Blair Challenges Chilcot Report

Tony Blair has been proven a liar regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Following the release of the Chilcot report, Blair was left with no option but to beg the British people to understand his decision.

However, the British people are finding it harder and harder to understand.

"I had to decide. I thought of Saddam, his record and the character of his regime… and took decision with the heaviest of hearts," Blair argued. "There was no middle way. The decision had to be taken… and it was mine to take."

However, the Chilcot report's main argument is that military action was not the last resort. "Intervention may have been needed at some point but in March 2003, there was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein" the report said.

Pic: Damien Gayle (Twitter @damiengayle)

If so, the Chilcot report has already challenged Blair's claim that there was no middle ground. By making a statement to that effect after the release of the Chilcot Report, Blair is questioning and challenging its conclusions.

Meanwhile, Blair is yet to convincingly explain how it was decided that Saddam Hussein posed a threat. This becomes even harder when the Chilcot Report's conclusion of the Iraqi 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' programme is taken into account.

Releasing the report, Sir John Chilcot said that the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were “presented with a certainty that was not justified.”

Once again, Blair has to explain this point in detail, because the threat of the WMDs was used to justify the war in Iraq.

The Chilcot report also blames Blair for towing the U.S. line, failing to consider the British interests.

“The UK’s relationship with the US has proved strong enough over time to bear the weight of honest disagreement. It does not require unconditional support where our interests or judgements differ” John Chilcot said while releasing the report.

In July 2002, well over six months before the invasion of Iraq, Blair wrote to then-US President George Bush promising him that the UK would be there with him “whatever,” Chilcot said. In short, he had given assurance to the US even before conclusive proof of WMDs.

Chilcot also went on to say how Blair blamed the French government for the 'impasse' regarding getting support for military action in the UN Security Council. It seems that the British government applied undue pressure on the French by making such claims. This revelation casts a doubt on the Blair government's sincerity within the UN and outside, in forging a genuine alliance to attack Iraq.

No Uniformity among Europe's Far-right Parties Regarding EU

The right wing anti-EU factions who want to see the European Union disintegrate received a rude shock recently, which however, largely went unnoticed.

In an interview with Russia’s RT, the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) presidential candidate Norbert Hoefner said that Austria will not leave the EU, if Turkey did not join it. His concern was the free movement of people from outside of Europe, which would have become easier if Turkey joins the bloc. Austria, Hoefner said, would contribute to create a better Europe.

A somewhat different approach was expressed by FPÖ representative Barbara Kappel in an interview with Russia’s Izvestia newspaper. She said Austria should consider greater autonomy within the EU and if the EU was not prepared to consider the concerns, Austria should hold a referendum to leave.

Pic: FPÖ

What the FPÖ envisages as a better Europe is in stark contradiction to what Angela Merkel or Francoise Hollande would envisage. Nevertheless, the FPÖ’s position is opposite to the position of the United Kingdom Independent Party and some other right wing groups. The UKIP and some other parties are not content to merely see their countries leave the EU. They want the EU to disappear too

Despite the seemingly different opinions within the FPÖ, one thing is crystal clear. The FPÖ still wants Austria to be a part of Europe and EU. There is no talk of the disintegration of the EU, given that "things do not become unbearable."

One must remember this fact clearly. Brexit was not a vote against the EU or for the dissolution of the EU. It was a vote for the strengthening of the UK. Only a minority of the British electorate, namely the supporters of ultra-rightist groups and staunch UKIP members, supports the destruction of the EU. Others, irrespective of whether they voted to remain or leave, want to see the EU remain as a viable entity.

Fears were raised on June 24 after several far right parties across Europe expressed jubilation at the result of the EU referendum in the UK and called for similar votes in their respective countries. The then UKIP leader Nigel Farage expressed belief that the EU would collapse. However, as the dust settled down and the EU leaders mustered their resolve, the threat of a sudden collapse disappeared. Furthermore, the immediate repercussions of Brexit also scared off some people, perhaps even within parties such as the FPÖ.

At this point, France, Denmark and the Netherlands hold the key to the future of EU since the far right parties in these countries are popular and are seeking referenda in their countries on the EU membership. The EU will hold off a Brexit, but it will have a hard time in dealing with a Daxit, Nexit and especially a Frexit.

Sanders should Score in being ‘Single Issue Candidate’

Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has repeatedly insisted that she is no ‘single issue candidate’ as her main rival Bernie Sanders. Clinton’s contention is that Sanders is wrong in portraying every social ill as a result of the economic disparity.

While adopting certain of Sanders’s rhetoric, Clinton has repeatedly insisted that breaking down big banks, for instance, cannot defeat racism. The racist card is therefore used to deflect the attack on the big businesses and turn Sanders to other grounds, where he is admittedly on a weak footing.

Bernie Sanders (Nick Solari - Wikimedia Commons)

However, Sanders must not get distracted by his opponents too much. While he should react to Clinton’s argument in a positive way, which he has not sometimes being able to do, he should also stress on his message relentlessly. This message has reverberated among a certain level of the society and has created a surprisingly strong ground level movement. It is because an increasing number of people, especially the young people, find his message appealing.

Racial tension, in United States as well as many other countries, are rooted in economic reasons. Of course, one may argue that this is not the case and racial tensions started because of slavery in the US. Well, it is quite true and slavery was instituted mainly because of economic reasons. Slavery provided cheap labor, one prerequisite for profit making. Of course, cotton farmers did not use slave labor to produce cotton to be distributed for charity. They were looking for profit and slave labor was one real advantage.

Therefore, if slavery is a root cause of racism in US today, since economy was the driving force for slavery, economy is the root cause of racism in US.

The opponents of Sanders do not oppose him as a person. They oppose the idea he spreads. Sanders is just one agent. He was there for ages in the US political scene. But the idea has caught up only during the recent years, since there is strong grounds in which it can grow. Sanders’s opponents are actually looking to take him, and the society, to a different ground.

One remembers what Marx said about the workers of England. In 1870, he wrote: “Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A”.

Nearly one and a half centuries later, what he said on the USA has not changed much. The situation is even worse due to the economic downturn. This is why individuals like Donald Trump are getting substantial support, especially from the poor whites. This is why Sanders should capitalize on his position on the other side of the spectrum and repeatedly call for economic justice.

BBC Continues to Give Legitimacy to So-called 'Islamic State'

Even after repeated criticism from political leaders and other concerned individuals, the BBC continues to give legitimacy to the so-called 'Islamic State' terrorist group.

In a report published on its website a short while ago titled 'The Afghan district stuck between IS and the Taliban', the name Islamic State is used without any indication that it is a self-proclaimed group.

The danger in using this is obvious, since the so-called 'Islamic State' is not merely a terrorist group but a group which wants to recreate an 'Islamic Caliphate' which it calls 'Islamic State'.

In January, British Prime Minister David Cameron criticised BBC for its use of the term 'Islamic State'.

“I think Muslim families around the country would have held their heads in despair this morning when once again you just called it Islamic State. You didn’t even say ‘so-called Islamic State’. It’s so important,” he said.

Connecting at a Deeper Level with “Danno Budunge”

* Originally written in November 2013 for 'The Nation' newspaper.

Staring down at the city of Colombo from the rooftop of Nelum Pokuna Mahinda Rajapaksa Theater is a magical experience at dusk that day. Above us the clouds were tinged with orange the color coming from the setting sun. Below us was the city, starting to turn on thousands of lights. The breeze blew strongly from the sea, cooling mind and body.

On any beautiful evening, this would have been a magical experience. On that day it was exquisite. The streets below, with much less traffic than usual, stretched out beneath us, a sea of red, grey and green. Hundreds of orange and white flags on either side added an extra beauty to the streets around the Nelum Pokuna. Perhaps coincidentally, the colors of the flags matched the orange tinge of the setting sun, anticipating the street lamps which were being lighted to take its place. On that day, the Nelum Pokuna hosted its largest international gathering, the Opening Ceremony of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) 2013. It eagerly anticipated another major event, the largest orchestral concert in Sri Lanka ever.

The stage background, arranged for the CHOGM opening ceremony, evoked the glory of ancient Anuradhapura. The steps and pillars, with their pictures of Sigiriya and the Twin Ponds somehow echoed the Nelum Pokuna. A monumental structure like Sigiriya and the Twin Ponds, the Nelum Pokuna, the Lotus Pond, is also associated with water.

The Nelum Pokuna was a packed house by 7.00pm with both local and foreign invitees arriving on time to witness the spectacle. As the musicians took up their places, one could only wonder at the significance of the event. By any standards, it was an awe inspiring gathering. More than 90 musicians were involved. The largest contingent of around 60 musicians was from The Symphony Orchestra of Sri Lanka (SOSL). There were 30 British musicians, coming from the Purcell School for Young Musicians in London, Chetham’s School of Music in Manchester and the Royal Academy of Music. There were also six Indian musicians. This was a fusion of musicians from three Commonwealth countries. The conductor who had to cope with the challenge of managing these different musicians was Dr. James Ross, who had performed in many countries before, including in Sri Lanka.

Just like the composition of the orchestra, the performance also signified a meeting of East and West. It included Western classics such as “Capriccio Italien” by Tchaikovsky and “Concerto for Viola” by Max Bruch. Two soloists, Robert Plane and Ashan Pillai performed in the latter piece. The orchestra also performed “Mars” and “Jupiter” from “The Planets” by Gustav Holst. Dr. Ross introduced Holst as a man of the Commonwealth, telling us that he had studied Sanskrit and Indian mythology. Some of his compositions, including “The Planets” were inspired by his studies on India.

The centerpiece attraction of the concert was a song which has become an integral part of Sri Lanka’s culture; “Danno Budunge.” John de Silva composed the song for his drama “Siri Sangabo” 110 years ago in 1903. It was said to have been inspired by a composition of a Lao-Indian monk V. Laoji. Many see the elements of Church music in this composition and it has actually been arranged as a Christian Hymn, “Hymn for Ceylon.” This Buddhist and Christian connection has made “Danno Budunge” an ideal piece to be played by an orchestra with members from the East and members from the West.

“Danno Budunge” had initially been included in the middle of the program. When Dr. Ross declared that he was going to start the concert with a piece that almost all of Sri Lankans who had gathered would know by heart, the audience was pleasantly surprised. Dr. Ross briefly described the theme of “Danno Budunge.” Reminding that it was a description of entering ancient Anuradhapura, he invited all foreigners to visit the city one day, to witness the glory of ancient Lanka. And then, they started playing.

It started very slowly, patiently. It was unassuming, slowly asserting its authority over the audience. The audience held its breath, listening to the different sounds and travelling through time. Over vast distances they traveled to the ancient city. Those who have seen Anuradhapura and felt its spiritual attraction must have had a similar feeling, imagining entering Anuradhapura in ancient times. Once the music reached a crescendo and then ended, one yearned for more.

More was to come at the end of the show, when the conductor turned to us, “ I’m sure you would like to listen to “Danno Budunge” once again.” The audience, already intoxicated, cheered their approval. And then, they started playing, again.

Dr. James Ross once told this author that “orchestral music needs to connect at the deepest level with all Sri Lankan people on their terms.” Driven by this concept, Dr. Ross and the orchestra touched a chord deep inside the hearts of Sri Lankans. Through music, they created the glory of ancient Anuradhapura, right in the heart of Colombo.

Kasich Plays Positive, Gains Positive

New Hampshire Republican primary was not about Donald Trump. It was about the establishment candidates making an attempt to save their campaigns. While Marco Rubio had emerged the favorite among the pack, the next in line were ready to pounce on him.

Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and John Kasich were next in line, and the Deleware Governor Christie, who was precariously clinging on to the campaign, had decided to take on Rubio head-on. While he managed to unsettle the Junior Senator from Florida, Christie appeared, at least to some people, as a bully. Ultimately, Rubio ended up losing a chunk of his popularity, and Christie ended up with only a slight improvement in his campaign. Rubio stayed on, Christie did not.

Meanwhile, Governor John Kasich of Ohio adopted a different gameplay. He said that he wanted to launch a positive campaign without personal attacks. He met people at the grassroots level, which won him the crucial votes to push him on.

It is still too early to write-off any of the leading candidates in the GOP race. However, Kasich, who was written-off by some people after his performance in Iowa, is back in the race among the leading contenders.

Kasich was thrilled at the results of his positive campaign and said that he will continue it. However, he warned potential attackers that if they decide to launch an attack, he will respond.

Since both Rubio and Bush are continuing in the race for presidency, Kasich will have to fight hardly in South Carolina, to emerge first, at least among the establishment candidates.

Only in India: Chhattisgarh Police Arrest Goat

* I do not copy paste news items on my blog. But this was so funny, I had to publish this.

Incredible as it may sound, a goat was taken into custody by police in Chhattisgarh on a trespass complaint, PTI reported.

The goat, which was accused of being a ‘repeat offender’, was released later but its owner was not lucky.

Abdul Hasan (40) was arrested after his goat allegedly ventured into the garden of a judge’s bungalow in Korea district, police said on Tuesday, as the incident gave fodder to the opposition Congress to slam the State police.

Hasan was booked under IPC section 447 (criminal trespass) and 427 (mischief causing damage) based on the complaint of Judicial Magistrate (first class) H. Ratre on Monday, SHO Janakpur police station R.S. Paikra told PTI.

The goat had many times raided into the garden of the Judge Ratre’s bungalow, located in Janakpur town, about 350 km from Raipur, and ate flowers and plants there, he said.

“My goat scaled the boundary wall again and ate flowers and vegetables from the garden. It was taken to the police station and then the police also brought me in,” Mr. Hasan said.

Several warnings were given to the owner of the ruminant animal by the judge as well as police but the incident continued to happen, the SHO said.

The magistrate had on Monday called up senior police officers to complain about the goat’s antics following which the animal and Mr. Hasan were brought to the police station, he said. However, the goat was released later, he added.

Hasan was on Tuesday produced before a court, which sent him to a two-day remand, the SHO said, as he refused bail.

“The ‘arrest’ of a goat is ridiculous. Chhattisgarh police has made fun of themselves by doing so,” Congress leader Shailesh Nitin Trivedi said, adding, “Those accused in rape cases are moving freely”.

“The most painful and disappointing aspect is the entry made by an ASI of Chhatisgarh police in diary that the goat used to graze despite several warnings. Chhattisgarh police is communicating with even goats, this is one aspect of the incident,” he added.
(PTI)

Ted Cruz to gain through New Hampshire Debate on February 6

Marco Rubio was always going to be the target of the establishment candidates at the New Hampshire Republican Debate on February 6. Chris Christie, as expected, launched a severe onslaught which rattled Rubio, shaking him up seriously for the first time since the Republican race for Presidency began. While these establishment candidates battle it out, Texas Senator Ted Cruz would be sitting back and enjoying.

Billionaire Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz are the two leading anti-establishment candidates of the Republican Party during the primaries while Rubio, Jeb Bush, Christie and John Kasich are the establishment candidates. Following the performance in Iowa, Rubio jumped up as the hot favorite of the establishment. This alarmed the other establishment candidates, who decided to hit out against the youthful Florida Senator. The intentions of Chris Christie were well known as he had called Rubio the “boy in the bubble” merely days before.

According to a CNN/WMUR Poll released on Friday, Donald Trump was still well ahead of the Republican pack with 29 percent support in New Hampshire. The biggest change following the Iowa caucus was the increasing support for Marco Rubio in particular and for the GOP establishment candidates in general. Cruz jumped from an 11 percent support prior to Iowa to 18 percent. Thereby, he went clear of Ted Cruz, who remained on 13 percent. Meanwhile, other establishment candidates such as John Kasich and Jeb Bush narrowed the gap with Cruz.

This development encouraged the establishment candidates who now aim to attract some Rubio supporters towards them. For Kasich, Bush and especially Christie, New Hampshire could be the last battle ground, and they are fully aware of it. While Kasich adopted a different tactic, Christie and Bush were out there to grab Rubio from the neck.

Rubio’s less convincing performance at the debate may cost him a few points in popularity. If so, it will be the establishment candidates who will be vying to pick up the small bits and pieces. One should remember that these pieces will be picked up by several candidates. While this can take them a few inches forward, it would not take them to somewhere secure enough.

Meanwhile, if Cruz is fortunate enough, the establishment candidates could eat into Rubio’s popularity so that he could assert himself in the second place during the primary. Therefore, if there is anyone with a chance of picking up something from the debate on Saturday, it will be Cruz.

Jeb Bush’s Last Stand

February 9 will be a vital day for Jeb Bush. On that day, when the New Hampshire primary is held, he will have to show the GOP establishment that his cause is not dead. The surprisingly strong performance by Marco Rubio has propelled him to the position of one of the leading contender for Republican nomination. A strong performance in New Hampshire will surely do him good. However, he could afford to drop a few points behind. Jeb Bush cannot.

Jeb Bush (Pic by Gage Skidmore)

Despite strong showing by Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush still has a national-wide network which he could utilize to rival any candidate from the Republican Party in the long run. Therefore, unlike the other contenders like Governor Christie and Governor Kasich, Jeb Bush can go the long distance, and could return to the position of being the favorite of the establishment.

To do so, he has to deliver at New Hampshire.

Marco Rubio has already received the endorsement of South Carolina Senator Tim Scott. This is a key victory for Rubio, given that Jeb Bush was actively seeking Scott’s endorsement. Scott’s backing has given the impression that Rubio would do well in South Carolina, one of the early-primary states. Therefore, Bush has to do well in New Hampshire to make the establishment think again.

However, Bush is finding it hard to create enthusiasm, especially in a contest which had seen ugly accusations and fiery speeches flying around. In the initial stages of the contest, as one of the serious contenders for nomination, Bush was the target of some of the most vitriolic attacks from Donald Trump. It has not gone well for Bush since then.

It is not getting any better for Bush in New Hampshire. While polls can be deceptive to a certain degree, they show that Trump is leading in New Hampshire while Bush is lingering at around 10 percent. His predicament was best seen recently, when he had to ask a crowd to “please clap”.

It is likely that Bush’s campaign will falter after February 9.

Marco Rubio, Real Winner of Iowa Republican Caucus

Marco Rubio has delivered the message. Or, more precisely, the Republican caucuses have given a message to the party establishment. The polls had indicated a close race between billionaire businessman Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz, with the former edging past the latter. Senator Marco Rubio was a distant third according to the same polls. However, the Republicans in Iowa chose Cruz over Trump, and gave a surprising endorsement for Rubio as well.

Rubio in 2012 (Pic: Gage Skidmore)

Rubio is currently the favorite of the party establishment, given the lackluster performance by other establishment favorites. The party cannot expect to win the Presidential Election with a divisive candidate such as Trump or Cruz. Therefore, it needs to elect a more moderate candidate such as Rubio.

Marco Rubio has several advantages. He can appeal to the younger generation and the Hispanic Americans, two key groups which overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama in 2008 as well as 2012. He can expect the reach of the voter base to the groups which did not support the party in the last two elections.

The fact that he was also trailing in the polls in Iowa may have created some fears among the Republican establishment. Apparently, it did the same in Iowa as he was selected as the best suitable candidate by over 20 percent of the participants of the Republican caucuses. He was dangerously close to pushing Trump to a unceremonious third place.

Rubio still has challenges. Jeb Bush, also from Florida, has vowed to keep on fighting. Bush expects Rubio to lack the experience to challenge him in the long run. However, Rubio has the charisma and perhaps the strategy, to defeat other establishment candidates.

One way Trump and Cruz can deflect the challenger from Florida is to start hitting out at him openly. Rubio has played a strategic campaign which was relatively low key and risk free. It has now paid dividends. However, it will be interesting to observe how the youthful junior Senator from Florida will face up to the challenges from anti-establishment and establishment candidates.

Republican Party is in Jeopardy

With the Iowa caucuses around the corner, the Republican Party is in jeopardy. This is apparent by the fact that businessman Donald Trump is leading the final pre-caucus poll in Iowa, closely followed by Senator Ted Cruz. While polls can always turn out to be wrong, they are a good indication as to what the trend is. As it stands, the Republican Party is doomed at the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Donald Trump’s entry to the race sent shockwaves through the Republican Party ranks. While some considered him a joke, others could have realized the threat he could pose for the party’s prospects from the outset. His uncharacteristic onslaught sent several prospective Presidential candidates off the race.

Trump stands with a good chance of capturing the nomination of the Republican Party. If it happens, the party will lose its chance of winning the Presidency. Trump may have won over some hardcore conservatives through his controversial remarks. However, at the same time, he has lost many others. The Republican Party, under a Trump candidacy, will find it hard to win over the moderates and neutrals.

Ted Cruz is no better in attracting broad range of support. He is a conservative and is more famous for his staunch opposition to Obamacare. He has the backing of certain groups among the US electorate and may well upset Trump by winning at the Republican caucuses in Iowa. However, Cruz will also find it difficult to attract a broad base of support among non-Republicans.

Meanwhile, Senator Marco Rubio is trailing at a distant, but not too distant, third. He has played a relatively low-key game until now. He is buying for time and perhaps hoping that perhaps sense prevails and the party dumps Trump and perhaps even Cruz. With the other candidates increasingly finding it hard to fight on, Rubio is perhaps the only hope the Republican Party could have.

Donald Trump or Ted Cruz could hope to win the 2016 Presidential Election only if the Democratic Party chooses Bernie Sanders as its candidate. Despite the increasingly successful campaign, Sanders will find it hard to win the endorsement of the party and the country as a whole. Furthermore, business interests will never tolerate the possibility of a Sanders Presidency. Therefore, Sanders will find it almost impossible to win the democratic candidacy. Even in the unlikely event of him being selected as the democratic candidate, he will have a hard time in defeating a Republican contestant thereafter.

Importance of Iraqi Victory at Ramadi

Iraq officially declared Ramadi ‘liberated’ from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorists yesterday. So, what is the importance of this development?

First and foremost, it is about phycology and morale. The Iraqi forces were utterly discredited in 2014 when the ISIS swept across large areas of Iraq including its second largest city Mosul. In May 2015, the Iraqi forces were once again humiliated by the fall of Ramadi, a city in the Sunni heartland and dangerously close to the capital of Iraq, Baghdad.

The recapture of Ramadi by the Iraqi forces was the result of a long campaign. The government forces cut off supply lines to the city, forcing most of the ISIS forces to leave. By the end, only around 400 fighters remained in the city. Nevertheless, this victory gives added confidence to the Iraqi forces in the battle against the ISIS.

Ramadi is also a city with strategic value. It occupies a highly strategic location on the Euphrates and the road west into Syria and Jordan. This has made it a hub for trade and traffic. Furthermore, it is the capital of the largest province in Iraq, Anbar. More importantly, it is a Sunni city, from where groups such as ISIS garnered significant support.

In this aspect, the liberation of Ramadi is also an indication of the changing political situation in the country. The former government of Nouri al-Maliki proved divisive and sectarian, making it easy for Sunni radical groups to attract support. The presence of Shia militant groups in Sunni areas irked the Sunnis and drew them away from the government. However, the current Iraqi government has been able to attract Sunni militant groups which helped it in the battle for Ramadi.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has vowed to defeat the ISIS in the country, following the success of the battle for Ramadi. While the final defeat of the ISIS could take years to achieve, Ramadi has given a fresh hope and an added credibility to the Iraqi forces in this long battle of attrition.

Hugo Chavez: “Por Ahora”

Venezuelans who went to sleep on February 3, 1992, woke up with the news of an extraordinary military coup on the next day. Only the conspirators knew the exact details. The government of Carlos Andres Perez knew something was up due to a ‘leak’. But that was all.

In reality, a group of military officers led by Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez had organized a military takeover of the Venezuelan regime. Chavez’s hero was “the liberator” Simon Bolivar and he hoped to realize Bolivar’s dream for South America.

Hugo Chavez (Agencia Brasil)

In the very late hours of February 3, the coup was launched and soon the conspirators had control of important places in the country, except Caracas. Partly due to the leak and party due to their own shortcomings, the coup failed in the capital. Carlos Andres Perez, who had fled from the presidential palace to avoid capture, appeared on television early morning on February 4, to declare that there had been a coup but things were now under control. As far as Caracas was concerned, he was correct.

Hugo Chavez knew that the coup would fail without the capture of the capital. He decided to surrender to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. If his followers did not surrender in the peripheries, it would have resulted in a bloodbath in which many loyal followers would die for nothing. The negotiations were conducted through the mediation of General Ramon Santeliz Ruiz, a friend of Chavez. After 7 a.m. Chavez surrendered in the face of threats of aerial bombardment of his positions.

By 10 a.m. he was at the ministry of defense with Santeliz and heard that some of his followers were surrendering after hearing the news of the failure. But Jesus Hernandez Urdaneta, who was leading the rebels in Maracay, was still not willing to give up. The military was contemplating an aerial bombardment on Maracay.

It was at this juncture that Hugo Chavez suggested that he would directly talk to his men in Maracay. Yet, the telephone lines were cut. Then he suggested the radio. By an extraordinary piece of luck, the military officers suggested television. Defense minister Ochoa Antich agreed and he checked with the president. Perez wanted Chavez to be handcuffed as a prisoner and also to write down what he would tell in advance. Chavez, a shrewd politician as well as a military man, would have none of it. He did not want to appear a defeated man, although he was utterly destroyed within his mind. With no time to lose, the military men agreed to his terms.

Chavez washed his face, put on the red paratrooper beret and straightened his uniform. He will appear with dignity in front of the television cameras and therefore, in front of his nation. He walked into a room full of reporters and for the next seventy two seconds, he spoke with dignity and clarity, in real military fashion.

“First of all, I want to say good morning to all the people of Venezuela. This Bolivarian message is directed to all the courageous soldiers who are in the paratrooper regiment in Aragua and the tank regiment in Valencia. Comrades: unfortunately, for now [por ahora] the objectives we set ourselves were not achieved in the capital city. That is, those of us here in Caracas did not seize power. Where you are, you performed very well, but now is the time to reflect. New opportunities will arise and the country has to head definitely towards a better future.

So, listen to what I have to say. Listen to the Comandante Chavez, who is sending you this message. Please, reflect and put down your arms, because in truth, the objectives that we set for ourselves at a national level are not within our grasp. Comrades, listen to this message of solidarity: I am grateful for your loyalty, for your courage, for your selfless generosity. Before the country and before you, I accept responsibility for this Bolivarian military movement. Thank you very much.”

The country was stunned. Here was the leader of the coup which had surprised them, appearing live on national television and accepting responsibility for the failure of the coup. Venezuelans had never seen a politician accept responsibility for something that went wrong in their country where many things were going wrong. Then, here appears a young military officer, accepting full responsibility for a failure.

Hugo Chavez was depressed as he has had to lead a fiasco and then had to ask for others to surrender. It was then as he says that Santeliz came to him, shook his hand and said, “That was great man, what you said!” Chavez replied, “What do you mean good, if I called for surrendering?” Santeliz replied, “You said, for now.” Chavez had uttered the two defining words of the speech without realizing it. These two words “Por Ahora!” would become an important slogan of Chavez in his later campaign for presidency. In December 1998, he was swept in at the presidential polls with 56.2% of the popular vote and he was sworn in on February 2, 1999, just two days before the seventh anniversary of the coup in which he had exploded into national politics. He set out in attempting to realize his dream of a new Venezuela based on the dreams of the old hero, Simon Bolivar. The rest, as they say, is history.

Mengistu Haile Mariam: No Famine Accepted in Acceptance Speech

Mengistu Haile Mariam, the leader of the Derg (Committee) which ruled Ethiopia from 1974 to 1991, and head of state during 1977-1991, is remembered for 'red terror' and even genocide. His speech in September 1984, at the Inauguration of the Workers Party of Ethiopia (WPE) was an instance of political hypocrisy at the highest level.

The revolution of 1974 which deposed the long serving Emperor Haile Sellassie I, was the result of public dissatisfaction intensified by a famine in the 1970s. The new military regime struggled to establish itself in the initial years. Mengistu rose to the prominence after eliminating his opponents within and without the Derg.

The Derg embraced Marxism-Leninism as the guiding principle and increasing aid was received from the Soviet bloc. To transform the feudal economy, among other things, land reforms were carried out. Land distribution was quite fairly done and was generally popular. But it created small plots of land which affected the productivity.

Peasants were organized into Peasant Associations and Peasant Collectives. However, collectivization never received wide support in the country. The National Farms established also were unproductive.

The peasants' incentive to produce suffered a heavy blow due to the policies of the powerful Agricultural Marketing Corporation (AMC). This was established to feed the country's cities and towns. The AMC determined a quota for associations, collectives and national farms and bought foodstuff below market prices. To prevent smuggling, AMC built road blocks at strategic points along the roads. The peasants were unwilling to sell the full quota to the AMC at low prices.

Meanwhile, mid-year rains failed in 1983, and a famine was projected for the following year. The regime was at the time preparing for the tenth anniversary of the 1974 revolution and the establishment of a new party, the WPE. Mengistu himself may have been unaware at this stage about the projections. But, he should have been well aware of the situation by late 1983 as the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC) leaked the information to foreign press against the will of the regime. However, the regime never accepted the reality and foreign aid was not forthcoming as a result.

Rains again failed in February 1984 and June-July 1984. By that time, the famine was becoming a hard reality. The government was unwilling to divert funds from the tenth anniversary celebrations to counter the famine. More than half of the country’s population was severely affected.

Despite this, the foreign dignitaries who arrived for the celebrations in September, saw a clean city and nothing of the horror engulfing the country. In the newly built Congress Hall, the WPE was called into being and a Politburo was elected. This in turn, elected Mengistu as the General Secretary of the Party, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and President of the Council of ministers.

His acceptance speech lasted for five and a half hours. Mengistu spoke on the achievements and the future of the revolution. Not even once, in this long speech, did he mention the famine. Even during his speech, thousands of Ethiopians died from starvation.

Jawaharlal Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny

It was the evening of August 14, 1947.

A nation of nearly 400 million people awaited its emergence from the clutches of colonial rule. Throughout the land, in cities and villages alike, these would be citizens anticipated the birth of their nation. In the capital Delhi, the Constitutional Assembly had gathered to witness the last act in the transfer of power.

As the clock moved slowly towards midnight, a slim elderly man dressed in a cream coloured achkhan (a long coat buttoned up to the neck) and a clean white khadi cap stood up. Flashbulbs illuminated the chamber, revealing the tense, fatigued face. It was to be temporary. As he spoke, he was to transform profoundly. His voice, low at the beginning, grew in volume as he continued his speech.

“Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny….” Thus, Jawaharlal Nehru began what was to be perhaps his most memorable speech. “……..and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially,” he continued. This was a reference to the agony of partition. As Nehru spoke, Pakistan was already an independent state, and he may have seen the agonies awaiting the peoples of both countries.

Nevertheless, there was reason to rejoice. “At the stroke of the midnight hour,” he went on, “when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take a pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.”

Then he paused, may be to give a moment for the audience to grasp the essence of his words. Nehru knew that his challenges were immense. He had to transform a very backward society to the modern world. He went on elaborating, describing the immense challenges that lay ahead.

“The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future?”

“……. That future is not one of ease or resting but of incessant striving so that we might fulfill the pledges we have so often taken and the one we shall take today. The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and decease and inequality of opportunity”

These were the evils of India. It was home for more than 350 million people, and the numbers were growing rapidly. India was not self sufficient in food and feeding this expanding population was a mammoth task. A large section of the population, the adivasis and harijans in particular and rural and urban poor in general, were marginalized from the society. More than 80% of the people were illiterate. The privileged few enjoyed luxurious lives while the vast majority of the populace languished in utter poverty and ignorance.

Then, Nehru referred to his mentor, the leader of the freedom movement in India, the Mahatma. “The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over.”

Nehru once more stressed the importance of striving for the betterment of India and the world humanity. “And so we have to labour and to work and work hard to give reality to our dreams. Those dreams are for India, but they are also for the world, for all the nations and peoples are too
closely knit together today for anyone of them to imagine that it can live apart.

His concluding remarks Nehru asked the people of India to join in the adventure of India’s emergence out of poverty and ignorance. “Peace has been said to be indivisible; so is freedom, so is prosperity now, and so also is disaster in this one world that can no longer be split into isolated fragments. To the people of India, whose representatives we are, we appeal to join us with faith and confidence in this great adventure. This is no time for petty and destructive criticism, no time for ill-will or blaming others. We have to build the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell.”

Uncertain Future, in Politics and Life

First published in January this year, weeks after the Presidential Election 2015, to mark the birthday of Rukshan Abeywansha. Re-posting this here, on his first death anniversary.

I am reminded of a Buddhist story about Arhat Sariputta who was once asked about the outcome of a war that had broken out between two states. He, who had developed his mind to such an extent that he was named the most intelligent of all disciples of Buddha, gave a prediction on what he could see. The prediction turned out to be wrong.

Predicting the future is a risky endeavor. According to Buddhist scriptures, only the Buddha could see the past, present and future with accuracy. Even if we do not accept the story, no one will dispute the fact that future is uncertain to every mortal. Several famous astrologers found out this the hard way by the morning of January 9, 2015, as Sri Lanka learned of the defeat of Mahinda Rajapaksa at the Presidential Election. Fearing for their trade, these people later claimed that they actually saw the future but were afraid of the consequences and decided to lie.

While the future in politics is always uncertain, political decisions can change the course of politics and create the future. The outcome of the election was never a certainty until January 9. However, the decisions of both the government and the opposition leaders paved the way for such an outcome where a seemingly invincible government fell.

Rathana Thera

During the presidential campaign, I remembered a certain day in late May 2014, when there was no discussion whatsoever about a Presidential Election. The News Editor of ‘The Nation’ Deepal Warnakulasuriya, and I went to the Sadaham Sevana at Rajagiriya to interview Athuraliye Rathana Thera on a new endeavor he had started. It was the publication of a national policy statement “Rata Gatha Yuthu Maga” (The Path the country should take) by the “Pivithuru Hetak” organization led by Rathana Thera.

He envisaged a national policy on crucial matters, irrespective of the party that was in power. “When we take the national issues, we must have national policies which don’t change with the regime changes or any other pressures from local or international forces. Not only India, even some western countries do not change their policies on crucial matters when the regime changes,” Rathana Thera told us. He envisaged a national policy council which could take decisions in critical matters irrespective of a change of a regime.

Rathana Thera also spoke about the issues of corruption, environment, agriculture and energy crisis. He was not ready to take executive presidency head-on, adding that one must first tackle issues that all sides can reach a consensus. However, he added that if the government does not agree to the critical changes that need to be done, he would have to think of the next step.

This interview came haunting back to my mind when the presidential election campaign was at a full-swing. “Was this the next step he meant?”

Rukshan

“Pivithuru Hetak” released its policy statement on June 3, 2014. Our colleague, Rukshan Chandika Abeywansha went to the event at BMICH. He was thrilled before the event simply because he saw the potential of a unique event.

“Okkoma pakshavala kattiya enava machan, niyama pinthura tikak thiyeyi” he told me. (People from all parties will be there. There will be some unique photos). He did justice to the event, as always. One of his pictures has the then Minister Rajitha Senaratne, then Minister and Jathika Hela Urumaya General Secretary Patali Champika Ranawaka, then United National Party Leadership Council Chairman Karu Jayasuriya and UNP Parliamentarian Harsha de Silva, all smiling. On June 8, ‘The Nation’ carried the picture, with a caption, on page 3. However, this was to be the last news picture of Rukshan we carried. On that same June 8, he met with an accident.

If anyone of us could foretell the future, we would have told him not to go on that journey on that route on that morning. But alas, we are not gifted. We can only remind ourselves of the past, and speculate of the future.

Rukshan may not have then understood the significance of the event he covered. Neither did we. But today, we realize the importance of that event, which may have been a key moment in the ultimate regime change that took place on January 8. But Rukshan is not here with us to see the significance of the event he saw as a wonderful photo opportunity.

Rukshan Chandika Abeywansha, Best Photo Journalist of the Year 2013, would have been 37 this January 30.

A Response to BBC: Was Putin Deflecting Criticism in His Speech on the Downing of a Su-24?

The shooting down of a Russian Su-24 fighter jet by Turkey sent shock waves across the world. Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, was quick to respond in the harshest of words possible.

“This incident stands out against the usual fight against terrorism. Our troops are fighting heroically against terrorists, risking their lives. But the loss we suffered today came from a stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists” he said, blaming Turkey.

BBC’s Moscow correspondent Sarah Rainsford had an interesting explanation to Putin’s statement. “After all, Vladimir Putin launched airstrikes in Syria arguing that it would make Russia safer; instead, 224 people were blown out of the sky last month in a bomb attack. And now this. By rounding on Turkey he is in part deflecting any suggestion that his own policy has backfired”, Rainsford said.

So, was Putin deflecting criticism? Was he wrong in saying that Russia would be safer if the Islamic State of Ira and Syria (ISIS) is defeated is Syria?

Putin went into Syria to bolster his ally Assad there. One can never deny this reality. Nevertheless, his argument of defeating ISIS is Syria to make Russia safer is fundamentally not wrong.

One reason for the success of the ISIS is that it has a firm base in Iraq and Syria. Western indifference helped its rise in Syria. The ISIS entrenched itself firmly in parts of Syria at least a year before it became a world-wide phenomenon by sweeping across large swathes of Iraq. ISIS can now boast about its accomplishments in controlling a large area across two countries, giving it much needed credibility as a potent force. The ISIS has created a de facto state, which has started advertising itself as an Islamic Utopia state to recruit cadres across the world.

Russia is one of its target areas for recruitment and potential attack. The ISIS fighters are not targeting Russia because it started pounding them in Syria. Although most people do not realize, Russia has a large Muslim population. One seventh of its people profess Islam, and this could be turned in to a potential recruiting ground.

It was in December 2014 that Al Jazeera described this situation in an article written by Olga Khrustaleva titled “Russia’s Burgeoning ISIL Problem”. Months after sweeping across parts of Iraq, ISIS turned its focus on Russia’s Caucasus, starting to release videos targeted at Russia. “We will … liberate Chechnya and the Caucasus, Allah willing. The Islamic State is here to stay,” said an ISIL [ISIS] fighter in the first such video, released on August 31, Al Jazeera pointed out.

Tanya Lokshina, Human Rights Watch's Russia programme director, told Al Jazeera in late 2014 that there is "definitely [ISIL] recruitment happening" in Russia (ISIL is an alternative name to ISIS). Furthermore, “[ISIL] is becoming, I would say, increasingly popular in the northern Caucasus, in a situation where people are disillusioned with the secular government,” she further said.

Recruitment attempts were also being made through Russia’s popular social media site VK.com. There were, and still are, various groups within VK carrying out ISIS propaganda. Recruitment attempts were also taking place. A favorite tactic was using a good looking male recruit to lure females in to the ISIS trap.

Suggesting that 224 people died after Russia attacked the ISIS is an indirect request to keep out if one needs to be in peace. However, as Putin understood the problem, such devastating attacks could have taken place sooner or later. If Russia was to be silent now, it would face an even stronger ISIS outfit later. The stronger the ISIS seems to be, the higher the likelihood of recruiting more people from foreign lands.

Therefore, Putin was correct in saying that Russia would be safer if the ISIS is defeated in Syria. Whether the ISIS can be defeated in Syria is another matter.

Rajapaksa vs Lee Kuan Yew

Certain individuals have made significant roles in shaping the histories of the nations they led. Former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was one of the best examples for such a leader. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the potential to become one. Former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa became another such leader in 2009, only to mar his reputation in later years.

There are similarities in the way Lee Kuan Yew and Mahinda Rajapaksa went about dealing with their main challenges. For Lee, his main challenge was to make a nation out of a place which, in his own words, lacked the main characteristics of one. Rajapaksa, on the other hand, had to push off development as a second goal. During his first term as president, his main goal was finding a solution to the civil war raging in the country.

Both Lee and Rajapaksa took the bulls by their horns. Ably supported by some competent men and women, Lee made a fascinating transformation in his small land. Rajapaksa, who was also supported by a number of immensely capable men and women, led the war effort to a successful conclusion.

There was no doubt on Lee's commitment to his job. He once famously said, "this is about our lives. I spent my whole life building it. And until I am around, no one is going to knock it down."

Both Lee and Rajapaksa were patriots, and believed in nationalism. One major difference is Lee's apparent multi-culturalism and Rajapaksa's apparent Sinhala Nationalist appeal. This was one major difference which differentiated the two leaders. While Rajapaksa never won a respectable minority vote, Lee's People's Action Party attracted voters of all communities, and still does. Despite its extensive efforts at flooding the north and east with development projects, the Rajapaksa government could never instill a sense of 'belongingness' in the Tamil community in those regions.

However, perhaps the most significant difference between the two leaders was their stance on corruption. The fight against corruption was an integral part of Lee's government. Mahinda Rajapaksa also vowed to fight corruption at the start of his second term. However, while Lee strictly practiced what he preached, there is serious doubt on Rajapaksa's intent in doing so. While Lee is universally accepted as clean by even his opponents, Rajapaksa's second term was marred by the constant allegations of corruption and "mega deals".

The allegations on nepotism are simultaneously leveled against Rajapaksa and to a certain extent against Lee. However, nepotism in Sri Lanka, under many governments, can never be compared with what took place in Singapore. For an outside observer, it might look strange to see the first Prime Minister's son becoming the third Prime Minister of a country, and to see it maintain its record of success. However, once one understands the system in place in Singapore, it becomes quite clear.

Perhaps it is Lee Kuan Yew who provided the best answer to this question. Once when he was asked about his son succeeding as Prime Minister he said that Lee Hsien Loong will not be succeeding not as his son but as a Deputy Prime Minister who served the country for several years. People will decide if he was successful or not, he said, and added that the people will have the right to replace him if he proves unsuccessful.

The meritocracy in Singapore is such that an individual cannot become a Cabinet Minister for the simple fact that he is a 'crony' or loyalist of the top echelons. One has to go through a particular institutionalized system. Any person has to first become a Junior Minister for a certain period of time before becoming a Senior Minister. One has to prove himself, and if he does, he can move to the top echelons of the city state's government.

One striking difference in Rajapaksa and Lee was the appearance of their names in public places. Rajapaksa had various public constructions named for him, unlike Lee, who rarely had his name appear on such places. Furthermore, monumental images of Rajapaksa appeared around the island, becoming a far too common sight.

To the latter part of the Rajapaksa government, high rises were built in Colombo, at several places where there used to be slums. These new buildings reminded this writer of the Housing and Development Board flats in Singapore. Perhaps it was the model the Rajapaksa government was attempting to adapt in Colombo. However, there was one conspicuous difference in the buildings in Sri Lanka. They had larger than life sized portraits of Rajapaksa.

While the negative image of Rajapaksa was constructed partly by the pro-LTTE diaspora, his extravagance failed to counter this propaganda and added credence to it.

Sadly, Rajapaksa missed a unique opportunity to rival Lee Kuan Yew in guiding his country towards development.

Pre-colonial Sri Lanka – Singapore Relations

Although most people know Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles as the founder of Singapore, he would not have preferred to see the accolade being bestowed upon him. In contrast, he would have preferred to be known as the one who revived an ancient and vibrant city.

In the early 19th century, the British considered more than one option as a possible site of an outpost at the southern end of the Strait of Malacca. The decision to select Singapore was taken on several grounds, and the romantic image of the revival of an ancient city could have played a role.

Temasik, ancient Singapore, occupies an important place in the history of the Malay people, according to the Malay Annals written somewhere in the 15th century and afterwards. The oldest surviving Malay Annal, now known as Raffles MS 18, was written in 1612. The intention of the Malay Annals was to bolster the popularity of the ruling family. Raffles, who came across the manuscript, must have found its story interesting.

According to the Raffles MS 18, the city of Temasik was found by none other than the legendary Sri Tri Buana, the first great Malay king. The Annals tell of several succeeding rulers after Sri Tri Buana. Accordingly, Singapore was a thriving city throughout the 14th century.

Interestingly, Singapore is one of the prominent cities to have been subjected to considerable archeological excavations. A large quantity of 14th century artifacts, including pottery, beads, ‘mercury jars’ and coins speak of a thriving city, based on trade.

According to Malay Annals, the city is thought to have been attacked by Majapahit in Java or Ayuttaya in Thailand at the end of the 14th century. Thereafter, the city declined, culminating by the early 1600s.

A coin from Leelavati (1197-1200) era

Among a number of artifacts found in Singapore are two Sri Lankan coins, both belonging to the reign of king Buwanekabahu I (1272-84). One coin was found during excavations at Parliamentary House Complex before the new Parliamentary House was constructed in the 1990s. The other was unearthed at the grounds of the St. Andrew’s Cathedral. These copper-alloy coins showed a standing figure on one side and a seated figure on the other. Meanwhile, similar coins belonging to the reigns of queen Leelavati (1197-1200) and king Sahassamalla (1200-02) have been discovered in Sumatra.

While archeologists have discovered more than a hundred Chinese coins from Singapore, the two Sri Lankan coins indicate some interesting facts. It could mean that 14th century Singapore was a sophisticated market where more than one type of money was accepted. Furthermore, along with the findings in Sumatra, it is a clear indication that Sri Lankan coins were accepted as legal tender in South East Asia, including Singapore.

The acceptance of the Sri Lankan coins may have been due to its design. The coins with a standing and seated figures were issued in Sri Lanka from the late Anuradhapura era to the late 13th century and follows the similar design of the coins of Rajaraja Chola. The Chola Empire dominated South Asia and even had a direct role in decimating the once powerful Srivijaya Empire in South East Asia. Therefore, its currency was an internationally accepted currency in this part of the world. The Sri Lankan coins had a similar design and used Sanskrit characters. Therefore, they must have also been internationally accepted.

Discovery of Sri Lankan coins in Singapore does not mean that Sri Lanka had diplomatic relations with the Singapore rulers in the 14th century. The political history of Sri Lanka during most of the 14th century is unclear and the indication is that the central government was weak after the Kurunegala period in the 1320s. However, the coins indicate that the trade links connected the island of Sri Lanka and Singapore during this period.

Singapore declined from the beginning of the 15th century. Other ports including Melaka overtook it in the Malacca Straits. During the early colonial era, the Portuguese had plans of constructing a fort in the island. However, this plan did not materialize and the island remained inconspicuous until Sir Raffles chose to establish a trading post.

Former British Governor's Bungalow Cries For Attention

The ruins of the Doric House at Arippu, built by the British colonial government in the early 1800s, and described by Cordiner in 1807 as the most beautiful building in the island, is facing a serious threat due to the erosion of the coast.

Arippu is a small settlement which lies south of Mannar in the north-western coast line of Sri Lanka. On the plains south of Arippu, rise the ruins of a once majestic British era bungalow. Nearby, there is a cement tower. These are the Doric House and the Doric Tower of Arippu.

The threat posed by erosion was nothing new. This threat was reported for the first time several decades ago. The sea has reached the very walls of the Doric House, causing one side of its walls to collapse. However, nothing was done for years, partly due to the prevailing security situation in the area. Recently, a stone barrier was constructed to protect the building. It covers only a section of the beach and seems to be inadequate.

Protecting the Doric House is important since it was once a landmark in the colonial history of Ceylon. Furthermore, it was a living testament of a bygone era, when pearl fishing was a lucrative business in the area. The Doric House was built as a bungalow for the Governor to reside during his trips to inspect pearl fishing.

It is widely believed that the first Governor of British Ceylon, Frederick North, drew the plan of the building. The foundation was laid on March 18, 1802 and it took two years to complete. It was supposed to be finished by the end of 1802, but several difficulties prolonged the completion of the building. It was reported that transport difficulties and awkwardness of the coolies employed (due to the harsh conditions) slowed down work. Financial difficulties arose in 1803 further delaying the work.

North is thought to have resided in the Doric House during one trip after its completion in 1804. He left the island in 1805. However, the Doric House remained a prominent landmark in the area.

Writing in 1807, Cordiner said that this was ‘the most beautiful building in the island’. He provided a detailed account of this building with a drawing made by him. This drawing shows the Doric columns rising on the front and rear porticos. These cannot be seen today. Cordiner also provided the layout plan of the building. Accordingly, there were four small bed rooms on the ground floor. The building had a terraced roof over the upper floor, which could have been an excellent place to watch the fishery activities on the sea.

“The Doric is distinctly marked on few maps of Ceylon prepared during the 19'h century. It was marked as 'House' on Captain G. Schneider's map in 1813 and as 'Dorick' on the map popularly known as John Davy's map in 1821,” Dhanesh Wisumperuma said in his paper ‘The Doric at Arippu’ published in the Journal of the Royal Association of Sri Lanka, Volume LI, in 2005. The building is marked as ,Doric, on both Major General John Fraser's map of 1962 and Arrowsmith's map of 1957, Wisumperuma also pointed out, concluding that the Doric House was a principle landmark in the 19th century.

The end of pearl fishing and several other changes brought an end to the Doric House’s prominence. The road to Jaffna through Arippu became unimportant following the construction of the road through Kurunegala. The building started the long process of decay.

Despite this, it still evoked a considerable deal of imagination. In 1973, RL Brohier mentions it as a “striking landmark on the plain.” There were other references towards early 1980s as well. The outbreak of the war in 1983 brought the building to oblivion.

However, the relative scarcity of records may have led many into falsely believing that the Doric is actually the Dutch Fort of Arippu. However, this theory is totally unfounded as the fort was located at Arippu further north.

Archeological exploration was restarted in the north following the end of the war in 2009. As an initial step, some archaeological sites were Gazetted by the Archaeological Department, thereby claiming the legal rights over the sites. However, extensive research is yet to be done.

The importance of the Doric House is that it connects to a relatively lesser known industry in ancient Ceylon, that of pearl fishing. At any rate, the Mannar coastline has not been subjected to thorough archaeological research. Therefore, it is important to preserve the known archaeological sites as a first step in exploring the unknown depths of Sri Lanka’s past.