BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

Various reasons contributed to beginning the unsuccessful ARAGALAYA in 2022, which focused on either capturing the government or changing the government policy towards the people suffering from economic difficulties.  Capturing a government that was elected by a democratic election could be considered illegal in terms of law and gaining political power in a country using an undemocratic way could not be considered an equitable or ethical way of changing the government. Modern democratic values are working not only in Sri Lanka but also in other countries. Therefore, ARAGALAYA had ethical and moral issues at the beginning that are questionable. 

Compare to the previous ARAGALA in Sri Lanka, the major reason for the failure of this ARAGALAYA was leaders failed to present their economic policies and convince the people that their economic policy would have a positive impact on the economy and will gain clear benefits for people. Without knowing the real leaders of ARAGALAYA, people couldn’t trust the way it was going on and people surrounding Colombo gathered at Galle Face ground like buffaloes that came out from sheds that hadn’t reflect the democratic values and acceptable economic policies that would be beneficial to people. The fundamental weakness of ARAGALAYA was it failed to justify policies that they would do and the policies which contained justice.  

The country indeed had problems relating to business and the living concerns of people. Such problems would have been solved by the government using the right economic policy that has been planned considering broader factors and would successfully organise related activities by the leaders of ARAGALAYA. These vital activities were not done by the leaders of ARAGALAYA and the failure of leaders was the main contributing factor to its unsuccess. In this situation, there was a higher risk that was not considered by leaders.  Generally, people doubted the economic policy of young people who have no experience and never studied past economic downturns. In addition, certain people had different objectives, for example, a family living in Australia had a secret religious agenda that was not disclosed to people. In that background, the struggle was a misleading activity the general public didn’t know whether the struggle was a justifiable matter of the public

The increase in productivity in all sectors of the economy and the aggrandisement of the volume of foreign exchange reserves were vital issues that needed urgent attention and other economic problems related to macroeconomic concerns must have been highlighted by them as in the economic policy. They were major issues of ARAGALAYA and leaders lacked understanding of these factors they must have thought in the way university students are thinking without practical experience.

Many people in the country have no clear understanding of how to solve the problems and the leaders of ARAGALAYA should have explained to people why they were so concerned about the economic problems and that they can solve problems by implementing trusted policies. The ARAGALAYA in 2022 was not described the specific economic policy which will positively impact the economy. People even did not know who were the leaders of the struggle. The vital factor in modern society is that struggles could gain benefits if there are reserved assets and when there are no such preserved assets physical materials would not come to support the struggle. 

In 1971, Rehana Wijeweera specifically stated that we will uproot tea plantations and replace them with Tapioca which would be an input-boosting industrial input with factories. Using cassava for industrial input would not be a substitute for the tea economy as it generates billion of foreign exchange and casava cannot do it.  People at that time (1971) knew that such policies would not work for the country. Wijeweera whether policies were right or wrong publicly stated but in such a way modern leaders should have expressed economic policies that have not happened during the struggle. How the policies of struggle leaders would practically impact the macroeconomy to solve problems of people did not express and the struggle showed it was a clear attempt to cheat power.

It was not a productive and acceptable policy action to the public and the policies of Wijeweera were questionable to people at that time and the public was reluctant to associate with JVP. The open talks of Wijeweera were more respected by people than the rough leaders of the modern struggle. Many people state that the Aragalaya has not finished and people were invited to participate in several rallies but they did not participate, only a few people participated, who were hardcore Marxists and after tear gas and water cannon treatment all left the ARAGALAYA. It should note that struggles would not succeed in the modern era because the government has the more strong firepower and the other matter was many of the participants of the struggle were amatory criminals who attempted to popularize by ragging innocent students. Rohana Wijeweera 1971 openly rejected erotic criminals in universities and had human values.

People did not know who were the leaders of modern ARAGALAYA and what were their economic policies of them. Could leaders of ARAGALAYA respond to people and able to act in response to modern weapons of arm forces? Schoolkids in Grades 10 and 12 know economics better than leaders of ARAGALAYA and people can trust the economic piece of advice of international financial institutions such as IMF, WB, Asian Development Bank and ADA.   

Sri Lanka has complicated political issues with many political parties, which are based on selfish dispositions and religions in the country are working against the teaching of the religious inventors. Political parties should attempt to stop misleading people and create a production economy in all sectors such as agriculture, industry, construction, services and information technology. It is the right thing to do than commanding struggles. If a 10% production increase in all sectors of the economy, current problems could be defeated and people would gain economic benefits at a normal level and then the economy could be expanded by new investments.

Mr Ranil Wickremasinghe is working well, however,  the ruins of the Rajapaksa strive to regain power for Namal Rajapaksa and put their hands on Wickremasinghe’s policy further intending to regain power. As James Dusenbery stated aggregate consumption of Sri Lanka is influenced by the demonstration effect and destroyed the foreign exchange reserves. During the Rajapaksa regime spending more money on imports reflected the worse nature of the demonstration effect in Sri Lanka. Many urban people borrow money and purchase luxury goods and services as a result of the demonstration effect. The worse situation is that the government should invest funds in road development and many others. It is difficult to change consumption patterns and the government needs to neglect people in the lower-income category who are below the poverty line.