respect to designing mechanisms for truth-seeking, justice, reparation and other steps and processes related to reconciliation.

The Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (SCRM) is consulting experts and is working on obtaining the required training and capacity building for all the relevant mechanisms. In all these processes, the Government works closely and in consultation with the United Nations system and the OHCHR as well as other international organizations and bilateral partners.

Mr. President,

We consider Human Rights mechanisms of value to all Member States. We reiterate our commitment to continue cooperation with the Human Rights Special Procedures Mandate Holders in the spirit of open and constructive engagement, for the benefit of the people of our country.

Thank you.

බැදුම්කරේ බැදුම්කරේ කොයි බද යන්නේ,?

March 1st, 2017

චන්ද්‍රසේන පණ්ඩිතගේ විසිනි

“අසුචි දුර්ගන්ධය සම්බන්ධව ඌරාට පැමිණිලි කලා වගෙයි.” මේ අපේ දේශයට එකතුවූ අලුත්ම ප්‍රස්තා පිරුලයි. මේ ප්‍රස්තා පිරුලේ උපතට හේතුව වශයෙන් කියා සිටින්නේ, බෙල්ලන්විල රජමහ විහාරාධිපති සවාමින්වහන්සේ, සිරිසේන ජනාධිපතිතුමාට මහා බැංකුවේ බැදුම්කර වංචාව සම්බන්ධව ඉතා අප්‍රසන්න ලෙස උන්වහන්සේ තුලවූ පිළිකුල ප්‍රකාශ කිරීමත් සමගය. බෙල්ලන්විල රජමහා විහාරාධිපති ස්වාමින්වහන්සේ යනු මහා ඥාණාන්විත, කිසිදු දේශපාලන පක්ෂයක් වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී නොසිටින ඇසූ පිරු තැන් ඇති මහා සග රුවනකි. බුදු දහමින් පෝෂිතවූ උන්වහව්සේ, බුදු රජාණන්වහන්සේ විසින් දෙසා වදාළ ‘මහාචොරංග සුත්‍රය’ විසින් පෙන්වා දෙන මහා හොරුන් විසින් සිදු කරන කාර්යයන් සම්භන්ධව මනා දැනුමකින් පෝෂිත සග රුවනකි. තවද මහා හොරාගේ විනාශයේ ලක්ෂණ සම්බන්ධවත් ඒ තුලින් සමාජයට සිදුවෙන බලපෑමත් දනී. එම නිසා බෞද්ධ දේශනාවට අනුව මහා හොරෙකු විසින් නොකළ යුතු යයි දෙසා වදාල කරුණු අමු අමුවේ උල්ලංඝනය කරනු පෙනී පෙනීත් තව දුරටත් මුනිවත රැකිය නොහැකි වූ තැන, සිරිසේන ජනාධිපතිවරයා අමතා මේ මහා බැංකු බැදුම්කර මහා සොරකමේ නියැලී අයට සිය බලතල පාවිච්චි කොට දඩුවම් ලබාදීමට කටයුතු කරන මෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටියහ.

මේ රජය විනාශය කරාම  මෙහෙවන මේ බැදුම්කර වංචාව යනු කුමක්ද? මෙය මතුපිටින් අතගා එහි හැඩතල අවබෝධ කරගත හැකි දෙයක් නොවේ. බැදුම්කර වංචාවේ මුලාරම්භය පටන්ගන්නේ, 2015 ජනාධිපතිවරණය සම්බන්ධව ප්‍රකාශ කිරීමත් සමගය. මැතිවරණ සටන, ජනාධිපති අපේක්ෂකයා, හා මැතිවරණ සටනට අවැසි මුදල් හා මේ මහ බැදුම්කර වංචාව තුලින් උපයාගත් මුදල් අතර ඇති දේශපාලන ඥාතිත්වය කුමක්දැයි පළමුව අවබෝධ කරගත යුතුය.

මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ යනු ජාතික හා ජාත්‍යන්තර වශයෙන් ප්‍රබල චරිතයකි. මේ චරිතය ශ්‍රී ලංකා ධරණී තලයෙන් ගැලව මුලිනුදුරා දැමීම ලෙහෙසි පහසු කටයුත්තක් නොවන බව බටහිර අධිරාජ්‍යවාදීන් අවබෝධ කර ගෙන සිටියහ. නමුත් ඔවුන් තුලවූ අත්දැකීම් කන්දරාව,තුල ජන මනස මෙහෙයවන ආකාරය සම්බන්ධව පරිපුර්ණ පාඩම් ගණනාවක්ම තිබුණි. මහා සෝවියට් දේශය බිද වැට්ටවූ අයට ශ්‍රී ලංකා රජයක් බිද වැට්ටවීමට උපාය මාර්ග නිර්මාණය කිරීම අපහසු කටයුත්තක්ද නොවේ. නමුත් එදා සෝවියට් දේශය බිද වට්ටවන සමයේ සිටි අමරිකව්වත්, යුරෝපයවත් මේ මැතිවරණය ප්‍රකාශ කරන සමයේ නොතිබිණි. වැහැරුණ ආර්ථිකයකින් යුතුව සිටි ,මේ බලවතුන්ට, මේ මැතිවරණයට වියදම් කිරීම සදහා කෂණිකව කෙටිකාලීනව ගෙවීමේ අපේක්ෂාවෙන් මුදල් රැස්කරන්නට සිදුවිය. ‘කෙක්කෙන් නැත්නම් කොක්කෙන් ‘ යයි සැලසුම් කරමින් විශාල මුදල් සම්බාරයක් මෙරට මැතිවරණ ව්‍යාපාරය සදහා යොදවන ලදී. මේ මැතිවරණය සදහා යොදවන ලද අති විශාල මුදල් සම්බාරය, නැවත ලාභාන්ශයක්ද සහිතව ගෙවිය යුතු බව මැතිවරණය මෙහෙයවූ අයත් මැතිවරණයට සහභාගිවූ අයත්  මානාව දැන සිටියහ. සටන ජයග්‍රහණයෙන් කෙළවරවූ පසු මුදල් අයකරගැනීමේ සැලසුම්ද විදේශීය මැතිවරණ සැලසුම් කරුවන් තුල විය. ඒ අනුව මැතිවරණ ජයග්‍රහණයෙන් පසු ඔවුන් විසින් අනුමත කරන ලද, ඔවුන්ගේම ඒජන්තවරයෙක් මහා බැංකු අධිපතිතුමා ලෙස පත් කිරීමට මෙරට බලධාරීන්ට සිදුවිය.

බැදුම්කර වංචාවේ මුලාරම්භය පටන්ගන්නේ, 2015 ජනාධිපතිවරණය සම්බන්ධව ප්‍රකාශ කිරීමත්  සමග බව අප සටහන් කළෙමු. මැතිවරණ සටන යනු යුද්ධයකි. රටක් හා රාජ්‍ය බලය අල්ලාගැනීමට, විශාල ධන සම්භාරයක් අවශ්‍යවේ. ජනාධිපති අපේක්ෂකයා, දුප්පත් ගොවියෙකුගේ පුතෙක්වූ විට, රටපුරාම මැතිවරණ ව්‍යාපාරය සිදුකරන්නේ කොහොමද? මෙය බරපතල ගැටලුවකි. මහා රජෙක්වන්වූ මහා වංශවත් පවුලකට උරුම කම් ඇතිව සිටි එස්. ඩබ්ලිව්. ආර්. ඩී. බණ්ඩාරනායක මහතා 1956 මැතිවරණ ව්‍යාපාරය සදහා, එවකට කැලණිය රජමහා විහාරාධිපතිව සිටි මාපිටිගම බුද්ධරක්ඛිත ස්වමින්වන්සේගෙන්ද මුදල් ලබාගත්තා නම්, මේ දුප්පත්, පක්ෂයක්වත්, පක්ෂ කාර්යාලයක්වත් නැති ගොවි පුතා සිය මැතිවරණ ව්‍යාපාරය සිදුකලේ කෙසේද? ඒ මහා මුදල් කන්දරාව මෙරටට පොම්පකර ජනාධිපති අපේක්ෂකයාවද කුලියට ගන්න ලද්දේ, විදේශීය සංවිධාන ජාලයක් විසිනි.

2015 ජනවාරි මස 8 වෙනිදා මැතිවරණයෙන් ජයගත් සිරිසේන මහතා බලය ලබාගැනීම හේතුවෙන්, මෙරට ජනතාව නොදැනුවත්වම, තවත් ණය බරකට යටවිය. ඒ සිරිසේන මහතාගේ මැතිවරණය සදහා වියදම් කල විදේශීය ආයතන විසින් යොදවන ලද මුදල් වල බරයි. මේ අනුව කාලාන්තරයක් මුළුල්ලේ විවිධ රජයන් විසින් මෙරට සංවර්ධන ක්‍රියාවලින් සදහා ලබාගන්නා ලද ණය මුදල් වලට සිරිසේනගේ මැතිවරණ වියදම්ද බැරකර මෙරට ජනතාවගේ හිසමත තවත් ඇති විශාල බරක් පටවන ලදී.  මේ මුදල් ඉතා කෙටිකාලින පදනමකින් ලබා ගැනීමේ කොන්දෙසිමත ලබාදෙන මුදල් බැවින්, බලය ලබාගත් වහාම ඒවා යලි ගෙවා දැමීම කළයුතුව තිබිණි. ඒවා ගෙවිය යුතු ආකාරයද තීරණය කරන්නේ ණය දුන් ආයතන බැවින්, ජනාධිපතිතුමා ඔවුන්ගේ සේවකයකු බවට පත්ව ඔවුනගේ නියෝග ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන්නෙකුගේ තත්වයට පත්විය.

‘මා වැනි දිළින්දා 
වර වර හනික කැන්දා
මැතිවරණයට අන්දා
දමන නිරිදෝ වෙන කොයින්දා’

යයි සිතමින් සිරිසේන ජනාධිපති තනතුරේ වැජබෙන අතරේ ලෝක බලවතුන් තම සැලසුම ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන්නට පටන් ගති. සිරිසේන බලය ගෙන ක්ෂණයකින් ජාතන්තර හොර තක්කඩි රැල කඩා වැදුණේ මෙරට මහා භාණ්ඩාගාරය තුලටය. මේ වෙනතෙක්  මහා භාණ්ඩාගාරයේ අධිපති තේරීමේ බලය ඇත්තේ විදේශීය හොරුන් අතය. ජනාධිපතිවරණයට මහා ධනස්කන්දයක් වැයකළ විදේශීය බලමුළු මෙරට සැබෑ ආර්ථික මර්මස්තනයවූ මහා බැංකුවේ පාලනය සියතට ගැනීමත් සමග එහි පාලනය කිරීමේ වගකීම අර්ජුන් මහේන්ද්‍රන් මහතා අතට පත් කිරීමත් සමග මේ රට පාලනය කිරීමේ වගකීමද ඔහු වෙත පැවරිණි, රටේ සැබෑ බලතල ඇති පුද්ගලයා ඔහු බවට පත්වූ අතර, ඔහු ජනාධිපති බලයද ඉක්මවා කටයුතු කළහැකි චරිතයක් ලෙස ස්ථාපනය කර ඇත. ඇති විශේෂ මේ පුද්ගලයා නීතියටද ඉහලින් ස්ථාපිත කර ඇති බැවින් ඔහු ඉදිරියේ නිතිය නිකම්ම නිකම් වචනයක් පමණක් බව මෙරට සියලුම දේශපාලන බලධාරීන් දනී. මේ අධිපතිට ජනාධිපති බලතල ඉක්මවා යන බලයක් ඇති අතර ඔහුට අනුව රටේ සියලුම කටයුතු මෙහෙයවීමේ බල තලද ඇති බව සියල්ලන්ම වටහා ගත යුතුය. පළමු අධිපති ලෙස පත්කළ නියෝජිතයා, සියලු සංවර්ධන කටයුතු නවතා දමා ඒ මුදල් භාණ්ඩාගාරය තුල රදවා ගතහ. බදු මුදල් ඉහල දමා භාණ්ඩාගාරය පුරවගත්හ. රාජ්‍ය දේපල විකුණා දම ඒ මුදල්ද  රැස් කර ගත්හ. විදේශීය ආයතනවලින්ද හැකිතරම් ණය ගෙන, තව තවත් පුරවා ගත්හ. ඒ කිසිදු සතයක් මෙරට ජනතාවට උරුම නොකර විදේශීය මෙරට මැතිවරණය සදහා මුදල් සැපයු ආයතන වෙතට යන්නට සැලසුම කළහ. මේ වනවිට ශ්‍රී ලංකාව යනු ජාත්‍යන්තර හොරුන්ට අදායම් සපයන මහා ඉල්ලමක් බවට පත්ව ඇත. මේ රටේ මැතිවරණය වෙනුවෙන් මහා ධනස්කන්ධයක් සැපයු බලවේගයන්ම, මෙරට බලය අල්ලාගෙන බැදුම්කර හා වෙනත් ආකාරයන්ගෙන් මෙරට ජනතාවගේ මුදල් කොල්ලකාගෙන හිලරි ක්ලින්ටන්ලගේ මැතිවරණ ව්‍යපාරවලටද යොදවා ඇති අතර, මේ බැදුම්කර වංචාව පිටුපස සිටින්නේ, මේ වනවිට ඇමරිකානු ජනාධිපතිවරයාට එරෙහිව සටන් මෙහෙයවන බලවේගයන්ම වන අතර, රුසියානු ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් ප්‍රසිද්ධියේ නම් ගම ඇතිව සදහන් කරන හොර නඩයයි. මේ වනවිට මේ රට තුල බරපතල අර්බුදයක් ඇත. ඒ පාලකයින් ‘ගොරක යකා හා ‘ලුණු යකා ‘ බවට පත්වී මෙරට සම්පත් තරගයට මෙන් විදේශිකයින්ට උරුම කරදීමයි. ඒකාබද්ධ විපක්ෂයට කල හැකි හා කලයුතු කර්යය සම්භාරයක් ඉතිරිව තිබේ.  ජනතාව පෙළගැසී අවසන්ය. නායකත්වයේ හා සටන් කළමණාකාරිත්වයේ විශාල අඩුවක් තිබේ. ඉවසිලිමත්භාවය හා කාර්යක්ෂමතාවය අවැසිය. බිම් මට්ටම සම්බන්ධව සැලකිලිමත් විය යතුය. නව ජනතා සටනට අප සුභ පතමු.

අතිරේක විනාඩි 4 කින් මහ බැංකුවේ රුපියල් මිලියන 100 ක මගඩිය සිදු වුනේ මෙහෙමයි. කොමිසම නරඹපු වෙළදපොළේ පෙබරවාරි 27 මොකද වුනේ?  –  කීර්ති තෙන්නකෝන් කියයි

March 1st, 2017

මාධ්‍ය ඒකකය කැෆේ සංවිධානය

බැදුම්කර වංචාව විමර්ශනය සදහා පත් කොට ඇති කොමිසමේ සමාජිකයින් අද ශ්‍රී ලංකා මහ බැංකුවේ වෙන්දේසිය නිරීක්ෂණය කිරීම තුලින් ‘බැදුම්කර මගඩියේ’ එක් අන්තයක් පිළිබදව ඔවුනට මනා අවබෝධයක් ලැබෙන්නට ඇති බව විශ්වාස කළ හැකි යැයි කැෆේ සංවිධානයේ විධායක අධ්‍යක්ෂ කීර්ති තෙන්නකෝන් මහතා ගාල්ලේ අද පැවති පුවත්පත් සාකච්ඡාවක දී පැවසීය. 

එහිදී අදහස් දැක්වූ කීර්ති තෙන්නකෝන් මහතා

“මහ බැංකු බැදුම්කර වංචාවේ දී 2015 පෙබරවාරි 27 උදේ සිදු වූ දේ තුල බැදුම්කර වංචාවේ ප්‍රබලම සාක්ෂිය සැගවී තිබෙනවා.  මහ බැංකු වෙන්දේසියේ පරිගණක පද්ධතිය තවදුරටත් ලංසු ලබාගත නොහැකිව සාමාන්‍ය තත්වය යටතේ පෙ.ව. 11 ට ස්වයංක්‍රීයව වැසී යනවා.  නමුත්, ලංකා ඉතිහාසයේ විශාලතව මහ බැංකු මංකොල්ලය සිදු වූ දිනයේ පෙ.ව. 10.55 ට ලැබුණු දුරකථන ඇමතුමකින් මහ බැංකුවේ ස්වයංක්‍රීය පරිගණක පද්ධතිය තවත් විනාඩි 10 කට එනම් 11 සිට 11.10 දක්වා විවෘත කිරීමට නියෝගයක් ලැබෙනවා. “

එම නියෝගය ලැබුණු පසුව පෙ.ව. 11.04 ට එච්එස්බීසී බැංකුව මගින් රු. මිලියන 100 ක මුදලකට 12.5% කට මුදලක් සදහා ලංසුවක් ලැබුණා.  මෙය ඉතා වැදගත්.  මෙම බැංකුව දැනගෙන හිටියා නිශ්චිතව වෙනදා වගේ මහ බැංකුවේ ලංසු ගැනීම 11.00 ට ස්වයංක්‍රීයව අවසන් නොවන බව.  ඔවුන් දැනගෙන හිටියා අර හොර ගැසට් එකේ තියෙන අනුපාතයට (වෙනදා සාමාන්‍ය වෙළෙදපොල වටිනාකමට වඩා වැඩි පොළියකට) තමන්ට වාසි සහගත ගණුදෙණුවක් කළ හැකි බව. 

අද කොමිසමේ නිරීක්ෂණය තුල ඔවුන් පෙ.ව. 11 ට අවසන් වන ස්වයංක්‍රීයව ලංසු සදහා පරිගණක පද්ධතිය වැසී යන බව අනිවාර්යෙන්ම නිරීක්ෂයට කරන්නට ඇතැයි අපි විශ්වාස කරනවා.  මේ වන විටත් එදා පෙ.ව. 10.55 ට ලැබුණු දුරකථන ඇමතුමකින් ලංසු ගැනීම විනාඩි දහයකට දික් කර බවත් ඒ විනාඩි දහයෙන් විනාඩි 4 ක් තුල ලංකාවේ විශාලතම බැංකු මංකොල්ලයෙන් කොටසක් රු. මිලියන 100 ක ගණුදෙනුව සිදු වූ බව විගණකාධිපති හා කෝප් වාර්තාවන් හි සදහන් වෙනවා යැයි ද තෙන්නකෝන් මහතා පැවසීය.

අද අපට ඇති අභියෝගය මේ මංකොල්ල කෑ මුදල් නැවත මහ බැංකුවට ලබා ගන්නේ කෙසේද යන්නයි.  මේ මුදල් අයිති රටේ ජනතාවටයි.  ඒ සදහා අප ක්‍රියාත්මක විය යුතුව තිබෙනවා.  අප විශ්වාස කරනවා කොමිෂන් සභාවට එය කරන්න පුළුවන් වෙයි කියලා යැයි ද තෙන්නකෝන් මහතා පැවසීය.

මාධ්‍ය ඒකකය කැෆේ සංවිධානය 


Human rape by Colonial West – Perpetrators are now Preachers

February 28th, 2017

Shenali D Waduge

In this day of social media and the advent of information flow, Western countries and Western-government controlled UN are foolish to continue to project themselves as being morally above all others by making baseless allegations, refusing themselves to acknowledge and compensate their own crimes. Rape was a feature of conquest throughout colonial rule and all of the Western nations today pointing fingers had committed crimes far horrendous to what they presently allege against others. Today, EU-employees are churning reports ahead of UN sessions simply to tarnish the image of non-Western nations. The ritual is quite laughable given that these reports are all funded and authorized by the very countries who use the contents of the reports to declare their judgement. It is a pathetic display of how international justice systems continue to be biased and one-sided and calls upon all non-white nations not to accept and not to select western-worshipping stooges and puppets to be their representative at these international forums.

The world was at one time divided between Portugal and Spain. Later joined by France, UK and the Netherlands. Using Papal Bulls Terra Nullius (nobody’s land because they were no Christians) they seized inhabited lands and declared them ‘discovered’ and inflicted upon the natives unheard of and ruthless crimes. Rape was just one of the systematic abuses used.

Ronald Hyam says “the expansion of Europe was not only a matter of Christianity and Commerce it was also a matter of copulation & concubinage” adding that ‘sexual opportunities were seized with imperious confidence’ (Empire & Sexuality: The British Experience).

In the eyes of colonizers, Indian bodies were “dirty.” White Californians of the 1860s called Native people “the dirtiest lot of human beings on earth.” Civilizing non-whites became the “White Man’s Burden”.

Similarly, Missionaries came with the attitude that all things European were superior to all things African/Asian. Missionaries often failed to distinguish between Christian principles and those of the colonialists. They misused biblical passages.

Women revered by ancient civilizations had their place changed as a consequence of Christian colonial rule. The true history of Jesus Christ was whitewashed, in order to subjugate Black Africans and promote a European male patriarchy. The Victorian concept of women (being confined to the home) began to exclude women from religious, political, and socioeconomic systems all of which previously they had a major say.

Rape and sexual violence became a tool of colonial rule and its legacy continues in all of the post-colonial military interventions of the West. To hide these facts the West enjoys using the apparatus of NGOs, institutions, Missionaries, Charities funded by them to point fingers at others diverting blame from them.

Definition of rape has historically become twisted to favour the white man. It is no exaggeration. The legal system almost always concentrated on proving the innocence of the white males rather than the truth of what occurred. The reputations of the white men mattered more than justice to the victims. The legal system did not entertain versions of the non-white women which served a dual purpose of giving the psychological belief that there was no point in reporting. This became the eventual outcome. Indirect message to women was – do not waste time reporting rape against white men.

This was how the present pro-Western influenced legal system evolved. However, the scenario was the opposite if the perpetrator was a non-white male. The western legal system was one of racist bias. The system allowed the jury to entertain their personal opinions and bias against non-whites. The question we now ask is, what is the quantum of change from the system of original bias? That bias stemmed from the drilled notion that all non-whites were ‘Primitive’ ‘Savage’ and had to be ‘civilized’. The logic of white-man innocent & non-whites guilty revealed in ‘Britania prevails, and does so over a race that may be martial and powerful but is at base savage” (Vilbert) The thought of whites being even questioned for rape of indigenous women was viewed as hilarious. Such was the manner non-whites were mentally treated by the whites.

This gave birth to the superiority complex that lives on in people still – it was part of the colonial administration policy and remains neo-colonial policy of present governments too. So what is the real position of ‘equality’?

Statistical evidence is noteworthy. 2/3 men indicted for rape from 1700 to 1790 and sentenced to hang were blacks, Indians, foreigners or transients (Dayton) Moreover every material on colonial rule is written by the white man who was instrumental in deciding the laws & injustices or justices that prevailed. It was no different to the victor’s trial wherein none of the victors crimes went on trial but all of the loser’s crimes did. The court was by the victors, judged by victors and decisions given by victors!

Therefore, vis a vis the question of colonial rape – historically documented by whites, we seriously have to question the validity of them. Just as we today question the validity of the white-institution funded reports on rape accusing countries they wish to target.

What cannot be omitted from consideration is how entire communities were ‘created’ as a result of mass rape by white men upon indigenous women. No indigenous family would have readily sacrificed their daughters to satisfy the white man’s lust. The question consensual sex would never have existed – consent was not required and refusal meant dire consequences.

Therefore, all of the births as a result of forced sex upon indigenous women remains unaccounted and needs to be shamed. Yet, no white-ruled establishment or institution is even prepared to come to terms with these facts but the same institutions are ever ready to fund reports and make accusations of rape against others. We can no longer accept these double standards and hypocritical bias. Third World Leaders are foolish to accept these allegations until and unless the white man’s crimes are brought to the table first. They cannot simply escape putting forth the argument of these events being past times because when it comes to non-white crimes they pull out every argument they can devise to declare all others guilty.

A vicious circle of crimes ensued – not only were women raped, resulting in a mixed race, they were also kept as concubines, forced into prostitution, used as birthing children for money, enslaved for sex… how has that changed from a new trend of sex tourism where white men return to former colonials to satisfy their lust during their holiday breaks. Most of these men are married and are coming to spend 2 weeks with women in third world countries and it has become a lucrative venture!

The newspapers today accused of being fifth columnists too have a history. When reporting non-white crimes the article headings and bias are clearly visible. It was so during colonial rule and it remains so even now. Report by a Pennsylvania newspaper in 1736. Newspapers concretized the notion of racial bias then and it continues to do so now.

  • “Saturday last was tried here a Negro Man for Ravishing a White Woman near Derby, and is condemn’d to be hang’d”
  • “Last Thursday Night, one James Gale, a Taylor, was sent to our Goal, for committing a rape on the Body of a Child about six Years old.”

So who is guilty of racial identity and racial bias?

British newspapers printed various apparently eyewitness accounts of English women and girls being raped by Indian rebels, but with little physical evidence to support these accounts. Most of these accounts were found to be false. It presents a consistent picture with the charges being currently made.

To cover the crimes perpetrated by colonial rulers throughout the continents that they invaded and inhabited inclusive of the rapes committed are many. However, what needs to be said is that organized rape, systematic rape as part of colonial agenda began with these Western Christian European explorers and were encouraged by the Church for the victims were gullible converts all perfectly fitting the expansionist agenda. All of the systematic crimes committed by colonial ruling governments continue in fine-tuned measures by post-colonial western governments and the entities that cheered them like the newspapers, Church continue the exact same role even now. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves has the world really developed?

Of course, there are enough of fancy named organizations to deal with the victims but how honest are they? Moreover, are these not centres of crimes themselves. The Church has been accused of pedophilia and has been spending billions in court settlements. While, international bodies that are supposed to be neutral, unbiased and equal are everything but these as we can say with confidence that none of the white European crimes either pre-colonial or post-colonial have been given due sentence in the manner that these perpetrators go after non-European targets.

The hypocrisy of Western governments need to be exposed. Their crimes need to be challenged and brought out as many are either ignorant or do not wish to imagine that the white people they revere are capable of committing the crimes that they have under the slogan of ‘civilizing’ the non-white world.

පොදු න්‍යාය පත්‍ර නොමැති සභාග ආණ්ඩු

February 28th, 2017

මතුගම සෙනෙවිරුවන්

නිදහසින් පසු ලංකාවේ ආණ්ඩු බලය විවිධ පක්ෂ වල මූලිකත්වයෙන් හෙබවිණි.එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂයත් ශ්‍රී ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂයත් වරින් වර ආණ්ඩු බලය සිය මූලිකත්වයෙන් ගෙන ගියහ. නමුත් පණහේ දශකයෙන් පසු ශ්‍රී ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂය වශයෙන් එ.ජා.පයෙන් කැඩී වෙන් වී ගිය බලවේගය නිසා තනි ආණ්ඩුවක් පිහිටුවීම උදෙසා සභාග සෑදීමට ප්‍රධාන පක්ෂවලට සිදු විය.1956 මෙන්ම 1960වර්ෂයේද  එලෙසම 1965 හත් හවුල් ආණ්ඩුව මෙන්ම 1970 සමගි පෙරමුණද පසුව අනූව දශකයේ මෙන්ම 2000 න් අනතුරුව ඇතිවූ  හවුල් ආණ්ඩු වලින් සනාථ වූයේ සිංහල ජනතාව බෙදීමේ ප්‍රති විපාකයයි. මුල් කාලයේදී ප්‍රධාන පක්ෂයට එකතු වූ ප්‍රධාන පිළ වූයේ සමසමාජ පක්ෂයයි. නමුත් 1965 සිට එය ක්‍රමයෙන් වෙනස් විය. සමසමාජ පක්ෂය ක්‍රමයෙන් දුර්වල වන විට එම තැන ගත්තේ ද්‍රවිඩ එක්සත් පෙරමුණ තොන්ඩමන් ගේ වතු කම්කරු කොන්ග්‍රසය හෝ මුස්ලිම් කොන්ග්‍රසයයි.

         සභාගයන් පිහිටුවන්නේ ප්‍රජාතන්තුවාදී පිළිවෙතට ආණ්ඩු පිහිටුවන්නටයි. වැඩි බලයක් ප්‍රදර්ශනය කොට ආණ්ඩුවේ ප්‍රතිපත්ති වලට අනුව අණ පණත් සම්මත කර ගන්නටයි. ඛේදවාචකයට කරුණ නම් නිදහසින් පසු ආණේඩුක්‍රමය ගත් කිසිම පක්ෂයකට ස්ථාවර ජාතික ප්‍රතිපත්තියක් නොමැති වීමයි. ඔවුහු කාලීනව රටේ තත්ත්වයද ජාත්‍යන්තර තත්ත්වයද සැලකිල්ලට ගනිමින් ප්‍රතිපත්ති එහා මෙහා දෝලනය කළහ.සැබෑවටම ජාතික ප්‍රතපත්තියක් ශක්තිමත්ම ඇති කොට ගෙන ස්ථාවර ජාතික රජයයක් පිහුටුවීමට තිබූ අවස්ථා කීපයක් අපෙන් ගිලීහි ගොස් ඇත. එකක් නම් 1956 වසරයි. අනෙක නම් 1977 වසරයි. පසුව මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතාගේ යුධ ජයග්‍රහණයත් සමගම නැවත එම ස්ථාවර භාවය උදාවිය. එහෙත් සිදු නොවූ එකම දේ නම් ජාතික ප්‍රතිපත්තියකට පැමිණීමට නොහැකි වීමයි.

         1970 බිහිකර ගත් සමගි පෙරමුණ රජය ද සභාගයකි. සමසමාජය සමග ඇති කරගත් සභාගයකි.1965 -70 අතර කාලයේදී එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය ගෙනගිය දුරදාන්ත පාලනයෙන් කෝප ගැන්වුණු ජනතාව එ.ජා.ප.යඅන්ත පරාජයකට පත් කළහ.නමුත් 1975 දී ආචාර්ය එන්.එම්. සතු මුදල් අමාත්‍යංශය පවරා ගැනීමත් සමග එම සභාගය බිඳි වැටුණි.සිරිමා මැති ණියත් එන්.එම්. මුදල් ඇමතිවරයාද අවසානයේ එකිනෙකාට අවලාද කර ගැනීමේ තත්ත්වයකට ඇද වැටුණි. මෙයට හේතුව කුමක්ද.

         1970 සමගි පෙරමුණ රජය පත්වූ පසු එහි මුදල් අමාත්‍ය ධූරය ලබා ගත්තේ කලින් වූ එකඟතාවයකට අනුවය. ඇමතිකම්  අටක්ම ඉල්වා සිටියද  සම සමාජයට ලැබුණේ තුනක් පමණකි.මේ වන විට 1965 ආණ්ඩුව විසින් ජගත් මූල්‍ය අරමුදලේ කොන්දේසි පිළිගනිමින් හැත්තෑකෝටි තිසිහතර ලක්ෂයක් ණය ලබා ගෙන තිබුණි. මුදල් ඇමතිවරයාගේ ප්‍රමුඛ අරමුණ වූයේ භාණ්ඩාගාරය ශකිතිමත් කිරීමයි. ඔහුගේ ප්‍රථම අයවැය කතාවේදී මේ ගැන ඔහු සඳහන් කලදේ මෙහි බලහාලීම උචිතයයි සිතමි.

      එහිලා අප කළ යුතු පළමු කටයුත්ත අඩු ගණනේ පුනරාවර්තන වියදම් සම්බන්ධයෙන්වත් අය වැය පරතරය අහෝසි කිරීමට ක්‍රියා කිරීමයි. එදිනෙදා පුනරාවර්තන වියදම් සඳහා අවශ්‍ය මුදල් බදු මාර්ගයෙන් සොයා ගැනීම අප සතු දෙයක්. එසේම මූලික ප්‍රාග් ධන වියදම් සඳහා සහ අතිරේක ආදායමක් ද ලබා ගැනීමට අප ක්‍රියා කරන්නට ඔනෑ. හිඟ අයවැය ලේඛනයක් ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමත් උද්ධමනය ඇතිවී ඒ හා සමානව ඇති වන අනෙක් ස්වභාවික අන්තරාවන්ට මුහුණ පාන්නට වන බව අමුතුවෙන් කියන්න ඔනෑ නෑ.අප සතු දෙවන කාර්යය නම් අයවැයේ ඇති උද්ධමනය පාලනය කිරීමයි.එය කළ හැක්කේ සැම පොදු ජන කොටසක්ම ඇති තරම් මුදල් ඉතිරි කිරීමෙනි.

          ආචාර්ය එන්.එම්. පෙරේරා මහතා 1970 ඔක්තෝබර් 27 සිට නොවැම්බර් මද 03 දින දක්වා පරිවර්තන කාලයක් ලබා දෙමින්  රුපියල් පණහේ සහ 100 නෝට්ටු අවලංගු කලේය.මේ නිසා රාජ්‍ය බැංකු වලට ලැබුණු මුදල් ලක්ෂ ගණනකි. නිවෙස් වල එකතු කළ මුදල් මෙන්ම කළු සල්ලි ද බැංකු වට ඇදී එන්නට විය. මෙම ක්‍රමය මුදල් මගින් කරන ලද සූදුවකි. එයින් රජයට අවශ්‍ය මුදල් සංචිතයක් ලැබුණද ජනතාවගේ සිත් පෑරිණ.සමගි පෙරමුණ රජය හිතාමතා කළකිරවීමට ගත් උත්සාහයක් යැයි ඇතෙමෙක් සැක කළහ.මැතිණිය 1975 අගොස්තු මස 14 දින දී එන්.එම්ට එවන ලද ලියුමක මෙසේ සඳහන් විය.

        1970 මැතිවරණ ප්‍රකශනය සකස් කරන ලද අවස්ථාවේදී බැංකු ජනසතුව ඊට ඇතැලත් විය යුතුයයි ශ්‍රී ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂය විසින් යෝජනා කරන ලද බවද බැංකු අන්ක්‍රම වලින් පාලනය කළ හැකි නිසා එම විෂය ඇතුලත් කිරීම අනවශ්‍ය බව ඔබ සිතූ වගද එහෙත් පසුව අපගේ බලවත් ඉල්ලීම නිසා එය මැතිවරණ ප්‍රකාශනයට ඇතුලත් කිරීම ගැන ඔබ විරුද්ධ නොවුණ බවද මට පැහැදිලිව මතකය.එන්.එම් එයට දුන් පිළිතර මෙසේය.

       කෙසේ වෙතත් විදේශීය බැංකු ජනසතු කිරීමේ ප්‍රශ්ණය තරමක් පැහැදිලි කළ යුතුව තිබේ. සම්පූර්ණයෙන් රජය සතු බැංකු ක්‍රමයක් තිබීම අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම අවශ්‍ය යන්න ගැන මා තුළ කිසිවිටෙක කිසිම සැකයක් නොතිබූ බව පැහැදිලිවම කිව යුත්තකි. එහෙත් මා අදහස් කලේ වන්දි ගෙවීමක් නැතිව මෙය ඉටු කරන්නට පුළුවන් බවයි. විදේශීය බැංකු මගින් ප්‍රධාන වශයෙන් කරන්නේ මේ රටේ විදේශ වෙළෙදාමටත් වැවිලිකරයටත් මුදල් සැපයීමයි.අපේ ආර්ථිකයේ මේ අංශ දෙකම ජනසතු කිරීමෙන් විදේශීය බැංකු වල ගණු දෙනු වලින් වැඩි කොටස ඉබේම අපේ රාජ්‍ය බැංකු වලට මාරුවනු ඇත. එවිට වන්දි ගෙවීමේ ප්‍රශ්ණයයක් මතු නොවේ. තවද මෑතදී සම්මත කර ඇති නීති අනුව ශ්‍රී ලංකාව තුළ ගණු දෙනු කරන්නටත් දේපොළ අයිති කර ගන්නටත් අවසර ලැබෙන්නේ ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ඒකාබද්ධ කරන  ලද සමාගම් වලට පමණි. බැංකුවලට පමණක් විශේෂයක් කොට ඒවාට නීතිය බලනොපාන පරිදි ගෙනෙන යොජනා වලට මං දැඩි විරුද්ධත්වය පෑ බව ඔබ දන්නෙහිය.( මැතිනියනි මෙන්න ඇත්ත)

           පක්ෂ දෙකක නායකයන් දෙදෙනෙක් එකම විෂයයක් ගැන දැරූ අදහසින් ගම්‍ය වන්නේ කුමක්ද .ජාතික ප්‍රතිපත්තියකට අනුව ඔවුන් වැඩ නොකළ බවයි.වර්තමාන බැංකු බැඳුම්කර සිද්දියට සමාන නොවුවද 1969 දී ඇති වූ පී.එල්. 480 ප්‍රශ්ණය ගැනද මෙහිදී සඳහන් කළ යුතුය. 1969 පෙබරවාරි 17 දින මධ්‍යම බැංකුව විසින් භාණ්ඩාගාරයට බැර කළ 151 68 149 ශත 96 ක මුදලක් ඇමෙරිකානු තානාපති කාර්යාලය මගින් එදිනම හිටිහැටියේ වියදම් කිරීම ගැන එන්.එම්. මතු කළ ප්‍රශණය මගින් පැහැදිලි වූයේ එක්සත් ජාතික පක්ෂය දිනවීමට  සී.අයි.ඒ.කුමන්ත්‍රණයක් සිදු වූ බවයි.එන්.එම් එහිදී මෙසේද පවසා ඇත. මම පී.එල්. 480 ගැන අනතුරු ඇඟවීමක් කළාම පුදුම තත්ත්වයක් ඇතිවුණේ. මම තමයි (Complainant ) හෙවත් පැමිණිලිකරු අන්තිමේදී මැතිණිය මාව තමයි (accused) හෙවත් විත්තිකරු කලේ.ඇයි. ඇමෙරිකානු තානාපති මැතිණිය හමුවන්න ආවා.ඔහු කිව්ව ඔක්කොම දේ පිළිගත්තා.ඊට පසු මට කියනවා උඹ ළඟ තියෙන ලියකියවිලි එහෙම තියනවානම් එවාපන්.කියා.එහෙමද කරන්න තිබුණේ. වෑන් හොලන් ආවා නම් මාවත් ගෙන්නල සැකයක් තියෙනව නම් ඔහු ඉදිරිපිට එය තබන්න කියන එක නේද යුතුකම.

    සැබවින්ම එම ප්‍රශ්ණය දඩමීමා කරගෙන පක්ෂ දෙක අතර අවලාද අඩ ගැසීම් සිදු වුවද ඇමරිකානු මැදිහත් වීම මත කළ කුමන්ත්‍රණය හෙළිදරව් වූයේ නැත.එහිදී ජාතික ප්‍රතිපත්තියක පිහිටා කටයුතු කලේ නම් පක්ෂ මතය කෙසේ වෙතත් රටට එරෙහි බලවේගයන්ට විරුද්ධව පියවර ගැනීමට තිබුණි. වත්මන් බැඳුම්කර සිද්දිය පිටිපසද හුදෙක් මුද්ල වංචාවක් පමණක් විය නොහැකිය.මහ බැංකු අධිපති පත් කිරීම. ඔහු අගමැති විසින් සෑම තැනකම ආරක්ෂා කිරීම ආදිය තීක්ෂණව විමර්ශනය කළහොත් පිටිපස සිටින්නේ ඔත්තුසේවාවන් බව පැහැදිලි වේ.ජාතික ආණ්ඩුවකැයි කියා ගන්නා වත්මන් සභාගයටද නැති එකම දේ ජාතික ප්‍රතිපත්තිය බැවින් ඔවුන් නැටවෙන්නේ විදෙස් ඔත්තුසේවාවල පදයට බව තේරුම් ගත හැකිය.සැබවින්ම.අතීතයේ සිදු වූ දේ නැවත නැවත සිදු වන්නේ රටේ මහත් අවාසනාවන්ත තත්ත්වයක් උඩය. අප එයටද පිළියම් යෙදිය යුතුය.

මතුගම සෙනෙවිරුවන්


February 28th, 2017

Dr Sarath Obeysekera

We  read daily about doctors going on strike with no compassion and kindness towards ordinary people .When you watch TV you could see poor people travel far to get treatment lamenting on OPD waiting for doctors to see them.

Today I was listening to the radio, and heard about wildlife officers on strike .An elephant after being shot on the leg was lying in a irrigation water tank and suffering for days as Wild life Vets were not prepared to rescue the poor animal .

Yesterday we heard about few thugs attacking a bus and indiscriminatingly gunning down prisoners.

Today I was being driven almost hit a three wheeler because he changed the lane unexpectedly and I put down the glass of the door and told him that he should not have done it, resulting barrage of abuse and showing readiness to do bodily harm to me and my driver .It was his fault and he was behaving like a non -human  ( I do not call him and animal because animals may be better than humans).

My conclusion is that the behaviour of ruling class is so repugnant and inconsiderate and people may be thinking “why  should we behave  differently “ ?


පිරිවෙන් ක්ෂේත්රයේ පැනනැගී ඇති ප්රධාන ගැටලූ 10 ක් විසඳා ගැනීම සඳහා ඉක්මන් සාකච්ඡාවක් ලබා ගැනීම

February 28th, 2017

වකමුල්ලේ උදිත හිමි සභාපතිලංකා පිිරිවෙන් ගුරුසේවා සංගමය.

අධ්‍යාප ලේකම්
සුනිල් හෙට්ටිආරච්චි මහතා
අධ්‍යාපන අමාත්‍යංශය
ඉසුරුපාය, බත්තරමුල්ල.

අධ්‍යාපන ලේකම් තුමනි,

පිරිවෙන් ක්‍ෂේත‍්‍රයේ පැනනැගී ඇති ප‍්‍රධාන ගැටලූ 10 ක් විසඳා ගැනීම සඳහා ඉක්මන් සාකච්ඡාවක් ලබා ගැනීම

පිරිවෙන් ක්‍ෂේත‍්‍රයේ මේ වන විට පැන නැගී ඇති ප‍්‍රධාන ගැටලූ රාශියක් පිළිබඳව ඔබතුමා ඇතුළු අදාළ බලධාරීන් සමග ඉක්මන් සාකච්ඡාවක් කොට විසඳා ගැනිමට අපි අපේක්‍ෂා කරන්නෙමු.

පිරිවෙන් ගුරුවරයාට හා පිරිවෙන් ආයතන වලටත්, පොදුවේ පිරිවෙන් ක්‍ෂේත‍්‍රයටත් බලපාන ගැටලූ විසඳා ගැනීම වෙනුවෙන් පිරිවෙන් ගුරුවරුන් විසින් ගොඩනගා ගත් පිරිවෙන් ක්‍ෂේත‍්‍රයේ එකම වෘත්තීය සමිතිය ලංකා පිරිවෙන් ගුරුසේවා සංගමයයි.

අපි සෑම විටම තනි තනිව ගැටලූ විසඳා ගන්නවා වෙනුවට පොදු ප‍්‍රශ්න පොදුවේ සාකච්ඡාකොට නිරාකරණය කරගැනීම වඩා ඵලදායී ක‍්‍රමය ලෙස විශ්වාස කරන්නෙමු. එබැවින් අභිනවයෙන් පත් වූ අධ්‍යාපන ලේකම්වරයා ලෙස ඔබතුමා සමගද වර්තමානයේ පිරිවෙන් ක්‍ෂේත‍්‍රයේ පැනනැගී ඇති ගැටලූ රාශියක් පිළිබඳව මෙසේ සාකච්ඡාකොට විසඳුම් ලබා ගැනීමට අපේක්‍ෂා කළෙමු. මින් සමහරක් ගැටලූ ඔබතුමාට පෙර සිටි ලේකම්වරුන්ටද ඉදිරිපත් කළ ඒවා බැවින් ඒවායේ ප‍්‍රගතිය පිළිබඳවද විමසාගත යුතුව ඇත. පොදුවේ සාකච්ඡාවේ පහසුව සඳහා පවත්නා ගැටලූ මෙසේ අංකනය කර දක්වන්නෙමු.

  1. විශ‍්‍රාම වැටුප සඳහා පරිවේණාචාර්ය මූලික වැටුපෙන් 12%ක් අයකර ගැනීම

(මෙය අද වන විට පිිරිවෙන් ගුරුවරයාට බලපා ඇති ප‍්‍රධාන ගැටලූවකි. ගුරුසේවයට සමාන්තර සේවයක් ලෙස පරිවේණාචාර්ය සේවය තහවුරු කර ඇතත් විශ‍්‍රාම වැටුප් හිමිකර දීමේදී දෙ ආකාරයකට කටයුතු කරයි. මේ සම්බන්ධව අවස්ථා ගණනාවකදී හිටපු ලේකම්වරු සමග මෙන්ම අමාත්‍යවරු සමගද සාකච්ඡාකර ඇත. කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලයට ඉදිරිපත්කොට තීන්දුවක් ලබාදිමට එකඟ වුණි.)

  1. පරිවේණාධිපති සේවය ස්ථාපිත නොකිරීම

(පරිවේණාචාර්ය සේවය කි‍්‍රයාත්මක වීමත් සමග කි‍්‍රයාත්මක කරනවා යැයි කියූ පරිවේණාධිපති සේවය මේ දක්වා ස්ථාපිත කොට නැත. විදුහල්පති සේවයට සමාන්තර ලෙස පරිවේණාධිපති සේවය ස්ථාපිත කරන බව පූර්ව බලධාරීන් කොතෙකුත් කියා සිටියද පරිවේණාචාර්ය සේවයට අදාළ පරිවේණාධිපති සේවය වසර 19 ක් තිස්සේ මේ දක්වා ස්ථාපිතකොට නැත.)

  1. පාරිවේණාචාර්යවරුන්ගේ හිඟ වැටුප් ගැටලූව
  1. පිරිවෙන් පනත නොසලකා කැබිනට් පති‍්‍රකා හා ඇමති බලතල පදනම් කරගත් ක‍්‍රමේද අනුගමනය කිරීම විසින් ඇතිවී තිබෙන ගැටලූ
  1. 2016 අය වැය තුළින් ලබාදීමට පොරොන්දු වූ ශිෂ්‍ය දීමනා පිළිබඳ ගැටලූව
  1. වෘත්තීය සමිති කි‍්‍රයාකාරිත්වය සඳහා ආයතන සංග‍්‍රහයේ ඇති ප‍්‍රතිපාදන නොසලකා පිිරිවෙන් බලධාරීන් කටයුතු කිරීම
  1. පිරිවෙන් අධ්‍යක්‍ෂවරයාගේ අනුමැතියෙන් තොරව විවිධ සංවිධාන පුහුණු වැඩමුළු හා රැස්වීම් පැවැත්වීම හා ඒවාට නිවාඩු අනුමත කරගැනීමේදි පැන නැගී ඇති ගැටලූ
  1. පිරිවෙන් ඒකකයේ බලතල විවිධ පුද්ගලයින් විසින් අක‍්‍රමවත් ලෙස භාවිතා කිරීම මගින් අණකිරීම් හා නියෝග නිකුත්කිරීම
  1. 4/5 ශ්‍රේණි සඳහා අලූතින් හඳුන්වා දී ඇති විභාග ක‍්‍රමය පදනම් කරගත් ගැටලූ
  1. වෙනත්

මෙම ගැටලූ කඩිනමින් විසඳා ගතයුතු බැවින් නොපමාව දිනයක් ලබාදී ප‍්‍රතිඵලදායක සාකච්ඡාවක් සඳහා පහසුකම් සලසනු ඇතැයි උදක් අපේක්‍ෂා කරන්නෙම


වකමුල්ලේ උදිත හිමි

සභාපතිලංකා පිිරිවෙන් ගුරුසේවා සංගමය

Optimal versus Stable strategies in the politics of devolution

February 28th, 2017

R Chandrasoma

In the study of the dynamics of complex systems a distinction is made between outcomes that are ‘optimal’ and those that are ‘stable’. The ‘optimal state’ is that which is most rewarding for all parties concerned. Unfortunately in many realistic situations, optimal states are unstable as they are vulnerable to ‘attacks’ from competing and potentially destructive options. The good they confer is fragile in the sense that they lower the threshold for organized disruption.  Once overthrown, the damaging fall-out can be disastrous. In contrast, a stable strategy confers fewer benefits initially but has the capacity to withstand buffeting from destabilizing influences that threaten to destroy it. It is the preferred option if the long-term well-being of all is the goal.

In essentials, political strategies are no different in dynamical structure from those studied abstractly in such domains as ‘game theory’ and evolutionary ecology. A political settlement (a strategy in the abstract sense) may be wonderfully acceptable to all communities in that it initially maximizes  social benefits while also removing all restrictions on civic freedoms in the name of a truly participatory democracy.  The moot question is whether the good times will last. Since dissent can grow unchecked, a ‘fissiparous’ and undemocratic counterforce will surely usurp the lax democracy that gave birth to it. In brief, the ‘optimal’ will be destabilized and ousted by an invasive and vigorous ‘parasitic’ option that is far from desirable.

Let us take the case of the ‘options’ (or strategies) open in the political settlement of the ‘ethnic’ North-East imbroglio. The conventional wisdom based on naïve politico-legal thinking is that the maximum devolution of power within a de-militarized ‘federal’ set-up is the best option. This is certainly the ‘optimal’ arrangement = but it has a grave weakness in that it is inherently unstable and defenseless against subversion. Fissiparous tendencies will arise and will develop unchecked. In technical jargon, separatism (or ethnic chauvinism) is an ‘attractor’ to minorities and goodwill alone has no power to thwart this dangerous tendency. An attractor is a stable state that (in this instance) is far less than optimal but is a ‘basin’ into which optimal states are perilously prone to fall. Given this ever-present danger, a ‘stable’ solution for the political problems of the North-East must be resolutely unitary. Federalism must be rejected not because it is intrinsically bad but because the danger of separatism lurks in the background as a potent political attractor = especially so given the sad history of this region.  Indeed, it is the very opposite of de-militarization that is the need of the hour. The permanent stationing of troops in strategic locations in the North-East is a sine qua non for long-term political stability. This is a ‘defensive manoeuvre’ in the sense that it a forced option to ensure political stability.

Needless to say these safeguards must be coupled with a determined effort at national integration based on a shared culture and a consensual history effectuated through education and acculturation. There is no better way of doing this than through the compulsory study of the national language Sinhala (as a second language) in areas where Tamil is the mother tongue. These moves may be seen initially as hegemonic impositions undemocratically forced on the minorities by the victorious Sinhala majority. This is a short term and myopic view. The long term benefits will result in the forging of a single nation within a full and participatory democracy that sees no distinctions between races. More importantly, such politic realignments will remove forever the recrudescence of that lethal social pathology associated with the name of Prabhakaran.

වෛද්‍ය දයානාත් රණතුංග ; අපේ කාලයේ සමාජ ක්‍රියාකාරිකයා

February 28th, 2017

 වෛද් රුවන් එම් ජයතුංග

වෛද්‍ය  දයානාත් රණතුංග මා මුලින්ම හඳුනා ගත්තේ එක්දහස් නවසිය අනූව දශකයේ අග භාගයේදීය​. එවකට ඔහු ඉන්ටර්න්වරයෙකු වූ අතර මම ඔහුගේ ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ වෛද්‍ය නිලධාරී වූයෙමි. 

සීමාවාසික වෛද්‍යවරයෙකු කාලයේ සිටම මම ඔහු සතු වූ සන්නිවේදන කුසලතාවයන් නිරීක්‍ෂණය කලෙමි. එසේම ඔහු රෝගීන් විශයෙහි ඉතා සංවේදී වෛද්‍යවරයෙකු විය​. 

වෛද්‍ය  දයානාත් රණතුංග සිය මුලික වෛද්‍ය අධ්‍යාපනය පේරදෙණිය වෛද්‍ය පීඨයෙන් ලබා ගත් අතර ඉන් පසුව වෙනත් දිශාවකට යොමුවෙමින් කැලණිය විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයෙන් ජනසන්නිවේදනය පිළිබඳවත් කොලඹ විශ්ව විද්‍යාලයෙන් සමාජ විද්‍යාව පිළිබඳවත් ප්ශ්චාත් උපාධි පාඨමාලා  හදාරනු ලැබිය. ඔහුගේ භූමිකාව වඩා ප්‍රචලිත වනුයේ වෛද්‍යවරයෙකුට වඩා සමාජයෙන් කොන් කරන ලද  ප්‍රජාවන් වෙනුවෙන් ක්‍රියාකරන සමාජ ක්‍රියාකාරිකයෙකු ලෙසය. 

2005 වසරේදී එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ සංවිධානයට සමග සම්බන්ධ වන ඔහු 2016 මැද එම සංවිධානයෙන් ඉවත් වනවිට එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ ඒඩ්ස්  පිලිබඳ ඒකාබද්ධ වැඩසටහනේ ප්‍රධානියා ලෙස කටයුතු කරමින් සිටියේය. වර්තමානයේ ඔහු ස්වාධීන  සමාජ ක්‍රියාකාරිකයෙකු ලෙස ක්‍රියාත්මකවේ. 

ලිංගිකත්වය ගැන ප්‍රසිද්ධියේ කතා කිරීමට මැලිවන සහ ලිංගික වෘත්තීන් වල නිරත වන පුද්ගලයන් කොන් කරන  සමාජයක මෙවන් කතිකාවක් ගොඩනැගීම ඉතා අසීරු සහ අවධානම් ක්‍රියාවකි. එවන් පරිසරයක ඔහු ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ප්‍රථම ලිංගික වෘත්තිකයන් ගේ  සංවිධානය බිහිකිරීමට පුරෝගමි වන අතර එවකට එක් ජාතික පුවත්  පතක් මගින්  සිය දේශපාලන අවශ්‍යතාවයන් මත සමාජයට නිරාවරණය කරන ලද සාමකාමී ප්‍රජාවගේ සංවිධානයක් වෙනත් ස්වරූපයකින් ස්ථාපිත කිරීමටද  මුල් විය. ඊට අමතරව HIV සමග ජීවත්වන කාන්තාවන්ගේ සංවිධානයක් ආරම්භ කිරීමටත් වෛද්‍ය  දයානාත් ප්‍රමුඛ විය. 

HIV නිසා සිදුවන මානව හිමිකම් කඩවීම් පිළිබඳව නිරතුරුව පෙනිසිටිමින් සමාජ කතිකාවක් ගොඩනැගීමට ඔහු නිරතුව දායක වූ අතර කුලියාපිටිය සිසුවාගේ අධ්‍යාපන අයිතිය සුරැකීමට ඔහුගේ මැදිහත්වීම අමතක කල නොහැක. ඊට පාදක වූ ශ්‍රේෂ්ටධිකරණය තීන්දුව HIV බලපෑමට  හසුවූ පුද්ගලයින්ගේ අධ්‍යාපන අයිතිය උදෙසා වූ ආසියාවේ ප්‍රථම නඩු තීන්දුව බවට සැලකේ. ගෝලීය අරමුදල ලෝක බැංකුව සහ එකසත් ජාතීන්ගේ සංවිධානය හරහා HIV නිවාරණ වැඩ සටහන් සහ මුල්‍යමය සහ තාක්ෂණික ආධාර ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට ලබාගැනීමට ඔහු මහගු සේවයක් ඉටු කළේය. ඔහු දැනටත් HIV සහ ප්‍රජනන සෞඛ්‍යය  අධ්‍යාපනය වෙනුවෙන් හඬනගන සමාජ ක්‍රියාකාරිකයෙකුද ලෙස ලාංකීය සමාජයට සේවය කරමින්. සිටියි.

 වෛද්‍ය රුවන් එම් ජයතුංග 

Dr Wijewardena points out glaring omission in CBSL bond scam probes

February 28th, 2017

by Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

Former Senior Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) Dr W. A. Wijewardena, on Monday (Feb. 27), alleged that even two years after the mega bond scam the government hadn’t conducted a thorough investigation to ascertain how primary dealer Perpetual Treasuries had received prior information as regards the CBSL’s last minute decision to issue treasury bonds to the value of Rs. 20 bn in spite of its initial call for bids for only Rs 1 bn worth of 30-year treasury bonds.


Dr. Wijewardena stressed that Perpetual Treasuries had been privy to information that hadn’t been available to other primary dealers.

Addressing a gathering at the launch of Rusiripala Tennekone’s Bedumkara Andaraya (The Tale of the Bond Scam) at the Mihikatha Medura, BMICH, the civil society activist said the CBSL had offered Rs. 1 bn worth of 30-year treasury bonds with a fixed interest rate of 12.5% to the market and then sold bonds to the tune of Rs. 10 billion, 10 times the original offer.

Stressing that the CBSL had never experienced a similar situation before, Dr. Wijewardena, who served the institution for nearly four decades, alleged that it failed to secure funds required by the government under terms favourable to the country. There couldn’t be any other responsibility far more important than obtaining required funds at the lowest interest rates possible, he said.

Recalling the leadership given by Governor A. S. Jayawardena to the CBSL, Dr. Wijewardena explained specific measures taken at that time to prevent a group of primary dealers from driving up the interest rates to their advantage at the expense of the national economy. ASJ had introduced those measures in 1997.

Dr. Wijewardena said that Rusiripala had revealed the period from Feb 23 to Feb 27 afternoon a la Agatha Christie. Rusiripala alleged Governor Arjuna Mahendran’s intervention on behalf of Perpetual Treasuries and the spirited but the unsuccessful effort made by the Superintendent of the Public Debt Department to thwart the move.

Mahendran had done something unprecedented Dr. Wijewardena said, adding that he had entered the room where the auction was being conducted. The retired CB Deputy Governor insisted that except for those who had been assigned the task no one else could enter that room. The Governor had no right whatsoever to enter that room, Dr Wijewardena said, noting that he hadn’t entered that room during his 37-year career.

Explaining the circumstances under which Mahendran had reduced his decision to issue treasury bonds to the value of Rs 20 bn to Rs 10 bn, the former Central Banker said that by 3 pm, on February 27, 2015, the entire market was aware of the sordid operation though the government ignored the unprecedented crisis.

The Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) had suffered massive losses due to Feb 27, 2015 bond scam, Dr. Wijewardena said, adding that those who perpetrated the fraud had made a killing at the expense of the workers’ fund.

Noting that the alleged fraud had caused irreparable damage to the CBSL, Dr Wijewardena asserted that the failure on the part of the government to act swiftly and decisively had certainly contributed to rapid loss of CBSL’s reputation in the eyes international investors. He attributed Sri Lanka’s failure to attract foreign direct investment as well as large scale shifting of funds from foreign reserves to the CBSL fraud.

Referring to latest available figures, Dr Wijewardena urged the government to act resolutely at least now. Drastic measures were required to restore investor confidence, Dr. Wijewardena said.

Iron Ladies to the fore

February 28th, 2017

Editorial The Island

The belated yet welcome presidential probe into the bond scams has taken a dramatic turn with the surfacing of a mystery gazette, on the sale of Treasury bonds, published with former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s name thereon nearly two years after his defeat in Jan. 2015. The government has, true to form, sought to defend the indefensible.

President Maithripala Sirisena has been praised for the special bond probe. But, the fact remains that he sided with the bond thieves in 2015 for political expediency. He dissolved Parliament and thereby thwarted an attempt by the COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises) headed by veteran leftist, D. E. W. Gunasekera, to present a damning report on the bond thefts to the national legislature. The President, desperate to queer the pitch for Mahinda Rajapaksa and ensure the UNP’s victory, did not want the COPE findings published before the last general election.

President Sirisena then went on to deprive Gunasekera of a National List slot in Parliament in a bid to silence the latter’s voice. Such action antithetical to good governance was unbecoming of a leader who had sought and secured a popular mandate to rid the country of bribery and corruption.

It was to atone for his sin that President Sirisena subsequently refused to reappoint Arjuna Mahendran as the Central Bank Governor and went so far as to set up a presidential inquiry into the bond scams. The onus is on him to ensure that the bond thieves won’t be able to go scot free and the colossal losses suffered by the Employees’ Provident Fund etc due to their scams will be recovered.

The credit for blowing the lid off the biggest ever financial fraud should go to several intrepid public officials who chose to be on the side of the truth even at the risk of incurring the wrath of the powers that be and being hounded out of their jobs. They have been at the receiving end of many a vilification campaign carried out by the hirelings of the ruling party politicians. It is a pity that some UNP MPs’ despicable attempts to frighten Central Bank officials including a woman into submission at COPE meeting by shouting at them menacingly were not condemned by the champions of women’s rights. Their barks did not yield the desired result and the officials concerned stood their ground. These men and women who gave evidence against the bond thieves are real heroes and heroines. But for them, the bond scams would have been swept under the carpet. They deserve public plaudits.

Former COPE Chairman D. E. W. Gunasekera, speaking at a ceremony where a book on bond scams, titled, Bandumkara Andaraya (‘The tale of bond scams’), was launched at the BMICH on Monday, paid a glowing tribute to Acting Government Printer Gangani Kalpana Liyanage. He said she had courageously revealed the truth about the above-mentioned mystery gazette, craftily issued by some government politicians and their bureaucratic lackeys after the conclusion of the second COPE probe into the bond scams. They may not have expected a presidential inquiry. He also praised former Superintendent of the Public Debt Department of the Central Bank Deepa Seneviratne for a note which had foiled bond thieves’ attempt to claim that Mahendran had acted on Monetary Board recommendation when he went for the controversial bond auction. Auditor General Gamini Wijesinghe, another intrepid public official who made some conceited UNP MPs eat humble pie at COPE meetings, has also praised her.

The country should be proud of these two Iron Ladies who have stood up to the corrupt and the powerful in the name of public interest. The International Women’s Day is around the corner. Every year, on this day, lip service is paid to empowering women, bringing about gender equality etc. Politicians wax eloquent on women’s role in achieving national progress and the need to recognise and safeguard their rights. We suggest that Gangani and Deepa be felicitated on March 08 for their outstanding contribution to the country’s battle against corruption.

උඹට ආගමක් නෑ, උඹට කොණ්ඩයක් නෑ, උඹට මොලයක් නෑ.. රන්ජන්-ඉන්දික දිවුලපිටියේ මහ සභාවක ගැටේ..රන්ජන් කණ පිරෙන්නම අහගනී..ගුටි පෝරියල් එක නූලෙන් වරදී..[Video]

February 28th, 2017

ලංකා සී නිවුස්

දිවුලපිටියේ පස් කැපීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් දිවුලපිටිය ප‍්‍රාදේශීය කමිටු රැස්වීවේදී නියෝජ්‍ය ඇමති රන්ජන් රාමනායක සහ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත‍්‍රී ඉන්දික අනුරුද්ද අතර ඉතා උණුසුම් වචන හුවමාරුවක් ඇති විය.

ගුටි බැට හුවමාරුවක් වැලකී ගියේ අසල සිටි පිරිස් විසින් වැලකු නිසාය.

බලපොරොත්තු නොවූ ලෙස මන්ත‍්‍රී ඉන්දික අනුරුද්ද පුටුවෙන් නැගිට නියෝජ්‍ය ඇමතිවරයා වෙත පනිද්දී ඔහු අඩියෙන් අඩිය පසුබා ගියේය.

ඉන්දික අනුරුද්ද මන්ත‍්‍රීවරයා පිරිස විසින් අල්ලා නොගත්තේ නම් රන්ජන් රාමනායක මහතා ස්ථිර වශයෙන්ම ගුටි කෑමට ලක්වෙනු ඇති බව එහි සිටි රාජ්‍ය නිලධාරීහු කීහ.


රවිගේ අභියෝගය සතුටින් භාරගන්නවා – මහින්ද රාජපක්‌ෂ

February 28th, 2017

නෝමන් පලිහවඩන උපුටා ගැන්ම දිවයින

බැඳුම්කර ගැසට්‌ පත්‍රයට තමාගේ නම හොරෙන් ඇතුළත් කිරීමේ සිද්ධිය පිළිබඳව හැකිනම් නඩු පවරන ලෙස මුදල් ඇමැති රවී කරුණානායක මහතා කරන අභියෝගය ඉතාමත් සතුටින් භාර ගන්නා බව හිටපු ජනපති මහින්ද රාජපක්‌ෂ මහතා “දිවයින”ට ඊයේ (28දා) පැවැසීය.


බැඳුම්කර ගැසට්‌ පත්‍රය සිය නම හොරට යොදා ගැනීම පිළිබඳ තමාට පමණක්‌ නොව මුළුරටේම ජනතාවට නීතිය හමුවට යා හැකි බව පැවසූ හිටපු ජනාධිපතිවරයා ඊට හේතුව මුදල් ප්‍රශ්න පොදුවේ සියලු ජනතාවට බලපාන නිසා බවද කීය.

හිටපු ජනාධිපතිවරයා වැඩිදුරටත් මෙසේද පැවැසීය.

අද මෙම ප්‍රශ්න මුළු රටේම ආන්දෝලනයට ලක්‌වෙනවා දියතලාවේ සිට අද හෙටම කොළඹ පැමිණි විගස මේ පිළිබඳව නීතිඥවරුන් සමඟ සාකච්ඡා කරනවා. මෙම ප්‍රශ්නය පිළිබඳව නීතිය හමුවට යන ලෙසට අභියෝග කර ඵලක්‌ නැහැ. මම එම අභියෝගය ඉතාමත් සතුටින් භාරගන්නවා.

Abandoned soldiers of a forgotten war!

February 28th, 2017


The disabled servicemen have taken to the streets in protests yet again. This would make it their fourth attempt to get a proper pension. One would have thought an issue for disabled servicemen to take to the streets would be volatile enough to make the government shake in their shoes.

Men without limbs, some prostrate in makeshift beds, have all the sensation media craves. Men who have lost their limbs fighting a war that ravaged the country for 30 years have all the fodder for the Opposition to have a field day. Yet, from the media to politicians to civil groups, there is mostly silence.

At the time of writing this article, these men have been protesting for 12 days and fasting for 7 days with three hospitalized in critical condition. So far, there has been no discernible response from the government. It looks like this time too these war heroes will eventually have to pack their prosthetic limbs and camp beds and go home with nothing more than another empty promise. Hopefully though, this time they will be able to go home sans the water jets and tear gas.

The war ended in May 2009. However, before 2010 dawned, we could not decide who should get the credit for ending the war against terrorism. One camp firmly believed the war could not have been won without the political leadership of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The other camp believed with equal firmness, that credit belongs to the then General Sarath Fonseka. For all the charisma former President Rajapaksa exudes and the great military strategist Field Marshall Fonseka proved himself to be, they could not put the country back together again. The deep divisions created then, remains to date.

Many to claim credit for victory

By 2015, President Rajapaksa’s predecessor Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga had claimed credit for 75 percent of the victory. She very categorically explained that the 2009 victory was the cumulative result of hers and her predecessors’ efforts.

Her successor merely finished off the tail end of a war the others had more or less sorted.

According to one time Jathika Hela Urumaya heavyweight, Ven. Rathana Thera, the credit belongs to them. He explains that, had they not marched to Manidasakulam in protest against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam closing the Marvil Oya anicut and pressured the Rajapaksa Administration to take military action, then, this problem would never have got solved. Hence, the victory belongs to them.

After the 2015 Geneva Session, President Maithripala Sirisena was hailed as the hero who saved our war heroes from being tarnished as war criminals. The incumbent government is univocal in their assertion that their efforts are to safeguard the reputation of our military.

Yet, these disabled soldiers are alone today. If they thought that civilian support will make up for the political lacunae, they have found to their cost that they were mistaken. The authorities at the Fort Railway Station are very concerned that this protest will inconvenience the commuters. They have thus taken their concern to the Police. Accordingly, the Fort Police requested from the Fort Magistrate, Lanka Jayaratna to avoid the public nuisance and disturbance that might be caused by this protest. Magistrate Jayaratna in turn ruled that the protesters may protest peacefully in a manner that would not obstruct the pedestrians.

It is of course a very fair ruling and cannot be faulted at all. Nevertheless, this whole episode makes one wonder the values this society upholds. The obliviousness of all is despicable enough. However, it is the concern of the railway authorities and the request made by the Police that leave an odd aftertaste to the affair. Perhaps it is the wordings such as, “inconvenience the commuters”, “public nuisance” and “disturbance” that in this instance puts law at odds with morality.

Fort Railway authorities ought to remember

These are not ordinary protesters. These men are disabled because they fought against a deadly terrorist organization – the LTTE. More than anyone else, the Fort Railway authorities ought to know the viciousness of the enemy they fought. After all, it was exactly nine years ago on 3rd February 2008, that an LTTE suicide bomber rocked the place by blasting a bomb in a commuter train, stopped at this very station. A female cadre got down from a train and blasted the bomb during rush hour, killing 12 – including eight school children from D.S. Senanayake College’s baseball team and their coach. Hundreds were injured.

That same year, on 26th May, another commuter train running from Colombo to Panadura was blasted in Dehiwela. That bomb killed nine and injured more than 65. Less than two weeks later, on 4th June, another bomb between the railway tracks blasted a packed commuter train between Dehiwela and Wellawatte Railway Stations, injuring at least 24 civilians.

Though the aforementioned bombings all took place in 2008,
the railway authorities have been living with the very possible bomb threats for much longer. The Dehiwela train bombing on 24th July 1996 is a case in point. It is one of the worst railway disasters we suffered. The LTTE stuffed four suitcases with explosives and left it in four separate compartments on the same train. They then blasted all four simultaneously during rush hour, killing 64 and injuring 400 civilians.

For a very long time, we lived in fear of crowded places, suspicious of strangers, especially if they bore unusual scars and panicked at the sight of unattended parcels/luggage.

Families refused to travel together. Mothers would wait by the school gates to escort the child back home. Arriving home after a day’s work was not a guarantee. Rigorous security measures were forced to be adapted that inconvenienced the commuters greatly. However, all bore it with great fortitude. The railway authorities were really living a terrible nightmare. The popular adage then was, we have to be lucky a million times, terrorists only once.

Today, we have none of those concerns. Obviously, our safety is guaranteed to such an extent that we have taken it for granted.

So much so, that we have forgotten the hard battles we had to fight or the sacrifices that were made. It is these sacrifices that are now translated into disabled men.

They were once ‘whole’ men

They were not always disabled. They were once ‘whole’ men, who went to the battlefield in their prime, because that was what the fierceness of the fighting required. Those who opted to the civilian life, like the Railway authorities who are today concerned about the commuters’ convenience, continued to progress with their careers. These servicemen however had their careers cut short as they lost their limbs.

The double whammy for them is that according to military practice established in 1920s, a soldier must enter into a 12-year contract upon completing his training. A soldier who serves lesser period will be entitled to his salary only until retirement at the age of 55 and thereupon a monthly allowance. Thus, as at 2015 a disabled soldier who is 55 or more was entitled to only Rs 12,500 to live on.

When this was brought to the attention of then administration, there were 2,295 military officers and 132 police officers whose careers were cut short before completing even 10 years of service. Thus, on 17th December 2014, a cabinet decision was taken to change the existing system and grant them their full pension. Unfortunately for them, the governments changed and this decision was not implemented.

These disabled servicemen thus began to agitate for the incumbent government to implement this decision. These agitations arose however, by design or otherwise, close to the 2015 general elections. The government moved quickly to promise action after elections.

However, afterwards, despite repeated discussions with relevant officials including Defence Secretary Eng. Karunasena Hettiarachchi and those at the Department of Pensions, the servicemen did not get the relief they sought. According to an interview given by Hettiarachchi to this newspaper on this topic on 13th November 2016, even President Sirisena participated in some of these discussions.

He explains, “We have given everything they had demanded during the protest except the pension. Minister of Agriculture Duminda Dissanayake and I met them near the Fort Railway Station and promised them to find a solution within three months.

We worked hard to meet their demand. In fact, we have had several round-table discussions with all the officials including those from the Department of Pensions to find a permanent solution.”

According to him, the second round of protests these servicemen had towards the end of July 2016 was when these discussions were in progress. That time however, when the protests continued to the following day, Minister Dissanayake gave them a written pledge from President Sirisena to resolve their issue within three months.

Written pledge from President not honoured

However, the government failed to communicate positively or otherwise on the progress though three months passed. Then, for the third time the servicemen took to the streets. This time however, the protest lasted from 31st October to 7th November. By the end, the highly emotionally charged men tried to walk into the Presidential Secretariat and were deterred with water cannons and tear gas. It was a shocking sight that the nation witnessed when the prosthetic limbs went flying off in all directions due to the force of the water jets. To make bad matters worse, a tear gas canister hit a serviceman already blind in one eye and caused such severe injuries to the other eye, that eye too was lost to him.

Though some members of the government were too moved to defend the action, Hettiarachchi was of the view, “It was purely a politically motivated protest. Members of the security forces are a highly trained and a disciplined lot. Certain forces have used the disabled soldiers to fulfil their petty political aims. Both the disabled soldiers and the political forces behind them know that they cannot stage such demonstrations within the high security zone. They were fully aware of the consequences if they started marching towards the Presidential Secretariat.

Police had to use force to prevent them from proceeding towards the Presidential Secretariat. The protesters did not obey the orders and proceeded further towards the Presidential Secretariat and the Police had to take drastic action.”

At the same time though, Hettiarachchi pledged to grant them their pension rights by February 2017. Accordingly, these servicemen became entitled to their pension. Yet, they are back in the streets protesting because they found the government had gone back on their word and had not calculated according to agreed formulae. This mostly affects those injured during the ’90s, whose basic salary was somewhere around Rs 2,000. Thus, as a pension they get a sum slightly more than Rs 1,500.

Perhaps the government is tripping over its own bureaucratic red tape. After all, we are famous for waiting for an issue to hit us to address it. That is why, until the disabled servicemen reached their retirement age, they did not address the gross injustice they were about to face. Perhaps, the government feels ‘giving in’ is tantamount to giving political mileage to politicians such as Udaya Gammanpila – one of the very few politicians to have made this his cause.

If these are indeed politically motivated protests, the government should fast track this issue and resolve it urgently and fairly.

Had that been done, those politically motivated entities would have lost their slogan as well as their power to use these men in dire and desperate circumstances as prey for their own purposes.

Either way, the question is not whether this is politically motivated. Justice must be served to these men. Just as they heeded the call to fight for our country, we must heed our duty and look after them as gods. The last thing we as a national should do is continue in our current path and ignore this very sensitive issue.

Controversy over appointment of High Court Judge: BASL President ties himself up in knots

February 28th, 2017

by C.A.Chandraprema Courtesy The Island

The controversy over the appointment of Ramanathan Kannan a lawyer practicing in the private bar as a High Court judge continued to rage last week. Members of the Judicial Services Association (JSA) carried out their threat to boycott the BASL election that was to be held on Tuesday last week. The members of the lower judiciary were to act as presiding officers at the elections of the BASL and the election could not be held without their participation and had to be postponed. Things have now become even more complicated with the BASL amending their constitution to be able to have their election of office bearers without the Judicial Services Association. Another dimension to this stand off between lawyers and judges of the lower judiciary is that Chief Justice K.Sripavan will be retiring at the end of this month on Tuesday.

Earlier, in informing the BASL of their decision to boycott the BASL election, the JSA had said that they would reconsider their decision provided the BASL fulfilled three conditions. The three conditions were that a) the BASL should officially and in writing confirm that they did not make any recommendation to appoint a High Court judge b) if someone had used the name of the BASL to make this recommendation they should inform the President and the Judicial Services Commission about this and c) that the BASL make a formal request that this decision be reversed and the said High Court judge dismissed from service.  Now the BASL has found a way to work around this problem without acceding to the demands made by the judges.


The Secretary of the BASL had in fact written to the JSA earlier on 16 February 2017 stating among other things that since the BASL had never been formally involved in recommending individuals for appointment to the judiciary, neither the Bar Council nor the Executive Committee of the BASL had been called upon to consider the appointment of Ramanathan Kannan for the position of High Court Judge. This letter also stated that the President of the BASL had explained to the Executive Committee that he had got a recommendation from the Head of the Batticaloa Bar Association stating that Mr Ramanathan Kannan be appointed a High Court judge and that this latter had been forwarded by him to the President, Chief Justice and the Minister of Justice back in September 2016. The reason why Kannan’s name had been proposed is because there was a dearth of Tamil speaking judges in the north and east and a lack of suitable candidates for such positions in the judicial service and the Attorney General was reluctant to release his officers for such appointments.

The BASL Secretary had further said that the BASL President had also explained that the President had appointed Kannan after receiving the necessary recommendations from the Judicial Services Commission and the Attorney General and that when appointments were made from the private bar to the judiciary, the executive consulted the ‘leaders of the bar’ and that the Bar Council and the Executive Committee of the BASL had never considered recommendations for judicial appointment. This letter by the BASL Secretary Amal Randeniya made it clear that the BASL as a body had not been involved in recommending Mr Kannan for judicial appointment but that certain individuals such as the President of the Batticaloa Bar Association and the President of the BASL Geoffrey Alagaratnam had made the recommendation to the President and the JSC. Randeniya seems to suggest that there was nothing wrong in the rest of the BASL being in the dark with regard to this because neither the Bar Council nor the BASL Exco had been previously involved in making such recommendations.

Appointing buddies to the bench

Last Sunday, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa put out a statement to the media about this controversial judicial appointment where he had stated among other things that the accepted practice in this country is that virtually all the judges serving on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court are promoted to those positions through the ranks of the judicial service or to a lesser extent, the Attorney General’s Department. On very rare occasions past governments had appointed eminent members of the private bar as Supreme Court judges and that former CJ Neville Samarakoon and Justice Mark Fernando came into the Supreme Court in that manner. MR stated that in the nine years that he was President, he had appointed only one Supreme Court judge from the private bar and not a single member of the private bar had been appointed to either the Court of Appeal or the High Court by his government.

Rajapaksa had also made the point that the Bar Association of Sri Lanka has no constitutional, legal or moral right to make recommendations for the appointment of judges and that if the private bar is given the power to recommend the appointment of judges, that would corrupt the entire justice system with judges being dependent on the lawyers appearing before them for promotions and appointments. He charged that some office bearers of the Bar Association had played a major role in toppling his government in 2015 and the yahapalana authorities have been trying to reward them by giving them the power to appoint judges despite the damage that this will do to the entire legal system.

If we look at the contents of BASL Secretary Amal Randeniya’s letter of 16 February 2017 in the light of MR’s subsequent statement, several points that should be carefully pondered emerge. Firstly, Ramanathan Kannan’s name had been suggested to the BASL President Geoffrey Alagaratnam by the President of the Batticaloa Bar Association. In a video interview with Adaderana, Alagaratnam says he did not know Kannan at all before that. Based on the recommendation of the President of the Batticaloa Bar Assn, Alagaratnam had forwarded it to the President and the Judicial Services Commission. So the prime mover in this matter is the President of the Batticaloa Bar Association. The President of the Batticaloa Bar Asociation is a lawyer engaged in private practice. He recommends another lawyer engaged in private practice at the Batticaloa bar for appointment as a High Court judge. Thus the president of the Batticlaoa bar now has a tame High Court judge who is beholden to him.

As MR said in his media release, there is no doubt that such a process will lead to collusion and corruption within the justice system.  The Presidents of the Bar Associations in the towns across the country will recommend their buddies for appointment as judges and after a while, there will be anything but justice being dispensed by the judiciary. If a member of the private bar is to be appointed to the judiciary at all, it should never be done on the recommendation of that lawyer’s colleagues. Furthermore, if at all a judge is being appointed from the private bar it is best that such appointments be restricted to the Supreme Court. Judges of the Court of Appeal and the High Court are best appointed through promotion from the lower judiciary or the Attorney General’s Department. If highly respected members of the private bar are appointed to the Supreme Court, there is a better chance of those individuals seeking to act in an exemplary manner because the Supreme Court appointment will be the culmination of a distinguished career at the private bar for that individual. Those appointed to the Court of Appeal or the High Court from the private bar will not be lawyers at that level, and for them it will be a part of their career rather than a badge of honour.

Excuses for appointing Kannan

Be that as it may, members of the yahapalana coalition have gone into overdrive trying to justify the appointment of Ramanathan Kannan to the High Court.  Convenors of the NGO ‘Lawyers for Democracy’ Lal Wijenayake, K.S.Ratnavel and J.C.Weliamuna said in a press statement that there have been several appointments of private practitioners to the High Court from 1974 onwards, one of the recent appointments being that of Mr. S.Paramarajah during Chief Justice Sarath Silva’s tenure and that one of the reasons for appointing members of the private bar being the lack of Tamil-speaking judges. Lawyers for Democracy is silent on the recommendation made by the Judicial Services Association that the Vavuniya District Judge D.L.A.Manaf would be the best candidate for that position. Lawyers for Democracy go on to say that Kannan’s name had been proposed to the President ‘following the traditions’ upon nomination by the President of the Bar Association. Since when was it the ‘tradition’ for the President of the Bar Association to ‘nominate’ candidates for appointment to the higher judiciary?

Lawyers for Democracy has stated moreover that in their view, in appointing a practicing lawyer to the higher judiciary, views should be obtained only from the President of the Bar Association and not from its committees such as the Bar Council or the Executive Committee. If the whole Bar Council or the Executive Committee is involved there will be canvassing and open debate, compromising the nominee’s independence. The practice has always been for the President of the Bar Association to make such recommendations, whenever suitable candidates are proposed. In this instance, it is the present President of the BASL Geoffrey Alagaratnam who had moved in this matter. His predecessor played a key role in toppling the Rajapaksa government and was rewarded with the position of Chairman of the BOI. His predecessor was a sitting UNP MP and is now a minister. In such circumstances, getting the recommendations of the President of the BASL to appoint judges would be akin to obtaining nomination through a political party.

One of the biggest ironies in this whole episode is that it was Lanka e News that first broke the news of Ramanathan Kannan’s irregular appointment by publishing in full the six page letter written by the Judicial Services Association to the President asking for a reversal of this appointment. Thereafter however, LeN has been furiously paddling in the opposite direction and publishing article after article trying to justify Kannan’s appointment. One such article which was supposedly written by a former President of the Judicial Services Association (who has declined to reveal his name) has said among other things that the JSA which comprises of members of the lower judiciary must obtain the permission of the Judicial Services Commission before addressing a letter to anybody. Hence the letters relating to this matter sent by the Secretary of the JSA , without the authority of the JSC is absolutely illegal.

The purported retired judge who claims to have been a past President of the JSA has gone on to explain that  D.L.A. Manaf  the district judge of Vavuniya whose name has been recommended by the JSA was not appointed owing to a prior wrong committed by him. According to this anonymous article, Manaf had held the post of member of the Eastern University Council without obtaining the permission of the JSC and during his tenure on the council, he had dismissed a University employee and also heard that case in court to sack the employee. This constitutes serious miscarriage of justice. What is significant is that even though this has been said of Manaf in an anonymous article on a website operated from overseas, no one who has been commenting on this matter has brought up this argument of Manaf’s conduct which makes him unsuitable for appointment as a High Court Judge. If this allegation was true, a body like Lawyers for Democracy could have highlighted it to counter the argument put forward by the JSA. It might be useful for the JSA Secretary to issue a clarification for the information of the public whether there is any substance in this charge against Manaf.

Ranjith Keethi Tennakoon of the elections monitoring NGO CAFFE has been at the forefront of the campaign to justify the appointment of R.Kannan as a High Court Judge and he has put out several media releases on this subject since the matter came out into the open. On 12 February Tennakoon put out a release stating that it was a common practice to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and High Cout from outside the judicial service and he said that Judges like Mark Fernando, Shirani Bandaranayake, Dr A.R.B. Amarasinghe, Priyantha Jayawardene, Prasanna Jayawardene, Suresh Chandran and Upali de Z Gunawardene had received their appointments in that manner.  Five days later on 17 February Tennakoon put out another media release stating that the judiciary should be strengthened by recruiting qualified judges to avoid delays in the dispensation of justice.

In this media release Tennakoon had taken Prof G.L.Peiris to task for saying that R.Kannan had been appointed on the recommendations of a political party. He argued that the President had made this appointment after obtaining the necessary recommendations from the Judicial Services Commission and the Attorney General and that it is necessary to appoint suitable judges to clear the backlog of cases in the courts system. Last Wednesday, the beleaguered President of the BASL Geoffery Alagaratnam himself came out with a media release explaining his role in this affair. Alagaratnam had argued that for over a year, representations had been made by lawyers that there was an acute shortage of High Court Judges in the Northern and Eastern Provinces conversant in the Tamil language resulting in a backlog and delay in the disposal of cases.

There was a serious shortage of Tamil speaking career judges senior enough to be promoted to the High Court said Alagaratnam and claimed that even the Attorney General’s Department was unwilling to release its officers conversant in the Tamil language for such appointments due to its heavy reliance on its very few Tamil officers. Consequently, the Chief Justice himself had suggested that if members of the Unofficial Bar were willing to give up their practice and offer themselves for such appointment the same will be considered.

When lawyers appoint judges

Furthermore Alagaratnam said that there has never been a practice of either the Bar Council or the Executive Committee of the Bar Association or Branch Associations approving persons that are to be recommended for appointment to the judiciary and the practice has been to seek recommendations from the ‘leaders of the Bar’. In a vedioed interview with Adaderana Alagaratnam said that it will be ‘unethical’ for judicial appointments to go before the Bar Council or the executive Committee of the BASL because then ‘it will be like political campaigning’.  Those who defend the appointment of Ramanathan Kannan as a High Court judge have not been able to get their minds around the argument that members of the unofficial bar should not recommending the appointment of the judges who will be hearing their cases.

When the first draft of the 19th Amendment came out, it had a provision where the constitutional council would have to consult the BASL before appointing judges to the superior courts. This was removed from the final draft of the 19th amendment due to the outrage it caused. Despite that experience of having been shouted down once, this provision that the BASL should be consulted in appointing judges to the higher courts has once again made its appearance in the recommendations made by the Sub-committee on the Judiciary of the Constitutional Assembly. Now we see every apologist for the appointment of Kannan to the High Court taking it as one of the givens that the BASL or its President has a right to make recommendations for the appointment of judges.

Indeed they seem to using this very debate to try and impress upon the public that it was the most natural thing in the world for the President of the BASL to recommend the appointment of judges who will be hearing the cases he may appear for. Geofferey Alagaratnam has tied himself up in knots by trying to argue that only the President of the Bar Assoication should have the power to recommend candidates for appointment as judges and not the Bar Council or the Executive Committee of the BASL as that would give rise to canvassing for appointment. Even though he can understand that putting recommendations before the BASL executive committee will give rise to canvassing, he seems unable to understand that the private bar should never get involved in appointing judges.

Rajapakshe with the Rajapaksas?

Last Wednesday Ranjith Keerthi Tennakoon issued a rebuttal of the Media Release put out by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa about this controversial High Court appointment. This was mostly a recounting of the depredations committed against the judiciary by MR when he was President. In this media release, Tennakoon has lambasted the Minister of Justice Wijedasa Rajapakshe saying he was a close confidante of the Rajapaksa family. It was Minister Rajapakshe who had told the Judicial Services Association that Kannan had earlier been recommended to him by a certain political party for appointment as a High Court judge. The way to go about it would not be to heap opprobrium on the Justice Minister but to find out whether any political party had actually made such a recommendation to Wijedasa Rajapakshe.

It can be seen that despite the debate raging around this topic, the Justice Minister has not retracted what the Judicial Services Association said he had told them. Is it likely for a Minister of Justice to tell such a thing to an association that represents the entire lower judiciary in this country, if it was not true? Less than a month ago Ranjith Keerthi Tennakoon was agitating for the sacking of a newly recruited Magistrate with the first accusation on the petition that he sent in that regard to the Judicial Services Commission being that the Magistrate had given a false address on his application! Since Tennakoon applies such high standards of probity even to the lowest tier of the judiciary, it is certainly surprising that he does not see any flaws in the appointment of Kannan to the HC.

What is even most dangerous about Tennakoon’s press release is his suggestion that a Tamil High Court judge for the North would be better than a Muslim as requested by the JSA which had recommended D.L.A. Manaf. This ultimately seems to be what all this is about. It’s not sufficient for the judge to be Tamil speaking; he has also to be of Tamil ethnicity. Where will things end up if we start going down this slippery path? Since the majority of the population is Sinhalese, there will be no more Tamil chief justices. There is a Tamil-Muslim problem in the north no doubt as can be seen from the perpetual postponement of the Puthukudirippu and Maritimepattu Pradesheeya Sabha elections. But is the solution for that, to increase the compartmentalization of the communities living in this country?

Hang down your head in shame need not be Tom Dooley

February 27th, 2017

 By Gomin Dayasri Courtesy The Daily Mirror

Faults lie in keeping mum to suffer in silence: watching holders of high office thwart the law is a prime injustice uncontained. Do not take sprats on – when the whales are there for the asking. Most fear, understandably: few don’t. Come on guys, to the forefront.

The Constitution is crystal clear [Article 111 (2) (a)]. The President of Sri Lanka, on the recommendation of the JSC, makes the appointment of High Court judges. In doing so, it is imperative that the JSC consults the Attorney General (AG) and not others – including the President of the Bar Association [BASL] or private lawyers for good reason – as legal practitioners’ in courts can have a personal interest in such appointments. Objections arise under natural justice and the law of apparent bias.

The Chief Justice [CJ] has no role as an individual but has to act in unison with the JSC of which he
is a member and chairman. Neither can the President or Secretary of the BASL nor its members or any other person be consulted by relevant parties [JSC and AG] named in the Constitution in making the recommendation but ‘affected parties,’ like the Judicial Services Association [JSA] or the BASL can make representations if their members interest are affected like any member of the public, to a legitimate authority or courts.
Individuals or office bearers cannot participate in the process of making the recommendation at the invitation of the CJ, being contrary to law and is steeped with bias if an appointment is made accordingly.
If busybodies participate in the recommendation process, the appointment could be challenged on valid grounds.
Let me take on BASL President Geoffrey Alagaratnam P.C. at a Q&A session in the Daily Mirror ; placed the CJ in jeopardy, opening to charges of discrimination and acting contrary to the Constitution. If the CJ is unable to provide a reasonable explanation, deserve strictures but if the BASL President by his garrulous and flippant talk misquoted the CJ, must be exonerated comprehensively.

Poor Siripavan, a simple man with simple ways, may lose his public face unnecessarily, if the quotes remain uncorrected. Public presumption is that the contents therein are accurate until denied. The BASL has thereupon issued a sensible statement than its President, but does not exonerate the CJ or its President. Let me touch a single telling point among several other blunders [Example: Right not to hear the JSA if they have a grievance]. If Alagaratnam’s is correct, the CJ has acted in contrary to Article 111 (2) (a) of the Constitution, as it affects the future independence of the judiciary.
Long years of experience, judicial knowledge acquired, legal wisdom gathered and the judicial training of judges obtained, are overlooked by the JSC and a group of ‘ghosts’ unknown to the Constitution appear to play a major role in the recommendation of the named appointee [no fault or blame can be laid at his feet – an honourable member of the Bar] working behind the scenes as trusted friendly bearers of the CJ: such appointment fast tracks the new appointee to high/higher office ahead of the long-serving worthy members of the JSA. They have a grievance that need be ventilated and heard by a legitimate authority but in the words of Alagaratnam –“There is no requirement to discuss with the JSA… protest comes from a minority within.” Yet the action to boycott BASL polls is taken by the JSA. Arrogance is sometimes double barreled!
For brevity, let me take just a question and answer between a mature journalist and BASL President in the Daily Mirror  [22.2.2017] for comment. Quote:

Q) It is alleged that this recommendation too comes not from the BASL but from ‘certain individuals’ in it. If judges are being appointed at the behest of the BASL President, doesn’t this give a disproportionate degree of power to one individual? 
A) That is a naïve way of looking at it. We don’t assume the negatives. Look at the practice in the past. The CJ would consult the BASL President and others like Faiz Mustapha and Kanag Easwaran.
Who is naïve? Have the previous CJs acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution in consulting persons who are not required for consultation by the CJ alone to enable him to form a view? Two ‘wrongs’ don’t make a ‘right.’ Will such views result in an undue weightage in the final recommendation expressed in favour of a candidate, compiled on the private preferences of private lawyers – worse, it could be termed, views of ‘interested parties’ in presenting names/rejecting names for judicial appointment by legal practitioners appearing in courts?
Firstly, the Chief Justice is not the JSC [the body required by the Constitution to recommend], but a member among three where he presides. The JSC is a juristic body of persons not an individual named ‘CJ’ and such is not named in Article 111 (2) (a) at all. He must act as a person within the body of the JSC.  CJ should not arrogate the powers of the JSC to himself alone as held out by Alagaratnam.

“Sorry there is no place in the Constitution to give any right of hearing to Alagaratnam as the captain of the Bar in making recommendations”

In any event, the recommendations of High Court judges flow only from the JSC after consulting the AG. The CJ/JSC too can turn for advice or consultation with the AG; preferable to any favoured private lawyers of CJ’s own choice as recited by Alagaratnam.
Sorry there is no place in the Constitution to give any right of hearing to Alagaratnam as the captain of the Bar in making recommendations. It is the JSC that must consult the AG and not rely on the opinions of the CJ’s favoured Counsel. That is flawed – as the charmed circle of ‘friends of CJ’ can hold ‘personal interests’ in the recommendation and it is discriminatory conduct on the part of the CJ, if true. The framers of the Constitution left out the legal fraternity individually or collectively, in their wisdom, as there could be allegations of apparent bias. Don’t blame the Counsel consulted as they cannot decline to express an opinion if requested by a misled CJ who should know better not to consult a few or any practicing lawyer/s or Alagaratnam in making the recommendation. This is a lesson for the future judges to keep to the law and wise men elected to lead the Bar must be disciplined in their speech and maintain cordiality with the judiciary. We now live in a breakdown situation.
Secondly, where in the Constitution is there provision that gives the Chief Justice a right to consult two or more favoured Counsel of his choice in recommending the appointment of judges? That gives the impression, if Alagaratnam is accurate, the judicial officer nominated by the JSC is made after consulting Messer’s Mustapha and Kanga – Easwaran or Alagaratnam or any other Counsel at the whim and fancy of the CJ; unfair by other Counsel – senior, eminent and respected. Are they the ‘favoured few’ of the Chief Justice of that moment?
As an ordinary Counsel, I may have to raise the issue of natural justice if the CJ gives or has given discriminatory favoured hearings or judgments that are contrary to law to his favoured few Counsel, in view of the present developments.

Geoffrey Alagaratnam

CJ, in terms of the Constitution, is not entitled to consult parties that can have an interest in the final appointment, as the President of Sri Lanka is bound to follow the recommendation of the JSC unless for very good reasons. The CJ is certainly entitled to seek the opinion of suitable candidates from the AG or if in doubt of the proper procedure to interpret the Constitution with other learned judges in his own court (if he has confidence in them), rather than turn to private lawyers in whom he has lone faith on matters in the public domain that could in the public perception be deemed as interested parties.
Thirdly, as the CJ leaves the bench, it is sad to say, if true, leaving behind practices and precedents that need be deprecated unless the views expressed by Alagaratnam are erroneous. Nevertheless, CJ is in the epicenter of an unnecessary controversy, which a mature and sensible Bar Association President should have avoided to bring about at all cost.
Fourthly, CJ appears to give a hearing to the BASL President, notwithstanding he too is a lawyer in active practice in law and cannot be consulted by the CJ as it only the Attorney General and the JSC that can come into play in making the recommendation of a High Court judge.
In a nutshell, a justice must not engage in public acts with a personally trustworthy and friendly ‘group of lawyers’ in seeking opinions on matters related to justice, as he could always consult his fellow members in the Supreme or Appeal Courts if uncertain in the practice of the proper procedure to be adopted. Yet, the ‘party affected’ predominantly, JSA need not be consulted is the view expressed by Alagaratnam. That is a practice contrary to the law of writs, especially when the CJ is consulting parties unnamed in consultation whereas affected parties (JSA) are left in the lurch.
Any man learned in the art of law would have cautioned the CJ making nominations based on hearing the opinions of his ‘friends’ as being not the best practice to adhere.
Alagaratnam attempts to father a faulty precedent on previous CJs too, which is unfair by great CJs like Tennekone and Samarakone.

“Who is naïve? Have the previous CJs acted in a manner contrary to the Constitution in consulting persons who are not required for consultation by the CJ alone to enable him to form a view? Two ‘wrongs’ don’t make a ‘right’”

Fifthly, it gives the impression that some Counsel could be equated as potential ‘king makers’ and be so considered by the members of the judiciary/bar as have been in a favoured circle of the CJ for recommendations and promotions. An unfair advantage/disadvantage could accrue to them.
Are you fair, CJ or BASL President by other members of the association to give a message to the judiciary/litigants and public of just a few named members of the association as useful participants for judicial upward/downward mobility [causing embarrassment to such counsel too, as they might be the subject to unnecessary and improper controversy/ conduct/ antagonism among judges, members of the bar, litigants and the public].
Alagaratnam , if you were familiar with the Constitution, you could have saved the CJ by drawing attention to the law without embarrassing him in public by imputing wrong practices with your flippant words and placing him on an inappropriate pedestal.
There is something wrong somewhere as the CJ could gain valuable insights if he consulted his fellow judges – they would have read/interpreted the law and advised the CJ on the proper procedure, rather than rely on the wisdom of three wise men named and others, fortunately for them unnamed?
A new CJ is soon to be appointed, and the appointee should remember that he/she is not above the law: many forget this golden rule till reminded by society on retirement.

– See more at:–124607.html#sthash.e8wXidw4.dpuf

European Union must apologize for Human Zoos before preaching human rights!

February 27th, 2017

Shenali D Waduge

Anglo-American influenced UN is going after Japan on the issue of ‘comfort women’ which took place in World War 2 but the UN is not taking any action against the victims of the human zoos set up by Europeans well into the 1950s? Human zoos prevailed for over 100 years throughout Paris, Hamburg, Antwerp, Barcelona, London, Milan, and Warsaw. These humans were exhibits to some 300,000 Europeans! The World’s Fair, in 1889 had 28million Europeans come to watch 400 indigenous people! Some of these human zoos continue to the 21st century. How can Europe say racism is in the past! Why has there been no action against the primitiveness of putting the ‘primitive’ on display for entertainment? Is it because the perpetrators are white? Were these acts of racial superiority ever condemned and apologized? These same Europeans that kept humans in cages and have not apologized for their crimes accuse other nations of keeping people in ‘internment camps’ though they have never been given the treatment that the whites showed to the non-whites! This is what we would like to remind the European nations who have self-elevated themselves on a moral high-ground when clearly evidence of their crimes give them no reason to even use the words morals or ethics. All these gruesome acts are kept nicely hidden to project the notion of superiority. It is time the hypocrisies end.

Europeans paid to attend fairs where non-Europeans semi-naked or naked were put inside cages.

  • Columbus and Vespucci took back natives to Europe to parade their trophies.
  • In 1810 a 20 year old South African girl was transported to Europe and exhibited in cages – 4 years later she died. Her skeleton, sexual organs and brain were put on display at the Museum of Mankind in Paris. In 2002, President Nelson Mandela formally requested the repatriation of her remains.
  • An exhibition in Brussels in 1897 even included a sign reading, “Do not feed the Congolese. They have been fed.” This exhibition saw more than a BILLION attend between 1870 and 1940
  • In 1883 at the International Colonial and Export Exhibition in Amsterdam even the Ceylonese were put on display.

  • The 1900 World’s Fair
  • In 1906 the Bronx Zoo in New York City put a Congolese pygmy on display and forced to carry apes. The board outside the cage read “Age, 23 years. Height, 4 feet 11 inches. Weight, 103 pounds. Brought from the Kasai River, Congo Free State, South Central Africa, by Dr. Samuel P. Verner. Exhibited each afternoon during September.”
  • In 1906 the French built 6 different villages in Jardin d’Agronomie Tropicale displaying villages with natives from Madagascar, Indochine, Sudan, Congo, Tunisia and Morocco. 1million Europeans had come to view them from May-Oct 1907.
  • Between 1877 and 1912, approximately thirty ethnological exhibitions were presented at the Jardin zoologique d’acclimatation – in , 1889 Paris celebrated 100 years of “liberty, equality and fraternity.” !!!! (obviously none of these rights applied to non-whites)
  • Colonial Exhibitions in Marseilles (1906 and 1922)
  • The Paris exhibitions held in 1907 and 1931 saw 34million attend in 6 months. In 1896 Cincinnati Zoo had 100 Sioux Native Americans in a mock village at the zoo for three months.
  • The Brussels 1958 World’s Fair kept a Congolese village on display
  • In 1925, a display at Belle Vue Zoo in Manchester, England, was entitled “Cannibals” and featured black Africans depicted as savages
  • In 1994 – Nantes, France an Ivory Coast village was on display.
  • In 2005 – Germany’s Augsburg’s zoo too had humans on display
  • In August 2005, London Zoo also displayed humans wearing fig leaves,
  • In 2007, Adelaide Zoo housed people in a former ape enclosure

The white Europeans that laugh and ridicule others as ‘cannibals’ were themselves human eaters.

During the 1st Crusade in 1098 (Ma’arra is modern day Syria) an eyewitness had written “In Ma’arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled.” The chronicler Albert of Aix wrote “Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!”

In 1492 doctors of Pope Innocent VIII used vampire-like techniques on 3 young boys to enable the Pope to drink their blood. The boys and the Pope however died. Europeans made candles out of human fat even upto 1880s. King Charles II sipped a mix of human skull with alcohol! A French Franciscan monk made marmalade out of human blood.

The People Show – Human treated as Zoo exhibits


What is tragic is that India still continues the human zoos. What is ironical is that the Western newspapers sneer at India for it while totally ignoring that the West started the practice!

Human zoos were even on display in Brussels where the European Unions’ defacto capital lies. Britain and America continue to display in museums human remains that are human trophies of their massacres and subjugation of indigenous populations. “whose heads were decapitated by the colonial occupying force, were then dispatched to England, to signify British victory over, and subjugation of, the local population… surely, keeping decapitated heads as war trophies, in this day and age, in a national history museum, must rank among the highest forms of racist moral decadence, sadism and human insensitivity.” (Robert Mugabe)

What is shocking is that the human zoos were to make white people feel morally superior to blacks and justify their invasion and exploitation as well as showcase why the whites need to ‘civilize’ the victims. Sadism was such that the whites enjoyed viewing the bare-breasted women at low-priced tickets which gave viewers a respectable peep in a puritanical society that otherwise did not tolerate nudity.

The act of caging humans was calculated with intent to show that if let lose they are dangerous. This psychologically made people approve all types of extermination techniques used in the colonies. The millions of visitors that poured into watching these human zoos epitomized the psyche of the people themselves creating a demand-supply.

In turn the whites were made to feel that they were doing the blacks a service by employing them as slaves and allowing them to live on their land. These psychological impacts continues to exist whatever ‘equality’ is promoted. Racism never ended – it began and continues by the white race. Hard as it is to accept, this is the truth. Reactions by blacks though wrong, cannot come close to the treatment meted out to them by the white race over hundreds of years invading their lands, disturbing their way of life, their cultures, their traditions and forcibly instilling a culture that was foreign to them.

What is also interesting is that the ‘human rights activists’ are very selective in what they champion. While they can go back to Comfort Women and accuse the Japanese, they will not even think about demanding apology for the human zoos and the humiliation blacks/Asians were subject to, in front of an audience that went into millions of whites who probably are continuing to carry that racism.

So we again ask, what is this equality that the West is preaching about? Why are none of the White Crimes ever taken to the dock? These are no small or negligible crimes.

Colonial crimes that include taking over lands, murder of natives, destruction of livelihoods, genocide, rape, forced conversions, cultural genocide, artificial demarcation of lands & territories root of which present conflicts arise, divide and rule policies which again find roots to the present conflicts have never been allowed to be taken to the dock. Even when done the British govt has refused to accept court verdicts and UN puppet is silent.

Similarly, the current post World War incursions, illegal humanitarian interventions, covert acts of modern missionaries in the form of western government funded NGOs and the damage they do to countries are overlooked by the very governments that use the covert actions to bring other countries to task using the slogans – freedom, human rights, equality etc. The very slogans that the West flouts unabashedly for which none of their crimes are taken to any international court, the hypocrisy is that these very perpetrators claim themselves to be morally above all others.

The example of human zoos that continued even to the 21st century is a glaring example of that hypocrisy and showcases the puppet nature of the UN and its officials as well whose justice is selective and none of the Western crimes ever get taken to the dock while the criminals preach good governance to the rest of the world. Europe should feel ashamed.

Shenali D Waduge

Andaman Islands native women end up dancing and singing for tourists.–fuelled-Hitlers-twisted-beliefs.html

Tamils should discard their Superiority Complex

February 27th, 2017


It was indeed delightful to read the article(letter) published in the Lankaweb on 24thFebruary titled Tamils of Sri Lanka and the Mexicans of USA addressed to the American President Mr. Donald Trump by a Sri Lankan Tamil Mr. Kanther Balanathan living in Australia. Mr. Balanathan should be highly commended  for writing this prudent letter to the new American nationalist President enlightening him about the migration of Tamils into Sri Lanka, the fallacy and absurdity of their concocted discriminatory claims, the destruction they caused to and being caused to Sri Lanka and the illegal and anti social activities being carried out by tiger terrorist elements calling themselves as Tamil Diaspora in the United States, Canada, western nations and many other countries.

Writing a letter of this magnitude should in fact have been done by the patriotic elements in Sri Lanka immediately after personalities envious to Sri Lanka such as Obama, Hillary Clinton, Samita Power, Nisha Biswal  and Robert O’Blake became obsolete in the American political arena.  In Mr. Balanathan we find another Tamil Sri Lankan patriot similar to late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadiragamar who persuaded Western nations to proscribe LTTE as a terrorist organization and we earnestly hope that Mr. Balanathan’s letter will usher in favours to our motherland.

Mr . Balanathan’s letter also has a great value since the pro LTTE elements in Sri Lanka, such as Foreign Minister and western puppet Mangala Samaraweera, the anti Sinhala old hag Chandrika (other two suffixes to her name deliberately deleted to save the dignity of the personalities represented by those names) and ardent LTTE  stooge R.Sambandan have recently made concerted efforts to quench the thirst of the separatists which they could not achieve through the 30 years of a destructive war and hence the former President Mahinda Rajapakse put a complete stop to their day dreams on 18th May vanquishing the armed terrorists from the soil of this country.

Although Sri Lanka is not under pressure to enact a new constitution as per the 2015 Geneva Resolution, Mangala has promised Zeid al Hussein to have a new Constitution in place by this year. It is stated that as part of this despicable understanding between Mangala and Zeid al Hussein and his office it would facilitate retroactive prosecution of Sri Lankan war heroes.

In an initiative to get this promise fulfilled Mangala made a lengthy well written and prepared speech on 22nd February.  This speech was facilitated by an adjournment motion moved by Sambandan the so-called nominal and illegal Opposition Leader.. In this speech distorting the history of this country Mangala   claimed that the government’s resolve to bring justice to the victims of human rights violations remain unperturbed, people of this country faced widespread rights violations in the past, and some of these illegal acts were carried out by the persons who were at the helm of powers under President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

He said that our country that stood on the cusp of economic development and social progress at the time we gained Independence in 1948, and failed, will not be able to get back on the track of economic and social development and achieve the magnitude of progress that the people justly deserve if we do not find a durable solution to our problems through a new Constitution. It is the Constitution that defines a nation. It is the Constitution that guarantees, among other things, certain rights to minorities, which no other document can do.

Unfortunately he seems to have been suffering from chronic amnesia and have totally forgotten about the continuous sufferings endured by the Sinhala people who lived in the villages referred to as Boarder Villages and those who were in Colombo and other areas without the hope of a tomorrow and afraid of undertaking long journeys in their own country and make visits to Northern and Eastern areas.  Also he seems to be unaware of the plight suffered by the Muslims lived in the North and East.  Does he at least remember the last suicide bomb blast carried out by his esteem LTTE terrorists at Godapitiya in the Matara district (in his own district) in which 11 young prospective politicians (Pradeshiya Sabha members) were killed and the veteran Southern politician Mr. Mahinda Wijeseekera suffered brain injuries and even languishing today solitarily with loss o memories.

He implies that we have obligations to uphold Tamil people’s rights who were victims, return their land, resettle the displaced, strengthen democracy and democratic institutions, repeal discriminatory laws, restore justice, and ensure non-recurrence of conflict.

I do not proceed to comment on the pro-Tamil old hag Chandrika’s statements or Sambandan’s Pariamentary speech because these same utterances we have been hearing for the last several years.  Nonetheless, it is pertinent here to highlight some salient points presented by Mr. Balanathan which completely shatters discriminatory arguments being presented by Tamil separatists and their cronies like Mangala/Ranil/Chandrika and the new joiner to the band wagon eunuch Sirisena

  • Sri Lanka was a Sinhala speaking Buddhist country since 5 BC. Invasions by the Indian non Tamil kingdoms and the Southern Kingdoms befell over several centuries. These invasions resulted in the massacre & carnage of several hundreds of thousands of Sinhalese people over several centuries. These invasions ended with the invaders looting and plundering the assets of the locals, and get back to India.
  • In the 14thcentury a rowdy called, “Megha” crawled into the North and established a settlement in Jaffna. N&E settled non-Tamil speaking, Malabar, Karnataka, Marathi, Javanese, Telugus & other minor ethnic groups from India and Java. As Tamil in South India was a link language, those who settled in the N&E spoke Tamil. Today, majority of congenitally imbeciles (Tamils), view that they have been Tamils over thousands of centuries in a country called Elam. The White House historians would agree that “Elam” empire was a country/region in the then “Persia”, which is now Iran..
  • 70 million Tamils live in Tamil Nadu which is part of India. Tamil population in SriLanka was less than 11% in the 50s. Theminority Tamils in SriLanka are living with a majority complex just because of the 70 million Tamils in India. However, up to the 20th century, Labourers from Tamil Nadu, and Andra kept on sneaking into the North.
  • SriLanka cannot build a wall between India and SL because the two countries are separated by sea. Ie thePalk Strait. This made it easy for the Indians to sneak into SL.
  • Tamils are in every country in Europe, Americas, and SE Asia. They are not political refugees, but, economic refugees (ER). Literates will agree that these ER are better off overseas than in SL because of the living conditions. Once they get permanent residence, they change their names; however, there is a possibility that they becomemissing persons in SL.
  • Whatever Tamil Diaspora claims, we Tamils are illegal migrants into the island since the 14th May be Tamil language is old as 4000 years, however, the language is not old as 4000 years in SL and was not spoken in SL, but in India, Persia, Sumerian and Africa. We Tamils should understand this truth and agree, not boast, and enter in to arguments.
  • With a total population of 20,263,723, the Sinhalese people; 15,173,820, SriLanka Tamils; 2,270,924 and the Indian Tamils; 842,323. On a percentage basis, Sinhalese strength is 74.88%, SL Tamils 11.21%, and Indian Tamils 4.16%.
  • If the Hill country (Tea-growing area) Tamils are merged with the Tamils from the Northern and Eastern Provinces as a Tamil entity, the percentage of Tamils living outside the North and East is 49 %. This means that only 51% live in the North & East.
  • Only 993,741 live in the North. Do we really think that this population need a separate Will that be economically and politically a good attempt to govern in the small country which begs for aid and grants from the west.
  • During the period 1995 – 2009, the 300,000+ Tamils in Vanni were only slave labour hobbled by the LTTE for their own advantage. No Tamil was able to get out of Vanni for fear of facing death. In May 2009, then President Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa freed the Tamils from bondage and since then Tamils want a peaceful living.
  • TGTE is an illegal organisation and no one can dispute to proof that at least some members who supported or associates of the LTTE are within the TGTE group. TGTE is neither a community nor social organisation, but it hurls challenges to the sovereignty and integrity of a sovereign republic: SL.
  • TGTE, not only is wasting funds and posing a threat to harmony around the globe, but has created a precedence for other radicals around the world. Just an example: The White House cannot rule out the possibility, in time to come, of Indians/Mexicans creating a Transnational Government of Apache Land, in Canada or any other American countries.
  • It is to be complemented that every country has the right to defend & protect its territory and boarders from invasion by placing its troops at the border, and SriLanka is no exception.
  • Every SriLankan should have the right to live anywhere in SriLanka, and Tamils should not raise their voice and object, because it’s internal demographic movement of citizens. If Tamils can live in the South then Sinhalese people should have every right to live and work in the N&E. SriLanka has given equal rights to every citizen of SL. It’s not clear as to what the Tamils claim as equal rights. Tamils should join the governance and ask for a couple of ministerial portfolios, if Tamils are after power sharing. Tamils should not demand removal of Sinhalese from the North and east, because they have lived there for centuries and it’s our (SriLankans) country.

Political mayhem 

February 27th, 2017

By Dr. Tilak S. Fernando Courtesy Ceylon Today

English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic, George Orwell expressed his views on social injustice and tyranny in 1948, as follows: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears, and it was their final, most essential command!” Sometimes one wonders whether such statements congruently fit into our current political climate!

The word ‘politics’, derived from the Greek term Politika, relates to the affairs and activities, as regards a country is concerned, where decisions are made and executed for the benefit of a society on a methodical process. It means a particular group will get elected from the populace as ‘politicians‘ to execute the division of power and resources within that society.

What has happened to this country, from the time she gained independence from the colonial rule, is rather pathetic. Rather than getting united as one nation and working for the benefit and welfare of her people, what has taken place is only segmentation of groups with various political views and hues, to seek power mainly, with selfish mindsets. This we proudly keep on bragging as ‘Democracy.’

Game play

Over 69 long years, except a very few, our politicians have played the same game egocentrically. Although every successive leader has been proposing ‘sugar-coated’ concepts that ‘Sri Lanka needs a new political culture’, yet nothing constructive has been adopted so far, except bribery and corruption.

Recently I watched an interesting TV interview with Vidura Wickremanayake and was appalled upon hearing how they ‘had to sign a promissory note to remove the remains of Ratnasiri Wickremanayake when he expired after an illness’ (The Presidential fund subsequently had reimbursed the payment.)

This goes to show to what a pathetic the situation this country has slipped into. After all, the late Ratnasiri Wickremanayake was a parliamentarian for 55 years; he was also the country’s Prime Minister once and people cherished him as a gentleman more than a politician. 


The voter detests a politician when he/she exhibits lack of honesty, sincerity and simplicity and when their conscience does not correspond with the rectitude of the people. S.W.R.D Bandaranaike, Philip Gunawardena, and M.D.H. Jayawardena have gone on record as eminent gentlemen-cum-politicians who dedicated their work for the masses by spending their own personal wealth by coming into politics. This was because their conscience was on par with the ordinary man’s necessities. They were genuinely committed to accomplish an honest job for the improvement of the country and its people, but the current politics in this country is rather putrid and rancid, to say the least.

Why do people see politics as a travesty today when Sri Lanka adopts a free economic policy where anyone is able to dabble in business? This is simply because politicians have transformed it into a thriving industry and doors are open for sneaky schemers to enter politics and fiddle in business deals rather than being servants of the public. What is amazing is connivers claim they hail from business oriented family backgrounds when trapped, but the million-dollar question is why on earth do they enter politics?

Corruption aspect in the country is evidently clear by watching the number of politicians visiting the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) and other fraud commissions. Surely should there be any smoke without a fire? Or are they becoming political victims, as many offenders claim?

Learning process

Sri Lankan politicians do not seem to have learnt anything at all from their past experiences. A former Minister of Education removed the subject of ‘History’ from the school curriculum. What more can be said about our political hierarchy when they intentionally deny the history of the country to the younger generation? In the same vein, some are currently engaged in debates over the ancient war between King Dutugemunu and Elara, and there has been a hue and cry to remove such historical records on the premise that it would improve Sanhidiyawa (new phrase coined for racial / religious harmony)!

Can regulations or removal of historical records improve Sanhidiyawa? Certainly not, but it is the human feeling that needs to restructure that emerges out of every human heart. It would, therefore, depend upon the authorities concerned to mould young minds from the nursery level.

Politicians generally are the luckiest creatures on earth. Sri Lankan parliamentarians are no exception, they in fact qualify for the Guinness Book of Records for drawing a full salary as MPs (with side businesses they engage in), perks such as free fuel, electricity, mobile phone allowances and free telephones, duty free car permits worth millions of rupees including security back-ups, free air travel on business class, increased allowances to attend parliamentary sessions with additional funeral/wedding grants and a full pension after five years of being an MP. The latter is an area where the public needs to protest about, either to reform MPs’ pension scheme or compulsorily scrap it, to prove magnanimity of parliamentarians.

A major failure in our system is the parliamentarians’ avoidance to disclose their assets to the Speaker in detail. The information records of politicians, their spouses, children or dependents, will help to investigate how and when excessive income and assets (if any) have been accumulated since becoming legislators. When there are discrepancies of a visible nature only the public begin to point fingers at them and condemn with criticisms such as “those who rode bicycles initially have begun flying in helicopters”.

According to the Sri Lankan law, a breach of the code for parliamentarians may result in confiscation of excess or undeclared property and its forfeiture to the government. Sadly, this aspect of the law, like many other statutes, appears to be neglected.

The attitudes of politics and politicians in this country need to change drastically before one could call it a just society. By the same token, should the children of VIPs and VVIPs take the law unto their own hands using their parents’ political clout? It has to be either the parents’ responsibility to reprimand such incorrigible broods, or in return off springs should learn how to behave in a decorous manner to uphold their parents’ integrity. Unfortunately, neither of the two takes place in Sri Lanka. Instead, what we see are political cronies exercising more power than their own masters to make things worse.

Sigmund Freud and  PTSD

February 27th, 2017

Dr Ruwan M Jayatunge 

Sigmund Freud used the term Traumatic Neurosis that resembles the present day PTSD. The term traumatic neurosis designates a psycho-pathological state characterized by various disturbances arising soon or long after an intense emotional shock. Freud specifically wrote about effects of traumatic memories and traumatic shock.

In Freud’s words, “The symptomatic picture presented by traumatic neurosis approaches that of hysteria in the wealth of its similar motor symptoms, but surpasses it as a rule in its strongly marked signs of subjective  ailment   . . . , as well as in the evidence it gives of a far more general enfeeblement and disturbance of the mental capacities” (1920g, p. 12).

Freud’s understanding of trauma was well represented in his works mainly in Mourning & Melancholia (1917), Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920), and Symptoms, Inhibitions & Anxiety (1926). Freud assumed that the negative emotional energy associated with traumatic memories   unconsciously converted into the somatic manifestations of hysteria. Freud’s lectures in 1917–1918 eloquently described the broad clinical picture of PTSD.

In one of his famous lectures- Fixation upon trauma / the unconscious which was conducted in America Freud states thus…..

The closest analogy to this behavior in our nervous patients is provided by the forms of illness recently made so common by the war – the so-called traumatic neurosis. Of courses, similar cases have occurred before the war, after railway accidents and other terrifying experiences involving danger to life. The traumatic neurosis are not fundamentally the same as those which occur spontaneously…..

….. The traumatic neurosis demonstrates very clearly that a fixation to the moment of the traumatic occurrence lies at their root. These patients regularly produce the traumatic situation in their dreams, in case showing attacks of a hysterical type in which analysis is possible; it appears that the attack constitutes a complete reproduction of this situation. It is as though these persons had not yet been able to deal adequately with the situation, as if this task were still actually before them unaccomplished. 


In 1910 Freud stated that hysterical patients suffer from intrusive reminiscences. There are many suggestive evidence  to prove that Sigmund Freud knew the spacious clinical picture of PTSD.



Shell shock

By 1918, British Military Doctors identified a group of symptoms included tiredness, irritability, giddiness, lack of concentration and headaches among the soldiers who fought in the World War one. A British Pathologist Col Fredrick Mott coined the term Shell Shock and he considered shell shock as an organic condition produced by miniature hemorrhages of the brain. Between 1914 and 1918, the British Army identified 80,000 men as suffering from shell shock. Shell shock was generally seen as a sign of emotional weakness or cowardice.


Wilfred Owen was a Captain of the British Army and   witnessed the atrocities of WW 1 first hand. He wrote his famous anti-war poem  “Dulce et Decorum Est” while  receiving treatment for shell shock in Craiglockart.


Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped  Five-Nines that dropped behind.


Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! –  An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering,  choking, drowning.

ඊලම දමනය

February 27th, 2017

චන්ද්‍රසිරි විජයවික්‍රම, LL.B.,Ph.D.

පිරිත්නූල් කඹ

1931 දී ඩොනමෝර් ක්‍රමය යටතේ සර්‍ව ජන චන්ද බලය ලැබුණායින් පසු සිලෝන් (සිංහලේ යන නම ඉංග්‍රීසි කාරයාට ඇහුණ හැටි) කොලනියේ ඉතිහාසය ඇල්ලේ ගුණවංශ හාමුදුරුවන් විසින් වෙන් කර පෙන්වූ, මරණ බියක් ඇතිවූ විට ඕ මයි ගෝඩ් හෝ බුදු අම්මෝ හෝ කියා කෑගසන සිංහලයින් දෙකොටස අතරේ සිදුවූ, සිදුවන ගැටුම නොවේද? මේ ගැටුමේදී කොඩි උස්සාගෙන ගිය බුදු අම්මෝ පිරිසට ඉතිරිවුනේ කොඩිවල පොලු පමණක් යයි උන්වහන්සේ කිව්වේය. දැන් කොසොල් රජතුමාගේ හීන සැබෑවෙන මේ රටේ කොඩි වෙනුවට කඹ තරම් මහත පිරිත්නූල් අතේ බැඳගෙන ඉන්නේ මේ දෙකොටසගෙන් මොන කොටසද කියා පැහැදිලි නැත.  ගෙදර ගොස් පරණ සිරිතට බූරු ඇඳක ඇලවී විශ්‍රාම සුවයෙන් සිටිය යුතුව සිටි ඉතා මහළු හිටපු අගමැති දි මු ජයරත්න මහතා සම්බුද්‌ධ ජයන්තිය සැමරීමේ කොමිටියට අන්‍යාගමික (ඉස්ලාම්, හින්‌දු, ක්‍රිස්තියානි) නියෝජිතයින්ව පත්කලේ ඒ නිසාය.

යහපාලනයක් (ශීලාචාරීකරණය)

මෙවැනි පසුබිමක් යටතේ දැන් 2017 වන විට දක්නට ලැබෙන්නේ ලිච්චවි රජදරුවන්ගේ පාලන ක්‍රමය නිතර නිතර මතක් කරමින් සිටිනා ලංකා අගමැති කෙනෙකි. ඔහු මීට පෙර රටේ අගමැතිවූ කාලවල මෙය කලේ නැත. රටේ ජනාධිපතිතුමාත් ඉඩක් ලද හැම විටකම කියන්නේ බෞද්ධ දර්‍ශනයට අනුව රටේ ප්‍රශ්න විසඳනවා කියාය. ඉන්දියාවේ ජනාධිපති නිලය හෙබවූ අබ්දුල් කලාම් හා ප්‍රතිභා පටිල් යන දෙන්නාද කියා සිටියේ ලෝකයේ ප්‍රශ්න වලට විසඳුම් බෞද්ධ දර්‍ශනය අනුසාරයෙන් ලබාගත හැකිය කියාය. අබ්දුල් කලාම් දෙමළ මුස්ලිම් සම්භවයක් ඇති අයෙක් වූ අතර ප්‍රතිභා පටිල් හින්දු ආගමිකාවක් විය. සිරිසේන මහතා 2016 ජූලි 27 ජාතික පිරිවෙන් දිනයේදී ගැටඹේදී කියා සිටියේ බුදු දහමට අනුව රට පාලනය කරනවා කියාය. 2016 අගෝස්තු 6 දා කිරිවෙහෙරේ ආගමික උත්සවයකදී සඳහන් කළේ යහපත් සමාජයක් ගොඩ නැඟීමේ එකම මග (ථේරවාද) බෞද්ධ දර්‍ශනය ය කියාය. ඔහු මේ අදහස 2016 සැප්තැම්බර් 22 දින යූ එන් ඕ මහසභාව ඉදිරියේදීද කියා සිටියේය. 2017 ජනවාරි 2 දා ගම්බද  පන්සල් වලට මුදල් ආධාර බෙදා දෙමින් ජනාධිපති මන්දිරයේදී නැවතත් කියා සිටියේ බෞද්ධ දර්‍ශනය සමාජයක් ගොඩනැඟීමට හොඳම විධිය බවය.

2017 ජනවාරි මැද වනවිට අපට ලැබුණ අළුත්‌ම ආරංචිය නම්, මේ ගැටවර වයසේදීම චීන කොමියුනිස්ට් පක්‍ෂයට බැඳී දේශපාලනය ඇරඹූ සිරිසේන මහතා, 2015 නොවැම්බර් මස පැරිසියේදී තම්පලාවෙල ධම්මරතන (යුනෙස්කෝවේ බෞද්ධ නියෝජිත) හිමියන් හමුව යහපාලනය හා බුද්ධාගම ගැන කල පැයක සාකච්චාවේ ප්‍රතිඵලයක් වශයෙන් බුඩිස්ට් අයිඩියල්ස් ඔෆ් ගුඩ් ගවර්‌නන්ස් (බෞද්ධ රාජ්‍ය පාලන ප්‍රතිපත්ති) යනුවෙන් පොතක් සෝර්බෝන් විශ්ව විද්‍යාලය මගින් පලකර  ඇති බවය. මේ අනුව ලංකාව පමණක් නොව මුළු ලෝකයම සුවපත් කිරීමට (ශීලාචාර කිරීමට) මඟ පෙන්වීම මේ පොතේ අරමුණය. 1977 ජයවර්‌ධන මහතාගේ ධර්මිෂ්ට සමාජයක් යන කතාවට වඩා ඉදිරියට ගිය, බැරෑරුම්, යහපාලන (දස රාජ ධර්‍ම) අදහස් ප්‍රචලිත කරන ලෝක සංවිධානයක් පිහිටුවීමටද මේ පොතෙන් යෝජනා කරයි (ලෝකයේ රටවල් 198 න් 85 ක බෞද්ධයින් සිටී).

බෞද්ධ දේශපාලන විද්‍යාවක්?

මාක්ස්වාදය, ධනවාදය, සමාජවාදය, ලෝක යෝධ කොම්පැනි වාදය, නියෝජිත ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය යන මේ වාද අතරට සම්මුතිවාදී දස රාජ ධර්‍මවාදයක් ද එකතු කල හැක්කේ එය ක්‍රියාවට නංවා පෙන්වීමෙනි.  දියසේන කුමාරයෙක් ගැන අප ඉඳහිට අසා ඇත. ධර්‍මාශොක රජතුමා ගැනද මහාවංශයේ ඒ නම සඳහන්වූ නිසා අපි දැනගත්තෙමු. ඉන්දියාවේ ඩලිට් කුලයේ ජනයා අම්බෙඩ්කාර් මහතා විසින් බුද්ධාගමට හැරවූයේ හින්දු ආධිපත්‍යයට යටවී ඉන්නා  හරි ජනයා ගැන  කතා කලත් කුල පීඩනයට විසඳුමක් ගාන්‌ධි ගෙන් නොලැබුණ නිසාය. අනිත් පැත්තෙන් ඔහුගේ ප්‍රතිපත්ති ගැන සුබාස් චන්ද්‍රබෝෂ් ගාන්‌ධිට දෙහි කැපුවේය. 1956 මැතිවරණයේදී මාර යුද්ධය නමින් කාටූන් එකකින් සර් ජෝන්ලා ඔලිවර් ගුණතිලකලා බුද්ධ රූපයකට හානි කරන්නට අවි අමෝරා ගෙන යූ එන් පී ඇතා පිට නැඟ එනවා පෙන්නුවේය. මීට හේතුව ආණ්ඩුව සරණං ගච්චාමි කියා පදයක් බුද්‌ධාගමේ නැතැයි අගමැති ඩී එස් සේනානායක මහතා විසින් හේන්පිටගෙදර ඥානසීහ හිමියන්ට කීමෙන්  එලිවුන ආණ්ඩු ප්‍රතිපත්තිය නිසාය. පංච මහා බලවේගයේ කොටසක් වශයෙන් 1956 දී මෙසේ හාමුදුරුවරු චන්ද වැඩට මැදිහත්‌වීම හැරුනු විට, දේශපාලන විද්‍යාවක් වශයෙන් ප්‍රථම වරට බුද්ධාගම රාජ්‍ය පාලනයට ගාවා ගන්නට පොරොන්‌දුවූයේ 1977 දී ජේ ආර් ජයවර්‌ධන මහතාගේ ධර්මිෂ්ට සමාජයක් යන තේමාවය. මැතිවරණ වේදිකාවේ බිම ඔහු ඉඳගත්තේ ගන්‌ධිව සිහිකරවමිනි.

මේ සඳහා ඔහු වෙනුවෙන් රට වටේ ගියේ ඩබිලිව් එස් කරුණාරත්න බෞද්ධ දර්‍ශනය පිළිඹඳ මහාචාර්‍යවරයාය. බාහිර විප්ලවයට (කාර්, ශීතකර, රත්‌මාල, උපාධි, ධනය) අමතරව වැසියාගේ සිත්  සතන් වල සන්තානගත විප්ලවයක්ද (ආර්‍ය අෂ්ටාංගික මාර්‍ගය) සිදුවිය යුතුබව ඔහුගේ තර්‍කය විය. චන්දයට පසුව ඔහු පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට ගොස්  මේ ගැන මන්ත්‍රීන්ට ඉංග්‍රීසියෙන් කතාවක් ද දුන්නේය. ධර්මිෂ්ඨ සමාජයක් නමින් මුද්දරයක්ද නිකුත්‌විය. ඉන් පසුව ඔහු ඇමෙරිකාවේ  තානාපති වශයෙන් ගියේය. ආපසු ලංකාවට එනවිට ඔහු චන්දකාලයේ කතාකල ධර්මිෂ්ඨ සමාජය, මහාචාර්‍ය එදිරිවීර සරච්චන්ද්‍රට බිම දමාගෙන බයිසිකල් චේන් වලින් ගසන, ආණ්ඩුවට අහිතකර තීන්දු දුන් නඩුකාරයින්ගේ ගෙවල් වලට ගල් ගසන සමාජයක් වී තිබුණේය. ඒ දිනවල මහබැංකුවට ගොස් බෞද්ධ සාර ධ‌ර්‍ම ගැන ඔහු දුන් කථාව ඔහුගේ බලවත් කලකිරීම එලිදරව් කලේය.  සරච්චන්ද්‍ර මහතා (අ)ධර්මිෂ්ඨ සමාජය යන නමින් පොතක් ද ලිව්වේය. පසු කලෙක සෝම හාමුදුරුවන්ගේ ක්‍රියා නිසා මතුවූ බෞද්ධ ප්‍රතිපත්ති පක්‍ෂයවූ ජාතික හෙල උරුමයද අච්චාරුවී ගියේය.

සම්මා දිට්ටි-සම්මා සංකප්ප-සම්මා වායාම

මෙම මෑත ඉතිහාසයෙන් මොනවට ඔප්පුවන කාරණයක් නම් කතාව හා ක්‍රියාව (ඉංග්‍රිසියෙන් කියන වෝක් ද ටෝක්) අතර වෙනසට හේතුව සම්මා දිට්ටි-සංකප්ප-වායාම යන ආර්‍ය අෂ්ටාංගික මාර්‍ගයේ අංග තුන හරියට හිතට නොගෙන දසරාජ ධර්‌මවාදයක් ගොඩනඟා ගත නොහැකි බවය. මේ නිසා මේ ලිපියෙන් පෙන්වා දෙන්නට හදන්නේ සිරිසේන ජනාධිපතිතුමාට සම්මා දිට්ටි (නිවැරදි දැනීම) සම්මා සංකප්ප (නිවැරදි ආකල්පය) නැත්නම් ඔහුට සම්මා වායාමයක් (නිවැරදි උත්සාහයක්) ගත නොහැකිවන බවය. බෞද්ධ දර්‍ශනය මඟින් ලෝකයේ ඇති ප්‍රශ්න වලට විසඳුම් සොයාගත හැකියයි ඉන්දියාවේ හිටපු උපතින් බෞද්ධ නොවන ජනාධිපතිලා දෙන්නෙක්ම කියා සිටියේය. මෙවැනිම අදහසක් තරුණ කාලයේ හිපියෙකු වශයෙන් කාලය ගෙවූ පසුව දලයි ලාමා ගේ ඇසුරෙන් බුද්ධාගම ගැන ඉගෙනගෙන බෞද්ධ දර්‍ශනය පිළිඹඳව මාහාචාර්‍ය වරයෙකු වූ රොබට් තර්‌මන් විසින්ද ඇමෙරිකාවේ ප්‍රශ්න හා සම්බන්‌ධව ප්‍රකාශ කලේය (ඉනර් රෙවොලූෂන්, 1999). මීට පෙර, ජර්‌මනියේ උපන් (යුදෙව් ජාතික?) පසුව බ්‍රිතාන්‍යයේ ආර්ථික විද්‍යාඥයෙකුවූ ඊ එෆ් ෂුමාකර් විසින්  1973 දී ලියූ ස්මෝල් ඊස් බියුටිෆුල් යන පොතෙන් වත්‌මන් ලෝකයට බුඩිස්ට් ඉකොනොමික්ස් හඳුන්වාදී තිබුණි. මහාචාර්‍ය කේ එන් ජයතිලක, ගුනපාල මලලසේකර යන අයද මීට කලකට පෙර මේ බෞද්ධ රාජ්‍ය පාලනය ගැන ලිපි ලිව්වේය. එහෙත් අද ලංකාවේ බොහෝ අය නොදන්නා දෙයක් නම් කළුකොඳයාවේ ප්‍රඥාශෙඛර මහනාහිමියන් විසින් 1933-41 කාලයේ සිට ඉතාමත් සාර්‍ථකවූ ග්‍රාම ප්‍රතිසංස්කරණ හා අපරාධමර්‍ධන නම් දීප ව්‍යාප්ත ජාතික ව්‍යාපාරයක් ක්‍රියාවට නැඟූ බවත්, එවකට බලයේ සිටි සුද්දන් හා කළු සුද්දන් එකතුව එය කඩාකප්පල්කර දැමූ බවත් ය. ඩී එස් සේනානායක හේන්පිටගෙදර ඥානසීහ හාමුදුරුවන්ට කලදේ වැනි දෙයක්ම (පොරොන්‌දු කඩකිරීම) ඊට පෙර සර් ඩී බී ජයතිලක විසින් ප්‍රඥාශෙඛර හාමුදුරුවන්ටද කලබව ඇසීම යමෙකු මවිත කරවන සුළුය.

ආණ්ඩුව සරණං ගච්චාමි නොවීම

මේ අන්‌දමට බෞද්ධ දර්‍ශනයේ ගුණ ගායනාකරණ එය ක්‍රියාවටද නැඟිය හැකි ජනාධිපතිවරයෙක් ලෙස ලෝකයේ දැනට ඉන්නේ සිරිසේන මහතාය.  ඔහුට ඒ සඳහා පිට්ටනියක්, කුඹුරක්, පර්‍යේෂණාගාරයක් ලැබී ඇත. ඔහු විසින් කියූ තවත් කරුණක් නම් සෙසු ලෝකයේ රටවල් වලද සහයෝගය ලබාගෙන ඊලම්වාදය (වෙනම දෙමළ රටක් වාදය) තුරන් කර දමනවාය යන්නය.  ඒ සමඟම කියවෙන තවත් අදහසක් නම් සාමය, සතුට හා තිරසර සංවර්‍ධනයක් උදාකර ගැනීමය. මේ සියල්ල එකට බැඳී ඇති කාරණා නිසා මේවා ඉෂ්ටකරගතහැකි ක්‍රමයක් තිබේද? සිරිසේන මහතා විසින් කල තවත් ඓතිහාසික ප්‍රකාශයක් ද (වෙන කිසිම ලංකා රාජ්‍යනායකයෙක් නොකී) මෙහිදී ඉතාමත් වැදගත්වේ.  එය නම් ලංකාව පලාත් නවයකට බෙදුවේ ඉංග්‍රීසිකාරයින් (කෝල්බ්‍ර‌ැක් සාමි 1832 දී) ඔවුන්ගේ අධිරාජ්‍යවාදී සූරාකෑමේ වාසිය සඳහා මිස රටේ යහපත ගැන සිතා නොවේය යන කියමනය. මෙසේ සුද්දන් ඇතිකල මායිම් බදාගෙන, ඒ අනුව බෙදී කෑ ගැසීම නිෂ්ඵල දේශපාලනයක් බව ඔහු පෙන්වා දුන්නේය.

ඊලම හා බුද්‌ධාගම

විග්නේෂ්වරන් විසින් 1948 සිට ලංකාවේ දෙමළ වර්‌ගයා ඝාතනය කිරීමක් (ටැමිල් ජෙනෝසයිඩ්) තිබෙනවායයි කියන අතරේ සිරිසේන මහතා කියන්නේ දෙමළ ජනයාට අසාධාරණකම් සිදුවුනා/සිදුවෙනවා කියාය. මේ නිසා මේ ලිපියේ මේ මාතෘකාව යටතේ අප සලකා බැලිය යුතු මේ ප්‍රශ්නයට බුද්ධාගමේ මැදි පිලිවෙත අනුව විසඳුමක් ලබා දිය හැකි ආකාරයය. මෙම විසදුම සිංහිඳියා කොමිසමටත්, මහින්ද රාජපක්‍ෂ ජනාධිපතිටත් ඒ කාලයේ ඉදිරිපත් කලත් ඔවුන්ට සම්මා දිට්ටියක් නොවීය. අප අසා ඇති අංගුලිමාල දමනය, ආලවක දමනය හෝ නාලාගිරි දමනය මෙන් ඊලම් දමනයක් කරන්නට තාමත් හොඳටම ඉඩකඩ ඇත.  ඇත්‌තවශයෙන්ම සිතන විට මේ සඳහා පැරිසියේ සිට ඉංග්‍රීසියෙන් ලියූ පොතක් අවශ්‍ය නැත.
සම්මා දිට්ටි යටතේ මෙහිදී කල්තියාම සිහියට ගතයුතු මූලික කාරණයක් ඇත. නූතන නීති විද්‍යාව (ජුරිස්ප්‍ර‌ැඩන්ස්), දේශපාලන විද්‍යාව හා පරිසර ව්ද්‍යාත්‌මක දැනුම් සම්භාරයට අනුකූලව, විශේෂයෙන් දෙමළ ජනයාට ගුණාත්‌මකවන බලය ලබාදීමක්‌ දීමක් (ඇමෙරිකන් තානාපති රොබට් බ්ලේක් ඒ කාලයේ කිව් අන්‌දමේ මීනින්ෆුල් ඩෙවෙලූෂන් එකක්) යනු, සම්බන්‌ධන් මහතා කියන ඔක්කොටම එකඟ වන්නට පුළුවන් හෝ ඒබ්‍රහම් සුමන්තිරන් මහතා කියන දුන්නට පසු ආපසු ගන්නට බැරි බලය පැවරීමක් නම් නොවන බවය.  ඒ මඟින් සාමකාමී, සාධාරණ බෞද්ධ ඊලම් දමනයක් සිදුනොවේ.

පුද්ගලයින්ගේ අවශ්‍යතා හා දේශපාලකයින්ගේ අභිලාශ

යම් දෙමළ. සිංහල හෝ මුස්ලිම් හෝ වැසියෙකුට ඇති ආශා, උවමනා එපාකමුත් (නීඩ්ස් ඇන්ඩ් වෝන්ට්ස්), බොරු නියෝජිත ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදයක් යටතේ ඔවුන් රවටාගෙන තරවන පක්‍ෂ දේශපාලන කයිරාටිකයින් විසින් සිංහලයින්ට සාපේක්‍ෂව ඉදිරියට දාන දෙමළ හෝ මුස්ලිම් අභිලාශත් (ඇස්පිරේෂන්ස්) අතර ඇති වෙනස අප මෙහිදී අවභොධ කරගත යුතුය. ලංකාවේ භූමි ප්‍රදේශය තුල වෙනම දෙමළ රටක් ජනිත කර ගැනීමේ ලෝක දෙමළ ව්‍යාපාරයේ හා ටී එන් ඒ දෙමළ ඊලම් කොටස්වල අභිලාශය මානසික හා භෞතික වශයෙන් පරාජය නොකර දෙමළ වැසියන්ගේ පුද්ගලික යහපත උදාකර දීමට හැකියයි සිතීම  සම්මා දිට්ටි හෝ සම්මා සංකප්ප හෝ නොවේ. ඒකීය රටක් නොව එක්සත් රටක් තුල බලය බෙදීමක් ඕනෑයයි ඊලම් වාදීන් කියන්නේ දෙමළ වැසියාගේ ජන ජීවිතය ගැන සිතා නොව දේශපාලකයින්ගේ බඩගෝස්තරය ගැන සිතාය. ඉතා සුළු උදාහරණයක් ගත්තොත්, ලංකාවේ දෙමළ ජනයාගෙන් සියේට හතලිහක්ම ඉන්නේ උතුරේ හා නැඟෙනහිර තියෙනවා කියන දෙමළ නිජ භූමියේ නොව ඉන් පිටය. කොළඹ නගරය ගත්තොත් එහි සිංහල ජනයා ඉන්නේ සියේට තිහක් පමණය. මේ නිසා වෙනම රටක් කඩාදීම මේ ප්‍රශ්නයට විසඳුම නම් කොළඹ හා මලය නාඩුද (කන්‌ද උඩරට වතු දෙමළ) ඒ දෙමළ රටේ  කෑලි විය යුතුය. ලෝක දෙමළ නිජ භූමිය තිබෙන්නේ ටැමිල්නාඩ් වලය.

මෙවැනි ජරමරයක් නොකර, එක්තරා සාධාරණ ප්‍රමාණයකට යම් දෙමළ අභිලාශද  ලබා ගත හැකි, එහෙත් ඒ අභිලාශ, සිංහල ජනයාගේ එකම අභිලාශය වන ටැමිල් නාඩුවට ඊලම් හරහා ලංකාව අල්ලා ගන්නට මග පාදා නොදිය යුතුය යන්න හා නොගැටෙන ආකාරයට දිය හැකි බෞද්ද්ධ මධ්‍යම ප්‍රතිපදා (රීසනබල්) විසඳුමක්, ඊලම් දමනයක් ඇත. 2009 මැයි 19 දාට පසුදා යුද්ධ ආඥාවක් මඟින් අහෝසි කලයුතුව තිබූ ලංකාවේ පලාත් නවයේ බෙදුම එසේ සිදුනොවූයේ රට ගැන, සිංහල ජාතිය ගැන, බෞද්ධ ශාසනය ගැන, හරි හමං කැක්කුමක් නොමැති කළු සුද්දන් පිරිසක්, ධර්‌මපාලතුමාට පසුව මෑතකදී ගංගොඩවිල සෝම හාමුදුරුවන් විසින්ද ඉතා පැහැදිලිව පෙන්වාදුන් ආකාරයේ, විනාශකාරී  බලවේග වලට ගොදුරුවී සිටිය නිසාය. ප්‍රභාකරන් දෙමළ කැප්පෙට්ටිපොල යයි කියන විග්නේශ්වරන් වැනි කෙනෙකුට හෙමින් හෙමින් ඊලම කරා යාමට ඉඩ දුන් හසළක වීරයාට ද්‍රොහීවූ පුද්ගලයින් නිසාය. දැන් සිදුවී තිබෙන්නේ නියපොත්තෙන් කැඩිය හැකිව තිබූ දෙය පොරොවෙන් කැපීමටය. ත්‍රිකුණාමළයට කෙළ හලමින් සිටින රටවල්  පෑනෙන් පරදවා මෙය කල හැකි දෙමළ ජනයාට ගම් මට්ටමින්ම බලය පවරා දෙන බව පෙන්වා දීමෙන් ය. මෙය කරන්නේ කෙසේද? බෞද්ධ ක්‍රමයට රටක් ශීලාචාරීකරණය කිරීමට යාමේදී බෞධ නොවන අයව රේල් පීල්ල උඩ තබා ගන්නේ කෙසේද?

ඊලම් දමනය

1. ගතයුතු ප්‍රථම පියවර (භූමි ඒකක සඳහා අතීතයේදී මෙන් ස්වාභාවික මායිම් යොදා ගැනීම)

ලංකාවේ පහලම සිවිල් රාජ්‍ය පරිපාලන ඒකකය වන ග්‍රාම සේවක වසම් දැනට බොහෝ සෙයින් පවතින කෘතිම මායිම් වෙනුවට පරිසර-ස්වභාවික (ගංඟා නිම්න හා භූගත ජලය) මායිම් අනුව පිහිටුවීම (උදාහරණයක් වශයෙන් ගිනිගත්‌හේන පොලිසියේ වහලේ එක පැත්තකට වැටෙන වැහි වතුර කැළණි ගඟටත්, අනිත් පැත්තට වැටෙන වතුර මහවැලි ගඟටත් ගලා යයි. මේ නිසා එම දියබෙත්‌ම වසම් දෙකක ස්වභාවික මායිමය).

1987 දී ජේ ආර් ජයවර්‍ධන මහතා විසින් පත්කල ඉඩම් කොමිසමේ වාර්‌තාව (1990 අංක 3 දරණ සැසි වාර්‍තාව) මඟින් මෙම යෝජනාව ගෙනා බව දන්නා දේශපාලකයෙක්, නිලධාරියෙක්, නඩුකාරයෙක් හෝ විශ්ව විද්‍යාලකාරයෙක් හෝ එන් ජී ඕ කාරයෙක් අද රටේ ඉන්නවාද යන්න සිතනවිට ඇතිවන්නේ කණගාටුවකට වඩා කේන්තියකි.

ගම-වැව-දාගැබ යන පැරණි සිංහලේ සමාජ-ආර්ථික-පරිසර ත්‍රිත්‌වය ගඟක්, ඇලක්, දොළක්, උල්පතක්, වැවක් කේන්ද්‍ර කරගත් ඒකකයකි. මේ මඟින් 4,000 සිට 14,000 දක්වා ප්‍රේමදාස යුගයේදී වැඩිකල මෙම වසම් සංඛ්‍යාව ඊට වඩා බෙහෙවින් අඩුවනු ඇත. මෙසේ පරිසරයට අනුකූල වනසේ සිවිල් ඒකක සැදීමෙන් පරිසරය හා ආශ්‍රිත ප්‍රශ්න වලට නිසි අවධානයක් ලැබේ. මෙසේ ගංඟා ද්‍රොණි අනුව පහල සිවිල් ඒකක නිර්‌ණය කිරීම කුඩා රටක් වන නිව්සීලන්තයේ නිතියය.

2. දෙවන පියවර

මෙම අළුත් වසම් එකතු කර දැන් තිබෙන දිස්ත්‍රික් හෝ පලාත් වලට සමාන වන විශාල ඒකක සදා ගත හැකිය. ඊට අමතරව චන්ද කොට්ට්ඨාශ ඇතුළු මැතිවරන ඒකකත්, වෙනත් පොලිස්, සෞඛ්‍ය, අධ්‍යාපන යනාදී පරිපාලන ඒකකත් මෙම වසම් එකතුකර සැදූ මායිම් අනුව පිහිටු විය හැකිය. යම් වසමක් කෘතිම කෑලිවලට නොකැඩීම මෙහිදී අනුගමනය කල යුතු මූලික රීතියය. මේ අනුව මේ සියළු අනෙකුත් ඒකක ස්වාභාවික මායිම් සහිත ඒකක වේ.  මීට හේතුව ලංකාවේ ඇති ගංඟා ද්‍රොණි 103 අනුව රටේ මුළු භූමියම ගංඟා ද්‍රොණි අනුව බෙදිය හැකි වීමය.  ගහක අතු මෙන් ඒවා උස් තැනක සිට පහලට ගලා ගොස් ක්‍රමයෙන් විශාලවී ලොකු ගඟක්ව මුහුදට වැටේ (දැනට පවතින ක්‍රමය අනුව යම් දිස්ත්‍රික්කයක හෝ පලාතක මායිම ස්වාභාවික මායිමක් නොවන නිසා එසේ ඒවායේ මායිම් වලට අසුවන ග්‍රාම සේවා වසම් වලටද ස්වාභාවික මායිම් නැත). උතුරට දකුණෙන් පොල් රා ගේන්නට එපා, උතුරට මොරගහකන්‌ද වැවේ ජලය ඕනෑ කියා දැන් එන්නේ ඉදිරියට ගංඟා ජලය බෙදා ඉල්ලා ඇතිවන ජල යුද්ධ වල සංඥා ය. දැනටමත් මෙවැනි ජල යුද්ධ ටැමිල්නාඩ් හා එහි අසල්වැසි ජනපද තුන (කේරළ, කර්‌නාටක හා ආන්ද්‍ර ප්‍රදේශ්) අතර නිතරම හටගනී. නියං කාලයට ඊලම් ප්‍රදේශයට කඳු රටින් ආරම්භවී එන ගංඟා ජලය ඉල්ලා මානව අයිතියක් කඩකලා කියා යූ එන් ඕ එකේ නඩු කියනු ඇත.

3. තුන්වන පියවර (ජනයාට බලය මාරු කිරීම)

මෙම ග්‍රාම සේවක වසම් වල භූමි ප්‍රමාණය හෝ ජනගහනය අනුව සලකා බලා තනි වසමක් හෝ වසම් දෙකක් හෝ තුනක් එකතු කර ඒවා ජන සභා ලෙස හඳුනා ගැනීම. ජනගහනය ගැන සැලකීමේදී පදිංචි මුළු මිනිස් සංඛ්‍යාව මිස ඔවුන්ගේ ජාතිය, වර්‍ගය, කුලය, භාෂාව හෝ ආගම නොසැලකිය යුතුය. මෙම ජන සභා වලට ග්‍රාම රාජ්‍ය සංකල්පය හෝ ඉන්දියාවේ පංචයාත් රාජ්‍ය මෙන් ඔවුන්ගේ එදිනෙදා ජීවිතයට බලපානා කරුණු සම්බන්‌ධයෙන් තීරණ ගැනීමට හා ක්‍රියා කිරීමට බලය ගුණාත්මක ලෙස (මීනින්ෆුල්) පවරා දිය යුතුය.

දකුණු පලාත්‌වල මුස්ලිම් ජනයා එකට කැටි ගැසී සිටින කුඩා භූමි ප්‍රදේශ ඇතත්, දෙමළ ජනයා දකුණේ ඉන්නේ විසිරී ගොස් ය. ලංකාවේ සිංහල ජාතිය හා අනිත් ජනවර්‌ග එකට ජීවත්‌වන්නේ හරියට බිත්තරයක් එකට කලවම් කලාවගේය කියන්නේ මේ නිසාය. ඒ මිශ්‍රණය නැවත වෙන්කර ගත නොහැකිය. මේ අනුව ස්වාභාවික මායිම් අනුව සැදූ ජන සභා ප්‍රදේශ, සිංහල, දෙමළ හෝ මුස්ලිම් ජනයා සම සමව සිටිනා (කොළඹ නගරය මෙන්) හෝ බෙහෙවින් අසමානව සිටිනා (මාතර-සිංහල, යාපනය-දෙමළ, අකුරණ-මුස්ලිම්) ඒකක විය හැකිය. ඒ අනුව යම් ජන සභාවක සුළු ජන කොටස යන වචනය දෙමළ හෝ මුස්ලිම් ජන කොටස් වලට පමණක් සීමා නොවේ. මඩකලපුවේ සිංහලයා ඉතාමත් සුළු ජාතියකි.

සංහිඳියා කඩුව හා නාගයා

දහස් ගණන් ජන සභා වල ජනයා තමන්ගේ එදිනෙදා පුද්ගලික උවමනාකම් සපුරා ගන්නා ගමන් යම් අති බහුතර ජන කොටස් වලට යම් පොදු අභිලාශ සඳහාද මේ මඟින් අවකාශයක් ලැබේ. එහෙත් දැන් පවතින 13-ඒ උතුරු හා නැඟෙනහිර පලාත් සභා මෙන් සිංහල ජාතියට අවදානමක් කිරීමට මේ ජන සභා වලට ඉඩක් නැත. හේතුව ජන සභා මායිම් භාෂාව හෝ වර්‍ගය අනුව පිහිටුවා නොතිබීමත්, යම් ජන සභාවක් එය තුල සිටින සුළු ජන කොටසට හානිකරන අන්‌දමේ තීරණ ගත්තොත්, ඒ සුළු ජන කොටස අති බහුතරයක් වන වෙනත් ජන සභාවක් ඊට විරුද්ධව (එකට එක කර) එහි සිටින සුළු ජන කොටසට හානිකරවන තීරණයක් ගන්නට පෙළඹීමට ඉඩ තිබෙන නිසාත් ය. මෙය අයුතු හැසිරීමක් (නීති පැනවීමක්) ලෙස නීති මඟින් තහනම් කරණවාට වඩා වෙනස් අන්‌දමට බලතුලනය කිරීමකි. මඩකලපුවේ මුස්ලිම් අය අධික ජන සභාවක් අළුතින් පන්සල් හැදීම තහනම් කරන්නට නීතියක් පාස් කොලොත් ඒ වෙනුවට හෝමාගම ජන සභාවක් මුස්ලිම් පල්ලි හැදීම තහනම් කරන නීතියක් පාස් කරන්නට ඉඩ ඇත. මේ නිසා හෝමාගම මුස්ලිම් ජනයා මඩකලපුවේ මුස්ලිම් ජනයාට මේ අනතුර දන්වා එය වලක්වනු ඇත. දැන් තිබෙන ක්‍රමය අනුව සංහිඳියාව පවත්‌වාගෙන යන්නේ පොලිස් නිලධාරීන් දෙදෙනෙක් බැගින් උතුරේ හා නැඟෙනහිර බුදු පිළිම වලට රෑ දාවල් මුර දමා නොවේද? දකුණේ බෞද්ධයින් චිරානුගත අන්‍යාගමික රූප වලට හෝ පල්ලි වලට තාර ගන මනසික මට්ටමකට වැටී නැත. උතුරු නැඟෙනහිර දෙමළ-මුස්ලිම් ජන කොටස් උසිගන්වන දේශපාලකයින්ට සංහිඳියා කඩුව මිස නවගුණවැල නොතේරේ. ඔවුන්ට මෙත්තා-කරුණා-මුදිතා-උපේක්ඛා ද අණ්ඩර දෙමළය. මේ නිසා වෛරයෙන් වෛරය නොසන්සිඳේ යයි මතුරනවා වෙනුවට  බෝධිසත්‌ව නාගයා ලිප්බොක්කෙන් දර පොල්ලක් අතට ගත් මැහැලියට කලා මෙන් පෙනේ පිප්පීමක් අවශ්‍යය.

4. හතරවන පියවර (ජන සභා ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීම)

මෙම ජන සභා පක්‍ෂ දේශපාලනයෙන් තොරව චන්දයෙන් තෝරා ගන්නා නියොජිතයින් දස දෙනෙකුගෙන් සමන්විත විය හැකිය. මහජනයාගේ එදිනෙදා ජීවිතයේ  අවශ්‍යතා විශාල කොටසක් මේ ජන සභා මඟින් සපයා ගත හැකිය. පිරිසිදු ජලය, කුණු කසල කළමනාකරණය, ඩෙංගු මර්‍ධනය, පරිසර දූෂණය අවම කිරීම, මොන්ටොසෝරි, ප්‍රාථමික අධ්‍යාපනය, මූලික සෞඛ්‍ය සේවා, පාරවල්, මූලික රාජ්‍ය සේවා, මූලික සමාජ සේවා, ගොවි ජන සේවා යනාදිය මේ යටතට පත්කල හැකිය.  උතුරු වසන්තය හා නැඟෙනහිර නවෝදය අසාර්‌ථක වුනේ මෙසේ නොකල නිසාය. මධ්‍යම ආණ්ඩුව මගින් කලයුතු සේවා හා ජාතික මට්ටමෙන් ගතයුතු තීරණ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රී ක්‍රමය හරහා සිදුවෙනු ඇත. සෑම ජන සභාවකම පර්‍යේෂණ ඒකකයක් පිහිටුවිය යුතු අතර එම ඒකකයේ නිලධාරීන් පත් කිරීම හා විනය පාලනය මධ්‍යම පර්‍යේෂණ ආයතනයක් මඟින් මිස ජන සභාව හරහා නොවිය යුතුය. ජන සභා සම්බන්ධ දත්ත, වාර්‍තා ප්‍රමිතීකරණය කර පරිගණක මඟින් වෙබ් අඩවියකින් බලාගත හැකිවිය යුතුය. මේ අනුව හම්බන්තොට ඉන්නා අයෙකුට යාපනේ හෝ අම්පාරේ තොරතුරු විවෘත විය යුතුය. මේ සම්බන්‌ධයෙන් සවිස්තර සලැස්මක් මේ ලිපියේ සඳහන් කල නොහැකිය. මෙවැනි පරිගණක ගතකල දත්‌ත දැනටමත් ග්‍රාම සේවක වසම් මට්ටමෙන් රජයේ වෙබ් අඩවිවල දමා තිබෙනු මා දැක ඇත.

5. පස්වන පියවර (තිරසර සංවර්‍ධනය)

තිරසර සංවර්‍ධනය යනු-ආර්ථික සංවර්‍ධනය-සමාජීය අභිවෘධිය-පරිසර සංරක්‍ෂණය යන පාද තුනක් සහිත ත්‍රිකෝණය ය. එහෙත් ඊලම් හිසරදය සමඟ තිරසර ප්‍රගතියක් බලාපොරොත්තුවීම වෙස්ට් බෑන්ක් එකේ යුදෙව් ජනාවාස හදමින් ඊශ්‍රාලය පලස්තීනය සමඟ සාමයක් හොයනවා වැනිය. ලෝකය සුවපත් කරන්නට, ශීලාචාර කරන්නට මඟ පෙන්වන්නට යුනෙස්කෝවේ බෞද්ධ නියෝජිතයාවන තම්පාවෙල ධම්මරතන හිමියන් (ප්‍රංශ ජාතිකයෙක්ද සමඟ) ලියූ පොතේ කියනදේ ලංකාවේ ක්‍රියාත්‌මක කරන්නට නම් නැඟෙනහිර කෘතිම පලාතේ දෙමළ නිජ භූමියක් තිබේ යන චෙල්වනායගම් මහතා ගෙතූ මිථ්‍යා කතාව ශුන්‍ය කල යුතුය. එය කල හැක්කේ නැඟෙනහිර පලාතත් අනිත් පලාතුත් ස්වාභාවික මායිම් සහිත ඒකක ලෙස පරිසර විද්‍යාත්මකව හඳුන්වා ගැනීමෙනි. ඊලම් දමනය කියන්නේ එයටය.

මෙය භූමි ප්‍රමාණය වශයෙන් දැන් තිබෙන දිස්ත්‍රික් 25 මට්ටමින් හෝ පලාත් නවය මට්ටමෙන් හෝ ගංඟාද්‍රොණි මායිම් අනුව කල හැකිය. සෑම ප්‍රදේශයකටම සාගර මුහුණතක් ලැබෙන හා බිමේ ප්‍රමාණයෙන් බොහෝ සෙයින් එක සමානවන ආකාරයට ගංඟා ද්‍රොණි හතකට බෙදු කලාප සිතියම මෙහි පහතින් ඇත. යාල් පානම් කලාපය, රජරට කලාපයෙන්ද ජලය ලබාගන්නට යන (මොරගහකන්‌ද-කළු ගංඟා ව්‍යාපෘතිය), අතිබහුතර දෙමළ ජනාශ්‍රිත කලාපයක්වේ. එහෙත් එය එසේ වෙන්කර ඇත්තේ භාෂාව පදනම් කරගෙන නොවේ. දිගු කාලයේදී බුදු පිලිම අරහං කරවන මනසක් ඊලම්වාදීන් විසින් අහිංසක දෙමළ ජනයාට පැටවීමට සැදීම ශුන්‍ය වන්නේ එවිටය. මුස්ලිම් ශාරියා වාදයද ගම් මට්ටමින් ලොප් කල හැක්කේද එවිටය. ඒ සමඟ සිංහල හා දෙමළ භාෂා පාසැල්වල උගැන්වීමද ජන සභා මට්ටමෙන් සිදුවනු ඇත. මෙයද ඊලම්වාදය කොට උඩ යැවීමට හේතුවන්නේය.

චන්ද කොට්‌ඨාශ අනුව පක්‍ෂ දේශපාලනය උඩ පත්‌වන පාර්ලිමේන්තුවකුත්, පක්‍ෂ දේශපාලනයෙන් තොරව චන්දයෙන් පත්‌වන සම්මුතිවාදී ජන සභා ක්‍රමයකුත් යන විධි දෙක මඟින් දේශපාලනය පවුල් ජීවිකාව කරගෙන ජීවත්‌වන පිරිසක් විසින් ජන සභා ක්‍රමය අඩාල කරන්නට දරන උත්සාහයට රීසනබල් (මධ්‍යම ප්‍රතිපදාව) විසඳුමක් ලැබේ. රටේ ජන සභා ගංඟා ද්‍රොණි හතක් වශයෙන් ගොනුකර (හෝ දිස්ත්‍රික් 25 ක් වශයෙන් ගොනුකර) සිය දෙනෙකුගෙන් යුත් ජාතික ජන සභා මණ්ඩලයක් (සෙනේට් සභාවක්) පිහිටුවා එය පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට අතිරේක නීති සම්පාදන ඒකකයක් කල හැකිය. මේ මඟින් ජාතික මට්ටමින් බලතුලනයක් ඇතිවේ. මේ මඟින් පක්‍ෂ දේශපාලනයද ශීලාචාර වනවා නිසැකය.

බුද්ධාගමේ මුල් ගලක් වන මධ්‍යම ප්‍රතිපදාවත්, නූතන නීති විද්‍යාවේ එන රීසනබල්නස් ඩොක්ට්‍රින් එකත්, භූගෝල විද්‍යාවේ එන පෘථිවි තලය මත තිබෙන වෙන්කර හඳුනාගත හැකි භූමි ප්‍රදේශය  (රීජන්ස්) නමැති සංකල්පයත් එකම ලෝක සිද්ධාංතයක් දෙස පැති තුනකින් බැලීමක් බව වටහා ගැනීම සම්මා දිට්ටි හා සම්මා සංකප්ප ද වේ. එවිට සම්මා වායාමයක් සඳහා ඉඩක් ලැබේ.  ජන සභා සංකල්පය ත්‍රිකෝණයක මැද නම් එහි එක පැත්තක් මධ්‍යම ප්‍රතිපදාවය. ඒ කියන්නේ අන්තවාදී නොවීමය. ඌරු මස් කන, හරක් මස් කන, කුකුල් මස් කන, මාළු කන හා එළවලු පමණක් කන මිනිසුන් යම් ජන සභාවක් තුල සිටිය හැකිය. මේ නිසා එහි මිනිසුන් යම් යම් එකඟතාවලට (කම්ප්‍රොම්‍යිස්) පැමිණිය යුතුය. ත්‍රිකෝණයේ දෙවන පැත්ත ලෙස නීති විද්‍යාවේ (ජුරිස්ප්‍ර‌ැඩන්ස්) රීසනබල්නස් න්‍යාය (සාධාරණකම) ඇත. මෙයද බුද්‌ධාගමේ මධ්‍යම ප්‍රතිපදාවය. ඕනෑම ගැටුමක් අන්තිමේදී උසාවියකින් විසඳන්නේ මේ රීතිය අනුව යමින් ය. ජන සභාවක් ගත් යම් ක්‍රියාවක්, තීරණයක් සාධාරණද  යන්න තීරණය වන්නේ නොයෙක් භූගෝල විද්‍යාත්මක කරුණු මතය. ත්‍රිකෝණයේ තුන්වන පැත්ත වන්නේ භූමි ප්‍රදේශයය (රීජනල් කන්සෙප්ට්). ලෝකයේ හෝ රටක භූමිය නොයෙක් නිර්‍ණායක අනුව එකිනෙකට වෙනස් භූමි ප්‍රදේශ වේ. මෙය පස, ජලය, ගස්, දේශගුණය හෝ ඒවායේ එකතුවෙන් (ලංකාවේ කෘෂි-පරිසර කලාප 46 ක් හඳුනාගෙන ඇත්තේ මෙසේය) හෝ සිදුවන දෙයකි. වියලි කලාපය, තෙත් කලාපය, තැනිතලා, කඳුකර, හුනුගල් පස, කබොක් පස, ලඳු කැලෑ, අ‌ර්‌තාපල්, ගෝවා වැවෙන ප්‍රදේශ, වටු කුරුළු බිත්තර එකතු කරගතහැකි ප්‍රදේශ යනාදී වශයෙන් විව්ධ ප්‍රදේශ ඇත. වැසි ජලය ලැබෙන ආකාරය අනුව මේ භූමි ප්‍රදේශ අවුරුදුපතා හෝ චක්‍රාකාරව අවුරුදු ගණනකට වරක් හෝ වෙනස්වීම් වලටද ලක්වේ. ගංවතුර, නායයාම්, නියං වලට ලක්‌වෙන ප්‍රදේශ ඇත. මින් පෙනීයන්නේ ජන සභා ලෙස කුඩා භූමි ප්‍රදේශ වශයෙන් මිස මෙග ප්‍රොජෙක්ට් ලංකාව වගේ කුඩා රටකට නුසුදුසු බව නොවේද? මෙග ප්‍රොජෙක්ට් වලට වන්‌දි ගෙවන්නේ තාවකාලික දේශපාලකයා නොව අසරණ රටවැසියාය.

පහතින් පෙන්වන සිතියම් තුන දෙස බලන්න.  පුරාණ ලඬකාව යන සිතියම ගත්තේ වල්පොල ශ්‍රී රාහුල හාමුදුරුවන් විසින්  1955 දී ඉංග්‍රීසියෙන් ලියා සිංහලට පෙරලූ ලක්දිව බුදුසමයේ ඉතිහාසය නම් පොතෙනි. ඒ සිතියම පිළියෙල කර දී ඇත්තේ සී ඩබ්ලිව් නිකලස් නම් ඉතිහාසඥයා විසිනි. සිංහල ජනයාගේ ඉතිහාසය දකුණු පලාත් හතට සීමා කිරීමට සිතීම කෙතරම් අසාධාරණද යන්න ඉන් පෙනී යයි. 1977 සංඛ්‍යා ලේඛන අනුව දෙමළ හා මුස්ලිම් ජනයා සියේට 1-10 දක්වා සිටින මැතිවරන කොට්ට්ඨාශ මට්ටමේ සිතියම ඊලඟ සිතියමය. මෙවැනි දත්ත 1977 න් පසුව ප්‍රසිද්ධ කර නැත. මෙවැනි කලවම්කල බිත්තරයක සුළු ජනව‌ර්‌ග වලට සංහිඳියාවෙන් ජීවත්‌වීමට සුදුසුම විධිය ජන සභා ක්‍රමය නොවේද? භූගෝල විද්‍යා මහාචාර්‍ය මද්දුමබණ්ඩාර විසින් නිර්‍මාණය කල තුන්වන සිතියමෙන් පෙන්වන්නේ පරිසර සාධක අනුව මායිම් සදාගත් ජන සභා ක්‍රමය යටතේ ඉදිරියට ගොස් දිවයින බෙදිය හැකි භාෂාව නොව ස්වභාව ධර්‍මය මත පදනම්වූ රටකි. 13 ඒ අහෝසිකර ඒ වෙනුවට ගත හැකි සංහිඳියා පියවරය.  මෙය වනාහි ලෝකයේ ඊලම් දමනය නම් වේ.


February 27th, 2017


“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of Life is when men are afraid of the light.” – ― Plato

“The smartest fish are still in the sea.” -― Matshona Dhliwayo

“You become a Prisoner if you are caught and found guilty of breaking the law.  Those who break the law and still not caught, are moving in the society  as law abiding citizens”- Dr W S Karunaratne- Professor of Buddhist Philosophy.

In whichever way we interpret, the Arjun Mahendran’s Bond Scam will generate sufficient smell throughout the world, to tarnish the image of Sri Lanka. The officials of the Government of Singapore have already expressed their shock and dismay on the behaviour of one of its citizens in a foreign country.  There is no room whatsoever in Singapore for illegal activities such as the Sri Lankan Bond Scam.

The Cope Committee headed by its Chairman JVP MP Mr Sunil Hadunhetti  read out the recommendations into the Bond Scam  in the Parliament on 28 October, 2016.    These recommendations were agreed upon by all 26 members of the Committee.

Giving her evidence before the Presidential Royal Commission into the Bond Scam, the Government Printer Gangani Kalpana Liyanage has said today ( 27 Feb. 2017) that the Notification to publish the Gazette on the subject matter was received  by the Government Printer in December 2016 from the Public Debt Department of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka.

The Cope Committee could not find out these vital  facts as the Gazette was not available in October 2016.

The crooks have planned to involve the President Mahinda Rajapakse   for giving his ostensible authority for the scam, when they used a post-dated timing for the publication of the Gazette  to December 2016,  using the name of Mr Mahinda Rajapakse, who was not the Minister of Finance in January 2015.  This has been very smart foot work by the team of crooks, waiting until the conclusion of Cope Committee Report.

                       “Thieves are always the most careful of their purses.”
Robert Jordan,

Copyright © 2017 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress