Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

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

On last Sunday's Observer Mr. Chula de Silva states that Ranil Wickremesinghe is offering "an olive branch" to President Mahinda Rajapakse to build consensus. But page 1 reports that Ranil Wickremesinghe has flown to Norway without even telling his party about his secret mission to meet Erik Solheim - the man suspected by all parties, except the LTTE, of being the partisan (and hence destructive) manipulator of the peace process.

Wickremesinghe who didn't have the inclination or the time to attend the Independence Day celebrations has all the time in the world to rush to Norway, soon after the LTTE delegation left Oslo. Why?

What is the urgent necessity for Wickremesinghe to follow in the footsteps of S. P. Thamilselvam? This is similar to his hurried flight to have breakfast with "Capt." Charles Gnanakone in Singapore where he discussed secret deals to tie up with the LTTE. Are his secret meetings with all those undermining the national interests to build national consensus?

Since actions speak louder than words Mr. de Silva should have realised by now that Wickremesinghe's actions not only contradicts his arguments but also make him look like the last remaining joker in the pack dishing out lame excuses for his master.

Mr. de Silva has given some finishing touches to his role by wearing a dunce cap dotted with inanities - the standard hallmark of all jokers.

Here's one such comic statement: "Mahindapala is attempting to make tortured arguments by saying that no unqualified support has been offered by Wickremesinghe? Who offers unqualified support these days?"

The answer to this is to ask: Who shouldn't offer unqualified support these days when the nation is teetering on the brink of one of its worst crises in living memory? Who shouldn't offer unqualified support these days if their objective is to build a national consensus? When India was attacked by China the entire nation rallied behind the government of the day, including the Chinese wing of the Communist Party, if my memory serves me right.

When Britain was waging a do-or-die battle against the Nazi Germany the entire opposition, except the Fascist Mosley, sank their differences and worked together as one team. But Wickremesinghe who is supposed to be offering an olive branch to build consensus refuses to go that distance, according to Mr. de Silva.

He is prepared to offer only "reasonable support", says Mr. de Silva. Not even in Mrs. Malaprop's dictionary will Mr. de Silva find "reasonable support" defined as consensus. All in all, it can be concluded safely that the dunce caps sits fittingly on Mr. de Silva head when he backpedals from his earlier position that Wickremesinghe was for consensus and goes into the reverse by stating that only "reasonable support" will be offered.

If consensus unites parties round a common issue that is vital to protect the national interests then should consensus stop at "reasonable support" or go the whole hog?

When Wickremesinghe was campaigning he was pleading for the full backing of the opposition for his "piece process".

He even offered a role in the peace process to his former bete noir, Chandrika Kumaratunga. He was going to incorporate the opposition in his peace operations, if he won. But after he lost he has, like Mr. de Silva, gone into reverse gear. Wickremesinghe thinks that he is smart and that he can hoodwink the public with his gobbledygook of consensual politics. But the public knows better. They have seen through him and given him the boot repeatedly.

It is also clear that Mr. de Silva is speaking through his dunce cap when the page 1 story states that Wickremesinghe is now plotting to overthrow the government. Is this "the closest that any Sri Lankan leader has come to offering unqualified support", eh Mr. de Silva? Perhaps, this is the joker's way of building consensus, eh Mr. de Silva? Mr. de Silva goes further.

He states: "Mr Mahindapala may not have heard Nelson Mandela say "we have to build peace with enemies, not with friends." Apart from quoting it out of context he also reveals his absolute ignorance of the political process that Mandela led and engineered to win independence for the indigenous people of S. Africa.

In his Long Walk to Freedom - a powerful narrative of his long march to freedom he illustrates how he had to build consensus with his nationalist activists and political friends before he could build a national consensus with the enemy. He had to contend with dissident Chiefs of various tribes, some of whom were relatives,Trotskyites, Communists, Indians, etc., all of whom had the common goal of defeating the fascist apartheid regime.

Initially, they were offering "reasonable support", to use Mr. de Silva's phrase, which was not adequate for Mandela to achieve the ultimate goal of defeating the enemies of human rights, freedom and peace. The message in this to Mr. de Silva and to his leader Wickremesinghe is that "reasonable support" in the form of vague noises in the background is not good enough.

Either you are for the nation, human rights and peace or you are, directly or indirectly, wittingly or unwittingly, with the enemy. Either Wickremesinghe sits with President Rajapakse (just not for photo opportunities) in Colombo or he sits with Solheim and Thamilselvam in Oslo.

Mr. de Silva, in his own interests, should put down his dunce cap once in a while and study the sources of his quotes carefully before throwing them around like the plastic trinkets showered by jokers who prance around to excite naive children. Of course, making a fool of himself is the profession of any joker. Mr. de Silva must be excused for doing what comes naturally to him.

Right now, the central issue boils down to whether the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) should be "strengthened ", according to Wickremesinghe, LTTE and Norway, or re-negotiated. Mr. de Silva states that "they (Wickremesinghe and Chandrika Kumaratunga) have always been for strengthening of the Ceasefire Agreement." This statement is patently false because Kumaratunga dismissed Wickremesinghe and grabbed his powers saying that he had sold the country down the river by signing the one-sided Ceasefire Agreement without even telling her.

Mr. de Silva adds: "Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe did come on national television and say that there is no alternative to the ceasefire agreement and that it remains the same, the same as when he signed it." But the government claims that its intention is to re-negotiate the CFA to make it more equitable for all communities.

UNPers too have admitted that the Ceasefire Agreement is defective and should be revised. Congressman Frank Pallone too moved a resolution in the Congress on February 8, 2006 urging the government and the LTTE "to re-negotiate" the CFA. The mainstream political parties, except the LTTE and Wickremesinghe, agree with Congressman Pallone.

But Wickremesinghe cannot agree to "re-negotiate" because it would be an admission of the failure of his CFA. So he keeps harping that Rajapakse is following his CFA. In signing the CFA secretly, without informing the President, parliament and the people, it is Wickremesinghe who undermined the nation's sovereignty, territorial integrity and its heritage.

For this unforgivable betrayal he will be condemned by history not only as a born loser at elections but as a waffling, whingeing, wimpish Quisling who sold the nation in the name of a bogus peace. How can he build consensus when he is trying to "strengthen" his failed Ceasefire Agreement.

"Strengthening" the CFA means, according to the LTTE and Norway, giving more to the LTTE. to run its "Evil-laam" according to its tyrannical whims and fancies. If he is for consensus then he should go along with the other main stream parties (including V. Anandasangaree and dissident Tamil parties) and insist on "re-negotiating" the CFA.

Instead, Wickremesinghe goes against the mainstream and joins hands with the LTTE and Norway who are insisting that the CFA should not be touched but "strengthened" further to reinforce the fascist Vanni regime. Perhaps, Mr. de Silva could explain how the nation can benefit by "strengthening" the CFA as required by the LTTE and Norway. Is it the nation and peace that will be "strengthened" or the LTTE? If further proof is needed about Mr. de Silva's expertise as a joker read the following: "He (Mahindapala) writes that they should issue a joint statement that they will offer unconditional support to president Rajapakse.

"This is so ludicrous that its like saying the opposition should disband itself and promptly join the government. Consensus does not mean that the opposition is going to commit hara kiri. In which country is the opposition going to do something like that? Consensus in essence and even in dictionary meaning is that people with diverse and disparate views will come together in common cause while retaining their own identity.

It does not mean subsuming of each party's own identity, as Mahindapala very naively assumes." Here's what I wrote: "If, on the other hand, both (Kumaratunga and Wickremesinghe) agree to build a national consensus 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 sacrificed 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."

So at what point do I say that both should dissolve their parties and merge as one monolith to achieve consensus. Did the war time Labour leader Attlee abandon the identity of his party when he gave unreserved support to Churchill to defeat the fascist enemies at their gates? Did the diverse political parties of India abolish their political identities in backing the Nehru government facing the challenges of China? At the end of the World War II the British political parties went to the polls and Attlee defeated Churchill.

So much for Mr. de Silva's understanding of how consensus works in a democracy. If he is incapable of comprehending my language he should at least listen to his own. "Consensus," he says, "in essence and even in dictionary meaning is that people with diverse and disparate views will come together in common cause while retaining their own identity. It does not mean subsuming of each party's own identity", stupid!

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

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