Dayans Project Gotabaya

2017-03-17

Ali Shariati was the ideologue of the Iranian Revolution. It was

Shariatis liberation theology- a rationalization of Marxism through
the lenses of Islam that propelled Ayathollah Ruholla Khomenis
take-over of power in 1979 overthrowing the Pahlavi dynasty.
Shariatis politics was anti- imperial and Marxist with a firm base
in Islamic liberation theology, distinct from the theology
Islamism has since come to be known for.Since the overthrow of
the Socialist Oriented Prime Minister Mohommed Mossadeq by a
CIA-sponsored coup in 1953 and the re-imposition of the dynastic
rule, Shariati was destined to have a following. His lectures and
writings remained a part of the Iranian psyche until they were
violently crushed.

For Shariati, the Battle of Karbala led by the Grandson of Prophet

Muhammad, Hussain, against the Umayyad Caliphate was the
epitome of revolutionary battle. The Umayyads represented
everything that was cruel, inhuman and dispossessing of the
vulnerable lower classes. The battle by the fourth Caliph Ali and
thereafter his son Hussain against this sycophancy whose leaders
were also relatives of the Prophet, for Shariati, was the epitome of
a real revolution- for and on behalf of the masses.
It was a classless and free society that Islam envisioned
according to him, and to this end a synthesis between Marxism
and Islam was inevitable. Where Marxism failed, Islamic theology
could take over. Horr, the greatest fighter on the side of the
Umayyad dynasties- defection to Hussains camp during the
Battle of Karbala, was to Shariati, what Keppetipolas defection in
the Uva-Wellassa uprising was to Sri Lankans.

Shariatis synthesis between Shia Islam as

a politically liberating ideology and his view of a classless society-
non-servile and progressive was so profound and liberating that
Jean-Paul Satre said I have no religion, but if I were to choose
one, it would be that of Shariatis.

Although Khomeni remained the symbol of the struggle against

the imperial dynasty, it was Shariati who provided the fodder.
However, unbeknownst to Shariati and the intellectual class, who
were fighting for social reform under an oppressive and servile
system of governance, Khomeni had other plans. After assuming
power he usurped and crushed everything that brought him and
the revolution to the streets of Tehran. Shariatis ideology soon
became only spoken of in secret. Khomeini made the legal age of
marriage for a woman to be 9, and imposed the Hijab on what
was a free and open society, much before the West assumed
that role. Dissenters were imprisoned and murdered. The main
victims were the very same ones who were the catalysts of the
revolution. This included Shariatis ideology.

Dr. Jayatilleka together with his intellectual class, which broadly

include the likes of Prof. Nalin De Silva Prof. G. L Peiris, Prof. Rajiva
Wijesinghe and by default former Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva
are no different. They dont have the traction or the widespread
readings that Shariati and his like enjoyed, but nevertheless, they
form an inherent component of the political intellectual class in
the country.

In his recent essay to our sister newspaper, Dr. Jayatilleka tells

the reader that- the Gotabaya he has come to know now is a
different man. He puts forth the proposition of a Gotabaya
Presidency and a Mahinda Rajapaksa Premiership. He also
remains apologetic telling the reader that his previous critique of
Gotabaya is outdated and irrelevant.

For the sake of brevity let us not get into semantics on the four
reasons he gives to us prior to his Presidency proposition. Let us
take the immediate sentence after. Though I must admit that I
hope Kumara Gunaratnam can make it and usher in a progressive
and socially just Sri Lanka devoid of racism and religious
chauvinism, he writes. It does not take a political analyst to see
the disconnect in political identification between these
incompatible spectrums.

Gotabaya was taken off guard in a recent interview conducted

under very casual circumstances. In it he admitted for the first
time that it was under his orders that Gunarathnam was taken
into custody. Abducted is the term that he seemed to have
been alluding to. Gunarathnam and his comrade Dimuthu Artigala
were abducted by a gang of unidentified assailants on the 6th of
April 2012. Blindfolded and bundled in they were transported to a
safe house at which they were questioned. The then Police media
spokesman SSP Ajith Rohana was on record saying the duo were
not in police custody and that the Police were not aware of their
whereabouts. The Military said they were unaware too. The
Ministry of Foreign Affairs went to delusional lengths in denying
the governments hand saying the duo had staged the
abduction. Gotabaya Rajapaksa was on state television saying he
had no knowledge about the duo or their whereabouts. After three
days of what Gunarathnam and Artigala described as torture and
questioning and intense pressure from the Australian
government they were released on April 9, 2012. Gunarathnam
was dumped in front of the Colombo Crimes Division
headquarters in Dematagoda, while Artigala was blindfolded and
dumped close to the Frontline Socialist Parties office. Custody or
arrest dont seem the words with which any reasonable person
could describe the events.

As has always been the case, such an admission was not to

make headlines, for who is Gunarathnam except at best afailed
vandaliser to the media and the liberal elite?The interview
conducted by the non mainstream website and its corresponding
newspaper was thankfully video recorded. Gotabaya says that it
was Anura Kumara who gave me the picture of Gunarathnam
before going on to admit that it was because of that picture that
the forces commanded by Gotabaya were able to abduct him.
This is after continual denial by Gotabaya himself during the
abduction saga,that the security forces had got anything to do
with it. Now the counter has been that Gotabaya was right
because there was no person by the name of Gunarathnam who
Gotabaya and the security forces knew of. Childs play, yes. But let
us give the former Secretary of Defence the benefit of that
technicality. However such graciousness could not extend
elsewhere. What of Dimuthu Artigala? The woman who was
abducted along with Gunarathnam? There is no technicality to
hide behind there, except ignorance and mass veneration, which
hold Gotabaya above reason.

Why do Gunarathnams and Artigalas abduction become pivotal

one may ask in this current discourse? If not for Gotabayas
admission, this could also be another allegation and given the
politics of the abducted duo, it wouldnt have even been an issue
warranting investigation. It still seems like it isnt.

However, to the discerning of the readers it doesnt take Dr.

Jayatillekas acumen, or Shariatis grounding in theology and
sociology to make justified assumptions. What of Lalith and
Kugan? What of Lasantha? What of Keith and what of the
countless others abducted never to be found alive again? All of
the crimes in which the forces under Gotabayas command are
accused of having a hand in. We only have one admission and
that is of the abduction of Gunarathnam and Artigala. Deductions
are left for the discerning.This is the Gotabaya we are told is a
man who has matured to the point of being able to rescue and
uplift his country if he is elected leader. But for the sake of
argument let us agree to Dr. Jayatillekas posit.

Selective amnaesia is a funny kind of diagnosis. Although not

forgotten Dr. Jayatilleka tells us that it is time to forget his
scathing critique of Gotabayas role in creating mass hysteria
against the Tamils and Muslims. We are told that such critique is
outdated. A trip to the North would be a grim reminder of the
chauvinism, but such travel is too much to expect. The name
boards in all train stations and most roads in the North have a
language disparity. Sinhala is always at the top and in fact a few
roads in Puthukudiirppu- the names are only in Sinhala. I
wondered why this was, for again it doesnt take the politically
astute to tell us what symbolism means and how it works in the
mindset of a society. We were to learn that Gotabayas chauvinism
extended that far- that even a symbolic concession like putting
the Tamil wording on top of the Sinhala wording, in areas which
95% of the population or over speak only in Tamil, was too much.
But thats for symbols.

Let us speak of actions instead. The Bodu Bala Sena led

campaign which today, has festered and created a massive
disconnect between the Muslim polity and the majority Sinhalese
was the direct result of Gotabayas chauvinism. Gotabaya was the
ideologue then. Dr. Jayatilleka tells us as much in his earlier
writings although it would be interesting to see, if he stands by
the same today. The mass hysteria which drove and continues to
fuel hatred, which also resulted in the burning down of an entire
town, and the deaths of at least 4 youth- the culprits of which are
still enjoying the spoils of their loot, is not a part of his discourse
today.

The moral hypocrisy extends. We are told GR potentially is our

Deng Xiao Peng, Putin or Raul Castro. How he makes these
comparisons are only known to him, but in this rather simplistic
categorization, there also needs to include Trump, Geet Wilders
and Nigel Farage among many others in that grouping. To draw
parallels between Putins fascism and Raul Castros social policy
goes beyond the comparison of Chalk and Cheese . But Dr.
Jayatilleka is right. Although Gotabaya is no Deturete he certainly
has the same tendencies of Erdogan and the many others that fall
within the Erdogan -Trump spectrum. Dr. Jayatilleka is not
unknown for these gymnastics.

For Dr. Jayatillekas and his band, the iron fist of Gotabaya is the
panacea of all ills that is the UNP. They will be quick to remind us
and list down the mess the UNP led Yahapalanaya has created.
Hardly could any rational human being disagree. The
Yahapalanaya governance is a complete mess and is taking this
country further down the same road the Rajapaksas intended,
albeit in Colombo-7 cloaked gear. But that same rational human
being expected and foretold this mess - the triumvirate were to
create, even prior to January 8, 2015. The need of the country at
the time however, was to take the country back from the clutches
of fascism sprouted and spearheaded by Gotabaya himself. This
included the Sinhala middle class, nationalists and the educated.
The minorities sought the change enmasse. Only the nave may
have believed in the 100 days and the utopia that was created on
stage.

It is this same fascism that is being sprouted out now. We are

sold a narrative that the perfect replacement to the current
predicament is the former. World over, from Le Penn to Wilders,
from Farage to the AFD in Germany, from Hofer in Austria to
Kaczynski in Poland and Hansen in Australia among many others-
to Gotabaya are all speaking the same language. To the same
economically deprived polity. The Dog Whistle is heard- some
loudly and some subtly but the base remains the same. Nativist,
regressive, and fascist. Gotabaya seems to know this more than
any other.
Dr. Jayathilleka will do well to take out his pretence of being a
progressive, whilst promoting a cloaked brand of chauvinist
ideals. One is inherent, the other is acquired. I cant be sure of
which one is which. The world Gunarathnam stands for is a world
of diversity, inclusivity, freedom and equality. The same world
Shariati incidentally stood for. The world Gotabaya stands for is of
nativism, tribalism, authoritarianism and supremacy. The
ideologues to this realm are but anyones guess. The two
ideologies arent mutually compatible. The battle lines have to be
drawn on these clear,

contrasting and distinct ideological differences. For as Shariati

reminds us so potently, Ideology says:it must be thus, Philosophy
and science says: thus it is. It cant be meandering in between.

The catalyst of this critique is not Gotabaya, or his policies. His

positives and negatives are for discussion on another day. Instead
it is this nonsensical identification and the disconnect in the
justification that is at moot. The good Doctors parading of Trotsky
in this chauvinist jaunt is heresy. However if for a moment we are
to take the far lefts critique against Trotsky to be true- that he was
in fact a turncoat pretending to be of Marxist zeal all the while
parading the agenda of his western masters, we could draw
parallels. It doesnt take an Ali Shariati to draw them. The
observant must, and call out these hypocrites for what they really
are.
Posted by Thavam