a must read article on the "The Sunday Leader",
go to this link,
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2010/02/14/cry-sri-lanka-cry/
By Faraz Shauketaly (Posted by admin on Feb 14th, 2010 and filed under Politics.)
or i have copy pasted the article below,
Cry Sri Lanka, Cry
Posted by admin on Feb 14th, 2010 and filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry from your site
By Faraz Shauketaly _ Photos by Asanka Brendon Ratnayake
Press conference held by the opposition: (at left) Somawansa Amarasinghe, (right) Rauf Hakeem Sitting through the press conference on Tuesday last, at the Opposition Alliance’s offices, to hear their condemnation of the arrest of defeated Presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka, was an exercise in amazement.
The amazement was on a number of fronts. The first of course was to do with the opposition statement on the retired General’s arrest. He was they said, treated worse than a terrorist; he after all, being the man they credit with ending the war. Their focus was on the alleged force used on Sri Lanka’s only four-star General when he was being arrested. No one, it is true, deserves to be treated inhumanely and with loss of dignity.
Anoma Fonseka photo courtesy daylife.com By their own admission, when the Military Police barged their way in to a room where the retired General was in discussions with part of his coalition partners – Rauf Hakeem, Somawansa Amarasinghe, Sunil Handunnetti and Mano Ganesan – the Military Police were quite cordial, informing the General that they had instructions to arrest him. That probably set the General off who was not minded to leave with the Military Police. As the most senior member of the army at the time of his resignation, Sarath Fonseka would have known the Army Act chapter and verse. The salient part of that Act proclaims that up to six months after retirement, a retired member of the army was still subject to the Army Act.
The constitution of Sri Lanka provides for neutrality and equality amongst all of its citizens. Article 12 has little ambiguity in those terms. If anyone is being arrested and resists that arrest, the authorities are entitled to the use of ‘ minimum force’. When his alliance partners objected to the use of that force they had clearly forgotten that the use of force was necessitated by the General’s refusal to accompany the arresting officers. He was therefore technically “resisting arrest”. Can you with your hand on your heart say, that if it was citizen Banda resisting arrest, the arresting authorities would not have used what ever force was required to complete the arresting process?
Yes it certainly must have been traumatic for the General – however, this would be the second time round at a Court Martial — but by his own many pronouncements; he was more than expecting an arrest. The General was almost egging his previous masters on, reminiscent at times of that famous song about Muhammad Ali, “catch me if you can”.
That the administration reacted within hours of that last pronouncement from General Fonseka may well have been purely coincidental rather than pre-meditated intent. According to indications from the government side, the General’s arrest was made after having gone through a process of enquiry and investigation.
The sight of Anoma Fonseka, the Generals’ spouse, on TV seeking information as to the whereabouts of her husband indeed drew widespread sympathy especially from amongst those who had voted for the General. Mrs. Fonseka portrayed herself as the quintessential Sri Lankan wife: obviously loyal and devastated that the lion in her life was taken away so suddenly. It matters not that she too was probably expecting the arrest of her husband. While she complained by proxy through the likes of Somawansa Amarasinghe, Rauf Hakeem, Mangala Samaraweera and Mano Ganesan at a press conference hours after the General’s arrest, it appears that the irony of those complaints whilst being missed by the opposition members was not lost on a wider public.
Abduction of journalists
During the war with the LTTE many events took place. Journalists were abducted, maimed and even killed. They were harassed when their reporting appeared to cause palpitations for a government that was under enormous pressure internationally to call for a truce and seek a settlement. It was as the President himself said at one point, a home-grown problem which required a home-grown solution because it was the natives of this land who understood the terrorist mind-set better. The subsequent annihilation and defeat of the LTTE vindicated the Presidential position in spite of the fact that at the time it was a bitter medicine to take.
The General was given a virtual carte blanche to get on with the job of eradicating terrorism. His support from the political establishment was wholesome and openly granted. The support he enjoyed was as history will now note, without parallel. Some now say and the President was candid in his admission of that fact, that they had overplayed the kudos of those responsible – the President saying that he had “made some mistakes along the way”.
It will be interesting to know exactly what went on in the minds of those affected by terror in the moments immediately prior to them being attacked and in the case of Messr’s Lasantha Wickrematunge and Raviraj, being killed. Suffice it to say that we do not profess to find guilty anyone of the crimes mentioned herein, at this point. It will be a court that would find those who are guilty after a trial.
Mrs. Fonseka will of course know first hand now the trauma and the mental anguish she went through when she first heard that her husband had been arrested. On TV it was on display for all to see – a woman obviously loyal to her lifetime partner who was in deep anguish at the mere arrest of her husband. Perhaps her anguish was compounded by her not quite knowing what else was in store for her husband.
Lasantha’s final two minutes
In that context it would be more than interesting to know what precise thoughts she had of, for example, the final two minutes in the life of Lasantha Wickrematunge. He after all was not merely arrested and taken away to a safe house. He was attacked and killed.
What went on in his mind in those final moments? Those who knew him say that when he saw those men approaching his car he would have known immediately that his time was up. Can anyone, including Mrs. Fonseka, imagine the terror and the anguish that must have gone through his mind then? Did Mr. Wickrematunge have the benefit of being allowed to summon legal help or indeed any help for that matter? His mobile telephone was in his hands – was he so much as permitted to make a call…
The terror that must have gone through his mind, the fire that most probably consumed his thinking was without doubt complete as it could ever be. Lasantha had no choice – he was marked and his perpetrators got him. If the Fonsekas had any terror it could not have been as complete as the terror that Lasantha Wickrematunge endured in those final moments.
Somawansa Amarasinghe was almost eloquent in his description of what he termed “the humiliation and degrading treatment” meted out to the General. That is almost rich for a man who leads a party that has been acknowledged to be one that inflicted immense terror on an unsuspecting public not so long ago. Yet he speaks of the anguish of the Fonsekas. What thoughts did Somawansa Amarasinghe have for the female victim during the time in the mid 1970’s when Sarath Fonseka was charged for conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman, in charge number 0/050/536? It is said that the victim to-date suffers acute mental trauma caused by that incident. Her suffering continues to this date despite those events taking place on Christmas Day 1975.
Political expediency Or for the Leader of the JVP, perhaps an easier proposition: what were his thoughts at the time of Vijay Kumaratunga’s killing? He was shot in his face, his children with drawing books in their hand, only just being saved by their handsome film-star father. What indeed. Did he have any thoughts at all then? He compounds my amazement when he held Mrs. Fonseka by her hand almost protectively, in front of this country’s most august court – the Supreme Court, in Hulftsdorp, at the foot of President Premadasa’s statue and the Sri Lankan flag fluttering proudly from the grounds of the Supreme Court. Has he matured over the years and if he has, there is little acknowledgement of that in his speeches since.
Is his pronouncements now mere political expediency? Are his – as well as other pronouncements now made during the currency of the Fonseka phenomenon – merely politically correct as opposed to making those statements with the full knowledge and belief – of action through reality-based conviction?
Still on the subject of thoughts: what were the thoughts of the opposition now, in the killing of Harsha Abeywardena in 1987? Did they stop to think of his wife and his children and the fire, agony and trauma they were going though at that time?
The sad fact of the matter is this: that when politicians are in the opposition the fire with which they espouse any cause is highly flammable. In government, they soon forget the mental anguish, the trauma and the effect their actions have on the very lives of the people who may in fact have even voted them in. Anguish is a great equaliser: the trauma and suffering going through Mrs. Fonseka now is not her sole preserve; the families of all those others who have been victims of atrocities and harassment – in whatever name it is done, be it war, peace or security even – have an equal call, although some may not be as fortunate as Mrs. Fonseka who is able to call on the assistance of politicians, media and even the armed forces of which her husband was an integral part for 40 years.
Mrs. Fonseka though should be aware that there are those around her who would use this opportunity to create for Sri Lanka, a Winnie Mandelaesque figure for their own narrow-minded goals, like the JVP. The JVP have lost their appeal and their votebase substantially. The JVP scurry around like opportunistic vermin, seeking a way out of their political failure and see in Mrs. Fonseka what they perceive to be a golden opportunity to resurrect themselves. They will no doubt champion General Fonseka’s predicament in a lob-sided attempt to be resurrected politically.
As Sri Lanka cries at the duplicity of its political legislators, Anoma Fonseka should examine Winnie Mandela’s record: Mrs. Mandela, was shown to have used her husband’s position as the victim of apartheid, to create name, position and fame – for herself. Not long after Nelson Mandela’s release from 27 years in prison, he divorced Winnie.
([email protected])
go to this link,
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2010/02/14/cry-sri-lanka-cry/
By Faraz Shauketaly (Posted by admin on Feb 14th, 2010 and filed under Politics.)
or i have copy pasted the article below,
Cry Sri Lanka, Cry
By Faraz Shauketaly _ Photos by Asanka Brendon Ratnayake
Press conference held by the opposition: (at left) Somawansa Amarasinghe, (right) Rauf Hakeem Sitting through the press conference on Tuesday last, at the Opposition Alliance’s offices, to hear their condemnation of the arrest of defeated Presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka, was an exercise in amazement.
The amazement was on a number of fronts. The first of course was to do with the opposition statement on the retired General’s arrest. He was they said, treated worse than a terrorist; he after all, being the man they credit with ending the war. Their focus was on the alleged force used on Sri Lanka’s only four-star General when he was being arrested. No one, it is true, deserves to be treated inhumanely and with loss of dignity.
Anoma Fonseka photo courtesy daylife.com By their own admission, when the Military Police barged their way in to a room where the retired General was in discussions with part of his coalition partners – Rauf Hakeem, Somawansa Amarasinghe, Sunil Handunnetti and Mano Ganesan – the Military Police were quite cordial, informing the General that they had instructions to arrest him. That probably set the General off who was not minded to leave with the Military Police. As the most senior member of the army at the time of his resignation, Sarath Fonseka would have known the Army Act chapter and verse. The salient part of that Act proclaims that up to six months after retirement, a retired member of the army was still subject to the Army Act.The constitution of Sri Lanka provides for neutrality and equality amongst all of its citizens. Article 12 has little ambiguity in those terms. If anyone is being arrested and resists that arrest, the authorities are entitled to the use of ‘ minimum force’. When his alliance partners objected to the use of that force they had clearly forgotten that the use of force was necessitated by the General’s refusal to accompany the arresting officers. He was therefore technically “resisting arrest”. Can you with your hand on your heart say, that if it was citizen Banda resisting arrest, the arresting authorities would not have used what ever force was required to complete the arresting process?
Yes it certainly must have been traumatic for the General – however, this would be the second time round at a Court Martial — but by his own many pronouncements; he was more than expecting an arrest. The General was almost egging his previous masters on, reminiscent at times of that famous song about Muhammad Ali, “catch me if you can”.
That the administration reacted within hours of that last pronouncement from General Fonseka may well have been purely coincidental rather than pre-meditated intent. According to indications from the government side, the General’s arrest was made after having gone through a process of enquiry and investigation.
The sight of Anoma Fonseka, the Generals’ spouse, on TV seeking information as to the whereabouts of her husband indeed drew widespread sympathy especially from amongst those who had voted for the General. Mrs. Fonseka portrayed herself as the quintessential Sri Lankan wife: obviously loyal and devastated that the lion in her life was taken away so suddenly. It matters not that she too was probably expecting the arrest of her husband. While she complained by proxy through the likes of Somawansa Amarasinghe, Rauf Hakeem, Mangala Samaraweera and Mano Ganesan at a press conference hours after the General’s arrest, it appears that the irony of those complaints whilst being missed by the opposition members was not lost on a wider public.
Abduction of journalists
During the war with the LTTE many events took place. Journalists were abducted, maimed and even killed. They were harassed when their reporting appeared to cause palpitations for a government that was under enormous pressure internationally to call for a truce and seek a settlement. It was as the President himself said at one point, a home-grown problem which required a home-grown solution because it was the natives of this land who understood the terrorist mind-set better. The subsequent annihilation and defeat of the LTTE vindicated the Presidential position in spite of the fact that at the time it was a bitter medicine to take.
The General was given a virtual carte blanche to get on with the job of eradicating terrorism. His support from the political establishment was wholesome and openly granted. The support he enjoyed was as history will now note, without parallel. Some now say and the President was candid in his admission of that fact, that they had overplayed the kudos of those responsible – the President saying that he had “made some mistakes along the way”.
It will be interesting to know exactly what went on in the minds of those affected by terror in the moments immediately prior to them being attacked and in the case of Messr’s Lasantha Wickrematunge and Raviraj, being killed. Suffice it to say that we do not profess to find guilty anyone of the crimes mentioned herein, at this point. It will be a court that would find those who are guilty after a trial.
Mrs. Fonseka will of course know first hand now the trauma and the mental anguish she went through when she first heard that her husband had been arrested. On TV it was on display for all to see – a woman obviously loyal to her lifetime partner who was in deep anguish at the mere arrest of her husband. Perhaps her anguish was compounded by her not quite knowing what else was in store for her husband.
Lasantha’s final two minutes
In that context it would be more than interesting to know what precise thoughts she had of, for example, the final two minutes in the life of Lasantha Wickrematunge. He after all was not merely arrested and taken away to a safe house. He was attacked and killed.
What went on in his mind in those final moments? Those who knew him say that when he saw those men approaching his car he would have known immediately that his time was up. Can anyone, including Mrs. Fonseka, imagine the terror and the anguish that must have gone through his mind then? Did Mr. Wickrematunge have the benefit of being allowed to summon legal help or indeed any help for that matter? His mobile telephone was in his hands – was he so much as permitted to make a call…
The terror that must have gone through his mind, the fire that most probably consumed his thinking was without doubt complete as it could ever be. Lasantha had no choice – he was marked and his perpetrators got him. If the Fonsekas had any terror it could not have been as complete as the terror that Lasantha Wickrematunge endured in those final moments.
Somawansa Amarasinghe was almost eloquent in his description of what he termed “the humiliation and degrading treatment” meted out to the General. That is almost rich for a man who leads a party that has been acknowledged to be one that inflicted immense terror on an unsuspecting public not so long ago. Yet he speaks of the anguish of the Fonsekas. What thoughts did Somawansa Amarasinghe have for the female victim during the time in the mid 1970’s when Sarath Fonseka was charged for conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman, in charge number 0/050/536? It is said that the victim to-date suffers acute mental trauma caused by that incident. Her suffering continues to this date despite those events taking place on Christmas Day 1975.
Political expediency Or for the Leader of the JVP, perhaps an easier proposition: what were his thoughts at the time of Vijay Kumaratunga’s killing? He was shot in his face, his children with drawing books in their hand, only just being saved by their handsome film-star father. What indeed. Did he have any thoughts at all then? He compounds my amazement when he held Mrs. Fonseka by her hand almost protectively, in front of this country’s most august court – the Supreme Court, in Hulftsdorp, at the foot of President Premadasa’s statue and the Sri Lankan flag fluttering proudly from the grounds of the Supreme Court. Has he matured over the years and if he has, there is little acknowledgement of that in his speeches since.
Is his pronouncements now mere political expediency? Are his – as well as other pronouncements now made during the currency of the Fonseka phenomenon – merely politically correct as opposed to making those statements with the full knowledge and belief – of action through reality-based conviction?
Still on the subject of thoughts: what were the thoughts of the opposition now, in the killing of Harsha Abeywardena in 1987? Did they stop to think of his wife and his children and the fire, agony and trauma they were going though at that time?
The sad fact of the matter is this: that when politicians are in the opposition the fire with which they espouse any cause is highly flammable. In government, they soon forget the mental anguish, the trauma and the effect their actions have on the very lives of the people who may in fact have even voted them in. Anguish is a great equaliser: the trauma and suffering going through Mrs. Fonseka now is not her sole preserve; the families of all those others who have been victims of atrocities and harassment – in whatever name it is done, be it war, peace or security even – have an equal call, although some may not be as fortunate as Mrs. Fonseka who is able to call on the assistance of politicians, media and even the armed forces of which her husband was an integral part for 40 years.
Mrs. Fonseka though should be aware that there are those around her who would use this opportunity to create for Sri Lanka, a Winnie Mandelaesque figure for their own narrow-minded goals, like the JVP. The JVP have lost their appeal and their votebase substantially. The JVP scurry around like opportunistic vermin, seeking a way out of their political failure and see in Mrs. Fonseka what they perceive to be a golden opportunity to resurrect themselves. They will no doubt champion General Fonseka’s predicament in a lob-sided attempt to be resurrected politically.
As Sri Lanka cries at the duplicity of its political legislators, Anoma Fonseka should examine Winnie Mandela’s record: Mrs. Mandela, was shown to have used her husband’s position as the victim of apartheid, to create name, position and fame – for herself. Not long after Nelson Mandela’s release from 27 years in prison, he divorced Winnie.
([email protected])
Last edited:
