Columns

Doctors at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland in the outskirts of the US capital of Washington had given him an “all clear” after a medical check-up. His own personal physician Prof. S.D. Jayaratne was also on hand to hear the good news.

If he was upbeat about that, President Mahinda Rajapaksa was eager to keep close track of the latest developments relating to the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. That prompted him to advance his plans to return to Colombo. It was originally scheduled for Tuesday (November 27) for him to arrive in Colombo on Wednesday morning. But he returned on Tuesday evening. The hurried change of plans also put paid to what might have been a move towards rapprochement in relations between Sri Lanka and the United States. To say that the relations are now strained will be an understatement. Such a move was initiated by the Sri Lankan side in what seemed an effort to restore good relations.

According to sources in Washington D.C, Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary in the State Department for Central and South Asian Affairs, received a telephone call from Sri Lanka’s Ambassador Jaliya Wickremesuriya, asking whether he would like to meet President Rajapaksa for a discussion. “Assistant Secretary Blake replied he was very happy to do so and was looking towards the meeting. However, it did not materialise. We do not know the reason,” one source said. However, other sources said Rajapaksa had by then decided to move to New York and return to Colombo. Otherwise, what was a strictly private visit would have assumed a semi-official character.

He boarded a train from Baltimore to New York escorted by secret service agents on Sunday. At the Ports Authority Terminal near Madison Square Garden in the Big Apple, President Rajapaksa was greeted by Palitha Kohona, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, and his deputy, Major General Shavendra Silva. Ambassador Wickremesuriya also accompanied the President. A motorcade whisked them away to the Waldorf Astoria, a hotel renowned for playing hosts to heads of state from many countries, particularly during UN General Assembly sessions.

The only engagement prior to his departure from Washington D.C. was on Saturday night when he was entertained to a dinner reception by Ambassador Wickremesuriya. Invited to attend the rice-and-curry event, besides Sri Lanka Embassy staffers, were some 60 guests, all of them Sri Lankans living in the greater Washington D.C. area. There was an exception too.

That was Nirupama Rao, now India’s Ambassador to the United States. Rao was closely associated with Rajapaksa when she was the Indian High Commissioner in Sri Lanka and later Foreign Secretary. So much so, the President was thrust in the eye of a controversy when she was High Commissioner in Colombo. He had broken protocol to attend a private dinner she hosted. Also present was her husband, Sudhakar Rao.

On Monday morning, President Rajapaksa boarded Emirates flight EK 204 from New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport for a twelve-and-a-half-hour flight to Dubai. With a short break there, he took a connecting Emirates flight (EK 652) to Colombo arriving on Tuesday evening. Barely 24 hours later, he chaired the weekly cabinet meeting where developments relating to the resolution to impeach Chief Justice – Bandaranayake were discussed. Rajapaksa noted that an important issue related to a business transaction amounting to millions had not been included in the resolution. He mentioned the amount was quite a staggering sum.

The Government claims it is in the possession of details where Shirani Bandaranayake allegedly opened an account at the National Development Bank and then brought it to a zero account just at the time when she had to make a declaration so that she didn’t have to make a declaration either to Inland Revenue or in her Assets Declaration.

This has happened for several years, since 2008. In the last year (2012) the amount in the account topped Rs. 200 million, claims the Government, but all this is subject to proof and in any event not part of the impeachment motion. Why it was not part of the impeachment motion also raises questions.

It is here that ministers took note of the directive of the Supreme Court that certified copies of an order from the SC be circulated among eleven members of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) probing the Chief Justice. The matter was the subject of some discussion with questions being raised on the legality of such action since their position was that Parliament, the legislature, was supreme and what happens within the four walls of Parliament was the business of Parliament, and not the Supreme Court.

The SC order on November 22 came after it had taken up different applications challenging the constitutionality of the appointment of the PSC. This is on the stated grounds that the PSC has been appointed under Section 78 (a) of the Standing Orders of Parliament which, it is claimed, was not a legal statute but a procedure to conduct business of the House. Such petitions have been made to the SC under Article 125 of the Constitution which states that the “sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the interpretation of the Constitution, and accordingly, whenever any such question arises in the course of any proceedings in any other court or tribunal or other institution empowered by law to administer justice or to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions, such question shall forthwith be referred to the Supreme Court for determination. The Supreme Court may direct that further proceedings be stayed pending the determination of such question.”

In terms of Constitutional provisions, the Supreme Court is required to “determine such question within two months of the date of reference and make any such consequential order as the circumstances of the case may require.”

Making an order pending final determination, the Supreme Court stated among other matters, that “at this stage, this Court whilst re-iterating that there has to be mutual respect and understanding founded upon the rule of law between Parliament and the Judiciary for the smooth functioning of both the institutions, wishes to recommend for the members of the Select Committee of Parliament that it is prudent to defer the inquiry to be held against the Hon. Chief Justice until this Court makes its determination of the question of law referred to by the Court of Appeal.

The desirability and paramount importance of acceding to the suggestions made by this Court would be based on mutual respect and trust and as something essential for the safeguarding of the rule of law and the interest of all persons concerned and the ensuring that justice is not only done but is manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done.” Copies of the order were delivered to the Colombo addresses of members of the PSC and also care of their Parliament addresses. Copies were made available when the PSC met too.

On Thursday, just a day after the weekly cabinet meeting where political strategies over the situation were discussed, Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva, Leader of the House and member of the PSC, raised an issue of privilege in Parliament over the Supreme Court order. He claimed that there were no legal provisions for an outside body, party, institution or court of law to issue commands, recommendations on the procedures and functions of the PSC.

It was pointed out in this political commentary last week that “the Judiciary and the Legislature, it is clear, are freewheeling towards a head on collision course.”

What transpired at the Supreme Court last Friday, just after de Silva had raised the privilege issue, seemed to reflect this situation.

The three-judge bench presided by Justice Gamini Ameratunga and including Justice K. Sripavan and Justice Priyasath Dep issued notice on the PSC returnable on December 10. That means the members could intervene in court if they so wish. Further hearing of the case will be on December 13 and 14. Attorney General Palitha Fernando PC said in his submissions to the SC that though he had received notice, he had not been able to file written submissions since he has not received all the written documents.

Now to edited excerpts of what Minister de Silva told Parliament whilst raising an issue of privilege. He made the speech in Sinhala.

“Hon. Speaker, I wish to thank you for allowing me to raise a privilege issue. An Impeachment Motion duly signed by 117 Members of Parliament as per Article 107 (2) of the Constitution to remove Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake from her position was entertained in the Order Paper of November 6, 2012 on your orders. A special Parliamentary Select Committee had been appointed on November 14, 2012 to investigate the charges mentioned in the impeachment motion under the chairmanship of Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa with 10 other Members of Parliament. This special PSC under the powers vested in it by the Parliament Standing Orders had met and commenced its investigations and is due to meet again on December 4.
“In this context, several parties have filed writ applications in the Court of Appeal and they were referred to the Supreme Court. These writ applications have named the Speaker and the members of the PSC as respondents. I would like to inform the Speaker that I and the other members have received the notices. Some of these notices mention the Speaker as the first respondent.

The petitioners have sought to suspend the functions and proceedings of the PSC. I would like to point out that there are no provisions in the Constitution or Standing Orders or any other law in the country to challenge the Parliamentary Select Committee appointed by the Speaker. Further, the Special Parliamentary Select Committee should follow the guidelines, instructions and commands from the Speaker and this Parliament. There are no legal provisions for an outside body, party, institution or court of law to issue commands, recommendations on the procedures and functions of the PSC. The Speaker and the Members of Parliament are bound by the responsibility to safeguard and protect the identity, independence and dignity of Parliament from the threats against it.

“The Speaker, Parliament or its committee members are not liable to decisions or determinations dispensed by these writ applications. In this regard I would like to draw the attention to the Hansard of Parliament which carried an order given by then Speaker Anura Bandaranaike on June 20, 2001. That order says the Supreme Court is not in a position to issue injunction orders and the Speaker is not bound by such orders. Therefore, I would call upon the Speaker to take this precedent into consideration and to give an order on the notices we received threatening the independence, sovereignty, identity and dignity of Parliamentary democracy.”

Then Speaker, the late Anura Bandaranaike ruled that Parliament was supreme. He said the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to issue interim orders restraining the Speaker in respect of the steps he is empowered to take under Standing Order 78 (a). The ruling was prompted by the issue of a restraining order on Speaker Anura Bandaranaike by then Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva because there were moves for an impeachment motion against him (Silva) in Parliament. By then, no motion was placed on the Order Paper and only signatures were being collected. The restraining order was based on two fundamental rights petitions heard by a Supreme Court bench presided by then Chief Justice Silva himself. However, the motion did not materialise since the then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga later dissolved Parliament.

Summarising his decision, Speaker Bandaranaike declared that: 1. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to issue the interim orders restraining the Speaker of Parliament in respect of the steps he is empowered to take under Standing Order 78(a). 2. The interim orders dated June 6, 2001 are not binding on the Speaker of Parliament. 3. There are no legal obligations to comply with the said orders.

Both the government and the opposition parties seemed to concur without question on the privilege issue raised by Minister de Silva. A somewhat comprehensive explanation was provided by Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, one of those who participated in the formulation of the 1978 Constitution. In a speech delivered in Sinhala, he said: “Four of our members who were in the government which made the 1978 Constitution are in the House today. They are Joseph Michael Perera, Gamini Jayawickrema Perera, P. Dayaratne and myself. Though it is said there are three pillars in the Constitution I do not see such thing. The Constitution says the people are sovereign. What remains in the Constitution (1978) is the theory of President J.R. Jayewardene. He made the Constitution in a manner to protect our rights.

“One of the issues arising today is whether the Parliamentary Select Committee has judicial powers. It does not have such powers. The Committee can call for reports, records and summon persons and carry out investigations. However under article 4 of the Constitution, Parliament has judicial powers. The entire House of 225 enjoy these powers. These powers have been used once. That was when Harold Peiris (Editor) was fined Rs. 1,000. The entire House approved this. However there was no methodology put into place thereafter in this regard. This could be discussed at the party leaders meeting and a decision made. We should resolve this current issue without having a conflict between the judiciary and the legislature. There are three ways for this. One of them is the protection of the rights of the judiciary, the second is protection of the rights of Parliament and the third is allowing the Chief Justice to take part in the PSC proceedings with all her rights protected.

“You should act according to the ruling given earlier by Hon. Anura Bandaranaike. We should also send these details to the courts. Someone has said that the process (regarding the impeachment motion) will end on December 8. That is a wrong concept. There are 14 allegations in the Impeachment motion and we should give at least one day per allegation and therefore it cannot be completed on the 8th. We should remember that there are other serious issues for the public such as education sector problems, balance of income and expenditure. Therefore, they do not expect a crisis between the judiciary and parliament.
“Our stand is that we should remain with the stance taken by Hon Anura Bandaranaike. If necessary, Mr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, in the capacity of the President of the Bar Association could further explain this. Our stand is that the late Anura Bandaranaike’s decision stands. There is no question about petitions being filed in Courts. But, do not challenge our powers or do not issue notice on us. Continue to hear the cases and give the judgments. The privileges and powers of Parliament and its members should be protected by the Speaker. We do not want to lose democracy. We want to safeguard democracy. Also there should be protection for the independence of the judiciary.”

A few of the other comments in Parliament:

Joseph Michael Perera, a former Speaker: The Supreme Court has no right to tell Parliament how to do its job. It is very clear cut.

Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara: The court should not have given leave to proceed for these writ applications. The Court should do its business and Parliament should be allowed to do its business.
Minister Rajitha Senaratna: If the judiciary thinks the PSC is infringing on its powers, then it should have challenged this. This law was enacted in 1984 so it had plenty of time to do that.

External Affairs Minister G.L Peiris, a professor of law and whose protégé was Chief Justice Bandaranayake at the Law Faculty of the University of Colombo: The Speaker must take steps to uphold the privileges’ of the House. This is contempt of Parliament. Many MPs who spoke did not understand the privilege issue that was raised. Former Speaker Anura Bandaranaike has shown us the path; you have to follow that path.
M.A. Sumanthiran, (Tamil National Alliance): When the 13th Amendment was being introduced, Dinesh Gunawardena and Mrs. Bandaranaike went to courts seeking a restraining order against the Speaker. The judiciary is doing the role that it is entrusted with. The Constitution is supreme.

A significant feature was the absence of any comments by MPs of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP). However, the party has been opposed to the move to impeach Chief Justice Bandaranayake. When all speeches from both sides of the House were over, government MPs were advised that they should remain in their seats in the evening. They were told that the Speaker would make an “important announcement”.
Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa then gave his ruling on the issues raised by Minister de Silva. He said: “The Honourable Nimal Siripala de Silva, Leader of the House, raised an issue relating to privilege on the floor of the House this morning.

“I found exceedingly helpful the detailed observations which were made on this issue by fifteen Members on both sides of the House today. The range and depth of the views expressed during the debate, which I have reflected on, greatly facilitated my task in reaching my decision on the matters brought to my notice by the Leader of the House.

“Notice was served on me yesterday, as Speaker of Parliament and on the Members of the Select Committee appointed by me on 14th of November 2012 to inquire into allegations against the Honourable Chief Justice under Article 107 of the Constitution. I, as the Speaker of Parliament, and the Members of the Select Committee appointed by me have been cited as Respondents in these proceedings. These were notices issued by the Court of Appeal, on the direction of the Supreme Court, in the matter of an application for mandates in the nature of Writs of Certiorari, Mandamus, Quo Warranto and Prohibition in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution.

“The relief sought in these proceedings includes the following;
“a) Issue notice on the Respondents in the first instance
“b) Grant and issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the determination and/or decision of the 1st Respondent to place the said alleged impeachment motion against the Chief Justice dated 01.11.2012 in the Order Paper of Parliament on 06.11.2012
“c) Grant and issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision and/or determination of the 1st Respondent to appoint and/or assign a committee made up of the 2nd to 12th Respondents to embark upon a judicial/quazi judicial process of inquiry into the charges against the Chief Justice.
“d) Grant and issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order and/or decision and/or determination of the 1st Respondent directing the Chief Justice to present herself before the 2nd to 12th Respondents for inquiry by way of a judicial/quazi judicial process.
“e) Grant and issue a Writ of Prohibition preventing 1st to 12th Respondents from taking any further actions or steps in connection with the impunged Motion dated 01.11.2012.
“f) Grant and issue a Writ of Quo Warranto requiring the 2nd to 12th Respondents to display under what legal warrant or authority they intend to embark upon a judicial/quazi judicial process of inquiring into the alleged charges against the Chief Justice.
“g) Grant and issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to act in terms of the Law contained in Article 107 (3) to formulate and adopt Laws/Standing Orders establishing a lawful and constitutional process governing the impeachment of a judge of the Appellate Courts, that is not in violation of specifically Article 4 ( c ) of the Constitution.
“h) Grant and issue Interim Orders;
“I. Restraining the 1st Respondent and/or agents and/or officers serving under him from taking any further steps in connection with the said impeachment motion dated 01.11.2012.
“II. Restraining the 2nd to 12th Respondents and/or agents and/or officers serving under them from taking any further steps pursuant to the notice summoning the Chief Justice dated 15.11.2012.
“I wish to explain to the House the basis of my ruling.
“In appointing this Committee, I have acted as Speaker in pursuance of the powers vested in me by Article 107 of the Constitution.

“The Members of the Committee appointed by me are responsible solely and exclusively to me as the Speaker. No person or institution outside Parliament has any authority whatsoever to issue any directive either to me as Speaker or to Members of the Committee appointed by me. This is a matter which falls exclusively within the purview of Parliament’s authority. The established law in this regard was exhaustively surveyed by my distuingished predecessor, the late Honourable Anura Bandaranaike, in his historic ruling delivered in this august House on 20th June, 2001.

“It is clear from this ruling that the matters concerned fall within the exclusive domain of Parliament, and that no intervention in any form by any external agency is consistent with the established principles of law, and is therefore to be rejected unreservedly as an unacceptable erosion of the powers and responsibilities of Parliament. I am happy to note that a broad consensus emerged in the course of debate on the central issue requiring my decision. I would like to make particular mention of the view, clearly expressed by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition in the course of his intervention, that the purported notices constitute an unwarranted interference with the powers and procedures of Parliament, and are invalid. This was stated with great clarity by the Honourable Joseph Michael Perera as well.

“On careful consideration of this matter, I wish to convey to the House my ruling that the notices issued on me, as Speaker of Parliament, and on the Members of the Select Committee appointed by me, have no effect whatever and are not recognised in any manner.

“I declare that the purported notices, issued to me and to the Members of Select Committee are a nullity and entail no legal consequences.

“I wish to make it clear that this ruling of mine as Speaker of Parliament, will apply to any similar purported Notice, Order of Determination in respect of the proceedings of the Committee which will continue solely and exclusively under the authority of Parliament.”

Notwithstanding the assertions made in Parliament on Thursday both by government and opposition parliamentarians, the Supreme Court is continuing its task. This is reflected in its sittings on Friday when further notices were issued on members of the PSC. As for the PSC, it will hold its next sittings on Tuesday (December 4). Chief Justice Bandaranayake is expected to appear on this day. As the SC and the PSC proceed on their own courses, tensions and frictions are expected. The question is when such issues would reach a crisis point. There is a strong likelihood the issues will spill over to the New Year.

For the Government, these developments come at a time when there are other issues to cope with. One is a complaint from some ministers that their ministries are yet to receive finances for operational purposes. Some said that there was a cash crunch. In the light of President Rajapaksa’s early departure from Washington D.C, Prime Minister, D.M. Jayaratne too followed suit. Instead of leaving Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland last Monday (November26), he boarded a Qatar Airlines flight to Doha on Sunday night. After a short break there, he boarded another flight from the same airline to arrive in Colombo on Monday morning. Upon arrival in Washington D.C. last week, President Rajapaksa’s first task was to pay a visit to Premier Jayaratne who had been undergoing treatment for more than two months. Thereafter, the President underwent a medical check-up. His personal physician, Dr. Professor S.D. Jayaratne who had flown from Colombo was on hand for the process. Dr. Jayaratne is chairperson of the Ethical Review Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Sri Jayawardenapura University. She is also a senior lecturer in medicine and a consultant physician.

During Rajapaksa’s visit, a cameraman attached to the Sri Lanka Embassy in Washington D.C. had taken a photograph of the President with Premier Jayaratne. It was officially transmitted to Colombo and was released to the local media and used by many of them including the Sunday Times. The move drew a howl of protests from the Prime Minister’s family who said it did not do well to the Government and was in bad taste. On the other hand, media outlets that published the photos said it was in the public interest since it involved the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and the visual had in fact been released officially by the State – a move that suggested that the public be kept informed.

Premier Jayaratne’s inability to attend office has already fuelled speculation of a cabinet reshuffle early in the New Year. Such a move becomes officially mandatory if he quits office by tendering his resignation. Views on the subject are sharply at odds. Highly placed UPFA sources suggest that an official announcement on the matter was likely in January. However, sources close to the Prime Minister dismiss such reports and say they are unaware of any such move. The Sunday Times has learnt that the matter is receiving serious consideration at the highest levels of the Government.

In terms of Article 49 (1) of the Constitution, the President is empowered to appoint a Prime Minister upon the person holding such office being removed, has resigned, is physically incapacitated or otherwise. In such an event, the cabinet stands dissolved until President names his new Prime Minister and his cabinet of ministers. The question on who will be the new Prime Minister should the present incumbent step down has become a strong talking point in the dovecotes of power. Different names are being spoken by different quarters.

Ousting a Chief Justice has left the community of lawyers divided. Supreme Court notices served on members of the Parliamentary Select Committee have united a Government and the opposition. In one voice, they have concurred that Parliament is supreme.

Sarath Amunugama, Minister of International Monetary Co-operation and Deputy Minister of Finance, warned last week at an event in the Kandy District Secretariat that printing money or obtaining loans to bridge the budget deficit was the only option. That it portends an economic crisis of disturbing proportions is no secret. The appointment of a new Prime Minister and thus a new cabinet has become a necessity. They seem determined to appoint a new Chief Justice as well. Those are just a few from the list of domestic issues in the Government’s agenda for 2013. They are, no doubt, challenging, not to mention the ones not listed.

Jaffna student protest seen as move to revive LTTE

Until the United States government expressed concern and an international media outlet said the incident was the worst political disturbance since the war ended, there was little attention locally.

Is the militarily defeated Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) trying to make a comeback through political fronts? This is what the security forces and the police believe after intelligence reports that plans were afoot to revive the Maveerar or Great Heroes day last Tuesday, November 27. When the LTTE fought a separatist war, this event was commemorated annually. SL troops mounted surveillance around kovils and community centres outside the Jaffna University campus.

They were in large numbers, in civilian clothes and in uniform, to prevent a recurrence. What followed were clashes between students at the Jaffna University where a Tamil parliamentarian and publisher, E. Saravanapavan claimed he was assaulted. A Tamil journalist based in Jaffna was also injured.  Saravanapavan said he was one of the Editors of the Jaffna based daily, Uthayan.

The BBC world service said after the incidents on Wednesday: “Students and security forces have clashed in Jaffna in northern Sri Lanka in the worst political disturbances since the civil war ended in 2009. A Tamil politician accused the military of injuring a newspaper editor and several students. The army said it had to restrain people who were throwing stones. Security forces had entered Jaffna University, disrupting students who were marking “Martyrs’ Day”, which commemorates dead Tamil Tiger fighters.”

In a statement issued in Colombo, the US Embassy said on Thursday: “The United States Embassy in Colombo is concerned about recent threats to freedom of expression in Sri Lanka. The November 28 beating of a reporter in Jaffna, harassment by Government of Sri Lanka officials of independent media outlets, and searches without warrants of journalists all serve to stifle media freedom. Additionally, the Embassy is greatly concerned about reports of attacks on students in Jaffna. We call upon authorities to exercise restraint and respect peaceful demonstrations.”

Organisers of an event had claimed they were marking what was called the Lighting Festival (Karthikai Vellakedu), a religious observance followed on November 27. They claimed that Jaffna DIG Erik Perera had during a media briefing on November 24 declared there would be no obstruction to the lighting festival where oil lamps would be lit. The DIG was not available for comment and his office said he was away in Colombo. However, an Army Officer, who did not wish to be identified, claimed that a group was using “religious activity as a front to perpetuate the ideals of the LTTE. Strangely, the timing of the event had to coincide with the Tiger guerrilla event which we ended over three years ago.”

Police moved into a building where they found out that lamps had been lit at 6.05 p.m. There were photographs of the slain LTTE leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran and maps of the so-called Eelam. D. Premnath, said to be an Editor of the Uthayan newspaper, had attempted to take a photograph of the lamps being lit. He had allegedly been attacked by two persons who came on a motorcycle. “They punched my face and hit me on my cheeks,” he told the Sunday Times.

Police are now investigating whether the photographs were meant to be transmitted abroad to pro-Eelam groups for propaganda, said a senior officer in Jaffna.

Upon a complaint from Uthayan Chief Editor, M.A. Kaanamylnaathan, the Editors’ Guild of Sri Lanka said in a statement that it was concerned about the brutal attack on the Tamil journalist. Its statement appears elsewhere in this newspaper. Saravanapavan told the Sunday Times his vehicle was badly damaged. Students continued protests on Thursday and Friday over the incidents.

Military spokesperson Brigadier Ruwan Wanigasooriya told the Sunday Times: “The Army did not enter the Jaffna university premises in uniform or without uniform on Tuesday. We were called by the Police to remain standby and we were outside the campus premises. We deny allegations that the army entered the university premises.” However, he added that “I am not aware of any LTTE commemorative activities taking place on the pretext of a Hindu religious event.”

The incident is not to be taken lightly, though. That the dying embers of communalism are still being stoked was quite clear. That politicians were prepared to do so with the students takes one’s mind back to the bad old days when Tamil militancy began in the north. And, three and a half years after the liquidation of the LTTE, these elements seem to think the time is ripe to precipitate a crisis.

Follow @timesonlinelk

comments powered by Disqus

Casting stones from a cloud of sin

Massive trade deficit despite declining imports

Legality of government actions rendered politically irrelevant