A Post-script to Ranil’s Al-Jazeera Debacle

By Kassapa 

There was a time, during the presidencies of Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa when Ranil Wickremesinghe was mocked mercilessly for his mannerism in public speaking. This strategy had its impact which is why Wickremesinghe was not able to secure a presidential election victory, first against Kumaratunga and then against Rajapaksa.

Later on, Wickremesinghe was somehow able to offset this, re-inventing himself as the wise old man of Sri Lankan politics and the man who had the required ‘international connections’ who was able to talk to and convince world leaders. This image reached a peak when he became President and steered the ship of state to the shores of economic safety if not recovery after the shipwreck of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Presidency.

All that came crashing down in less than an hour of compelling television viewing when Wickremesinghe faced Mehdi Hasan of the Al Jazeera for an interview on its ‘Head to Head’ programme. Wickremesinghe was mercilessly demonised and stripped of any veneer of political decency, exposing first his hypocrisy and then, more damagingly, his possible role in the notorious activities of the Batalanda housing scheme in the late ‘eighties.

Wickremesinghe himself must take much of the blame. It was clear he was ill-prepared for the interview. For example, when he was asked about the Batalanda issue, he could have said that a Commission was appointed, he gave evidence before it, the report was handed over to his political rival Kumaratunga- and wouldn’t she have done something about it, if there were any incriminating findings? Instead, he chose to say first, that there was ‘no report’ and then, when he was confronted with the report by panellist Frances Harrison, that it was never tabled in Parliament! It clearly demonstrated that Wickremesinghe was being economical with the truth in a manner unbecoming of a former Head of State.

When the issues of the 2019 Easter Day attacks was raised, Wickremesinghe could have had the humility to acknowledge some shortcomings on his part because he was still Prime Minister though having differences with then President Maithripala Sirisena. Instead, he chose to go on the offensive against the Catholic Church, allowing interviewer Hasan to portray him as being insensitive about an incident that cost the lives of almost three hundred people.

Wickremesinghe was also quizzed about his reluctance to prosecute the Rajapaksas when in office as President. Instead of being honest and pointing out how illogical it would be to prosecute members of the very party which elected him as President in a parliamentary vote when the country was in the throes of an economic crisis, Wickremesinghe chose to say that it was all at the behest of the “Attorney General’s office”. A rationale of realpolitik would have been better received than the feeble excuse Wickremesinghe offered.     

That thread of arrogance which Wickremesinghe weaves effortlessly against media personnel in Sri Lanka ran through this interview as well, threatening to walk out of the interview and at one point, telling Hasan, “I was in politics even before you were born,” to which Hasan replied, “some may say that is part of the problem”. In the end, this arrogance cost Wickremesinghe dearly as he came across as being insincere, insensitive and dishonest.

Having noted all this as a critique of Wickremesinghe, the role played by Hasan, his panellists and the audience must also be equally scrutinised. Compared with the likes of Michael Parkinson in Britain and Larry King in the United States, Hasan pales into insignificance. His style is brash and intimidating and relies on hectoring the interviewee into submission, rather than firmly but gently persuading them to part with the truth. As a result, Hasan’s interviews are often a slanging match and an unedifying spectacle. What Hasan lacks in brains, he tries to make up in verbal brawn, often speaking over his guest, which he did to Wickremesinghe several times, cutting short his answers.

At times, Hasan’s reasoning was as comical as Wickremesinghe’s. He repeatedly found fault with Wickremesinghe for attending a birthday event for Mahinda Rajapaksa, implying that they should be daggers drawn and at each other’s throats whenever they encounter each other, simply because they are political rivals.

It didn’t take the viewer long to realise that the audience, perhaps with the exception of panellist Niranjan Deva Adithya (known in Britain as Nirj Deva), consisted almost entirely of Eelamist sympathisers hellbent on rekindling memories of the July ’83 Anti-Tamil riots and the conclusion of the Eelam war.

All of their questions were hopelessly one-sided and, as Deva Adithya pointed out they were being put to the wrong man because, whatever his shortcomings, Wickremesinghe was one of the more minority-friendly leaders Sri Lanka had. In the one redeeming feature on his part, Wickremesinghe did try to acknowledge that some errors were made during the end phase of the war but that too was glossed over and ridiculed by Hasan.

Overall, the interview was an unmitigated disaster not only for Wickremesinghe but also for Hasan. If other leaders and celebrities watch this interview, they would think twice before being interviewed by Hasan, even if they have nothing to hide because Hasan seems driven by an agenda rather than by a sincere wish to get to the truth.

As for Wickremesinghe, he must know that his performance is cringeworthy because it not only casts him in a poor light, it also reflects badly on Sri Lanka because it raises the question, ‘is this the calibre of leader that this country can produce?”.

That is not all, there may be other consequences for Wickremesinghe. The interview has opened the can of worms that is the Batalanda Commission report. Cabinet discussed it this week and it was announced the report would be presented to Parliament. As most of the alleged victims of Batalanda were accused of being members or sympathisers of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), it is ironic that a report not acted upon by Chandrika Kumaratunga might be progressed by a JVP-led government a quarter of a century later.

So, for Wickremesinghe, at least after this interview, we hope he has finally got the message: it is time to retire.