Thursday, October 26, 2017

Constitution Making & Creating A Sri Lankan Identity

By Arun Kumaresan – OCTOBER 25, 2017

Arun Kumaresan – Air Vice Marshal (Ret’d)

Much has been spoken about a Sri Lankan identity but it has been limited to mere words and to occasional speeches that are few and far between. I have to concede at least it is spoken once a year in a ceremonial setting on February 4th– the day we became independent from the colonial rule and forgotten within hours on the same day.

At least on this day we pay homage to the great leaders of our struggle for independence starting from Keppitipola Dissawe to Puran Appu, the heroic Buddhist clergy led by Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala, Wariyapola Sri Sumangala, Migettuwatte Gunananda, the Tibetan poet monk S. Mahinda, to F.R. Senanayake, D.S. Senanayake, D.B. Jayatilleke, John Kotelawala Snr., Anagarika Dharmapala, Ponnambalam Arunachalam, P. Ramanathan. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, T.B. Jayah, the left leaders such as S.A. Wickremasinghe, N.M. Perera, Colvin R. de Silva, Philip Gunawardena and Bernard Soysa, working class leaders like A.E. Gunesinghe, N. Sanmugathasan and Kandasamy, leaders of plantation workers like Natesar Aiyar, women leaders like Mary Rutnam, Daisy Dias Bandaranaike, Doreen Wickremasinghe, Selina Perera, Parameswary Kandiah, Noble Rajasingham, Viviene Gunewardena, Kusuma Gunewardena, Florence Senanayake, working class women leaders such as Agnes de Silva, Ponsinahamy, and foreign leaders like Marie Musaeus Higgins, Clara Motwani, Col. Olcott – and all the other unsung heroes of our freedom struggle against foreign domination. It is clear, as the names suggest that we were united in the struggle to gain independence but we still remain divided after 70 odd years of gaining independence.

We also have failed to live up to the visionary leaders post independence, who clearly were hell bent to create a United Sri Lanka. The first Prime Minister of Independent Sri Lanka, D.S. Senanayake said after unfurling the national flag in February 1948; “our nation comprises many races, each with a culture and a history of its own. It is for us to blend all that is best in us —– in establishing peace, security and justice for all people”.

When presenting the Tamil Language Bill in Parliament in July 1958, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike stated ” so that we can march forward together and achieve that progress ……… under this freedom which we have, freedom for the Sinhalese – yes, remember too, that it is freedom for the Tamils, for the Muslims, for the Malays, for the Burghers ………. and if it is not freedom in that way, for all”.

The other nations that liberated from the colonial rule in the same era have had remarkable success in their act of nation building. They knew failure to be’ inclusive’ and accommodating all segments of the society will lay the foundation for discontent, division and conflict. Hindu majority India opted to have the emblem of “dharmachakra” used as a symbol by the Buddhist King Asoka in their national flag instead of a symbol that depict Hindu signage. They opted for a national anthem written by a Bengali poet Rabithranath Tagore – A language spoken by 7% of the population – instead of ‘Vanthe Matheram’ due to the simple reason as it contains reverence to ‘Durga’ ; the Hindu warrior goddess, which may alienate the believers of the other faiths to sing in unison.

Singapore too was magnanimous after they came out from the Malayan federation; they allowed the star depicting the 13% Malay population to remain in the national flag and entire Singapore sings their national anthem in Basha Malay and NOT in Chinese. Their first President was a Singaporean of Indian ancestry and the present is a Singaporean with Malay ancestry.

Founder President Sukarno of Indonesia too was a visionary and was specific that the constitution for the decolonized Indonesia with 87% followers of Islamic faith will not have any Islamic religious quotes as pre amble for the simple reason it may not be held with reverence by the minority religious practitioners. Indonesian constitution has a quote from ‘Panchaseela’. These symbolic acts laid the foundation in creating UNITED countries.

It is with pride we should note the similar visionary thinking of our President Mr. Maithiripala Sirisena. In his speech on the resolution to set up the Constitutional Assembly he said that whilst people in the South were fearful of the word “Federal”, people in the North were fearful of the word “Unitary.” A Constitution is not a document that people should fear. His inspirational quote amplifies his aspiration to create a Constitution, which all citizens could own and uphold with reverence similar to the status given to the ‘Holy Texts’.

Meaningless Debate Of Unitary Or Federal

For 70 years we have been dabbling and debating on these words that have become poison to each side. The uselessness of the above two terminology could be well seen from the following examples. Unitary Nations that are seeking secession; Scotland is seeking divorce irrespective of the United Kingdom being ‘Unitary’ and they lost by a narrow margin at the referendum. Spain another ‘Unitary’ nation and Catalonia is attempting to secede. Similarly ‘Federal’ Nations too have encountered such challenges. Canada had a similar experience in Quebec and India in Punjab and both countries have now overcome their challenges and remain united. In contrast majority of the nations in both these categories remain UNITED for decades.

The word ‘Unitary’ or ‘Federal’ has no meaning or relevance for those seeking secession. Hence, getting stuck on these words in our Constitution making process is absolutely meaningless. The only way we can overcome these perceived fears is to see each other as SRI LANKANS. This is the great challenge. Sri Lankans of all shades will call Arjuna Ranatunga and Muttaiah Muralidaran as Sri Lankan cricketers and not as a Sinhala or Tamil cricketer. Likewise, we should also be able to see our Army as Sri Lankan Army and not as a Sinhala army and Mr. Sambandan as a Sri Lankan politician and not as a Tamil politician. A true SRI LANKAN identity makes us to stay united and unity is strength.

25Oct 2017

Campaigns in support of the hunger-striking Tamil political prisoners continue in the North-East, as Jaffna residents protested in town on Tuesday.

The political prisoners remain in hospital following the severe deterioration of their health.

Three detainees at Anuradhapura prison have now been hunger-striking for a month, demanding that their cases be kept in Vavuniya High Court, rather than be transferred to Anuradhapura.

Protestors in Jaffna gathered outside the central bus station calling for the detainees’ demands to be addressed.

The political prisoners remain in hospital following the severe deterioration of their health.

Sri Lanka: Is ‘Unitary State’ An Inappropriate Term?

Generally, devolution of power from the center to the periphery, in simple terms, takes place to facilitate the implementation of the national policies of a government and the administration of its affairs in the far regions and rural areas.

by Mass L. Usuf-Oct 25, 2017

( October 25, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Interim Report dated 21 September 2017 of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly of Sri Lanka in relation the unitary character of the State mentions:

“…. Therefore, the English term “Unitary State” will not be appropriate for Sri Lanka. The Sinhala term ‘Aekiya Raajyaya’ best describes an undivided and indivisible country. The Tamil language equivalent of this is ‘Orumiththa Nadu’”.

The proposal is to remove the English expression ‘unitary State’ in the present constitution and replace it with the above Sinhala term and its Tamil language equivalent. A very pertinent question automatically arises. What would be the status accorded by the courts to the previous judicial interpretations to the word ‘unitary’? In the realm of judicial precedence, the persuasive value of stare decisis may prima facie become void in view of the substitutes ‘Aekiya Raajyaya’ and ‘Orumiththa Nadu’’. In fact, the wealth of legal interpretations from foreign jurisdictions on the term ‘unitary’ will also be lost stunting the growth of our constitutional jurisprudence. The local courts may have to develop a new wave of interpretations to give meaning to these terminologies. Where will all these lead to is an open-ended question?

Federations

Generally, devolution of power from the center to the periphery, in simple terms, takes place to facilitate the implementation of the national policies of a government and the administration of its affairs in the far regions and rural areas. This is a phenomenon that is necessitated in countries with a vast geographical embrace or a large population or due to political exigencies. Canada, the United States, Brazil and Australia are examples of large federations. Switzerland has a federal system based on its three language groups, German, French and Italian. It recognizes all three as official languages. A mechanism of this nature, in a democracy, also facilitates the active participation and representation of the citizens in the affairs of the government and matters connected to their areas. The unitary nature of the central government is preserved by its overriding powers over the sub level regional institutions. The character of government classified as Federal is different in that greater autonomy passes from the Center to the regions. This can be in varying degrees including constitutional limitations on the centre.

Unitary State

The first post-independence autochthonous constitution of Sri Lanka (1972) in Article (2) states that the Republic of Sri Lanka is a unitary state. The 1978 Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka also in Article (2) refers to the Republic of Sri Lanka as a unitary state. This unitary character of the State was dented to some extent by the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka Accord. The consequence of which as history has it, was the Thirteenth amendment to the Constitution and the Provincial Councils Act No 42 of 1987.

From Protection To Nationalism

The Tamilian sense of a distinct identity became expressive from almost the time when Universal Franchise was granted to Sri Lanka in 1931. They were unwilling to be treated as a minority by the dominant Sinhala majority. Sadly, the distrust between these two communities continues unabated.

History has it that despite non-violent Gandhi type protests by the Tamils, the Sinhala Only Act was passed in Parliament in June 1956. Shortly thereafter in August 1956 at a national convention in Trincomalee, the Federal Party reiterated its demand for federal union of Ceylon. “…. it was through the blunder of the latter (Sinhala majority leadership) that a movement whereby the Tamils at first sought purely to protect themselves became transformed into a nationalist movement.” (A.J. Wilson, ‘Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism’, Page 83).

As we all know, the Tamil struggle for language parity was later achieved under the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord in 1987, when President J.R. Jayawardena agreed to legislate making both Sinhala and Tamil as official languages.

The country is today in another decisive moment of constitutional history in the making. In this background, extending the debate to federalism is a predictable sequence. Political expediency demarcated by clear ethnic consideration have already seen the creation (by imposition) of the Provincial Councils and devolution of powers. This may be viewed by the sceptics as progressing towards achieving the goal of self-rule, at least partially. In the absence of the North and East political equation and Tamil nationalism, there would not have been a secessionist war, no Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, no thirteenth amendment, no Provincial Council Act. The reality is that all of these have become part of this conundrum. It may look funny but as a balancing exercise, President Jayawardena introduced devolution to all the other seven provinces too, in addition, to the Northern and Eastern provinces. Even though it was not desired by the seven provinces.

The Sinhala majority is cautiously messaging the Tamil nationalists that a separate Tamil land is not a feasible proposition. On the other hand, the Sinhala nationalists must appreciate that the divide created by the actions of their predecessor ethno-nationalist politicians has to be bridged. Today, this sentiment amongst the Sinhalese has in fact, proliferated. In their minds, no avenue leading to a separation in the future should be left unaddressed. Not only that, even any semblance of an idea pointing towards separation should be avoided emphatically. However, they also must accept that this country belongs to the Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers etc.

Federalist Character

Elaborating on federalism, the doyen of Indian constitutional law H.M. Seervai, says,

“In order to be called federal, it is not necessary that a Constitution should adopt the federal principle completely. It is enough if the federal principle is the predominant principle in the Constitution.”

The proposed constitution should not be superintended to legally weaken the spirit and essence of a united, undivided and indivisible Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the provision relating to the devolution of powers should not be kneaded in a manner to impress a federalist character. Such may be considered as acts of gross dishonesty. It is said that an often-quoted statement of Mr. S.J.V. Chelvanayakam was “a little now and more later”. The conspicuity of the apprehension on the side of the Sinhala nationalists is therefore, compelling. They suspect a gradual movement towards separation being nigh. More so, when it comes to ‘Aekiya Raajyaya’ and ‘Orumiththa Nadu’’ being bandied about. Why complicate a simple term ‘unitary state’ with newer classification?

Look at this simple example in Article 5 of the Italian constitution, which reads:

“The Republic is one and indivisible.”

Our drafters of the Constitution can derive some inspiration from Dr. Ambedkar, the father of the Indian Constitution. He said: The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, the federation was not the result of an agreement by the States to join in a federation, and that the federation not being the result of an agreement, no State has the right to secede from it. The federation is a Union because it is indestructible. Though the country and the people may be divided into different states for convenience of administration, the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source. …..The Drafting Committee thought that it was better to make it clear at the outset rather than to leave it to speculation or to dispute. (Khanna, H R, Making of India’s Constitution, EBC, pp20-21).

The Sri Lankan Amphibian

Professor Madabhushi Sridhar in ‘Evolution and Philosophy behind the Indian Constitution’ referring to the unique characteristics of the Indian Constitution states: “It is certainly federal in so far as it assigns different, distinct and independent legislative fields to the Union and State governments, and in so far as it has in-built mechanism of converting the federation into a unitary system, it is typically Indian model.

In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (Supreme Court) Chief Justice MH Beg had held: “A conspectus of the provisions of our Constitution will indicate that, whatever appearance of a federal structure our Constitution may have, its operations are certainly, judged both by the contents of power which a number of its provisions carry with them and the use that has been made of them, more unitary than federal.” He further held that the Central Government is “amphibian”, in the sense that it can move either on the federal or unitary plane, according to the needs of the situation and circumstances of a case. (1977 AIR 1361, 1978 SCR (1)1).

In Re the Thirteenth Amendment, “….The essence of a Unitary State is that the sovereignty is undivided, in other words, that the powers of the central government are unrestricted. The two essential qualities of a Unitary State are (1) the supremacy of the central Parliament and (2) the absence of subsidiary sovereign bodies. It does not mean the absence of subsidiary law-making bodies, but it does mean that, they may exist and can be abolished at the discretion of the central authority.” (1987) 2 SLR 312 at 319).

Can our draftsmen develop a Sri Lankan ‘amphibian’?

Fasting marks one month; whither the northern people ?

Oct 25, 2017

Today (25) marks one month since the political prisoners Madiarasan Sulakshan, Darshan Ganeshan and R. Tiruvarul began a fasting at Anuradhapura prison. Their lives are depending on the liquids being injected into their blood. The government disregarded this matter for one month and does not appear to give a solution today either. The people of the north have shown to the government that this was a matter concerning them, by staging a hartal. Various parties are making various statements, while the media in the south is painting it to serve their needs. However, when will we, as a country, understand the depth of this problem and the harm that could be caused if left unresolved?

The reason for their fasting is the unreasonable transfer of their case from Vavuniya high court to Anuradhapura. The Attorney General’s Department took four years, just to amend the charge sheet. The only amendment made was to include Tiruvarul as a suspect. The others had already staged a fasting over the delay in the case. This is no simple matter from their side.

The president told northern representatives that this was a matter for the Justice Ministry to negotiate and settle. TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran spoke along the same line, that this could not be solved by fasting, as the security of a witness was a matter for the court to solve. Politicians, whether in the south or the north, are no different when they ignore its political implication and confine it to a mere matter for courts.

The only witness in the case against the three is a former LTTE member. It is a shame that the authorities are unable to provide him with security at the Vavuniya court. We believe that they should resign with dignity if they think that security in Vavuniya cannot be guaranteed eight years after the war ended. If anyone says the authorities have fallen to the level of being unable to protect one witness, it should concede that the AG’s Dept. is conspiring against the suspects.

The south’s media has been overstating the charges against the three. They are accused of killing a group of military personnel under their custody. Anyone can level allegations. The problem is proving them. Anyone should understand that had the AG’s Dept. been able to prove the charges against them, it would not have delayed the case for four years, or not have transferred the case to Anuradhapura. Had there been concrete evidence, the case should be over by now. The delay is because the evidence is not strong.

If a politician ignores all these and says this should be solved according to the law, there should be something missing in his politics. The AG’s Dept. comes under the Justice Ministry. When the Dept. becomes the accused in delaying the case, it is like setting a thief to catch a thief to try to settle it through the courts.

Back to the charge. Had they really murdered military personnel during the war, that itself is a political matter. It was not due to a personal matter that they had done that. Persons like Karuna Amman who should be accused of thousands of such murders are living a free life without any charge, while a few are being targeted by court cases. What we have to say to those who compare these with war crimes charges is that after settling the matter at hand, if needed, either the both parties pardoned each other or punished through a court process, under the normal law of the country (not the PTA).

Now, the law is being enforced unreasonably. On one hand, there is a legal process under which the repressive PTA is being enforced to obtain confessions from men by hanging them in the nude by their legs and beaten up, or their heads immersed on petrol and beaten up. On the other hand, the courts and the AG’s Dept. are taking a racist line. That is why cases are thrown away in the north and punishment given in the south under the same basis. Only a racist can say the hearings for which confessions are obtained under the PTA are reasonable.

Speaking about the politics beyond the three prisoners, it is for the first time the northern Tamils trusted an executive president of the south. They did not vote for Maithripala Sirisena after signing agreements. They believed that he would solve their problems. Their agreements came through their hearts. If he tries to get away instead of solving their political issues, that will lead to broken hearts. The president gets a request not from just three prisoners, but it is a litmus test of his fulfilling promises. Tamils are wondering how a president, who is unable to solve the problem of three prisoners, will solve their political problem.

If any harm comes to the trio’s lives, the executive president will have blood in his hands. Can anyone say that the disappointment of the Tamils will lead to a political problem that can make the country suffer for decades to come?

What is needed now is a direct political intervention in consideration of the future of the country. This is not a problem of three prisoners, or the all 130 political prisoners. This is a problem of the sensitivity of the southern politics to the political problem of the entire Tamils. Therefore, the government should take a political decision and free these prisoners. That will create a situation in which even the war crimes charges can be dealt with in a more flexible manner.

Firstly, the government should prove that it is not afraid of the southern Sinhala extremism that refuses to give anything to the Tamils. They are painting terrorists in the face of this problem, while signing election agreements with Karuna Amman. We do not criticize the freedom enjoyed by him. What we say is that other ex-LTTE members too, should be given that same freedom. The rulers should have a backbone to stand firm in the face of the pressure by the Sinhala racists. President Sirisena’s back is against the wall. History decides on such incidents. He should think about the country’s future and extend the hands of reconciliation to the Tamils.

- Ruwan Nelugolla

Some Thoughts On Muslims & Constitution

By Ameer Ali –OCTOBER 25, 2017

Dr. Ameer Ali

The debate over a yet to be published new constitution or amendments to the existing constitution has reached such a hyper ethnic sensitivity that any room for a rational analysis seems to have been conspiratorially edged out. Any mention of the term federalism or its sanitised parallel devolution in assessing the merits of various constitutional measures to protect and maintain the territorial sovereignty and societal plurality of Sri Lanka has become so poisonous to sections of the Sinhalese Buddhist electorate that any Buddhist who does not support that electorate has automatically become a traitor just as the LTTE viewed its Tamil opponents. The fact that Sri Lanka had never been a unitary state but a federal one until the British artificially made it unitary in 1815 has somehow been forgotten conveniently. In fact, Buddhism and the Buddhists prospered more under precolonial federalism than under the colonial unitary polity.

As far as the Muslim community is concerned it has never been an active participant until now in any constitutional structuring of the island simply because of its historical nexus to trade and commerce on the none hand and almost a religious sprezzatura towards political matters. Whatever the form and nature of the constitution Muslim leadership was only concerned with how many seats in the parliament that the community could capture and how many cabinet positions could those parliamentarians gain. The ubiquity of Muslim population and the decisiveness of its voting power enhanced that possibility. Even when the JR constitution was introduced, instead of fighting to repudiate that adversarial constitution by joining the opposition at that time the community was concentrating to form an ethnic party of its own to maximise its chances of capturing seats and cabinet portfolios in the parliament. The politics of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress since then speaks for itself. Surprisingly, even in the current constitutional debate the reigning SLMC leader according to news reports appears to be worried more of the prospect of reduced number of Muslim parliamentarians in the post-constitutional parliament than anything else.

However, the one issue that is dominating the constitution debate within the Muslim community is that of the north east merger. In spite of the historical linguistic and literary confluence between the Tamil and Muslim communities in the two provinces the political spasm between them has been widening since the time of independence. While the hegemony of Tamil leadership in the north and east was feared by Muslims the political opportunism of Muslims was frowned upon and hated by Tamils which kept the two communities politically apart. While the Tamil leadership ignored the Muslims and concentrated its energy and effort to achieve an independent “Tamil Arasu” in the traditional Tamil areas, which metamorphosed into “Tamil Eelam” under LTTE, the Muslims were left to fend for themselves to win their rights in the face of a raging ethnic majoritarian Buddhist hegemony. To the Muslims therefore the issue of merger or demerger is a choice between two hegemonies, whether to live under the national hegemony of the Buddhists in demerged north and east or under the regional hegemony of Tamils in a merged north-east.

The post-civil war anti-Muslim aggression and violence unleashed by a section of the Buddhists led by a few un-Buddhist monks with covert sympathy from the MR opposition but unchecked by the MS regime on the one hand and the un-readiness of the Tamil leadership to treat the Muslims not as a junior partner but as an equal partner in their struggle for constitutional rights and safeguards on the other is making that choice depressingly difficult. When hearts don’t agree of what use is a marriage contract even if it is written in gold?

Some Memories of Peradeniya as a Student

Except glorified instructions given to us to bring ‘raincoats and pullovers’ before coming to Peradeniya from Colombo, we didn’t have any help to find accommodation from the authorities. This was the same for students thrown out of halls after the first year, who entered Peradeniya as freshers. This was a weakness.

by Laksiri Fernando- Oct 25, 2017

Oct 25, 2017

( October 25, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) Even if we were not very conscious about or appreciative of the natural beauty of the place, that influenced all of us immensely. That may be one reason how the place gave room for several romantic love affairs. On one side, it was the picturesque Hantana mountain range, and on the other, the winding Mahaweli river. On Friday evenings, couples could be seen roaming between the kissing bend and the Ramanathan hall until the dinner bells rang at 7.00 sharp. Boys were slightly late for dinner than the girls. The couples were not that visible on Saturdays or Sundays, and rarely during the other days of the week. During the weekends, the girls could get late passes to visit Kandy for a movie or dinner until 10.00 pm. I cannot remember any such restriction for boys.

Some Memories of Peradeniya as a Student.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Power of organised religion

Thursday, 26 October 2017

Organised religion is a potent force impacting public opinion. Institutional authority nurtured by tradition, spiritual wisdom not subject to scrutiny by the faithful gives it an arbitrary prerogative that intimidates, seduces and co-opts the politician.

It explains the compulsory ‘Apey Hamuduruwane’ and ‘Wandaneeya Pujaneeya’ in our democratic discourse. Obeisance displayed by the autocrat was pure theatre. The chemistry of ‘untrammelled authority’ and the ‘spiritual halo’ gave the despot a ‘weapon of mass manoeuvring’ by co-opting ‘organised religion’ as a minor shareholder entitled to dividends but no seat on the family dominant board.

Banner headlines, in several broadsheets, Sinhala and English broke the news that the two Mahanayakes of Asgiriya and Malwatte had torpedoed the Constitutional reform process. It was worrying news for those of us concerned with the progress of the constitutional reform process by a government debilitated by scandal.

That the Head of the Asgiriya chapter was opposed to constitutional reforms was not news. The alleged report that the Malwatte prelate had joined the Joint Opposition procession was indeed startling news.

The Asgiriya Head, who succeeded the endearingly erudite and sensible predecessor in a fiercely-contested election where the outcome was negotiated with a complex string of quid pro quos, is a creature of a priestly cabal with strong partisan links to Mahinda Rajapaksa. His opposition to the constitutional drafting process was well known.

In the case of the far more self-possessed and rational prelate of the Malwatte chapter, the Joint Opposition suffered a decisive set back. The Mahanayake Thero of Malwatte recently advised Dinesh Gunawardene, who sought to enlist his support in opposing the process, that it was best to await the draft proposals. In the light of assurances given by the President and Prime Minister on the unitary state, primacy of Buddhism, etc., there was no need to rush in to warped opinions.

The immediate purpose of the pretended parley held in some exclusive inner chamber of the Dalada Maligawa was to isolate the Malwatte prelate who was not playing ball with the Joint Opposition. It has now come to light that the puppeteer behind the clerical puppetry is none other than the lay custodian of the holy of holies and a loyal Rajapaksa trooper.

A contemporary national imperative

The constitutional reform process is a contemporary national imperative. Power devolution, national reconciliation, institutional resilience of state agencies tasked to monitor accountability and transparency are prerequisite for a nation at peace with itself – a precondition for meaningful economic progress.

An equitable electoral system in place of the present Neronian version that fiddles with our franchise slowly roasting the land on the slow fire of political deception is a moral necessity that even the Rajapaksa family cannot oppose openly, although a revision may hinder their Mafiosi.

The reform process is not easy. The Ranil Wickremesinghe led administration has now traversed the full length of the blind alley, it entered with the Bond scam in February 2015. Their cheeky chins are now up against the wall, with the writing clear to all except the Leader and the executive committee of the UNP. It is a shame. Credibility is an essential part of the armour of those who seek foundational reforms. The mobilisation of the ‘Anu Nayakes’ the second tier of the two monastic orders is a brilliant move by the Mahinda Rajapaksa-led opposition. It is politics by other means.

Sinhala Buddhist Sangha epitomises organised religion. It has sects or ‘Nikayas’ operating their respective franchises, appointing independent retail outlets using their exclusive operating manuals, logos and models. On and off, there are mavericks who compose their own operating manuals as in the case of Pitiduwe Siridhamma Thera, whose claim to have attained the Arahaht state titillated the piety of affluent middleclass matrons of Colombo who were dazzled by his soprano preaching and mesmeric masculinity.

It was recently reported that a threat of expulsion has convinced him to surrender his Arahant title. The patent laws seem to be working in our monastic outfits!

Saffron robe now an emblem of authority

The unique selling proposition of the Sinhala Sangha fraternity is their demonstrated ability to manipulate masses. At a given command they can adopt adversarial positions against other groups and other points of view. They execute their assignments with a laser like centricity on their interpretation of the faith.

Since 1753 when King Keerthi Sri Rajasinghe handed a ‘watapatha’ to a monk indicating a royal mandate after the introduction of the higher ordination from Siam, the feudal monastic orders of the hill kingdom have been in the firm grip of a few interrelated clans ceaselessly driven by ambition, greed and power.

This writer, modestly informed of what the Buddha taught, is convinced that the single objective of institutionalised Sangha is to insulate the faithful from learning, understanding and experiencing what the Buddha taught.

Near extortionist interpretation of the concept of giving ‘dana’ has provided them financial self-sufficiency and societal legitimacy. The latest SUV models used by the movers and shakers of the fraternity do not generate envy of the faithful. Instead, such opulence is regarded as the just rewards of a noble vocation.

The saffron robe, that was once a symbol of renunciation is, now an emblem of authority that intimidates the devout and promotes the parochial. Since independence the State has negotiated accommodation, offered patronage and sought reciprocity with the Sinhala Buddhist clerical institutions.

Of all leaders, only JRJ and Sirimavo were strong enough to draw their lines on the sand in dealing with them. Premadasa used tribal instincts to carve his own niche of clerical support. Mahinda Rajapaksa adroitly built a network of saffron operatives beholden to the boss rivalling any Sicilian mafia.

False mass opinion

The arrogant finality of the impugned statement earned front page exposure. It received greater amplifications the next morning TV shows where garrulous anchors serving political interests of media Moghuls and creatures of Gotabaya Rajapaksa had a field day in constructing a false mass opinion against constitutional reforms driven by a patriotic Sangha.

“We have decided the unsuitability of the proposed Constitution. We say that a new Constitution is not needed. The present Constitution is good for us. We decided that the Maha Sangha should oppose the proposed Constitution.”

The statement, an arbitrary rejection of the sovereignty of the people has one comical connotation. The assertion ‘this constitution is good for us’, elevates J.R.J to the exalted ranks of an Arahath!

The clever manoeuvring by the Rajapaksa-led opposition has exposed their reliance on the Sangha in an alliance to redefine the political process in their favour. It is natural and logical. A majority of the Sinhala Sangha community were willing collaborators of the corrupt political system under Mahinda presidency. Despite the ‘Upasaka’ appeal and biting the dust obeisance of his successor, they prefer the ousted despot who promises continuity. There is lesson for us.

Elevating the Sangha above the democratic debate under the guise of according primacy to Buddhism will have a devastating impact on our ability to keep pace with 21st century human progress.

Dismantling the saffron cartel before its octopus arms could strangle the slender democratic gains is our immediate challenge.

Buddhism is a search for truth. The Buddha advised us that we should believe only “that which is true in the light of our own experience, that which conforms to reason and conducive to the highest good and welfare of all beings.”

It is time for rational Buddhists to realise that Buddha showed us the path. He did not offer to walk it for us. The Sangha in their Pajero SUVs and Mercedes limousines cannot drive us on that path either. The Mahinda Rajapaksa genius was that he shaped and controlled the Sangha by incentives and coercive tactics as and when necessary. Despite objections, Lamborghinis raced past the ‘Dalada Maligawa.’

The promise of the central highway to the sanctified citadel has not earned Laksman Kiriella any points or praise – a singular signal of the tenuous bonds the UNP has with hill country clerics.

Our criticism, their criticism An indictment of sorts

2017-10-26

The role of the critic is at once curious and contradictory; he isn’t required to know what the artiste he is assessing does, yet he has the prerogative to measure that artiste on the standards he himself has created for him. It takes years and years of film schools and acting classes to become a great performer, but no amount of craftsmanship, however nurtured or fermented, can compensate for those slight shifts of quality which the critic notices, notes and advertises. You can contend that becoming an artiste is therefore intensely more difficult than being a critic, but in reality it’s the other way around when you account for quality; being a good, insightful critic is, all things considered, more difficult than being a good, insightful artist.

Obviously this isn’t too worrying in countries where theatres and film halls are as much a part of ordinary experiences as offices and factories, but in Sri Lanka where film halls are rarely full (even during weekends) and theatres barely attended (even when it’s your typical political or comedy skit) not having good critics does tend to alarm and disconcert. Even with the internet and the very many portals (which can be about anything, from film reviews to theatre reviews to situation reports) that promise much on the day they’re launched and yet are shut down on the next, people still prefer newspapers, and most of our writers and commentators prefer what the people do. The printed word is here to stay, at least for quite some time.

Criticism in Sri Lanka is mostly divided along linguistic lines: Sinhala and Tamil on the one hand and English on the other. I’m sure there are subtle differences between Sinhala and Tamil writers but these have to do largely with temperament and experience; the difference between them and their English counterpart is less subtle, and is marked less by temperamental rifts than by differences which go deep into their way of responding to their societies, their world. It’s all a reflection of the milieu which panders to them, respectively, because demographically the Sinhala and the Tamil critic have a larger audience, a varied base, which the English critic does not, has not and probably will not. The former two enjoy a diverse public and that diversity prevents them from congealing to an identifiable style or form of criticism. The latter, because his public is relatively small, does not suffer this impediment.

Because he enjoys a smaller audience, generally from a rather affluent, indulgent milieu, the techniques and, I dare say, styles he resorts to are predictable, sometimes despairingly so. The typical English review, or piece or scoop or whatever you may call it, teems with references to what people, from the audience it panders to, thinks or will think about a production. But then that’s to be expected, because even though he may not be on intimate terms with their cast and crew he knows them all the same, because like his audiences they belong to the same coterie and milieu he writes on. They don’t desire it and frankly they detest it – from my experiences thus far I can testify that they want the same kind of throbbing, worthwhile reviews their Sinhala counterparts are getting in the press and elsewhere – and yet they have to suffer it because that’s what our English critics operate on; mediocre, shallow profundity.

It would be easy to conclude that all this is the critic’s fault, but that’s not completely true. There are factors beyond his or her control which force him to compromise, to scuttle otherwise perceptive pieces, like the fact that our newspaper columns have diminished in scope and size to accommodate images at the cost of words. Economy, more specifically word economy, is the password in this age of jerky breaks and cuts and fast-paced, mindless television, and no one has felt this more deeply, more negatively, than your typical English reviewer. The latest play or book or film will gain as much text as pictures, in itself not a bad thing except for the fact that the pictures are there to preside over and overwhelm the text. And how? By using them to bring up what’s easily identifiable about the English cultural sphere in this country – names and faces, who’s adapting what famous musical from where, and so on. (The typical Sinhala and Tamil film review almost never contains images that transcend the text this way, which is why our best movie critics come from the vernacular press.)
Photographs, sketchy interviews, and randomly sought after comments do more for the English reviewer than an actual review because the people he writes on and writes for know each other well, and are usually on intimate terms. They’re like neighbours in the same community, at their most intimate with one another when they meet during a show. The critic in this sense emphasises on what his readers know, not what they should know, which is disheartening since this means that he is failing in his primary task: to get those readers beyond the present into the hereafter. In other words, they are stuck in time because they believe in the timelessness of what they stand for, which I think is the main reason why they are indicted as being culturally uprooted. They are joyously smug, joyously complacent, joyously indifferent.

The Sinhala critic can write with more vivacity and authenticity on our movies, our plays, our books, because they have ready access to the necessary material and they are enthusiastic about getting that material across. They know that’s what their readers want. In a way the fact that we are a local majority and a global minority is reflected in our confused and at times contradictory feelings when it comes to the vernacular and the English press: we are happy when a Sinhala critic writes about an objet d’art in a way that does justice to the objet and the auteur, but we are also happy, despite our limited understanding of the language, when we come across an English critic, no matter how lopsided his review may be, doing the same.

There’s a culture of sullen indifference within the English intelligentsia when it comes to reviews and reviewers. They are more interested in how the critic notes down those points that make them part of a clique within an already domineering clique (the part within the whole). Yes, they are also interested in the perceptive review but because mediocrity has become a norm they are, quite naturally, indifferent, cynical, and not a little sceptical. I have come across instances where they have expressed delight, overwhelming joy, when the person taken in to assess what they’ve done at least partially captures what they intended. They aren’t sullen for nothing, after all.

On the other hand, even a mediocre English review will glean gasps and smiles of pleasant surprise and contentment from their Sinhala counterparts. The other day I happened to give a newspaper clipping of one of my reviews to some young boys who happened to be actors and producers attached to a drama society I had written on and they were stumped; the review was eagerly passed from one set of hands to another, making the rounds around the hall I was in, until it reached the last boy, probably the smallest and youngest of them all, who came up to me with an almost toothless grin, handed it over, and said, “Thank you sir.” They know gratitude because they know the excitement of seeing what they toil for in the press, in a language they want their work to be expressed and discussed in. Which brings me to my next, and final, point.

Barring the occasional freelancer, there’s no one in the English media to write on our movies, our plays, our books, our artists. The Sinhala critics are streets ahead in this regard, because they not only have the necessary material but also know how to make that material relevant to their readers. You almost never get that kind of penetrating insight from the English critic for the simple reason that a) he is not used to penetrating insights even when writing for his own readers, and b) he hardly bothers writing for another audience. No one wrote on Handagama’s Age Asa Aga, for instance, and no one reviewed Vithanage’s Oba Nathuwa Oba Ekka. To be sure, there are exceptions, especially in the movies (which are the most democratised works of art in Sri Lanka), but never in the theatre or in our book industry, not anymore.

Why should this bother us? Because no culture was ever salvaged, purveyed, promoted, and disseminated without a horde of instinctive, incisive writers. In part this stems from the critic’s own lack of awareness of that culture, and the artists it breeds. In part this stems also from the lack of any new excitement in what our filmmakers and playwrights and novelists are doing, even though they are more willing, and more able, to absorb much of what’s happening elsewhere.

But I don’t think that that latter point is reason for complacency over the way things are going with respect to our English reviewers. They are as stuck in time as many of those they write on and for, they often don’t know what’s happening in other cultural spheres, and they are conditioned to tone down, be as simplistic as possible, and get whatever message across. The only consolation we have, of course, is that those other cultural spheres have “local” reviewers who are great, if not much, much better. But the world operates elsewhere, not here, and the world speaks another dialect, another language. We have people who speak that dialect, that language, but not enough to properly convey what their own artists are doing, here, now, and probably forever.