Is Dr. Sudharshan Seneviratne a suitable envoy to India under Narendra Modi?
The news of Dr. Sudarshan Seneviratne being nominated to represent Sri Lanka in India was reported in Sunday newspaper www.sundaytimes.lk. Superceding Dr. Seneviratne’s lack of diplomatic experience as envoy to India is the fact that his ‘multicultural’ mindset will not harmonize with the nationalist views of the future Narendra Modi’s Government. While India remains one of Sri Lanka’s key diplomatic destinations why has the Minister of External Affairs not realized what a fatal attraction an appointment of this nature would lead to when Sri Lanka and India need to strike a better chord diplomatically? This nomination rings greater alarm given the reality that India is to see major shifts in policy change with the Congress likely to lose and a strong nationalist Hindutva oriented leader in Narendra Modi emerging. Sri Lanka should not be experimenting at this stage. We need to appoint a person who can be in step with the nationalist thinking both in India and Sri Lanka and depart from eternally falling in trouble by appointing those who tow the Western NGO mindset and ideology that is being rejected emphatically by governments and people outside Europe.
Amalgamate Ministry of Defense and External Affairs
Linked to these reservations in appointments in the External Affairs Ministry compels us to draw attention to the need to seriously review the need to return to the era of Mr. N Q Dias, who was the Defense and External Affairs Secretary. With the present Defense Secretary Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapakse showing all signs of matching Pakistan’s Zamir Akram in terms of delivering speeches that passionately defends one’s nation as well as friends of their nation, he is the best suited candidate in a Ministry that has not shown fight or pluck over the years.
We cannot expect any miracles either for the Ministry is led by the very people who croaked that Sri Lanka was in an ‘unwinnable war’ situation and wanted to hand over large chunks of Sri Lanka’s territory to terrorists under a treacherous Ceasefire Agreement and to have these same people to lead Sri Lanka’s post-conflict era is a direct and tragic affront to the ranawiruwan’s who saved the nation. While the NGO promoters propagated compromise at every turn it was the nationalists and the ranawiruwan who not only sacrificed their lives but gave a blueprint on how Sri Lanka should proceed. Nevertheless, listening to advisors acting as agents of foreign powers led to numerous pacts and promises that have ended up continuously haunting Sri Lanka.
In the context of the proposed appointment what is of concern is that unless Sri Lanka nominates a candidate that can assuage the nationalist line of Narendra Modi, and carve out the diplomacy upon that line, Sri Lanka is unlikely to reap any benefits. The likelihood of relationship diminishing further as a result cannot be ruled out.
Moreover, Dr. Seneviratne’s own ideology is questionable and reviews by former diplomat Mr. Bandu de Silva shows how far the NGO mentality is embedded into the functioning of Dr. Seneviratne. His association with norms and concepts like conflict resolution hardly delivers the patriotic flavor that Sri Lanka looks for in carving out a niche for itself instead of running behind imperial rule systems and values.
Mr. Bandu de Silva says in an article published in a local newspaper as follows:
“ In constructing the idea of `shared culture’ et al, Prof. Sudharshan Seneviratne has, like Dr.Indrapala, used what I quoted as `scraps’ of evidence, leaving out evidence of greater bearing. This type of imbalance in appreciation of cultural contributions of one group to the overwhelming advantage of others, though introduced in order to support the overall thesis of parity of contributions irrespective of the degree and volume of respective contributions with the further objective of subscribing to the idea of conflict resolution, is a distortion of historical reality.”
The critique by Mr. Bandu de Silva was such that he had been requested through a University Professor not to engage in further critique on account of the author’s i.e. Professor Sudarshan Seneviratne’s ill health! Dr. Seneviratne’s academic qualifications are certainly not in question. It is the suitability of the appointment that is being questioned.
When Russia is investigating the role of NGOs and referring to them as foreign government agents while even under Congress, India is also investigating its NGOs, Sri Lanka’s leaders are indeed foolish to keep a bandwagon of NGO mindsets as consultants in key areas of governance knowing very well that they not only enjoy foreign funds but are paid to push an imperial agenda of de- stabilization and balkanization while pretending to be siding with the Government.
Shenali D. Waduge
1153 Viewers
