‘No room for them’ must change

The protection of minority rights is an exercise of tolerance and intercultural dialogue. By encouraging mutual respect and understanding, the different groups that comprise a society should be able to engage and cooperate with one another, while preserving their own identity – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

Saturday, 30 November 2019

Marcus Aurelius writes, “There’s no room, or time, for hating or scapegoating. We are all part of the same larger project. Forget tribes, we are one big hive—we are citizens of the world as much as we are citizens of Rome or America. Do good for your fellow man, he said, or put up with him. There’s no room, or time, for hating or scapegoating.” 

Minorities are all national cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities whose minority status has been recognised by national legislation. Minority rights are based on the recognition that minorities are in a vulnerable situation in comparison to other groups in society, namely the majority population, and aim to protect members of a minority group from discrimination, assimilation, prosecution, hostility or violence, as a consequence of their status. 

It should be highlighted that minority rights do not constitute privileges, but act to ensure equal respect for members of different communities. 

These rights serve to accommodate vulnerable groups and to bring all members of society to a minimum level of equality in the exercise of their human and fundamental rights.

While we are accustomed to discussing the situation of minority communities and the majority community in economic and political terms – their limited access to resources and opportunities, their lack of representation within national or local governments, cannot be denied.  Indeed, the right to culture is central to the enjoyment of a whole host of other rights, from education and health to language and livelihoods; without it, a fair and equitable life is impossible to achieve.

Free and full participation means the ability to engage in mainstream culture as well as the ability to maintain an identity that is distinct from it. This requires, simultaneously, a respect for equality and difference – principles that many states have failed to reconcile. The state may amplify differences to stigmatize the communities in question. In other cases, rights of the minorities may be denied in the name of national unity or ‘shared values’. In either case, the end result is the silencing of marginalized communities and the atrophy of their unique traditions.

Even in contexts where the cultural rights of minorities and the majority are well established, their continued freedoms depend on a constant reaffirmation of tolerance, awareness and understanding between different groups.  It is also reflected in the need to accommodate diverse and dissenting voices within their communities in the interpretation and practice of their beliefs and customs. Otherwise, culture can become a tool of oppression rather than emancipation, with the rights of some members subordinated in the name of caste, religion or tradition. 

Where cultural practices violate human rights, the latter must take precedence, in line with international norms. Though the definition of culture has been contested for decades, there is now widespread recognition that it underpins almost every area of life. Its repression, in turn, can devastate the health, dignity and well-being of minorities and majority community. 

This includes perpetrators of hate crime, cultural markers such as language or dress are often the primary focus of their attacks – a situation that may result in minorities being forced to conceal their identity.  Tragically, the active targeting of culture and the deep trauma this can inflict on communities is part of a wider attempt to demoralize such communities and ultimately eradicate them permanently from the region. 

While efforts are at present concentrated on security, protection and humanitarian relief, it is essential that the eventual return and reintegration of displaced communities is accompanied by the restoration of their cultures and traditions.  Encouragingly, many minority communities are themselves drawing on their rich cultural traditions – often in vigorously new ways – to advocate for change.  However, we still have a long way to go. 

In Sri Lanka amid increased fears of terrorism and the impact of austerity, the resurgence of the far right has encouraged renewed assaults on minorities and their beliefs.

A government’s mission is, therefore, to contribute to the building of peace, the alleviation of poverty, sustainable development and inter-cultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information, all of which are of fundamental importance to the well-being, dignity and equitable development of the indigenous minority communities.

The cultural vitality of minorities should therefore never be taken for granted.

In Sri Lanka amid increased fears of terrorism and the impact of austerity, the resurgence of the far right has encouraged renewed assaults on minorities and their beliefs. A government’s mission is, therefore, to contribute to the building of peace, the alleviation of poverty, sustainable development and inter-cultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information, all of which are of fundamental importance to the well-being, dignity and equitable development of the indigenous minority communities

Respecting indigenous minority rights is indeed imperative and merits a comprehensive approach to rectify deep-rooted historical injustices, address structural weaknesses in recognizing their unique ways of life, eliminate their marginalization from decision-making processes and address existing development gaps. The cultures and lifestyles of minorities are often undervalued or misunderstood, resulting in norms and rules that may not always be appropriate or can even lead to assimilatory policies. 

Insufficient legal recognition of their rights, as collectivities, to self-determination, as well as the ancestral lands, territories and resources on which they intimately and directly depend, can result in immediate threats to their survival, both as individuals and as communities.

Repression of minority cultures breeds alienation from the society and resentment towards the state, as well as encouraging intolerance among the majority community.  Their traditional knowledge is ignored. Minority communities have yet to receive substantial redress for their displacements and historical injustices and the continuous rejection of their cultural autonomy. Such injustices have left deep wounds in their relationship with the state.  

The voices of minorities are often not heard, resulting in policies that fail to take into adequate consideration the aspirations and priorities of indigenous minorities. Under such circumstances the minorities must struggle to maintain the multiple facets of their identity, such as their lifestyles, governance and conflict-resolution mechanisms, as well as their languages, traditional knowledge and practices.

Education has an important role to play in strengthening and protecting minority and indigenous cultures. The teaching of histories, beliefs and traditions helps to counteract prejudice and promote good relations between those communities and other segments of the populations. The teaching of history in particular is an important tool in restoring respect towards minorities and the majority community. 

By tying individuals together through the assertion of shared histories, norms and attitudes, it can be a force for unity. 

Pluralist and genuinely democratic society should not only respect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of each person belonging to a national minority, but also create appropriate conditions enabling them to express, preserve and develop this identity. Creation of a climate of tolerance and dialogue is necessary to enable cultural diversity to be a source and a factor, not of division, but of enrichment for each society.  

Minority rights serve to bring all members of society to a balanced enjoyment of their human rights.  Central to the rights of minorities are the promotion and protection of their identity. Promoting and protecting their identity prevents forced assimilation and the loss of cultures, religions and languages—the basis of the richness of the world and therefore part of its heritage. 

Minority rights are about ensuring respect for distinctive identities while ensuring that any differential treatment towards groups or persons belonging to such groups does not mask discriminatory practices and policies. Therefore, positive action is required to respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, and acknowledge that minorities enrich society through this diversity. 

The protection of minority rights is an exercise of tolerance and intercultural dialogue. By encouraging mutual respect and understanding, the different groups that comprise a society should be able to engage and cooperate with one another, while preserving their own identity. The basic elements required for the realisation of this goal are to promote knowledge of minorities’ culture, history, language and religion in an intercultural perspective. In other words, the protection of minority rights can promote an inclusive, peaceful and cohesive society, with respect for diversity. Inter-ethnic tensions, divisions and exclusion that remain unaddressed can easily become a source of instability and conflict. 

Dealing efficiently with minority-majority relations in the aftermath of ethnic conflict is central to achieving a durable peace. In this regard, the protection of national minorities is not only fundamental to enhance social cohesion in diverse societies, but also essential to achieve democratic security, sustainable development and peace in a context of instability.

“Don’t practice inferior teachings; don’t connect with negligence. 

Don’t embrace wrong beliefs; don’t be attached to the world. (Dhammapada 167)

Sexual Bribery: Evidence gathering a huge challenge

The panelists from right: Shreen Saroor, Shyamala Gomez, DIG Priyantha Jayakody and moderator Shashi de Mel.

BY PRANAVESH SIVAKUMAR-1 December, 2019

Last Wednesday was a day for women, when both genders gathered en masse to discuss the less-spoken topic ‘sexual bribery’. Of all claims and questions that filled the air,Women’s Rights Activist Shreen Saroor, identified the issue as ‘the law’.

“There are so many laws in the country that makes women vulnerable to give sexual bribes. We have unequal laws and policies. The problem starts with women being unable to head a household,” said Saroor, a panelist, at the discussion on the ‘Challenges and Solutions for Sexual Bribery’, held at the BMICH.

She also came hard on the law and order force, citing lack of trust. “Tamil women in the North-East find it difficult to step into a police station. This is because only a Tamil is available as a translator. He goes on to caution and discourage the victim in disclosing details,” Saroor said.

Adding to the number of challenges, evidence gathering has also been a huge challenge, as a woman is unlikely to video record a sexual bribery being solicited.

“It’s rampant,” she said of the issue labeling it as “a disease”.

“Financial bribery comes with that of the privacy of the statement provider. It’s not purely a disease of sexual bribery. It starts with patriarchal norms, beliefs, laws, practices and policies.”

Single women have been forced to access government services where the structure is male dominant.

Be it law enforcement or military, women have been going to courtrooms, looking for their missing family members. In such instances, women testified claim, when they look for missing family members, some intelligent officers misguide them asking them to come to Anuradhapura in search of their husband or brother. Ultimately, it ends with a gruesome rape.

Saroor said even for the wounded women to provide their personal account of the rape is a huge problem.

“From courtroom to where ever, we have read of so many red tape cases, where women are raped by lawyers verbally. We have that much of a masculine structure,”

When a complaint is made, the Bribery Commission should take strong and stern action. The officers know it is not a joke. The first course of action, when a complaint is lodged is, the accused officer is transferred.

“No, they have to be suspended, immediately,”Saroor said. Zero tolerance should be in every government office, bank or private sector workplace.

From her point of view, she reckoned, the problem lay in the structure and the panacea is making it flexible.
“The masculine structure has always been preying on women and women suffer because of this. Structural inequalities make women vulnerable to access required services.”

The next panelist, Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Police, Crimes and Organized crimes, Priyantha Jayakody, said there were 44 police divisions, comprising 496 police stations with over 2,000 Tamil police officers on duty.However, he admitted, the need of the hour is “more women” as “Ladies are reluctant to come and share their personal issues before men.”

A victim can’t be coaxed to lodge a complaint, he said. Walking us through an example, where a senior police officer had been penalized for insisting that a mother and daughter lodge a complaint. In separate efforts undertaken to tackle it, DIG Jayakody recalled and credited, a former Chief Minister who helped in the cause.

Senior Manager, Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL), Shashi de Mel briefly shared the contribution her organization has made to eliminate sexual bribery, outlined its social media campaigns and post campaigns initiated in hospitals, schools and in rural areas.

Another aspect of this under-arm practice has been, trafficked ladies from Russia and Thailand, working in so-called spa centres, she said. The taboo topic, has also victimized transgenders, whom society has excluded.

Executive Director, Centre for Equality and JusticeShyamala Gomez in her concluding remarks said the work of creating awareness has to be continued while sexual bribery has to be brought under the anti-corruption network.

Can President win over minorities ?

29 November 2019

Many people in the South seem to be overjoyed by the election of former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa as President at the November 16 election with an overwhelming support of Sinhala Buddhists. 
In a precise sense, they are jubilant over his election without relying on minorities.
 Interestingly, a majority of Tamils and Muslims view their almost en bloc support to New Democratic Front (NDF) candidate Sajith Premadasa, who is also the United National Party (UNP) deputy leader, as a great achievement despite his defeat. They believe they could show collective protest to the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and its leaders – the Rajapaksas. 

Both Sinhala Buddhists and minorities have their own reasons for their satisfaction. Sinhalese, particularly those who are affiliated to the SLPP, are of the view as they have been told by their political and religious leaders that one group of minorities was conspiring against territorial integrity while another was hell-bent to destroy their culture and very survival. Hence, they are jubilant that their leaders were not at the mercy of the minorities this time. 
Similarly, Tamil leaders and the media have been, for a long time, feeding their constituency a notion that Sinhala leaders in general and those led by Rajapaksas in particular were against their political aspirations. Therefore, at the national level, they attempt teaming up with the side they perceive as less harmful. They are also happy about their successful en masse protest vote. 

"Rajapaksas are most suitable and capable people to bring in reconciliation, if they were truly concerned over it"

As in the case with other citizens, Muslims had gambled in politics with a majority of them wanting to be on the winning side while others to achieve personal gains until 2012 when a huge wave of hatred against them was unleashed by Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) and several other extremist groups. This campaign culminated with anti-Muslim violence in Aluthgama, Beruwala and Welipenna in 2014. There was another wave of hate campaign following the Easter Sunday attacks. There is a perception among Muslims that these campaigns had the backing of Rajapaksas. Therefore, Muslims too seem to be delighted at their collective protest against Rajapaksas.
Unfortunately, almost the entire nation is satisfied with the polarisation of people on ethnic lines.  However, unlike his supporters, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa is unhappy with the situation. Whether he was concerned over polarisation or not, he expressed discontent over minorities not being party to his victory during his swearing in ceremony on November 18 in Anuradhapura. “Although I knew I could win the presidential election with the support of Sinhala people alone, I made a special request to the Tamils and Muslims to be partners in that victory. But their response was not up to my expectations,” he lamented. 

Abraham Sumanthiran, Spokesman of Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the largest Tamil coalition in the country, had told the media last Tuesday at his party office in Jaffna that it was a failure on the part of a President to be elected to office only by a particular faction of the population. Needless to say ridding or at least minimising polarisation of people should be a top priority of the new President. He has to embark on it in the larger interest of the country including minimising external pressure. It must be noted that Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Subramanium Jaishanker, the President’s first foreign diplomatic visitor, had also conveyed to him: “India’s expectation is that the Sri Lankan Government takes forward the process of national reconciliation to arrive at a solution that meets the aspirations of the Tamil community for equality, justice, peace and dignity.” 

Can President Rajapaksa win over the minorities? He believes it can be achieved through economic development. When he was interviewed by Nitin A. Gokhale, Editor-in-Chief of Bharat Shakti on November 25, he said: “I believe development is the answer… We should focus on what we can do first, you know, give everyone a good opportunity to live as a Sri Lankan in this country, to get an education, live a better life, get a good job and live in dignity. So I will create that environment.” 
However, Sumanthiran contests this contention. He argues development alone would not bring in reconciliation; rather, the President has to respond to political aspirations of the Tamil people. This is such a contentious issue that even Tamil leaders do not seem to know what real aspirations of their people are. When the proposed Constitution was discussed during the Maithri-Ranil administration, they were more interested in terms such as federalism and Unitary State while agreeing to have Provincial Councils with the same powers as they do now. That indicates to the President they are approachable. 

"Tamil leaders and the media have been feeding their constituency a notion that Sinhala leaders and those led by Rajapaksas are against their political aspirations"

In fact, Rajapaksas are most suitable and capable people to bring in reconciliation in the country, if they were truly concerned over it. Condidering the lowyalty of the southern constituency to Rajapaksas one would even say that Rajapaksas ceding to Tamil Eelam would not be an issue but others even  having a discussion with a Tamil party would be. It is they who have the ability to bridle communal elements in the country when dealing with minority issues as most of the vociferous individuals are with them. 
It was interesting to note that Dr. Shafi Shihabdeen, Rishad Bathiudeen, Madrasas, Quazi Courts and many other issues that had been main topics for the media and politicians affiliated to the SLPP after the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks did not figure on Rajapaksa’s election platforms. A video clip was being circulated on social media during the election campaign where Professor Channa Jayasumana, a leading campaigner against Dr. Shafi Shihabdeen, was saying: “Now we cannot talk about Dr. Shafi or Rishad, if we do, we are being pulled up over the phone.” Besides, the LTTE’s “Great Heroes Day” was celebrated in the JaffnaUniversity and in many LTTE cemeteries called by Tamil people “Maveerar Thuilum Illam” (abode where great heroes sleep) in the North, on November 26 and 27.  Not even a murmur was heard from the South against it whereas these commemorations had been a huge issue in previous years.
In fact, the easiest ethnic group for the President to win over is the Muslims as they have no specific political aspirations apart from getting a certain number of members elected to Parliament and Provincial councils. To that end, they are prepared to contest under any political party. They never demanded a separate State. Despite a religiously-fanatical terrorist trend having emerged from among Muslims recently, a majority of them are prepared to support the authorities to crush it. Indeed, they have done so even at the slightest sight of it during the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, as revealed during proceedings of the recent Parliamentary Select Committee on Easter Sunday attacks. It was the extremist groups with apparent links with the SLPP that alienated them from that party.  

However, two issues might hinder the President’s efforts to win over minorities. One is the economy. Although the new government has announced many tax concessions, apparently in view of the oncoming parliamentary elections, when the economy restarts to bite after the electoral rhetoric is over, some groups might revive their usual separatism bogey and Islamophobia in order to divert the attention of people and to gain political mileage. That would again alienate the minorities. 
Secondly, the UNP leaders are now to embark on a mission to win over the Sinhala Buddhists, according to remarks made by some of the leaders of that party. If that effort creates a competition between the UNP and SLPP to gain Sinhalese votes by vilifying minorities, it might be the end of the President’s plans to win over minorities who would then be at the receiving end.   

A scary saffron surge

"Every faith has its rascals - but I think they are most in ours. No god - no fears."

November 30, 2019, 2:59 pm

That quote above of two lines is from an email received from a powerfully thinking friend, just stated off her own bat. It however added weight to the thoughts that have been surging in my feared mind after seeing so many Buddhist monks in active politics and so much visiting of temples by those who won the recent election. Also a statement made by a monk loud and clear that the leaders who won the recent elections took their advice (the monks’) and should continue doing so now they are in power. Advice is fine but not active politics. Heard was a monk condemning the minorities using the word ‘yakko’ and saying they should be kept in their place. He was yellow robed, shaven headed but far from serene; rather was his face full of hatred, as seen on TV.

Saffron robe

Seen much of and heard much from. I mean a section of the Sangha of Sri Lanka which seems to be very political and considers this the opportune time to come forward and be counted and noted and heard. But to me - a Buddhist woman who loves this country and has lived through many decades observing national matters keenly - there lies dread and menace in Buddhist monks entering active politics whether using their influence to lever people’s votes; speaking on political platforms; lying down in the precincts of the Dalada Maligawa and fasting over some issue which could easily be negotiated and better left to civilians to resolve; even contesting elections and entering Parliament.

I have not mentioned here those in yellow robes who are in the forefront of public protests and a few who led assaults on minority groups. Political monks are definitely stepping out on the wrong path. Their place is the temple and the monastery; their duty to interpret the Buddha Dhamma and lead the people they have influence over to better lives, striving to enter the Path shown by the Buddha as bringing deliverance, but before that enjoying the satisfaction in this life full of dukkha (unsatisfactory samsaric existence) through meditation and improvement of their minds and sila. They get on the Path through renunciation and great effort and then they show us the Path and guide us.

Their greater duty – their national duty is ADVISING the leaders as they advised the Lankan kings of long ago. Not be out front and active politically. Many Head Monks do the former. Most others, follow the Vinaya rules strictly and guide people in true Buddhism.

Great good monks of the past

and present

We have had plenty of these. To mention but two. Ven Madihe Pannaseeha who said the individual must improve himself knowledge-wise, economically and spiritually and then society would improve. Ven Narada helped spread the Dhamma internationally. We Buddhists are very fortunate to have had great good monks and have such monks even now in considerable numbers, whose bana is even better with more relevance to our lives. They lead their lives as prescribed by the Buddha.

I well remember Ven Dhammavihari Thera who was formerly a university professor of Buddhist Philosophy, making his abode in the Narada Bauddha Dharmayatana down Sarana Road, Colombo 7, saying that he and all monks have duties to perform for lay people, as the latter provide them with all necessities to sustain life. And thus their readiness and willingness to advice lay people; visit homes for danes and pirit chanting, and offer solace when that is needed. This was when I went to him to thank him for traveling to a nursing home with me and a niece driving, when her brother was direly ill. He came with Ven Mettavihari Thera and said that was all right traveling with two females, since he was accompanied by a brother Thera. He was soon after a cataract operation. Did he consider germs and infection? Was he reluctant to visit a hospital? Not at all! He realized the urgency of the request. The other monk in the Narada Centre on that evening was ‘claimed’ by a person to visit his home, who would not consider the greater need at hand. The two monks hurriedly came with us; chanted pirit as my nephew breathed his last, and thus the great deed of mercy and solace not only to the dying patient, but to his grieving family.

I must first say that very many monks are true Buddhist monks in this land of ours, following strictly the vinaya rules set down by the Buddha and wearing the robe he prescribed with solemnity, serenity and dignity. We also have monks in the forest tradition not only at Meethirigala Nissarana Vanaya Forest Hermitage but elsewhere too who spend their time in meditation with not much contact with ordinary life and lay people. In some abodes, people do not even see the monks; dane is left for them and they appear only to gather their food and return to their kutis and seclusion.

Recent speech and an utterance

Dullas Alahaperuma addressed a media briefing with other newly up front politicians which was telecast. I missed the beginning of his address and switched off before he ended. He described vividly how a bull is enraged for a bull fight. I suppose he may hae closely watched such in Spain; globe trotters as politicians are. He said the bulls are enraged by waving red cloths before them. Then he came to the crux of his address. He announced that in Sri Lanka there are the bulls who enrage when they see yellow. He meant those who censor the Sangha (justifiably) and by implication non-Buddhists, traitors and all those others who do not pay obvious puja to monks. Was he referring to Mangala Samaraweera and a viewpoint attributed to him? I heard about it.

Mangala Samaraweera is said to have announced he takes two refuges. We Buddhists, when we observe the five precepts, preface it with taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha. Thus Mangala S would take refuge only in the Buddha and the Dhamma, having lost faith in and respect for the Sangha. Mangala S is castigated for this. He has every right to an opinion. When faulted, the person or persons should look inwards and see whether the faulting is justified. We seem to have this habit in Sri Lanka of never tolerating criticism.

I had been told in sermons and came to realize after discussion that the refuges we accept are not Buddha as Gauataman Buddha; the Dhamma as the Tripitaka per se; the Sangha not all those in yellow robes. They are mere concepts: the first refuge being Buddhahood which is possible to all persons (please not only to men as some pronounce!). The Dhamma is the Truth and includes the four noble truths and the eightfold path as explained to us by Gautama Buddha and realized by him after nine years of diligent seeking as the recluse Prince Siddhartha. The Sangha is identified as those on the Path, and that means at least having reached the stage of Sotapanna, the first of the four stages to final release from samsaric existence.

The Ratana Sutta or Discourse on the Jewels has the Buddha identifying the third Jewel as "Those well engaged with a firm heart

Freed from passion, in the dispensation of Gotama,

They have reached the goals having plunged into immortality,

Having received free they enjoy peace.

This jewel in the Sangha is excellent!"

Thus the third refuge is definitely not every monk or layman who robes himself in the saffron robe of the Buddhist monk. It is they who have reached the goal – the goal of deliverance from mundane life. Thus we can confidently take refuge and say sincerely and with joy –

"Buddham saranan gachchami; Dhamman saranan gachchami; Sangham saranam gachchami"

Because in the last we do not mean the entire Sangha but only the Arahats or those on the Path to Nirvana.

A very learned monk on being questioned by me, replied thus: "The jewels found in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha are excellent. When we seek the third refuge we take refuge in the Noble or Ariya Sangha and not the sammuti sangha."

Thus we can safely intone the taking of refuge which is a comfort and causes inner peace; and with calm gained, attempt closing our eyes and minds to monks – increasing in numbers and stridency - who do not keep the vinaya rules.

This Toxic Supremacis Triumphalism Harmful To The Quest For Pluralism In Sri Lanka!

By Mohamed Harees –NOVEMBER 30, 2019

Lukman Harees

‘Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it’ ~Mark Twain

It is starting to sound and smell like an oxymoron. Despite President Gotabaya Rajapaksa (GR) appearing to assume an ‘All peoples’ President’ personality, the emerging political culture is negating such an assumption. Sri Lanka is showing tell-tale signs of  fast becoming an autocratic democracy as well as a racist, ‘multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual’ nation. The toxic wave of Sinhala Buddhist triumphalism both overt and covert continuing in the Post-election phase, gives credence to the fear that Sri Lanka has already left the station to once again become a classic case of a country, widely polarized and degenerating on the ethnic and political fronts where pluralism is deliberately eschewed. 

It is blatantly clear that this mission to create an unprecedented ‘Sinhala’ mandate for GR, was well-orchestrated through a classic Modi-style modus operandi engineered through a network of grassroot Sinhala Buddhist organizations including temples as well. Even the hate rhetoric articulated by the radical monks during the election campaign was uncannily similar to that mouthed by India’s proponents of Hindutva. Moving forward, Sri Lanka cannot travel in this toxic direction and therefore GR need to act as a national leader; a transformational leader, winning the hearts of all communities, without playing to the gallery. Time is running out to build this broken nation and heal its’ wounds.

Many hate groups which were formed with GR as their patron saint then, upon the heels of the war victory over the Tigers are now deciding to dismantle. In fact, what Ven Gnanasara said in the aftermath of GR victory gave in inkling about the purpose of  their mission: to install a Sinhala Buddhist theocratic state by subduing the minorities. He said ; ‘We built an ideology that the country needs a Sinhala leader who does not bend down in front of minorities. Now that ideology has won.”. This subtle mission to re-install Buddhist nationalism on the driving seat has been on the rise, and it received a renewed boost, after the Easter Sunday terrorist attack. Rajapaksas, often appearing alongside Buddhist monks, exploited this vulnerable situation to their advantage, by referring  to the attacks as another affront on Sinhala Buddhists by the minorities while campaigning and casting themselves as their champions, underlying the need to restore national security. It was then GR declared their candidature as well, which was the ultimate plan of this nationalist lobby. 

GR may well want to be a transformed leader (different to his previous public image). But history has proved time and again that such intentions however laudable may be nullified by those around such leaders and the toxic wave of nationalism which brings them to power. Scheming political forces and prominent Buddhist monks saw in Post-Easter Sunday the emerging need for national security and a great opportunity to realize their dreams of promoting their ultra-nationalistic agenda. They saw in GR their candidate for this mission – a future Dutugemunu and the revival of the Sinhala Buddhist heritage in the country as expected by the vision envisaged by Anagarika Dharmapala. The  Mahavamsa mind-set which lies at the core of Sinhala-Buddhist hard-line arguments that ‘this island is “theirs” and other religious and ethnic minorities are “guests”. It is thus a nationalism which sees no distinction between the Sinhala-Buddhist identity and the Sri Lankan identity. For them, other groups can exist in the country and expect to be treated with respect as long as they acknowledge the supremacy of Buddhism and the primacy of the Sinhala language and culture. As Tisaranee Gunasekara notes, “with a single story, the unscrupulously brilliant author of Mahavamsa created a nexus between war, race and religion and consecrated the task of protecting the faith as the raison d’être of kingship.” These forces even side-line Sinhala Christians too in their quest for super-ordination. In that respect. Sinhala Christians too form another minority among the majority. How the Sinhala Buddhist adversely nationalists reacted to Sinhala Christian vote base for Sajith in Negombo was a case in point. Even the glorification of violence has been used by Buddhist nationalists as a source of encouragement for conflict with non-Buddhists.

In the Alvin Toffler’s ‘wave’ language, GR’s victory may be cited as the ‘Third wave’ of victory for the ‘Sinhala Buddhist nation’ in Post-Independence history of Sri Lanka. More melody to these divisive forces came from the appointment of a (nearly) monolithic Sinhala cabinet- Ministers, State Ministers and Deputy Ministers. The first wave was in 1956, when the majoritarian lobby in the wake of SWRD’s victory was able to make inroads into the highest political seat of power to a certain extent. Although the political elites then knew full well that the monumental act of exclusion as a result of manipulating the language issue for political purposes, was bound to subvert democratic institutions and also likely to lead to “terror, they went ahead anyway. The second wave was the defeat of the (Tamil) Tigers in the hands of the (Sinhala) armed forces. During MR regime, radical right-wing Buddhist groups gained a firmer foothold in Sri Lanka’s political scene, receiving what many view as the tacit support of the Rajapaksa regime. Following the defeat of the ‘Tamil’ enemy, Muslims became “another Other”.

There is no single explanation for why Sri Lanka succumbed to ethnocentrism and majoritarianism and failed to embrace pluralism in its’ seven decades of Post-Independence history. Inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic dynamics in multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies are complicated, and Sri Lanka is no different. But, according to a social scientist and a writer on the subject Neil DeVotta, ‘a Buddhist revival in reaction to colonialism that allowed Sinhalese Buddhist nationalists to combine their community’s socio-economic grievances with ethnic and religious identities; the absence of minority guarantees in the Constitution, based on the Soulbury Commission the British set up prior to granting the island independence; political opportunism among especially Sinhalese, but also Tamil elites who manipulated ethno-nationalism when seeking power; and the sectarian violence that congealed and hardened attitudes over time all contributed to majoritarianism’. The bitter lessons learnt during the course of a bloody thirty year war did not sadly enable a more inclusive society that emphasizes common citizenship over divisive ethno-religious identities, in the light of the embedded majoritarian mind-set. The involvement of Buddhist monks in politics following independence in 1948, in effect, too transformed Buddhism into a highly politicised religion.

As Neil DeVotta further opines, ‘the British and Sri Lankan elites might have been more cognizant of the manner in which the one-person, one-vote democratic principle could lead to majoritarianism, and they could have designed institutional checks and balances to protect against this outcome’. Adding salt to injury, the policies and practices, both UNP and SLFP leaders and governments effectuated were also anything but gradual and judicious. Indeed, they were so divisive and destabilizing that Nigel Harris ((1990), National Liberation) aptly noted, “If the Gods had wished to destroy, the madness of Sri Lanka’s rulers gave them every opportunity; for “if the Tamils had not existed, Colombo would have had to invent them. And, in an important sense, it did. It was [Sinhalese elites in] Colombo that forced the inhabitants of the north to become different, to cease to be Sri Lankan and become exclusively Tamil’. 

Read More

My Plea To Your Excellency President Gotabaya Rajapaksa

What Sri Lanka needs now is a capital and investment flow from regional and international companies for both Small- and large-scale companies.

 

by Sri Lankan Patriotic-2019-11-30

 

I’m writing this with the hope and expectation that your excellency would turn this Island as one of Asia’s vibrant economies. 6.9m Sri Lankans voted for your excellency with a great expectation that you would become Lee Kuan Yew of Sri Lanka. 6.9m Sri Lankans have placed their faith and confidence on you to turn this Island into another Singapore in Asia with rapid development, prosperity and rule of law. 6.9m Sri Lankans strongly believe that Sri Lanka urgently needs an iron man to take this country out of corruption, fraud, mismanagement and political chaos. Now, you are blessed with mandate of more than 6.9m Sri Lankans to demonstrate your leadership skills, patriotism, and integrity. Now is the right time to act and deliver. People put their trust and hope on you to make a difference in politics. Now, the ball is in your corner. You could make this country either one more Singapore or turn it a failed state. It is entirely up to you and your teams who guide and advise you to make a difference in politics. It is entirely up you to introduce a new political culture in Sri Lanka. Otherwise, the same 6.9m Sri Lankans will send you home in five years’ time.

 

 

I’m very much impressed with your development projects: I understand that there are some strong teams behind you to develop this nation. There are some highly qualified academics, professionals and experts behind you to advise you what to do and what steps to take to develop this nation in education, agriculture, business, heath, environment protection, defence, and community harmony. After listening to some programme in ITN (Doramadalawa), I’m so impressed that you have a good program to develop this nation. I’m very much fascinated to see you a man of action rather than a man of political rhetoric. That is exactly what we need in Sri Lanka right now. We need an upgrading in many public departments. I will share my thought in some areas that we need improvement and updating. I hope that your teams of experts and advisors read this article and take some actions in these areas. I’m writing this with a good intention to see some dramatic changes in Sri Lanka in coming years.

 

Within one week, you have taken some positive steps to make a difference in Sri Lanka. You have cut the numbers of your personal security guards and you have removed your photos in public offices. You have Taken some austerity measures. You have taken some steps to clean up our cities. You have limited your cabinet into 15 members. You have limited official trips of your MPs abroad. In fact, you have taken a positive signal to cement inter-community relationship between all Sri Lankan communities. You have taken some good steps to create a Sri Lankan national identity among all communities without any racial discrimination. So far, we have seen some positive things from your good leadership. We hope that you create a political legacy in Sri Lanka with support of all communities. We hope you do not give a space for crook and corrupt politicians once again in this country. We hope that Journalists who report on fraud and corruption will not disappear from Sri Lanka soon. We hope and pray that white van culture will not come back to Sri Lanka at all. We hope that rule of law will prevail in Sri Lanka. We hope people will have freedom to express their views without any fear.

 

You have appointed your elder Brother as your PM. By doing so, You have created a history in Sri Lankan politics. I do not have any qualm about it. I do not mind it, if it is for the greater interest of this nation. I hope and pray both of you do not misuse this vested power. I hope that your elder brother does not repeat his old mistakes once again. I hope you have a hold on your MPs. I hope that you give nominations for next general election only for some qualified people among our communities. A team of highly educated and honest MPs could make a difference in Sri Lankan politics. We should select and elect some highly qualified people into Sri Lankan parliament. That will make your projects and your task easy.

 

If new government fails on its promise to deliver, the 6.9m people will turn their back on this government to send it home. In politics anything could happen in a couple of days/months or years. So, you must take this leadership challenge with the utmost commitment and dedication. Winning the hearts and minds of public in politics is not an easy task and yet, you have done that now, but keeping this public goodwill would be a daunting task unless you take some firm measures to introduce a new political culture and discipline.

 

Make sure that you make a distinction between your family and professional life. Keep all family connection out of your politics and out of public duties. Last time, your brother did not make that distinction in fact, he gave jobs to all his relatives, friends and cohort. They all damage his good name in politics. It took sometimes to regain his popularity. Some of corrupt cohort put the country into a near bankruptcy: Do not repeat the same mistake if you want to survive your political career. People have hope and confidence on you now but do not shatter that hope. I understand that have created different teams to develop this nation. I’m fortunate enough to listen to some of talks given by you and your teams. All are ambitious projects and programs. To do all these development programs we need some honest and dedicated politicians. As a Sri Lankan who love my mother land, I share my thought with your development program.

 

Education:

 

We are living in an age of knowledge-based economy. If your excellency want to see rapid development and program in Sri Lanka, we must make some radical changes in our education. Our school and university education systems have got an outdated teaching and learning system. Teaching and learning pedagogies are outdated. Radical changes are needed in our education both in school and university education. I hope that your excellency will take some drastic action to update our education. Sorry to say our teaching recruitment system is outdated too. Not all graduates could teach. Teaching is an art itself. We do not recruit teachers through a vigorous teaching training program.

 

In western countries graduates must have credits in Language and Mathematics to become teachers in any subject. They train graduates with some teacher training programs such as PGCE. I think Sri Lanka badly needs some teacher training programs to train our graduates. No point in giving teaching jobs for graduates without any training. Today, teaching is a demanding profession. Without training, how could we expect to give teaching jobs for graduates. Teachers produce our next generations. Teachers are resource persons who train our children/next generations. If teachers do not know what to teach and how to teach? They will spoil next generations of Sri Lanka. Teachers are resource persons who guide and who direct next generations of our community and yet, we do not recruit trained teachers. This is, indeed, greatly detrimental to our education.

 

So, I hope new president takes some measures to improve quality of our teaching in schools and universities. Our university education badly needs some radical changes. Each one of us know our university education standard is not to any international level like that of Singapore, Japan, South Korea and any western countries. why is this? Some academics in our universities are not qualified to teach. Sorry to say this but this is a bitter truth. Look how our university lecturers are being recruited. It is same as how we recruit teachers to our schools. Some university lecturers do not have skills and talent to teach at university. I do not blame them, but I blame our system of higher education. In western countries, university students have right to complain against any university lecturer who teaches poorly. In fact, western universities have got a monitoring system to monitor the quality of teaching in universities.

 

Students are given a questionnaire in each term to report about the quality of teaching. Some academics are sacked and fired for poor quality of teaching. University academics get a good salary now in Sri Lanka and yet, university administration does not how make them work for university and for the country. So sorry, some academics come to work one or two days per week and do not put their time and energy to prepare lectures.

 

I hope, your excellency take some measures to make a difference in university education. Otherwise, your dream to make this country as one of Asia’s developed counties will not be feasible. Education, Education and education was the slogan of British PM Tony Blair to win his election campaign in 1995. I hope your time in USA might have given you some practical experience to know about western education system. I think that Sri Lanka must have some government schemes or collaborative teacher training scheme with some western universities to train our graduates in some western countries. We need this to learn modern teaching pedagogies and methods. Countries such as Malaysia and Singapore send their teachers to get teacher training in western countries. We should send some of our graduate for PGCE courses in western countries if we really want to develop our education.

 

Economy:

What Sri Lanka needs now is a capital and investment flow from regional and international companies for both Small- and large-scale companies. What Sri Lanka badly needs now is a job creation in Sri Lanka. Due to 30 year’s war and communal violence in recent time, international companies did not come to Sri Lankan rather they went to Bangladesh and Vietnam and some other countries. Moreover, our education system is not updated to produce professionals for international market. Today there is a good demand for some professionals in western countries. IT professionals, high tech professionals, health professionals, educational professionals and some business professionals have demands in western countries. yet, our universities and colleges do not produce all these professionals. High skill migration brings a huge amount of money to India, China and other countries. Our politicians and policy makers must think about this rather than sending housemaids to Middle East countries. Singapore has Branches of many international companies, banks, research centres and universities. Unless, we attract international investors and companies, there is no way, we could see economic growth in Sri Lanka with limited natural and human resources we have. Of course, tourism is one of the most income making avenues we have in Sri Lanka. Tourism development in Sri Lanka needs some strategic planning and international marketing.

 

I think that Sri Lanka could consult and seek advisors of some experts from Malaysia, Singapore, Turkey and other countries to develop our tourism and other industries. Today, tourism is a competitive market in this modern world. Historical places, tea plantation, beautiful beach and natural resources of Sri Lanka are ideal for tourism. Our climate and natural resources are ideals for tourism industry. Yet, we have not managed to attract more than I one million tourists per year. That tells a lot about mismanagement of tourism industry in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country and there are over one billion Buddhists in the world today. This includes China, Japan, Koreas, Burman, Vietnam and other countries and yet, we have failed to attract Buddhist tourism? Why? Sri Lanka has got some oldest historical and religious places and yet, we have not attracted these tourists.  Likewise, so many Arabs now visit Sri Lanka. we must give them a good impression about our country. If an Arab goes to Japan, Japanese hotels provide them with prayer mattes and prayer compass to find out direction of prayer. We must give them some such facilities to attract Arab tourism.

 

Diaspora communities:

 

Sri Lanka has utterly failed to make use of Sri Lankan expatriate communities abroad. Politicians make political rhetoric about these people and they invite them to come back. But they have no mechanism to make use of these Sri Lankans who live abroad. Over 1.5 Million Sri Lankans live in many western countries. Successive Sri Lankan governments have utterly failed to benefit from this sri Lankan migrant communities. Sri Lanka has failed to use their talents, skills, experience and their capital investment. Countries such as India, Bangladesh and Pakistan get a huge of amount foreign remittance from Western countries. Yet, Sri Lankan has failed to attract capital investment from its own citizens in western countries. our dual citizenship concept has not attracted expatriate Sri Lankans to come and invest in Sri Lanka. In this digital age, Sri Lankan immigration and High commissions in Europe are working in stone age style. They are working in old fashions. For a Sri Lankan expatriate it will take more one year to get a dual citizenship certificate. There is not any efficiency in immigration department back home in Sri Lanka to speed up this process. Because, many officers do not do their jobs on time for some obvious reasons. If it is the case, how could Sri Lanka expect to benefit from 1.5m expatriate Sri Lankans? The Sri Lankan immigration department needs some radical change with some new innovative ideas to speed up its process in dealing with public.

Rehabilitation

INDRAN AMIRTHANAYAGAM- 11/14/2019

The outgoing president of my former country just pardoned

Jude Jayamaha, murderer of the young Yvonne Jonsson, who had

dual Sri Lankan and Swedish nationality, bludgeoned to death

in an apartment at the luxury Royal Park flats. The victim’s skull

shattered Into sixty-four shards. The killer got twelve years at first,

was sent later to Death Row, from where he has been released

for good behaviour, according to the president, who happens also

to be a distant relative. Prisoners at Welikada have climbed

to their roof shouting, we too must be set free. The story is making

national, global news. The imperious president. What is the right

payment for murder? Who will greet the killer now at cocktail

parties, in the cinema? Yes, that is the Royal Park killer? Perhaps

he will sit for plastic surgery; change his name; go abroad,

as he has money. Maybe he will take a room in the town

where the surviving sister resides? She may also live in Colombo.

After all, she too is a dual national. Perhaps they will bump

into each other at Majestic City, or in the Crescat complex,

on the green at Galle Face? What will they say to each other?

Indran Amirthanayagam, (c) November 13, 2019

Two versions of Rajapaksa authoritarianism

Reflections on a Mahinda-state versus Gota-state, puzzle

by Kumar David-November 30, 2019, 3:11 pm

Of course I am disappointed by the presidential election outcome for two reasons. I wished for at least 700,000 votes for Anura to kickstart an alternative to the rotten two-party hegemony of the post-1975 decades; second, I wanted Gota defeated as I perceived in him as an autocrat. The first was unexpected as I was confident Anura would do much better. Regarding the second, those who read me between the lines would have realised that I did not expect Sajith to win outright and was pinning my hopes on a second-preference count. In the event even Anura’s total absence would not have mattered, the swing to Gota was huge among the Sinhalese and especially the Sinhala-Buddhists (SB).

I have mulled over the statistics and confidently assert that 72% of SB voters opted for Gota. Well over half non-Buddhist Sinhalese also supported him thanks to the untiring efforts of our blessed Cardinal. The former votes alone would have pushed Gota just over the 50%+ mark; the latter cemented a comfortable first-count majority. Tamils, and more so Muslims, voting for Gota were negligible in number. Statistically and politically this is a historic election and has changed Sri Lanka in ways irreversible for a long time to come. I will not discuss the setback for a democratic-left option due to the NPP/JVP’s poor showing; that will be the topic of a separate essay, later.

It is incorrect to refer to this election as a return to 1956. No! First, SWRD’s SB vote was in no way comparable. No, 70+% of the SB population did not align with the SLFP (the landslide was in part thanks to a no-contest pact with the left). The key was that 1956 was a first-past-the-post (FPTP) election. In an FPTP contest, technically, a party can win every single seat in parliament if it secures 50%+1 vote in every electorate. I have to work from memory as I cannot afford the time to dig out and analyse statistics, but I am confident the SLFP in 1956 did not garner even 60% of the Sinhalese vote, probably in the high 50s. The second difference that recent writers all too readily forget is that in political character the ‘1956 movement’ and the ‘2019 rush to Gota’ are poles apart. The former was populist, vernacular-nationalist (Sinhala Only), progressive in class terms even posing as leftist, and distinctly democratic in its social overtones. Gota is none of this. Even his ‘Sinhalaism’ is couched in national-security statist terms. In all respects what SWRD is to Gotabhaya is what centrist-populism is to potential authoritarianism.

I know some readers will say: "Gota is a new President; give him a chance". That’s fair and I agree; but there’s nothing wrong in getting one’s guard up, just in case. Defence can be scrapped if not needed; to be caught flat-footed is calamitous. I am not prepared to relax to the extent that I concede that the authoritarian danger I wrote about these months has evaporated. On the contrary, because of the highly ethnically polarised election results, the danger has increased. Two versions of authoritarianism have emerged globally in the post WW2 period; a nativist-nationalist-statist version and, alternatively, a populist paradigm. And if you want to put a face on each you can colour them the Gotabaya version or the Mahinda paradigm, respectively.

And that brings me to my point. Is Gota really interested in holding state power for one full term, or even two, or is he only "the one who comes before preparing the way and making straight the path for him who is to follow"? Does Gota really want to be president and implement his programme or will he swiftly carry out constitutional changes needed for Mahinda’s return for a third term, and eventually life presidency? No one knows, least of off all the two protagonists. The answer is as yet unknowable. It depends not only on their own ambitions but also on the schemes of the family cabal and the forces that stand behind each of them. Mahinda’s base is an adoring populist mass, Gota’s the Shangri-La class of business and military types, professionals and technocrats, oddly garnished with cohorts of militant yellow-robed racist hate-mongers. In a showdown, MR’s populist mass will win hands down, at least that’s the current balance; Shangri-La cannot match Mahinda’s mass. After all there is no denying Gota won the presidency thanks to Mahinda.

But not all the cards are stacked in Mahinda’s favour. The main obstacle standing in his way is the Constitution and 19A. It’s not breaking news that most of our MPs are available for sale on cash-down terms (money or Cabinet post), or on hire-purchase (nomination for a seat in the next election). Like my fellow citizens I am no admirer of Sri Lanka’s Members of Parliament. If it is decided to bring Mahinda back to the presidency pronto, then a constitutional amendment is possible even before the election using the cash-down method. Or it may be less messy to wait for the 2020 elections, which Mahinda will win by a landslide, and screw the constitution at a more leisurely pace. If FPTP or part-FPTP is restored, the landslide will be a repeat of 1956, 1970 or 1977.

That equation will have to include an agreement between MR, GR, the family cabal and Gota’s business-military types about when Gota should quit and hold presidential elections facilitating MR’s expeditious resumption of the presidency. Or perhaps the equation will allow Gota to complete his term; but isn’t that risky? Won’t he and his loyalist hangers-on then want the constitutionally allowed second term? If term-limits are rescinded why Mahinda and not Gota as life president, they will boldly ask? There are knowns, known-unknown and unknown-unknowns. No one knows nor can know how all this will spin. So, let’s leave speculation to one side and turn to a known-knowns.

Whether it’s the MR manifestation or a spectral Gota haunting, Sri Lanka is in for a long grip of authoritarianism; but the two versiosn will be different. The Mahinda version will be populist as were his 2005-2015 presidencies; there will be a velvet glove of welfare and concessions to popular pressure. Argentina’s Peron or Mahathir’s long former spell as PM spring to mind except that neither was corrupt. A Gota autocracy will reflect the style of the man and the expectations of those who want him "to get on with the job". It will be less class conciliatory, make short shrift of liberal niceties and get on with the job in the name of efficiency. He has expressed a commitment to modernisation and global opening-up, technology especially IT, renewable energy and environmental protection and comes over as a problem-solver and a doer who has proved himself, controversially as Defence Secretary and creditably as urban reorganiser.

He is painted, justifiably to go by experience, as a threat to democratic rights and freedoms. An old friend and one-time university leftist, now a devoted Gota admirer, joked that he hoped they retained one last white van for me! Though both are avatars of authoritarianism, the two will impact on personal lives and social spaces differently. The Gota version, it is feared, will be harsh, the Mahinda option avuncular. What the two have in common is that, given the electoral antecedent, both when under pressure will stabilise themselves by an appeal to nativist Sinhala-Buddhist ideology. That ideology will not go away because it was the people themselves who willed it. I am aware that this is a pessimistic thesis, but my task is to tell you the truth not lull you with soporifics.

Does this mean that we must throw up our hands and do nothing? Absolutely NO! Even on the darkest nights there are things to do. I will conclude by stating the most urgent; recall my comment about "getting ready, just in case". The imperative in this phrase is the "getting ready", not the "just in case". A defensive non-regime alliance, not only political but also including the political parties (UNP, JVP, minority parties) and civil society, journalists and artists, must be formed. The programme must be minimal: Resist the creep of dictatorship by legislative statutes, state repression and in ‘vans’ of any colour. The JVP has to take the lead since the UNP is comatose after its knockout.

Come on everybody let’s get started. Defeatism following a defeat is suicide; know your enemy, know the terrain and know yourself.

Sun Tse say:

If you know your enemy and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a loss.

If you only know yourself, but not your enemy, you may win or you may lose.

If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always lose.

The Art of War (2nd Century BC)