Kumar Mahattaya In View of the Rights Tower of Pisa

The government has hit the Frontline Socialist Party right in the middle of its head. By exposing the double identity of Kumar Mahattaya and by labeling on him the stickers of “fraudster”, “impostor” and “expired VISA holder”, the government has managed to slap and draw blood from the left wing movement right in its infancy.


The government has already pulled out its next card that will find it a footing among the less reflective, under-critical masses —- that the state cannot be held responsible for accusations of “disappearances”, since “disappeared” persons resurface in far off lands with a “dual identity”. In the Doramadalawa episode of Monday the 9th April, where the secretary of defense revealed to all the world the whereabouts of the thereunto abducted leader of the Frontline Socialist Party, Kumar Guneratnam, this point was stressed and deliberated on.

To the uncritical and under-achieving eye, Mr. Rajapakshe’s point will be sufficient clay to mould a case on behalf of the government’s defense. Here, in Kumar Mahattaya, there is a fellow who had come from Australia, who had overstayed his VISA under an alias, had been abducted by thin air and had, then, abruptly turned up at the Dematagoda Police station in a discreet hour, requesting Police escort to the airport. Rajpakshe makes the point that the government could never have been expected to find a Kumar Guneratnam, cos the man, in that sense, had never been to the country: who entered the country was a Noel Mudalige.

By extension, the point can be stressed that this kind of duplicity is what really happens to people who are claimed to have been made to “disappear” by the government: that they resurface in a first world country with a whole new profile, under a different name. Hence, their abandoned “previous” identity will rot unaccounted for in an oblivious “missing” list.

A Frontline Socialist Party icon featuring Guneratnam

There are two points which we should not overlook or miss in the mist of the defense secretary’s Archemedian grin. The first is, that Kumar Gunaratnam’s breach of VISA procedures or his usage of an alias cannot be used as weights to compromise allegations of human rights breaches, of which the state machinery has been made the defendant. There are probably many reasons that govern and dictate Gunaratnam’s courses of action — circumstances which make an “underground activist” resort to an alias; and which prevents him from renewing an expired VISA — which should be debated on separately. Gunaratnam’s own version is that he was being hunted and hounded since his arrival in Sri Lanka, which prevented him from following the standard VISA renewal process. Whether Gunaratnam had an intention of renewing his licence is another matter; but, accusations of breaching the norms and mores of movement under “ordinary” circumstances should be a topic set apart.

Secondly, Rajapakshe does not address the issue of “abduction”: the most chief of accusations leveled against the government at the time. In subsequent developments — and this was highlighted by Gunaratnam himself in his interview to the media via skype — the Police nor any other division of the security took any procedure to ensure an investigation into the claim of abduction. For two days, the man had been missing and the international and national media and rights activists had been put on alert, but a hasty departure and deportation of the “recovered fellow”, and a lame excuse along diplomatic lines — that the government’s priority of the hour was to cater to the diplomatic relations between Australia — were all that followed through.

Dimuthu Attygale, who was "abducted" hours before Gunaratnam

To say that “disappeared” persons resurface under aliases and with new identities in far away pastures is as irresponsible as a rationalization can get. As a generalization and feel good statement it lacks both imagination or originality. Nor is it diplomatically permissible in the aftermath of Geneva 2012, where the human rights structure of the country — in recent years, carefully fashioned after the Tower of Pisa  — is under high scrutiny, in its run on borrowed time. Gunaratnam’s detention and his hurried deportation does not by any means dismiss the fact that an extra-legal arrest had taken place. Whether the man is on an expired VISA or otherwise, there are standard procedures that have been bypassed — such passages have been expertly taken, too: more out of practice and assurance.

Another loop in the defense establishment’s case can be seen in its drawing a parallel between the Gunaratnam case (where he uses an alias as “Noel Mudalige”) and that of “disappeared” persons who allegedly “take” a “new identity”. Why would one, to begin with, take an alternative identity? One cause for such alternative usage is — for better or for worse — one’s being unable to function freely or efficiently under an existing, established identity. Underground movements and de-establishmentarian forces, given the strength of their establishmentarian opposition who preys on their vitality, often resort to fluctuating identities.

For instance, from the day the Peoples’ Struggle Movement (Janarala Vyaparaya) was assembled, in the run up to the formation of the Frontline Socialist Party the membership of this political wave were always already under threat and intimidation by the state and its proxies. The attacks have been both physical and psychological. Part of the state arm was already hounding the progressive impetus of the new found forum. One such instance is the “disappearance” of Lalith Kumar and Kugan —- who, as the FSP insists, were abducted and made to vanish by state-known instruments.

Google return for "white van".

The want of democratic space and the threat posed to non-regimental forces justify the usage of aliases or dual identities. Politics that aim at refining and reshaping social crises — specially, as the membership of those forces are continually under threat — cannot move freely with their parent-given baptisms. This would be well attested to by some of the government’s own bigwigs today, who, at a different time, would have had to resort to aliases and self-propounded disguises. Top ministers in the caliber of Wimal Weerawansa, Champika Ranawaka and Vasudeva Nanayakkara (not very top, at the moment) have enough revolutionary connections in their kit bag of yore, so as not to see a crucible in an alias of a sort.

However, the government — in a Machiavellian bid, or in an unassuming coincidental maneuver — has hit the Frontline Socialist Party right in the middle of its head. By exposing the double identity of Kumar Mahattaya and by labeling on him the stickers of “fraudster”, “impostor” and “expired VISA holder”, the government has managed to slap and draw blood from the left wing movement right in its infancy. Banking on the feudalistic and pre-modern instincts of our uncritical masses and the absence of political literacy the state has managed to pull out a life line (at least locally) that may ensure survival against allegations of abductions and extra-judicial detentions.


4 thoughts on “Kumar Mahattaya In View of the Rights Tower of Pisa

  1. What makes a movement ‘left-wing’? Also, in this stress-and-strain effort to maker this man something other than what he made himself out to be (which helped the govt, by the way, since all it had to do was describe him), no questions are asked about what the Oz High Commission was up to, how they KNEW about the man and how they had his passport. No mention of Kumar’s history either. While the accusations at the defence establishment is conjecture and circumstantial, Kumar’s own (and established) story is not. The Govt, by its selectivity in going after crime and criminals, does not help itself of course. But this is selective too. And ‘I don’t like the govt’ is never reason enough to treat all those against the govt as somehow deserving of soft-hands treatment.

  2. Malinda, “I don’t like Kumar M” is never reason enough to treat all those against human rights violations with contempt. You know what the facts are. You may be a person who testified to the LLRC under the oath of the ‘Kaalama Sutra’ and you may be the curl of the regime’s kadda propaganda machine. But, you seriously don’t have to apologize for a regime that makes life very tough for you, ha? Not here at least… Sweetest, you know the facts and you know this cannot be accepted.

    I think your questions — as to what is a ‘left wing’ movement, as to how the passport and ticket ended with the high commission etc — are answered by the skype interview alluded to. What do you mean, “Kumar’s history”? I mean, which history do you refer to?

    How can the accusation at the defense top floor be a conjecture? Your talent was well recognized by Hattotuwegama; but, that theater was for de-politicization.

    Now, don’t kid anyone Malinda —- let’s leave out words such as ‘selectivity’ and ‘conjecture’, cos those are the cliches of the govt fembots and its not convincing anymore. What is not conjecture, Malinda? What is not ‘selective’? Morning Inspection??

    Where I stand there are disturbing issues and these goon kidnappings, incarcerations and torture — inclusive of paramilitary operations and generation of mass phobia — are ISSUES that matter. If you see no issues in the way Kumar G was abducted, tortured and released upon pressure (and by extension what it implies) then maybe the fundamental problem is in our definitions I guess…. and that is a premise we can;t convince each otehr on. But, just to say that you can be selective too: that you, yourself, have raised concern of similar state thuggery (you have shed tears in public, reading poetry to a Pera union activist — one of ur close friends, you claimed — whom you lost owing to the 1988 crackdown) in different fora and you, in spite of your “I am shocked” smily, know what the issues here are.

    • All i am saying is talking in pieces is not talking at all.

      Kumar’s history (thuggery in the university in the 80’s, JVP-style fascism, shady operations courtesy Australia’s secret service) counts.

      Accusations of inability are valid, but the rest IS conjecture. Where’s the beef?

      Up to you to be convinced or otherwise. You’ve been selective all along but pretending to be a ‘neutral’. That’s just bs and you know it.

      What’s the evidence of torture? A scratch mark caused by a blindfold and ALLEGATIONS of sexual abuse? Come on!

      About being released on pressure…if he WAS abducted, then they were smart in getting him out in the way they did, undressing the Australian High Commission at the same time. Why on earth would someone who had been abducted and tortured run to a police station? I can tell you first hand that after being held for 3 weeks and regularly beaten up the Police is the LAST PLACE i would go to if I was in the same situation.

      How can the accusation at the defense top floor be a conjecture? Your talent was well recognized by Hattotuwegama; but, that theater was for de-politicization.

      Selectivity is closely related to not expressing bias. Selectivity (check the dictionary….i AM shocked, since you are a student/lecturer of English) is about keeping part of the story OUT. Surely, i don’t have to spell it out to you?

      When I talked of my friend, in a poetry reading, that’s not selective because for almost 15 year prior to that 2 mt reading I’ve talked about what the state did and what the jvp did and what the student movement did and what the ‘old left’ did. in public.

      You don’t kid me Vihanga. In fact I think if Hatha commended me ever, he would commend you a hundred times more for your jugglery.

  3. Carrying on a discussion won’t help me, cos you’re a wall hanging hung on a wall. As I stated earlier there is a basic disparity between our understandings of one’s human rights being violated and, as a whole, of state meted oppression. You are the poor wee mite who turns back and asks me for ‘beef’ regarding specialized kidnappings of this sort —- carried out by trained groups operating in the thick of security. So, what can I tell you, Malinda when we’re seriously speaking in two different languages?

    Your issues on the allegations of sexual assault and as to why Gunaratnam ended up in the Police — these were explained by him to the media. It is his word, but on comparison, I am led to give the benefit of the doubt to Gunaratnam. The regime you defend so painstakingly simply fluffed its defense. These “where’s the evidence??”, “we’re innocent and helpless” blabs (part of which you duplicate here) sound like stale parrot-lore.

    (As an aside — you say, “what’s the evidence of torture? A scratch mark caused by a blindfold and ALLEGATIONS of sexual abuse?”. So, you do admit a kidnapping took place?? A moment ago, you were more of the opinion that it was all conjecture. Inconsistency can be contagious).

    What is more crucial, however, is — as to why you are so arduously playing this ‘night watchman’ role for the party being accused of the abduction: the state or a proxy operating under its patronage? What is your interest in playing council?

    I am not neutral. I’m staggered at how you use these qualitative words — selectivity (in a sense that one can be non-selective), neutrality etc — in a note of high morality. So, you are the prophet of objective journalism? You were more neutral, I admit, while being on CSN, but that’s on a different subject altogether isn’t it? 😉

    I might not follow this up, Malinda. Happy May Day at Municipal Grounds!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s