Tuesday Nov 04, 2025
Friday, 3 October 2014 04:25 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
back-foot through little fault of his own.
The reasonable doubt cannot but arise to the treatment of Tamil detainees after the war, if the country’s own High Commissioner, a British educated medical doctor, has physical aggression visited upon him by a top official of the Sri Lankan State, and member of the Presidential staff and entourage.
Thus has the official whose counsel the President ostensibly counts on in the field of our external relations, damaged Sri Lanka’s external image, standing and the credibility of our own representative who upholds our banner in the very headquarters of the anti-Lankan Tamil Eelam diaspora, London.
Offhand I can think of no state in my lifetime in which such disgraceful social and personal conduct has taken place among top officials accompanying the Head of State overseas.
The conduct of top officials, including those present at bilateral meetings between Sri Lanka’s President and heads of state, reflects on the state and its leadership. The choice of personalities especially in the sensitive realm of external relations is a crucial one. Almost all states, however questionable their internal conduct, attempt to present their most educated, sophisticated, cultivated and civilised personalities at the interface of the national and the world.
Hence a previous Sri Lankan President, no less patriotic-populist (and far more besieged domestically) than the present incumbent, had as his international relations advisor, Bradman Weerakoon and as a key ambassadorial interlocutor with the West, Neville Jayaweera.
Overt manifestation of the face of fascism
Far more dangerous for the country’s future, but not entirely unrelated to the first issue discussed here, is the overt manifestation of the face of fascism, in the form of the BBS-Wirathu bloc. This factor will function, in the first instance as an important electoral pressure group which the Governing elite will strive to court or benignly neutralise.
This is a replay of the role of the Eksath Bhikku Peramuna (the EBP) in the general election of 1956. It was the EPB that shifted the policy agenda of Bandaranaike’s Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) coalition to Sinhala Only and later, forced the abrogation of the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact for devolution.
Its successor was the Bauddha Jathika Balavegaya (BJB) which, together with the policies of the then Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and External Affairs N.Q. Dias (the father of lawyer Gomin Dayasri), pushed through the anti-minority policies of the first Sirimavo Bandaranaike administration of 1960-1964, including the Sinhala-Buddhistisation of the State apparatus. The activism of the EPB and the BJB set the country firmly on the path to secessionist civil war.
The latest and most dangerous avatar of this phenomenon, the BBS-Wirathu bloc, its more anarchic competitors such as Sinhala Ravaya and its more legitimate political expression, the JHU, will almost certainly cause a spike in Islamophobia and anti-Christian sentiment, which, together with the massive disaffection in and alienation of the Tamils and Muslims of the north and east, will cause the island’s periphery to peel off and will thereby shrink the Sri Lankan state to its Sinhala-Buddhist heartland.
Sinhala Buddhist card
The electoral temptation for the ruling elite to patronise or court the BBS is larger because of the inviting target the UNP’s present leadership makes. While Sinhala-Buddhism was a tempting club for SWRD to beat the deracinated UNP of Sir John Kotelawala with, it is unthinkable that anyone could have used it against D.S. Senanayake.
Similarly, the UNP of President Premadasa was pretty much invulnerable to attack from the Sinhala Buddhist flank, not because he pandered to majoritarianism as his successor D.B. Wijetunga did, but because his administration’s multiethnic, multilingual, multi-religious profile was clad in the Kevlar body armour of patriotic populism.