Pondering the reactions

My dear remaining 224, I am writing to you at a time when all of you are shocked, no matter what party you belong to, after hearing the sudden demise of the other one among you, Sanath Nishantha. His departure in a tragic accident has brought about mixed reactions which are well worth reflecting upon by all of you.

We are yet to be told of the exact details of what happened on Thursday morning but experts have said it is quite obvious that Sanath’s vehicle was travelling well above the prescribed speed limit on that expressway, judging by what remains of that jeep. It also did not look as if he was wearing a seat belt.

There has been much debate about why many of our politicians travel at high-speed, often with several escort vehicles, horns blaring and lights blinking, pushing all other road users out of the way and ignoring all road rules. For them, it is their way of saying ‘I am the law, I can do what I want’.

Sanath wasn’t travelling with an escort vehicle but why he would be travelling at such high speed in the early hours of the morning remains a question. Was it that sheer force of habit as a politician, of travelling at high speed ignoring everyone else that brought about Sanath’s ultimate downfall?

Sanath’s demise saw some different responses. It is worthwhile thinking why that has happened. I feel that is because the Sanath that most people saw and heard on the media was Sanath the politician with all its implications. Some of his words and deeds are difficult to uphold as being ideal or exemplary.

People remember Sanath as being the politician who tried to bully a lady official, saying ‘who needs oxygen’, dismissing environmental needs. Then they saw him as the chap accompanying Deshabandu and marching towards ‘Gota Go Gama’ to destroy it and by doing so, trying to end the ‘aragalaya’.

Sanath did not shy away from controversy, he thrived in it. He was charged with contempt of court, was suspended from Parliament for bad behaviour and faced charges of assaulting public officials. He seemed to be following in the footsteps of his mentor in the Puttalam district, Da Mu Dassanayake.

Recently Sanath hit the headlines when he paid the electricity bill for Namal baby’s wedding. That he was currying favour with what he thought was our Royal family was obvious. Most recently he was seen at the Port, attending a party with several other MPs which he later called an ‘inspection tour’.

All this endeared Sanath to the ‘pohottuwa’ camp. What Mervyn Silva once was to Mahinda maama, he tried to be to Gota maama and Namal baby. He was the typical ‘pohottuwa’ politician: crude, not smart, loud, not logical, but blindly loyal to the ‘R’ clan to the point of hurting his own reputation.

Sanath’s demise triggered a rather unpleasant response, particularly on social media, the same social media that was subjected to new regulations just this week for which Sanath himself was a vociferous campaigner. Some rejoiced, calling it ‘retribution’. Others are critical of those who celebrate.

It is highly likely that critics of those who celebrate Sanath’s demise were themselves celebrating Preme’s death three decades ago at the hands of the Tigers and Prabhakaran’s passing 15 years ago. If it is wrong to light crackers and cook ‘kiribath’ now, it couldn’t have been right to do it then.

It shows that politics in Paradise has transformed our politicians and other leaders to the state of being despised and hated by people to such an extent that they celebrate their passing. It should not be so. It is also an indication of the degree of oppression that people have been subjected to by their rulers.

We cannot and must not, forget that despite the politician that he was, Sanath was also a husband and a father. Four children will not see their father again. Their family will never be the same. To celebrate such a tragedy is not humane. It is not Sanath’s tragedy alone. It is the tragedy of Sri Lankan politics.

Dear remaining 224, you must have heard the slogan ‘desiya visi pahama epa’ or ‘we don’t need all 225’. You need to ask yourself why that slogan became popular. That will also explain why Sanath’s demise is provoking an unkind response.

Elections are due soon. Most of you will want to be in the next ‘225’ as well. Ask yourself what kind of response you would evoke if a tragedy were to befall you. It is a dark thought but it will tell you whether you have succeeded as a politician. Dear ‘224’, it is time to turn the searchlight inwards.

Yours truly,

Punchi Putha

PS: As for Sanath, he was the product of a system that many feel must change soon. The longer that system survives there will be more like him. Whether that system will change at the next elections, is up to the voters. Even so, we hope that Sanath Nishantha is allowed to Rest in Peace, at least now.