Having found no one coming forward to defend me against Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka’s accusations, I have to write in defence of myself.

An article authored by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka that appeared in "The Island" of 18.06.2008 gave me a great shock. All these years Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka’s writing were not only supportive of me and of my views, but also very much admirable and hardly with any disagreement.

He once wrote: "He is a model of a moderate representative of any ethnic community anywhere in the world, and must surely be given the chance to serve his people and country in this dark hour. His time to play a role in history has come, if only we give him the chance". I do not know why he has become very critical of me, all of sudden. He might have had any sentimental compulsion to defend Douglas Devananda, but I cannot understand as to why he should come at me like this. However, what he wrote of me at this juncture is irrelevant, unwanted and uncalled for. My regret is that he has with one stroke of his pen destroyed my image and good name I earned over a period of time as a patriotic non-communal and moderate Tamil leader, loved and respected by a fair section of all ethnic groups in Sri Lanka.

I am not giving good conduct certificate to myself. I would have ignored his comments about me if it had come from any journalist because I get enough almost everyday in the Tamil media and spread worldwide. But I can’t afford to brush aside Dr. Jayatilleka’s views as coming from a nobody - he is now representing our country at an important forum - our Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, a highly prestigious post. He is also a Vice President of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council and Chairman of the Governing body of the International Labour Organization. His views will receive recognition among world leaders and the diplomatic community.

It is unfortunate that he has - I will not say misused his position - failed to take note of this fact and also failed to realize the sacrifices I made to reach this position, facing grave risk to my life apart from the humiliation and embarrassments I have been subjected to by the Tamil media worldwide. I lie buried in a heap of demeaning and slandering verbiage showered on me by such Tamil media – merely to please their L.T.T.E. masters. Dr. Jayatilleka’s unwanted and unfair criticism and certain references that are factually incorrect add to my agony.

I am already undergoing suffering for the thankless job of defending the Government, and forces at times, and blaming the L.T.T.E. I also censure the Government and the forces whenever I feel they are doing the wrong thing. I am ready to call a spade, a spade, as everyone knows. Dr. Jayatilleka knows very well that I do politics at a grave risk to my life as part of my duty to my country and its people and not for personal gain.

In defence of myself, I wish to quote from Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka’s article that appeared in the Sunday Observer of 14th May, 2006 under the title "War Clouds with a Thin Silver lining". The following is the section that appears under the sub-head Anandasangaree’s hour:

"A New York Times journalist e-mailed me the other day with a question, "Dose the Sri Lanka Government have a plan for devolution?" It was a question to which I must confess, I had no answer, and therefore had to direct to my old friend, former Georgetown alumni, and spokesperson for the joint Tamil delegation at the crucial closing session of the 1985 Thimpu talks, Kethesh Loganathan, who is currently the deputy head of the Peace Secretariat. Frankly, I don’t know whether he had an answer, or whether anyone does, for that matter.

"This is the Achilles Heel of the democratic Sri Lanka state; the weakest link in the Sri Lanka case. It has to rectified, and here’s how President Rajapaksa appointed the TULF leader Mr. Anandasangaree as special representative, assisted by SCOPP’s Kethesh Loganathan, to hammer out a devolution deal in consultation with the non-Tiger Tamil parties, the politicians of Tamil Nadu (known to Sangaree) and New Delhi (Where he will be welcomed) as well as the Sri Lankan parties in Parliament.

"Mr. Anandasangaree belongs to the old Federal Party tradition and therefore has longstanding Tamil nationalist credentials. He is also veteran parliamentarian, and is untainted by association with any kind of violence, unlike the other non–Tiger groups. He has good relations with the JVP and JHU, who would shoot down his devolution proposals at the cost of exposing themselves as extremists.

"Mr. Anandasangaree relation with the Tamil Nadu politicians can bring them on board or neutralise them. Thereby pre-empting Prabakaran’s use of them post-election, and also relieving the pressure they are likely to bring to bear on New Delhi against Colombo. Anandasangaree can dialogue easily with the UNP leadership. He can also convince the world community about the merits and adequacy of the devolution package.

"He is a model of a moderate representative of any ethnic community anywhere in the world, and must surely be given the chance to serve his people and country in this dark hour. His time to play a role in history has come, if only we give him the chance."

In another article that appeared in "The Island" of 9th December, 2006 under the title "Mahinda’s Message and the Majority Reports", Dr. Jayatilleka says:

"The Majority Report of the Experts Group of the All Parties Conference contains a reasonable and generous proposal for devolution and autonomy within a united Sri Lanka. One notes that the majority faction is multi-ethnic, with a majority of Sinhalese (6) but also Tamils and Muslims. Though it contains two people whose intellect, I have the highest respect for, the minority faction is, by contrast, Sinhala only in terms of composition. This clearly gives the impression that he supports the Majority Report of the Experts Group of the All Parties Conference. On the 4th day, that is on 13th of December, 2006, he writes again to The Island under the title, "How to Reconcile the Reports". I quote the portion under the sub-head "three wise men".

"Whatever the hardliners, both Sinhala and Tamil say, public opinion polling over the last decade show a somewhat different picture. They reveal consistent support from majority of our citizens for.........of devolution, and strengthening of provincial councils, provided these stop short of federalism. The experts panel’s products correspond perfectly to those specification. "A proposal representing consensus (and consensus is not unanimity) could be sustained by the SLFP – UNP agreement, irrespective of the raucous cries of the perennial hawks. The two major parties taken together, command the support of well over two-thirds of the country’s citizenry.

It would be a colossal tragedy to permit a vocal and organized minority of extremists to veto the proposal. All we need do is imagine what Sri Lanka would have been like, where we would all have been, if the Bandaranaike- Chelvanayagam pact had not been abandoned in the face of criticism and protests which were a forerunner of those of today. Today’s criticisms are not by the children of ‘56, but by the children of ‘57, i.e. of those that thwarted the B-C pact!

"If the experts’ panel and the political parties that are on the table, then it is incumbent to call upon an apex group of eminent persons to act as umpires or judges and arbitrate in the matter. I can think of none better than these Three Wise Men: UNESCO prize winner Judge C G weeramantry and Mr. Mangala Moonesinghe."

Dr. Jayatilleka’s thinking on the 13th of December, 2006 was that I was one of the three wise men to act as umpires or judges and arbitrate in the matter. I do not know on what basis Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka adjudged me as one of the three wise men. However, I felt honoured that I had been elevated to such a high position in the mind of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka. He could not have changed his option so soon, since I have not changed in anyway. There are some other references available with me in support of my claim that Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka endorsed my views on the ethnic question or in the alternative my thinking came close to his thinking.

The purpose of quoting these references is not to embarrass Dr. Jayatilleka for whom I have a great regard. I have more references in support of my claim. It is my duty to clear my name as well as in the interest of the country, which may need my services in the future.

I am still strongly of the view that no lasting solution can be found for the ethnic problem under a unitary constitution, which could cause havoc in the future. This is what exactly happened to the provisions for the safeguard of the minorities in the Soulbury Constitution. Only a federal constitution or in the alternative at least one on the Indian model will satisfy the minorities and prevent agitation for further reforms in the future. Peace can be found only in a contended society where everyone is equal to one another and no one is superior or inferior to the other. Further, no more solutions can be found for the ethnic problem in installments in our country where we could not get to even the first stage during the past 20 years. Getting to the 2nd and 3rd stages in the future as proposed by Douglas Devananda will only be a daydream.

Some of Dr. Jayatilleka’s comments, although claimed as his personal views, one least expected of him and should not have come from a diplomat. Some of his comments are irrelevant, annoying and insulting. Some other reveal a little bit of chauvinism. I do not wish to answer his accusations from a communal point of view. What is the superiority complex of the Jaffna man he is talking about, little realising that the Jaffna man is the underdog today very much in need of support and sympathy. He lives under the subjugation of several masters in constant fear and tension. He can open his mouth only to eat. Douglas Devananda himself should feel ashamed of the manner in which Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka is championing his cause.

I did not know that capability of survival and standing up to Tiger terrorism, having a photograph carrying an AK.47 and having a scar on the body following a gun shot injury are qualifications for leadership. What can one do if no direct attempt was made by the L.T.T.E to kill me?. I have not seen a weapon that I can identify as an AK 47. The only scars I have on my body are dog-bite marks.

I, too, had to been in Parliament with pragmatists who have later became Presidents. If working with the President while belonging to a different political party is a qualification for leadership, I am sorry I don’t have that qualification. Dr. Jayatilleka talks of working with a Sinhala President. Is it Dr. Jayatilleka’s position that this is a matter for consideration? But does it matter who the President is? How Douglas Devananda has survived within the state system for 20 years is anybody’s guess.

I agree with Dr. Jayatilleka that if Douglas Devananda did not exist, the democratic system would have had to invent him. Why can’t Dr. Jayatilleka also give credit to Devananda for inventing the new democratic system of entering parliament with 9 others by keeping out all opponents and obtaining only 8000 odd votes in one electorate and total of 175 votes in the other 10 electorates, out of a total of over 5000 registered votes.

Dr. Jayatilleka does not know my history. It is good for him not to distort it merely to please somebody. It is strange that he talks of Douglas Devananda association with the leftists without realizing that for the last fifty five years I have remained a leftist and had been associated with topmost ranking leaders numbering more than twenty within and outside Parliament.

In short, I am totally disappointed with Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka’s defence of Douglas Devananda. Most of the arguments put forward by him are irrelevant and some are childish and far from the truth.