Categories
Foreign Affairs

Yes We Can. But Will We?

By Tisaranee Gunasekara

“Tyranny, like hell, is not simply conquered.” – Paine (The American Crisis)

Hopefully it is a fabrication, created in Medamulana, like the ‘news’ of America softening its stance towards Sri Lanka or Premier Modi wanting the TNA to participate in the newest All Parties Conference.

ranill-anura- colombotelegraphAccording to Irida Divaina, the JVP has decided to boycott the Presidential election, if Mahinda Rajapaksa is a candidate[i]. The logic is that President Rajapaksa can’t contest for the third time and if he does so it will be an illegal act which in turn will transform the election into an illegal exercising. The JVP, it is becoming reported, will neither field a candidate in such an illegal election, nor take part in a joint oppositional alliance. Alternatively the JVP will conduct a national campaign, educating the voters about the illegal nature of the election.

In other words, the JVP will (implicitly or explicitly) advocate an election boycott. It will confuse, confound and demoralise the anti-Rajapaksa camp and deprive the opposition of tens of thousands of a lot necessary votes. That such an outcome will advantage none but the Rajapaksas is apparent and certain.

This may be the JVP’s way out of its personal political conundrum. Anura Kumara Dissanayake is a marvellous speaker, factual, logical and forceful. But his leadership is not enough to make an sufficient turnaround in the JVP’s electoral fortunes. The Uva elections indicated, as did earlier provincial polls, that the JVP will fare incredibly badly if it contests the presidency separately. The JVP is certainly reluctant to assistance a UNP candidate. Since among them, Sajith Premadasa and Ranil Wickremesinghe, seemed to have killed the prospect of a joint oppositional platform, the JVP is attempting to locate a face-saving formula.

Did the Rajapaksas – or their allies – have something to do with the JVP’s surreally stupid decision? Following all, the Rajapaksas reportedly bribed the LTTE for imposing an election boycott on Tamil voters in 2005. Vellupillai Pirapaharan would have created the decision since he was rearing to unleash the Final Eelam War, but he clearly did not mind generating some economic gains, on the side. Mr. Pirapaharan was not a Rajapaksa stooge he was not in cahoots with the Rajapaksas. He was, or thought he was, getting diabolically clever. He was going to aid Mahinda Rajapaksa into energy, take Rajapaksa money and use it to defeat the Rajapaksa government in the battlefield. We know how that program ended.

If the boycott-story is accurate, the JVP is remaking Vellupillai Pirapaharan’s deadly mistake. The Rajapaksas will use the JVP boycott to win the election and then, getting secured familial rule by appointing a Rajapaksa as PM, will hammer the opposition into submission, which includes the JVP. Just as ordinary Tigers and ordinary Tamils paid the price tag of Vellupillai Pirapaharan’s colossal inanity, ordinary JVPers and their families will have to pay the price of JVP leaders’ hara-kiri logic.

Hopefully sense will prevail, and the JVP will abandon this suicidal-homicidal choice. But the very fact that such an inane thought has been mooted, plus the divisive and destructive conduct of Sajith Premadasa and his cohorts, indicates that the Uva Guarantee can well turn into a mirage, an additional tragic may possibly-have-been. (Sajith Premadasa conduct is the opposite of his father’s. Ranasinghe Premadasa worked, harder than every person else, for the party sans situations. His attitude was “First we will canvass the whole nation and then ask for our due place”[ii].)

The outburst of post-election violence in Uva (which reached unprecedented levels) is yet another signal of coming events. The Rajapaksas are not going to go, lawfully and democratically. They will do every thing they can, from trickery to thuggary, to remain.

“Better to destroy than to make cost-free,” Schiller’s Grand Inquisitor tells a wavering King Philip in Don Carols. That would be the Rajapaksa attitude, as Siblings, Sons and Nephews ready themselves to face a suddenly not-so-specific future.

The Plague of Tyranny

Jean-Claude Duvalier, ‘Baby Doc’, died yesterday of organic causes. At 19 years he inherited the presidency from his father and ruled supreme for the subsequent 14 years. Francois ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier came to power electorally and transformed Haiti into a tyranny and himself into its president-for-life. Over the subsequent numerous decades, the Duvaliers made Haiti into a byword for repression and murder, poverty and backwardness.

The still ongoing plight of Haiti indicates that receiving rid of a tyrant may turn out to be the straightforward element. Recovering from tyranny is a far arduous task. Restoring to well being institutions and human habits undermined by tyranny frequently proves to be beyond the frail capacities of newly liberated lands and their newly free of charge individuals. The longer a tyranny lasts, the tougher it is to create a democracy on its ruins. This is especially so exactly where tyrants have undermined and destroyed all countervailing powers and institutions, turning nations into their private/familial preserves.

Mahinda Vatican PopeThe inclusion of de facto Chief Justice Mohan Pieris in the presidential delegation to Vatican demonstrates (again) the degradation of one particular of the most fundamental pillars of the state. Right now the upper judiciary is a mere appendage of the Ruling Family. If the Rajapaksas can be evicted next year, it may nevertheless be feasible to repair the damage and restore the judiciary to overall health. But if Rajapaksa rule continues for a lot of a lot more years, the virus of subservience will infect the entirety of that august institution and even the memory of judiciary as an independent pillar of state will vanish. The next generation, like the next generation of judges and lawyers, will think it natural and normal for the judiciary to act as an instrument of Rajapaksa energy.

As Joachim Fest pointed out, “At initial the numerous violations of the law by our new rulers nonetheless caused a degree of disquiet…. quickly life went on as if such crimes had been the most all-natural factor in the world”[iii].

Rulers set trends. We learnt to drink tea from the British. The Sinhala-Buddhist morality espoused by Anagarika Dharmapala and his ideological descendents is much more akin to English Puritanism, German Calvinism and Victorian values. The colourful costume worn by the Kandyan kings and aristocracy (which goes by the misnomer, ‘Mul Anduma’, original dress) was naturally copied from the European fashions of the 15th/16th century, brought to Lanka by the Portuguese. These days the kurrakkan shawl of the Rajapaksas has grow to be a fashion accessory among the new elite and these aspiring to that status. Rank nepotism, abuse, impunity and intolerance are some of the Rajapaksa values which are percolating into larger society. 5 far more years of this contamination, and even the ousting of the Rajapaksas will not suffice to bring Lanka back to overall health and sense.

The Opposition has been buoyed by Uva. But Uva represents a possible, a chance, an opportunity and not a certainty. The Rajapaksas will do everything in their energy to avert the opposition from capitalising on Uva. The unresolved crisis in the UNP and the JVP’s choice to boycott elections are merely the 1st stumbling blocks in the opposition’s achievable path to victory.

Uva opened a trapdoor. It can be widened into an exit for the Rajapaksas.

It can be done. But will we do it?


[i] JVP concerns statement about presidential elections: If Mahinda Comes We won’t – Irida Divayina – five.ten.2014

[ii] Quoted in ‘President Premadasa and I: Our Story’ – B Sirisena Cooray

[iii] Not Me: Memories of a German Childhood

Categories
Foreign Affairs

Post July 1983 & JOSSOP: A New Kind Of War

By Rajan Hoole –

Dr. Rajan Hoole

Dr. Rajan Hoole

Border Aggression and Civilian Massacres – Component 3

We saw in earlier chapters that Gandhiyam and other social service NGOs assisting Tamils in these border areas had been getting targetted from late 1982. Gandhiyam was sealed in April 1983 and its leaders detained. On the eve of the July ’83 violence Gamini Dissanayake created veiled threats of robust-arm techniques against Tamils settled in areas earmarked for Sinhalese colonisation (Chapter five). In the prison massacre, Dr. Rajasundaram, probably the single most active worker among these refugees in the field, was murdered by the State in a most contemptible manner.

In the weeks following the July violence there was an air of impunity and anarchy and also, as we shall see, grand plans to drive away the Tamil settlers and even destroy old Tamil villages along border places and put in militarised Sinhalese settlements. And whom did these strategists decide on as their model? Why, Israel of course! Gamini Dissanayake was at the forefront and for him it was a continuation of what was begun just before the July 1983 violence. He was soon joined by Ravi Jayewardene who, as the President’s security advisor, was a important figure at operational level.

On the 1 hand Jayewardene was speaking to the Indian Government’s envoy G. Parthasarathy who was attempting to push by means of a political settlement to the ethnic dilemma, but on the other he was making overtures to the US in a bid to obtain a military remedy. The num- ber of Tamil militants nevertheless was then tiny and the escalation sought by Jayewardene was to prove really expensive.

In the afternoon of 30th September 1983, the US Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger flew into Colombo and had talks with President Jayewardene for the duration of a short stopover. This was picked up by the Indian Press, which speculated about US military help to Sri Lanka in re- turn for naval facilities at Trincomalee. The manner in which the Sri Lankan foreign ministry dealt with the matter was to look for difficulty where none existed. They issued a statement that Weinberger had decided to take this route whilst flying from Peking to Islamabad in Pakistan, and had made a refuelling cease in Colombo. They stressed that it was none of India’s business. While Weinberger was here on a 90 minute stopover, the statement said, Jayewardene invited him to tea and they met. The Foreign Ministry by its haughty attitude gave an impression that a favourable deal with a super energy was involved. These developments have been the context in which the Indian Government took a choice in late 1983 to train and arm Tamil militant groups.

What the US was hunting for, would grow to be clear later. The US and Britain did not want to confront India by becoming straight involved in Sri Lanka. The Weekend columnist Don Mithuna (30.9.84), quoting the London Economist, mentioned: “The Americans produced up for their own cold-shoul- dering of Sri Lanka by offering a go-among, Gen- eral Vernon Walters, who helped to draft the agree- ment signed last Might (1984) with Israel.” Regardless of denials by the US Embassy in Colombo, that there had been some direct US help is suggested by the American author of Only Man is Vile. William Mc Gowan quoted a Sri Lankan Air Force pilot telling him (in 1987) that a Vietnam War veteran had flown several operations in this country.

Sri Lanka had broken diplomatic ties with Israel in 1970 in maintaining with a Third Globe consensus when the Left-leaning government led by Mrs. Bandaranaike was voted into energy. Jayewardene’s government that was elected in 1977 was anxious for Israeli help. That it had produced speak to with Israel ahead of the July 1983 violence was confirmed in an interview to the veteran journalist Mervyn de Silva by Mr. David Matnai, initial head of the Israeli Interests Section in the US Embassy (Sunday Island two.9.85).

There was a single matter regarding which sections of both the Sinhalese and the Tamil elite drew inspiration from Israel &#8211 the border places of the Northern and Eastern Provinces. The former saw in the Israeli example a indicates to breaking the back of Tamil nationalist aspira- tions and preserving a unitary Sri Lanka below the hegemony of the Sinhalese elite. The Tamil elite saw in it a means of securing the sparsely populated border areas from additional intrusions by the State by means of colonisation. The Western Jewry’s Zionist dream of Israel, was made viable by absorbing a large quantity of Shepardim Jews who till then had been living with dignity among the Arab individuals, and to whom Israel’s violent and iniquitous creation brought insecu- rity. The Sinhalese and Tamil elite’s border projects also, like the Zionist dream, had to be accomplished by proxy.

The Sinhalese elite looked to pushing militarised colonies of deprived Sinhalese into the North-East in an Israeli West-Bank style ex- pansion into Arab territory. Numerous amongst the Tamil elite drew inspiration from Leon Uris’ Exodus which glorified the pioneering spirit of post Planet War II Jewish refugees in Palestine. Although young Tamil school leavers were can- vassed, it was largely the Tamil refugees from the Hill Nation with couple of other options in the globe who settled in these regions.

According to Sinha Ratnatunga, President Jayewardene entrusted the process of creating con- tact with Israel to his son Ravi in October 1983. Thereafter Cabinet Secretary G.V.P. Samarasinghe had a secret meeting with senior Israeli officials in Europe in the course of November 1983 (see Ratnatunge’s Politics of Terrorism p.162). The deal for Israeli intelligence knowledge was finalised later throughout UN Common Assembly ses- sions in New York and was formally operational by May possibly 1984.

Sinha Ratnatunga (p.315 of the book above) gives us an insight into the mind of the Sinha- lese establishment: “The President who is also the Minister of State Plantations also hopes to increase the plantation business in the Eastern Province. The twin objective is to develop the unused land as effectively as establish a stronger presence of the State in the area&#8230 At the initial stage, separatist [i.e. Tamil] youths objecting to such programmes could attempt to disrupt its workings, but the newly established Planters Corp [sic] supported by the typical forces might be required to defend these schemes.”

This euphemistic description no doubt takes into account the sensibilities of the Australian readership of the book. Interestingly, Don Mithuna says in the write-up of September 1984 quoted above: “The Israeli Interests Section itself has reportedly claimed that they are right here not to train any soldiers but to promote their diplomatic image as well as for “agricultural” purposes.” Mervyn de Silva told the Mossad Commission (CDN 20.7.91) that as of August 1984, there were re- portedly up to six domestic intelligence authorities from Israel operating with the Government ‘to establish a new intelligence network against the Tamils’.

Against these developments it becomes easy to recognize what was in the Government’s thoughts when the Joint Services Particular Operations Command (JOSSOP) was formed on a directive from the President at the starting of October in 1983. It was a joint organisation of the three solutions and the Police along with some civilians under Navy Commander Rear Admiral Asoka de Silva as Co-ordinator-in-Chief. Its stated purpose was to “co-ordinate anti-terrorist activities in the districts of Vavuniya, Mannar, Mullaitivu and Trincomalee” (Rohan Gunasekera, Island 13.11.84). Yet another important role of JOSSOP was to oversee civil affairs such as land- settlement.

With such a high-powered organisation in location, the 1st operation to the credit of the Rear Admiral was announced in the Press a week af- ter Casper Weinberger’s check out. It was described as a ‘flush out’ operation. It had nothing at all to do with flushing out ‘terrorists’ armed to the teeth who have been certainly quite scarce at that time. This was about corralling human beings, males, girls and youngsters, and deporting them to god knows exactly where. There was no direct connection with Weinberger of course, but the context sug- gests exactly where the Government was heading.

The item by Peter Balasuriya in the Island of 7th Oct.1983 titled ‘Gandhiyam Movement’s squat- ters to be evicted’, said: “&#8230 It is stated that more than fifty stateless families, comprising practically 250 males, women and youngsters had been brought from the program- tations and settled on 500 acres earmarked by the Government for the settlement of landless villagers inside the electorate under a Planet Bank project. This encroachment had started two years ago when the Gandhiyam Movement launched a large-scale encroachment in the jungle regions of Vavuniya and Mullaitivu and other places off Vavuniya.”

It claimed that beneath a land policy scheme with Planet Bank help, landless peasant families in the Vavuniya District had been picked by the Government Agent for settlement in 500 acres of virgin forest at Pavatkulam, but was unable to proceed due to the fact of encroachers sponsored by the Gandhiyam. The aim of the stated operation was clearly to establish a Sin- halese settlement making use of Globe Bank funds. It was barely two months after the communal violence and Tamil allotees, if any, were not going to take up land in the mixed region south of Vavuniya below the supervision of the armed forces they did not trust. Gamini Dissanayake was minister of lands and Mahaveli develop- ment, and what’s far more, the second-in-command at JOSSOP was D.J. Bandaragoda, Added Secretary, Mahaveli Improvement!

Bandaragoda had been the best Govern- ment Agent for Trincomalee from the point of view of the Sinhalese State, who used each and every sub- terfuge to push Sinhalese settlement. The cam- paign against the Gandhiyam by way of the Press was first orchestrated by the Government 10 months earlier, in the course of the 1-sided Referen- dum campaign, on 28th November 1982 (see Sect. eight.2). Mr. R. Sampanthan, MP, discovered it sin- ister adequate to contact Jayewardene immedi- ately. The reference to the Gandhiyam in the Press report cited (Island 7.ten.83) was symptom- atic of sick minds that had lost any sense of pro- portion. It stated at the end:

“The activities of the Gandhiyam move- ment and its leaders in Vavuniya and other components of the Eastern Province are now the sub- ject matter of investigations by the CID and ISD. Some of its leaders are currently in cus- tody while some escaped recently after the Batticaloa jail break.”

The truth was that Gandhiyam was completed. Its offices were sealed on 6th April 1983. Of the two leaders arrested, Rajasundaram was mur- dered and the ‘some’ who escaped was in truth one &#8211 A. David. These whom the Gandhiyam had looked soon after now faced the tender mercies of the JOSSOP. The talk of investigation by the CID and ISD was only a threat to these who may well come forward to continue Gandhiyam’s work. The nasty items often being said about Rajasundaram did not strike these say- ing them as utterly indecent and unfair to a self- less and committed man whom their agents had murdered with no giving him a opportunity to ex- plain himself in court. Living in this state of thoughts was to see ghosts, as with the alacrity with which the chiefs of the Mahaveli Authority in the wake of the anti-Tamil violence of July, took measures against imagined organised hordes of Tamils occupying lands they had designated for Sinhalese colonisation.

The trigger of the JOSSOP nonetheless necessary speaking the Gandhiyam to life and attributing to it all kinds of amazing actions in order to play on Sinhalese fears. This created a climate of self-justifying repression and a blind escalation of the conflict. With every step the Government was suspending the democratic signifies to right- ing a incorrect. About this time, thanks to the 6th Amendment, nearly all the parliamentary rep- resentatives of the Tamils had lost their seats in Parliament, producing thus a symbolic break. By the end of 1983, except for these most discern- ing about the consequences of big-energy in- volvement, practically all the Tamils have been pleased about India’s support for the Tamil militant groups. The Government’s simple-minded ar- rogance had carried relations with India to breaking point.

Speaking up organised hordes of Tamils en- croaching on borderlands with Gandhiyam aid was to be the stuff of orchestrated campaigns for the duration of those occasions. The use of foreign help to es- tablish militarised Sinhalese settlements became an situation with the publication of Viktor Ostrovsky’s book (see Sect. 20.five). This was pi- ously denied. But that was part of the game. We saw above an indication of how Planet Bank money was to be employed. Not extended ahead of, the Mahadivulwewa settlement had been estab- lished in the Trincomalee District employing subter- fuge to circumvent Tamil protest. The income involved came from the European Union.

To be continued..

*From Rajan Hoole‘s “Sri Lanka: Arrogance of Energy  – Myth, Decadence and Murder”. Thanks to Rajan for giving us permission to republish. To read earlier parts click right here

Categories
Foreign Affairs

Clarification And Investigation Into Nonis’s Resignation Is Crucial: Prof. Wijesinha

Clarifications and an investigation into the reports circulating with regard to High Commissioner Nonis’s assault and resignation is a need to taking into consideration their implication for Sri Lanka’s international relations, UPFA MP and political analyst Professor Rajiva Wijesinha says.

 Rajiva Wijesinha MP

Rajiva Wijesinha MP

Professor Wijesinha, when asked about his opinion on the &#8220Chris Nonis–Sajin Vass episode&#8220mentioned “The stories circulating with regard to Higher Commissioner Nonis’s resignation certainly need to have investigation as you recommend. What was reported of Minister Keheliya Rambukwella’s comments on in his resignation suggests confusion and provided the implications for our international relations, clarifications are vital.”

He also suggested this incident is in relation to the comments he has produced concerning a concerted try to take away the most effective and loyal non-profession diplomats in the service and accused External Affairs Ministry Secretary Kshenuka Seneviratne of getting behind a lot of of the these attempts.

“There is an attempt to take away effective and loyal non-career diplomats we have, Dayan in Paris, Tamara in Geneva, Asitha Perera in Rome, Palitha Kohona in New York, and later I think even Sarath Kongahage in Berlin and Chris Nonis in London. So the alleged motives for the assault of Chris are fascinating, not least since a single of these envoys told me some time back that Sajin thinks he runs Kshenuka but the reality is the other way round,” he told Colombo Telegraph.

He went on to state that despite these warning signs, it is unfortunate that the President continues to entrust foreign relations to Senevirathne, Vass and GL Peiris as Sri Lanka is bound to fail if the country’s foreign relations continue to remain in their hands.

“But those whom the gods wish to destroy they 1st make mad &#8211 and drink can contribute to this, if reports are appropriate,” he added.

Categories
Foreign Affairs

An Open Letter To The President: Be The Adjust!

By Chandra Jayaratne

Chandra Jayaratne

Chandra Jayaratne

Dear Mr. President,

“You should be the change you want to see in the world”

The Sri Lankan Lion roared at the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly reminding the worldwide neighborhood that “…, in order to achieve the self-assurance and goodwill of the international community as a whole, but a single of the important requirements was consistency of standards across the board with no any perceptions of selectivity or discrimination. It is in this context that the present functioning of the program demands fresh examination in order to boost its credibility. To be productive, this procedure must involve de-politicisation of the UN Technique and mechanisms and they have to cease getting hostage to various types of funding…”

At the exact same time a lion cub on behalf of the Sri Lankan Lion roared in Geneva, stating “…The government of Sri Lanka does not want to support legitamise a flawed procedure and have a detrimental precedent established….What Sri Lanka wants at this juncture is to be encouraged and not impeded….the principled opposition to the OHCHR investigation stems from numerous properly founded issues its politically motivated agenda it challenges the sovereignty and the independence…it violates a basic principle of international law…… by appointment of high level international figures, who are by no indicates ’technical experts relevant to the investigation’ …lack of transparency of the investigation is in clear contravention of the principles of all-natural justice…arbitrary and selective action……deviation from established mandates and processes….addressing accountability problems has to be primarily based on accessible evidence properly sourced and verified…updates replete with accusations and unsubstantiated statistics…”

Mahinda @UN 2014Are these quite same criticisms not be equally applicable to Sri Lanka and all its people, as well as its businesses and civil society, especially in relation to the internal governance and Executive action within Sri Lanka? If so, will not the prescription of a fresh examination of the current functioning of the system and a de-politicisation of the method and mechanisms of governance not be an essential priority alter in Sri Lanka as nicely?

Who can disregard the priority want for de-politisation of the method assurance that independent persons of integrity, capability and verified track record are at the helm of Public Life, (like in the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary) Public Institutions and Regulatory bodies act with independence and with commitment to principles of natural justice the application of the Rule of law and Justice Systems are transparent, unbiased, fair and just selections to high posts are persons with requisite technical and expert experience sans nepotism and cronyism equality is a right of all citizens and they are not discriminated by race, religion, status, political leaning nor by their voice of advocacy : national resource allocations are fair and equitable and based on priority demands of all citizens state spends are economic, efficient and powerful for goal and not tainted by waste and corruption policy and regulatory systems comply with very best practices and are not impacted by state capture nor corruption deviations from established mandates and processes are transparent and uphold principles of natural justice accountability is demanded from all primarily based on proof statistics are precise and transparent transparent Environmental, Ecological and Social Influence assessments precede all new initiatives legal and regulatory reforms are prioritized and are in accord with principles of organic justice Media Freedoms are not directly or indirectly controlled and Voices of Advocacy are not treated as voices of ‘traitors’ Democratic and Human Rights are protected and International Commitments are upheld:

By way of a “Reflection” it is time to trace back and validate regardless of whether the current history of governance and administration, specifically over the last two years have upheld in Sri Lanka the very very same principles referred to above. An independent view seen by way of a transparent eye of integrity will bring out the numerous deviations and discriminatory practices in governance.

Mr. President, if you had been to concentrate on a series of discriminatory acts of governance targeting a single neighborhood, based on unfair perceptions and unjust accusations, wit related attempts to handle and restrict the freedom of association, activities and expressions of a community, please evaluation the recent actions of the government targeting the NGO Neighborhood. Do these actions and proposed legislative reforms, believed to be championed by the Defense establishment, pass the quite very same principles you and the government articulated before the UN General Assembly and the UNHRC?

Mr. President, in order to gain the confidence and goodwill of the Sri Lankan neighborhood as a entire, accepting that the Sri Lankan Civil Society needs at this juncture to be encouraged and not impeded, please evaluate, in terms of the wonderful philosophy and the words of wisdom of Gauthama the Buddha, which you articulated just before the UN Common Assembly, whether or not the NGO community as a entire, (like Good Governance and Anti Corruption Activists, Human Rights Defenders, Environmentalists as properly as Social Welfare Entities), have been treated relatively, upholding principles of natural justice and with consistency of standards across the board and without having political motives  and perceptions of selectivity or discrimination?

Please also reflect, no matter whether the present and planned actions, circulars and legal and regulatory reforms dealing with NGO’s, pass the tests of just and fairness and are in compliance with international best practices, standards and conventions, and especially whether before enacting laws to need NGO’s:

  • to give further information that the Government need to initial enact a law that tends to make Appropriate to Data a binding Governance Commitment on all
  • · to have their
    1. publicity, advocacy, training and publications, and
    2. fund raising and grant receipts, and
    3. action plans

to be prior approved by a Government Secretariat, to evaluate whether or not these needs are based on ill conceived advise, misconceptions and are discriminatory and not in line with independence, all-natural justice principles , democratic freedoms and human rights as committed to by the constitution and binding international conventions

  • · to demonstrate their independence , integrity of goal and credibility of operations that Efficient, Independent and Credible Public Institutions ( Judicial Services, Public Solutions, Elections, Human Rights, Police Services, Bribery &amp Corruption, Ombudsman, Lawyer Common and Auditor Common) are in location
  • · to disclose their strategic plans, budgets, resource allocations and post invest Management Information that the budgeting and budgetary control approach of the government are compliant with the ideal practice benchmark processes advocated by Civil Society Leaders, Organizations and Authorities
  • · to demonstrate the cost effectiveness and worth addition of outcomes  of NGO spends the State to agrees that all public spends in excess of agreed amounts will be subject to worth for funds and economy/effectiveness and efficiency post audits, with reports tabled in Parliament ahead of COPA/COPE
  • · to disclose assets and remuneration and perks of essential NGO officials, that all Legislators, Executive and Administrative and State and Corporation Officials above a certain agreed grade, to annually declare assets and all remunerations, benefits and perks as well as official expenses and other payments to such officials with disclosures regards their associated party transactions and declarations of conflicts of interests to be publicly disclosed
  • · to ensure transparency and accuracy of all reports, data information, accounts and public statements/presentations that all State bodies and regulatory bodies also commit to comparable independence, integrity and transparency, specifically in relation to Socio-economic  and environmental impacts and expense advantages
  • · to be subjected to investigative overview and examination of books of account and information of NGO’s to have an independent ombudsman / facilitator who  has accountability to advance the interests of the NGO’s by efficiently progressing any issues difficult the NGO’s or putting  in location safeguards on behalf NGO’s with any Ministry, Department or State/Para state Institutions and willing also to spot any grievances of NGO’s and Untangle any knotty troubles and ease challenges faced by NGO’s and progress complaints or claims ahead of independent public institutions and state parties
  • · to have a legislatively imposed binding codes of ethics, conduct, standards in public life  and governance for all Legislators, Executive and Administrative and State and Corporation Officials above a particular agreed grade to be bound by equivalent frameworks, such as binding standards in Public Life eg. Nolan Committee Standards in British Public Life

In the interim the NGO’s as a Grand Collective, must offer you to adopt on a voluntary basis

  1. A Code of Conduct for Persons in Public Life
  2. Ten Golden Guidelines for Civil Society Organisations
  3. Audited Accounts and Annual Reports to be compliant with the Accounting Standards for Not for Profit Organisations
  4. Where acceptable and cost effective International Reporting Initiative Standards on Financial and Social Effect and Sustainability Reporting  Standards

Mr. President, please tread the path that Mahatma Gandhi traveled and recollect his popular words of wisdom with time tested universal adaptability, quoted below

&#8220Change oneself.

“You need to be the adjust you want to see in the world.”

“As human beings, our greatness lies not so significantly in becoming in a position to remake the globe – that is the myth of the atomic age – as in being able to remake ourselves.”

If you adjust oneself you will change your globe. If you adjust how you feel then you will change how you really feel and what actions you take. And so the globe around you will change. Not only since you are now viewing your atmosphere via new lenses of thoughts and emotions but also since the modify inside can enable you to take action in ways you wouldn’t have – or possibly even have thought about – even though stuck in your old believed patterns.

And the problem with changing your outer globe with out changing yourself is that you will nonetheless be you when you reach that modify you have strived for. You will nonetheless have your flaws, anger, negativity, self-sabotaging tendencies and so on. intact.

And so in this new predicament you will nevertheless not uncover what you hoped for considering that your mind is still seeping with that negative stuff. And if you get far more without having getting some insight into and distance from your ego it might grow far more effective. Considering that your ego loves to divide issues, to discover enemies and to produce separation it might commence to attempt to produce even a lot more difficulties and conflicts in your life and globe.

Categories
Foreign Affairs

Mahindavādaya, Mahinda-Vadaya And Wirathu-Āgamanaya

By Tisaranee Gunasekara

“The government has turned us into orphans in our personal motherland.”

Boralesgamuwa farmers affected by the Weras-Ganga Project (Lankadeepa – 24.9.2014)

Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s most recent beautification project, the Weras-Ganga Improvement, with walkways and a food court, was declared open with considerably fanfare this month. Jackson Anthony, dramatist turn sycophant, used the occasion to proclaim that the time has come to upgrade Mahinda Chinthanaya (Mahinda Believed) to Mahindavādaya (Mahindaism – Mahinda Ideology)[i].

Gnanasara WirathuFor a lot of farmers of Boralesgamuwa (as for most Tamils and Muslims and growing numbers of Sinhalese), Mahindavādaya has turn into a Mahinda-Vadaya (Mahinda-Affliction). Their fields could not be cultivated for two seasons because they did not have access to the usual supply of water thanks to the beautification project. Now they are becoming told by the military how they need to cultivate their fields. Lacking the money and the manpower to follow military instructions, the farmers have given up cultivation. They say that if they are unable discover “labouring jobs to feed their households, they will just have to die, even though watching the moneyed ladies, gentlemen and their households promenading and enjoying themselves”[ii].

***

In February 2010, chief prelates of all 4 chapters decided to hold a specific Sangha Convention on Democracy and Governance. Gen. Sarath Fonseka had been arrested and the monks planned to officially request the government to cease persecuting the war-winning army commander.

The Rajapaksas went into panic-mode. This was not some minor gathering, but a convention bringing collectively representatives of the complete Sangha Sasana. State media heaped vitriol on the Convention even though frenzied efforts were produced behind the scenes to cancel it.

At the eleventh hour the Convention was cancelled. Afterwards, Ven. Athangane Ratanapala Thero told the media that the head of the Malwatte Chapter had been beneath ‘severe stress’: “Many members representing the government as properly as some members of the clergy who are working for the government used tremendous pressure on us to cease the meeting”[iii].

The Chief Incumbent of the Mihintale Raja Maha Vihare was much more explicit. He said that a group of 45 Buddhist monks visited the Malwatte Mahanayake Thero and informed him that he would “have to take the responsibility if two or 3 bombs went off within the premises of the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic”. He also named names: “Chancellor of Kelaniya University, Ven. Dr. Welimitiyawe Kusaladhamma Thero, former parliamentarian Ven. Uduwe Dhammaloka Thero, Ven. Diviyagaha Yasassi Thero and Ven Rekhawa Jinarathana Thero were among the 45 monks who wanted the Mahanayake to cancel the Sangha Convention”. They initially threatened to leave the sect when blackmail failed they named the President “who personally spoke to the Mahanayake urging him to cancel the convention.” The Chief Prelate refused. That was when the ‘bomb threat’ was produced. When asked about the incident, the Chief Prelate replied “that the Mahanayakes were compelled to postpone the occasion to make sure the safety of the Maha Sangha and the Temple of the Tooth.”[iv]

That is how the Rajapaksas act towards any gathering of monks they think about undesirable.

Just this week Terrorism Investigation Division prevented Professional Web Journalists Association from holding a workshop on net safety. The management of the hotel exactly where the workshop was to be held was informed by the TID that an organisation (consisting of retried army officers and disabled soldiers) is organizing to surround the premises. The safety of the workshop-participants cannot be guaranteed, the TID stated. The management, like the Chief Prelates, got the message the workshop was cancelled.[v]

No such threats or warnings will mar the Sangha Convention of the Bodu Bala Sena. It will be held at the Sugathadasa Stadium, which in itself is a sign of governmental blessing. The visit to Sri Lanka by the hatemongering Burmese monk, U Wirathu, is also probably to go off without a snag. As the BBS boasted on its Facebook page, the saffron-robed rabble-rouser who gained infamy for remarks such as “Muslims are fundamentally negative Mohammed makes it possible for them to kill any creature Islam is a religion of thieves, they do not want peace,”[vi] came by means of the VIP lounge and was whisked off to a secure spot[vii].

Whether or not the Rajapaksas are actively assisting the BBS gathering, with money, facilities and monks (to fill the hall) is not known. But the really reality that the convention is getting held on such a giant scale proves that it has the Rajapaksa seal-of-approval. The Rajapaksas did not hesitate to use the most execrable measures to avoid the Sangha Convention in 2010, such as an implicit threat to bomb the Temple of the Tooth. The truth that they are permitting the BBS Convention to happen is the clearest attainable proof that this gathering has their blessing.

Electoral Compulsions

It is now virtually certain that Presidential elections will be held in January 2015, prior to the Papal go to. Obviously the Rajapaksas have been jolted into feverish haste by Uva. In such a fraught context, a massive gathering of monks will be permitted only if it is noticed as beneficial to the Siblings.

The Rajapaksas know that most Tamils and Muslims did not and will not vote for them. Their primary concern is to make certain that their help base amongst the majority community does not erode any additional. The electoral playing field has been skewed constitutionally the Siblings will not hesitate to use violence and malpractices. But as Uva demonstrates, such measures can outcome only in an incredibly marginal – and politically de-legitimising – victory. To win the huge victory they need to have, the Rajapaksas require to maintain their Sinhala-Buddhist base intact.

Economic concessions – more will be made in the coming months – might not be adequate even in the rural-fastness of Uva, a massive number of Sinhalese seemed to have noticed by means of that obvious gimmick. Other techniques are needed.

Sinhala-Buddhists have to be made to really feel insecure in order to reignite their desire for a strong protector. “Making the neighborhood far more fanatical and exploiting the resulting fanatics” [viii] seems to be the Rajapaksa aim. And a BBS-Wirathu combine will be excellent to concentrate the consideration of the Sinhala public not on their economic woes but on ‘threats’ to ‘Rata, Jathiya and Agama’ (nation, race and religion).

The BBS convention will constitute a leap forward in the Rajapaksa efforts to impose a racist politico-psychological climate on the upcoming election season. It will help enormously to maintain the electoral discourse mired in Tiger revivals, Jihadi threats and Christian/Catholic conspiracies.

In August 2007, JHU head, Ven. Ellawalla Medananda Thero proclaimed that (Christian) fundamentalists were arranging to infect Buddhist monks with AIDS. “I got details that fundamentalists at a meeting in Kurunegala had decided to eliminate Buddhism from this country. Portion of their strategy is to infect the monks with HIV virus… Monks could be infected with the virus when they go for a blood test or blood transfusion.”[ix]

That is the sort of discourse the Rajapaksas would want in the course of election season. What better way to drive genuine life economic, political and social problems than to addle and poison Sinhala-Buddhist minds with suspicion, worry, anger and hate against Tamil/Muslim/Christian fellow Lankans? Who far better to give that project a violent leap than ‘Buddhist Bin Laden’ of Burma?=


[i] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzxDiKivz6A

[ii] We have grow to be orphans in our own lands – Famers of the Boralasgamuwa fields say – Lankadeepa – 24.9.2014

[iii] http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/news/sri-lanka-monks-complain-of-government-pressure/216508128

[iv] http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2010/02/21/%E2%80%9Cmahanayakes-threatened-with-temple-bomb-attack%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-prelate/ &#8211 emphasis mine

[v] https://www.mirror.lk/news/17128-tid-hampers-net-media-workshop

[vi] http://www.ruom.net/portfolio-item/inside-969-movement/#sthash.aCkW5bcN.dpbs

[vii]https://www.facebook.com/bodubalasenablogofficial/pictures/a.1478310909093649.1073741828.1474709476120459/1490042541253819/?sort=1&amptheater

[viii] The Language of the Third Reich – Victor Klemperer

[ix] http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2007/8/18397.html

Categories
Foreign Affairs

Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, The Terrorist The Traitor

By Muhammed Fazl

Muhammed Fazl

Muhammed Fazl

Although the Oxford dictionary defines the word ‘terrorism’ as “the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence &amp intimidation in the pursuit of political aims” and the word ‘terrorist’ as “a individual who utilizes terrorism in the pursuit of political aims”, the Merriam-Webster dictionary provides a full definition to the word ‘traitor’ as the “one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty”.

The ignorant reader may possibly wonder the relevance of my English lesson to Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but as a outcome of definitions above and the traits of our Secretary to the Ministry of Defence getting so deeply intertwined, needless to say, life in contemporary day Sri Lanka has turn into a lot more or significantly less akin to that of Gestapo/Stasi Germany half a century ago. To be fair to the present regime, it ought to be mentioned that the state-sponsored fear psychosis has been in existence even throughout the tenure of Mr. Ranasinghe Premadasa’s presidency. 

As opposed to in the past and since the mid nineties, when only empty rhetorical speeches have been created by opposition parties in their resistance against the violent subjugation of masses and the plunder of economies, it would be insensate on the portion of Mr. Gotabhaya and his gang of brothers ought to they trivialize the threat of a resurgent opposition alliance, led by the ‘never-say-die’ Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe. In this context and contemplating the ‘blood ties’ issue, the require to examine the nexus in between the Mahinda Rajapaksa government and the law enforcement machinery headed by Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa becomes exigent.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa3 months after the Aluthgama racial violence, justice is however to be served to the victims and/or their kith and kin. Even though the failure to stop violence lies solely with the police force and the army, actions at that time (or inactions) by the Ministry of Defence can be translated really accurately as complicity in the instigation of communal disharmony between two communities.

Recalling the words of General Moshe Dayan – “Israel need to invent dangers, and to do this it must adapt the technique of provocation and revenge”, and when memories of the war victory fades progressively in the minds of the ignorant majority, Mr. Gotabaya too seems to be ‘moving mountains’ in provoking the Muslims into taking up arms against the Sinhalese-dominated armed forces and the government. While in the West nothing sells like sex, in Sri Lanka, hatred for the minorities seems to be what tends to make the majority community tick. Up to the process and wasting no time or leaving no stone unturned in consolidating his family’s hold on power, little did Mr. Gotabaya understand the futility in the ill-conceived notion of generating communal strife between Muslims and the Sinhalese. Although the peace-loving majority neighborhood in this country need not waste time in worrying about an ‘Islamic militancy’ or bother subscribing to politically motivated speeches propagating a sense of Islamophobia, they need to also understand that Sri Lankan Muslims will never be coerced or fooled into playing the ‘war games’ that is presently being spearheaded by the government proxy, the BBS.

The Secretary to the Minister of Defence could want to portray himself as a modern day Dutugemunu responsible for defeating foreign and ‘terrorist’ threats, and to showcase a sturdy and a competent persona to the unsuspecting and the backbone-much less majority community. While Mr. Gotabhaya’s dreams ought to be respected, it is a typical consensus among the masses now that he ‘wakes up and smells the roses’ before his ‘natural term’ expires prematurely.

A section of the population may not want Mr. Gotabaya tried for war crimes, but popular beliefs do not absolve one’s complicity in such crimes. In a nation exactly where highest ranking war heroes are incarcerated over political differences and minor irregularities, I am all clueless as to why the major opposition celebration did not implicate Mr. Gotabaya in any court of law, nearby or international for crimes against humanity or at least for the alleged fraudulent purchase of arms. Although I understand the nature of Sri Lankan politics and sentiments of the majority neighborhood, failure to hold Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa accountable or responsible for actions of ministries/departments coming below his direct purview has certainly resulted in a state of lawlessness.

Cries for recompense in the North-East might have fallen on deaf ears, or the trail in search of accountability and justice might have gone cold too… But unlike the situations of mass killings in Indonesia in the sixties, the killings in Chile in the seventies and the ‘killing fields’ in Cambodia among other people, and exactly where the perpetrators were brought to justice decades following their reign ended, the proper-pondering masses in this nation need to have to insist on immediate justice and a single that would be a deterrent for the future generation, that is if and when Mr. Gotabaya is put on trial of course.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Opposition to the existing despotic government comes out alive only when individual positions and perks are at stake. Failure to even query Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, let alone file a case against him for all his wrong-doings by no opposition celebration is beyond my comprehension. Could it be the ‘unleashing-of-violence’ capabilities of the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence that has silenced the opposition all this while? And if that is the case, would it not make Mr. Gotabaya a terrorist, at least as per the definition in the English dictionary? If public income operating into millions of USDs is getting looted by Mr. Goatabaya, if lives of future generations are pawned and if they are made to repay loans taken on industrial rates of interest for white-elephant projects initiated by the identical Mr. Rajapaksa…, would it not also make him a traitor to the nation?

For what it is worth, let this be a contact for the brave to unmask the pseudo patriot, who is soon after all a public servant. Sharing a lesson in chess in conclusion, even though the King of the opponent is the target, far more usually than not, victory is created less difficult only when the queen is eliminated.

*The writer is an independent social/political activist and can be contacted on [email protected] and by way of FB &#8211 Fazl Muhammed Nizar.

Categories
Foreign Affairs

Government And Ethics

carlo_fonseka

Prof. Carlo Fonseka

Lately my friend RMB Senanayake has been severely critical of the present government for what he calls “unethical behaviour.” He judges that the government is “following only the Machiavellian ethics of politics which boil down to no ethics at all” (The Island 5 July). As a member of a party (LSSP) which is a constituent part of the government, I feel impelled to examine the validity of his judgment. I may be asked why? The answer is that RMBS is an honorable man whose opinions I respect. If his charge that the present government conducts itself with “no ethics at all” is true, then as a senior citizen first and a party political animal afterwards, I ought to do what I can to replace it with a better one. It is to help me to think through this grave problem that I go to the trouble of responding to RMBS publicly. The Editor of The Island merits high praise for promoting free and open discussion on such matters. Public discussions like this must be the sort of activity which Amartya Sen, the Indian philosopher and Nobel Laureate in economics, calls “democracy as public reason”. He regards “public reasoning” as an essential ingredient of participatory democracy.

Machiavellian Ethics

The very fact that RMBS has invoked the political ethics of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) to characterize the nature of the present government implies that there have been other governments in history which governed with “no ethics at all”. Machiavelli based his ethics of politics mainly on his observations of the actual political behavior of successful rulers of his time such as Ceasar Borgia in Roman Catholic Italy. In Machiavelli’s view ensuring the territorial integrity of Italy which was divided into many warring principalities, had to be the prime objective of rulers. It was to achieve this objective that he formulated his ethics of politics. When reading about the context in which his ethics came to be worked out, the thought occurred to me that in their view of the best interests of their states, all successful rulers of states whose territorial integrity was threatened, must have been compelled by circumstances at least occasionally to behave unethically. From this speculation, it was only a small step to the hypothesis that because all rulers aspire to be successful, they will if necessary tend to behave more or less unethically. At this point a sweeping generalization became irresistible: “All rulers tend to be unethical but some tend to be more unethical than others.”(Readers familiar with George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm (1945) will remember his famous aphorism: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”.

Biological Philosophy

Biology being the only subject I have studied in some depth, I tried to figure out in biological terms why rulers of nations if necessary tend to behave unethically, in the best interests of their states. A plausible evolutionary explanation suggested itself. A nation is simply an expanded tribe (or super-tribe) engaged in the struggle for existence in the natural world. The imperative objective of a nation is survival by any means, at all costs. Biologically, first comes survival then comes ethics. (Bertolt Brecht’s memorable line “fodder comes first, then comes morality” comes to mind). In order to buttress this biological explanation with an input from political science, I appealed to the most erudite political scientist I know, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka through the columns of The Island (12 July). If my appeal caught his eye he ignored it perhaps on the (sensible) ground that the political education of an old medical fogey is not one of his priorities. Fortunately, illuminating insights into the problem came from other authorities.

Friday Forum

Voicing the opinion of the formidable Friday Forum, Sri Lanka’s most distinguished diplomat Jayantha Dhanapala spoke learnedly about the importance of “a balanced and principled foreign policy” for our country. He asserted that in the “globalized multi-polar world we now live in, we have to interact pragmatically with other states”. Pragmatism is popularly understood as the theory of dealing with problems in a practical way without resorting to abstract principles. In my mind, however, pragmatism is associated with the great American medic, psychologist and philosopher William James and his definition of “truth”. In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell quotes pragmatist William James as follows: “…an idea is “true” so long as to believe it is profitable to our lives…the true is only the expedient in our thinking…our obligation to seek truth is part of our general obligation to do what pays…”. Russell mercilessly lampoons this definition of truth and ever since then for me pragmatism has been in bad odour. If William James’s definition of pragmatic truth is valid, a pragmatic foreign policy will boil down to doing “what pays”. It can be argued that such a pragmatic foreign policy is precisely what the present government has been carrying out according to its best lights. And no doubt all other governments too, must be pragmatic in their foreign policies. Predictably conflicts of interest are inevitable, producing the international mess the world is in.

Pragmatism in Practice

In a critique of Jayantha Dhanapala’s piece, K. Godage, perhaps our most experienced career diplomat, says that after the defeat of the LTTE in 2009, the Tamil diaspora succeeded in obtaining the support of the US, Britain and France to continue their pitch for Eelam. He then poses this question which helps to expose the real nature of a “pragmatic” foreign policy: “Would they (Britain and US) have supported the LTTE to destabilize this country had Britain continued to own plantations in this country or would the US have moved against Sri Lanka had Motorola, Harris and three other computer chip manufacturers setup their factories here?” In the considered evidence-based judgment of our most senior and respected diplomat, “those two countries would have stood by this country if they had such interests here”. (Sunday Island 25 August). That’s pragmatism for you, the obligation to do “what pays”! First comes capital, then comes ethics! Thus, my dear RMBS, it is not ethics but the antithesis of it, namely, naked economic self-interest that governs the relations between nations. And it can be cogently argued that in reason times Sri Lanka has been acting pragmatically i.e. doing what pays. By so doing Sri Lanka has succeeded in decisively defeating militarily the LTTE, the most blood-thirsty, murderous terrorist organization in recent world history. Though defeated militarily, the LTTE-inspired Eelam project continues unabated and the threat to the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka remains a real one. On the 24th of July this year I had the occasion to sit next to President Mahinda Rajapaksa at the same (marriage registrar’s) table. I took the opportunity to ask him a straight question: “Sir, why don’t you aspire to be a Dammasoka instead of remaining a Chandasoka? His unblinking instant reply was: “How can I try to do that when the TNA has not budged at all from the LTTE – Eelam project?” My only response was to ask in disbelief whether that is really so. The conversation ended abruptly at that point. The Defense Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, who just escaped being blown to smithereens during the internecine conflict, is now in the position best equipped to judge the magnitude of the separatist threat. Understandably, the defense establishment is loath to run any risks and reacts – perhaps over-reacts – to perceived threats with no compunction. Equally understandably, RMBS of austere ethical propriety, finds the political behavior of the government

ethically reprehensible and morally repugnant. He asks whether “a state is free to ignore all moral values in the conduct of its business”. The rulers claim that they are in fact conducting state in accordance with their own moral imperatives, especially the need to counter decisively present and future threats to the territorial integrity of the state. RMBS indicts the government of practising Machiavellian ethics of politics forgetting that Niccolo Machiavelli formulated his ethics of politics, specifically with the aim of preserving the integrity of the Italian state of his time. Thus, there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion between RMBS and the rulers of the state duly elected to govern it. In this situation let me put the crucial question that arises in the starkest possible terms: Why should the government conduct its business in the way RMBS prescribes that it ought to? In other words, what is the authority on which RMBS bases his ethics?

Authority in Ethics

This raises a very fundamental question: What is the basis of authority in ethics? It so happens that “Authority in Ethics” is the title of a chapter in Bertrand Russell’s book called Human Society in Ethics and Politics published in 1952 when he was 80. He identifies four (overlapping) sources of authority in ethics: human authority, divine authority, the authority of truth and the authority of conscience. Given the absolutist tone of RMBS’s ethics, it is likely that his ethics derive from a divine source. A secular humanist has no argument to counter such a stance and the matter must end there. But a humanist could point out that if ethics are based on a human authority, then the only sanction known to ethics in a given society, is the assent of the majority in that society. In order to ascertain the thoughts and feelings of the people on a particular matter in a given society it is necessary to ask them, that is to say, to conduct an opinion poll. Conducting an opinion poll is essentially a political process. Thus, in the end ethics leads to politics. That no doubt is why the great Greek philosopher Aristotle regarded ethics as a branch of politics. In practice what the majority in a given society sanctions will constitute the ethics of the society at that point in time. If RMBS’s thoughts and feelings are not in consonance with those of the majority then his opinion (however ennobling it might be) becomes irrelevant. There is no other way to conduct public affairs in a democratic state. RMBS knows Churchill’s celebrated definition of democracy: “It is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried…” On the same analogy the present government may well be the worst one in living memory except for all the others. If RMBS considers matters dispassionately, the thoroughly amoral and unethical behavior of the US – which he seems to regard as the temple of democracy, the guardian of liberty, the dispenser of global justice, the citadel of free enterprise and the God-fearing secular state – in relation to Iraq, Libiya and Siriya, he must surely become less judgmental about the government in his own country. Let us not forget that this country endured a mortal threat to its existence from the worst expression of terrorism the world has seen in recent times. In this context, I will continue to support this government until my friend RMBS comes up with a specific named alternative to replace it. He must recommend it strongly, rationally and cogently instead of preaching transcendental ethics. I insist that he must name his recommended choice because in political matters nothing is easier to do than to indulge in unrelenting criticism of others and do nothing constructive.

Conclusion

A concluding relevant thought may be in order. As member of the LSSP, I stand firmly for the abolition of Sri Lanka’s version of the executive presidency which was criticized to death by Dr. N.M. Perera, the founding leader of the LSSP. I should strongly support every movement to abolish it. Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero whom I greatly respect knows how much I approve of his powerful campaign to abolish the executive presidency. President Mahinda Rajapaksa is the only one who has the power to do it. If he has the courage and wisdom to do it his name will shine in Sri Lanka’s history like a mighty star.

Courtesy The Island

Print Friendly
Follow @colombotelegrap

Categories
Foreign Affairs

The Fires Within

Dharisha B

Dharisha Bastians

Four years after the war ended, development and reconstruction showcases are eclipsed by raw human suffering during Navi Pillay’s visit to Sri Lanka

Rajeswari Ganesan, mother of a 28 year old Vavuniya prison inmate who died under suspicious circumstances in June last year, sobbed out her grief to visiting UN Human Rights Commissioner Navanethem Pillay in the North last Tuesday. This past year, Rajeswari’s grief over the death of her only son, who authorities claim died of a heart attack but she believes was killed in custody, has been a terrible thing to see. Navi Pillay may not have been able to understand Rajeswari’s representation made in Tamil, but overcome with empathy, the UN Envoy put her arms around the weeping mother and held her.

Navi Pillay was the most senior UN official to have visited Sri Lanka’s embattled north and east since the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon toured the region soon after the war ended in May 2009.  For hundreds of families living in the former war zone, whose personal tragedies have been ignored for years, the fact that a high ranking person of international influence was finally close enough to hear their cries for help, was undoubtedly an electrifying experience. “I have never experienced so many people weeping and crying. I have never seen this level of uncontrollable grief,” Pillay was to tell The Sunday Leader three days later in an interview.

Steps in the right direction

In anticipation of her visit, the Government made several strides in the right direction. Whether superficial attempts to pacify the visiting UN Envoy and temper her report ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) scheduled for November or not, the Rajapaksa Administration set up a Commission on Disappearances, appointed credible commissioners, returned military acquired land to the people, promised action on the Weliweriya killings and agreed to give Pillay “unfettered access” wherever she chose to go. It was the first time that the regime had opened up the final theatre of war beside the now legendary Nandikadal lagoon to any foreign visitor.

Yet in the end, none of the Government’s efforts to paint a positive picture of Sri Lanka’s leap forward after the end of the war could mitigate the stark reality of weeping women and children on the streets of Jaffna and Trincomalee. Shiny new roads and railway tracks could not hide fundamental issues in the former battle zones that were obstructing genuine post-conflict healing and reparation. Pillay was confronted with tales of livelihood and land loss, the search for missing family members and justice for senseless death everywhere she went in the north and east. And in the capital, journalists and marginalised groups like the country’s Muslim population made representations to her about the ongoing suppression of fundamental freedoms in post-war Sri Lanka.

When the High Commissioner issued a stinging report of her seven day fact finding mission hours before she left the island, it was clear the representations of ordinary Sri Lankans and civil society groups had made a deep impression. There was no mincing of words or attempt to pacify the host government. Pillay hit back hard at her critics – many of them Government ministers and warned she would report any reprisals against those who had spoken to her during the UN Human Rights Council mandated mission, back to the Council.

Extended boldness

If Pillay’s presence had given ordinary people extraordinary courage to publicly air their grievances even in the heavily garrisoned north and east, her parting words that the UN considered reprisals a very serious matter has only extended this boldness. One day after the UN High Commissioner left Colombo, Fr. Veerasan Yogeswaran who runs a human rights group in Trincomalee that works with families of the missing or detained, told the French Press Agency (AFP) that he had been visited at midnight and again at dawn by half a dozen plainclothes policemen last Wednesday, just hours after his discussions with Pillay. The Jesuit priest told reporters that his concern was that security forces personnel were entering homes at midnight or in the pre-dawn hours and questioning ordinary civilians. Met with complaints by Pillay about the reprisals against the priests, journalists and civil groups, the Government vehemently denied the claim and then demanded the High Commissioner provide proof to allow the administration to commence investigations. It has lapsed into familiar arguments, about vested interests intimidating people in order to cast the Government in a bad light and even claimed the UN Envoy had been misled by mischievous political elements. But in other ways, the Government has already commenced its own public criticism of those who made representations before the UN High Commissioner, calling them out as tale carriers to the international community. Minister Wimal Weerawansa has already accused the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress of “snitching’ to Pillay because the Party handed over a report about violence against the Muslim Community to the visiting Envoy. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has also reportedly had strong words for SLMC Chief and Justice Minister Rauff Hakeem, about the move.

For Government officials heavily involved with organising Pillay’s visit, her final remarks at the end of the week long tour proved a deep disappointment. The sections of the regime that are advocating greater engagement with the UN system, including Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha who heads the country’s Geneva mission to the UN,  genuinely believed that given the opportunity to witness the progress in Sri Lanka first hand, the UN High Commissioner’s perception of the human rights situation on the ground would change. Unfortunately these Government elements are at odds with other more powerful sections of the ruling regime, that are willing only to make superficial changes but have no real intention of meeting international obligations to devolve power to the island’s Tamil population or investigate alleged violations in the conflict’s final phase. Unfortunately for the Rajapaksa administration, Navi Pillay was not willing to merely scratch the surface during her visit.

Stinging goodbyes

As for Pillay’s last words in the island, no one is smarting more than President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The explosive statement at the end of her mission, included remarks about the authoritarian direction in which Sri Lanka was headed. Her words continue to rankle power centres in Colombo long after Pillay is gone.

“A dictator is a ruler who does not hold elections,” President Rajapaksa charged at the 62nd SLFP Convention in Kurunegala on Monday, one day after Pillay had left these shores. There had been 11 elections held under his watc, since 2005, he claimed. “What’s more democratic than that?” he asked the SLFP crowd. “What can I do if the Opposition Leader can’t win an election,” he quipped. Under the lighthearted tone however, the rancour is real, Government insiders say.

There is also the question of whether President Rajapaksa was deliberately perpetuating the grotesquely erroneous notion that elections are the sole test of a state’s democratic credentials. Deposed Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein, Egypt’s former President Hosni Mubarak, Zimbabwe’s President for life, Robert Mugabe and President Rajapaksa’s brand new best friend in Belarus, the self-proclaimed last dictator of Europe, Alexander Lukashenko all belong on a list of autocratic leaders who regularly take their nations to the polls. Elections held under such regimes are tragically flawed affairs. But even so, democracies are measured not merely by whether a country’s leaders are elected (however fairly or unfairly), but also by how a state and its leaders safeguard and uphold the liberties of individuals. In a state where civil liberties are suppressed, elections only impose majority tyranny on the rest of the populace.

The Government has issued rebuttal after rebuttal to Pillay’s statement. External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris even addressed the press in London on Monday evening, in order to reply the UN Envoy as soon as possible. Each rebuttal has dealt extensively with Pillay’s remark on increasing authoritarianism, claiming that the comment was a transgression of her mandate and a political statement. Peiris said her concluding remarks showed a “distressing lack of balance” and claimed her observations suggested that Pillay had “formed her views before reaching the shores of the country.”

The floral tribute

The rebuttal of Pillay’s closing remarks from the Department of Government Information went so far as to accuse the High Commissioner of having attempted to pay a floral tribute at Mullivaikal where the LTTE Leader met his death. The UN Delegation it is learnt was notified by the highest levels of Government in Colombo last Tuesday while Pillay was in the North, that the tribute would not be tolerated.

During her press briefing in Colombo, High Commissioner Pillay said she often lays flowers in commemoration of victims of conflict, in most countries she visits. The question of the floral commemoration has become a hot button issue, with Government insiders insisting Pillay had “shown her hand” in no uncertain terms with the attempted ‘commemoration’.

Given the southern political sensitivities regarding the final theatre of battle where the LTTE leadership perished, the UN`s choice of Mullivaikal for a tribute was perhaps a poor one. But as analysts point out, despite the ubiquitous war memorials bearing unmistakably militaristic symbols all over the country, the Sri Lankan Government is yet to construct a memorial for all victims of the war, despite such a conciliatory memorial being strongly advocated even in the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.

Nevertheless, for the first time since the High Commissioner’s delegation left Sri Lanka, her Office clarified the issue yesterday.  Spokesman for the High Commissioner, Rupert Colville told Daily FT that the UN considered that the the general area where the war ended after nearly 30 years might be a suitable spot to commemorate all those who died during that conflict. Colville said that the Government had learned Pillay’s team was considering this and made it plain they viewed it in a different light. “We considered their point of view carefully and felt in the end that it might be misinterpreted — as indeed it has been — so decided not to proceed,” Colville said.

Gross misrepresentation

He said it was a gross misrepresentation to pretend that Pillay was planning to honour the LTTE. “She made her views on the LTTE  very clear indeed in her statement,” the High Commissioner’s Spokesman told Daily FT. Colville said that the words High Commissioner Pillay was due to speak in Mullaitivu had been included in her final statement, when she paid her respects to all Sri Lankans around the country who were killed during the three decades of conflict.

He said that the misrepresentation was “just the latest in the pattern of mendacious abuse” Pillay had referred to in her closing remarks.

Needless to say the slurs cast at the visiting High Commissioner became a large part of the narrative, especially after Pillay tackled the issue head on in her closing remarks. According to informed sources, two remarks particularly irked the visiting UN Envoy. Firstly the reference to her by JHU strongman Udaya Gammanpila as a terrorist sympathiser who saw “her husband in every terrorist”. Pillay’s husband was a lawyer and anti-Apartheid activist in South Africa, imprisoned with Nelson Mandela and others on Robben Island, where political prisoners were detained. The second was Minister Mervyn Silva’s offer to marry Pillay to show her what Sri Lanka ‘has to offer.’ The lewd remarks, made worse by allusions to Ravana-Sita folklore drew an apology to the visiting High Commissioner from President Rajapaksa no less, during his meeting with her last Friday. For the 72 year old judge, who has fought relentlessly for women’s rights throughout her career and especially in her present position, Silva’s remarks were not to be borne.

During a meeting with Leader of the House Nimal Siripala De Silva who was briefing Pillay on the recently constituted Parliamentary Select Committee on Devolution proposals, tried to lightheartedly brush off Mervyn Silva’s slurs. “Don’t worry about his remarks,” the congenial De Silva said during the meeting. Pillay was quick on the draw: “It is you that should be worried, Minister” she said.

Making it personal

There is great weight in that brief but powerful sentence. Rajapaksa administration officials repeatedly make a fundamental mistake in its dealings with international diplomats. They attempt, at their own peril, to individualise UN office bearers or diplomatic officials at local missions. Navi Pillay, as far as the Sri Lankan Government is concerned, can be whittled down to a South African Tamil, a sympathiser of the Tamil cause by virtue of her ethnicity and a convenient tool of the West. Similar mistakes were made with her predecessor, Louise Arbour, who was repeatedly vilified by Government officials. Navanethem Pillay, the Government must understand, even at this late stage, is not just one woman to be discredited and ascribed terrorist labels. Pillay is not just a South African or a Tamil, but the holder of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights at the UN, a fixed institution that will continue to advocate and criticise long after Pillay no longer holds the title. When she presents her reports on Sri Lanka following this fact finding mission, that report will not only remain relevant while Pillay remains in office, but even when her successor takes over the reins.

The UN Envoy said as much during her concluding press briefing last Saturday, when she explained that she and even the UN Secretary General were merely civil servants, bound to uphold the regulations and standards set by 193 member states of the UN. The rules, she said, were set by governments of the world, including Sri Lanka. “If the rules and regulations are violated, that is what the UN points out to Governments. You may call it criticism, but that is what the UN does. When there are gaps, we raise a critical voice, but always with the intention to help,” the High Commissioner told the Sri Lankan press corps. In essence, Navanethem Pillay does not make the rules, any more than Ban Ki Moon, Marzuki Darusman or Arbour does. This fundamental truth that the Sri Lankan Government fails to understand, despite the best efforts of saner counsel within the regime, gravely endangers the country’s international standing at forums such as the UN.

There is little doubt that High Commissioner Pillay’s report on Sri Lanka, to be presented orally in September and in full during the Human Rights Council’s March sessions, will be a bare-naked reading of the human rights situation on the ground. The Government has choices to make as it looks towards Council sessions in Geneva in March 2014, which foreign policy analysts repeatedly warn could herald the beginnings of a fully fledged international inquiry against Sri Lanka unless genuine steps are taken to address accountability issues between now and then.

Costing hearts and minds

Acknowledgement that the need to grant people freedom with dignity, protect human rights and the genuinely necessity to hold people to account for crimes committed against sections of the population not because the international community is demanding it, but for the sake of Sri Lanka’s own soul, could be a starting point, if the political leadership was so inclined. The lack of genuine commitment may have been where everything went wrong for the Government during the Pillay mission, despite all its best efforts to showcase progress. As human rights Chief, Pillay is less concerned with physical reconstruction and more focused on the human condition. The inability to understand that fundamental difference, is costing the Government hearts and minds in the former conflict zones and support in the international arena.

For Navi Pillay, the message came through loud and clear. Everywhere she went in the north and east and sometimes even in Colombo, ordinary people mobbed her with tales of their personal suffering. In the north, observers say, all focus has shifted from the Provincial Council election since Pillay’s visit, with ordinary people convinced again that the UN will successfully advocate on their behalf. Her presence inspired hope for civilians, families of the missing, journalists and human rights activists whose post-war reality has been far from peaceful.

“The fighting may be over, the suffering is not,” Pillay said, as she left Sri Lanka.

If it was paying attention to the more human factors of post-conflict rebuilding, the Government may not have had to endure the embarrassment of having Navi Pillay draw attention to the fact that the peace dividend will elude Sri Lanka as long as a section of its populace remains chained to the suffering wrought by brutal conflict. Sandhya Ekneligoda or Rajeswari Ganesan could have articulated the point with equal eloquence. It would have been apparent in the fear of thousands of ordinary Muslims, worrying that a violent day of reckoning may be in their future. Or in the prostate, uncontrollable grief of Sinnakutty Kanapathipillai from Mullaitivu, who lay on the streets outside the Jaffna Library, asking the UN High Commissioner to find her son who surrendered on 18 May 2009, never to be heard of again.

The compulsion to tell the world of their suffering is a direct consequence of the fact that at home, no one is listening.

Courtesy Daily FT

Print Friendly
Follow @colombotelegrap

Categories
Foreign Affairs

Concentrate On Civilian Policing

basilfernando

Basil Fernando

Within just a few days of the announcement of the new ministry, the Ministry of Law and Order, a rather unusual level of interest has emerged, judging by the many articles that have appeared in response to the government’s move. Though such quick responses are unusual, they are not surprising. If anyone is asked to point out some of the most pressing issues of public importance, the issue of the civilian police would emerge, without doubt. In fact, for several years, this issue has been addressed on an almost daily basis in all media, in all languages.

Therefore, it is worth trying to trace, by way of a brief history, how the issue of civilian policing acquired such importance.

Since the British established a policing system in Sri Lanka, some 147 years back, the idea of establishing a civilian policing system, which would be in charge of the law enforcement in Sri Lanka, gradually became quite a consolidated part of the building of the state in Sri Lanka. The critical point at which the idea of civilian policing came to be challenged is in the aftermath of the 1971 JVP ‘insurrection’. Suddenly, the police, together with the military, was pushed into the executing the idea of ‘exterminating insurgents’. The idea of extermination was in direct contradiction with the ideas of the administration of justice and enforcement of law in the normal sense, anywhere in the world.

Looking back, it is easy to identify the elements of such extermination, as compared with normal law enforcement functions.

Those elements are:

Arresting persons on a large scale, often based on very flimsy information, which the police were not in a position to assess for veracity;
The permitted use of extraordinary forms of torture with the view to discover information about insurgency and those who are involved in it to a greater or lesser degree;
‘Suspension’ of the police departmental orders in dealing with arrest, detention and the welfare of detainees;
Extraordinary forms of permitted secrecy and withholding of information, even from the next of kin of detainees;
‘Suspension’ of the requirement to observe the legal procedures of reporting arrests and detentions to court, as required by the Criminal Procedure Code of Sri Lanka;
‘Suspension’ of the rule relating to the production of suspects before magistrates within 24 hours;
‘Suspension’ of post-mortems in cases of deaths relating to insurgents;
Finally, large-scale killings of persons after arrest and disposal of their bodies.

These aspects of deviation from the normal legal procedure have been well researched and documented, and a considerable body of literature is available. The purpose of reiterating these items here is merely to trace when the beginning of a drastic departure from civilian policing took place in Sri Lanka.

Subsequently, there were other insurgencies, both in the south as well as in the north and east, which continued up to May 2009, during which period these same deviations continued and intensified. As for the south, the commissions appointed for investigation into involuntary disappearances have left a rather lengthy reports of how these practices occurred. Regarding the north and east, there are many reports made by independent observers, as well as, to some extent, recorded in court cases and numerous reports from human rights groups, including those from various UN agencies. However, a thorough, official record is yet to come, as no official investigations have taken place. Such an official recording would have enabled the survivors from such experiences to record their grievances before a state agency.

These deviations was legitimized by Emergecy Regulations and Anti- terrorism laws.

Normative Changes

Besides the deviation from normal practices mentioned above, there was also a significant change in the law itself, by way of constitutional changes. The 1978 Constitution brought all public institutions under the control of the Executive President and thus the structure of the institutions underwent a fundamental change in their normative framework. Again, this aspect is also well-reflected in the massive amount of literature that is available on the constitutional changes. By 2001, the impact of this change in the normative framework on the actual functioning of the police and other institutions was drastically felt. The disturbing impact of institutional failures led to a parliamentary debate and the passing of the 17th Amendment with near unanimity, with the objective of taking some partial corrective measures. There was a short period of experimentation with the 17th Amendment, which did not change the normative framework of the 1978 constitution but attempted to provide some relief in relation to the damage caused to the institutions. As far as the police were concerned, the National Police Commission brought about some significant improvements, though, due to normative problems, it was not possible to correct the situation completely. However, even these limited improvements collided with the normative framework of the 1978 constitution and the new political regime, which was thoroughly interested in restoring the 1978 constitutional framework. Thus, the 18th Amendment was adopted by the Rajapaksha regime, which went beyond mere re-affirmation of the normative framework of the 1978 constitution, but in fact created a situation in which it is almost impossible to bring about change.

In short, what now exists as the policing system is a product of the deviations brought about in practice since 1971, and normatively brought about by the 1978 constitution, reaffirmed and re-strengthened by the 18th Amendment to the constitution.

When the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) made its recommendations relating to the problems of the rule of law in Sri Lanka and mentioned the need of delinking the police department from the Ministry of Defence, the aim of that recommendation was the reestablishment of civilian policing in the original sense – meaning before the practical transformations since 1971, and the normative changes since the 1978 constitution.

The present move to establish a new ministry, a “Law and Order” Ministry, and the place of the policing system under this new ministry, is announced as a step towards implementing the LLRC recommendation. However, the mere change of ministry will not create a civilian policing system that has the power and capacity to enforce law within the framework of the rule of law as it existed originally, unless the deviation – practically caused since 1971 and normatively caused by the 1978 constitution, reinforced by the 18th Amendment – is deliberately removed.

Such a change requires a change of design, an expression of intent in terms of principles by way of changing the normative framework of the 1978 constitution, as well as the practical steps to overcome the practices that have gotten entrenched since the aftermath of the 1971 insurgency.

The public has only one of two choices; Either to enter into this debate on civilian policing and achieve a decisive change or live in this same miserable situation without state protection, expecting the things to become even worse.

Print Friendly
Follow @colombotelegrap

Categories
Foreign Affairs

Debate On ‘Para Dhemalā,’ Ethnic ‘Purity’ And Caste Ideology

Laksiri Fernando

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

When I read Charles Sarvan’s first article “Para Dhemalā,” I didn’t see anything objectionable although I sensed perhaps he was not interpreting Michael Roberts’ views on the subject correctly and also I couldn’t agree with his last paragraph which paraphrased Paul Caspersz saying “if one insists on the label “Indian Tamils,” then one should also speak of “Indian Sinhalese.” The paragraph was simply inaccurate. Otherwise there was much meaning and substance to what Sarvan said about ethnic discrimination and caste ideology.

When I was growing up at Moratuwa, almost at the center of the town, I cannot recollect anybody using the term ‘para demala’ even during the cataclysmic communal riots against the Tamils in 1958. Perhaps I didn’t hear them. I had several Tamil friends at St. Sebastian’s College, where I was initially studying, but even there it was not used to my knowledge. But ‘paraya’ was often used not so much at school but in the area where I lived and it was used as a derogatory term in anger or to spite someone who is not liked by you. It also had the connotation that ‘the other’ is inferior.

But even in our school books I believe the terms ‘para desin’ and ‘parangi’ were there and our teachers explained the meanings respectively as ‘foreign’ and ‘Portuguese’ also emphasizing they are not neutral but pejorative terms. In our area, (Sinhalese) people believed that there were two classes of Tamils, those who were called ‘Jaffna Tamils’ and the others, the ‘Indian Tamils.’ Some considered the first group as more or less equal, but not at all the second. But the majority considered both as ‘alien’ and also ‘inferior.’

Having read EW Adikaram’s “A Communalist is a Psychopath” (Jativadiya Manasika Pisseki) as an early teenager, the distinction or the discrimination worried or puzzled me. My effort is not to say that I have been free from any ethnic prejudice. On the contrary, I wish to admit that as a person brought up and socialized within a particular social context, I may have certain prejudices or biases unconsciously. But in my conscious life, I try my best to be free from biases or prejudices while at the same time not rejecting my given ethnic identity.

But the reason to write this rejoinder is not the above. With all respect to Roberts, I believe that there is something extremely significant in what Sarvan has pointed out in his initial article. That is the connection between ‘ethnic conception and caste ideology.’ This is not the first time I have said this. The following is what Sarvan has said.

“The context in which the word para was used, both at boarding-school, in Colombo and elsewhere; the accompanying tone of voice and facial expression, all indicated contempt, dismissal and rejection. Para was linked to Parayā (low caste) and that sufficed to convey meaning to me.”

What he relates is a personal experience, but what is significant to me is what he says as “the accompanying tone of voice and facial expression, all indicated contempt, dismissal and rejection.”

Where does this come from? My conjecture is that it comes from the age old caste-ideology with the accompanied conceptions of ‘purity’ and ‘pollution.’ This caste-ideology manifests among the majority Sinhalese in one way and among the Tamils in another. I am not saying that both are the same in practical terms, one discriminating the other on equal terms, but the ideological roots are more or less the same while there are other root causes as well.

Have I encountered the ‘contempt, dismissal and rejection’ as a so-called Sinhalese? Yes, something closer to that at least once and seen a similar behavior another time. But if I recollect the way the Sinhalese treat the Tamils or the Muslims, then it is almost uncountable. The different experience may be due to me being a ‘Sinhalese’ and moving primarily among the Sinhalese.

Among the Sinhalese, the influencing ideology remains as a ‘superior caste’ which attempts to subjugate a perceived ‘inferior caste.’ It claims ‘purity’ as a ‘chosen people’ by combining ethnicity with religion (Sinhala Buddhism) and attempts by and large to purge the ‘pollution’ through attempted ethnic cleansing of both the Tamils and the Muslims or even the Sinhalese Christians as outcaste.

Among the Tamils, the influencing ideology remains as a ‘distinct group’ also trying to claim a similar ‘superior status’ aligning with the brethren across the Palk-Strait. It also claims ‘purity’ and attempts to purge ‘pollution’ by cleansing whoever perceived as polluting its purity.

I am not saying, the caste or ‘caste-like’ ideology is the only ideological current among the Sinhalese or the Tamils. But often it becomes dominant and distorts ideological landscape or political thinking of the country. We sometimes patronize ourselves by saying or thinking that the caste system is dead and gone in Sri Lanka. But that is not simply the case. The caste ideology is well and kicking. Those who are most communal minded are probably the ones who are most caste minded.

I was recently writing an essay on human rights and the 1978 constitution and wondered why it is so much difficult for the todays Sri Lankans to accept universal human rights. My observation after some contemplation was that because they are (perhaps unconsciously) strongly caste minded. There is a perennial difficulty for many Sri Lankans to grasp and accept the concept of equality due to caste ideology. This may possibly change with the new generations. But that is not the case yet.

The dilemma that Sri Lanka faces in this connection is a historical one, connected with the state and ethnic formation. Let me quote only one paragraph from what I wrote in 2000 (Human Rights, States and Politics: Burma, Cambodia and Sri Lanka):

It is interesting to examine how the successive migrant communities from India, or other countries in the region, were absorbed into the society after the establishment of the Sinhalese ethnic state. Except in the case of Kshatriya or royal blood, it is evident that others were absorbed at the bottom of the caste hierarchy. At a very early stage of migration, those who came from Madhura in South India were absorbed as the service castes, who were supposed to function as artisans, craftsman, and manual laborers. The origins of several other so-called low castes in the country, e.g. fisherman and cinnamon peelers, can also be traced to the people who came from South India at a later date. What we can see here is a convergence between the ethnic divide and the caste divide.” (p. 59).

During 2002, when I was conducting some field research in the interior of the Kalutara District, I came across a caste called Demala Gaththera. Gaththera caste is one of the oppressed castes in the country, popularly believed a ‘low caste.’ The story was that when some Tamil migrants came to live in the area for some reason, during the early nineteenth century, they were called Demala Gaththera.

Print Friendly
Follow @colombotelegrap