“Tharunnayata Hetak” is not a political organization

In an interview with LAKBIMAnEWS, Lakshman Hulugalla, the Director General of the Media Centre for National Security took pains to explain that the coup charges are not politically motivated. He spoke to Ranga Jayasuriya on a host of issues including the compulsory retirement of a group of military officers and why Tharunnayata Hetak run by the president’s sons, Namal and Yoshitha Rajapaksa --- the latter being a Navy Lieutenant --- was not a political organization.

Excerpts:

Lets talk about the allegations of a military coup. Many people believe that these are fabricated charges levelled to defame the common opposition candidate. Are there any substantial evidence to justify there was an attempted coup?

Yes, we have started investigations and we have substantial evidence. Investigations are continuing. It is not intended to gain political advantage, because it was not done before the election to gain any political mileage.

But the opposition says that there was an attempt to lay siege to the houses of the opposition leader and general Fonseka on election night, which prompted them to move to the Cinnamon Lake...

If you go through all the statements made by general Fonseka and his supporters you would see that there was evidence to say that they were getting ready for violence. They have also said that they are going to take the president into custody, to shoot the secretary defence etc. All these things had been published and the comments had been made in public speeches. There was no secrecy in that. So as a responsible government, the government has to look into this. What is the reason of hiring and getting (military) deserters and ex army officers into one place, into one hotel. By the time they went to the hotel, they knew that results were going against them. Unofficial results were coming. They had their agents and they knew there was a huge defeat for them. Being a responsible officer who led the army and who was the ex CDS, he ( general Fonseka) should have known that, the law was not permitting him to keep deserters. These things have to be looked in. We are now inquiring and we have taken some people into custody and investigations are going on. I can’t tell you the result of the investigation at the moment. But this is not a politically motivated inquiry.

You mentioned that they threatened to arrest the president and to shoot the secretary defence. Have these concerns about these speeches been made public before the election? They were made only after the election to justify the so called coup charges...

Long before the election. They have made these remarks about the secretary defence and others. These were not made up stories, not that they were made after the election results.

Assume that they talked that way before the election. Still this were not more than verbal rhetoric, is it?

No.no. People can’t say they are going to take so and so into custody and that they are going to put certain people in this particular cell and that they are going to bring a particular person to Galle Face and do something. You should be balanced. You are trying to say that the government is trying to manipulate things, at the same time you are saying whatever they did were not serious. A responsible person can’t make this kind of statement; when the presidential candidate campaigns and makes these statements, he is responsible for what he is saying. Finally, it goes against that particular person. That shows how irresponsible they are.

You may remember that when president Kumaratunga contested for presidency, and she also said that she would bring violators of public trust to Galle Face green and hang them, which she never did...

I am not talking about president Kumaratunga and her regime. I am not answerable for what Mrs Kumaratunga did.

About the recent compulsory retirement of a group of senior military officers. Why was that being done?

Yes we investigated and there is evidence that certain people were involved in politics. For the past 62 years, no person in the security forces was involved in politics. They are there to maintain law and order. That’s why security forces don’t have trade unions, they don’t fight for rights. They do not have strikes. Because, in any country, police and army are there to maintain law and order. If they take sides, how can we maintain law and order? This step was taken, not to take revenge or anything, but as we don’t want any force to be politicized. Their right to resign and contest elections is a different thing. But while they are in the service, we don’t want anybody to get involved in politics. There is evidence and these people are being sent on compulsory retirement. Whatever benefits they enjoyed before, were given -- nothing is being denied. Therefore, nobody can say this was a politically motivated thing, because, we don’t want the police and the security forces to be politicized in the future.

The impression is that they were sent on retirement because once upon a time they were loyalists of general Fonseka...
Basically that is what opposition parties say...

When decisions are taken, people can have various impressions, but impressions are not the reality no? My impression about something and your impression about something can be different. There was a reason for retiring them and we have given the reason. So, if somebody is not happy with the decision, they can appeal or go to court.

Have they been given a charge sheet?

I don’t want to go into details about that. They are sent on compulsory retirement and it is a decision taken within the forces. So what has happened and what is happening after that, we don’t want to discuss in public.

Don’t you think that public has a right to know how a group of senior military officers, some of whom played key roles in the military campaign, are sent on compulsory retirement.

Can you name a prominent person in this group?

Mahesh Senanayake, Major General, the former Director Planning.

What is the significant role he played... There are so many directors in any department, institution or cooperation. It is the institutions that take decisions. Institutions are not made for individuals, individuals are made for institutions. Individuals can come and go and they can be replaced. Institutions can not be replaced. So there are no special individuals in any institution -- not only in (security) forces, in any place.

But there can be exemplary officers...

There are good officers but one day they have to go, no. There were good people in the past and they are retired and then somebody had to replace them. As I told you, institutions have to go on, not the individuals. It does not revolve around the person.

Since you talked about institutions there is an allegation made very strongly that the institutions have gradually being undermined by this government through out the last four years...

Who is making this allegation?

Whole country says that, that the country is being politicized.

Whole country does not say that. If the whole country is supporting that claim, Sarath Fonseka should be the President by now.

I didn’t say the whole country is supporting general Fonseka, but the whole country seems to think that the country is politicized.

It is not the whole country. You have to make the correction. A small group of people may be thinking that way. It is not the majority.

If you say the retirement of officers was effected to prevent politicization of the (military) forces, president’s son, Yositha Rajapaksa, Navy Lieutenant, is the vice president of the Tharunnayata Hetak, which is also a political organization.

Tharunnayata Hetak is not a political organization. Can you show me its registration as a political organization? It is not a political organization. It is a youth foundation.

But its actions amount to that of a political organization. Don’t they?

There were no actions taken by the Tharunnayata Hetak at a political level.

What do you think about their election advertising campaign?

The election advertising campaign, clearly and categorically claimed “Mavbima Dinawamu.” It never mentioned a candidate, never talked about an election symbol. That is for the sake of the country.

It was very obvious that its advertising campaign was in support of president Rajapaksa.

No. no. Never. It was for the benefit of the country. That is why it said Mavbima Dinawamu. It never said Rajapaksa dinavamu. It is a youth organization and had a programme to promote the country.

One last question about the politicization of the security forces. There are allegations that politicization of the army took place through out the period of this regime, even when general Fonseka was the commander of army...

By general Fonseka himself?

No when he was the commander of army, and now the situation has aggravated.

You must bring these allegations out and prove that he himself has done something wrong. That is a very good indication.

But, the president was the Commander in Chief. General Fonseka was acting under the overall command of the President...

If he has done something without the knowledge of the president as the commander in chief, it is up to you all to expose it, so that the president can take some sort of action, even though late.