Malaria breath test shows promise

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

By Michelle Roberts-7 November 2017

People with malaria give off a distinctive "breath-print" that could be used as a test for the disease, according to American scientists.

They had already tried out a crude prototype breathalyser in Africa, a tropical medicine conference heard.

The test was reasonably good at detecting cases in children, but needs developing to become a routine device.

One of the odours it sniffs out is identical to a natural smell that attracts insects that spread malaria.

Pine trees and conifers emit these terpenes to summon mosquitoes and other pollinating insects, say the researchers, from Washington University in St Louis.

They believe people with malaria who have this odour in their breath may also attract mosquitoes and infect more of the biting insects, which can then spread the disease to other people that they bite.

Although the test needs perfecting, it could offer a new cheap and easy way to help diagnose malaria, Prof Audrey Odom John and colleagues say.

Distinct odour

The prototype breath test detects six different odours or volatile organic compounds to spot cases of malaria.

The researchers tried it on breath samples from 35 feverish children in Malawi, some with and some without malaria.

It gave an accurate result in 29 of the children, meaning it had a success rate of 83%.

This is still too low for the test to be used routinely, but the researchers hope they can improve its reliability and develop it into an off-the-shelf product.

Simple, rapid blood tests for malaria are already available, but they have limits, say the Washington University researchers.

Testing blood can be expensive and technically challenging in rural settings.

A non-invasive method of detection that does not require blood samples or technical expertise could be of great benefit.

Prof James Logan from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said: "The rapid detection of asymptomatic malaria is a challenge for malaria control and will be essential as we move towards achieving the goal of malaria elimination. A new diagnostic tool, based on the detection of volatiles associated with malaria infection is exciting."

He said more work was now needed to see if it could be made into a reliable test.

The findings are being presented at this year's annual meeting of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.

Follow Michelle on Twitter.

UNITED STATES REMINDS SRI LANKA OF UNHRC RESOLUTION AND ITS COMMITMENTS

07/11/2017

Issuing a jount statement on the Sri Lanka-United States Partnership Dialogue the United States has reminded Sri Lanka of  the commitments it made under the joint UNHRC resolution, March 2017. It says that “Sri Lanka and the United States recalled their co-sponsorship of a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2017, reaffirming Sri Lanka’s commitment to promote reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in pursuit of lasting peace and prosperity. The United States expressed support to Sri Lanka in the implementation of commitments as agreed in the Human Rights Council resolution, such as truth-seeking, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence, that includes providing closure to the families of the missing, and implementing appropriate reforms to enhance the professionalism of security institutions. USAID is assisting the Government of Sri Lanka in the implementation of these commitments that reflect the will of the people of Sri Lanka, through support for reconciliation activities.”

Full text of the statement:

Joint Statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka and the U.S. Department of State on the Sri Lanka-United States Partnership Dialogue
November 6, 2017

Sharing a commitment to democracy, rule of law, and the prosperity and well-being of our peoples, Sri Lanka and the United States convened the second Partnership Dialogue on November 6, 2017, in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The meeting was led by Sri Lanka Foreign Secretary Prasad Kariyawasam and U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon. The Partnership Dialogue demonstrates the consolidation of cooperation between the United States and Sri Lanka, and serves to further strengthen and enhance bilateral relations in the widest sense, through regular and structured engagement.

As fellow democracies, the two governments resolved to work together toward a free and open Indo-Pacific region and for greater peace and stability around the world. The United States and Sri Lanka agreed that the security, stability, and prosperity of the Indian Ocean region should be safeguarded through the promotion of a rules-based order which would ensure that all countries that enjoy the global commons respect international laws and norms. Both countries agreed to advance this vision for peace and stability regionally and in international fora and stressed the particular importance of the freedom of navigation and overflight and of maintaining a maritime order based on the rule of law including unimpeded commerce, and they shared the intention to further promote cooperation and exchanges in maritime security and safety, including anti-piracy measures. Sri Lanka emphasized its need, as an island nation, to build maritime capacity so that it can effectively patrol its own borders and safeguard its marine resources.

The vision to develop Sri Lanka as a regional hub for trade and investment in Asia, which would connect trade flows among ASEAN, India, the Middle East, and Africa through free and open seas that would be the key to growth of the region, was discussed. The United States expressed its support for Sri Lanka through trade, investment, foreign assistance and direct partnership with stakeholders throughout the country. The United States remains committed to a strong economic partnership and robust trade relationship with Sri Lanka.

Since the inaugural Partnership Dialogue in February 2016, Sri Lanka and the United States have made substantial progress in bilateral relations. This includes cooperation in law enforcement, counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, and the establishment of U.S. Departments of Treasury and Justice programs to help address fiscal and debt challenges, to strengthen rule of law, and to enhance transparency. Several important official visits have taken place, including high-level U.S delegations to Sri Lanka, and visits to the United States by His Excellency the President, the Honorable Speaker of the Parliament, and the Minister of Finance and Mass Media, among others.

As a sign of strong bilateral ties and deepening U.S. engagement in Sri Lanka, the United States announced it will offer a second U.S. Coast Guard cutter to the Sri Lankan Navy, pending completion of Congressional notification. The Secretary Class High Endurance Cutter will allow Sri Lanka to more effectively police its coastline and Exclusive Economic Zone and to protect its sea lines of trade and communication. The United States is also working with the Sri Lankan government to return U.S. Peace Corps volunteers to Sri Lanka’s English classrooms. The United States also announced a $21 million/3,150,000,000 Sri Lankan rupees project, awarded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food for Progress program, to modernize and strengthen Sri Lanka’s dairy sector by increasing productivity and improving milk quality, financing, food safety, and trade. The development of a Millennium Challenge Corporation compact for grant assistance for Sri Lanka will continue through 2017-2018.

Both countries acknowledged the bilateral and regional strategic benefits of increased military cooperation, including the U.S. Marine Corps’ role in helping establish the Sri Lanka Marine Corps, sending Sri Lankan candidates to professional military academies in the United States, as well as several bilateral exercises and ship visits and engagements among top military officials from both countries.

Sri Lanka and the United States recalled their co-sponsorship of a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2017, reaffirming Sri Lanka’s commitment to promote reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in pursuit of lasting peace and prosperity. The United States expressed support to Sri Lanka in the implementation of commitments as agreed in the Human Rights Council resolution, such as truth-seeking, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence, that includes providing closure to the families of the missing, and implementing appropriate reforms to enhance the professionalism of security institutions. USAID is assisting the Government of Sri Lanka in the implementation of these commitments that reflect the will of the people of Sri Lanka, through support for reconciliation activities.

The commitment of the government of Sri Lanka to strengthening democracy, democratic institutions and practices, good governance, the rule of law, justice, reconciliation, accountability, and parliamentary procedures, was emphasized. The United States welcomed progress on constitutional reform, the return of private land held by security forces, and the establishment of an independent and permanent Office of Missing Persons.

Bilateral security sector cooperation continues in parallel with Sri Lanka’s ongoing reconciliation, rule of law and judicial reform efforts. This also includes U.S. support for demining, joint military engagements, human rights training of Sri Lankan officers, and visits by ships and military officials.
Sri Lanka and the United States shared concerns about the grave threats to global security posed by terrorist groups such as ISIS.

The threat posed to international peace and security by North Korea’s unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programs, was discussed, and the importance of all UN member states maintaining pressure on the DPRK, and the full implementation UN Security Council Resolutions, in this respect, was emphasized.

The two countries noted with satisfaction the Indian Ocean regional conference hosted by Sri Lanka in August-September 2017, and agreed to continue to pursue joint initiatives that enhance security, stability, transparency and economic opportunity in the Indo-Pacific region.

Together, the United States and Sri Lanka emphasized the importance of their bilateral relationship and expressed commitment to expand and strengthen the U.S.-Sri Lanka partnership for mutual benefit.

The United States was one of the first countries to recognize Sri Lanka following independence in 1948. Both countries reaffirmed commitment to work towards increasing engagement and mutual support as the United States and Sri Lanka mark the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations in 2018.
Colombo.

Delaying Justice

Future of transitional justice in Sri Lanka may not be easy. Even President himself claimed few times, he would not betray any “war heroes”.

by Kalana Krishantha-Nov 8, 2017

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” 
―Archbishop Desmond Tutu (One of the pioneers of South African Transitional Justice Process.)

( November 8, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Transitional justice(TJ) refers to the ways countries emerging from periods of conflict and repression address large scale or systematic human rights violations so numerous and so serious that the normal justice system will not be able to provide an adequate response. (ICTJ)

Transitional Justice is based on accountability and redress of mass human rights violations in the past. Ignoring and neglecting the bitter past is easy without addressing the grievances. But, if some society neglect the past grievances of people, specially of the people who belong to ethnic and religious minorities, it can pave the way for future massive instabilities of particular society and a civilized society will not be created. Most difficult questions which are related with politics, human rights and law is handled by TJ mechanisms. From giving priority to victims and their dignity, the mechanism itself is assuring the accountability of state towards human rights and international humanitarian law.

The aims of transitional justice will vary depending on the context but these features are constant: the recognition of the dignity of individuals; the redress and acknowledgment of violations; and the aim to prevent them happening again. (ICTJ)

There are four major pillars of the overall process: Truth, Prosecution, Reparations and Constitutional reforms. Truth should be revealed to understand the real nature of the scene. Generally, that procedure should be done via Truth Commissions even if it is not compulsory. In countries like South Africa, Truth Commission did a great role in revealing the truth. Revealing the truth may be painful. But after revealing the truth, it’s really easy to treat the past scars and it`s psychologically more comfortable to victims and also to the perpetrators rather than hiding the truth behind the scene. Prosecutions can be done via specially established local courts, so called hybrid courts or international criminal tribunals like Yugoslavia or Rwanda. Basically, there are three type of violations of international law which are considered as grave breaching of the principles of humanity: war crimes, genocides and crimes against humanity. Reparations are about sending a message of care to the victims who have suffered as a result of conflict. Reparations do not have to mean only cash payments. Reparations can be designed around what is affordable and effective. Some examples of reparations have been giving free education and healthcare to victims and the children of victims. It can be symbolic—monuments, days of remembrance. It can be by providing pensions, free medical or school. It can also be by giving victims opportunity to tell their stories to an official body. Institutional reform is an element of TJ which hopes to avoid the conflict from ever happening again. One institutional reform discussing currently is the possibility of creating some new legislative frameworks, division of power and etc. This is forward looking unlike truth seeking, accountability and reparations. All of them are past-oriented. 

Why it is suitable for Sri Lanka?

In Sri Lanka, the topic, “Transitional Justice” has become famous because of Mr. Pablo de Grieff`s,(The special rapporteur of UN over promotion of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrences) recent visit to Sri Lanka .Many Sri Lankan newspapers reported that as really a terrible incident and public got terrified from reading those misguiding headlines. According to the Office of the High Commissioner’s (OHCHR) website, Mr. Pablo de Greiff’s visit was “to examine the progress made in redressing the legacies of massive past violations and abuses, including those that resulted from a conflict that spanned more than 25 years.” Many Sinhala newspapers who is aiming to awake the racism and emotions of people because of hidden political agenda`s reported that in a way, “War Crime Chief Comes to Sri Lanka’. But in contrast, the process of transitional justice is not a revenge and it`s really a positive step towards true reconciliation and long lasting sustainable peace. Within this context, it’s really worthy to take a look why the transitional justice mechanisms should be implemented in this country?

Basically, there should be a prevalence of few factors to implement a TJ mechanism in particular society.

The First factor should be an exit of old government or a happening of a decisive change in political or social background. Symbolized end of a military conflict in 2009 is a first opportunity and 2015 government change is the second opportunity.

The Second factor is a freedom from fear. Even after the war, there had been a prevalence of continuous fear in past government`s season because of white van abductions, lack of media freedom and etc. Relatively, under the current government there is a freedom to citizens and media rather than past.

Third factor is an establishment of rule of law. In the past governments era, there were many killings of detainees who were under police arrest and there were critical allegations over the unnecessary interference towards judiciary by executive and legislative bodies. The way appointing the judges and function of judicial system was questioned. But, currently situation is not such worst in current government and rule of law has been relatively strength since 2015 January with a beginning of new president`s tenure.

Final factor is an international pressure. Since the end of war, international community has been urging to implement the transitional justice mechanism until now. UN envoys, EU envoys and many international representatives have been continuously coming to the country and they have been in a close look towards the dynamic political situation in Sri Lanka. There is an enough international pressure to implement the TJ mechanism.

It`s obviously clear that in Sri Lanka, currently, there is a healthy political and social background to implement the justice mechanism.

History 

Sri Lanka is a country which suffered from the brutal war for three decades from 1980`s to 2009 May. Some people explain this as an ethnic conflict, some others describe it as war again terrorism, while to the reaming others, it`s a civil war. No matter, from what name it is identified, war itself is a crime in any country. The application of transitional justice should be related with final phase of war in Sri Lanka.

LTTE pulled out of ceasefire in 2006 from closing the famous Mavil Aaru water resource. Government entered to war with the blessings of other countries and claimed the first mission as “Operation Watershed” to release the water for the basic agricultural and other consumption needs of the people. LTTE lost sympathy of Western world .32 countries have listed the LTTE as a terrorist organization. As of January 2009, these include: India (since 1992), US (since 1997), UK (since 2000), EU, Canada (since 2006) From getting the advantage Sri Lanka government tripled the size of military and continued the war and was able to marginalized LTTE to a very small landscape.

In 2009, at the end of the war, LTTE in its withdrawal corralled 300,000 people into “Safety Zones and used civilians as a human shield. In that moment, international community urged the government not to enter the LTTE controlled area further because of probability to having large number of civilian casualties. But unfortunately, the rulers at that time were not able to listen that and there were heavy civilian casualties, deaths. Number may differ according to various sources. Since that point, international community is urging the Sri Lankan government to go towards the transitional justice process from various UNSC resolutions and etc. 

War Crimes 

“They are not crimes that the army has to be collectively responsible for but they are isolated incidents committed by a few individuals. We need to reveal those incidents and punish those involved, if proper action is not taken within the country, the UN and the Security Council can do so according to international conventions.” ( Field Marshall Sarath Fonseka)

There have been serious allegations over war crimes of Sri Lanka army. According to field Marshall Sarath Fonseka, those allegations should be investigated and those who are responsible to those things should be punished according to prevailing law to clean the name of whole army.

And there were two documentaries which contributed lot to give a rise to war crime allegations against Sri Lankan army, named as No Fire Zone and Sri Lankan killing fields. There have been many criticisms over the genuineness of video footages which are depicting violations of International humanitarian law by government army soldiers. Despite heavy criticisms, there have been a wide recognition of video clips of these films as genuine by many international organizations and various influential diplomats. 

Current Progression towards Transitional Justice

In a proposed mechanism, there were five components …

1. Truth Commission (with Compassionate Council)
2. Judicial Accountability Mechanism
3. Office of Reparations
4. Office of Missing Persons
5. Constitutional Reforms/ New Constitution

From these steps, only the office of missing person has been established from a special gazette notification which was released on 15th of September 2017 amidst thousands of protests of racist extremists. But, the officers to OMP has not been appointed yet and hopefully, it will be done soon. And government is in a struggle to bring a new constitution while religious and racial extremists have been trying to blast the effort.

Office of reparations have not been established yet, but many good efforts in reparation process have been being implemented. Many lands which were in high security areas have been released to original owners. Infrastructure developments, new housing schemes should be appreciated. But, there is a question, whether if they have implemented enough effort for psychological development of war effected people. Meanwhile Truth Commission still prevails as a dream.

The Way forward… 

Future of transitional justice in Sri Lanka may not be easy. Even President himself claimed few times, he would not betray any “war heroes”. So, prosecutions and its impartial nature in local system is a problematic. Establishing hybrid courts is really a costly and prior examples like in Cambodia proved that it’s not efficient, Constitutional reforms will be not easy due to heavy protests of extremists and racists. Elections are coming nearly; many elections are for to select members to the provincial councils where the majority of Sinhala people are living. Process like transitional justice is really a politically sensitive and we cannot expect that government will do significant contribution within these circumstances. But, what president Sirisena should remember that if a large majority of North and East province had not supported him in presidential elections, he would not have selected as a president of Sri Lanka. The reason why Tamil people supported him was there was a hope of “justice” within their mind. Indispensable responsibility of President Maithripla Sirisena is continuing the transitional justice process and assure the accountability of Sri Lanka government towards the victims of final phase of war without allowing any space to any type of revenge. And above the all what we should remember here in Sri Lankan process of transitional justice, the soldiers of Sri Lanka army fought with a militant group who are still considered as terrorists in many countries.

RTLHRC, NPC canvass CSO’s support for constitutional reforms

Text and pictures PRIYAN DE SILVA-Tuesday, November 7, 2017 

Activists from Right to Life Human Rights Centre (RTLHRC) and the National Peace Council (NPC), met representatives of Civil Society Organizations (CSO)’s in Deniyaya, Weligama and Matara over the weekend to canvass grass root level support in favour of the proposed reforms to Sri Lanka’s Constitution.

“Every Sri Lankan should be given the right to live in peace and harmony, irrespective of their ethnicity or religious belief,” said Executive Director of Right to Life Human Rights

Center, Phillip Dissanayaike, explaining the need to make changes to the existing Constitution.

“One of the main pre-election promises given by the present government was to abolish the Executive Presidency and it is our duty to compel the government to fulfil their promises,” he added.

“We look forward to three major changes being made to Sri Lanka’s Constitution,” said the Chief Organizer of ‘Purawesi Balaya’ (Citizens Power) Senior Journalist Gamini Viyangoda. (‘Purawesi Balaya” is a social movement comprising of artistes, intellectuals, professionals and civil activists who threw their weight behind President Maithripala Sisrisena’s successful bid for presidency).

“The first is to abolish the Executive Presidency, the second is to devolve power and the third is to change the electoral system,” he noted.

“At present it is the ideal time to make changes to the Constitution, as there is peace in the country and the government in power is a coalition between the two largest political parties. We should question ourselves as to why we need a new Constitution? Is it because we are not satisfied with the present Constitution? If so why aren’t we satisfied with it and what changes do we need? Each and every citizen of Sri Lanka was given the opportunity to propose what changes should be made. Please convey this message to your members,” he said.

“This Constitution was introduced in 1978 by president J. R. Jayawardena, but from 1994 onwards every presidential candidate who was elected had promised to abolish the Executive Presidency which they never fulfilled. Each one of them have proved to varying extents how the power they yield could be abused. And it is for this reason that we should take this opportunity to see that it is abolished.

Power should be devolved to the provincial administrations to prevent ethnic unrest in the future. Devolution of power is not a threat to the sovereignty of the nation but ethnic uprising is!”

“The interim report of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly of Sri Lanka is not a draft. The suggestions made are open to discussion and only the most agreeable changes would be included in the initial draft,” he added.

“The present Constitution is destroying our political culture,” said reputed author, poet and actor Lucien Bulathsinhala. “Bribery and corruption is rampant in the state service. The people have distanced themselves from arts and cultural activities. We need to change this system,” he added.

“You are misleading the audience!” accused V. G. Piyadasa. “You mentioned that the Sri Lanka Freedom Party promised to abolish the Executive Presidency. That is not true because senior ministers like Nimal Siripala de Silva have reiterated that the SLFP was against abolishing it. You also specifically named some Buddhist clergy of making racist statements which is also incorrect,” he said before being interrupted by a section of the audience permitting Gamini Viyangoda to answer the accusations and prevent further criticism.

“Power should be devolved to a certain extent with the provincial administrations,” said A. J. Munasingha while Journalist Jayathissa Tennakone suggested, “The Constitution should guarantee that every citizen of Sri Lanka has the right to free education, free health services and is provided with a house to live and guaranteed of suitable employment.” 

University Education & SAITM

By Ameer Ali –NOVEMBER 7, 2017

Dr. Ameer Ali

Since the controversy over SAITM started snowballing into an overall critique of university education a few erudite contributions have appeared in this journal. I too have contributed one on the bigger picture (4 September 2017). Having taught in five universities in three countries for over fifty years, including 10 years in Sri Lanka, I think my observations on the subject can add some substance to the public debate.

It is now an accepted fact that the quality of university education in general has declined almost universally.  Sri Lanka cannot remain an exception to this global phenomenon. Once upon a time and before the 1970s the standard of learning and teaching at the Paradeniya and Colombo campuses of the one and only University of Ceylon at that time was exceptionally high and was comparable to that of any of the renowned universities in the West.  Although there are reasons peculiar to Sri Lanka that led to the decline in standard since then there is one factor that is systemic and has affected university education all over the world.  This is the issue of university funding consequent of the new liberal philosophy regarding university learning. This philosophy has now been embraced by the current rulers in Sri Lanka and is bound to affect university education in the future. In short, we are facing a systemic problem. 

Education from the kindergarten to the university was once deemed to be a public good. Hence it was produced free either by the government or charitable institutions. Because of the immense social benefits that literacy and numeracy brought to society primary education was even made even compulsory to all. Beyond that it was still free but not compulsory. When provided by government the cost was met through the national budget. The fact that education at secondary and tertiary levels also brought private benefits to the learners was understood by policy makers but in their view the social benefit was so overwhelming that they were even prepared to assist financially through scholarships those promising students who were found in danger of being deprived of it because of economic hardship. This was the ideological background to the birth of free education in Sri Lanka.

During the British period the ruling philosophy of education was best captured in Lord Macaulay’s 1835 Indian ‘Minute on Education’ in which he stated “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.” It was with this ideology that the Ceylon University College was established in 1921, which merged with the Ceylon Medical College in 1942 and became the University of Ceylon. After independence however, the role of university education had to change from producing civil servants and bureaucrats to creating critical thinkers, scholars and researchers who would contribute to the overall development of the nation. This was another reason why governments of decolonised countries were generous in funding university education. In Sri Lanka governments continued to provide free education from kindergarten to the university.        

Read More

Sri Lanka's Proposed Constitution Comes Under Attack

International interest, not international laws, will deliver autonomy to Sri Lanka’s Tamils.

Protesters opposing a proposed constitution shout slogans outside the parliament in Colombo, Sri Lanka (Oct. 30, 2017).Image Credit: AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena

By Ana Pararajasingham-November 07, 2017

The interim report on Sri Lanka’s proposed constitution released on September 21 has come under a spate of attacks. On October 24, a retired Sri Lankan army officer, Major General Kamal Gunaratne, insisted that those seeking to introduce the new constitution are traitors who must be killed. Four days earlier, Dayan Jayatilleka, a former diplomat, had called for rising up and confronting the prime minister, whom he identified as one of the architects of the interim proposals and in early October, a  Sri Lankan academic, Asoka Bandarage, challenged the government’s legitimacy to change the constitution. Meanwhile, the all-powerful Buddhist clergy has firmly vetoed the proposals on the grounds that it would undermine Sri Lanka’s unitary governance.

The opponents to the proposed constitution are incensed by the term “maximum devolution” used in the proposal, because it envisages devolving power to the Tamil-dominated Northern and Eastern Provinces. That the other seven Sinhala-dominated provinces will also be recipients of devolved power does not enter the argument; after all, the existing, highly centralized unitary constitution already vests power with the Sinhala people. Although it is widely recognized that it was the island’s unitary constitutions (enacted in 1948, 1972, and 1978), which ensured all political power resides with the numerically larger Sinhala people, were the root cause of the 26-year civil war, political power-sharing remains anathema to a significant section  of the Sinhala political establishment.

The opposition to devolving political power to the Tamil-dominated Northern and Eastern provinces is driven by two well-ingrained notions. The first is the fear that increasing autonomy could pave the way for Tamils to secede. Second is the long-held belief that the island of Sri Lanka is a designated sanctuary for Theravada Buddhism, the purest form of Buddhism, and as such precludes political power sharing with non-Buddhists. This phenomenon is identified as “Political Buddhism.”

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

In actuality, any question of the Tamil-dominated northeast region seceding has been comprehensively addressed in the interim report, which categorically states that the country will remain an “indivisible united” entity. To make the position even more clear, the official Sinhala version of the interim proposal uses the word ēkīya (unitary in Sinhalese) to describe the constitution, while studiously avoiding the word unitary and federal in the English and Tamil versions. While this may well address the fear of secession, the mindset shaped by Political Buddhism remains a significant obstacle to enacting the proposed constitution.

Well aware of this hurdle, on October 30, Tamil parliamentarian MA Sumanthiran made a moving case for a political power sharing arrangement and concluded by pleading with every member of the Assembly  to support the change. Such pleas were common in the Sri Lankan parliament during the first 30 years of its existence and were persistently ignored by the Sinhala polity, which enjoyed unrestrained political power under the unitary constitution. On two occasions, agreements reached with the Tamil leadership for a limited degree of autonomy were abandoned in the face of opposition no different than what is being voiced now. And it is likely that this plea too would fall on deaf ears. The scenario unfolding is eerily familiar, a classic case of “back to the future.” It is as if the civil war that tore the island apart had never happened!

Meanwhile, the chief minister of the Tamil–dominated Northern Province, CV Wigneswaran, convinced that Sinhala leadership is unlikely to willingly share political power, has argued that Sri Lanka’s Tamils should try to obtain their rights by resorting to international laws.

Realpolitik, however, tells us that it is not international law but international actors pursuing their own interests that dictates international intervention. Should Wigneswaran be able to factor into his argument that an autonomous northeast could help counter Beijing’s growing influence over Colombo, he may well succeed in winning international support for self-rule for Tamils within a united country.

Ana Pararajasingham was Director-Programmes with the Centre for Just Peace and Democracy (CJPD). He is the author “Sri Lanka’s Endangered Peace Process and the Way Forward” (2007) and editor of “Sri Lanka 60 Years of ‘independence and Beyond” (2009).

Sri Lanka: Controversy over the ‘Nature of the State’

Major dissatisfactions within the majority community without much relevance to the communal competition came to the surface in the 1971 youth insurrection. This was the same in the case of the emergence of many militant groups in the North during and after that period.

by Laksiri Fernando-Nov 7, 2017

( November 7, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) Even after four days of debate in the Constitutional Assembly, the country is far from being in agreement on basic principles in drafting a new constitution. The reason is extremist, inflexible and confrontational politics from all sides, without any consideration for national unity or national interests. The debates have widened the gaps rather than closing them up. Only gratifying thing is that no one has burnt the Interim Report like in the constitutional debate in August 2000!

The political parties/actors are divided on the ‘nature of the state’ in the broadest sense of the term, whether they completely conscious about it or not, without limiting to the proposed articles 1 and 2 in describing the state in the Interim Report. The questions on (1) devolution and provincial councils, (2) the abolition or the preservation of the executive presidency and (3) the ‘foremost place for Buddhism’ are linked to the nature of the state. What was not discussed or neglect is the political economy behind all of them.

One may even argue that the electoral system has a bearing on the nature of the state, but it is more remote than the others. Therefore, it is possible that even without a basic agreement or understanding on the above three issues, and based on the present understanding of the state, the political parties/actors and the country coming to an agreement on the electoral system. That could be at least one breakthrough for the future.

Constitution making is about state formation and state making, while it does not limit to a written document. What kind of a state that we have at present? What are the discontents or weaknesses? What kind of a state we need in the foreseeable future? These are the fundamental questions to be asked and answered in venturing into constitution or state making.

What is the nature of the state today? That is the key question that this article attempts to answer by looking into the past, while indirectly answering the other two questions in the process, giving much attention to the most neglected questions of the political economy.

Historical Background   

At least since the Colebrook-Cameron constitution of 1833, Sri Lanka has been a ‘unitary capitalist state,’ but until 1948 it was directly subordinated to the British state. The political economy behind it was pure colonialism. This also meant a dependent capitalist state in the formation. It should be noted that the primary objective of the Colebrook-Cameron reforms was to liquidate the feudal system that prevailed in the country before. In terms of the political structure, it was a unitary state with one legislative body and one Governor. Initially, the legislative body was called the Legislative Council and since 1931 it was named the State Council. Many of the legislation for the country during the initial period came from the superior legislative body of the British Parliament. Most of these enactments are still in operation.

The legacy of this colonial heritage and the subordination of the state to external bodies/forces do play a role in the public ‘consciousness’ and opinion even today, while they are exaggerated by some political actors to their maximum benefit. These motives are related to power, and not necessarily to rationality or justice.

When the British controlled the state, the majority-minority conflict was largely restrained or used for the benefit of their external control through ‘divide and rule’ policies. However, after the universal franchise was introduced, the elite of the majority community started to assert and assert at the expense of the minorities. This tendency was abundantly clear during the 1940s in the State Council and even thereafter. The majority-minority conflict or the majority dominance over the minority is a perennial challenge that any democracy has to face within particularly a highly polarized society. It obviously takes time to sort out these matters.

Although the Soulbury constitution did not spell it out, that constitution and the state behind it also was unitary. It was a unitary state of the British type however with a written constitution and without devolution of power. The political economy behind it was a dependent ‘export-import economy’ largely controlled by the agency houses. It was in a sense semi-colonialism. There was only one centre for legislation and administration in Colombo. Although the bi-cameral legislature, the entrenched article 29 and the appeals possibly going to the British Privy Council were considered safeguards to both ethnic and religious minorities those were not effective judging from the legislations enacted during this period (1948-1972). The Official Languages (Sinhala only) Act was a key example.

Does this mean that only the minorities were dissatisfied and the majority was satisfied? It was hardly the case. In many countries, majority-minority conflicts arise as a struggle for a limited pie. This is both in economics and politics. When the competition for the ‘limited pie’ intensifies, there is room for communal violence and atrocities. The competition for land and trade was the hallmark of communal violence between 1958 and 1983, apart from interconnected political issues.

Major dissatisfactions within the majority community without much relevance to the communal competition came to the surface in the 1971 youth insurrection. This was the same in the case of the emergence of many militant groups in the North during and after that period. This does not mean that the communal violence, the 1971 insurrection or Tamil youth militancy thereafter could be understood referring to the political economy alone. There are many ideological factors in operation in such phenomena worldwide.

Constitutional Experiments

Both 1972 and 1978 constitutions can be considered two experiments within an unsettled state system. The attempts were to refashion the state and its various institutions. First one was a ‘socialist’ experiment with nationalist distortions. A key background to the situation was the widespread dissatisfaction of the organized working classes and the trade unions with the deteriorating economic conditions since mid-1960s. Under the circumstances, the left parties decided to join the nationalists in government and experiment not only a form of ‘socialism’ under ‘state capitalism,’ but also a new constitution. The primary reason for a new constitution was considered the colonial character of the Soulbury constitution.

Apart from the rejection of any kind of accommodation of provincial or regional councils, previously agreed in the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact or the Senanayaka-Chelvanayagam Pact, the 1972 constitution dismantled the liberal state to a great extent. It was a unitary state par excellence. It was based on a concept of ‘legislative supremacy.’ Independence of the judiciary and the public service were the major casualties. It tried to experiment a ‘democratic socialist state’ without a proper economic base or a strong socialist party. It also incorporated the primacy for Buddhism in the state, invoking the Kandyan convention of 1815. The experiment was a failure in many respects, mostly criticised was its narrow ‘closed economic’ policy.

The 1978 constitution was inaugurated on the assumption that a strong executive is necessary for economic development and resurrection of the capitalist system. Therefore, it went for a presidential system and a defused legislature based on proportional representation (PR). The political economy that it envisaged was not a closed economy but an open one, going beyond the traditional ‘export-import’ economy. Although a presidential system is a democratic system, the 1978 constitution had many authoritarian features with impunity to the President and without proper checks and balances. Inaugurated after the 1972 constitution, where independence of the judiciary and the public service had eroded, the deviation from democracy was more under the 1978 constitution than the 1972 constitution.

The 1978 constitution also failed to accommodate a provincial or a district council system which the framers promised before drafting it. Like the 1972 constitution, it was an extreme unitary state until the 13th amendment was inaugurated in 1987. It was a badly formulated constitution and within the first ten years there were 16 amendments back and forth, making room for different interpretations of the constitution.

The political economy backed by the constitution made some initial progress, but could not prevent a civil war erupting. The type of the open economy implemented did not help the regions and the disadvantaged communities. Although the fundamental rights chapter was satisfactory on paper, the democratic rights including the trade union rights and the media freedom steadily eroded.

What Kind of a State?

The initial misgivings of the 1978 constitution were related to its authoritarian character and the absence of devolution. There were many other factors why the civil war erupted in the country. However the way the Tamil militancy was handled under the executive presidency exacerbated the situation without resolving it. Therefore, the preservation of the presidency for mere security reasons is not wise unless the responsibility is linked to reconciliation. Reconciliation was hardly an objective on the part of JRJ or even under MR. It is also true that if not for the executive presidency, the defeating of the LTTE would have been extremely difficult.

The nature of the state does not limit to the question of the form of executive however. The centre of the debate has always been on the ‘territorial structure’ of the state. Since 1949, there has been a consistent demand for federalism on the part of the moderate political parties of the Tamil community, at times flirting with the idea of a separate state. This is a matter that the Tamil community has to make up their minds clearly. Although not very strong, there are also lingering demands even for a secular state from different quarters.

All the above boil down again to what kind of a state that Sri Lanka needs for the foreseeable future. At the Steering Committee, all have implicitly agreed to retain the characterization of the state as a ‘Democratic Socialist Republic.’ No one has objected to it at the Constitutional Assembly. That is what I have even in my passport! What do we mean by that? Is it merely a decoration or is it one of the objectives of the state? If it is the latter, what kind of socialism that we aspire for? Are we going to limit to extremely rudimentary welfare principles in the ‘directive principles of state policy’ in its name? Or are we going to make the directive principles enforceable?

Within the highly charged, acrimonious and divisive debates within the Constitutional Assembly and outside, more important questions of constitution making and state formation have been neglected. The fundamental rights, directive principles, the meaning of ‘democratic socialism,’ independence of the judiciary, strengthening of the public service and the language policy are some of them. Most of the debates have boiled down to ‘unitary vs federal state’ although there is no apparent attempt to draft a federal constitution to Sri Lanka. The devolution is not merely about concessions to the Tamil community, on which some of the advocates have most antagonistic views, but also about regional development.

Sri Lanka is a small country of 20.9 million people living in an area of 65,610 sq.km. The Chinese President Xi Jinping once remarked, when he was abroad often asked question was ‘how can one govern such a large country like China.’ One of his answers has been ‘it is a task delicate like frying a small fish.’ It is undoubtedly a delicate matter. China is 1.4 billion people and 9.6 million sq.km. with 56 ethnic groups. Therefore, governance in Sri Lanka cannot be that difficult, if the people shred away their acrimonious ethnic animosities and unite for a common cause. That common cause can be ‘democratic socialism’ as the constitution of Sri Lanka pronounces since 1972. It can be with certain Sri Lankan characteristics, with liberal state structures and liberal freedoms.

That kind of a vision might be able to unite the country, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, language, region, caste, gender and any other distinction. It means the preservation and extension of democracy while planning and promoting the economy for moderately prosperous country not for a few but for all.

Sangha and sovereignty in the age of the republic

 Wednesday, 8 November 2017 

Buddha is the physician. Dharma is the medicine. Sangha is the nurse. This luminously lucid analogy explaining the Buddhist concept of the three jewels – Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha – is given by Professor Richard Gombrich.

Sangha and sovereignty in the age of the republic.docx by Thavam on Scribd