Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

Mahindapala replies to Chula de Silva (Sunday Observer February 12)

Mr. Chula de Silva deserves a reply because he touches upon a central theme that plagues the nation today: building national consensus, or the lack of it. Oddly enough, Mr. De Silva claims that Ranil Wickremesinghe has been in the forefront of offering his support to President Mahinda Rajapakse. He goes into raptures in praise of Wickremesinghe's peace offerings to Rajapakse. Here's one quote from his text: "Never before has an opposition offered an olive branch, as it has been done on this occasion when President Mahinda Rajapakse has decided to sue for peace."

If this were true I would be the happiest. I would be leaping over the moon because as every Perera, Fernando and Silva knows there isn't a better recipe for peace than a southern consensus. The day the southern political leadership says "Enough is enough" would be the day when peace would dawn. A formidable common front of the south cannot be defeated by either the manipulative international community or the war criminals of the north. (Please note, that the Amnesty International in its latest report has for the first time accused the LTTE of committing war crimes.)

Day in day out from every platform the cry is for the southern forces to join hands. One does not have to be a political Einstein to arrive at this conclusion. The division is already there with Wickremesinghe and his new found ally, Mrs. Chandrika Kuamaratunga, twisting the knife into the sensitive spots of President Rajapakse. In the light of these realities, Mr. De Silva's charge that I am trying "to drive a wedge between disparate forces of Sri Lankan politics" is like saying that I am trying to divide the UNP. - a party that is fragmented like Humpty Dumpty after its fall from the wall. Like the southern forces the UNP is in tatters. Both possess a natural tendency like the amoeba to split on its own without any external aid.

If Wickremesinghe is genuinely concerned about forging national unity, as claimed by Mr. de Silva, his first preference would have been to share the stage with President Rajapakse. This is not a cosmetic exercise as Mr. de Silva implies. As in any other ritual there is a deep significance in the two leaders standing shoulder to shoulder on Independence Day. If he is a "consensus builder" like Rajapakse it is obligatory on the part of Wickremesinghe to show the nation that he is with President Rajapakse,

Party circles

Most commentators would agree that Wickremesinghe is not an "aggressive opposition leader". Nor is he a "consensus builder". This is the fatal flaw in his personality. He comes across as if he is neither fish now fowl. The average voter cannot identify him as standing for anything substantial or meaningful to them. This has cost him dearly. In his own party circles he is seen as a sneaky schemer attempting slyly to put one against the other. Perhaps, his greatest achievement is driving UNPers into the arms of the opposition. The exodus leaving the UNP can be considered as the second greatest since Moses led the Jews out of Egypt.

However, if Wickremesinghe "is a prevailing force in Lankan politics" and if "there is some meaning to the fact that he is prevailing" where should he have been on Independence Day? Should he have been la-di-daing on some private engagement or should he have been on a podium to show solidarity with the nation celebrating its independence at one of the most critical points in its history?

Take the example of the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. Kremlinologists went through with a fine tooth comb spotting every figure that shared the stage with Stalin. The missing personalities were interpreted as dissidents who had refused to accept the party line. This is quoted not for Sri Lankan's to toe the dictates of a single man claiming to be the "sole representative of the people". This is cited purely to reveal the significance and the meaning of the stance taken by political leaders. In the Soviet context one knew who was in and who was out. In the Sri Lankan context it signifies who is for consensus and who is not.

If, as stated by Mr. De Silva, Wickremesinghe "is situated in a position of power", and if he is among "the people who are willing to work together towards it (a consensus) would the nation be in this predicament? If Wickremesinghe is for consensus building why is he sniping at President Rajapakse on the issue of peace-building? Mr. De Silva should be aware by now that the UNP's publicly stated stance on extending support to the President is predicated on certain conditions, one of which is not to recruit his cadres into the ranks of the government. Is this Mr. De Silva's idea of "offer(ing) "the olive branch"?

Pointing out the failure of Wickremesinghe to live up to his obligations as a political leader "situated in a position of power" is referred to as "exaggeration that does damage to the national psyche when people are making peace." According to Mr. De Silva the efforts to come together is "torpedoed by the writers" and not by Wickremesinghe who is "in a position of power" to wield it effectively to convince the people that he is a genuine consensus builder, irrespective of what the writers say.

When Wickremesinghe has defenders like Mr De Silva does he need "writers to torpedo" his image or efforts? One of the basic defects of Wickremesinghe is that he is surrounded by a coterie of nit-wits who have yet to get off their nutty rocket hurtling into outer space. It is time they stepped on the brakes and landed on earth. Mr. De Silva too has confirmed that he is a fellow-traveller in the same bandwagon when he concludes that there should not be a problem because "two of the worst enemies of yesteryear (i.e., Wickremesinghe and Kumaratunga) have come together".

Mr. De Silva accuses me of being "hopping mad" because Raigamaya and Gampolaya (translation: two halves of the same rotten rambutan) have closed ranks. They had done enough damage individually when they were "enemies", to quote Mr. De Silva. It needs no gigantic leap of imagination to visualise where the nation would end when these "two worse enemies" get together. They would get together not to build consensus but to undermine the emerging consensus.

Theirs is a marriage of convenience to undermine the efforts of the "consensus builder" President Rajapakse. They are not getting together for the love of the country, or to save the nation from the common enemy in the north. They are holding each other's hand to jointly deal a lethal blow to their common target, President Rajapakse.

Sharing power

Mr. De Silva is singing hosannas to this unholy union as "consensus". He is well aware that neither of them could get together when they were sharing power (as President and Prime Minister) or as head of state and leader of the opposition.

So why are they getting together now? What is their primary objective? To build consensus? Fat hope, he has! They have a consensus no doubt and that is to oust President Rajapakse and then jointly sell the nation down the river.

They both share some common objectives. Both are vying with each other to dismantle the territorial integrity and the sovereign state established by the founding fathers in 1948. Both are over-zealous to appease the neo-colonialists of the West.

Both have been betrayed by the separatists and the neo-colonialists. Both believe that the sun shines not from the East but from the outlet that the NGOlogists talk - meaning the place from where Wickremesighe is supposed to talk as described by Mrs Kumaratunge when they were not so lovey-dovey. ("Ranil katha karanne katin nevei.....") Both share the common malaise of feeling down-and-out by the absence of power. They feel that they are born to rule and not an outsider like Rajapakse.

On top of all this Mrs. Kumaratunga feels aggrieved that she has been deprived of prime land, her pliant retinue of yes-men and women, her human resources that serve her tea (poor Mrs. Marie Atoinette!), her generals to salute her, (how wicked!), a media to cover up her abuses of power, helicopters to fly wherever she wants, VIP treatment at airports with a diplomatic passport and most of all, her party loyalists deserting her like the UNPers. Last Tuesday at Biyagama she was even booed when she was praising her own tail as being the cleanest in town.

Larger interest

If, on the other hand, both agree to build a national census by giving there maximum political support to serve the larger interest of the nation they will go down in history as the first great leaders who scarified their self-interests in the supreme cause of protecting the nation and its heritage. Making some dubious and vague noises in the background is not the way to build consensus. Mr. De Silva's defence of both leaders would be credible if both should now issue a joint statement guaranteeing their support to the President Rajapakse without political conditions. Even Mr. De Silva will come out looking good if this is done. Failing which Mr. De Silva should join the Trappist monks who take vows of eternal silence.

One final point regarding "the Wijewardene tradition". He says that "there is no special Wijewardene tradition".

There is a point in referring to Esmond Wickremesinghe, a Christian son-in-law, who presided over the destiny of the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon (ANCL) and steered it away from the nationalistic foundations of ANCL, or Lake House as it was better known. However, neither this fact nor the fact that windows have been opened to the world can take away the essence of the founder of Lake House. H. A. J. Hulugalle in his biography has outlined the nationalistic spirit of Wijewardene who established Lake House after his return from Cambridge.

When the Buddhist Commission exposed that Lake House has deviated from the Wijewardene tradition even Esmond Wickremesinghe realised the mistakes and quickly made amends in some respects to bring it back in line with the founder's principles.

One may not be able to put a finger and say that this is the Wijewardene tradition. Further more it is rather difficult in this short space to describe the Wijewardene tradition and what it stood for. It is as difficult as describing a horse. But one can recognise it when one sees it. In essence, it stood for the traditional spirit and heritage of the nation that built, over millennia, a tolerant multi-culture within a sovereign and democratic state.

| News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security |
| Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries | Junior Observer |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.