Dharshan Weerasekera, Attorney-at-law

D. B. S. Jeyaraj, the LTTE propagandist sometimes also known to masquerade as a ‘journalist,’ has written a lengthy commentary on the judgment in H. K. D. Chandrasoma’s case, published in the Daily Mirror of 19^th August 2017 and titled, ‘Federalism is not Separatism, rules the Supreme Court.’

As far as I understand it, Mr. Jeyaraj’s argument is that the judgment is important because of two reasons:  first, it has definitively established that the Illangai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) political party is not a separatist party, and second, to advocate for federalism in Sri Lanka is not the equivalent of advocating for separatism.  He goes on to say that the SC has given the ITAK a ‘clean chit.’

If Chandrasoma had won the case, the ITAK would have been proscribed as a separatist party, which means that R. Sampanthan, M. A. Sumanthiran, C.V. Wigneswaran, and a host of lesser lights in the TNA elected to the Parliament or to Provincial Councils under the ITAK banner will have immediately lost their jobs.  So in that sense they dodged a bullet, and the likes of Jeyaraj and others are probably breathing a sigh of relief.

As Counsel for Chandrasoma, I have certain insights into the case that I hope will contribute to a more robust and meaningful public discussion of this important case.  I shall briefly discuss four issues:  one, why Chandrasoma filed the case; two, some salient facts about the background to the 6^th Amendment; three, the Petitioner’s main argument and the court’s responses to them (i.e. the essence of the judgment); and finally, why I think the judgment is important for our times.

The reason for filing the case

As much as I understand it, Chandrasoma’s fear – and I think it is a fear shared by many other Sinhalas not just the nationalists – is that the TNA, ITAK and their assorted allies are laying the legal groundwork for a future unilateral secession either through a referendum held just for the residents of the North and East, or by a unilateral declaration of independence by a Provincial Government or an independent group operating within such a province (we can call this later the ‘Kosovo method.’)

My instructions were to explore legal means of preventing such an eventuality.  We decided to go with the 6^th Amendment to the Constitution, because it had never been interpreted in its 35-year existence.  Win or lose, at the end of the case there was going to be an interpretation of the 6^th Amendment, and that was going to be an advancement of the law.  Now, we do have such an interpretation.

The background to the 6^th Amendment

The 6^th Amendment to our Constitution is almost a word for word replication of India’s Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967, enacted to combat secessionist and separatist movements.  The difference between the Indian version and our own is that in India the action is filed at the High Court, whereas in our country the action is filed in the Supreme Court.

The advantage in the Indian version is that if the respondent is found guilty he has a chance to appeal, whereas with us, there is no such option.  (In my view, this is a weakness in our law that needs to be addressed, but in any event the petitioner resorted to the law he had in hand.)

The point is that, the Indians have been making vigorous use of their law, unlike in our country, and in fact the Indian Parliament has seen fit to amend the Act six times since `1967, each time making it more rigorous.  There is a rich body of Indian case law which has interpreted the Act and its uses over the years.

In my view, the above facts reveal two things:  first, the Indian Parliament plus the courts have considered that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act is an effective means of combating secessionism and separatism in that country, and two, that perhaps given a federal system such as what the Indians have, coupled with the realities of communalism which are an integral part of Indian politics, a device such as the UAPA is essential in order to maintain the territorial integrity of the country in the long run.

Since Sri Lanka has adopted key elements of the Indian federal system with the 13^th Amendment, Sri Lanka has important lessons to learn from the above two points, especially with respect to using the 6^th Amendment.  By facilitating an interpretation of the 6^th Amendment, Chandrasoma has made it possible for other concerned citizens to resort to this provision more easily.

The Petitioner’s main arguments  

The Petitioner’s claim was that explicit statements in the ITAK’s Constitution plus reasonable inferences that can be drawn from relevant passages in that document indicate that the arrangement of government the ITAK is seeking is that of a ‘Confederation,’ and that, since a ‘Confederation’ by definition involves a union of sovereign states, ITAK seeks is to establish such a sovereign state, namely, Tamil Eelam.

The Petitioner relied on three arguments in order to support the above claim:  first, an Amendment to the ITAK Constitution in 2008, which substituted the word ‘Innaipachi’ for the word ‘Samasthi’ with reference to the type of government what the ITAK is seeking.  It is not in dispute that the Sanskrit work ‘Samasthi’ means ‘federal.’  Chandrasoma’s claim was that the word ‘Innaipachi,’ read in the context of certain ideas and concepts contained in the relevant passage, can only mean ‘Confederation.’

Second, in its passage on ‘aims and objects’ the ITAK asserts that the Tamils of Sri Lanka have a right to self-determination under international law.  Chandrasoma’s claim was that, a right to self-determination is only claimed by people who want to liberate themselves from another people or a country, such as in the case of colonial occupation.  Therefore, to assert a right to self-determination indicates that the ITAK harbours an intention of separating from the Sinhalas and the rest of Sri Lanka, and this in turn indicates they have an intention of setting up a separate state.

Third and finally, the Petitioner focused on ‘Rule 17’ of the Amendment to the ITAK’s Constitution where ITAK unambiguously endorses ‘all resolutions and actions taken by the Tamil United Liberation Front and the Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi from 14^th May 1976.’  It is not in dispute that the Vaddukodai Declaration, a seminal separatist document (among other things it was considered by Vellupillai Prabakaran as giving him a mandate for his actions) was signed by the TULF on 14^th May 1976.

So, Chandrasoma’s claim was that, the fact that the ITAK has endorsed all TULF resolutions going back specifically to 14^th May 1976 means that ITAK has unmistakably endorsed the Vaddukoddai Resolution, which indicates that it continues to harbour separatist intentions.

What does the court say to these charges?  On the first count, the court says that the change in words from ‘Samasthi’ to ‘Innaipachi’ does not connote a change in meaning or objective, and that what ITAK had done was to substitute for a Sanskrit word a pure Tamil word of equivalent meaning.  The court pointed out that ITAK had made such substitutions in a number of other places in the Constitution also.

On the second count, court says that ‘self-determination’ has an internal dimension, and that the fact that someone asserts ‘self-determination,’ does not necessarily mean they harbor an intention to secede, but could mean that they wish to gain more power for themselves within the existing system.  Such an ambition cannot be considered as amounting to a separatist intention.

On the third count, court says that, because the Petitioner had not listed the TULF as a Respondent, and it was the TULF that had originally signed the Vadukoddai Declaration, the fact that the ITAK has endorsed all resolutions and acts of the TULF going back to 14^th May 1976 is irrelevant for purposes of the present case.

It is an astute point, because it is possible that the TULF, between 1976 and 2008, adopted a resolution renouncing the Vaddukodai Declaration, in which case the ITAK would necessarily have endorsed such resolution also, as per ‘Rule 17’ of its Constitution.

Such then is the judgment.  All in all, it is a balanced and well-reasoned judgment and far be it for me to criticize it.  I shall now turn to the reasons that I think the judgment is especially important for our times.

The reasons that make the judgment important

I shall discuss two reasons.  First, the court sets out certain principles relating to the definition of ‘federalism.’ The court bases its discussion on the dictionary-definition of ‘federalism,’ and compliments that by referring to certain observations of Chief Justice Sharvananda from the judgment in the 13^th Amendment case.

The conclusion of the court, which is an amalgamation of the aforesaid dictionary-definition plus CJ Sharvananda’s observations is that the terms ‘Unitary’ and ‘Federal’ are misleading (i.e. there can be unitary elements in a federal system and vice versa) but the fundamental juxtaposition is between unitary/federal on the one hand and ‘Confederation’ on the other.   The key passage with respect to this is as follows:

‘It is established that there is a clear distinction between the words ‘federation’ and ‘confederation.’  The main issue in this case is whether advocating the establishment of a federal state is tantamount to establishment of a separate state….The labeling of states as unitary and federal sometimes may be misleading.  There could be unitary states with features or attributes of a federal state and vice versa.  In a unitary state if more powers are given to the units it could be considered as a federal state.  Similarly, in a federal state if the centre is more powerful and the power is concentrated in the centre it could be considered as a unitary state.  Therefore, sharing of sovereignty, devolution of power and decentralization will pave the way for a federal form of government within a unitary state.  The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution devolved power to the provinces.  The ITAK is advocating for a federalist form of government by devolving more powers to the provinces within the framework of a unitary state.  Advocating for a federal form of government within the existing state could not be considered as advocating separatism.’ (page 17)

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that a Sri Lankan court has explicitly articulated the above point, and it has profound ramifications, particularly to ongoing discussions about devolution of power to the Provinces.

To digress a moment, as a general matter, to my knowledge all hitherto discussions of federalism in this country have been based on definitions proffered by various academics, public intellections and suchlike pundits, and the common element in these definitions is that they see federalism as being part of a single continuum, with ‘Unitary’ at one extreme end of it and ‘Confederation’ at the other.

Under the aforesaid definitions, it is possible to interpret federalism as permitting an arrangement where the central government and the peripheral units are equals, or co-equals, ‘supreme within their own spheres of influence.’

What the court has done with Chandrasoma’s judgment is to put an end to the aforesaid speculations.  The court has established that the valid definition of ‘federalism’ at least in terms of its application in Sri Lanka is the dictionary-definition (which is also the classical definition of the concept ‘federalism’), where the fundamental dichotomy is between federalism on the one side and confederation on the other.

Furthermore, by relying on CJ Sharvananda’s observations in the 13^th Amendment judgment, the court has identified the distinctive element that turns a federal system into a confederation, to wit:  it is division of sovereignty.  Court cites with approval the following passage from the CJ Sharvananda’s judgment in the 13^th Amendment case:

‘In a Unitary State the national government is legally supreme over all other levels.   The essence of a Unitary State is that sovereignty is undivided – in other words, that the powers of the central government are unrestricted.  The two essential qualities of a Unitary State are 1) the supremacy of the central Parliament and 2) the absence of subsidiary sovereign bodies.  It does not mean the absence of subsidiary law-making bodies, but it does mean that they exist and can be abolished at the discretion of the central authority.’  (page 10)

To repeat, the distinctive characteristic of the existing system of government in Sri Lanka, whether we wish to call it ‘Unitary’ or ‘Unitary/Federal,’ is undivided sovereignty. The practical manifestation of this in terms of the distribution of powers between the center and the provinces is that, no matter how much power may be devolved to the provinces, the center must always retain the power to keep the provinces under control, which necessarily includes the capacity to take back the powers of the provinces if needed.

It follows from the aforesaid that if an attempt is made to dilute the powers of the center to an extent where the center can no longer exert effective control over the provinces, such an attempt cannot be justified as an attempt to enhance or further federalism: it is instead an attempt to break out of the federal model and pursue a confederation.

The importance of Chandrasoma’s case is that the aforesaid ideas have now become a part of the constitutional jurisprudence of Sri Lanka.  What are the ramifications of this?  I’ll just explain three lasting ramifications.

First, ITAK is permitted to advocate for ‘federalism,’ but only within the ‘existing system,’ which is to say, the unitary/federal model as now defined by court.  In such a system, there is a distinct limit to the amount of power that can be devolved to the peripheral units, and that limit – the red-line, as it were – is where the centre loses the capacity to impose effective control over the peripheral units, including to take back at its discretion the powers devolved to the units.

Second, under the definition of ‘federalism’ set out by the court, a right to external self-determination does not exist in our country for people dissatisfied for whatever reason with the amount of power devolved to the Provinces.  They must adjust their own demands and expectations and function within the parameters of the existing system.  Court confirms this by citing with approval the famous ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court in Reference re Secession of Quebec.   Court specifically cites the following passage from the aforesaid judgment:

‘The Court was also required to consider whether a right to unilateral secession exists under international law….a right to secession only arises under the principle of self-determination of people at international law where ‘a people’ is governed as part of a colonial empire, where ‘a people’ is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation, and possibly where a ‘people’ is denied any meaningful exercise of its rights of self-determination within the state of which they are a part.  In other circumstances peoples are expected to achieve self-determination within the framework of their existing state.  A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on the basis of equality and without discrimination and respects the principle of self-determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity recognized by other states.’  (p. 16)

Since the Tamils of Sri Lanka are not under colonial occupation, or under ‘alien subjugation and domination,’ and furthermore, since the democratic rights of Tamils are respected – as evidenced by the fact that members of ITAK are in Parliament and in Provincial Councils – the ITAK cannot claim that the Tamils of Sri Lanka have a right to external self-determination under international law.

The judgment in Chandrasoma’s case now makes it easier to make the above case before the international community, because it has clarified what the ‘existing system’ is.  Also, it opens the way for opponents of devolution – not just of further devolution but even of the amount of devolution that has been affected so far (i.e. under the 13^th Amendment)- to say something like this:

‘If what ITAK wants is more power or autonomy for Tamils, and a unitary/federal system allows for devolution of powers as long as the Center retains the unshakeable capacity to control the Provinces effectively including to withdraw the powers given to the Provinces, let’s have such a system, but let the unit of devolution be something other than the Province, say, the District.’

ITAK, and all other ‘federalists’ in this country, will have to give a reasonable reply to a query such as the above, especially if it is asked in the international arena.  And until such an answer is given, they will find it difficult to advance any arguments about the purported right of Tamils in this country to external self-determination under international law.

Third, if it had been the idea of the TNA, the ITAK and their assorted allies to permit the word ‘Unitary’ to remain in the Constitution, but bring in constitutional changes that diluted the powers of the center over the periphery to an extent where the center can no longer effectively control the actions of the Provincial Governments – for instance by curtailing the powers of the President over the Provincial Governor or by eliminating the concurrent list –  without subjecting the related constitutional amendment to a referendum, such a thing is no longer possible.

Now that the meaning of ‘federalism’ has been clarified with respect to its defining characteristic, no matter what one calls the resulting form of government, if there’s a reduction or a change in the power of the Centre vis a vis the Provinces, the issue of whether there’s the potential for that change to result in a division of sovereignty arises.

Sovereignty, as everyone knows, is a matter that comes under Article 3 of the Constitution, long recognized as the very backbone of the Constitution, and one of the Articles that automatically requires a referendum in order to amend.

Therefore, if an attempt is made to sneak in constitutional changes that dilute the power of the Centre vis a vis the Provinces by relying solely on a two-third majority in Parliament, now there’s a chance to challenge the related Bill under Article 3 of  the Constitution, and seek a referendum.  That is a huge advantage for the People at this moment.

Finally, the important point about Chandrasoma’s case is that in the course of it Court ordered an English translation of the ITAK Constitution to be produced by the Department of Official Languages.  To the best of my knowledge this is the only such official translation of the document because the version in the Elections Commissions’ office is in Tamil.

As already mentioned, in ‘Rule 17’ of the Amendment to the ITAK Constitution in 2008, it explicitly states that ITAK endorses all resolutions and acts of the TULF going back to 14^th May 1976.  That means ITAK endorses the Vaddukoddai Declaration, an indisputably separatist document, unless in the time between 1976 and 2008 the TULF has passed a resolution renouncing the said Declaration.

In Chandrasoma’s case, the court deemed the above fact irrelevant, and for good reason.  However, the fact that ITAK has endorsed the resolutions and acts of the TULF going back to 14^th May 1976 is now in the public domain, thanks to Chandrasoma.  All that is required is for a civic-minded Sri Lankan to re-file an application  against the ITAK solely on ‘Rule 17’ of its Constitution, and this time list the TULF as a respondent also, and then let them come before court and explain themselves.

To the best of my knowledge, the TULF has now renounced the Vaddukoddai Declaration.  So, all they have to do is get on the stand (figuratively speaking) and say so.  In that event, the ITAK is caught, well and good.   Meanwhile, if ITAK tries to amend its Amendment and belatedly renounce the ‘VD,’ they’ll be caught inter alia under Section 8(2)(f) of the Evidence Ordinance (‘subsequent conduct’).  So, they are stuck.

In short, if the ITAK thought that with Chandrasoma’s case they were rid of a headache, they are mistaken.  It may well be that, their troubles – or rather the real ‘fun’ – is just beginning.

[1] A version of this paper was published in lankaweb on 21^st August 2017.

Dharshan Weerasekera, Attorney-at-Law

[Author’s note:  The present paper is intended to be read with a previous paper of mine titled, ‘H. K. D. Chandrasoma’s Case:  A Response to D. B. S. Jeyaraj,’ published in lankaweb.  For the convenience of readers that article is republished along with this one]

On 21^st August 2017, I published an article in lankaweb titled, ‘H. K. D. Chandrasoma’s case:  A Response to D. B. S. Jeyaraj,’ in which I endeavored to explain why Chandrasoma filed the case, his main claims against ITAK, the court’s answers to those claims, and finally, the aspects of the judgment that I considered to be of seminal importance to the country.[1]

In my view, the lasting importance of the judgment is in the fundamental change or rather development that the court has introduced with respect to the definition of ‘federalism’ that must now apply in Sri Lanka, at least as far as constitutional jurisprudence is concerned, and the ramifications of this to ongoing debates over devolution, including the proposed constitutional reforms.

In the past 2-3 weeks, I have read in the local papers at least two articles that have commented on Chandrasoma’s case, in particular comparing and contrasting the court’s definition of ‘federalism’ with other definitions given by various academics and scholars.  In my view, the writers of these articles are engaging in a futile exercise, because of the following reasons.

As far as constitutional jurisprudence is concerned, the judgment of a court invariably supersedes or trumps the opinions and speculations of academics (to the extent those opinions or speculations have not been incorporated into a judicial ruling).  If there is, say, a future challenge to a constitutional amendment where the definition of ‘federalism’ is a significant factor, our judges will give priority to the definitions generated by fellow judges on the bench.

Therefore, the more reasonable thing to do is to try and understand what exactly the court said about federalism in the instant case, rather than to seek after definitions proffered by various academics and other pundits – definitions the court has neither referred to nor relied on in the judgment.

In this paper, I shall briefly discuss three matters.  First, explain again what I consider to be the court’s definition of ‘federalism’; second, explain the general ramifications of the aforesaid definition to ongoing discussions over devolution; and third, point out the specific ramifications to, one, the Parliamentary Sub Committee report on Centre-Periphery relations tabled in November 2016, and two, Paragraph 16 of UNHRC resolution 30/1, which also explicitly calls for ‘devolution’ as a means of providing a ‘political settlement’ to the Tamils.

The Definition of ‘federalism’

The definition of ‘federalism’ that the court presents in Chandrasoma’s case is based on two things:  the dictionary definition of the word, supplemented by a key portion of Chief Justice Sharvananda’s judgment in the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution.  For the dictionary-definition, court has relied on the definition in Black’s law Dictionary, an authoritative source for lawyers.

However, it is possible that a lay-reader might object to this by saying that, as far as he or she is concerned Black’s Law Dictionary does not carry any special authority.  I emphasize that, the definition of ‘federalism’ with respect to its material elements is consistent among all reputable dictionaries, and in order to be on the safe side I shall give the definition of ‘federalism’ found in the Oxford Law Dictionary, right after quoting from Black’s.

The following is the definition of ‘Federal Government’ found in Black’s Law Dictionary (6^th Edition) relied on by court:

‘The system of government administered in a nation formed by a union or confederation of several independent States.’

‘In strict usage, there is a distinction between a confederation and a federal government.  The former term denotes a league or permanent alliance between several States, each of which is fully sovereign and independent, and each of which retains its full dignity, organization, and sovereignty, though yielding to the central authority a controlling power for a few limited purposes, such as external and diplomatic relations.  In this case, the component States are the units, with respect to the confederation, and the central government acts upon them, not upon the individual citizens.  In a Federal Government, on the other hand, the allied States form a union (e.g. the United States) not, indeed, to such an extent as to destroy their separate organization or deprive them of quasi sovereignty with respect to the administration of their purely local concerns, but so that the central power is erected into a true national government, possessing sovereignty both external and internal—while the administration of national affairs is directed and its effects felt, not by the separate States deliberating as units, but by the people of all, in their collective capacity, as citizens of the nation. The distinction is expressed by the German writers by the use of two words ‘Staatenbund’ and ‘Bundesstaat’; the former denoting a league of confederation of states, and the latter a federal government or state formed by means of a league of confederation.’[2]

The following is the definition of ‘Federal State’ given in the Oxford Law Dictionary:

‘Federal State:  A State formed by the amalgamation or union of previously autonomous or independent States.  A newly created federal state is constitutionally granted direct power over the subjects or citizens of the formerly independent states.  As such, the new federal state becomes a single composite international legal person.  Those former entities that comprise it have consented to subsume their former sovereignty into that of the federal State, although they retain their identity in municipal law.  Examples of Federal States include the USA and Switzerland.  COMPARE Confederation.’[3]

From both sets of quotes, it is clear that  the defining characteristic of a Federal State is that, one, the power of the central government reaches to the citizens or residents of the individual provinces (by contrast, in a confederation the power of the central government reaches only to the governments of the provinces), and two, the power of the central government is always supreme over that of the provincial governments (this is made especially clear by the Oxford Dictionary, to wit, ‘Those former entities that comprise it have consented to subsume their former sovereignty into that of the Federal State).

A necessary implication of the above is that, in a federal union the peripheral units cannot secede at will i.e., without the consent of the pother units that make up the union, while in a confederation they can.  Similarly, in a federal union a peripheral units cannot persist in acting contrary to the wishes of the center – the center always has the power to bring such recalcitrant unit under control, including taking back the powers given to the peripheral units as such.

I shall now turn to the second component of the court’s discussion of ‘federalism,’ where the court relies on a key portion from Chief Justice Sharvananda’s judgment in the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution (1987 2 SLR 319).  The court explicitly refers to the following remarks of CJ Sharvananda from the judgment in the 13^th Amendment case:

‘The term ‘Unitary’ in Article 2 is used in contradistinction to the term ‘Federal,’ which means an association of semi-autonomous units with a distribution of sovereign powers between the units and the center.  In a Unitary State the national government is legally supreme over all other levels.   The essence of a Unitary State is that sovereignty is undivided – in other words, that the powers of the central government are unrestricted.  The two essential qualities of a Unitary State are 1) the supremacy of the central Parliament and 2) the absence of subsidiary sovereign bodies.  It does not mean the absence of subsidiary law-making bodies, but it does mean that they exist and can be abolished at the discretion of the central authority.’  (page 10)

I draw the attention of the reader to the first sentence in the above passage, to wit;  ‘The term ‘Unitary’ in Article  2 is used in contradistinction to the term ‘Federal,’ which means an association of semi-autonomous units with a distribution of sovereign powers between the units and the center.’  The importance of this sentence is that, as CJ Sharvananda saw it, our Constitution does not permit an arrangement of government where the center and the peripheral units are equals or co-ordinates only, i.e. where the center cannot assert its authority over the peripheral units if and when needed.  I shall explain the implications of this point in a moment.

I shall now proceed to explain the general ramifications o the judgment both to general discussions of devolution, and the specific ramifications to the Sub-Committee report on Center –Periphery relations, and also UNHRC resolution 30/1.

The general ramifications of the Chandrasoma judgment to discussions of devolution in Sri Lanka

The following is the key passage in the judgment where the court gives its verdict as to whether Chandrasoma has established that ITAK is a separatist party.  The courts says:

‘It is established that there is a clear distinction between the words ‘federation’ and ‘confederation.’  The main issue in this case is whether advocating the establishment of a federal state is tantamount to establishment of a separate state….The labeling of states as unitary and federal sometimes may be misleading.  There could be unitary states with features or attributes of a federal state and vice versa.  In a unitary state if more powers are given to the units it could be considered as a federal state.  Similarly, in a federal state if the centre is more powerful and the power is concentrated in the centre it could be considered as a unitary state.  Therefore, sharing of sovereignty, devolution of power and decentralization will pave the way for a federal form of government within a unitary state.  The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution devolved power to the provinces.  The ITAK is advocating for a federalist form of government by devolving more powers to the provinces within the framework of a unitary state.  Advocating for a federal form of government within the existing state could not be considered as advocating separatism.’ (page 17)

In this section I shall briefly explain the general ramifications of the above passage to discussions over devolution in this country.  I shall start with the necessary background information, which involves discussing Article 2 of the Constitution.  Article 2 of the Sri Lanka Constitution states:

‘The Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State’

Nowhere in the Constitution is the term ‘Unitary’ defined.  For instance, there is no interpretation clause which defines that term.  [In my view, Sri Lanka would have been spared a lot of trouble if Mr. J. R. Jayawardena had seen to it to include an interpretation clause that defined ‘Unitary State’ when he first introduced the ’78 Constitution.  For one thing, it would have prevented the lingering controversy over the passing of the 13^th amendment, i.e. whether or not it required a referendum.  But all that is beside the point]

The point is this.  Because there is no definition for ‘Unitary’ provided in the Constitution itself, the only valid definition or interpretation of that term as far as our Constitution is concerned is the definition provided by C. J. Sharvananda in the 13^th Amendment judgment, quoted earlier.  (This is because of the operation of the maxim, ‘An interpretation of the law obtains the force of law,’ and C. J. Sharvananda’s definition has not been rejected or modified in any way by our courts in subsequent years.)

The problem is that, the 13^th Amendment has undoubtedly diluted the power of the central government, and CJ Sharvananda’s definition permits such dilution subject to the condition that there can never be a division of sovereignty.  Unfortunately, this situation has provided an opening for the Eelamists.  As long as the term ‘Federal State’ or ‘federalism’ was left undefined by our courts, C. J. Sharvananda’s definition of ‘Unitary State’ permitted the Eelamists to say something like this:
‘Under the ‘Unitary’ system of Sri Lanka as defined by our own courts, devolution of power is permitted.  A ‘Federal State’ is also an arrangement of government which permits a devolution of power on a sliding scale, that is, in some ‘Federal States’ there can be a strong central government (i.e. the US) and in others there can be a weak central government (i.e. Switzerland) with far more powers devolved to the peripheral units.  We advocate a ‘Federal’ system of government for Sri Lanka, and we are not doing anything wrong, because all we are asking for is just more devolution of power.’

Permit me to quote the actual words of two key Eelamists, in this case R. Sampanthan and M. A. Sumanthiran, to illustrate the above point.  The following is what Mr. Sampanthan said in the course of an important speech in 2012, at the 14^th National Convention of the ITAK in Batticaloa:

‘Our expectation for a solution to the ethnic problem of the sovereignty of the Tamil people is based on a structure outside that of a unitary government, in a united Sri Lanka in which Tamil people have all the powers of government needed to live with self respect and self-sufficiency.  We believe that only within such a structure of government can the Tamil people truly enjoy the right to self-determination that is their inalienable right.’[4]

‘The position that the North and East of Sri Lanka are the areas of historical habitation of the Tamil speaking people cannot be compromised in the structure of government.  We must have unrestricted authority to govern our own land, protect our own people, and develop our own economy, culture and tradition.  Powers must be allocated under this structure based on the understanding that meaningful devolution should go beyond the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1987. This position has been accepted by our party.  Our acceptance of his position does not mean that we consider the 13^th Amendment to be an acceptable solution, nor that, in the event our right to internal self-determination is continuously denied, we will not claim our right under international law to external self-determination.  It only means that this is the only realistic solution today.’[5]

The following, meanwhile, are some remarks by Mr. Sumanthiran, from an article published in the Bar Association of Sri Lanka Law Journal of 2015.  The article is part of an ‘exchange’ with three others – Ranil Wickremasinghe, Faiser Mustapha and J. C. Weliamuna – on the principles that must guide the proposed new Constitution.  Mr. Sumanthiran gives his ideas as to the principles that must underpin Center-Periphery relations, and says inter alia:

‘In accordance with this principle [i.e. the purported principle of maximum devolution], the Centre must have the minimum possible subjects and functions and the Centre and the devolved units must be supreme in their respective spheres of competence.’[6]

‘Thus, the list of subjects for the Centre should be limited to matters that are ‘national’ in nature—matters such as National Defence, Foreign Affairs, National Fiscal Policy, Immigration/Emmigration, Citizenship, Customs, Posts, Telecommunications, International Airports, Major Harbours, Railways, National Highways and Maritime Zones.’[7]

‘All other powers must be exercised by the provinces.  This must include exclusive powers over land, development, health and education.’[8]

There are two key elements in what both the aforesaid Eelamists are saying:  first, they consider that the amount or extent of devolution is a matter to be determined by the people demanding such devolution – in this case the Eelamists themselves – and not by natural limits intrinsic to the system; and second, it is possible in the Federal State as they envision it for the Center and the Peripheral Units to be ‘equal,’ i.e. ‘Supreme within their respective spheres of competence.’

It should be noted that, the aforesaid idea is entirely contrary to the definition of ‘federalism’ accepted by most people including the dictionaries.  Recall that, according to the dictionary-definition of ‘federalism,’ the sovereignty of the central government always subsumes that of the peripheral units, which means that, though the peripheral may have exclusive jurisdiction over particular matters, this is always subject to the authority of the central government, i.e. the central government retains the right to withdraw such jurisdiction if it deems such action necessary.

We thus come to the judgment in Chandrasoma’s case.  I shall specify three important ways in which it impacts discussions over devolution in this country.  First, the court has taken judicial notice of the fact that as a result of the 13^th Amendment we now have a federal arrangement of government, or at any rate that what we like to think of as a ‘unitary’ system has in reality incorporated significant federal elements.

The court, however, has defined ‘federalism,’ so it is no longer possible for the Eelamists to promote schemes of devolution (which the Eelamists call ‘federal’) but which are entirely contrary to what most people including the dictionaries understand by the word ‘federal.’  According to the definition of ‘federal government’ that court has now set out, the central government must always be superior to the peripheral units, i.e. the sovereignty of the center always subsume that of the peripheral units.

So, ideas such as those being peddled by the likes of Mssrs. Sampanthan and Sumanthiran, to wit:  that they want ‘all the powers of government needed to live with self respect and self-sufficiency,’ that, ‘the Centre must have the minimum possible subjects and functions and the Centre and the devolved units must be supreme in their respective spheres of competence,’ and so on, can no longer be presented as if those ideas were federal ideas.

Second, the idea that the people demanding devolution have an unrestricted right to determine the amount or extent of power to be devolved is no longer viable.  In either a Federal State as defined by the dictionaries, or a ‘Unitary State’ as defined by C. J. Sharvananda, the system sets distinct limits on the amount of devolution possible, namely, the limit is reached when the Center loses the capacity to effectively control the Peripheral Units.

Third, in concluding paragraph of its judgment, the court unequivocally states that, a party advocating federalism in Sri Lanka can do so only within the framework of the unitary system.  It is worth repeating the key portion of that paragraph.  Court says:

‘The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution devolved power to the provinces.  The ITAK is advocating for a federalist form of government by devolving more powers to the provinces within the framework of a unitary state.  Advocating for a federal form of government within the existing state could not be considered as advocating separatism.’

To repeat, ITAK (or any other party) can advocate for a federal state, but only within the framework of a unitary state.  So, it is impossible from now on for the Eelamists to play one of their main tricks, namely, saying that what they advocate is ‘federalism within the framework of a united and undivided Sri Lanka.’ It should be noted that, a confederation is also ‘united and undivided’ until one or more of its members decide to separate!

It must be emphasized that, the court does not say, ‘ITAK is advocating for a federalist form of government within the framework of a united and undivided Sri Lanka.’  If ITAK wants to pursue federalism in this country, court expects it to do so within the framework of a unitary state, as such a thing is understood in our constitutional jurisprudence.

What is the definition of a ‘Unitary State,’ valid for our Constitution?  As already explained, it is the definition given by C. J. Sharvananda, quoted earlier.  So, from now on, whatever the Eelamists choose to call the system of government they prefer for our country, in its substance that system must always have a central government that is superior to the peripheral units, and retains the authority inter alia to take back the powers devolved to the peripheral units.

In my view, on each of the aforesaid points, the court has dealt a deathblow to the ambitions of the Eelamists.   All that remains is for me to explain the specific ramifications of the judgment to, one, the Subcommittee report on Center – Periphery relations tabled in November 2016, and Paragraph 16 of UNHRC resolution 30/1, which also calls on the GOSL to reach a ‘political settlement’ with the Tamils by devolving more power to the Provinces.

Unfortunately, the constraints of time prevent me from taking up this matter at this moment.  I shall try to take it up in a future paper.  However, this may be a blessing in disguise.  I urge readers especially if they are law students to complete the task, and contribute something new and interesting to ongoing discussions of this seminal case.

[1] The judgment in H. K. D. Chandrasoma v. Mervai Senathirajah Secretary of the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi, SC/SPL/03/2014 (delivered on 4^th August 2017) is available at www.supremecourt.lk

[2] Pages 9-10 of the judgment

[3] Oxford Law Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2015

[4] Text of Address by R. Sampanthan at the 14^th National Convention of ITAK in Batticaloa, 27^th May 2012, www.dbsjeyaraj.com

[5] Ibid

[6] ‘Towards a Desirable Legal Framework for Achieving National Reconciliation in Sri Lanka,’ M. A. Sumanthiran, Bar Association of Sri Lanka Law Journal, Vol. XXI, 2015, pages, 38-41, pg. 40.Ibid,

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

by Dr. Sudath Gunasekara (SLAS)

A pre-publication copy of the monograph titled Sri Lanka: Land Policy for Sustainable Development, authored by Gerald Peiris (Professor Emeritus of the University of Peradeniya) which is due to be released on 15 September 2015, has been sent to me with an invitation to evaluate it. In undertaking this task I find it appropriate to place it against the backdrop of the knowledge and experience I have acquired both in the course of my official duties in the executive cadres of the state-sector administrative services that stretched for well over three decades, devoted almost entirely to matters concerning the needs of the more depressed segments of our peasantry, as well as my own research writings, including a doctoral dissertation, on agrarian affairs in the Central Highlands of Sri Lanka.

This monograph is undoubtedly a landmark in studies on land policies in Sri Lanka in that it signifies a radical departure from all conventional studies undertaken so far on this subject in this country which were primarily concerned with matters such as ownership and tenurial relations in land, land-use, forest conservation, subsistence farming and poverty alleviation with a special focus on the peasantry. In this discourse the author has urged a more comprehensive approach to land policy formulation – an approach that takes into account the impulses and impact of land policies that have been pursued from historical to modern times in details not found in any other study on this subject. He has made an in- depth analysis with a sharp insight into a wide range of areas that impinge on land policies in Sri Lanka such as theoretical concepts, evolution of land policies, land reforms, rural poverty, agriculture including both the peasant and commercial plantation sectors, land grabbing and malpractices, and the need for strict and urgent legal measures to arrest this disaster, depletions of forests,  conservation of water resources and  biodiversity, effects of planation agriculture on  Sri Lankan life and  the intricacies of the rural–urban-estate land use systems. I am particularly impressed with the attention he has paid to the need to protect the central watersheds (the ‘Geographical Heartland’, HADABIMA, of Sri Lanka as I call them) against soil erosion and land degradation and depletion of water resources, pivotal for sustainable development and human survival in this country which no other scholar has so eloquently articulated.

He has emphasised the necessity for a complete reorientation of land policies beyond these fields to cover a wider spectrum such as the needs and aspirations of people to meet the demand for land for different competing uses like paddy cultivation, plantation agriculture, livestock rearing, rapidly increasing urban needs and infrastructure development like roads and railways and arresting natural hazards such as landslides and floods and disruption of wetland ecosystems. Besides, he has also called for the need to address a wider range of current issues like territorial integrity, sovereignty, devolution of power relating to lands that are of pivotal significance to governance and all aspects of life in the country, with special reference to the vital importance of reorienting land policy towards enduring the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. A related perspective highlighted by Peiris is the need to protect land and its resources from foreign and domestic, intrusions driven by subversive ethnic considerations that pauses a serious threat to territorial integrity sand sovereignty of this Island nation.

The text is profusely illustrated and supported by maps, illustrations, charts and tables that have enhanced the academic value of the book. This thesis is equally useful for all sectors including academics and students who look for innovations and knew knowledge, policy makers and administrators involved in land work, looking for visionary land policies and the general public who treat land as their wealth and heritage. In compiling this discourse Professor Peiris has made use of his unparalleled and vast wealth of undisputed scholarly acumen and the wealth of almost sixty years of experience as a University teacher, scholar, researcher and a consultant in a wide range of fields and countries both in the West and the East which has served as the underpinning of this masterly analysis.

One final word on the painting on the front-cover designed by Manjula Peiris. It is, indeed, a masterpiece symbolizing the challenges our nation is facing both for ensuring sustainable development and as well as for the survival in this country which is being imperilled. It depicts symbolically the ominous terror and the plight of hapless rural farmer family. The man, though resolutely trying to drive away the impediment of a herd of charging wild elephants is also desperately struggling to save his family and himself.  He has only a rod and a huluatta (torch brand) for his defence against this terror by a herd of jumbo wild elephants. The anguished mother with the frightened child on her back is pulling the elder by her hand desperately who is holding a lantern in her other hand with trembling heart and soul dramatically portrays the plight of hapless peasants in the country side. Are these miserable peasants invoking god to save them from this ominous challenge before the nation arising from wrong land policies or no policies situation adopted by policy makers and the neglect for which they alone are mainly responsible.

The name of the book is very appropriate and speaks volumes on the thematic essence of the its content.  The need for a comprehensive and meaningful land policy, not only for sustainable development but also for survival in this Island nation is the pivotal message that has epitomized in this masterpiece.

This brief and modest attempt of mine is only a passing glimpse on this great work. One needs to read it in between line and it has to be ‘chewed and digested’ as Francis Bacon has once said of great books, to understand the real value of this unique treaties. But of cause the efforts of Prof Peiris will find their true results only in the implementation of policies embodied in this thesis by the policy makers and those who implement them. I commend this book for all those scholars, teachers and students, policy makers, Administrators and the general public who are genuinely and seriously interested in sustainable development and concerned with the survival of the Sri Lankan Nation.

This book has been published by Gevindu Kumaratunga of the firm ‘Visidunu Prakashakayo‘. It will be formally release at the Annual Book Fair which will open on 15 September 2017 at the BMICH.

Champa Fernando Secretary, KACPAW (Kandy Association for Community Protection through Animal Welfare)

A worldwide petition protesting to Minister Faiszer Musthapha, Hon. Minister of Provincial Councils and Local Government, to not to legalize killing of dogs in Sri Lanka has gained close to 30,000 signatures within a week from across the world and within Sri Lanka.

The petition asks to say NO to ITEM 14 of Sri Lanka’s Draft Dog Registration Act – LDO 36/2015, which would give the Provincial Councils the legality to kill ALL straying dogs!

Some Government Officials led by the Secretary to the Ministry of Provincial Councils and Local Government, want as per ITEM 14 of the above Act, ALL STRAY DOGS to be SEIZED by EVERY Local Authority, DETAINED and KILLED if not claimed by payment in 3 Days!!

This would be the beginning of the end of the No-Kill Policy on Dogs, a policy upheld by Minister Faiszer Musthapha as one that cannot be violated. But including Item 14 in the Dog Registration Act will clearly violate the No-Kill Policy, making the Minister’s humane stance hollow and meaningless.

The polarity of opinion of the Minister and some of his officials on this issue is indeed peculiar and needs to be bridged in favour of the civilized, humane option of Non-Killing of Dogs, discarding sinister plans to start killing dogs in Sri Lanka.

Predominantly a Buddhist Country, Sri Lanka enjoys a NO-Kill Policy on Dogs since 2006 and has a National Dog Sterilization Programme annually funded by the Government in place since 2008. This HUMANE approach is lauded world over and Sri Lanka is seen as a trailblazing, civilized and progressive country in the region.

So what is needed is not to go back to the Medieval Age by starting to kill dogs, a method proven over hundred years to be futile with regard to controlling the dog population, but to progress forward on the No-Kill Policy and ensure that the dog sterilization programme is effectively and comprehensively carried out right across this small Island nation so that the dog population is systematically and sustainably and HUMANELY reduced.

The petition can be signed at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/949/809/086/seize-detain-kill-sri-lanka-readying-legislation-to-kill-its-dogs/?taf_id=41835710&cid=fb_na

Champa Fernando

Secretary, KACPAW (Kandy Association for Community Protection through Animal Welfare)

Dr Hector Perera       London

Takeaways are often cheap, convenient and satisfying but, unfortunately, they’re not always very healthy. Some takeaway meals can push you over your recommended daily maximum amount of salt and fat, which can lead to a variety of health problems, such as heart disease and diabetes. Takeaway food are plenty but which one to choose?

A meal cooked and bought at a shop or restaurant but taken somewhere else, often home, to be eaten, or the shop or restaurant itself. A lot of takeaway food is perfectly safe for people with coeliac disease. However, you do need to be careful what you order and be aware of the risk of cross contamination in some takeaway restaurants. Britain will spend almost £8bn a year on takeaways by the end of the decade as a surge in smartphone usage and time-pressed households cooking fewer meals boosts the country’s predilection for takeaway food.

Expenditure on pizza, curry and Chinese food is expected to grow by 28% during this decade to £7.6bn a year according to figures from Euromonitor International. Forget hunting around for paper menus. There are plenty of instantly access a wide array of local favourites, whether you’re after Brighton’s best fish & chips or a full English breakfast in Liverpool. Browse peer-reviewed takeaway menus and filter by opening times, accepted payment methods, deals and discounts. With online payment and convenient re-ordering. Some on line takeaway even got you covered for a wine or beer to go with it. I think even in Sri Lanka, mainly in Colombo city area there are plenty of home delivering takeaways. No wonder some housewives are not bothered to cook at home. Whether they are healthy and clean is your choice, food on the table in no time. Why bother in smoky, dusty and hot kitchens, just pick up the phone then meals come on wheels as fast as they could, what a change!

Fish and chips

There are lots of ways to make your trip to the chippy a healthier one. Have a portion of baked beans or mushy peas with your fish and chips. Watch out for other foods that are high in fat, such as pies and sausages.

The thicker the chips the better, because they absorb less fat. Try to have a smaller portion or share your chips. Ask for your fish and chips without salt – if you want some salt, then add a small amount yourself.

Italian

If you’re having pizza, choose lower-fat toppings, such as vegetables, ham, fish and prawns. You could ask for some extra veg on your pizza to bump up your daily fruit and veg portions. But if you don’t want to increase the saturated fat content and number of calories in your meal, don’t ask for extra cheese.

With pasta dishes, if you want a lower-fat option go for a sauce that’s based on tomatoes or vegetables, rather than cream.

Try to avoid: large deep-pan pizzas, pizzas with a cheese-stuffed crust, triple cheese with pepperoni pizzas, creamy pasta sauces and garlic bread.

Healthier options: small or medium pizzas with a thin base and vegetable or lean meat topping, tomato-based pasta sauces, bruschetta.

Chinese

Anything that’s battered or marked as “crispy” on the menu means it’s deep-fried. Watch out for starters such as prawn crackers and spring rolls, because these are generally deep-fried. Anything in batter will be high in fat. Sweet and sour pork is usually battered.

Try to avoid: sweet and sour battered pork balls with special or egg-fried rice, prawn toast, spring rolls. Healthier options: crab and corn soup, steamed dumplings, steamed vegetables and plain boiled rice, steamed fish, chicken chop suey, Szechuan prawns.

Thai

Try to stick to stir-fried dishes or steamed dishes containing chicken, fish or vegetables instead of curries. Thai curries, such as the popular green and red curries, contain coconut milk, which is high in saturated fat. If you choose a curry, try not to eat all the sauce. Have some steamed rice with your meal instead of egg-fried rice.

Indian

Try to avoid anything that’s creamy or deep-fried. To reduce the amount of fat in your meal, choose dishes with tomato-based sauces, such as tandoori and madras, plain rice or chapatti. Also choose plenty of vegetables, including lentil side dishes (known as dhal).

Kebab and burgers

Doner kebabs can be high in fat. For a healthier option, go for a shish kebab, which is a skewer with whole cuts of meat or fish and usually grilled.

If you’re having a burger, avoid breaded or battered chicken or fish patties, extra cheese, bacon strips and high-fat sauces, such as mayonnaise. Instead, go for a regular, single-patty hamburger without mayonnaise or cheese and have with extra salad.

Try to avoid: large doner kebab with mayonnaise and no salad, burgers with cheese and mayonnaise, thin-cut chips, chicken or fish patties deep-fried in batter. Healthier options: shish kebab with pitta bread and salad, grilled burgers made from lean fish or meat (beef or whole chicken breast) and without cheese and mayonnaise.

Rice & Curry or Rice ‘N’ Curry

I read some reviews about rice and curry in some places in Sri Lanka and this is what they wrote. Age old food still going strong!

This is my go to place when it comes to having lunch on a weekday since this place is situated quite closely to my workplace. For Rs. 200/- you can chose between anything from Fried Chicken, curry chicken, fried fish, curry fish , prawns or cuttlefish and that variety is a major reason when I happen to visit the place quite often. Had lunch on number of occasions and each time I was content with the food. For breakfast they do offer a pasta with chicken and that was fine by normal standards as well but nothing ravishing keep in mind! Service gets a bit late during rush hours but it’s worth the wait compared to what you get at all the other places around here. I have always taken away and never dined in house but there’s space for about ten people to dine in. Would visit again when I need to have a quick lunch on a working day.

Visited the restaurant last week along with family on our vacation. Went with great expectations and the place was laid out like a village set up, rustic seating ,waiters in traditional clothes and complete with a rooster and hen s adding to the ambiance.
Well the atmosphere was great and we opted for the buffet which was laid out on earthenware dished and there were 3 counters one for salads, fresh fruits and desserts, one counter called the toddy shop which had a disinterested lady manning it which served some fried fish and prepared omelettes lying in open dishes which were being sampled by enthusiastic flies yes by flies. We asked her to prepare fresh ones but she merely pointed to the stale ones so I did not pick up any. The main course counter had a lot of dishes both non vegetarian and vegetarian. The NV dishes included Negombo Pork Curry, Chicken curry, dried fish curry, mutton curry, fish head curry (which I quite enjoyed) and the pick of the lot Cuttle fish curry.
There was Plain steamed rice, turmeric rice and red rice but no sight of hoppers or string hoppers. Once you are on holiday in Sri Lanka then you will find out there are far too many takeaway places or ready to eat places in any town. It is your choice to find which ones are better than the others. Your comments are welcomed perera6@hotmail.co.uk

By Shamindra Ferdinando Courtesy The Island

September 12, 2017, 8:04 pm
The high profile launch of Eliya (light) by wartime Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa underscored Sri Lanka’s PATHETIC failure to counter unsubstantiated war crimes allegations, directed by a section of the international community, since the conclusion of the war, in May 2009.

Sri Lanka paid a very heavy price for its failure and the previous government can never absolve itself of the responsibility for the situation.

Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s Army brought the war to a successful conclusion, on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon, on the morning of May 19, 2009, when heavy caliber ammunition penetrated LTTE leader Velupillai’s Prabhakaran’s forehead. The Sri Lanka Army (SLA) has credited the Fourth Battalion of the Vijayabahu Infantry Regiment (4 VIR) for Prabhakaran’s killing. A not so celebrated infantry battalion was fortunate to secure unprecedented recognition.

The SLA would never have succeeded in pursuing Prabhakaran, successfully, if the Sri Lanka Navy and the Sri Lanka Air Force had failed to achieve their strategic objectives during Eelam War IV (Aug 2006-May 2009). Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda and Air Marshal Roshan Gunatilleke provided legendary leadership to the SLN and SLAF, respectively, whereas Defence Secretary Rajapaksa ensured an unstoppable offensive, over a period of three years, until the LTTE was brought to its knees. His role, in Sri Lanka’s victory over terrorism, can never be challenged or disputed.

But the failure on the part of the Rajapaksa administration to counter unsubstantiated war crimes allegations, certainly helped those who had been propagating war crimes allegations as well as accusations in respect of post-war incidents, leading to the change of government, in January, 2015.

The US, EU and India spearheaded the 2015 project in collaboration with the four-party Tamil National Alliance (TNA), one-time political arm of the LTTE.

Although a US led project failed, in January 2010, to oust President Rajapaksa, an identical mission succeeded in January 2015. On both occasions, they used those who had been close to President Rajapaksa, namely the then Gen. Sarath Fonseka and Minister Maithripala Sirisena as battering rams, in 2010 and 2015, respectively.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa facilitated the enemy project by calling presidential polls two years ahead of scheduled time. Among those who had officially requested President Rajapaksa not to do so were then SLFP General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena in April 2014 and D.E.W. Gunasekera, Vasudeva Nanayakkara and Prof. Tissa Vitharana in Oct 2014. President Rajapaksa ignored their sensible advice.

Gajaba Regiment veteran Rajapaksa launched the Eliya project on Sept. 6, 2017, amidst the latest simmering dispute over war-winning Army Chief the then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka accusing the then Vanni Security Forces Commander Maj. Gen. Jagath Jayasuriya of atrocities.

The Eliya project, meant to thwart the ongoing bid to bring in a new Constitution, in accordance with Geneva Resolution 30/1, co-sponsored by the UNP-SLFP government, on Oct 1, 2015, received the backing of the civil society. Among them were distinguished non-career diplomats, Dayan Jayatilleka, who calls himself a Sri Lankan patriot, and also an internationalist, and Tamara Kunanayakam. Jayatilleka and Kunanayakam made brief presentations on behalf of Eliya. It would be pertinent to mention that the Rajapaksa administration unceremoniously removed both Jayatilleka and Kunanayakam, at the expense of Sri Lanka’s defence overseas. Now they are back, along with former MP Prof. Rajiva Wijesinghe, who switched his allegiance to Maithripala Sirisena at the onset of the operation against President Rajapaksa, in late 2014. Prof. Wijesinghe was also present at the launch of Eliya.

Among those who had been present at the launch of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s initiative, were twice President Mahinda Rajapaksa and brother Basil Rajapaksa accused of war crimes. They were among four leaders of the war-winning Rajapaksa team blamed by the then US Ambassador in Colombo Patricia Butenis for war crimes. The other accused are Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, on the podium, and now Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Regional Development Minister in the UNP-SLFP coalition.

Fonseka’s entry into politics, in late 2009, triggered an unprecedented crisis and, unfortunately, divided the war-winning team. But, whatever political disputes, Sarath Fonseka had been a key member of the war-winning team, and his contribution to Sri Lanka’s war against terrorism can never be challenged. That is the undeniable truth. In fact, Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism or resultant war crimes allegations cannot be discussed, under any circumstances, without taking the Fonseka factor into consideration.

Those who had flayed Fonseka for accusations, directed at Jayasuriya, must not forget the Sinha Regiment veteran is also part of the solution, regardless of his political affiliations now.

The writer had an opportunity to take up a range of issues, pertaining to accountability issues, during Balaya, a weekly live programme, hosted by Sudewa Hettiarachchi, Director News, Hiru, on Sept 7, 2017, the day after the launch of ‘Eliya.’ The timing of Balaya couldn’t have been better with naval veteran Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera (former Deputy Minister, UPFA), who had addressed the gathering at the ‘Eliya’ launch on the previous, on the ‘Balaya’ panel. The writer teamed up with Weerasekera, whereas the opposing team comprised Gamini Viyangoda of Purawesi Balaya, an influential civil society organization that had forcefully campaigned for President Rajapaksa’s ouster, and Dr. Jehan Perera, executive Director of the National Peace Council (NPC), the foremost NGO funded by successive Norwegian governments, and the recipient of substantial funding from other foreign ‘sources.’

Perera, accompanied the Sri Lankan delegation to the Geneva Human Rights Council sessions, in March 2017. He backed Sri Lanka’s request for an additional two-year period to implement Resolution 30/1.

The debate dealt with war crimes allegations in the wake of Fonseka’s latest outburst directed at Jayasuriya.

Essentially, Viyangoda, a member of the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTFRM) and Perera strongly pushed for a thorough investigation into accountability issues. Viyangoda reiterated his backing for CTFRM recommendation for foreign judges in domestic war crimes court, in line with Resolution 30/1. Perera threw his weight behind Viyangoda, while faulting the previous government for excessive loss of civilian lives during the Vanni offensive and detention of over 300,000 people at the conclusion of the fighting. They asserted that international intervention could have been averted had the Rajapaksa administration swiftly and decisively addressed human rights concerns. They squarely placed the blame on the previous government for the current crisis, while underscoring the responsibility on the part of Sri Lanka to address domestic as well as international concerns in respect of wartime conduct of political and military leaderships.

Weerasekera lucidly explained how the ongoing Geneva project relentlessly undermined Sri Lanka with the focus on immense sacrifices made by the armed forces and the people. The naval veteran also discussed the failure on the part of the international community to intervene and take punitive action against the LTTE at an earlier stage. Weerasekera recalled the atrocities that had been committed by the LTTE over a period of time while explaining their own efforts to protect civilians. Weerasekera cited the rescue of Sea Tiger leader Soosai’s wife and children by the navy on May 16, 2009, as they were fleeing in a boat towards Tamil Nadu as an example of their approach towards non-combatants. Weerasekera proved that Resolution 30/1, that had been co-sponsored by the current government, was based on the report of the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka, aka OISL, though Viyangoda took a contrary view.

Weerasekera strongly opposed foreign judges as well as other foreign personnel in proposed judicial mechanism whereas the writer expressed the opinion that proper defence strategy following fresh reappraisal of the entire gamut of issues will enable Sri Lanka to successfully counter allegations even before foreign judges. It would be pertinent to stress that the responsibility in proving allegations directed at Sri Lanka lies with those pushing for war crimes probe. The writer asserted that foreign judges wouldn’t be an issue if Sri Lanka, forcefully brought out all relevant factors.

The writer raised the following issues with the panelists.

Thamilini’s revelations

The pivotal importance of establishing the circumstances leading to the resumption of war, in Aug 2006. Sivakamy Sivasubramaniyam alias Thamilini, in her memoirs, Thiyuni Asipathaka Sevana Yata (Under the shadow of a sword), launched in May 2016, following her death in Oct 2015, briefly explained how Prabhakaran had wanted to facilitate Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory, at the Nov 2005 presidential poll, to enable the LTTE to resume war and bring his campaign to a successful end. There cannot be any dispute over Thamilini’s assertions as regards the LTTE creating an environment for resumption of all out war and the assassination of Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, in Aug. 2005, on specific orders given by Prabhakaran as Thamilini’s book was launched by artiste, Dharmasiri Bandaranayake, on her husband Jeyakumar’s request. Viyangoda and senior lecturer Swaminadan Wimal had addressed the gathering at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute (SLFI). Dharmasiri Bandaranayake or Viyangoda wouldn’t have done anything under any circumstances to justify the war against the LTTE, hence the need to seriously examine Thamilini’s revelations.

Victor Ivan’s disclosure

Former Ravaya Editor Victor Ivan, in a special article on ‘Jeyaraj’, published in Sept 2011, in memory of Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle, assassinated in April 2008, revealed how President Rajapaksa had sent Seva Lanka chief Harsha Navaratne to reach an understanding with the LTTE soon after Prabhakaran launched claymore attacks in Dec 2005. The then presidential secretary Lalith Weeratunga had accompanied Harsha Kumara Navaratne. President Rajapaksa had sent Harsha Navaratne again with Fernandopulle to make representations to the LTTE, on his behalf, in the wake of the Mavilaru crisis, caused by the LTTE in June/July 2006. According to Victor Ivan, Navaratne had made the revelations a few months after Fernandopulle’s assassination at Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe’s residence. Among those present had been Minister Dr. Rajitha Senaratne (then an influential member of the Rajapaksa cabinet), TNA leader R. Sampanthan and TNA members of parliament, Suresh Premachandran and Mavai Senathirajah. Victor Ivan also quoted Sampanthan as having said that the war couldn’t be called genocide though he wasn’t prepared to admit that publicly. Victor Ivan underscored that Harsha Kumara Navaratne had made the revelation after the TNA accused President Rajapaksa of resorting to war without making an effort to negotiate with the LTTE.

P’karan’s targets

The LTTE realized the requirement to deprive President Rajapaksa of Lt. Gen. Fonseka and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa at a very early stage of eelam war IV. Had Prabhakaran succeeded in eliminating Fonseka, in April 2006, and Rajapaksa, in Oct 2006, the war effort would have failed. Fonseka had the strength to declare that he wouldn’t leave the war to his successor, while Gotabhaya told Norwegians the problem could be definitely settled through military means, according to Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian peace efforts in Sri Lanka released in Sept 2011. Let me reproduce verbatim the relevant section: “On April 6, 2006, Norwegian Special Envoy Jon Hanssen-Bauer and Norwegian Ambassador Hans Brattskar have a tense meeting with Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. In response to a question about whether the ethnic and political problems could be solved by military means Gotabhaya answers, ‘yes.’

Had Prabhakaran succeeded, the outcome of the war could have been different. The split in the Rajapaksa camp obviously delighted those elements wanting to divide the country on ethnic lines.

Denial of ‘white flag’ allegations

Reappraisal of specific allegation in respect of execution of LTTE cadres on the Vanni east front in mid May 2009 against the backdrop of a public statement made by Lt. Col. Lawrence Smith, US defence attache, in Colombo, in June 2011, regarding the allegation. Lt. Col. Smith denied the allegation at the inaugural Defence Seminar organized by the SLA at the Ramada. Interestingly, the US State Department never denied Lt. Col’s statement, though it declared the officer didn’t make that statement on behalf of the US.

Discrepancy in numbers killed

Requirement to establish the number of civilians killed during the final phase. The UN Panel of Experts (PoE) estimated the number of killed at over 40,000, in March 2011, whereas the Amnesty International, in Sept 2011, placed the number of civilian deaths at 10,000. In Sept. 2011, the British parliament was told of 60,000 civilians and 40,000 LTTE cadres killed during January-May 2009. These vastly different figures should be examined taking into consideration still confidential UN report that placed the number of persons killed in areas under LTTE control during Aug 2008 – May 2009 at 7,721 and 18,479 wounded. The war ended a week after the UN stopped collecting data due to the intensity of the fighting.

TNA’s culpability

Inquire into TNA’s partnership with the LTTE since 2001 when the former came into being. The EU alleged that the TNA secured the lion’s share of electorates/seats in the Northern and Eastern electorates at the April 2004 parliamentary polls, thanks to violence unleashed by the LTTE on those opposed to the TNA and former stuffing ballot boxes of the latter. Having declared the LTTE sole representative of Tamils in 2001, the TNA faithfully served the terrorist group, both in and outside parliament, until the SLA put a bullet through Prabhakaran’s head.

Allegations against the SLA should be probed taking into consideration the TNA support for Fonseka and Maithripala Sirisena at the January 2010, January 2015 presidential polls, respectively. Fonseka had commanded the victorious SLA accused of indiscriminate killings while Maithripala Sirisena held the defence portfolio in the last week of Vanni offensive. The TNA had no qualms in throwing its weight behind them in spite of war crimes allegations. Would Sampanthan have backed them, especially Fonseka, if he really believed in his own accusations?

Wiki leaks revelations

Although, the Paranagama Commission, in its second mandate, referred to Wiki leaks, for some strange reason, the previous government never made use of US diplomatic cables. One such cable, revealed top ICRC official asserting how SLA could have finished off the LTTE quicker if it didn’t take civilian factor into consideration.

The cable, dated July 15, 2009, signed by the then Geneva-based US ambassador, Clint Williamson, cleared the SLA of crimes against humanity during the Vanni offensive. The cable, addressed to the US State Department, was based on a confidential conversation Ambassador Williamson had with the then ICRC head of operations for South Asia, Jacque de Maio on July 9, 2009. Ambassador Williamson wrote: “The army was determined not to let the LTTE escape from its shrinking territory, even though this meant the civilians being kept hostage by the LTTE were at an increasing risk. So, de Maio said, while one could safely say that there were ‘serious, widespread violations of international humanitarian law,’ by the Sri Lankan forces, it didn’t amount to genocide. He could cite examples of where the army had stopped shelling when the ICRC informed them it was killing civilians. In fact, the army actually could have won the military battle faster with higher civilian casualties, yet chose a slower approach which led to a greater number of Sri Lankan military deaths. He concluded however, by asserting that the GoSL failed to recognize its obligation to protect civilians, despite the approach leading to higher military casualties.”

SLA lost 2,400 officers and men in 2009 though the war ended in May 2009.

Tamil victims

In response to Viyangoda’s assertion that 90 per cent of victims were Tamils, the writer pointed out the need to inquire into circumstances under which that community suffered since the Indian military intervention in 1980s. A thorough inquiry should examine the deaths due to Indian Army operations in Sri Lanka (1987-1990), fighting among Indian sponsored Tamil groups, sea borne Tamil terrorist raid on the Maldives in Nov 1988, LTTE executing its own for allegedly plotting against its leader and political killings. It wouldn’t be right to restrict investigations into allegations blamed on Sri Lanka. TNA MP Dharmalingham Siddarthan, Chairman of Center-Periphery Relations Sub Committee that recommended far reaching constitutional reforms meant to weaken the 1978 Constitution is on record as having said that two TULF MPs including his father were abducted and executed by Indian sponsored TELO terrorists at the behest of RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) in 1985.

Humanitarian missions

Proposed accountability mechanism should seek clarification from foreign powers and INGOs in respect of supplies that had been moved overland and then by sea to the area under LTTE control up to the second week of May 2009. The previous government lacked even a basic plan to prepare solid defence to counter lies and to cleverly use vital information provided by foreign sources such as the US (Lt Col. Lawrence Smith) and UN (PoE report). Let India inform the proposed accountability mechanism how its personnel, based at Pulmoddai, north of Trincomalee, received wounded men, women and children evacuated by the ICRC. The writer had the opportunity to visit a makeshift Indian medical facility in late April 2009. The evacuation operation allowed nearly 15,000 civilians, both wounded and relatives to reach Pulmoddai. The accusation that Sri Lanka had waged genocidal war should be investigated keeping in mind how the wounded were evacuated even in the second week of May 2009. War ended on the morning of May 19, 2009.

Role for Norway

Proposed accountability mechanism should thoroughly inquire into efforts made by the international community to save civilians. The then MP and presidential advisor, Basil Rajapaksa, received a one-page missive, on Feb. 16, 2009, from then Norwegian ambassador, Tore Hattrem. The Norwegian embassy delivered the letter to Basil Rajapaksa in the wake of Ambassador Hattrem discussing the situation on the Vanni east front with President Rajapaksa’s brother. Basil Rajapaksa had been exploring ways and means of securing the release of the Vanni population, held hostage by the LTTE, and was in touch with Western diplomatic missions in Colombo, in this regard.

Hattrem’s note to Basil Rajapaksa revealed Norway’s serious concern over the LTTE’s refusal to release the civilians. The Island received a copy of the hitherto unknown Norwegian note, headlined ‘Offer/Proposal to the LTTE’, personally signed by Ambassador Hattrem. The Norwegian envoy was writing to Basil Rajapaksa on behalf of those countries trying to negotiate a ceasefire between the government and the LTTE, to facilitate the release of civilians, held hostage by the latter.

The following is the text of Ambassador Hattrem’s letter, addressed to Basil Rajapaksa:

“I refer to our telephone conversation today. The proposal to the LTTE on how to release the civilian population, now trapped in the LTTE controlled area, has been transmitted to the LTTE through several channels. So far, there has been, regrettably, no response from the LTTE and it does not seem to be likely that the LTTE will agree with this in the near future.”

Those who really want to clear Sri Lanka’s name should face the accusers in a court of law. It would be pertinent to stress that it would be their responsibility and challenge to prove still unproven allegations on which Geneva wanted our Constitution changed to pave the way for a federal structure.

(To be continued on Sept 20)

Editorial Courtesy The Island

September 12, 2017, 8:06 pm
US Acting Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Alice Wells is reported to have told a Congressional subcommittee that non-concessional Chinese loans have placed unsustainable debt burdens on Sri Lanka. ‘They are now of concern to the Sri Lankan people in the government,’ she has said. She sounds like the yahapalana leaders who used to clamour against China and Chinese loans while campaigning hard to dislodge the pro-Chinese Rajapaksa government.

Why have some western powers suddenly awoken to the debt burden of the developing world? In the past, they dominated the world through aid, which came with many strings attached. But, their economies are no longer strong enough to do so and they have, therefore, opted for the most economical way of achieving that objective. They are using human rights as a tool to control the developing world. This method has proved to be very cost effective. The western governments now have to fund only some influential INGOs and NGOs operating in the developing world instead of the so-called Third World governments which have an enormous appetite for aid, part of it is siphoned off by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. They have succeeded in hijacking the UNHRC and using it as a bludgeon against the states, perceived to be hostile to them, and to protect their allies in spite of their grave human rights abuses.

China is now doing what the West is no longer capable of doing; it provides developing countries with loans without trying to run parallel governments therein. It has thus been able to expand the sphere of its influence extensively, posing new geopolitical challenges to the West. It is only natural that Chinese loans causes so much concern to the capitalist bloc, struggling to retain its grip on the world. Interestingly, Europe has had to soften its stand on some African nations, which it used to condemn for human rights violations in a bid to counter China’s growing influence in that region.

There is no love lost between the present Sri Lankan government and China. But, the former has no way of pulling out of China’s sphere of influence due to its economic difficulties. The UNP-led UNF government crashed in 2004 as it could not raise funds even by compromising national security and appeasing the LTTE. It was eyeing a 4.5-billion-dollar aid package which the US, Japan, the EU and Norway—which came to be known as the Tokyo Co-chairs of Sri Lanka’s ‘peace process’—promised; the implementation of their aid pledge was made conditional to progress to be made in negotiations with the intransigent LTTE, which stuck to its Eelam demand like a limpet. The present UNP-led yahapalana administration also expected the western powers which helped engineer the 2015 regime change here to help it financially. Else, it would not have taken on China to the extent of undertaking to scrap the Chinese-funded Port City project. But, it received nothing by way of financial assistance from its admirers in the West.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government wouldn’t have had to swallow its pride and grovel before the Chinese leaders, begging for funds if the US and other western powers had provided it with the much-needed soft loans. Ironically, even some of the western powers critical of Chinese loans are dependent on China, which has been investing in euro zone government debt.

Washington’s concern over Sri Lanka’s debt burden should be appreciated. But, the question is what the US is going to do about it. On Nov. 01, 2016, Chinese Ambassador to Sri Lanka Yi Xianliang, did not mince his words when he asked the then Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake, who was critical of the Chinese interest rates, why the latter had asked for another loan if the Chinese loans were so expensive. Those who are shedding copious tears for Sri Lanka, in a debt trap, should answer this question and make available loans at lower interest rates if their concerns about this country are genuine.

Courtesy ANI

Rameswaram (Tamil Nadu) [India], Sep 12 (ANI): 12 Indian fishermen, who were apprehended by the Sri Lankan Navy from Delft Island were produced in Oorkavalthurai court on Tuesday.

The Sri Lankan court has remanded the fishermen in Jaffna jail up to September 26.

Yesterday, 12 Indian fishermen, along with two boats were caught by the Sri Lankan navy and taken to the Kankesanthurai Naval camp for interrogation.

Meanwhile, after the arrest of fishermen Tamil Nadu’s Pudukottai district also announced indefinite strike demanding immediate release of their fellowmen. (ANI)

CONSTANTINO XAVIER Courtesy The Hindu

China’s inroads into South Asia since the mid-2000s have eroded India’s traditional primacy in the region, from Afghanistan to Myanmar and also in the Indian Ocean. As Beijing deploys its formidable financial resources and develops its strategic clout across the subcontinent, New Delhi faces capacity challenges to stem Chinese offensive in its own strategic backyard.

Prime Minister Modi’s new ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy, unveiled in 2014, has consequently focused on reaching out to other states to develop partnerships across the region. This balancing strategy marks a departure from India’s unsustainable efforts to insulate South Asia as its exclusive sphere of influence and deny space to any extra-regional actors.

Officially, these unprecedented outreach efforts are implicitly referred to as a partnership with like-minded” countries. According to Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar, in its quest for more people-centric” connectivity projects and a cooperative regional architecture,” India is working closely with a number of other international players whose approach is similar.”

New South Asian partners

A range of examples speak volumes about this new strategy. With the US, India now conducts close consultations on smaller states such as Nepal, Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka. In 2015, following Japan’s permanent inclusion into the Malabar naval exercises, Tokyo and New Delhi developed a joint Vision 2025” plan promising to seek synergy… by closely coordinating, bilaterally and with other partners, for better regional integration and improved connectivity,” especially in the Bay of Bengal region. The Asia-Africa Growth Corridor, announced in 2016, further highlights India’s willingness to work with Japan to develop alternatives to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

In 2014, India and Russia signed an unprecedented agreement to cooperate on developing nuclear power in third countries, with a focus on Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Year 2015 saw the first Australia-India Maritime Exercise (AUSINDEX) off India’s Eastern coast. And with the UK, India signed a statement of intent on partnership for cooperation in third countries” with a focus on development assistance in South Asia, and held its first formal dialogue on regional affairs in 2016.

With Brussels, Paris, and Berlin, New Delhi has engaged in dialogues about maritime security and the Indian Ocean region, and shared intelligence to bolster regional counter-terrorism efforts. Finally, contrasting with its past reluctance to involve multilateral organisations, India has enthusiastically endorsed the Asian Development Bank’s South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation (SASEC) operational programme for 2016-25, focused on improving connectivity between the subcontinent and Southeast Asia.

Expanding partnerships

While many of these partnerships are still nascent, there are measures that will allow their expansion across three sequential levels. First, o increase mutual consultation, New Delhi and extra-regional powers must invest in creating institutional mechanisms dedicated to sharing assessments on South Asia.

Under existing consultations, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or broader Asian strategic issues frequently overshadow Nepal or Sri Lanka. This must give way to specific bilateral dialogues on three specific regional vectors: political and strategic issues, with a focus on China, counter-terrorism, and maritime security; economic issues, with a focus on connectivity, trade, and investment initiatives; and developmental issues, with a focus on aid projects and other economic assistance initiatives.

Second, to increase the prospects for coordination, India and partners can identify bilateral areas for policy coordination across South Asia, agreeing to a division of labour that maximises each side’s advantage. In Bangladesh, for example, India has focused on political and capacity-building objectives, while Japan is concentrating its financial might in infrastructure projects. Similarly, there are also indications that India and the US have successfully coordinated their political postures on the Maldives, with a good cop, bad cop” dynamic leveraging carrots and sticks” to shape Male’s behaviour.

At the third and highest level, in order to contain China and advance concrete cooperation across South Asia, India and its extra-regional partners should aspire to integrate efforts and implement joint projects. This will require expanding bilateral dialogues to include third countries, on the model of the India-US-Afghanistan trilateral. Such partnerships could focus on a variety of specific sectors to strengthen third countries in the region, including joint disbursement, implementation and monitoring of development assistance; establishment of dedicated funds to facilitate infrastructure development or acquisition of military equipment; capacity-building training for administrative and security personnel; democracy assistance to strengthen good governance and the rule of law; and joint military exercises, focusing on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.

Challenges ahead

While India and its extra-regional partners develop efforts to consult, coordinate, and cooperate across South Asia, they will also have to prepare for a variety of challenges. First, extra-regional partners will have to continue to recognise India’s predominant role in the region and defer to its security concerns, whether real or imagined.

For example, by allowing India to take the lead” and consolidate its role as a first responder” to regional crises in recent years (such as the Nepal earthquake), the US has earned much goodwill in New Delhi. Second, as the region’s small states play an increasingly sophisticated balancing game, seeking to play off India and its partners against China, closer consultation and coordination will be key.

Finally, when it comes to the normative dimension of democracy and human rights, New Delhi and its like-minded friends will also face occasional tensions given their different priorities. For India, the focus is naturally on the short-term, with economic and security interests incentivising the pragmatic engagement of any regime type in its neighbourhood. While the West’s liberal interventionist impulse has receded, the US and European partners will, however, continue to privilege a value-based and long-term approach that emphasises pressure on authoritarian regimes.

This last challenge is currently playing out in Myanmar, with clashing Indian and Western positions on the importance of the Rohingya refugee issue. As former Indian diplomat Shiv Shankar Menon presciently noted in the late 2000s, the desire for sanctions” is always directly proportional to the distance from Myanmar of the country demanding it.”

Under rising international pressure, Naypyidaw is tilting back to China for support, further complicating India’s connectivity plans across the Bay of Bengal. Similar balancing dynamics can be observed in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and the Maldives, which further highlight how critical India’s global outreach efforts are to its quest to remain influential in its own region.

The writer is a fellow at Carnegie India in New Delhi. This article is by special arrangement with the Center for the Advanced Study of India, University of Pennsylvania

Gotabaya Rajapaksa

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUOym1NMvhozUuWfBl4wxow/featured

Shenali D Waduge

We cannot ignore global geopolitics and corporate warfare together with neocolonial aspirations in trying to come to terms with the situation unfolding in Myanmar. The stage is now being set to transfer the geopolitical focus to Asia and Myanmar has been placed centre stage. If groups of people are receiving armed training doesn’t a country have a right to defend itself? These armed groups are neither freedom fighter’s but terrorists for eventually they will even target their own just as the LTTE did in Sri Lanka.

Let’s look at some of the similarities that Sri Lanka & Myanmar share

Both are two of the last remaining Theravada Buddhist countries. Militancy in Sri Lanka was first launched clandestinely from South India trained with the knowledge of the Indian Government. In the case of Myanmar it is well documented that the Rohingya’s have at least 5 armed groups. While all Tamils did not side with LTTE Terrorists in Sri Lanka, it is without a doubt that all Rohingyas are not supporting these Bengali Terrorists. However, both did not have a choice and became victims in the hands of the militants and the governments tasked to defend their country against militancy.

Sri Lanka’s conflict generated a powerful diaspora lobby group who became tasked to fund and flame the conflict as it served their advantage in becoming economic refugees. Both fled in boats seeking better pastures overseas. It is more than possible that many a terrorist would have masqueraded as ‘refugees’ and accompanied the real victims to foreign shores where from these countries they would generate the propaganda necessary to keep the conflict ongoing as it would generate income and begin turning the wheels of how geopolitical maneuvering takes places in arm-twisting elected governments. This is where media/NGOs/ internet/humanitarian organizations enter the scene where a long and lucrative livelihood for them is certain so long as the conflict lasts. Many LTTE diaspora groups are registered as foreign charities/NGOs and humanitarian organizations fleecing foreign governments by making use of tax havens and other welfare freebies.

It is these entities now rushing to produce reports, documentaries, false flag situations, fake news and lies to assist those that are funding them to achieve their corporate/geopolitical objectives. The power of funding and what they can produce was clear in the lies that helped justify the illegal invasions & R2P actions against Yugoslavia carving a separate & independent state (Kosovo), South Sudan, lies that has destabilized Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya & luckily the Syrian people backed their leader making the Syrian exercise placed in a list of surprising failures! Having virtually left Middle East and Africa in flames these same entities using the proxy jihadist partners are now moving to Asia where the political pivot policy was made clear.

When Bengali terrorists are being funded by Al Qaeda and ISIS both of which are now proven creations of the West and their intelligence it is baffling that just because they are using Islam as the slogan and Muslims as their soldiers, that the Muslim world are unable to realize these hard facts and denounce them.

However, it is nothing to be surprised as most Tamils have been silent against LTTE terror even after being militarily defeated and not many are coming forward to even nullify the lies that the LTTE diaspora are cooking up on a regular basis to sustain their existence and continue their livelihood based on their supposed ‘grievance’. It is more than possible that these Bengali Terrorists will be used to carry out a very long drawn out conflict in Myanmar till those pulling the strings are satisfied that they can force India, Myanmar, China to succumb to their machinations. These are serious factors that the governments of India, Myanmar & China need to take stock of. Asia must not be allowed to become another Middle East or Africa or even South America. Already the drugs smuggling, plethora of illegal activities, human smuggling etc have achieved hub status in Asia. Both LTTE and these jihadist terror groups are famous for narcotic smuggling partnering with foreign intelligence agencies.

We saw how hundreds of NGOs virtually opening shop next door to LTTE offices when LTTE ran their defacto state – while all of them wrote handsome reports on child soldiers, the suffering of the Tamils etc none of them did tuppence to stop a single child from being kidnapped from their families and turned into child soldiers. The lady now seated in Sri Lanka’s Constitutional Council stands guilty herself for contributing zero to stop child soldier recruitment and she was named to be part of a fact-finding mission to Myanmar!

This is where Myanmar will also need to take stock of the UN and how UN and its puppet envoys are being used to politically present the need for foreign intervention. Sri Lanka’s case has been easier for we have an appeasing government placed in power after a well-funded regime change who are more than willing to hand over every piece of the administration & national asset to foreign powers! However, they are well aware that Myanmar and its people have more pluck and will refuse to bend down to the whims and fancies even though many accuse Aung San Su Ki of being a Western proxy. Note how the UN is taking out all their jargon – genocide, ethnic cleansing which should immediately warn us what the real gameplan is.

While it is without doubt that the Rohingyas must be suffering as a result of being guineapigs in a bigger game, it is virtually the same scenario that befell the Tamils caught between LTTE and Government troops. Was life better with the LTTE was often a question posed when LTTE was militarily defeated and when despite making USD300m annual profits the LTTE had not even made a single road or building for the people they claimed to be fighting to look after except build lavish bunkers for themselves and homes for their families. Similarly, we cannot ignore the fact that whoever is funding the Bengali militants and using the Rohingyas are doing so to carve out an area which had been historically a place that sought separation just like the Eelam ploy in Sri Lanka. It is baffling how Tamils who originate from Tamil Nadu where the first quest for self-determination started is arguing for a homeland in Sri Lanka’s North and East well while even the ethnicity of Rohingyas in question given that the name itself never existed until the 1950s.

Let us not forget that the British are accountable for the unfolding tragedy in both Sri Lanka and Myanmar through their divide and rule policies. Bangladesh eventually received independence but it is highly unlikely that India which turned down the independence of Khalistan nor supported the self-determination of Tamils in Tamil Nadu would help the Bengali Terrorists in Myanmar though India did use the LTTE militancy to wrest economic and political control over Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka’s leaders failed to adopt a strategy to deal with this reality. The leaders of Asia for petty political brownies against their own neighbors cannot and repeat cannot ignore that the enemy all of Asia is now dealing with will destroy all of these countries if the leaders of these countries do not unite to take the bull by the horns.

Those clamoring to present solutions will doubtless present the notion that taking a line and dividing an area is the solution. Do they need to be getting handsome salary packages to come up with a solution like that! They often completely ignore that in Sri Lanka more Tamils are living peacefully with the Sinhalese outside of the terrain being sought as ‘separate’ while in Myanmar too there are plenty of Muslims living peacefully with the people of Myanmar throughout the country. So what really is the mischief makers upto using Sri Lanka’s North/East and Myanmar’s Rakhine province? This is where the truth gets well hidden behind a plethora of propaganda and lies. This is where intelligence observers and readers and often the victims themselves need to realistically take stock of the situation.

While it is unfortunate that the Rohingyas are being used as bait, it is really no different to how the Vanni Tamils were used and not many Tamils in either Colombo or overseas nor even the Tamil leaders did anything to demand that the LTTE terrorists release their people and stop recruiting children to turn into child soldiers. This was so because the Tamils that the terrorists picked were from poor and low caste homes. Their welfare didn’t matter to Tamils living elsewhere who were beneficiaries of the conflict by using that to apply as refugees on the discrimination ticket and many who are now living overseas. Is this the same scenario for Muslim Rohingyas as Muslims themselves are divided the world over though both lobby as an united front to achieve their demands?

When the scrooge of terror enters the scene and when it is coupled with geopolitics and corporate objectives it is very hard for truth to prevail or for the victims to have any say. Even today, 8 years after LTTE defeat the Tamil people are now victims of Tamil political leadership continuing the separatist game. Rohingyas will no doubt face a similar future. Even if the solution is for them to return to Bangladesh where they originally came from it is unlikely that option would be promoted because these Rohingyas are needed for the Bengali terrorists to justify their existence and penetrate and win over territory while in the background the West and UN will play their part – we saw Western nations lining up to offer ‘aid’ to Rohingyas and we know exactly where that led in Libya, Syria and all other countries which after delivering ‘democracy’ they are now worse off than when under the rule of their supposed ‘dictators’.

We certainly do not wish for Myanmar to become the newest victim of the geopolitical, corporate, neo-imperial agenda using Bengali terrorists as masquerade.

Shenali D Waduge

තේජා ගොඩකන්දෙආරච්චි

මහවැසි, ගංවතුර හා නායයාම් මෙන්ම නියඟය හා දුර්භික්ෂයද අපේ රට ගිල ගන්නේ මාරුවෙන් මාරුවටය. එක නිමේෂයකදී ලක්ෂ ගණන් ජනතාව බීමට වතුර පොදක් නැතිව, ඉරි තැලුන බිම්කඩක අතරමං කරන සොබා දහම, ඊලඟ නිමේෂයේදී මහා සැඩ පහරක වෙසින් පැමින ජනතාව ගිලගනී. කලට වැසි ලැබ, කෘෂිකර්මාන්තයෙන් ස්වයංපෝෂිතව තිබූ රටක් මෙවන් තත්වයකට ඇද වැටුනේ කෙසේද?

ඒ අතර පොළොන්නරුවේ නව කෘෂි වෙළඳ මධ්‍යස්ථානයකට ‘මුල්ගල‘ තබන ගමන් ලබන මාසයේ සිට ‘වගා සංග්‍රාමයක්‘ අරඹන්නට අපේක්ෂා කරන බව ජනාධිපති මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන පවසන්නේය. ඔහු ජනාධිපති තනතුරට පත්වී වසර 3 ක් ගතවීමටත් ආසන්න වුවද මේ වන තුරුත් තමන් කරන්නට අදහස් කරන ලොකු ලොකු සිහින ගැන කියවනවා මිසෙක කරලා පෙන්වූ දෙයක් නම් නැත. කොටින් කියතොත් ඉලක්කය තිබුනද ඒ කරා ගෙනයන ක්‍රියාකාරකම් පද්ධතියක් නොමැත. වරක් ඔහු ‘පැහැබර හෙටක් – තිරසර රටක්‘ කියා පොත් වගයක් මුද්‍රණයකර, මහා උත්සවයක් පවත්වා බෙදා හැරියේය. එය එතැනින් අවසන්ය. ඩෙංගු මර්ධනය සඳහා නියාමකවරුන් පත්කර තවත් උත්සවයක් පැවැත්වූ අතර ඉන් මාස කිහිපයක් ගිය තැන ඩෙංගු වසංගතයට ගොදුරුවන ජනතාව ලක්ෂ සංඛ්‍යාතව ඉහල ගිය කල්හි, මෙවන් පත්වීම් කලාද කියා සිතන්නටවත් ජනතාවට අවකාශයක් නැතිවිය. ඒ අතරතුර රටටම ආදර්ශයක් දෙන්නට යයි පවසමින් යෝග ව්‍යායාම්වල යෙදීම, සුවතා වැඩ සටහන්, දරු පරපුර රැක ගැනීමේ වැඩසටහන් නිමක් නැත. මෙවන් කටින් බතල සිටුවන ගනයේ උත්සව නිසා, ඒවාට වැයවන මුදල් කන්දරාව සහ මේවා වෙනුවෙන් වැයවන නිළධාරීන් ඇතුලු ජනතාවගේ කාලය, එනම් තම තමන්ගේ ප්‍රශ්න විසඳා ගැනීමට තිබෙන කාලය, අපතේ යනු මිස මෙතෙක් රටට කෙරුන වැඩක් ඇතිද කියා සිතා බැලීම වටී.

ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේම වචනයෙන් කියන පරිදි ‘ගොවි පුතෙකු‘ සහ ‘තක්සලාවක් බඳු නිවසක හැදුන වැඩුන අයෙකු‘ ලෙස ඔහු හැමදාම කියන ප්‍රධාන මාතෘකාවන් වන දරුවන් සහ කෘෂිකර්මාන්තය සම්බන්ධව මඳක් විග්‍රහ කිරීම තුල රටේ ජනාධිපති ලෙස ඔහු සතු ධාරිතාව ගැන යම් අවබෝධයක් ලබා ගැනීමට හැකි වනු ඇත.

ඔහු දරු පරපුර ආරක්ෂා කිරීමට කටයුතු කරනවිට ඔවුන් ගිල ගන්නා ව්‍යසනයන් රටේ කොපමන වේද කියා ඔහුට දැනෙනු ඇතිද? නමුත් අපේ ජනාධිපතිවරයාට ව්‍යසනයන් ලෙස පෙනෙන්නේ ජංගම දුරකථන සහ අන්තර්ජාලය පමනි. ඔහුට අනුව දරුවන් අතර සිය දිවි හානිකර ගැනීම් වැඩිවී ඇත්තේ ඒ කරුණු දෙක නිසාය. මාස කිහිපයකට පෙර විදේශයකදී නව තාක්ෂණයේ ව්‍යාප්තිය පිලිබඳ උත්සවයකට සහභාගී වෙමින්, ශ්‍රී ලංකාව නව තාක්ෂණය අතින් අාසියාවේ මුල් තැනට ගෙන එන බව පැවසුවේ ඔහුමය. පාසල් සිසුන්ට ටැබ් එකක් බෙදා දෙන්නට හදිසි වී ඇත්තේද ඔහුගේම කැබිනෙට්ටුවේම අධ්‍යාපන ඇමතිවරයාටය. මේ ටැබ් එක සමගම මතුවන අනෙකුත් ප්‍රායෝගික ගැටලු විසඳන්නේ කෙසේද කියා සහතිකයක් ඔහුට තිබේද? මනාව ඉදිකල පාසලකට ගොඩවී, ළමුන්ගේ අත්පොලසන් මධ්‍යයේ ගිටාර් වාදනයකර, තමාගේ සිහින ප්‍රබන්ධයන්ගෙන් එකක් පවසා යනවා හැරුනකොට ඉසට හරිහමං සෙවනක් නැතිව හෝ මේස පුටු නැතිව බිම හිඳගෙන අකුරු කරන පොල් අතු, කටු මැටියෙන් ඉදිවූ පාසලකට ඔහු ගොඩ වදිනු ඔබ කිසි දිනෙක රූපවාහිනියෙන් දැක තිබේද? 

රටේ ඇති පාසල් අතරින් 50% ක ට වඩා ඇත්තේ මෙවන් අඩුපාඩු සහිතවය. පාසල් යන වයසේ වුව පාසල් නොයන දරුවන් සංඛ්‍යාව කොපමන වේද? ළමා පරපුරට ඇති සැබෑ ප්‍රශ්න මේවාය. ජංගම දුරකථන හෝ අන්තර්ජාල පහසුකම් භුක්ති විඳින දරුවන් සංඛ්‍යාවට වඩා ඉහත කියූ ප්‍රශ්නවලට මුහුණ දෙන දරුවන් සංඛ්‍යාව වැඩිය. මේ පාසල්වල තත්වය නගා සිටුවීමට අධ්‍යාපන අමාත්‍යංශය සතු විධිමත් වැඩ පිලිවෙලක් නැත. දරුවන්ගේ ළමාවිය නිදහස සීමා කරන, ඔවුන් තම දෙමව්පියන්ගේ (දෙමව්පියන්ද මෙම අධ්‍යාපන ක්‍රමය තුල එතැනට තල්ලු කර දමනු ලැබ ඇත්තෝය) සිහින මාළිගාවල සිරකරුවන් බවට පත් කරන අධ්‍යාපන ක්‍රමය විධිමත් කිරීම දරු පරපුර වෙනුවෙන් කල යුතු මූලිකම දේ බව මෙතෙක් සිටි බොහෝ නායකයන්ට මෙන්ම ඔහුටද නොවැටහෙන බව පෙනෙන නිසා 2015 දී සිදුකල ජනතා තේරීමද නිෂ්ඵල බව පැහැදිලිය.

ජීව විද්‍යාත්මකව කිවහොත් මනුෂ්‍යයාගේ ජීවිතයේ මොළය, බුද්ධිය සක්‍රීයතම වන කාලය, විවිධ ඉල්ලීම් කරමින් අද මහාමාර්ගවල ගෙවා දමන සරසවි සිසුන්ට තම සාධාරණ ඉල්ලීම් සඳහා කොලය වසා ගසන ගැහිලි මිස සාධාරණ ඉල්ලීම් නොලැබෙන බැවින් අනාගත පරපුරට අත්වන ඉරණම කිව යුතු නොවේ. මන්ද වත්මන් පාසල් සිසුන්ට තම ළමා ජීවිතය කැප කරමින් වෙහෙසෙන්නට සිදුව ඇත්තේ මේ සරසවි තුලට රිංගා ගැනීමටම වන බැවිනි.

සියල්ලටම වඩා පාසල් දරු දැරියන් අමතා මෙවන් සම්පප්‍රලාප කියවන විට තම රජය, පසුගිය අයවැයෙන් අධ්‍යාපනය සඳහා වෙන්කල පිරිවැය අඩකින් කපා දැමූ අයුරු මොහුට සිහිවිය යුතුය. උසස් අධ්‍යාපනය සහ මහා මාර්ග එකම අමාත්‍යංශයක් යටතට ගෙන ඇති බැවින්, මේ වන විට අදාල ඇමතිවරයා උසස් අධ්‍යාපනය අතහැර දමා මහාමාර්ග දෙසට පමනක් ඇස ගසාගෙන සිටින බව පෙනේ. මධ්‍යම අධිවේගී මාර්ගය පිලිබඳ ටෙන්ඩර් ගණුදෙනු ගැන අද කියවෙන කරුණු කාරණා පදනම් කරගත්විට, ලක්ෂ්මන් කිරිඇල්ල ඇමතිවරයා තම දියණිය සතු ඉදිකිරීම් කොම්පැනියට ලබාදෙන මිලියන ගණන් කොන්ත්‍රාත්තු දෙස බලනවිට, අධ්‍යාපනය ඔහුට අමතර හිසරදයක් බව සැක නැත.

අනිත් අතට අධ්‍යාපනයෙන් නිසි ලෙස පෝෂණය වූ ජනතාවක් සිටීනම් ඔවුන්ට මෙසේ සුරසැප විඳිමින් සුවසේ පසුවන්නට නොහැකි වනුඇත. ජීවිතය ඉගෙන ගන්නට දෑස් විවර කරගෙන බලා සිටින පාසල් දරුවන් අමතමින් ජනාධිපතිවරයා මේ විකාර කියවන්නේද ඒ බුද්ධි ශෝධන කොන්ත්‍රාත්තුවේම කොටසක් ලෙස මිස වෙන කුමකටද? 

ඊලඟට මේ ‘ගොවි පුතා‘ ගේ ලබන මස සිට අරඹන්නට අපේක්ෂා කරන ‘වගා සංග්‍රාමය‘ ගැන අවධානය යොමු කරමු. කෘෂිකර්මාන්තයට අද අත්ව ඇති ඉරණම ගැන කිසිවෙකුට අමුතුවෙන් කියන්නට අවශ්‍ය නොවේ. පලමුව මොහුට මේ වන විට සිදු ඇති පාරිසරික වෙනස්කම් පිලිබඳව අවබෝධ විය යුතුය. නියඟය හා ගංවතුර විසින් රටේ භූමිය මාරුවෙන් මාරුවට ගිල ගන්නා කල්හි ඊට සෑහෙන දුරකට හේතු සාධක වන පරිසර විනාශයන් නවතා ලන්නට, පරිසර විෂය භාර ජනාධිපතිවරයාහට සැබෑ වුවමනාවක් තිබේද? ස්වභාවික උපද්‍රවවලට අමතරව පවතින අලි මිනිස් ගැටුමට පිලිතුර වශයෙන්, එම විෂයට කොහෙත්ම සම්බන්ධයක් නැති කරුණාරත්න පරණවිතාන ඇමතිවරයා ලඟ ඇති විසඳුම නම් වැඩිපුර සිටින අලි අල්ලා රට පැටවීමයි. රටේ ඇති වරායන්, සරු ඉඩම්, ගුවන් තොටුපොලවල් ආදී සම්පත් ගනයට වැටෙන සියලු දේ විකුණන්නටම සැදී පැහැදී සිටින යහපාලන රජයට අලින්, වල් ඌරන් ආදී සතුන් පමනක් නොව වැඩිපුර සිටින මිනිසුන් හා ගැහැණුන්ද විකුණාගෙන කන්නට සිතක් පහල නොවුවහොත් පුදුමයකි.

මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ ජයග්‍රහණයේ බලකණුවක් මෙන්ම මහා තේරීමද වූ ශ්‍රී ලංකා නිදහස් පක්ෂයේ මහලේකම් දුමින්ද දිසානායක යනු යහපාලන රජයේ කෘෂිකර්ම ඇමතිවරයාය. ඔහු විසින් තම අමාත්‍යංශය වෙනුවෙන් යය කියමින් සිනමා නිළියකගෙන් කුලියට ගත් ගොඩනැගිල්ලට රුපියල් මිලියන 1140 ක් කුලිය පමනක් ගෙවා ඇති බව ජනතාවට රහසක් නොවේ. එසේම සාප්පු සංකීර්ණයක්සඳහා සැළසුම්කල මෙම ගොඩනැගිල්ලට කාර්යාලයක පෙනුම ලබාදීම වෙනුවෙන් නිර්ලෝභීව තවත් රු. මිලියන 249 ක් වෙන්කර ඇත. පසුගිය වසර දෙක තිස්සේ දුමින්ද දිසානායක අතින් සිදුවූ වගා සංග්‍රාමය එයයි. ගොඩනැගිල්ලේ හිමිකාරිය වූ සබීතා පෙරේරාද මහජනතාවට (අ)හිමිඒ මුදල තම බැංකු ගිණුමේ දමාගෙන දෙරණ ‘ලිට්ල් හාට්ස්‘ ව්‍යාපෘතියේ ප්‍රචාරක වැඩසටහනට පැමින, හොටු කඳුලු පෙරමින්, සෞඛ්‍ය අමාත්‍යාංශයේ වගකීමක් විය යුතුව ඇති, රිජ්වේ ආර්යා ළමා රෝහලේ හදවත් රෝගී දරුවන් වෙනුවෙන් වාට්ටු සංකීර්ණයක් ඉදිකිරීම සඳහා මුදල් පරිත්‍යාග කරන ලෙස මහජනතාවගෙන්ම ඉල්ලා සිටියාය. ඉතින් සමහර දෙමව්පියන් තම පොඩිවුන්ගේ කැට පවා පරිත්‍යාග කලේ රජයේ මැති ඇමතිවරුන්ගේ හිත තම වගකීම්වලින් නිදහස් වනු පිනිසම නොවේද?

සෑම අස්වනු වාරයකම තම වී අස්වැන්න ගබඩා කිරීමට ගබඩා පහසුකම් නැතිව, විකුණා ගැනීමට මගක් නැතිව කඳුලු පිරුනු නෙතින් යුතු ගොවීන්ය. ගොවිතැන් කරන කාලයට ඔවුන්ට එක්කෝ වතුර නැත. නැත්නම් වතුර ඕනෑවටත් වැඩිය. පිට පිට සිදුවන ස්වභාවික උපද්‍රව නිසා මොවුන්ගේ වගා පාලු වනවිට අමාත්‍යංශය වන්දි ගෙවන්නේ තම ඇඟෙන් ඇටයක් යනවාක් මෙනි. මාස කිහිපයකට පෙර ත්‍රිකුණාමලයේ වැවක් ප්‍රතිසංස්කරණය කර ගොවි ජනතාවට භාර දෙන අතර කල කතාවේදී, තමා පුද්ගලිකව තායිලන්ත අගමැතිට කතාකර ලංකාවට සහල් එවන මෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටි බවත්, තායි අගමැතිවරයා ඊට එකඟ වූ බවත් ආඩම්බරයෙන් පවසා සිටියේය. එසේ නොමැතිව මොහු කිසි දිනෙක තම රටේ නිපදවෙන සහලකින් ජනතාවගේ කුසගින්න නිවන බවක් කෘෂිකර්ම ඇමති සමග සාකච්ඡා කර ඇතිද? කෘෂිකර්ම ඇමතිට ඊට වඩා වැඩ තිබේ. පක්ෂයේ මහලේකම් වශයෙන් ලාහට ගෙම්බන් එකතු කිරීම!

කොටින්ම වගා සංග්‍රාමය ගැන කතා කරද්දී පවා පැවසුවේ චීනයෙන් සහල් ගෙන්වන අන්දමය. දැන් චීනය යහපාලන රජයේ ගජමිතුරා වී සිටින නිසා මේ ගොවි ජනතාවට කරන තර්ජනයක්ද විය හැක. ‘උඹලගෙ හාල් නැතුවට අපට එක ටෙලිෆෝන් කෝල් එකෙන් හාල් එවන්න අය ඉන්නවා‘ කියා?

වඩාත්ම කණගාටුදායක වනුයේ  වත්මන් ජනතාව එක එක දේශපාලු පිස්සන්ගේ කතා අතර ඒ ඒ කාලවල් වලදී අතරමංව සිටිනවා හැරෙන්නට ජනාධිපති ප්‍රමුඛ යහපාලන රජය තම හරසුන් ප්‍රතිපත්ති ඔස්සේ රට ඇදගෙන යන අගාධය පිලිබඳව සම්පූර්ණ අවධානයක් යොමු නොකිරීමය. 2015 ජනවාරි 08 වන දා, නව අපේක්ෂාවක් ඇතිව මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේන නම් දේශපාලකයාට ජනතාව ජන වරමක් දුන්හ. එසේ වැඩිපුරම අපේක්ෂාවක් තිබුනේ ජනතාව ලඟද, ජාත්‍යන්තරය ලඟද යන්න පිලිබඳව විවාදයක් නැත. නමුත් දැන් මේ මිනිසාට රටක් කරගෙන යන්නට හැකි පෞරුෂයක් හෝ බුද්ධියක් තිබේද කියා ජනතාව සිතිය යුත්තේ ‘මගේ සටන දූෂිත පාලනය එලවා දමන තුරු පමනයි‘ කියාගෙන ආ මොහු දැන් තවත් වතාවක් රැඳී සිටින්නට තැත් කරන බවක් පෙනෙන බැවිනි. බැඳුම්කර වංචාවේ ප්‍රධාන වගකිව යුත්තා වූ රනිල් වික්‍රමසිංහ, නිසි බලයක් නැතිව තිබියදීත් බලයට ගෙනාවේ මෛත්‍රීපාල සිරිසේනය. ඉතිරි මුලු කැබිනෙට්ටුවම පත්වුනේ ඒ මතය. අද කැබිනට් ඇමතිවරු එකිනෙකා පරයමින් මහජන මුදල් අපහරණය කරනවිට ඒ පවෙන් ගැලවීමට ජනාධිපතිවරයාට නොහැකි එබැවිනි.

මේ සියල්ල තුල ගම්‍ය වන්නේ තැනට සුදුසු පුද්ගලයා හඳුනා ගැනීම සම්බන්ධව ඔහු තුල ඇති නොහැකියාවයි. ඒ තබා තමා කියන දේ ක්‍රියාවට නැංවිය හැකිද කියාවත් තක්සේරුවක් නොමැති අතර ඒ වැඩි හරියක් ඔහේ කටට එන වචනය.

මේ විකාර අසා සිට අත්පොලසන් දෙන ජනතාවක් තවමත් සිටීම වඩාත්ම කණගාටුදායක කාරණයයි.

විවිධ ඇමතිවරුන් කරන ප්‍රකාශයන් නිසා ඇවිස්සෙන ජනතා විරෝධය හමුවේ ඒවා නිවැරදි කරන්නට කාලය ගත වනවා මිස රරටට වැඩක් කරනනට තමාට කාලය නැතැයි ජනාධිපතිවරයා මෑතකදී පවසා තිබිනි. 

ඇමතිවරු පත්කලේ අප නොවේ. ඔහුමය!

Senaka Weeraratna Attorney at Law

On June 4, 1921, the legal doctrine of superior orders was invoked during the German Military Trials that took place after World War I: One of the most famous of these trials was the case of Lieutenant Karl Neumann, who was a U-boat captain accused of the sinking of the hospital ship the Dover Castle. He frankly admitted to having sunk the ship, but he qualified it by saying that he had done so on the basis of orders given to him by the German Admiralty and so therefore he could not be held personally liable for his actions. The Reichsgericht, then Germany’s supreme court, acquitted him, accepting the defense of superior orders as a grounds to avoid criminal liability. That very court had this to say in the matter of superior orders:

… that all civilized nations recognize the principle that a subordinate is covered by the orders of his superiors.

The superior orders defense is still used with the following rationale in the following scenario: An “order” may come from one’s superior at the level of national law. But according to Nuremberg Principle IV, such an order is sometimes “unlawful” according to international law. Such an “unlawful order” presents a legal dilemma from which there is no legal escape: On one hand, a person who refuses such an unlawful order faces the possibility of legal punishment at the national level for refusing orders. On the other hand, a person who accepts such an unlawful order faces the possibility of legal punishment at the international level (e.g. Nuremberg Trials) for committing unlawful acts.

Nuremberg Principle II responds to that dilemma by stating: “The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

The above scenario might present a legal dilemma, but Nuremberg Principle IV speaks of “a moral choice” as being just as important as “legal” decisions: It states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.
In “moral choices” or ethical dilemmas an ethical decision is often made by appealing to a “higher ethic” such as ethics in religion or secular ethics.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

In the case involving Lalith Weeratunga and Anusha Palpita, the application of moral choice would be having to choose between serving the interests of the Buddha Sasana under Article 9 of the Constitution which is a mandatory duty imposed on all public servants (irrespective of religion) and not serve the Buddha Sasana and thereby violate the Constitution.

The duty imposed by the Constitution of Sri Lanka under Article 9 is an inviolable duty and supersedes all other obligations or rules set out under ordinary municipal law or international law.

Presidential Pardon

A Presidential Pardon should be given because of the special nature of the case. These two ‘ convicts’ carried out an Order that was issued directly by a sitting President, and which he (Mahinda Rajapakse ) is now admitting he has done in his capacity as President. If the issue is that of committing a wrong while in office, then the party who issued the Order while in Office should also have been enjoined as a co -accused. That was not done. Convicting those who executed the Order while allowing those who issued the ‘ illegal ‘ order to go scot free without any liability attached is tantamount to a travesty of justice. It is a miscarriage of justice; an act of the legal system that is an insult to the system of justice.

The defence of following orders is a valid defense, though it failed at Nuremberg because the orders to kill innocent people, both Jews and non – Jews, were stricto sensu immoral. There is no question of immorality in distributing ‘ Sil Reddi ‘ to the Buddhist public. Article 9 of the Constitution clearly specifies and gives a mandate to the State to give foremost place to Buddhism. Article 9 is not meant to be treated like a white elephant. It is a living provision and embeds a 2300 year tradition of requirement on the part of the State to serve the Buddha Sasana. All our past rulers before the colonial era served the cause of Buddhism as one of their primary obligations. The motive is irrelevant when performing a service to the Buddhist public. Only the incumbent President can undo the damage done to a public servant for carrying out an Order of a President, by releasing him from Prison through a Presidential Pardon.

Public service decision making unsettled

This Court decision unsettles the entire public service. Any direction given by a Cabinet Minister or even the President himself is now open to a protracted and unnecessarily time consuming evaluation by a subordinate public servant (s) ‘ Should I follow the direction or not’ and risk punishment for insubordination even if he delays in trying to work out a skin saving solution. Indiscipline will grow in the public service because now freedom is given ( by virtue of this Court Order) for public servants to reject Orders from above if they in their discretion find a directive unpalatable. The ultimate losers will be the public but can they complain? In any society the people get the leaders they deserve.

Senaka Weeraratna

Attorney at Law

මාධ්‍ය ඒකකය ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍රය

කෙරවලපිටිය LNG විදුලි බලාගාර ඉදි කිරීම ටෙන්ඩරය සම්බන්ධයෙන් රාජ්‍ය නිලධාරීන් හා දේශපාලන නායකත්වය අතර ඇතිවී ඇති ගැටුම හේතුවෙන් විදුලි බිල ඉහළ අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම සිදුවනු ඇතැයි ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍ර‍යේ විධායක අධ්‍යක්ෂ කීර්ති තෙන්නකෝන් මහතා නිවේදනයක් නිකුත් කරමින් පවසයි.

කෙරවලපිටිය විදුලි බලාගාරයට අදාළ ටෙන්ඩරය තාක්ෂණික කමිටු නිර්දේශ මත තෝරාගත් කොරියානු සැම්සුන් සමාගම වෙත ප්‍ර‍ධානය කිරීමට විදුලි බල අමාත්‍යාංශය උත්සහ දැරීය.  ඒ සමගම එම ටෙන්ඩරය අහිමි වූ දේශපාලනයට සම්බන්ධ ව්‍යාපාරිකයින් මෙම ටෙන්ඩරය කඩාකප්පල් කිරීමට මේ වන විට සැලසුම් සහගත උත්සාහයක් දරමින් සිටී.  ඔවුන් තාක්ෂණික කමිටුවේ හා ටෙන්ඩර් කමිටුවේ නිලධාරීන්ට තර්ජනය කිරීමත් සමග ශ්‍රී ලංකා පරිපාලන සේවයේ නිලධාරීන් ටෙන්ඩර් කමිටුවෙන් ඉල්ලා අස්විය. 

තාක්ෂණික කමිටුවට අනුව, සුදුසුකම් සපුරා ඇති සමාගම වෙත ටෙන්ඩරය ප්‍ර‍ධානය කිරීම මේ වන විට දේශපාලන බලපෑම මත නවතා දමා ඇත.  දේශපාලන බලපෑම් හා ආර්ථික ‘ආර්ථික කළමනාකරණය සදහා වූ කැබිනට් කමිටුව  (CCEM) හරහා විදුලිබල හා බලශක්ති අමාත්‍යාංශයේ ලේකම්වරයා වෙත බලපෑම් එල්ල වී ඇත්තේ සුදුසුකම් සපුරා නොමැති තෝරාගත් ආයතන 6 ක ටෙන්ඩර් අයදුම්පත් ද විවෘත කරන ලෙසයි.

මේ අතර විදුලිබල ඉංජිනේරුවන් හා පෞද්ගලික ඩීසල් විදුලි ව්‍යාපාරිකයින් මෙම ටෙන්ඩරය කඩාකප්පල් වීමෙන් ‘ක්ෂණික විදුලිය මිලදී ගැනීම් හරහා‘ තමන්ට අති විශාල ලාභයක් ලබා ගැනීමේ අරමුණින් කටයුතු කරමින් සිටින අතර, විදුලි බිල වැඩි කිරීමේ යෝජනාවක් ද ඉදිරිපත් කොට ඇත.

ටෙන්ඩරයේ අඩුපාඩු සකස් කිරීම සදහා අවස්ථාවක් ලබා දෙන්නේ නම් ඒ සදහා සියලුම ටෙන්ඩර්කරුවන් වෙත සාධාරණ අවස්ථාවක් හිමි විය යුතුය.  දේශාපාලන ව්‍යාපාරිකයින්ගේ අවශ්‍යතාව මත රාජ්‍ය නිලධාරීන් වෙත පීඩණයක් එල්ල කිරීම කිසි ලෙසකින් හෝ සිදු නොවිය යුතු තත්වයක් බව ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍ර‍ය අවධාරණය කරයි.

කෙරවලපිටිය විදුලි බලාගාර ටෙන්ඩරය විනිවිද භාවයකින් යුතුව, නිසි තාක්ෂණික ඇගයීම් නර්දේශ මත සිදු විය යුතු බව අවධාරණය කරන ශ්‍රී ලංකා මානව හිමිකම් කේන්ද්‍ර‍ය, ඒ සදහා බලපෑම් කිරීමෙන් වලකින් ලෙස ඉල්ලා සිටී.  ජනාධිපති නීතිඥ උපුල් ජයසූරිය මහතාට ශ්‍රී ලංකා ආයෝජන මණ්ඩලයේ සභාපති ධූරය අහිමි වූයේ ද විදුලිබල මිලදී ගැනීම් සදහා වන ආයෝජකයින් සම්බන්ධයෙන් එල්ලවූ දේශපාලන බලපෑම් හේතුවෙනි.

ලංකාවේ දුෂිතව ටෙන්ඩර් ගනුදෙනු අතර විදුලිබල හා පුනර්ජනණීය බලශක්ති අමාත්‍යාංශය ඉදිරියෙන්ම සිටින අතර ගල්අගුරු මිලදී ගැනීම, ජෙනරේටර් මිලදී ගැනීම, ඩීසල් විදුලිය පුද්ගලික අංශයෙන් මිලදී ගැනීම හරහා දිගින් දිගටම අක්‍ර‍මිකතා සිදුවන බව පසුගිය වසර හතර තුල අප විසින් අවධාරණය කර ඇතැයි ද තෙන්නකෝන් මහතාගේ අත්සනින් නිකුත් කල නිවේදනයේ දැක්වේ.

Thilanka Kanakarathna Courtesy Ceylon Daily Mirror

MP Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe has demanded Rs.500 million as compensation from Centre for Human Rights (CHR) Executive Director Keerthi Tennakoon for defaming him by making false statements during a news conference on August 5.

In his letter of demand the MP said Mr. Tennakoon had made a false statement alleging that Mr. Rajapakshe had obstructed the law being enforced by withholding the committee report on the Welikada riots for more than two years.

The MP said the false allegation had been spread among the public via the publicity given by the media had tarnished his image which he had earned as a professional and a politician for several years.

He said the baseless allegations made him to appear responsible for protecting those behind the Welikada riots.

The MP said legal action would be taken if Mr. Tennakoon failed to pay the money demanded within two weeks.

However, when we contacted Mr. Tennakoon, he said he had heard that a LoD had been sent but had not received any such document. ()

Random Notes with Ravi Ladduwahetty Courtesy Ceylon Today

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
― – Principal author of the US declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson

Today, this columnist debates the role of the public servant in a powerful bureaucracy and the degree of compliance that he/she is expected to perform along with his/her discretion in that role.

This debate comes hot on the heels of senior civil servant Lalith Weeratunga who as Secretary to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, and former Director-General of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission Anusha provided Rs 600 Million worth of Sil Redi (the white attire which is used in the practice of observing and reflecting the eight precepts on Poya Days) off State funds as a part of the 2014 Presidential Polls Campaign and for the promotion of the then sitting President Mahinda Rajapaksa and who are now serving a jail sentence of three years each where they are rigourously imprisoned, for serving the orders of the boss (Read President Mahinda Rajapaksa)

Of course, we very well know that Lalith Weeratunga was following the directions of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, that the former President did not gift the sil redi to gain merit for his next life time, to be eligible to be born as a human being! That was purely electioneering and also to boost his public image and ego. That also went the same way as the thousands of people whom he got dined and wined at State expense and also with the tax payer’s money, again not to gain merit to be born as a human being in the next life time!

BOPAGE – DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE!

This is in sharp contrast to the response and the attitude of the former Secretary to the Ministry of Media and Parliamentary Affairs Nimal Bopage (now Additional Secretary to the President heading media and Chairman of the Geological and Mines Bureau) who flatly refused to sign the documents which was to approve a Rs 600,000 monthly rental each for Members of Parliament (who were not Cabinet Ministers or Deputy Ministers) who did not have vehicles and for whom the Government did not give vehicles. Whatever the theories are and were, this amount could also be debated as one would have had to spend a maximum of say Rs 200,000 monthly, even for a Montero or a Prado!

The basis of former Secretary to the Ministry of Media and Parliamentary Affairs Nimal Bopage refusing to sign was and the argument that the tenders for the vehicles were called by the Ministry of Finance (before the Media was also tagged to it as it is now) and that the documentation should have been also approved by the Finance Ministry under the circumstances. He indignantly asked as to why he should be merely the rubber stamp as the signatory to the agreements when the tenders were called by the Finance Ministry! He said that it would have been a different story had the original tendering for the vehicles were done by his Media and Parliamentary Affairs Ministry! So, in contrast, the heart of the matter here is a classic case of a senior public servant who stood his ground like a vertebrate!

DISCRETION, THE BETTER PART OF VALOUR!

Now, comes the conjecture. Lalith Weeratunga may have complied with former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s orders. But the discretion of following the directive or not, was Weeratunga’s. He could not have said, I did it on behalf of the President and I was under orders and that Rajapaksa should also be implicated as he was the cause of the theft!

That excuse is as lame and could be akin to this columnist saying that he robbed to feed his family and that the family should also implicated because the crime was committed on behalf of the family! One does not see that type of crap even in comic books!

Anyway, for all his political opponents who are still under the blissful impression that Rajapaksa should also be serving a prison sentence, they should also be aware that President Rajapaksa could not be tried or charged or sued in a Court of Law under Article 35 of the Constitution! That is to be sued for crimes committed in retrospect. However, if there are other accomplices in either his family or friends, they could be sued. That is the legal aspect of it. But, the ethical and moral aspect of the entire exercise is a different matter.

However, Weeratunga and Pelpita have one safety net. That is whether they have been asked to proceed with the transaction details and the distribution of the sil redi and cloths under duress. It could be that Weeratunga and Pelpita would have been told under pressure. For instance, there has been no evidence that Weeratunga’s Attorney has told Court that he was asked to proceed with the transactions or that a White Van would have been sent to his house or that he would have been terminated from his job! That also has not happened.

So, both Weeratunga and Pelpita committed the crime, irrespective of the fervour of the Sil cloths, did it under their discretion and they have to face the punishment as well.

Now, comes the biggest jokes of the century. This is where MPs Gammnapila and Bandula Gunawardena are fighting to have the Rs 50 million fine each for both Weeratunga to be paid by the members of the public! There are also derogatory posts on Facebook and other social media that moves are afoot for the collection of the Rs 50 million each to redeem the duo from the extension of the three-year jail sentence. But, one thing is for sure.

They have to pay the Rs 50 million fine. Cynics also say that they have to pay the fine as well after allowing the duo to fleece Rs 600 Million , which could have been put to more productive use like repairing some school classrooms and others.

This is indeed a good lesson for all public servants. They should always be aware that they need not always be servile to do the bidding of the Master subject to their conscience. All this is a part of the Second Republican Constitution in 1978 which enabled the Executive to appoint public servants.

Prior to that, it was the Public Service Commission which appointed and or removed all members of the Public Service and they were in a respectable work environment, not serving as doormats for politicos to wipe their feet on!

This columnist could be contacted at ravi.ladduwahetty@ceylontoday.lk

https://youtu.be/-HPxZgnv4OM

Dr Sudath Gunasekara

10.9.2017

Wrong doers and who rob public money have to be punished. There is no second word about it. But should a public servant (who has ceased to be so in this country after 1987) be punished for carrying out an order given by his Minister. Of cause if such order violates Administrative or Financial Regulations he can always refuse to carry out such orders as such actions will be questioned at the Public Accounts Committee. This is particularly so at the level of a Ministry Secretary. Because under the Constitution, he is the Chief Accounting Office for his ministry and all the Departments and institutions coming under that Ministry. Has there being such a violation in this issue.  Now that the Ex- President has publicly said that he has given an order to distribute silredi, the question arises as to why Lalith and Pelpita were convicted. Was there a mensria on the part of these two officers to do such wrong act?  I do not know whether they have stated in court that they were only carrying out an order from the then President. If it had been said then this order is definitely a Kekille Nadu tiinduwaki.

The next issue is the nature of punishment. RS 52 million each and 3 ½ years RI.

It was I who the one as Secretary to Mrs B in 1994, proposed Lalith,s name as Additional Sec. I met Lalith  as a young, intelligent, dynamic and vibrant SLAS officer in 1992 when I was the President of Sri Lan  ka Administrative Services Association. He was an active committee member. From that time on words I knew him as an efficient and honest man. Knowing him so close I cannot even dream he will do a wrong thing like this. As uch I feel this is not justice at all and the 3 1/2 year rigorous imprisonment and fine 50 million cannot be justified by any conceivable standard. OK silredi has been given. But it is the poor people who have benefited, Neither MR at elections nor these two officers have benefited.  I believe the higher court will deliver better justice.

I think the Yahapalanaya has done this to warn and hurt MR as they are afraid to put him behind bars. This may be a warning to him of things to come. As I have already said in one of my previous posting in this site this is the Kautilyan strategy of attacking the periphery first. Exactly this is what he got Gupta prince to do to attack Nanda regime.

I only hope President Sirisena will prove the metal of his yahapalanya by taking immediate action at least now to arrest the Alibaba and all the thieves who have robed the Nation’s Central Bank starting from him down the line Arjuna Mahendran, his son-in law and put them behind bars immediately, now that the CB scam has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts in the eyes of the public.  Isn’t it a more serious a mega crime that has ruined the whole nation amounting to 2 or more Billions. The whole country is waiting to see what punishment this Government is going to give them

I do not know whether Lalith has done this Silredi distribution under political pressure. If that is the case then you must punish the person who gave such orders and definitely not a poor public servant. These queries will haunt our minds for a long time. As for me I regret very much for the predicament Lalith and his friend had to face. Even if they are exonerated by the Higher Court now the damage is done and it is irreparable.

I wonder why this duplicity by this government in treating different people differently when even people who have lost their civic rights are kept in high positions. Another person who was found guilty for taking a bribe of 10 lakhs was given 20 years imprisonment few days back. Is this yahapalanaya?

One can argue that this is a good lesson for those who indulge in such activities. It certainly sends a clear message for the 1.6 million public servants in this country. But the question left unanswered is whether public servants have the freedom to say no to politicians when such orders are given. If they say no then they will be branded as anti-government and punished. They have no job security under the existing situation. In order to avoid this sad situation the first thing what the government should do is to restore the independence of public service. Eradicate the cause first and let the politicians be exemplary

To avoid this type of disasters to public servants let the 1.6 million Public servants also stand up and agitate for an independent Public Service. I think the Sri Lanka Administrative Service that was once the steel frame of the Administration and the guardian of public interests should wake up from its deep slumber and fight for an Independent and professional public Service and retrieve Public Service in this country from political bungling. They should not allow the politicians to treat them like domestic servants. Take a lesson from the medical profession.

Even under the present situation you can still say no if you have the guts and the courage to say no when it is wrong. As for me I have never gone after politicians for favours in my 36 years of service. I have said no to many including Mrs Tamara Ilangaratna, S.K.K.Suriya arachchi, Gamani Jayasuriya, Presdident Premadasa,. D.B Wijetunga,  Lalith Atulathmudali, Luxman Jayakodi and even  Mrs.B. They all not only appreciated but agreed with what I said and most of them became my lifelong friends. Sans any political support and pull I was able to retire as Prime Minister Mrs Bandaranayaka’s Secretary.  I was able to be Secretary to four Cabinet Ministries.  All this happened on my own merit. So the question I ask is as to why others also cannot do that way, serve the people maintaining the dignity and independence of the public Service and self- respects without giving in and retire happily. Remember you are Public Servants and not servants of any given political party. You are permanent servant of the people until you retire. Politicians on the other hand come and go in every five years, though in Sri Lanka unfortunately it has changed since 1987. In politics today corruption has become the rule rather than the exception. They don’t serve the public but serve themselves only.

Overall today both politicians and public servants have to revisit their roles and both political and administrative cultures need a complete reformation, where both settle down as instruments of delivering public good. Follow the Asokian principles of governance and adhere to the  dictum Bahujana sukhaya  Bahujana hitaya’ the Great Teacher has taught.

වරුණ චන්ද්‍රකීර්ති

අපේ අධ්‍යාපනය හරහා අපිට රස්සා හොයාගන්න පොටක් පාදලාදීලා තියෙනවා. ඉතින් උසස් පෙළ හරි උපාධිය හරි පාස්වුනාට පස්සේ මොකක් හරි ජරමරයක් කරලා අපි රස්සාවක් හොයාගන්නවා. අපිට ඉගැන්නුවා නම් රස්සාවලුත් දීපල්ලා” කියලා අපි ආණ්ඩුවටත් කියනවා. ඡන්ද නැති කරගන්න බයේ ආණ්ඩුවත් ඔය මොනව මොනවා හරි රස්සා ටිකක් හදලා අපේ එවුන් ව ඒවාට බඳවාගන්නවා. ඒ රස්සාවලින් රටටවත් මිනිස්සුන්ටවත් ඒ රස්සා කරන එවුන්ටවත් වැඩක් වෙනවා ද කියලා හිත හිතා ඉන්නේ කවුද?

ඉතින් අපේ කට්ටිය හැම දා ම උදේට ඇඳුමක් හොඳට මැදගෙන බත් මුලකුත් බැඳගෙන බස් එකක හරි කෝච්චියක හරි නැගලා රස්සාවට යනවා. පයින් ගිහිල්ලා රස්සාවක් කළොත් කිසි ලකයක් නෑ. ඉතින් ඈත ගම්වල ඉන්න එවුන් මහ පාරට එන්නේ බයිසිකලේක හරි මෝටර් සයිකලේක හරි නැගලා. ඒක පාර කිට්ටුව තියෙන මාමා” කෙනෙක් ගේ හරි අයියා” කෙනෙක් ගේ හරි ගෙදරක ගාල්කරනවා. ඔය දන්න කියන එකෙක් තමන් ගේ වත්තේ බයිසිකලයක් ගාල් කළා කියලා අපේ ගම්වල මාමාලා” අයියලා” සල්ලි ගන්නේ නෑ.

ඉතින් අපි රස්සාවට යනවා. බස් එකක එල්ලිලා යන අපිට සමහර වෙලාවට බස් එකකින් බස් එකකට එහෙමත් නැතිනම් කෝච්චියකට මාරුවෙන්නත් වෙනවා. නොදන්න මිනිස්සු විකාර කතා කිව්වාට මේක සෙල්ලමක් නෙවෙයි. හොඳ පණ යන වැඩක්. ඉතින් ඉර ගහන්න විනාඩියකට දෙකකට කලින් ඔෆිස් එකට රිංගාගන්න පුළුවන් වුනාට ගිය ගමන් ම වැඩ පටන්ගන්න පුළුවන්කමකුත් නෑ. මොකද අපි මේ කතාකරන්නේ ලේ මස් ඇට නහරවලින් හැදිච්ච මිනිස්සු ගැනනේ. හවස වැඩ ඇරුණාට පස්සේ මේ සෙල්ලම උදේටත් වඩා අමාරුයි. ඔෆිස් එක ඇරිච්ච ගමන් ම පණ කඩාගෙන දුවන්න ඕන. එක හුස්මට ගියේ නැතිනම් බස් එක හරි කෝච්චිය හරි අල්ලගන්න බෑ. ඉතින් ආපහු ගෙදර ගිහිල්ලා පහුවදාට ඕන කරන ඇඳුමක් මැදගන්නවා ඇරෙන්න වෙනත් දෙයක් කරන්න හිතකුත් නෑ. ඒත් එහෙම කියලා කොහොම ද? තව කොච්චරක් නම් දේවල් කරන්න තියෙනවා ද?

කවුරු මොනවා කිව්වාත් මේ විදිහේ රස්සාවක් නොකර පුළුවන් ද? මේ විදිහේ රස්සාවක් කරනවා නම් තමයි හොඳ කෙනෙක් – ඒ කියන්නේ මේ විදිහේ රස්සාවක් කරන තව කෙනෙක්; එක්ක කසාදයක් වුනත් කරගන්න පුළුවන්. හොඳට ඉහළට ඉගෙනගෙන ගමරාළ කෙනෙක් ව හරි ගම හාමිනේ කෙනෙක් ව හරි බැඳගන්න පුළුවන් කාට ද? අනිත් එක දැන් කාලේ කුඹුරු ගොවිතැන් කරන්නේ හරියකට ඉගෙනගත්තේ නැති එවුන්. දෙකයි එක්ස් එකතුකිරීම තුනයි වයි කියන්නේ මොකක් ද කියලා ඔය ගමරාළලාට හිතාගන්නවත් බෑ. එහෙම බැරිවෙච්ච හින්දානේ ඕකුන්ට සාමාන්‍ය පෙළවත් හරි හමන් විදිහට පාස්වෙන්න බැරිවුනේ.

ඉතින් රස්සාවක් නොකර බෑ. රස්සාවක් කරනවා නම් වැඩකරන ඔෆිස් එකෙන් හරි බැංකුවකින් හරි ණයක් ඇරගෙන පාරක් අයිනෙන් පර්චස් අටක් දහයක් ගන්න පුළුවන්. එහෙම තැනක ගෙයක් හදාගත්තොත් රස්සාවට යන්නත් ලේසියි. හදාගන්න ගෙදර පොළොවට ටයිල් ටිකක් අල්ලාගන්න ඕන. අඩු වියදම් සිවිලිමක් හරි ගහගන්න ඕන. පොඩියට හරි කාර් එකක් ගන්න ඕන. ණයක් තුරහක් වෙන්නේ නැතුව මේ වැඩ එකක් හරි කරන්න පුළුවන් ද? ඉතින් ඒ විදිහට ගන්න ණයක් වුනත් ගෙවන්න පුළුවන්වෙන්නේ මාස් පතා පඩි ලැබෙන මේ විදිහේ හරි හමන් රස්සාවක් තියෙනවා නම්.

මේක දුකක් තමයි. ඒත් මේ හැම දුකකින් ම මිදෙන්න පුළුවන් දරුවන්ට හොඳින් උගන්න ගත්තොත්. උන් ව හොඳ ඉස්කෝලෙකට නො දා ඒක කරන්න බෑ. ඉතින් ඒකට තියෙන හොඳ ම ක්‍රමය ළමයා ශිෂ්‍යත්වයෙන් පාස් කරවාගන්න එකනේ. උඩ බලාගෙන නිකම් ඉඳලා ළමයා ශිෂ්‍යත්වයෙන් පාස්කරන්න බෑ. ඒක මහා රේස් එකක්. ඉතින් ළමයින් ව පංති යවන්න ඕන. දේශනවලට යවන්න ඕන. පුළුවන් නම් ගුරුවරයෙක් ගෙදරට ගෙනැල්ලා හරි ළමයාට උගන්නන්න ඕන. යාළු මිත්‍රයෝ, නෑදෑයෝ රෙකමදාරු කරන පොත් පත්තර පවා ගෙනැල්ලා දෙන්න ඕන. ඒත් අපි මොන මහන්සිය ගත්තත් සමහර වෙලාවට විභාගය අමාරුකරනවා. තවත් සමහර වෙලාවට විභාගය ලේසියි. හැබැයි වෙලාව මදි. අපි ඒක දැන ගන්නෙත් යාළු මිත්‍රයන්ගෙන්. ප්‍රතිඵල ආව ම තමයි දන්නේ සමහර ළමයි පාස්. අනිත් ළමයි ෆේල්. එහෙම නැතුව ඉතින් වෙන කොහොම වෙන්න ද?

මොක වුනත් ළමයින්ට උගන්නන වැඩේ ඉස්සරහට ම කරගෙන යන්න ඕන. හොඳ ඉස්කෝලෙකට යවන්නේ ඒ ඉස්කෝලේ ගුරුවරු ළමයින්ට හොඳින් උගන්වයි කියන අදහසින් ම නෙවෙයි. ඒවා දිහා බලාගෙන ඉඳලා හරියන්නේ නෑ. සතියේ හැම දා ම ඉස්කෝලෙන් පස්සෙත් සෙනසුරාදාටත් ඉරිදාටත් ළමයින් ව ටියුෂන් යවන්න ඕන. විද්‍යාව කියන විෂයය ඉගෙනගන්න කණ්ඩායම් පංතියකට ළමයා යවන එක තමා වඩා හොඳ කියලා දන්න කියන අය කියන්නේ. ගණන්වලට නම් එහෙම කරලාත් බෑ. ඒ වැඩේ හරියට කරවාගන්න නම් ගුරුවරයෙක් ගෙදරට ම ගෙන්නගන්න ඕන. ඉතින් මේක හරි ජරමරයක්.

මහ එවුන් මොන සෙල්ලම දැම්මාත් ළමයින්ට – විශේෂයෙන් ම, පිරිමි ළමයින්ට; වගේ වගක් නෑ. කෙල්ලෝ නම් ටිකක් පාඩම්කරනවා. ගෙදර වැඩ කරනවා. ඒත් කොල්ලන් ගේ ඔළුවේ තියෙන්නේ වෙන බහුභූත. මේ ළඟ දී මේ ලේඛකයා තමන් හොඳින් දන්න කොලු ගැටයෙක් එක්ක කතාකළා. ඒ හාදයා තව මාස කීපයකින් සාමාන්‍ය පෙළ විභාගයට ලියන්න ඕන. ඒත් ඒකා කැමැති බ්ලැක් මෙටල් කියලා නම් කරලා තියෙන සංගීතයක් උදේ හවස අහන්න. බ්ලැක් මෙටල් කියන්නේ නොර්වේ වගේ ඈත රටවල්වලින් අපේ රටට ආපු සංගීත ක්‍රමයක්. ඒ සංගීත කණ්ඩායම්වල ඩ්‍රම්ස් ගහන එවුන් විනාඩියට පහර 300 ක් විතර වෙන වේගයකින් තමයි ඩ්‍රම් එකට තඩි බාන්නේ. ගිටාර් එක වුනත් ගහන්නේ කණ කීස්ගාන විදිහට. ඉතින් මේවා අහන්න පටන්ගන්න එවුන්ට ටික කාලයක් යද්දී ඒක නැතුව බැරි දෙයක් බවට පත්වෙනවා. හරියට ම කියනවා නම් කුඩු ගැහුවා වගේ තමයි. මේ කියපු හාදයාට වුනත් එහෙමයි. පොතක් බල බලා හිටියත් ඔළුවේ තියෙන්නේ බ්ලැක් මෙටල්. ඉතින් විනාඩි පහෙන් පහට පොඩි ෂොට් එකක් ගහනවා වගේ මේ හාදයා සැරෙන් සැරේට නැගිටලා ගිහිල්ලා හෙඩ් සෙට් එක කණේ ගහගන්නවා.

දෙමව්පියෝ කොහොම ද දන්නේ මේ මඟුල්? උන් පුරුදු විදිහට එළිවෙන්න පැය දෙක තුනකට කලින් නැගිටලා ළමයින්ටත් බත් මාළුපිණි තම්බලා තියලා සල්ලි හොයන්න පුරුදු විදිහට රස්සාවට දුවනවා. ඒ විතරක් නෙවෙයි. ඉස්සර වගේ දැන් කාලේ ළමයි බස් එකේ ඉස්කෝලේ යවන්නත් බෑ. දැන් රට හුඟක් දියුණුවෙලා හින්දා ළමයෙක් කොහොම ද තනියෙන් පාරේ යවන්නේ? ඉතින් ඉස්කූල් වෑන් එකටත් සල්ලි දෙන්න ඕන. ඉස්කූල් වෑන්කාරයා නිවාඩු කාලෙට පවා සල්ලි ගන්නවානේ. කොහොම කොහොම හරි ළමයා සාමාන්‍ය පෙළ පාස් කරගත්තොත් ඊ ළඟට එන්නේ උසස් පෙළ රේස් එක. ඒ වැඩේ දී නම් ඒකායන මාර්ගය තමයි ළමයා ව බයෝ සයන්ස් කරන්න යොමු කරවලා කොහොම හරි දොස්තර කෙනෙක් කරන්න බලන එක. ඒ මග හැර ‍වෙනත් සරණක් කොයින් ද?

දොස්තර කෙනෙක් වුනත් ළමයා දවල් රෑ නැතුව දුක් විඳියි. මොකද ඉස්පිරිතාලේ රස්සාව විතරක් කරලා ඒකාට හරි හමන් විදිහට ජීවත්වෙන්න බැහැනේ. ඉතින් ඒකා ප්‍රයිවට් ප්‍රැක්ටිස් කරන්න ඕන. තව පුළුවන් තරම් සෙල්ලම් දාන්න ඕන. ඒ කොහොම වුනත් ළමයා දොස්තර කෙනෙක් කරන අරමුණ අත්හරින්න හොඳ නෑ. මේ රටේ බැරි නම් බංගලිදේශයට යවලා හරි ළමයා ව දොස්තර කෙනෙක් කරන්න පුළුවන්. මේක තමයි එක ම මග. නත්ථි මෙ සරණං අඤ්ඤං!

කොහොම වුනත් හැම එකෙක්ට ම දොස්තරලා වෙන්න බෑ. ඉතින් එහෙම වුනොත් තියෙන එක ම විකල්පය තමයි කන්තෝරුවක රස්සාවකට යවන එක. ඒක ඉතින් තමන් කරන කන්තෝරු රස්සාවට ඉහළ එකක් වුනොත් හොඳයි. එතකොට ළමයාට බැරිවෙච්ච දේ මුණුපුරාලා හරි කරයි. ඉතින් ඇතුළේ ගම්වල ඉඳලා පාරේ අයිනේ පදංචියට ආපු දෙමව්පියන් ගේ ළමයි ලොකු මහත්වුනාට පස්සේ රස්සා හොයාගෙන කොළඹ කිට්ටුව පදිංචියට යනවා. හතර වටේට ණයවෙලා කොළඹ කිට්ටුව තට්ටු දෙකට ගෙවල් හදාගන්නවා. ඒත් හරියට ජීවත්වෙන්න නම් ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවට හරි කැනඩාවට හරි ඇමෙරිකාවට හරි යන්න ඕන. ඒක තමයි දැන් කාලේ ඉන්න අපි සෑහෙන දෙනෙක්ට ලබාගන්න පුළුවන් ඉහළ ම මාර්ග ඵලය!

ගම් අත ඇරලා පාරවල් අයිනේ පදිංචියට ආපු එවුන් නාකිවෙද්දි තනිවෙනවා. තටු ආවට පස්සේ පොඩි එවුන් ඉගිල්ලිලා යන එක නවත්තන්න බෑ. දැන් පොඩි එකා ඉන්නේ ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාවේ. අපිට දඹදිව යන්නත් සල්ලි එව්වානේ. කොහොම කොහොම හරි ළමයින්ට උගන්නගත්ත එක ලොකු දෙයක්.” ඉතින් තනිවුනා කියලා දුකක් නෑ. අහල පහළ එවුන් එක්ක කියන්න කතාවක් තියෙනවා. තව ටිකක් බැරිවුනොත් වැඩට කවුරු හරි හොයාගන්න බැරියෑ. ළමයි සල්ලි එවනවානේ. වැඩේ තියෙන්නේ දැන් අපේ ගම්වල සල්ලියක් දීලා වැඩක් කරගන්නවත් එකෙක් නෑනේ. මෙහෙම ගියොත් ඉතින් රටින් තමයි ගෙවල්වල වැඩකරන එවුන් ගෙන්න ගන්න වෙන්නේ.” ඉතින් ගෙදරක වැඩට එකෙක් හොයාගන්න බැරි ව නාකි එවුන් තවත් තනිවෙනවා. මෙහෙම ප්‍රශ්න තිබුණා කියලා ළමයින්ට කරදර කරන්නත් බැහැනේ. මොකද උන් රස්සා කරගන්න ඕන. ළමයින්ට උගන්නගන්න ඕන.

ඉතින් දැන් අපි කරන්න ඕන මොකක් ද? ආදාහනාගාරේ පයයි පාරේ අයිනේ පයයි තියාගෙන අපි ටිකක් හිතමු. ඉගෙනගන්න ඉගෙනගන්න අපි ගමෙන් පාරටත් පාරෙන් නගරයටත් එතැනින් කොළඹටත් අන්තිමේ දී රටිනුත් යන්නේ ඇයි? ඉගෙනගන්න එවුන්ගෙන් ටික දෙනෙක් හරි ගමේ ම තියාගන්න ක්‍රමයක් ගැන අපිට හිතන්න බැරි ද? අපේ අධ්‍යාපනය ක්‍රමය ඒකට ගැලපෙන විදිහට හදාගන්න බැරි ද?

වරුණ චන්ද්‍රකීර්ති

A plane does not pass through steel & concrete like a ghost!

At none of the the four impact sites were there ever ANY remnants of a Boeing 757 or 767. After seeing a plane wing after hitting a sea gull tell what they’re made of, it is impossible to believe the official story that Aluminum planes could fly 540 MPH at sea level, and than slice through reinforced concrete/steel without losing speed, and let it TOTALLY PULVERIZE by jet fuel fires.

Just like JFK, 50 years from now we STILL will NOT have people punished. They will live their lives out in riches and security, as the World bankers , it is ALL so corrupt

Full Story .https://911planeshoax.com/

Dr Sarath Madduma Banda Obeysekera

Quote from Wikepedia

Ellāḷaṉ is traditionally presented as being a just king even by the Sinhalese.^[10] The Mahavamsa states that he ruled ‘with even justice toward friend and foe, on occasions of disputes at law,^[11] and elaborates how he even ordered the execution of his son on the basis of a heinous religious crime. Ellāḷaṉ is a peculiar figure in the history of Sri Lanka and one with particular resonance given the ongoing ethnic strife in the country. Although he was an invader, he is often regarded as one of Sri Lanka’s wisest and most just monarchs, as highlighted in the ancient Sinhalesepali chronicle, the Mahavamsa. According to the chronicle, even Ellāḷaṉ’s nemesis Dutugamunu had a great respect for him, and ordered a monument be built where Ellāḷaṉ was cremated after dying in battle. Often referred to as ‘the Just King’. The Tamil name Ellāḷaṉ means ‘the one who rules the boundary”.

Quote from Mahavamsa

The Mahavamsa records – ” Near the south gate of the city the two kings fought ; Elara hurled his dart, Gamini evaded it ; he made his own elephant pierce (Elara’s) elephant with his tusks and hurled his dart at Elara ; and this (latter) fell there, with his elephant. When he had thus been victorious in battle and had united Lanka under one rule he marched, with chariots, troops and beasts for riders, into the capital. In the city he caused the drum to be beaten, and when he had summoned the people from a yojana around he celebrated the funeral rites for king Elara. On the spot where his body had fallen he burned it with the catafalque, and there did he build a monument and ordain worship. And even to this day the princes of Lanka, when they draw near to this place, are wont to silence their music because of this worship”

We have many Sinhala Politicians  claim that they are decedents of Dutugmanu and grandchildren of  Vihara Maha Devi ,but none of them have ever wanted act like King Durugamany after his victory over Elara

Sri Lankans have gone through a bad period of thirty years with Traumatic experience of losing loved ones from both sides and faced many other hardships ,and yet the menace of terrorism should not be allowed to raise the ugly head  again .Sinhalese feely travel to North and Tamils not only feely travel but also chose live anywhere in the island .

If it is the wish of the Tamils and Sinhalese ,we can allow a memorial to Tamils who have lost their lives if it helps reconciliation.

Rather than objecting to the proposal ,I suggest that we shall place a Memorial where King Dutugamunu built the tombstone for Elara and build a memorial for all tigers and Pabhakaran to show that we SInhala Buddhist are compassionate.

Whether it is right or wrong there was a cause for every conflict and we shall respect that wish .

Dr Sarath Madduma Banda Obeysekera

වෛද්‍ය රුවන් එම් ජයතුංග 

සිරිමාවෝ බන්ඩාරනායක රජයේ සොලිසිටර් ජෙනරාල්වරයා වූ ඉයන් වික්‍රමනායක මහතා 1971 කැරැල්ල මැඩලීමේ ලා විශේෂ කාර්යය භාරයක් කළේය. 1977ට පෙර යුගයේ දී අති බලවත් රාජ්‍ය නිලධාරියෙකු වූ ඉයන් වික්‍රමනායක මහතා හමුවී මාගේ 71 කැරැල්ල පොත​ට ඔහුගෙන් සාකච්ඡාවක් ලබා ගැනීම අත්‍යවශ්‍ය බව මම තීරණය කලේමි.

20/12/2008 දින පෙරවරුවේ මම ඉයන් වික්‍රමනායක මහතා ඔහුගේ නෑනා වන අයිරිස් මුතුක්‍රිෂ්ණා මහත්මියගේ ඇතුළු කෝට්ටේ නිවසේ දී  හමු වූයෙමි. එදා ප්‍රතාපවත් හා බලවත් නිලධාරියෙක් වූ ඉයන් වික්‍රමනායක අද අසූ එක් හැවිරිදි මහල්ලෙකි. ඔහුගේ මතකය ක්‍රම ක්‍රමයෙන් වියැකී යමින් පවතියි. මෑතකදි ඔහු පෙලු ආඝාතය නිසා ඔහුගේ කටහ~ පැහැදිලි නැත. බලය යනු සදාකාලික ප්‍රපංචයක් නොවේ යන්න මා ඉදිරියේ සිටි කෙට්ටු මහළු මිනිසා තුලින් මා පසක් කළෙමි.

ඉයන් වික්‍රමනායක මහතා – (මේ මා විසින් ගත් චායාරූපයකි )

ඔහුට 1971 සිද්ධීන් බොහෝමයක් අමතකය. එහෙත් ඔහුට එක සිද්ධියක් මතක්ව තිබිනි. අසීරුවෙන් වචන ගලපා ඔහු මට එම සිද්ධිය පැවසීය. එම සිද්ධිය නම් 1971 කැරැල්ලට අසුවී යළි පුනරුත්ථාපනය වූ කැරළිකරුවෙක් පූර්ණකාලීනව ගොවි තැනට බැස්සේය. ඔහු විප්ලවකාරි දේශපාලන කටයුතු අත් හලේය. ඔහු තම ගොවිපලේ ප්‍රථම අස්වැන්නෙන් කොටසක් ගෙනවිත් ඉයන් වික්‍රමනායක මහතා හමුවී තම කෘතඥතාව පළ කිරීමට හේ අමතක නොකලේය.

ඉයන් ඇතැම් කැරළිකරුවන්ට පහර දුන් බව ඔවුන්ගේ ප්‍රකාශ වලින් සඳහන් වුනි එහෙත් ඔහු සමහරෙකුට මානුෂිකව සැලකීමටද අමතක නොකළේය. වෙඩි වැදී කපා දැමීමට නියමිතව තිබූ ලොකු අතුලගේ කකුල ඔහුගේ මැදිහත් වීම නිසා වෛද්‍ය ප්‍රතිකාර ලැබ සුව විය. ඔහු වෙළඳ ව්‍යාපාර හා වස්තු භංගත්වයට පත් වූ ඇට්ලස් බණ්ඩාරට ත්‍රී රෝද රථයක් ගැනීමට උපකාර කළේය. නීති සිසුවෙකු වූ මහින්ද ජයවර්ධන හෙවත් බුලට් මහින්දට යළි නීති වෘත්තිය කරගෙන යාමට සහය විය. එපමණක් නොව මහින්ද ජයවර්ධන, තම උසාවි කටයුතු වලදි සහායක නීතිඥයකු ලෙසට වැඩ කිරීමටද ඉඩ ප්‍රස්ථාව ලබා දුන්නේය. 

වරක් මට පාලිත ශාම්දාස්  ඉයන් ගැන කියූ යමක් සටහන් කරමි. පාලිත ශාම්දාස් අත්අඩංගුවට පත් වූයේ 1972 දීය. ඔහුව ඉයන් වික්‍රමනායක හමුවට පමුණුවන  ලදී. ශාම්දාස් අත්අඩංගුවට පත් වන විට නැවති සිටියේ කොළඹ කුලී නිවසක තම අවිවාහක තරුණ සොයොයුරියන් දෙදෙනා සමඟය. නිවෙසේ සිටි තම නැගණියන් දෙදෙනා පාරට ඇද දමනු ඇතැයි බියක් ඔහු තුල ඇති විය. ඔහු ඉයන්ට තම සොයුරියන් දෙදෙනා ගැන කීවේය. ඔවුන්ගේ ආරක්ෂාවට ක්‍රියා කරන්නැයි ඉල්ලා සිටියේය. ඉයන් වහාම ගෙවල් හිමියා ගෙන්වා ගෙන තරුණියන් දෙදෙනා නිවසින් පිටමං නොකරන ලෙස දැන්වීය. ඉයන් විසින් කල සද්කාර්ය ගැන අද වුවද ඔහු ප්‍රශංසා මූඛයෙන් කථා කරයි.

ඔහුට බලය අයුතු ලෙස භාවිතා කිරීම ගැන චෝදනා තිබුණු බව සැබැයි. එහෙත් ඉයන් යනු තනිකරම කළු චරිතයක් නොවේ. ඔබගේ සාගරයක් මැද චිත්‍රපටයේ රඟපෑම විශිෂ්ඨ බව මා ඔහුට පැවසූ විට ඉයන්ගේ දෙනෙත් දිලිසුනේය. ඔහුගේ මුවගට සිනහවක් නැගිණි. අති විශාල බලයක් හිමි කරගෙන තිබු නමුදු ඉයන් වර්තමාන බලකාමින් මෙන් රාජ්‍ය දේපල සොරකමේ නොයෙදුනේය. අදටත් ඔහු ජීවත් වන්නේ තමන්ගේම නිවසක නොවේ.

1971 දි ඔහු සාධු චරිතයක් වී යැයි මම නොකියමි. එහෙත් 1971 කැරල්ලෙන් පසු යළි සමාජගත වීමට ඉඩ ලැබුණු කැරලිකරුවන් දෙස බලන විට 88/89 කැරළි සමයේ ඉයන් වික්‍රමනායක කෙනෙකු නොසිටීමේ අඩුව කැපී පෙනෙයි. එසේ සිටියා නම් 88/89 කැරළි වලට සහභාගී වූවන් අඩක් හෝ මේ වන වට යළි සමාජ ගතවී ජීවතුන් අතර ය.   (මෙම සම්මුඛ  සාකච්ඡාවෙන් වසරකට පමණ පසු ඉයන් වික්‍රමනායක මහතා අභාවය​ට පත් විය )

වෛද්‍ය රුවන් එම් ජයතුංග 

රනිල්-මලික් දූෂිතයින්ට සිංගප්පූරු ක්‍රමයට දඩුවම් දිය යුතු බව කොළඹදී මාධ්‍ය හමුවක් පවත්වමින් හැට දෙලක්ෂයේ කොටස්කරුවෝ සංවිධානය කියා සිටියහ.

එම මාධ්‍ය සාකච්ඡාවට එක් වු එම සංවිධානයේ කැදවුම්කරුවන් වන බණ්ඩාර අතුකෝරාල සහ ඩිලංක වීරකොන් යන මහත්වරු මේ බව කියා සිටියහ.

රටේ අපි දන්න දවසෙ ඉදලා කුඩු අල්ලනවා. ඒත් කුඩු ගෙන්වන ජාවාරම්කරුවෝ අල්ලන්නේ නෑ. බැදුම්කර වංචාවල් වුනා, ගල් අගුරු වංචා උනා, වරාය විකිනීමේ වංචා උනා, ශ්‍රී ලංකන් ගුවන් සමාගමේ දූෂණ වුනා, නුවර කොළඹ අධිවේගී මාර්ගය ඉදිකිරීමේ වංචා උනා.දක්ෂින අධිවේගී මාර්ගය දිගුවේ මහා වංචා වුනා. මේවා සියල්ල තවම එලිවුනේ නෑ. මේ වංචාවල් සොයලා මේවට සම්බන්ධ නිළධාරීන්ට පමණක් දඩුවම් දීලා මදි. මේවට උපදෙස් දුන් අයට දඩුවම් දිය යුතුයි. ඒ අය මේ ආණ්ඩුව තුළ ඉන්නවා. ජනාධිපතිවරයාට අපි කියන්නේ හැට දෙලක්ෂයේ ජනමතයට ගරු කරමින් ආණ්ඩුවේ ඇත්ලේ ඉන්න දූෂිතයන්ට දඩුවම් දෙන්න. නැත්නම් කුඩු අල්ලනවා වුනාට ගෙන්වන අය අල්ලන්නේ නැති නිසා හැමදාම කුඩු ප්‍රශ්ණයක් වෙලා තියෙනවා වගේ දූෂණය පවතීවි.

අගමැතිවරයා නිතරම කියනවා සිංගප්පූරු ක්‍රමය ගැන සහ එංගලන්ත ක්‍රමය ගැන. එංගලන්ත ක්‍රමය චෝදනාවක් ආවාම ඉල්ලා අස්වීම. සිංගප්පූරු ක්‍රමය ලික්වාන් යු පෙන්නුවා තම ඇමති චේන් වෝ සම්බන්ධව. චෙන් වෝ කියන්නේ ලීක්වාන් යුගේ පාසල් සමයේ ඉදන් මිත්‍රයා. ලී ගේ ආණ්ඩුවේ හොදම අමාත්‍යාංශයකුත් ඔහුට ලබාදුන්නා. නමුත් දූෂණයක් සම්බන්ධ බරපතල චෝදනාවක් ඔප්පුවානුමා ලී විකල්ප දෙකක් දුන්නා. එකක් හිරේ යන්න නැත්නම් සියදිවි නසාගන්න. ජනාධිපතිතුමාට අපි කියන්නේ මේ ආණ්ඩුව තුළ ඉන්න දූෂිතයන්ට ලීක්වාන් යූගේ විකල්ප දෙන්න කාලය ඇවිල්ලා.

මේ ආණ්ඩුව තුළ පාර්ශව දෙකක් ඉන්නවා. එකක් ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ පාර්ශවය. අනෙක අගමැතිවරයාගේ පාර්ශවය. දැන් ගතවු කාලය තුළ ආණ්ඩුවට එරෙහි බරපතල චෝදනා රාශීයක් ඇතිවුනා. මහබැංකු බැදුම්කර වංචාව, ගල් අගුරු ආනයන වංචාව, හාල් වංචාව, හම්බන්තොට වරායේ වංචාව, සයිටම් වංචාව, ශ්‍රී ලංකන් ගුවන් සේවයේ වංචාව, නුවර කොළඹ අධිවේගී මාර්ගයේ වංචාව වගේ වංචාවල්. මේ සෑම එකක්ම පිටිපස්සෙ ඉන්නේ අගමැතිවරයාගේ පාර්ශවය. විශේෂයෙන්ම රනිල්-මලික් යුගලය. මේ අය නිතරම අගය කරන සිංගප්පූරු ක්‍රමයට ඔවුන්ට දඩුවම් දිය යුතු බව ජනාධිපතිවරයාට යෝජනා කරනවා. මේ අය කරන කැත වැඩ ඔක්කෝටම වගකියන්න වෙන්නේ ජනාධිපතිවරයාට. මම දන්නේ නෑ. මම දැනගෙන හිටියේ නෑ කියන්න එතුමට බෑ.

2005 මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂට බලය දුන්නේ ජනතාව යුද්ධය නවත්වන්න. 2010 දී ෆොන්සේකා මහත්තයා දූෂණය නවත්වන්න කතාකරද්දි ආපහු රාජපක්ෂ මහත්තයට ජනතාවර වරම දුන්නේ රට සංවර්ධනය කරන්න. 2015 දී රාජපක්ෂ මහත්තයා තවදුරටත් සංවර්ධණය ගැන කතාකරද්දි සිරිසේන මහත්තයට ජනතාව ජනාධිපතිවරයා ලෙස හැට දෙලක්ෂයක ජනවරම දුන්නේ දූෂණය වංචාව නවත්වන්න. ඒ ජනවරමට රුපියලක හෝ මුදලක් දූෂණය වංචාවට ලක්කරන්න හෝ ඊට ඉඩ දෙන්න අයිතියක් නෑ. අගමැතිවරයාත් ජනාධිපතිවරයාත් තේරුම්ගත යුතුයි 2015 අගෝස්තුවේ අගමැතිවරයාට පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ මන්ත්‍රී ධුර 113 ක නැතිනම් බහුතර බලය නොලැබුණු බව. එහෙමනම් මොවුන් කලයුතු වන්නේ මෛත්‍රී පාලනයක් ස්ථාවර රටක් ප්‍රතිපත්ති ප්‍රකාශයේ කරුණු ඉටුකිරීමයි. එය ඉටුකරන්න අගමැතිවරයාගෙන් දායකත්වයක් ලැබෙන්නේ නැත්නම් අපි යෝජනා කරනවා ජනාධිපතිතුමාට අගමැතිවරයා ඉවත් කරලා සුදුසු අගමැතිවරයෙක් පත්කරගෙනහරි හැට දෙලක්ෂයේ ජනවරමට සාධාරණය ඉටුකරන්න.

එහිදී අදහස් දැක්වු සම කැදවුම්කරු ඩිලංක වීරකෝන් මහතා,

මේ ආණ්ඩුවේ ඉන්න ජනතා කැමැත්තකින් පාර්ලිමේන්තුවට එන්නෙ නැතුව ලයිස්තුවලින් ආපු ඇතැම් ඇමතිවරු කරන දේවල් ජනවාරි 08 හැට දෙලක්ෂයේ ජනවරමට සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම ප්‍රතිවිරුද්ධයි. දැන් කිරුම් මිණුම් දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව විකුනන්න සුදානමක් තිබෙනවා. ඒ ආයතනය සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම ලාබ ලබන ආයතනයක්. මේ ගනුදෙනුව පිටුපස ඉන්නෙත් මලික් සමරවික්‍රම ඇමතිවරයා. මේ පිළිබද සවිස්තර හෙලිදරව්ව මීලග සතියේ සිදුකරනවා.අපි ජනාධිපතිතුමාට කියනවා රටේ සම්පත් ආයතන වෙන්දේසි කරන්න මලික් සමරවික්‍රමට තිබෙන වරම මොකක්ද? මලික් සමරවික්‍රම ඇමතිවරයා සිහි විකලෙන් කරන දේවල් දිහා තවතවත් බලා ඉන්න ඔබතුමන්ට සදාචාරයක් නෑ. මේවාට එරෙහිව වහා කටයුතු කරන්න.

– ඩී.කේ.තන්ත්‍රීගේ

By Hemantha Warnakulasuriya Courtesy The Island

September 10, 2017, 12:00 pm

When bookie Mukthar was chained to the hospital bed, accused of violating foreign exchange regulations and being charged before the Criminal Justice Commission, J. R. Jayewardene made a promise to the people that he would abolish those heinous laws and create a dhamista samajayak (a righteous society). True to his word, he abolished the CJC and instead, established the Special Presidential Commission and took away the civic rights of Sirmavo Bandaranaike so that she would not be a threat as long as he ruled. Thereafter, he got Kalu Lucky to throw stones at Supreme Court Judges’ houses and as expected, tried to impeach the fiercely independent Chief Justice Neville Samarakoon.

UNP backbenchers, and some ministers, hurl abuse at the Attorney General’s Department and Wijeyadasa Rajapakse, who had to resign as the Minister of Justice because he refused to interfere with the AG’s Department on their decision to file or not to file indictments against anyone. So, the fruits of yahapalanaya are there for everyone to reap! Attack the AG, attack any officer of the AG’s Department who refuses to toe the government line and even call the Chief Justice of this country “E Miniha”.

Rajapakse, the former Minister of Justice, has revealed that the Attorney General was summoned to Temple Trees and questioned, criticized and abused by some government MPs, including Ministers.

Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya has denied he was abused. He says there was a cordial meeting between the Prime Minister and others and that he has never compromised the independence of his institution.

In Sri Lanka, the Judiciary and the Attorney General’s Department have been held in very high esteem though in the recent past the latter has become a tool of oppression used against the political enemies of the government. There were very many instances where the Department has shown that they would not succumb to the pressure of politicians who are temporarily in power for a limited period, but they are beholden to act under the Constitution.

Attorney General Jayasuriya is aware of the long traditions of his department, and the accepted practice to be carried out by the Attorney General is that the Attorney General could be summoned by four (04) persons, i.e. The President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker and the Minister of Justice. Other ministers, even the most powerful, will have to meet the Attorney General in his office. But, it has been the habit of the yahapalana government to call and get other members to question the Attorney General.

The last time when this happened, Yuvanjan Wijethillake was the AG; he was summoned by President Maithripala Sirisena. He went, accompanied by Solicitor General Suhada Gamlath. At this meeting various matters were discussed and when they questioned him on some cases that were pending in the Attorney General’s Department, Gamlath, PC and Solicitor General promptly said, “We have not come here to discuss cases which we do only in the confines of the Attorney General’s Department and we are not prepared to discuss these with other outsiders”. That statement made the government turn hostile towards him. Although he was the most senior person, recommended by Maithripala Sirisena to become the AG, the Constitution Council created under the 19th Amendment to take away the powers of one man to appoint his favourites to this exalted positions of scheduled offices like the AG, he was overlooked, and Jayantha Jayasuriya was appointed as the AG.

AG Jayasuriya says it was he who requested a meeting with the Prime Minister. But, the fact remains that there were other Ministers and very vociferous backbenchers who do not understand a thing about the workings of the AG’s Department. What has not been denied by any party is that the discussion was on delays in filing of indictments against the opponents of this government.

The most vital question is whether the then Minister of Justice, Wijeyadasa Rajapakse ever instructed the AG not to prosecute or file charges or discharge any of the accused, against whom charges were pending, and the second question is whether the AG did as the minister is alleged to have said. The third question is whether the AG will approve the interference of the Minister of Justice to file cases against the political enemies of the present government?

I recall the manner in which the present yahapalana leaders have handled the Attorney General’s Department. They have revived their slogan, horu allanu (‘Catch thieves!’) The UNP expected the presidential commission to cover up the bond scams and help repair its heavily damaged image. Its hopes have been dashed.

Appointed by Maithripala Sirisena, to inquire into the biggest racket this country has ever known, the bond scams, the Presidential Commission sought assistance from the AG’s Department. Quite unexpectedly, hitherto unknown two most senior lawyers of the Attorney General’s Department, Dappula de Livera PC, and another senior officer of the Attorney General’s Department, Yasantha Kodagoda, were appointed to assist the Commission. De Livera has never sought any undue publicity as he thought it would compromise his position as the Legal Officer of the Attorney General’s Department, as he has been appearing mainly in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court on very important cases. But, everyone in the profession knows that he is one of the most respected persons with the highest integrity and that he would not be prepared to consider any leniency towards an accused even at the behest of a Senior Counsel or a President’s Counsel, but would act according to his conscience.

The two Supreme Court Justices, Justice K. T. Chitrasiri and Prasanna Jayawardena have earned the respect of all judges, lawyers and the members of the public. People have started sending the commission information which they have refused even to convey to the COPE (Committee on Public Enterprises). The findings of the commission have resulted in the resignation of Ravi Karunanayake and speculation is rife in legal circles that what is being revealed may even implicate the high and mighty of the UNP. Therefore, the government felt the need to attack de Livera and his team and Minister of Justice Rajapakshe.

Mahinda Rajapaksa, as the President, was angry with the Attorney General because she had not heeded his request to prosecute his enemies. After the retirement of C. R. de Silva, PC, Rajapaksa appointed Mohan Peiris as the Attorney General and took the AG’s Department under him. The entire legal profession, even the most loyal supporters of President Rajapaksha, frowned on political interference with the judiciary. The manner in which the Attorney General’s Department prosecuted Sarath Fonseka and acquitted some of Rajapaksha’s supporters from grave crimes caused his government to incur public opprobrium. The process of interfering with the judiciary and penalising the judicial officer who did not toe the government line culminated in the removal of Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake. It was not only her judgment on certain Bills presented by the government, but the decision of the Judicial Services Commission to suspend District Judge, Aravinda Perera, led to her ‘impeachment’. Mahinda Rajapaksa asked CJ Bandaranayake to see him, but the latter wanted to know the reason. She said, unless the reason was given, she and other Members of the Judicial Services Commission, they would not meet the President. That sealed Dr. Bandaranayake’s fate as the CJ.

The yahapalana government was elected to restore the rule of law and make state institutions, including the judiciary, independent. In 2015, Mohan Peiris the then Chief Justice, demonstrated his willingness to toe the line of the new government, but in vain, according to some ministers. Thereafter, the President removed Mohan Peiris by adopting a method advocated by the UNP avoiding impeachment in an unconstitutional manner.

Successive governments have tried to control the Attorney General’s Department. On the other hand, Wijedasa Rajapakse in order to expedite and clear the backlog in the AG’s Department, he had sought to increase the cadre of the Attorney General’s Department by recruiting lawyers to handle these cases which were being investigated by various branches of the police. The Ministry decided to recruit thirty (30) new lawyers in order to speed up the prosecutions piled up at the Department, for lack of personnel. In fact, in order to handle that backlog of cases the Attorney General’s Department needed about one hundred more Attorneys’. But, for the 30 vacant positions only 11 persons applied and most of them were not fully qualified to hold those posts.

Deputy Minister Ajith Perera, who is aspiring to be a Minister, has vociferously campaigned for a new Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute the Rajapaksas. He realized that such a course of action was unconstitutional only when Tilak Marapana said so. Now, Perera says that no new Codes are necessary, and that the present Criminal Procedure Code is sufficient to prosecute corrupt politicians. One of the allegations against Wijeyadasa Rajapakse was that he had not appointed a trial-at-bar and obtain convictions for cases against politicians of the previous regime. This, Perera has said as a fairly senior lawyer. Even a law student knows that the Minister of Justice cannot demand a trial-at-bar and it is a task for the Attorney General, Anyone who demands a trial-at-bar interferes and inter-meddles with the affairs of the judiciary. Even if the Attorney General’s Department meets the demand of politicians to prosecute their enemies, what is the assurance that could be given that the Chief Justice will agree to establish or constitute a trial-at-bar? Ajith Perera and others seems to have forgotten that Mohan Peiris is no longer the Chief Justice and that Priyasath Dep is the current Chief Justice! What is the guarantee that he would appoint a trial-at-bar? Do they expect the Minister of Justice to insist that the Chief Justice appoint a trial-at-bar? This is a most ridiculous argument that has been forwarded by a Deputy Minister cum lawyer. All these years, trials-at-bar have been appointed only in respect of serious cases of murders except on one occasion when Chief Justice Mohan Peiris appointed three judges to hear the case against Sarath Fonseka at the behest of the then President Rajapaksa.

Even Mahinda Rajapaksa could not get the Attorney General to soft-pedal cases against his political supporters, like former Tangalle Pradeshiya Sabha Chairman Sampath Vidanapathirana and even after the conviction and sentencing the accused for 20 years, the Attorney General appealed against the sentence requesting the Supreme Court to enhance punishment.

I am certain that if there is pressure from any quarter to constitute a trial-at-bar, purely on the basis that the accused is a politician, the Chief Justice will not yield to it. Pressuring the judiciary in this despicable manner is perhaps worse than the savage act of stoning the houses of judges under the JRJ regime!

Northern Province Chief Minister C.W. Wigneswaran: Army holding about 85,000 acres in North

By Cyril Wimalasurendre Courtesy The Island

September 10, 2017, 10:53 pm

KANDY – Alleging that the army continued to hold about 85,000 acres of land in the North, Northern Province Chief Minister and former Supreme Court judge C.W. Wigneswaran, on Saturday, sought the intervention of most Ven. Tibbatuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera of Malwatte Chapter to shift troops out those lands.

CM Wigneswaran claimed that only about 5,000 acres had been so far released to their original owners.

The Chief Minister placed the strength of the army deployed in the Northern Province at 150,000. Asserting that there was no requirement to maintain such a large force in the Northern Province, Wigneswaran called for their removal.The Mahanayake thera told the CM to make representations to President Maithripala Sirisena as he could solve the problem.

The prelate emphasised that the army could not be removed from the Northern Province.

CM Wigneswaran told the Mahanayake that he sought his intervention to bring their problems to the notice of the President.

Wigneswaran said there were at least 89,000 widows in the north as a result of the war. Rehabilitated LTTE cadres were unemployed as employers were reluctant to hire them.

The farmers of the north had been affected by the import of chillies, onions and other such commodities. Fishermen from the South fished in the Northern seas, depriving the local fishermen of their income, he said.

Responding to media Chief Minister Wigneswaran said that federalism did not divide the country but united the country instead. Three judges of the Supreme Court had recorded a judgement regarding federalism. Accordingly, there should be no fear that federalism would pave the way for separation, the CM said.

Commenting on disputes over Buddha images being put up in the north Wigneswaran said there was opposition to statues coming up in inappropriate places. Attempts were made to put up Buddha images on lands owned by non-Buddhists, he said.

The 20th Amendment to the Constitution had been rejected by the Northern Provincial Councils as it was a threat to democratic administration of the provinces, CM Wigneswaran said.

Asked for his views regarding war crimes allegations Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka recently levelled against former Army Commander General Jagath Jayasuriya, Wigneswaran said that minister Sarath Fonseka might have had legitimate reason to make that statement. What he said might be true. The matter should be investigated, he said.

මහාචාර්ය චූලා ගුණසේකර හිටපු පීඨාධිපති පේරාදෙණිය විශ්වවිද්‍යාලය උපුටා ගැන්ම දිවයින

දේශපාලකයන්ට විවිධ අදහස්‌ ඇත. ඒවා බොහෝ විට තම පටු පුද්ගලික අරමුණු ඉටුකර ගැනීමට උපකාරී වන ඒවාය. නමුත් රජයේ වෛද්‍ය නිලධාරීන්ගේ ආයතනයක්‌ මෙවැනි පටු සිතුවිලිවලට ඉහළින් සිටිය යුතුය. නමුත් ඔබ කොතරම් දෛනික යුක්‌ති සාධනය කළත් ඔබ සංගමය දේශපාලනීකරණය වී ඇති බව දැන් පැහැදිලිය. එසේ කියන්නේ ඔබගේ ක්‍රියාදාමයන් රටේ පුරවැසියන්ගේ හෝ ඔබ සමාජිකයන්ගේ යහපතක්‌ නොවන නිසාය. පසුගිය දශක කිහිපය තුළ ඔබ සංගමය රටේ සංවර්ධනයට දැක්‌වූ දායකත්වය ගැන සිතන්න.

නිදහස ලබා වසර 70 ක්‌ ගතවුවද ශ්‍රී ලංකාව තවම දුප්පත් රටකි. එය, සිංගප්පූරුව සහ මැලේසියාව වැනි අතීතයේදී අපට සමාන රටවල් සමඟ සැසඳීමේදී පසුබැස ඇත. රටේ ප්‍රභූ පිරිසක්‌ නියෝජනය කරන වෘත්තීය සමිතියක්‌ වන රජයේ වෛද්‍ය නිලධාරීන්ගේ සංගමය, ශ්‍රී ලංකාව ආර්ථික සහ සමාජ ප්‍රගමනය හරි මඟ ගෙන යැමට කටයුතු කළ යුතුය. අවාසනාවට මෑත කාලයේ එම සංගමය ගත් ක්‍රියාමාර්ග රටට සුබදායක ඒවා නොවේ. එය රට දිළිඳුකම, ව්‍යාකූලභාවය, අසමානතාවය සහ දූෂණය වෙත රට ගෙන යැමේ ගමනක්‌ අරඹා ඇත.

සංවර්ධිත රටවල් මුලින්ම සමාජ සම්මතයක්‌ සකස්‌ කළහ. එය එම රටවල ආර්ථික වර්ධනයේ අඩිතාලම විය. සිවිල් සමාජය එම රටේ පිටත තත්ත්වය පහත් කරන ක්‍රියාවලට විරුද්ධව දේශපාලනික පක්‌ෂග්‍රාහීතාවය තීරණ ගන්නා අතර රටේ ජීවන තත්ත්වය වර්ධනය කරන කටයුතු ඇති කිරීමට උත්සුක වෙයි. සෞඛ්‍ය සේවය, අධ්‍යාපනය, නීතිය සහ සාමය, පර්යේෂණ සහ නවෝත්පාදනය වැනි සංවර්ධනයේ කුලුනු ආරක්‌ෂා කිරීමට උත්සුක වෙයි.

රටේ පරිපාලන පද්ධතිය සකස්‌ව ඇත්තේ ඉහත දැක්‌වූ ප්‍රතිමානවලට උපකාරී වීමට, ආදරය කිරීමට සහ ඒවාට ආදරය කරන්නට සහ ආධාරවලට අනුබල දීමටය. නමුත් වෘත්තිය සමිති කටයුතු කරන රජයේ වෛද්‍ය නිලධාරීන්ගේ සංගමය රටට වැඩක්‌ කරන තම සාමාජිකයන්ට පවා ජීවිතයට අත්‍යවශ්‍ය ලෙස සලකන සුඛෝපභෝගී භාණ්‌ඩ වන දුම්රිය,අහස්‌ යාත්‍රා සහ මෝටර් රථ, විදුලිය, ස්‌මාට්‌ පෝන්, පරිගණක, වායුසමන යන්ත්‍ර ශීතකරණ, රූපවාහීනි සහ රේඩියෝ මේ සියල්ලම වෙනත් රටවල නිෂ්පාදනය කරන අප ආනයනය කරන භාණ්‌ඩ වේ. මේවා අප ආනයනය කරන්නේ දුප්පතුන් ගැන කොසලකාය. එලෙසම අප අධ්‍යාපනයට ඇති සහ නවෝත්පාදනයට ඇති සියලුම මාවත් අහුරා අහිංසකයන් තවදුරටත් දුකට පත්කිරීම යුක්‌ති සහගත නොවේ. ඉහත දැක්‌වූ රටේ අධ්‍යාපනය ස්‌ථාවර ලෙස පවත්වාගෙන යැම ස්‌ථාවර රජයන් පැවතීමත් අදහස්‌ වේ. ඉහත දැක්‌වූ කාරණා පිළිබඳව ස්‌ථාවරත්වයක්‌ නැත්නම් අපගේ අනාගතය අඳුරුය. එම නිසා මම මෙම ආයාචනය රජයේ වෛද්‍ය නිලධාරීන්ගේ සංගමයෙන් සහ එහි සමාජිකත්වයෙන් ඉල්ලමි. සෞඛ්‍ය සේවාවන් පවත්වාගෙන යැම සහ අධ්‍යාපනය රටේ දියුණුවට අත්‍යවශ්‍යයය. ලන්ඩන් සහ පැරිස්‌ යන නගරවල වාසය කිරීමට සහ දැකබලා ගැනීමට බොහෝ දෙනෙක්‌ කැමතිය. මෙම නගරවල පමණක්‌ ලංකාවේ ජනගහණයට සමාන පිරිසක්‌ වාසය කරයි. නමුත් අපගේ සහ ඔවුන්ගේ ජීවන මට්‌ටම්වල විශාල වෙනසක්‌ ඇත. ඔවුන්ගේ රහස නම් ඔවුන් නිපුණතා යාවත්කාලීන කර ගැනීමයි. අපටත් එවැනි ඉහළ ජීවන තත්වයක්‌ ඇති කර ගැනීමට නම් අපගේ ඊළඟ පරම්පරාවටවත් නිසි අධ්‍යාපනයක්‌ සහ නිපුණතා ලබාදිය යුතුයි.

දේශපාලකයන්ට විවිධ අදහස්‌ ඇත. ඒවා බොහෝ විට තම පටු පුද්ගලික අරමුණු ඉටුකර ගැනීමට උපකාරී වන ඒවාය. නමුත් රජයේ වෛද්‍ය නිලධාරීන්ගේ ආයතනයක්‌ මෙවැනි පටු සිතුවිලිවලට ඉහළින් සිටිය යුතුය. නමුත් ඔබ කොතරම් දෛනික යුක්‌ති සාධනය කළත් ඔබ සංගමය දේශපාලනීකරණය වී ඇති බව දැන් පැහැදිලිය. එසේ කියන්නේ ඔබගේ ක්‍රියාදාමයන් රටේ පුරවැසියන්ගේ හෝ ඔබ සමාජිකයන්ගේ යහපතක්‌ නොවන නිසාය. පසුගිය දශක කිහිපය තුළ ඔබ සංගමය රටේ සංවර්ධනයට දැක්‌වූ දායකත්වය ගැන සිතන්න. මා මේ කතාකරන්නේ සංගමයේ සාමාජිකයන් පෞද්ගලිකව, ස්‌වේච්ඡාවෙන් හෝ තනි ධෛර්යයෙන් සිදුකළ දේවල් පිළිබඳව නෙවෙයි. මට නම් මතක තිබෙන්නේ විවිධ ධනාත්මක කටයුතුවලට විවධාකාරයෙන් ඔබ සංගමය දැක්‌වූ විරුද්ධතා පමණි. සමහර විට ඔබ සංගමයේ සාමාජිකයන් පවා ගත් පියවරයන්වලට මම විරුද්ධව අකුල් හෙලා ඇත. ඔබ සාමාජිකයන් විවිධ මට්‌ටමින් අධ්‍යාපනයට විශාල දායකත්වයක්‌ දැක්‌වුවද සංගමයක්‌ ලෙස ඔබ අධ්‍යාපනයේ මිතුරෙක්‌ නොවෙයි. වෛද්‍ය නිලධාරීන්ගේ සංගමය 80 දශකයේදී වෛද්‍ය විද්‍යාව පිළිබඳ පශ්චාත් උපාධි ආයතනයට (PGIM) වලට විරුද්ධ වූ අතර එම ආයතනයේ ආරම්භක සම්මන්ත්‍රණවලට සහභාගී වූ සිසුන්ට මරන තර්ජන පවා එල්ල කරන ලදී. එය අතිරේක වෛද්‍ය වෘත්තික අධ්‍යාපනයට විරුද්ධ වූ අතර අප විශාල වෛද්‍ය හිඟයකට මුහුණ දී ඇති අවස්‌ථාවක පවා මෙම වැඩපිළිවෙළ කඩාකප්පල් කළේය. නිසි මාර්ග අනුගමනය කළේ නම් අපට මෙම වෘත්තිකයන් මනා ලෙස ක්‍රියාවේ යෙදවීමට හැකියාවක්‌ තිබුණු අතර හොර වෙදුන්ට ග්‍රාමීය සහ දිළිඳු පළාත්වල කටයුතු කිරීම වළක්‌වාලිය හැකිව තිබුණි. නුවර සහ පේරාදේණිය රෝහල්වල වකුගඩු බද්ධ කිරීමට වෛද්‍ය සංගමය විරුද්ධ වූ ආකාරය තවම මට මතකය. වකුගඩු බද්ධ කිරීමේ වැඩපිළිවෙළ කොතරම් සාර්ථක වුණාද යත් දැන් එම රෝහල්වල හදවත් බද්ධ කිරීම්ද සිදු කරයි. වෛද්‍ය සංගමය හෙදියන්ට සහ අනෙකුත් වෛද්‍ය වෘත්තිකයන්ට උපාධි ලබාදීමට 2006 ගත් උත්සහයට විරුද්ධ විය. එම ශිෂ්‍යයන්ට ඉගෙනීමට අවසර ලබාදුන්නේ 2007 වසරේදී ශේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයෙනි. මෙම උපාධිධාරීන් රජයේ වෛද්‍ය සේවාවේ අත්‍යවශ්‍ය අංශයක්‌ව ඇත. වෛද්‍ය සංගමයේ (PGIM) ආයතනය පිළියෙළ කළ බරපතළ ලෙඩුන් බලාගැනීමේ අධ්‍යාපන වැඩපිළිවෙළ කඩාකප්පල් කිරීමටද උත්සුක විය. මෙය 2010 පිළියෙළ කළේ ආධුනික වෛද්‍යවරුන්ටය. මේ නිසා අපට තවමත් මෙම සේවාව අහිමිය. එතෙක්‌ අපට අවදානම් රෝගීන් බලාගැනීමේ නිපුණත්වයක්‌ ඇති වෛද්‍යවරුන් සිටියා නම් බේරාගත හැකිව තිබුණු ඩෙංගු රෝගීන් ගණන විශාලය. අදත් වෛද්‍ය සංගමය අන්තර් විශ්වවිද්‍යාල ශිෂ්‍ය බලමණ්‌ඩලය යොදාගෙන මාස හයකට වඩා වැඩි කාලයක්‌ වෛද්‍ය ශිෂ්‍යයන් තම අධ්‍යාපන කටයුතුවලින් ඉවත් කර ඇත.

මෙවැනි ක්‍රියාමර්ගයන් 2006 වසරේදී එම සෞඛ්‍ය සිසුන්ට එරෙහිව ගනු ලැබිණි. මෙම උත්සාහය ඉදිරි මාස කිහිපය තුළ සෞඛ්‍ය ක්‍ෂේත්‍රයේ ව්‍යසනයක්‌ ඇති කිරීමයි. මෙම සියලු කටයුතු වල පව් ගෙවීමට සිදුවන්නේ පුරවැසියන්ට, ලෙඩුන්ට සහ වෛද්‍ය ශිෂ්‍යයන්ටයි. වෛද්‍ය නිලධාරී සංගමයට කිසිම ප්‍රශ්නයක්‌ වන්නේ නැත.

1990 දශකයේදී වෛද්‍ය නිලධාරීන්ගේ සංගමය පේරාදෙණිය විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයේ වෛද්‍ය සේවාවන් දියුණු කිරීමට විරුද්ධ වූහ. ක්‌ෂණිකමය තත්වයේ සිටින බරපතළ රෝගීන්ට ප්‍රතිකාර කිරීමට සැලසුම් කර තිබූ වාට්‌ටු සාමාන්‍ය වාට්‌ටු බවට පත්විය. එම නිසා රෝගීන් බලන කාමරවලටද පොම්ප කළ ඔක්‌සිජන් ලැබුණි. සිරිමාවෝ බණ්‌ඩාරනායක ළමා රෝහල, මධ්‍යම පළාත් වැසියන් මුදල් එකතුකර සාදන ලද මෙයට වෛද්‍ය ශිෂ්‍යයන්ට ළඟාවීමටවත් ඉඩ ලබා දුන්නේ නැත. එය විශේඥ නොවන ළමා වෛද්‍ය සේවයක්‌ දක්‌වා පසුපසට රැගෙන ගියේ විශාල චෝදනා ගොන්නක්‌ ද සමඟය. විශ්මයජනක කාරණය වන්නේ එකල වෛද්‍ය බලධාරීන්ගේ සංගමයේ සභාපතිවරයා දැන් සයිටම් ආයතනයේ උපකුලපතිවරයා ලෙස කටයුතු කිරීමය.

සෞඛ්‍ය රටක සම්පතයි. අපගේ නිදහස්‌ සෞඛ්‍ය සේවය අපරට වැසියන්ගේ සෞඛ්‍ය තත්ත්වය ඉහළ නැංවීමට විශාල මෙහෙවරක්‌ කර ඇත. නමුත් අධ්‍යාපනයට පසුගිය දශක දෙක තුළ අඛණ්‌ඩ වැඩ වර්ජන නිසා මහජනයා තුළ සෞඛ්‍ය සේවය ගැන තිබූ විශ්වාසය ද බිඳ වැටී ඇත. එම නිසා පෞද්ගලික සෞඛ්‍ය සේවය දියුණු වූ අතර දැන් රෝගීන් 50% ප්‍රතිකාර ගන්නේ පෞද්ගලික රෝහල් වලිනි. රජයේ රෝහලේ සේවාව දැන් වෘත්තීය සාධකය මූලික වන අතර රෝගියා මූලික නොවේ. එය අප රජයේ සෞඛ්‍ය සේවය ඉන්දියාවේ තත්ත්වයට පසු බසිමින් පවතී. මෙම රාජ්‍ය සෞඛ්‍ය සේවය ව්‍යාපාරයක්‌ වෙමින් පවතී. ඉහළ වෛද්‍ය ප්‍රතිකාර සඳහා පෞද්ගලික රෝහල් වෙත යැමට රෝගීන්ට සිදුවනු ඇත. ඔබගේ සංගමයේ සියලුම සාමාජිකයන් රටේ පුරවැසියන්ගේ මුදලින් ඉගෙනුම ලබා ඇත. තවද රජය ඔවුන්ට විශාල සහනාධාර ලබාදේ. නමුත් දිගින් දිගටම වන වැරදීම් නරක සේවය සහ අමිත්‍රශිලී සැලකිලි නිසා රටේ පුරවැසියන් වෛද්‍ය සේවය නඩත්තු කිරීම ප්‍රතික්‌ෂේප කරනු ඇත. අන් සියලු දෙනාම අපට විශාල පිටිවහලක්‌ වූ රජයේ රෝහල් සහ වෛද්‍ය සේවය රැකගත යුතුය.

අපගේ නිදහස්‌ අධ්‍යාපනය ද දැන් අවුල් ජාලාවක ගිලී ඇත. විශ්වවිද්‍යාල ශිෂ්‍යයන් තමන්ට අදාළ නොවන බොහෝ කාරණා පිළිබඳව විරෝධතා දක්‌වමින් තම කාලය නාස්‌ති කරති. ශිෂ්‍යයන් ද තම අනාගතය පිළිබඳ අඳුරු චිත්‍රයක්‌ නිර්මාණය කර ඇත. ඔවුන් ශිෂ්‍ය සංගම් සමඟ කටයුතු නොකරයි නම් ඔවුන්ගේ විශ්වවිද්‍යාල ජීවිතය පීඩාකාරී වෙයි. දැන් පවතින වෛද්‍ය ශිෂ්‍ය වර්ජනය ද එලෙසමය. අපගේ ජීවන තත්ත්වය උසස්‌ කිරීමට ඉගෙන ගන්නා ශිෂ්‍යයන්ගේ අධ්‍යාපනය අඩාල කිරීමේ ප්‍රතිඵලය කුමක්‌ද? වෛද්‍ය ක්‌ෂේත්‍රයේ නව සොයාගැනීම් බහුලය. අප දන්නා කාරණාවලින් 50% වසර 5 කදී වෙනස්‌ වෙයි. එම නිසා අධ්‍යාපනයෙන් විවේක ගැනීමට නොහැකිය.

අප සෞඛ්‍ය සේවය සතුව විශාල තොරතුරු පර්යේෂණ සහ නවෝත්පාදන ඇත. නමුත් ඒවා රටේ යහපතට නොයෙදේ. වෛද්‍ය සංගමය එම සමාජිකයන්ට පර්යේෂණ කිරීමට අනුබල නොදෙයි. තම සාමාජිකයන්ගේ අධ්‍යාපන හෝ සමුළු සඳහා නිවාඩු ලබා ගැනීමට උනන්දු නොවේ.

ඔබගේ ක්‍රියාමාර්ගය දේශපාලනික මිස වෘත්තිය නොවන බව පැහැදිලිය. උදාහරණ ලෙස ලංකා වෛද්‍ය සභාව ( Sri Lanka Medical Council) වෛද්‍යවරුන්ගේ හික්‌මීම සහ අධ්‍යාපනය දියුණු කිරීම භාරව ඇති ආයතනයයි. එහි සභාපතිවරයා හමුවීමට මාධ්‍ය සමඟ යැම එම ආයතනයේ සභාපතිවරයාට කරන නොසැලකීමකි.

වෛද්‍ය උපාධිය දැන් ලොව අනෙකුත් රටවල්වල ලබා දෙන්නේ විවිධ විද්‍යාවන් පිළිබඳව දැනුම දෙන උපාධියක්‌ ලෙසයි. එසේ කිරීමට හේතුව වෛද්‍ය විද්‍යාව දියුණු කිරීමට අනෙක්‌ විද්‍යාවන් පිළිබඳව අවබෝධයක්‌ තිබිය යුතු නිසාය. වෛද්‍ය සංගමය උත්සාහ කරන්නේ රටේ වෛද්‍ය හිඟයක්‌ තිබියදීත් වෛද්‍ය අධ්‍යාපනය ලැබීමට ශිෂ්‍යයන්ට ඇති ඉඩකඩ නැති කිරීමටයි. වෛද්‍ය විද්‍යාලවලට පශ්චාත් උපාධි පාඨමාලාවලට දොර විවෘත කළොත් ඇතිවන උද්ඝෝෂණ ගැන මට හිතා ගැනීමටවත් නොහැක.

ශ්‍රී ලංකාව තම අධ්‍යාපනය ලොව අනෙක්‌ රටවල් සමඟ තරගකාරී ලෙස පවත්වාගෙන යැමට අසමත් වී ඇත. සෞඛ්‍ය සේවා සපයන්නන්ට රටේ විශාල ඉල්ලුමක්‌ ඇත. එම නිසා රජයට බදු ගෙවන ජනතාවට අවශ්‍ය සේවාව සැපයීමට නොහැකි වී ඇත.

රටකට පර්යේෂණ හා නවෝත්පාදන අවශ්‍ය වේ. අප උද්ඝෝෂණ සංවිධානය කිරීමට නම් අති දක්‌ෂය. අපට වඩා හොඳ ජීවන තත්ත්වයක්‌ ලබාදෙන ලෙස අප රජයට නිතර බලකරන්නේ රජයට වියදම් කළ හැක්‌කේ අප උපයාදෙන මුදල පමණක්‌ ය යන කාරණාව නොසලකා ය. අප වැඩ කරන්නේ නැති නම් රජයට ආදායමක්‌ නැත. ලංකාවට විශාල දුරක්‌ යැමට ඇත. විශ්වවිද්‍යාලවලට ඇතුළත් වන්නේ රටේ ජනතාවගෙන් 5%කි. දියුණු රටවල 40%ක්‌ විශ්වවිද්‍යාලවලට ඇතුළත් වේ. උපාධියත් තුළත් අදායම් නොලැබෙන අතර අදායම් ලැබෙන්නේ පිළිගත් විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයකින් ලැබෙන දැනුම මනා සේ යෙදවීමෙනි. විශ්වවිද්‍යාල උපාධිය යාවත්කාලීන විය යුතුය. මෙය සිදු කළ හැක්‌කේ ගුරුවරු සහ ශිෂ්‍යයන් ජනතාවට වගවීමෙන් පමණි. නිදහස්‌ අධ්‍යාපනය වගකීමෙන් නිදහස්‌ වන්නක්‌ නොවේ. ශිෂ්‍ය ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය රජයට විරුද්ධ උද්ඝෝෂණ කළ තරමට ලබාදුන් බලපත්‍රක්‌ නොවේ.

වැඩි වන වෘත්තීය ක්‍රියාමාර්ග වලින් සිදුවන්නේ ජනතාවට කරදර ඇතිවීම ය. ජනතාව නිදහස්‌ සෞඛ්‍ය සේවයට අරමුදල් ලබාදීම අනාගතයේ දී ප්‍රතික්‍ෂ්ප කරනු ඇත. විශ්වවිද්‍යාලවල සිදුවන ක්‍රියාමාර්ග නිසා මෙම ආයතන ගැන ඇති ආකර්ෂණය ගිලිහෙමින් පවතී. මෙය නිදහස්‌ අධ්‍යාපනයේ අවසානය සනිටුහන් කරනු ඇත.

වෛද්‍ය සංගමය මෙම තත්ත්වය දැන් නොදකිනු ඇත. නමුත් ඔවුන් විශ්‍රාම යන වයසේදී මෙය සිදු වනු ඇත. වෛද්‍ය සංගමයේ කටයුතු නිසා නිදහස්‌ අධ්‍යාපනයේ සහ සෞඛ්‍යයේ අවසානය සිදුවන බව මාගේ අදහසයි.

මහාචාර්ය චූලා ගුණසේකර
හිටපු පීඨාධිපති
පේරාදෙණිය විශ්වවිද්‍යාලය

 By Dr. Tilak s. Fernando Courtesy Ceylon Today

By Nalliah Thayabharan

In 1600, the East India Company was granted the Charter to trade with India. It started sending bands of sea pirates in ships masked as merchants”. These sea pirates began landing on the shores of India and started setting up armed forts at various places such as Chennai. The Rothschild family had a controlling interest in the East India Company.

After conquering Bengal in India, the Rothschild set up a notoriously corrupt system of administration, whose sole objective was to shamelessly plunder the countless riches of Bengal which was the richest area in the entire world during that time. Bengal was literally turned into a graveyard of death and desolation. The Nawabs and the rajahs and Zamindars were robbed of their priceless treasures. The Rothschild then moved this entire horde of tons of gold looted from the people of Bengal to London. It was with this gold looted from Bengal that the Rothschild family set up the privately owned Bank of England. The British Queen still wears the Kohinoor Diamond which was robbed by Robert Clive and presented to her. In the decades that followed, the Rothschild banking family set up the Federal Reserve Bank of America which to this day indulges in day light robbery of the American people.

The East India Company rule in India effectively began in 1757 and the East India Company eventually came to rule large areas of India with its private armies, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions. By 1803, at the height of its rule in India, the British East India company had a private army of about 260,000 – twice the size of the British Army. When Indian revolted in the year 1857, they were told that the East India Company was abolished and India will be administered directly by the CROWN. What Indians do not know to this day is the fact that CROWN does not mean the King or Queen of Britain but a privately owned Corporation of London headed again by the Rothschild who owned the East India Company! Thus Indians were tricked and cheated with a simple name change game! The exploitation robbery of India, its resources and people continued till 1947 under this CROWN.

In 1947, India and its people were again tricked into believing that we were granted independence” through the complicity of Pandit Nehru. Under secret orders from the Rothschild given to him through his girlfriend Edwina Mountbatten who is a close relative of the British Queen, Nehru turned India and its people into rag tag clad beggars by aligning India with the Soviet Union which was another creation of the Rothschild.

The Rothschild then set up the World Bank, the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements. The Rothschild use banks such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the Bank for International Settlements to institutionalize the robbery of the third world. Banks such as Citibank and Standard Chartered bank etc. were also set up with the secret support of the Rothschild to continue the robbery of third world. These banks resort to all sorts of illegal means and fraud to subject Indians to thievery and robbery with a view to making more money.

Millions of people are still under the misapprehension that Marxism / Communism is against profiteering dishonest banks and multinational companies. The Rothschild banking family – the richest and most powerful banksters, for the past 200 years – financed Karl Marx’s pretense of an attack on the profiteering dishonest banksters, in order to fool the masses, and it worked. Karl Marx’s hidden message was: Forget your individual rights and privileges and trust in the State and the Trade Unions, and they’ll do your thinking for you.” Millions of people believed that nonsense, and subsequently allowed ‘others’ to do their thinking for them. The trade unions and the governments are ALL working for the Rothschild’s – who own the banks, including Bank of England, US Federal Reserve, and all the big multinational companies, dangle politicians like rag dolls and hold all of the people as tax-debt slaves, through their corrupt central banks and their funny money.

In 1811 the charter for the Rothschild Bank of the United States expired and Congress voted against its renewal. At the time Andrew Jackson (who would become the 7th President of the United States from 1829 to 1837) says, If Congress has a right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”

Nathan Mayer Rothschild was not amused and he stated, Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.” Andrew Jackson’s response to this was You are a den of vipers and thieves, and I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.” Nathan Mayer Rothschild replied Teach those impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to colonial status.”

In 1812 backed by Rothschild money, the British declared war on the United States. The Rothschild’s plan was to cause the United States to build up such a debt in fighting this war that they would have to surrender to the Rothschild and allow the charter for the Rothschild owned Bank of the United States to be renewed.

In 1816 the charter for the Bank of the United States was s renewed for another twenty years with the Rothschild in Control of the American money supply again. The British war against the America therefore ended with the deaths of thousands of British and American soldiers, but the Rothschild got their bank.

In 1861 President Abraham Lincoln (16th President of the United States from 1860 until his assassination in 1865) approached the Rothschild to try to obtain loans to support the ongoing American civil war.

The Rothschild agreed provided Lincoln allows them a Charter for another United States central bank and are prepared to pay 24% to 36% interest on all monies loaned. Lincoln was very angry about this high level of interest and so he printed his own debt free money and informed the public that this was now legal tender for both public and private debts.

By April 1862 $449,338,902 worth of Lincoln’s debt free money had been printed and distributed. He went on to state, We gave the people of this republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper money to pay their own debts.” That same year The Times of London publishes a story containing the following statement,

If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

In 1863 The Rothschild used one of their agents in America, John D. Rockefeller to form an oil business called Standard Oil which eventually took over all of its competition.

In 1864 President Abraham Lincoln discovered the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II (1855 – 1881), was having problems with the Rothschild as well as he was refusing their continual attempts to set up a central bank in Russia. President Lincoln asked the Tsar for help in the Civil War and the Tsar sent part of his fleet to anchor off New York and the other part off California. The Tsar made it clear to the British, French and Spanish that if they attacked either side, Russia would take the side of President Lincoln. Lincoln subsequently won the Civil War.

In 1865 in a statement to Congress, President Abraham Lincoln stated, I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institution in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.” Later that year President Lincoln is assassinated.

The US Federal Reserve, an owned private institution, was created on December 23, 1913. It was planned at a secret meeting in 1910 on Jekyll Island, Georgia, by a group of Zionist bankers and politicians. The power to print money was transferred from the US Government to a private group of Zionist bankers. The Federal Reserve Act is hastily passed just before the 1913 Christmas break.

Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. warned: This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized.”

These were the “Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists” that came into power in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution, and Lenin needed their help to topple Tsar Nicholas, the last remnant of the Romanov dynasty. They helped overthrow Tsar Nicholas because he was not friendly to the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists. These were the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists who murdered 40 million Russians who refused to give up their land or bow down to Bolshevik-Illuminati-Ashkenazi-Khazarian-Zionism.

Karl Marx’s effort to derive the market price of goods from their value, the labor that went into them, was a vestige of the 19th-century economic theories of David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. By the time Karl Marx died, economists had already given up trying to relate price to value and were beginning to understand that value was a chimera. With the growing dominance of technology, it had become impossible to locate value in the time required to produce goods, as Karl Marx, following Ricardo and Mill, had tried to do. Machines can make products incredibly fast; but these products aren’t worth any less than if workers had spent days toiling at them, as Karl Marx’s theory suggests. Karl Marx’s essential idea, influenced by Ricardo, was that capitalism would become less and less profitable and that its downward spiral toward the abyss of deflation—lower prices, lower profits—would be followed by worldwide revolution. Instead, capitalism has become vastly more profitable.

Karl Marx’s writing style was a calamity: full of sometimes puerile vehemence, Karl Marx heaped scorn on his opponents, inaugurating the long Marxist tradition of mercilessly deriding anyone with incorrect opinions. Karl Marx displayed particular contempt for the high-living, dandyish Ferdinand Lassalle, a fellow socialist. In a letter to Engels, Karl Marx mocked Lassalle, who supposedly had African ancestry, as a repulsive combination of Jewry and Germanism with the negroid basic substance”; the pushiness of this lad is also nigger-like,” he added. In Karl Marx’s pamphlets, mudslinging abounds: His opponents are generally idiots, traitors, and scoundrels, but these heavy-handed insults tend to make us doubt Karl Marx himself, since he relies so much on vituperation instead of reasoned argument.

The purpose of Karl Marx’s work was to sabotage the nascent socialist movement; he reframed all of the socialists who came before him as exponents of utopian socialism” and his ideas as so-called scientific socialism”, the theory of which the people must follow dogmatically as a secular religion, no matter how much it fails in practice. It should be noted that before Karl Marx ever wrote a word the socialist movement already existed in Germany, France, Britain and elsewhere, each with their own national expressions and ideas of how to improve the situation of the working-class following the Industrial Revolution. In later times, after Karl Marx and especially after Lenin used his work to create Bolshevism, his followers have tried to monopolize the phrase and insist unless you follow Karl Marx’s theories, you cannot be a socialist. This is a clear fraud and usurpation.

Karl Marx’s best known work is the book Das Kapital, which fails to mention that money is printed out of thin air and keeps the name of his cousins, the Rothschild, out of it, despite the fact that they were the richest and most powerful capitalist family in the whole world. The Rothschild hired Karl Marx to draft a social doctrine to invert moral order for centralizing their nation state’s wealth into Rothschild controlled coffers. Karl Marx saw free trade as positive because it undermines established nations and cultures.

The most pronounced and consistent aspect of Karl Marx’s ideology was his extreme and radical hatred of Russia and everything to do with the culture of that nation. Karl Marx and Engels regarded Russians and Slavs in general as subhuman (völkerabfall) barbarians. Karl Marx used the newspaper Neue Rheinische Zeitung to try and incite a war against Russia. This Russophobia was also behind the strange alliance with Tory, David Urquhart, when he moved to London and Karl Marx thus has the blood of the people who died in the Crimean War. Henry Hyndman, who spent many hours in Karl Marx’s company in his Record of an Adventurous Life attributed this anti-Russian obsession to Karl Marx’s ethnocentrism.

The Rothschild also had a multi-generational feud with the Czars of Russia, the only royalty who would not cooperate with the Rothschild. In the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln invited Czar Alexandra II to send his fleet over as protection (which he did) in order to foil a plot by the Rothschild’s which would see France and Britain intervene on the side of the South. In Russia’s war with Japan, Jacob Schiff (part of the Rothschild Empire) made it impossible for Russia to borrow the money to finance the war and, even more ruinously, he financed Japan. The Russians suffered a humiliating defeat.

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Nikolai Lenin 1870-1924) was out for revenge after his older brother, Alexander, was hung in 1887 along with four others for conspiring to assassinate Czar Alexander II, the grandfather of Nicholas II.

During his teenage years, Nikolai Lenin admired Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876), a follower of Weishaupt’s principles and a Satanist, who was the driving force behind the initial effort to organize Communism. In 1887, Lenin entered Kazan University, and in 1889 he became a Mason and soon began advocating the philosophies of Marx. He said: “We must combat religion. This is the ABC’s of all materialism and consequently of Marxism.” In the early 1900’s, he said that Socialism could only be achieved by mobilizing workers and peasants through revolution, since trade unions were not able to bring about any change.

In 1903, in London, he initiated a split in the Russian Social-Democratic Workers Party, which was completed in 1912, and became known as the All Russian Communist Party in 1918. His left-wing faction became known as the Bolsheviks, or “bolshinstvo,” which meant “majority”. The movement was slow to catch on, and by 1907, he only had 17 members. He received financial support from the Fabians, including a $15,000 contribution from Joseph Fels, an American soap manufacturer and a Fabian. Lenin was an advocate of the Populist doctrine, which had been developed by author Aleksandr Herzen during the 1860’s. He felt that the peasant communes could be the socialist society of the future, and called for Russian Socialism to be based on the ancient peasant tradition. The peasant revolt later developed into all-out revolution. In 1881, they succeeded in assassinating Czar Alexander II, and continued to function as a conspiratorial organization. Many Populists began advocating Marxist doctrine, and in 1883, led by Georgy Plekhanov, established the Marxist “Liberation of Labor Group.”

Lenin wanted to use the Populists to overthrow the government and introduce Socialism. He added two Marxist elements to the Populist theory: the notion of a class struggle, and the need for Russia to pass through a stage of capitalism. He led the people to believe that the purpose of his movement was to help the working class.

In 1905, while Russia was engaged in the Russo-Japanese War, the Communists tried to get the farmers to revolt against the Czar, but they refused. After this aborted attempt, the Czar deposited $400,000,000 in the Chase Bank, National City Bank, Guaranty Trust Bank, the Hanover Trust Bank, and Manufacturers Trust Bank, and $80,000,000 in the Rothschild Bank in Paris, because he knew who was behind the growing revolutionary movement, and hoped to end it.

The Rothschilds, through Milner, planned the Russian Revolution, and along with Schiff (who gave $20 million), Sir George Buchanan, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers, the partners of J.P. Morgan (who gave at least $1 million), Olaf Aschberg (of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, Sweden), the Rhine Westphalian Syndicate, a financier named Jovotovsky (whose daughter later married Leon Trotsky), William Boyce Thompson (a director of Chase National Bank who contributed $1 million), and Albert H. Wiggin (President of Chase National Bank), helped finance it.

The Rockefellers had given their financial support after the Czar refused to give them access to the Russian oil fields, which were already being pumped by the Royal Dutch Co. (owned by the Rothschilds and the Nobel brothers) and giving Standard Oil plenty of competition on the international market. Even though John D. Rockefeller possessed $15,000,000 in bonds from the Royal Dutch Co. and Shell, rather than purchase stock to get his foot in the door and indirectly profit, he helped to finance the Revolution so that he would be able to get Standard Oil firmly established in the country of Russia. As the Congress of Vienna (1814) had shown, the Illuminati had never been able to control the affairs of Russia, so they had to get rid of the Czar so he couldn’t interfere with their plans.

Czar Nicholas II (who succeeded Alexander III, 1881-94) was dethroned in March, 1917 after a series of riots, and a provincial government was set up by Prince George Lvov, a liberal progressive reformer who wanted to set up a democracy. He made an effort to strengthen the Russian Army to prevent any future revolts but ended up resigning which allowed Kerensky, a democratic Socialist, to take over and form a coalition government. He kept the war with Germany going, and issued an amnesty order for the Communists who had been exiles after the aborted Red Revolution in 1905.

The Bolsheviks ended the feud in 1918 by butchering Czar Nicholas II, his wife, his son and his four daughters. As if to say, Let that be a lesson”. The Rothschild’s Money Power creates the events which will become the history of our planet.

The Rothschild along with Jacob Schiff created the major events of the 20th century by providing the key funding for the Bolsheviks, Lenin and Trotsky. This was largely accomplished through Jacob Schiff who, while a force in his own right, was part of the Rothschild Empire. The Russian Revolution of 1917 eventually led to the domination of Eastern Europe by Communist Russia after World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and all conflicts associated with the Cold War. All these wars served to undermine nationalism and led to the formation of the United Nations, the IMF, and the World Bank, and etc.— international governments which moved the Rothschild toward their goal of One World Government (i.e. The New World Order).

In January of 1916 Leon Trotsky(Lev Bronstein) was expelled from France and came to USA. His expenses were paid by Jacob Schiff who was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had raised the capital for large war loans to Japan. It was due to this funding that the Japanese were able to launch a stunning attack against the Russians at Port Arthur and the following year to virtually decimate the Russian fleet. We must remember, that Jacob Schiff was a Khazar Jew and that Khazarian Jews had been persecuted under the Tsarist regime. Although Khazar Jews have never made up more than 5% of the population of Russia, they played a highly disproportionate and decisive role in the Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years.

With the exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party’s executive secretary and – as chairman of the Central Executive Committee- head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky

Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist.
In the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist role was very critical.

2 weeks prior to the Bolshevik “October Revolution” of 1917, Lenin convened a top secret meeting in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) at which the key leaders of the Bolshevik party’s Central Committee made the fateful decision to seize power in a violent takeover. Of the 12 men who took part in this decisive gathering, there were 4 Russians (including Lenin), 1 Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and 6 Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists.

To direct the takeover, a 7 person “Political Bureau” was chosen. It consisted of 2 Russians (Lenin and Bubnov), 1 Georgian (Stalin), and 4 Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists (Trotsky, Sokolnikov, Zinoviev, and Kamenev).
Meanwhile, the Petersburg (Petrograd) Soviet whose chairman was Trotsky, established an 18 member “Military Revolutionary Committee” to actually carry out the seizure of power. It included 8 Russians, 1 Ukrainian, 1 Pole, 1 Caucasian, and 6 Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists.

Finally, to supervise the organization of the uprising, the Bolshevik Central Committee established a 5 person “Revolutionary Military Center” as the Party’s operations command. It consisted of 1 Russian (Bubnov), 1 Georgian (Stalin), 1 Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and 2 Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists (Sverdlov and Uritsky).

With the notable exception of Lenin, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists.

David R. Francis, US ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”

The Netherlands’ ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: “Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”

Immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution, many Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin’s first Politburo was dominated by men of Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist origins

Under Lenin, Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists’ vows to eradicate antisemitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution – partly because of the prominence of so many Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Immensely disproportionate number of Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists joined the new Bolshevik secret police – the Cheka – and many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist investigators.

The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin’s dying days was headed by the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.

Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist investigator. In Ukraine Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists made up nearly 80% of the rank-and-file Cheka agents. Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.

Yakov M. Yurovksy, the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murder of the Tsar and his family, was Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist, as was Sverdlov, the Soviet chief who co-signed Lenin’s execution order.
Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists were “amazingly” numerous among the personnel of the Bolshevik secret police. The characteristic Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist of the Bolshevik executioners, is most conspicuous in the execution of Nicholas II.

The execution was personally overseen by Yakov Yurovsky who shot the Tsar; the president of the local Soviet was Beloborodov (Vaisbart); the person responsible for the general administration in Ekaterinburg was Shaya Goloshchekin. To round out the picture, on the wall of the room where the execution took place was a distich from a poem by Heine (written in German) about King Balthazar, who offended Jehovah and was killed for the offense.
The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists Sverdlov who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany and carried out by the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov and Yurovsky, is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.

In the struggle for power that followed Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin emerged victorious over his rivals, eventually succeeding in putting to death nearly every one of the most prominent early Bolsheviks leaders – including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, and Kamenev. With the passage of time, and particularly after 1928, the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist role in the top leadership of the Soviet state and its Communist party diminished markedly.

For a few months after taking power, Bolshevik leaders considered bringing “Nicholas Romanov” before a “Revolutionary Tribunal” that would publicize his “crimes against the people” before sentencing him to death. Historical precedent existed for this. Two European monarchs had lost their lives as a consequence of revolutionary upheaval: England’s Charles I was beheaded in 1649 and France’s Louis XVI was guillotined in 1793.

In these cases, the king was put to death after a lengthy public trial, during which he was allowed to present arguments in his defense. Nicholas II, though, was neither charged nor tried. He was secretly put to death – along with his family and staff — in the dead of night, in an act that resembled more a gangster-style massacre than a formal execution.

The Rothschild orders the execution by the Bolsheviks they control, of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family in Russia. This is the Rothschild’s revenge for Tsar Alexander II siding with President Abraham Lincoln in 1864.
Nicholas and his family were murdered because the Bolshevik rulers knew quite well that they lacked genuine popular support, and rightly feared that the Russian people would never approve killing the Tsar, regardless of pretexts and legalistic formalities.

For his part, Trotsky defended the massacre as a useful and even necessary measure.
“The decision to kill the imperial family was not only expedient but necessary. The severity of this punishment showed everyone that we would continue to fight on mercilessly, stopping at nothing. The execution of the Tsar’s family was needed not only in order to frighten, horrify, and instill a sense of hopelessness in the enemy but also to shake up our own ranks, to show that there was no turning back, that ahead lay either total victory or total doom This Lenin sensed well.”

In the years leading up to the 1917 revolution, Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists were disproportionately represented in all of Russia’s subversive leftist parties. Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists hatred of the Tsarist regime had a basis in objective conditions. Of the leading European powers of the day, imperial Russia was the most institutionally conservative and anti-Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists. For example, Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionists were normally not permitted to reside outside a large area in the west of the Empire known as the “Pale of Settlement.”

First, the name Federal Reserve Bank” is not federal, nor is it owned by the government. It is privately owned. Its employees are not in the civil service. Its physical property is held under private deeds, and is subject to local taxation. It is an engine that has created private wealth that is unimaginable, even to the most financially sophisticated. It has enabled an imperial elite to manipulate US economy for its own agenda and enlisted the US government itself as its enforcer.

The US Federal Reserve Bank controls the times, dictates business, and affects Americans’ homes and practically everything in which Americans are interested. It takes a powerful force to maintain an empire, and this one is no different. The concerns of the leadership of the Federal Reserve” and its secretive international benefactors appear to go well beyond currency and interest rates.

Alan Greenspan, served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, stated at the annual Dinner of Francis Boyer Lecture of The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research on December 5, 1996:
Augmenting concerns about the Federal Reserve is the perception that we are a secretive organization, operating behind closed doors, not always in the interests of the nation as a whole. This is regrettable, and we continuously strive to alter this misperception.”

The privately owned Federal Reserve has confused the public, lied to them and stole their gold and silver. All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in the Constitution, and not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation. Of all the contrivances devised for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes him with paper money.

After many years of blundering toward it, and only a few months before the beginning of the World War 1, the Rothschild found the formula for the most efficient credit machine that was ever invented. This was the Federal Reserve System. Most people are unsure of the meanings of words such as money, dollar, wealth, inflation and credit. The average person would be very surprised if they knew how the money system used to work compared to how it operates now. The essence of psychological warfare is to confuse the meaning of words, and infiltrate the mind with conflicting concepts.

The use of the word Federal in the name federal Reserve leads the public to believe that the Federal Reserve is a government institution, when it is really a private corporation owned by foreign and domestic banks and operated for profit. The Federal Reserve controls America’s money supply and interest rates, and there by manipulates the entire economy, in violation of
1. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution that expressly charges Congress with power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, and.
2. Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution says No State shall make any thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts.”

Over time, gold and silver coins were removed from American money supply and removed as backing for American paper currency and replaced with debt (or credit). The definition of dollar has changed to hide the fact that a dollar is not money, but a unit of measurement for gold and silver coin. For example:
1. Title 12 United States Code Section 152 says: The terms lawful money or lawful money of the United States shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States.”
2. Title 31 United States Code, Section 5101 says: The money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars.”

The word Federal” implies Federal government, but the Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation. The word Reserve” implies that something gives the paper receipt value, but no gold or silver backs this paper. The word Note” implies a contract, because legally a note must state who is paying, what is being paid, to whom and when.

A bill is a receipt of a debt owed by one person or company to another. Therefore, a dollar bill” is a receipt (or bill) of debt of one dollar that is owed. From 1914 to 1963, Federal Reserve Notes never claimed to be money, nor did they claim to be dollars. A note for five dollars read: The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand five dollars.” To the left of the President’s picture and above the bank seal, it said: This note is legal tender for all debts public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve Bank.”

In 1963, the Federal Reserve began to issue its first series of notes without the promise, while taking notes with the promise out of circulation. How can paper become what it promises by removing the promise? To the left of the President’s picture and above the bank seal, it now read: This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.”

A note is a proof of debt. It is not possible to pay off a debt with a debt. No debt can be paid in full unless paid in gold or silver, coined and regulated in value by Congress. The name Federal Reserve Note” is a fraudulent label since each word claims to be something that in reality it is not.

By removing the promise to redeem the note in lawful money, the Federal Government in cooperation with the Federal Reserve, eliminated the monetary system of the United States as established by the Constitution and replaced it with something totally different.

President Kennedy pledged himself to what was the best for America and cared not how the greedy bankers of the Fed felt. JFK, like Lincoln in the 1860′s. dared to have the U. S. Treasury issue U. S. Dollars, not Federal Reserve notes, and placed them into circulation without paying interest to any bankers, just as spelled out in the U. S. Constitution.

This alarmed the owners of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank like a fifty point tremor on the Richter Scale. This must cease at once. The Fed bankers found themselves facing an intolerable situation, one which defied them and at the same time, one which they could not publicly complain without letting the cat out of the bag. Any complaint by the Fed would put it in a very bad light. The public would soon be aware of the gigantic scam the Fed has gotten away with since 1913. This scam allowed the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank to avoid all income taxes and even audits.

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Orders EO-11 and EO-110 were signed with the authority to returning to the government the responsibility to print money, taking that privilege away from the Rothschild – basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. Shortly thereafter, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

George H W Bush, Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and Richard Nixon have all been traced to Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, the day of Kennedy’s assassination. Hunt and Sturgis were among the derelicts” or hobos” found in boxcars near railroad tracks behind the grassy knoll near Dealy Plaza. But they were never finger-printed or photographed in association with Kennedy’s murder.
FBI Chief, J. Edgar Hoover accused beyond a reasonable doubt,George Bush, is guilty as a supervisor in the conspiracy to murder John Kennedy”
Something even more shocking: that the untimely death of ,JFK Jr constituted a similar rite” for Bush Jr., who incidentally went missing for 18 hrs after the 1999 downing of Kennedy’s Piper Cub in the Atlantic. One year later, George Walker (W.) Bush (Bush Jr) was made President in the most controversial election in US history.

At the end of World War II, an agreement was reached at the Bretton Woods Conference which pegged the value of gold at US dollar35 per ounce and that became the international standard against which currency was measured. But in 1971, US President Richard Nixon took the US dollar off the gold standard and ever since the US dollar has been the most important global monetary instrument and only the US can produce them. However, there were problems with this arrangement not least of all that the dollar was effectively worthless than before it reneged on the gold-standard. But more importantly because it was the world’s reserve currency, everybody was saving their surpluses in US dollar. To maintain the US dollar’s pre-eminence, the Richard Nixon administration impressed upon Saudi Arabia and therefore OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) to sell their oil only in US dollar. This did two things; it meant that oil sales supported the US dollar and also allowed the USA access to exchange risk free oil. The USA propagates war to protect its oil supplies, but even more importantly, to safeguard the strength of the US dollar. The fear of the consequences of a weaker US dollar, particularly higher oil prices is seen as underlying and explaining many aspects of the US foreign policy, including the Iraq and Libyan War. The reality is that the value of the US dollar is determined by the fact that oil is sold in US dollar. If the denomination changes to another currency, such as the euro, many countries would sell US dollar and cause the banks to shift their reserves, as they would no longer need US dollar to buy oil. This would thus weaken the US dollar relative to the euro. A leading motive of the US in the Iraq war — perhaps the fundamental underlying motive, even more than the control of the oil itself — is an attempt to preserve the US dollar as the leading oil trading currency. Since it is the USA that prints the US dollar, they control the flow of oil. Period. When oil is denominated in US dollar through US state action and the US dollar is the only fiat currency for trading in oil, an argument can be made that the USA essentially owns the world’s oil for free.

So long as almost three quarter of world trade is done in US dollar, the US dollar is the currency which central banks accumulate as reserves. But central banks, whether China or Japan or Brazil or Russia, do not simply stack US dollar in their vaults. Currencies have one advantage over gold. A central bank can use it to buy the state bonds of the issuer, the USA. Most countries around the world are forced to control trade deficits or face currency collapse. Not the USA. This is because of the US dollar reserve currency role. And the underpinning of the reserve role is the petrodollar. Every nation needs to get US dollar to import oil, some more than others. This means their trade targets US dollar countries.

Because oil is an essential commodity for every nation, the Petrodollar system, which exists to the present, demands the buildup of huge trade surpluses in order to accumulate US dollar surpluses. This is the case for every country but one — the USA which controls the US dollar and prints it at will or fiat. Because today the majority of all international trade is done in US dollar, countries must go abroad to get the means of payment they cannot themselves issue. The entire global trade structure today works around this dynamic, from Russia to China, from Brazil to South Korea and Japan. Everyone aims to maximize US dollar surpluses from their export trade.

Until November 2000, no OPEC country dared violate the dollar price rule. So long as the US dollar was the strongest currency, there was little reason to as well. 6 months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, Iraq had made the move to accept Euros instead of US dollar for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the US dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.

But November 2000 was when French and other Euroland members finally convinced Saddam Hussein to defy the USA by selling Iraq’s oil-for-food not in US dollar, ‘the enemy currency’ as Iraq named it, but only in euros. The euros were on deposit in a special UN account of the leading French bank, BNP Paribas. Radio Liberty of the US State Department ran a short wire on the news and the story was quickly hushed.

This little-noted Iraq move to defy the US dollar in favor of the euro, in itself, was insignificant. Yet, if it were to spread, especially at a point the US dollar was already weakening, it could create a panic selloff of US dollar by foreign central banks and OPEC oil producers. In the months before the latest Iraq war, hints in this direction were heard from Russia, Iran, Indonesia and even Venezuela. An Iranian OPEC official, Javad Yarjani, delivered a detailed analysis of how OPEC at some future point might sell its oil to the EU for euros not US dollar. He spoke in April, 2002 in Oviedo Spain at the invitation of the EU. All indications are that the Iraq war was seized on as the easiest way to deliver a deadly pre-emptive warning to OPEC and others, not to flirt with abandoning the Petro-dollar system in favor of one based on the euro.

Informed banking circles in the City of London and elsewhere in Europe privately confirm the significance of that little-noted Iraq move from petro-dollar to petro-euro. The Iraq move was a declaration of war against the US dollar. ‘As soon as it was clear that Britain and the US had taken Iraq, a great sigh of relief was heard in London City banks. They said privately, now we don’t have to worry about that damn euro threat”.

After considerable delay, Iran opened an oil bourse which does not accept US dollar. Many people fear that the move gave added reason for the USA to overthrow the Iranian regime as a means to close the bourse and revert Iran’s oil transaction currency to US dollar. In 2006 Venezuela indicated support of Iran’s decision to offer global oil trade in euro.

First Iraq and then Libya decided to challenge the petrodollar system and stop selling all their oil for US dollar, shortly before each country was attacked. The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost of not going to war would be horrendous for the US unless there were another way of protecting the US dollar’s world trade dominance. Guess how USA pays for the wars? By printing US dollar it is going to war to protect.

Muammar Qaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the US dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Muammar Qaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Muammar Qaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.

Muammar Gaddafi’s proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa revived the notion of an Islamic gold dinar floated in 2003 by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, as well as by some Islamist movements. The notion, which contravened IMF rules and was designed to bypass them, had trouble getting started.

If Muammar Qaddafi were to succeed in creating an African Union backed by Libya’s currency and gold reserves, France, still the predominant economic power in most of its former Central African colonies, would be the chief loser. The plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010.

Worldwide GDP is about $70 Trillion. Worldwide debt to the Banks is $230 Trillion. The process by which banks create money is so simple. Every dollar, euro, yuan and yen that we have ever borrowed have been created. The Emperor truly has no clothes.

Today Iran, China, Russia, and India are stocking more and more gold rather than US dollar.