Dr Nihal Jayawickrama Courtesy The Island

I grew up, spending my childhood, adolescence and early adult life, in the home of a judge who ended his judicial career as head of the country’s highest court. I also had the enviable experience of serving as his private secretary sometime between my graduation and entry into the profession. The life of a judge of that time, as I observed it, is perhaps best described in the words of Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia. The regime imposed on a judge, he said, is monastic in many of its qualities”. Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor, described the vocation of a judge as being something like a priesthood”. Sir Winston Churchill considered that A form of life and conduct far more severe and restricted than that of ordinary people is required from judges”.

While judges did not isolate themselves from the rest of society, or from school friends and former colleagues in the legal profession, they rarely, if ever, socialized with politicians. They declined to perform the quasi-executive function of serving on commissions of inquiry. In that relatively calm and stable economy, their salaries were rarely increased. They drove, or were driven, to Hulftsdorp in their own cars. They lived in their own homes, except for the Chief Justice who was provided with an official residence.

In the early 1960s, when I was admitted to the Bar, and began practising before the courts of this country, any suggestion that a judge or magistrate might be corrupt would have been so preposterous that, in fact, it was never heard. A strong tradition of integrity underpinned the judiciary at every level. At a time of immense change, both political and social, the judiciary remained constant in its commitment to equal justice under the law.

Of course, the judiciary had its share of problems and its critics. The trial rolls were long; the backlog in the appellate court was enormous. The rules of civil and criminal procedure were Victorian. I recall expressing the exasperation of a starry-eyed young lawyer when, writing the annual report as honorary secretary of the Bar Council, I described the judicial system as an antique labyrinth with tortuous passages and cavities through which the potential litigant must grope, often blindfolded, in his search for justice. From below the Bench, some of the judges seemed short-tempered and discourteous; some seemed lazy – one, in particular, appeared to fall asleep from time to time; and not every judge appeared to be learned in the law. However, it was unthinkable that a judge could be corrupt.

The emergence of judicial corruption

It was some ten years later, in the 1970s, when I was serving as Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice and also, ex officio, as a member of the Judicial Service Advisory Board, that I encountered, for the first time, a complaint that a magistrate had accepted a bribe. The complaint appeared to be true. When confronted, the magistrate resigned his office. It was also during this period that I saw and experienced, with considerable unease and sadness, how some serving judges could demean themselves, and the sanctity of their office, in the pursuit of preferential treatment from the executive branch of government. When some of these efforts proved to be rewarding, it was difficult not to become sceptical. It was time for the illusions of youth to disappear.

Conventional bribery

The picture changed dramatically in the 1980s and in the decades that followed. The civil, criminal and appellate procedural reforms of the 1970s which we introduced were repealed and the Victorian laws revived. Thereafter, many a litigant or accused person began to find it more economical to secure the disappearance of a case record or the absence of a witness than continue to retain counsel for prolonged periods when no progress was made in his or her case. Complicated procedural steps meant several gatekeepers requiring payment to facilitate movement to the next stage of judicial proceedings.

In a direct mail survey in 50 Sri Lankan judicial stations conducted by the Marga Institute in 2002, civil litigants, virtual complainants, and remand prisoners reported to having paid bribes to lawyers’ clerks, court clerks, police officers and fiscals. Lawyers reported hundreds of incidents of bribery, the beneficiaries being the same. Several Judges admitted to being aware of such acts of bribery, and added members of the legal profession to the list of beneficiaries. Finally, the Judges identified at least five of their own brethren as bribe takers, three of them being in connection with the delivery of judgments. The report of that survey was published by the Marga Institute under the title: A System Under Siege; An Inquiry into the Judicial System of Sri Lanka”.

Global phenomenon

Judicial corruption was not a Sri Lankan phenomenon. In Bangladesh, a national household survey revealed that 63% of those involved in litigation had paid bribes to either court officials or the opponents’ lawyer. In Tanzania, a commission of inquiry reported several instances of judicial officers accepting bribes to grant injunctions, reduce sentences or dismiss cases; accepting bribes from advocates to give preferential judgments; and colluding with auctioneers to share the receipts from selling property belonging to litigants. In Uganda, the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission reported several complaints of judicial officers taking bribes to give bail or judgment. In Argentina, 57% of those polled said that they felt corruption was the main problem with the judiciary. In Honduras, three out of four polled believed the judiciary was corrupt. According to the Geneva-based Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, out of 48 countries covered in its annual report for 1999, judicial corruption was pervasive in 30 countries.

Undue influence

Corruption in the judiciary is not limited to conventional bribery. An insidious and equally damaging form of corruption arises from the interaction between the judiciary and the executive, as well as from the relationship between the judiciary and the legal profession. For example, the political patronage through which a judge acquires his office can give rise to corruption if and when the executive makes demands on such judge. Similarly, when a family member regularly appears before a judge, or when a judge selectively ignores sentencing guidelines in cases where particular counsel appear, the conduct of the judge would give rise to the suspicion of corruption. So would a high rate of decisions in favour of the executive. Indeed, frequent socializing with particular members of the legal profession, the executive or the legislature, is almost certain to raise the suspicion that the judge is susceptible to undue influence in the discharge of his duties.

The blurring of a critical relationship

In Sri Lanka, a dramatic change in the relations between the judiciary and the executive occurred with the advent of the Executive President, the ultimate source of power and patronage. For example, in 1983, a Judge of the Supreme Court described to a parliamentary select committee his relations with the then President:

I want to say this. My relations with His Excellency the President have been very cordial. In fact, I know him. I have only met Mrs Bandaranaike for a few seconds in my life. But I have known the President from 1948 and I have had very cordial relations with him. We had a common interest in history. I admire his culture, his refinement, and it was never my intention to do anything harmful to him personally. We have met at several functions at President’s House, at private dinners, and in 1981 he invited me and my wife for his birthday party at President’s House. We were very honoured. My community, my family, are his traditional supporters”.

The same Judge described how he enjoyed the hospitality of a Cabinet Minister:

Thanks to the hospitality of the Honourable Minister of Lands, we were all sent on that wonderful trip of the sites. We got younger. You know, we all went and it was a delightful trip. I wrote and told you about it. Lovely time, delightful! We were hoping we could make it a sort of annual trip.”

He also spoke about a prominent Opposition parliamentarian:

His step-brother, Mr Michael Dias, has been a friend of mine since he was my tutor in the Lex Aquilia at Cambridge University in 1945-48. However, my friendship with Michael Dias has brought me no advantages. The two brothers are as different as chalk and cheese. I think in 1973, Honourable Minister of Lands, your nephew Upul had that tragic death by drowning. I met you in the funeral house. That was a time when he was turning Hulftsdorp upside down. We had a conversation about that. I think I told you in plain, blunt, Anglo-Saxon what I thought of him. You may remember this. I wish to say that in the 1977 election nothing gave me greater pleasure than listening all night to the Dompe result.”

The blurring continues

The blurring of the critical relationship between the Judiciary and the Executive continued under later Presidents. For example, in 2004, on the eve of the general election, a Chief Justice, reputed for his political sagacity and legal acumen, participated in a religious ceremony in a Buddhist temple together with a Cabinet Minister and several candidates of a particular political party. The television camera constantly focused on the Chief Justice, who was seated at the feet of the Minister (who appeared to be on an elevated seat) during the long programme. Several years after he had left office, the same Chief Justice publicly apologized for not having given the right judgment in a politically sensitive case. I am very sorry. I am asking the whole country: forgive me”, he was reported as having said (Sunday Times, 26 October 2014).

In 2011, barely weeks after his retirement, another Chief Justice was appointed as an Adviser to the President. When a judge, and a Chief Justice at that, decides to take a great leap from the Supreme Court to the Presidential Secretariat to serve the executive branch at its core, the alarm bells must surely begin to ring. The country was entitled to know, but was not told, whether the Chief Justice had sought this position, or whether the Head of the Government had offered it to him, when and why.

In 2014, yet another Chief Justice travelled from Colombo to the deep south, to join the then President, his immediate family and his siblings, in celebrating the Sinhala and Hindu New Year rituals at the President’s ancestral home”. Several pictures that were published showed the participants, including the Chief Justice, attired in white and facing south” feeding milk rice to each other and engaging in other traditional transactions in what was essentially a family occasion.

In the same year, the same Chief Justice joined the President’s entourage (which included Ministers and Members of Parliament) on an official visit to Italy and the Vatican. It was the first occasion when a Chief Justice had accompanied a political leader on a state visit abroad.

Such conduct too, was not peculiar to Sri Lanka. A former President of the Supreme Court of Jordan, speaking at a conference in 1999, provided several illustrations from his own personal experience of this form of judicial corruption. He described how judges were pressurized by executive authorities to render judgment contrary to law; received benefits from the government in the form of gifts in money or in kind; and offers of employment to the judges’ children. He also spoke of victimization when the decision did not accord with the wishes of the executive.

The corrupting influence arising from the interaction between the judiciary and the executive has been documented by a Nigerian jurist. For example, he describes how a newly appointed judge, still undergoing training, was flown by a presidential jet to try a sensitive case of national importance and delivered his judgment by midnight; and how a judge trying a case of an opposition leader said he would need time to consult others before delivering his judgment. In Costa Rica, 54% of those polled believed that judicial decisions were subject to external pressures”.

Combating Judicial Corruption

In 1997, after almost two decades in academia, I was persuaded by a former colleague at the Commonwealth Secretariat to come down from the ivory towers” to work at Transparency International in Berlin. That non-governmental organization was then in its formative years, and one of its principal objectives was to identify sectors that were vulnerable to corruption, and then to formulate strategies to combat such corruption. It was there that credible evidence began surfacing of corruption in judicial systems. How should this phenomenon be addressed? Independence had always been considered to be the single fundamental requirement for a national judiciary. Judicial independence is not a privilege of judicial office, but an essential pre-requisite for the protection of the people. How real was that protection if the evidence that was surfacing was an accurate reflection of the state of the judiciary? Was judicial independence being traded for money or other benefits? Was adherence to the principle of judicial independence, by itself, sufficient to ensure the delivery of justice? Was it now necessary to formulate and implement a concept of judicial accountability?

Judicial Accountability

Accountability was not a new or novel concept. It is a constitutional requirement in a society based on the rule of law and democratic principles of governance that every power holder, whether in the legislature or the executive, is, in the final analysis, accountable to the people. Was there any reason why the judiciary, which is entrusted by the people with the exercise of judicial power, should not, individually and collectively, be accountable for the due performance of its functions? The challenge, however, was to determine how the judiciary could be held to account in a manner that was consistent with the principle of judicial independence. My colleague, the late Jeremy Pope, and I agreed that these were issues that were best resolved by the judges themselves.

Judicial Integrity Group

For that purpose, we initiated discussions with a representative group of ten Chief Justices from Africa and the Asia-Pacific region who agreed to meet under the auspices of the United Nations. At that preparatory meeting in Vienna in April 2000, which was chaired by Judge Weeramantry, Vice-President of the International Court of Justice, the Judicial Integrity Group (as this group of Chief Justices is now known) agreed that judges should be accountable to the community they serve through their absolute adherence to a set of judicial values, and that a statement of core judicial values should be capable of being enforced by the judiciary without the intervention of the executive and legislative branches of government. The Group believed that transparency at every critical stage of the judicial process will enable the community, especially through its legal academics, civil society and a free media, to judge the judges.

The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

At the request of the Group, I prepared an initial draft statement of principles of judicial conduct, drawing on rules and principles already articulated in national codes of conduct (wherever they existed) and in regional and international instruments. Over the next twenty months, that draft was widely disseminated among senior judges of both common law and civil law systems in over 75 countries. In November 2002, at the Peace Palace at The Hague, a revised draft was placed before a Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices drawn from both the civil and common law systems, at which Judges of the International Court of Justice also participated. The final draft that emerged from that meeting – the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct – identifies six core values of the judiciary: Independence, Impartiality, Personal Integrity, Propriety, Equality, and Competence and Diligence.

In 2006, the Bangalore Principles were unanimously endorsed by the UN Economic and Social Commission (ECOSOC) in a resolution which requested Member States to encourage their judiciaries to develop rules with respect to the professional and ethical conduct of judges based on the Bangalore Principles. Sri Lanka has ignored that request.

Commentary and Implementation Measures

In 2007, at the request of ECOSOC, the Judicial Integrity Group developed a 175-page Commentary on the Bangalore Principles which has since been published by the UN and by national judiciaries in several languages. Sri Lanka has failed to take note of that.

In 2010, the Judicial Integrity Group agreed on Measures for the Effective Implementation of the Bangalore Principles. That statement describes action required to be taken by the judiciary, and the institutional arrangements to be established by the State to secure judicial independence and accountability. Among the latter is an independent appointment mechanism with both judicial and non-judicial members to ensure that persons selected for judicial office are persons of ability, integrity and efficiency. Through the recently enacted 20^th Amendment to the Constitution, Sri Lanka has rejected that requirement.

Conclusion

The Bangalore Principles now provide the judiciary with a framework for regulating judicial conduct. It is the global standard. These Principles have been the model for codes of judicial conduct from Belize in the Caribbean to the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, from Tanzania to the Philippines, from Bolivia to Jordan. They were motivated by the need to address the phenomenon of judicial corruption. Many judiciaries across the world have profitably employed them to achieve that objective. However, the Sri Lankan Judiciary has chosen not to formulate or to implement a code of judicial conduct to regulate itself.

Courtesy Adaderana

Director-General of Health Services today (February 28) confirmed 07 new COVID-related fatalities in Sri Lanka.

The new development has pushed the country’s death toll from the virus outbreak to 471, Department of Government Information said.

Details of the deceased are as follows:

01. A 56-year-old man from Kurunegala area – He was under medical care at the Kurunegala Teaching Hospital at the time of his passing on Friday (February 26). COVID-19 infection and acute diabetes were recorded as the cause of death.

02. A 55-year-old man from Anuradhapura area – He has passed away at his home on Friday (February 26). The cause of death was recorded as acute complication in respiratory system due to COVID-19 infection.

03. A 59-year-old man from Gampaha area – He was transferred from Dompe District Hospital to National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID) after testing positive for the virus. He died today due to COVID pneumonia, blood poisoning and liver infection.

04. A 79-year-old woman from Rukgahawila area – She was moved to Homagama Base Hospital after testing positive for the virus at Wathupitiwala Base Hospital. She has fallen victim to COVID pneumonia and shock due to blood poisoning on Saturday (February 27).

05. A 51-year-old man from Demalagama area – Upon testing positive for the virus, he was transferred from Colombo North Teaching Hospital to Homagama Base Hospital where he died today. The cause of death was recorded as COVID pneumonia and cancer.

06. An 81-year-old man from Colombo 05 area – He tested positive for the virus in a COVID test carried out at the Colombo National Hospital. He was then moved to Homagama Base Hospital where he succumbed to COVID pneumonia today.

07. An 87-year-old man from Pannipitiya area – He died yesterday at the Kandy National Hospital after being transferred from Colombo South Teaching Hospital where he tested positive for novel coronavirus. The cause of death was reported as COVID pneumonia, blood poisoning, acute kidney damages and heart disease.

Courtesy Adaderana

Sri Lanka registered 148 more positive cases of COVID-19 today (February 28) as total novel coronavirus infections reported within the day reached 352.

Department of Government Information says 346 of today’s cases are close contacts of earlier cases linked to the Peliyagoda cluster.

Four others were detected from the prison cluster and the remaining 02 are reportedly arrivals from foreign countries.

New development has pushed the country’s confirmed COVID-19 cases count to 83,242.

According to COVID-19 figures, 3,824 active cases are still under medical care at selected hospitals and treatment centres.

Meanwhile, total recoveries reported in the country now stand at 78,947.

Sri Lanka has also witnessed 471 fatalities due to the outbreak of the pandemic.

H. L. D. Mahindapala

The Tamil people followed Velupillai Prabhakaran blindly because he promised to deliver Eelam. The gains of the initial military adventures of the LTTE also made him look like the messiah who could  fulfil their dream. But  he took them for a ride – the biggest in the history of the Tamils — and gave them Evil-laam. His only achievement was in constructing and honing the  most efficient  killing machine which targeted and killed mostly Tamils.

His juggernaut had its roots in the violent political culture of Jaffna. He became the  iconic image of the Tamil political culture, particularly with his cadre of suicide bombers, because he was an integral part of the traditional fascist culture of Vellala-dominated Jaffna. Nothing represents Jaffna political culture better than Prabhakaran’s fascist one-man regime. He hit the headlines of the New York Times on May 28, 1995 with James F. Burns branding  him as the Pol Pot of Asia”. The Vellala supremacists dominated the history of Jaffna particularly from the Dutch period. They never loosened their iron-fisted grip on Jaffna and open their society for democratic liberalism at any stage.  In broad outline, Jaffna could be divided into two layers: 1. the Vellala oppressors, the dominant majority and 2. the marginalised low-castes whose lives were determined from the womb to the tomb by fascist casteism. Prabhakaran was the genie that came out of the corked violent Vellala culture.

The only difference was he did not belong to the Vellala caste. He was a karaiyar, the fisher caste, who catalysed and transformed Vellala fascism into his brand  of  Tamil Pol Potism / Prabhakaranism. Vellala fascism segued into Prabhakaranism naturally like a river that flows into the sea and when the integrated forces emerged as Tamil Pol Potism in the 20^th century the Vellalas took to it like duck to water. They glorified him, financed him, spun theories to legitimise him, internationalised him as key player in S. Asia taking on even India, lobbied for him, provided logistics and expertise to oil his  killing machine etc. Prabhakaran mobilised a broad front of various castes but  without the critical and massive support of the  Vellalas he could never have gone as far as he went. In the end, one was hardly distinguishable from the other. They were two sides of the same coin. The change over from Vellalaism to Prabhakaranism was as easy as Stalin taking over oppressive  Czarist culture and marketing it as glorious and liberating communism. Prabhakaranist fascism was marketed as glorious Tamil nationalism.

Vellala leaders like Rajavarothiam Samapanthan and M. A. Sumanthiram fell at his feet and accepted his supremacy. He was elevated by them to the highest position of being the sole representative of the Tamil nation”. In other  words, they acknowledged voluntarily, without any compulsion, that they were the servile factotums willing to obey the commands of the master killer of Tamils. They never once raised the issues of dignity of the Tamils, justice for Tamils, equality for the Tamils and peace for Tamils with their Supreme Leader. They never went to UNHRC to complain about the war crimes and crimes against  humanity community by the Supreme Commander of the busiest killing machine ever produced by the Tamils. 

Ideologically, there was no difficulty for the Vellalas to embrace Prabhakaranism because it was merely a secular version of the  Vellala religious dogma spelt out with clarity by the holy guru  of the Vellalas, Arumuka Navalar. In one of  his commentaries he says: It is the duty of every Saivite to kill those who steal Sivan’s property or revile him. If one is not strong enough to kill the blasphemer, one must hire another to do it. If one has nothing to hire with, one must leave the country where the sinner lives. By remaining in the country one becomes a participant in the sin .(p. 80 – The Bible Trembled, the Hindu-Christianity Controversies of Nineteenth-Century Ceylon, by R. F. Young and Bishop S. Jebanesan, Vienna 1995). 

So, killing is anointed as a religious duty in the Hindu-Vellala culture to  retain  the supremacy and the purity of the believers. Going step by step to any length in violence to preserve the supremacy of the deities of the day – including anthropomorphic demi-gods like Sankili and Prabhakaran – is the validated norm. Killing or hiring someone else to kill is the legitimised modus operandi. For instance, the Vellala elders who declared war in the Vadukoddai Resolution was too old to kill. So, they licensed the youth to take up arms and kill anyone who  stood in the way of attaining Eelam.

This sealed the affinity between Vellala religiosity and Prabhakaranist secularism. In some Vellala homes  abroad they light lamps and place it before Prabhakaran’s image located alongside other Hindu gods on the mantelpiece of the living room. Tamils who have no remarkable heroes in their history  are left with no option but to go down the  lowest depths to ferret out heroes from the best killers of Tamils as their  demi-gods. Only a warped culture which has lost its humane values would pick the most heinous killer as their hero. So, the Tamils have picked Prabhakaran, the evil genie who had killed more Tamils than others, as their latest hero. 

The desperate bid in Tamil politics has been to fill the vacuum in their history. Though the Tamils of Jaffna boast of a great Tamil culture they never produced anything worthy of note in the civilizational domains of literature, drama, art, music, architecture etc. They were at best third-rate imitators of the great Tamil culture of S. India. So, when they boast about their great Tamil culture they refer to the classical Tamil culture of S. India and not anything innovative or creative that came out of Jaffna. Mediocrities are genetically incapable of producing great cultures.

The perennial oppressive culture of Jaffna has either produced a one-man regime or a fascist ideology like Vellalaism / Prabhakaranism. This oppressive culture had its origin in Sankilli, the forefather of Prabhakaran, who marched down to Mannar in 1544 and massacred 600 Tamil Catholics who refused to recognise him as the sole representative  of the Tamils” – an incurable obsession with Tamil leaders. As Catholics they had sworn allegiance to the King of Portugal. Because they refused to pay homage to him he massacred them all, babies, pregnant women, old and young without any discrimination. Tamils specialised in eliminating  discrimination with either the sword or  the gun. Sankili put on record the first mass massacre. Prabhakaran was the last.

Jaffna never had space for liberal, open, tolerant, pluralistic,  or an  inclusive political culture. After Sankilli came the slave society with the  Vellalas rising as a dominant force during the Dutch period. The Tesawalamai legitimised slavery and the supremacy of the oppressive Vellala culture. It was this culture  that dominated and warped Jaffna society. After the Vellalas came Prabhakaran, the first child born out of the Vellala Declaration of War on May 14, 1976 at Vadukoddai. Ironically, Prabhakaran began by eliminating the Vellala elite who declared war against the Sinhalese in the noted Vaduukoddai Resolution and ended by throwing bombs and shooting the helpless Tamils refuges running away from him into the arms of the Security Forces.

Tamil people running away from their first Tamil state – it was only a quasi-state — was  the ultimate insult to Tamil nationalism. It exposed the fake Tamil pride of being superior to all other communities. It is a state that could not  give the Tamils food, security or dignity. It had to depend on the Sinhala state” to feed their people. Or to wait for parippu to fall from the skies. It also meant that what God has put together cannot be separated by the  force of brutal Tamil violence. History that has rejected Tamil invaders, marauders and colonialists repeated itself once gain in 2009  to prove that those  who forget history end  up in Nandikadal.

The Tamils who hero-worship Prabhakaran fail to realise that he had Eelam in the palm of his hands and he threw it away. He had it when Rajiv Gandhi offered him the Chief Ministership. He had it when Chandrika Bandaranaike offered him the North and the East for ten years without elections. He had it when Ranil Wickremesinghe gave him the power that was nearest to Eelam, with international guarantees. Every one of these offers was a prospective political base from which he could have launched his political manoeuvres to reach his next political stage on the road to Eelam, if he knew how to get there. But in his arrogance and  total ignorance of alternatives methodologies to achieve political goals, he assassinated Rajiv Gandhi – the goose that laid his golden egg. And  he shot to pieces CBK’s offer and, most of all,  Ranil Wickremesinghe’s deal for which he (Ranil) was expecting  to win  the Nobel Peace Prize.

By miscalculating and missing  the best opportunities that came his way, Prabhakaran too proved to be a congenital idiot”, in the colourful phrase of Prof. Kumar David. Drunk with  his own belief of invincibility he went beyond his limits to take on GOSL, India and even some segments of the international community who were initially sympathetic towards the Tamils. He had only one answer to all his  problems: kill, kill and kill. In the end he ran short of killers. He had to forcibly drag children out from  school to fight in his futile war. In short, he overreached himself. He went for Eelam or nothing. In the end he got nothing.

Apart from his own arrogance he was misled by the glorification of the Tamil diaspora and the servile Vellala elite, led by the TNA. Like the politically bankrupt Tamils Prabhakaran was a victim of his own egotistic myths.  The inexhaustible capacity of Tamils to believe in their political piety, purity and greatness has been suicidal. At each stage of their political movement, starting from satyagraha on the language issue, they deceived themselves – and the world — with their manufactured myths and, in the process, took the wrong route which finally led them to Nandikadal.

This brief revisit to the past is to question the role of the current Tamil leadership which is whipping up hate politics in the name of minority rights. As in the past they are once again parading as non-violent Gandhians performing satyagraha. D. B. S. Jeyaraj, (DBSJ),the best-informed Tamil journalist, wrote about the latest protest march of the Tamils in the Daily Mirror (13/2/2021) in  dithyrambic ecstasy. He wrote: The latest is the Pottuvil to Poligandy” (P2P) Protest that ended last week was a watershed moment in the political history of Sri Lankan Tamils. The Five day P2P”  began in the East on Wednesday, February 3 and concluded in the north on Sunday,  February 7. Thousands of Tamils marched on foot and proceeded in vehicles from Pottuvil in the Ampara District to Poligandy in the Jaffna District….. What is forgotten, ignored or conveniently overlooked is the fact that for over three decades in post–Independence Sri Lanka, the Tamil political struggle was basically non – violent and adhered to the noble doctrine of  Ahimsa” (avoidance of injury/violence) enunciated by that great apostle of non – violence Mahatma Gandhi.”

Now DBSJ knows, only too well, that the last sentence in particular is a load of bunk. He knows that neither S. J. V. Chelvanayakam nor his  followers were ever noble apostles of non-violence  in the  mould  of Mahatma Gandhi. The essence of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence satyagraha movement was to combat high-caste oppression of the low-caste, leaving  aside his anti-imperialist campaign. When did Chelvanyakam ever sit with the low-castes to back their non-violent  campaign to open the doors of Maviddipuram Temple – the historic battle waged by the low-castes against the Vellalas? On the contrary, the Chelvanayakam leadership did nothing when the Vellalas cracked the head of the non-violent low-castes staging their protest at the Maviddipuram Temple? He never took a courageous stand and defended the rights of the low-castes to enter the Hindu temples. Prof. Bryan Pfaffenberger, a leading American authority on the caste system in Jaffna, said that Chelvanayakam and the Federal party tip-toed out” of the issue. The entire Tamil leadership, from Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan, and running through G. G. Ponnambalam and Chelvanayakam never followed Gandhian principles in dealing  with the persecuted low-castes of Jaffna.

DBSJ’s article glorifying the Tamil Satyagraha 0f 1961” (DM –13/2/2021) is typical of the Tamil propaganda to portray the Tamil politicians as highly moral apostles of non-violence who were forced to give up non-violence by the failure of the non-violent Tamil struggle to remedy prevailing political maladies.” Romanticising of the doctrine of Ahimsa (avoidance of  injury / violence)”, he gives the Tamil leaders the aura of being non-violent saints who were about to enter Mahatma Gandhi’s nirvana when the frustrated youth took up the gun.

This, of course, is the external façade presented to the world outside Jaffna. While the Tamil leadership was posing apostles of Ahimsa in Colombo and  other places outside Jaffna, inside Jaffna they were beating the daylights out of the low-castes who  had dared to challenge the fascist might of the Vellala supremacists. He says, I quote: What is forgotten, ignored or conveniently overlooked is the fact that for over three decades in post-Independence (sic) Sri Lanka, the Tamil political struggle was basically non-violent and adhered to the noble doctrine of Ahimasa” (avoidance of injury / violence) enunciated by that great apostle of non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi.” Here he dodges the brutal history of Tamils oppressing, persecuting and murdering Tamils which was an integral part of the Jaffna political culture throughout its history. It ceased only the day after the Sinhala state” ended the 33-year-old war on May 19, 2009 at Nandikadal. 

He says and I quote: …for over three decades in post-Independence (sic) Sri Lanka, the Tamil political struggle was basically non-violent and adhered to the noble doctrine of Ahimasa” (avoidance of injury / violence) enunciated by that great apostle of non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi.” There were two political struggles going on in Jaffna: 1. the racist war declared on May 14, 1976 at Vadukoddai by the Vellala supremacists (the holy Ahimasavadins of Jaffna) to retain their feudal and colonial powers and privileges and 2. the low-intensity war of the low-castes against the Vellala supremacists — the perennial oppressors who had denied them their basic human rights.

In 1968 the Vellala supremacists went all out to suppress the Nalavars, Pallas and Parayas etc., rising as an organised front for the first time against the Vellala oppressors. Prof. Bryan Pfaffenberger, America’s leading authority on Vellala casteism, in his essay on the Temple entry Politics of the Vellalas, revealed that the Vellala  Gandhians cracked the heads of the non-violent protesters with bottles filled with sand. He added that  the Vellalas who led the Federal Party tip-toed out” of the crisis without standing up for the low-castes. Rajavarothiam Sampanthan, who was then an  up-and- coming young man in the Federal Party, was never seen fighting for the dignity, equality, justice and peace” of the Tamils oppressed by the Tamils. 

In a grim snap-shot of the Vellalas Prof. Bryan Pfaffenberger wrote:  Vellarlars had long considered the Jaffna Peninsula a private preserve for their interests……In the fifties, for instance, many Minority Tamils ( Vellahla euphemism for their untouchables / dalits ) still lived in Vellarlar – owned palmyrah groves or wasteland; if they did not submit to Vellarlar labour demands, they could be threatened with expulsion. The economic compulsions were paired with informal political controls : Minority Tamils who attempted to raise their position would find their communities victimised by Vellarlar- organised gangs of thugs, who burned down huts and poisoned wells.” (p. 81 — The Political Construction of Defensive Nationalism: The 1968 Temple-Entry Crisis in Northern Sri Lanka, The Journal of Asia Studies, 49, No. 1, February 1990).

How does this compare with DBSJ’s Jaffna which he  thinks is the ideal nirvana of the apostles of non-violent Gandhians ? This question the veracity of DBSJ’s claim that the Tamil politics in the first three decades of independent Sri Lanka was based on the non-violent doctrine of Gandhi. In any case, can DBJ cite an instance where Gandhi took the side of the Brahmins as  against  the harijans? What were the chances of Gandhi walking up and down the entrance to Maviddipuram Temple with a walking stick like Prof. C. Suntheralingam, threatening to beat the hell out of any low-caste daring to enter the holy space of the Vellalas?

Tragically, our age is dominated by lies. We live in an age where 74 million Americans believe that Trump won the election and Biden stole it from him. Isn’t DBSJ acting like another Tamil Trumpian twister of the truth? He knows – if not, he should know – how the imported slaves from Malabar were treated by the Vellala supremacists down the ages in his glorified land of Ahimsa apostles. He knows what happened at Maviddipuram.  The temple entry issue at Maviddipuram in 1968 was the climactic moment when the Jaffna Tamils were asked to choose between evil and  violent casteism and humane politics of giving the Tamils – just not  the Vellala caste/class – their dignity, equality, justice and peace. Can DBSJ tell us in what part of the Tamil verti was non-violent Gandhism tucked in?

DBSJ should know, with all his deep knowledge of Tamil affairs that the path to Nandikadal began with the first satyagraha staged by the Vellala leadership at Galle Face Green. It was staged not for the oppressed Tamil but for the privileged Vellalas. It was Vellala elite performing satyagraha for Vellala privileges and not  for the oppressed Tamils. If he loves his Tamil people and if he desires to prevent the kind  of beating he got from the Tamils he must stop writing bunk – at least for the sake of peace and reconciliation.

C. Wijeyawickrema, LL.B., Ph.D.

People in Sri Lanka see the current  ‘Geneva debacle’ of UNHRC/OHCHR as a tug of war between a  handful of white ex-colonial masters and the past and present Rajapaksa governments, with India hopelessly caught in between. However, when we try to unravel this Geneva game from a historical perspective, it becomes obvious that the real fight was/is between local black-white agents of Geneva and the Sinhala Buddhist patriots. When we properly understand this fact (truth), this Geneva headache could easily be dismissed  as ‘much ado about nothing’ by a corrupt UN agency, just like Cuba and Israel routinely ignore its toothless bites. In a way these Geneva characters get some low oxygen supply from Sinhala black-whites and from some Tamils for an Eelam.

The black-white side is represented by Sajith Premadasa’s brand new foreign policy guru Dayan Jayatilleka, who is known as the < father>  of the 13-A plus project in Sri Lanka. Others behind him write almost daily reports to the Colombo Telegraph and some English newspapers. DBS Jeyaraj from Canada and Rajan Philips are also in this club. Kumar David and Victor Ivan compete for a top place of this demolition crew. Amazingly, all of them named and not named here have Christian origin! The Sinhala Buddhist side is led by the now public security minister Sarath Weerasekara with Dinesh Gunawardena behind him. The subtle attacks against Sarath indicate that black-whites consider him as the real enemy to be crushed, jumping on every statement he makes inside or outside the Diyawanna motel.

Balkanization of Sri Lanka

In the case of Ceylon, the aim of the ex-colonial masters (now international king makers) has been to divide the island on ethnic lines. This had shadows of the Christian project that began in the late 19th century to balkanize India on Dalith/Hindi fault lines in South India. The Dravidasthan Movement that began in 1917 in Madras Presidency with a Marxist/Christian/anti-Hndi/anti-Brahmin touch, influenced the Tamilakkam (Tamilness) project of Arunachalam Ponnambalam in 1921/24. When separatism was finally proscribed in India by Nehru in the aftermath of India-China war (1963), its agents took the separatist germ to Sri Lanka Kandyan Indian Tamil habitat as a DMK (Kallathonis) operation, during Dudley Senananayaka’s time in the mid 1960s.

SJV Chelvanayagam of the South Indian Church, moved from Malaysia to Colombo, when Tamils there faced harassment and eviction threats, and started his Colombo Christian-dominated Tamil State party in 1949, based on a claim of a mythical Tamil homeland in the artificially created Eastern Province. In 1957, SWRD with his B-C pact foolishly gave a boost to this myth directly and indirectly. Later, in 1965, Dudley Senanayaka with his D-C secret agreement made it worse for the Sinhale with JRJ behind it. In 1977, JRJ came to power and messed up ruining everything he touched including the black-white created Tamil ethnic issue. This unfortunate man became a pawn in the hands of Dixit and the USA. White masters led by America, capitalized on his weakness and failures, and  carved out a new path making Sri Lankan black-white politicians willing or unwilling servants of the balkanization project.  As explained later, when a comparison is made between Dayan J and Tamara Kunanayakam, surrendering to the West began with the consensus resolution (no vote) passed at UNHRC on March 12, 1987. India was behind this trap, in which JRJ agreed not to oppose the Red Cross coming to the island to help with its ‘humanitarian problem.’
But within 3 months it turned out to be a dhal invasion by Indian war planes on June 5, 1987, followed by Rajiv-JRJ humiliating agreement on July 29, 1987,  13-A created a federal state in the island. The Indian agent’s stand at Geneva at the current meeting that Sri Lanka should implement in full the 13-A is the next step of going from federal to Eelam state. On May 27, 2009, just 8 days after Prabhakaran went to heaven, as MahindaR’s trusted advisor, Dayan J promised this to UNHRC.  In October 2015, Managala Samaraweera completed that promise and much more!  Before discussing these in detail, there is a world history-Sinhale history interface that needs to be examined.

1. Colonialism 
   A Sinhale king once sent an envoy to a Roman emperor. Yet, on the Greeco-Roman world map, barbarians lived in hot lands outside Europe. Europe obtained almost ‘everything’ from the East via the Silk Route (Jesus went to Kashmir) This East later became an ‘Eastern nightmare,’ which we see now as the fear of China by America. The fear of India was overcome by dividing the subcontinent into three pieces. Historically, the Crusades and the determination to reach the Christian kingdom of Prester John of Ethiopia, to jointly fight against the Muslims had other aims such as obtaining spices and luxury items for the rich in Europe. Portugal and Spain took the lead in this regard Columbus going to America and Vasco da Gama landing in Goa India.
   From 1505 white colonial enterprise started in Sinhale. What did they use/develop as tools and weapons in this regard?
   < Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right>
2. Sword – now bombing and military bases by USA2. Bible – colonist came to civilize and save natives- now Christian Fundamentalism (Evangelist conversions)3. Bottle (arrack) – which ruined the remnants of Kandyan aristocracy first4. Humiliation –  Anagarika Dharmapala fought against this and item 8.5, Divide & Rule – used even the caste system for this purpose6. Genocide- 1818, 1848 and so many minor ones in between7, Discrimination against Sinhala Buddhists and temples8. Creation of a black-white class with English education (Lord McCaulay vs. Ven. Walane Siri Siddhartha)9. Remote-controlled colonialism -use of black-whites rulers (Clause 29 (2) of 1947 constitution) after 194810. NGOs and INGOs (NGO idea created to overcome government corruption is now a massive dollar business) 11. Spy agents-CIA/RAW etc. (Indian embassy branch in Jaffna is a spy center) use of NGO agents to create tension in the country capitalizing on government weaknesses and defects – e.g., Digana/Aluthgama/Galle/ Rathupaswala/ Katunayake export zone strike/prison riots etc.
   SOFT POWER- new smart power strategy (selling western democracy)
3. Human rights and R2P (Tamil genocide theory of Vigneswaran. Sumanthiran & Ponnambalam)13. Rule of Law  (found only in books)13.1. Non-majoritarian constitutional provisions- end result weaken central sovereign state and break it14. Representative democracy (presently the Diyawanna motel)-giving razor blades to monkeys15. International agencies- UNO, IMF, WB, WTO. UNHRC, UK based Commonwealth etc.16. Free market globalism –  open exploitation local resources including plants and insects17. MCC trap-instead of traditional weapon of US foreign aid agency18. Index and rating games – religious freedom/ development/ poverty/ economic health/credit score
   Of the above methods items 4, 8,12 & 15 are directly relevant to the current situation at Geneva UNHRC session 46 in Feb-March 2021. The idea of world peace with a League of Nations was American president Woodrow Wilson’s plan (Versailles Treaty 1918), and one could not deny there is some benefit to the world from agencies mentioned on item 15. UNESCO, WHO, WLO are clear examples. But they are mostly methods used by ex-colonists and the USA to maintain their hegemony and ‘Euroceric developmentalism’  (poor countries exploited using European agenda or extension of the sovereignty of European nation states beyond their own boundaries). Items 12 and 13 are deployed by USA, Canada, UK and some EU members such as Germany, as a saintly and noble attempt that they wish to accomplish using UNHRC as the implementing arm.  But how many member countries really know that the hidden agenda is balkanization of Sri Lanka! The Indian agent is direct in this regard with 13-A plus demand as the target, whereas the American agent is indirect in his approach.
4. Colombo black white agency
   Any support from locals of a targeted country is better than nothing for the politician set in the few western countries determined to partition their prey using UNHRC/OHCHR mechanism as their saintly vehicle. Besides they receive dual benefit; unjust enrichment through LTTE funds plus Tamil vote bank in their respective electorates. In Sri Lanka they find hordes of local Sinhala black whites working for them as NGO agents and opposition political party supporters. With the Yapalana-Orumitthanadu combine in power, for the first time in UNO history,  the government  itself became an active supporter of western political agenda. Of course, LTTE and other western donors, including the US government, pumped millions of dollars to get it elected defeating the Rajapaksa regime. 
   Sri Lankan party politics is such a dirty game run by black whites, leaders wearing pirith nuule, who paid lip service to high Buddhist principles but failed to apply them in solving the so called ethnic conflict in a just and reasonable manner. They played a hide and seek game with local Tamil separatists, until  finally, Rajiv and Dixit forced JRJ with the 13-A  death trap. Events leading up to this federal formula were briefly discussed above. !3-A solved nothing, other than black white politicians trying to make deals with Prabhakaran, who opposed 13-A.  After JRJ, a local half black white politician, R Premadasa decided to hold the tiger’s tail until  he was bitten by the tiger. Before that he sacrificed 600 policemen who were asked to surrender to Karuna, Prabakaran’s agent.  Mrs. Chandrika wanted to go beyond 13-A and prepared 3 draft package deals  and a final constitutional document in 2000, balkanizing the island into 7-12 regions. GL-Neelan-Jayampathy trio took special care to carve out a Tamil mono-ethnic region in the island plus a Muslim region. The west loved it because a separate Eelam and the disintegration of Sinhale were inevitable consequences of this betrayal.
   In the meantime RanilW as PM gave a free hand to Prabhakaran with a CFA 2002, which is recorded as the greatest betrayal in world history. He sabotaged Mrs. Chandrika’s package deal because it went against his secret ambition to become the president.  She was willing to empower Prabakaran with Ptom and ISGA (2003) projects. Despite their private rivalries both Chandrika and Ranil thought that Prabakaran could be satisfied if a federal form of power sharing was offered. Chandrika and Rpremadasa respectively offered Northern Province to Prabakan on a 15-year lease. 
   In 2005 MahindaR won, defeating RanilW with a razor thin margin. Western politicians who supported the Eelam project  were behind Ranil. It was the late Ven. Soma’s Sinhala Buddhist dowry that helped MR.to win. His attempts to have a peaceful solution failed, and after the Mavil Aru blockade (July 26, 2006), the Sri Lankan military won the war on May 19, 2009.
   USA, UK and EU politicians tried their best to save Prabakaran from death, and to give him shelter in a foreign location so that the Eelam fight could be continued. If this had happened, he would have run a LTTE government in exile with much more influence than the Rudrakumaran Tamil Government today! The USA, UK and others wanted to break Sri Lanka, and they realized the best path to take was 13-A plus. But this plan has to be camouflaged with other saintly-looking objectives such human rights, war crimes, missing persons, rule of law, democracy and minority rights.
   Who could then imagine that Dayan Jayatilleka sent to Geneva by MahindR would betray him and deliver all what they wanted!  German politicians could not believe what had happened to Prabakaran, and quickly brought a resolution at the UNHRC against Sri Lanka’s  ‘war crimes.’ Dayan agreed to work with Geneva and promised 13-A plus on May 27, 2009. Funny thing is Dayan boasts that he won the Geneva battle. A 30-year was ended by the sacrifices made predominantly by Sinhala Buddhist village boys and girls. They fought against 13-A to save their motherland from disintegration.  A Christian-Marxist Colombo black white agent betrayed and sabotaged that victory in 8 days
   This is where Tamara Kunanayakam’s views are relevant and important. She says that we should never give our consent to proposed by UNHRC. It is like a Genevian Trojan Horse. JRJ agreed for one such thing on March 12, 1987. India was behind it, but then within 3 months India dropped dhal from air. With her experience at UNO, Tamara tells that America runs the UNHRC show! There is no democracy, equality or justice in their internal operations. And they dictate edict for poor countries to follow.
   Dayan was later fired from his Geneva job, but his servile behavior before white colonial masters paved the way for the separatist TNA politicians in Colombo to continue Prabakaran’s war  using pen. This is why America spent millions of dollars to get RanilW- Mr. Chandrika couple  back into power in 2015 using candidate Sirisena as a puppet. Similar Attempt failed in 2010 with Sarath Fonseka as the fall guy. Total surrender to the USA-UK-India Geneva plan was done by Mangala Samaraweera in October 2015. Accepting everything that UNHRC/OHCHR wanted it to accept, the yahapalana cabal betrayed the nation, the country and the Sinhala Buddhist heritage. They did all they promised, including the burning of weapon storage at Salawa and dumping costly weapons in the sea. The only thing that went wrong was the  plan to balkanize the country as an Orumitthanadu. America tried to recover ground using the MCC bait. A foothold in Sri Lanka is sine qua non with its China fever. Failing that it is no wonder that America is behind promoting 13-A plus because with that a merged NP and EP would be American friendly territory.
   It is therefore understandable why America is trying hard to force the Bachelet document on the Sri Lankan government. America forgets democracy when it is disadvantageous to it. What right Bachelet has to question what Gotabhaya is doing to fulfil the mandate given to him by 6.9 million voters twice within one year. The problem Gotabhaya is facing is that he is too slow in implementing the One Law-One Country election promise he made. Even RanilW, who could not win a single parliamentary seat, is making sarcastic comments about it!
   The decision by the Gotabhaya government to throw Bachelet’s baby with the bathwater and the tub is the best kind of humiliation a small country could give to corrupt global politicians who manipulate UN agencies with ulterior motive, while wearing saintly or sanitized robes. Perhaps this time these manipulators cross the red line. What they tried to do to Sri Lanka is an alarm signal for small and poor countries in the world. These ex-colonies are struggling due to actions and omissions of the white masters. The masters are now coming back with remedies beneficial to themselves and not the former colony. The black-whites they created in these colonies ruin them by sheer mismanagement, and these black-whites in turn are in cahoots with the former masters. It is an unending cyclical circus.Tamara questions the justification for threatening countries with R2P (intervention to prevent danger) and Universal Jurisdiction. The Bush doctrine of intervention destroyed Iraq, but the  American military did not find any nuclear weapons. She says sanctions should be applied only if there is a threat or aggression. Politicians in the west should not be allowed to attack governments they do not like using UNHRC as a vehicle. Tamara says, 13-A means division of Sri Lanka on ethnic lines and President Gotabhaya should not allow it to happen. She says as a Tamil she cannot see any ethnicity based discrimination in the island. Dayan, the father of 13-A plus project and Sumanthiran-Vigneswaran-Ponnambalam and the American-UK -EU Ambassadors need to digest her message. 

(I benefited immensely from a series of essays written by Geethanjana Kudaligamage (Lankaweb, March 29 -May 11, 2010) in writing this essay)

By Rohana R. Wasala

All sensible adult citizens of Sri Lanka confidently hope that today’s youthful politicians will realise the importance of working together with their rivals in the national interest while maintaining their separate political identities, because, in the final analysis, all politicians of whatever party or faction they are affiliated to have no reason for their existence except their commitment to serve our motherland Sri Lanka . It is time they understood that any ethnic or religious or cultural community struggling to promote its own welfare disregarding the interests of other communities is not going to achieve permanent success. This has been demonstrated by the failure of older generations which pursued such divisive strategies in the past, regretfully slowing down the country’s forward march. Though they may be committed to different political ideologies they should be able to resolve their differences democratically in a cultured manner. Only when an atmosphere of value-based politics becomes the norm will politicians, whether in the government or the opposition ranks, be able to make their fullest contribution to the survival of the nation as an independent sovereign entity and its future wellbeing.

Friendly personal relations among politicians who fiercely clash in public are nothing new. This has been always the case. But today such interaction between political opponents must be seen in a new light in view of the more widely shared socio-cultural  and political sophistication of the Sri Lankan populace.

It can’t be denied that Sri Lanka has achieved some tangibly positive results at least in terms of a much larger proportion of the population being afforded a chance to dream of a better future. This is a direct result of a high rate of literacy achieved through free education. Economically, she may have lost the stability she used to enjoy at independence, as so often pointed out by those interested in the subject, and slipped a few notches down in the scale of overall development in comparison with some neighbouring countries. However, the generally growth-oriented policies of the successive post-independence regimes led in turn by the two main parties have brought about considerable human development, and a corresponding improvement of the lot of the common people, and that too in the face of unprecedented problems posed by a steadily increasing population, overt and covert foreign interference in our affairs, politicization of issues and institutions, terrorism, economic and political upheavals elsewhere, and other crises that threw a spanner in the works most of the time.

Within a generation our society has undergone tremendous change. The nation has emerged  victorious after one of the most trying periods of its history, which, though it slowed down the rate of growth, failed to arrest it altogether. Today our literacy rate is among the highest in the region. We enjoy fairly satisfactory healthcare services, both public and private, in spite of occasional lapses. More people own houses and cars than before, and more young people take part in cultural activities such as singing, dancing, and drama than their parents used to in the past. Increasingly accessible modern technology is revolutionizing every aspect of their life. People living in the remotest districts are aware that they too have a democratic right to a decent living standard like those placed in better circumstances in urban areas. Amidst all this, today’s young, particularly those in their thirties and forties, have known no life other than the one they have had to live under terrorism (which is now fortunately out of the way; the under-twenties  were spared any adult experience of it). They expect more from life, are less prepared to put up with privations, and are more aggressive in meeting challenges than earlier generations. Their expectations are high. 

These social, economic, and political realities influence the thinking of the youngest section of the population, particularly those below thirty. They are almost completely insulated from any meaningful memory of the conditions that prevailed thirty to fifty years ago in which their parents grew up, and that helped form the latter’s values and attitudes, which may not be in tune with the existing state of affairs today. Youth are usually more responsive to change than the old. The former love the excitement of change, while the latter prefer the sedateness offered by a settled order.  The traditional clash between the old and the young in any age in opinions, values, and attitudes known as the generation gap applies to those involved in parliamentary politics too, though it is often obscured by an ostensible unanimity of opinion among members of the same party. In this context, the young are in a better position to decide what is in the best interest of the country. 

By this, however, I don’t mean to say that every young politician is invariably forward looking and progressive in outlook, and that every old one is incorrigibly retrograde. There are enough examples of senior politicians adopting fresh viewpoints in keeping with the changed circumstances in principled ways; there are also young novices who squander their youth and energy by aligning themselves with old fossilized elements of yesteryear with no future. In other words, a certain fossilization of ideas and attitudes is characteristic of an older generation; but there can be exceptions; some older politicians prove themselves more progressive, and more adaptable than their younger colleagues. 

When politicians decide to accept the membership of a particular party, they do so after committing themselves to the ideology and the policies of that party. It is important to adhere to these. But since situations may arise in which a particular party line is not the best position to adopt in regard to a critical issue, it becomes necessary in such instances to be flexible in order, for example, to avoid betraying the whole country through blind adherence to a particular policy such as some conservative politicians’ unrealistic commitment to a negotiated settlement of the separatist crisis in the face of the intransigence of the separatist terror outfit, which is now no more. A critical turn of events may demand that established beliefs and ways of behaviour be given up in favour of new modes of thought and action to serve the national interest.

Some time ago an MP from a prominent party, then in the opposition, said that the main role of the opposition is to bring down the government at any cost. If what he said was true, then no government would have an opportunity to rule or to implement any development plan without being baulked at every turn, irrespective of the soundness or otherwise of the policies pursued. The irrational way some opposition politicians criticise every move of the government suggests that this in fact is the principle that guides their conduct even today. Probably the same principle was at work when it was clear that not even the December 2004 tsunami nor the raging separatist terror led the opposition to join forces with the government to rescue the country from those disasters. However, in the critical last stages of the then MR government’s campaign against terrorism, it was thanks to the support extended by seventeen opposition MPs acting on their own in defiance of the party hierarchy that made it possible for the government to put an end to that scourge. Now that there are more young MPs who are capable of thinking  in terms of promoting the national interest rather than their own self-interest, we may be hopeful that the constitution making project embarked upon by the present administration will go ahead without a hitch.  

In terms of the ordinary people’s understanding of parliamentary democracy, the role of the opposition is to ensure that the ruling party governs the country well by monitoring its conduct and by criticizing its actions when they believe that it is not  performing its duty, and to be a potential alternative to the government. The broadest interface for positive government-opposition interaction includes the three interrelated areas of  the rule of law, human rights, and good governance. The opposition’s responsibility is to maximize the chances of these three things being realized for the good of the country through constructive criticism of the government’s performance. When faced with external challenges and threats, the opposition and the government must act as a single solid group in defence of the nation, based on the commonsense realisation that in geopolitics a country is obliged to interact with both friendly and hostile countries who sometimes happen to be one another’s rivals.

Such a political culture will evolve only when young broadminded politicians take the centre stage. If there is any obstacle to the unhindered development of such an environment, steps must be taken by the concerned politicians and ordinary citizens to remove it. Of course, politicians can’t act by themselves unless they have a similarly educated and inspired following. An enlightened electorate that will promote cultured politicians is already there, to show their mind when the old fossils,  among the present-day leaders, either ensconced in positions of power or already kicked out into irrelevance, finally bow out or are successfully convinced to do so gracefully.

අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මාධ්‍ය අංශය

නෝනාගම වෝටර් පාර්ක් ජල උද්‍යානය ගරු අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා විසින් අද 2021.02.27 දින පස්වරුවේ විවෘත කරනු ලැබුවේය.

දකුණු පළාත් පරිසර අමාත්‍යංශය, රුහුණු සංචාරක කාර්යංශය සහ අම්බලන්තොට ප්‍රාදේශීය සභාවේ අරමුදල් සහ සම්පත් යොදා ගනිමින් රුපියල් ලක්ෂ 58ක වියදමෙන් මෙම ජල උද්‍යානය නිම කර තිබේ.

අම්බලන්තොට ප්‍රාදේශීය සභාවේ සභාපති එම්.ආර්.පී දර්ශන සංජීව මහතාගේ සංකල්පයකට අනුව කතරගමට-අතරමග ව්‍යාපෘතියේ තවත් එක් පියවරක් ලෙස මෙම උද්‍යානය සංවර්ධනය කර ඇත.

එහි ඇවිදින මංතීරු සහ ළමා උද්‍යාන ඇතුළු ජනතා ආකර්ශනීය ස්ථාන රැසකි.

මෙම අවස්ථාවට අමාත්‍යවරුන්වන චමල් රාජපක්ෂ, නාමල් රාජපක්ෂ, රාජ්‍ය අමාත්‍ය ඩී.වී චානක, පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රිවරුන්වන අජිත් රාජපක්ෂ, උපුල් ගලප්පත්ති, දකුණු පළාත් ආණ්ඩුකාර විලී ගමගේ, දකුණු පළාත් සභා සභාපති සෝමවංශ කෝදාගොඩ, අම්බලන්තොට ප්‍රාදේශීය සභාවේ සභාපති එම්.ආර්.පී දර්ශන සංජීව මහත්වරු ඇතුළු ප්‍රාදේශිය සභා මන්ත්‍රිවරු හා ප්‍රදේශවාසීන් රැසක් එක්ව සිටියහ.

අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මාධ්‍ය අංශය

හම්බන්තොට දිස්ත්‍රික්කයේ ශාසනාරක්ෂක මණ්ඩල යතිවර අභිමන් උපහාර උළෙල-2021 ගරු අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතාගේ ප්‍රධානත්වයෙන් අද 2021.02.27 දින පස්වරුවේ පැවැත්විණි.

හම්බන්තොට දිස්ත්‍රික් ලේකම් කාර්යාල ශ්‍රවණාගාරයේ දී පැවැති මෙම උත්සවයේ දී හම්බන්තොට ශාසනාරක්ෂක මණ්ඩලයේ හිමිවරු හත් නමකට අග්‍රාමාත්‍යතුමා අතින්ද අනෙකුත් හිමිවරුන්ට මැති ඇමැතිවරු ඇතුළු සම්භාවනීය අමුත්තන් අතින්ද උපහාර ප්‍රදානය කෙරිණි.

වසර හතරකට ආසන්න කාලයක් ශාසනාරක්ෂක මණ්ඩලය වෙනුවෙන් කළ සේවය අගයමින් මහා සංඝරත්නය උදෙසා මෙම උපහාර උළෙල පැවැත්විණි.

දිස්ත්‍රික් ශාසනාරක්ෂක මණ්ඩලය සහ දිස්ත්‍රික් ලේකම් කාර්යාලය මෙම උපහාර උළෙල සංවිධානය කර තිබේ.

යතිවර අභිමන් උපහාර උළෙල-2021 අමතා අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා කළ සම්පූර්ණ කතාව මෙසේය.

හම්බන්තොට දිස්ත්‍රික්කයේ ශාසනාරක්ෂක බල මණ්ඩලවල රාජකාරි කටයුතුවල නිරතව සිට තම සේවා කාලය අවසන් කරමින් වසර හතරක් පුරා දහම් පාසල්වල දරුවන් වෙනුවෙන් කළ උතුම් සේවය ඇගයීමට අපට වගකීමක් හා යුතුකමක් තිබෙනවා. එය ඇගයීමට අද දිනයේ මේ මොහොත අවස්ථාවක් කර ගන්නවා. ඇත්ත වශයෙන්ම දහම් පාසල්වල උගන්වන ගුරුවරු දරුවන්ට උගන්වන්නේ ඒ කටයුත්ත වෙනුවෙන් කිසිදු වේතනයක් නැතිවයි. මේ කටයුත්ත සම්බන්ධ වැඩිදෙනෙක් ගුරුවරු. ඔවුන් දවස් පහ වැඩකරලා ඔවුන්ගෙ නිවාඩු දිනය දහම් පාසල් වෙනුවෙන් යොදවනවා.

ඒ කටයුත්ත අප හැම අවස්ථාවකම දිරි ගැන්විය යුතුයි. දහම් පාසල්  තුළින් දරුවන් යහපත් පුරවැසියන් කරන්න පුළුවන් කියන විශ්වාසය අපට තිබෙනවා. හිර ගෙවල් බැලුවොත්, හිර ගෙවල්වල පිරිලා ඉන්න වැඩි දෙනෙක් දහම් පාසලකටවත් ගියපු නැති අය.

දහම් පාසලකට ගියාම ළමයෙකුගෙ හික්මීම, ළමයෙකුට දහමට ලැදියාවක් ඇති කිරීම, ඒ තුළින් සමාජයේ හික්මීමක් ඇතිවෙනවා කියන විශ්වාසයෙන් තමයි රටක් දැහැමි සමාජයක් ලෙස ගොඩනගන්න පුළුවන් වන්නේ.

 බුදු දහම ආරක්ෂා කරගන්නත් දරුවන් යහමගට ගන්න භික්ෂූන් වහන්සේලා කරන කැප කිරීමත් අපි හැම අවස්ථාවකම අගය කරනවා. අපේ රටේ බෞද්ධ දහම් පාසල් ආරම්භ කරලා වසර 125ක්  පිරීම නිමිත්තෙන් කසාගල රජමහා විහාරයේදී උත්සවයක් පැවතුණ බව ඔබ වහන්සේලා දන්නවා. ඒ වගේම තමයි මිෂනාරි අධ්‍යාපනය තුළින් අපේ බෞද්ධ අධ්‍යාපනය විනාශවීම වළක්වා ගැනීමට ගිහි පැවිදි දේශමාමක පිරිස් එදා දහම් පාසල් ආරම්භ කළා.

ඕල්කට් තුමාගේ සංකල්පයක් අනුව 1895 අගෝස්තු මාසේ 03 වැනිදා ලංකාවේ පළමුවැනි දහම් පාසල ලෙස ගාල්ල විජයානන්ද දහම් පාසල ආරම්භ වුණා. දහම් පාසල් පවත්වාගෙන යාමට මහා සංඝරත්නය සහ ගුරුවරු කරන කැපකිරීම අප හැමවෙලාවෙම අගය කරනවා.

 දිස්ත්‍රික්කයක්, පළාතක් වගේම රටක් තුළ ආගමට ලැදි ජනතාවක් ගොඩනගනවා නම් ඒ දිස්ත්‍රික්කය, පළාත හෝ රට යහමගට ගෙන එන්න පුළුවන්කම තියෙනවා.

ඒ නිසා අපට දහම් පාසල් තුළින් වේවා, ඉරිදා දිනක හෝ පෝය දිනෙක වේවා හැම ආගමකම ආගමික කටයුතු සිදු කරෙන්නේ නම් ජනතාව ඒ පැත්තට යොමු කිරීම තුළ අපට අපරාධ අඩු කරන්න පුළුවන්කම ලැබෙයි කියලා අපි විශ්වාස කරනවා. හිර ගෙවල් පිරෙන එක නැවතෙයි කියලා අපි විශ්වාස කරනවා.

ඔබ වහන්සේලා ජනතාවට කිට්ටුවෙන් කරන මේ සේවය අප අගය කරනවා යැයි අග්‍රාමාත්‍යතුමා පැවසීය.

ගිරුවාගම් දොළොස්දාස් රට ප්‍රධාන අධිකරණ සංඝනායක ශාස්ත්‍රවේදී කුඹුක්වැවේ චන්ද්‍රසෝම නාහිමි, කිරිවෙහෙර රජමහා විහාරාධිපති, රුහුණු මාගම්පත්තුවේ ප්‍රධාන සංඝනායක කොබවක ධම්මින්ද නාහිමි, හම්බන්තොට දිස්ත්‍රික් ශාසනාරක්ෂක මණ්ඩලයේ ගරු සභාපති අමරපුර සිරිසද්ධම්ම යුක්තික මාතර මහා නිකායේ වැඩබලන මහානායක උයන්වත්තේ සද්ධාරාම නාහිමි සහ හම්බන්තොට දිස්ත්‍රික් ශාසනාරක්ෂක මණ්ඩලයේ ගරු ප්‍රධාන ලේඛකාධිකාරී රුහුණු මාගම්පත්තුවේ ද්විතීය අධිකරණ සංඝනායක නියෝජ්‍ය පරිවේණාධිපති කැන්දගස්මංකඩ ශ්‍රී රත්නාරාමාධිපති ගලපිටගල ප්‍රේමරතන නාහිමි ප්‍රමුඛ මහා සංඝරත්නය මෙහි වැඩම කළ වදාළහ.

මෙම අවස්ථාවට අමාත්‍යවරුන්වන චමල් රාජපක්ෂ, නාමල් රාජපක්ෂ, මහින්ද අමරවීර, රාජ්‍ය අමාත්‍ය ඩී.වී චානක, පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රිවරුන්වන අජිත් රාජපක්ෂ, උපුල් ගලප්පත්ති, දකුණු පළාත් ආණ්ඩුකාර විලී ගමගේ, දකුණු පළාත් සභාපති සෝමවංශ කෝදාගොඩ, හම්බන්තොට නගරාධිපති එරාජ් රවීන්ද්‍ර, බුද්ධශාසන, ආගමික හා සංස්කෘතික කටයුතු අමාත්‍යංශ ලේකම් මහාචාර්ය කපිල ගුණවර්ධන, හම්බන්තොට දිස්ත්‍රික් ලේකම් ඩබ්ලිව්.එච් කරුණාරත්න මහත්වරු ඇතුළු පිරිසක් එක්ව සිටියහ.

අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මාධ්‍ය අංශය

 සෞභාග්‍යයේ දැක්ම” ප්‍රතිපත්තියට අනුව අපනයන කෘෂි කලාප ඇති කිරීමේ ජාතික වැඩසටහන ගරු අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතාගේ ප්‍රධානත්වයෙන් අද 2021.02.27 දින පෙරවරුවේ ඓතිහාසික කසාගල රජමහා විහාරස්ථානයේ දී ආරම්භ විය.

රට පුරා කෘෂි අපනයන ගම්මාන හෝ කලාප පිහිටුවීමේ වැඩපිළිවෙල යටතේ හම්බන්තොට දිස්ත්‍රික් කෘෂි අපනයන ගම්මානය/කලාපය ට ආරම්භය තබමින් අග්‍රාමාත්‍යතුමා ටීජේසී අඹ පැළයක් සිටවූයේය.

අනතුරුව ඉහළ අලුත් වැවට අග්‍රාමාත්‍යතුමා මත්ස්‍යයන් මුදා හැරියේය.

මෙහිදී අග්‍රාමාත්‍යතුමා විසින් ප්‍රදේශවාසීන්ට අඹ, කජු හා ගම්මිරිස් ඇතුළු අපනයන බෝග පැළ බෙදා දෙනු ලැබුවේය.

මෙම වැඩසටහනට සමගාමීව අනෙකුත් බෝගවලට අමතරව හම්බන්තොට දිස්ත්‍රික්කයේ කජු පැළ 100000ක් වගා කිරීමට ශ්‍රී ලංකා කජු සංස්ථාව සැලසුම්කර තිබේ.

වර්තමානයේ දළ ජාතික නිෂ්පාදිතයට අපනයන කෘෂිකාර්මික ක්ෂේත්‍රයෙන් 2% ක් ව පවතින දායකත්වය වර්ෂ 2025 දී 4% ක් දක්වා වැඩි කිරීම හා කෘෂි ව්‍යවසායකත්වය ප්‍රවර්ධනය කිරීම මෙම ජාතික වැඩසටහනේ අරමුණයි.

ඒ අනුව පළාත් නවය තුළ පාරිසරික, දේශගුණික තත්ත්වයන් අනුව සුදුසු අපනයනය ඉලක්ක කර ගත් කජු, ගම්මිරිස්, කුරුඳු, කරාබුනැටි, බුලත් ඇතුළු කුඩා වැවිලි බෝග හා ටීජේසී අඹ, මී මැසි පාලනය වැනි අපනයන ඉලක්ක කර ගත් හා ආනයනය අවම කර ගත් බෝග වගා කිරීම සිදු වේ.

අනුරාධපුර, කුරුණෑගල දිස්ත්‍රික්කයන්හි වගා බිමි හා වගා කරුවන් හඳුනා ගනිමින් වගා කලාප ඇති කිරීමේ මූලික අදියරේ වැඩ කටයුතු දැනට ක්‍රියාත්මක අතර 2021 වසර අවසන් වන විට දිස්ත්‍රික්ක 10ක කෘෂි අපනයන කලාප/ ගම්මාන 100ක් ස්ථාපිත කිරීමට නියමිතය.

මෙමගින් ග්‍රාමීය ජනතාව ඒකරාශි කරමින් ජාතික හා ජාත්‍යන්තර වෙළඳපොළ ඉලක්ක කොට නිෂ්පාදන සිදු කිරීමට අපේක්ෂිතය.

අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා අපනයන කෘෂි කලාප ඇති කිරීමේ ජාතික වැඩසටහන අමතා කළ සම්පූර්ණ කතාව මෙසේය.

මිත්‍රවරුනි,

මට මතකයි මේ ආණ්ඩුව පත්වෙලා නව කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලය දිව්රුම් දීපු වෙලාව. එදා රාජ්‍ය ඇමතිවරුන්ගේ අමාත්‍යාංශයේ විෂය පථයට අයිති නම් කියවනකොට සමහරුන්ට හිනා ගියා. ටික දවසක් යනකම් දයාසිරි ජයසේකරට කිව්වේ බතික් ඇමැති කියලා. ප්‍රසන්න රණවීර ඇමැතිතුමාට කිව්වේ මැටි ඇමැති කියලා. සමහර ඇමතිවරු මේ නම දැකලා අමාත්‍යංශය භාරගන්නත් අදි මදි කළා. අපි මේ අමාත්‍යංශය හඳුන්වන්නේ උක්, බඩ ඉරිඟු, කජු, ගම්මිරිස්, කුරුඳු, කරාබු නැටි, බුලත් ඇතුළු කුඩා වැවිලි භෝග වගා සංවර්ධනය හා අපනයන ප්‍රවර්ධන රාජ්‍ය අමාත්‍යාංශය කියලා. අපි මේ විදිහට බුලත්, කජු, බඩඉරිගු ආදී වශයෙන් අමාත්‍යාංශයට අයිති කුඩා දේවල් පවා නම් කළේ මේ දේවල් වලට විශාල අවධානයක් ලබාදීමේ අරමුණ ඇතුව.

මිත්‍රවරුනි,

තමුන්නාන්සේලා දන්නවා 2005 මහින්ද චින්තනය කියලා ඉදිරිපත්  කරනකොට බොහෝදෙනෙක් ඒ නමට හිනා වුණා. නමුත් ඒ ප්‍රතිපත්ති ප්‍රකාශනය යටතේ යුද්ධය අවසාන කරලා රටේ සංවර්ධනය ඇති කරලා රට ගොඩනගන කොට ඒ හිනා වෙච්ච අයට උත්තර නැති වුණා. ඒ මහින්ද චින්තනයේ දිගුවක් හැටියට තමයි සෞභාග්‍යයේ දැක්ම අපි ඉදිරිපත් කරලා තියෙන්නේ. සෞභාග්‍යයේ දැක්මෙන් බලාපොරොත්තු වෙන්නේ මේ රටේ දේශිය නිෂ්පාදන ජාත්‍යන්තර මට්ටමට ගොඩනගලා අපනයනයන් මූලික කරගත්ත ආර්ථික ක්‍රමයක් හඳුන්වාදෙන්න. මේක කරන්න මුලින්ම උත්සහ  කළේ සිරිමාවෝ බණ්ඩාරණායක මැතිණිය. ලබාලතම පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරයා හැටියට මට එදා මතකයි එතුමිය මොනතරම් මහන්සි වුණාද කියලා රටේ අපනයනයන් මුල් කරගත් ආර්ථිකයක් ගොඩනගන්න.

මැතිණිය 1972 දී අපනයන කෘෂිකර්ම දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව පිහිටෙව්වා. මේ රටේ කුළු බඩු ජාත්‍යන්තරයට ගෙන යාම සඳහා මුල්ම අඩිතාලම එතුමිය දැම්මා. නමුත් දේශීය ආර්ථිකයක් ගොඩනගාගෙන යනකොට එතුමියට විශාල බාධාවල් එදා ඇති කළා. 1977 වෙනකොට එතුමියව පරාදත් කළා. ආර්ථිකය දේශීය වශයෙන් ශක්තිමත් කරන්න හදන කොයි ආණ්ඩුවටත් අතීතයෙන් පාඩම් ඉගෙන ගන්න ඕනෑ.

මිත්‍රවරුනි,

අපේ රටේ කුරුඳු ඇතුළු නිෂ්පාදනවලට ලෝකයෙ ලොකු අනන්‍යතාවක් තියෙනවා. පෘතුගිසින්, ලන්දේසීන් වගේම ඉංග්‍රීසීන් ආවෙත් මේ රටේ තේ, පොල්,රබර් හොයන්න  නොවෙයි. ඒ අය ආවෙත් කුරුඳු, ගම්මිරිස් සාදික්කා වගේ මූලික කුළු බඩු හොයන්න. ඒ අය ඉන් පස්සේ තේ, පොල්, රබර් මුල් කරගත් ආර්ථිකයක් හැදුවා. නිදහස ලැබුණට පස්සේ අපේ අය කුළු බඩු ප්‍රධාන ආර්ථිකය ගැන අවධානය යොමු කරන්නේ නැතුව ඒවා විනාශයට යන්න ඇරියා. විදේශිකයෝ අපට දීපු තේ, පොල්, රබර් ගැන විතරක් විශ්වාසය තිබ්බා.

මෑතක් වන තුරු අපේ රටට කජු, අඹ, පේර, සියඹලා පවා ගෙන්වූවා. ඉදල් කොහු විතරක් නොවෙයි කැටපෝලයත් ගෙන්වූවා. ඉරටුත් ගෙන්වූවා. එහෙම කළාම මේ රටේ විදේශ විනිමය රටට අහිමිවීම විතරක් නෙවෙයි සිද්ධ වෙන්නේ. මේ රටේ ජනතාව උපන්ගෙයි බෝඩිම්කාරයෝ බවට පත් වෙනවා.

මිත්‍රවරුනි,

අපේ රටේ නිෂ්පාදනයන් කරන්නේ නැති වෙනකොට මේ රටේ රැකියා උපදින්නෙත් නැහැ. රස්සා හොයාගෙන පිටරට යන්න වෙනවා. ඊළඟට  ඒ විදේශගත වෙලා ඉන්න අය ලංකාවට එවන මුදල්  වලට වුණේ මොකද්ද. විදේශගත වෙලා ඉන්න අය එවන සල්ලි විදේශවලින් ගෙන්වන බඩු ගන්න වියදම් කරනවා. ඒ සල්ලි ටිකත් ඇදෙන්නේ පිටරටට. අපේ ජනතාව මනසින් මොනතරම් වහලුන් කළාද කිව්වොත් මේ රටට අඹ, කජු, අන්නාසි, පේර,ඉරටු, කැටපෝල ගේනවට නෙමෙයි හිනා වුණේ. කජු වවනවට සියඹලා වවනවට ඒවා වෙනුවෙන් අමාත්‍යංශයක් වෙන් කරන එකට තමයි මේ රටේ අය හිනාවෙන්න පටන් ගත්තේ. නමුත් මතක තියාගන්න ඕන අපේ රටට අපේ ප්‍රතිපත්තියේ ඵලය දැන් ලැබෙමින් තිබෙනවා.

කහ ආනයනය කරන්න රුපියල් මිලියන 1000ක් (දාහක්) අපි වාර්ෂිකව වැය කළා. අපි කහ වසරක් ආනයනය කරන්නේ නැතුව ගොවියාට කහ වවාගන්න ඉඩදීලා තිබුණා. කහ රටින් ගෙන්වන්නේ නැහැ  වෙළෙඳපොළේ කහ හිඟයි කියලා , දැවැන්ත විරෝධයක් මේ රටේ ඇති කළා. නමුත් අපි ඉවසගෙන ඒ විරෝධයන්ට මුහුණදීලා හොරෙන් ගේන කහවත් වෙළඳපොළට දාන්නේ නැතුව අපේ බිමේ කහ උපදිනකන් අපි වැඩ කළා. අද වෙනකොට කහවලට පිටරටට ඇදෙන රුපියල් මිලියන 1000ක් (දාහක්) මේ රටට ඉතුරු වෙනවා.

ඒ විතරක් නොවෙයි 2019 රුපියල් මිලියන 63000ක් (හැටතුන් දහසක්) වෙලා තිබුණ අපනයන කෘෂි භෝග ආදායම අවුරුද්දක් තුළ රුපියල් මිලියන 73000 (හැත්තෑතුන් දහස) දක්වා වර්ධනය කරගන්න අපිට පුළුවන්කම ලැබිලා තියෙනවා. අද වන විට තේ, පොල්, රබර් මත යැපුනු ලංකාවේ ආර්ථිකයට නව ජවයක් ලබාදෙන්න අපිට පුළුවන් වෙලා තිබෙනවා.

මිත්‍රවරුනි,

එදා අපිට මේ රටේ ජනතාවට රැකියා දෙන්න නම් විදේශ ආයෝජකයින්ට වඳින්න සිද්ධ වුණා. විදේශ ආයෝජකයෝ ලංකාවට එනකම් බලාගෙන ඉන්න සිදුවුණා. ඒ අය මේ රටේ කර්මාන්තශාලා ආරම්භ  කරලා රැකියා දුන්නත් ඒ රැකියා වලින් උපදින ආදායමත් ගියේ විදේශ වලට. ඒකට හේතු වුණේ අපිට වවාගන්න පුළුවන් හදාගන්න පුළුවන් සියලු දේ පිටරටින් ගෙනාවම රැකියාවෙන් උපයන ආදායමත් ඒවා මිලදී ගන්නකොට විදේශවලට ඇදිලා ගියා. ඒ තත්ත්වය තමයි අපි දැන් වෙනස් කරගෙන යන්නේ. අපි අලුත් දේ හදන්න ඕනෑ.

ඒ නිසා දැන් අපි අපේ කුළු බඩුවලට අමතරව අළුත්  අපනයන නිෂ්පාදනයක්  හඳුනාගෙන තියෙනවා. ඒ TJC අඹ, TJC අඹ කියන්නේ අපේ රටේ අපේම නිෂ්පාදනයක්. මේ අඹ අපනයනය සදහාම සකස් කරපු වියළි කලාපයට ඉතාම උචිත ඉහල ආදයමක් ලබා ගන්න පුළුවන් භෝගයක්.

ඔබේ ප්‍රදේශයට TJC අඹ පැළ 100,000ක (ලක්ෂයක) අඹ කලාපයක් අද දවසේ නිර්මාණය වෙනවා. ඔබේ වත්තට පැළ 25 ක් ලබා දෙමින් පවුලේ අර්ථිකය ශක්තිමත් කරන්නත් එතුළින් රටේ ජාතික ධනය නිර්මාණය කිරීමට අපි බලාපොරොත්තු වෙනවා. එවගේම කජු පැල ලක්ෂයක් සිටුවා කජු කොරිඩෝවක් අපි හදනව. එදා හදන්න හැදුවේ ඇමෙරිකාවේ ආර්ථික කොරිඩෝවක්. ඒ වෙනුවට අපි හදන්නේ අපේම අපනයන කොරිඩෝවක්.     

මේක තමයි අපේ වෙනස. ඔබ වවන හැම අඹ , කජු, බඩඉරිගු පැළයක්ම මේ රටේ ස්වාධීනත්වය රකින්න කරන උත්සාහයක්. ඒ හැම පැළයක්ම රටේ ආර්ථික නිදහසේ  සලකුණක්.අලුත් සිතුවිලි ඇතිව මේ උත්සාහයට ඔබේ ධෛර්යය අපට ලැබේ යැයි මා විශ්වාස කරනවා.

ප්‍රධාන වැවිලි භෝග ආශ්‍රයෙන් ශ්‍රී ලාංකේය අපනයන ආදායමට විශාල දායකත්වයක් ලැබෙනවා ඒ වගේම කෘෂි කලාප තුළ කුඩා වැවිලි භෝග හා අපනයනය ඉලක්ක කර ගත් භෝග වගාව තුළින් ඉදිරි අනාගතයේදී සැලකිය යුතු මට්ටමේ අපනයන ආදායමක් රටට හිමිකර දීමට හැකියාව ඇති බව මාගේ විශ්වාසයයි. හම්බන්තොටින් නොනැවතී මුළු රට පුරාම නව වගා සංග්‍රාමයක් ඇති කිරීමට මෙම වැඩසටහන හේතු වනු ඇතැයි මම විශ්වාස කරනවා. අපේ බලාපොරොත්තුව තරුණ ශ්‍රම දායකත්වය යොදා ගනිමින් අපේ රටේ ආර්ථිකය ස්වයංපෝෂිත කරමින් ඉහළ අදායම් උපයන ගොවි ව්‍යවසායකයින් බිහි කිරීමයි.

ඔබ සැමට තෙරුවන් සරණයි! යැයි අග්‍රාමාත්‍යතුමා පැවසීය.

කසාගල රජමහා විහාරාධිපති තලංපෝරුවේ ඉන්ද්‍ර ශ්‍රී සුමන හිමි, කිරිවෙහෙර විහාරාධිපති රුහුණු මාගම්පත්තුවේ ප්‍රධාන සංඝනායක කොබවක ධම්මින්ද නාහිමි, ඉතාලියේ ප්‍රධාන සංඝනායක වගේගොඩ ශ්‍රීලානන්ද නාහිමි ඇතුළු මහා සංඝරත්නය වැඩම කළහ. මෙම අවස්ථාවට අමාත්‍යවරුන් වන චමල් රාජපක්ෂ, නාමල් රාජපක්ෂ, මහින්ද අමරවීර, වෛද්‍ය රමේෂ් පතිරණ, රාජ්‍ය අමාත්‍යවරුන් වන ජානක වක්කුඹුර, ඩී.වී චානක, පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරුන් වන උපුල් ගලප්පත්ති, අජිත් රාජපක්ෂ, දකුණු පළාත් ආණ්ඩුකාර විලී ගමගේ, දකුණු පළාත් සභාපති සෝමවංශ කෝදාගොඩ, වැවිලි කර්මාන්ත අමාත්‍යාංශයේ ලේකම් රවීන්ද්‍ර හේවාවිතාරණ,උක්, බඩ ඉරිඟු, කජු, ගම්මිරිස්, කුරුඳු, කරාබු නැටි, බුලත් ඇතුළු කුඩා වැවිලි බෝග වගා සංවර්ධනය ආශ්‍රිත කර්මාන්ත හා අපනයන ප්‍රවර්ධන රාජ්‍ය අමාත්‍යංශයේ ලේකම් රෝහණ අභයරත්න මහත්වරු ඇතුළු පිරිසක් එක්ව සිටියහ.

උපුටා ගැන්ම ලංකා සී නිව්ස්

ලංකාවෙන් කුරුඳු සිගරැට්ටුවක් ලෝක වෙළෙඳපොළට හඳුන්වා දීමට මේ වනවිට සියල්ල සූදානම් කර ඇතැයි වාර්තා වෙයි.

මේ නිසාල බහු ජාතික දුම්වැටි සමාගම් කලබල වී ඇති අතර මෙම නිෂ්පාදනය එළි දැක්වීමට බාධා එල්ල කරමින් තිබෙන බව අනාවරණය වේ.

මෙම කුරුඳු සිගරැට්ටු නිපදවීම සඳහා වසර 06 ක පමණ කාලයක් වෙහෙස මහන්සි වී තිබෙන අතර මෙම ව්‍යාපෘතියේදී සැලසුම් කර තිබෙන්නේ ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ කුරුඳු සිගරැට් නිපදවන කර්මාන්තශාලා 100 ක් ආරම්භ කර වසරකට කුරුඳු සිගරැට් අපනයනය කිරීම මගින් ඩොලර් බිලියනයක පමණ අපනයන ආදායමක් රටට ගෙන්වා ගන්නයි.

මේ තුළින් නව රැකියා ලක්ෂයක් පමණ බිහිවේ යැයි අපේක්ෂා කරයි.

Courtesy The Wire

India has a national position against resolutions targeting a single country in multilateral bodies. But, with regard to Sri Lanka, India’s record has been varied, as domestic political factors often dictated its voting decision.

New Delhi: Indicating that New Delhi has kept all options open, India has signalled to Sri Lanka that its support for the country at the United Nations Human Rights Council should not be taken for granted.

In Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council is holding its 46th regular session, which will decide the fate of a critical resolution against Sri Lanka. The first draft (also confusingly termed the ‘zero draft’) was circulated earlier this week. The vote will take place in the last couple of days of the session, ending on March 22.

The draft resolution, submitted by the Core Group comprising the United Kingdom, Germany, Malawi, Montenegro and North Macedonia, responds to a scathing report released by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on January 27. 

This report was formally presented to the UN Human Rights Council on Wednesday, February 24, followed by member states offering their views over two days. 

At the meeting, Sri Lankan foreign minister Dinesh Gunawardena had called on the member states to reject the draft resolution.  

Indian permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, Indra Mani Pandey, significantly noted that the UN report had raised important concerns” and aspirations of Tamils contributions to Sri Lanka’s unity and integrity. 

The assessment of the High Commissioner regarding developments nearly 12 years from the end of the conflict raises important concerns,” said Pandey at the virtual meeting.

The UN report warns that lack of accountability of Sri Lanka’s previous violations has not only increased the risk of repetition of those crimes but also highlighted worrying trends over the past year, such as deepening impunity, increasing militarisation of governmental functions, ethno-nationalist rhetoric, and intimidation of civil society”.

India also noted that the Sri Lankan government has articulated its position on these issues as well”. In evaluation of both of these, we should be guided by a commitment to find a lasting and effective solution for this issue,” added Pandey.

Also read: Meeting Expectations of Tamils Is in Sri Lanka’s Interests: Jaishankar in Colombo

He then noted that India’s position rested on two pillars. The first was support for Sri Lanka’s unity and territorial integrity. Commitment to Sri Lankan Tamils’ aspirations for equality, justice, peace and dignity” was the second pillar, said the Indian diplomat. 

India declared that these were not either-or choices”.

We believe that respecting the rights of the Tamil community, including through meaningful devolution, contributes directly to the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka. Therefore, we advocate that delivering on the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil community is in the best interests of Sri Lanka,” said Pandey.

A file photo of ethnic Tamil demonstrators protesting against the Sri Lanka government in Sydney, February 4, 2009. Reuters/Daniel Munoz

Calling on Sri Lanka to address Tamil aspirations, India said that Colombo should take necessary steps” through the process of reconciliation and full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka”.

After the UK-led core group circulated the draft resolution, the first informal consultations with other countries will be held in Geneva on March 1.

It is learnt that India has not yet taken a call on its vote in the resolution, as it awaits the resolution’s final shape. India’s statement on Thursday, however, was an indication that all options were open”.

A clear signal was conveyed through the statement that it was not providing full support to Colombo, said sources.

Speaking to The Wire, the spokesperson of the UK-based group of Sri Lanka Tamils diaspora, Global Tamil Forum, said that he was very happy” with India’s statement.

He even compared it with India’s explanation of the vote when New Delhi voted against Sri Lanka in a critical resolution approved by Human Rights Council in 2013. 

Although the context of this statement made by the current HC Indra Mani Panday yesterday was different from what the then HC Dilip Sinha did in 2013 when India voted in favour, the basic contents remain pretty similar. The importance is that this is possibly the strongest statement by Indian at an interactive dialogue on Sri Lanka, since the end of armed conflict in Sri Lanka,” said GTF spokesperson Suren Surendiran.

He also added that it was significant that India had underlined that resolving the aspiration of Tamils of Sri Lanka for equality, justice, peace and dignity” was fundamental to finding a permanent solution. Note, it includes Justice!” he said.

Similarly, K. Gurupuran, attorney-at-law and formerly Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Jaffna, felt that India’s statement referring to meeting Tamil aspirations and Sri Lanka’s sovereignty as mutually reinforcing is interesting”.

Also read: India-Sri Lanka Talks: Amidst Constitution Concern, Modi Calls for Safeguarding Tamils’ Rights

One wonders whether India also meant the contrary, that not meeting Tamil aspirations will weaken Sri Lanka’s sovereignty,” he asked.

The draft resolution recognises a persistent lack of accountability through domestic mechanisms” and urged the UN human rights commission to devise strategies to support relevant judicial proceedings in Member States with competent jurisdiction”.

India has a national position against resolutions targeting a single country in multilateral bodies. But, with regard to Sri Lanka, India’s record has been varied, as domestic political factors often dictated its voting decision.

In the last 12 years, there have been seven resolutions on Sri Lanka at the UN human rights council.

India’s vote at resolutions on Sri Lanka at UNHRC

After the end of the civil war, Sri Lanka had submitted a resolution (S-11/1) at a special session in May 2009. It was passed by 29 votes in favour, with the western bloc voting against it. India had voted in favour.

Three years later, the United States brought a substantial resolution (19/2) against Sri Lanka, which was approved. For the first time, India joined 23 other states voting in favour of the resolution. 

Next year in March 2013, India again voted in favour of another resolution (22/1) on Sri Lanka, drafted by the United States. Just ahead of the vote, Tamil Nadu’s main opposition party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), had withdrawn from the Centre’s ruling alliance on the grounds that India was not doing enough to alleviate the alleged human rights violations of Sri Lankan Tamils.

In March 2014, the Human Rights Council, through resolution 25/1, authorised an investigation of war crimes committed in Sri Lanka between February 2002 and 2011. India abstained during the vote on grounds that the resolution ignored steps taken by Sri Lanka at reconciliation.

After the Mahinda Rajapaksa government’s defeat in 2015, Sri Lanka joined resolution 30/1 drafted by the Core Group that called for a domestic accountability mechanism, with the prospect of international judges. The Council adopted the resolution without a vote. 

The next two resolutions in 2017 (34/1) and 2019 (40/1) were also approved by consensus.

However, there will undoubtedly be a vote on a resolution on Sri Lanka before the end of the current HRC session. This will be the first such resolution after the Rajapaksa brothers came back to power in November 2019.

During the discussion on February 24 and 25, the divide between the member states were on expected lines – China, Pakistan defending Sri Lanka, while the UK and the EU were calling on Colombo to show more accountability. However, there was no statement on behalf of the bloc of Islamic countries.

Unlike in previous years, India’s remarks did not list any steps that Sri Lanka had taken on the reconciliation process. 

GTF”s Surendiran was optimistic that India might not just abstain at the voting. I would read the last paragraph as an indication that India could potentially vote in favour of the resolution”.

Sri Lanka has made it clear that it wants a vote from India rejecting the resolution. Sri Lankan foreign secretary Jayanth Colombage told The Hindu that he hoped for proactive” and constructive” commitment, rather than abstention, which is neither here, nor there.”

Gurupuran felt that the Indian statement was indicative of its frustration” with the Sri Lankan government. The frustration is fuelled by the cancelling of the agreement signed during the former regime handing the development of the Eastern Container Terminal of the Colombo Port to India and other developments which reflect a realignment of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy priorities favouring China,” he said.

The Jaffna-based lawyer also felt that India’s vote would be decided with an eye on elections in Tamil Nadu. India’s Election Commission announced on Friday, February 26, that the southern state of Tamil Nadu will have a single-phase polling on April 6.

AIADMK has already started reminding voters that UPA (i.e. Congress and DMK) had failed to stop the Sri Lankan government from committing atrocities during the last phase of the war in 2009. While the Sri Lankan Tamil issue has never been a deciding factor in Tamil Nadu elections, the AIADMK and BJP will be desperate to use anything that comes their way,” he said.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had raised the issue of Sri Lanka during his last visit to the southern state on February 14, 2021.

By Sumanasiri Liyanage Courtesy Ceylon Today

It is getting clearer that as far as foreign policy is concerned the change of administration in the United States of America (USA) has no significant impact, at least with regard to the Indian Ocean Region or Asia-Pacific. The Japanese news agency Kyodo reported that the Biden Administration had proposed to the Heads of States of New Delhi, Tokyo and Canberra the idea of holding an online summit meeting of the quadrilateral security dialogue or ‘Quad’ as it is popularly known. Continuing to work within foreign policy paradigm of the Obama Administration, President Joe Biden called up Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the topics discussed included and centred around the close cooperation for a stronger regional architecture through the Quad”. Following the telephone conversation between the two Heads of States, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also called his Indian counterpart S. Jaishankar and expressed the US aspiration and intention to expand regional cooperation through the Quad if possible expanding it with the inclusion of at least some of the ASEAN countries.

The Disturbed History of Quad

It was the Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan who initiated the dialogue in August 2007. His initiative to ensure ‘Seas of Freedom and Prosperity’ won the support of then Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, Vice President Dick Cheney of the US and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia. The dialogue was paralleled by joint military exercises of an unprecedented scale, titled Exercise Malabar in which Australia opted not to participate. This diplomatic and military arrangement may be seen as a response to increased Chinese economic involvement in the Indian Ocean Region. As a counter response, the Chinese Government responded to the Quad by issuing formal diplomatic protests to its members. The Quad has a disturbed and discontinuous history. The allegiance to the concept by the member countries depended on their intended relationship with China, so the nature of the administration in respective countries mattered. However, after negotiations that started during the 2017 ASEAN Summits, Heads of State of four countries with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull  of Australia, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, and President Donald Trump of the United States agreed in Manila to revive the security pact. Australia joined the Malabar exercise on an invitation from India. So, all member countries of Quad took part in naval exercises for the first time in 2019 making it not only diplomatic but also a military alliance. 

Rebooting the Quad

Reflecting on the new development to reboot Quad mechanism, M. K. Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat, has noted that the Biden Administration strategises to deploy it as the major counter-offensive against the Peoples Republic of China. He opines: ‘The decision to upgrade” the Quad to the highest level of leadership is a major initiative by the Biden administration. The Quad overnight becomes the tip of the spear in the Indo-Pacific strategy. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan recently signaled during an online event that Quad will play a key part in US policy in the Indo-Pacific region facing China’s rise. Sullivan said, I think we really want to carry forward and build on that (Quad) format, that mechanism, which we see as fundamental, a foundation, upon which to build substantial American policy in the Indo-Pacific region.” Interestingly, Robert O’Brien, former National Security Adviser to Trump, also said at the same event that the Quad may be the most important relationship we’ve established since NATO at a high level.” 

He has further pointed out that Joe Biden used the military coup in Myanmar to legitimise rebooting of Quad as ‘the platform to galvanise the restoration of democracy in that country and the promotion of human rights and democracy in the Asia-Pacific in general’. It is interesting to note that Democratic administrations since days of Jimmy Carter have tended to use the human right regime for America’s advantage. Nonetheless, it is clear that the principal objective is to use Quad as a controlling mechanism in the Indian Ocean Region and to use it as a counter offensive to China. China has brilliantly succeeded through the past decade in dominating and shifting the narrative in the Asia-Pacific to the economic agenda. The US cannot possibly retrieve that lost ground. But, in the US assessment, by positioning the Quad as the flag carrier of human rights and democracy in the Asia-Pacific, Washington could carve out a political domain where China is doomed to remain an outsider.”

The involvement of Japan, China and Australia in the Quad mechanism is nothing more than a cover for the direct operation of the USA in the IOR and South Pacific. Hence, US is trying to get the ASEAN countries within Quad mechanism, but because of heavy presence of China in their economies, the Heads of States in those countries are to rethink in joining an apparently purely military and diplomatic ensemble.

India’s Slow Response

Although Joe Biden contacted the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, to organise a quick online meeting between the Heads of States in Quad countries, Modi was a bit hesitant to commit to such an intervention. This may be for many reasons. First, India is the only Quad country that has a common border with the Peoples’ Republic of China. China has on numerous occasions increased the border tension deploying new forces at the border and building permanent structures. Secondly, whatever the rivalry between two countries, China plays an important role in the Indian economy. Thirdly, linking together with the US is always problematic for India’s relations with the countries of the Global South. Close collaboration with the US may cause many problems for India’s stature as a leader of the Global South and the Non-aligned Movement that is weak but not dead. Fourthly, the consensus among the neighbouring countries on the recent developments in Myanmar does not go beyond the objection of the arrest of the leaders of the duly elected Government. Hence, whether it would be possible to materialise the plan for IOR by Joe Biden Administration depends on multiple factors.

Using the military takeover as a scapegoat, Joe Biden and his administration seem to record the US dominance, in the global South, forcing regional leaders to follow the US and his initiative. This effort may be seen also at the on-going Human Rights Commission deliberations.  

The writer is a retired teacher of Political Economy at the University of Peradeniya. 

(sumane_l@yahoo.com) 

Courtesy Adaderana

Guidelines for the Circular permitting burial of bodies of COVID-19 victims has been drafted, says Director-General of Health Services Dr. Asela Gunawardena.

He added that locations for the burial of COVID victims will be identified within 3 – 4 days.

Drafting of guidelines was completed after the committee of experts appointed to examine methods for disposal of COVID victims met earlier today (February 27).

Speaking in this regard, Dr. Gunawardena said the Circular will be issued after finding the suitable locations and seeking the approval of task force on COVID-19 prevention.

For now, the bodies of COVID victims will be kept in cold storage until the proper procedure for burial is introduced, he said further. However, the bodies of the deceased will be cremated if the next of kin wishes to.

Extraordinary Gazette notification allowing the burial of COVID victims was published on Thursday night (February 25).

It amended the regulations made by the Minister of Health under Sections 2 and 3 of the Quarantine and Prevention of Diseases Ordinance (Chapter 222).

The gazette stated that regulations published in Gazette No.7481 of August 28, 1925 is further amended by the substitution of the words, Cremation of Corpse” with the words Cremation or burial of the corpse”.

In the case of burial, the corpse of such person shall be buried in accordance with the directions issued by the Director General of Health Services at a cemetery or place approved by the proper authority under the supervision of such authority,” it read further.

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa recently informed parliament that permission will be granted for the burial of COVID-19 victims.

In response to a question raised by MP S.M. Marikkar during the parliamentary session on February 10, PM Rajapaksa had noted that permission will be given to bury the victims of novel coronavirus.

Several months after the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic last year, the Sri Lankan government amended a law to make cremation compulsory for those who fall victim to the novel coronavirus with the intention of preventing any potential threat.

The Quarantine and Prevention of Diseases Ordinance (Chapter 222) was accordingly amended by an extraordinary gazette notification issued by Health Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi.

The decision sparked debate locally and internationally, as concerns were raised stressing that it is against the dictates of Muslim community’s faith.

Several world leaders and international organisations had also called on the Sri Lankan government to allow burial of COVID-19 victims and to end forced cremation of victims.

Courtesy Adaderana

Sri Lanka has registered 205 more positive cases of Covid-19 today (February 27), the Ministry of Health confirmed.

Thereby, Sri Lanka has detected 425 new positive cases of COVID-19 within the day.

As per statistics, the total number of Covid-19 infections confirmed so far in the country now stands at 82,855.

Recoveries from the virus meanwhile climbed to 78,373 earlier today, as 748 more patients regained health.

However, 4,018 active cases are still under medical care at selected hospitals and treatment centers located across the island.

Total lives claimed by the pandemic outbreak sits at 464 at present.

Today Sri Lanka, Tomorrow Your Country”is the message that countries of the Global South must internalize from the intrusive nature of the OHCHR Report and unprecedented precedents attempted to take place via Global North backed Resolutions using the UNHRC as puppet. When UNHRC head boldly reads out reports condemning the national judiciary, the national laws, national mechanisms of Sri Lanka insisting they are replaced with international players, it is a stepping stone to doing the same to other countries. Geneva hegemony being created allowing Global North to master R2P must not be allowed by Global South nations.Sri Lanka’s conflict may be too confusing for nations to understand, but countries of the UN must protect their own country and not allow UNHRC precedents to take place. This means countries should vote against the Core Group Resolution on Sri Lanka or help Sri Lanka canvass for a closure. On Sri Lanka’s part, our delegation must request a Global South nation to seek vote on the Core Group Resolution when it is taken up & separately Sri Lanka must begin drafting a resolution of closure. Sri Lanka must not fall prey to attempts by Core Group to trickle down its resolution and present one of compromise! 

An armed conflict, applies international humanitarian laws. Sri Lanka’s conflict is defined a non-international armed conflict. Even Ban Ki Moon’s personal panel applies this term.

UNSC sanctions nations based on violations of IHL and if countries are a threat to international peace.

No UNSC sanctions have taken place for violations of human rights!

If UNHRC can sanction nations and declare them war criminals based on selected nit picking of less than 10 unproven allegations for human rights violations, then the very countries drafting resolutions should be locked up by the World Court.

Look at the allegations by the UNHRC since May 2009 – majority of the allegations are post-conflict and based on hearsay by third party sources and brush stroke statements without evidence. The same names which are less than 10 gets circulated and printed over reports compiled by the same lot of NGOs funded by Global North foreign governments to create mischief.

All of the fundamental allegations completely overlook that it was the LTTE that herded Tamil civilians with them to be kept as hostages and human shields.

The UNHRC overlooks the fact that there is a major blur in distinction of civilians – LTTE had its own civilian armed force. So how many of these ‘civilians’ were actually civilians? The blur of distinction was confounded further as 1/3 of LTTE comprised child combatants – whether they were children, they were trained to kill and they did not qualify to be called a ‘child’ with gun in hand.

What the UNHRC completely overlooks is that the LTTE broke the rules of war by herding Tamils and firing from among them. This violation has to take precedence over the return of fire by Sri Lanka Armed Forces, which they had every right to do.

Then there is also allegation of not providing humanitarian aid – even this allegation can be put to rest by statistics and the fact that foreign envoys sat every 2 weeks since January 2009 to discuss the rescue operation and they had every opportunity to bring to the table any issues without waiting years after the conflict ended. The US and UK Defense Attache secret reports to their respective governments clearly showcases further distortions of successive resolutions.

What UNHRC totally ignores is that UN system did nothing to stop LTTE from 1980s to 2009 and only after Sri Lanka ends terror, UN is asking questions. Where were these questions when LTTE was killing unarmed civilian? UNHRC cannot forget there has been no LTTE terror for 12 years and kudos for that peace goes to Sri Lanka not UNHRC.

There is a well-funded campaign to hype accusations, create a campaign of lies and based on gun-boat diplomacy use the UNHRC to commence bogus tribunals with intent to only carry out R2P for Global North political agendas. This is very clear from the demands being made.

If Sri Lanka falls prey to precedents – the same will be applied to Global South nation’s most of whom are already victims of covert operations by Global North nations. African nations /South American nations & even the Middle East & Asian nations will have enough of examples to give how they have been victimized by Global North nations.

We saw how Libya was liberated. Today Libya is a hell hole. We know the devastation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We are now seeing Syria being bombed for no reason. Syria is to become the newest means for the war industry to gain profits at the cost of human lives and devastation of countries. Should Global South allow this rampage to continue?

We have also seen no outcome of the tribunals or truth commissions the UN steers. There is no Truth and there is no Justice. It’s only a super means of foreign travel for UN officials and an excellent form of channeling funding legally for agendas that are not accounted for.

Exactly what kind of Justice for the Victims has ensued from the UN Tribunals held thus far: We have had tribunals on Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Lebanon, East Timor!

https://www.sinhalanet.net/name-1-un-tribunal-that-has-delivered-justice-for-victims

When UNHRC former head Navi Pillay hid her supposed witnesses for 20 years and based on their supposed evidence the bogus allegations against Sri Lanka are made, we do not want the fate that happened to Serbian leader Milosevic to happen to our war heroes.

The Serbian leader was put in prison in 2002 claiming him to be a war criminal. Milosevic was branded the ‘butcher of the Balkans’. They compared him to Hitler and accused him of genocide. They demonised him just like the same entities are doing with Sri Lanka and its troops. He was given only 4 hours to present his case.  He died mysteriously in his prison cell on 11 March 2006. In 2016, the ICTY says Milosevic did not commit war crimes.The judgement came 14 years too late as Serbia’s leader was dead.

It was all a sham for larger agendas but a leader had to pay with his life. The global south must realize this and protect their nation by taking a stand on Sri Lanka for their own interest. 

Serbia & Sri Lanka have many similarities – genocide was theme in both cases with inflated figures of dead but no dead bodies or names. Marti Ahtisaari who played a role in Kosovo independence was ironically chosen to investigate Sri Lanka by UNHRC in 2014. (OISL)

TNA is Sri Lanka’s version of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) KLA was supported by CIA. LTTE and KLA are known drug traffickers.

Thus, the intrusive nature of HRC and OHCHR Head’s report paving the way for another unfair Core Group Resolution has been opposed by China in the statement by Ambassador Cheng Xu.

The sentiments expressed by the Chinese ambassador is what all Global South ambassadors must resonate, primarily because in allowing HRC and OHCHR head to pass unfounded allegations based on hearsay and intrude into the national laws of Sri Lanka means, the next target can be the 35 nations of the Global South including India.

We must also appreciate Russia for being a Global North nation but consistently backing Sri Lanka in the halls of the UN/UNHRC.

Shenali D Waduge

Senaka Weeraratna

The Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is fundamentally an anti – Sri Lanka document. It is a biased and shameful report which is totally one sided. Not a semblance of fairness.

One would not expect the Spanish Inquisition to return to the UN  in the 21st century with total faith placed on mere accusations and falsehood without verification. 

A display of malignant predictability when the party accused happens to be a former British colony showing defiance and no longer prepared to be subservient to the dictates of the inheritors of colonial Empires, is what we see in Reports of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights.

Human Rights has been weaponised and been used as a red herring and a pretext by empire builders to white wash their genocidal crimes against the indigenous people all over the world.

Michelle Bachelet is a woman of Spanish descent from Chile. Most likely a descendant of the Spanish conquerors who ravaged the harmless natives of South America and exterminated them in a manner not very different to the Holocaust in modern times.

It is difficult to forget the crimes of the Spanish Conquistadors who wiped out the Incas, Aztecs and Mayan Civilizations in North, Central and South America. 

While evading Accountability for  colonial crimes and past atrocities, people of Spanish descent have joined hands largely with the current generation of western colonial countries and without a qualm of conscience or sense of collective guilt for the crimes of their forebears, are now earnestly engaged in witch hunting leaders of small countries using inquisitorial tactics.

What is happening to Sri Lanka today at the UNHRC will happen to India tomorrow. The breaking – up of India is the end station of this White Supremacist Christian conspiracy. To get there Sri Lanka has to be balkanized on the pretext of helping the minorities. Similar to the case of Yugoslavia. Dismembering is what is in store for Sri Lanka and eventually India. To trust Britain which looted India and Ceylon during the height of the British Empire is an unpardonable act of folly.

Senaka Weeraratna

අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මාධ්‍ය අංශය

මෙවර රාජ්‍ය වෙසක් උත්සවය උතුරු හා නැගෙනහිර පළාත් මුල්කරගනිමින් නාගදීප රජ මහා විහාරය කේන්ද්‍ර කොට පැවැත්වීමට බුද්ධශාසන, ආගමික හා සංස්කෘතික කටයුතු අමාත්‍ය හා අග්‍රාමාත්‍ය මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ මහතා ඊයේ 2021.02.25 දින පස්වරුවේ අරලියගහ මන්දිරයේ දී උපදෙස් දුන්නේය.

ඒ අනුව උතුරු හා නැගෙනහිර පළාත්වල විහාරස්ථාන 65ක් හා දහම් පාසල් 35ක් සම්බන්ධ කරගනිමින් මෙවර රාජ්‍ය වෙසක් උත්සවය පැවැත්වීමට කටයුතු සංවිධානය කරන ලෙස අග්‍රාමාත්‍යතුමා බුද්ධශාසන, ආගමික හා සංස්කෘතික කටයුතු අමාත්‍යංශ ලේකම් මහාචාර්ය කපිල ගුණවර්ධන මහාතාට දැනුම් දුන්නේය.

මෙවර රාජ්‍ය වෙසක් උත්සවයේ විශේෂත්වය වනුයේ සම්ප්‍රදායක වෙසක් උත්සවයකින් වෙනස් වී අනෙකුත් ආගම් සමඟ එක්ව රාජ්‍ය වෙසක් උත්සවය සංවිධානය කිරීමට තීරණය වීමයි.

ඒ සඳහා බුද්ධශාසන, ආගමික හා සංස්කෘතික කටයුතු අමාත්‍යංශය යටතේ ඇති හින්දු, ක්‍රිස්ත්‍රියානි හා මුස්ලිම් කටයුතු දෙපාර්තමේන්තු එක් වේ.

උතුරු පළාතේ ප්‍රධාන අධිකරණ සංඝනායක, නාගදීප විහාරාධිපති ආචාර්ය ධර්මකීර්ති ශ්‍රී නවදගල පදුමකිත්ති නාහිමි, නැගෙනහිර තමන්කඩුව දෙපළාතේ ප්‍රධාන සංඝනායක මුංහේනේ මෙත්තාරාම නාහිමි, සමස්ත ලංකා ශාසනාරක්ෂක බලමණ්ඩලයේ  ප්‍රධාන ලේඛකාධිකාරී ගෝනදූවේ ගුණානන්ද නාහිමි, මල්වතු පාර්ශවයේ මාතර හම්බන්තොට දෙදිසාවේ ප්‍රධාන සංඝනායක අග්‍රහැරේ කස්සප නාහිමි ඇතුළු මහා සංඝරත්නය මෙම අවස්ථාවට වැඩම කළහ.

By P.K.Balachandran Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, February 26: India has told the UNHRC’s on-going 46 th.session in Geneva that the full implementation of the 13 th. Amendment of the Sri Lankan constitution, which provides for devolution of power to the provinces, is the way to bring about ethnic reconciliation in the country.

The Indian Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Indra Mani Pandey told the council that India’s policy towards Sri Lanka rests on two pillars: i). Support for Sri Lanka’s unity and territorial integrity. ii). An abiding commitment to aspirations of the Tamils of Sri Lanka for equality, justice, peace and dignity. But these are not either-or choices, he added.

We believe that respecting the rights of the Tamil community, including through meaningful devolution, contributes directly to the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka,” Pandey said.

While advocating that delivering on the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil community is in the best interests of Sri Lanka, India calls upon Sri Lanka to take necessary steps for addressing such aspirations, including through the process of reconciliation and full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka.”

Ambassador Pandey, who is the Permanent Representative of India, said Indian believes that respecting the rights of the Tamil community, including through meaningful devolution, contributes directly to the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka.

We have taken note of the High Commissioner’s report on Sri Lanka and her oral remarks. The Council has adopted 7 Resolutions on the question of human rights in Sri Lanka since May 2009, when the three decades old conflict in that country ended.”

The assessment of the High Commissioner regarding developments nearly 12 years from the end of the conflict raises important concerns. The Sri Lankan Government has articulated its position on these issues as well. In evaluation of both of these, we should be guided by a commitment to find a lasting and effective solution for this issue,” Pandey said.

US Seeks Mandates To Pursue Accountability

United States has urged Sri Lanka to make public a strategy and timetable for the implementation of recommendations in the report compiled by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet.

Daniel Kronenfeld of the US mission in Geneva informed the UN Human Rights Council that the United States shares the concerns of Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on Sri Lanka.

We thank High Commissioner Bachelet for her comprehensive report and note the Government of Sri Lanka’s engagement.”

Kronenfeld stressed that the US is concerned by accounts of increasing marginalization of minority communities and shrinking space for civil society, including independent media.

We remain concerned about the lack of accountability, including high-level appointments of military officials credibly accused of conflict-era abuses,” he went on to say.

The US envoy insisted that Sri Lankan government’s efforts to address concerns raised in OHCHR’s report via a domestic process need to be meaningful and credible. We note that the Sri Lankan Commission of Inquiry does not include a mandate to pursue accountability, and that the Office of Missing Persons and Office of Reparations need to operate without political interference.”

We note that respect for the human rights of all Sri Lankans is critical to Sri Lanka’s long-term peace, security and prosperity, and call on the Sri Lankan government to take meaningful, concrete steps to promote accountability, justice, and reconciliation,” he remarked.

China Backs Lanka

The Chinese Permanent Representative in Geneva Ambassador Chen Xu extended China’s support to Sri Lanka in his official statement in the Interactive Dialogue on the OHCHR Report on Sri Lanka.  

As a friendly neighbor of Sri Lanka, China sincerely hopes that Sri Lanka maintains political stability, ethnic solidarity and national unity and wishes Sri Lanka greater achievements in its national development. We commend the government of Sri Lanka for its efforts to actively promote and protect human rights, advance sustainable economic and social development, improve people’s living standard, protect the rights of the vulnerable groups, advance national reconciliation and combat terrorism.”

It’s the consistent stand of China to oppose politicization and double standards on human rights, as well as using human rights as an excuse in interfering in other countries’ internal affairs. We are concerned about the clear lack of impartiality shown in the OHCHR’s report to this session on Sri Lanka and express our regret over the failure of the OHCHR to use the authoritative information provided by the Sri Lankan government.”

The so-called preventive intervention” and the proposed targeted sanctions contained in the OHCHR’s report are clear interference in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka and exceed the mandate of the OHCHR. We hope that the HRC and the OHCHR will strictly follow impartiality, objectivity, non-selectivity and non-politicization principles, respect the sovereignty and political independence of all nations, respect the efforts of the nations for the protection and promotion of human rights, advocate constructive dialogue and cooperation, and abandon the practice of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and exerting political pressure.”

Prior to the opening of the 46th Session of UNHRC, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa wrote a letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping requesting China’s understanding and assistance on the resolution. On 24th February, Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena also made a telephone call to Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi to seek the continued solidarity and support. Wang Yi reiterated that China is willing to unswervingly support each other with Sri Lanka to jointly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of developing countries, the basic norms governing international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter including non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs.”

By P.K.Balachandran Courtesy NewsIn.Asia

Colombo, February 25: Late on Thursday, February 25, the Sri Lankan Health Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi issued a gazette extraordinary lifting the year-old ban on burying COVID-19 dead. The Gazette amended the earlier ordinance by putting the words cremation or burial” in place of the single word cremation”.

In the case of burial, the corpse of such person shall be buried in accordance with the directions issued by the Director General of Health Services at a cemetery or place approved by the proper authority under the supervision of such authority,” the gazette said.

The government’s decision brought the curtains down on an issue which deeply agitated the minority Muslims for whom burial is mandated by Islam and therefore inviolable.

Over the past year, the Muslims, who are about 10% of the Sri Lankan population, had brought into play an international expert in virology, to challenge the government’s expert committee’s contention that burying the COVID dead would contaminate ground water and be a public health hazard. Prof. Malik Peiris of the University of Hong Kong said in a widely circulated video: If the body is wrapped in water-resistant material and chemicals are used to expedite the process of decay, the possibility of even a residual amount of the COVID-19 infection seeping through the soil and contaminating water is an entirely non-scientific argument. That is a major reason why the World Health Organization and many countries in the world have no problem with burials.”      

In April 2020, Muslim leaders proposed that a Muslim dying of COVID be wrapped in a body bag and put in a concrete grave which will have one and a half feet of soil in it. A chemical could be sprayed on the body bag to let it and the body inside de-compose in a week or so. The Muslims had also submitted a design for the concrete grave. They suggested that the mourners might stand 50 meters away from the grave after spending three minutes beside it to say the customary prayer. The community would help indigent families bear the expenses involved in constructing the concrete grave and in getting a coffin if a coffin is made mandatory, they added.

The government appeared to be open to this suggestion but was hesitating to take a decision. Frustrated, some leading Muslims appealed to foreign leaders like Mohamed Nasheed, Speaker of the Maldivian parliament, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, and the Malaysian Prime Minister to intercede with the powers-that-be in Colombo. Nasheed sounded Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa about the idea of sending Muslim bodies to the Maldives. The Lankan President made a formal request this his Maldivian counterpart, Ibrahim Solih, who responded favorably. But this idea of airlifting bodies to the Maldives was found to be impractical.  

At the Muslims’ insistence Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa set up a second committee of experts in virology, which challenged the contentions of the earlier experts’ committee and recommended burial as well as cremation as sanctioned by the WHO.  But the first committee, which apparently had the backing of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, stuck to its guns and threw the recommendation of the  second committee out.

However, the Muslims did not lose heart. They took the issue to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC issued a statement om December 10, 2020 which said: The General Secretariat of the OIC expresses concern over reports of Sri Lankan authorities insisting on cremation for COVID-19 Muslim victims. Against this practice, inconsistent with Islamic precepts, the OIC calls for respect to the burial ritual in the Muslim faith.”

The Muslims’ cause began to be taken up by Lankans of other faiths also and their plight became the subject matter of articles in leading Western dailies. Sri Lankans were appalled by the forced cremation of a 20-day old baby Shykh in the absence of his parents, who had stayed away in protest. People tied white cloth on the gates and iron railings of the main crematorium in Colombo even though the police kept removing them.

While the government kept talking about an ‘expert committee’ which had said that COVID-19 bodies would pollute the soil and ground water, a section of the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) led by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and Basil Rajapaksa, had thought it fit to strike a deal with the Muslims. They planned to get the ban lifted in return for votes to pass the controversial 20 th.Constitutional Amendment (20A) with the required two-thirds majority. The 20A was meant to arm the Executive President (Gotabaya Rajapaksa) with enhanced powers which he had been seeking. Six MPs did cross over from the opposition to vote for the 20A as part of the deal but the SLPP did not keep its part of the bargain.

At this stage, an influential factor appeared on the scene: a UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session where there was to be a resolution condemning Sri Lanka for alleged human rights violations and war crimes and failing to implement earlier resolutions calling for accountability mechanisms. Government feared that apart from the already hostile Western bloc, Muslim countries would also turn against Sri Lanka in the Council. The Muslim burial issue was sure to be on the top of the litany of complaints against Sri Lanka.

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, who always wanted the ban lifted in order to get the Muslim’s political support, announced in parliament that burials would be allowed after a Minister said that the first expert committee had changed its opinion and said that burial will not pollute ground water. But no action followed because government said that the experts’ committee had not given a ruling.   

Meanwhile, international pressure was mounting. Apart from the OIC which called for the lifting of theban, it was feared that Sri Lanka’s time tested friend, Pakistan, would also join the chorus against the ban on burial. The vote of the Muslim countries and Pakistan’s lobbying were crucial to beat the expected hostile resolution against Sri Lanka in the UNHRC in March.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan was to come to Sri Lanka and address the Lankan parliament.  It was feared that he could touch upon the subject in his speech (apart from touching upon Kashmir to embarrass India).

On the excuse that COVID 19 might prevent full attendance of MPs, the Speaker of the parliament asked government to cancel the speech. Imran agreed to call off the speech.

Unfazed, Lankan Muslim leaders continued to urge Pakistan to take up the matter with the powers-that-be. The Pakistanis told the Lankan Muslim interlocutors that while the issue could not be part of the official talks, it could figure in informal interactions. Perhaps it did. In an oblique reference to the issue, the Joint Communique issued at the end of Imran’s visit said: Both sides underlined the importance of inter-religious dialogue and harmony as a key to promote cultural diversity, peaceful co-existence and mutual empathy.”

When Muslim MPs met Imran before his departure from Colombo to find out if indeed he took up the issue at the talks, he said he did and added that the response was positive.” Sure enough, a day after Imran’s departure, the government issued a gazette lifting the ban on burial.

උපුටා ගැන්ම ලංකා සී නිව්ස්

මේ දිනවල පැවැත්වෙන එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සලයේ අන්තර් ක්‍රියාකාරී සංවාදයේ දී ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට පක්ෂව රටවල් 21 එකක් අදහස් පල කර ඇත.

ශ‍්‍රී ලංකාවට විරුද්ධව මහකොමසාරිස්වරියගේ යෝජනාව සමග පක්ෂව රටවල් 15 එක්ව ඇත.

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට හෝ යෝජනාවට පෂ නොවී ඉන්දියාව, ජපානය හා ඕස්ට්‍රේලියාව මධ්‍යස්ථව සිට ඇත.

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට පක්ෂ මත දැරූ රටවල්  කිහිපයක් මෙසේය.

• රුසියාව
• චීනය
• ඉරානය
• පාකිස්තානය
• වියට්නාමය
• කියුබාව
• පිලිපීනය
• සිරියාව
• ඊජිප්තුව
• මාලදිවයින
• නේපාලය
• කාම්බෝජය
• ලාඕසය
• නිකරගුවාව
• එරිත්‍රියාව
• අසර්බයිජානය
• බෙලාරුස්
• ගැබොන්

මහ කොමසාරිස්වරියගේ යෝජනාවට පක්ෂ වූ රටවල් කිහිපයක් මෙසේය.

• ඇමරිකාව
• ජර්මනිය
• එක්සත් රාජධානිය
• කැනඩාව
• නෝර්වේ
• ප‍්‍රංශය
• ස්විට්සරලන්තය
• බෙල්ජියම
• අයර්ලන්තය

Courtesy The Island

The Attorney General’s Department yesterday (25) said that a section of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (P CoI) report had been received by AG Dappula de Livera, PC.

The AG received the Volume 1, which contains the final report,” a spokesperson for the Department said. According to the official the remaining volumes (2 to 5) containing proceedings, materials and other documentary evidence hadn’t been handed over, the official said.

The official was responding to The Island query regarding the government announcement that the final report of the PCoI presented to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had been handed over to the Attorney General.

The report was handed over by the Director General, Legal Affairs of the Presidential Secretariat Hariguptha Rohanadheera at the Attorney General’s Department.

The AG’s Department emphasized that it could not proceed without the entire set of Volumes. (SF)

Courtesy The Daily Mirror

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has approved Sri Lanka’s request for USD 180 million loan for the Covid-19 emergency and crisis response facility to be disbursed through the Bank of Ceylon (USD 90 million) and People’s Bank (USD 90 million), Sri Lankan Embassy in Beijing said.

The loan application was submitted in 2019. 

Dr. Kohona met the President of the AIIB (Mr. Jin Liqun) on 1st February 2021 to discuss this loan and other funding matters. 

Sri Lanka Ambassador to China, Dr. Palitha Kohona met Dr. D. J. Pandian, Vice President, at the Bank headquarters yesterday when the approval of the loan was confirmed. 

At the meeting, Dr. Kohona thanked the AIIB for the timely assistance in extending USD 180 million for the Covid19 crisis recovery for Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs). 

Further, Dr. Kohona briefed Dr. Pandian on the current Covid19 situation in Sri Lanka which has received wide commendation. He also spoke of Sri Lanka’s handling of the economic challenges confronting Sri Lanka. 

Dr. Pandian invited the Sri Lanka private and government sectors to consider seeking funding for renewable energy (wind and solar power), electric public transport systems, light rail transport, electric vehicles, digital technology, shipbuilding, water supply and manufacturing. The Bank has sufficient funding for these sectors, especially for those involving renewable energy. 

Dr. Kohona said that Sri Lanka is one of the top 10 countries in the world in managing Covid19 and slowly beginning to normalize the economy. He expressed his confidence that the private sector would welcome the offer of funding. 

Dr. Kohona encourages the private sector to consider the offer of the AIIB and if interested, to contact the AIIB directly or through the Embassy. 

Courtesy Adaderana

Sri Lanka registered 250 more positive cases of COVID-19 today (February 26) as total novel coronavirus infections reported within the day reached 497.

Department of Government Information says 487 of today’s cases are close contacts of earlier cases linked to the Peliyagoda cluster.

The remaining 10 are reportedly arrivals from foreign countries.

New development has pushed the country’s confirmed COVID-19 cases count to 82,430.

According to COVID-19 figures, 4,341 active cases are still under medical care at selected hospitals and treatment centres.

Meanwhile, total recoveries reported in the country now stand at 77,625.

Sri Lanka has also witnessed 464 fatalities due to the outbreak of the pandemic.

Courtesy Adaderana

Sri Lanka has confirmed 05 more COVID-19 related deaths, Director-General of Health Services confirmed today (February 26).

This brings the country’s death toll from the virus to 464, Department of Government Information said.

Details of the recently-reported COVID victims are as follows:

01. A 69-year-old man from Nawadagala area – He had been under medical at the Karapitiya Teaching Hospital. After testing positive for the virus, he was transferred to Homagama Base Hospital where he passed away yesterday (February 25). The cause of death was recorded as COVID pneumonia, acute kidney disease and high blood pressure.

02. A 72-year-old woman from Narahenpita area – She was transferred from Colombo National Hospital to Homagama Base Hospital upon testing positive for the virus. She died today due to COVID infection and shock caused by blood poisoning.

03. A 70-year-old man from Kandy area – He was moved to Theldeniya Base Hosptial after a PCR test carried out at the Kandy National Hospital came out positive for novel coronavirus. Reports revealed that he succumbed to COVID pneumonia and kidney failure yesterday (February 25).

04. A 71-year-old man from Colombo 09 area – He was transferred from Colombo National Hospital to National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID) upon testing positive for the virus. According to reports, he had passed away today. The cause of death was cited as shock due to blood poisoning, COVID pneumonia, diabetes and high blood pressure.

05. A 71-year-old man from Veyangoda area – He had initially been under medical at the Apeksha Hospital in Maharagama. Upon testing positive for novel coronavirus, he was moved to NIID where he died yesterday (February 25). COVID pneumonia, shock due to blood poisoning and cancer have been identified as the cause of death.

Courtesy Adaderana

Four police officers – 03 Constables and one Inspector – have been interdicted for allegedly assaulting a law student at the Peliyagoda police station.

Several offices attached to Peliyagoda Police had reportedly assaulted a law student named Migara Gunaratne yesterday (February 25).

The victimized student was identified as the son of former Central Province Governor, President’s Counsel Maithri Gunaratne and the brother of Attorney-at-Law Charitha Gunaratne.

Reports revealed that 10 police officers had assaulted him when he arrived at Peliyagoda Police to visit a suspect detained at the station.

Minister of Public Security Dr. Sarath Weerasekera subsequently directed the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Chandana Wickramaratne to probe the incident and to suspend the officers involved in the assault.

Meanwhile, Police Headquarters, issuing a statement on the incident, said 08 suspects – 04 Nigerian males, 02 Belarussian females, one Sri Lankan male and one Sri Lankan female – were arrested on Tuesday (February 23) for possession of 25g 120mg of heroin, racketeering narcotics, defrauding more than Rs. 1.7 million, possession of 25 bundles of paper used for printing counterfeit currency as well as commercial sex work.

The arrest was made by several officers of Kelaniya Division’s crimes unit including Chief Inspector of Police Linton de Silva, the statement pointed out. Reports revealed the said officer is also accused of assaulting the victim.

According to the Police, the law student had arrived at the police station to visit the Sri Lankan female in custody at around 8.35 pm.

On the directives of IGP, two police teams are probing the incident further, the statement read further.

By Raj Gonsalkorale

US Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken today encouraged the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to support the resolution on Sri Lanka stating that the ‘lack of accountability for past atrocities in Sri Lanka – Daily Mirror Sri Lanka’

The US Secretary of State seems to give an indication as to what the real agenda behind his and his country’s support for this resolution. He speaks of lack of accountability for past atrocities”. This statement implies that atrocities were committed if there is to be accountability for them. This leads to the question, who committed such alleged atrocities? There were two players in the battle against the LTTE. The Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the LTTE. One or both may have committed atrocities. The Sri Lankan government exists to respond to any allegations on atrocities. The LTTE does not exist although the atrocities they committed were many and well documented.

It would have been useful if Mr Blinken amplified how this resolution will address the accountability issue as far as the LTTE is concerned as there is no one from the LTTE who could or would respond to lack of accountability on their part.

LTTE atrocities have been documented, and video footage shown on many world stages. While many very ordinary Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese were killed by them, they also killed two Heads of State, several cabinet ministers and leading politicians in Sri Lanka, and of course Tamil politicians as well.

Is Mr Blinken saying that since there is no one from the LTTE today who would acknowledge their atrocities or could be held responsible, the UNHRC should concern itself only with the Sri Lankan government and pursue action against them? Mr Blinken should know that Sri Lankans would not stand for this and if the US or any other ally of it thinks they could subjugate the country by stealth and overlook the vile deeds of a ruthless terrorist organisation, they could think twice about it.

Prior to looking for answers to the rhetorical question what is the real agenda?”, it may be worthwhile to pose a counter rhetorical question and look for answers to that. This question is about the geographic location of Sri Lanka. If the country was not where it is now and thousands of kilo meters away and lost to the world in some corner of an ocean, without China having any interest in the country, would the UNHRC or the Core Group or the US have had any interest in Sri Lanka?

Would these concerned” core group countries or the country and its allies suspected openly by many as the driving force behind these resolutions, shown any interest in human rights in Sri Lanka?

Readers are left to ponder and find an answer to this question.

It is reported and believed by some to an extent that the Tamil Eelam lobby groups in the US and in the countries who have allied with the US in targeting Sri Lanka, that these countries are raising this issue at the UNHRC and other forums because of the pressure exerted by these lobby groups. The following extract of a communication sent to the writer by a leading Tamil activist who wished to remain unnamed at this stage, stated what might be the reality in regard to the power and influence of these lobby groups.

This source stated there was much disgust amongst many Tamils, both within and outside Sri Lanka and wishing that the writer would highlight this in an article. The message is quoted in full, quote the Tamil Eelam lobby have the misguided idea that they are a powerful lobby group. If not for China showing an interest in the country, and making the US and India angry, they would have gone down like a lead balloon. They would have then worked with the Sri Lanka government to address issues faced by Tamil people in a spirit of cooperation with all others in Sri Lanka. This lobby has been holding a candle for the most horrible terrorist organisation in the world and never once condemning their atrocities. So many Tamil people were killed by them, not only Sinhala and Muslim people.

They are funding the setting up of a separate state in Sri Lanka and providing funds to Tamils in Sri Lanka to keep separatism alive and preventing the Tamil people and Sinhala and Muslim people in the country to find solutions to outstanding issues. If the Tamil people in Sri Lanka are to find their real enemy, it is this Eelam lobby and their supporters in Sri Lanka, who are their real enemies and preventing reconciliation amongst the people in the country. Please let Sinhala people know that a majority of Tamils want to live in peace with them” unquote. 

So much for these lobby groups who obviously are profiting by preventing the Tamil people living in Sri Lanka working together with all other communities to address any lingering issues that have and are affecting them. Their agents in Sri Lanka seem to be carrying out the dictates of these well-funded lobby groups. Money does talk. One is reminded on an age old saying that a beggar never wishes his or her wounds to heal for fear of not being able to beg and earn money. Keeping the Tamil Eelam issue alive seems to fall into this category of activism as these lobby groups would have to wind up and give up their privileged life style if the issue is addressed and resolved by the people of Sri Lanka and their funding sources dry up.

Leaving aside these lobby group, Sri Lanka is indeed in a vortex, with its proximity to India, its close links to China and the machinations of the US twirling it.

The conundrum that makes the vortex that Sri Lanka is in even more complex and destabilising, is India, just 20 kilo meters away, and the US, with the threat to their strategic interests by the super power in waiting, China, an ardent enemy of both.

Sri Lankans may be poor and they are not perfect like the rest of the world. It’s possible that some human rights issues may have occurred in the heat of the final battle against the LTTE. However, Sri Lankans are not fools. They can see through this mirage of human rights violations advanced continuously by the US and its allies. Sri Lankans know that they have weaknesses and they know these have to be addressed by themselves and not by others whose own record on human rights is appalling to say the least. 

It would have been interesting if a resolution was moved to investigate human rights violations in the US based on the revelations documented in the latest Human Rights Watch report. Unfortunately, no country would do that as its allies, in self-preservation, will not do it.

Tamara Kunanayakam, a well-respected Sri Lankan diplomat and former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva and who has an in depth knowledge of the inner workings of the UN system in the back of her hand states that quote the countries in the Non Aligned Movement and in the Global South have a principled position against targeting a country, or naming and shaming”, which is a weapon in the arsenal of the US and its allies, when they want to achieve their strategic objectives elsewhere. She says further that to fulfil the Charter responsibility to promote and encourage respect for human rights in all countries, the UNHRC has a mechanism called the universal periodic review (UPR) where all countries are duty bound to submit a report on promotion and protection of human rights in their own countries and where questions can be raised by others and a list of recommendations made by all parties. The State under review then has the opportunity to select the recommendations that it can implement and makes a voluntary commitment to do so. It is a cooperative not confrontational mechanism within which all states are treated equally, in conformity with the inalienable Charter principle of sovereign equality.  It is in the interest of the NAM/Global South that that principle is respected. It is the US and its allies that sees it as THE major obstacle to its global hegemony. The UN Charter based on multilateral order is founded on the principle of sovereign equality of States, big or small, rich or poor, powerful or weak. It is the guarantor of our sovereignty.  It is that order that the US wants to dismantle as an obstacle to its own ambition to a world order under its hegemony”. 

Sri Lankans of all hues. Tamils, Muslims, Sinhalese and others should echo Ms Kunanayakam’ s assertion that it is our responsibility to strengthen the United Nations not weaken it, and actively join with the Non Aligned Movement and the Global South to prevent it from being instrumentalised by the US and its allies. It is common sense that India cannot be trusted to side with Sri Lanka on this issue. If the government thinks they could be trusted, and if they do support Sri Lanka, it would be very important for all Sri Lankans to know the price that would have had to be paid to elicit India’s support.

No doubt it would be hefty price. It would be far better tactically and strategically for Sri Lanka to follow the path so well-articulated by Tamara Kunanayakam.

The US and India should know that the action of the Core Group and their supporters will only draw Sri Lanka even closer to China, and if they thought they were Sri Lanka’s friends who were only concerned in helping the country, Sri Lanka may well ask why it needs enemies when they have friends” like the US and its allies.

The disturbing development that might be in the offing is that the Sri Lankan Government is ready to compromise with the US-UK led sponsors and accept a consensus resolution. As Ms Kunanayakam clearly explains, the compromise will be Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, because the resolution will be based on the Bachelet Report and resolution 30/1, both of which were rejected by the same Government, as threatening Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and national security. The report is based on the R2P (Right to Protect populations) doctrine that allows armed intervention, rejected by the General Assembly in 2009, as incompatible with the UN Charter and international law. If Sri Lanka goes ahead with negotiations for a compromise, they will be playing a two faced Jekyll and Hyde act and endangering alliances like NAM and Global South. Countries in these alliances will not trust Sri Lanka thereafter and we will be dictated to by a US led alliance.

A consensus resolution, once arrived at, will be a compromise agreed with the very countries who are out to break Sri Lanka’s alliances with the NAM and Global South, and it will be a precedent-setting resolution legitimising R2P. The implications for Sri Lanka will be worse than in 2015, because, unlike 2015, it will be argued there was a national consensus with no internal opposition to the resolution from a moribund Opposition, plus the 2/3 majority.

Since the US agenda is to bring SL within the ambit of QUAD (a group of countries comprising Japan, India, Australia and the United States) and away from China as well as friendly nations in NAM and the Global South, it is likely that a consensus resolution will be followed by imposition of the outstanding US defence agreements – SOFA and MCC by another name, completing the US defence triptych with ACSA.

Sri Lankans have short memories and they seem to have forgotten what consensus resolutions result in. In 1987, not even 3 months after Sri Lanka agreed to a consensus resolution in Geneva, ndian Air Force planes and fighter jets violated the country’s airspace with food drops to the Jaffna peninsula, and 2 months afterwards the Indo-Lanka accord was imposed on us, along with the 13th Amendment. Similarly, ACSA and the Disappearance Act allowing for extradition of Sri Lankan citizens for trial in foreign courts were imposed post 2015 consensus, along with intervention in key ministries and PM’s office, etc. MCC was not signed because of resistance from several quarters although the Cabinet at the time approved its signing.

As Ms Kunanayakam says Sri Lanka has to work with countries in the NAM and Global South who are in the UNHRC, in order to defeat this latest resolution and ensure that the UNHRC complies in Ms Kunanayakam’ s words, with the principle of a cooperative, and not confrontational mechanism within which all states are treated equally, in conformity with the inalienable Charter principle of sovereign equality”. In order to defeat the resolution, and for Sri Lanka not to compromise its sovereignty, it has to ask a friendly Member of the Council to call for a vote when the resolution is tabled. Compromising with countries hostile to Sri Lanka will be like walking into a den of hungry Wolves.

Once tabled, the passage of this resolution will be a precedent to subjugate other nations who do not have the strength or the wealth to stand against duplicitous nations like the US and its allies whose own human rights violations record is worse than that of countries they support actively without any regard to violations in those countries. This resolution therefore has to be defeated by those countries in the NAM and the Global South who are vulnerable to the machinations of these mighty powers, if not to support Sri Lanka, but at least for their own sake.  

Sri Lanka and other countries in the NAM and Global South need the assistance of all countries including China, to improve the lot of their people. They need investments without strings, and not handouts. These countries should extend their hand of friendship with true concern for improving life in these countries, and not extend a hand with a hidden instrument that will injure the hand extended in return.

  The United States Magazine and Democratic Review (May 1851)  

In 1851, An American Journal  (The United States Magazine and Democratic Review), at a time (1851) when they I.e. USA, did not have imperial ambitions that dovetailed with that of British imperialism, highlighted and exposed the genocidal crimes committed on the Sinhalese people in British occupied Ceylon, under the administration of the then Governor Lord Torrington.

In the concluding phase of the Journal article having the caption ‘ The English in Ceylon” ( May 1851) , the author of the article says as follows:

” The history of Lord Torringtons administration in Ceylon affords an epitome of English rule, wherever throughout the world, by force, or fraud, or violence, she has succeeded in planting her guilty flag. The horrors perpetrated during 1848 in the island-gem of the East, are the counterpart of those of which, from time to time, during a period of seven centuries, the green isle of the West has been the victim.

We have reproduced this Ceylon tragedy, because it contains a moral upon which it behooves the Democracy of America, at the present moment, seriously to reflect. The flag which sanctioned the massacres of the Cingalese, and has witnessed the devastation of Celtic Ireland; the flag which, usurping every advantageous commercial and political position throughout the globe, has been the harbinger everywhere of desolation and death this flag, which in two wars, our fathers levelled in the dust, now flaunts us in the face on the southern portion of this our continent ; out-spreads its crimson folds over republican soil, insulting our manhood, blighting our commercial prospects, and dimming the lustre of the stars and stripes. Shall Central America share the fate of Ceylon ? Shall our sister Republics on this continent, whose independence, hy every principle of honor, of interest, and of duty, we are bound to protect, be consigned to the tender mercies of a Torrington ? Shall the island of Ruatan become the Ceylon of the Western Hemisphere, and the Isthmus of Central America be made, on a smaller scale, a second Hindostan ? We submit these questions, in all earnestness, to the consideration of the Democracy of America, confident that they will be answered in a manner worthy of those, whose pride it is, that they inherit the principles of a Jefferson, a Madison, a Monroe, a Jackson and a Polk”.

  The United States Magazine and Democratic Review (May 1851)  

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Full Article below

The English in Ceylon.

May 1851.

http://books.lakdiva.org/moa/cornell/1851_english_in_ceylon.html

BRITISH policy, or that system which the British Government has for ages systematically pursued, and by which it has acquired its vast colonial empire, is hut very imperfectly understood by the mass of the American people. Deriving our knowledge of English affairs, for the most part, from English sources, we are too apt to he dazzled by the contemplation of an empire upon which the sun never sets, and to ascribe to Divine destiny, that which, in reality, is the result of a system, more fiendish, and more detestable, because more extending and more extended in its operation, than that of Machiavelli. The conquests of old Rome were attended, at least, with glory; and, in modern times, those of our own country were laden with fruits, not alone of glory and renown to the conquerors, but better far, of freedom, of happiness, and of civilization to the conquered. England alone, of all the nations, ancient or modern, is the only one whose sword, while entwined with wreaths of cypress for the vanquished, has failed to reap one pure laurel to deck the victor’s brow. Survey her colonial empire ; glance your eye athwart those boundless plains made fruitful by the young embraces of the god of day and point, if you can, to one rood of territory, whose acquisition was not conceived in selfishness and iniquity, and consummated in treachery, in perfidy and fraud. As the subject, however, of England’s colonial empire is one which could not properly be treated within the limits of a review article, we shall confine ourselves, for the present, to a condensed expose of certain occurrences of which the island of Ceylon has recently been the theatre and which have startled the propriety even of that most fastidious assembly, the British House of Commons.

Placed at the western entrance of the Bay of Bengal, Ceylon is separated by a narrow strait from the mainland of Hindostan. In size, it is nearly as large as Ireland; and it possesses a population of about a million and a half of souls, made up of various tribes of native Cingalese, Malabars, Mahometans, Coolies, Dutch and English, and their mongrel descendants. Once the abode of civilization, as is evidenced by the ruins of ancient cities, canals, bridges, aqueducts, &c., in which the interior of the island abounds, its geographical position, and natural advantages of soil and climate, should make of Ceylon, in our day, the chief mart of Eastern commerce. That it does not occupy this position, can only be attributed to that system, as short-sighted as vicious, by which the island has, for half a century, been governed, for the immediate profit of the mother country. In 1796, Ceylon was taken possession of by the English, and the Dutch expelled from its shores. From that period, down to so late as 1819, the native chiefs boldly resisted the usurped authority of the invaders, and were finally reduced to subjection only after a desperate struggle, and by such agencies as England alone is skilled to employ for the accomplishment of her darling objects. Since 1819, the government of the colony has been administered by a Governor, appointed by the Colonial Secretary, for the time being, at home, assisted by a council composed entirely of European civil and military servants, who are described by MeCulloch as being, from their tenure of office, totally subservient to the will of the Governor. The religion of the island is that of Buddha, as established by the following clause of the treaty of the 2nd of March, 1815, between the British government and the native chiefs The religion of Buddha, professed by the chiefs and inhabitants of these provinces, is declared inviolable; and its rites, ministers and places of worship, are to be maintained and protected. The period embraced between the years 1819 and 1846, was not remarkable for any extraordinary occurrences in Ceylon; suffice it to say, that the history of the island during this interval, is made up of patient suffering and distress on the part of the natives, and of heartless tyranny and exaction on the part of their foreign rulers.

In 1846. Lord Torrington was appointed by Earl Grey, Whig Colonial Secretary,to the lucrative office of Governor of Ceylon. Arrived at the seat of government, his lordship is surprised to find the financial affairs of the colony in an embarrassed condition; and, accordingly, in virtue of the wide discretionary powers vested in him, proceeds to meet the difficulty off-hand by the imposition of severe new taxes of his own invention. These taxes, though decidedly original in their way, were yet of that character, that any one at all acquainted with the colony might have foreseen that they could never by any possibility be collected. The most obnoxious of them were, a road-tax, a shop-tax, a gun-tax, and a dog-tax. The first ordained, that every male resident in the island, between the ages of fifteen and fifty-five, should either labor for six days in each year on the public roads, or pay three shillings sterling, in lieu of such personal service. The second enacted, that every occupant of a shop, the rental of which amounted to £ 5, should take out a yearly license on a £ 1 stamp. The third directed, that on a certain day in each year, the Cingalese should repair to the chief towns, armed, and apply for licenses for their fire-arms, at a cost of 2s. 6d. for each gun. The fourth, imposed a tax of ir. on every dog kept in the island, and sentenced to death all puppies above three months old whose proprietors could not produce the protecting shilling. Now, it is necessary to understand that in Ceylon, as in all countries subject to the British flag, the bulk of the population are extremely poor; hence, the payment of these taxes was to them an impossibility. Those, moreover, upon dogs and guns, were imposed upon what were to them absolute necessaries of life. Besides, the road-tax was a direct outrage upon that religion which, as we have shown above, the English had bound themselves by treaty to protect, since the native priests are restricted by it, both from labor and from touching money. The promulgation of the decree announcing these new taxes naturally created great excitement throughout the island. Petitions, memorials, remonstrances, from all classes of the inhabitants, were laid before the Governor. They were disregarded. By any means, Lord Torrington was resolved to carry out his object. The assembling of the people in large masses was encouraged by the government agents, in the hopes that a collision between them and the British troops would occur. It did occur. A British soldier is slightly wounded, whether by any of the native inhabitants or not, does not appear from the evidence taken before the Parliamentary Committee, which is the only authority which we shall quote. But the collision, so anxiously sought for by Lord Torrington, had taken place; and martial law is at once proclaimed. Proclamations are issued, confiscating the lands and properties of all those who, terrified at the atrocities they had before seen committed under martial law, had fled into the jungles. Courts martial, composed of subaltern officers, ignorant of the language of the country, tried, convicted, sentenced, and put to instant death, hundreds of the innocent inhabitants; and this, not only in violation of all law, human and divine, but in utter contempt of the 7th article of the treaty, to which we have already referred, which stipulates that No sentence of death can be carried into execution against any inhabitant, except by the written warrant of the British Governor or Lieutenant Governor for the time being. But what cares Lord Torrington for treaties, or for the laws of humanity ? Must he not govern ? And what means government in the vocabulary of a British aristocrat, but confiscation and murder ?

Much has been said of the magnanimity of the British soldier. Let the following letters, addressed by the commandant of Kandy, to the presiding officer of one of the courts martial, hounding him on in his bloody career, serve as a specimen

Well were these magnanimous instructions obeyed. For a period of nigh three months, confiscations, burnings, massacres, were the order of the day in Ceylon: and this, be it remembered, notwithstanding that subsequent to the imposition of martial law, not a single offense was pretended ever to have been committed by the inhabitants. Amongst those who suffered during this period, was one whose execution is thus mentioned by Lord Torrington in a dispatch to Earl Gray___” An influential priest who was convicted of administering treasonable oaths, was shot at Kandy in full robes. This priests trial took place at Kandy, and he was arraigned–

First, For having directly or indirectly held correspondence with rebels, and Cur not giving all the information in his power which might lead to the apprehension of a proclaimed rebel, Kaddapolla Unanse, professing to know his place of concealment on or about 17th August, 1848. Second, For administering, or conniving at the administration (!) of a treasonable oath to one Kerr Bande, on or about the 17th August, 1848.

On these absurd and unintelligible charges the poor Buddhist priest was dragged before a military tribunal; tried by military judges, not one of whom understood the language in which the evidence against him was given; convicted and shot! Several attorneys who were present at the trial; and who did understand the language, felt satisfied that the witnesses for the prosecution had perjured themselves for the purpose of currying favor with the Governor, and that the priest was innocent. Under this impression they besought the Governor to postpone the execution. In vain Lord Torringtons answer was By G, sir, if all the lawyers in Ceylon said that the priest was innocent, he should be shot tomorrow morning. And shot he was. More, Earl Grey, in answer to Lord Torringtons dispatch announcing the execution, pronounced the death of the Buddhist priest to be highly satisfactory! Again, in a subsequent dispatch, Earl Grey, in the name of the Queen, complimented Lord Torrington, and declared his complete approval of his decision, promptitude, and judgment. Thus sustained by the Home Government, and having triumphed over the refractory inhabitants of Ceylon, surely Lord Torrington must feel proud and happy! But no: after all the massacres, pillages, burnings and confiscations after he had made a desert, and called it peace.

Lord Torrington discovered that his severe taxes were inapplicable to the island, and could not be collected. They were accordingly every one repealed!

These proceedings had now begun to attract popular attention in England, and in the session of 1849, a parliamentary committee was appointed to investigate then-i. Upon the evidence taken before that committee, we have based our statements. Their authenticity, therefore, cannot be impeached. And this is England. England of the World’s Fair, and the Peace Congress ; England of George Thompson, and the Abolition Societies! What matters it, that a few men, Cobden and Bright, and their associates, should denounce these atrocities, and that the London Quarterly Review should stigmatise them as a disgrace to the English name they have been sanctioned by the British government, and are the consequences of the policy by which, in its foreign and colonial relations, that government has invariably been directed. The history of Lord Torringtons administration in Ceylon affords an epitome of English rule, wherever throughout the world, by force, or fraud, or violence, she has succeeded in planting her guilty flag. The horrors perpetrated during 1848 in the island-gem of the East, are the counterpart of those of which, from time to time, during a period of seven centuries, the green isle of the West has been the victim.

We have reproduced this Ceylon tragedy, because it contains a moral upon which it behooves the Democracy of America, at the present moment, seriously to reflect. The flag which sanctioned the massacres of the Cingalese, and has witnessed the devastation of Celtic Ireland; the flag which, usurping every advantageous commercial and political position throughout the globe, has been the harbinger everywhere of desolation and death this flag, which in two wars, our fathers levelled in the dust, now flaunts us in the face on the southern portion of this our continent ; out-spreads its crimson folds over republican soil, insulting our manhood, blighting our commercial prospects, and dimming the lustre of the stars and stripes. Shall Central America share the fate of Ceylon ? Shall our sister Republics on this continent, whose independence, hy every principle of honor, of interest, and of duty, we are bound to protect, be consigned to the tender mercies of a Torrington ? Shall the island of Ruatan become the Ceylon of the Western Hemisphere, and the Isthmus of Central America be made, on a smaller scale, a second Hindostan ? We submit these questions, in all earnestness, to the consideration of the Democracy of America, confident that they will be answered in a manner worthy of those, xv hose pride it is, that they inherit the principles of a Jefferson, a Madison, a Monroe, a Jackson and a Polk.

  Courtesy: The United States Magazine and Democratic Review (1851)  

Original text courtesy of the
Cornell University proto-type Digital Library Collections – Making of America
Formatted Text in HTML put Online at Lakdiva.net with their Permission.

Editor’s Note: Text Proof read by Kavan Ratnatunga but many OCR and formatting errors, probably still remain.

Please also see notes on other interesting articles like this that have been put online in the Digital Library Collections of MoA.

Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister has expressed what the Sri Lankan public wish to hear. We want the Government to take a firm stand and strategize on how to put to rest this unfair, biased witch hunt against Sri Lanka. A conflict that lasted 3 decades was ended not by UN or UNHRC but by Sri Lanka. UN or UNHRC did not stop LTTE, could not stop LTTE and did not save a single child from being turned into child soldier killers. Not only that the UN or UNHRC could not stop war crimes against ANIMALS by LTTE. It is laughable how countries with blood stained hands are writing resolutions against Sri Lanka and demanding accountability while they refuse to be accountable for their sins both colonial and modern. The Sri Lankan public must understand the dangers at hand and why we must pressurize the GoSL through its foreign ministry to either seek a vote or lobby members to force the core group to withdraw their resolution.

UNHRC is interfering into the domestic affairs of Sri Lanka with each resolution.

This will politically socially and economically impact Sri Lanka as it will impede our sovereignty.

Why Sri Lanka must go for a vote? 

In simply sitting silent while the Core Group reads out its bogus charges and not asking countries whether they agree or not,  Sri Lanka is silently accepting every lie and trumped up charges.

In not raising objection, Sri Lanka will be allowing UNHRC to continue with more detrimental demands that will interfere into the legal mechanisms of Sri Lanka, leaving no room for the national laws to prevail.

In simply surrendering, we will be allowing foreign intervention via R2P  (armed humanitarian intervention) and eventually end up remote controlled by Geneva. It’s a modern version of Colonial Governor in the form of Bachelet ruling Sri Lanka.

In not raising objection, Sri Lanka is watching UNHRC flout the UN Charter and the spirit of the UN Charter and international laws. We cannot allow this to happen to Sri Lanka, for eventually it will be repeated on other countries as well.

All that UNHRC will say is – ‘we did in Sri Lanka, your country is next’.

Countries that nitpick on Sri Lanka for human rights, claiming we cannot look after our own are cannot even look after their covid patients and are holding world records for covid deaths1

If Sri Lanka doesn’t go for a vote, Bachelet will invoke individual unilateral sanctions because she cannot use her office to impose sanctions.  Only UNSC can impose sanctions and that too if a nation poses an international threat to peace. UNSC has never sanctions countries for human rights!

If Sri Lanka doesn’t go for a vote, it’s as good as admitting to the lies being told by even the UNHRC head. For her to read out a report and says ‘more than 250,000 people were detained for months in military-run closed camps’ is unacceptable and the GoSL must demand she retract &  apologize for this. This is going overboard with lies.

We have been repeatedly saying that if there were individual excesses committed by soldiers not adhering to command or not following rules of war, then bring these individual instances with evidence and separately charge them if found guilty beyond doubt. But the brush stroke allegations of the nature that the UNHRC head is putting into her report is going overboard with bias. It is because of these lies that we must defend our troops and our nation.

If Sri Lanka, remains silent and allows the UNHRC heads’ biased report to go without admonition then we are again walking into another external intervention of what took place in 1987 with India threatening Sri Lanka, dropping parippu over Sri Lanka and forcing the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord and landing Indian Peace Keepers that killed Sinhalese, Muslims and Tamils and even raped 3000 Tamil women. Do we want a repeat of this? NO

But what is important to realize is that India intervened unilaterally, today we are facing QUAD nations & their allies who wish to use Sri Lanka’s airports and ports as military installations and use our land for international trade and holiday hub for their staff and families – look at the number of foreign resorts, foreign apartments emerging across Sri Lanka and the manner they are creating no-go zones securing the area for themselves!

Therefore, the 2015 co-sponsorship of 30/1 resolution paved the way for much damage. The best way to get rid of the defenders of the nation is to put them in jail on trumped up charges, this is what the UNHRC is tasked to do via the international tribunal with international judges and international lawyers to find our war heroes guilty and put them out of the way, while they descend and rule Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka must now be alert, as the UNHRC has come to the last leg of its outsourced plan by the QUAD and allies. Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans must unite to save its sovereignty and its nation.

Shenali D Waduge

Courtesy Aljazeera

Sri Lanka subjected to ‘unprecedented propaganda campaign’, the foreign minister says in video address to the UN Human Rights Council.

Sri Lanka has urged the United Nations Human Rights Council to reject a forthcoming resolution voicing serious concern” over the deteriorating” rights situation in the country.

Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena told the council it would have to decide whether time should be spent raking over Sri Lanka or if the resolution was politically motivated.KEEP READINGSri Lanka to allow COVID burials for Muslims after outcryUK Muslims complain to UN over Sri Lanka’s cremation policySri Lanka war memorial to be rebuilt after Tamils protestThousands in Sri Lanka drink ‘miracle’ COVID potion, minister ill

Sri Lanka had been subjected to an unprecedented propaganda campaign”, he said on Tuesday in a video address to the UN rights body, which is meeting virtually.

It is regrettable that … elements working against Sri Lanka intend to table another country-specific resolution.”

Members should choose whether Sri Lanka warrants the urgent attention of this council – or if this campaign is essentially a political move that contravenes the very values and principles on which this council has been established”, he added.

Last month, UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet called for an International Criminal Court investigation into Sri Lanka’s Tamil separatist conflict and sanctions against top generals and others accused of war crimes.

Bachelet accused Sri Lanka of reneging on promises to ensure justice for thousands of civilians killed in the final stages of the 37-year separatist war that ended in 2009.

The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Malawi, Montenegro and North Macedonia submitted a draft resolution for consideration by the 47-member Human Rights Council next month.

It is the only one tabled so far during the 46th regular session of the council, which opened on Monday and is due to run until March 23.

It expresses serious concern over emerging trends over the past year, which represent clear early warning signs of a deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka”.

They include the accelerating militarisation of civilian government functions, erosion of the independence of the judiciary … ongoing impunity and political obstruction of accountability for crimes … surveillance and intimidation of civil society and shrinking democratic space, arbitrary detentions, allegations of torture”.

It also voices concern that the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has hurt freedom of religion.

It urges Colombo to ensure a thorough and impartial investigation and, if warranted, prosecution of all allegations of gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law”.

Gunawardena said the resolution, if passed, would only result in a significant loss of morale in countries fighting terrorism”.

The council must hold the scales even – not going by hearsay,” he said.

By Rohan Gunaratna Courtesy Adaderana

The Global Tamil Forum (GTF) the real reincarnation of the LTTE – Rohan Gunaratna

http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=8115

The Global Tamil Forum (GTF) led by the Norway-based Nediyavan is the real reincarnation of the LTTE, and not the US-based outfit led by Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, which is trying to establish a Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), says Prof.Rohan Gunaratna, the Singapore-based expert on terrorism.

Gunaratna, who heads the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism at Nanyang University in Singapore, told Express that Rudrakumaran has a better understanding of politics and is therefore more likely to negotiate a settlement with the Sri Lankan government than Nediyavan, who is a hardcore LTTE man.

Nediyavan, who had studied in Moscow, ended up being deputy to Castro, the LTTE’s chief fund manager.

In due course Rudrakumaran will realise that a Transnational Government is a pipedream like an independent Tamil Eelam and will start talks with the Sri Lankan government,” Gunaratna predicted.

He pointed out that all those Tamils who had voted in the recent TGTE elections are citizens of countries other than Sri Lanka, and that 90 percent of these will not come back to their ancestral homeland. 

The expert characterised Rudrakumaran, a US-based attorney and son of a former Mayor of Jaffna, as a cautious person” who keeps within the law, unlike Nediyavan’s followers.

BTF MORE DANGEROUS THAN TGTE

According to Gunaratna, the British Tamil Forum (BTF) is a handmaiden of the GTF and Fr.Immanuel, who heads the BTF, is a puppet” of Nediyavan. Fr.Immanuel preaches ethnic hatred not reconciliation,” Gunaratna said.

Yet, the former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and several MPs had addressed the GTF on February 25 in London.The BTF is therefore more dangerous for Sri Lankathan the TGTE.

DOOR OPEN FOR ARMS SMUGGLER ANANDARAJAH TOO  

As for the Sri Lankan government, it is ever ready for talks with anyone giving up violence and opting for negotiations, Gunaratna says.

Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa is a man with a mission who knows when to use military means and when to talk peace. If it is necessary to bring about lasting peace, the Secretary of Defence will negotiate even with those LTTE leaders who had committed heinous crimes. After all they too are Sri Lankans, though misguided,” he said.

Doors for talks are open even for a man like Ponnaiah Anandarajah, the LTTE’s top arms procurer, who had smuggled more than 10,000 tonnes of armaments between 1996 and 2009, Gunaratna said.

AMNESTY FOR LTTE CADRE

The expert regretted that Western governments are turning a blind eye to the fact that Sri Lanka has given amnesty” to over 10, 000 hardcore LTTE cadre who had surrendered.

These LTTE cadre are in the process of being rehabilitated and absorbed into society, and that is like getting amnesty,” he explained.