It is time to thrust sword into sheath

By Malinda Seneviratne

"In times of war it is foolish to leave the sword in its scabbard; in times of peace it is foolish to brandish it" –Anuruddha Pradeep

(September 21, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In times of conflict, those who fight the righteous fight are naturally wary of detractors in whatever form they may come. Suspicion, at such times, is not necessarily a bad thing; it is a necessary tool in the overall apparatus of engagement. Naturally, too, it is typically in such time for suspicion to slip into paranoia and a tested Government can and does go overboard. All things considered, Sri Lanka’s track-record during the final phase of the war again terrorism makes positive reading.

Now we are in the post-war stage and given that powerful nations are unhappy about the outcome of the conflict, are at odds with the regime and are doing their best to roll back the gains secured in the battlefield, one way or another, it is prudent that the Government exercises a certain degree of vigilance.

On the other hand, different phases of a struggle demand different strategies. It is the degree of threat that makes the bending of the law in times of extreme national stress permissible. What was necessary in war-time becomes unnecessary once a nation moves out of the war-zone. If paranoia was treated with the ‘natural’ dismissal then, it is not so now. Vigilance, yes; paranoia, no. That’s the bottom line.

Throughout the war effort there were people who tried to pull the rug from under the feet of the regime and the men and women doing battle against the world’s most ruthless terrorist. Such individuals were for the most part taken issue with using the very same instruments they employed. Those who wrote, were written against; their claims were refuted, their arguments countered with a logic that was more compelling.

Yes, some of the dissenters paid with their lives and until such time that the assassins are found and produced in court these murders will haunt those responsible for upholding the law. That buck, whether anyone likes it or not, stops with the all-powerful executive president, Mahinda Rajapaksa. I am thinking in particular of Sivaram (Taraki) and Lasantha Wickramatunga.

Forget murder, even the most minor of assaults and/or threats must be investigated regardless of who the victim happens to be or what his/her political convictions are. This is guaranteed in the constitution.

Here I am thinking of journalists and media personnel. In particular, three individuals, Keith Noyahr, Upali Tennekoon and Krishantha Cooray. In case someone accuses me of being selective, let me offer some caveats. First, I am not ready to defend people who have deliberately lied and engaged in mischief-making here and abroad with the express purpose of undermining the state and helping out a terrorist. Most of those who champion media rights fall into this category, unfortunately. Secondly, I do not believe that journalists are above the law; those who transgress should be prosecuted. Finally, I refer to these three individuals because I have worked with them and are more familiar with the relevant issues. This does not mean that they are the only people who have been treated unfairly or harshly.

Keith Noyahr was abducted and severely beaten up in May 2008. Keith at the time was the Deputy Editor of The Nation. His assailants remain unknown. He subsequently left the country. Upali Tennakoon, editor of The Nation’s sister paper in Sinhala, Rivira, was assaulted while he was traveling in a car along with his wife. He sustained serious injuries. The Government, at the time, vowed to leave no stone unturned to bring to book his assailants. They remain unknown. Upali left the country. Krishantha Cooray, CEO of Rivira Media Corporation, was not attacked. He was threatened though and was the victim of a vitriolic smear campaign orchestrated by powerful individuals, including politicians. Krishantha left the country.

None of these three individuals were part of the vicious campaign that sought to undermine the war against terrorism. They were not members or supporters of shady outfits such as the Free Media Movement. They were all patriots, not of the populist kind, but the more serious type, i.e. who believed constructive criticism is part and parcel of being patriotic. Upali, in particular, expended much effort to support the President and the Government in the execution of the last phase of the war. Keith was a defence columnist and he pointed out errors. That’s legitimate. He did not vilify people; he focused on the facts and offered interpretations that were hardly if ever coloured by political preference. Krishantha, I know personally, was a patriot through and through. He was a different kind of CEO in that he did not interfere with the editorial policies of those who ran the newspapers. None of them were threats to the nation.

I have had my disagreements with the Rivira Media Corporation when Krishantha was its CEO. I had differences with the then editor; disagreements that were beyond reconciliation. I disagreed with the editorial policy of The Nation and these disagreements were not always limited to the position that the then editor took with respect to local politics. I quit in disgust but remained friends with most of the editorial staff including Keith and of course Krishantha.

Today, these three individuals are overseas. Whether they are happy or not, I have no way of knowing. The fact remains, however, that this country and in particular the media community lost three remarkably talented individuals.

Today, as the war takes a different colour, when we are as a nation besieged by powerful countries out to reverse the victories won, such individuals would have made a difference, I am convinced. They would have been critical of the Government, yes, but they would have supported it in the main, i.e. in terms of protecting sovereignty and safeguarding the nation’s territorial integrity. Upali, for instance, would have used ‘Rivira’ as an organ to keep the general public informed and alert to movements on the global stage that were detrimental to the national interest. Keith was far more principled than his editor. He was a god-fearing Christian who would not knowingly do wrong. Krishantha was fearless, young, energetic, highly educated and a man with multiple skills who could easily succeed wherever he is. We are poorer for his absence, I believe.

All this could be dismissed as ‘extrapolations’, ‘predictions’, ‘conjecture’ and therefore too vague to be taken notice of. The fact remains however they we as a nation treated these three individuals (and others like them) shabbily. I am not sure where they are today, I am not sure if they are happy or not. I can only surmise (and not without reason) that they are not in Sri Lanka because a sword is being brandished unfairly and unnecessarily over their names.

The President can look around him and I am sure he will find himself surrounded by the worst kind of sycophants and less than a handful of honest men and women who have integrity and skills and most important the determination to see beyond petty politics. If he wonders why the numbers are skewed against the good, then he will find an answer in the political culture that has dominated this country’s post-independence history and which continues to thrive even during his tenure.

President Rajapaksa promised ‘A New Sri Lanka’. If people like Upali Tennakoon, Keith Noyahr and Krishantha Cooray do not have a place in this ‘New Sri Lanka’, I have one mild observation to offer: ‘New’ is another name for ‘Old’. Think about it, Mr. President.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be contacted at alinsene@gmail.com

-Sri Lanka Guardian