Agriculture and social control: Tracing the origins of violent and dysfunctional human behavior

Robert J. Burrowes-Wed, 15 Jun 2016

There is a long history of social critics and progressive thinkers offering critiques of human society. Among those who are better known, Karl Marx offered a critique of capitalism, anarchists have critiqued the state, Mohandas K. Gandhi offered a critique of industrial society, Sigmund Freud and Herbert Marcuse offered critiques of civilization, and feminists have critiqued patriarchy. In addition, critiques of colonial/industrial society by indigenous people, critiques of white society by people of color, critiques of modern industrial society by environmentalists and cultural historians as well as critiques of technocratic society by a succession of scholars have been presented.

While these and other critiques have much to offer, if we want to trace the origin of the dysfunctional and violent human behaviours that now threaten human extinction, I believe it is necessary to examine what has been happening since the Neolithic (agricultural) revolution some 12,000 years ago.

From the evolution of homo sapiens until the Neolithic revolution, human beings lived as hunter-gatherers following the seasonal round. During this long period, virtually all activities from hunting and gathering food to a multiplicity of social and cultural activities were simply manifestations of a felt desire to do something functional, meaningful and enjoyable. While some aspects of socialization during this period were undoubtedly designed to control individual behaviour towards what was seen as beneficial for the group, the damage from this was limited for society as a whole (if not for the individual).

However, with the discovery that seeds could be collected, stored, transported, planted and nurtured, settlement became possible. And activities of a different nature, which we now call 'farming', emerged. In many ways, of course, farming activities of this nature were still functional, meaningful and enjoyable. And there was probably a higher level of security in some contexts, at least, although there was also a decrease in security from a new range of threats including diminishing soil fertility (requiring effort to replenish it).

So my central questions are these? Is there a point at which a human activity ceases to be volitional - 'functional, meaningful and enjoyable' - and becomes something that is socially controlled, what we might now call 'work'? And what are the implications of this transition?

For the purposes of this article, I define 'work', rather broadly, as the mental and physical activity of undertaking any task that is directed and controlled by others for the benefit of others (which means that it is not possible for the individual to be adequately compensated for the effort expended and time lost). In some contexts, if the work is conducted for the exclusive benefit of others it is called 'slavery' which, incidentally, now involves more people than at any previous time in human history.

Why do I say that, by working, 'it is not possible for the individual to be adequately compensated for the effort expended and time lost'?

The human organism is genetically programmed to follow their own Self-will. A human being is not genetically programmed to obey the will of another, whether they be parent, teacher, religious figure, political leader or anyone else. An individual's Self-will manifests through such mental functions as thoughts, feelings and conscience. It is this Self-will that the individual is meant to follow throughout their life (just as non-human individuals of all species still live this way if they are not imprisoned, enslaved or domesticated by humans).

However, while the Neolithic revolution occurred spontaneously in several parts of the world, some of the Neolithic societies that emerged in Asia, Europe, Central America and South America resorted to increasing degrees of social control in order to achieve a variety of social and economic outcomes, including increased efficiency in food production. Civilizations, which emerged just over five thousand years ago and were characterized by towns or cities, efficient food production allowing a large minority of the community to be engaged in more specialized activities, a centralized bureaucracy and the practice of skilled warfare, were then built on this higher degree of social control.

So how was this social control achieved? The same way that social control is achieved today: by terrorizing children into obedience. If you want control it is better to start when the individual is very young. 

Of course, the nature of modern society requires a phenomenal level of terrorization to prepare children for what constitutes 'life' in the modern world: an endless series of hurdles that must be jumped so that we are channeled into one or another version of socially-approved behavior, including work.

But the cost to the individual and, ultimately, society of this terrorization process is enormous. Terrorizing a child into suppressing their awareness of the feelings that should help guide their Self-will so that they 'learn' to behave (especially by doing 'work') in violation of that Self-will causes enormous behavioral dysfunctionality including violence against them-self, others and the Earth.

And once we have been terrorized into submitting to the will of adults during our early childhood, which also means that we are terrorized out of feeling and expressing how we feel about this submission - invariably some combination of fear, anger, emotional pain and sadness - we must unconsciously suppress our awareness of how we feel about doing what others want rather than doing what we want. For a fuller explanation of this, see 'Why Violence?' and 'Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice'.

For this reason, and in modern society within a year of starting school (the work place of children), children cease to be free to do what they want and they become slaves to the will of others (with virtually none of their time left to use as they wish).

Moreover, having been terrorized into surrendering their time to be controlled (by doing work directed) by others, by adolescence they have both deeply suppressed any awareness of their own Self-will and become addicted to the compensation - represented ultimately by money - to buy caricatures of freedom (a consumer item, some entertainment, a holiday) for use in their 'spare' time (that is, that little time left over after doing all of the work required by others). And because they have been terrorized into suppressing awareness of the feelings that would tell them otherwise,they learn to rationalize and justify what they are doing in terms of what is 'sensible' in the modern world. For example: 'I work to pay off the mortgage on my house.'

As adults, they then participate in terrorizing another generation into doing what other people want.

If you think my critique sounds simplistic, I offer you a simple test of its validity: If you feel free to choose precisely what you do each and every moment of your life, what is the list of things you would like to do during the next week? And during each week for the rest of your life? Are you now going to do these things? If not, the odds are high that you have also been terrorized into believing that not doing what you want is 'behaving responsibly': a wonderful way of obscuring what has taken place.

But what of structural and cultural violence you say? What about the way patriarchy, the industrial revolution (with its enclosure of the commons), capitalism and a whole host of other structures as well as cultural practices limit or even deny us opportunities and choices?

Well these are obviously important too. I am just saying that if we want to understand their origin and why they still survive, we must consider the implications of terrorizing children into doing what adults want. You cannot expect terrorized and powerless individuals - whether they lived historically or live now - to create cultures and structures of freedom or to resist violence or even their own exploitation.

Moreover, some of these terrorized and powerless individuals who are particularly badly damaged now wreak havoc all over the planet: starting and conducting wars, exploiting other people ruthlessly, ravaging the environment ... all in pursuit of those caricatures of freedom mentioned above. However, even their great wealth can never compensate them for their loss of Self.

Anyway, if any of what is written here resonates with you, you might like to do something about it by participating in ' The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth' and/or by signing the online pledge of 'The People's Charter to Create a Nonviolent World'.

Most fundamentally, you might like to ponder what happened to you during your own childhood. And to ponder what that might mean about your own treatment of children. For a start, you might consider this: 'My Promise to Children'.

In summary: You can do what others want. Or you can live your own life. For most of us, our fear will decide.

Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of 'Why Violence?'

Three babies linked to Japanese businessman Mitsutoki Shigeta found in Cambodia

Thai police display pictures of surrogate babies born to Japanese businessman Mitsutoki Shigeta who is at the center of a surrogacy scandal . Pic: AP

 17th June 2016

THAILAND’s Department of Special Investigations (DSI) have reportedly found three young children believed to have been fathered by Japanese businessman Mitsutoki Shigeta, who has been embroiled in a surrogacy scandal since 2014.

According to the Bangkok Post, the DSI spoke of the three children during a meeting of the National Legislative Assembly’s (NLA) special committee, who are now studying ways to protect children born via medical fertility technology, then left by their surrogate parents.

The mothers of the three children are thought to be Thai women hired by Shigeta as surrogates, taken to Cambodia and left there with caregivers. Officials have not yet met the children in person, said Methini Ratrasan, director of the DSI’s Bureau of Technology and Information Inspection Centre.

Shigeta, who has been identified by Japanese media as the son of billionaire Yasumitsu Shigeta, was investigated by Interpol in August 2014 for suspected human trafficking after it was revealed he had fathered at least 16 babies with surrogate mothers in Thailand.

SEE ALSO: Interpol probes Thailand ‘baby factory’ case

A representative for the Social Development and Human Security Ministry present at the meeting on Thursday said the 13 of the 16 surrogate children have been cared for by the ministry’s child protection services center in the Nonthaburi province since the scandal came to light.

Police say Shigeta spent over US$500,000 fathering all his children with at least 10 women for motives that are still unclear. Conflicting reports offer different explanations for why he wanted so many children.

Shigeta reportedly said through a lawyer that he simply wanted a big family, according to a 2015 Associated Press report.

A fertility services clinic that he used to find surrogate mothers, New Life, said Shigeta planned to have up to 15 babies a year and use his large family to help him “win elections”, and intended to keep making babies “until he’s dead”.

SEE ALSO: Thai police quiz surrogacy scandal doctor

Allegations of human trafficking and exploitation for the stem cell trade have been unfounded, as Thai police so there is no evidence for either, said Ratrasan.

In January 2015, he was awarded custody of three of the children he fathered by the Central Juvenile and Family Court after six surrogate mothers filed a lawsuit against the Social Development and Human Security Ministry for violating both their and Shigeta’s rights by removing their children,reported the Chiangrai Times.

He has petitioned for paternal rights over the remaining 13 children and four court hearings have been held, with the next hearing scheduled next week.

Last year, Thailand passed a law banning commercial surrogacy for foreign parents in a crackdown on cheap surrogacy services. Violation of the law is punishable by up to 10 years in prison of a 200,000 baht (US$6,200) fine.

Ultrasound Opens the Brain to Promising Drugs

Magnetic resonance brain scans from one patient indicate that opening the blood-brain barrier with SonoCloud resulted in no further tumor progression.

The brain’s built-in protection system also prevents potentially lifesaving drugs from getting in, but maybe not for much longer.

Alexandre Carpentier holds the SonoCloud device, which he has implanted in 15 brain cancer patients.

by Ryan Cross-June 15, 2016

The protective sheath surrounding the brain’s blood supply—known as the blood-brain barrier—is a safeguard against nasty germs and toxins. But it also prevents existing drugs that could potentially be used to treat brain cancer or Alzheimer’s disease from reaching the brain. That’s why scientists want to unchain the gates of this barrier. Now a new study shows it’s been done in cancer patients.

Alexandre Carpentier, a neurosurgeon at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, used ultrasound to open the blood-brain barrier in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, the most common and deadly tumor originating in the adult brain—allowing for delivery of chemotherapy that would otherwise reach the tumor in minuscule amounts. The preliminary results of the early phase clinical trial were reported Wednesday in Science Translational Medicine.

The procedure works by first injecting microbubbles into the bloodstream and then using a device implanted near patients’ tumors to send ultrasonic soundwaves into the brain, exciting the bubbles. The physical pressure of the bubbles pushing on the cells temporarily opens the blood-brain barrier, letting an injected drug cross into the brain.

Alexandre Carpentier holds the SonoCloud device, which he has implanted in 15 brain cancer patients.
“People for years have been trying to open the blood-brain barrier,” said Neal Kassell, founder of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. The device, called SonoCloud, was implanted and used on 15 patients during monthly chemotherapy with no ill effects after six months.

Although this is the first published study using ultrasound to open the blood-brain barrier in humans, it is not the first study to hit the news. In November, a team at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto announced the start of a clinical trial to open the blood-brain barrier using ultrasound in a single brain cancer patient. Carpentier’s trial, on the other hand, began in July 2014, and Kassell said the French study “is the first time they’ve shown the safety of repetitively opening the blood-brain barrier in humans.” Both clinical trials are ongoing.

The Sunnybrook trial used a focused ultrasound device, which is good for pinpointing localized cancers. In contrast, SonoCloud emits ultrasound more diffusely, which is useful for glioblastomas that blend into surrounding brain tissue. “It seems a little more aggressive to implant something,” Carpentier said, but the wider-ranging ultrasound opens a larger swath of the blood-brain barrier. This enables chemotherapy drugs to reach cancer cells around the periphery of the main tumor, hopefully reducing the chance that the cancer will grow back.

Magnetic resonance brain scans from one patient indicate that opening the blood-brain barrier with SonoCloud resulted in no further tumor progression.

Carpentier, who invented SonoCloud and founded its parent company, CarThera, says the most surprising part was the patients’ response to the implant. “The patients don’t feel anything when we emit ultrasound,” he says. “And they actually don’t complain about it. It was set up in the protocol to remove it after six months, but patients don’t want to remove it.”

He is now designing the next phase of the clinical trial to determine how much more effective the chemotherapy is with an opened blood-brain barrier. Carpentier says the technology is a “huge opportunity” to improve treatment of many diseases. He is also beginning work on a trial with Alzheimer’s patients, since studies in mice have showed that merely opening the blood-brain barrier with ultrasound helps remove the amyloid-β protein thought to be responsible for Alzheimer’s without using any drugs.

The ultimate goal of ultrasound therapy is “to be able to repetitively and reversibly open the blood-brain barrier in a non-invasive, targeted, and focused manner,” Kassell says. “This is one more step toward that goal.”

At Geneva, TNA Will Ask Lanka To Implement Co-Sponsored UNHRC Resolution

By P.K.Balachandran-14th June 2016

COLOMBO: At the on-going session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) will ask the Sri Lankan government to implement the UNHRC resolution which it co-sponsored along with the United States in September-October 2015.

“The Sri Lankan government co-sponsored a resolution at the UNHRC which required it to take a number of measures. We will demand the implementation of that resolution,” said R.Sampanthan, TNA chief  and Leader of the Opposition in the Lankan parliament.

The resolution committed Lanka to establishing a judicial mechanism with a special counsel to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, as applicable.

Judicial Mechanism With Foreign Judges

It said that a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by individuals known for their integrity and impartiality. In this regard the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the special counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators, was stressed.

The resolution encouraged the Lanka government to reform its domestic law to ensure that it can implement effectively its own commitments; the recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission; as well as the  recommendations of the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including by allowing for, in a manner consistent with its international obligations, the trial and punishment of those most responsible for the full range of crimes under the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations relevant to violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law.

The resolution encouraged the Lanka government to introduce effective security sector reforms as part of its transitional justice process, which will help to enhance the reputation and professionalism of the military and include ensuring that no scope exists for retention in or recruitment into the security forces of anyone credibly implicated through a fair administrative process in serious crimes involving human rights violations or abuses or violations of international humanitarian law, including members of the security and intelligence units.

Replacement of Prevention of Terrorism Act

The resolution committed Lanka to initiating a high-level review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its regulations and the Public Security Ordinance Act with a view to their repeal and the formulation of a new national security framework fully compliant with international law.

Progress So Far

So far, no steps have been taken by the Lankan government to set up a Judicial Mechanism to investigate and try war crimes cases. In fact, President Maithripala Sirisena has said in an interview that no war crimes had been committed by the Lankan armed forces.

President Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have both said more than once, that there will be no foreign judge in the Judicial Mechanism.

Defence Secretary Karunasena Hettiarachchi has said that work on a law to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act is only in a preliminary stage. Work on a Witness Protection Act is also tardy.

Areas in which the Lankan government has made manifest progress is in the return of lands to civilians. A fourth of the land area held by the armed forces has been returned. Democracy and press freedom have been restored and enforced disappearances are a thing of the past.

SRI LANKA: THE DEEP STATE HAS CHANGED, PROMISES YET TO BE REALISED – SUMANTHIRAN

(TNA MP  M A Sumanthiran met the UN High Commissioner for Human Right Zeid too in New York )

16/06/2016

Speech by M.A. Sumanthiran – Congressional caucus briefing 14^th June 2015.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Your Excellency, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to address all of you in this forum. I have been asked to make a few remarks with regard to Sri Lanka’s progress in this transitional phase. The transition commenced in January last year when there was a change in the office of the President. Just prior to that, most friends of Sri Lanka were gravely concerned that Sri Lanka was going down the precipice, in that it was moving towards an authoritarian regime. The Constitution had been amended; we had an executive presidential system with a two term limit that had been amended to enable the incumbent to run for however many times that he wanted to and there were very serious concerns with regard to democracy deficit and accountability and non-accommodation of dissent and so on.

But when the change came, it came with a promise of turning back and making various reforms, the rapprochement with the Tamil community not being the least of those. That is because in the post-independence history of the country there has been an alienation between the majority community who are Sinhalese and the Tamil community in the country which widened as time went on – in the 1950s by enactment of certain legislation, then further – as we enacted our first Republican Constitution in the early ‘70s – exclusion of the Tamil representatives from that process which was later repeated in the Second Republican Constitution of 1978 and which  led to an armed revolt by Tamil youth seeking to establish – or rather re-establish – their lost sovereignty as a separate state in that island. The armed conflict came to an end in 2009 May and although various concerns were raised with regard to how that was brought to an end in violation of various norms and international law and so forth, the then Government did not pay heed to valid concerns that were raised, despite giving assurances. There was a joint communique made with the Secretary General of the UN on the 26^thof May 2009 that all of those issues will be looked into and the displaced people would be all resettled within that year and a political solution to the long standing issue will be found on extensive devolution, but none of that happened.

When the change came the communities that are small in number – the Tamil and Muslim communities – voted in large numbers. 80-90% of their vote went for change and President Maithripala Sirisena came into office promising various things. Some of those were abolishing the executive presidency and bringing about a permanent solution to what has come to be known as the ethnic conflict and in that process he also gave promises that lands from which the Tamil people had been displaced due to the war would be returned to them. It was a written promise given at the time of his election and thereafter there was a process that had been ongoing in the UN Human Rights Council; three resolutions have been adopted and after the change, last year in the September session on the First of October a resolution was adopted with Sri Lanka co-sponsoring it, agreeing to certain measures that were to be taken. The text of that resolution was negotiated and compromise found and Sri Lanka accepted it as its own resolution. There are various features in that resolution and in a couple of days the High Commissioner will give an oral update to the Council with regard to progress in that regard; in that there have been various concerns we have raised – as the moderator said – slowness of progress; not just merely slow, there is serious concern when the progress is slow that it can even slide back. I am not going to go into much of that at the moment but focus on a positive, which is the constitution making process which will potentially bring to an end a seventy year old conflict.

The process has started and is moving fairly swiftly but it has certain knotty issues and I want to highlight one or two of those. Sri Lanka has been ruled by a simple majoritarian rule. That is the system of government. And when you have permanent majorities and permanent minorities in numbers that can always lead to oppression and that is what happened in Sri Lanka. Majoritarianism takes over. So one of the antidotes of that has been the suggestion that at least in the areas in which the other communities are a majority you devolve power so that certain aspects of governance, they will have a say in. So we have asked for a federal form of government rather than a unitary form of government, and that’s one of the issues. The other of course is that although it is now conceded that power must be devolved to the provinces, there are nine provinces according to the administrative boundaries drawn by the British. Two of those provinces are Tamil speaking majorities and the concern of the Tamil people is that those two areas must form one unit of devolution. This is something that is not understood very well around the world. People ask me the question “why should only two provinces be merged?” But this has been something that has been agreed to from 1957 onwards. The first pact that was signed between the Tamil leaders and rulers in Sri Lanka – Prime Minister Mr. Bandaranaike in 1957 – provided for a merger of these two provinces and every negotiation thereafter provided for these two units to come together. So that remains a fundamental political aspiration of the Tamil people. Even in 1987 when the Constitution was amended to what is known as the 13^th amendment to the Constitution – which we rejected as being meaningless provisions of devolution – still the unit of North and East was merged on a temporary basis and existed for 18 long years until the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka did away with that merger on a technicality rather than any particular principle. So that is the other issue that remains to be resolved. I would actually stop with that -highlighting these two issues in a process which has come about as a great opportunity that we have now because two main political parties of the country are together in government. This is an opportunity that we must all grasp and resolve, but the resolution must necessarily be something that particularly the victim community, the Tamil community, must express satisfaction over.

The accountability issues which arose as a result of how the war was prosecuted and ended also remain. Justice to the victims and reparation and guarantee of non-recurrence were all promises that were made in that resolution that I referred to. Most of it has not been addressed as yet. Only the Office of Missing Persons legislation has been gazetted about which we have expressed our satisfaction. But that is just a tiny step. There is a whole host of events that has been promised that need to be addressed and moved on.

On the change that has taken place in the life of the Tamil People since 2015:

Well, there is some change. The anxiety of having to face a hostile military of what we call the deep state – which is translated into military intelligence personnel prying into their private affairs and so on – a lot of that has changed. There is greater freedom to move around and so on. So people can genuinely feel the change – which is more freedom. But once that has been realised, day to day issues have not changed, primarily because most of them haven’t been able to recover themselves from the war devastation that is all around. A lot of them are not permitted to go to their own land which is occupied by the military and this is what I referred to in my presentation – that there was a promise to release all private lands which hasn’t been realised as yet. A small portion has been released in stages, but the promise was to release all of it in 100 days from January 2015 and one and a half years later about 70% still remains in the hands of the military and people can actually see that the rate has slowed down and there’s very little movement in that respect, and so their sense of frustration is growing. The military not only occupies people’s land but they cultivate it. They grow vegetables in it and they sell it at the market for lower prices than what the other famers are able to sell. So that has an implication on their livelihood. They are running 18 tourist hotels in those places. This is just one aspect. Return to normality in terms of getting back to normal civilian life has not yet happened to the people. People understand that they need to be patient and so on, but their patience is running out. We had an adjournment debate in Parliament just a couple of days ago and all our representatives from the North and East listed out various issues that affect the people and warned the Government that the goodwill may not last very long if these issues are not addressed. Our people feel very strongly that we brought about the change, we voted in full numbers to bring about a change, and that was done on certain promises which are yet to be realised. In a short answer, there was hope, there was initial euphoria, which is now turning into frustration and disappointment.

On the merger of the North and East:

A:  I have some statistics which tell the story fairly clearly. In about 1887 there was a census and there were only 9 Sinhalese living in the Eastern Province, all men. By the time Independence came the Sinhalese population in the East was 9%. Now between 1947 and 1981 the Sinhalese population in the whole country grew by 238% (2 ½ times) and during the same time the Sinhala population in the Eastern Province grew by 888% (9 times), primarily or solely due to a state sponsored colonisation scheme that sought to forcibly change the demography of the Eastern Province. This has been a bone of contention and that is why the Bandaranaike- Chelvanayagam pact in 1957 addressed that issue very specifically and provided for a merger of the North and East Provinces. It very specifically provided this, even in 1957, but that accord was not honoured. In 1965 (there was) yet another accord signed between Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake  and S.J.V. Chelvanayagam which again addressed this crucial issue of colonisation as to who will get priority to be colonised in the Eastern province and that also was not honoured. So this is the background to why these two provinces must remain together. This is not something that has arisen now. At least from 1957 onwards we have had agreements to merge the two provinces, particularly in 1983 after the violence against the Tamil people and India offered its good offices and the Indo-Lanka Accord was signed. There is provision in the Indo-Lanka Accord that the Northern and Eastern provinces are areas of historical habitation of the Tamil speaking People. So there is that recognition that Sri Lanka also signed an international bi-lateral treaty, which gives that recognition of a linguistic character to the two provinces together and in that accord there is provision made also for the North and East to be merged together. So this has been a fundamental feature and all of the promises given – even by the previous Rajapaksa regime, there are at least three joint communiques that I can count. Ambassador Kariyawasam was in Delhi at that time so he will be very familiar with those. The Government of Sri Lanka at that time, with the Prime Minister of India once and the Indian foreign minister twice, agreed that the 13^th amendment to the Constitution which provided for a merger as well, will be fully implemented and go beyond to achieve meaningful devolution. So even when a promise was given that greater devolution will be granted, the fundamentals of the 13^thamendment, which included a merger, was agreed to. Every effort thereafter from 1993 to 2000 to 2006 – even under the Rajapaksa regime there was an All Party Representative Committee and I have one of the documents here which provides for the merger of the two provinces. So it is a deviation from the normal devolution to the provinces as they are, but because of this serious issue of – well it’s called gerrymandering here, but it is not gerrymandering but actually diluting a population and changing the demography which governments have consistently admitted to – and as a measure of arresting that trend and providing the Tamil speaking people in this area a certain measure of autonomy and a unit in which they can exercise political power as one group rather than two separate groups. So that’s the justification for it.

But…whether it is being communicated properly – no it is not. These facts that I have given, I think form a base or a right kind of justification that must be communicated which will then enable the majority community to realise why there has to be certain special provisions that are not afforded to the other provinces.

On the role of the Government of India:

This particular Indian Government has also reiterated to us their role in exercising those good offices that brought them to sign the Accord continues. India in a sense signed the Accord on behalf of the Tamil people. It was not necessary for a neighbouring country to sign an accord with Sri Lanka providing for power sharing and one unit of devolution and so on. It’s in the context of serious violence that was being perpetrated against the Tamils in Sri Lanka and that also had a long history culminating in the very serious one that happened in 1983 and the fleeing of refugees to India. Even today there are 168,000 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees who are living in South India. So it’s a legitimate concern of India – that India under-wrote this agreement on behalf of the Tamil people. But international politics – what it is today – may not show India directly dictating as what it were, what should happen in Sri Lanka. That is not how things are done. But India’s legitimate concern continues to remain in enforcing all of the provisions of the Indo-Lanka Accord.

On repeal of the PTA and the military presence in the North and East:

Like the promise to release all land to civilians – and that has been confirmed by the Ambassador as well – The PTA (actually called the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act) of 1979 was brought in for a period of six months but is still in our statute books. (It’s) one of the most draconian pieces of legislation you can read and in the consensus Resolution of October 2015,the Sri Lankan Government agreed to repeal the PTA and replace it with a legislation that accords with international best practices – that also, I am glad Ambassdor Kariyawasam confirmed and he said that it will happen if not immediately, soon. But I have a grave concern about the process of that. I am aware that the Sri Lankan Law Commission was tasked with the drafting of the new law to replace the PTA. I was also interviewed by the Law Commission and I made significant contribution in that respect. I understand that they produced a draft law, a new national security law, and presented it to the Government, but on protest by the security sector I am given to understand that the draft has been dumped and a new committee formed now, most of whom are from the security sector, and a new piece of legislation has been drafted which I am told is worse than the PTA. So that is a very serious concern and we have raised this with the Government and I hope the Government pays heed and reverses this trend and brings back the draft that the Law Commission of Sri Lanka drafted.

On the role of the US.

I think the US has played a very significant role already in the resolutions that it mooted in the UN Human Rights Council encouraging changes, and therefore must continue to play that role. It is true that there has been a significant change, a monumental change as described by the Ambassador, but the foot must not be taken off the pedal too early. For the simple reason that we have seen change, as a result of some pressure, some encouragement, some nudging and those must continue… Our plea to the US Government would be don’t express satisfaction too early as there is still a lot to do during that phase.

On international involvement in the accountability process:

If you ask me about international involvement in the accountability process, as far as I know the Government has not said ‘no’ to international involvement. All the multiple voices that you talk about say ‘international involvement – yes, but not judges’. Now I take great exception to that, because as I said at the beginning, the text of the 2015 Resolution is a negotiated text. We asked for (an) international inquiry, and we settled for a hybrid model. So that was negotiated with the Government of Sri Lanka. And having compromised and settled to a model which in the Resolution doesn’t merely say hybrid but explains in detail judges, prosecutors, defence attorneys and investigators, it obviously means judge qua judges, prosecutors qua prosecutors, so on and so forth. So it does not mean (for) judges to be advisors or judges to be involved in some other capacity. And that was well understood. I was personally involved in the negotiations, with the United States of America also participating in that particular process. There were some doubts created, as to whether the Constitution of Sri Lanka would allow for foreign nationals to function as judges and we went into that question, clarified it, and said yes they can and that is how that phraseology was agreed upon. And so, to us having negotiated and compromised and agreed that there would be a hybrid tribunal to try these mass atrocities, it is not open for the Government now to shift its stance and say ‘well, international involvement yes ,but it’s in a different form, now…’. That is not acceptable to us at all. And we have said this. Quite openly I have spoken in Parliament at least two or three times and the Government has not contested me on that. We have said it to the President when he called for an all party conference on the implementation on the UN resolution, and he has not contested us on that. But as you say, in the public there are different voices that we hear. So we are concerned as much as people are, with regard to this particular issue, wondering if the Government is shifting its stance. However, such a mechanism has not been brought about as yet. So we will wait until we reach that particular point of setting up a court of the Special Counsel’s office and so on and so forth and insist that every word, and spirit, in that resolution will be complied with.

Remembering Aluthgama Riots: A Blemish On The Nation, Sasana & Sinhala People

By Mass L. Usuf –June 16, 2016 

Mass L. Usuf

An eye witness recounts, “I witnessed what happened. After the procession when the rioting began I called the police stations that administer the areas. When I called the Matugama police station, they told me that the OIC was not in. The Welipanna police told me that they had only one vehicle and didn’t have personnel. Other police stations were silent. When all this happened the police were made to act deaf and blind. The Police have consistently acted deaf and blind to the actions of Gnanasara Thera leading up to this violence” – UNP MP Palitha Thewarapperuma.

The precursor to the pogrom of June 15 and 16 of 2014, was the spewing of hate filled anti-muslim language by the so called disciples of the Buddha. The demagogic ranting arousing Sinhalese chauvinism, buddhistic fervour and racist nationalism from the robed monk was the perfect cocktail of adrenalin to the listening Sinhala audience. People both from the area and those mobilised from far away places were present.

The next two days bore testimony to the carnage perpetrated by these thug monks cruelly supported by the misled Sinhalese people who unfortunately, pay blind obeisance to these elements masquerading in the saffron robes. If the doctrine of Karma has any true sense in the consciousness of these criminals, then they need to fear the inescapable repercussion they will have to face. The immutable Law of Karma will be looking at the lies uttered, the provocative speech, the wrong intention, the wrong speech, the incitement for evil conduct, the destruction of property and the killing and injuring of innocent people.

Attorney at Law Shiraz Noordeen and his team of lawyers

Monks Consummate In Virtue

To reflect on Buddha’s discourse with King Ajatusattu where the Buddha explained how a monk is consummate in virtue is profoundly educative, in this instance. Some relevant excerpts of this long discourse read as follows:

“Abandoning the taking of life, he abstains from the taking of life. He dwells scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. This is part of his virtue”.

Read More

HRC SL PRESENTED PROPOSALS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM INCLUDING A DRAFT BILL OF RIGHTS

16/06/2016

Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka: PROPOSALS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.

Preface.

The HRCSL is of the view that deepening constitutional protection of human rights requires much more than the incorporation of a substantively rich constitutional Bill of Rights into a future constitution. Two critically important dimensions that require attention in the reform process are:

1. a) the guaranteeing of a sound system of separation of powers and checks and balances; and
2. b) strong regulation of the public security regime

Specific Proposals

1. Constitutional Principles

Foundational constitutional principles must be articulated either in the preamble to the constitution or as a substantive provision:

•  Sovereignty of the people should be foundation of governance
• Transparency and accountability of governance
• Supremacy of the constitution
• Respect for pluralism, equality of dignity and inherent human rights of the people as individuals and as groups
• Respect for religious freedom of all
• Respect for social justice
• Power sharing
• Protection of the rights of future generations with special emphasis on environmental protection including protection of all animal species

2.Bill of Rights:

The HRCSL endorses the Draft Charter of Rights (attached) drafted by a Sub-Committee appointed by Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe the Chair of then Inter-Ministerial Committee on Human Rights in 2006 and completed in 2009. It is endorsed subject to the following amendments and those necessitated by the repeal of the 1978 Constitution: Constitutional Reform Proposals-2016

Further strengthen the non-discrimination clause by adding the ground of sexual identity. The HRCSL received many representations in regard to the need to include ‘sexual orientation’, ‘sexual identity’ and ‘disability’ as prohibited grounds of discrimination. The first and the last and many other grounds such as ‘age’ and ‘maternity’ have already been included in the Draft Charter. The clause should be clearly articulated in an open manner as required by our international obligations—“…no discrimination shall be permitted on grounds such as…”

• Recognize the right to be free from enforced disappearances.
• Recognize the right to legal aid or the broader right of access to justice.
• Include a positive obligation of the State to introduce affirmative action measures in instances of historical injustice and underrepresentation in various sectors of public life
• Horizontal obligations of private parties for abuse of fundamental rights in appropriate situations
• Fundamental rights jurisdiction must be decentralized to appropriate regional courts to make access to justice easy
• CCPR Act, No. 56 of 2007 must be repealed and rights therein must be incorporated into a future Bill of Rights. There must be no gradation of human rights.
• All rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights must be entrenched. The diminution (lessening) or revocation (removal) of any of such rights should require a referendum in addition to adoption by a special majority in parliament. An alternative is to recognize a constitutional Basic Structure Doctrine that does not permit the amendment of fundamental rights.
• Interpretation of the Bill of Rights should give primacy to protection of human dignity and equal rights; should necessarily take into account the spirit and objectives of International Human Rights Law; and Directive Principles of State Policy.

3.Ensure a strong system of checks and balances:

•  The Constitutional Council shall consist of a majority of members from among respected citizens than of political representatives; social diversity must be represented on the Council
•  Independence of the judiciary must be enhanced by strengthening the Judicial Services Commission. The JSC must have among its members respected retired justices and retired members of the official and unofficial Bar and also academics Providing for specific procedure by legislation for removal of judges that complies with principles of natural justice
• Ensuring judicial review of legislation is essential. Review should be with prospective (future) effect. Pre-legislative review also should be retained.

4.Public Security Regime:

•  Should necessarily be in line with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations (Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)
• A state of emergency could be declared only when the ‘life of the nation is threatened’
• Judicial review of a declaration of a State of Emergency must be guaranteed
• Similarly, judicial review of emergency regulations and emergency orders must be expressly provided for
• If a state of emergency continues for more than six consecutive months, Parliament must approve its further extension by a special majority
• The HRCSL endorses provisions in the Draft Charter of Rights (above) on derogation of rights during periods of emergency

5.International Human Rights Treaties:

•  The HRCSL recommends a process for human rights treaty ratification in accordance with its mandate, while recognizing that the recommendation could be of general application.
• The executive must inform Parliament of its intention to ratify international human rights treaties. Parliament must approve by resolution such ratification. Such resolution must be deemed to be an undertaking by Parliament of its intention to approve enabling legislation.
• The government must be bound to present enabling legislation within three months of ratification. If enabling legislation is not adopted within a year of ratification, courts should be authorized to give judicial recognition to the substantive rights in the ratified treaty.

6. Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

•  The Commission is set up under Act No. 21 of 1996. However, the appointment of Commissioners is dealt with under the Nineteenth Amendment to the 1978 Constitution. It is recommended that the HRCSL (as should all independent Commissions) be recognized in a future constitution as a constitutionally established body. Its powers and functions and the duty of public authorities to comply with its recommendations should be stipulated in the Constitution.
• The HRCSL is currently studying its current legal framework in order to make recommendations for improvement.

7. Linguistic Accessibility

•  The HRCSL strongly recommends that the future Constitution be drafted and translated using simple language so as to enable the citizenry to read and access its provisions easily. It is a right of the citizens to know what their Basic Law says. That is of fundamental importance to constitution-building and in legitimizing constitutional governance.

Read full report including the draft of Bill of  Rights  as a PDF here :Proposals for Constitutional Reform by HRC in English

Proposals-for-Constitutional-Reform-by-HRC-in-English.pdf by Thavam Ratna

Accountability crucial to preventing future crimes against humanity, says President of the International Criminal Court at OSCE Forum for Security Co-operation

Judge Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi, President of the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC), addressing the OSCE Forum for Security Co-operation, Vienna, 15 June 2016. (Zbigniew Zielinski) Photo details

VIENNA 16 June 2016

VIENNA, 16 June 2016 – Accountability is crucial to preventing future crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, said President of the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC), Judge Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi as she addressed the 823d meeting of the Forum for Security Co-operation (FSC) on Wednesday in Vienna.

Fernandez emphasized that the current security challenges are staggering in their numbers and complexity.

“The world is facing destabilizing conflicts around the globe which include not only deliberate acts of violence against the physical security and well-being of civilians, but also deliberate attacks against their cultures and identities,” she said. “This demands a multi-faceted response from the international community to stop violence in the short-term, but also sustainable conflict resolution in the long-term.”

Fernandez stressed the importance of justice in preventing future crimes and the necessity of building the capacity of national jurisdictions. The ICC can exercise jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide but it is complementary and not intended to replace national systems, she noted.
“Capacity building of national jurisdictions is essential. The OSCE has played a role - especially in the former Yugoslavia - and can also make contributions through supporting the rule of law and democratic institutions,” Fernandez said.

Ambassador Adam Bugajski of Poland, the OSCE participating State currently chairing the FSC, said: “In paragraph 30 of the Code of Conduct we committed ourselves, inter alia, to ensure that armed forces personnel are aware they are individually accountable under national and international law for their actions."

Contacts

Communication and Media Relations Section

OSCE Secretariat

Phone: + 43 676 71 74 592

press@osce.org

Sri Lanka economy faces risks from policy inaction, external environment-IMF

Tue Jun 14, 2016

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) said on Tuesday that Sri Lanka's economic outlook is facing risks from the government's inaction on key policies and a significant deterioration in the external environment.

Sri Lanka's finances are in a precarious situation because of high external debt, partly due to heavy infrastructure borrowing under the previous government.

The island nation is also facing a balance of payments crisis due to heavy foreign outflows from government securities.

"Despite positive growth momentum, the Sri Lankan economy is facing challenges due to the difficult external environment and a period of significant political transition," the IMF executive board said in a report after Article IV consultations, where IMF experts assess a country's financial and economic conditions.

But the IMF said Sri Lanka's medium-term prospects appear favorable if current macro-financial imbalances can be addressed.

The IMF earlier this month approved a three-year $1.5 billion loan to support Sri Lanka's economic reform agenda.

The main objectives are reforms aimed at boosting government revenues to reduce the fiscal deficit, improving foreign exchange reserves, reducing public debt and Sri Lanka's risk of debt distress, and improving public financial management.

The IMF has also asked the government to improve the operations of state owned enterprises and support a transition toward flexible inflation targeting with a flexible exchange rate regime.

The global lender also said it expected Sri Lanka's economy to growth 5 percent this year, compared with 4.8 percent in 2015. But the IMF's projection is far below the central bank's estimate of 5.8 percent.

"While the government seeks to undertake sizable fiscal consolidation and tackle high priority structural reforms, growth momentum can be sustained with a solid commitment to reform, a clear direction on macroeconomic policies, and restoration of market confidence."

The $82.2 billion economy's foreign exchange reserves have fallen by more than a third from their peak in late 2014 to $5.6 billion at the end of May, the lowest since February 2012, mainly due to foreign outflows of around $2 billion from government securities.

The IMF said that greater exchange rate flexibility and an exit from central bank intervention in the forex market would help protect and rebuild foreign exchange reserves. (Reporting by Ranga Sirilal and Shihar Aneez; Editing by Kim Coghill)

Time For International Community To Wake Up And Shake Up…

by N. Sathiya Moorthy-Friday, June 17, 2016

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe,President Maithripala Sirisena and Chinese Ambassador Yi Xianliang

Chinese Ambassador Yi Xianliang’s call for Sri Lankan leadership(s) to ensure that the post-war reconciliation mechanisms voted in by the UNHRC do not create new conflicts in Sri Lanka should make the nation sit up. It should be more so for the ‘international community’ (read: West), considering

that the ruling Duo in Colombo has reportedly decided on ‘local judges’ alone for ‘war-crimes’ probe. Both come at a time when the TNA has decided to brief UNHRC chief Prince Zeid on the ‘ground situation’ ahead of his mandated ‘oral report’ to the end-June session.

To expect China to keep quiet on Sri Lanka’s ‘internal matters’ too far and too long would have been a ‘lesson’ for other existing and aspirant ‘allies’ of the super-power-to-be. China cannot be seen hunting for itself in their backwaters and yet running with the West on issues of their concerns. If that were so, they would rather settle with the West on politico-strategic issues, and confining China relations to investments.

Ambassador Yi did not stop there. “It would be ill-advised to put reconciliation before development because it is only all-round equitable development which will prevent social, political and economic conflicts,” he is reported to have told a Colombo audience. It’s the kind of ‘Development vs Democracy’ discourse of President Mahinda Rajapaksa days, so to say.

It’s another matter that post-Mao, China has followed ‘limited/ guided democracy’ at the top, if at all it could be called so. It has changed the leadership with periodic regularity, but by the party, not the voter, per se. The West has not acknowledged it. The Rajapaksa camp did not understand it. Hence they stuck to only one part of China’s internal agenda — 18-A, Mahinda’s bid for a third term and losing elections to inevitable anti-incumbency.

Better or worse still, Ambassador Yi was also seeking to ‘balance off’ between the erstwhile Rajapaksa regime and the present-day Maithiri-Ranil Duo in power. China did not work with individuals but with States, he is reported to have said further. It’s again a message not just to Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans, but also to the West and the rest that had thought that post-Mahinda, Sri Lanka would move all-round away from China.

It’s not about development funding and geo-strategic security/competition in Sri Lanka’s Indian Ocean neighbourhood. By now it’s well known that China had made last-minute efforts to muster up votes for Sri Lanka at UNHRC in 2012, but failed. It might have even entered too late in the day, or so it would possibly want Sri Lanka now to believe. Today, as the drift on the UNHRC front is becoming increasingly visible, China seems wanting to step in early on – but with a chaste word for the local leadership.

UNHRC drift…

The ‘UNHRC drift’ and the Chinese statement have come after Sri Lanka unilaterally co-authored and co-sponsored the UNHRC resolution on accountability probe the last time round. It may not (want to) step in without being asked. But the message could also be for the Sri Lankan leadership (this one a different regime from 2012) not to rush to China too late in the day, if it came to that in the months and years ahead – for China to be of consequence and help.

The Chinese statement comes ahead of yet another Beijing visit for President Maithripala Sirisena, his second in as many years since coming to power. Ahead of him, predecessor Mahinda R, too, used to ‘balance off’ India and China by visiting the two nations. In the case of the present-day Sri Lankan regime, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe too shares the two-way honours. Both leaders have also been visiting the US and Europe, not so infrequently. Sirisena was also at the G-7 Summit in Japan recently.

Heating up again

It’s not about international relations and international visits of Government leaders any more. Instead, it’s about the domestic pot that has begun heating up all over again – and could soon be on the boil. For starters, this is the first time there are reports about the unanimity of views between Sirisena and Ranil over the composition of any ‘war-crimes’ probe.

Either they have had honest differences in the past, or were playing good-cop-bad-cop to the Tamils nearer home and the international community otherwise. They have since ‘sorted out’ those differences, this round going to Sirisena, if it could be said so. Could a ‘victory’ (?) for Sirisena viz Ranil mean that he has scored over the Rajapaksas in the larger ‘ethnic’ context within the Sirisena-led SLFP partner in the Government for National Unity (GNU)?

The Duo has not made it easy for the Tamils and the TNA, the designated ‘Opposition Party’ in Parliament, over their 15 months’ rule. The TNA too has not made things too easy for the Government, especially in recent months. But the trouble is in a continuum of the pre-war past in the case of the former, and pre-polls for the latter. Added to this are the internal troubles within the TNA and the larger Tamil polity and society — as there are internal troubles within the SLFP. If there are problems within the UNP, Ranil has been able to keep it under a lid, for the first time in years. The reported TNA decision to brief Zeid in Geneva too is a repeat of the past that Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans are familiar with. The consequences, especially nearer home, could well be imagined.  The TNA could and would sound frustrated and ‘cheated one more time’. On return, they would be branded ‘anti-nationals’ taking the ‘LTTE way’.

If the situation so evolved, like the Rajapaksa regime before it, this Government too could come under pressure from within to disassociate from the TNA.  Ahead of the 2012 UNHRC vote, the Rajapaksa leadership called off what was shaping up as halting-yet-meaningful political negotiations with the TNA after the party claimed ownership for the US-sponsored resolution at the UNHRC. The West continued to give the impression that they did not want the negotiations to succeed. The ‘Diaspora LTTE’ rejoiced.  Today, every stake-holder has forgotten that those negotiations at all took place.

Any repeat of the pre-war, post-war, pre-polls past could lead to the ‘Diaspora LTTE’ mustering up the political muscle to claim purpose and legitimacy all over again. They could put the recent the US State Department Annual Report on its head and argue why that LTTE funding-channels and tax-collection have to continue.  The US Report and Sirisena’s subsequent Delhiwala speech that he would crush ‘LTTE (separatist)  ideology’ with the cooperation of world leaders with whom he had good equations (?) could only become the grist of his critics’ mill.

Nothing path-breaking

All this and more when PM Wickremesinghe has promised to present a new draft Constitution before the year is out, for national discourse and later passage in Parliament, which has converted itself into a Constituent Assembly. The nation would then have no time or energy, or both, for UNHRC. To the Tamils, it would all add to their long and ever-expanding list of grievances and cheating.

The report of the Public Representations Committee (PRC), submitted recently, was expected to set the tone and tenor for a healthy national discourse on contentious constitutional issues of re-merger, power-devolution, including Land and Police powers, has said nothing new or path-breaking. It may have even said less than what the Majority Report of Mahinda-time APRC had recommended – or, at best stopped with repeating what other reports of the kind had said over the past decades.

All of it opens up a fresh look as to why the Duo did not plain and simple start with – or, even stop with – the implementation of 13-A, with or without re-merger and proceed from there. At the end of the day, the Constituent Assembly could well end up as their way of deviating from the script that the international community had thought was that of the Duo’s and had existed on a ‘political solution’ if not ‘accountability issues’ – but actually did not.

Going by PRC’s claims, the Preamble of a new constitution could have a lot to say, promise and reassure the Tamils and the rest on rights, including human rights, much of it ornamental in effect. The Preamble is a political statement — or an emotive exhortation at best. The Articles, Clauses and Sub-Clauses alone would make legal and constitutional sense. The PRC report does not promise hopes on that front – and not always for the wrong reasons, however.

For the Tamils in particular, the character of the ‘State’ – whether ‘unitary’ or ‘federal’ – should not really matter, though they have got caught in the web of what essentially is a Sinhala politico-academic past-time. Re-merger may not happen, but power-devolution to the levels up to 13-A, and later, beyond it should be what they could aim to achieve, if they are realistic.

Wherever they feel uncomfortable or less satisfied, they could have sought a review after a 10-year period or so. Independent of constitutional and political reforms, they could have commenced post-war negotiations with a demand for freezing the number of parliamentary seats per electoral district till 2051 Census, providing for deaths and disappearances for war-time. They did not even ask for it, when possibly the Mahinda leadership might have considered it favourably –for its own reasons, at least until 2031/2021 Census.

Still, freezing the number of Parliament seats in the war-affected areas need not be a far-cry — or a ‘take-away’ for some Tamil/TNA ‘give-away’, in the interim. After all, the Government has now agreed to issue ‘Certificate of Absence’ for the war-missing. If the Government and the international community are serious about it, they should be following upon the Paranagama Commission’s request for the latter to help identify SLT citizens in their countries, some of them in aliases. That too is going to take as much time.

Instead, the Tamils and the TNA sought the impossible(s) at the time, when the decades-old “Sri Lanka’s war on terrorism” had gone against them. Better or worse still, ‘war-crimes’ probe was not on their original agenda – but was an after-thought, contributed by the international NGOs, their governments, and the ‘Diaspora LTTE’. What is not acknowledged is a tentative agreement of the time on ‘financial powers’ of the State, which is where the present Government may have issues of its own.

Going overboard

Today, the Tamils neither have a political solution, nor can they really have hopes on ‘war crimes probe’ of the UNHRC kind. The ‘Diaspora LTTE’ would rejoice, the critics of Tamils nearer home would again start campaigning against the moderate Tamil leadership. The international community (read: West) would not even be able to decipher what had gone wrong, why, when and how.

All along, the international community has been talking near-exclusively about sensitising armed forces about ‘accountability issues.’ If a new Constitution, whether stopping with the Preamble or otherwise, were to talk more directly about HR issues, there could be greater concerns than already, however subterranean they be just now. It would mean that the Government and more so the international community would have to be even more sensitive to the anticipation and apprehensions of the Sri Lankan armed forces than the other way round. Sri Lankan critics of the international community in particular are not going to keep quiet, either, if in between either the UNHRC, or the Government, or the Constitution draft were to be seen as going ‘overboard’ on accountability-linked HR issues.

Gota game-plan

All this apart, there is already talk, hopes and promises of the ‘second place’ in the Sirisena-led SLFP for former Defence Secretary Gota Rajapaksa, brother of Mahinda R. Under 19-A, the presidency has become both unattainable and unattractive for Mahinda. The new Constitution could confirm both – and Mahinda might have to be out of the run, unless he tries his luck for the post of the more powerful prime minister one more time, whenever elections become due. Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike-Kumaratunga, CBK, the scion of the SLFP founder-family, has cautioned about distancing herself from the party if it were to accommodate the Rajapaksas at the top-rung all over again. The problem for the party is not the Rajapaksas per se. It’s more about the inability of others, including Sirisena and CBK put together, to retain the 47 per cent vote-share of Mahinda R, won twice last year. The alternative is to lose the party’s identity to the UNP leader in the GNU, at least in the interim – whose length is undeterminable just now.Ideas leading to the SLFP reasserting itself could imply that it cannot reinvent itself now without a Rajapaksa. It could however mean a drift in the current UNP-SLFP combine, but the UNP-led Government could be expected to ‘expose’ the Rajapaksas even more. The clincher however is that Mahinda might not have ‘transferrable vote’ for any other in the SLFP, including a third Rajapaksa. But Gota could be another story altogether. Rather, if Mahinda could ‘transfer’ his votes to any other SLFP leader, it could only be Gota. Or, so seems to be the logic.  It’s in this larger background that the clock has begun ticking on Sri Lanka, accountability and/or political solution to the ethnic issue, for which alone the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Duo got a mandate but without promising anything specific other than replacing the Rajapaksas at the helm.  It would in turn mean that the clock has begun ticking for the West, which had hoped and promised things that it did not divine or define – and especially now after China having expressed an open ‘concern’ in Sri Lanka’s domestic affairs, as never before in the past.  A way out could be for the international community to wake up, put its act together, shake up the domestic stake-holders, who are divided, anyway. How and how soon they decide to do it, and do it afterwards, could also be a determinant in the upcoming follow-up to what promises to be a tentative present, leading the nation into an even more unsteady future – as the past already had been.

(The writer is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation, the multi-disciplinary Indian public-policy think-tank, headquartered in New Delhi. email: sathiyam54@gmail.com)