The latest Sirisena-Rajapaksa talks are the outcome of a committee of six named at a meeting of SLFP parliamentarians, provincial councillors and local councillors on June 16. They were tasked to bring about peace within the party. The committee urged Sirisena to take Rajapaksa on board. Instead Sirisena, as revealed in these columns last week, offered a “Sambhavaneeya Thanathurak” or a distinguished position.

The committee conveyed this to Rajapaksa on Wednesday, but the former President rejected the offer. He declared that it was a move to take him away from the people. The task of conveying Rajapaksa’s response to Sirisena fell on the Chairman of the Committee, Ratnapura District parliamentarian John Seneviratne. He continued the dialogue with Sirisena. It had culminated on the need for another meeting.

This meeting on Thursday night, it turned out, was to coincide with another event. Western Province Chief Minister Prasanna Ranatunga was playing host at a working dinner to all UPFA MPs with the exception of those holding portfolios in the Government. That was at his Green Path official residence. The event had earlier been planned at Water’s Edge in Battaramula. When the management learnt Rajapaksa was going to address an event at the venue, it turned down the booking.

This is the same way those in the Rajapaksa administration did when they were in power. Eighty seven UPFA parliamentarians turned up. Rajapaksa, who made a brief speech, noted that he was used to winning and losing elections. President Sirisena had sought the leadership of the SLFP and he had readily heeded the request.

He charged that the party had now been given to the UNP. He also said that he had never quit the SLFP and had remained a member. Young parliamentarians, he said, should draw a lesson from this. When it neared 10 p.m., he said, he had to go since he had an important engagement. He left accompanied by John Seneviratne.

On Friday morning, media reports which spoke of the Sirisena-Rajapaksa meeting had suggested that it had taken place at the official residence of the Speaker. The offices of both Sirisena and Rajapaksa issued two separate, carefully crafted statements. The wording was identical, blended harmoniously and declared that reports of Sirisena meeting Rajapaksa “at the Speaker’s residence” were wrong.

At first glance, one was unable to discern whether it was the meeting or the venue that was wrong or both. The meeting, the Sunday Times learnt, took place at the official residence of the President at Wijerama Mawatha, the same residence ear-marked for Rajapaksa. Sirisena will shift to a house now being renovated near Sirimavo Bandaranaike Vidyalaya.

It was earlier occupied by former media minister Keheliya Rambukwella. The fact that words have been carefully chosen in the two statements meant, to say the least, there was accord among the two sides on what to say. Whether that would dispel the fact that the duo met is doubtful. And the question would be why both wanted to deny the meeting. Or did they only deny they met at the Speaker’s residence.

The Sirisena-Rajapaksa talks had lasted nearly an hour. Around 11.30 p.m. Rajapaksa, accompanied by John Seneviratne returned to the dinner party at the official residence of Chief Minister Ranatunga. There, the former President related what happened to a few trusted allies. He was of course somewhat economic on most details. He claimed Sirisena had sought the meeting. Rajapaksa had remained seated until Sirisena arrived. He rose and greeted him.

During the conversation Sirisena had wanted to know whether he was going to contest the parliamentary elections. Though he did not think he was going to do so earlier, the former President had replied that he now wants to contest. Sirisena had pointed out that the UNP would then attack him. Rajapaksa said he had replied that they were continuing to do so and he saw no difference in that. There had also been questions on different meetings that have been held to espouse Rajapaksa’s cause for Prime Ministerial candidacy.

This was with the conduct of the Nugegoda rally. Sirisena had asked him whether he planned to contest or to come on a National List. Rajapaksa had replied that he wanted to contest a District. He had asked Sirisena whether he did not prefer him as a Prime Minister compared to Ranil Wickremesinghe. He had also made a personal explanation about his lifestyle saying he sometimes showed anger, but that was not something he harboured. He would forget such moments. Earlier, Sirisena had made clear Rajapaksa would not be given nominations to contest or be accommodated on the National List. This time, the President had told Rajapaksa that UPFA General Secretary Susil Premajayantha was away from Sri Lanka. He is due in Colombo on Tuesday.

He has said he would talk to him upon his return. Before they parted company, Rajapaksa said Sirisena had assured him that he would not do anything that would divide the party. Rajapaksa also said Sirisena had told him there would he a dissolution of Parliament soon. Last night Rajapaksa took part in a Jaya Piritha at the Sunethra Devi Pirivena in Pepiliyana. There were other reports that Sirisena reached understanding with Rajapaksa over key issues. However, this could not be verified and both sides remained tight lipped.

On Friday morning, Sirisena summoned a meeting of his close confidants who included SLFP ministers. He told them that he had met Mahinda Rajapaksa at his request. He had come to his Wijerama residence, a few blocks away from the British High Commission. He said not to disclose this to the media and warned that he would be forced to deny if they did so. He said Rajapaksa had come to ask him to be made the Prime Ministerial candidate from the SLFP. He has refused to do so.

Sirisena said they should be prepared for dissolution during the weekend. The Parliamentary sessions they were going for that day could well be the last. A committee was named to formulate SLFP election campaign strategy for the parliamentary elections. Among its members are Sarath Amunugama, S.B. Dissanayake and Mahinda Amaraweera.

COURTESY:SUNDAY TIMES