Violence in Aragalaya and crackdown

The ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and some of the political parties which were closely connected to it until recently such as the National Freedom Front (NFF) are hell-bent in vilifying and demonizing the people’s uprising, commonly known as the “Aragalaya” that overthrew the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Presidency and proved how unpopular the government dominated by the SLPP is.  

They attempt to portray the uprising as terrorism using the despicable criminal incidents committed by some of those among the protestors, despite the number of such incidents being relatively very small. Even President Ranil Wickremesinghe who benefitted most by the Aragalaya than any other individual, views an aspect of fascism in it now.  

Even President Ranil Wickremesinghe who benefitted most by the Aragalaya than any other individual, views an aspect of fascism in it now

Going by the statements made by the leaders of the government these days, they are more interested in vilifying and cracking down on the protestors than finding solutions to the economic crisis that has almost ruined the lives of a majority of 22 million people in the country. Not a single politician who now really represent the government seem to be feeling guilty for the destruction of the country’s agriculture and messing up of industries, education, healthcare and all other sectors.  

On the other hand, there seems to be politicians such as Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) parliamentarian Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka who have reposed an over estimated confidence on the protesters who shook the entire political sphere for the past four months. He thinks the Aragalaya can be reactivated any time that someone fixes a date. Parties like the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) have taken a middle path in assessing the uprising and the main groups involved in it. They entirely endorse the right of the people to revolt against the government which has messed up the economy and thereby their lives while at the same time faulting the protesters for lack of proper political leadership, direction or proper destination. In short, everybody attempts to view the people’s uprising and those involved in it  through their respective party or ideological prism.   

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, when he was Defence Secretary under President Mahinda Rajapaksa had earned an ill-repute for repression of dissent. Four protests in Katunayake, Chilaw, Rathupaswala and in Welikada prison had been emblematic for the repression of those days which had ended up in deaths of many people. However, many are are puzzled over the absence of such horrific crackdowns during the recent protests directly against his presidency.  

For instance, there was a huge support base for the Aragalaya until it was cracked down on July 22, but the support base for the adversaries of it  is increasing since then

One could attribute this situation to his apparent fear for the possible sanctions by the UNHRC which last year adopted a resolution aiming at such targeted sanctions against human rights violators in Sri Lanka. During the teachers’ struggle against anomalies in their salaries last year he had hinted such a fear. One could recall the newspapers having reported that in response to a suggestion by the then Public Security Minister Sarath Weerasekara to attack the demonstrators  he had accused that the minister was attempting to create a situation where he would not be able to visit a foreign country.  

President Wickremesinghe might have ignored such fears when he ordered the crackdown on the protesters at Galle Face Green on July 22, within 24 hours after he took oaths as President. The armed forces brutally attacked the protesters, hours before they were to leave the place as they had announced on the previous day. However, in a statement issued on August 8 the experts of the Special Procedures of the UNHRC have condemned the use of force and the state of  emergency against the protesters by his government. He argues that some elements in the protests were involved in violence and unlawful activities such as preventing the usual functions of the offices and official residences of the President and Prime Minister.  

No party or civilized person in the country have defended the burning of houses of politicians, including President Wickremesinghe, killing of a Parliamentarian and vandalizing and stealing some of the items in state buildings occupied by the protestors on July 9. However, when the protesters demonstrated in front of the Presidential Secretariat, blocking its entrance, which was also against the law, for more than three months, it was hailed as a peaceful protest, even by foreign envoys. Mr. Wickremesinghe also as the Prime Minister in May offered to provide  facilities to the protest site, GotaGoGama, through the Colombo Municipal Council.   

People seeing differences in violence unleashed by “us” and “them” are all over. ”When journalists pointed out this week the contradiction between the government’s attitudes towards vandalizing of public property during the recent protests and during the riots within the chamber of the Parliament in November 2018 following the sacking of Ranil Wickremesinghe from the post of Prime Minister, Minister Bandula Gunawardana defended the latter by outrageously  claiming that incidents taking place within the Parliament falls under the category of Parliamentary privileges. (What if a murder had been committed during the riot in Parliament?) However, Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena dismissed the minister’s claim later.  

On the other hand, despite the political parties supportive of the protests having condemned the arson attacks on houses of politicians and the murder of Polonnaruwa District Parliamentarian Amarakeerthi Athukorala on May 9, the main groups in the Aragalaya did not condemn them, though they distanced themselves from those criminal acts. Had they condemned those incidents  then, the government politicians would have found it difficult to brand their struggle as a violent campaign. In fact, the public uprising as a whole was not a violent campaign. Had it been violent altogether, people would not have participated in it with their small children. And Colombo would have gone up in flames on July 9 when hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in the streets of the city and occupied the offices and official residences of the President and the Prime Minister, without a leadership or guidance. There was even a library and a movie hall in GotaGogama. Thousands of people who barged into the President’s House suddenly found themselves in limbo inside a vast mansion and they just slept on the President’s bed, sat on the President’s chair, jumped into the swimming pool and roamed all over the premises. Leaders of the various protest groups were seen attempting to protect the historical items in the building by putting up notices and calling in the army and police personnel to help protect them. Yet, it was a gathering of thousands of people who were not under anyone’s control and some miscreants had taken advantage of the situation to steal and vandalize some items in the premises. Any uprising by the people in any country to pressurize a ruler to step down carries with it an amount of forcibility and rage, even if it is entirely peaceful. (There have not been any totally peaceful public uprising in the history.) Without such rage and forcibility the purpose would not  be achieved. It is the fear instilled by the uprising that compels the king or the President or the Prime Minister to step down or flee. However, the very forcibility and rage carry with them the danger of outbreak of mass violence as well which we did not witness in Colombo. 

One can argue that compelling a democratically elected leader to step down or to flee is undemocratic or illegal. However, that has to be decided by the justifiability of the uprising. Besides, history is often said to be written by the victors. Whether an uprising is legal, democratic or peaceful is decided by its outcome. For instance, there was a huge support base for the Aragalaya until it was cracked down on July 22, but the support base for the adversaries of it  is increasing since then. Yet, the final outcome would be decided by how the government handles the economic crisis.