The government started the New Year with egg on its face and blood on its hands. The Mervyn Silva incident on Dec. 28 and the assassination of Maheswaran on Jan. 1 have left the president with much to ponder about. Rajapaksa heard of MP Maheswaran’s death as he was preparing to attend the customary New Year get together with his staff at the presidential secretariat. He immediately phoned the IGP and discussed the situation. The president arrived late for the New Year do and lamented that he expects something untoward to happen on every important day. He rattled off a list of incidents that had occurred in the past – parliamentarian Joseph Pararajasingham was murdered on Christmas day 2006, the LTTE attacked the Galle harbour on the day that the Aid Group met in Galle, and as he prepared to leave for the Commonwealth Heads of State meeting, the Sunday Leader office was torched…. and so it went.

Mahinda defensive

This presidential lament is becoming familiar to the public now. When the cabinet met last week, the first item to be discussed was the Maheswaran killing. The president started the ball rolling saying that Maheswaran was a good friend who, when he went to Jaffna as the opposition leader, took him in a procession for two miles. Even when he criticized Ranil Wickremesinghe in the speech he made there, Maheswaran who was interpreting had translated that as well into Tamil. When the president went to Kataragama next day and performed religious observances at the Kirivehera and the Ruhunu Kataragama Maha Devale, once again the people present spoke about the assassination. Wherever he went, the story was the same and his answer was also the same, "Maheswaran was a good friend of mine…. He took me on a two mile walk in Jaffana etc etc".

The fact of the matter is that the government was caught with its pants down on this one. It has reduced Maheswaran’s security in the wake of the budget vote as an act of petty revenge. Similarly, even Anura Bandaranaike’s security was reduced on the very day he crossed the floor. Readers will remember that AB crossed the floor but did not wait for the budget vote and left parliament for his residence at Visumpaya where he was denied entry. He then made his way to Horagolla. It was en route to Horagolla that his security contingent began to receive messages that they had been withdrawn from AB’s service with immediate effect. But they had accompanied Bandaranaike to Horagolla nevertheless. The removal of Maheswaran’s security was also a similarly petty act of revenge. The reduction of his security just days before his assassination has led to an accusing finger being pointed at the government. And the government can do nothing but to blink stupidly at their accusers.

When cabinet met last week, the item to be discussed after the Maheswaran assassination was the Mervyn Silva incident. The president said that he does not for one moment condone what Mervyn Silva said. The party had to make a decision on this first. Rajapaksa admitted that Mervyn is an old friend but it was not he who took the man into the party or appointed him to parliament. Neither was it he who ‘got work’ out of Mervyn. When the president visited Kataragama on Jan. 2, the chief priest of the Kirivehera also asked the president what he is going to do about Mervyn Silva. Saying that Mervyn was better at attracting infamy rather than fame, Rajapaksa said he will be taking a decision about Mervyn but was not going to rush things.

Avoidable trouble

So that was how the head of state spent the first week of the New Year plaintively telling people "Maheswaran was a good friend of mine…" and "It was not I who appointed Mervyn to parliament…". President Rajapakse should sit back and think about these two incidents. As I have said in my columns, his is a government that is doing well on many fronts. They have been successful in weakening the LTTE. Some try to make out that the economy is close to collapse – which is not quite correct. The economy is not close to collapse and it will collapse only if the western powers impose sanctions on Sri Lanka. While running a successful government, the president has been under siege for matters of little moment. Mervyn Silva has caused no small amount of embarrassment to the government simply because he can’t rein in his son who has a tendency to get involved in nightclub brawls. This has nothing to do with politics.

Even over Maheswaran’s killing, the government is undergoing embarrassment that it could have easily avoided. The fleeting satisfaction that may have been gained by reducing Anura Bandaranaike’s and Maheswaran’s security has now resulted in a situation where the government has to paddle furiously just to keep its nose out of water. A politician should be defensive and stressed only over matters that have some relevance politically – not over useless things like some minister’s personal brawls and somebody’s petty satisfaction. The president should ponder whether the ignominy attaching to the government over the Mervyn Silva episode and the withdrawal of Maheswaran’s security is really worth it. Given the challenges that lie before this government, this kind of embarrassment should have been avoided. This government did not play ducks and drakes with the country for two years. So why has it started doing so now - and over such politically irrelevant incidents?

Even over the Mervyn Silva affair, the president does not seem to be inclined to take any action. When this matter was discussed in cabinet, the president said that the biggest cause for concern is that Rupavahini was in a state of complete chaos that day, with no control over what was going on air. Anything could have been broadcast then and even if someone had said that there going to be a curfew or that parliament had been dissolved, that too would have gone on air. So the blame is now being placed on the journalists and workers at Rupavahini. The president’s concerns are in a way justified because what we saw at the Rupavahini Corporation was a mini revolution. That was an ‘insurrection’ in the classic sense, and those versed in Marxist history will draw parallels between what happened at the Rupavahini Corporation and the ‘Paris commune’ that Karl Marx spoke so glowingly about. But what the president has to ponder is why such a situation arose among the most docile of media workers.

If one is to go by the signs, Mervyn Silva is going to get off Scot free from this latest scrape. Already the game of blaming the Rupavahini workers has begun. There is a banner displayed in front of the main gate of the Colombo port which condemns the assault of a minister in the premises of a state institution. The banner has apparently been put up by an SLFP harbour union. So that is how it is characterized now - as an assault on a minister in a government institution. As the days go by, this is what is going to be highlighted and we need not be surprised if, eventually, Mervyn Silva is declared to be the victim. Mervyn is not a fearsome individual like Sotthi Upali, who was a protégé of Sirisena Cooray or Beddagane Sanjeewa, who was a protégé of Chandrika Kumaratunga. The image that Silva has in the country is more that of a court jester. As such, it may not be necessary to remove him from politics altogether. But one thing that the president has to ensure is that Mervyn and his son, Malaka, do not get into any more useless brawls.

Govt shoots ceasefire

As in the Mervyn Silva case, on the Maheswaran killing too, the government has been already putting its defenses into place. When the president visited Kataragama, the chief priest of the Kirivehera asked him about the killing of Maheswaran. Somebody there then told the president that the UNP was saying that the government had to take the responsibility. The president shot back saying that President Premadasa was killed when the UNP was in power and asked whether the UNP was going to accept responsibility for that? ``Who was in power when Gamini Dissanayake were killed?’’, asked the president. He has a point here. If a politician is killed, one can’t really place the blame for that on the government unless it is the government itself or some element associated with it that carried out the killing. The government is tainted with the Maheswaran killing because they reduced his security just days before his assassination. But nobody, not even the UNP, has said so far that this security was reduced in order to facilitate the assassination. The move was not sinister but stupid and the government got caught flat footed.

But fortunately for the government, the assassin was also injured and apprehended. By now, they would have ascertained that he was not associated with any Tamil group associated with the government. Maheswaran’s bodyguard who shot the assassin has already identified the assassin as one of Maheswaran’s own former bodyguards. There were rumours to the effect that the Maheswaran killing was an EPDP job because Maheswaran was in direct competition with the EPDP leader in the shipping of goods to Jaffna and because Maheswaran had threatened to make a statement on the abductions and killings taking place in Jaffna – which are blamed on the EPDP. This has become a standing joke in government circles. Once when the president said in cabinet that the number of violent incidents in Jaffna had gone down, one minister had quipped "Sir that is because Douglas Devananda is in Colombo these days!"

The UNP has by now, ascertained that it is neither the EPDP nor the Karuna-Pillaiyan faction in the east that killed Maheswaran. Party MPs who rushed to the hospital in the aftermath of the shooting met Maheswaran’s bodyguard and he would have told them that the assassin was one of Maheswaran’s ex-bodyguards which means that either this killing was due to a personal dispute or due to the LTTE. It is clear that everybody suspects the LTTE because had the suspicion fallen on the government, they would have gone to town over it. Thus it turned out that instead of shouting slogans against ‘state terrorism,’ those who participated in the funeral procession protested against the ‘culture of killing.’

To those who are new to the country, and unfamiliar with the Sri Lankan political idiom, like Ambassador Blake and High Commissioner Chilcott among others, we may take the liberty of pointing out that when a political assassination takes place and the government is suspected of having had a hand in it, then the political parties and media organizations go berserk, accusing the government, calling them killers and ‘state terrorists’ and what not. But when the LTTE is suspected of a killing, the reaction is far more muted. Nobody dares mention the LTTE by name. Only a protest or condemnation of the killing takes place without any mention of who the assailant might be. The protest then takes place not against the LTTE but against the culture of killing – a vague disembodied phenomenon. This is the terror that brooks no mention of its name. If no names are mentioned at a protest against a killing then that is almost certainly suspected to be an LTTE killing.

The unmentionables

There is something that the international community should take note of here. While the government committed an act of petty revenge on Maheswaran by reducing his security, that lapse may have been made use of by the LTTE to bump off Maheswaran. This is like having a drug addict offspring in the house. The moment one’s head is turned, some household item disappears – sold by the drug addict to fund his habit. This is what life is like with the LTTE around. The solution to this obviously is not the unsuccessful strategy of trying to remain vigilant all the time, but dealing with the drug addiction to stop the stealing. It was the killing of Maheswaran that gave the government the impetus to do away with the ceasefire agreement. Maheswaran was a member of the UNP which entered into the CFA.

If a Ceylon Tamil parliamentarian outside the pro- LTTE Tamil National Alliance cannot survive more than a few days without the security of the government, then that renders the very notion of a CFA into a joke.

When cabinet met last week, it was Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickremenayake who said that Maheswaran was assassinated on the Jan. 1 and that an army bus was bombed the next day. The ceasefire was therefore a dead letter. He said that even if complaints were made, there was no one to accept them. The CFA was just a document signed between Ranil and Prabhakaran. Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama said that the international community has to be informed that this CFA is now restricted only to paper. The president told Bogollagama that it was his responsibility to do so. The president then pointed out that the ceasefire agreement did not have the approval of the then executive president or of the cabinet of ministers and that it had not been approved even by the working committee of the then ruling party. There was no point in continuing with this piece of paper. He said that the prime minister would make a decision on what had to be done. The president then said that he would like the opinion of Dinesh Gunawardene and Ferial Ashraff on the abrogation of the CFA. However, both of them declined to comment. Karu Jayasuriya made the point that if the ceasefire is going to be abrogated, then an acceptable devolution package should also be put forward.

As the week began, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was in India and Tissa Attanayake and Dr Jayalath Jayawardene were in the United States. On January 1, Attanayake, went to Sirikotha to usher in the new year with the staff of the party headquarters and it was at this point that they heard of Maheswaran’s killing. The moment the news reached Sirikotha, Dr Jayalath Jayawardene was told to go to the hospital and to report back on Maheswaran’s condition. Ranil Wickremesinghe was also informed of the shooting. Wickremesinghe instructed Attanayake to immediately go to the hospital and to see Maheswaran and the others who were injured. Accordingly, a number of UNP parliamentarians including Tissa Attanayake, Ravi Karunanyake, Vajira Abeywardene and Sagala Ratnayake, went to the emergency service of the national hospital. When the UNP parliamentarians went to the hospital, one of Maheswaran’s two bodyguards – the one who shot the assassin – was present and the parliamentarians were given a briefing about what happened at the kovil. The suspect had also been brought to the hospital and was being questioned by the police in an adjoining room. One of the UNP parliamentarians had filmed the suspect on his mobile phone camera.

Following the killing of Maheswaran, questions arose about the security of Ranil Wickremesinghe. Usually the opposition leader’s security personnel take over at the VIP lounge of the Colombo airport when their charge is traveling abroad or returning. He would be escorted from the plane to the VIP lounge by the airport security. But after Maheswaran’s killing Wickremesinghe insisted that his own security guards be allowed to come up to the plane with him. This, mind you, was not in fear of the government. If the opposition leader had any reason to fear that the government was out o kill him, he could have remained overseas, or alternatively, he could have got members of the diplomatic community to meet him at the airport. It was not the government that he feared but the LTTE and that the expertise and the personal loyalty of the airport security guards would not be enough to protect him if the LTTE struck.

For an important politician to walk just a few yards from the plane to the VIP lounge has become a case of running a gauntlet. People are now stuffing newspapers even in the cracks of doors in case the LTTE fired a bullet through the crack! The opposition leader arrived in Sri Lanka on January 2 and after holding a discussion on the situation with the parliamentarians present in the VIP lounge drove to the Maheswaran residence in Wellawatte to pay his last respects to the slain parliamentarian.

A meeting of the committee to organize the funeral arrangements was also held after Wickremesinghe arrived in Sri Lanka. Several fringe Marxist groups like the Nava Samasamaja Party and the Siritunga Jayasuriya group had sent representatives to this meeting where it was decided that the funeral would be conducted not as a party affair but as a non-political protest against the culture of killing.

The UNP parliamentary group met on Jan. 3 when Dr Jayalath Jayawardene suggested that more pressure should be brought on the government through the Inter Parliamentary Union to ensure the safety of opposition parliamentarians. Maheswaran’s funeral arrangements were discussed and Wickremesinghe informed those present that Kumar Rupesinghe had promised to bring 5,000 people. A titter had passed through the room at this and Rukman Senanyake had said "How can he bring 5,000? It’ll be great if he can bring 500."But Rupesinghe had in fact brought a substantial crowd even though he had refused to make a speech. The UNP parliamentarians met the funeral procession near the Registrar of Motor Vehicles office in Narahenpita and since this was suspected to be an LTTE killing, the emphasis was on the ‘funeral’ aspect rather than the ‘procession’ aspect and instead of walking in the procession at the head of their contingents, the UNP parliamentarians had shouldered the coffin of their fallen comrade instead and made it a personal farewell instead of show of defiance.

The party leader’s meeting convened in parliament under the chairmanship of Geethanjana Gunawardene as the Speaker was overseas. Nimal Siripala de Silva, Dinesh Gunawardene, Anura Priydarshana Yapa, Joseph Michael Perera, Ranjith Aluwihare,, Rauff Hakeem and Wimal Weerawansa were present. The party leaders decided to take up the vote of condolence for Maheswaran on Friday. Joseph Michael Perera said that the responsibility for the protection of ministers falls on the speaker and that they have informed the speaker about the reduction of security and that they would like to know what the Speaker has decided to do.

Deputy Speaker Geethanjana Gunawardene replied that they should wait until the Speaker returns to the country to discuss the matter. Perera said that the reduction of security had taken place not on an assessment of security risks but on political grounds. Nimal Siripla de Silva interjected that it was not only opposition MPs who were at risk and that the biggest danger was to government parliamentarians. Weerawansa said that the problem here is because security was cut down after the budget and that henceforth, if security is going to be reduced, it should be done not just on reports of defense authorities, but also with the permission of the speaker. He also stated that if the security of any MP has been reduced, the status quo should be restored.