Foolhardiness & Opportunism

In response to one of my previous articles titled “Asheelachara Thenaka Thibenne Desapalanaya Pamanada” (Is it only politics that is in a state of amorality), Sanath Balasuriya who is presently in Germany had sent a reply titled “Is Victor Ivan’s pen innocent” questioning my media usage. His reply was published in the last issue of “Ravaya” .This article is written in reply to his article.

Until he left the country, Sanath Balasuriya served as the President of the Working Journalists Association. He was also a colossal figure in the Free Media Movement. His voice often surpassed that of all others at picketing campaigns staged against issues connected with media freedom that sprang up during the first four years of the rule of Mahinda Rajapakse. He could also describe as one who had made a great deal of exhibition of his face in the TV screen when media coverage was given for such picketing campaigns.

He could also be described as the hero who gave the leadership to the so called Rupavahini Revolution, using the opportunity to get his face exhibited to the world making vociferous statements during the live TV coverage given for the crisis situation that occurred at the Rupavahini Corporation following an incident in which a Deputy Minister and his supporters had entered the Rupavahini premises and attacked one of the officers working there.

Sanath Balasuriya is known to the people as a journalist not because of his writings but because the valor that he had displayed on TV channels. Even before he left Sri Lanka, I mentioned his name in two or three articles written by me. Of course, the comments that I made about him cannot be called favorable ones. He did not respond to anyone of those comments. Perhaps, he may not have responded as he would have felt that it was better to remain silent until his application for political asylum was processed. First of all, I wish to congratulate him for getting political asylum in Germany.

Before making a review of the work carried out by Sanath Balasuriya and his gang of Media Advocates, I prefer to reply the basics questions that he has raised.

About the Chaura Rajina (Queen of Deceit)

According to him my book on “Queen of Deceit” also belongs to the cruelty, vagrancy and immorality that I blame others. It is a mean and despicable book not based on any important source of information, which is not acceptable under any moral standard. First, I must state that I am not a novice to writing books. The number of titles that I have, so far published amounts to 15. Seven of them have been recommended as suitable reading material for undergraduates who are reading for different degree courses. The Queen of Deceit is not an ‘anonymous publication’. It is a book published under my name taking full responsibility of the contents therein. Except one chapter, the rest of the chapters in this book were in fact, published as a series of articles while Mrs. Chandrika Kumaratunga was the President. Some incidents and narratives mentioned therein were even included in the articles published earlier.

I have closely associated with her. I have engaged myself in long discussions with her. In fact, most of the contents in the book were facts known to me. The incidents in this book have been lined up in a manner that the identities of many who are connected to the incidents are revealed.

My doubts about the Town Hall bomb attack has been presented supported with the evidence that I possess. I have even mentioned the names and addresses of those related to the incidents reported. Although I have raised my suspicion strongly on this incident, it should not be overlooked that I have not presented it as a final conclusion.

Premadasa Assassination

As regards the assassination of Premadasa too, I presented somewhat similar and controversial observations that could lead to a debate. Obviously, it was different from the generally accepted view of the people in the country about the assassination of Premedasa.

At that time, a person from the Sucharita used to telephone me during the nights. He told me various things. Although I listened to him enthusiastically, I did not venture to publish what he told me as news.

At that time, I mentioned about this strange person who used to call me from the Sucharita only to MR. Lalith Athulathmudali. Lalith, after carefully listening to my narrative, told me that this person was no one but Mohideen, the most trusted and close confidante of President Premadasa. He also requested me to continue with the listening to this person.

A few days before the May Day, he called me and said that there was going to be a bomb explosion in the May Day rally and requested me to take measures to prevent the deaths that may result from that explosion. When I asked how I could prevent such an eventuality, he requested me to trust him and publish this news as a lead story in the Ravaya, so that those responsible would drop the plan.

Although I wrote the lead story in the Ravaya based on this information, it was not possible to release the paper carrying the story to the market prior to the incident. At that time, Ravaya was printed in a printing press located in Maradana. The paper was scheduled to be released to the Colombo market the day before the May Day. However, due to a technical problem in the press, the printing of the main page with the lead story was delayed. Hence it was not possible to release the paper to the market until President Premadasa was assassinated by the bomb explosion. While the paper was ready with the story based on the news received from the strange informant, in view of the new developments, we had to change the cover page before it was released to the market.

I raised a strong suspicion about the assassination of Premadasa because I had a prior knowledge about the bomb explosion in the May Day rally. I published a detailed account of this mysterious story with my own interpretation of it in the first anniversary of the Premadasa assassination, strangely a certain element angry over this disclosure continued to threaten me.

It must be stated that I am not the only one who disputed that the assassination of Premadasa was done by the LTTE. Even Bradman Weerakoon, who functioned as the Secretary to President Premadasa refuses to accept it as a work of the LTTE. Mr. Weerakoon has made his observation in this regard in his book titled “Rendering unto Caesar”.

My observations on the bomb attacked aimed at President Chandrika had not been based on mere hearsay, but on several evidences available. These evidences may not be sufficient to arrive at a concrete conclusion, but they are quite strong and adequate to create a strong suspicion.

Rohana Kumara Assassination

I am not surprised about the lack of knowledge of Sanath Balasuriya in the sphere of the descriptive and analytical disciplines. The wisdom of leaders is tested during crisis situations. For him, the incident occurred at Rupavahini involving the Deputy Minister was a source of amusement. On this incident he spoke as a leader who inspires a great revolution.

He did not look beyond his nose except the instant thrill that he derived on the spur of the moment. He lacked the wisdom to realize what would happen eventually after the Deputy Minister and his supporters left the premises after being beaten and soaked with urine. In the face of subsequent incidents that followed, which were rather serious, our hero was rendered helpless and was reduced to a level of a deflated leader. Wisdom dawns not through revolutionary displays on TV screens. It is not a faculty that grows spontaneously but a virtue to be cultivated and constantly promoted. For that one should read appropriate books and also associate people of wisdom.

I do not agree with the interpretation he had made about the apparent contradiction between my enthusiasm about the disappearance of Rohana Kumara and the lack of enthusiasm about the recent disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attributing it to my displeasure with the rule of Chandrika Kumaratunga and contentment with the Mahinda Rajapakse administration .

In fact, had Rohana Kumara been assassinated during the second revolution of the JVP or during the last war against the LTTE, definitely I would not have ventured to dig into that incident. Rohana Kumara was not a person trusted or respected by me. Even in the editorial I wrote at the time of his assassination, I stated that, although I condemn his assassination, I do not condone the rash media practice that he had adopted. Due to various reasons I was compelled to investigate not only into the assassination of Rohana Kumara but also the assassination of Kumar Ponnambalam. I must also mention that I did not investigate in to those responsible for the assassination of media personnel during the 2nd JVP insurrection. I would answer later why I did so.

Change of time

Even during the regime of Chandrika, from time to time assassination of media personnel took place. I too, had to face an assassination threat. A red color double cab vehicle used to follow me in the evenings. It was due to my driver’s competency that once a contemptuous attempt made by this double cab to collide with my vehicle was foiled. At another time my vehicle came under an acid attack. My office was subjected to a gas bomb attack. There were numerous threats through e-mail, telephone and even through normal post.

But I believe that there is a vast difference between that time and the present as far as our response to such threats were concerned. Mere threats or warnings that we used to get were not at once exaggerated in to sensational and major news items. We remained silent considering that most of such threats were mere attempts to intimidate us. Even the attempts to assault us were not always turned in to sensational news.

Squandering of Funds

On the other hand despite there were threats to suppress the truth, there was no scheme of providing houses for safety. Also there was no scheme to reimburse cost of telephone bills and travelling and entertainment expenses. There was no scheme to provide air tickets to travel overseas and provide other expenses when there was a threat to security. Thus, when threats become a source of obtaining large sums of money, it is natural that threats are created artificially. This is what has happened now.

On the contrary, our decision to struggle or not was based, not on the funds that could be obtained from foreign sources but on our sensitivity towards injustice and justice or good and bad. None of our struggles were aimed to earn money through unscrupulous means. They were launched using the pittance in our pockets. We have never thought of exploiting troubles in the country to secure political asylum for us or our family members in foreign countries.

Even when we had the power or ability to make recommendations and issue certificates, we have never misused it to oblige our relations, friends or to earn money. It is sad to note that freedom of expression has become a mean of earning money by iniquitous means.

Perhaps, it may be the curiosity and the urge that prompted me to probe in to the assassinations of Rohana Kumara and Kumar Ponnambalam. But it was not done with the ulterior motive of making money. All expenses incurred in this regard were spent from my own pocket.

Sanath Balasuriya has questioned as to why I do not show the same special interest that I displayed in probing in to matters in the past. My response to his question is that we did those things voluntarily and free of charge, because there was not a group receiving salaries, enjoying various privileges and other amenities in the country at that time to perform this duty.

But today, as there is a salaried and privileged group which includes Sanath Balasuriya to do the job, we remain silent observing how they do these things for a huge salary which we did free of charge in the past. .

The funds provided to the Free Media Movement to conduct investatigations in to disappearance of people like Prageeth and sustain their families have been now suspended by the SLPI Institution as they have been misused and squandered by Sanath Balasuriya and his gang for their personal benefits.

Rs. 8.5 million was due to be received by the Free Media Movement for the protection of independent journalists in 2008. This amount was scheduled to be released in 4 installments. The first installment of Rs. 2,132,062.25 was released on 29 May 2008. A similar amount was provided as the second installment on 6th August 2008. The SLPI Institution requested to submit details of disbursements to release the third installment. After taking a long time, this gang was able to account for only an amount of Rs. 1,980,445.16.

However, this gang was unable to account for the balance amount of Rs. 2,283,679.34. The SLPI Institution has observed that most of the receipts submitted to cover expenses were unacceptable and bogus ones. Following this the SLPI Institution cancelled its agreement with the Free Media Movement and requested to return the unaccounted amount of Rs. 2,283,679.34. Up to now it has failed to return this money. Was it not the real reason that led Sanath Balasuriya and all other responsible persons to flee this country? There were real threats to some members of the gang. But they continued to live in the country even amidst threats. It was only after SLPI Institution commenced an internal audit in respect of the accounts of the Free Media Movement and raising questions that this gang fled from this country irrespective of the fact that they had threats or not . The person in charge of funds who is not a journalist also fled the country about two weeks ago.

Now I would like to pose the following questions to Sanath Balasuriya. What is the amount you have obtained personally from this fund for your safe house, your meals and drinks, and as travelling expenses? What is the amount you have not yet accounted for after receiving money from this Fund? Let us forget for a moment about the large scale frauds that had taken place in the Free Media Movement (The Movement received Rs. 26 million for various projects). Is it justifiable for persons in the Free Media Movement responsible for looking after people like Prageeth and sustain the families of disappeared persons to misuse and squander the funds?

Can you let your associates know how much you have received from various projects of Free Media Movement, in addition to the salary you received from Lake House without doing any work?

The Culture of Vagrant reporting

Now I can deal with the arguments raised by him against my observations on the culture of vagrant reporting. I have not stated that the attack made on the printing press that printed the paper carrying the story of the alleged superstitious practice of seven virgins bathing President Premadasa with pots full of milk was justifiable. Nor did I say that it was unjust either. I did not say so because I actually did not know the reasonable stance to be adopted in reporting such incidents. I only wanted to highlight the danger involved in such baseless reporting.

Such unwarranted reporting has become a normal practice today. In that context, it was the same thing that I too, have expressed about the disappearance of Prageeth. As our hero states, I have never attempted to suggest even indirectly that Prageeth had resorted to self-exile. I do not know who was responsible for the publication of a hideous article relating to alleged sexual behavior of a Minister. But some of Prageeth’s friends I spoke to stated that it was a work by Prageeth. Prageeth worked for General Sarath Fonseka. A friend of Prageeth who was questioned by the CID in connection with some wild pamphlets written for Fonseka by Prageeth during the presidential election told me that the handwriting in the said pamphlets were similar to that of Prageeth.

The main objective of the article that I wrote in this regard was intended to highlight that this vagrant form of journalism has contributed immensely for the suppression being directed against media personnel. Our hero and his gang should be held responsible for protecting and promoting this destructive culture knowingly or unknowingly of its destructive repercussions. Most of those who write in this fashion are often those who associate them, those who wine and dine with them, and are their close friends. They never had a critical view about this journalistic culture adopted by their friends. They saw them as courageous, brave and aggressive journalists.

Our hero and the Gang of Media Advocates adopted a policy of using these so-called media men who depend on this despicable media culture to exaggerate and blow up the minor and insignificant issues that take place in the country as very serious and dangerous events for the purpose of painting a bleak and a dangerous picture about the country before the world. Given below are some events they have used to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Poddala Jayantha

I have written before about the misleading reporting about the Police raiding the residence of Poddala Jayantha. I repeat this incident because Sanath Balasuriya also was an important party to this deception. This Police raid took place in the night. Poddala really got frightened and screamed. When the neighbors gathered around the house the Police party left the house. The Police Inspector in charge of this search told Poddala that it was a mistake and told him the reasons that led to the search. Poddala accepted the Inspector’s explanation. He even told his friends that it had really been a mistake. He told about this even to some of his friends in the Ravaya.

But our hero and those in the Free Media Movement wanted to make it an important and sensational news item both locally and internationally. Accordingly, they issued a statement stating that the criminal attempt made by the Police to abduct Poddala Jayantha, the Secretary of the Professional Journalist Association and a prominent activist of the Free Media Movement was prevented by the timely interference of the people of the area. Despite being an innocent person, Poddala too opted to act on this occasion as a party to this blatant lie. What they wanted was to show that the suppression of media freedom in Sri Lanka had been growing unabated. They did not want to abandon this story that would help justify their claim. The growth of the quantum of foreign aid they received was dependant on the degree of suppression of media freedom.

The next example that I wish to cite belongs to both Sanath Balasuriya and Poddala Jayantha. This incident will also help explain some unclear issues that have developed recently over General Fonseka.

Both Sanath Balasuriya and Poddala Jayantha functioned as two main supporters of President Mahinda Rajapakse in the 2005 Presidential election. The newspaper published once or twice in the name of “Mahinda” was a creation by these two persons. After the Presidential Election, in recognition of the services rendered by them during the election, both of them were promoted in the posts they held in the Lake House.

After the Presidential Election, they started working on various projects under the Free Media Movement while obtaining salaries from the Lake House without performing any duty. Free Media Movement being an association confined to a group of handful of media personnel, it became necessary for them to have a prominent name board for the Working Journalist Association to project its image as a group represented by a large number of media personnel. Therefore, it became necessary for the Free Media Movement to keep these two personnel with them offering them various incentives from the Free Media Movement. On the other hand because of various payments they were getting from the Free Media Movement they were forced to dance to the tune of the Free Media Movement.

Sanath and Gotabhaya

It was a matter of surprise to the Army Commander to find Sanath Balalsuriya and Poddala Jayantha who closely supported the President Mahinda Rajapakse during the presidential election, all of a sudden to shout slogans condemning the Army Commander and the war at the picketing campaigns orchestrated by them. The Army Commander was of the wrong view that these protests campaigns were held at the instigation of President Mahinda Rajapakse by his close associates to damage his image which he had expressed to several people.

When Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapakse, Secretary to the Ministry of Defense came to know about this, presuming Sanath Balasuriya and Poddala Jayantha were close supporters of President Rajapakse, he called both of them together with the Chairman of Lake House and explained that the Army Commander was having a wrong opinion that their protest campaigns were held under the instigation of President Mahinda Rajapakse. He also explained to them that there was no harm in criticizing the President or Mervyn Silva considering them as politicians; if necessary, they could even criticize him since he was holding a political appointment made by the President. But, it was not desirable to criticize the Army Commander, particularly at a time when there was a decisive war, and explained that the Army Commander possesses wide ranging powers and if he chose to retort to the agitations made against him , then he would not be able to come to their rescue.

The Defense Secretary gave this advice to them on the presumption that both of them were supporters of the Government and the President.

When this meeting with the Defense Secretary was taken for discussion at a meeting held with the Free Media Movement, both these persons believing that this incident could be used for their own advantage, issued a press release stating that the President and the Secretary of the Professional Journalist Association were called by the Secretary to the Ministry of Defense and threatened them for being critical of the Army Commander. It became a huge story that became popular not only in the local media but also in the international media.

J.R. and I

I had to face a similar situation in 1987. That was the time the country was soaked in a blood bath during the 2nd insurrection of the JVP. Upon an invitation received from President J.R.Jayawardene I went to him at the Presidential Secretariat. There was a heap of Ravaya newspapers on his table where he was seated. Upon discussing about the prevailing situation of blood bath in the country, he insisted that if I want to continue with the publication of the newspaper, that I should stop writing the political column I used to subscribe under the caption “Kalinga’s Political Commentary”. After President’s explanation, I too attempted to explain my point of view respectfully and calmly.

I explained him that my objective was to bring this battle waged with arms in to a civilized platform. He listened to me attentively. I noticed that after my explanation the rough stance in his face waned and became mild. However, he did not change his decision. After I left him I did not make his order a huge story to attack him. It was clear to me that there was a change in his strong attitude. It was only for one month that I refrained from publishing the “Kalinga’s column”. After that I resumed its publication but without seeking his permission.

However, he tolerated it and did not make an issue against me. But if I had proceded to covert the order given to me as a huge story to attack him like Sanath Balasuriya or Poddala Jayantha would have done, it may not have been possible for me to continue with the publishing of the “Ravaya”.

Presumably, Due to ideological deficiency or selfishness, this group had worked not to get the existing problems solved but rather to aggravate them. They attempted to debit every incident into one account and paint a worse picture. When Keth Noyhar of the Nation newspaper was subjected to an inhuman assault, I requested them to prevent from simply making accusations and investigate and find out from whence the assault came.

There was an internal conflict between two power blocks in the army. Keith Noyhar’s reporting was in favour of one power block. I told them, that in the event of a struggle for power between two thugs in my village, as a journalist I would not attempt to help one of them. And if I did so and subsequently get assaulted by the other thug, I have no right to present it as an assault made against media freedom. Sanath Balasuriya was also present among those who attended this discussion. But for this group, it was not important who carried out the assault.

The justification of my stance was established when Namal Perera was assaulted, but it was not important for them to find out who was behind the attack. At least they can now question Keith Noyhar and Namal Perera, and find out who was responsible for attacking them. They don’t want to do so because they are not prepared to change their initial interpretation.

Assassination of Lasantha

Lasantha Wickrematunge repeatedly attacked Gotabhaya Rajapakse, the Defense Secretary not only on the MIG issue but even before that. He decided not to remain silent any more and went to Court when the article alleging him with bribery charges on the Mig purchase was published. Lasantha never expected this eventuality. Lasantha did not have evidence to prove the charges that he made against the Defense Secretary. When he realized that he has got entrapped and was unable to come out of it easily, he attempted to renew his ruptured friendship with President Mahinda Rajapakse, his former friend.

Lasantha who followed a policy of severely and mercilessly attacking the media organizations that went for discussions with the President , eventually went to the extent of meeting President Rajapakse on selected nights and having long discussions with him. Although the President attempted to call Gotabhaya and solve the Court case against Lasantha, Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapakse was not prepared to forget the continued attacks against him and settle the Court case against Lasantha Wickrematunge amicably. It was not only the Defense Secretary who was subjected to heavy attacks by Lasantha. The Army Commander too, was subjected to nasty criticisms by him.

After Lasantha was assassinated this media group attended the funeral holding a banner with the slogan saying “Gathakayaa Satakayaa” (The man with the shawl is the murderer). By this they pronounced their verdict on that assassination. The editorial titled “And then they came for me” published after the assassination which was also published in several international media giving huge publicity for it , can be described as the lie of this century fabricated by a Media Institution. A description about this is included in my book titled “Is the Pen Innocent?” This was not the only lie concocted and distributed worldwide during this turbulent period; it was just one among hundreds of such lies fabricated.

Some journalist, who fled the country citing quasi -death threats as the reason, also fall in to the category of media people who have fabricated death threats to justify their fleeing from the country.

Committing suicide

Many of the ugly things witnessed during the final operation against the LTTE also prevailed during the 2nd insurrection of the JVP. During that horrendous period there were threats against both media personnel and media institutions. Many front line media personnel like Premakeerthi de Alwis, Thevis Guruge, Sagarika Gomes, and Richard Soysa became victims of assassination. There were also abductions and disappearances of media personnel. That insurrection was cruel and so was the suppression leashed out by the security forces to quell it.

During that period no media personnel attempted to highlight the excesses and challenge the security forces or the government. Although the situation that prevailed was rather unpleasant, the people as well as the media personnel had well understood the importance of defeating the insurrection. On the other hand the media personnel had realized that in that scenario they were not in a position to change the course of events and all what they could do was to minimize the dangers they may encounter. Even criticisms and debates, which were very rare, were conducted without causing damage to the onward operations of the security forces.

It was not a secret that insurgent leaders such as Rohana Wijeweera, Upatissa Gamanayake, and Saman Piyasiri Fernando were murdered after they were taken into custody. But no one ventured at that time to criticize or protest against such atrocious acts.

From time to time such special situations may occur in the history. The final war against the LTTE was such a situation. In such situations, what the Media fraternity should have done was not to adopt a policy of fighting against and thwarting that operation which was steadily marching forward, but to take precautions to minimize the dangers they may likely to encounter in the process. Yet this group of Media Advocates committed this folly. In that process, they not only invited dangers for themselves but also plunged the media industry of the country in to an abyss from which it was not easy to come out. In that sense this group of media advocates can be described as the most foolish media clan ever present in the history of media industry. Their immaturity, lack of wisdom and greediness for money had invariably contributed to this situation. All we can now do is to pray for the dawn of wisdom on Sanath Balasuriya and others of this group of media advocates who presently live in countries of cold climate.

- Asian Tribune -