The infamous telephone call by the Defence Secretary to the Editor of the Daily Mirror and its fall out is most revealing of the times we live in and the regime we live under.  Whilst the defenders of the Defence Secretary’s actions contest the abusive and threatening nature of the call, they leave unanswered the question of as to why the call had to be made in the first instance.   Given the government /media relations in recent times, it is difficult to imagine how even a polite telephone call from the defence establishment can be construed as not carrying with it a hint of menace, a trace of threat.  Just as important though is the propriety of the action of a senior defence official in a functioning democracy, even suggesting to an editor what should and should not be included in her newspaper.  Such an act in a functioning democracy would have caused such a stink that the official would have had to resign, irrespective of the abusive and intimidatory nature of the call.  Perhaps this  would have happened here too in another time.  That it has not, indicates the temper of the times and the standards of our democracy.

However, irrespective of the propriety of making the telephone call,  it is clear that it was certainly an abusive and threatening one.  After a silence in which media and other organizations condemned the incident, the Daily Mirror in its editorial on Friday 20 April 2007  had this to say about the Defence Secretary’ s recorded surprise at the way in which certain media had exaggerated the incident.

…. He  says he was surprised how certain media exaggerated it. We can assure our readers and those concerned that there has been no exaggeration.  The “frank exchange of ideas” he speaks of has indeed been a tirade in the course of which the Defence Secretary has even warned that then editor would be dislodged from her position.

The editorial states the fervent hope that the President will look into the matter as promised to the editor. So far what we have is the Defence Secretary’s denial of any threat or intimidation and a campaign against those who have spoken out against the incident on the grounds that they are part of a conspiracy to tarnish the good name of the Defence Secretary and drive him out of office.   This is of course an extension of the “traitor” rhetoric and the castigation of any dissent and criticism of the defence establishment and the Rajapaksha brothers as being an integral part of a pro- LTTE campaign to undermine the march to victory against terrorism in the north and east.

The response to this incident is an extension of the response to the voices raised about human rights violations and the humanitarian situation.  Offence has been identified as the best form of defence and as a consequence the culture of impunity seemingly institutionalized throughout the defence establishment.  The Defence Secretary should go, but he will not.  Furthermore, the President will not ask him to go or sack him and this is not because he is the President’s brother so much as because the President sadly does not seem to comprehend the enormity of the abuse to democratic norms and traditions this telephone call clearly constitutes.  And this goes for human rights in general.

The war against terrorism as identified by this government should not be allowed to ride roughshod over this country’s democratic traditions, institutions and aspirations.  Quite simply the government should not be allowed to emulate the worst, undemocratic practices of the LTTE on account of its war against terrorism, against them.

A further dimension to this is the Karuna factor.   Why should the defence secretary be in any way a spokesperson for the purported likes and dislikes of the Karuna faction ?  Are they part of the defence establishment, even if the Karuna faction at times seem to think otherwise ?  -    Ironically, Karuna has expressed his bona fides to the editor.

Whatever the president, government and self styled patriots may say, this incident has had a chilling effect on the media and freedom of expression, and quite likely therefore the effect intended.  Turning the Defence Secretary and the Rajapaksha brothers into victims of some sick, shoddy conspiracy against the state and the unity of this country will not wash.   There can be no clearer demonstration of the president’s commitment to fundamental democratic freedoms than him removing his brother from the office of Secretary of Defence for behaviour fundamentally antithetical to democracy.

Nothing less will do from the chief executive and a champion of human rights and democracy.

837 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:

• Defence Secretary: The epitome of bad governance The last column suggested that the tide of popular opinion may well be turning against the Rajapakse regime on account of the human rights and humanitarian situation, international censure and the rising cost of living. The brutal slaying of the Red Cross workers was followed by the lodge evictions and the Supreme Court decision halting them. The... Dr. P. Saravanamuttu, June 20, 2007
• Insight into Governance from the Arrest that did not happen From Morning Leader - 3rd January 2007  The story that the editor of the Sunday Leader was to be arrested on account of that paper’s reportage on the proposed  construction  of a presidential bunker and the subsequent reportage that presidential  intervention ensured that the arrest did not take place, provides an insight into governance and the... Dr. P. Saravanamuttu, January 15, 2007