A New Erafor a Renewed Sri Lanka – Thomas Shannon

10/01/2016 

As I walked through Trincomalee’s Koneswaran and Colombo’s Gangaramaya temples last month, learning of their ancient and important histories, I was struck by the strength and resilience of the Sri Lankan people. Over many centuries and across many generations, Sri Lankans have turned to their faiths and cultures to endure and overcome many challenges.  They have also shown a commitment to the future and the hope of new beginnings.

Historic elections were held just one year ago. Today Sri Lankans are seeing the progress that has been born from this new beginning; a renewed commitment to the rule of law, the equal administration of justice, and economic opportunity for all.

During my three decades as an American diplomat, from South Africa to Latin America, I have learned that those nations which embrace pluralism, tolerance, and inclusion will inevitably bear the fruits of peace, prosperity, and progress.

We are seeing this pattern play out in Sri Lanka, as the free and democratic nations of the world have warmly welcomed Sri Lanka’s return to its rightful place on the global stage.

The United States knows well the promise and potential of Sri Lanka, and we are strengthening our relationship and investing in the future. When Secretary Kerry visited last year, he announced the launch of a new U.S.-Sri Lanka Partnership Dialogue. This undertaking will advance our ties across nearly every field of endeavor, and we are looking forward to welcoming Foreign
Minister Samaraweera and his delegation to Washington next month for the inaugural session.

Secretary Kerry also outlined an assistance package that seeks to stimulate Sri Lanka’s economic growth, strengthen its democratic and financial institutions, and help it promote the reforms and reconciliation for which the Sri Lankan people voted.

And one of the premier independent U.S. assistance agencies, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), just last month announced that Sri Lanka had been selected to develop a threshold program. Threshold programs are an important first step in forming a relationship with the MCC, which helps reduce poverty by dismantling barriers to economic growth. This couldboost the confidence of private-sector international investors and bring significant funding for infrastructure and development.

Serious political, economic, and security reforms still lie ahead and are never easy, but as Sri Lanka walks this path – including through full and timely implementation of the historic Human Rights Council Resolution that our nations co-sponsored last year –it will continue to have our full support in addressing these challenges.  We offer our support not only because we share the same democratic values, but also the same strategic interests.

We share an interest in safeguarding global maritime commerce in the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean – one of the world’s most important trading crossroads.

We share an interest in stopping pirates, drug smugglers, and human traffickers from profiting off of human misery. We share an interest insaving lives when our friends and neighbors are struck by typhoons, earthquakes, or epidemics. And we share an interest in demonstrating to the world the political, social, and economic benefits of peaceful reconciliation, promoting the rule of law, and protecting human rights.

In the coming decades, the continued growth of the world’s economies, large and small, will increasingly depend on the stability and prosperity of the Indian Ocean region. The inevitable logic of geography and the onward march of globalization mean that Sri Lanka is
destined to reclaim its heritage as a vital commercial hub, and one that thrives not just from trade, but also from tourism and technology.

I was lucky enough during my visit last month to see a small part of Sri Lanka’s lush forests, sparkling beaches, and ancient history. So I wasn’t surprised that a recent survey of travel industry leaders put Sri Lanka at the top of their destinations list for 2016. Tourism in 2015 was already over 20 percent higher than in 2014, so the outlook for this year is bright.

That means more jobs, more growth, and more investment, benefitting everyone across the island. It also means more infrastructure and improved connectivity with other countries, which has bonus effects for different parts of the economy.

Take technology, for example. Innovative U.S. companies like Microsoft and Oracle are helping to bridge the digital divide and bring new and transformative products to Sri Lanka, creating exciting opportunities in education, commerce and communication.

And it’s not just U.S. companies that are increasing their investments in Sri Lanka’s future. Total foreign direct investment totaled $1.6 billion in 2015, higher than the year before, and a potential prelude to an even more successful 2016.

There is a direct line that connects all of this increased international engagement and investment with the progress that Sri Lanka made in 2015. One need look no further than the MCC’s words, which attributed its decision to work with Sri Lanka to the country’s “remarkable effort over the past year to reinvigorate its democratic institutions, improve governance, and restore protection of human rights.”

The world has responded to the Sri Lankan people’s expressed desire for a new beginning. Because we know that what happens in Sri Lanka is of global consequence, and we know that success in Sri Lanka will make it a reference point for the rest of the world.

In the coming year, we will continue to support Sri Lanka as it makes meaningful progress on reconciliation, transitional justice, the protection of human rights, good governance reforms, and inclusive economic growth.

We will do all this not only because it is the right thing to do, but because a stronger, more unified, and more prosperous Sri Lanka can play a leading role in the story of the 21st century, to the benefit of the entire globe.

So as we look ahead to a new year, I’m confident that the faith in new hope, new promise, and new beginnings will bring even more blessings to the people of Sri Lanka, the United States, and the world.

Human Rights, Reconciliation, Sri Lanka, UNHRC

UN wants probe on killings of journalists

Jan 10, 2016

The United Nations (UN) has called on the Sri Lankan Government to investigate killings of journalists. UN spokesman Stéphane Dujarric said cases of harassment also needs to be looked into. He was responding to a question raised on the murder of The Sunday Leader founding Editor Lasantha Wickremetunga seven years ago.

“You know, obviously, unsolved cases of harassment and killings of journalists need to be solved and the perpetrators need to be brought to justice,” he said. Dujarric was also asked about incidents of torture said to have taken place last year after President Maithripala Sirisena took office, and made public by two Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO). “On the reports of torture, I know our human rights colleagues are aware of the reports put forward by the NGOs that you’d mentioned,” he said.

- http://www.thesundayleader.lk/ -

“Sinha Le”, “Marraka Le”, Should We Shed Any More “Le”?

By Hilmy Ahamed –January 10, 2016

Hilmy Ahamed

One year in to Yahapalanaya, the dice has been cast for the renewal of the hostile hate campaign of the Rajapaksa era with the spraying of graffiti “Sinha Le” on the gate of a Muslim owned residence in Nugegoda. This was followed by a violent attack on Muslims in Wellampitiya that injured five. Three were hospitalized with serious injuries. It is rumored that a lady died of a heart attack before she could be taken to hospital, in the mêlée. This has not been reported to the police nor the mainstream media carry it.

Exactly a year ago, we saw the exit of Mahinda Rajapaksa from the Presidency through a “silent” revolution that surprised even the biggest optimist. Many attributed the war winning President’s defeat to the unprecedented hate campaign that was carried out by some Buddhist extremists led by the Bodu Bala Sena. Mahinda Rajapaksa, as President and Minister of Defence failed to control this onslaught on the Muslim and evangelical Christian communities. The President was also accused of promoting a divide and rule policy amongst the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities, so that he could fragment the minority votes and harness the majority Buddhist vote as the guardian of Buddhist hegemony and thereby keep himself at the helm of power for the rest of his life, or until one of his own sons could succeed him. The strategy of retaining power within the family was mainly due to the large-scale corruption, which was assumed to have been committed by the President and his siblings. This of course has not been proven with all the investigations that have been undertaken during the last 365 days. Little did Mahinda Rajapaksa realize that the combined opposition of the minorities towards his regime would send him packing to Medamulana due to his suspected bias towards the hate campaign of the Bodu Bala Sena and other extremists Buddhists.

Today, politically motivated groups alleged to be close to the former regime have unleashed a new wave of hate and racism under the “Sinha Le” label. They are determined to create divisions amongst the different communities once more and the provocations of the “Sinha Le” group are clear evidence of the renewed hate campaign on the Muslims. The “Sinha Le” group is suspected of attempting to provoke the Muslims to retaliate so that their ultimate objective of causing a major island wide communal riot could be achieved. The Muslims, the Government and the rest of the citizens should take necessary steps to defuse this threat.

Read More

No retreat permissible on ‘hybrid-mechanism’-Confusion in Tamil politics is understandable

by Kumar David-January 10, 2016

Seven years have passed since the LTTE was wiped out but it has not been time enough for the Tamils to find their feet. Thirty years of civil war cast a pall; the LTTE conjured up phantasmagorical images of a leader and an imagined Eelam divorced from all reality; war-crimes seared people’s lives. The Jehan Pereras, bless their souls, who advocate reason and reconciliations are a minority in Sinhalese polity. To most Sinhalese: "The LTTE has been vanquished, the Tamils ground down to their senses, all is fine. Devolution after they lost the war! What planet do these liberals and leftists inhabit!"

No Retreat Permissible on ‘Hybrid-mechanism’-Confusion in Tamil Politics is Understandable by Thavam Ratna

The Nation addresses the President on first anniversary of the Rainbow revolution

(Lanka-e-News -10.Jan.2016, 4.15PM)

''Nahee verena veranee – sammanthee cha kudhachanang
Awerene cha sammanthi – Esa dhammo sannaththano!''

Your  excellency the dearest president Maithripala Sirisena ,

We learn through media reports that you are getting ready to address the nation  on the first anniversary of the victory of the rainbow revolution of 8 th January 2015 , which victory is a consequence  based on the   majority of Sinhalese , Tamils , Muslims who constitute the Nation of Sri Lanka. Before you address the victorious Sri Lankan nation one year after  the rainbow revolution in regard to the issues facing the nation , it is decided that you shall be assisted  ahead when seeking  answers to the issues , and towards this the nation has decided to address you ‘ the president of the nation’.

---------------------------
by     (2016-01-10 11:10:50)

The Nation Addresses the President on First Anniversary of the Rainbow Revolution by Thavam Ratna

Learning from our past constitution-

making efforts

The Government’s frantic rush towards finalizing a new Constitution for Sri Lanka has, in its path, several formidable obstacles. These include cautions emanating from established legal precedent in regard to the necessary formulation of valid questions at a Referendum.

The first law of the land

Marking one year following his election to office, President Maithripala Sirisena has stated that his coalition administration will place the proposed constitutional text for approval before the people. This is necessitated by the fact that the Constitution requires the precondition of a referendum for certain provisions that are protected by extraordinary safeguards. But before this stage of a referendum is arrived at, we must learn from past mistakes, recent as well as historical.

First, we appear to see a hurried public consultation process engaged in as a superficial exercise to tick off a box that the views of the public have been sought. This is not what drafting the first law of the land should mean. Rather, it follows precisely in the path of Sri Lanka’s past constitution-making exercises which were distinguished by political expediency. These efforts generally attracted unity in opposition among the most unlikely bedfellows as evidenced in 2001 when Buddhist monks, liberal democratic activists and nationalists of all colours competed with each other in being the first to oppose a proposed new Constitution in the Supreme Court.

True, the many objections to that proposed constitutional document were widely varied in their content and thrust. But the fact remains that these are pitfalls best avoided by genuine public consultations. Even where the intent has been genuine, the effort has been defeated in large part due to the absence of political will in actually taking the people into the equation as partners.

Being clear on the legal imperatives

Second, all effort must be made to avoid the embarrassing spectacle that took place in 2015 when laboriously drafted provisions of the new ‘yahapalanaya’ government lessening the power of the Executive Presidency were struck down by the Supreme Court acting in consonance with constitutional imperatives, This did not take much grey matter to foretell. It was acutely predictable that the Court would not allow constitutional changes requiring a referendum to pass judicial review without conformity to that essential precondition. This pattern must not be repeated.

The issue that now confronts us is the manner in which the constitutional proposals will be placed before the people. The Government has gone on record in stating that the proposed constitutional text, requiring, under Article 83, not only a two-thirds majority in Parliament but also the stamp of approval at a referendum will be submitted to the people. It appears that what is contemplated is the placing of the constitutional text in its entirety. However, this exercise is attendant with several difficulties which needs sober and judicious consideration.

One matter which is beyond doubt is that the manner in which the Referendum question is formulated is not solely within the province of the Government. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has asserted the right to examine the content of that question and decide if the Referendum Proposal has been ‘duly formulated.’ The notion that this would be a ‘political question’ beyond the review of Court is an argument that has been dismissed with force by the Court.

Referenda is not to be taken lightly

Pivotal in this regard are the provisions of the Referendum Act No 7 of 1981 which specify that the questions to be put to the people must be validly capable of being answered by a “Yes” or a “No.” In Semasinghe v Karunatilleke (2003) for example, the Court examined the question whether then President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s Referendum Proclamation on the need for a “new Constitution issued was legally valid. An extensively reasoned judgment of MDH Fernando J (with Justices Gunesekera and Wigneswaran agreeing) concluded that the Referendum Proposal at that time was not in conformity with the law.

Extraction of core principles of the judgment discloses a typically clear and cogent rationale. At the very outset, the Court warned that a Referendum is an electoral process which attracts ‘enormous expenditure of public funds and the disruption of day-to-day life – including danger to life and limb and damage to property.’ It is not to be taken lightly. An intelligible, meaningful and useful result must therefore be intended by the way that the question for answer is drafted. It must be done in such a manner that the opinion of the People is capable of being conveyed with sufficient clarity and precision as to constitute a mandate for future governmental action. Assessed on that basis, the 2001 Referendum Proposal which asked the people to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in regard to the proposed new Constitution was found to be wanting.

For example, as the Court pointed out, the answer “no” given to a new Constitution in its entirety was pregnant with ambiguity. This answer could accurately have been given by three different groups of persons; those who thought that a new Constitution was not a national imperative in that other matters were more deserving of attention, those who thought that the existing one needed amendment and those who thought that neither a new Constitution nor amendments were needed. Equally, the answer “Yes” could have been given by several different groups of persons, agreed only upon the need for a new Constitution but holding completely divergent views as to what that Constitution should provide.

Unambiguous and participatory process needed

The signal warning administered in this case by the judges was that the Referendum Proposal should contain a series of questions formulated so that a majority “Yes” vote would clearly disclose the main features that a new Constitution would contain. Equally, a “No” vote should disclose without ambiguity why a new Constitution was not desired.

Meanwhile, cynics who scoff at a wide-based model of constitution-making may direct their attention to examples elsewhere including in South Africa. Here, a peoples’ participatory process resulted in a document which represented the actual will of the people as opposed to theoretical words.

Surely even at this most devastated point in our history, we should look back critically at our miserable markers of constitution-making that stand in contrast? Undeniably we need to learn from our past mistakes and tread a different path.

We Cannot Have A New Parliamentary Form Of Govt . On An Old Foundation – Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne

By Camelia Nathaniel-Sunday, January 10, 2016

Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, the leader of a three-member team that prepared the 19th Amendment to the Constitution says the country cannot adopt a new Constitution after every general election, and therefore a fresh start is required in order to draft a new Constitution. A committee, headed by UNFGG Parliamentarian Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, has already been appointed to draft a new Constitution. He pointed out that Sri Lanka adopted their constitution in 1972, have deviated from the Soulbury constitution and sat as a constituent assembly outside parliament and adopted the constitution. However he said that can be done may be once after independence or after a military dictatorship. “In that case we can bypass the Constitution and do a constitutional revolution. But now we have a constitution legally adopted in 1978,”    Dr. Wickramaratne told The Sunday Leader.

Following are excerpts from the interview;

Q:  You have been calling for a new Constitution and have said that we cannot continue with the existing one. Why do we need a new Constitution?

A: The present constitution is built on a different foundation of an executive presidency and it already underwent change in the 13th amendment where you have provincial councils where you have a parliamentary form of government. Now the executive presidency is being dismantled. Hence you cannot have a new parliamentary form of government on an old foundation. Therefore you have to start afresh and the whole thing has to be changed. In any case since the current constitution has undergone so many changes and now for example we would like to have a new bill of rights, the structure of the judiciary and all that has to change. So we have to start afresh now.

Q:  How different is the envisaged Constituent Assembly to the one that drafted the 1972 Republican Constitution?

A:  A constituent assembly like the one we had in 1972 adopts a new constitution bypassing the procedure laid down by the Soulbury Constitution, it symbolically in the first meeting and the last meeting outside of parliament. It was a complete breakaway from the soulbury constitution. This time the committee of the whole house meeting in parliament as part of parliament, with every word published in the hansard. It’s basically a parliament sitting but it’s a committee of the whole house and it will be a very transparent process open to the public and opened to the media. Every document tabled will be open to the media and it’s a constitutional assembly but it’s a whole committee of the whole house but it has no power to adopt a new constitution. They only draft a new constitution document which can hopefully muster a 2/3rd majority. After that there will be long discussions where every clause will be discussed.

Then after that cabinet takes over and cabinet certifies the bill as one requiring a 2/3rdmajority and a referendum. Because it’s a new constitution in any case a referendum is required and the bill is certified, gazetted and sent to the provincial councils, then placed before parliament proper. Hence we are not bypassing the procedure laid down in the constitution.

Q. But was it not done before?

A:  Yes it was. But you cannot have constituent Assemblies after every election. You can do it for example the first time after independence, but it will be very difficult after that especially when you have a democratic process available.

Q:  The government says that a key objective of the new Constitution would be that of ethnic amity and national reconciliation. In this regard how inter-racial justice and equality would be addressed?

A:  The Tamil political issue needs to be resolved and there has to be a political solution. The issues of the minority communities Tamils and Muslims cannot be swept under the carpet anymore. I strongly think that the new constitution should be acceptable to the Tamils as well as the Sinhalese. Don’t forget that 1972 and 1978 constitutions were both adopted without representation of the Tamil representatives. We cannot have another constitution which does not have the support of the Tamils. This time it is essential that we have the Tamil parties on-board.

I am supportive of meaningful devolution. I am also for safeguards against devolution to be put in place in the prosecution but at the same time the centre must not be able to cause the devolution through the so-called safeguards. While there should be safeguard against devolution and arbitrary action on the part of the provinces, it is also essential that there should be no room for arbitrary actions by the centre. For me devolution is not only for the North and the East.

Q: How long will the whole process of formulating the new Constitution take?

A:  We hope to finish it in six months. These issues have been discussed over the past so many years and we don’t need to go over them repeatedly. The public representation process has already commenced. The committee has been appointed and they have already started their work. Even though notice has still not been published, this will happen over the next few days. Yet still people have not even waited for the notice and they have already started sending in their representations.

Q: While the shape of the new constitution will be determined by a long drawn out and elaborate process of consultation both within and outside parliament (through parliamentary committees and the Public Representation Committee) a change which has been decided upon already is the abolition of the Executive Presidency. Do you think it is wise to give up the Executive Presidency when it has been able to give the country a stable and strong government – a single point of authority – which enables the government to finish terrorism and put the country on the path to rapid development?

A:  Well these are being raised by some parties, but the people have spoken and they have given a verdict clearly on January eighth, 2015 and in August last year. However there is still a minority who think that the executive presidency has to be retained. But the people have expressed their stand at the elections.

Q: Why not just implement the devolution package under the 13th Amendment fully? Or just make some adjustments in it? Why go through the process of discussing the issue all over again. After all, discussions on devolution have been on since 1994-95 when CBK came to power with the promise of devolution?

A: We must learn from the shortcomings of the 13th amendment. There are various loopholes, for example what was given with the right hand, the centre was able to take back with the left hand. Therefore we must learn from the past and we can improve on the 13th amendment and plug the loopholes.

Q:  Since ethnic reconciliation is one of the objectives of the new Constitution, what can be done towards this end through the new Constitution. Devolution of power to the Tamils is one way to bring reconciliation but is there are other ways which can be made part of the Constitution?

A:  I am strongly not only for the devolution of power to solve the problems of the numerically smaller communities, but I am more strongly for devolution as an instrument of development for the provinces which are underdeveloped. For example if you take Monaragala it is as bad as Mullaitivu. I hail from and received my initial education in a very remote area in Udadumbara which is now part of Meda Dumbara in Kandy. I for one know the difference between the village and the city. Today the villages have been improved but the gap between the cities is still as wide.

The people there are tenant cultivators and earlier matters concerning tenant cultivators were handled by the agrarian services then it was handled by the provincial councils. But misinterpreting a Supreme Court judgement the centre took back the powers and the departments and then again in 2003 the Supreme Court clarified that matters of tenant cultivators are handled by the provinces, but in spite of that still it is the centre that holds the department of agrarian services under them. So this clearly shows that these things have to be clarified. So I see devolution not only as a solution to the ethnic problem but it is also devolution and taking power closer to the people. It is also an instrument for the development of the underdeveloped districts.

Q:  Since the bureaucracy and other structures of the government are dominated by the Sinhala community, do you think places should be reserved for minorities in jobs and educational institutions as in India where there is 28 percent reservation for the Backward Castes in the Central government and 69 percent for them in Tamil Nadu?

A:  No, this issue of quota is a very sensitive question. Under the equal protection laws quotas are allowed but quotas should be very carefully tailored and they should not be open ended. It must be for a very short period and reviewed. It is a very sensitive issue and must be very carefully reviewed.

Fact, fiction and reality

by Latheef Farook-Sunday, 10 January 2016

Musali South in the Mannar District has traditionally been a predominantly Muslim populated area for centuries. Their peaceful life was devastated in October 1990 when they were kicked out of their homes and lands within two hours by the LTTE when it ethnic cleansed the entire Northern Muslims.

Since then, they languished in refugee camps and temporary shelters in extreme hardships.

Huts in Wilpattu National Park.                                                           Pic. ejatlas.org

After the military defeat of LTTE in 2009, Muslims started to return to their lands to resume their devastated life. However racist forces with their own sinister agenda, hell bent on causing problems to Muslims, have falsely accused them of encroaching Wilpattu and triggered off a controversy to them from returning to their lands to which they have deeds and permits.

Document

Explaining the situation in her preface to a document on Musali South, Prof Sivamohan Sumathy of Peradeniya University said, "the return of the Displaced in Musali South has evoked a variety of responses and competing claims that have taken on national and nationalist proportions.

The returning population of Musali South have tried to eke out a living in the midst of harsh conditions, unaided by state forces for the most part. Yet, the region has become needlessly entangled in a controversy over environmentalism. While the Navy has claimed large acres of land for its own entrenchment in the region, environmentalists have accused settlers, the IDPs, who have returned and staked out a claim for their lands, as destroyers of forest.

The displaced people of Musali South, account for some of the most marginalized sections of the population, but the debate that the putative return has spurred in the media and in political circles has cast them as adversaries of both nature and the state".

A six member team of academics led by Prof Shahul H. Hasbullah of Peradeniya University has prepared an extensive research document on the issue of Musali South Muslims returning to their lands under the title "Denying the Right to Return - Resettlement in Musali South and the Wilpattu Controversy." With a plea "Help Us Return Home" people of Musali South appeal to all to help them return to their lands and homes with dignity and self respect to end their more than three and half decade old sufferings.

Explaining the background in his author's note, Prof Shahul H Hasbulla stated that;

"When the "Wilpattu controversy" flared up, the turn of the debate surprised me. I knew for certain that the contested area in question was not located in Wilpattu. In a published newspaper article, I emphasized the issue of returnees, which in my view, is the crux of the matter. But the ongoing debate paid no attention to this issue. To the contrary, the public discourse continuously labelled returnees as 'criminals'.

Truth

"The bleak situation spurred me to take on the mission of uncovering the truth. I visited all corners of "Musali South" to get to know its history and its peoples, reflecting on the claims and counter claims of land ownership.

"I learned from the people who were paddy, chena and cattle farmers; sea, lagoon, river and tank fisher folk; teachers, religious dignitaries; men, women, young and children of all ethnic (Tamils, Muslims and Sinhala), religious (Catholic, Hindu, Muslims, Buddhist) and linguistic (Tamil and Sinhala) communities.

"According to our findings people have lived in the Musali Region for generations. They toiled on this land and roamed the region for various livelihood activities without any interruption, while keeping the tradition of protecting the forest and the environment.

"They are a part of the nature and culture of the region. For more than two decades, the people have been displaced - until today. They have a right to return to their homes". Thus concluded Prof Hasbullah.

Muslims, in fact, had nothing to do with the devastating ethnic war between successive governments and the LTTE. However sandwiched between the two they suffered immense and the plight of Musali South Muslims was no exception.

While Musali South Muslims were in refugee camps the Rajapaksa Government had acquired a major part of their traditional lands under various pretexts knowing very well that the owners would claim this land once the ethnic war ends.

Acquisition

First around 40% of their traditional lands in the Musali South was acquired. This was followed by the acquisition of another 30 percent of their land without any consultation or consent to establish security Establishments. Added to this Muslims owned lands were acquired to establish a naval agricultural project. Furthermore, a Navy Regional Commanding Office was established in two prominent villages and the Muslims were prevented from entering their lands, dwellings and other properties.

Thus, Musali South Muslims were deceived and deprived large extent of their traditional lands.

Judging from the subsequent anti Muslim campaign under Rajapaksa government aimed at virtually eliminating the Muslim community it is not difficult to realize now that Muslim owned Musali South lands were acquired deliberately to deprive Muslims of their lands.

Commenting on the controversy Prof Arjuna Parakrama of University of Peradeniya stated in the special document that;

"The issue of resettlement in Musali - Wilpattu has divided and destroyed relationships built up among "progressive" groups who hitherto shared similar positions on other national concerns. Environmental activists allowed this discourse to be narrowly ethnicised, and emulated populist majoritarian rabble rousers in their passion to "save Wilpattu" from what they saw as corrupt and opportunist minority politicians.

"A small band of human rights professionals and academics who took up the cause of the displaced were unable to disentangle themselves from the political leadership that was using the issue in at least of the ways that the environmental lobby claimed.

"The media exploited all of this - generally on the side of the single-issue environmentalists - to rekindle anti-Muslim sentiment among the Sinhala polity. As a result, those who had no interest in the preservation of wildlife became passionate campaigners, while dedicated eco-types transformed into ethno-nationalists overnight. In all of this the affected people remained voiceless - pawns in a series of chess games - and this denial of agency is as damaging as the continued deprivation of their rights".

Relations

Meanwhile, Prof M.A. Nuhman lamented that six years have passed since the war ended and the ethnic relations in the country further deteriorated because of the short sighted political leadership that encouraged ethnic tension and fear in the country to further their own agendas.

Resettlement of internally displaced people is one of the major issues today that demands an immediate solution in post war Sri Lanka. Hundreds of thousands of people from all three communities were displaced internally during the war, losing their houses, land and sources of livelihood; most of them are not resettled so far and they are longing for return to their own soil to live peacefully.

To this day, we have not been able to formulate a national policy of resettlement to resolve the problem of the displaced people justly and permanently. Therefore, resettlement programmes are being carried out in an ad hoc manner and have led to further problems and tensions among the communities. Resettlement in Musali South is a case in point.

Constitution-making begins after hectic night-long talks to resolve disputes

President Maithripala Sirisena addressing Parliament yesterday
By Our Political Editor-Sunday, January 10, 2016

• President makes tough speech on resolution; extremism will not be tolerated from any side; corruption suspects to be arrested this month
• Ranil says ‘no gun to the head’, he is ready to be flexible; wants the process to be inclusive

The Government’s new Constitution initiative which began in Parliament yesterday was dogged by late night meetings where parties including the “joint opposition” sought changes in procedure.

Constitution-making Begins After Hectic Night-long Talks to Resolve Disputes by Thavam Ratna

Govt. outlines plans for new Constitution to devolve power 


Monday, 11 January 2016

The Government on Saturday presented its plan for a new Constitution aimed at devolving power and preventing the sort of ethnic tensions that led to a long and bitter civil war that ended in 2009.

Govt. Outlines Plans for New Constitution to Devolve Power by Thavam Ratna