On Wednesday April 25, The Island carried an open letter to the Army Commander from Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Ananda Weerasekera, protesting against an intended denial to him of his military entitlement to receive a valour award from the Commander-in-Chief at an official investiture scheduled for April 24. Upto time of writing, there has been no official denial of such intention, nor any further report in this regard to indicate whether or not, in fact, such a happening occurred.

The President and Commander-in-Chief never misses an opportunity publicly to extol the valour and sacrifice of Armed Services personnel, and to pledge her own and the state's respect and duty of care for them and their kith-and-kin (in the case of those who have paid the supreme sacrifice). A valour award earned in combat is not time-bound in its worth — it can be posthumous, or carried into retirement. And, whilst the citation and medal/ribbon are the visible symbols of valour duly recognised, nothing surely could surpass the satisfaction of the recipient and pride of his/her kith-and-kin in having it bestowed personally by President and Commander-in-chief, at an official investiture.

Reference to the citation in Maj. Gen. Weerasekera's open letter in The Island indicates the elapse of a considerable time-span. Politically aware and engaged citizens would recall that, during this hiatus, Ananda Weerasekera was one of several citizens who were publicly vilified in the state-owned media, on the basis of scurrilous slander purveyed in the guise of 'evidence' lead before that travesty of justice called a Presidential Commission, all of it undertaken to serve partisan political ends.

Citizens who are politically with it will also recall that Ananda Weerasekera, like Sirisena Cooray and others, was totally exonerated and vindicated by the country's highest Court, deservedly leaving the Executive with scrambled egg liberally splattered over visage, frontage and all. Those of the citizens who are au fait with the political vulgarities of this 7-year regime may well speculate about a possible connection, between Anada Weerasekera's moral valour in challenging and testing the executive through the Courts, and the latter's apparent inability to look him in the eye, whilst pinning his duly earned medal for military valour.

Be that as it may, to deny a soldier his rightful entitlement to receive a valour award from the hand of his Commander-in-Chief is not just to insult him, undeservedly, but far more, to spit on the very concept of awards for valour in combat.

This case epitomises two distinctive traits of this regime; one, compounding one wrong act with another, and the other, utter disregard for the fitness of things.
Jayanath Rajapakse
Rajagiriya