This is an outside-the-box analysis of the Easter Sunday Bombings on the fifth anniversary of the tragedy. The official story of the Easter Sunday Massacre in Sri Lanka perfectly fits as fake news as the Sri Lankan government is trying to cover up the Easter Sunday attacks, which is evident in a recent book by Sri Lanka’s national security advisor, Professor Rohan Gunaratna. The book, titled “Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday Massacre: Lessons for the International Community,” is published by Penguin Random House and defends the attack’s masterminds. As such, the book spreads fake news, as Russell Frank (2015) pointed out in the Journal of American Folklore. In his article “Caveat Lector: Fake News as Folklore,” Russell Frank defines fake news as intentionally false reports as he outlines the following:
Journalism ethicists use “fake news” to refer to promotional material disguised as news. The kind of fake news I am concerned with here can be more broadly defined as intentionally false reports. The intentional dimension of fake news is critical to our definition because on occasion news organizations inadvertently deliver false reports, either because they are taken in by a hoax or they obtain information offered in good faith that proves to be erroneous (Frank 316).
A Professor of Security Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technology University, Dr. Rohan Gunaratna, highlights the urgent need for de-radicalization to counterterrorism. Many expected this book would reveal much-awaited Easter Sunday massacre secrets. Unfortunately, as a subservient to the Sri Lankan intelligence community, Dr. Gunaratna has once more pandered to the opinion of his superiors in the Sri Lankan government and the intelligence community.
First and foremost, Gunaratna’s work needs to be more objective. It becomes evident from the outset that the author has a personal agenda and an ideological bias, which taints the credibility of his analysis. His strong affiliations with the Sri Lankan government and intelligence agencies raise serious concerns about potential ulterior motives behind this publication. As a result, readers are left to wonder whether this book serves as a mere tool for justifying the government’s actions rather than an earnest examination of the tragedy.
Dr. Gunaratna’s book promises an in-depth examination of the tragic events that unfolded in Sri Lanka. However, this literary offering falls painfully short of delivering its titular promise and presents a convoluted, biased, and inadequate analysis of the Easter Sunday massacre. Although the book is supposed to promise to shed light on a horrific and tragic event that shook the world, after reading this book, it becomes evident that the author needs to deliver an objective and comprehensive analysis of the subject matter. Instead, the book appears to be a biased and one-sided account that needs to provide meaningful insights or lessons for the international community.
From the beginning, the author’s primary objective may be less about providing genuine insights and more about advancing a particular agenda. Gunaratna’s evident bias is manifested in his repeated attempts to manipulate the narrative to assign blame exclusively to specific groups and religious affiliations. His narrow-minded approach fails to acknowledge the multifaceted complexities that contributed to the tragedy, thereby oversimplifying and presenting a one-dimensional account of the events.
It becomes apparent that Gunaratna’s agenda leans heavily toward the Sri Lankan government’s perspective. He seems more interested in defending the authorities’ actions than critically examining the events that led to the Easter Sunday massacre. This one-sided approach undermines the credibility of the entire book, making it more of a government propaganda piece rather than an impartial investigation into the tragedy.
One of the most glaring issues with this book is the author’s disregard for objectivity. Throughout the narrative, Gunaratna cherry-picks evidence to fit his predetermined conclusions, conveniently ignoring any information that might challenge his preconceived notions. Such a lack of impartiality severely undermines the credibility of his analysis and calls into question the book’s validity as a reliable source of information.
Another glaring issue is the absence of perspectives from the victims’ families and survivors. By neglecting to include their voices and experiences, Gunaratna dehumanizes the tragedy and reduces it to a mere geopolitical event. The emotional toll on the affected communities is largely ignored, depriving readers of a more profound connection with the human aspect of the Easter Sunday massacre.
Moreover, the writing style could be more varied, making it easier to engage with the content. The author’s excessive jargon and technical language, often without proper explanation, alienates readers who may need to be more familiar with the intricacies of counterterrorism and intelligence tradecraft. Rather than enlightening the reader, this approach only adds to confusion and frustration. Gunaratna’s writing style must be drier and jargon-filled, making the book inaccessible to a broader audience. Academic language may suit some readers, but for a topic as crucial as this, it is essential to make the content approachable to a broader readership to foster meaningful discussions and awareness.
Furthermore, the book’s title, “Lessons for the International Community,” suggests a broader analysis of the implications of such events for global security and counterterrorism efforts. However, the book fails to deliver on this promise, providing only superficial and generalized recommendations that offer little value to policymakers and researchers seeking practical insights.
The author’s findings need coherence and clarity. He jumps from one point to another without sufficient context or explanation, leaving readers needing help understanding the chronological sequence of events and their connections. A clear narrative structure is required to maintain the book’s readability and overall impact. The book fails to offer novel insights or lessons for the international community. Instead of using the tragedy as an opportunity to promote dialogue and understanding between nations, Gunaratna perpetuates a fear-driven narrative, further dividing communities and exacerbating global tensions. In doing so, he undermines the very notion of international cooperation and solidarity, which is essential in preventing such atrocities in the future.
One of the book’s most troubling aspects is the author’s selective use of sources and data. Gunaratna heavily relies on official statements from the Sri Lankan government and security forces, leaving out critical perspectives from independent experts and eyewitnesses. This biased sourcing raises doubts about the accuracy and objectivity of the information presented.
Additionally, Gunaratna appears to oversimplify complex socio-political and religious factors that contributed to the Easter Sunday massacre. By reducing the root causes to a mere black-and-white depiction of good versus evil, he disregards the intricate nuances that played a role in the tragic events. Such oversimplification does a disservice to the victims and their families, who deserve a more thoughtful and nuanced examination of the circumstances surrounding the attack.
The book is a biased and shallow attempt to analyze a tragedy of immense proportions. Gunaratna’s failure to present a comprehensive and unbiased account, coupled with his questionable affiliations and lack of empathy for the victims, significantly diminishes the value of this book. As things progress, we must ensure the international community finds a legitimate way to investigate this crime and bring the perpetrators to justice. As the Sri Lankan cardinal Malcolm Ranjith says, we need a UNHCR investigation to determine what happened that day. The country’s military and intelligence apparatus will sway any setups by the Sri Lankan government.
Therefore, we must use social media and other digital platforms to counter this propaganda, disseminate information, spread awareness, and create effective counter-narratives. As Douglas Eyman stated in his 2015 work, digital rhetoric can be used as an analytical tool and a guide for producing persuasive communication, making it an ideal medium for seeking truth in the digital information age (Eyman 29).
In conclusion, “Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday Massacre: Lessons for the International Community” by Dr. Rohan Gunaratna is a disappointing and biased work that fails to deliver on its promises. The book’s one-sided perspective, lack of comprehensive analysis, and questionable sourcing undermine its credibility and value as a serious examination of the Easter Sunday massacre. Readers seeking a deeper understanding of this tragic event and its implications for the world would be better served by looking elsewhere for a more balanced and well-researched account.
This publication is best avoided for those seeking a genuinely informative and well-rounded perspective on the Easter Sunday massacre. Gunaratna’s evident biases, lack of objectivity, and outdated information render the book inadequate for serious analysis. Instead of a nuanced examination of the tragedy and its implications, readers are presented with a skewed perspective that does little justice to the complexity of the events and fails to offer any meaningful lessons for the international community.
Annotated bibliography
Ariaratnam, Kagusthan. ‘Special Report: Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday Bombings – An Intelligence Failure? Or an Intelligence Operation?’ NAOC, 25 May 2020, https://natoassociation.ca/special-report-sri-lankas-easter-sunday-bombings-an-intelligence-failure-or-an-intelligence-operation/.
A study by the NATO Canada Association, attributed to this author, supports the assertion that Professor Gunaratna’s research exhibits significant bias in favor of the Sri Lankan government’s standpoint. The professor focuses more on defending the authorities’ actions rather than engaging in a thorough and critical examination of the events leading up to the Easter Sunday attack. This unbalanced approach undermines the credibility of his entire publication, transforming it from an impartial investigation of the tragedy into a piece of government propaganda.
Borham, Maneshka and Singh, Anurangi. “Rohan Gunaratna Debunked?” Sunday Observer, 25 May 2019, archives1.sundayobserver.lk/2019/05/26/news-features/rohan-gunaratna-debunked.
The report by The Sunday Observer is of considerable significance within this research as it effectively undermines and reveals Professor Rohan Gunaratna’s fake news reports and media interviews. As a professor of security studies and a counterterrorism expert, Gunaratna previously served as the national security advisor to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who is believed to be the actual mastermind behind the Easter Sunday Bombings.
Cronau, Peter. “View of Review: The Legitimising of Terror Fears: Research or Psy Ops?”, ojs.aut.ac.nz/pacific-journalism-review/article/view/773/974. Accessed 10 Mar. 2024.
This journal article, authored by Australian investigative journalist Peter Cronau, plays a critical role in this research. Cronau’s investigation sheds light on the fact that Professor Gunaratna’s previous publications regarding the same subject matter are not trustworthy, as they are influenced by his personal agenda and ideological bias. Gunaratna’s close ties with the Sri Lankan government and intelligence agencies raise red flags and cast doubts on the legitimacy of his book on the topic.
David Miller and Tom Mills (2009) The terror experts and the mainstream media: the expert nexus and its dominance in the news media, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2:3, 414-437, DOI: 10.1080/17539150903306113
In a recent study, UK-based scholars David Miller and Tom Mills analyzed the framing of terrorism by a few leading experts who frequently contribute to the mainstream media. The study identifies Professor Gunaratna and raises questions about his credentials, citing his apparent biases, lack of objectivity, and reliance on outdated information in his works. Hence, this peer-reviewed journal article is a more appropriate source for serious analysis of this research.
Eyman, Douglas. Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice. University of Michigan Press, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3998/dh.13030181.0001.001.
This journal article is significant to my research because it discusses how social media and other digital platforms can combat propaganda, share information, raise awareness, and create persuasive counter-narratives. As Douglas Eyman asserts in the article, digital rhetoric serves as an analytical tool and a guide for producing convincing communication, making it an ideal medium for discovering truth in the digital information era.
Frank, Russell. “Caveat Lector: Fake News as Folklore.” The Journal of American Folklore, vol. 128, no. 509, 2015, pp. 315–32, https://doi.org/10.5406/jamerfolk.128.509.0315.
This journal article is immensely significant and contributes substantially to my research. Gunaratna’s book on the Easter Sunday Massacre disseminates inaccurate information by deliberately publishing false reports. Accordingly, Russel Frank’s journal article assumes critical importance as it resonates with my research, given that Gunaratna’s book serves as the “enabler”, as Frank coined it,
Gunaratna, Rohan. Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday Massacre: Lessons for the International Community. Penguin Books, an Imprint of Penguin Random House SEA, 2023.
This book is considered crucial to this research as it claims to offer a thorough analysis of the Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka that took place on April 21, 2019. The attacks targeted several churches and luxury hotels, resulting in the loss of over 260 lives. The book’s author, Professor Gunaratna, is a well-known expert in security studies and counterterrorism. In the book, he investigates the rise of Islamic extremism in Sri Lanka, as well as the government’s operational failures that allowed the attack’s masterminds to go unchallenged. However, it is essential to note that the book is believed to spread fake news and mislead its readers.
“His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith Addresses 49th UNHRC on Easter Sunday Attack” YouTube, 7 Mar. 2022, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHbujpjdNwo&t=23s.
This YouTube video featuring the Sri Lankan Cardinal is crucial to the ongoing research. In the video, Sri Lankan Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith openly accuses the Sri Lankan government of covering up the masterminds behind the Easter Sunday Massacre and calls for an investigation by the UNCHR into this heinous crime.
Hughes, Gary. “Analyse This.” The Age, 20 July 2003, www.theage.com.au/world/analyse-this-20030720-gdw2tg.html.
An Australian journalist, Gary Hughes, has written a report on Professor Gunaratna’s reputation. Hughes’ report cast suspicion and questioned Gunaratna’s validity. The book on the Easter Sunday Massacre has a significant flaw: the author’s lack of objectivity. Gunaratna selectively chooses evidence to support his predetermined conclusions, disregarding any information that may challenge his preconceptions throughout the narrative.
Sri Kantha, Sachi. “On Rohan Gunaratna: The ‘Temple Drum’ of Terrorism Industry.” Sangam, www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/Sachi_9_12_03.htm. Accessed 10 Mar. 2024.
A report by a Tamil advocacy group in the US has condemned Professor Gunaratna for promoting a fear-based narrative that creates divisions among communities and worsens global tensions. The report argues that such actions contradict the spirit of international cooperation and solidarity, essential in preventing future atrocities. Therefore, this report is a significant contribution to this research.
Featured image: DailyMirror