.
 .

 .
 .
.
 

Dr Kamal Wickremasinghe

There have been a number of disturbing (and distasteful) instances of recorded reactions to the recent LTTE crimes against humanity, coming from the ‘holy’ in Sri Lanka: the Christian establishment and the bogus-intelligentsia represented by people such as Kumar Rupesinghe and Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu. Though not belonging to the same category, the modern day Don Juan Dharmapala, Ranil Wickremasinghe has also made equally despicable statements.

The mealy-mouthed condemnation of the abominable LTTE crime at Buttala, and other murders, by the prelates of the Catholic and Anglican churches in Sri Lanka has the potential to cast the Christian community in Sri Lanka in a bad light and attract criticism by all Sri Lankans. The statements are equivocal in the churches’ condemnation of the crimes and they appear to admonish the government for ‘making the LTTE do it’!

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of Sri Lanka (CBCSL), via a statement signed by its President bishop Vianney Fernando and its Secretary General bishop Norbert M. Andradi, condemns ‘the brutal and inhuman attack’ carried out against the innocent civilian population in Buttala. However, the very next sentence ‘sucks the poison out’ of this statement by ‘urging both the Government and the LTTE to effect a `cessation of hostilities without any further delay to create the climate essential for peace'.

In an apparent reference to the government’s recently declared anti-Tiger offensive, the CBCSL ‘urgently’ appeals ‘to all those involved in the conflict’ (meaning the government) to come to realise that violence only begets violence. The bishops then propose that ‘WE must urgently return to the negotiating table’ (without offering any advice to the LTTE to choose te path of negotiatioan and democracy).

In a similar statement issued by bishop Duleep de Chickera of the Church of Ceylon (the Anglican Church in Sri Lanka), the good bishop refers to the January 8 assassination of Mr D.M. Dassanayake in a particularly cold and detached manner: he merely notes that the murder ‘adds to the long and unending list of utterly senseless killings that continue to engulf us’ and says that ‘it must be condemned’ (it is not clear as to whether he intends to condemn it).

The most disturbing aspect of this particular statement is that bishop Chickera expresses doubt as to who perpetrated this crime by declaring that ‘In today's chaotic culture of contending power struggles, this could well be the work of any one of the several armed groups’ and appears to acknowledge the obvious culpability of the LTTE by noting reluctantly ‘Yet, the greater probability is that it is the work of the LTTE’.

Like his counterparts at the ‘Catholic gate to heaven’, the bishop warns of an escalation of violence. But the Anglican gate-keeper ‘understands’ the desperation of the LTTE caused by the government’s abrogation of the cease-fire agreement. He goes further by treating these ‘assassinations’ the same as alleged ‘intimidation’ of media personnel connected with the state-controlled media.

Similar sentiments have been issued by the Sri Lankans who consider themselves to be closer to God than most other mortals: the leading among them, of course, is Dr Kumar Rupesinghe. In a recent article to the ‘Daily Mirror’, Rupesinghe warned General Fonseka about giving ‘sensational deadlines’ about his aim to defeat the LTTE militarily. He also puts forward the hypothesis that the Government does not want, or can afford to, engage in a long and protracted war with the bill for military equipment tipped to exceed $3 billion by next year. Rupesinghe laments that the ‘civilians’ will bear the brunt of intense aerial bombardment and especially the fact that ‘there will be no Monitoring Mission to report on the devastation and the killing of civilians and the abuse of the laws of war’.

Rupesinghe notes with glee that the LTTE will go for a long and protracted war, targeting all parts of the country, bringing death and mayhem to the South: they would prolong the war until the 'international community' is convinced that the State will not give them a political solution. He expects that sanctions will be imposed on the Sri Lankan State, markets in the West will be lost and travel restrictions will be imposed on the military. They hope that India will be compelled to act in the same way that NATO forces were compelled to intervene in Bosnia, i.e, bomb Sri Lanka.

In the most disgusting part of Rupesinghe’s article, he asserts that Prabhakaran and Mahinda Rajapaksa are two sides of the same coin and that both leaders feed on the war. Next he chants in fear, the mantra (learnt at the London School of Economics) of Human Rights, the Rights of Free expression and the Freedom of Association. He also hopes that his masters will ‘list’ Sri Lanka as a nation which kills its journalists, abducts its citizens.

Not surprisingly, Rupesinghe scornfully notes The abrogation of the ceasefire and accuses ‘the State’ of going for a unitary State. He blames all the violence In the ‘liberated East’ on armed groups protected by the military and expresses no doubt that the votes will be rigged at the impending local government elections. Astonishingly, he is of the view that the ‘liberated Jaffna’ is an open prison where the population lives in fear!

Slowly, but surely, Dr Rupesinghe comes to the point at the end: the calls of the ‘international community’ for a human rights monitoring mission in Sri Lanka!

In another Insight provided by Dr Pakyasothi Saravanamuttu (The Morning Leader, 23 Jan), he is eagerly awaiting the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) recommendations. Based on the significance he seems to be attaching to the outcome, he is not likely to be satisfied by any thing short of a ‘motherland’ devolved through this process. What appears to excite him most is the expectations invested in it by the ‘international community’!

There are two remarkable aspects to Saravanamuttu’s opinion piecehe refers consistently (and : in the most disparaging manner) to the democratically elected government of Sri Lanka as ‘the regime’. He seems to ignore the very principle of democracy he preaches on behalf of his pay masters! Secondly, he considers any APRC offer less than the model he has in mind to be providing the raison d’etre to the LTTE.

The common thread?

The views and opinions expressed by these people have a common basis in that they have no empathy with the history, culture and the democratic rights of the majority of Sri Lankans (Sinhala, Tamil and other minorities). These church mandarins as well as the self-perceived ‘intellectuals’ represented by Rupesinghe and Saravanamuttu represent alien interests, values and perspectives (such as Christianity, a trumped-up concept of Human Rights and the ‘black art’ of Conflict Resolution).

The churches have always been partisan towards Prabhakaran (and Anton Balasingham when he was alive) treating him narrow-mindedly as ‘one of ours’. (Hindu Tamils need to take note of this issue). This mentality probably arises from the problems of declining church membership and attendance, and misguided proselytising zeal.

The lack of rigour of the church’s condemnation is almost sacrilegious (from the point of view of a God-fearing Christian). No one who claims to practice Christianity is likely to be able to gloss over the senseless destruction of life being caused by the LTTE (irrespective of any grievance they might harbour). The question needs to be posed as to whether the churches are letting these sins contaminate their collective soul by being equivocal in their condemnation, and in expressing doubt as to the culpability of the LTTE (despite the clear methodological links, motives and other physical evidence).

In the case of Kumar Rupesinghe, he is simply doing what he is paid to do by his masters: in 2005, he admitted to the Sri Lankan Parliamentary Select Committee on Non Governmental Organisations that as Head of the NGO ‘Foundation for Co-existence’, he was being paid a monthly salary of Rs 1.1 million by a group of foreign bodies including the Foreign Ministry of Norway, the Berghoff Foundation and others.

Pakyasothi Saravanamuttu is incorrigible: for quite a long time, hiding behind the facade of a disinterested analyst, he has served as a proponent of, and an apologist for the LTTE. He, in common with Rupesinghe (and Jehan Perera) only views the Sri Lankan issue from the vantage point of the faceless ‘International Community’, with initiatives designed to serve their particular vested interests.

It is time that Rupesinghe, Saravanamuttu and other agents of the so-called International Community publish a list of names and other detail of the membership of this community.

Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site.
All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of LankaWeb.com. .

BACK TO LATEST NEWS

DISCLAIMER

Copyright © 1997-2004 www.lankaweb.Com Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reproduction In Whole Or In Part Without Express Permission is Prohibited.