Is history repeating itself?
When a ruling party acts undemocratically it falls to the official opposition to enlighten its members and the public and turn them into an active force against it. What happens when the opposition cannot or will not is the subject — and the case Ivan works from is the SLFP of the 1980s, read through Mick Moore.
Why president’s office sent an angry reply to me
There is no disgrace for an elephant who breaks his tusks on a diamond rock. Reading the reply the President’s office sent to his answer to her January interview, Ivan writes, he felt they were living in an abuddassa age, in which the diamond rock pursues the elephant in anger and hatred.
Political solutions or political opportunism
Making a constitution implies that the people of a country reach a consensus on the kind of government that suits them. In Sri Lanka it is being done behind their backs: they do not know what is proposed, and the document looks likely to reach them for discussion only after every agreement has been struck.
A new age of terror
The government called the harassment of the singers Rukantha Gunatilaka and Chandralekha Perera a robbery, and the levelling of Anoja Weerasinghe’s house at Moneragala a personal grudge. Set those explanations beside each other, Ivan argues, and a pattern appears that the country has seen before.
යළි මරණ බිය රජ කරන යුගයක්
Ivan rejects the government’s explanation of the attacks on Rookantha Gunathilake, Chandralekha Perera and Anoja Weerasinghe as robbery or private feud, comparing the haircutting to the abduction of Lakbima’s Sri Lal Priyantha and recalling unsolved attacks on photographers, Sarath Kongahage and Lasantha Wickrematunge and the murders of Rohana Kumara and Kumar Ponnambalam. He quotes Chandrika Kumaratunga’s 1994 advertisement pledging to end state terror and says she now travels the opposite road.
කලාකරුවොත් මරණ බියෙන්
After the presidential election thugs burned down the house of actress Anoja Weerasinghe for campaigning for the UNP, and later raided the Mattegoda home of singers Rookantha and Chandralekha, holding a pistol to Rookantha’s mouth, cutting the couple’s hair and robbing them. Threats have also reached Dharmasiri Bandaranayake and Upulshantha Sannasgala. The piece quotes Weerasinghe likening herself to Hecuba and asks what Vijaya Kumaratunga would have said.
රාවයට වැරදුණේද? ආපසු හැරි බැලීමක්
Ivan defends Ravaya’s critical stance before the presidential election. He explains that the paper promoted Chandrika Kumaratunga in 1992–94 for her reform programme, which she never implemented, and rejects her claim to have ended the fear of death and granted media freedom, recalling how Ravaya defied J.R. Jayewardene and Ranasinghe Premadasa, including publishing the 1988 election petition verdict in advance. He lists corrupted polls under her rule and maintains her win was not a clean mandate.
රාජ්ය මාධ්යයේ ඉහඳ පණුවෝ
Written in Ivan’s own voice, the piece answers the sustained attacks on him and Ravaya by state media and government-funded ‘jungle papers’. He describes how Bennet Rupasinghe and Sujeewa Dissanayake won editorships at Dinamina and Silumina by serving their political master, the minister’s contemptuous nicknames for them, and a former regional correspondent now heading the smear unit. He says he lives on his Ravaya salary and declined posts the government offered.
Ranil’s googly: Presidency out or not out?
The opposition leader’s statement is complicated, but what it says is that despite its reservations his party will not obstruct the draft constitution if the government thinks it has no other course. Whether that is a concession or a googly is the question the column turns on.
ජනාධිපතිනියගේ ජාතිය ඇමතීම බණ්ඩාරනායක පවුලේ ඉඩම් අයිතිය හා ඉඩම් සීමා නීතිය
Ivan disputes the President’s claim in her 3 January address that her father owned about 4,000 acres and sold 2,000 for politics. Tracing the Bandaranaike mudaliyar line, the colonial land grants of 1815 and 1818, and figures from Patrick Peebles and the 1927 Ferguson’s Directory, he shows Sir Solomon Dias Bandaranaike held 1,831 acres. He notes that many families lost more land under the ceiling law, reproducing tables of large native landowners.