groundviews » A response to Kusal Perera on political honesty and questioning Sarath Fonseka

A response to Kusal Perera on political honesty and questioning Sarath Fonseka

November 10, 2009 at 9:24 pm · Categories: Colombo, IDPs and Refugees, Peace and Conflict, Politics and Governance, Post-War, Reconciliation, War Crimes | by Mano Ganesan

[Editors note: Mano Ganesan kindly accepted our invitation to respond to Kusal Perera's article An open discourse with Mano Ganeshan on political honesty.]

This subject of Sarath Fonseka should not be considered as an isolated issue.

Sri Lanka is a sad Republic today as the main democratic opposition party/alliance is unable to find/propose a professional political candidate within from the opposition democratic establishment. It is shameful. But it is the naked truth. A candidate who is with all if not, sizable credentials such as being a member/leader of a major party, party cadre support, countrywide popular support, policy of accommodation towards Tamil speaking minorities, acceptance among the minorities, commitments to good governance and media freedom, clean record in view of corruption and human rights, brainy, brave, experience and necessarily a Sinhala Buddhist.

Let us start from me. I very confidently believe that I have THE eligibilities to perform as the president of this country. I can vouch I would be a better president than many who live with such presidential dreams. But alas, I am not a Sinhala Buddhist. There ends my dream.

I am not heading a standard NGO in practical sense. (Though a political party is also a NGO) I lead a functioning political party and all the associated organizations. Our party is not one of those major parties but it is also not a so called ‘three wheeler party’. Besides when I talk I not only talk on behalf of our party but also for the vast sections of the Tamil populace of this country. This ‘spokesperson of the Tamils’ tag did not drop from the sky yesterday with the Sarath Fonseka factor. We earned it by our hard, courageous and risky works. It is also due to our unbending stances.

Yes, Kusal is correct, I have a role in national movement for the protection of democracy, media freedom etc. We have performed in solidarity with almost all the national movements for media freedom, democracy, good governance etc. We have taken to roads on these issues than many of the so called ‘major party politicians’.

But we are mainly a party which represents the oppressed Tamil minorities. Not by label but by spirit. Therefore we have to maintain dialogues with all sources. We cannot be always be very ambitious and rigid. We will be wiped off if we refuse to answer all the calls we receive. We cannot be another LTTE. We value engagements. It is a process. It is the sign of a functioning party. There are some comrades who complain. But they are complaining on everything on earth. But for decades they failed to change even a single street let alone the country.

On the other hand, there are many number of Tamil political parties and many number of Tamil leaders who were ‘brave spokespersons of Tamils’ once upon a time. Today nobody is talking. There are no exchange of opinions. No debates at all. A deadly silence is maintained by all Tamil leaders. Total silence since Sarath Fonseka’s name was proposed initially until now that he is ‘considered’ as the common opposition candidate. But we spoke at the appropriate time and initiated a national dialogue in the media, street corners, households, offices, among the political parties etc. A national dialogue on ‘Sarath Fonseka and Tamil people’.

But (therefore) it seems that my ‘mistakes’ here are ‘talking and discussing’.

We have discussions with Sarath Fonseka. We have sent him a set of questions. We will await responses from Sarath Fonseka. We will then decide. Until then we will say that if his answers satisfy us we will decide positively. It is logical. Isn’t it? First let him answer. We are also discussing with the main opposition for alternative candidates. We are also discussing among the Tamil and Muslim parties. There are some efforts made from the government side too for some discussions with me.

It is very unfair to say that I ‘knew’ the answers of Sarath Fonseka even ‘before’ I sent him the questions. We have to go by the rules. This is what you call a dialogue. Kusal virtually demands that I should not even engage in a discussion with Sarath Fonseka. This is way he claims that Kusal and me and many of us ‘know’ the man Sarath Fonseka. Therefore don’t ask questions. That is what he means by saying that I ‘know’ the answers. This is his logic. Kusal fails to understand that there are millions of people in this country who consider Sarath Fonseka as the god sent hero. You cannot simply dismiss this worshippers as communalists. We have to engage with them because we are living with them by sharing the one same country.

Don’t ask questions or engage with him. This is Kusal’s position. Strangely Kusal has company. Please note that there are others too who find fault in me for putting questions to Sarath Fonseka. (plenty of web comments such as, How dare this Mano Ganesan? How can he question our Hero?). They are finding fault in me for different reasons.

I reject both positions.

We as a party, (in or out of alliance) would make the appropriate decision at the right time if the presidential elections are announced. We while maintaining our positions keep the options open. Tamils have four options today in respect of the presidential elections. The options are (a) UPFA candidate (b) Common or otherwise opposition candidate (c) A common Tamil candidate (d) Boycott.

We will cross the bridge when it comes. Until then we will engage and discuss.

2,043 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:

A response to Mano Ganeshan: Beyond engaging the ‘Sarath Fonseka worshipers’ Once in a way, in this sad little Republic as Mano Ganeshan aptly calls Sri Lanka, there happens discussions, worth following up on. So thank you Mano, for following up on my previous article to respond positively and I take it from you to develop this discussion further, leaving space for you especially and any... Kusal Perera, November 12, 2009
Sarath Fonseka and the Role of the Opposition: Will Sanity Prevail? Sri Lanka is a small miracle, and miraculous things happen here. Not only did it defeat terrorism. It is just about to witness another battle. Something grotesque, gruesome. We are playing into the hands of the separatists. We are creating more problems for ourselves, at a time when we should have been resolving them. Much... Kalana Senaratne, November 16, 2009

Permalink | Share this article on Facebook

wijayapala said,

November 10, 2009 @ 9:50 pm

Dear Mano,

Unlike Kusal I don’t see anything wrong with you tying up with the General. After all you had wonderful photo ops with the Tigers in Kilinochchi and had no compunctions at all about sharing the podium with them when they were strong. Nobody forgot your wonderful Pongu Thamil speech supporting a separate state. You never spoke out against LTTE terrorist attacks in Colombo, and no one expects you to now raise any inconvenient points about Fonseka’s strategy to defeat the LTTE.

Now that the LTTE is gone, you’re looking to hitch up with the next winner. You are no different than any other Sri Lankan politician. So why is Kusal singling you out?

wije

PS- how do you feel about being involved with the UNP, which was responsible for the 1983 riots?

Groundviews said,

November 10, 2009 @ 10:23 pm

Dear Wijayapala,

Thank you for your continued engagement with the content on this site. We just wish to point out that your accusation of Mr. Ganesan having supported a separate State in a speech made at Pongu Thamil is wholly incorrect. Groundviews was in fact challenged by some bloggers to prove this, and we did.

Hash said,

November 10, 2009 @ 10:48 pm

Irrespective of my personal views of Mr. Ganeshan and his political acumen and stature we have to respect his well articulated response to kushal’s assessment.

Political landscapes / stripes /colors et al change with the sands of time: these days more at the speed of light which may put the likes of Usain Bolt into shame… this is a telling indictment of the stature, acumen, integrity and vision all of which is a pipe dream to our so called politicians of this sad country.

Ironically the topic of “who will the tamil voter support?” was a hot topic debated at the lunch table amongst my colleagues who also included a couple of tamil speaking individuals. Most if not all shared similar views when discussing who and how the tamil minorities will support in a future presidential election.

It’s a choice which puts you between a rock and a hard place as both my tamil colleagues reiterated.

SF and his views of minorities whilst in his military position are well documented.
The incumbent has let down many and his regime of terror and oppression and pilferage (by connected individuals etc) will only exacerbate if voted into power a second time. Also with the IDP issue my view is that the Govt will ensure a vice like stranglehold is maintained (either by not resettling IDP’s or by controlling movement and resettlement) to ensure most of the north and east vote is “coerced” towards the govt.

A third candidate may need atleast 750,000 – 1,000,000 votes to break the votes and create a re-count of sorts. But it will not make material difference as the second preference will always be casted to one of the above which will anyway bring either SF / common candidate or the incumbent back into power.

Hence my view is that the tamil minorities will need to back a common candidate (possibly SF) in an unholy alliance. Else it will be the riches and trimmings associated with ministries and other high posts within the incumbent govt that will make the tamil parties sacrifice their constituencies and put their weight behind the incumbent more with the view towards personal gain rather than making a political change.

The boycott option only alienates the tamils more with in the political process of this country. There will be a material advantage for the incumbent. However, it is unlikely that there will be a material impact in the political landscape. If at all it may work against them.. case in point presidential of 2005.

I have mentioned this in many other forums : SL is not a country where an incumbent president can be defeated at a presidential due to the executive power and the vast state machinery at the incumbents’ disposal to “ensure” victory in any form or manner.

However, to make a political statement or an impact an UNHOLY alliance amongst the UNP / JVP / Tamil & Muslim parties’ et al will need to drive a common candidate with strong southern appeal to even have the ability to challenge the incumbent.

Ranjan said,

November 11, 2009 @ 1:14 am

Dear Mano Ganeshan, you can be president if you want to. But in order to do that you have win more than 50% of the votes. Simply put, your continuous rants against the Sinhalese Buddhists are not going to win any votes from that particular community. If you want votes, you have to come out with policies that appeal to most people – Sinhalese included. Refusing to condemn the LTTE and not speaking out against Tamil racism and Tamil extremism (which do exist mind you) really doesn’t make you a popular candidate among the majority community. Making a bogey out of the Sinhalese Buddhist community is what’s going to cost you votes. And I think that’s very understandable. I mean, why would I vote for a man who hates me and blames every thing under the sun on my community? Perhaps when you make an effort to confront Tamil racism AS WELL AS Sinhalese racism and condemn Tamil extremism AS WELL AS Sinhalese extremism you may stand a change. If you want to be Sri Lanka’s Obama, yelling about persecution and screaming at the majority community is not the way to go.Obama never did any of that. My advice would be to learn from him. Good luck.

Jusitice said,

November 11, 2009 @ 4:56 am

Well said Mano.
Engagement in politics is as important as policies them self.It’s time for all politicians and would be politicians to think beyond nationalist rancor in the interest of the country.When I look at Mano’s view with this mind set I see no problem in his approach.
Let’s hope the General reciprocates in a favorable way not just with word but with actions too.That will be the moment that we all can look back in history and call it the defining moment in the history of SL.I am day dreaming?.Then again dreams do come true.

Sinhala_Voice said,

November 11, 2009 @ 7:16 am

Sarath Foneska as good as he is in term of his so called anti-corruption stance is NOT going to be a strong president.

WHY ? He is a common candidate from parties that hold diagrammatically OPPOSITE points of view on everything. Eg: JVP, Tamil Parties and UNP.

So A WEAK PRESIDENT RUN BY A MYSTERIOUS HAND. Either Chandrika or Ranil.

Point to remember these people had their chance BUT could NOT defeat terrorist separatist Tamil Militia for a separate state. If it was NOT for Mahinda, Sarath Fonseka and Gotatabhya ALL in one sentence then LTTE will be still alive and well.

Sarath, Mahinda and Gotabhaya MUST realise that it is their TEAM WORK that defeated LTTE not ANY individual.

I hope it is NOT once again TOO late for Sri Lanka.

What we need is STRONG Sinhala-Buddhist unity to fix what is WRONG with the systems that we have in place for the betterment of EVERYONE and every political hues.

Otherwise we are in trouble

SomewhatDisgusted said,

November 11, 2009 @ 11:41 am

I have little respect for most politicians. They live in a different world and have a mindset I can barely identify with. All of them fancy themselves as having “THE eligibilities to perform as the president of this country”. Sadly, the intellectual cream/the first rate minds of our society do not seem to have these same “eligibilities”.

The eligibility in question is in the hands of trade unionists, third rate lawyers and army commanders, for whom I can summon little or no respect for as suitable leaders for this country. Maybe I’m wrong in hoping for a leader of a country to also be one of its most outstanding intellectuals, but clearly, that’s too great an expectation. Not that I possess the kind of colonized mind which equates having a piece of paper from Oxford to being an intellectual and spits on the local intellectual cream for not possessing the same “sophistication” in aping British mannerisms. But is it really too much to wish for genuine first rate minds displaying some erudition, integrity, capability and understanding of both local and global forces, to present themselves as candidates? Clearly, in MR, we have a leader with capability and an understanding of local/global forces, but no erudition or integrity. And before anyone says that intellectuals don’t have a chance to come to power, let’s be clear that we’ve had plenty of pseudo-intellectual Brown Sahibs in power, but they’ve failed to properly manage local/global forces, and we all know where that’s led us to.

How about the likes of Justice Weeramantri aspiring for presidency, or even Dayan J., who’ve displayed both capability, vision and integrity, over the current set of “aspirants”? Why don’t they give things a go, just for the heck of it, when every other idiot seems to fancy applying for the job? Must we only have these bumbling Brown Sahibs like RW, totally disconnected from the hopes and dreams of the common people of this country, or the nepotistic and self-serving ones, like MR who know how to pander to the masses (frankly, given the current choices, my vote is still with him), or nationalistic freaks like SF or better yet, our latest “qualified” aspirant without a snowball’s chance in hell, Mano Ganesan, to lead us? (sure, looking at the others, Mano Ganesan too, why not?)

Well, that ends my rant and ends me harping on the obvious. Back to reality and back to how best to move forward under this unpleasant reality. And to that end, I have to agree with Mano Ganesan’s following statement:

“But they are complaining on everything on earth. But for decades they failed to change even a single street let alone the country.”

At least he’s shrewed enough to realize that he needs to work “within” the system. Certainly the hallmark of a “good” politician.

Migara said,

November 11, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

Mr, Ganesgan, you don’t have the BIGGEST eligibility to be a leader of the country. That is the acceptance of the mainstream culture of the country. Even Barak Obama has to fight out of his skins to show that he is not a Muslim. You may be not knowing (or suffering from selective amnesia) that Tamil Kings did rule SL in the whole of 18th century and early 19th century. They accepted the mainstream culture of Sinhala Buddhists. What you people want is to label this country as multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, which is not. The country has only one main stream culture, and both of us know what it is. No ruler has been succesful in any country if they did not accept the mainstream culture of that country

Realist said,

November 11, 2009 @ 4:48 pm

I appreciate the stand taken by Mano. I myself asked a Deputy UNP leader why pick on an unknown quantity whose democratic if not human rights credentials are questionable. Sarath Fonseka is a Sinhala nationalist. who,openly said the minorities have to depend on the majority for their rights. This is not an acceptable position. The question now is whether it would be better to ally with .

Realist said,

November 11, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

I must congratulate Mano for being true to his voters and raising the issue. Sarath Fonseka is no democrat nor is his credentials on HR issues acceptable. So Mano is right to raise the issues and obtain his confirmation at least on behalf of his voters. He is to be admired not deprecated.
The question we democrats who believe in freedom and HR is the same as that faced by Churchill during the Second World War- should the Allies join up with Stalin a fascist murderer or not. For the sake of defeating the greater evil we now have who has violated media freedom and the Rule of Law. I myself raised this issue with some UNPers in the hierarchy. This decision is one of those imponderables for me since I don’t know Sarath Fonseka’s background and values. Perhaps Ranil and the JVP know the greater evil better than us.

Xyz said,

November 12, 2009 @ 10:37 am

Migara’s point of view is correct. if ever Ganashan wanna be a president in this country he should understand the culture that made identity of this island

Idealist? said,

November 12, 2009 @ 12:41 pm

Sri Lanka is NOT multi-ethnic and multi-cultural??? Oh really??? That is news to me @ Migara and xyz! You guys even have Portuguese words in everyday spoken Sinhala and Hindu gods in Buddhist temples!!!

Why look at the USA? Look closer to home at India, where the current Prime Minister is a Sikh and the previous President was Muslim (and even in India things are FAR from perfect!).

Justice said,

November 13, 2009 @ 7:12 am

This comment is for Migara,XYZ and the likes!
pluralism is not simply relativism, but makes room for real and different religious commitments. Some people are wary of the language of pluralism, insisting that it effectively waters down one’s own religious beliefs by acknowledging that others believe differently. Some mistakenly think that a pluralist perspective assumes that there is no real difference among various religious traditions and their values.
On the contrary, the encounter of a pluralist society is the encounter of real commitments and real differences.
Pluralism does not require relinquishing the distinctiveness of one’s own tradition of faith to reach the “lowest common denominator.” In the public square of a pluralist society, commitments are not left at the door.
Rather, pluralism invites people of every faith or of none to be themselves, with all their particularities, and yet to be engaged in creating a civil society, through the critical and self-critical encounter with one another.
Pluralism is a process of creating a society by acknowledging, rather than hiding, our deepest differences.
The vigorous encounter of a pluralistic society is not premised on achieving agreement on matters of conscience and faith, but achieving a vigorous context of discussion and relationship.
E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one,” envisions one people, a common sense of a civic “we,” but not one religion, one faith, one conscience. Unum does not mean uniformity. Perhaps the most valuable thing people of many faiths have in common is their commitment to a society based on the give and take of the civil dialogue at a common table.

Migara said,

November 15, 2009 @ 10:29 pm

@ Justice and Idealist

Your definition of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural is different from mine. SL has equal rights for every culture. Hence in front of the law and the constitution all the cultures are similar. But what I mean by true multiculturalism is what you find in Switzerland. All the cultures in Switzerland has helped in developing its identity . But in SL, it’s the Sinhalese-Buddhist identity that shaped culture of SL. The Tamil chauvinists are the main people who are unable to understand it.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI