by Our Political Affairs Editor
Sri Lanka stands at a historic crossroads as it approaches its ninth presidential election, scheduled for 21 September. This moment carries profound implications for the nation’s political and social fabric. This election arrives in the wake of a tumultuous period where public outcry led to the ousting of the sitting president and the emergence of a new leader through constitutional manoeuvering. Out of the thirty-nine candidates, one has passed away, while the remaining candidates vie for the top seat. Despite the previous elections being effectively a two-horse race, three main contenders have emerged in this election. In this climate of uncertainty and transformation, I met with the country’s leading political scientist, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka—a scholar, diplomat, and thinker of considerable depth—to explore not only the intricate state of Sri Lankan politics but also the shifting tectonic plates of the global order.
Our conversation ventured into the philosophical underpinnings of contemporary geopolitics. Dr. Jayatilleka contends that the war in Ukraine represents a critical inflection point, suggesting that the West may soon confront a more profound reality: that Vladimir Putin is merely a symptom of a deeper, more complex Russian psyche. This perspective challenges the prevailing discourse and demands a reconsideration of how power, fear, and resistance are constructed on the global stage. We also explored India’s nuanced role within its regional dynamics, the enduring struggles in Palestine, the evolving tensions in West Asia, NATO’s expansion, and the relentless power of China.
Dr. Jayatilleka’s intellectual journey provides a compelling backdrop to this analysis. A first-class honours graduate in political science and a Fulbright Scholar, he has traversed the realms of radical ideology, academic rigour, and high-stakes diplomacy. His early engagement with radical politics, including his advocacy for Tamil militancy as a form of national liberation, reveals a thinker unafraid to confront the moral ambiguities of power and resistance. As Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, he played a strategic role in shielding the nation from international censure.
In our dialogue, Dr. Jayatilleka offers a penetrating critique of the global power structures, urging a philosophical reckoning with the forces that shape our world. His reflections on the interplay between ideology and realpolitik, the enduring struggle for self-determination, and the shifting contours of global hegemony compel us to think beyond the surface of current events. This interview delves into the philosophical and ethical dimensions of contemporary politics, offering not merely a commentary on the state of the world but a profound meditation on the principles and paradoxes that govern it.
Excerpts of the interview;
Question. Since our last discussion in February of last year, the world has undergone significant changes, affecting our region and country profoundly. The BJP in India is currently in its third consecutive term, potentially its final one, following Narendra Modi’s re-election after a lengthy Lok Sabha election period. Although Modi’s mandate is weaker compared to previous terms, the BJP’s political manoeuverings are still strategically guided by the RSS. Meanwhile, the situation in the northeastern states, particularly Manipur, and on the other side in Kashmir is increasingly alarming, and the ongoing border disputes with China continue to dominate headlines. How do you perceive the state of India’s fragile democracy? What impact might this have on Sri Lanka and other countries in the region?
Answer. I don’t regard India’s democracy as fragile, unlike Pakistan’s. It is robust. I think it is a very positive development that the Indian voters in general and the voters of Uttar Pradesh in particular, cut the triumphalist Hindutva hegemonism of Prime Minister Modi, the BJP and the RSS down to size, while re-balancing the Indian polity by giving a boost to the Opposition coalition led by the Congress and Rahul Gandhi. In so far as it downsized the hypertrophy of Hindutva ideology and hegemonism, I think this rebalancing has helped India’s relations with its neighbours and vice-versa.
Q. Turning to Bangladesh, a friend in need, the past 15 years of Sheikh Hasina’s rule have been abruptly ended by a violent upheaval, described by her opponents as a “second liberation.” However, her supporters and some impartial critics argue that this turmoil was instigated by Pakistani intelligence and exacerbated by US political interference. What is your view on the current situation in Bangladesh? Do you believe that the recent events have ultimately benefited Bangladeshi society in the long run?
A. While one cannot discount external influence be it in Bangladesh’s upheaval or Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya, I think it is analytically pretty irrelevant. No external force told the Bangladeshi ruler to gaol her traditional opponent. No foreign element held a gun to her head and insisted that she does nothing to re-set her economic strategy which was ensuring high growth but not reducing poverty.
In this fuss about ‘Colour Revolutions’, I often recall what a real revolutionary leader and profound philosopher, Mao Zedong said: “A hen can sit on a stone but it will not produce a chicken. It has to be an egg that the hen sits on to produce a chicken. The external factor can operate only through the internal factor”.
I think that in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Kenya etc., it is the internal factor – the conduct of the rulers– that is responsible for the uprising of the people. Mao also famously said: “It is right to rebel!” From my early teens, I have always agreed with him on that. I support the people of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and think they did the right thing and both countries are better off having overthrown their rulers.
Q. Is India losing its influence over Bangladesh?
A: India can no longer take Bangladesh or the Maldives for granted, and that is a good thing.
Q. Similarly, in the Maldives, the election of Mohamed Muizzu as President has been accompanied by anti-Indian rhetoric, with media reports suggesting that China is playing a significant role there. What is your perspective on this development?
A: I think India and China have been waging a tug-of-war in the Maldives and each Power has had to learn, in turn, not to take the Maldivian people and society for granted.
Q. The concept of an “Asian Century” remains a tantalising dream, but realising it requires collective commitment rather than ongoing ideological conflicts and other disputes, such as border issues. As a political scientist with experience in social reform movements, what solutions would you propose to foster lasting peace between Pakistan and India, as well as between India and China?
A: The tragedy in Indo-Pakistan relations is that if there is a Pakistani leader who wants better relations with India, either India backs off – as happened when Prime Minister Modi failed to seize the opportunity provided by Imran Khan’s leadership—or the Pakistani hardliners remove him or her. However, I am not totally pessimistic. Be it India-Pakistan or India-China, I think things have a chance of improving with a far less hawkish government than that of Prime Minister Modi’s BJP. In short, a return of a Congress government in India may will provide a chance of improving things on both fronts, Pakistan and China.
Q. We are living in precarious times. As of mid of 2024, over 120 armed conflicts involve more than 60 states and 120 non-state actors. Some of these conflicts have persisted for over 50 years, while others are relatively recent. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a prominent example. During a recent discussion with the Russian Ambassador in Colombo, it was emphasised that the conflict is not merely Russia’s war against Ukraine but a broader confrontation with the West, with over 40 countries, including 32 NATO members, involved against Russia. Conversely, Ukrainian policymakers present a very different narrative. How do you assess the current situation?
A: The Russia-Ukraine war is no mystery. The two finest American minds on foreign policy and international relations, George Kennan and Henry Kissinger had warned against post-Cold War NATO expansion in the direction of Russia. Kennan did so in the New York Times in 1996 and Kissinger did so during the last years of his life. Even CIA director Bill Burns sent a cable when he was US ambassador in Moscow, saying that across the board, Russian opinion views Western influence in Ukraine as a red line. However, all this sagacious realism was overruled in the West by minds infinitely inferior to Kennan and Kissinger. Recently Victoria Nuland admitted that the USA discouraged a peaceful negotiated settlement of the crisis in 2022 when Ukraine and Russia were talking.
The West wasn’t able to impose or reimpose unipolar hegemony, and weakening Russia is the way it thinks it can make China more vulnerable. Now the West is waging a real proxy war on Russia. They hope to finish what Brzezinski started in Afghanistan. They are enabling Ukraine to strike deeper and deeper inside Russia. They are baiting a bear with nuclear teeth.
I think the war will be a prolonged one, but the West will learn a lesson because Russian history shows us that when the Russian state failed to win—and actually lost in 1905 to Japan and 1914-1917 to Germany, the Russian state, leadership, system and society mutated in a manner that made it a harder target and a much tougher adversary. It will be ironic, but I think they day will come when the West regrets it didn’t negotiate a settlement with Putin. They will realise that Putin isn’t the scariest thing that Russia can produce.
To Be Continued Tomorrow
