By Dayan Jayatilleka –
To begin with the least of his transgressions, Mahendra De Silva, whoever he could be, naturally has a issue comprehending the language even in the quite paragraph he has quoted! He alleges the following:
“My principal disagreement with Dayan’s views on patriotism is that he failed to distinguish the difference in between enjoy for the nation and enjoy for the rulers of the country. He has taken the position that that defending the nation and defending the rulers of nation are the same.”
The paragraph he has quoted from my report consists of a sentence which categorically says exactly the opposite of what he alleges. I write:
“He will not defend everything its government or state does but defend the nation, he will…”
The paragraph from my post goes on to say: “The wise patriot is constructively crucial about his nation but is fiercely loyal to it all the exact same. He will criticize it but will unconditionally defend his nation from the hypocritical criticism of foreign powers and institutions responsible for or blind to far worse crimes.”
What is worse is that Mahendra de Silva also utters demonstrable inaccuracies. He writes:
“When Dayan was defending Sri Lanka at the Human rights commission in Geneva, just after the war in 2010, I believed that he was an intelligent patriot… He assured on behalf the Sri Lankan government that a proper investigation would take spot relating to alleged war crimes.”
I did no such point, as the record would show, and I would challenge Mahendra de Silva to prove it. I left Geneva in 2009, not 2010. I did no such factor simply because the only inquiry I approve and am still approving of is the strictly selective and limited 1 suggested by the LLRC. There was no LLRC when I was in Geneva. I pointed out then as I have all through, that no country conducts, nevertheless significantly less submits to such an inquiry when it happens to be a reputable state that has waged a war within its internationally recognized borders against a terrorist foe and won, just lately. I also pointed out repeatedly, in Geneva and France, that the countries that have performed inquiries have completed so decades later, after the wounds have healed.
“He also assured normalcy would be restored quickly. He requested more time for the operate to be carried out.” Nonsense! When and exactly where did I ever say this?
“I personally believe that Dayan is not a racist, and he appreciated the suggestions of LLRT commission. But he kept quiet when recommendations have been not implemented.”
That once more is pure piffle due to the fact even while Ambassador to France, I wrote and spoke in support of the LLRC and criticized the tardiness of implementation. Mine was perhaps the initial report (initially posted on Groundviews) to defend the LLRC and argue for its full and expeditious implementation.
Now here comes an outright lie by Mahendra de Silva, who asks:
“Is it simply because he is a “Smart Patriotic” that he did not make a powerful voice against extremist agendas of the then government like BBS?”
I was the 1st to contact the BBS “religio-fascist” in print and marched in demonstrations and addressed public seminars against it. The BBC World Service had a story by Charlie Havilland in which I was interviewed on the street. I was also the first to criticize Gotabaya Rapajaksa in the media for his apparent endorsement of the BBS at the launch of a so-known as Political Academy.
De Silva goes on to say: “I do not believe that Dayan appreciated 18th Amendment which expands the powers of executive Precedency. (sic) Yet he did not raise a voice against it.”
I created the point that while the 18th amendment can be legitimately criticized, it surely did not turn the country into a dictatorship and that it could be reversed in parliament with a majority, just as it was endorsed. That is exactly what has been proved today!
More outright falsehoods comply with, proving that this chap is not merely a dumb critic of Intelligent Patriotism, but also a dishonest critic:
“I am positive that Dayan did not approve the unlawful and ruthless infringement of 43rd CJ Shrani Bandaranayke or jailing of the war hero Basic Sarath Fonseka at an unfair military trial. But Dayan did not raise a voice on any of these occasions.”
My criticism of the incarceration of Common Fonseka was in sharp contrast to some of these in the present government who were either silent or endorsed it. My criticism, listing ten points, appeared in an write-up prominently displayed in the Everyday Mirror of Feb 15th 2010 and in an interview in the mid-page of the Lankadeepa in the exact same week!
As for the Shirani Bandaranaike affair, my public criticism commenced mere hours following I returned to Sri Lanka following my term as Ambassador to France, Spain, Portgual and the UNESCO, in the initial days of January. Prior to I had reached my residence from the airport, the site Sri Lanka Mirror had carried a extended interview in which I commenced my criticism of the abrupt removal and the conduct of the Government MPs – some of whom are in Cabinet right now!