Dayan Jayatilleka’s ‘Interventions: Selected Political Writings’

by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

The Marga Institute hosted last Friday the launch of a new book by my good friend Dayan Jayatilleka, a collection of his essays which was called ‘Interventions’. I continue to admire his energy, which has prompted him to throw himself into the current political debate. After much thought, all of which he has laid down systematically over the last several months, he has decided to promote the JVP, or rather the NPP, in any forthcoming election.

This was the subject of much of the discussion, which I found most stimulating. The stage was set by Kusum Wijetilleke, who chaired the discussion, and suggested that Dayan’s predilection for the NPP was perhaps misplaced in that there were worries about the absence of coherent policy statements from them. Kusum did begin by stating that he had always supported the UNP, though given his intelligent analyses over the last couple of years one was relieved to find that by this he meant the SJB.

Unfortunately, as Dayan has pointed out – which is why he has moved to the NPP after initially making positive comments about Sajith Premadasa – the SJB seems stuck in neoliberal economics, given the influence of Kabir Hashim, whose role in the bond scam should not be forgotten or excused, the painfully doctrinaire if admirably honest Eran Wickramaratne, and the decent but deplorably malleable Harsha de Silva. Lovable though he is, I found his somersaults after his initial demand that Ranil should go after the 2018 local elections laughable, but also sad since they left the only other person courageous enough to say the same thing out on a limb.

And I must confess I find it difficult to forget Harsha’s efforts to subvert, with the famous footnotes, the second COPE investigation into the bond scam, quite unlike the decent way in which Eran Wickramaratne behaved in the first investigation, which was spearheaded by D E W Gunasekara and myself. Incidentally, I should note what a pleasure it was to see the old warhorse after several months, still as principled and forceful as ever.

Though Harsha’s backbone seems to have strengthened in the last few months, I still wonder about whether he will in the end be tempted back by Ranil Wickremesinghe he continued to admire when he had totally betrayed the ideals of those who accepted him when the Yahapalanaya coalition was established to overcome the disasters of the years immediately preceding.

Charitha Herath, in a characteristically thoughtful contribution, wondered as to why the SJB cannot make the differences between them and current Ranil/Rajapaksa policies clear, to which Dayan responded forcefully that it was obviously the troika mentioned above which stopped him from pursuing the ideals he had been brought up on. And he added further that because of those characters the SJB seemed incapable of developing a coherent foreign policy that was based on the national sovereignty President Premadasa had upheld, and might instead turn into an even more subservient agent of the unipolar world they seemed to favour.

With regard to its economic policy, though perhaps this also has a bearing on foreign policy, Kusum thought the SJB would find it difficult to move too far from what he described as traditional right wing UNP economics. But Dayan pointed out that this was a recent phenomenon, and you could not get a more people friendly philosophy than Ranasinghe Premadasa’s.

He noted, to my surprise, that Lakshman Watawala had recently noted the need for the SJB to adopt Premadasa type policies but had been put down by a rampantly doctrinaire Eran. And though there might be arguments for a more Western oriented foreign policy being traditionally that of the UNP, given the predilections of both Sir John Kotelawala and J R Jayewardene, we should not forget the moderate approach of Dudley Senanayake, who had decided not to seek membership of ASEAN when it seemed a surrogate for the West.

I did contribute briefly to the discussion, in noting that I thought Dayan’s transition to the NPP was totally understandable given that it was becoming increasingly clear that the other parties, despite Sajith Premadasa’s essential decency, offered no alternative to the disastrous rent seeking of the last several decades; I added that Dayan, whose decision making processes I have always admired, has a tendency to then go gung ho for what he decides on.

But I also wanted to place on record that in private he is more circumspect, for instance having always, in the midst of his affection for Mahinda Rajapaksa, made clear his worries about his brothers, with greater and greater understanding and despair about where and how they were leading Mahinda.

And, finally, I noted that I could not understand what I had heard before Kusum as what I term Colombo 7 worries about policy deficiencies on the part of the NPP. Those who pompously put this position ignore the fact that the prevalent political philosophy, as shown again and again by parties that get into power, is that, whatever policies they present before that happens, they ignore them almost totally afterwards.

My experience of the Yahapalanaya government which had an admirable long manifesto which was virtually shredded the moment Sirisena came into office has convinced me that, as far as almost all Sri Lankan politicians are concerned, there is no point at all in looking at, let along thinking about, the policies they enunciate for elections.

I noted before making these points that, just when Dayan started on his latest round of reflections, after the manifest failure of the Gotabhaya Rajapaksa government, I had moved firmly in a different direction, in that I had written as long piece called an Apology for my Ennui. The withdrawal I had embarked on in the latter part of 2021 was hastened by my contracting corona towards the end of that year, which left me without the energy to do much. And then the chaos of the following year, which led to the most cynical partnerships, made me feel there was, as Anne Ranasinghe put it, nothing left but to mourn.

Still, it was good to be back, if briefly, in the cut and thrust of debate and discussion amongst so many decent people, including the admirable Sarath Amunugama. And it was heartening that the brightest and best of the younger generation, Uditha Devapriya and Uthpala Wijesuriya, who had done so much for the new George Keyt book, and also the admirable Kamaya Jayatissa, have contributed to the book, and contributed so hearteningly to the discussion.