Sri Lanka: Black July — Ugly Past Yet to Heal
We have failed to bring about a new constitution needed to ensure the plurality of people, in a unitary state. How far have we moved to bring about the deeper aspects of devolution that is necessary for the pluralism of a multi-ethnic state? Are we not moving to, or have we not moved to a Sinhala Buddhist State, which is far from the pluralism and multi-ethnicity that could ensure peace in the future?
( July 28, 2018, Colombo, Sri Lana Guardian) This week saw the 35th anniversary of the anti-Tamil pogrom of July 1983, which was the darkest phase in post-independent Sri Lanka. It saw to rise of separatist forces, joining or being forced to give room to the LTTE. It also gave emphasis to racism in the politics of government, as the country moved through three decades of separatist violence, which ended with the defeat of the LTTE in 1990.
As one who lived through those dark days, the role of the government in instigating and promoting the violence of the initial three days can never be forgotten. The Police did not respond to calls to bring about order. There was no curfew in place to curb the violence. Many Sinhalese and Muslims did act on their own, and at much personal risk to help the Tamils, whom they could; but the larger number of Tamils, especially in urban areas lost life and property, and had to be sheltered in refugee centres.
The tragedies of that time, and the cooperation among communities that rose above the background of manipulated violence, where the governing forces had a major role to play, apart from personal reminiscences, remain the topic of many books, theatrical and cinematic works that put down this record in history.
It was clearly the darkest phase of a democratically elected government, having a huge parliamentary majority, using the backroom of violence to bring about an enormous tragedy that served its narrow political purposes of domineering governance. It saw President JR Jayewardene, who remained silent for several days, come out and tell the Sinhalese to look after their own protection.
There was hardly any sympathy for the Tamils who suffered in the manipulated tragedy. This attitude of the government saw the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which led to the main Opposition – TULF – leave parliament, and a legislative assembly that have no elected members of the principal ethnic minority in the country. It gave strength to the Tamil separatist forces, with dominance and control by the LTTE, and three decades of civil war, with those multiplying records of violence and tragedy, until the final defeat of the LTTE, under the political leadership of Mahinda Rajapaksa, and the total commitment of the Armed Forces.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and the Government here have certainly acted in a most foolish manner in this exercise of waste. It does not get any justification from a professorial explanation, neither of the law not of politics.
Thirty-five years later, the battles are over and we are at peace, but is it a situation that can ensure the prevention of such tragedies in the future? How far have we moved in the path to reconciliation, which is fast becoming a word of near contempt among those who believe in the rule of the majority? We have failed to bring about a new constitution needed to ensure the plurality of people, in a unitary state. How far have we moved to bring about the deeper aspects of devolution that is necessary for the pluralism of a multi-ethnic state? Are we not moving to, or have we not moved to a Sinhala Buddhist State, which is far from the pluralism and multi-ethnicity that could ensure peace in the future?
In this anniversary period of Black July, these are issues to be considered by the current government, elected on a pledge of peace and reconciliation. It should see the need for politics of national unity that makes efforts to move away from the politics of division, the prevailing reality. The politics of division that cannot fight corruption and bring about unity of purpose, for better education, embracing new technology, and moving to the demands of the Digital Age. These are challenges for the governments of today and tomorrow.
A coliseum of corruption
The past week saw a major display of the spread of corruption that affects both the Opposition and the government. The Adjournment Debate in Parliament on the alleged Chinese funding for the election of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa was adjourned for want of a quorum. The members of the Rajapaksa family who are MPs were missing – Mahinda, brother Chamal, and son Namal. Mahinda was far away in Singapore. The Joint Opposition gave every indication it did not like the debate. They do not like the related reporting of the New York Times. They had to answer allegations on facts that are clearly available to the Government, as the NYT reported.
The quorum in parliament is 20 members. Members of the Government called for this debate. It was the Government’s duty to ensure a debate. What was seen in parliament was an attempt by both the Government and Opposition to avoid this debate, raising many questions about the reach and depth of this corruption. It fact, it was the duty of the Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, to have made a clear statement to the House on these transactions, from the time the NYT story broke out. It is evident there was a Central Bank or Government probe into these payments, from early 2015, when the story was first reported in the Daily News.
The absence of such a clear statement by Government on these payments, gives the impression that it is not eager to carry out this exposure. Is it because the money is from a Chinese State-owned company, with important links to the government today? Alternatively, could this search for silence be, because such funds may have come to UNP or any other government members or ministers, too?
There was a time when President Sirisena was busy threatening to use a ‘madu valigey’ to attack the corrupt. Later this moved to threats of the Presidential Sword to strike at the corrupt. Have these weapons gone to the presidential sheath? Does the government not understand that the corruption it accused the Rajapaksa Regime of, has moved with speed to its own ranks – as the Perpetual payments clearly showed?
The NYT report is only one aspect of the corruption of the Rajapaksas. This government was elected on a pledge to fight the corruption of the past regime. What is seen today is both administrative, legal, judicial and political moves to prevent this exposure of the corrupt. The headlines of the first year of Good Government, has now moved to headlines of procrastination, inaction or avoidance of action. This in turn gives many opportunities for the Rajapaksa forces to claim near sainthood in governance, and blame this government to false allegations against them.
The NYT report is only one aspect of the corruption of the Rajapaksas. This government was elected on a pledge to fight the corruption of the past regime. What is seen today is both administrative, legal, judicial and political moves to prevent this exposure of the corrupt. The headlines of the first year of Good Government, has now moved to headlines of procrastination, inaction or avoidance of action. This in turn gives many opportunities for the Rajapaksa forces to claim near sainthood in governance, and blame this government to false allegations against them.
In a country that is moving to the strongest phase of family politics, this continued failure to fight corruption goes far beyond the politics of fellow back scratching. It moves to the strengthening of the forces of corruption, in every political colour, and moves to the Hitlerite expectations of many for a rise in the politics of fascism, with a slogan against corruption to serve one’s own political ends. It brings to mind JRJ’s invitation to the robbers.
As the choice of candidates for the next presidency moves closer, the signs are that the coming contest will not be one of fighting corruption. It is more likely to be a contest between the corrupt, with the more corrupt forces getting closer to the winning post.
That Paisley Farce
The SLPP’s Lotus bud chair, Prof. G. L. Peiris, has defended the many millions paid by the Rajapaksa regime to host UK MP Ian Paisley Jr here to give him a real picture of the post-war situation in the country, and work against the UK government’s move to support the UNHRC resolution against Sri Lanka.
Those costly efforts certainly paid no dividends, as seen how the Tory Government of David Cameron, ignored whatever explanation Paisley gave, and decided to support the UNHRC resolution. We can call that a selection of the wrong messenger for the purpose, or the lager failure of Sri Lankan foreign policy, of which he GLP was minister, of course Monitored by Sajin Vaas Gunewardena.
What is of bigger interest is why this man had to be brought down with his wife and children on both occasions, to make this study of conditions here? If there was anything professional about him, could he not have come alone, and moved around in this country and done a good study for a report worth the money spent? What has happened is a farce. The MP brought down was not from the Tory or Labour parties. He is from the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party. It is only now, with Theresa May’s parliamentary majority crisis, that it may have some voice to move a prime minister.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and the Government here have certainly acted in a most foolish manner in this exercise of waste. It does not get any justification from a professorial explanation, neither of the law not of politics.
