I wish to compliment Rajpal Abeynaike for his most perceptive review of the video documentary Sirimavo Bandaranaike (Sunday Times, June 16th 1996).
In an era when those who write about the creative arts don't know the difference between a film and a video, RA's analysis of this video documentary is very special. He has seen through the credits and discovered style and content. I am delighted.
Having conceived of this programme without a visible interviewer, I structured my interviews with Ms Bandaranaike, Sunethra, Chandrika and Anura in such a manner that I could eliminate myself from the programme. I wanted it to be their story, not mine.
Having obtained the patronage of Ms Bandaranaike at Ackland House over an year ago, I studied the Bandaranaikes closely - reading everything written about them. I also studied Social Change in 19th Century Ceylon by Patrick Peebles, and other work connected with the period, for example, Eric Meyer. Added to this was my personal friendship with each one of the Bandaranaikes, which is what made the interviews informal. I also studied the village view of urban politics from folklorist Mudiyanse Tennekoon.
Having prepared my strategy I invited Sunil Situnayake to join the project six months ago as Producer/Director in order to coordinate the taping of the interviews and organising the logistics of the production. I then conducted each and every interview myself. Over one hour with Chandrika, four hours with Ms Bandaranaike, an hour with Anura - and what I have got is not one programme, but several.
As a social commentator, titles and credits have never impressed me. I have won the highest national award in this country for my work which also has had the support of superstars like David Bellamy, Edward Goldsmith and even the BBC. Therefore I have never cared for what Colombo cynics think of me and my work. In fact, at one stage I even suggested to the producers of this programme that I be credited as Cecil B de Mel!
In the interests of transparency however, I request The Sunday Times that has raised this issue to unravel why the name Manik Sandrasagra is discredited and why this name disappeared from the credits? Perhaps it is because of File No. 33.
If we unravel this mystery, then we will unravel several other mysteries about information control by people who feel threatened by people like me who challenge alien laws and go against the stream.
Why do they fear my name? Surely, I have a right to know. Whither Free Media?
In an expression of despair and frustration Justice Minister Dr. G.L. Peiris told Parliament that he does not see even a distant dawn to the acceptability of the Package by amending the unitary nature of the Constitution which is entrenched requiring a 2/3 majority and a majority vote at referendum. Dr. Peiris after a period of silence and hibernation has come alive again and is attempting to obtain the concurrence of the Select Committee to push through the Package despite the growing opposition both in the country and among the vast majority of the UNP MP's, not to mention the unnamed SLFEP MP's. In an effort to salvage the Package Dr. Peiris is running in all directions. All his attempts to achieve indirectly what he could not achieve directly will also be a failure.
The Constitutional Lawyer K.N. Choksy M.P. appears to have come to his rescue by suggesting that all those in the Package could be brought in by amending Article 76 by subjecting the Unitary State in Article 2 to the prvisions of Article 76 incorporating or amending Article 76 by the inclusion of the contents of the Package. To say the least, this will kill the concept of a unitary state as it will be possible to introduce the entire Package by this device. The result will be the creation of 8 states within the island of Sri Lanka with the Constitution carrying the mere name of a Unitary State.
The majority of the 75% Sinhala population are opposed to the Package which undisputedly results in a Federal State irrespective of the phrascology in the Constitution. Equally the majority of the Muslims are opposed to the Package. It is proverbial that there is no one who is so blind as to one who does not want to see and this aptly applies to the propounders of the Package who dreamt of a divided Sri Lanka which will therefore disintegrate by everlasting communal and regional tension and conflict.
We of the Sri Lanka Ekeeya Sanvidhanaya stood against the monstrous Package not on any communal ground but in view of the irreparable damage that will be caused to the unitary concept and the resulting ill effect. We salute the Maha Sangha, the vast majority of whom are headed by the Maha Nayakas of Asgiriya and Malwatte Chapters and the Maha Nayakas of the Amarapura Nikaya and Rammagna Nikaya constituting the three Nikayas valiantly fought against the Package. With much concerted effort a minority of the Sangha were brought to the BMICH who were orchestrated to sing in praise of the Package on the fiction that the Package is the panacea for all ills in the country, not only to the so called ethnic problem but to all other problems not to mention an imaginary economic stability!
Stalwarts of the government were present at this meeting and it is indeed sad to note that Her Excellency the President was provoked to dub those who oppose the Package including the intelligent and educated class as traitors. This included the Maha Nayakas as well, but they in keeping with and adhering to the teachings of Lord Buddha were unprovoked and unmoved.
It is not out of place to recall Sir John Kotalawala's regime which was short lived ending in catastrophic defeat at the General Election in 1956 and enthroning of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in power as the head of the MEP Government. Sir John and the UNP were taught a bitter lesson by the Maha Sangha and the people who never pardoned Sir John for his un-thoughtful utterance of dis-robing the majority of the Buddhist monks who opposed the parity of status for Sinhala and Tamil. Many of the monks of the 56 era are no more, but the antipathy and the justified opposition to the Package in whatever way it is called persists amongst the majority of Buddhist monks who will leave no stone unturned to defeat the Package seeing the light of day.
Can Article 2 be qualified by making it subject to whatever the proposed amendments to Article 76 contemplated to achieve in directly what the propounders of the Package cannot achieve directly? This is indeed a large question of law and Article 76 (1) has its limitations and several extracts of the dissenting judgements in the 13th Amendment Case will naturally deflate the buoyancy and the new lease of life Minister Peiris wishes to give the Package. It is believed that Mr. Choksy has the burden to extricate himself from the problem he has created to the UNP by his expression of a so called solution. Some say that this is a political maneuvering by a subtle joint attempt of some politicians in the two major parties. Be it as it may - the leader of the Opposition has made no mention about Mr. Choksy's proposal bailing out Prof. G.L. Peiris.
As to the thinking of those in South on the Package the veteran Politician Ronnie de Mel is reported to have stated that if the UNP supported the Devolution proposals it will not even poll 2000 votes from the South.
All the attempts of the government are to achieve peace and ethnic harmony. We see no danger to peace on ethnicity. We can agree no more than repeating the ex-President D.B. Wijetunga, who categorically and plainly said that there is no ethnic problem in Sri Lanka except a terrorist problem. The LTTE has rejected the Package off hand. The north and East merged as a temporary measure by President J.R. Jayewardene still continue without a demerger and the temporary measure to satisfy the Indo-Lanka Pact has lasted nearly nine years. President Jayewardene himself said that at a referendum for a demerger of the North and East he himself would vote for the demerger. We have the 4th President under the 78 Constitution but the demerger remains.
Last Sunday the President at a Janahamuwa in Mirigama showed unusual anger in the course of her speech attacking the corrupt MPs of the P.A. Nobody takes cudgels over her disciplining her own MPs and those undisciplined personnel in Public Service. The irresistible inference is that she is in the know of corruption amongst those under her own leadership. But why give public warnings without taking disciplinary action. Could one infer that she will take action against Saumyamoorthi Thondaman who having entered Parliament as a nominated UNP MP sits in the PA Cabinet and publicly states that LTTE should be handed over the powers to administer North and East for five years? To cap it all Thondaman carries on regardless of Cabinet responsibility by bringing a Vote of no confidence on Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake and causing a strike to be organised in the estate sector and crippling the economy of the country.
Rev. Maduluwawe Sobitha observed at the ceremony to felicitate Gamani Jayasuriya, that the one and only fortunate man in this country is Saumyamoorthi Thondaman for the unprecedent privileges enjoyed by him as a Cabinet Minister who has thrown collective responsibility of Cabinet Government to dustbin with impunity.
Thanks to Riviresa III Jaffna is extricated from the hands of the LTTE despite the increase in sporadic attacks by the LTTE. But what of the East? The LTTE is certainly not dead but is still not banned in Sri Lanka and it is interesting to quote some extracts from the Gazette Extraordinary of India, May 14 1996 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs:-
"S.O. 338 (e) - Whereas the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (hereinafter referred to as LTTE) is an association actually based in Sri Lanka but having sympathisers, supporters and agents on Indian soil."
"2. And whereas LTTE's objective for a homeland for all Tamils disrupts the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India and thus falls within the ambit of an unlawful activity."
3. ........................
4. ........................
"5. And whereas LTTE continues to be a strong terrorist force in Sri Lanka, which continues to remain in a state of ethnic strife and the demand of Tamil Eelam finds a strong echo in Tamil Nadu due to the linguistic, cultural, ethnic and historical affinity between the Sri Lankan Tamils and the Indian Tamils in Tamil Nadu, the separatist Tamil chauvinist forces in Tamil Nadu and the pro-LTTE groups are trying to stimulate the secessionist sentiment to enhance the support base of the LTTE in Tamil Nadu, which are likely to have a strong disintegrating influence over the territorial integrity of India."
"6. And whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that for the reasons aforesaid, the LTTE is an unlawful association;
"7. And whereas the Central Government has information that:
(a) LTTE in Tamil Nadu has persisted with its violent and disruptive activities prejudicial to the integrity and sovereignty of India. The presence of LTTE in India helped escape of 43 cadres from the Special Camp at Vellore on 14/15-08-1995. On April 1996, one Muthukumar belonging to TNRT was arrested by state police from a coastal village Menakelkudi (Pudukottai District). He has revealed that he was responsible for arranging sailing for the LTTE escapees of Vellore Camp on 14/15-8-1995. His arrest confirms the presence of LTTE supporters in Tamil Nadu who are engaged in subversive activities."
"8. And whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that the aforesaid activities of the LTTE continue to pose threat to and are detrimental to the sovereignty and integrity of India of India as also public order;"
"10. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (37 of 1967), the Central Government hereby declares the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to be an unlawful association and directs, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub - section (3) of that Section, that this notification shall, subject to any order that may be under Section 4 of the said Act have immediate effect and will remain in force for a period of 2 months from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette."
Are the power still impotent to ban to LTTE? Of course we do not mean that banning LTTE alone will stop cruel, inhuman and monstrous killings such as Vanathavillu arson and burning 14 innocent villagers alive. But the symbolic effect will be of great significance where the rest of the world is concerned.
By convening the Cairo conference of Arab leaders, President Hosni Mubarak has confounded those critics who claim that he has neglected Egypt's traditional role as regional leader. Though the call for Arab unity came from Syria and Saudi Arabia too, the choice of Cairo as the venue was the surest sign of an Arab consensus at least on the choice of a host. History, size, military muscle, resources and the unique fact of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty made the venue, Cairo, inevitable. Saudi Arabia is the banker.
The immediate provocation of course was the election of Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the rightwing Likud leader as Prime Minister of Israel. But not the Likud victory by itself. As important a factor, I suggest, was the defeat of Mr. Shimon Peres, the man who succeeded Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, (the highly respected General Yitzhak Rabin), when a Jewish zealot, Yigal Amir assassinated the prime minister at a rally in Jerusalem. Peres was the peace-maker; Peres, the veteran trade unionist and socialist, had many high-level contacts in the Norwegian political establishment. Norway was the mediator once PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat recognised the bona fides of all those involved in the secret talks.
When Peres lost, the P.L.O. and the Arab League had every reason to believe that the Likud-led coalition would seek to roll back "the peace process". However, in Cairo Chairman Arafat played it straight. "Despite their extremist slogans and statements, we are prepared to negotiate with the new government which the Israeli people have elected". Yet he did insist that such negotiations should be "on the basis of the Madrid agreements". The Madrid conference, sponsored by the United Nations, in 1991 produced what is now popularly described as a "Land For Peace", formula, meaning that Israel would return some of the land it has seized as a reward for a formal declaration of an end to the ongoing Palestinian revolt.
"President" Arafat also mentioned Jerusalem, which both peoples treat with very special respect, for historical reasons. He urged his people, the Arabs to "work for and reaffirm that Jerusalem is the capital of a future Palestinian state".
Without the U.S. there would be no Israel. Traditionally, the Jewish voter and the influential Jewish lobby, back the Democrats. The Arab-Israeli "peace process" started with President Jimmy Carter, not a politician with a passion for foreign affairs. Not at all. "I would not use foreign affairs or foreign trips as an escape mechanism" said President Carter in an interview with the columnist Neal Pierce. And yet three years later, James Fallows, his speech writer said: "Like every other President who has served since the United States became a world power, he would be inevitably drawn into the whirlpool of foreign affairs."
And now the Cold War is over; the US is the sole superpower. Involvement in international affairs goes with the job. If Carter presided over Camp David and the Israel-Egypt treaty, President Clinton, from the same party, undertook to finish the job - the Israelis have their independent state, the Palestinians must have theirs, if not a state recognised by the U.N. at least a mini-state, an autonomous area which could grow up into a full-fledged state once there is a stable peace founded on mutual trust. While there may have been differences over the time-table and the actual give-and-take, the process was clear, and increasingly identifiable, largely because Chairman Arafat trusted Shimon Peres, and Peres knew that few Israelis would question the integrity and patriotism of Yitzhak Rabin, the war hero.
The assassination changed the whole regional political landscape. Yigal Amir was no lunatic; the killer was a Zionist, a zealot who thought Rabin and Peres were traitors! A new, or rather an old, ideology had seized the minds of a new generation of Israelis, who felt isolated and helpless in an Arab-dominated world where a militant Islam was once more on the march.
Return to the News/Comment contents page
Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk