Keith Locke questions New Zealand's silence on Sri Lanka hosting CHOGM

[TamilNet, Friday, 03 May 2013, 04:46 GMT]
“So far Canada's campaign to move CHOGM away from Sri Lanka has met with little success. Britain's Conservative government has been critical of Rajapaksa but won't support changing the conference venue. Australia has turned a blind eye to the continuing tragedy in Sri Lanka, apparently so it can justify returning Tamil boatpeople to their home country. And what of New Zealand? Our Government seems to be keeping as quiet as possible,” writes Keith Locke, former Green MP, in an opinion article published in The Dominion Post on Friday. 

Excerpts from Keith Locke's article follow:

Mr Keith Locke

“Holding CHOGM in Colombo will make a mockery of the charter just developed by the Commonwealth and signed in March by the head of the Commonwealth, Queen Elizabeth.

“This charter commits Commonwealth leaders to democracy, human rights, tolerance, freedom of expression, good governance and the rule of law - none of which are respected by the Rajapaksa government.

“To make matters worse, Sri Lanka's president, as the CHOGM host, will become chair of the Commonwealth for the two years until the heads of state next meet.

“So far Canada's campaign to move CHOGM away from Sri Lanka has met with little success.

“Britain's Conservative government has been critical of Rajapaksa but won't support changing the conference venue.

“Australia has turned a blind eye to the continuing tragedy in Sri Lanka, apparently so it can justify returning Tamil boatpeople to their home country.

“And what of New Zealand?

“Our Government seems to be keeping as quiet as possible.

“It is not as if the New Zealand Government is ignorant of the dire human rights issues in Sri Lanka. I was a member of Parliament's foreign affairs, defence and trade select committee when, in 2009 and 2010, it was briefed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

“We were told about difficult conditions in the internment camps for Tamils and the limitations on access by international aid organisations; the absence of a political reconciliation process; and the danger to democracy following the arrest of Rajapaksa's opponent in the February 2010 election, General Sarath Fonseka.

“Since then Rajapaksa has strengthened his grip on power, supported by his brother, Gotabhaya, who is defence secretary; another brother, Basil, who is economic development minister; and a fourth brother, Chamal, who is Speaker.

“Amnesty International, in its latest report on April 30 said the "violent repression and the consolidation of political power go hand in hand" and "there is a real climate of fear in Sri Lanka, with those brave enough to speak out against the government often having to suffer badly for it".

“The reputation of both New Zealand and the Commonwealth is at stake here. New Zealand rightly challenges abuses of democracy in our region - such as in Fiji (which has been suspended from the Commonwealth). But we can be accused of a double standard if at the same time we allow the Commonwealth to be chaired for the next two years by a president who refuses any accountability for the deaths of so many innocent civilians in his country's civil war and who is governing in an increasingly authoritarian manner. ”

Commonwealth SG upholds SL venue of CHOGM, meets Colombo’s HR outfit

[TamilNet, Thursday, 02 May 2013, 22:19 GMT]
While widespread calls from credible quarters across the world were urging either change of the CHOGM venue or boycott, if it is going to take place in Sri Lanka, and while the UK Tamils staged a demonstration against the venue, the Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma upheld the venue in a press meet in London last Friday. “I meet leaders continually and continue to take soundings with leaders, and have been doing so recently as well, and no member of government has indicated remotely that it wishes to change the venue, Kamalesh Sharma said, answering a question put by Jonathan Miller of Channel 4 News. Meanwhile, Kamalesh Sharma also received a ‘human rights’ outfit of genocidal Colombo that came to meet him in London this week. 

• Transcript of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group Press Conference

In the press conference on last Friday that followed the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), Kamalesh Sharma said that the Commonwealth would be picking up items from the LLRC report for implementation, and it would put its ‘partnership’ and ‘good offices’ in the process.

Bob Carr from Australia went a step further in telling that Australia’s concern was for “full implementation of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Report recommendations.” 

Any one who goes through the report could find that the thrust of the LLRC recommendations is structural genocide of Eezham Tamils, demographic assimilation and annihilation of the identity of the nation of Eezham Tamils in the island.

Bob Carr also defended the Sri Lankan State by his ‘reasonable’ interpretation of concluding that “there were abuses on both sides,” and by reducing the on-going genocide to “inter-religious tensions,” saying that Sri Lanka is not the only country in Asia that has such tensions.

Richard Uku, who presided the press conference, was trying his best to deviate the focus on Sri Lanka by encouraging questions on other matters and by saying, “This is not a press conference on Sri Lanka.” But still questions were focussing on Sri Lanka.

While Kamalesh Sharma continued to defend soft approach on Sri Lanka, questions were put on the limit of toleration and on the difference between the responses of the Commonwealth on apartheid and on Sri Lanka.

When questions citing examples doubted the genuineness of Sri Lanka in engaging with Commonwealth, Kamalesh Sharma continued to defend the Commonwealth ‘engaging’ with Sri Lanka. 

The CMAG avoided taking up the venue question in its formal agenda. But it was discussed under ‘other matters’.

* * *

Meanwhile, Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma on Tuesday received Sri Lanka's Human Rights Commission officials at Marlborough House in London. Extracts of the new release, issued by the Commonwealth Secretariat on the meeting, follow:

“Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma received the Chair of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, Justice Priyantha R P Perera, and his delegation at Marlborough House yesterday.

“The group is in London to take part in a Commonwealth roundtable on reconciliation, being held at the Commonwealth Secretariat from 1 to 3 May. The roundtable is enabling several Commonwealth member countries that have sought peace and reconciliation after conflict and had to deal with the attendant challenges of such a process to share experiences. Other national human rights institutions taking part are those of Kenya, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone and Uganda.

“The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka delegation includes Commissioner Prathiba Sri Warna Mahanamahewa; the Regional Coordinator for Jaffna, Thangavel Kanagaraj; the Regional Coordinator for Vavunija, Malalaratnage Rohitha Priyadharshana; and the Regional Coordinator for Batticaloa, Abdul Careem Abdul Azeez.

“In his meeting with the Sri Lankan delegation, the Commonwealth Secretary-General focused discussions on the Commonwealth’s plans to support the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka in achieving specific targets that the Secretary-General had identified in his statement issued at the conclusion of his last visit to Sri Lanka in February, and contact with the Human Rights Unit of the Commonwealth Secretariat thereafter. The goal of the Commonwealth’s partnership with the Commission is to support Sri Lanka’s national efforts and plans to provide access for all its citizens to a life of dignity and opportunity in keeping with the values of the Commonwealth.

“The Commonwealth Secretariat and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka have agreed on two immediate areas of technical assistance, which are expected to be carried out over the next three to six months. This will entail strengthening the capacity of the Commission on effective use of national inquiries as a means of human rights protection, and on its role in taking forward an agenda aimed at national reconciliation.

“Commonwealth Secretariat technical assistance in the above-mentioned areas is part of strengthening the effectiveness and authority of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. This will ultimately work towards helping the Commission regain its ‘A status’ accreditation with the UN International Coordinating Committee for national human rights protection mechanisms. This status is accorded to human rights institutions that comply fully with the Paris Principles, the international standards for these institutions.

“Also discussed were remaining challenges of land resettlement of people who had been displaced by conflict; reconciliation efforts linked to Sri Lanka’s trilingual policy of Sinhala, Tamil and English; and the importance of an effective grievance reporting system.”

A Rejoinder To Hoole: Tamil Hinduism And Arumuka Navalar

By Romesh Jayaratnam -May 3, 2013

I respond to the three opinion pieces of Samuel Ratnajeevan Herbert Hoole namely (i) “Arumuka Navalar: Fake Images and Histories” published in the Colombo Telegraph on March 30, 2013; (ii) “The Jaffna Version of the Tamil Bible: By Peter Percival or Arumuka Navalar” published in the Colombo Telegraph on April 5, 2013; and (iii) “Heritage Histories: What They Are and How They Operate Through Jaffna” published in the Colombo Telegraph on April 6, 2013.

Mr. Hoole asserts that Arumuka Navalar was built up by “ill-educated” “Tamil Saivite extremists” and that everything about Navalar was “fake” be it “his portrait, caste and name, and perhaps religion..”. He alleges that Navalar, a “high school dropout”, had ‘tiny ears and a big forehead on a huge head, thin hands and legs, strong facial hair, and huge body without any strength”. Hoole explains that Navalar was unable ‘to complete high school after 6 years in Tamil school and 13 years under Percival”. He adds that Navalar had a multitude of names each spelt differently and that he was but an “unpaid” “menial assistant” to the missionary Percival!

Hoole similarly claims that the Tamils “were Buddhist and Jain before Saivism took root after the seventh century AD”. He adds that 8,000 Jains who refused to convert to Saivite Hinduism were impaled in the 7th century. He asserts “that many Hindu temples today were once Buddhist and Jain”, agreeing with a Sinhala Buddhist nationalism that is eager to plant Buddha statues in places of old Hindu worship in Sri Lanka. He ends by asserting that “Christians live in fear – living oppressed and as the the oppressed’.

I will be brief as I respond. In the interests of brevity, I will focus on just two subjects i.e. (i) the roots of Tamil Hindu tradition prior to the period of Jain and Buddhist literary influence; and (ii) Arumuka Navalar. Hoole needs to verify his information. His is a highly selective and wishful narrative with numerous errors. Little of what Hoole says is credible. Its time to set the record straight in the interests of a more nuanced interpretation.

Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism in early Tamil history

If one were to appraise the religious character of early Tamil society, one will need to refer to the earliest specimens of Tamil literature that exist today i.e. the Sangam-era work. The Sangam works consist of two literary compendia namely the Ettutogai or Eight Anthologies and the Pattu Paatu or 10 songs. Both are dated to between the 1st and 3rd centuries of the Common Era (CE). It is also important to cite the earliest Tamil grammar in existence today i.e the Tol-kaapiyam. The latter text is usually dated to the early centuries CE. There is an academic debate on the internal consistency and date of the Tol-kaapiyam.

The Sangam compendia I refer to excludes the 18 later works or the Pathinen-keezh-kannaku nool which subsumes the Silapadikaram, the Manimekalai, the Tirukural and other later texts. Those are post-Sangam works.

If one were to explore the Sangam-era, one finds a bardic tradition interspersed with references to the veneration of the Hindu gods Seyon or Murukan, Maayon or Vishnu, Venthan or Indra, Korravai or Durga and Varuna. These were the patron deities of the Tamil land. Seyon or Murukan was the benefactor of the hill tribes while Venthan or Indra was the God of Rain and the protector of the fertile agricultural tracts. Varuna, the God of the Sea, was the guardian of the maritime tracts and all those whose livelihood depended on the sea. Korravai or Durga was the patron of the fierce tribes of the arid tracts. Maayon or Vishnu, also known as the lotus-eyed or Taamarai Kannanaar, protected the herdsmen. The Sangam literature refers to the mighty womb of Korravai that gave birth to Seyyon. There are allusions to the three-eyed God, Siva.

There are references to the Brahmins who tended the sacred fire and studied the four Vedas or Naan Marai. Several Brahmins contributed to the corpus of early Sangam literature. This included Kapilar, Uruttira-kannanaar, Nakeerar, Paalai Kauthamanaar and Perum Kausikanaar to mention just a few. There were several others. Several of the Chera, Chola and Pandya monarchs performed the Vedic sacrifice as documented in the Sangam corpus. The practice of suttee existed. This inheritance is what we today call Tamil Hinduism. The literary allusions to the Jains and Buddhists were far fewer in the Sangam-era.

The pottery and stone inscriptions in Tamil Brahmi dated to the decades before the dawn of the common era offer insights as well. The potsherd inscriptions linked to a megalithic culture contain references to Murukan while the few early rock inscriptions document individual donations to itinerant Jain monks.

The more copious literary record that has survived to date reflects a Hindu folk idiom linked to the rural populace, chieftains and the priesthood while the rock inscriptions suggest individual traders sponsoring Jainism. Buddhism in that early era was numerically less significant. Hoole’s point that Hinduism influenced the Tamil land only in the 7th century is therefore false.

Buddhism emerged in a significant manner in the Tamil land with the later Kalabhras. The Kalabhra dynasty had invaded and ruled Tamil Nadu between the 4th and the 6th centuries CE. Inscriptional and literary evidence indicates that the Chola, Chera and Pandya kings were ruthlessly suppressed. The Kalabhras patronized Buddhism and used Prakrit. Buddhism remained an urban phenomenon. Most Tamil Buddhist monks of this period chose to write in Pali, not Tamil. This included Buddhadatta Thera from Uragapura (Uraiyur) and Dhammapala Thera from Tambarattha (Tirunelveli) who traveled to Sri Lanka to translate the proto-Sinhalese language commentaries into Pali. The celebrated Buddhist commentator Buddhaghosha lived for a while in Madhura-sutta-pattana (Madurai) en route to Sri Lanka to study the proto-Sinhalese texts. Hoole’s contention that Sinhalese literature is a 9th century phenomenon linked to the suppression of Buddhism in the Tamil land is therefore flawed!

The Buddhist zeal of the Kalabhras triggered a home-grown Saivite and Vaishnava revival in the 6th century. This in turn saw the eclipse of Pali scholarship in the Tamil land and a renewed pride in the Tamil language.

Buddhism however continued in urban Tamil Nadu until the 14th century. The Culavamsa describes Sinhalese kings inviting Tamil monks from South India to visit Sri Lanka between the 12th and 14th centuries CE. The Tamil grammar, the Vira-choliyam, was authored by a Buddhist in the heyday of Chola rule in the 10th century CE. The Saivite Hindu Cholas sponsored this Buddhist author. Meanwhile, the Jain center of Sittanavaasal continued to flourish between the 7th and 9th centuries. Saivite Hinduism did not annihilate Buddhism or of Jainism in 7th century Tamil Nadu as Hoole writes. The Buddhist presence in Tamil Nadu ended with the establishment of the Madurai Sultanate in the early 14th century. Tamil Jainism continues to exist to this day.

Hoole highlights the alleged impalement of 8,000 Jains in 7th century Tamil Nadu and cites Nambi Aandaar Nambi, an early medieval Saivite scholar, in support of his claim. This was a literary allusion with no independent evidence. The Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas ruled in neighboring Karnataka. Several of the near contemporary Chalukya and Rashtrakuta monarchs, not to mention the Pallava kings in Tamil Nadu were Jain. There is no corroborating Jain literary or inscriptional evidence of any such impalement. The inquisition was a Christian instrument of persecution, not Hindu.

Hoole is likewise dishonest in selectively quoting Nilakanta Sasti’s History of South India to extrapolate that Buddhist and Jain temples were converted into Hindu places of worship ignoring the extensive evidence provided by Professor Sastri on the Brahmanic and Vaishnava presence in the earliest period of Tamil history.

In conclusion, what we now designate as Hinduism was pre-eminent in the earliest years of recorded Tamil history. The Jains did extensively contribute to Tamil literature at a subsequent date. To argue that we were Jains and Buddhists before we became Hindu is simply incorrect.

Arumuka Navalar

Let me now turn to the subject of Arumuka Navalar. Whether Navalar had any input in the translation of the Bible into Tamil, how he looked, how he spelt his Tamil name in English in a era where such spelling had not been standardized and where births and marriages were unregistered, what caste he belonged to and whether his father was baptized is irrelevant to his legacy as a pioneer who recognized the importance of the media, print technology and western education to the dissemination of Tamil Hindu learning.

Mr. Hoole has had a 15 to 20 year track record of attacking Hinduism and individuals linked to the Hindu revival in Sri Lanka. I had rebutted an earlier article of his dated May 14, 2010 where he had attacked Arumuka Navalar and Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan. “In Defense of the Sri Lankan Hindu of Yesteryear: Arumuka Navalar and Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan” was published in the Sri Lanka Guardian on May 20, 2010 and in the HaindavaKeralam and LankaWeb. What I stated there still holds. Let me repeat what I said there rather than reinvent the wheel.

One needs to revert to primary sources if one is to accurately describe Arumuka Navalar. Navalar lived between 1822 and 1877 CE. His works include the ‘Prabandha Thirattu’, ‘Saiva Thooshana Parihaaram’, ‘the Prohibition of Killing’, and his classic deconstruction of the Bible. These texts help one to understand him better.

One discovers herein an astonishing man who grasped the imperative to establish Hindu primary and secondary schools in the 19th century, modernize and broadbase Hindu education, use simple Tamil prose to disseminate Saivite Hindu doctrine and leverage the printing press to republish the Tamil classics and Saivite Hindu scripture. Navalar made it a point to study Christianity to more effectively combat the white missionary enterprise. Navalar worked in Jaffna and Tamil Nadu. He established schools in Jaffna and in South India of which the Saiva Prakasa Vidyalayam was the first. Arumuka Navalar’s emphasis on a modern Hindu education in Sri Lanka was the prelude to the later Hindu Board of Education in Sri Lanka.

He was the first person to avail of the modern printing press to publish rare Tamil classics in the mid-1800s anticipating the subsequent seminal work of U.V. Swaminatha Iyer and the other Sri Lankan Tamil Hindu stalwart C.W. Thamotherampillai.Navalar established a printing press in Sri Lanka and in Tamil Nadu. The one in Jaffna was called the Vidyanubalana Yantra Sala. Professor Dennis Hudson of the State University of New York has chronicled Navalar’s use of the printing press on both sides of the Palk Straits in the 19th century. Navalar published 97 Tamil language documents. He published rare works of Tamil grammar, literature, liturgy and religion that were previously unavailable in print. For instance, the first ever Sangam text that saw the light of print was the Tiru-murukaatru-padai of the Pattu Paatu. Navalar brought this out in 1851.

Noted Czech scholar of Tamil, Kamil Zvelebil, demonstrated that Navalar was the first author to use modern Tamil prose in a manner understandable to the layperson. Professor Meenakshisundaram echoed this view when he reiterated that Navalar was the first to use simplified and unadorned lay Tamil. He had adopted a highly effective and unadorned preaching style borrowed from the missionaries that consisted of five steps to quote Hoole i.e. (i) preface; (ii) exposition; (iii) doctrinal analysis; (iv) applying the interpretation; and (v) conclusion. So yes, Navalar made stellar contributions to Hinduism, the Tamil language, Tamil prose and Sri Lankan Tamil identity.

The Hindu revival preceded the Buddhist revival in Sri Lanka by a full generation. As Bishop Kulendran of the Church of South India in Jaffna conceded, it was Navalar’s Saivite Hindu revival that stemmed the conversions to Christianity in northern Sri Lanka in the 19th century. It was Navalar likewise who first articulated in modern times that the Sri Lankan Tamil identity was parallel to and not the same as the South Indian Tamil identity.

Navalar, like almost all in the mid-1800s, suffered from caste prejudice. The 1800s was an unenlightened age where the Christian missionaries in India and Ceylon exemplified a deep religious bigotry, the Sri Lankan Tamils exemplified a hateful caste prejudice while the Europeans were busy enslaving or exterminating the Black population in America, Australia and South Africa often in the name of Christianity. Navalar can not be absolved on the issue of caste. This said, a critical interpretation of history forces one to acknowledge his other accomplishments.

Bibliography

(i) K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India: From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar, Oxford University Press, 1955;
(ii) V.R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, Studies in Tamil Language and History, University of Madras, 1936;
(iii) Vaiyapuri Pillai, History of Tamil Language and Literature, Chennai, 1956;
(iv) George Hart, The poems of ancient Tamil, their milieu and their Sanskrit counterparts, 1975 (University of California, Berkeley);
(v) Takanobu Takahashi, Tamil love poetry and poetics, 1995;
(vi) Kamil Zvelebil, The Smile of Murukan on Tamil literature of South India, 1973; and
(vi) V.S. Rajam, A comparative study of two ancient Indian grammatical traditions: The Tolkapiyam compared with Sanskrit Rk-pratisakhya, Taittriya-pratisakhya, Apisal siksa, and the Astadhyayi, University of Pennsylvania, 1981.

NZ's reputation at stake over summit venue

OPINION: Sri Lanka is not fit to host this year's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, writes Keith Locke.

 03/05/2013

The Government needs to explain why it is not supporting Canada's campaign to have the November Commonwealth heads of government meeting (CHOGM) moved from Sri Lanka.

Canada has given three main reasons for shifting the summit.

First, Sri Lanka has avoided any accountability for the thousands of Tamil non- combatants who were killed, mainly by government shelling, near the end of the civil war in May 2009. Estimates of the deaths range from 10,000 to 40,000.

In March 2011, a United Nations panel of experts found serious violations of human rights law had been committed by both "the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), some of which would amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity". It said "the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity". Since then the UN Human Rights Council has passed two critical resolutions, including one in March calling for a credible international inquiry into the allegations of war crimes.

The problem is the Sri Lankan Government won't let independent investigators into the country.

Second, Canada argues that there have been no meaningful reconciliation moves by the Sri Lankan Government since the end of the war. The Sri Lankan military still holds sway in the Tamil north of the country, persecuting former supporters of the Tamil Tigers, and stopping life from getting back to normal.

All plans to devolve some powers to the northern Tamil region have been scrapped, despite a constitutional provision allowing for it.

Third, Canada has identified a growing authoritarian trend as the Rajapaksa government clamps down on dissent. The media has been a particular target, with several journalists killed, wounded or detained in recent years. In February a reporter for the Sunday Leader, Faraz Shaukatally, was shot and badly wounded. Last month, thugs believed to be backed by the military, raided the Jaffna office of the Tamil daily, Uthayan, and burnt its printing presses.

In January, judicial independence was dealt a severe blow with the impeachment of the Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake. President Mahinda Rajapaksa ratified the dismissal despite rulings from the Supreme Court and the Appeal Court that the impeachment process was illegal.

Holding CHOGM in Colombo will make a mockery of the charter just developed by the Commonwealth and signed in March by the head of the Commonwealth, Queen Elizabeth.

This charter commits Commonwealth leaders to democracy, human rights, tolerance, freedom of expression, good governance and the rule of law - none of which are respected by the Rajapaksa government.

To make matters worse, Sri Lanka's president, as the CHOGM host, will become chair of the Commonwealth for the two years until the heads of state next meet.

So far Canada's campaign to move CHOGM away from Sri Lanka has met with little success.

Britain's Conservative government has been critical of Rajapaksa but won't support changing the conference venue.

Australia has turned a blind eye to the continuing tragedy in Sri Lanka, apparently so it can justify returning Tamil boatpeople to their home country.

And what of New Zealand?

Our Government seems to be keeping as quiet as possible.

It is not as if the New Zealand Government is ignorant of the dire human rights issues in Sri Lanka. I was a member of Parliament's foreign affairs, defence and trade select committee when, in 2009 and 2010, it was briefed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

We were told about difficult conditions in the internment camps for Tamils and the limitations on access by international aid organisations; the absence of a political reconciliation process; and the danger to democracy following the arrest of Rajapaksa's opponent in the February 2010 election, General Sarath Fonseka.

Since then Rajapaksa has strengthened his grip on power, supported by his brother, Gotabhaya, who is defence secretary; another brother, Basil, who is economic development minister; and a fourth brother, Chamal, who is Speaker.

Amnesty International, in its latest report on April 30 said the "violent repression and the consolidation of political power go hand in hand" and "there is a real climate of fear in Sri Lanka, with those brave enough to speak out against the government often having to suffer badly for it".

The reputation of both New Zealand and the Commonwealth is at stake here. New Zealand rightly challenges abuses of democracy in our region - such as in Fiji (which has been suspended from the Commonwealth). But we can be accused of a double standard if at the same time we allow the Commonwealth to be chaired for the next two years by a president who refuses any accountability for the deaths of so many innocent civilians in his country's civil war and who is governing in an increasingly authoritarian manner.

Keith Locke is a former Green MP.

Sri Lanka: Some Reflections On Resurrecting Democracy

By Laksiri Fernando -May 3, 2013 

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

There was general consensus among many political scientists that democracy in Sri Lanka by and large functioned smoothly in the 1950s or even 1960s. This impression was shared by both local and foreign scholars such as AJ Wilson, IDS Weerawardena, Howard Wriggins, Calvin A Woodward or James Jupp. This impression was correct when referring to institutional structures, competitive party system, press freedom and the periodic elections that allowed the changes of government from one party or coalition to another. Compared to a country like Burma, which achieved independence in the same year as 1948, Ceylon was much better and stable. Burma was beset with violence and ethnic strife from the beginning.

Erosion of Democracy

Even during this period, however, as the time passed, the quality of democracy diminished due to the factors such as ethnic majoritarianism or conflict and political favouritism. Another aspect of favouritism was based on urban-rural divide or language proficiency in English. This prevailed both among the political decision makers and the bureaucracy. The citizenship issue of the Tamil plantation workers was handled arbitrarily soon after independence, and the official language legislation completely discriminated against all Tamil speakers in 1956. After these two events, Ceylon could hardly be called a proper democracy, but it escaped the attention of many observers.

The formal institutional structures of democracy alone could not prevent these deformations. Only leaders, political parties and citizens could prevent them if they share a democratic value system based on equality, fairness and justice. Democracy is not only an institutional edifice. It is profoundly a value system based on human rights that should govern the everyday lives of people and the leaders of our political parties. In this particular case of discrimination against the minorities in the initial stages of post-independence Sri Lanka, the failure to forge civic nationalism instead of ethno nationalism could be highlighted as a major underlying factor. The leaders of both the majority and the minority communities were responsible for this failure. In a multi-ethnic society like in Sri Lanka, without civic nationalism, democracy cannot survive properly.

In any emergent society after independence, there were obviously competing claims from various social sectors and population groups. Nevertheless, the grievances of the rural masses or the youth were not only competing claims, whether in the South or in the North. They were related to profound social injustices as the institutional structures were dominated by the urban and the rich. After the formation of the SLFP and the FP, these masses were politically mobilised and gradually brought into the political scene. They were mere spectators during the colonial times or even the yearly years of independence.

In terms of democratic values or practices, there was a difference between the urban and the rural. Although the urban could not be considered ‘higher’ in understanding democracy, the rural were by and large deprived of modern education. While Sri Lanka boasted about higher literacy rates in general, there was a vast difference between the educational achievements between the urban and the rural, and this gap still prevails. The social formations or ethos in villages are more pre-modern than in towns, not so conducive to democracy.

This is not to blame the rural for any democratic deficit or degeneration in the country, but to highlight a seemingly crucial problem and to emphasise the importance of democratic and human rights education in any regeneration of democracy. Those who brought the rural masses into politics not only failed to educate them in democracy but also utilized their submissive populist political instincts to create authoritarian leaderships. Populist instincts of the masses are perennially submissive to their leaders, parties and authoritarian structures. These instincts are mainly concerned about the delivery of certain ‘goods’ to them or to the country, real or imagined.

Economy and Population

Two other factors that dislocated the functioning of democracy are population explosion and economic stagnation. Even after the opportunities became available under what is termed as the ‘new international division of labour’ (NIDL), Sri Lanka failed to rescue its economy from the old ‘dependency trap’ in time. When it ‘opened’ the economy in 1977, it was too late and too little. Although the economy was opened, the polity was closed. The 1978 constitution was more authoritarian than even the governor’s rule during the colonial times. The initiative for authoritarianism came from a leader who was ‘urban’ and who belonged to a party which was ostensibly committed to democracy. This shows the gravity of our democratic dilemma.

In politics, no one could be totally believed if he or she is motivated purely by power or position. This applies more to the incumbent President who was a ‘human rights agitator’ in late 1980s. What might require are firm guarantees to the people in terms of democracy and human rights and a proven track record. Alternative might be the forging of a collective leadership of equally competent group of people again with firm guarantees on principles. The history has shown the emergence of such leaders like Aung San Suu Kyi or Nelson Mandelawho worked collectively with others.

Since independence until early 1980s, the population in the country almost trebled giving rise to a politically explosive situation. The percentage of the youth in the population was extremely high without proper employment prospects or better educational opportunities. Youth were impatient about the slow democratic processes and took the path of armed struggle, insurrection and even terrorism also due to ideological reasons. The results were disastrous. Sri Lanka is a small island packed with over 20 million people which is in itself a strain on the democratic system. The system is vulnerable to instability and chaos unless firm institutional structures, committed political leadership and commensurate civic awareness are built or in place. The pure military power will not manage the system.

Sri Lanka had a strong trade union movement in early decades of independence which was a counter balance for an already degenerating democratic system. But the TUs also became degenerated and instead of bargaining for workers’ rights, often resorted to affiliation with parties and coalitions in power hoping to win over some concessions as favours. Parallel development was the degeneration of the old left parties. The new left that emerged to fill the gap in a sense was much worse in terms of democracy or democratic values.

In Sri Lanka there had been so far two main authoritarian trajectories. The first came in 1972 in the guise of socialism and populism which wanted to assign all authority to one chamber on the pretext that it is elected. The second came in 1978, installing an executive presidential system insulated from parliament also with other powers and immunities. At present there is a growing amalgamation of the two. There are current efforts to unequivocally establish that the judiciary does not have any review functions over the legislative or other matters of Parliament. Two term period for the office of the President is already removed; independent commissions subjugated. The remaining obstacle for a full authoritarian system on the vertical dimension is the existence of the provincial council system under the 13^th Amendment. The next effort would be to repeal it, if the opposition does not prevent it through strong resistance.

Way Forward?

Any glance at the challenges that democracy in Sri Lanka has faced reveal that resurrecting democracy in Sri Lanka is an arduous task, nevertheless possible and necessary. It is not only a task of changing the regime but also the system. If democracy is not reinstated in the foreseeable future, the country will plunge into both political and economic chaos.

One mistake that the critics, however, should not do in assessing the present status in the country, in my opinion, is to consider that all democratic potentialities are exhausted. That is not the case, or that is not the way it should be perceived. The regime is authoritarian but sitting on a democratic system however weak or fragile. People love their freedoms however they understand, and they deserve more. People are also rights conscious, and they deserve more and full measure of the fundamental rights. Any attempt at violent overthrow like in ‘Arab Spring’ not only would be a disaster but also can strengthen the authoritarian character of the regime. A new regime installed through violence or force would not be democratic either. It would create another cycle of violence and further degeneration of democracy. The change should be peaceful but forceful.

Another error might be to think that the international community (IC) can do the change, however you define the IC. It has to be understood that the international solidarity for regime and system change is necessary but it has its own limitations as well as disadvantages. The engineering of selective pressure might be the best. It has to be the people who have to mobilize themselves to assert democracy, human rights and justice to all communities. International standards are important as bench marks. It is through that kind of a social process and transformation that the people could educate themselves to the tasks of upholding democracy not only in politics but also in their personal lives.

Unity between and solidarity among various communities and sectors are important. There is a profound feeling of alienation within the numerically minority ethnic communities and particularly the Tamils from the political system. Unless and until their grievances and the issues of accountability are taken up in a genuine fashion, building of proper solidarity might be difficult. That is also the right thing to do by an authentic democracy movement.

Similar solidarity should be forged between the urban and the rural and the initiative should come from the urban as they are better organized and also privileged than the other. There can be apprehensions among the rural about the intentions of the urban groups. These should be properly alleviated.

Democracy is important both for the labour and the business. The public sector trade unions have a major role to play in resurrecting democracy in the country. They are the bulk of the organized working class. The existence of a vibrant and also a democratic trade union movement is part and parcel of a healthy democratic system. A similar or perhaps a larger role is left to the media, both printed and electronic. If there had been circumstances under which the media had to operate with some self-censorship, now it is time to shake off the fetters. Social media is also pivotal.

What about the role of the political parties in the opposition and for the time being in the government? Major political parties and their leaders are obviously responsible to various degrees in the process of degeneration and even stifling of the democratic system in the country. The resurrection of democracy in the country should also mean the resurrection of democracy within political parties. All parties need to reaffirm their commitment to democracy and human rights and ensure measures that all leaders and members abide by the principles. The civil society organizations need to pressure the political parties to make these commitments to the people. No democratic party should keep anyone in the leadership or even in the membership who have involved directly in human rights violations. Political parties should be purged to eliminate violent, corrupt and communalist politicians from their ranks.

The four major parties – the UNP, the SLFP, the TNA and the JVP – and also the left and the other parties may have different roles to play in the process. The SLFP appears to be completely hijacked today by a family/military/bureaucratic clique completely against the founding principles of that party whatever the past mistakes or deviations. It has to break away from the authoritarian grip. The UNP may have a similar task of reform itself as it has become seemingly paralysed to face up to the challenges posed by the authoritarian regime.

Most important might be to build a second-track leadership both to pressure the existing political parties and also to play an independent role in resurrecting democracy combining both principled issues and day to day grievances of the masses. No democracy movement will succeed purely based on ‘textbook’ issues. The issues should be practical without being opportunistic. In recent past there had been three movements that emerged. First was by the academics who demanded 6% allocation to education among other matters. Second was by the lawyers who stood for the independence of the judiciary against the impeachment of the CJ. The most recent was by an assorted group of youth who stood against ‘hate speech’ and for inter-ethnic justice.

All these are incipient democratic movements. If a second-track leadership for example of 100 committed people – of academics, lawyers and youth – could be built in the coming few months based on these three movements, that would be a centre of attraction for further enlistments for a broader democratic movement. The next to come into the democratic struggle would be the trade unions.

Jaffna Development Council Election 1981

By S.Sivathasan -May 4, 2013 |

S.Sivathasan

Nineteen centuries back, Silappathikaaram a Tamil epic cited the inevitability of retributive justice as a warning for misgovernance. Perennially true the learned would affirm. The discomfiture of a national political formation which sought to usurp power and failed would reaffirm. In Jaffna the party that tried through means that were devious, remains consigned to continued oblivion. Thirty two years are now past and the party in power which lacerated the electoral process is out of power for seventeen years. The Library Fire in Jaffna preceded the rigging that failed. The Reichtag Fire in Germany preceded the election for usurpation. Inexplicable are the ways in which the hand of destiny moves to relegate the guilty to the dustbin of history. But are lessons learnt?

It may be good to recall the forms that the exercise in Jaffna took. In times past, in Sri Lanka as in other countries, societies were divided, some with faith in elections and others having only a cynical disdain for it. Perceptions and judgment have changed over time with opinion moving heavily in favor of the vote as an expression of political sentiment. With abiding faith, Sri Lanka refined the electoral process assiduously. In three decades following independence it had become a model, much to the credit of the late Felix Dias Abeysinghe who made a distinguished contribution as Election Commissioner. At such a juncture, it received a jolt from the Government of Sri Lanka. The place was Jaffna, year was 1981 and the occasion the DC election. As a witness to the destruction of a well streamlined process, I wish to give an account of my ringside view.

As per the election law, polling starts at 7 AM on the stipulated date and closes at 4PM. Preparatory work which includes training of staff is spread over two months. Preliminaries antecedent to polling commence twenty six hours prior, for the issue of ballot boxes, ballot papers and the whole gamut of essentials. The respective senior presiding officers (SPO) take over the materials. Jaffna district with 11 electorates ( Kilinochchi was a part of JD) had 11 issue officers located in the secretariat and the old kachcheri just across. The offices were competently manned with procedures perfectly streamlined.

The writer being the Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) in charge of issues was on duty from 6 AM on the said day. Delft as an island with access only by launch for a distance 12 miles, was selected for the first issue. The operation flowed smoothly as on prior occasions with the Police providing escort. Next in line was Kilinochchi covering an area larger than Jaffna District and with polling booths 30 to 50 miles away from the Kachcheri. The issues and movement along with police escort were proceeding seamlessly. There was a glaring lacuna however since the Government Agent was away. The GA as the Returning Officer is the central figure for an election in a district. He was not available at the Kachcheri in the morning since he had been summoned to Colombo the previous day.

At 10 am the GA arrived at the Kachcheri and immediately summoned four of us, senior officers of the Kachcheri who were Assistant Returning Officers. A decision taken in Colombo about change of personnel to man election booths was placed before us. All four of us raised our hands in horror. But even before we could finish our first sentence, in walked a senior Minister accompanied by his additional secretary. Soon to follow was a Brigadier detailed in Jaffna. Within a short while the GA’s room was packed with Ministers, Deputy Ministers, District Minister and senior officials from Colombo. The four of us got back to our rooms and awaited instructions. The time was 10.30.

The first decision taken with none of us participating was to suspend all issues. The reason being that the Police personnel were ‘refusing’ to provide escort because they were ‘afraid’. Till the Colombo high ups so decided they made bold to go. With issues stopped, the whole Kachcheri was in a state of suspended animation. Facile description, but the chaos and the agony had to be experienced to know of the frustration. All this was soon after the burning of the library and several acts of arson. Life in the city was greatly immobilized. Kachcheri had no water and all utilities were dysfunctional. All officers had reported for duty but since nobody moved out, several hundreds just walked about in the kachcheri premises. All were without food or water. Their stamina stood out. To add to the congestion were a few hundreds of minor employees brought down from Kurunegala.

At 5.30 pm there was some movement. Spewing out from the GA’s room were replacement lists. For very many booths officers holding responsible positions and trained for their respective assignments were unceremoniously dropped. They were replaced by minor employees who knew neither Tamil nor English and least of all election work. Habituated more to physical than to mental routine, they were overnight elevated to their level of incompetence. With confidence deriving from ignorance and perhaps trusting to assistance from the Tamil staff they left for their destinations with remarkable nonchalance.

Buses started leaving Old Park by 6.30 pm. The Police afraid to travel by day were now bold enough to travel by night. Movement out however ceased after a few hours. It was resumed early in the morning. By then a further few hundreds sourced from Kurunegala alighted at the Kachcheri. They looked vacant and clueless not knowing what to do or where to go. They only wanted  the inner man looked after. The election staff of the District assembled at the Kachcheri, not losing its temper even in the midst of man made chaos was a tribute to their discipline and culture.

On election day the last bus left the Kachcheri at 7.30 am. The statutory commencement time for voting was 7.00 am. Several polling booths commenced operations after 7 am and some as late as 10.30 am. A replacement employee inquired from an inspecting ARO where he could get palmyra toddy! The attempt at dislocation made the people turn out in overwhelming numbers and to vote with a vengeance. Even though a few booths closed early in the afternoon the people had their way at other places.

Polling officially closed at 4 pm and the counting staff waited in the large conference hall, the single counting venue, for the arrival of ballot boxes. They came at a pace slower than at earlier times since the operation was tardy at some booths. A total of 17 boxes with ballot papers did not come. Talking to some of the officers we got an idea of the meddling. As we walked around supervising the counting, we found the hoof marks of the meddlers in clear light. One whole ballot paper book with no paper detached from the counterfoil but voted for the ruling party was found. A few others with a major portion intact but voted for were also found. Evidence of tampering in the clumsiest manner was ample.

When counting concluded past midnight, it was seen that voters gave an overwhelming victory to the TULF. Yet with missing ballot boxes, results could not be declared. A later date was fixed for it with the idea of searching for the missing ones. The search was futile and as per the results all 10 seats in the Development Council went to the TULF. Mr. S. Nadarajah a former Senator was elected Chairman.

The Department of Elections was the product of a long line of administrators who were committed to doing a job beyond their call of duty. The office of Election Commissioner was adorned by capable civil servants. The king pin in the conduct of elections was the Government Agent.  The civil servants were ably supported by a competent administrative service. An election well conducted to the acceptance of all was the recompense for their labour.

The conduct of elections was taken to a level of perfection particularly after 1956. To the initiatives of the Election Commissioner the government of SWRD Bandaranaike extended both legislative and administrative support. It was such a tradition built and protected for long, that was attempted to be smashed at one stroke.  That both initiative and complicity came from those in governance was known to all. The sinister effort ended in a fiasco. The structure stood and foiled the onslaught. Jaffna’s reputation for defiance in the face of insolent might remained. The Council as a supposed instrument of devolution with little power and no finance assumed office. An upright Chairman gave it a chance for two years and frustrated with its impotence threw it away inJuly 1983.

A rebuke to Sri Lanka

MAY 1, 2013

 

One of the biggest insults a government can deliver to another — the diplomatic equivalent of a slap in the face — is for the leader of one country to refuse to attend a high profile gathering hosted by another. Well, Canada has just slapped Sri Lanka.
Late last week in London, Foreign Minister John Baird denounced a decision by his Commonwealth counterparts to approve Sri Lanka hosting the organization’s heads of government meeting in November. The Commonwealth, he said, was “accommodating evil” in agreeing to stage the meeting in the South Asian country despite strong criticism of its human rights record.
“Canada didn’t get involved in the Commonwealth to accommodate evil; we came to combat it,” Baird said. “We are deeply disappointed that Sri Lanka appears poised to take on this leadership role.”
This is strong language in diplomatic circles. But it is the right language in this case. Canada’s position is more than justified. Sri Lanka’s treatment of its Tamil minority during and after the country’s 2009 civil war has been appalling; there is considerable evidence that government troops have engaged in the indiscriminate killing of civilians.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly spoken out against Sri Lanka’s actions, warning that Canada, one of the senior and most influential members of the Commonwealth, would boycott the November 15-17 heads of government meeting in the capital of Colombo unless Sri Lanka acts, among other items, to improve its human rights record and seeks reconciliation with the Tamil population.
Publicly, Canada has been alone in its position. This is most unfortunate. The Commonwealth, comprised of mainly former colonies of the British Empire, represents two billion people worldwide, and while the 54-nation group is no longer as influential as it used to be, it remains a valuable institution in terms of linking diverse nations and peoples. The apparent unwillingness of its leaders to do the right thing, to show some moral backbone, jeopardizes the organization’s future.
Baird alluded to this possibility. “We’re tremendously concerned about the deteriorating and authoritative trend of the government in Sri Lanka,” he said, suggesting Canada’s isolation on the issue paints the Commonwealth as a whole in a bad light. (Although he was careful to say Canada will not quit the organization.)
To add insult to injury, as host of the heads of government gathering, Sri Lanka automatically becomes the leader of the Commonwealth for the two-year period between summits. Just last month Queen Elizabeth attached her name to a Commonwealth charter that obliges all members to subscribe to principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Having a government that blatantly represses its minority population take charge of the organization makes a mockery of the charter and, moreover, erodes any claims to moral authority the body might still possess.
But then the whole situation reeks of hypocrisy. Even senior Commonwealth members — the United Kingdom, Australia, and India, for example — appear to think principles only apply when they don’t intrude on purported national self-interest. The Australians don’t want to offend the Sri Lankan government lest it decides to no longer clamp down on all those boat people trying to flee to Australia. India is concerned about Sri Lanka developing closer ties with its arch-enemy China. The United Kingdom is, no doubt, reluctant to offend a former colony and jeopardize allegiance to the Crown.

To be sure, even the Conservative government may not be completely pristine in its principles. Canada is home to the largest population of Tamils outside Sri Lanka, and, while the government insists its position is not politically motivated, there’s no denying its attitude is popular in that community.
But any indulgence in self-interest on the part of the Conservative government, if that’s what it is, pales in comparison to the short-sightedness of other Commonwealth members. In 2011, at the last Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia, a report urging radical reform of the body — the Eminent Persons’ Report — was tabled. Among its recommendations was a call for greater respect for human rights, more recognition of minorities, and the promotion of democratic principles. Unfortunately, these principles received short shrift from a majority of the Commonwealth members.
That see-no-evil attitude continues to play out on the Sri Lanka file, resulting in a crisis for the Commonwealth reminiscent of the suspension of Zimbabwe or the booting out of South Africa over the apartheid practices of its former white-minority rulers. The collective failure of its leaders to assert principles they’ve signed on to corrodes the moral structure of this venerable organization. And without the pillars of moral authority to hold it up, well, there’s no worthy future for the Commonwealth.
In a world already desperate for institutions of stability and order, the effective loss of the Commonwealth would betragic.
Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/rebuke+Lanka/8322787/story.html#ixzz2SGBITWC5