My country is not truly free until all its citizens feel at home

Saturday, 4 February 2017

Independence Day marks the freeing of our country of the shackles of the colonisers. Our country won her freedom through the sweat of our predecessors who united in driving away the occupiers.

As a Sri Lankan, I love my country and feel that I belong here and nowhere else. As I join my fellow sisters and brothers in celebrating our independence, I long, more than ever, that our Motherland would be blessed with a vibrant society with people of different ethnicities and religions coexisting peacefully.

Born to a traditional Muslim family in a remote village in the Kandy District, I had the good fortune of studying at the “best school of all”, a Church Missionary Society school where we did not really care to what religion or ethnicity our friends belonged to. Religion was confined to our homes and all of us in school ate off the same plate and cherished our brotherhood; we broke up for our lessons on religion and returned, leaving what we had learned to be practiced in our private lives.

We entered the playing fields, and did not know the difference between Perera, Nayagam, Ahamed or Jurianz. We were comfortable in church or at the mosque, wherever we gathered to celebrate our differences. We need to wonder how we did it, when we think of how we live as adults today.

The thought of our 69th Independence Day brings back memories of my childhood, school, teachers, friends, and colleagues. It also reminds me of how distant we have grown on ethnic and religious lines, each of us believing we are superior, and growing intolerant of the other.

We are all guilty of not following the true teachings of our respective faiths, led blindly by the loudest religious and political leaders who are intent on realising their personal agenda. We have forgotten and fail to hear, and let the most vociferous rants sweep over the love, understanding, respect, and human values that our faiths teach us.

The divisions, which have been created, is a glass wall that has separated us, and it needs to be broken down. A wall as delicate as glass could shatter the hopes and dreams of a nation. It should be the easiest material to break, but needs to done with extreme care, without injuring or hurting anyone.

Where do we start? 

Where do we start? We’re told that any change should first start from within. As a Muslim, I see that the private practice of our faith has been dragged to the public space. The company we keep, our dress, our mannerisms, our interests, and even the terms we use in our everyday speech measure our religiosity – all of these have become public markers of being ‘a good Muslim’. This has made us Muslims look ‘different’, different from the Muslim community that lived and interacted as Sri Lankans some decades ago.

I also see changes in religious and cultural consciousness along the same lines in other religious and ethnic communities living in Sri Lanka. All of us need to revert if we are to celebrate our differences and independence while standing united. Let’s keep our practice of religion as a private affair. We can certainly practice our faith without compromising on religious teaching and still be a proud Sri Lankan. Didn’t our parents and grandparents live that way?

The British who ruled us through their strategy of ‘divide and rule’ implanted racism and segregation amongst Sri Lankans. They made sure that the majority Sinhalese were kept ‘under control’ by bringing the Tamil community into administrative services, and encouraged the Muslims, who were traders, to continue in commerce.

The Sinhala Buddhists continued to be peasant farmers, deprived of their basic rights, necessities, education, and freedom. This gave rise to Buddhist revivalists like Anagarika Dharmapala to incite hate not just against the white colonialists but also towards the Muslim and Tamil population. Yet, since the greater enemy was the coloniser, there was unity amongst the political leaders of all communities to fight the common enemy.

This was rewarded by our blessed independence on 4 February 1948, where our great leaders accepted the challenge of marching forward as Sri Lankans together. Regretfully, in less than a decade S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike introduced racist and ethnic politics to Sri Lanka, with the Sinhala Only slogan. His assassination by a Buddhist monk put paid to the Bandaranaike-inspired racism.

The governments that followed attempted to bridge the gap that was planted by the colonial masters and Bandaranaike to divide and rule. More Sinhalese were absorbed into State service, educational opportunities were made available, competition was encouraged in business, and a semblance of justice was beginning to take its place. The minority communities saw these sudden changes as discrimination against them. State sector employment had more competition, business monopoly was challenged, and access to education for a larger population threatened the dominance of the elite.

Discrimination and increasing disparity

Sadly, discrimination also seeped in, and increasing disparity led to the ethnic conflict resulting in a 30-year brutal war which cost over 300,000 Sri Lankan lives, trillions of rupees to the nation and left behind a completely divided citizenry.

The military victory of the ethnic war in Nandikadal in May 2009 brought about euphoria amongst the majority Buddhist community leading to a ‘victor takes it all’ attitude. Further, the extremist Buddhists who assumed that they had finished off the Tamils now began targeting other minorities, particularly the Muslim community.

Over 650 incidents of violence, hate and intimidation have been recorded against the Muslims since 2013. The evangelical Christians too have recorded similar numbers. Commercial interests played a major role in this destabilisation process. Mosques, homes, Churches and businesses were targeted, thereby creating fear amongst the religious minority population.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa who claims to have united the nation when he won the ethnic war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) failed to reconcile the divided nation even though all communities gave him a record mandate for his second term as President. A great opportunity wasted! He also manipulated the head count in Parliament by welcoming crossovers from the United National Party in Opposition with perks and privileges hereto unknown in Sri Lankan politics. This also gave him a two-thirds majority, which encouraged him to change the Constitution and attempt a third term at the presidency.

The coalition that came together to fight the Rajapaksa nepotism, corruption, racism, violence, and misrule brought about a Government that promised ‘Good Governance’. Two years on, the promised good governance, recovery of the stolen loot, investigations into the murders of Lasantha Wickremetunge, Prageeth Ekneligoda and rugby player Wasim Thajudeen seem only a mirage. Sri Lankans have once more become disillusioned by politics in Sri Lanka. This needs to be changed, and this can certainly be changed if we all resolve to do so.

My plea to my fellow Sri Lankan brothers and sisters – let us resolve from this day of independence on 4 February to not mistrust or hate each other and re-establish our ties of Sri Lankan kinship, and return to the days when we were one, as a nation. Respice finem.

Unconditional Muslim Support facilitated island’s independence

In the aftermath of the World War 11, agitation for political reforms and independence began to gather momentum. However the British government insisted that three quarters of the population should support the demand for independence to ensure that the rights of minorities were protected. With the Sinhalese community as a whole constituting less than three quarters of the population, this was an impossible demand to fulfil unless the minorities supported it.

2017-02-03

Crucial Muslim support facilitated the process of Sri Lanka gaining independence from the British in 1948 and helped end almost four and half centuries of European colonial rule in the island.  

Many still remember the leading role played by Muslim leaders such as Dr. T.B. Jayah, Sir Razik Fareed, Dr. M.C.M. Kaleel and Dr. Badi-ud-din Mahmud in the constitutional reforms of this country and their enthusiastic support for the demand of the Dominion Status and independence. They never obstructed the political progress of the country.  

For example when the demand for independence began gathering momentum, World War 11 broke out in Europe. The British government urged all its colonies to support them assuring that they would be given independence after the war.   

In the aftermath of the World War 11, agitation for political reforms and independence began to gather momentum. However the British government insisted that three quarters of the population should support the demand for independence to ensure that the rights of minorities were protected. With the Sinhalese community as a whole constituting less than three quarters of the population, this was an impossible demand to fulfil unless the minorities supported it.   

Tamil Congress leader G.G. Ponnambalam demanded equal representation, better known as fifty –fifty. However the Muslims stood fully behind the majority community and helped to meet the British demand for the support of two third of the population, despite past sufferings and disadvantages.   
Addressing a gathering at the Zahira College grounds under the chairmanship of Sir Mohamed Macan Markar to protest against the inadequate representation of Muslims in the Legislative Council, Dr. Badi-ud-din Mahmud, the Secretary of the All Ceylon Muslim Political Conference said on 5 March 1939;   

“Let me assure my Sinhalese countrymen that I am one among them in demanding complete freedom for our country. They can count on me as one of the most ardent admirers of their legitimate national and cultural aspirations. In me and in my community, let them know that they find the most trusted friends and kind neighbours in this island. They would never find wanting in me or in my community that unflinching loyalty and patriotism that this little island would demand one day from its sons and daughters to carve out a niche of fame for itself as a self-respecting unit in a world federation. Let me also assure my Sinhalese friends that the brave community to which I belong shall never consider any sacrifice too great to make Lanka a happy, prosperous and glorious country in the world where not one section of its population but every son and daughter of her soil shall legitimately take pride in her glorious destiny”.  

In keeping with this policy the three Muslim representatives in the State Council extended their whole-hearted support for the “Dominion Status Bill” – a Sri Lankan bill sponsored by the late Mr.S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike when it came for the vote on 9 November 1945. T.B. Jayah and Dr. M.C.M. Kaleel spoke in favour of the bill while Sir Razik Fareed and Dr. Kaleel voted in favour as Jayah was not present during the time of voting.  

During his speech Razik Fareed said; “The All Ceylon Moors’ Association pledge their support to the resolution of the Hon. Leader under discussion today. Nothing else would at the moment give me great pleasure to do so, and to express my whole-hearted support to the Hon. leader’s proposal. As my community and I have always stood by them, I must say that in the hour of his triumph we join hands with him in the forward march to the goal of the proposal to which he aspires”…  

Supporting the Sri Lankan Bill despite its disadvantages to Muslims and defining the attitude of Muslims towards the bill, Mr.T.B. Jayah said: “I am glad, Sir, that it has been stated that this is not the moment for jubilation or exultation or even for mutual recrimination. I certainly think that this is not the occasion to speak of the discomfiture of the minority communities or of the victory of the majority community.

As far as I am concerned, I speak with the full support of members of the Muslim community. I saw to it that the Ceylon Muslim League, representing the Muslim community of Ceylon, consulted Muslim representatives in different parts of the country on the important issues before the house and I am in a position to say that the Muslim members of this Council have the fullest backing of the Muslim community in this island.  

When the Muslims of the Council decided to take a definite stand at the time the Sri Lanka Bill was introduced, they did so for one and one reason only. The reason was that where the political freedom of this country was involved, they were prepared to go to any length, even to the point of sacrificing advantages and benefit as a result of such action.  As far as I am concerned, Sir, I do not consider any right greater than the right of political freedom and therefore, although I am fully conscious of those disadvantages of the Bill, looking at it from a narrow point of view, yet I am prepared to support this Bill.” 

Expressing his gratitude to the Muslim members on behalf of the Sinhalese community, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike assured that he would consider any reasonable request by the Muslim community. Bandaranaike said: “I say that if any member has brought closer the achievement of agreement among the various sections of the people of the country by an attitude of generosity where even those with whom he is concerned to differ, I say the fullest credit must go more than to anyone else among us, to the Honorable nominated member, Mr. T.B. Jayah. He has made a speech today that will have a great effect in bringing unity among the people of this country in bringing some sense of reality to this struggle, however it may shape, that we are going to undertake to obtain a satisfactory measure of freedom”..  

“What have the three members,T.B.Jayah, Dr. M.C.M. Kaleel and Razik Fareed, done? There is provided in the Bill, a Scheme of Representation under which the Muslim community in this country might suffer in the form in which it appears, but yet, he himself so sincerely determined to work for the main idea of freedom that he was prepared to vote for the principle embodied in the Bill.  

But I can give the Hon. Nominated member, Mr. T.B.Jayah, this assurance on behalf of, I think, the vast majority, at least the Community that I represent, that in the struggle for freedom, whatever may or may not be the recommendation of the Soulbury Commission on our representation, he may rest assured that we will be quite prepared to consider any reasonable point of view that might be put forward.”   

Thus the Muslims provided the required support of a two-third majority of the population, paving the way for the island’s independence on 4 February 1948 when Mr. D.S.Senanayake lowered the British flag and hoisted the Sri Lankan National Flag and declared the island’s independence.   

 Muslims have lived in harmony with the Sinhalese and Tamils for centuries and they want to continue to do so. As stated by former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva rightly that “Muslims have been a peaceful ethnic group interacting with other religious and ethnic groups, cordially interlinking those cultures with their own culture. They never organized themselves for armed insurrection or destruction”.   

They were not party to the ethnic conflict. However their sufferings were immense.   

What many conveniently forget is the crucial role played by the Muslims even in preserving the territorial integrity of the island. For example, during the early days, the Tamil militants’ call for a separate state had the full backing of India, and the island’s armed forces were not equipped or trained, as they are today, to deal with them.   

From the very inception, Muslims throughout the country vehemently opposed calls for the division of the country and firmly stood for territorial integrity and unity. Nevertheless, they were entangled in this unfortunate and unwanted ethnic conflict only to face death, devastation, loss of properties and livelihood and displacement with no appreciation. Around 130,000 Muslims driven out from Jaffna have been still languishing in refugee camps in appalling conditions and their plight has been nobody’s business for more than 20 years.   

Had the Muslims joined the Tamil militancy during its early stage the island’s fate would have been sealed and the history would have projected a new political landscape. It is unfortunate that these sufferings and sacrifices have never been highlighted in their proper perspective. I am sure the Muslim community is prepared to take ten steps if the authorities take one step to take them into confidence to pave the way for cordiality and communal harmony.  

Tamils protest Sri Lanka's Independence Day

04 Feb  2017

Tamils in the North-East have protested on Sri Lanka's 69th Independence Day, as a large security forces parade was held in Jaffna.

Jaffna Magistrate's Court had banned protests obstructing the road, but despite demonstrators confining themselves to the sides, police obstructed the civilians from moving.

Family members of the disappeared and of political detainees attended the protests and chanted slogans, demanding the release of detainees, answers for the disappeared and for the removal of the military from Tamil land.

Members of the military and the police filmed protestors. Special Task Force personell were also rushed to the scene.

The protest came as an unprecedented large military parade was held in Jaffna, causing deep anxiety to locals, still traumatised from decades of military violence. 

Sri Lanka's military is thought to have committed mass atrocities on a large scale and maintains a heavy presence in the Tamil-dominated North-East of the island. Impunity prevails 8 years after the end of the armed conflict and suspected war criminals remain amongst the forces in the Tamil region.

Sri Lanka’s Future

By Imtiyaz Razak –February 4, 2017

Dr. Imtiyaz Razak

Sri Lanka (known as Ceylon until 1972) a small island in the Indian Ocean is situated at the foot of the South Asian subcontinent celebrates its transfer of power from the British colonialists on Feb. 04, 1948. Many Sri Lankans and their elites as well as politicians called it independence day. I call it the day of transfer from white elites to local brown elites and their politicians.

The question is what has Sri Lanka gained in the last six decades? There is no better answer, but the country’s modernization processes polarized people at masses level along ethnic and religious lines. The youth rebellion from the South mainly by Sinhalese [the majority ethnic group] led by People Liberation Front [known as the JVP] both in 1971 and 1987-89 and the Tamils led by the LTTE [known as the Tamil Tigers, from 1977-2009] crippled the country’s progress. The rebellions mainly by young and poor youths from both communities suggest that modernization program failed to generate conditions for ordinary people to have better life despite the fact that the country has provided sophisticated welfare services to its people regardless of their ethnic and religious loyalties.

Sri Lanka is a beautiful country. I love it because that is the ONLY country I can call it proudly as my country. But it’s profound failure to generate trust among common people triggered tensions and thus paved the way for conflicts and wars. Though the country’s military tensions between Tamil Tigers and the government came to an end in May 2009 with the disproportionate casualties among Tamils, a significant portion of the Tamils in the North and East think that the regime in Colombo fails to deliver peace to them.

On the other hand, Muslims of Sri Lanka, the country’s second largest ethno-religious group, face challenge from section of Sinhala-Buddhists, who think that Muslims pose serious threat to the Sinhala-Buddhist hegemonic schemes. History suggests that Muslims of Sri Lanka did not attempt to compromise the country’s territorial integrity by seeking radical political demands such as separate state. Muslim elites and politicians adopted pragmatic political accommodation with the Sinhala-Buddhist politicians give the fact that they are second largest minority so seeking alliance would help win benefits and concessions. That political strategy from Muslim politicians contributed to gain considerable concessions from ruling elites since 1948. But Muslim elites’ political positions on the other hand actively annoyed Tamil nationalists. Common Muslims, who enjoyed economic and religious benefits from their elites cooperation with ruling administrations, paid deadly price for their elites hostility toward the Tamil nationalists. My academic papers on Sri Lanka Muslims examines Muslim issues, refer to –A.R.M. Imtiyaz (2012), Identity, Choices and Crisis : A Study of Muslim Political Leadership in Sri Lanka, Journal of Asian and African Studies. A.R.M. Imtiyaz, Muslims’in’post, war ‘Sri’Lanka:’understanding’ Sinhala, Buddhist’mobilization’ against ‘them,’Asian’Ethnicity,’16′(2):’2015,’186–202’

So there is huge challenge out there for Sri Lanka’s ruling political class. Winning trust from ethnic minorities is key to win peace. Colombo should find ways to ease tensions by generating economic opportunities for all. The concerns of the Tamils and Muslims need to be eased by seeking better political settlements with the leaders of those communities.

Very considerable positive moments existed among Tamils and Muslims soon after the current regime came to power. Many from these two communities thought that new government, which is literally a political alliance to run the country, would radically challenge the fundamentals that triggered tensions. But those expectations simply underestimated the major political aspirations of the Sinhala-Buddhists who think that Sri Lanka is the only country where Sinhala-Buddhists can claim domination. Political aspirations of the Sinhala-Buddhists need to be understood to understand Sri Lanka’s ethnic tensions.

This dynamic complicates Sri Lanka’s journey to win peace acceptable to all. Sri Lanka practices electoral democracy. So politicians need to please or embrace their constituencies to win or consolidate power. Though democracy helps seek peace in ethically divided communities, it would also undermine ethnic harmony if political forces would use ethnic leverages to gain electoral success.

Challenges are practically huge for Sri Lanka. It means that Sri Lanka has long way to gain true independence for it’s own people. And people in Sri Lanka deserve true peace and stability. Will we ever win these beautiful ideals? History will answer.

Read More

Towards a cultural critique of Sri Lankan politics – Conclusion

Read the previous parts of this series: Part One and Part Two 

by Izeth Hussain-Feb 4, 2017

Feb 3, 2017

( February 3, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In the second part of this article I argued that those who are exceptional achievers in the sphere of economics are motivated by self-interest but they benefit the public all the same. How does private vice, shown in the selfishness of the successful, conduce to the public good? I argued that Adam Smith was wrong in thinking that the explanation was to be found in the self-correcting mechanism provided by the “hidden hand “of the market. I thought that it was rather the sense of unity in the society as a whole that was the determining factor. I took as the best exemplars of unity the Western countries and the countries whose economics and politics have been shaped by a Confucian cultural background, pre-eminently the East Asian and to a lesser extent the South East Asian ones. The contrast is provided by the South Asian countries. Their politics have been far messier, their economic performance has been comparatively very disappointing, and significantly their societies have been far more divisive.

At this point I must digress slightly to say something about how cultural factors shaped Western perceptions about their colonies. There used to be in the Colombo Public Library a book called Orientations, originally published in the ‘thirties, by Sir Ronald Storrs who was earlier a Governor of Cyprus. He predicted that after decolonization the two stellar performers among the ex-British colonies would be Cyprus and Ceylon, both of which would retrospectively provide the best justifications for British imperialism. He couldn’t have been more wrong. Cyprus broke up, Sri Lanka also broke up temporarily and could yet do so on a permanent basis. As for its economic performance, it has been so far below its potential that it can only be regarded as utterly moronic in comparison with that of Singapore. Why was Storrs so wrong? I believe that the explanation is that he had inherited the British tradition of individualism which prioritizes the individual over the group, so that the ethnic divisions in Cyprus and Ceylon were inconsequential for him. It was the same tradition that led Soulbury to imagine that Section 29 in the Constitution would suffice to contain the potential for ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. There was no understanding of the need for forging a transethnic identity, for unity. Consequently there has never been any serious attempt at nation-building in Sri Lanka, not even today. What we have had in lieu of that is a never-ending assertion of Sinhala Buddhist supremacy.

***

What is the explanation? I would focus on the cultural factors behind Sinhalese divisiveness because it is the Sinhalese majority who mainly determine the economics and the politics of Sri Lanka. For instance, if not for the Sinhalese divisiveness which makes whichever Party that happens to be in the Opposition to oppose any and every attempt at a solution of the ethnic problem, that problem would have been solved long long long ago.

In the remainder of this article I will do no more than provide a few details about divisiveness in Sri Lanka, and further I will merely mention a cultural factor that could possibly explain that divisiveness. The reason is that in this three-part article I have broached a subject that is huge, complex, and difficult, requiring several articles to be dealt with adequately. Our divisiveness has been shown at its deepest over the Tamil ethnic problem. Some time ago I suggested a shift of focus, a paradigm shift, in our approach to the ethnic problem: each side should counter not only the racism on the other side but also the racism within its own side. The need for that has become gradually apparent. The Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact of 1957 was aborted because of opposition from the Buddhist monks and the UNP. But ten years later the Dudley-Chelvanayagam Pact was also aborted, that time because of opposition from the Buddhists monks and the SLFP. The latter abortion was enigmatic because the D-C Pact was similar to what the SLFP itself had proposed in the BC Pact. The probable explanation for the enigma is this: both major parties, the UNP and the SLFP, have their quota of racists who find the idea of making concessions to the Tamils unbearable and therefore when there is the prospect of a solution they scuttle it. Consequently when Chandrika Kumaratunge made proposals that might have led to a solution the UNP scuttled them in 2000. Today, we can be sure that if there is the prospect of a solution the Joint Opposition will oppose it. The Tamil side does not seem to be much different from the Sinhalese one as shown by the recent plot to assassinate Sumanthiran. We must recognize that the endlessly protracted ethnic imbroglio has underlying it a deep divisiveness in our society.

That divisiveness was shown also in the ridiculous travesty that we made of our democracy over several decades. General elections were seen as wars and the victorious Party behaved like a conqueror, which led me over two decades ago to write a satirical piece on what I chose to call “conquest democracy”. In the old days after 1931 we used to have pre-election violence but after 1948 the institution of post election violence became firmly entrenched. It rose to a mad crescendo in 1977 when JR, the hooligan President, gave leave to the police force so that the Jay Gang could make merry at the expense of the conquered SLFP. Three weeks later they made merry at the expense of the conquered Tamils, setting off a war that led to a hundred thousand deaths. After the elections the conquering Party treated the state sector as a private estate, making appointments on the principle that “We have the right to appoint anybody we like to any post we like”.  That was one of the two principles on which both major parties were agreed, the other being the right to keep on increasing their perks for the benefit of the people. A peculiar feature of our democracy, probably unique, was that every village in Sri Lanka was divided between adherents of the two major Parties, and democracy became organized hatred. A British scholar noted that a festival that had been celebrated in common in our villages down the millennia came to be celebrated on two different days in two different locations by adherents of the two major Parties.

We tend to think of our divisiveness only or mainly in terms of the divisions between our major ethnic groups, the Sinhalese, the Tamils, and the Muslims, failing to note the divisions within each of our ethnic groups – an important failure because intra-ethnic divisions can impact adversely on inter-ethnic relations. For instance, it has been a commonplace that the three low-country castes, the Karavas, the Duravas, and the Salagamas, most of whom came from South India after 1505 have been since the nineteenth century more chauvinist towards the minorities than the Goigama. The most divisive of our ethnic groups are the Muslims who by way of compensation have been ostentatious about their supposed solidarity. That could be the explanation why their politicians have been notorious over the decades for their failure, or rather refusal, to speak up for the legitimate interests of the Muslims, which I believe has contributed in no small measure to deteriorating Muslim relations with the Sinhalese. All this divisiveness in Sri Lanka is doubtless the main reason why its performance has been so far below its potential.

What is the explanation? I would focus on the cultural factors behind Sinhalese divisiveness because it is the Sinhalese majority who mainly determine the economics and the politics of Sri Lanka. For instance, if not for the Sinhalese divisiveness which makes whichever Party that happens to be in the Opposition to oppose any and every attempt at a solution of the ethnic problem, that problem would have been solved long long long ago. The most important factor behind the divisiveness is I believe the “Karmic theory”. There is rebirth and stations in life are determined by Karma, by the good and bad deeds in an individual’s prior lives, which results in the caste system. Louis Dumont in his classic on the Indian caste system, Homo Hierarchicus, argued – correctly I think – that the caste system is not just another system of social stratification like the Western stratification according to class. The difference is that the latter valorizes equality whereas the caste system valorizes inequality, which furthermore is given a religious validation under Hinduism. It is not given that validation under Buddhism but the belief in rebirth and karma leads ineluctably to the caste system which valorizes division and hierarchy. That could be the main reason why both the Sinhalese and the Tamils produce such obnoxious racists. They are in a minority in both cases but it is they who in matters ethnic have been calling the shots. It is time to extirpate them.

Work honestly and with commitment: President tells politicians

 

2017-02-04
Highlighting the need to eliminate corruption, bribery, malpractices, waste and fraud, President Maithripala Sirisena said today it was essential for the politicians and public servants to work honestly and with commitment. 

 “When we attempt to achieve economic prosperity, it is essential for the politician to be a character of honesty and commitment. Furthermore I trust the politicians and public servants fulfill the responsibilities and duties honestly and with commitment to build the Motherland,” he said.

President Sirisena called upon all sections of the society to work with determination and commitment to win economic freedom through achieving the goal of sustainable development and poverty alleviation. 

  “This goal will be achieved through the commitment of intellectuals, the strength of the labour force of workers and peasants, active participation of the youth of the nation as well as efficient utilization of innovative human resource force”, the President said. 

Addressing the nation on the 69th Independence Anniversary at the Galle Face this morning, the President said the economic freedom could be achieved through a knowledge based economy with innovative technical skill development. He pointed out that the nation has the capacity and strength of skilled human resources and intellectuals as well as resourceful young generation to carry out such development endeavours. 

The President said that in the 21st Century, the nations need knowledge based education, knowledge economy, innovative economy, digital economy and in this process the youths should play a pivotal role. Stating that the youth of Sri Lanka has the determination and desire for absorbing new technology and innovative skills, he said that the government would provide all the requirements essential for the youths to obtain that knowledge. “The young generation is the inheritors and custodians of the building process of the knowledge based economy”.

 “I trust that the youths, intellectuals, politicians, all other sections of the society would fulfill their responsibilities and duties with absolute commitment and determination to build the Motherland,” President Sirisena said.

 He said that there is a new meaning in today’s freedom as we are talking about a freedom that blows freely across the skies. “This is an era in which the human freedom, media freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom to assemble, freely blow across the skies.” 

The President, pointing out that there are strengths and weaknesses in social democracy and market economy, said that we should understand those strengths and weaknesses in order to adopt a mixed system by obtaining positive segments of both the systems.   

The President recalled the sacrifices made by all the communities to gain independence during various struggles from 1505 to 1948. “We have to remember that sweet fragrance of their great sacrifices with gratitude today”.  

 “During the 30-year old conflict to liberate the country from the LTTE, the heroic soldiers made many sacrifices.  Hundreds of thousands people sacrifices, lives and limbs and their families also suffered immense difficulties. Economy was ruined. Today we have to ask the question whether all those who died were the losers and all those who are living are the victors? I believe that all of us should learn a lesson from that”.

 The President pointed out that the government’s endeavour for reconciliation and communal harmony has been praised locally as well as internationally. He said that he considers the opportunistic forces that are against reconciliation process as the forces against the country.

 President Sirisena called upon everybody to fulfill the responsibilities and duties to build a nation which is economically prosperous, fortified in knowledge and maintains international goodwill.

Independence day and the plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka

Feb 04, 2017

69th Sri Lankan Independence day and the plight of Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka. Today Sri Lankan state celebrates its 69thyear of Independence from the British colonial rule, but it is not a day celebrated by the Tamil people in the island. The Tamil people who constitute a Nation had their own independent sovereignty before the colonial era. When the colonial rule ended in 1948, a system of governance thrust upon the Tamil nation by the departing British rulers at the time, made the Tamil people a permanent “minority” in a combined entity then known as Ceylon. The Sinhalese who had numerical superiority in the combined entity had become the new colonial masters of the Tamil people and continue to exercise domination over the Tamil nation. Giving supremacy to Sinhalese and Buddhism they had continued to deny equality and freedom to the non-Sinhalese. 

Right throughout its post independent history, the Tamil people have been subjected to pogroms, massacres and genocide. Not a single person has been held accountable for these grave injustices inflicted on the Tamil nation under the Sinhala colonial rule. For the first three decades since “Independence”, the Tamil people have been clamouring through non-violent, democratic means for equal status and freedom from Sinhala domination and aggression. These demands were met with violence by the Sinhala dominated state which unleashed pogroms against Tamils repeatedly. This resulted in emergence of armed resistance to this Sinhala colonial aggression. This armed resistance and liberation movement which set to reinstate the independent sovereignty of the Tamil people was brutally crushed by committing genocide against the entire Tamil Nation, in a war that ended in May 2009. The international community which had supported this war on the false pretext of combating “terrorism” had belatedly acknowledged its failure to protect the Tamil people. 

Since then the Sinhala state has accelerated its colonial programme in which the Tamil Nations Homeland in the North East of the Island is being systematically decimated. The Tamil people’s Homeland is being colonised by Sinhala settlers from the south. It is heavily militarised with 15 of the 20 Sri Lankan military battalions deployed in the Tamil Homeland. The Sinhala military is occupying Tamil people’s land refusing their right to return to their own private lands. As the Sri Lankan state celebrates “Independence” day, the Tamil people of Keppapulavu and Puthukkudiyiruppu, two of the many villages where the Sri Lankan military is occupying Tamil people’s land, are on a hunger strike, demanding return of their own land. These people who traditionally live off their land are denied their livelihoods. 

The new Sri Lankan government which came into power in January 2015 promising to address the violations against the Tamil people is trying to hoodwink the international community, by empty promises to address the issues of land grab, militarisation, security sector reform and a solution to the national conflict. Unfortunately even the easiest deliverables like the release of political prisoners, release of private land, release of a comprehensive list of the missing persons and repeal of the draconian PTA remain undelivered. This is an age old ploy by the Sri Lankan state which is very familiar to Tamil people. The Sri Lankan state will continue to delay and distract delivery of any form of justice to the Tamils in the island since it believes that prolonging the delivery would eventually tire the international community and the UN, as the focus moves away from Sri Lanka. 

British Tamils Forum stand in solidarity with the people of Keppapulavu and Puthukudiyiruppu, who are on a hunger strike in front of the Sri Lankan military, fighting for their own land and livelihood to be returned to them. We call upon the Tamil leadership in Sri Lanka, Tamil Nadu and the Diaspora to rally around these dispossessed people, so that land grabbed by the Sri Lankan state through its military, Sinhala Settlements and construction of Buddhist structures, are returned to their original inhabitants immediately. We call upon the international community to remain focused on Sri Lanka which continues with its violations against the Tamil people, with impunity. 

BTF wish to reiterate that an accountability process strengthened by the international community is essential to curtail the continuing injustices of the kind which denies people their basic right to earn a living and live in their own land in peace. Failure to ensure justice will eventually lead to struggles of the people on the ground which has the potential to destabilise the region, and renew the conflict. 

BTF calls upon the governments of the UK, India, other European Union countries and the UNHRC to take immediate and sustained action to ensure the Sri Lankan government delivers on the promises it made through the UNHRC resolution ( 30/1 – 01 Oct 2015) it co-sponsored.

Life After Independence – Malignancy Of Corruption

By Lankamithra –February 4, 2017

“Be like the bird who, pausing in her flight awhile on boughs too slight, feels them give way beneath her, and yet sings, knowing she hath wings”.  ~Victor Hugo

They say we got independence from the British colonial powers in 1948. It has been sixty nine long years and the journey has not been very exciting to look back upon. At the beginning of this journey, those who were dubbed as ‘fathers of the nation’ and others who were originally engaged in the so-called ‘Independence struggle’ began the navigation of a nation’s journey towards self-fulfillment, its goals of serving the masses who were mostly below poverty level, three fourths of who were living in remote rural areas.

Since Independence, this nation has gone through seven regime changes. These changes have been swapped between two political philosophies which are diametrically opposed to each other. The United National Party (UNP) and Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), which could be broadly termed as the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ respectively, have been fundamentally dominated by two families except in two circumstances. Once was when R Premadasa assumed the leadership of the UNP and the other when the Mahinda Rajapaksa was honored with the responsibility of leading the SLFP. Since Independence, the leadership of the UNP was in the hands of two family clans- Senanayakes and Jayewardenes. Except for the short term of R Premadasa from 1989 to 1993, even up to the present time, the UNP’s leadership has not been outside these two family clans. The present leader Ranil Wickremesinghe is a nephew of J R Jayewardene. If not for the fact that J R Jayewardene had the foresight, equanimity and a great sense of equality and above all the daring to name Premadasa as his successor, we would not have seen a representative of the so-called déclassé leading our nation. After Premadasa, although Gamini Dissanayake, again a representative of the Kandyan, Govigama Buddhists assumed leadership of the UNP for a very short time up to his unfortunate and gruesome assassination, the leadership of the party went back to a Jayewardene-relative.

On the side of the SLFP, although falsely claimed as a party of the ‘common man’, there is nothing ‘common’ about the SLFP leadership until its present leader Maithripala Sirisena assumed its leadership. Fundamentally a family-centered political party, the feudal genre of those who held the leadership of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, at a time when the people at large were looking for an alternative to the UNP, appeared on the horizon as a savior. Some social scientists and historians attribute this to the nation’s historical subservience to a ‘King’, an authoritarian head at the top. This argument might have some credence, yet the British influence on the shaping of the national mindset towards a democratic, constitutional type of governance is real and evidence abounds in the dynamics of our people adjusting to and adoption of democratic systems and other administrative organisms. This clash between propensities towards authoritarian rule and democratic principles continues and the political parties of today are confronted with this reality. Whether the current leaderships of our political parties are capable of or have the elementary capacity to understand these nuanced undertones of politics and adopt a strategic approach to achieve their political ends is yet to be seen.

Read More

What Makes A Nation Rich?

Helle Thorning-Schmidt is a former Danish politician who was Prime Minister of Denmark from 2011 to 2015, and the Leader of the Social Democrats from 2005 to 2015. She is the first woman to hold either post. In 2016 she was appointed CEO of Save the Children International, the world’s leading independent children’s charity with responsibility for programmes reaching over 55 million children in 120 countries.

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt - Feb 3, 2017Feb 3, 2017

( February 3, 2017, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) “What makes a nation rich?” Is it simply a case of material wealth, or is it something more? Something less measurable perhaps, but which truly enriches a country and the wellbeing – even happiness – of its citizens?

For some the answer may be as simple as gross domestic product (GDP) per capita: the higher the number, the richer the nation. For others, a country’s wealth may be measured by its possession of valuable natural resources.

My own experience of leading a nation gave me a different perspective on this question. Denmark is a relatively small country by population, the 133rd largest, but it is comparatively wealthy – the 16th richest nation in the world. Our advanced economy and our progressive tax system allows Danish governments to invest in improving the lives of citizens.

In particular, I believe that a nation ought to provide for its citizens a strong and inclusive education system, free and accessible healthcare; peace, security and cohesion backed up by stable institutions; equal rights championed by the state and upheld at a community level; cohesive communities and jobs in responsible and sustainable businesses so that parents can provide for their children, all of this funded by fair and progressive taxation – with no corruption.

As Prime Minister, I did my best to deliver on these principles. But perhaps even more important, it was not just our own citizens that we were able to support. During my time in office we used the strong economic base we established to increase the percentage of our GDP spent on humanitarian and development aid. Our wealth was used overseas to help those living in the most challenging circumstances, and while we helped those individuals and communities rebuild their lives, we also built a more stable, prosperous world with stronger trading links.

Looking around the world, it became ever clearer to me that true national wealth could not be measured alone by gold or cash reserves. Substantial material resources, if they are not shared fairly, do not necessarily make that nation wealthy. Instead, countries must enshrine the fundamentals of opportunity and access for all their citizens, especially children.

A rich country is one where every child has an equal chance in life regardless of their parentage; where they live; their gender; their race; their caste, or any other criteria you can name. A country that places equality at its core is rich because it creates stability, prosperity and cohesion. No child is subject to the lottery of fate – their prospects all but decided by the circumstance of their birth.

***

So now that I am Chief Executive of Save the Children International, I have gone further, turning this question around to consider what might make a country ‘poor’.

***

Earlier this year, we calculated that if you were to take all 65.3 million people forcibly displaced around the world and place them in a single ‘state’ then it would be the 21st largest in the world. Imagine 21.3 million refugees, 40.8 million internally displaced people and 3.2 million asylum seekers – all living in one country.

This state would possess a population three times larger than Australia. It would also experience faster population growth than any other nation – increasing at a rate of 9.75 per cent per year, meaning that at its current rate it would become the 5th largest state in the world by 2030.

But the most important statistic about this ‘imagined’ state – and this one may not surprise you – is that it would also be the poorest. It would lose far too many children to diseases we could easily prevent, have high rates of child marriage, its citizens would not be secure, or educated, and they would have little chance of working their way towards a better life.

To take just one example, early marriage among Syrian refugee girls in Jordan has risen from 12 per cent in 2011 to 32 per cent in 2014 – a shocking 167 per cent increase over three years. Globally, we know that one girl under the age of 15 is married every seven seconds, with girls as young as 10 forced to marry much older men in countries including Afghanistan, Yemen, India and Somalia. Giving birth is the second biggest cause of death among adolescent girls, second only to suicide.

The materially richer world, countries like Denmark, have an obligation to help these people. In making available more resources to the most deprived, I believe that you become richer yourself.

At times it can feel as though we live in dark times for International Development, with escalating conflicts and more humanitarian emergencies around the world. But past decades have seen rapid transformations with real change. Last year the world also agreed on 17 Sustainable Development goals. That we have a consensus on reaching these by 2030 is a great starting point, and through the partnership and hard work of individuals, governments, the private sector and civil society, we can meet the goals and make the world richer.