3 July, 2022


Midweek Politics: D-Day Dilemma For MR

By Dharisha Bastians –

Dharisha Bastians

“Treachery? You must remember we are Southerners. They have never betrayed their country. Time and again they have sacrificed their life for the country. We have a right to tell this to the world. Tears of innocent grieving mothers compel us to tell their story of pain and sorrow to the world. We will do it today, tomorrow and always. Remember that.”

–  SLFP MP Mahinda Rajapaksa on being accused of treachery for making representations at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in 1990 about human rights abuses in Sri Lanka (ParliamentaryHansard report 25th January, 1991)

Vasudeva Nanayakkara, current Minister of National Integration and long-time friend and ally of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, tells a fascinating story.

In September 1990, after a violent insurrection had been crushed with brutal force by the United National Party Government at the zenith of its power, a young Opposition politician from Hambantota joined Nanayakkara on a journey to Switzerland. They were travelling to Geneva, where the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (the older avatar of the current UN Human Rights Council) was housed to lobby country delegations there.

According to Nanayakkara’s tale, Mahinda Rajapaksa accompanied him to Geneva, both of them penniless, with tickets and a night’s accommodation purchased for them by a mutual friend. The two Sri Lankan politicians obtained visitor accreditation to enter the UN premises and sat in the lobby for two days, waylaying every delegation that passed through those halls and trying to seize every possible opportunity to tell the world community about the human rights disaster unfolding in Sri Lanka. The two politicians were so relentless that they were finally granted an opportunity to make representations before the Commission.

The younger Mahinda Rajapaksa also handed over lists of the disappeared to the human rights watchdog, Amnesty International, in the hope the rights body would exert pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to stop the cycle of violence and terror in the island. Back home, a few months later, Rajapaksa was labelled a traitor by UNP Ministers, for carrying documentation about Sri Lanka to be given to the ‘Suddahs’ or foreigners. He retorted, as quoted above, that it was the right of grieving mothers to have their stories of pain and loss told to the world.

The other Mahinda

The story of this other Mahinda Rajapaksa is one greatly recalled more than 20 years later, when debates about traitors and patriots crescendo in Sri Lanka while the UN Human Rights Council sessions unfold in Geneva, bringing with it of late each year a host of international challenges for the Government headed by the same Mahinda Rajapaksa in Colombo.
Mahinda Rajapaksa’s decision to champion human rights causes in the ’90s may have been motivated by electoral politics with the greatest number of victims of the post-insurrection crackdown hailing from the deep south, analysts say. Yet, it is not without irony that the same politician who made that impassioned statement in 1991 now runs the Government that recently amended the country’s anti-terror laws to aid any proposed crackdown against those making representations before the UNHRC in Geneva now or in the future. Or that he runs the defence establishment that recently stopped 11 busloads of people from the north – many of them women – from travelling to Colombo to lobby the UN office in the capital to help locate their disappeared family members.

Today, for only the second time ever in Sri Lanka’s history of being a UN member state, a resolution will be adopted against the country at the UNHRC in Geneva. Neither surprising nor unexpected, the second resolution, sponsored once again by the world’s most powerful nation, is a damning indictment on a country that survived nearly 30 years of conflict without attracting such serious international censure. In a surprise – and some analysts say potentially suicidal move – the Sri Lankan Government has decided, against the advice of its closest foreign allies, to reject the US-backed resolution to promote reconciliation and accountability in the island and seek a vote on the draft resolution when it is taken up for debate in Geneva today.

Resolution: Take II

Sri Lanka’s lack of progress on reconciliation and the all-important issue of investigating allegations of violations of international humanitarian law during the final phase of its conflict, as highlighted in a broad report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, prompted the second US resolution at the Council this year, and is likely to garner more support for the US move this year in comparison to March 2012.

Several countries that voted with Sri Lanka against the US resolution last year did so with a caveat: an appeal to Colombo to implement the recommendations of the Government’s own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report and investigate alleged human rights abuses during the last phase of the war with the LTTE. Pillay’s report and remarks by the US and other delegations at the Human Rights Council this year that Sri Lanka has not adequately addressed the issues concerning the international community are likely to sway at least some of these voting member states of the council to have a change of heart this year.

The Rajapaksa administration has been busy posturing for the local electorate and therefore has consistently maintained that it was not negotiating with the US delegation on the language of the resolution. But as 21 March loomed ever closer, the fact that the Sri Lankan delegation was engaging with the US team is obvious. The sight of a large contingent of Special Task Force personnel outside the Horton Place official residence of US Ambassador to Sri Lanka Michele Sison last Saturday has also led to speculation that Colombo was engaged in eleventh hour negotiations with Washington.

The last draft

The final draft of the resolution includes a paragraph acknowledging progress made by Sri Lanka in the areas of resettlement, demining and infrastructure building, even though it also notes that much work lies ahead. This acknowledgement was something the Sri Lankan Government badly wanted included in the final text, to reflect some progress since the last resolution was adopted in 2012.

The resolution’s final draft, analysts say, is not merely an attempt to calm Sri Lanka’s fears but also to appease New Delhi, which has always sustained a degree of discomfort with country-specific resolutions and their language, but was perhaps compelled to go through with supporting the US-backed resolution last year due to massive pressure from the country’s southern states. In 2012, it was an open secret that New Delhi intervened with Washington to tone down the language of the resolution against Sri Lanka, following an eleventh hour plea from External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris to his former Indian counterpart, S.M. Krishna.

This year, with the debate in the Indian Parliament over the Sri Lanka issue peaking early, and even resulting in the pullout of a key Tamil Nadu Party from India’s ruling coalition on Tuesday (19), no such pleas could be entertained, without creating further political chaos in New Delhi and the south. In fact, with rights groups and the Karunanidhi-led DMK furious about the dilution of language in the final text and citing it as further proof that New Delhi and Washington are going ‘soft’ on Colombo, the last thing India wants is to be credited with being responsible for the final language.

Headaches for New Delhi

It was no secret however that New Delhi was deeply concerned about some provisions in the first two drafts of the US resolution in circulation that it viewed as being overly intrusive. With its own problems in Kashmir, India remains cautious about the need to safeguard state sovereignty even when the world is scrutinising a country’s human rights record.

The Indian Government is also consistent about the fact the option of an international mechanism to investigate human rights abuses must only be explored after every domestic mechanism is exhausted, in spite of mounting pressure from its South about ‘war crimes’ and ‘genocide’ in Sri Lanka during the conflict’s final phase. It also remains fundamentally concerned with the devolution of power to the island’s north and east and the Rajapaksa Administration’s reticence on the issue has become a major bone of contention in relations between the two countries.

While India’s delegation to the UN in Geneva may not have necessarily engaged in overt negotiations on the text their concerns meant Washington also had decisions to make in terms of what the concessions would be. Between the three drafts of the resolution, the language varied based on how much broad support at the UNHRC could be garnered for the document, but also essentially, what the quality of that support would be, according to some analysts.

It has been repeatedly emphasised that Washington will not play in New Delhi’s backyard (with the exception of Pakistan) if the South Asian power was in anyway uncomfortable with its level of engagement. The inclusion of a clause welcoming the announcement of Northern Provincial Council poll in September this year in the final resolution for instance, was undoubtedly aimed at cementing a Government of Sri Lanka assurance that greatly concerns New Delhi.

The final manoeuvring on the text may have been Washington’s decision to ensure New Delhi was comfortable enough with the language to vote whole-heartedly in support of the resolution. India’s backing on the resolution lends credence to the process to make Sri Lanka move on reconciliation and accountability issues, since New Delhi completely supported the Rajapaksa Government in its decision to militarily defeat the LTTE in 2009.

Unprecedented interest

Overall, Geneva 2013 has not been easy for India, with the level of passion in this year’s debates on the Sri Lanka issue in its Parliament being unprecedented. The debate that ended in 2012 with a question on whether New Delhi should vote for, against or abstain on the US-backed resolution, commenced in February this year in a much stronger place, in terms of urging the Centre to act.

The DMK wants India to move amendments to the US resolution that include the words war crimes and genocide in the text, former Indian External Affairs Minister and BJP strongman, Yashwant Sinha called on India to submit its own resolution against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC. Meanwhile Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other rights groups have laid the focus squarely on New Delhi as the only Government that can force Sri Lanka to act on war time excesses. The controversial latest installment of the Channel 4 documentaries on excesses during the last phase of the war in the north in 2009 was also aired first in New Delhi before an audience of Indian politicians.

The debate in India over the Sri Lanka issue is unique, specialists on Indian politics say, because it is unheard of for regional politicians to be so consumed with the problems pertaining to India’s neighbours. Political parties outside the sensitive Tamil Nadu and other parts of the South have expressed serious concern about the Sri Lankan situation and have in fact chastised Indian Government MPs for addressing their answers about their Sri Lanka policy to Tamil Nadu MPs alone.

There is a sense, these analysts say, across the Indian political landscape that some great injustice has occurred in Sri Lanka. The effect of the Channel 4 videos and the media attention the last phase of the war in the island’s north has garnered, especially since the adoption of the 2012 resolution in Geneva, has made ordinary Indians much more aware about the situation across the Palk Straits. It is probably this awareness that is being reflected in Parliamentary debates.

Against better judgment?

What New Delhi did consistently advise the Government in Colombo about was to refrain from contesting the US resolution this year, since the numbers may indicate a worse defeat for Sri Lanka in 2013. It was reasoned that a consensus resolution would be less of an embarrassment for Colombo, which would then be stakeholders in a resolution as opposed to having it thrust upon them.Attempts were being made till the eleventh hour to convince senior regime officials that an uncontested resolution would be the preferred option. But a Government that has learned to be belligerent in all its diplomatic dealings with the West, has decided it will lock horns with the US delegation on the resolution, by challenging the draft and demanding it be put to a vote at the Council.

Earlier this week, External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris wrote to the foreign ministers of UNHRC member states, calling for their support during the vote on the US-backed resolution.

Sri Lanka has rejected the resolution and sees it as an attempt to ‘single out’ and ‘humiliate’ one country, Minister Peiris’ letter states. It will be recalled that Colombo rejected last year’s US-sponsored resolution as well. But a little over a month after the resolution was adopted, Minister Peiris travelled to Washington DC for talks with former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, where he promised his Government would implement a national action plan on reconciliation, a document that was unveiled in August last year and criticised by a large section of the international community for inadequately addressing post-conflict issues as prescribed in the LLRC report.

The resolution against Sri Lanka, or A/HRC/22/L.1/Rev.1, is one of two country-specific resolutions tabled at the UNHRC at the Council’s 22nd Session.

The other pertains to Myanmar and is also co-sponsored by the US. Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, has also submitted a draft resolution on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories that calls Israel out on its rights abuses.

The Council traditionally leaves resolution debate and adoption for the last two days of its sessions, to allow member states and sponsoring countries to deliberate and negotiate on language in the preceding weeks.
Sri Lanka’s latest Geneva battle ends today, once a vote is called for and taken and the resolution, in all likelihood, is adopted.

Not quite a defeat, HRC 22 has offered the regime a little more time to show credible progress on winning the peace and making amends for the loss of human life during conflict.

The Commonwealth battles

But as the curtain falls on one major international battle for Colombo, it opens on another far more critical one as far as the Sri Lankan Government is concerned.

As hosts of the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Sri Lanka has faced serious challenges regarding its suitability to host the major summit given its human rights record. These challenges intensified following the Government’s impeachment of the country’s 43rd Chief Justice in violation of two court rulings and the Commonwealth’s own Latimer House Principles that lays out the removal process for judges in Commonwealth states, in order to maintain the independence of the judiciary, which is a core value of the international grouping.

Later today, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), a core grouping of nine Commonwealth Member States mandated to assess “serious or persistent violations of the Harare Declaration, which contains Commonwealth’s fundamental political values” will teleconference ahead of its scheduled April meet. CMAG meets on schedule but can be convened by the Secretary-General when required to deal with a perceived violation of the Commonwealth principles and values or may meet in extraordinary session when required. Bangladesh is the Group’s current chair and its other member states include Australia, Canada, Jamaica, Maldives (suspended), Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu.

CMAG teleconference

Last week, the Government of Bangladesh notified Minister Peiris and the Ministry of External Affairs in Colombo that the CMAG would hold a special teleconference on 21 March on the insistence of Canada and at least one other member state in the grouping. The electronic conference was initially scheduled for Tuesday (19) but postponed subsequently. It was being speculated that the change of date was aimed at timing the meeting for after the resolution against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC is adopted.

It was this development, which Colombo was noticed about early, that prompted Minister Peiris to undertake yet another mission to Dhaka to lobby the Government there to ensure Sri Lanka stays off the CMAG agenda in April. The Government is also attempting to lobby other countries in the CMAG to garner support against being listed as an agenda item.

Uniquely, it is the CMAG that has the power to suspend or expel member states from the grouping, if a state persistently violates the core values of the grouping. If Sri Lanka is included in CMAG’s April agenda, it would possibly be the first time a CHOGM host’s commitment to the Commonwealth’s core values of democracy and constitutional rule will be under scrutiny by the small yet powerful body.

If today’s meeting goes through as planned, it will likely set the tone for whether Sri Lanka will feature on the CMAG’s April agenda. Given the time crunch, it remains unclear whether inclusion in the agenda would actually force a change of venue, even though it will almost certainly determine the level of representation by Government attending CHOGM in Colombo. If Sri Lanka is included in the agenda, the development may also change the tone and scope of CHOGM 2013, but analysts say a change of venue is not finding favour with many Commonwealth member states at this late stage.
From an international perspective, Sri Lanka’s battles in 2013 are only just beginning. The Government desperately wants to play host at CHOGM and is focusing all its energies on ensuring the summit goes ahead in Colombo as scheduled. Yet, if all other matters of critical concern to the international community go largely ignored while the regime prances on the Commonwealth stage, 2013 battles will be nothing compared to what will be impending in Geneva and elsewhere in 2014.

Risking the Islamic bloc

On a separate front, with the antics of the Bodu Bala Sena and other hardline groups and their anti-Muslim campaigns operating in the country largely outside the ambit of State law enforcement, the Government is seriously risking the ire of the Islamic bloc of nations that has always offered unstinted support to Colombo in all its international dealings.
Sri Lanka’s pro-Palestine positions have found great favour with Islamic nations. But yesterday, following months of rising anti-Muslim sentiment, isolated attacks on Muslim enterprises, places of worship and more recently even people, the Jeddah-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a parent body of 57 member countries, expressed concern yesterday about escalating ethnic tensions in Sri Lanka, which has affected the island’s Muslim community and its businesses sector.

Interestingly Sri Lanka has been lobbying hard for observer state status in the OIC and was nearly successful until Islamabad effected a moratorium on observers in order to block India’s entry to the organisation. Like the Non-Aligned Movement, the OIC too has always been overtly Sri Lanka friendly. Yet, in an inglorious self-goal because of the regime’s inherent sympathy with hardline groups like the Bodu Bala Sena, the Government has placed those solid relations at risk by feeding into a perception that Muslims are being subject to persecution in Sri Lanka.

Despite being the home of Theravada Buddhism, Sri Lanka cannot lay claim to such strong ties with a Buddhist bloc of nations in the world. Its two staunchest Buddhist allies are perhaps Myanmar and Thailand, while Sri Lanka has no diplomatic presence in staunchly Buddhist countries like Cambodia and Laos. To risk ties with Islamic states and allow groups like the Bodu Bala Sena and Sinhala Ravaya to feed the baser instincts of the majority ethnic group in order to safeguard the regime’s own support base is patently self-destructive. It also further reinforces the notion that the present administration is consumed with consolidating power locally at any cost.

When Mahinda Rajapaksa was busy taking Sri Lanka’s problems international in 1990, who could have possibly guessed that 23 years later, his Government and governance style would take Sri Lanka from being universally liked and respected as a small but mostly civilised state to being so perilously close to international isolation and rejection?

Courtesy Daily FT

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0

    Excellent presentation. If the Government of Sri Lanka wants to get around the resolution that is going to be passed at the UN, the only alternative the Government has is to set up an interim “National Government” and in addition remove the Secretary of Defense from his portfolio and appoint him to another ministry. The National Government should appoint a commission to investigate all the complaints in a public manner and punish those who committed atrocities. Further the National Government should set up a time frame to find solution to the minority issues (its no more ethnic issue, its religious, race, Judicial and ethnic issues). This process will enable to President of sri Lanka to show the world that Sri Lanka is not a Pariah State.

    • 0


      A very good advise,I hope your idea will materialize and and take srilanka away from this quagmire,,and be a place where all are srilankans.
      The first to be removed should be the one who is the cause of all this ethnic hatred,but the million dollar question is ,will he be removed ?,
      ,my answer is NO ,so sadly we are just at the corner of being called a pariah state.
      What a lot of damage has been done by this family regime where only the family is benefiting.

  • 0


  • 0

    DEATH TO MR REGIME is very soon

  • 0

    Well explained and written Ms. Bastians, one has to wonder if the poor, passionate, idealist, who lobbied for justice at the UN, lost all sense of decency when being crowned dictator of the Sri Lankan people, and now resorts to what he accused others of doing.

    The Rajapaksa style of governance is toxic and dangerous for the country. We are looking more and more like a rogue nation with the population living in fear of white vans, being intimidated, threatened, journalists fearing for their lives, murderers going unpunished, criminals roaming the country, corruption at a high level, thugs and goons attacking minorities, and a family that seems to keep isolating a country that depends on foreign aid for survival. We should also fault the almost non existent opposition that has cowed down to the ruling family, and who does not have a voice to protest what this country has become. Perhaps they are afraid.
    The Sri Lankan people now have to look out of the country for international intervention, in holding these culprits accountable for what they have done.

  • 0

    What style of governance do you want?
    Ranil style – where only royalists would get top slots,
    Chandrika – where her name is synonymous with corruption
    Fonseka – where everyone may end up in prison

    all these anti-rajapakse slogans must give an alternative – what is that. are these people wanting a country just to run amok according to what they want

    I think all these people have no clue of what goes on

    • 0


      Time and time again you have shamelessly displayed you ignorance and stupidity on numerous CT threads.

      Time to shut up and preserve whatever little self-respect you have.

      Rajapaksa bum-suckers like you are poison to Sri Lanka.

    • 0

      The choice between Royalist, Corruption, Incarceration and Nepotism is quite obvious. The lesser of the four evils.

  • 0

    Shiva, We want only Rajapaksas and acolytes for Sri Lanka!!!

  • 0


    While providing a lot of information about current diplomatic moves by parties hostile to Sri Lanka, there is little analysis especially from Sri Lanka’s standpoint other than just to say “the present administration is feeding “the baser instincts of the majority ethnic group in order to safeguard the regime’s own support base” as it is “consumed with consolidating power locally at any cost.” And you conclude by saying MR by his governance has transformed “Sri Lanka from being universally liked and respected as a small but mostly civilised state to being so perilously close to international isolation and rejection.”

    You seem to have forgotten we had a war in Sri Lanka from early 1980s to 2009. It was a stepped-up war inflicted on Sri Lanka by parties who didn’t want to see the country emerge as a vibrant democracy with a growing economy in the region. These hostile parties took advantage of the ethnic tensions in the country to fuel a full blown war. It took 30 years of “blood, toil, tears and sweat” and the sacrifice of tens of thousands of lives to extricate the country from the local and foreign enemies. Today these conspirators are talking about accountability, governance and war crimes.

    US and its groupies including India are not the international community. In fact there is no international community at present. In today’s unipolar world US and its allies can impose their narrative on the rest of the world.

    Yet we can also try to tell our story. The fair-minded countries and people will listen to us. We don’t have to look at ourselves with the eyes of our tormentors simply because they are running the show at Geneva. Fashion and truth are worlds apart.

  • 0

    Hats off to Vasu to reveal the truth in this juncture. Bodu Bala Sena and their god fathers accusing the Minorities and the NGO’s those who following the foot step of MR in Geneva now, As traitors. What’s Fatwa for MR, Who took our domestic affairs to International community during the JVP Insurgency.

  • 0

    Most probably the regime will continue on its merry path to self immolation and take the country down with it. It is too late in the day for MR to repent and reconsider his approach.

    The moment he steps down or the executive presidiency is abolished, he and his siblings will be liable and vurnerable to charges of mass corruption and killings both in the south and the north. Now that the foul deeds were done, justice lies in wait for the culprits.

  • 0

    This is probably where the “young” Mahinda Rajapaksa learnt how ineffectual the UN really is !

    His present actions are probably based on this learning.

  • 0

    Sri Lanka now needs a true National Government comprising members of all political parties of the country and headed by a “level-headed” politician, who is acceptable to all the communities of the Sri Lankan nation. MR and Ranil have already proven their unsuitability for such a position and it is the sacred duty of all the political parties of Sri Lanka and every citizen of this country not to lose valuable time but expeditiously to get together and strive to appoint a National Government as aforesaid and save this country from anarchy.

  • 0

    I endorse Dharisha Bastians’views expressed in her excellent article. Mahinda Rajapaksa’s visit to the UN in 1990 along with Vasudeva Nanayakkara was commendable but their lack of consistency since on principle, indicates that it was motivated by racial loyalty and political opportunism rather than a love of human rights.

    When LTTE terrorism was defeated in 2009 Rajapaksa had a golden opportunity to act in a statesmanlike manner and bring about reconciliation between the Sinhala and Tamil people. Why did he fail to do so? He had 40 years of political experience behind him. He had already seen the wrong decisions political leaders had made before him with disastrous consequences. He had experienced international pressures from 2006 and knew what to expect. He probably did not expect the armed services to act recklessly during the last stages of the war. Okay so he had to tread carefully since the Generals and the soldiers were hyped up and he had to keep them under control. But why did he resort to what is now called triumphalism? He had to celebrate/commemorate victory but why did he not realize that Tamil people were also Sri Lankans and he had to do so with sensitivity? Why did he not take steps to ensure that Tamil people, especially those in the North and East of the country were assured that they will enjoy equal rights in every respect? Why did he not give orders to the armed forces chiefs to ensure that ordinary people are not harassed? Did he not realize that they were grieving due to the loss of loved ones, their property, their livelihood? Why did he not address the Tamil people nationally. Did his political mind think that he will alienate the Sinhala people and extremist Buddhist clergy? Many will agree that he had a clean slate to do what he wanted at the end of the war. Everyone including those who opposed the government would have gone along with his proposals for reconciliation. So why, why, why? There lies conundrum which Sri Lankans must unravel.
    It is said that Mahinda Rajapksa, as a Sinhala Buddhist from the South, thinks like the extremist BBS. Yet his experience must make him think otherwise. It is said that he has a multitude of paid advisors because he needs to be advised and briefed. Are they competent? Is he too stubborn to listen? Is he innately a suspicious person and looks for ulterior motives? Has he, by his demeanour, alienated his inner circle and the moderate Ministers and friends so that they fear to express an alternative view? Whatever be the answer he has to wake up now. He has to take responsibility for our future. He cannot take us down a slippery slope to chaos.

    • 0

      Who thought ever that it is that easy to tame EVEN the senior guys like Vasudewa Nanayakkara to this way ? I still have good memories how he protested in many decades ago. People^s likes towards him at that time were high. I think today average people of the country have no good memories.

      For me, as one who looks at all these being away from the country, this man VN, should have been brainwashed or totally brain sick to keep quiet observing all these.

      On the other hand, if such politicians can easily been manipulated by current regime, we dont need to talk about the their manipulative mechanism towards the naive villagers that make up the majority population, but the most stupid folks among the island nation. All these are very comparable to many other countries whose leaders have later become totalitarian rulers.

  • 0

    I think Shiva has a point. What alternative do we have? Have any of the organisations lobbying for a regime change presented a viable, non-corrupt
    alternative which will accept the rule of law? Do we vote for anarchy?
    So far all good policies by those seeking power have gone by the board when power has been obtained. Power corrupts.

  • 0

    First my congratulations to Darisha for her fine article.

    Let this regime go for heavens sake ! sooner the better. Don’t worry about an alternative.An alternative will emerge, but not one led by Ranil Wickremesinghe. Let us cross the bridge when we come to it, not from miles away!

  • 0

    This is a great article specially for many those who still stay deaf about the dangerous nature of current leader. His unpredictable energies are enormous. 20 years ago, he proved to have done what his current regime accuse the NGO of going against the country. This is not to ignore, but his underworld links provide no other choice many to compel to do so. This is the real nature of today^s situation in the country. Even his ministers seem to have no power to react independently. Always each of them have to rely on mahadanamutta s approval. So what about the imposing an independent police commission to provide due justice any crimes that are on a rise tremendously in the country.

    All these weeks we have noticed, if alcohol are imported browsers wise, no responsible authorities seem to have taken the responsibility, it could be just the PRESIDENT ordered them for running his illegal business. There is a no control whatever the abusive business s being carried out with the approval of the ministers. There is no investigations against the either. Besides, as we saw it – they don’t even take it serious when tourists are being attacked by govt goons. Some local journalists prove it – minor politicians from provincial level have no respect towards the ministers because ministers are directly related to all forms of abuses.

    Put a stop to alcohol – mathata thitha has just been political rhetoric to continue their abuses further. Poor of the poor have been captured by all forms of devils that have deliberately been produced by MR and his maladministration. This has now become to the level as a cancer has risen to its metastasis phases.

    • 0

      Ben, not quite sure what you mean, as some of the syntax in your comment may have got garbled.

      However, if the gist is that the sale and consumption of alcohol be banned, then this might become a great unifying act that could bring the BBS and the Muslims (both of whom profess abstinence) of the country together…. it may well also help to reduce the wave of rapes we hear of each day, and laudably impede the high jinks of those who commit these despicable acts with growing impunity.

      Such a measure will then also give the ‘public police’ arm of the BBS the opportunity to raid hotel rooms on ALL days, not just the Poya days and ferret out those nasty foreigners aka International Community who ‘do not respect’ Lanka’s Sinhala Buddhist, temperate ways, followed by unceremoniously booting them out of the country to the aplause and fire-crackers of the BBS sympathisers and others who would welcome an abolition of that cursed brew.

  • 0

    Wickramasiri: You have very appropriately posed some perinent questions and all the way it is nothing but “why ….why …why”.

    Hope you remember how the President explained the “Impeachment of CJ”?

    He said ” I was not in favour of this Impeachment” He probably sensed what is in stock for him and the country, especially with the oncoming of the Geneva meeting and the “hosting” of the Commonwealth Heads Conference. Did those “Leaders” who prompted the 117 MPs to forward a “haphazardly” drawn “allegations” against CJ and “demanded” impreachment action throgh Parliament, had that vision and understanding of the future events that are to unfold? Also did the PSC members thought it fit to discharge their duties in a “decent” manner to uphold the “Rules of Law”? NO

    Then why could’nt the President (with that 40 years of experience) avoid that “calamitous” situation? The answer is: He has fallen a prey and is already a prisoner, a victim, sorrounded by his own relations, colleagues and hollow friends. There is no way out of it at this moment. Most probably he will “succumb” to his own self inflicted injuries. It is a pity that we lost a great opportunity came on our way after the defeat of “Ruthless Terrorism”.

    Hope above will explain in brief the answer to your question “WHY…”

    • 0

      Douglas, Thank you. Probably you are right but I am not convinced. Is he the victim or is it the other way round? I remember that sometime ago when interviewed by an Indian newspaper Mahinda Rajapaksa made a remark that most people underestimate him. This raises more questions. Can a good man turn bad? Or was he always bad?

  • 0

    Please if you could give me any insight or reassurance it would be greatly appreciated. also my BF did it too. I heard that it goes through the sperm. SK came back by turning first blood into a two for one double kill. SK took a tower advantage and CLG was proving dominant in team fights and took the first dragon. CLG had the advantage by mid-game and ran a split push.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.