Debate

DEBATE
ON
The 18th Amendment of

Constitution in Sri Lanka
“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question

without debating it.”
Joseph Joubert quotes
(French Essayist and moralist, 1754-1824)
ABOUT THE DEBATE : NOTE FROM THE EDITORIAL
The debate started after we published the article written by Dayan Jayathilleka
entitled "Hardly the death of democracy or the Nation". (Sri Lanka Guardian
September 12, 2010).
Basil Fernando of the Asian Human Rights Commission joined with the debate with
an idea as to how freedom will certainly suffer death under the circumstances brought
about by the 18th Amendment. He pointed out that killing institutions is worse than
killing people. During the debate he argued from a historical point of view taken from
the political culture of Sri Lanka.
Following Mr. Fernando's contribution the Javaharlal Neru University research

scholar, Avinash Panday Samar joined in with the idea that 'Nations don’t die, they
are murdered!' Avinash's approach was based on theory of political and social
sciences. He tried to compare the situation in India and Pakistan with the situation in
Sri Lanka. Later another one of our regular contributors, Peral Thevanayagam joined
the debate and she questioned Dayan Jayathilleka saying that he is far from real
ground situation compared to Basil Fernando.
These four contributors put forward the idea that politics in Sri Lanka were more to
do with personal interests rather than political ideology. The Sri Lanka Guardian
believes that this is an opportunity for everyone to debate the issues so that all of us
may remain in touch with a particular subject. We welcome all of your ideas, not only
on this issue but on any issue which may arise in the future. As our slogan says, "We
are the voice of people of Sri Lanka". We are interested in your opinion on any issue
pertaining to Sri Lanka. Please feel free to express your opinions.
email: editor@srilankaguardian.org
www.srilankaguardian.org
Contributors
DR. DAYAN JAYATHILLEKA

BASIL FERNANDO
AVINASH PANDEY SAMAR
PEARL THEVANAYAGAM
Hardly the death democracy or the Nation
by Dr. Dayan Jayathilleka
[September 12, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian]
The cynic in me is tempted to remark that the neoliberal, Rightwing Opposition and civil society
groups wanted ‘regime change’ throughout the war years and boy, they’ve got it. They didn’t
change the regime, the regime changed itself.
What has it changed into, why and how? Reading the vibrant commentaries that accompanied
the impending passage of the 18th amendment, two resonated with my own sense of what was
going on. In their distinct ways, two writers critically perceived it as a process and pointed to the
quintessential continuities, while almost all others highlighted what they thought were decisive,
dramatic dislocations and discontinuities.
As a student of politics, I have ten observations.
Firstly, had the UNP not set fire (quite literally) to the August 2000 draft Constitution presented
by President Kumaratunga and negotiated by Professor GL Pieris, KN Choksy and Karu
Jayasuriya, there wouldn’t have been an 18th amendment.
Secondly, while the amendment rolls back an attempt at roll back (the 17th amendment) and
therefore restores a status quo ante, taking us back to vintage JR Jayewardene ‘78, it makes de
jure what was de facto, and gives constitutional form to the wartime Presidency.
Thirdly, it brings Sri Lanka more in line with the forms of state that are most widespread in
precisely that part of the world which most strongly supported Sri Lanka in the war. Though
it has its exceptions, this is the state form or regime type that preponderates in Eurasia and
the global South, characterised by a strong Executive or centre, and governed by the most
diverse array of ruling parties, from Westernised nationalists to Communists and centre right
modernisers.
Threat
Fourthly, this evolution or modification of state form almost always occurs in the context
of a real or perceived external encirclement or threat. External threat or intrusion almost
always leads to internal hardening. “Circling the wagons” is what the Americans call such
political ‘protectionism’. This shift is a salutary example of the counterproductive nature of the
West’s failure to fully solidarise with and support Sri Lanka, a practising if flawed democracy, in
its war against the Tiger terrorists.
Fifthly, any game has an umpire and as the saying goes, the umpire or referee’s word is law, or
else, there will be anarchy. One may disagree with the verdict but the point is that the Supreme
Court heard the submissions of the critics, and doubtless read the papers, and has ruled on the
matter, without dissent.
Sixthly, the 18th amendment is far less of a turning point, and far less dangerous than President
Jayewardena's Referendum of 1982, which arbitrarily extended the term of parliament
by postponing a scheduled parliamentary election by means of a fraudulent and coercive
referendum. This took place at a time when the main Opposition party, the SLFP, had been
decapitated by the deprivation of Mrs Bandaranaike’s civic rights. All this closed off the safety
valves and rendered explosion inevitable. It came six months later in the form of a massive anti-
Tamil violence.
Seventhly, this shift is not the death/demise of democracy. Or to put it differently, the critical
variable - the big story - is surely the meltdown of the main democratic opposition. The Sirimavo
Bandaranaike administration of 1970-77 had a far greater degree of structural control over
society, what with the abolition of the independent Public Services Commission, the notorious
District Political Authorities and the near monopoly of the mass media. Yet it was swept away in
1977.
Worst nightmare
Start with the simple arithmetic. How many of the votes for the 18th amendment, from senior
ministers to teleplay Barbies, come from former UNPers who crossed the floor precisely during
the tenure of Ranil Wickremesinghe as UNP leader? How many non-UNP Opposition votes
are those of defectors from Ranil’s stint as Opposition leader? The numbers and trajectories
of the parliamentarians tell the story: if the 18th amendment renders the Presidency overly
powerful, it is Ranil Wickremesinghe who has empowered him. J R Jayewardena would never
in his worst nightmares, have thought that the 65th anniversary of the United National Party
would have been commemorated in the Centre named after him. The Jayewardena Centre was
used for exhibitions and gatherings of Friendship societies etc, and not the anniversaries of
the UNP which can usually fill an indoor stadium. It is not as if Mahinda Rajapaksa used state
repression to reduce the numbers attending the UNP anniversary celebration. No, it has taken
Ranil Wickremesinghe to confine to the Jayewardene Centre auditorium, what used to be the
country’s largest single political party!
What is even more telling - and disgraceful- is that the UNP was reduced to such a pathetic
state of insecurity that it chose to boycott the debate in the legislature on the 18th amendment,
thereby passing up the chance to use the best possible platform, the floor of the House, to place
its critique before the country and on the parliamentary record.
Eighthly, the slew of defectors from the UNP, which include not just the old but the young, new,
and popular (such as the lass from Gampaha with all those UNP preference votes) shows that
the undercurrent of popular opinion is still flowing towards the incumbent.
Ninthly, what then of the future? The foes have it wrong and the fans may not have it right. All
the parallels deployed by the foes, from Louis Napoleon to Marcos, are wrong. These regimes
were either defeated in war (Napoleon’s nephew by Prussia), or were perceived as puppets by
the populace (Marcos, the Shah), or bureaucratic autocracies divorced from national, religious
and popular sentiments of the majority (Poland). Mahinda Rajapaksa is far more Lech Walesa
than Jaruzelski.
Tenthly, most of the civil society critics of and signatories against the 18th amendment are
those who either support or sympathise with Ranil Wickremesinghe in the inner-party struggle.
Many of these also refused to criticise Ranil during the CFA and refrained from criticising the
Tigers themselves. Of those few who did criticise the Tigers, the majority criticised Mahinda
Rajapaksa even more, during the decisive last war. There are of course, honourable exceptions,
but the considerable degree of overlap between those civil society covens that denounce the
death of democracy and those who didn’t denounce the Tigers for their deadly assaults on the
democratic state, helps explain the lack of mass resonance of their appeal. . Their continued
campaign for Western pressure on Sri Lanka has also contributed to the reinforcement and
raising of the regime’s ramparts.
The alarmists decrying the ‘death of a nation’ should know that the nation was far more in
danger of death at the hands of the Tigers than it is now, and anyway, nations are too strong a
socio-historical reality to be killed off by Constitutional amendments. The more hysterical civil
society intelligentsia should not mistake the visible disappearance, possibly terminal illness and
potential death-knell of their party of choice, the UNP, for the ‘death of democracy’ in Sri Lanka.
What has taken place is a shift, not an ending.

Article Number One
Nations don’t die, they are murdered!
"An attack on the constitution, precisely for this reason is an attack on the nation
itself. Killing a constitution, as an extension of that, is killing a nation. It is killing that democratic
contract which people had made in order to emerge as a nation. It is a usurpation of the
sovereignty of the people by an individual or a collective of undemocratic bunch."
by Avinash Pandey Samar

Response to the Article written by Dr. Dayan Jayathilleka
[September 15, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian] Nations do die, in fact they get murdered
despite all the claims on the contrary. Only problem is that one needs to have a little
understanding of both the social sciences and the society in its everyday life to see that
happening. This is no mean task though, especially, for the academicians living in their ivory
towers. It helps, also, if the ivory towers have been provided to them by the powers that may.
No wonder then that such academicians keep coming up with justification for unjustifiable
atrocities committed on people and institutions alike.
If not for this selective amnesia, all of the twentieth century has been an evidence for the birth
and death of nations. After all, what is a nation if not an ‘imagined community’ in the words of
Benedict Anderson. He calls it imagined because “the members of even the smallest nation will
never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of
each lives the image of their community.” And yet, he asserts that this imagined community is
no less real, and no less legitimate.
So what is that which makes such imagined communities real? It is the feeling of a shared
history, a sense of solidarity and a sense of belonging to the same nation, with equal rights I
would assert, that turns a people into a nation. Yet, the idea of the nation still remains in the
domain of the abstract. The closest this idea gets in material physical senses is the constitution
of the nation. Constitution becomes the embodiment of all that is shared, the past, the feelings
of bondage, the beliefs and even the hopes.
The constitution, in that, does not remain just another book. It turns into the soul of the nation,
achieving something miraculous in the process. Having a constitution marks a fascinating
journey of the nation, from the abstraction to real, from being just a belief to a material reality
inhabiting the physical world. It is thus a journey back into the realm of abstraction while making
it real as well.
It goes without saying that the constitution can exist only in democracies. Autocracies and
dictatorships, of any types, do not need to derive their legitimacy from a book, however
sacrosanct. They operate out of force, sheer brutal force and impose themselves upon the
people inhabiting the area of their operation. These autocracies, for the same reason, do never
become nations. They remain stuck in times gone by, remaining the monarchic aberrations in
today’s world.
An attack on the constitution, precisely for this reason is an attack on the nation itself. Killing
a constitution, as an extension of that, is killing a nation. It is killing that democratic contract
which people had made in order to emerge as a nation. It is a usurpation of the sovereignty
of the people by an individual or a collective of undemocratic bunch. It does not require being
a political scientist to understand this simple fact that a nation comes out of all individuals
democratically surrendering their sovereignty to a universal sovereign through a social contract.
Needless to say is that this happens through a social contract achieved through democratic
means.
Democracy, thus, emerges as the soul of the constitution and anything that compromises
democracy compromised the nation. The 18th amendment does not merely compromises this
but in fact kills that democracy. It is an attempt to usurp all powers and consolidate that into the
person of one man. This is why it kills democracy and the nation in the process.
A changed constitution does not merely mean a changed book. It means much more than that.
It means a new system which does not remain the same as old.
And yet, it does not mean that we can let the nation die just like that. The whole nation needs
to resist this. And the resistance is, as Edward Said had put it, a struggle of memory against
forgetting. After all, no autocrats can erase a people. They need them for cheap labour. They
need them to toil. And for that, they need to keep them alive. And a living people cannot accept
anything just like that. They recreate all those they have lost in their memories. They commit
the killed nation to their dreams. Then, as they say it, dreams keep the hopes of a resurrection
alive, forever.
Avinash Pandey Samar is a Research Scholar at Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi. He
can be reached at samaranarya@gmail.com.
Article Number two
Nations may not die but freedoms do - a reply to Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka
"Those who have built their lives behind a political patron will see everything
as right. As they have the benefits of a patron whatever they get or do not get in life is the
responsibility of their patron. A dog who is used to his patron may not know what freedom
means."
by Basil Fernando
[September 14, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian] In an article which appeared in the newspaper
entitled, 'Hardly the Death of Democracy or the Nation -- Ten Points from a Political Scientist',
(September 12, 2010) the author, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka wrote the following words: 'Nations are
too strong a reality to be killed off by constitutional amendments'.
Nations, as someone once said are imagined communities. As such, to talk about the death
of nations is to talk about an abstraction. However, the discussion about the 18th Amendment
which is really about the 1978 Constitution is about the killing of freedoms. Joseph Stalin
could not kill the Russian nation. However, he was able to kill the freedoms of the Russian
people for a long time during his own lifetime and for many years following. The full recovery
of the freedoms that were lost due to Stalin has not yet happened. Anyone wishing to know
what the killing of a nation really is would do well to read the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn.
Of course there are many other books that explain what the death of freedom means. Arthur
Koestler's The Darkness at Noon is one such example. Similarly, Adolf Hitler did not kill the
German nation. The German nation has survived and has even overcome many of the problems
he created. However, during his lifetime Hitler killed the freedoms of the German people and a
political scientist who does not know what dictatorship meant to Russia and Germany has not
understood anything about political about political science at all.
Discussions about dictatorships are a discussion about freedoms. What the death of freedom
means can be seen in the actual lives of the people. Take the case of Sarath Fonseka, what
kind of freedom does he enjoy? If Sri Lanka had even the limited democracy that it once had
he would have enjoyed to a fair trial. The accused in the 1962 coup had this right. They were
accused of the attempt to overthrow a legitimately elected government and there was enough
evidence to prove their guilt. However, they enjoyed the rights that any other accused would
have enjoyed and at the end on the matter of a pure technically legal argument they were
acquitted from the charges.
Of course an explanation as to what the rights to fair trial means may not be necessary when
talking to a political scientist. But there are many nations in which the right to fair trial does not
exist. Sri Lanka has become such a nation when it comes to political trials. The possibility of
charging people purely on fabricated charges and thereafter making a theatre out of so-called
trials and then detaining the person in jail or subjecting him to worse kinds of humiliation, all
these are deprivations of freedoms. To those who do not value freedom none of these things
matter. However, what the death of freedoms can be seen if we observe these cases closely.
With the 18th Amendment completing the work of the 1978 Constitution, being a member of
parliament does not matter very much anymore. With this lies the freedom to be able to have
the representatives to express the views and the wishes of the people. With somebody holding
absolute power, having the capacity to participate in the elections the possibilities of a free
and fair election dies. Free and fair elections are a part of human freedoms. A political scientist
who does not value the right of people to have free and fair elections may not believe that
anything called freedom has the possibility of dying. However, those who value electing their
representatives through the possibility of the vote are expressing an appreciation of a freedom
to have representatives of their choice.
In this article judges are also referred to as umpires. The umpires can be effective only to the
extent that their judgments can be made freely. Within a dictatorship the judiciary loses the
capacity to make their own judgements on the basis of judicial considerations through the basis
of rational discourse. Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler had their judges! There are many countries
in which the judiciary exists in name only. They are umpires by name only. When the judiciary
loses its capacity to be free then those who value freedom know what that means. Those who
do not value these freedoms do not see that anything has changed at all.
People who have the freedom to breathe fresh air know what it means when this freedom
is taken from them. The problems of freedoms are similar. The problem of dictatorship is of
a similar kind. To discuss dictatorship without discussing freedom is to have no meaningful
discourse at all. What was lost by the 18th Amendment was the capacity of the people of Sri
Lanka to be free. Many individuals will experience this daily. They may be ordinary individuals
who want to live their lives without the favour of political patronage. They may be qualified
students who want to get a job on the basis of their merits and not on the basis of patronage.
They will know what it means to have freedom and what it means to lose it.
Those who have built their lives behind a political patron will see everything as right. As they
have the benefits of a patron whatever they get or do not get in life is the responsibility of their
patron. A dog who is used to his patron may not know what freedom means.
Article Number Three
Freedoms and their demise: Rejoinder to a critic
"Here’s my problem: If we don’t respect the decision of the courts and disagree
with those of the people at repeated elections (which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely),
what do we have left, and who is the ultimate arbiter whom the citizens of Sri Lanka should
follow?"
BY DR DAYAN JAYATILLEKA
(September 15, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian) I have no disagreement with the thesis
that freedoms die, but I contend that the spirit of freedom does not. In any case, the critic sets
up a straw man, since my intention was a critique of the many voices that claimed and still do,
that the 18th amendment marked the death of democracy (and some even opined, the nation).
As I have stated elsewhere, I agree with Kalana Senaratne’s critique of 18A in the last issue of
the Sunday Leader while I also think the Supreme Court has made some valid and interesting
points, worthy of serious debate. (Mr Senaratne whose LLM is from the University of London, is
a doctoral student of law at the prestigious University of Hong Kong).
But let us meet the argument head on. This critic sees the glass of Sri Lanka’s freedoms as
empty or near-empty while I see it as half full.
Living and working in Asia, he should look around him more often and ask himself whether
some of the freedoms we Sri Lankan citizens still enjoy are so much in evidence elsewhere that
we can cavalierly write them off as ‘dead’. Sri Lanka’s freedoms have been diminished but to
declare them dead only means that we do not protect the area of freedom we still have or use it
as a liberated zone to win back those freedoms that have been diminished as well as gain those
we lost long ago or never enjoyed.
I look at things from the perspective of comparative international politics. Here is an Associated
Press (AP) report from Ankara, Turkey, dated Sept 14th.
‘A senior court official has warned that the independence of the courts could be brought into
question after Turks approved changes to the constitution...Some 42 percent voted against
on Sunday, fearing the changes would give the ruling Islamic-oriented party powers to appoint
judges and prosecutors close to the party, and allow it to advance a pro-Islamic agenda. Kadir
Ozbek, who heads the Judges and Prosecutors Higher Board, said Monday Turkey is at point
that is "more backward than yesterday."
Does that sound familiar? Does this mean democracy or freedoms are dead (or on their death-
bed) in today’s Turkey? For my part I have a very positive overall view of Turkey and its current
leadership, largely due to its stances in world affairs.
Sure there was a referendum on Turkey’s recent Constitutional changes, and I would have
preferred one in our case too, but in Sri Lanka the only legal authority that can deem one
necessary is the Supreme Court and it did not, giving reasons why not. Some may have a
problem with the composition and character of the highest court. Here’s my problem: If we don’t
respect the decision of the courts and disagree with those of the people at repeated elections
(which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely), what do we have left, and who is the ultimate
arbiter whom the citizens of Sri Lanka should follow?
[Dr Dayan Jayatilleka is Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies,
National University of Singapore and author of Fidel’s Ethics of Violence, University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor and Pluto Press, London.]
Article Number Four

The banality of evil, a rejoinder to Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka
A strong ruler and weak institutions as the current formula for national progress
and the phantom limb complex
by Basil Fernando
[September 16, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian] That the nation needs a strong ruler is the
current slogan. On that basis all the earlier objections to the executive presidential system as
found in the 1978 constitution have been withdrawn. To strengthen the ruler even limits to the
power recognized in the 1978 Constitution has been nullified by the 18th Amendment. Mahinda
Rajapakse has become J.R. Jayewardene's true successor.
What is implied in the idea of the 'strong leader'? It is simply that independent institutions are
a threat to the strength of the leader. To make the leader strong all other intuitions must be
weakened. Thus, strong national intuitions are seen as a threat to progress. The giant must not
be obstructed by these interfering intuitions.
Thus, the judiciary must not have any power against the strong leader.
The parliament should not have any power against the strong leader.
His own political party should have no power over the strong leader.
The opposition should have no strength to oppose this strong leader.
The policing system should have no independent powers to deal with whatever this strong
leader does.
No corruption control agency should have any power to inquire into whatever the strong leader
does directly or indirectly.
No press or media must be allowed to question what the strong leader does.
No electoral authority must interfere with his future reelections.
And the list can go on like that.
This experience is not new. Since 1978 the people of Sri Lanka have experienced it and now
they will have more of it.
Now someone who refers to himself as a political scientist comes and asks a question; a
question that has been asked over and over again in nations where such strong rulers have
ruled: "Here’s my problem: If we don’t respect the decision of the courts and disagree with those
of the people at repeated elections (which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely), what do we
have left, and who is the ultimate arbiter whom the citizens of Sri Lanka should follow?"
I have answered this question earlier in a booklet entitled The Phantom Limb: Failing Judicial
Systems, Torture and Human Rights Work in Sri Lanka (http://www.ahrchk.net/pub/mainfile.php/
books/348/). It is an established medical fact that many people who have lost arms or legs
continue to feel pain, discomfort and other sensations in the amputated limp.
Such is the fate of Sri Lankans who have sacrificed their independent institutions in favour of the
strong leader. To maintain their pride, even in a pathetic way, they must keep on believing that
nothing really has changed and they are still so very free. This state of mind is very similar to
that of the fox in folklore who lost his tail.
That question raised by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka reminds us of the defense taken by Eichmann
when he was tried in Israel in the famous trial after he was abducted from Argentina by Israeli
Mossad agents and made to answer charges for his role as Adolf Hitler's henchman. His
defense was that he was merely obeying the orders of his leader and at the time Hitler's word
was law.
Hanna Arendt called this the banality of evil. That the intellectuals of Sri Lanka had to seek
refuge under such a pretext demonstrates the depth of the complexity the people face under the
circumstances.
Article Number Five
Is it some new political science you are referring to Dr Dayan!
"May I please remind you that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had validated most of
these amendments? Would you still hold Supreme Court as the 'ultimate arbiter' instead of the
constitution that embodies law of the land and not the changed ones which carry the whims of
the dictators of the times?"
[September 17, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian] "Who is the ultimate arbiter whom the citizens
of Sri Lanka should follow" is the biggest question troubling Dr Dayan Jayathillake, a Sri Lankan
writer. What is troubling me, though, is the fact that this is hardly a question that should trouble
a political scientist. After all, even a standard 10th student of Political science, known as Civics
in several countries, knows the answer to this question.
No one can be 'ultimate' arbiter Dr Dayan, may I please remind you. Do you really remember
the theories of social contract offered by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau?
Everyone surrendering his/her own sovereignty to the universal sovereign in the form of a
political community is what all of them believe. The emphasis, you will not fail to notice, is
on 'political community' sir, and not on 'ultimate arbiter' as you tried to argue! May I, please,
also remind you of the fact that the sovereignty thus derived is not some 'natural' right of the
sovereign?
The sovereignty and the surrender of rights in the form of general will, loses its legitimacy if
it fails to meet general interest, was a corollary almost all of them had derived. The right to
rebellion, particularly in case if the contract is leading to 'tyranny' is a phrase coined by Locke,
the father of liberal democracy you are supposed to be espousing, and not by some insane critic
sir!
Tyranny is the word he used sir, if you noticed.
Can you please enlighten me where does this idea of 'ultimate arbiter' seeps into your scheme
of things? From which school of political science, at least, as that would explain a lot many
things to me.
The idea of ultimate arbiter is located in the idea that the state has the right to exercise the
sovereign power and to act as parens patriae (parent of the citizens). I remember a decision of
the Indian Supreme Court, among those of others denying this right to Indian state. In a case
regarding the rights of erstwhile small princes, the full bench of the Indian Supreme Court has
concluded that there exists nothing as sovereign power of the state. It asserted that the legal
sovereignty vests in the constitution whereas political sovereignty lied with the people, not
with the office of the institution representing it. It is 'we the people' who unite ourselves into a
sovereign state, sir, not the other way round.
May I please remind you of one very similar thing from the Indian experience sir? The National
Democratic Alliance led by Mr Atal Bihari Bajpai had made an attempt to ‘review’ (read rewrite)
the Indian constitution. The judiciary of India did not only stall the move but also reasserted that
the basic structure of the constitution cannot be negotiated, altered or changed.
Providing democratic governance is one of those basic structures sir, in Sri Lanka as well I
think, correct me if I am not. And any law or amendment that compromises with that does not
confirm with the law of the land and is not acceptable sir.
Framing a question wrongly would never bring a right answer is a clichéd fact for those in
academia. But then there is another question that why do people do it.
Political Science defines itself as a 'science' sir, do you remember? Being busy with all your
pursuits, academic and otherwise, I am sure it must have been long since you last read
that. The reason behind that was simple. It was to ensure that the issues are studied as
much 'objectively' as they can. It did not demand complete objectivity, as social conditions are
not like natural phenomenon which could be absolutely objectively studied, what it required was
keeping the intellectual’s own biases out of the study.
Precisely for this reason, it is not about seeing a glass as half empty or half full. The objectivity
you have, unfortunately, is demonstrated by the comparisons you bring in. Even while claiming
to see things 'from the perspective of comparative international politics' the only comparison you
bring in is that of Turkey! There have been attempts to change constitutions closer home sir,
both successful and failed ones. The constitution of Pakistan was amended several times by
these 'Precedential Decrees' (who in turn had usurped power as army generals).
May I please remind you that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had validated most of these
amendments? Would you still hold Supreme Court as the 'ultimate arbiter' instead of the
constitution that embodies law of the land and not the changed ones which carry the whims
of the dictators of the times? And then I had already discussed India, and its Supreme Court’s
valiant rejection of any such plans. Do you notice, sir, which paths these two countries, with
respect to democracy and civil liberties, have embarked upon?
All you remembered from comparative international politics perspective was Turkey sir. There is
Norway sir, among other countries. I have chosen this name for the involvement it have had in
the Sri Lankan peace process.
All, I would say at the end sir, In the face of a crisis, the best bet a nation has is its intellectuals,
honest ones I mean. Honesty, in turn, can never be superfluous; it is always located in the
robust critical enquiries the intellectual engage in without fear or favour. With due respect to
an academic of your stature, Dr. Dayan, unfortunately, you do not seem to be engaging in this
honestly.
Avinash Pandey Samar is a Research Scholar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
He can be contacted at samaranarya@gmail.com.
Article Number Six
Lucid Critics and Loony Critics
"Prof. Nira's sober yet sharp critique is a far cry from the nonsensical nattering
of “murder of a nation” ‘death of democracy”, “Evil” “Nazism” “Eichmann” etc and is a model for
others."
by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka
[September 17, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian] One always prefers the rational to the
raving, the literate to the illiterate, and the lucid to the lunatic.
When it comes to opinions I prefer respected serious scholars to unknown ‘researchers’ or

unlettered human rights activists, who seem indistinguishable from each other.
Here is the diagnosis of the 18th amendment and a prescription, by a distinguished professor
of history who is a product of Sorbonne and Oxford. In a highly critical piece on the 18th
amendment in the Wall Street Journal of September 17th 2010, Prof Nira Wickramasinghe says:
“...The fact that academics, lawyers, students and pressure groups took to the streets to protest
against the 18th amendment indicates that there is still room for the opposition to maneuver in
the interstices of power. The question remains whether, as defenders of the 18th amendment
argue, voters will be given a true choice in 2016. This ultimately depends less on Mr. Rajapaksa
than on the will of opposition political parties to forge an alternative democratic vision and give
leadership to those who believe in it.” ( Read Full Text of the Article)
Prof Wickramasinghe is professor of modern South Asian studies at Leiden University in the
Netherlands and the author of several books, including standard works on ethnicity and identity
in modern Sri Lankan history. Her sober yet sharp critique is a far cry from the nonsensical
nattering of “murder of a nation” ‘death of democracy”, “Evil” “Nazism” “Eichmann” etc and is a
model for others.
Article Number Seven
What will be Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka’s next stupid

question?
" Defending dictators may be a profitable business. It may create some job
opportunities, even though the same people who give those jobs can also give them the sack.
Then there is a cry and lamentation of unjust dismissal."
by Basil Fernando
[September 17, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian] In the next article by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka
you are likely to see some four letter words. Having no ideas to express and nothing to defend
except the idea of the need of a strong leader, he now resorts to all the insults he can think of.
He can’t think of much but he selects the most vulgar. Such is the natural end of anyone who
wants to be an advocate for authoritarianism.
The funny part of it is that to defend dictatorship he quotes the names of Lenin, Trotsky,
Grasmsci and all the rest. He has forgotten to quote the person he has admired the most for
most of his life: Joseph Stalin. Reggie Siriwardene once called this newly baptized political
scientist the last Sri Lankan admirer of Joseph Stalin. His being unable to meet with the
challenge made to his very claim of being a political scientist is of course no surprise.
His last trick is to find a quote from ‘a serious scholar’, perhaps to give an impression that he
is one too. There is nothing in his record to give him any credit for being any kind of a serious
scholar. Political stooging to R. Premadasa is of course in his record, and that is not something
on which one could claim the right to serious scholarship or to any kind of rationality at all.
Defending dictators may be a profitable business. It may create some job opportunities, even
though the same people who give those jobs can also give them the sack. Then there is a cry
and lamentation of unjust dismissal.
It is not a scholar but only a fool who could have asked the question, ‘Here’s my problem: If
we don’t respect the decision of the courts and disagree with those of the people at repeated
elections (which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely), what do we have left, and who is
the ultimate arbiter whom the citizens of Sri Lanka should follow?’ Even a student who would
ask such a question does not deserve to pass their first year of university. But such ‘political
scientists’ are the persons who are educating students of political science in one of our
universities.
.Article Number Eight
PhDs, pork scratchings and Dayan’s itch
" Basil’s writings are a joy to read because although he is a learned and
respected lawyer and human rights activist he chooses plain English to send his message.
Clarity is his hallmark something Dayan has not heard of."
by Pearl Thevanayagam
[September 18, London, Sri Lanka Guardian] If you know a smattering of Gramsci, Trotsky
and Tchaikovsky and spend five blundering years in an institution cramming endless tomes
written by ancient scholars with the benevolence of grants, placing both your legs on the table
eating pork scratchings during lectures, you are a scholar. All you need to get a PhD (Doctor of
Philisophy) is write at least 10,000 words at the end this five long years whether you pull it off
Wikipedia or pilfer from other students and the professori would always award you a PhD.
I actually know someone at Berkeley who did his PhD in ‘Ripped Jeans Culture’ and McDonalds
also offers PhDs.
Now a PhD in science is another matter and those who do have this degree are very humble
people since they do not need to flaunt their research or findings and there is a ready market for
scientific discoveries.
But if you write about the ground situation, feel the pulse of the people and tell it as it is then you
are unlettered illiterate according to the gospel of Dr Dayan Jayatilleke, politicial scientist. What
science has got to do with politics is beyond me. So one would class Dayan’s father as illiterate
since he did not finish his degree at Peradeniya. Yet Dayan cites him on every occasion. Yet
the late Mervyn de Silva, bless his Bryllcreemed hair, is one of the most eminent and respected
journalists Sri Lanka ever produced and he is widely known internationally.
In the same vein, the late Tarzie Vittachi, Manik de Silva with at least 46 years experience in
print journalism and widely respected worldwide as an honest and intrepid journalist is so busy
writing at least 20,000 words a day, H.L.D. Mahindapala, Edwin Aryadasa, the late Denzil Peiris
and other distinguished journalists who did not have time to spend time obtaining degrees must
be illiterate because they do not have titles after their names.
Mr Basil Fernando’s writings are a joy to read because although he is a learned and respected
lawyer and human rights activist he chooses plain English to send his message. Clarity is his
hallmark something Dayan has not heard of.
Dayan needs to get off his high horse and shine the torch inwards instead of drooling over those
who managed to enter prestigious academic institutions.
Article Number Nine
Looney critics are anytime preferable to embedded,

and runaway, intellectuals Dr. Dayan
"May I please ask you if you have an honorary doctorate conferred on you by
some university or you really wrote a thesis to earn it?"
[September 18, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian] You wrote, rightfully, in your last article that
you prefer ‘the rational to the raving, the literate to the illiterate, and the lucid to the lunatic’. But
then you forgot to add something sir, that you also prefer dictators to democrats.
What other reason do you have for your continuous attempts of shirking away the main
question? The question, by the way, you had asked. Do you even remember that, sir? You had
asked that who would the Sri lankan citizens follow as the “ultimate arbiter” if not the “decisions
of the courts”. You had, for good measures, added those thrown up by “repeated elections
(which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely)”.
This author, one of the lunatic critics has answered that not from the whims emanating out of
the fear or favour-seeking but from pure political science. I had employed the basic texts, and
the basic understanding of liberal democracy which you are trying to demolish rather illiberally.
And what was your response to that? Hurling abuses at the critics? Calling them Looney, lunatic
and illiterate?
Meanwhile, you also ran away from answering them. Apart from quoting something from Turkey
and then quoting a much respected academician, unlike you I will say, what answers have you
offered? You are exposing yourself as a ‘runaway’ professor who hurls questions, does not
respond to the answers coming his way, and then runs away hurling abuses at the critics. The
critics, who are, unlike you, yet to have sold themselves out to the powers that be.
Have you read the article of Prof Nira Wickramasinghe, even the part you highlighted, sir? This
is what you have quoted of sir-
leadership to those who believe in it.”(emphasis mine)
As against her take on the issue, what you had offered in one of your earlier articles titled Hardly
the Death of Democracy or the Nation: Ten Points From a Political Scientist was this sir,
“Tenthly, most of the civil society critics of and signatories against the 18th amendment are
those who either support or sympathize with Ranil Wickremesinghe in the inner-party struggle.
Many of these also refused to criticize Ranil during the CFA and refrained from criticizing the
Tigers themselves. Of those few who did criticize the Tigers, the majority criticized Mahinda
Rajapakse even more, during the decisive last war. There are of course, honourable exceptions,
but the considerable degree of overlap between those civil society covens that denounce the
death of democracy and those who didn’t denounce the Tigers for their deadly assaults on the
democratic state, helps explain the lack of mass resonance of their appeal. Their support of
Ranil Wickremesinghe also makes them culpable of the crime they accuse the administration of,
namely the passage of the 18th amendment. Their continued campaign for Western pressure
on Sri Lanka has also contributed to the reinforcement and raising of the regime’s ramparts.”
Do you notice the disdain you have shown for the opposition, the most important part of a liberal
democracy to remind you, as against Prof Nira Wickramasinghe, who places all her hopes of
return of democracy on the same protestors? Changing positions and stealing arguments, even
when they do not back your ones, comes easy to you sir, as is evident from this. And just by the
way, did you notice how easily you used the word ‘COVENS’? Do you know the meaning of this
term to those readers who might not aware of this word? You know, I am sure. Let me tell the
same to those who might not, after all we are not native speakers of English. Covens means’ a
gathering of witches’.
Such an intellectual repertoire of words you have for a political scientist, sir. Covens, looney,
lunatics and all that. I do not know how would members of Sri Lankan civil society feel on that
though I am filled with indignity. Though it does have an upside that it tells the world about your
intellectual capacities as well, dear Mr. Dayan. Accept my sympathies for the students who have
good fortune to be trained by you. Whether or not they learn political science, they would learn
the use of abusive words pretty well.
Meanwhile, may I please ask you if you have an honorary doctorate conferred on you by some
university or you really wrote a thesis to earn it?
Article Number Ten
Fake Pearls and Sprigs of Basil
"Oh dear, what are Pearl, Basil and their tribe going to do when both Government
and opposition are led by patriots, nationalists, who are anti-separatist, anti-terrorist and anti-
LTTE and stand for strong leadership of a sovereign Sri Lanka?"
by Dr Dayan Jayatilleka
[September 18, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian] Poor Pearl Thevanayagam. She writes:”
If you know a smattering of Gramsci, Trotsky and Tchaikovsky...” She obviously does not know
that one cannot know a smattering of Tchaikovsky because he was a composer of music, not
a writer! Furthermore she does not know that you cannot earn a PhD by writing a 10,000 word
thesis, and that even an Honours degree at Peradeniya needs a 10,000 word dissertation!
By the way, Mervyn de Silva did complete his degree. Pearl claims that he didn’t. One thing that
Mervyn as editor insisted on was that facts should be checked and double checked. A lesson
not learned by Pearl. Pearl should have also checked Tchaikovsky. At least on Wikipedia.
Poor Basil Fernando. What is he going to do this time next week, when the government is in
the hands of Mahinda and the opposition and perhaps the UNP are led by (Basil’s other villain)
R Premadasa’s son, who is quoted by the Daily Mirror this morning as saying “I would take
my father the late President R. Premadasa as an example. He is unmatched by anyone in his
amazing development programmes that transformed the country.”
Oh dear, what are Pearl, Basil and their tribe going to do when both Government and opposition
are led by patriots, nationalists, who are anti-separatist, anti-terrorist and anti-LTTE and stand
for strong leadership of a sovereign Sri Lanka?
This pair has a problem with my citing Kalana Senaratne and Nira Wickremasingha as
examples of serious, academically credentialed un-hysterical critics of the 18th amendment,
with whose basic points I broadly agree.
As for my ‘scholarly credentials’, if ever I needed to remind myself of them, I only need to re-
read the reviews of my book by Emeritus Professor Sebastian Balfour of the LSE, in the Bulletin
of Latin American Research Volume 27, Issue 4, pages 597–599, October 2008, or the one
by Prof Clive Foss, Dept of History, Georgetown University, in the flagship journal of Chatham
House (the Royal Institute of International Relations), International Affairs 85: 1, 2009.
Article Number Eleven
Advice to Dr Dayan Jayatilleke from an illiterate hack
"The 18A is a serious issue for us as Sri Lankans and although you say it could
be rescinded we are putting our democracy on the line and it is the duty of every Sri Lankan not
to cause this democracy to feed the greed of hungry politicians who want authoritarian power."
by Pearl Thevanayagam
[September 18, London, Sri Lanka Guardian] You know so little that you do not know that you
know so little. This what my mathematics tutor used to tell us. Dayan feels that he is so far gone
in academia that he does not know what a satire is. Does he not realize that even if you did not
listen to Classic FM or are a regular to the Albert Hall any fool would know that Tchaikovsy is a
composer and a fine one at that.
We also have fine classical musicians and composers in the sub-continent such as Amaradeva,
Victor Ratnayake, Sanath Nandasiri, Kunnakudi Viswanathan, Kannathasan and scores more.
Dr Dayan Jayetilleke, Tchaikovsky rhymes with Trotsky and the point I was making was that it
does not matter what academic qualifications you have or what your tastes are, it is how you
use them to convey a message in journalism that is important.
Please read P.G. Wodehouse, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore et al and their plays and you will find
how they use split infinitives, faulty semantics, odd comparisons to bring the humour out of their
plays. Perhaps you should be mixing with Rajiva for light entertanment. Also, please read Tarzie
Vittachi’s Fly-by-night columns.
Not everyone can be a journalist but anyone can obtain a PhD provided they have the funds
since there are a million topics. Journalists are the conduits between the academia and the
laymen. Journalists have to sift through reams of academic drivel to get some substance
although I must congratulate you that you have improved a lot in recent times.
I retract my statement about your father not getting his degree and offer you my profound
apologies. As his son you know better. And I do like your headline, ‘Fake Pearls and Sprigs of
Basil’. It shows you still have a tendency towards humour and that is a good thing. But seriously
you need to lighten up and more importantly listen to your inner self. Leave aside prejudices and
partisan mentality and your intellect would take you a long way.
The 18A is a serious issue for us as Sri Lankans and although you say it could be rescinded
we are putting our democracy on the line and it is the duty of every Sri Lankan not to cause this
democracy to feed the greed of hungry politicians who want authoritarian power.
I once requested that you take up politics but now I find you have an agenda towards Rajapakse
regime, your intellect and knowledge notwithstanding, and on hindsight I realize you would
have been a peril to our democracy had you listened to me. Just as you joined the Tamil rebels
without thinking you are embarking on a political discourse which would cause you the same
damage. So take some advice from an illiterate fake pearl whose only credentials are speaking
from the heart and sincerity.
Article Number Twelve
RESEARCH THIS!
" This ‘research scholar’ then attempts to set up as antinomies, a paragraph I

quoted with approval from Prof Nira Wickramasaingha’s article on the 18th amendment, and my
own views as contained in another paragraph that he excerpts from one of my articles."
BY DR DAYAN JAYATILLEKA
[ September 18, Singapore, Sri Lanka Guardian] It is a sad day when the JNU supposedly has
a ‘research scholar’ who cannot understand English. It’s even sadder that he is featured on a
website that borrowed and adapted the name of the journal my father founded.
He writes: “What other reason do you have for your continuous attempts of shirking away the
main question? The question, by the way, you had asked. Do you even remember that, sir?
You had asked that who would the Sri Lankan citizens follow as the “ultimate arbiter” if not
the “decisions of the courts”. You had, for good measures, added those thrown up by “repeated
elections (which Mahinda Rajapakse wins handsomely)”.
This is really loony. It was I who posed the question, albeit rhetorically, but he accuses me
of shirking the main question, which by his own admission, I myself had asked! He hasn’t
answered the question I posed, except to mention some names of Social Contract theorists. So
what? What’s the answer to my query?
This ‘research scholar’ then attempts to set up as antinomies, a paragraph I quoted with
approval from Prof Nira Wickramasaingha’s article on the 18th amendment, and my own views
as contained in another paragraph that he excerpts from one of my articles.
He further writes: “Have you read the article of Prof Nira Wickramasinghe, even the part you
highlighted, sir? This is what you have quoted of sir-
leadership to those who believe in it.”(emphasis mine)
...Do you notice the disdain you have shown for the opposition, the most important part of a
liberal democracy to remind you, as against Prof Nira Wickramasinghe, who places all her
hopes of return of democracy on the same protestors?”
This is truly pathetic. What does the passage actually say? “...The fact that academics, lawyers,
students and pressure groups took to the streets to protest against the 18th amendment
indicates that there is still room for the opposition to maneuver in the interstices of power.”
This was quoted by me to show that democracy and freedoms were not dead and had hardly
been murdered, still less parallels permissible with Nazi fascism!If that were the case there
could not be “still room for the opposition to maneuver in the interstices of power.”
Secondly, according to the passage quoted, on whom does Prof Wickremesingha “place all her
hopes”? Certainly NOT on the “same protestors” but precisely “on the will of opposition political
parties to forge an alternative democratic vision and give leadership to those who believe in it.”
So, it is not on the “same protestors”, but on the opposition political parties! And that too, if they
have the “will... alternative democratic vision... (and) leadership”! This is exactly what I’ve been
saying, here and from 1997 onwards!
This alleged ‘research scholar’ then wishes to know whether I have “an honorary doctorate
conferred on you by some university or you really wrote a thesis to earn it?” Well, as a research
scholar, that should be easy enough for him to research, and the fact that he hasn’t done so,
tells me the kind of ‘ research scholar’ he is! I suggest Google Scholar as a start, or maybe
the website of the Institute of South Asian Studies of the National University of Singapore. Or
he can write to Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the JNU, SD Muni (one of my
colleagues down the corridor).
Article Number Thirteen
The Decline of Sri Lanka and Dayan’s

Homemade Puny Mind
It takes a puny mind and a cynical outlook to be celebrating a dictatorship.

The intellectual tradition of Colombo has created many such puny minds and
visionless ‘intellectuals’. These include Mervin de Silva and all. Dayan Jayatilleka is only an
offshoot of this ‘tradition’. There is nothing to be surprised about in his admiration for Joseph
Stalin, JR Jayawardene, R Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapaksha. Within the last few days, he
has demonstrated the nature of his ‘capacities’ and the tradition he represents. He is quite a
homemade product.
by Basil Fernando
[September 18, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian] The Burmese people are still struggling
to overcome the ruin of their country by the Dictator Ne Win. Ne Win’s authoritarian system
destroyed all the basic institutions of Burma. Over several decades, the dictatorship destroyed
all the traditions of pluralism. However, it could not destroy the resistance. The resistance still
goes on despite the devastation caused to the whole nation which has ruined the hopes and
expectations of all the peoples of Burma. Ne Win represented himself as a patriot. His patriotism
was not about the well-being of the people.
The people of Indonesia were able to defeat the military rule of Suharto. However, the
devastation caused by the dictatorship has affected all the areas of Indonesian life. It is difficult
to imagine how long it will take for Indonesia to emerge as a nation within which the well-being
of the population can be brought to anything that can be closer to what may be called a normal
situation, even within the context of poorer nations.
The people of The Philippines were able to defeat the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos within
a shorter time than the people of Burma and Indonesia. However, the devastating effect of his
authoritarian rule still lives on. The possibility of an organized way of life within which the well-
being of the majority of the Filipinos can be ensured remains a distant dream. All the basic
institutions of democracy in the Philippines have been undermined by Marco’s dictatorship and,
even with the People’s Power Revolution, and many efforts, nothing very much has substantially
changed. It is easy to destroy liberal democracy. It is a much more formidable task to recreate it.
The people of Pakistan were under several military dictatorships. They have overcome
these dictatorships from time to time. At the moment, Pakistan has a democratically elected
government. However, the terrible effect of these dictatorships lives on. All the basic institutions,
such as the police, the court systems and civil administration, have been affected and it
has proved almost an impossible task to create an organized way of life that can create the
conditions of well-being for the people of Pakistan. I visited a Pakistani family a few hours ago.
They have just come back from a visit to their home in Karachi. The situation of the city was
described by my friend’s wife by saying that, ‘Within the house, we are safe. But outside it’s a
terrible situation.’ Her husband described how in order to avenge one murder about 150 people
have been killed. The legacy of lawlessness that is created by dictatorship makes that kind of a
hell for the citizens of the country.
These are only a few examples from Asia. The other well-known examples from the west
illustrate this same problem. The devastation caused by Stalin’s dictatorship created such a ruin
that creating a sense of order and stability has remained a problem beyond description for the
people of Russia. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn described the situation caused by Stalin’s dictatorship
as ‘abysmal lawlessness’. Once recreating possibilities for people’s participation in the affairs of
life and the organization of their own well-being after such a situation has remained a problem
even after a period of change initiated by the famous speech of Nikita Khruschev in 1956.
Germany faced such a situation after the First World War. It created the background for the
emergence of Hitler and all the cruelties of followed. It was only due to the intervention of
the western powers through the Marshall plan that conditions were created in which German
people were able to deal with the effects of the Nazi dictatorship. This process allowed them to
understand the conditions which created the possibilities for the dictatorship of Hitler. Almost
every area of life was rethought and reorganized within Germany to get over the effects of
the dictatorship and to prevent its reoccurrence. In the constitutional sphere, the limitations
of the Weimar Constitution were examined and many constitutional and legal reforms were
introduced to overcome those limitations. The creation of an extraordinary court, known as the
constitutional court, was also a product of the attempt to deal with the devastating effects of
authoritarian rule.
Sri Lanka entered into a period of authoritarian rule in 1978. The course of this authoritarian rule
has been chronicled by many. Among such works is Dr. Rajiva Wijesinha’s Declining Sri Lanka,
2007. He narrates how JR Jayawardene’s personal ambitions created a political system that
caused the conditions for the ethnic conflict to turn into the kind of war that we now know about.
Would there have been that war if there the 1978 Constitution was not introduced and there
was room left for solving the problem by other means? The 1978 Constitution destroyed all the
public institutions and is a story that is very well known and discussed.
R Premadasa, getting into the shoes of JR Jayawardene, followed by Chandrika

Bandaranayake and then by Mahinda Rajapaksha, did not make any change for the better as
far as the authoritarian system was concerned. The change of one leader for the other did not
cause fundamental changes in the system that was introduced through the 1978 Constitution.
The 18th Amendment has completed the course of authoritarianism. The problem for the future
is not as to when and who will replace Mahinda Rajapaksha, but about the manner in which the
authoritarian scheme of 1978 could be replaced. Like the people of the countries cited above,
for the people of Sri Lanka this will not be an easy task.
It takes a puny mind and a cynical outlook to be celebrating a dictatorship. The intellectual
tradition of Colombo has created many such puny minds and visionless ‘intellectuals’. These
include Mervin de Silva and all. Dayan Jayatilleka is only an offshoot of this ‘tradition’. There
is nothing to be surprised about in his admiration for Joseph Stalin, JR Jayawardene, R
Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapaksha. Within the last few days, he has demonstrated the nature
of his ‘capacities’ and the tradition he represents. He is quite a homemade product.
In my last comment in this series, I asked what will be the next stupid question of Dayan
Jayatilleka. In his response he has raised that question. He asked what the likes of me will do
when Sajith Premadasa becomes the UNP leader next week. Such stupid questions require no
answer.
In the lives of Sri Lankans the authoritarian system will continue to cause havoc. It will destroy
the right to fair trial and the right to all basic freedoms, including the freedom of expression
and association. Above all, people will lose the right to representation. All this causes practical
problems to people in their daily lives. The ordinary folk, who the likes of Dayan would like to
think of as illiterates, will bear the brunt of all these problems. It is for the people themselves to
find the solutions to all these riddles caused by their selfish leaders. If selfishness is patriotism,
then Dayan is right when he describes Sri Lanka’s dictators as patriots.
Article Number Fourteen
Fernando's Futile Follies
" I reiterate my main question: If we don’t respect the decision of the courts (the
legal system) and disagree with those of the people at repeated elections (democracy, popular
sovereignty), what do we have left, who is the ultimate arbiter -- the unaccountable Asian
Human Rights Commission and its leader-in-permanent-exile?"
by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka
[September 19, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian] Basil Fernando opines
that: “The intellectual tradition of Colombo has created many such puny minds and
visionless ‘intellectuals’. These include Mervin de Silva and all. Dayan Jayatilleka is only an
offshoot of this ‘tradition’.”
I gladly admit to being “an offshoot of this tradition”. Since Basil Fernando was never even
a minor, passing figure in the “intellectual tradition of Colombo” I am both amused and
unsurprised that he displays this huge chip on his shoulder.
Now I haven’t heard of a “Mervin de Silva” though I have heard of Mervyn de Silva (the guy
after whom Sri Lanka’s top journalism award is named), Dr Mervyn D De Silva (development
administrator) and one Mervyn Silva (MP). Which one is Mr Fernando referring to, why can’t he
get the spelling right ...and could he kindly cite a single person of repute or with credentials, Sri
Lankan or non-Sri Lankan, to support his view?
Fernando says that “There is nothing to be surprised about in his admiration for Joseph Stalin,
JR Jayewardene, R Premadasa and Mahinda Rajapaksha.” Now that’s a laugh. I don’t know
where on earth (quite literally) Basil Fernando was when JR Jayewardene’s government
indicted me as the First Accused on 14 counts under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the
Emergency. The first charge was “conspiracy to overthrow the State through violence”. The
8th accused was K Pathmanabha, founder leader of the EPRLF. Among those indicted was
Dayapala Tiranagama. Years later, in 1992, JR Jayewardene attempted to sue me (story in the
Sunday Times). Now if these are signs of “admiration...for JR Jayewardene” as Basil Fernando
alleges, I think he should seek some professional help because he has serious issues...and I
don’t mean with Eichmann or Mahinda! It also shows that everything he says on anything must
be taken not just with a pinch of salt but with the salt shaker at hand.
I reiterate my main question: If we don’t respect the decision of the courts (the legal system)
and disagree with those of the people at repeated elections (democracy, popular sovereignty),
what do we have left, who is the ultimate arbiter -- the unaccountable Asian Human Rights
Commission and its leader-in-permanent-exile?
Article Number Fifteen
Origins of Sri Lanka’s mess – Dayan admits being a

proud product of the " Underya" tradition
"As for Mervin Silva and late Mervin De Silva, there is not much of a difference
between them from the point of view of their political philosophies. Both are cynics who have
learned the art of political survival. One behaves like a joker and the other was arrogant
and “smart”. Both follow the Colombo style “Underya” tradition, and Dayan says he is proud
about it."
by Basil Fernando
[September 19, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian] This discussion is about the 1978 Constitution
and its enhancement by the 18th Amendment. The 1978 Constitution created an executive
president who is above the law. With that, the law was no longer supreme in Sri Lanka. When
the law is not supreme, the rule of law is replaced by the rule of the head of state. What he
does then becomes the law. If illustration is needed, the cases filed against Sarath Fonseka
are good examples. Many lesser-known citizens have faced this situation continuously. Some
have “disappeared” and others are in jail without ever having committed a crime. Thousands of
families have been ruined. However, there is nothing that can be done about it, except to appeal
for the supreme leader’s mercy. There is nothing else left for citizens to follow or hope for. A
man with self respect, like Sarath Fonseka, will not kneel before the supremo. He has no option
but to suffer the consequences.
The references to R. Premadsa and Mahinda Rajapakse are about 1978 constitution. They are
creatures of this constitution. The creator was J.R. Jayawardene. Mahinda Rajapakse admires
J.R. Jayawardene’s political model. Now even persons jailed by Jayawardene one time or
another have come to play pooja to Jayawardene by accepting his political model. Dayan is one
of them. When, I mentioned admiration for Jayawadene, I meant admiration and acceptance of
his political model. Many of one time opponents of Jayawardene, including Mahinda Rajapakse,
have now come to be ardent followers of his political model. Dayan is no exception.
As for Mervin Silva and late Mervin De Silva, there is not much of a difference between them
from the point of view of their political philosophies. Both are cynics who have learned the art of
political survival. One behaves like a joker and the other was arrogant and “smart”. Both follow
the Colombo style “Underya” tradition, and Dayan says he is proud about it. The fact is that this
is no tradition that is worthy of admiration. The cumulative effect of many centuries of practice of
Brahmin shrewdness is what that there is. Nothing creative is allowed to grow and there is neck-
cutting at every turn.
It is that “Colombo Tradition” that created this 1978 model of the political system. Dayan admits
to being a proud product of that tradition. All my life I have avoided been part of that despicable
tradition.
The mess that this country is in today is the result created by all these great intellects.
Article Number Sixteen
‘Research this’ does not mean Google this Dr

Dayan, or maybe that is your idea of research!
" And finally, your use of the choicest words- covens to begin with. You did not
explain that in the rejoinder you wrote. I will not, definitely, stoop that low or high if you think
that using abuses is the height of discussions. I would not even blame it on you. You come from
a ‘background’ after all. "
[September 19, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian] Reading your last piece (unfortunately one
cannot call it an article by any stretch of imagination) came as a much needed comic relief Dr
Dayan. Having been stuck in reading and writing all sort of tiring, jargon laden academic articles
had made me yearning for a break. I am indebted to you for providing that by writing such an
unintelligent piece, so entirely untaxing on the brain.
Yet, responding to the cyclical argument, bereft of any intelligence, you have been making
would be a good exercise for the sake of the readers who have been following this debate.
Let me, first, take up the question you asked and claimed to have gotten no replies but a few
social contract theories. Forget my English language skills, and I would not ask about yours
as you have made a macabre display of that in any case. The answer to your question of who
would be the ultimate arbiter was right there in the second para of my article. But then it takes
some intelligence to understand that Dr Dayan. I am copy-pasting it (your idea of research in
any case) from my own article.
“The idea of ultimate arbiter is located in the idea that the state has the right to exercise the
sovereign power and to act as parens patriae (parent of the citizens). I remember a decision
of the Indian Supreme Court, among those of others denying this right to Indian state. In a
case regarding the rights of erstwhile small princes, the full bench of the Indian Supreme Court
has concluded that there exists nothing as sovereign power of the state. It asserted that the
legal sovereignty vests in the constitution whereas political sovereignty lied with the people,
not with the office of the institution representing it. It is 'we the people' who unite ourselves into
a sovereign state, sir, not the other way round.” (emphasis added this time, for your benefit)
So what about English now? What about this sovereign principle that barring people nothing is
sovereign! It was in 1972, that the supreme court of India delivered this verdict. A constitutional
bench of the supreme court on that. Just to help you a bit more, the issue resurfaced in India a
quarter century later. This time it was democratically elected, yet right wing government, which
wanted to review(they really wanted to change it but unlike you they could come up with a better
phrase) Indian constitution. They actually went ahead and constituted a National Commission
to Review the Working of the Constitution but then Supreme Court came into picture again and
reaffirming that basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered.
It reaffirmed its position that there exists nothing as sovereign power of the state. The Judges of
the supreme court of India, for your entire bloated ego, no less intellectual to you is a fact you
would concede, I hope, just hope. So let me put it again what they have to say in bulleted forms,
the biggest form of intellectual articulation in your tradition
* There exists nothing as sovereign power of the state

* The legal sovereignty vests in the constitution whereas political sovereignty lied with the
people, not with the office of the institution representing it.
Do you get your answer now? There exists nothing called ‘ultimate arbiter’ Mr Dayan. Not
in democracies at least. It is the people and only the people, and just by the way, read your
basic political science again. You would do well to begin with the theories of social contract,
especially the parts which deal with the legitimacy of the contract. You will get a phrase, termed
the right to rebellion there. Let me quote again from my own article, unlike the superb capacity
of copy pasting you have shown, to the extent of copypasting a meaningless press report !
“The right to rebellion, particularly in case if the contract is leading to 'tyranny' is a phrase coined
by Locke, the father of liberal democracy you are supposed to be espousing, and not by some
insane critic sir!”
Do you get the answer now, at least? That there exists nothing called ‘ultimate arbiter’!
Anyways, lets come to the next point. I loved the way you exposed your mindset in the very
opening the crap you have written. Let me quote you—
“It is a sad day when the JNU supposedly has a ‘research scholar’ who cannot understand
English. It’s even sadder that he is featured on a website that borrowed and adapted the name
of the journal my father founded.”
Leave the English part aside, as the readers could judge for themselves and also, the first thing
my professors in JNU had taught me was that ‘Speak Social Science not English! But then
leave it as I am sure you would not even get close to understand what this means.
So I could see the pain you had of seeing this alleged research scholar on the website “that
borrowed and adapted the name of the journal my father founded.” Ah I could see the tears
rolling down. The pain of having lost those beautiful days, when you used to be the lords
floating with power. Those beautiful days when you used to own everything, even the names. I
sympthise with you Dr Daya. But then those feudal days are gone.
Now I can understand your cravings for a strong leader far better. That it is as much inside as
outside. That your rants are the rants of someone who had lost a lot to democracy. You gave
yourself away in this one Dr Dayan, but then that’s actually good.
Coming to the final point, suffice would be to quote your own analysis of that paragraph
you quoted. Here we go then “Secondly, according to the passage quoted, on whom does
Prof Wickremesingha “place all her hopes”? Certainly NOT on the “same protestors” but
precisely “on the will of opposition political parties to forge an alternative democratic vision and
give leadership to those who believe in it.” So, it is not on the “same protestors”, but on the
opposition political parties! And that too, if they have the “will... alternative democratic vision...
(and) leadership”! This is exactly what I’ve been saying, here and from 1997 onwards!”
Do you really not see the difference even now? She is placing her hopes, rightfully pointed out
by you, on ‘the will of opposition political parties ‘. She has her faith, even if very little, left in
those political parties. And what is your opinion of those ‘political parties’? You had completely
exposed yourself in the very first article title hardly the death… You had asserted that the
protestors had ‘civil society covens’ in considerable overlap with those who did not ‘denounce
the Tigers’ and so on. That gives away your opinion of the political parties in opposition and the
civil society alike.
Any sensible political scientist, in this scenario of absence of any credible opposition as
identified by himself, will protest such undemocratic assaults on the constitution with much
more commitment. But then that presupposes the sensibility part being present, does not it?
And finally, your use of the choicest words- covens to begin with. You did not explain that in the
rejoinder you wrote. I will not, definitely, stoop that low or high if you think that using abuses is
the height of discussions. I would not even blame it on you. You come from a ‘background’ after
all.
Yet I cannot resist myself from quoting a brilliant writer. “Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of
scoundrels,” said Dr. Johnson. And I am not saying it. More on patriotism later, I promise you
sir.
Article Number Seventeen
One Big ‘Lie’: Last Post on Pandey
While I do not consider the Indian Supreme Court an authority on political theory
and philosophy, and would certainly not accord it status as a ‘supreme’ guide for Sri Lanka’s
citizenry, I rather doubt that the full bench of the Indian Supreme Court concluded that “political
sovereignty lied with the people”
by Dr Dayan Jayatilleka
(September 19, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian) I must congratulate JNU ‘research scholar’
Avinash Pandey Samar on producing a rarity: a veritable collector’s item of ignorance and
incoherence.
He quotes once again a passage of his prose which he is particularly proud of and rightly so,
but not for the reasons he would imagine. I too found it fascinating and wish to share it with the
reader:
“...The full bench of the Indian Supreme Court ...asserted that ...political sovereignty lied with
the people....”
In case one cannot believe one’s eyes, he reiterates this two paragraphs later: “...political
sovereignty lied with the people, not with the office of the institution representing it.”
Incredible as it may seem, the good ‘research scholar’ Mr Pandey Samar follows up this
profundity with two pointed questions:
“So what about English now? Do you get your answer now?”
What indeed about English now, Mr Pandey, what indeed!
While I do not consider the Indian Supreme Court an authority on political theory and
philosophy, and would certainly not accord it status as a ‘supreme’ guide for Sri Lanka’s
citizenry, I rather doubt that the full bench of the Indian Supreme Court concluded that “political
sovereignty lied with the people”. Unless he produces a direct quote with source, I would have
to conclude that it is Avinash Pandey Samar who has lied in this regard.
To answer his second question, no I haven’t got my answer now. I have in fact one more
questions than I had before, namely “who lied to whom, where, why and when?”
Article Number Eighteen
Classic case of arrogant stupidity and schizophrenic

hallucinations of Mr. Dayan: Last Rejoinder
I may find you the same instances from any democratic countries
of the world, but then your idea of democracies is apparently construed by
Stalinist Soviet Union. What are you going to throw at me now? Some quote
from the apartheid-era South Africa? Or some ‘glorious’ example of political
sovereignty of the state coming from the Kingdoms of the Middle East?

(September 19, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Seldom do the self-designated ‘intellectuals’
expose themselves as comprehensively as you have done in your last post Mr Dayan. Accept
my congratulations for making such a spectacular show of stupidity while absconding from the
main issues.
First thing first, let me give you the evidence for the ‘political sovereignty lies with the people’
principle from a different country as you do not consider the ‘Indian supreme court an authority
on political theory and philosophy’.
So forget India for a moment, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, among
others, has held this principle time and again. Have you ever heard of the Chisholm v.
Georgia case of 1973,(External Link), in the Supreme Court of U.S.A? The court had held that
sovereignty vests in the people. The court, then, had ABROGATED the sovereign immunity of
the State while granting the federal courts with the power of hearing disputes between citizens
and the state. Do you understand the meaning of that Mr. Dayan? Do you get who is the
ultimate sovereign then?
You would do well to know that the principle was reaffirmed again in a later development in
the 1972 amendment of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court, then had ruled
against the sovereign immunity of the state again and allowed the citizens to sue the state
even for money damages, leave aside bigger felonies states can engage in. You can have
a look (as reading is, apparently, too tough an exercise for you) on this link. ( External Link )
Moving on to Indian experience, a full bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of 13 judges,
in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973 AIR 1461, 1973Suppl.SCR 1, 1973( 4 )SCC
225,) had made it absolutely clear that ‘that Parliament's constituent power was subject
to inherent limitations’ and that it could not use its amending powers under Article 368
to 'damage', 'emasculate', 'destroy', 'abrogate', 'change' or 'alter' the 'basic structure' or the
framework of the Constitution. All these were the words used by the Bench in the judgment(you
can read the full judgment here in the most unlikely case you want to- External Link). And as
that being impossibility for someone of your intellectual standards here is the quote
“Where there is a written Constitution which adopts the preamble of sovereignty in the people
there is firstly no question of the law-making body being a sovereign body for that body
possesses only those powers which are conferred on it. Secondly, however representative
it may be, it cannot be equated with the people. This is especially so where the Constitution
contains a Bill of Rights for such a Bill imposes restraints on that body, i.e. it negates the
equation of that body with the people.”(emphasis mine)
It does not only locates the sovereignty in the people, Mr Dayan but goes further to assert
that there is ‘no question of the law-making body being a sovereign body’. Does that make
any sense to you? I may find you the same instances from any democratic countries of the
world, but then your idea of democracies is apparently construed by Stalinist Soviet Union.
What are you going to throw at me now? Some quote from the apartheid-era South Africa? Or
some ‘glorious’ example of political sovereignty of the state coming from the Kingdoms of the
Middle East?
Anyways, have a look at the following quote as well. It will help you educating you a little more
on the issue.
“692. When a power to amend the Constitution is given to the people, its contents can
be construed to be larger than when that power is given to a body constituted under that
Constitution.
…Therefore the contention on behalf of the Union and the States that the two-thirds of the
members in the two Houses of Parliament are always authorised to speak on behalf of the
entire people of this country is unacceptable.”
But then, arguing is possible only with someone who has some ears to listen and some brains
to employ. An intellectual who has sold the brains out to the state, for whatever favours, is
capable only of what you are doing best.
P.S. Have you also done some research in using foul language or that comes naturally to you?

Debate - 18th Amendment and Future of Democracy in Sri Lanka

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Debate - 18th Amendment and Future of Democracy in Sri Lanka

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The 18th Amendment of

“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question

ABOUT THE DEBATE : NOTE FROM THE EDITORIAL

Following Mr. Fernando's contribution the Javaharlal Neru University research

DR. DAYAN JAYATHILLEKA

Hardly the death democracy or the Nation

by Dr. Dayan Jayathilleka

[September 12, Singapore City, Sri Lanka Guardian]

As a student of politics, I have ten observations.

What has taken place is a shift, not an ending.

Nations don’t die, they are murdered!

by Avinash Pandey Samar

Article Number two

Article Number Three

Freedoms and their demise: Rejoinder to a critic

Article Number Four

No electoral authority must interfere with his future reelections.

And the list can go on like that.

Article Number Five

Is it some new political science you are referring to Dr Dayan!

by Avinash Pandey Samar

Tyranny is the word he used sir, if you noticed.

Article Number Six

Lucid Critics and Loony Critics

When it comes to opinions I prefer respected serious scholars to unknown ‘researchers’ or

Article Number Seven

What will be Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka’s next stupid

.Article Number Eight

PhDs, pork scratchings and Dayan’s itch

Article Number Nine

Looney critics are anytime preferable to embedded,

by Avinash Pandey Samar

Article Number Ten

Fake Pearls and Sprigs of Basil

Article Number Eleven

Advice to Dr Dayan Jayatilleke from an illiterate hack

Article Number Twelve

" This ‘research scholar’ then attempts to set up as antinomies, a paragraph I

Article Number Thirteen

The Decline of Sri Lanka and Dayan’s

It takes a puny mind and a cynical outlook to be celebrating a dictatorship.

R Premadasa, getting into the shoes of JR Jayawardene, followed by Chandrika

Article Number Fourteen

Fernando's Futile Follies

by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

Article Number Fifteen

Origins of Sri Lanka’s mess – Dayan admits being a

Article Number Sixteen

‘Research this’ does not mean Google this Dr

by Avinash Pandey Samar

* There exists nothing as sovereign power of the state

Article Number Seventeen

One Big ‘Lie’: Last Post on Pandey

What indeed about English now, Mr Pandey, what indeed!

Article Number Eighteen

Classic case of arrogant stupidity and schizophrenic

by Avinash Pandey Samar

Potrebbero piacerti anche