Women’s dress code in Sri Lanka, especially after the Easter Sunday massacre, has become the talk of the town. This was attributed to the carnage carried out by young Islamic Terrorists (Wahhabis) espousing suicide bombers. Being educated and hailing from comfortable families, it remains an unresolved setback as to how those young hearts impregnated with celestial fire were converted into terrorists, and to the extent of completely brainwashing, to believe in a theory of dying as martyrs for Islam and religion would take them through the portals of Heaven in a beeline!
This goes to prove the harsh reality of brainwashing done by warped minds of Wahhabis, as no religion on earth would advocate killing of another person or committing suicide and self-destruction, the punishment for which is known to be directly to Hell.
The Abaya
The question of women’s dress code came to the forefront after a man dressed in an Abaya was arrested by Police, immediately after the Easter Sunday massacre. Abaya is a long and loose black garment covering the entire body, whereas a niqab is a veil covering a woman’s face, ears, and hair leaving only the eyes exposed. This is most common across the Muslim world where fashionable women wear hijabs or scarves in the presence of any male outside of their immediate family. Some women, of course, wear hijabs not having a choice, as it’s their culture or families mandate. Generally Muslim women cover their head and the face because they chose to, as an expression of their modesty towards religious conviction and devotion to Allah.
After a man was arrested wearing an Abaya following the unfortunate calamity, it was natural for the general public to generate a certain amount of fear psychosis, the worst being some assumptions were allowed to gain control by assuming that ‘every Muslim person is a terrorist’! This was a spontaneous feeling among the citizenry when caches of weapons and ammunition were detected by Security Forces immediately after the massacre, but the veracity of it was that most of the tip-offs came from the Muslim Sufis themselves.
Official circular
Following the unpleasant incident of 21 April, the Ministry of Public Administration made it compulsory for all female employees in Government Institutions to wear saris or Kandyan ; males had to wear shirts and trousers, or national dress. Immediately, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka received complaints against the Public Administration Circular No.13/2019 for violating fundamental rights of female officers, particularly. The Ministry later announced that the Circular was issued to ensure the security of public officers at Government institutions.
This unprompted situation surfaced as some of the Muslim women in Sri Lanka had decided to wear the Abaya as part of their daily dress, of late, after being influenced by Saudi Arabian Wahhabis. Sufis believe in angels as opposed to Wahhabis who do not entertain such ideas, but act against anyone who denigrates Islam and believes should be eradicated ! The Islamic community in Sri Lanka has been an entirely different breed from those in Saudi Arabian Wahhabis.
In a broad generalisation, it is a woman’s prerogative to enjoy privileges for protection and self-defence. By nature, the woman is protected by a self defence system where women will be able to accuse or blame any man and get away with ‘murder’, which expresses in an English idiom as, ‘hell has no fury like a woman scorned,’ meaning there is nothing unpleasant as a woman turned nasty when offended! That may be the reason why in a Court of Law or inside a Police station, women are at an advantage over any third-party asseverations!
For centuries women have been given a raw deal in search of righteousness and beauty, particularly in the Middle Eastern countries. In Saudi Arabia, for example, where religion has become a pedantic tool, women have had to put up with numerous restraints. Women there are apparently treated as men’s slaves and believe that a woman’s role is only to breed!!!
In Turkey, hijab is usually considered chic and elegant, so women wear coloured fabrics and silk scarves with beautiful prints. Persian women wear loose rusari scarves, in preference to black chadors preferred by conservative Shiite women in Iran. In northern Sudan, the law requires women to dress in moderation or risk whipping or flogging. Women in the Gulf Arab usually wear both the abaya and niqab in public and in mixed company. It is also said that for a woman in ‘Afghanistan not wearing a headscarf is almost as scandalous as a woman in America appearing naked in public.’
Female elegance
The elegance of a female figure is projected when she wears a sari as opposed to any other dress. The origin of the sari goes back to an ancient Indus Valley Civilisation in Pakistan and the Northwest of India. The dress evolved from a three-piece ensemble comprising the lower garment, the tail end worn over the shoulder, and a blouse covering the chest. This is recorded in the 6th century B.C. Subsequently, the lower garment and the veil merged to form single apparel called the sari.
The sari, therefore, being one of the oldest forms of women’s attire, dating back to 5000 years, is draped in different styles in various regions of Asia. Likewise, osariya is well known in Sri Lanka as the Kandyan sari, which has its unique style of draping and is often considered as the national dress in Sri Lanka, particularly among the Kandyan women. In India the draping of the sari is wide and varied according to many styles dependant on the area one lives in .For example, the most popular style is known as the Bengali styles of Nivi and Kappulu arrangement, which is common in Andhra Pradesh. Mekhela drape comes from Assam, Nauvari drape from Maharashtra, Mohini attam drape from Kerala, Seedha Pallu drape in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha and Surguja drape in Chhattisgarh.
The Osariya worn by Sri Lankan women originated from fashions in South India. It is believed to have had an influence on Nayakkar Kings who were the rulers of Kandyan Kingdom between 1739 and 1815, prior to the arrival of the British rule. What makes the Osariya divergent from other styles of sari draping in India is its additional elaborate frill at the side of the waist, which is called the ‘Odokkuwa’ and the frilled boards of the shoulder, which is commonly known as the ‘ Osari Pota’.
The length of a sari drape varies from five to nine yards in length and two to four feet in breadth and is typically enfolded around the waist, with one end arranged over the shoulder, baring the midriff. A woman’s navel has always been symbolic feature with her sensuality, and the sari does a perfect job in highlighting, it in a subtle, yet sexy way to create a sensuous look. Hipster style is ideal for slimmer shapely women with a deep round navel, while their hips ripple when they walk! Such women may be able send onlookers aghast as opposed to some women, who do not have a faintest sense of their figure, with a pot belly (no offence intended) wearing hipster sari for the sake of being fashionable, influenced by the ‘sexy chicks’ who expose their belly buttons and midriffs, a few inches below the navel!
There are still a few women who adopt a style of their own to cover the entire midriff with the jacket material. There are many theories about the women’s dress code. The Government in Sri Lanka has made it compulsory for women officials in Government service to wear saris after the carnage on the Easter Sunday. There are many choices and fashions, when it comes to draping a sari that is personal to each woman. Some would like to wear deep neck and backless blouses, while others may feel wearing a backless blouse to an office is vulgar or indecent and sari blouses that expose an uplifted bustier and the deep cleavage, with the third button undone, is only appropriate in a frenzied social gatherings!
However, the society has changed to such an extent that, currently many girls as well as middle-aged women don’t feel shy to flaunt their bodies, wear a hipster exposing their six-inch midriff in order exhibit the belly button (at times with a colourful stud) or their deep cleavage as fashion at parties and wedding ceremonies.
Is the Head of State and Government, the Commander-in-Chief of forces one who is mentally suitable to hold such office?
Recent statements by President Sirisena have raised major questions about the status of mind of the person, and his commitment to both the process and the principles that saw his election as President of this country. The most striking of these is his call to remove both the 18th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution.
Let us be kind, and consider him as a forgetful person, on his call to remove the 18th Amendment. It has been repealed, and was so done under his leadership in adopting the 19th Amendment, and that was passed in Parliament on May 15, 2015. Does he not remember the statement he made to the nation on his own role in getting this adopted with a huge majority in Parliament? Such forgetfulness could be one of political expediency and not that of mental unsuitability.
Has he also forgotten what the 18A was and why it had to be removed? Has he completely forgotten what the Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera had said of the need to remove 18A? Does he not know that 18A was how Mahinda Rajapaksa abolished the two term limit on the presidency, making it possible for him to hold office as long as possible or needed (by him) till his son Namal was groomed for the Office?
Do the twists and turns in presidential thinking make him unaware that it was the abolition of 18A and the adoption of 19A that has made Namal Rajapaksa too young to take over the presidency today at 30; something his father and possibly the rest of the Rajapaksa Regime would have liked?
Forgetfulness of such scope goes beyond mental imbalance, having a strong connect with the politically crooked. Is Maithripala Sirisena trying to prove to us he is not the person the people elected as the Common Candidate in January 2015? He need not try so hard, we know it, and have done so for some time.
He was Rising Star of Crookedness in the politics and governance of Sri Lanka, who has been playing his own game in politics to retain the powers of the Executive Presidency that he certainly helped remove to a large extent in the aurora of a new phase in our politics. When he wants the 18A removed, he must be having touching memories of how he, as so many others, voted to bring in that Amendment, which was disastrous to democracy. Is he now trying to ease such pain of mind by calling for removal of 19A?
Let us not forget, as Sirisena tries to bend our minds, that the 19A saw a return to a more democratic form of government and constitutional politics, in contrast to the crooked authoritarian policies of the Rajapaksa Regime. 19A was certainly not good enough for the majority of voters in January 2015, who sought the abolition of the Executive Presidency. That is a problem the people will have to face and take necessary steps in time to come.
But the Sirisena mindset of political amnesia and survival of the crooked is certainly not the stuff of political necessity today, even after all those failures and disasters in governance we have seen in Yahapalanaya.
Sirisena’s twists and bends in politics and governance is less to do with the people, and much more to do with the Rajapaksas. His mind is engulfed in the move to bring the defeated Mahinda Rajapaksa to office as Prime Minister in that October 26 coup of the crooked last year. Over and over we see that Maithripala Sirisena did not want to defeat Rajapaksa. It just happened, because that is what the people wanted, not what he wanted!
His efforts today are all tied at having some new deal with the Rajapaksas. Issue puzzling statements about him being the next SLFP presidential candidate; Have increased hope in the rising difficulties faced by Gotabaya…the theme goes on with steps in a new political dance of the SLFP and SLPP. The goal is the Presidency, with the reduced powers of the 19A (which he wants removed) and Mahinda Rajapaksa serving as Prime Minister – under Sirisena!
Just now, another presidential term for Sirisena remains in his dream world. But the stuff of crooked politics is such that dreams of such survival are not beyond expectation. Retirement at Polonnaruwa is not the goal of Sirisena today, just as retirement at Hambantota was not that of Mahinda Rajapaksa.
We are at the rise of the Sirisena –Rajapaksa Naadagama, a performance of dirty politics that could take the country to disasters worse than Easter Sunday. Race and Religion are the themes of both performers, with plenty of the corrupt and crooked providing the stagecraft.
We must also not forget the other solo player in the presidential dance. Ranil Wickremesinghe, one who has lost public support, but holding on to party manipulation. Just now, Sirisena has burnt his boats with Ranil. But, the flexing capacity of the crooked leaves room for more convoluted political relations; and Sirisena is a long jumper of the crooked, and not a high jumper of the just.
Getting back to the memories and mindset of Sirisena, he will realize that 18A is no more, and 19A will remain, unless removed by another 2/3 majority in parliament. Sirisena has no call for such a majority today; in fact his reality is one of a decreasing minority.
We will soon have much more of mental instability in the highest seat of Office!
Leader of the Opposition Mahinda Rajapaksa says he is personally against the implementation of the death penalty.
He made this comment addressing the media following a religious event held at Horapawita Sri Vijayasundara Pirivena in Kamburupitiya, Matara today (28).
The event, joined by Mahanayake of Ramanna Maha Nikaya Venerable Napane Pemasiri Thero, was held under the patronage of Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Norway and Germany have expressed deep concern regarding the Sri Lankan President’s decision to resume executions in the country for drug offenders.
Norway is deeply concerned that Sri Lanka intends to implement the death penalty, which would put an end to Sri Lanka’s 43-year moratorium on the use of this cruel and irreversible punishment,” the Norwegian Embassy in Colombo said.
The statement said that as recently as December 2018, Sri Lanka was one of 120 countries that voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.
The vote was a tangible sign of the global trend to move away from the use of the death penalty.”
Norway said implementation of the death penalty would negatively affect Sri Lanka’s international reputation and its human rights record.
Norway strongly opposes all use of the death penalty as a matter of principle. We believe that states have a duty to protect the safety, well-being and human rights of all their citizens.”
We have communicated our position and raised our concerns regarding this issue at the highest levels of the Sri Lankan Government, and we urge Sri Lanka to refrain from reinstating the death penalty,” the statement said.
Meanwhile the German Commissioner for Human Rights Barbel Kofler has also issued a statement in response to reports that the Sri Lankan President had publically announced that executions were to take place.
I am extremely concerned by reports that President Sirisena has publically announced that four death sentences are to be carried out,” she said.
She appealed to the Sri Lankan Government to continue to refrain from carrying out executions following a moratorium lasting more than 40 years, to which Sri Lanka itself expressed its commitment as recently as December 2018.
Executions would be a considerable setback along the path towards a reconciled and peaceful society, said the Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid at the Federal Foreign Office.
The application of the death penalty damages Sri Lanka’s reputation, its ambitions in the area of human rights and the country as a business location, she stressed.
Issuing a statement, the France government also said it is deeply concerned at the announcement and urged the Sri Lankan authorities to maintain the moratorium on the death penalty.
A resumption of executions would be inconsistent with the recent commitments made by Sri Lanka, which voted in support of the resolution calling for a universal moratorium on the use of the death penalty during the most recent UN General Assembly session just six months ago, with the justice minister taking part in the 7th World Congress against the Death Penalty in Brussels in February.”
France reaffirms its opposition to the death penalty everywhere and under all circumstances and encourages Sri Lanka to join the countries that have permanently abolished this inhumane, unjust and ineffective punishment,” the foreign ministry said.
The Commissioner General of Prisons has given an undertaking to the Appeals Court that the death penalty will not be carried out within the next 7 days.
Prisons Commissioner General T.M.J.W. Thennakoon gave this undertaking when he appeared before the court today after being served notice over a writ petition filed against the decision to implement the death penalty in Sri Lanka.
https://youtu.be/dB7jredQo0Y
Meanwhile the court decided to take up the petition, seeking a court order preventing the implementation of the death sentence, for consideration on July 02.
The petition was filed by journalist Malinda Seneviratne citing the Commissioner General of Prisons and the Superintendent of the Welikada Prison as its respondents.
In his petition, Mr. Seneviratne says the President had recently stated that he has already signed the relevant documents to impose the death penalty on 4 convicts.
However, he points out implementing the death penalty could lead to violation of human rights.
Hence, the petitioner seeks the Appeals Court to issue an interim order to the Commissioner General of Prisons and the Superintendent of Welikada Prison to prevent the implementation of the death sentence.
When
a plethora of concerns are emerging all revolving around secretly signed
agreements compromising Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and officials are not defending
the Nation in view of their divided loyalties, it is the right of every taxpaying
citizen to pose questions and demand answers. Everyone enjoying perks of office
are doing so because of the taxpayer grants them these privileges – is it too
much to expect that in return for all that they enjoy, they defend the sovereignty
& territorial integrity of Sri Lanka & its People? No taxpayer is
burdening themselves to maintain a Government apparatus that makes them
facilitate agreements that allows foreign troops to land as & when they
like I,n Sri Lanka make use of Sri Lanka’s airports, ports, harbours & land
& not be guilty for any violation to Sri Lanka’s territory or its people.
What is the role of a country’s foreign
ministry & its diplomats & staff?
A
country’s foreign ministry is important for several reasons. It is the channel
that formulates the nation’s foreign policy and promotes the policy abroad via
social, cultural, economic political interactions while defending the interests
of the State and the government at regional & international forums.
In
other words, the foreign ministry takes a country to the world and brings the
world into his/her country. Essentially, the foreign ministry, its diplomats
& staff are expected to be the face of their nation in the international
arena. Diplomats & staff are the agents of the State expected to function
on behalf of that state and not any other.
It
is for this reason that all members of the foreign ministry must be citizens of
a country. Dual citizens have divided loyalties. The question of dual
citizenship does not arise for ordinary citizens who have worked or lived
overseas and at some point in time wish to live in both countries and are
monetarily contributing to both countries. However, those in State service must
remain only citizens of the country they serve.
Marriage to foreign nationals – sex,
spies & diplomatic immunity
In
general, Foreign Service rules in most countries do not allow diplomats to marry
foreigners as “there is a risk of state secrets being leaked out”. This
rule has over time being tweaked because of favoritism and other factors that
have diluted policy objectives.
The
rationale takes us back in time to some stories (sleeping with the enemy)
1963 Christine Keeler sex scandal which resulted in the resignation of John Profumo
Secretary of State for War after she admitted to passing secrets to the
Soviets. Before her death I was a spy… I betrayed my country” – she had been
bedding Profumo & Russian spy Yevgeny Ivanov at the same time!
2011 IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn & the sexual assault on hotel maid – though
arrested he was bailed out on diplomatic immunity
2013
sex scandal in Israeli embassy in South America opens a can of worms
2018
Australia – deputy prime minister, and leader of the National Party, Barnaby
Joyce. Joyce was forced to resign after he left his wife to pursue a
relationship with his former media adviser, who is currently five months pregnant
with the deputy prime minister’s fifth child. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull
was forced to publicly say ministers… must not engage in sexual relationships
with staff.”
Foreign intel officers/agents as diplomats
Foreign
Missions also have intelligence officers/agents (as diplomats /business persons
or even journalists) who are highly trained in espionage techniques and often under
false names. Ironically they do not have diplomatic immunity unless declared a
diplomat!
UK
agents are known as ‘covert human intelligence source’ & provides
information to an intelligence officer. In US an intelligence officer is a
member of the CIA or FBI – while agent is an ‘informant’
In 2018
UK kicked out 23 Russian diplomats claiming them to be intelligence officers or
rather ‘spies’.
How
does anyone differentiate a spy from a good diplomat who falls into these 3
categories:
Political – representing one’s country while monitoring
developments in the host country
Commercial – helping companies in one’s country to
trade overseas & promote investments
Consular – helping citizens of one’s country as
well as those applying to enter one’s country.
The 19a included a clause that the President & Members of
Parliament cannot be dual citizens. If so this should trickle down to entire
Government service. No public official in any capacity should be a dual
citizen.
But the question is how is anyone to know if a MP/public
official is a dual citizen or not?
Incidentally,
the confusion was as a result of a Minute on November 2016 by Prasad
Kariyawasam then Foreign Secretary to Parliament giving 2 contradictory
statements
that new entrants
to foreign service had to be citizens of Sri Lanka only and anyone with dual
citizenship had to rescind their foreign nationality to join SL Foreign Service
(November 2016)
that public
service regulations did not prevent any Sri Lankan with dual nationality
holding a high post in public service though 19a established a condition that
MPs cannot be dual citizens. (9 August 2016 letter sent to Speaker Karu
Jayasuriya) following the appointment of Arusha Cooray as Ambassador to Norway.
Cooray was an Australian national. Prasad Kariyawasam’s response when the High
Posts Committee of Parliament objected was that countries like US &
Australia would not accept dual citizens of their country as envoys of Sri
Lanka! Arusha Cooray eventually went as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Norway,
Finland and Iceland in February 2019.
Obviously
this was a case of public officials grasping at straws for the lack of national
policy in the Foreign Ministry.
Who can answer
How many of Sri
Lanka’s foreign envoys/diplomats are dual citizens & were selected by Sri
Lankan Govt after knowing they were dual citizens?
How many of Sri
Lanka’s foreign envoys/diplomats are dual citizens but have not disclosed they
are dual citizens?
How many of Sri
Lanka’s foreign envoys/diplomats are dual citizens & married to foreign
citizens?
How many of Sri
Lanka’s foreign envoys/diplomats are dual citizens, married to foreign citizens
with children who are non-Sri Lankan citizens?
How many of Sri
Lanka’s foreign envoys/diplomats are dual citizens, married to foreign citizens
and having their non-Sri Lankan children being educated & having their
medical bills paid by the poor taxpayers of Sri Lanka
How many of
these children return to Sri Lanka to serve the nation after draining the
taxpayer of so much money?
Do
foreign envoys/diplomats, their spouses and children realize the amount of
money spent on them by the State which invariably means by the poor taxpayer –
all for which the return asked of them is to defend the nation & its
people.
How
many of today’s diplomats think joining the foreign service is simply a career
ladder for themselves instead of proudly defending the history, heritage,
international image of Sri Lanka and setting the wrongly promoted image and
lies straight.
Dr. Mohamed Shafi has performed 4372 Caesarian surgeries at the Kurunegala Teaching Hospital, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) informed the Kurunegala Magistrate’s Court today (27).
The CID produced a 210 pages long report to the court on the finding of their investigations on the assets of Dr. Shafi and the complaints lodged by mothers who underwent Caesarian surgeries under him.
The CID had recorded statements from over 500 persons on Dr. Shafi with regard to the investigation carried out against him.
However, no evidence was discovered connecting the doctor to the National Thowheed Jamaath (NTJ) or terrorist activities.
The CID informed the court that they refer to the Defense Secretary and take measures to release Dr. Shafi who under currently detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Meanwhile, the CID reported to the court that 4372 mothers had undergone Caesarian surgeries under Dr. Shafi and that they consist of 3479 Sinhala mothers, 860 Tamil mothers, and 33 Muslim mothers.
It was observed that the doctor had taken a shorter amount of time when performing Caesarian surgeries on Sinhala and Tamil mothers than the usual amount, CID informed the court and that he had sent away the attending staff towards the end of the surgeries, according to the statements received from some doctors and staff at the Kurunegala hospital, said the CID.
Meanwhile, an anaesthetician at the hospital, Dr. Deepani Nandasena had made a complaint to the Assistant Director of the hospital on Dr. Shafi which had resulted in a heated argument between the two doctors on a hospital corridor, reported the CID.
Reportedly, during the argument, Dr. Shafi had told Dr. Nandasena that he possesses he has the power of money as well as political power.
However, the CID has received615 complaints against Dr. Shafi and among them, 468 are based on suspicion, the department relayed to the court.
The remaining 147 complaints are from mothers who experience some complications following the surgery, the CID said.
Accordingly, the CID sought a court order to carry out an SHG test on the affected mothers at the Colombo National Hospital.
The attorneys representing the victimized parties objected to this request stating that the SHG would further deteriorate the health condition of the mothers who already experience complications or infertility.
Therefore, the court rejected the request of the CID and ordered to obtain a report on the matter from the doctors at the Kurunegala hospital including the hospital director and to produce it to the court on the 11th of July.
The attorneys representing the victimized parties stated that the CID has taken the investigations against Dr. Shafi lightly.
The CID further informed the court that the monthly income of Dr. Mohamed Shafi is Rs. 1,923,500 and he has purchased property worth Rs. 53,047,600 in the recent past.
Ven. Athuraliye Rathana Thero, too, attended to hear the court proceeding on Dr. Shafi today.
The case where several officers and other rankers of the Sri Lanka Navy have been implicated in the disappearance of 11 persons during the war in 2008-2009 has made waves both locally as well as internationally. At the international level, when the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) presented its report titled ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’ to the Fortieth Session of the UN Human Rights Council in March this year, the case that was the first to find mention in that report as an ‘emblematic’ case of human rights violation was the disappearance of these 11 persons.
This case also gained much attention locally mainly due to the high profile arrests that took place in the course of the CID investigation into the matter. Among the high ranking Navy officers who were arrested during this investigation were, the present Chief of Defence Staff Ravindra Wijegunaratne the highest ranking armed forces officer in the land, D. K. P. Dassanayake, a former Navy Spokesman and Sumith Ranasinghe the then intelligence chief of the Eastern Command. The war time Navy Commander Wasantha Karannagoda was also to be arrested in connection with this case but the Supreme Court issued an order preventing his arrest until the conclusion of a fundamental rights case filed by him.
The supreme irony in that being that this whole investigation into the disappearance of 11 persons began on the basis of a complaint made to the police by Wasantha Karannagoda himself in 2009 when he was the Commander of the Navy. Despite the high profile arrests that have taken place in its connection, the general public knows next to nothing about this case. Indeed even the highest officials in the defence establishment who should have known everything that there was to know about this case, also seemed to be surprisingly ill-informed.
Former defence secretary Hemasiri Fernando once announced in public that indictments were to be filed in relation to one of the most serious violations of human rights that took place during the war and he invited the Tamil diaspora to provide similar details of violations of human rights so that the government can take action to bring the perpetrators to book. Fernando did not refer to this case by name but it was obvious that he meant this case and no other. He was for some reason under the misconception that details of this case had been provided to the government by the Tamil diaspora whereas in actual fact the Tamil diaspora had little or nothing to do with initiating this case and they were, at best, interested spectators. If a defence secretary can be that ill-informed about this case, the general public can only be expected to be completely clueless. We publish here the details of this case which emerge from the B reports filed by the CID before the Fort Magistrate’s Court and other documents pertaining to the court proceedings.
Victims and perpetrators
This case relates to eleven individuals who are said to have been arrested by the Sri Lanka Navy at various times between 25 August 2008 and March 2009. The names of the missing individuals are as follows: Kasthuri
Arachchilage John Reed, Thyagarajah Jegan, Rajiv Naganathan, Susaipulle Amalan Leon, Susaipulle Roshan Stanley Leon, Prageeth Vishwanathan, Tilakeshwara Ramalingam, Mohamed Dilan Jamaldeen, Mohamed Saajin, Mohamed Ali Anver.
The CID has named fourteen suspects, all of the Sri Lanka Navy as being responsible for the disappearance of these eleven individuals. The list of suspects includes high ranking officers as well as other rankers and is as follows: Nilantha Sampath Munsinghe, Sumith Ranasinghe, T. Lakshman Udayakumara, K.P. Nalin Prasanna Wickremasinghe, T. A. Dharmadasa, D. K. P. Dassanayake, Rajapaksa Pathirage Kithsiri, Anura Thushara Mendis,Kasthuri Arachchige Gamini, Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi, Prabath Sanjeewa Senaratne, Imbulana Liyanage Upul Chaminda, Anton Fernando, Wasantha Karannagoda.
The present Chief of Defence Ravindra Wijegunaratne has not been named as a suspect in this case. He was arrested and remanded on the allegation that he had given Rs.500,000 from a navy fund to Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi a suspect named in this case, to flee overseas.
As we said earlier, this whole case started with a complaint made to the police by the last named suspect Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda. This is a rare instance where the original complainant himself has ended up being named as a suspect in the course of a criminal investigation. According to the B report filed on 1 June 2009, the first complaint was made to the Criminal Investigation Department by Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda on 28 May
2009 against naval officer Sampath Munasinghe to the effect that this officer was suspected of having maintained links with the LTTE. The original complaint stated that the navy had carried out a preliminary inquiry into the matter and that this officer had gone missing during the inquiry.
Due to the suspicion arising from his disappearance, naval officers had taken steps to search his quarters. Several suspicious documents had been recovered from his quarters including identity cards, passports and cheques. Navy Commander Karannagoda had thereupon requested the Inspector General of Police to make a formal inquiry into the matter. On 30 May 2009, the CID had taken custody of the documents recovered from officer Samapath Munasinghe’s quarters. It was found that four of the national identity cards recovered belonged to four individuals who had been abducted and the next of kin of these persons had made complaints to the Kotahena and Fort police stations about the abductions.
Over one year after the investigation began, the CID’s B report of 28 July 2010 stated that five youth who were suspected to have links with the LTTE had been abducted and inquiries were proceeding in this regard—these five youths were among the 11 persons mentioned in relation to this case—but that no evidence had been found directly linking officer Sampath Munasinghe to the abductions. The B report of 5 January 2011 stated that GovindasamyNaganathan the father of one of the abducted youths Rajiv Naganathan had received a call from a person called Hajiar or Ali saying that his son was in the custody of the navy under an officer named Hettiarachchi and asked for Rs. 10 million to obtain his release. The mobile phone used for this purpose belonged to one Mohamed Anver, who had also subsequently disappeared.
Investigation resumed
After the change of government, the B report of 19 February 2015 reported that the inquiry had been resumed on the orders of the court and that the CID needed to obtain a statement from officer D. K. P. Dassanayake to verify some matters relating to this inquiry. Dassanayake was at that time following a Master’s degree course in counter terrorism policy and strategy in the USA and he was brought back to Sri Lanka to be questioned by the CID.
The B report of 20 April 2015 contained a statement given by naval officer named Crishantha Welagedara. The latter had stated that he had been assigned as the second in command of the intelligence unit of the Navy’s
Eastern Command on 25 March 2009 under the then Lt Commander Sumith Ranasinghe and that Dassanayake was the officer in charge of the Special Intelligence Unit. He had further stated that there were some underground bunkers in a part of the Trincomalee navy base called ‘Gunside’, where detainees were being held and one day when they were brought out for a bath, he had spoken to them and found that Ali Anver, Rajiv Naganathan and Kasthuri Arachchige John Reed were among them. Ali Anver had shown signs of having been beaten and Welagedara stated that he had instructed naval ratings to have the injuries on Anver attended to.
On 22 May 2015, the CID reported to courts that a witness named B.M.Vijeyakanth a former LTTE cadre turned navy informant had declared that he been held in detention at Gunside in the Trincomalee base where he had met two individuals called Shantha Samaraweera of Kegalle and Pradeep of Ibbagamuwa. Shantha Samaraweera had given Vijayakanth a soap wrapper on which some names and telephone numbers had been written to be given to
Shantha’s family. Writing similar to that on the soap wrapper was to be seen on the walls of the detention cells and the CID had sealed off that cell. The pivot on which this whole case was based was the evidence given by officer Crishantha Welagedara and informant B. M. Vijeyakanth.
One year later, on 1 June 2016, the CID reported to courts that the 11 missing individuals had been held before their disappearance at Gunside illegally and in contravention of their human rights and that naval officers Lt Commander Sumith Ranasinghe, Captain Guruge and Navy Commander Wasantha Karannagoda knew of the existence of this detention center. On 27 September 2016, Inspector Nishantha Silva reported to courts that a statement needed to be recorded from former Navy Commander Wasantha Karannagoda but he had not been able to attend to the matter because he was involved in several other investigations such as the abduction of Keith
Nohyr, the murder of Lasantha Wickrematunga, the attack on Upali Tennakoon and the murder of schoolgirl Sivaloganathan Vidya in Jaffna.
Role of Mohamed Ali Anver The B report of 9 February 2017 stated that Mohamed Ali Anver was an informant working with Lt Commaner Sampath Munasinghe and that Ali Anver had given Munasinghe information about Rajiv Naganathan, and Munasinghe had told Lt Commander Hettiarachchi to arrest them. According to the testimony of a naval rating named Aluthgedara Upul Bandara, Sampath Munasinghe had been told by Ali Anver that he had information to the effect that a gang was collecting money for the LTTE by skimming credit cards. Ali Anver had got Rajiv Naganathan down to his house in Dehiwela and got them arrested by the navy. Arrested along with him were four other youths named Pradeep Vishwanathan, Tilakeshwara Ramalingam, Mohamed Dilan and Mohamed Saajin.
Thereafter, Ali Anver had phoned Naganathan’s father and asked for Rs. 10 million for his release. He had said that this money needed to be given to officers Sampath Munasinhe and Prasad Hettiarachchi. One day in November 2008, Ali Anver had in fact personally gone to see Govindasamy Naganathan and asked for Rs.10 million to secure the release of his son and they had ultimately agreed on a sum of Rs. 7.5 million. This money however had not been paid. Ali Anver, too, had disappeared in February 2009. Naval rating Aluthgedara Uplul, Bandara stated to the CID that one day in February 2009, the informant Ali Anver had also been arrested on the instructions of Sampath Munasinghe. He was the last of the 11 missing persons to be arrested. In probing the disappearance of navy informant Ali Anver, the CID obtained a statement from Mohamed Siraj Ali, the brother of Ali Anver. Siraj said that his brother had been an informant working under officer Sampath Munasinghe and that Anver had informed him that Sampath Munasinghe had told him to obtain Rs.10 million to release those those abducted. Siraj said that Anver had been in a despondent mood, and when asked about it, he stated that he had given information to the navy to arrest Rajiv Naganathan and four others and that it was Sampath Munasinghe who had told him to collect Rs. 10 million for their release, and that Anver did not like the task he had been given.
Siraj also stated Anver had called him from the detention center and told him that he had been abducted by Sampath Munasinghe and to talk to DIG Kamaldeen and Chief Inspector Lokuhetti to try and obtain his release. Siraj had said that he had put Anver onto CI Lokuhetti on the phone and based on the conversation that took place between them, he realised that Anver had been under threat from Sampath Munasinghe. DIG Abdul Said Kamaldeen said in his statement to the CID that he had got to know Anver Ali when the latter came to his house to study the Koran and that it was Anver who had given the information about the five youths to Sampath Munasinghe. Subsequently, Anver admitted to Kamaldeen that the five youth were not in fact LTTE, and that thereafter Anver had been under death threat from Sampath Munasinghe.
Ahmed Yunoos Imtiaz of Colombo 10, an associate of Anver’s, who knew Rajiv Naganathan had stated to the CID that Anver had made inquiries about Rajiv Naganathan and whether the latter’s father had money and other such details.
By C. A. Chandraprema (Continued from yesterday) Courtesy The Island
Navy Sampath
After the abduction of these 11 persons, the details in the B reports submitted by the CID reveal that at least two of them mainly Rajiv Naganathan and Ali Anver had made calls to the outside over mobile phones lent to them by the naval ratings guarding them. The B report of 7 June 2017 stated that the naval ratings on duty guarding the detainees had allowed them to speak to their next of kin in order to let the latter know that they were in detention. They had used SIM cards bought in other people’s names for this purpose. The B report of 20 June 2017 directly stated that it has been revealed that it was those who were guarding the detainees who had obtained extortion money from their next of kin.
Raman Prabhakaran, an uncle of Rajiv Naganathan, had received a call from the latter saying that he was being held in the Navy camp in Trincomalee, and he had given the phone number of a naval rating to his uncle. Then Raman Prabhakaran had received calls from the camp asking for Rs. 8 million for Rajiv Naganathan’s release. This had been negotiated down to Rs. 1 million. (This extortion demand was separate from the earlier demand of Rs. 10 million made by Ali Anver.) Rajiv Naganathan had told his uncle that the boss of the camp where he was being held was Capt. Dassanayake. Rajiv Naganathan’s mother and father had told the CID that the abduction had taken place on the orders of a Navy officer named Sampath.
Samsudeen Nihara the wife of K. A. Anthony stated to the CID that their son K. A. John Reed had been arrested on 8 September 2008 and on 17 October 2008, her husband Anthony had also been arrested. On 30 October 2008, she had got a call on her landline asking for Rs. 1.5 million for the release of the father and son. This was negotiated down to Rs. 500,000. The money had been handed over to the extortionists at a place in Narammala in the Kurunegala District. However the father and son were not released.
Naval rating John Kotelawalage Bandu Kumara stated that Rajiv Naganathan and Anver Ali had been allowed to take calls by him. His superior officers Sumith Ranasinghe and Chishantha Welagedara pulled him up for allowing detainees to take calls. He admitted that he had thought of accepting a payment of Rs. 500,000 from Rajiv Naganathan’s parents and allowing Rajiv to escape, but had given up the idea due to the difficulties involved. Naval rating Bandu Kumara’s plan had been to dress Rajiv Naganathan in new clothes and to get him out of the camp during the Sinhala New Year or Vesak.
Conflicting stories
When questioned on the disappearance of these detainees, the CID was told different stories by different people. B. M. Vijeyakanth, the LTTE cadre turned informant of the navy intelligence unit under officers Sumith Ranasinghe and C. K. Welagedara said that the detainees had been shot, and their bodies tied to concrete fence posts and taken to out to sea and dumped. The head of that intelligence unit, officer Sumith Ranasinghe, told the CID that he had never took charge of any of Sampath Munasinghe’s detainees. He said that a naval rating called Bandara had told him that the detainees arrested by Sampath Munasinghe had been killed and dumped in the Kelani River.
Ranasinghe also said that he was aware that Sampath Munasinghe had been abducting people from various parts of the country and that four of them had been killed in Colombo and the others in Trincomalee. He also said that he was not on good terms with Sampath Munasinghe. For his part the first suspect in this case Munasinghe said that his room (which was searched and from which the ID cards of the disappeared were discovered) had in fact been used by Lt Commander Hettiarachchi and that Hettiarachchi had worked under Dassanayake and further that it was Hettiarachchi who had arrested the five youths (including Rajiv Naganathan) and that those responsible were officers Hettiarachchi and Ranasinghe and that he had nothing to do with it.
Officer Crishantha Welagedara told the CID that one day, he had got to know that some detainees at Gunside had been killed and he gone there to look into the matter. When he arrived at Gunside he saw a parked cab and one Gamini, a naval rating attached to the intelligence unit loading a long black polythene bag onto the vehicle. The shape of the bag led him to believe that this could be a dead body. He surmised that the detainees brought from Colombo had been killed and taken in the cab and disposed of. Nalin Prasanna Wickremasuriya said that Rajiv Naganathan was one of those he questioned and that he had been told by naval rating Bandara that four of the detainees had been strangled to death and dumped in the Kelani River in the Kaduwela area.
Despite a decade of investigations and statements obtained from mutual antagonists within the navy, the B reports do not indicate that anyone, at all, had actually seen these detainees killed or even a dead body after they were killed. The CID told courts that it had been established beyond doubt that the 11 persons abducted in Colombo had been detained at Gunside and that there was no evidence to show that that these people had been rehabilitated or that they have gone abroad. Though it was nine years after the abductions, none of them had come back home either and there is no evidence to show that they are alive. Therefore, there was a justifiable suspicion that these persons had been killed.
Officer Travis Sinniah, who was soon to become the Commander of the Navy, told the CID that on the orders of Wasantha Karannagoda the detention centre at Gunside had been administered by Lt Commander Ranasinghe under the supervision of D. K. P. Dassanayake. Sinniah said that he had been told by Karannagoda not to interfere with the Gunside operation. He also said that Dassanayake controlled ingress and egress to the Gunside detention centre and that vehicles entered and exited without being checked on the orders of Dassanayake. He said that he, too, had heard about some killings that had taken place at Gunside and that Karannagoda and his officers were responsible for everything that took place. According to the B report of 13 July 2017, Sampath Munasinghe also told the CID that the then Navy Commander Karannagoda had been informed of the arrest of these suspects.
First suspect Sampath Munasinghe
The lawyers making written submissions on behalf of the second and third suspects Sumith Ranasinghe and Tilakaratnage Udaya Kumara, pointed out before the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s court on 12 March 2017 that though the ID cards of some of the missing persons had been found in Sampath Munasinghe’s quarters and though the CID had informed courts on several occasions that Munasinghe was directly responsible for the disappearances, at no point, had the CID charged him for murder under Section 296 of the Penal Code or for an offence involving the use of firearms under Section 44 of the Firearms Ordinance. However, after nine years, the CID had charged the second and third suspects for murder under Section 296.
The first suspect Sampath Munasinghe was arrested in 2009 and released on 9.6.2010. He was charged with the lesser offence of kidnapping or abducting a person in order that such person may be murdered under Section 355 of the Penal Code which carried a maximum penalty of 20 years rigorous imprisonment unlike Section 296, which carries the death penalty. However, after the new government came into power, it was decided that an offence under Section 296 and Section 44 of the Firearms Ordinance had taken place. On 26 April 2017, the Colombo Magistrate’s Court issued an order in relation to the request that officer Sampath Munasinghe be re-arrested. The Court observed that the Attorney General’s Department had stated that since the first suspect was already on bail there was no need to re-arrest him. But the lawyer representing the victims requested that he be re-arrested.
The court observed that Munasinghe had first been arrested on10 June 2009 and granted bail on 9 June 2010. Furthermore, the court observed that the CID had informed Court that the IDs found in the first suspect’s room were those of persons who had disappeared but that it had not been ascertained who had abducted those people. The CID further informed Court that the first suspect’s involvement in the abduction of five persons in Dehiwala had not been ascertained. Furthermore, the first suspect had not been identified by the next of kin of the victims. Those were the reasons why he had been granted bail in 2010. The Court therefore rejected the call for re-arresting Sampath Munasinghe.
In the written submissions to Court made on behalf of T. I. G. Dharmadasa, a naval officer, working under Lt Commander Hettiarachchi, his lawyers stated that Dharmadasa had been called to the CID for the first time on 16 February 2015 to give a statement. He had been told by the CID that he could become a state witness if he gave a statement in a certain way. He refused to do so on three occasions. On 21 April 2017, he was named a suspect in the case.
CID guilty of perjury?
Through the B report filed on 22 February 2019, the CID informed Court that Lt Commander Prasad Hettiarachchi had abducted the victims and the then Navy Commander (Karannagoda) had been informed of the arrests. Though he had been in the know about the abductions, Karannagoda had tried to shield the culprits and pass off the blame on Sampath Munasinghe, saying that he was involved in terrorist activities and that the IDs of the victims had been found in his room. The CID told Court that if Karannagoda had exerted due diligence when he first heard about these arrests, the victims could have been saved.
Karannagoda is being investigated by the CID for murder under Section 296 of the Penal Code, under Section 356 for kidnapping or abducting a person with intent to wrongfully confine that person, under Section 388 for criminal breach of trust in dishonestly converting to his own use property entrusted to him and under Section 199 of the Penal Code for intentionally failing to give any information about an offence that he has knowledge of. From the B report of 16 March 2018 and 12 September 2018 the CID referred to officer Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi as ‘Navy Sampath’ even though the original Navy Sampath was Lt Commander Sampath Munasinghe.
In filing B report dated 12 September 2018, Inspector Nishantha Silva stated that it had been 10 years since the victims in this case had been arrested and their next of kin were in great pain of mind. He stated that as this endeavour is being made to do justice to the next of kin of the victims, the Navy and other concerned parties should extend the fullest cooperation to the investigation. In the B report dated 26 September 2018 Inspector Silva stated that the next of kin of the victims were in a state of deep sorrow and whatever the obstacles he had to face, he would not be discouraged in his endeavor to do justice to the victims’ next of kin.
On 2 January 2018, one of the key witnesses of the CID, B. M. Vijeyakanth, the former LTTE cadre turned navy intelligence operative, made a special statement before the Colombo Fort Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne. He stated that it was officer Chrishantha Welagedara who had taken him into the Navy. One day, officer Welagedara had introduced him to two men one of whom he later learnt was Inspector Nisantha Silva. The two men had shown Vijeyakanth 12 photos and they took down his details and got him to sign a statement. As he was leaving after giving the statement, Vijeyakanth told the men that he did not know the people in the 12 photos. Once he had left, officer Welagedara accosted him and said that he had said that he did not know the people in the photos and sent him right back to tell the CID officers that he did know the people in the 12 photos.
Officer Welagedara instructed Vijeyakanth to tell the CID that he knew one Shantha and the other 11 persons and that they had been in detention together in Trincomalee. The CID officers told Vijeyakanth that he would be taken to a room and questioned and that he should answer as if he were doing it on his own volition and he should not say that he had been coached to say those things. Subsequently, Vijeyakanth was asked to come to the CID headquarters. Inspector Nishantha Silva had not been present but he had reached Vijeyakanth on the land line in the room and told him to give the statement as agreed. Vijayakanth did as instructed and left the CID headquarters.
These, in a nutshell, are the basic details of this ‘emblematic’ case which emerge from the B reports and certain other court records.
Dr. Kohona addressing the media. Mohan Samaranayake looks on(pic courtesy Eliya)
Sri Lanka has no defence agreement with the US and it should be cautious as regards agreements that may put it on a collision course with countries like India, China and Iran, warns former Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Palitha Kohona.
Speaking to the media in Colombo yesterday on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and Acquisition and Cross-Servicing agreements (ACSA) between Sri Lanka and the United States of America, former Foreign Secretary and UN official asked why Sri Lanka has to enter into agreements which were not beneficial to it.
“What is our political leadership thinking? The US has over 100 SOFA agreements around the world?’ he asked.
He said the US military personnel could come to Sri Lanka, carry weapon and do anything and they could not be dealt with under the local laws.
Citing examples, Dr. Kohona said US forces faced a number of rape charges in the Philippines, but did not face legal action in that country.
The former top UN staffer said that parliament should have a role in discussing such agreements because they affected sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the country. Agreements of that nature should be approved by parliament by a two-thirds majority, he added.
“What I say is that we must maintain good relationships with USA, China and India but that it should not mean we should sacrifice our independence,” the former Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to UN Headquarters in New York said.
The Acquisition and Cross Services Agreement (ACSA) was signed first in 2007 and renewed in 2017 after being expanded with many controversial annexures.
The ACSA provides for joint military cooperation between Sri Lanka and the United States and includes logistic support, supplies, services and the use of airports and ports during “unforeseen circumstances”, Dr. Kohona said, warned that while the 2007 ACSA permitted US military vessels to enter Sri Lanka ports on a ‘one-off’ basis, the 2017 ACSA appears to be “open ended”.
Senior Journalist and former UN official Mohan Samaranayake said that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was the only winner who wanted to promote imperialism and danced to the tune of Western powers.
Citing examples, he said that PM Wickremesinghe was the only leader in the developing world who justified the US invasion of Iraq.
He stressed that Sri Lanka could not antagonise any country but at the same time could not give in to anyone.
The interrogation of a hardcore National Thowheed Jamaat (NTJ) leader recently extradited from Saudi Arabia has led to the single biggest detection of explosives belonging to the now proscribed organisation.
The police identified the suspect as Hayathu Mohammadu Ahamed Milhan, a close associate of Zahran Hashim, the mastermind of Easter Sunday bombing campaign. Zahran triggered a suicide blast at luxury Shangri-la hotel.
The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) yesterday recovered 1,000 detonators, over 300 gelignite sticks, eight liters of liquid gelignite, detonator code and nearly 500 rounds of T-56 ammunition buried at Ollikulam in the Kattankudy police area.
Police headquarters spokesperson attorney-at-law Ruwan Gunasekera told The Island last night that the CID had taken Milhan to Ollikulam, where the suspect revealed the buried items.
Milhan was among five terrorist suspects deported from Saudi Arabia on June 14 following negotiations between the two governments.
They have left the country before the Easter Sunday attacks.
SP Gunasekera earlier in the day told The Island that Milhan had been involved in the first major terrorist attack carried out by the group on Nov 30, 2018 at Vavnativu, Batticaloa, where NTJ activists killed two police officers.
The NTJ had subsequently damaged several Buddha statues on Dec 22 and 26, 2018 in the Mawanella police area, followed by an attempt to kill Mohamed Rasik Mohamed Naslim at Danagame, Mawanella on March 09, 2019, controlled explosion of a motorcycle at Kattankudy on April 16 and Easter Sunday carnage on April 21, 2019, SP Gunasekera said.
SP Gunasekera said that two brothers responsible for the destruction of Buddha statues had been arrested in the Gampola police area following Easter Sunday attacks. The police official identified them as residents of Delgahagoda, Mawanella. Responding to another query, SP Gunasekera said that the CID had arrested Abo Hanifa Mohamed Mufees, 26, involved with the brothers wanted over destruction of Buddha statues during a raid on Lactos estate in the Puttalam area on January 16, 2019. In addition to Mufees, the CID arrested three others namely Amir Hamza Mohamed Hamaz (25), Mohamed Nafeez Mohammed Navith (20) and Mohamed Nafeez Mohamed Nafrid.
According to SP Gunasekera, the detection made in Kattankudy yesterday was the biggest one since the recovery of NTJ hardware made in Lactos estate where 99 detonators were among the items found.
Of those arrested from Lactos estate, two persons, Mohamed Nafeez Mohammed Navith and Mohamed Nafeez Mohamed Nafrid, were produced before Mawanella Magistrate on April 10, 2019. According to SP Gunasekera, the suspects in terms of the bail conditions, reported to CID on April 27, May 25 and were scheduled to report again tomorrow (29).
Easter Sunday seemed to be another peaceful day in Sri Lanka. Then suddenly there was pandemonium as five bombs exploded and a carefully-planned ISIS-oriented bombing resulted in nearly 300 lives being lost to the deadly bombs with scores of people injured. The ISIS had struck in Sri Lanka this time.
The killers were suicide bombers and of Sri Lankan ethnicity. In a matter of hours, the authorities identified the killers as Sri Lankan Muslims belonging to the National Thawheed Jamaat. Suddenly the Sri Lankan Muslims who were hitherto a very peaceful people were now looked upon as merciless killers. Every Muslim was now a suspect and was fearful of communal backlash and riots. A very scary time for them as the majority community looked at them with suspicion and hatred.
How did the Muslims who were a peaceful people get entangled in this mess? They were less than 10% of the population and could be victimised and targeted so very easily. The mobs were screaming for blood. The Government imposed a curfew to contain the situation. It was however a Christian Cardinal who addressed the nation on mainstream media who saved the day and brought about, at least a temporary stop to the mobs running riot. It was his flock that had paid the price. The dead were mostly Christians and foreigners.
Sadly, none of the Muslim politicians or even the President or the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Ministers were able to appease the mobs so that they wouldn’t attack and loot the Muslims. This was however successfully accomplished by the Cardinal with his clever approach.
It would take time for the people and mainly the majority race to find out that these killers were not Muslims who followed Islam, but a group known as the Wahhabis or Salafis with their peculiar brand of interpreting Islam. In this article I shall try to show that the Muslims have nothing to do with Wahhabism, that Wahhabism is not Islam. Islam is against and has always been against Wahhabism.
Islam is a tolerant religion and Wahhabism seeks to terrorise. Islam does not compel others to embrace it. Wahhabism destroys all those opposed to it. Islam seeks to live a good life and Wahhabism seeks to restrict it. Islam respects other religions while the Wahhabis seek the destruction of all ideologies other than theirs. Islam seeks beauty and culture, but the Wahhabis want to destroy all culture, art and civilisation. I can go on and on about the difference in ideologies but suffice it shall be for now.
Islam encourages all faiths to intermingle and integrate among themselves. Islam teaches respect and love between all communities and religions. Islam encourages peace and advancement. Wahhabism is just the opposite of this. The Wahhabis do not tolerate anyone belonging to another faith and treat them like enemies.
My purpose in writing this article is to be able to differentiate between Islam and Wahhabism and to deal with each as they deserve. Let’s start with the very roots and see how far this cancer has eaten into society. Wahhabism is trying to pervert Islam to bring disrepute to it. They want Islam to be hated and made into a terrorist belief so that their political agendas are met. Let’s trace their beginnings and look into their beliefs and ideology in order to understand their motives and plan.
The fanatic – The roots of present-day Wahhabism
It all began with Ibn Taymiyyah. The Wahhabis get their ideology from him. They refer to Ibn Taymiyyah as Sheikh Ul Islam. His full name was Ahmad Ibn Abdul Halim Ibn Abdul Salam Ibn Taymiyyah, he was born in 1263 in Harran, Turkey about 600 years after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sal). He died in 1328, aged 65 in Damascus, Syria. This was during the beginning of the Ottoman Empire, which reached great heights due to Islam, as it carried the banner of Islam during this time and which was officially established in 1299. Eturgul and his son Othman, the founders of the Ottoman Empire, lived during his time.
Ibn Taymiyyah was a person who liked to be different and was known for his peculiar and alien beliefs. He was disliked by the mainstream scholars of his time for trying to forge a new ideology that was opposed to the accepted views on Islam, well founded by a rich heritage of Scholars.
We are told that all the Sunni Scholars (the two main divisions in Islam were the Sunnis and Shiites) of that time signed a document that he was preaching harmful and destructive practices and requested that he be put to death. He was accused of spoiling the faith of the Muslims of the time and corrupting Islam. All the Four Schools (Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali Schools of Jurisprudence) of Thought at that time opposed him.
Although the death sentence was not carried out by the Governor of Damascus, Ibn Taymiyyah was jailed for life. He miserably failed to establish his destructive and hate ridden School of Thought and it failed in totality. It was observed that this man was a fanatic and his teachings included intolerance and violence and many were the books written by scholars from both Damascus and Egypt refuting these teachings of his. Thankfully it died a natural death during his time.
Taking advantage of the teachings of a fanatic
Muhammad Ibn al Abdul Wahhab was born In Najd in Arabia and now Saudi Arabia in the year 1703, which was about 375 years after the death of Ibn Taymiyyah. He was the one who succeeded in bringing Ibn Taymiyyah’s teachings to the fore and was highly successful in most of the Arab countries, particularly in Saudi Arabia.
Although the average Wahhabi was trying to say that these teachings were Islam, the name Wahhabism stuck and is still used on those who follow these teachings much to the chagrin of the Wahhabis. There are hardly many differences between what is known as Wahhabi and Salafi. The enemies of Wahhabism used this term in a derogatory sense. So, the Wahhabis coined another name for themselves and called themselves Salafis. The British and Ibn Saud both needed Wahhabism to fulfil their political agendas. Let us shed some light on this.
The British factor
The Ottoman Empire had reached great heights, the Europeans were fighting the Ottoman Empire. The Crusades had happened, and Europe was wary of the Muslims. It was in short, a Christian and Muslim war for supremacy. The British Empire wanted to weaken and destroy the Ottoman Empire, they were always looking for ways and means to divide the Muslims so that they could achieve victory over them. It was during these times that the British made a plan to send in many spies to Turkey, the home of the Ottoman Empire. They planned a strategy to find out the weakest spot in the Ottoman Empire. They sent their spies in.
Ironically, my source is from one of the spies who made a confession by the name of Hempher. In his Confessions of a British Spy, he detailed that the British planned to gather information and use this information to destroy the Ottoman Empire. The spies found that each Muslim was equal in faith, to one of the Christian priests and that Islam was deeply lodged in their hearts and that their faith was very strong. The spies also reported, to weaken the faith of these Muslims; it would be necessary to plan out a strategy that would destroy Islam from within. With this purpose in mind the spies worked tirelessly to find a way to divide the Muslims. This spy, who I have mentioned above had the good fortune to meet with Muhammad ibn al Abdul Wahhab. In his estimation this scholar was all that they had been looking for.
Abdul Wahhab was a person with a rude disposition and did not have any respect for his peers or for the past scholars who were the Shining Stars of Islam. He looked down on Imam Abu Hanifa, (one of the Imams of the four Islamic Schools of Thought) and the other great Imams of the Islamic Schools of Thought. He was always trying to find fault with them and show that he was superior in intellect to these great religious personalities. He was greedy and was very ambitious. Hempher understood that he appeared to be the ideal tool with which he could contaminate Islam and to this end he began to work relentlessly.
Very soon he had befriended Abdul Wahhab and won his confidence. He begun to lay his trap. He even used two women named Saffiya and Asiya to have sexual relationships with Abdul Wahhab on a temporary marriage basis, which was anyway against Islam. From outside Hempher worked on him and from inside, from the bedrooms, the ladies got at him. The two ladies mentioned here according to Hempher were also funded by the espionage ring.
Slowly, they could see Abdul Wahhab walking into their trap. Because of his nature, Abdul Wahhab was attracted to fanaticism, intolerance and violence. This was the way of Ibn Taymiyyah as explained above. So, he made use of the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah to corrupt the teachings of Islam. He did this in a systematic and forceful manner and created an ideology which was to later be called by the name of ‘Wahhabism’. I would like to give the reference to the book below so that the readers may have access to the details of the British plan. The pdf is available to be downloaded free of charge below:
The Ibn Saud connection
During this time there was a person called Abdul-Aziz Ibn Abdur-Rahman Ibn Muhammad Al Saud. He was ambitious and was looking for a way to establish his power in Arabia. The British helped him with the most sophisticated arms at that time to win over and conquer the others and to form a Kingdom. They introduced into these regions, the Wahhabi ideology, now propounded by Abdul Wahhab, which they embraced as it also suited their purpose.
To rule in Arabia, and particularly to have the rights over Mecca and Medina, the two most holy places of Islam, it was necessary that the rulers be of the family of The Prophet (Sal) or the Hashemites (those who belong to the tribe of the Prophet known as the tribe of Banu Hashim). Ibn Saud did not fall into this category, so he had to change the ways of the thinking of the populous, so that his rule could be legitimised. Wahhabism gave them that opening.
The Prophet’s (Sal) family was not supposed to be specially respected in accordance with the Wahhabi teachings, as also the earlier Scholars and Saints too were not respected by Wahhabism. Wahhabism believed that personalities in Islam should not be looked up to and only Allah alone should be worshipped. So, this creed suited Ibn Saud to establish his Kingdom. The British got Ibn Saud and Abdul Wahhab into an alliance with each other, where the political backing would be given to Wahhabism by Ibn Saud and Wahhabism would be the official religion of Ibn Saud’s Kingdom, thereby serving both their purposes.
The New World Encyclopaedia summarises the Ibn Saud connection in the following words which gives us a greater insight into the Wahhabi conquest, expansion and rule in Arabia:
In 1744, Ibn Abdul Wahhab sought refuge in the village of Dariyah. This district was ruled by the rebel Muhammad ibn Saud and his family, Al Saud, which was responsible for organised banditry within Najd. The family ruled Dariyah according to its own whims and the village was a place of lawlessness when Abdul Wahhab settled there. In 1747, he made a power-sharing agreement with the family; Abdul Wahhab would become Dariyah’s religious authority, while the Al Saud family would be responsible for the village’s political leadership.
The Al Saud family also benefited from the pact, as the Wahhabi movement and its extreme religious fervor helped to legitimise their rule. The fusion of religious and political control would come to represent the modern Saudi Arabia, as well as mark the break between the Islam of the past, in which traditional Muslim scholars focused on inward contemplation as opposed to focusing on gaining global and political power.
With this new power arrangement in place, Abdul Wahhab and his followers urged a ‘jihad,’ or ‘The Struggle’ to promote the faith, against other Muslims, and thus, the Wahhabis began a blood-soaked campaign for expansion and domination.
Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s views were opposed to the mainstream Muslim scholars of Mecca and Medina of that time. For example, he called intermediation of Muhammad (Sal) an act of polytheism. Ibn Abdul Wahhab went so far as to declare jihad against Muslims who practised so-called acts of polytheism. By 1788, the Wahhab- Saud alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula.
In 1801, the Wahhabis began a campaign to gain control over the two holy cities of Islam. They raided Mecca and Medina and stole holy books, works of art, and other gifts the city had accumulated over the last thousand years. While they controlled the Two Holy Places, they imposed Wahhabism upon the populace, destroyed shrines and cemeteries, closed off the entrances to the holy city, to Ottoman pilgrims, barred pilgrims from performing Hajj and murdered respected citizens in both holy cities.
Through the 1820s to the 1860s, the Wahhabis launched attacks upon the Ottoman Empire, urged on by Great Britain, which was eager to see the collapse of the Turkish Empire and the distribution of its overseas possessions.
The Wahhabis’ power grew and shrank by turns throughout the century, until in 1901, the latest representative of the Al Saud and Wahhabi alliance decided to try and re-seize control over the two holy cities, Mecca and Medina. Ibn Saud journeyed to Riyadh, where he murdered the city’s ruler and took over control of the country. Over the next twenty-five years, he went on to unify the Arabian Peninsula through force. Wahhabism was the only official faith sanctioned in the state that would come to be formed there. To this day, no other religious establishment is allowed in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
Petro-dollars that helped spread Wahhabism to the world
Even though this alliance was made, and both continued successfully and captured various parts of Arabia, and destroyed culture and important shrines of Saints, Sahabas (Companions of Prophet Muhammad, Sal) and even of Prophets, Wahhabism still lacked global acceptance. History records the blood thirsty deeds of the Wahhabis during this time, with many massacres and gruesome deeds accomplished by them and the cruelty perpetrated on the innocent Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
This wasn’t sufficient to get Wahhabism on the map. Even Mecca and Medina were ransacked and thousands were killed. The Wahhabis took over the two most holy places of Islam. They thus became the custodians of Islam in the eyes of the world. But still Wahhabism as such was not spread till after the Arabs became super rich due to the discovery of oil. Once the petro dollars came in, they had all the wealth in the world to propagate this, harsh, cruel and intolerant ideology of Wahhabism to the world, under the guise of propagating true Islam.
The third world countries were especially targeted and large sums of money was spent in spreading Wahhabism to these lands. In 1970 and the period after, the Wahhabis gained a lot of ground by bribing poor countries and using influential individuals in those countries to establish their brand of Islam in the world.
Madrassas or religious schools were funded in these countries where a lot of money was pumped in to educate the children of many countries to Wahhabi doctrines and brainwash their minds into thinking that this was true Islam. Free Wahhabi doctrine books were freely distributed which then slowly became the syllabus of Islamic education in these countries.
Today terrorism and ISIS oriented attacks are a direct result of these teachings and they have nothing to do whatsoever with Islam. Many Muslims were taken in by these teachings and began to think that Islam was what Wahhabism taught. Even the world at large failed to understand that Islam was not Wahhabism, the Wahhabis relentlessly pursued their goal of corrupting and perverting Islam by making it change into the interpretation of Islam, given by Abdul Wahhab and Ibn Taymiyyah.
It is a sad story of how a most peaceful and tolerant Islam was changed to becoming known as a highly intolerant and cruel religion. Bombs begun exploding all over the world and thousands died. Suicide bombers carried out these attacks and the blame was put on the Muslims and on Islam. Islam being the peaceful religion it was, became known as terrorism and all the while it was Wahhabism that was being projected and implemented and not Islam, the Religion of Peace.
This has reached to such alarming proportions that people are fearful of being in the presence of a Muslim as they associate Muslims to be violent terrorists waiting to ignite explosives and bombs. This has caused fear which is now known and called as Islamophobia.
Glorious era of Islamic civilisation and dark doctrine of Wahhabism compared
I give below a few thoughts about the Islamic world given in an article entitled ‘The Islamic world in the middle ages’ (https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zx9xsbk/revision/1):
Throughout the Middle Ages, the Muslim world was more advanced and more civilised than Christian Western Europe, which learned a huge amount from its neighbour.
The ‘Islamic world’ was not a single state in the Middle Ages, but the different countries which formed it, had many things in common.
This fact is hidden from the world today and only very few know about the great Islamic civilisation that was known as the Golden Era.
It was created by the Arab conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries. From the 11th to the 16th centuries many thousands of Turks and Mongols migrated across the vast plains of Central Asia into the Middle East. They also adopted Islam. It stretched from India to Spain. Muslim traders travelled to places as far apart as the Sahara, South Africa, China, Scandinavia and Russia. Muslims traded high-quality goods such as silk, carpets, ivory and spices.
Knowledge of science and medicine in the Islamic world was far more sophisticated than in Western Europe. Cordoba in Muslim Spain was a city of over half a million inhabitants with street lighting and running water. At the same time 10,000 Londoners lived in timber-framed houses and used the river as their sewer.
Muslims were going to beauty parlours, using deodorants and drinking from glasses, at a time when English books of behaviour were still telling pageboys not to pick their noses over their food, spit on the table or throw uneaten food onto the floor.”
The extract quoted above is a short synopsis of how glorious the Islamic world was before the advent of Wahhabism. Many have been the books written on the Golden Era of Islamic civilisation and subsequent Islamic History, extolling the greatness and glory of Islam and its tolerance of other faiths. The world respected the Muslims and its culture.
This glorious period resulted in cultural monuments and architecture reaching to great heights. The romance of the Taj Mahal, the fascinating Arabian Nights, the wonder of Topkapi, and the Great Mosque Architectural Constructions in Cordoba, to mention just a few, all bear witness to this magnificent civilisation.
In contrast today, Wahhabism has cast a shadow of death, mayhem, mass murder, torture, cruelty, genocide, and terrorism over the world. Suicide bombers with no mercy in their hearts have been let loose to go on a rampage, killing the innocents. The world is being terrorised and held to ransom.
The Wahhabis vow that only they shall rule according to their ideology and the rest have to be killed or subjugated. They believe that they should kill the Christians, the Jews, all Non-Muslims like the Hindus and the Buddhists and even other Muslims who do not subscribe to their horrendous beliefs. This is not Islam, or will it ever be Islam. Islam means peace, the very opposite of this. Islam is identified with terrorism today. This is not Islam. Islam has ceased to be Islam and Wahhabism has replaced it.
The drama caused by Muslim politicians, since the decision to leave their Ministerial posts, has taken a new twist. Out of the nine Muslim politicians, who resigned in a huff, two have returned to their posts; almost from the backdoor.
Kabir Hashim’s and Abdul Haleem’s decisions have caused a rift among the group and in the process they let the cat out of the bag, as to the real reason for this group to take the stand it did when they resigned from their Ministries.
After the collective decision to leave their posts, they held a press conference to explain the reasons to the Sri Lankan public. They told us that it was to facilitate the ongoing investigations into the Easter Sunday massacres, that they were leaving their posts. Even at the time this statement drew much scepticism, for if it was indeed the case, they would have left the Yahapalana Government altogether.
Instead, not only did they opt to stay in Government and to support the Government, Rauff Hakeem continued to sit in the Presidential Select Committee appointed to probe into the 21/4 tragedy. From the aggressive manner he pursued the Government Circular, regarding the dress code for Government servants; the role he plays in the panel is obvious. Furthermore, despite their pledge to sit as backbenchers, they dominate the front, on flimsy excuses. Instead of revoking their Parliamentary privileges that they were no longer entitled to, as mere Members of Parliament, their security had been enhanced.
Favouritism
These decisions taken by Speaker Karu Jayasuriya are highly questionable indeed and did raise the hackles of Parliamentarians like Udaya Gammanpila. The reason given to justify a front bench seat for Bathiudeen, is applicable to Gammanpila as well. However, Gammapila who was in the Joint Opposition since 2015, and now in the Opposition since the beginning of this year, has been discriminated by the Speaker and forced to sit as a backbencher, despite being the leader of a political Party, the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya.
While the official reason for the Muslim politicians to quit was to facilitate the 21/4 investigations, unofficially, another reason was circulated among the public. Apparently, when Eastern Province Governor M.L.A.M. Hizbullah and Western Province Governor Azath Salley resigned, from their posts, on the request of President Maithripala Sirisena, pressure for Rishad Bathiudeen mounted. However, apparently he was obstinate not to follow suit. After much persuasion he had agreed, if all resigns. Therefore, fearing a backlash against the ordinary Muslims by non-Muslim communities, the other eight Muslim politicians opted to resign, en masse, ensuring that Bathiudeen too resigned.
Rathana Thera factor
This might have been palatable had it not been for the sequence of events. Venerable Rathana Thera began a fast-unto-death campaign to pressurise Bathiudeen to leave the Government. Interestingly, Rathana Thera’s campaign came in the backdrop of the Opposition’s call for a No-Confidence Motion against Bathiudeen. This NCM comprised a ten item charge sheet that links Minister Bathiudeen with the terrorists responsible for 21/4.
In the most unexpected manner Rathana Thera’s campaign gained traction. The non-Muslim communities united in this campaign to oust Bathiudeen from the Government. For Rathana Thera this was an incredible rejuvenation from the political wilderness he was stumbling about after the Yahapalana Government he helped to instal proved to be an absolute disaster. However, the reason for the campaign to draw the support, it did, was not because of Rathana Thera but because the animosity Sri Lankans have against Bathiudeen.
Until Rathana Thera took the initiative he was rendered a nonentity in the political arena. By the third day of the fast, however, the Thera’s well-being had become a national concern and even His Eminence Ranjith Cardinal Malcolm visited the fasting monk whose strength was fast deteriorating. By the time Hizbullah and Salley resigned Rathana Thera was almost comatose, but had regained some of his former glory. That may be the reason for the Venerable Thera to quit his campaign, without holding on until Bathiudeen too followed suit.
Nine Ministers
The group of nine Muslim politicians quit their Ministerial posts (but not the Government) after Rathana Thera stopped the campaign and while he was recuperating in hospital. Though they called a press conference and announced their resignation, they had not handed over their resignations even by the time Rathana Thera had left the hospital.
The No-Confidence Motion that was brought by the Opposition was against Minister Bathiudeen. However, as he is no longer a Minister of the Yahapalana Government, this NCM too went into abeyance. Despite Bathiudeen’s continued presence in the Government, Rathana Thera too had lost interest in him and was off to other ventures like storming into the controversial university that is under construction in the East conveniently with a Media crew on tow. However, in the wake of Hashim and Haleem retaking their Ministries their real reason for resigning in the first place was unwittingly revealed. This duo’s return to their posts was obviously done without the knowledge or consent of the other seven Muslim politicians, as this has come as a shock for the rest of the group. It is in their shock that they revealed that it was their collective decision not to return to their Ministries unless Bathiudeen was also reappointed. Therefore, this duo returning to their Ministries without Bathiudeen and the rest is being seen, by the rest of the group, as an act of betrayal.
Bathiudeen factor
If the collective decision was not to accept Ministerial posts unless and until Bathiudeen is also reappointed, then the decision to leave in the first place was obviously to protect Bathiudeen. They were protesting as a group against the call for Bathiudeen’s removal from Government.
It is indeed a pity that these politicians cannot keep track of their own falsehoods. When they thus expose themselves it is their supporters who are left with egg on their faces. Bathiudeen being protected by other Muslim politicians, just because they share the same faith, is a racist act and must be condemned unreservedly. Their collective failure to understand the gravity of the tragedy that befell nearly a thousand Sri Lankan citizens, in just one day within the space of an hour or so, is almost criminal. The explosive material used by Zaharan and his clan causes far more serious burns than the C4 used by the LTTE. Even as this is being written, there are many children still under treatment for their burn injuries. This is only a pinch of the tragic stories that 21/4 caused.
Ranil upset
Yet, most interestingly, it is not only the seven Muslim politicians, still in the group, that has taken exception to this duo’s return to their Ministries. It had riled Ranil Wickremesinghe, as well, as he had alleged that this group took the collective decision after consulting him. However, he had been kept totally in the dark when the two Parliamentarians decided to return to their Ministries. Thus, he obviously finds the decision of this duo most unethical.
The fact that these two had gone behind his back, to his arch enemy Maithripala Sirisena, to be reappointed, had hit Wickremesinghe hard. He had lashed out, at a UNP Working Committee meeting that he as the Prime Minister must consent to the appointment of any Minister, for Sirisena as President to appoint. So, naturally, he is not very happy that this ‘vital’ step had been ignored.
Most unfortunately, he too had unwittingly exposed his role in this contentious matter. It is obvious from his remarks that he too had played a decisive part in divisive politics to gain block votes at the expense of national security and unity.
It is indeed incredible the despicable lengths some of our politicians go to, just to get vote blocks, to retain the power base for themselves. It is time we realise, the sheer evilness of our current politicians and that Sri Lanka is in dire need of a true national leader who has no time for politics or to play this disgusting number game.
Since 1977, Sri Lanka has been following neo-liberal economic policies uninterruptedly. The change of Government has had no major impact on them. A forty-year period is long enough to assess the correctness of economic policies.
During this four decade period (1977-2019), total production as measured by Gross National Product (GNP) has increased substantially and as a result, per capita income has reached US dollar 4,000 mark. So Sri Lanka has moved from poor country category to lower middle income category. One may argue that this is a remarkable achievement. Many families have either a motor bike or a small car. Almost everyone has a mobile phone. Poverty in the traditional sense is not visible.
However, as we all are aware averages do not tell the entire story and are oftentimes misleading. Let us have an example. If the annual per capita income is US$ 4,000, the average annual income of a four-member family is US$ 16,000, approximately, Rs 2,848,000. So the monthly income of the family is approximately Rs 237,000. According to Income and Expenditure Survey, the monthly income of an average four-member-family is much lower, about Rs 65,000. A substantial number of families receive a monthly income lower than Rs 65,000. So, family indebtedness has increased. The number of hours that a person should work just for survival has increased from the accepted norm of eight hours a day. Nutrition level of the population has lowered. People are generally complaining as they are not happy with their lives. The quality of nature – land, water and sea – has declined. Indebtedness has so far led to 179 suicides. So what looks hunky dory at surface level does not tell the story in its totality.
Questions to be Asked
Are we allowed to continue with these neo-liberal policies? Will the continuation of these policies take us out of the present impasse? It is clear that the major contenders for power – United National Party-led coalition and the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna-led coalition – want to continue with the present economic policies backed by the trident – International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. Do these policies represent the interests and aspirations of the lower rung of the Sri Lanka society? No, on the contrary, they served the local and international rich elites. If we look at economic development from the perspective of the workers, peasants, fisherfolks, marginalised people and the like, we have to find an alternative. Alternatives emerge from praxis. Many in the peoples’ movement are still suffering from TINA syndrome. Some tend to think that alternatives exist, but they are not practical in the present international context. So first we should escape from this trap and start to believe that realistic alternatives exist and fighting for them makes them practical.
Alternatives that are Possible
The first and foremost we should move away from the system of exchange value production. In place of the production of exchange value, the country must move to a system of use value production. The most important use values include food, clothes, shelter, transport, health goods, education, culture products and entertainment.
1. Food and beverages: In order to have food autonomy, we need in sufficient quantities rice, red lentils, vegetables, onion, fruits, spices and oil and fish and meat products. Out of this list, except red lentils and garlic, all other items may be locally produced organically.
2. For a person to wear clean, smart and aesthetically designed clothes and garments may be produced locally, may be with some imported raw materials and machines. In this sector we may export some products.
3. Every family should be ensured decent housing with water and electricity. Sri Lanka may move gradually to non-fossil energy production.
4. A quick, comfortable, regular and reasonably priced public transport can reduce fossil fuel imports and consumption. People have the right to keep a private vehicle if they are ready to bear its operating cost.
5. Rigorous implementation of Senaka Bibile proposals and public hospital and health-care system with some essential imports may contribute to provide a better health system. As far as this is concerned mere improvement of the public health system would be adequate.
6. There has been a breakdown of our education system in the last 40 years. Education system should be free, less differentiated and holistic. It should be catered to critical thinking and technical and professional training.
7. Publicly-funded programme of culture production would help to create a new person”. Culture products should be available at a reasonable price.
8. People need like food, clothes and shelter entertainment. So maximum working hours should not exceed eight hours a day. Cheap hotels, vacation centres should be made available.
9. Imports: Some imports are necessary and unavoidable. Imports should be allowed classifying them into three categories. (1) No import duty (2) 10-100 per cent import duty (3) more than 100 per cent duty.
Secondly, we propose to gradually move away from the system of capital to a system beyond capital”. Capital is above all a social relation that situates machines, instruments and money in a dominant position above and over living labour. Placing capital goods such as computers, machines, and other instruments in the process of use value production in itself reduces their position in the labour process. Instruments are being in use from time immemorial. Nonetheless, under the present system, it is machines and instruments that control us in the process of production determining the speed and rhythm of work. In short it is not the fisherman who controls the fishing rod, but the fishing rod starts controlling the fisherman.
Thirdly, the process of production is controlled and steered by the associated producers. This may be done through multiple ownership and management systems, such as small ownership, cooperatives, producer collectives, State and so on. There have been many examples for successful collective ownership and management all over the world even under the constant threat of capital.
Fourthly, the present system kills our environment, so we propose the protection and improvement of our eco-system which is under serious threat by a system seeking profit. Environment has been made subservient to capital accumulation process. Organic farming, non-or reduced fossil fuel-based energy production, recycling and reusing would be the solution for serious threat to humanity and to existence of all life forms.
This policy goes with the very advice given by Arhat Mahinda to King Devanampiya Tissa. Arhat Mahinda emphatically warned the king that he (the ruler) was not an owner of the land; he was a just guardian so that it is his duty to protect the land and its vegetation. What Marx had informed about the environment is exactly an improvement of what Arhat Mahinda said. Marx writes: Even a whole society, a nation or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.”
Adopting these four principles, we offer a new definition for economic development. Sri Lanka has been seeking to reach US$ 100 billion level of total production. We argue that all Sri Lankans can be given a better living standard with less than US$ 100 billion GNP. According to Income and Expenditure Survey an average family with four members needs a monthly income of about Rs 55,000 to have a reasonable living. Suppose a new economic system gives an opportunity for an average family to get Rs 100,000 a month the annual income should be Rs 1,200,000. Assuming that there are 9 million family units in the country, the country needs an economy with total GNP, less than US$ 70 billion. So each family with the new economic system gets a better standard of living and a better quality of life. Not only that we offer another dimension to economic development. We not only maintain the existing ecological balance, we leave an improved environment for next generation.
Capital will definitely resist this economic programme. Hence it needs new social forces that benefits from it to struggle for the new system.
The writer is a retired teacher of political economy.
Building a stronger sense of national identity holds the key to
achieving social cohesion, true reconciliation and overall development in our
island nation. We need to be united behind the Sinhala Buddhist norms and
values that historically underly our nation.
Genuine Sri Lankan patriots, should not under any circumstances
let our nation’s wholesome Buddhist cultural inheritance be undermined and
eroded away by extremist Muslim religious and cultural trends that are totally
incompatible with the enviable Buddhist social values that form the basis of
life of this historic Sinhala Buddhist island nation of ours. As patriotic
citizens of this nation, we are duty-bound to work towards transforming and
changing whatever harmful and undesirable trends evident in our motherland. It
is important that we firmly reinforce Buddhist principles that constitute the
basis of the national culture of Sri Lanka.
Muslim communalism and religious extremism are not in-keeping
with Buddhist norms and principles. Attempting to implant norms and
behavior patterns of Muslim countries aimed at being exclusive and different to
the long established social and cultural norms of our nation has a strong and
highly undesirable divisive effect on our society.
Buddhist leadership in our country, especially the traditional
custodians of our nation’s cultural and values – our Bhikkhus, are duty-bound
to prevent attempts by anyone to undermine the long-established Buddhist
socio-cultural norms of our nation. They should necessarily be in the forefront
to confront and contain in a legitimate manner, any extremist and divisive
trends on the part of Muslims or any non-indigenous community who have been
accommodated in our nation. It is clear from events in the recent past, that in
general, separatism, divisiveness and terrorism appear to dominate the thoughts
of the minority communities – the Muslims and Tamils who have made Sri Lanka
their home. This attitude inevitably prevents them from developing a sense
of belonging to the nation and cultivating better relationships with the
mainstream community. This parochial attitude prevents extremist elements from
appreciating the worthy principles and values that characterize the Sri Lankan
nation, and that give this nation its identity as a peace-loving unique nation
in the world.
The development path of our country needs to be built from the
grassroots, based on its Buddhist cultural foundation. It should involve the
development of strong local economies in which producer-consumer links are
shortened and cultural values are respected and peaceful coexistence in harmony
with the environment and all diverse people are assured.
Army Commander Lt. Gen. Mahesh Senanayake, yesterday, told the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) probing the Easter Sunday carnage that there was still the possibility of terrorist attacks.
Testifying before the PSC, Lt. Gen. Senanayake said: “There is still room for attacks similar to the Easter Sunday carnage. There is the possibility of what we call lone wolf attacks. Next time it might not be bombs and guns. They could use vehicles, knives, water or fire to strike a disaster and kill similar number. That threat is still there.”
The PSC members present, yesterday, were Minister Dr Rajitha Senaratne, Minister Ravi Karunanayake, Prof Ashu Marasinghe, M.A. Sumanthiran, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, Chairman Ananda Kumarasiri, Rauff Hakeem and Dr. Jayamapathy Wickramaratne.
Field Marshal Fonseka: Terrorist do not need a team of trained combatants. They need only a single highly motivated cadre to carry out such an attack.
Lt Gen Senanayake: Yes, that is the nature of a lone wolf Attack. That way terrorists could wreak maximum destruction at minimum cost.
Chairman Kumarasiri: There were reports that you came under the influence of Minister Rishad Bathiudeen to release some terror suspects. Is that true?
Lt. Gen. Senanayake: No one has influenced me to release any one in custody over the terrorism charges.
Chairman Kumarasiri: But he called you and inquired about some terror suspects.
LT Gen Senanayake: Yes, he called me thrice to inquire about a suspect by the name of Ahmed. Soon after the Easter Sunday attacks, the Minister called me and asked whether we had in our custody a suspect by that name. I told him that I have no information but I could check and let him know. When he called a second time I still did not have the information. Third time, I had the information, and I confirmed to the minister that there was a terror suspect in our custody by that name and he had been taken in from Dehiwala and asked him to make inquiries one and a half years later.
Field Marshal: How did you know that the person under the custody had links with extremists?
LT Gen Senanayake: There was a network of them and we had information about them.
Field Marshal Fonseka: How come you gave exactly one and a half years?
LT Gen Senanayake: The suspect was taken into custody under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the charges were of severe nature. Soon after taking in such a person, it is our duty to hand him or her over to the Terrorist Investigation Division of the police within 24 hours. Thereafter they could detain such a suspect for one and a half years. The period has now been reduced to one year. With my experience of dealing with similar cases and as per the charges, I know it would take that much time at least.
Minister Karunanayake: What do you think of the current security situation? Are we in a secure position?
Senanayake: It is not practical or correct to say that this problem is completely over. It is still there. We are making arrangements to coordinate our security forces and intelligence officers to ensure public security. We have received the support of intelligence communities of the neighbouring countries. We are coordinating with everyone responsible to ensure that there would be no incidences, but the threat and the possibility of disaster striking again are there. That is for sure.
Minister Karunanayake: Do you think that the arrest of intelligence community members under various charges and incarceration of them had led to the breakdown of security establishment?
Lt Gen Senanayake: There can be some effect but stating that such actions would lead for the collapse of entire intelligence mechanism is wrong.
-ksn-4.jpg)
-pdc-1.jpg)
-Ckg----FINAL-2.jpg)
