The Sangha Needs Cleansing

By Ameer Ali –APRIL 12, 2018

Dr. Ameer Ali

When religion is politicised religious leaders lose their spiritual charisma and religious institutions become partisan players among competing political forces. This has been the sad story of Buddhism and its apex institution, Sangha, ever since SWRD began to exploit that religion and its monks to win his political battles. By the time he realised that by dragging Buddhism and the Sangha into political arena he had become captive to the demands of Sangha-backed reactionary forces within his cabinet could not turn his back on them. The moment he tried to resist their pressure he paid with his life. Regrettably, his successors did not learn any lesson from this saga except to continue politicising Buddhism and the Buddhist clergy to achieve and retain political power. Even Colvin R. de Silva, a Trotskyite and author of the 1972 constitution, could not escape leaning towards religion although he regretted later. It was his constitution, which made Buddhism the state religion. From then onwards the Sangha became a permanent player in Sri Lankan party politics.

Once the top echelons of the hierocracy started tasting the joys of political influence and power, it became only a matter of time before the demonstration effect percolated downwards to infect the lower ranks. Young members of the Sangha, with less commitment to monastic life and mort attracted by worldly pleasures, actively entered into the political arena. Soon they appeared on party political platforms canvassing on behalf of contesting candidates. They, in their saffron robes, participated, led and directed unruly and violent political demonstrations as happened in Aluthgama in 2014 and Digana in 2018. Contravening all Buddhist canons, they even justified violence on nationalistic grounds. At least one or two of them have even entered the country’s legislature as peoples’ representatives. There is nothing to stop them in the near future from holding cabinet positions. They will at least have a legitimate claim over the Ministry of Buddha Sasana. Is this the legitimate world of the Sangha? While Prince Siddhartha renounced all palatial comforts and worldly pleasures to attain Enlightenment, why are some of his disciples renouncing the enlightened path and embracing worldly comforts?

Politics is the art of the possible. The rough and tumble of politics allows room for corruption, nepotism, deception and many other forms of unethical behaviour. The term honest politician is an oxymoron. Sri Lankan politics, like in neighbouring countries, is notoriously corrupt. What is the guarantee that members of the Sangha who enter politics will not succumb to these evils? If they give in to such temptations, what sort of an image they create about the Sangha among Buddhist worshippers both at home and abroad? In the current political and ethnic turmoil the behaviour of a few monks have seriously damaged the reputation of this vital institution. It is time that the Sangha devices some internal mechanism to cleanse itself of the rotten apples. The need is there, but who should do it?

Read More

Thank God for party politics!

Rathana Thera, Patali Champika parted ways in parliament

JO saw the balance tilt in their favour over Maithri faction

PM enjoys broad support from middle class, urban elite loyals

I never thought I would say this, but thank God for party politics!  

2018-04-13

The UNP is in shambles. The SLFP is in a mess. The Joint Opposition has won a majority of the seats and has voted more mayors than any other party. The JVP, at least for the time being, has indicated that it’s willing to overtly wade against the UNP and the policies of Ranil Wickremesinghe. Rathana Thera and Patali Champika Ranawaka have parted ways in parliament, the latter voting against the No Confidence Motion and the former abstaining from voting. Amidst all this mess, I spot out the Rajapaksas, smiling if not grinning at the bigger messes it will probably create if this government continues the way it has so far.  

And now, the SLFP has split again. Most of the MPs who voted against the premier last week have willingly (or so they say) tendered their resignations (despite the protestations of the President, who wanted them to stay) and now sit in an Oppositional space, although reports indicate that they will not sit with the Joint Opposition and the Rajapaksas (to imagine that 

they would is to imagine the likes of S. B. Dissanayake and Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena sitting next to the same Cabal they lambasted and condemned to the dustbin of history over the last three years). The UNP has repeatedly hinted that any moves towards consolidating political gains with the Joint Opposition will only split the SLFP vote further. They are correct, but in just one way: the truth is that the JO has caused the balance to tilt in their favour, ahead and over the Maithripala faction.  

I honestly see nothing to celebrate or condemn in this, but I do see something that worries me: the lack of a proper Oppositional entity. The JO cannot and will not be taken seriously by anyone other than their most ardent fans and voters unless they overcome their biggest hurdle: the lack of a reckonable parliamentary presence. 
With the LG polls, they proved, for the first time in three years, that they had the numbers at the grassroots level. But the grassroots level has not had an impact on the larger mandate that was given in 2015. That mandate can only be questioned with a parliamentary majority, if not sizeable presence. The No Confidence Motion, as reporters here and elsewhere have pointed out, was, while not a total success, a warning sign for the ruling coalition. Just as well.  

And now, the SLFP has split again. Most of the MPs who voted against the premier last week have willingly (or so they say) tendered their resignations (despite the protestations of the President, who wanted them to stay)

By de-legitimising the JO, that ruling coalition, which is a coalition from the side of the SLFP and UPFA only thanks to those seen as “losers” by their own constituencies (like Duminda Dissanayake), committed a serious mistake. They legitimised the only parliamentary group that showed itself to have taken the grievances of the people, you and I, seriously. The first step towards creating your enemy is by de-validating him at each and every turn. Inasmuch as the JO can very well be an outfit housed by old timers, losers, and political hacks (and this is an indictment I subscribe to an extent), ignoring and shelving it was not going to be the answer. How on earth could the SLFP (the Maithripala faction) have conceded that this was going to be the way through which they could gain popularity from their voters? It’s like imagining a Gaullist Party, during de Gaulle’s time, without de Gaulle – simply put, it was not going to happen.  

The only way the government can change is if the leadership of the parties of the ruling coalition change, and that’s not going to happen anytime soon. Moreover, there’s a significant difference between the calls made for such a change in the two parties. The UNP, for all intents and purposes, has clinched the moment and, at least superficially, validated Ranil Wickremesinghe, both because of the Constitution of that party and also because there isn’t an alternative to him in there. Despite the observations of various objective political commentators, who have noted the leadership lacuna and the absence of a youth presence among the top rungs of the UNP, I can’t fathom a UNP after Wickremesinghe unless and until a leader groomed by him, and appealing to a more varied base, comes up; in other words, we are not going to see another Premadasa coup.  

The only way the government can change is if the leadership of the parties of the ruling coalition change, and that’s not going to happen anytime soon. Moreover, there’s a significant difference between the calls made for such a change in the two parties

In any case, Premier Wickremesinghe enjoys broad support from the demographic that would never fail in its loyalty to the Greens: the urban elite and middle class bourgeoisie, situated for the most in and around Colombo, Kandy, and Galle. This class is mostly composed of the businessmen and entrepreneurs and the cosmopolitan liberals.

 Regardless of the disastrous policies of the UNP in the last three years on the economic front, we are not going to see changing and shifting loyalties among that class anytime soon, which obviously means that Premier Wickremesinghe, as long as he obtains unconditional loyalty from them, will triumph over any attempts made from within to oust him. Unless a Gorbachev comes up, he will simply not go. Not that I see anything wrong in that: despite what people may say of him, that he is not a populist does not automatically mean that he does not have ideas which the country can make use of well.  

President Maithripala Sirisena’s situation is trickier, because here is a person, who, like Mr. Wickremesinghe, was pushed into the leadership vacuum of his party, and who, unlike the latter, was artificially made the leader of that party

President Maithripala Sirisena’s situation is trickier, because here is a person who, like Mr. Wickremesinghe, was pushed into the leadership vacuum of his party, and who, unlike the latter, was artificially made leader of that party. In 1994, the UNP had no alternative: Ranasinghe Premadasa, Gamini Dissanayake, and Lalith Athulathmudali were all dead. In 2014, there was a coup in the SLFP. If one peruses history, one will infer that the SLFP has consistently shown a bad record when it comes to recovering from such coups: the C. P de Silva crossover in 1965, the resignation of the Old Left from the Samagi Peramuna in 1975, and the many clashes of loyalties and personalities in the eighties. Each time, the kalabili within the SLFP has got worse, and none has been worse than what we saw after 2015. In all these instances, who won? The UNP, of course: smugly grinning in the corner while superficially hailing the virtues of coalition politics.  

Given the stunning retreat of the Maithripala Faction (the members of which have a dark, bleary future – oh yes, they do, don’t have any doubts about that now!) from the UNPs attacks on them, what else would the electorate have inferred other than the point that they were more concerned with chasing the Rajapaksas out than being a proper counterpoint to the party they teamed up with. Which voter in his/her right mind would consider that a point in his/her favour, except the most servile? Stunning retreats of this nature, no matter how pompously they may be announced, no matter how much the retreating party may pump them up in the name of good governance, do not bode well for loyalists, and SLFPers, tired of the compromises made by their parliamentarians in the face of the traditional enemy, gave them the proverbial boot. The likes of S. B. Dissanayake and Dayasiri Jayasekara, especially the latter, have one last shot – but will they take it, or evade it, as they’ve done for the last three or four years?  

That question brings me to my first point – thank GOD for party politics!  

On the question of Muslims

Kandy during riots

By Sivamohan Sumathy-April 11, 2018, 12:00 pm 

In the aftermath of the violence that engulfed the Kandy district, many of us in the intelligentsia have been floundering about, trying to find answers to what has happened. We have responses, quite anguished responses, trying to reason out what the irrationality of the violence targeting Muslims could mean in the short term and in the longer term. My piece here is one such attempt and in my quest for answers I wish to look at how many of the well intentioned responses to the crisis, some of them stronger and sharper than others, nevertheless fall short of offering a critique of the structural aspects on which the violence pivots.I wish to anchor some of my own formulations on two pieces of writing that are symptomatic of precisely the contradictions that confound such responses. I refer to Kishali Pinto Jayawardene’s article "An unhappy Lanka and an unfortunate people" (Sunday Times, March, 11, 2018) and Kalana Senaratne’s"Behind a growing social fissure" (The Hindu, March 22, 2018); both unequivocal in their critique and yet, partaking in the majoritarianism of the violence that they critique.

Jayawardene unequivocally condemns the violence and asks what has happened to our country. And this is a question many of us are grappling with and trying in many ways to find a solution for. She opens her piece with an anecdote, where a fellow traveller on the plane, claiming to be from Mawanella, tells her that unlike earlier times, Muslims in Mawanella are isolating themselves and the Sinhala community in turn has turned away from them. Jayawardene develops this point no further, nor does she refer to the anecdote beyond this narration, but relates this story to illustrate a reason for the breakdown of relations between the two communities. On reading it, one is hard pressed to understand what the import of this narration is. The reproduction of this tired old view of Muslims is annoying at best and dangerous at worst.It is a classic case of a majority blaming the minority and one that characterises a wide range of responses, some even academic in their registers.

One critical piece of information is glossed over in Jayawardene’s article; in privileging the authoritative voice of Mawanella, the "highly educated Engineer"she ignores something that I think is critical,the fact that neither during the Aluthgama violence nor in the Digana violence, there were riots against Muslims of any significance in Mawanella. She may not know that there has been quite a concerted effort in Mawanella post 2001 riots and post Aluthgama violence, initiating dialogue between the two communities, associations, workshops and other activities. The highly educated engineer does not seem to know of this. Whether these efforts are successful or not, or meaningful or not is quite another question. But we shall not sit in judgement over communities with whom we have had very little interaction. In talking about Mawanella and the non-occurrence of violence there, I am not suggesting that the incidents of violence at Digana and Aluthgama are somehow triggered by the Muslims or the kind of Sinhalese who live there. Far from it. Why violence took place in Aluthgama, Ampara(i) and Digana and not in Mawanella in the last few years could point to something interesting and significant and at the same time, not; but one can rest assured that it has little to do with the Muslim community isolating itself, for if one tried even a little to study what happened, one would find that quite a different picture emerges. Further, isn’t it significant that the headquarters of Mahason Balakaaya is in Digana? Does it have any meaning for Muslim-Sinhala relations? Again, is it only because of Mahason Balakaaya having its headquarters there were these incidents? I seriously doubt it and will say NO.While many Sinhala persons had braved the wrath of the thugs and had given shelter to Muslim families, whose courage and commitment cannot be overstated and needs reiteration, we also have stories about how long standing and intimate friends had turned their heads away. The violence in Digana, Kengalle and parts of Akurana, Katugastota and other places is not about a community isolating itself. One needs to seek answers through a more involved and a more sustained exchange of ideas, feelings, understandings of how and why communities live together and in isolation. Above all, one needs to pay heed to the politics and political economy of place, shaping the discourse, in this instance, of ethnicity and nationhood.There is no short cut to these departures, processes and arrivals.

Kalana Senaratne’s article, challenging one to theorise on what we need to do, and by proposing a solution through constitutionality, a secular minded state, provides the spring board for what I want to say. That he qualifies secularism and wants a reformist secular state (and in my view welcome) rather than a secular state perse is interesting. I would like to think that he qualifies the secular for the reason that he is uncomfortable with the rigidities proposed by the promotion of a secular state, blind to the normativity embedded in such a proposal. The state accommodates secularism and promotes it while being aware that its polities, communities, have various different allegiances, a prominent one being religion, while other communal identifications could qualify as well. While such a complication of the secular is necessary and welcome, I think Senaratne does not go far enough in that mode, extending that privilege (the privilege of complicating and accessing secular mindedness rather than the secular) to all communities. A certain majoritarian tendency shows up, unfortunately, for I do not think Senaratne wants to be in that camp. Yet, I find that slip or slippage, productive, for it opens up space for a dialogue that Senaratne and others would be interested in engaging with.

What are these majoritarian pronouncements? 1. Muslims are less self critical. than Sinhala Buddhists 2. One must pay heed to allegations of land grabbing by Muslim leadership. 3.The state must pay heed to allegations of increasing radicalization of Muslims in the east as it can destabilize it. 4. Muslims have a particular kind of approach to religion that is different from the Buddhist approach to religion 5. Buddhists are more liberal minded than Muslims. It is true that Senaratne sounds somewhat tentative on all these pronouncements, and yet, that very tentativeness makes all of them possibilities. Yes, I will concede they are possibilities, but are so not in the way he’s proposing; possibilities arising out of a singular truth- That the Muslim is somehow tangential to the idea of nation, the Sri Lankan nation and has to reform himself if he wants to belong. This undertone of dominance, centering Sinhala Buddhism in its theoretical framework, makes Senaratne’s claims and pronouncements very disconcerting.

Apart from the quite astonishing remark about how Muslims are less self-critical than the Sinhala Buddhists (!) and the related point about how the Buddhist approach to religion is different from that of the Muslim, which I am going to ignore for the moment, the other concerns he raises necessitate a response. I find it interesting that he makes a claim to history and locates the current social turmoil within the historical period of post war conditions. He recognizes the present moment as the post war moment and speaks of the radicalization of Muslims in the east, interestingly given as ISIS inspired! While nobody, not even in the time of war, had found any evidence of a militant Islamic organization, drawing succour from ISIS, ALQAEDA or Taliban, and there is absolutely no such evidence visible today in the east, he suggests something of that sort as a primary concern.

But there is a more fundamental question that I want to raise here and that is not about evidence of Muslim militancy, but is about militancy itself, ethnic, class based, gendered, and regional. Our terminology is not innocent and is coined through a discursive that is both local and global. Therefore, when he cites radicalization of Muslims as a fear of the state, it is not militancy itself that he deplores, but the militancy of Muslims.What about Tamil and Sinhala radicalization movements? Why are they to be dubbed as militancy and are to be endowed with some kind of legitimacy (even when feared and suppressed) while militancy among Muslims (real or perceived) is to be feared and delegitimized from the outset? I would ask Senaratne to turn to the discursive here, look at his own assumptions and frames of thought. What is radicalization really? If it’s a short hand for various forms of militancy among Muslims (real or imagined), what does it say about us? From what context do we borrow that term? How do we, Muslims and all, understand that term?

As Senaratne should know, the east was embroiled in the complications of ethnicization for more than 30 years, dating from perhaps pre-independence times. These ethnic complications and tensions have spilled over into the post war period and shape the nature of politics in the region. Land in the east has been a particularly contentious subject. I am sure Senaratne is aware that, even if not the most, at least some of the densest areas in the country are located in the east and are Muslim majority areas; this has to do with the way in which eastern Muslims have been confined to small pockets of land and land available to them has shrunk. Many Muslim communities living elsewhere in the region had to relocate themselves in Muslim majority areas, like Kathankudy, during the war. The 2004 tsunami aggravated the situation. Land grab accusations aimed at a minority community are always to be viewed with suspicion; and one can argue any land grab allegation has to be examined carefully before any public pronouncement is made. See "Muslim geographies and the politics of purification in Sri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami" by Shahul Hasbullah and Benedict Korf in the Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 2009.

(To be continued)

Sivamohan Sumathy is attached to the Department of English, University of Peradeniya.

“Her. Him. The Other” – Exposing Political Realities and Eroding Human Values

Featured image courtesy Her. Him. The Other trailer

UPALI AMARASINGHEi04/12/2018

We stand today with our collective consciousness bruised almost beyond repair. We feel devastated by the chaos, anarchy and culture of impunity.  As someone recently said, the beast rides again.
What is the role of the artist within the current socio-political context? The artist should delve into the roots that gave birth to this beast. The responsibility of the artist today is to explore realities of our times. They need to dig deep in order to examine the dynamics of socio-economic and political realities. It is too much of a luxury for an artist to live in a world of fantasy.

One of the film directors of “Her. Him. The Other” expressed his frustration on Facebook in the following manner; 

“Religion and nationality are an anaesthetic making your mind agreeable to engage in collective killing. Society once injected with this anesthetic will automatically slide down to devastation. We witnessed humanity ablaze in 1983. We did everything humanly possible to avoid witnessing the recurrence of this destruction in our life time. But we have failed”. (Facebook, Ashoka Handagama, March 5, 2018)

The sad irony of our times is to see a celebrated film maker of high calibre such as Handagama being compelled to make a statement of this nature. Surely, he is not at fault. These words exemplify the frustration of all peace-loving people in Sri Lanka. Of course, we would never doubt for a moment that Prasanna Vithanage, Vimukthi Jayasundara and Ashoka Handagama, the three film makers of this film anthology “Her, Him and Other” will accept defeat and drift into inaction. They will hopefully continue to hold that mirror of reality to show the ugly face of society and force us to reflect on this continuing mayhem and our collective guilt.

 Her:

Our “collective guilt” is brought on to screen through an almost confessional admission by a former LTTE videographer. We see dead bodies, supposedly of Sinhala soldiers whose wrists are adorned with what could be pirith nool, believed to be protecting Buddhists from harm. The radio messages being relayed announce that 13 soldiers have been killed reminding us of the 13 soldiers killed prior to the Black July riots in 1983.

The rasika (the connoisseur) in the audience is consumed with feelings of empathy when he or she listens to the conversation between Kesa, the videographer and Yaso, who believes that her fiancé is still alive. Kesa hides the fact that he has already been killed in action. It is a reality known to the audience but not to Yaso. It is deeply shocking and sad for the viewer to follow this fantasy world Kesa is creating for Yaso, with the ulterior motive of befriending her and extracting information of the army locations.

Why does Kesa have to play this role of trickster? Why does Yaso have to live in anxiety expecting her fiancé to turn up at her door one day?

The driving force behind this duplicity and agony is the scourge of war; a war that has been depriving people of human values. The anti-war stance as depicted consistently by Prasanna through his previous films is brought to bear in this film as well. It is considered to be based on a true story and this is only one of those stories. We all know that there are hundreds of stories hitherto being untold.
In the end, Kesa starts his journey to find Yaso and tender his apology to her. He is doing this with Handagama (Ashoka Handagama plays the character of a film director). While travelling in the van, Handagama asks for meaning of the song being played in the radio of the van. Kesa says:
“This song says: Our childhood dreams are no more. None of those came true”.
 And Kesa keeps talking:

“The truth is…our expectations were never fulfilled. When we watched films of yours with other Sinhala film makers, we thought we should do the same and tell our stories. It became our dream. You understand? Nobody does.
Handagama, nobody understands our pain. We dreamed about a bright future and a happy life; a better future for our kids. Nothing worked out as planned. Look here…We have so much to say. But we are unable to say it. No one is willing to listen to us. That is our main problem”.

Ironically, this story of “Her” has finally been told not by Tamil film director Kesavarajan but by the Sinhala Film director Prasanna Vithanage.

Him:

The film of Vimukthi Jayasundara begins with a lesson being taught at a school by a Sinhala literature teacher. In this “lesson”, the teacher asks the students to read about the composition of diverse Sri Lankan communities and their languages. He unravels and clarifies the meaning of historical events. Within the first few minutes, the viewer realizes that the teacher stands for “supremacy” of Sinhala language.

The renowned Indian historian, Romila Thaper once said that the validity of construction of history is determined based on factual evidence. This teacher’s interpretation of “history” may not be the same as those of other Sinhala literature teachers in Sri Lanka. However, it clearly represents Sinhala Buddhist hegemony.

This teacher seems to be located in a school close to a coastal area in which Tamil and Sinhala communities are living together. The principal of the school is engaged in a business purchasing sea boats to make an additional income. He treats both his sea-boat business and his role as school principal as similar in nature because both need “management”.  This film revolves around a story of rebirth; a LTTE member after being killed in action is supposed to have been re-born as a Sinhala boy. At one point in the film, the principal asks the literature teacher a critical question:

“Say you believe in reincarnation. Is it possible for a Tamil terrorist to be reborn as a Sinhalese?”
In this film, Vimukthi very astutely challenges perceptions associated with rebirth, stereotypes about the Muslim community living in Sri Lanka, and the role of the media, which is often devoid of any conflict sensitivity.

The media representative hoodwinks the literature teacher and gets him to hold a bottle of toddy and a glass. He captures the teacher in a photograph promising that he will not publish the image of the inebriated teacher. In fact, the picture is published in the paper on the following day with a splash of the rebirth story. Just after the teacher is photographed, Vimukthi shows us a snorting pig and two donkeys braying at each other – quite an apt symbolic appreciation of the role of the media, when it decides to promote sensationalism!

With brevity of words and aesthetically woven shots, Vimukthi presents his artistic production. When the story of rebirth is published in the newspaper and the family of the son considered to be reborn has been sent away for their “protection”, the principal says the following to the literature teacher:
“Only Lord Buddha is able to choose a time, place, caste and mother before birth. Nobody knows where or who, we would end up reborn as”.

Other:

Handagama in his segment of the film named “Other” says that living in coexistence does not happen automatically. He does it so subtly that the viewer eventually wakes up to the rude reality of politics in our times.

This achieved through the sound of a phone call which is never answered by the owner of the phone, a young Tamil woman. She is coming to Colombo to protest against the absence of educational services to children in the North including her son. She is silently telling us that she will not answer the call of co-existence and affection by the Sinhala three-wheeler driver until justice is done to the people living in the North.

The film “Other” begins with scenes of a protest march demanding to find the “missing people”. As usual, the media focuses not on the purpose of the protest but the road obstacles and traffic jams. The Tamil mother whose son is missing and the young Tamil woman who is fighting for her son’s educational rights represent the “other” in this film. When the Tamil mother visits the house suspecting her son is living there, she only comes face to face with a Sinhala mother whose son has gone to war but come back minus a limb. Any mother deprived of a son is helpless whether they are of Tamil, Sinhala or Muslim origin. The following quote in the film testifies to this agony of all mothers:

“When a mother loses a child, she is consumed with relentless, burning hope. She burns in that fire every moment”.

There are a few scenes in this film in which human values are upheld surpassing the feeling of egoism and self-interest. When the Tamil mother is committed to finding her son, the other young Tamil woman and the three-wheeler driver leave her behind in the streets. But both of them cannot go too far. They are overwhelmed with the feelings of guilt. From different directions, they come back to the mother again at the same time to join her. This symbolically powerful gesture of sacrifice reminds us of the committed and selfless people who repaired the burnt Muslim hotel in Anamaduwa recently within twenty-four hours.

 Her, Him the Other:

This film anthology is meant for Sinhala Buddhist society. It speaks to our collective guilt. In that sense, this film is not only about “thundenek” or three people. It is about the young man who is sitting in a village shop, looking blank. He could probably be a former soldier who has come back after the war. It is the story of the school principal. It is also the story of three-wheeler driver. In the end, it is the story of all of us.

The question arises whether the film makers have sufficiently been able to explore the roots of this crisis emerging from socio-economic and political forces of the state, its institutional mechanisms such as rule of law and other institutions and the socio-cultural ideologies of our times. If such exploration is restricted through censorship and other forms of control, then the film makers need to find devious and alternative ways of presenting their artistic production. Although such devious ways are more or less demonstrated in this film anthology, the film makers may not have adequately wrestled with the political realities digging deeper to the root of the problem, well beyond the human-interest stories. Despite the fact that the three films are inter-connected in one way or the other, the film makers have to shoulder the responsibility of doing three short films on their own depriving them of the ability to treat their individual themes comprehensively.

Yet, this film is critically important for a discourse around the current fissures within the social strata at the grassroots. This film will definitely add value to the dialogue on reconciliation that could be initiated by all concerned activists and peace loving people. Our society does not seem to be ready even for short-term interventions of reconciliation prior to initiating any paradigmatic change of our political structures and ideologies. The state is yet to learn from the experience of other countries faced with similar crises. The culture of impunity nurtured over the last few decades by the state has seeped into the body politic of our society like a cancer. We have written reams of reports on “lessons learned” but we have failed to learn from them and implement them in a pragmatic manner.

After having experienced critically devastating socio-economic and political crises during the last few decades, this society is yet to adequately promote reconciliation and co-existence within diverse communities through a dialogue on justice, truth seeking, compassion and forgiveness. Some sections of our Sinhala Buddhist communities suffer from the “entitlement syndrome” believing that the country belongs to Buddhist people only. If we genuinely want to live in co-existence, we should be willing to turn this type of ideological positioning and belief upside down.

This film stimulates the viewer to question the nationalistic roots of socioeconomic and political structures of our society. This film ignites passion within the viewer enabling him or her to change those ideological postures. It forces the viewer to think about the futility of war. It persuades the viewer to reflect upon the past terror and violence and the need to re-build a new future.

NCM not totally defeated; it is still yielding

UNP had 106 members in Parliament when NCM handed over to Speaker

SLPP came first in 232 out of 340 local councils in February 10 elections

The President  first demanded the resignation of Prime Minister

TNA had 16 members in the House came to rescue the PM at the NCM

The 16 rebel MPs might soon join hands with former President Mahinda Rajapaksa

2018-04-13

It goes without saying that the Joint Opposition (JO) somewhat spoiled the local government election victory of its official political party, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) with its no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. However, the subsequent events unfolding within the ruling coalition point that the motion was not totally defeated.  

The morale boost that was gained by the SLPP after it came first in 232 out of 340 local councils at the February 10 elections was such that their demand for the so-called Yahapalana [National Unity Government] to resign forthwith was seen by many as legitimate. Later they demanded that the PM step down from the post. However, with the defeat of the no-faith motion they seem to have rescinded those demands.  

It was President Maithripala Sirisena who first demanded the resignation of his coalition partner Premier Wickremesinghe in the wake of the local council polls, despite his party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) having suffered even more at the same elections. He even reportedly sought the opinion of the Attorney General on his powers for the dismissal of the Prime Minister. Yet, he too seem to have meekly submitted to the new situation after the defeat of the no-faith motion.   

The Joint Opposition should have expected this outcome of their no-confidence motion in the light of the ground situation. There were no considerable dissension within the Prime Minister’s party, the United National Party (UNP) which had 106 members in the Parliament when the motion was handed over to the Speaker of the Parliament, except for a few Parliamentarians challenging the party leadership.  

State Minister Palitha Range Bandara had challenged his party leader, Wickremesinghe with a warning to bring in a no-confidence motion even before the Joint Opposition announced its decision to bring in one. Deputy Minister Palitha Thewarapperuma had resigned from his post. Ven. Athureliye Rathana Thera who contested under the UNP symbol had distanced himself from the party while Deputy Minister Wasantha Senanayake was also grumbling against the leadership. That means there have not been any major splits or dissensions within the UNP except for the frustration among these few individuals when the Joint Opposition attempted to oust the Premier.  

With the Tamil National Alliance which had 16 members in the House seeming to come forward to defend the Prime Minister it was an obvious fact that the Joint Opposition’s no-faith motion was doomed to fail, even if all parliamentarians of the SLFP had joined hands with them. There wouldn’t have such a morale setback for the Mahinda Rajapaksa loyalists in the Parliament as well as at the grass root level, hadn’t the Joint Opposition created an unrealistic frenzy among the masses over the success of the motion. They should have used the motion only to strengthen the public opinion against the government.  

The President who was openly criticizing the UNP over Bond scam during the election campaign calling for the PM to quit after the election, the SLPP became encouraged and their demand also took a twist to hunt down Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe

The local government election victory had created an unusual haste among the Joint Opposition and the SLPP to come back to power and hence they demanded the government’s resignation. With President Sirisena who had been openly criticizing the UNP over the Central Bank bond fraud during the election campaign calling for the resignation of the PM after the election, they were encouraged and their demand also took a twist to hunt down the Premier.  

There are no specific provisions in the Constitution for the removal of the PM in spite of the matter being mentioned in passing. However, if it is proved that the Prime Minister does not command the confidence of the Parliament, he would logically be disqualified to hold the post as the Constitution says “the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.”   

Nevertheless, the effort by the joint Opposition to prove that the PM does not command the confidence of the Parliament ended in a flop, demoralizing its rank and file. And now the UNP has started to hit back. The party is now hell bent to take the 15 SLFP ministers and Deputy Speaker of the Parliament Thilanga Sumathipala to task. While calling them to resign their posts the backbenchers of the party had submitted no-confidence motions against six of them. However, Premier Wickremesinghe had advised them to withdraw the motions on the grounds that they were not approved by the Party. Yet, it is doubtful whether the backbenchers would resort to such a move without the party leadership giving its nod.  

The 16 SLFP MPs who voted in favour of the no confidence motion are relieved of their portfolios it would be a shot in the arm of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the expense of President Sirisena

Despite their being a moral issue with respect to the SLFP ministers who have to work with the UNP as a team if they are continue to be a part of the government, the demand by the UNP for the Deputy Speaker to step down from the post seems to be illogical and against the tradition. Unlike the Speaker who does not take part in debates or voting in the Parliament, the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees who chair the House in the absence of the Speaker take part in debates and voting, unless they are at the Chair.  

This is not against the law or the tradition. Hence, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees would not be disqualified to hold their respective posts on the grounds that they had taken a side during a particular matter debated in the House. Even the Speaker is allowed to use his vote in case of both parties getting an equal number of votes on a particular matter.  

However, can a Cabinet minister continue as a member of the Cabinet without the consent of the PM when the Constitution stipulates “the President shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint from among Members of Parliament, Ministers, to be in charge of the Ministries so determined?  

In respect of the other ministers such as the deputy ministers and the State ministers the Constitutional provision is “the President may, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint from among Members of Parliament, Ministers who shall not be members of the Cabinet of Ministers.”  
Whatever the legal provisions on the removal of the ministers are, if the 16 SLFP MPs who voted in favour of the no confidence motion are relieved of their portfolios it would be a shot in the arm of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the expense of President Sirisena. Those 16 MPs might soon join hands with Rajapaksa as they would not stay any longer without the luxuries of portfolios, on a possible losing side.   
Rajapaksa too had invited them to team up with him while some of them might have been longing to cross over after the dismal performance by the two ruling parties at the LG polls. If they join the Rajapaksa camp as a group it would offset the setback suffered by the Joint Opposition after the defeat of the no-confidence motion.   

Their possible exit from the government would make the UNP more dependent on the TNA, giving an added advantage to Rajapaksa camp to exploit the Sinhalese vote bank at the future elections. Therefore, notwithstanding the Joint Opposition’s immediate setback in the no-faith motion issue, the motion has yielded to the group by way of dividing the two ruling parties as well as the SLFP.  

Lessons from a neighbour

India has much to learn from the way Sri Lankan Parliament conducted the no-confidence motion against the government.

Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup, File)

Written by Nirupama Subramanian | Updated: April 11, 2018

Last Wednesday, parliamentarians debated a no-confidence motion moved by Opposition MPs. The debate began at 9.30 am and by the time the vote was counted, it was 9.30 pm. All the government’s shortcomings were discussed threadbare. Ruling party legislators gave as good as they got. After heated speeches both ways, and a division by name, the prime minister comfortably won the day. In Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka is not the world’s biggest democracy, and has plenty of well-documented failings, but on April 4, it was an inspiring example of democratic parliamentary practice in South Asia. In India, meanwhile, the Budget Session would wind to a dismal end two days later, on April 6, going down in history as the least productive session of Parliament in the world’s largest democracy. Four parties had submitted no-confidence motions against the NDA government, but the Speaker never took them up on grounds of a daily ruckus in the House.

With its majority in Parliament, the BJP would have had no problem defeating the no-confidence motions. Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, on the other hand, had a numbers problem until a few hours before the debate, as even the loyalty of MPs from his own United National Party was in question. The no-confidence motion had been brought against the government by arch foe and former president, Mahinda Rajapaksa. Wickremesinghe’s government is in a cohabitiation “national unity” arrangement with the President Maithripala Sirisena-led United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). The main constituent of the UPFA is the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), to which Sirisena and Rajapaksa both belong. The party is divided between these two leaders in two rival factions. As many as 13 SLFP cabinet ministers in Wickremesinghe’s government voted for the no-confidence motion against the prime minister. Even Sirisena, competing with Rajapaksa for SLFP loyalty, is said to have secretly given his blessings to the no-confidence motion and encouraged party members to vote for it.

But Wickremesinghe had the last laugh. Despite a crushing defeat at the local government elections in February, which triggered demands from both Sirisena and some members of his own party that he should step down, and led to Rajapaksa’s no-confidence motion gambit, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has come out much stronger from facing the test in parliament than he was two months ago, or even a day before the vote.

His problems are not over — elections are due later this year in the provinces, which will be a big test for where his party really stands. And the cohabitation arrangement with Sirisena and the UPFA is under more strain now with seniors in that coalition voting against their own government.

The no-confidence motion focussed on what is known as the “bond scam” involving the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, and sought to implicate Wickremesinghe in it. It also blamed the government for “failing… to provide protection to Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim people” during the recent communal flare up in Kandy. Rajapaksa, who won a seat to the parliament in the 2015 election, arrived in the House only to vote, staying away from the debate that saw plenty of references to his flawed record while in power. There was some shouting and booing too during the speeches but the proceedings continued with no hitch.

In Delhi, not having the numbers to carry a no-confidence motion, the Opposition’s intention was perhaps to put the government on the mat with such a debate in the Lok Sabha, examining the government’s record. The Speaker’s decision not to take up the no-confidence motions submitted by the Telugu Desam Party, YSR Congress, Congress and the communists, on the ground that there was disorder in the House, has sparked controversy, and a debate on whether the Speaker has the power to admit or disallow the motion.

Back inside the Geoffrey-Bawa designed Sri Lankan parliament building, it was the country’s 47th no-confidence motion in seven decades, but only the third time against a prime minister — the last two times were in 1957, against S W R D Bandaranaike, and in 1975, against Sirimavo Bandaranaike. In the 225-seat parliament, Wickremesinghe won comfortably with 122 votes — he received all votes of the UNP and its allies that make up the United National Front coalition, and the 16 votes of the Tamil National Alliance. In favour of the motion, there were 76 votes.

In short, it was a classic demonstration of parliament in action. It moved the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), whose leadership has been under siege by an authoritarian leader, to issue a statement holding up Wickremesinghe as “a great example of how democratic leaders respond to challenges from their political opposition”. The MDP said President Yameen Abdulla, who ordered the military into the Maldivian parliament to deal with a no confidence motion against him, “has much to learn from true leaders like Prime Minister Wickremesinghe”.

As Delhi attempts to regain its influence in the region, what India does at home is as important as its foreign policy. Minus China’s deep pockets, India has something that its Asian rival does not — a democratic polity and the moral high ground that goes with it. How India works its democracy to meet an array of challenges, to further the interests of all its citizens, is of immense interest to its neighbours, all at different stages of democratic evolution. India imagines itself as a political role model for these countries. But from last week’s parallel demonstrations in the parliaments of India and Sri Lanka, it seemed as if it was big brother that needed lessons from a smaller neighbour.

nirupama.subramanian@expressindia.com

Vacancy Notice For A New (Girl) Friend

By Grusha Andrews –APRIL 12, 2018

“You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.” ~ Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890)

In the philosophical novel ‘The Picture of Dorian Gray” by Irish poet, writer, dramatist and journalist Oscar Wilde, Dorian Gray, a wealthy gentleman with unparalleled physical beauty is painted by an artist called Basil Hallward. This portrait is kept in an attic, hidden, and in exchange to the physical ageing of Dorian Gray, the picture ages and manifests in itself the sins of Dorian Gray. Dorian Gray lives an ever youthful hedonistic life of depravity and sin and finally conscience stricken and alone he stabs the picture into destruction. The picture then appears ever beautiful whereas an aged, distorted man is found dead at the feet of the picture of Dorian Gray.

Ranil: the Dorian Gray of politics

Ranil is the Dorian Gray of Sri Lankan politics. He remains unfazed, re-inventing survival tactic, rejuvenating with each strategic victory. Based on a logic fully comprehended, perhaps only by himself, he is single mindedly presiding over the largest singular democratic political party of Sri Lanka and attempts to uphold liberal democracy. Like Dorian Gray his outward demeanor and survival does not show significant degeneration. However in the UNP attic, politics is putrefying, much like the picture of Dorian Gray.

It has been the political destiny of Ranil to self-annihilate his own political potential for leading the country to the future in exchange to retaining his power within the UNP. The microorganisms who have dedicated their puny lives for the political destruction of Ranil such as Sajith Premadasa, Shiral Lakthilaka, Maithri Gunaratne, Palitha Range Bandara, Sirasa Media Network, Palitha Thewarapperuma et al, in their restricted amoebic world view do not recognize that Ranil, just like them is a man seeking soul’s security.

It has been thirty years since there was a UNP cabinet under a UNP government. There appears to be no one who genuinely looks at Ranil’s political upheaval with kind eyes. In his every waking moment Ranil is probably facing indescribable political and psychological conflict and complexity. Perhaps Ranil himself is not able to verbally articulate his inner dilemma. The more isolation one encumbers Ranil with, the more he will react like any other human being who is facing isolation. He will enclose himself with a few he believes to be his trusted allies to validate his existence and decisions.

The moral duplicity of the UNP

Those who expect political demi-Godhood from Ranil should first recognize his humanness. Those who expect renouncement, fairness, philosophical-ness and uprightness from Ranil should first stand in front of a mirror and take a good look at themselves. Whether man or political demi-God, the thick pals Ranil brings to the high table for political decision making have little distinction from the men who have for decades plotting his political annihilation. His political blood brothers are in fact political parasites feeding on Ranil’s political currency and isolation to feed their nourishment to the point of their political obesity. They are a central cause of isolation of Ranil from the people and democracy. The number one victims of this moral erosion are the women of this country constituting 52% of the population.

Like Arjuna at Kurukshethra, Ranil is entangled in fighting his power battle within the UNP and in the post No-Confidence Motion (NCM) phase. The NCM brought against the Prime Minister representing the premier party of the country was defeated amidst political hullabaloo. Ranil has re-emerged driving home the reality that he has mastered the art of  outliving  his political opponents and managed to re-establish himself within the party like a cat with more than nine lives, promising party reforms. If he does not include the empowerment of women in to those reforms, it will be the moral failure and moral duplicity of Ranil who is elected by the votes of women as well. He should rise up to the challenge of finding some female political friends who can have an intelligent conversation about the future vision of Sri Lanka, and who are not mere servants of politics. 

Wanted: a new (girl) friend

If Ranil truly believes liberal democracy he should act on his conceptual beliefs at this crucial juncture. He should appoint a woman as the General Secretary of the UNP. The misuse of women in Sri Lankan politics is a topic for another day. Their utility is largely limited to begging for votes door to door , making tea, serving biscuits, performing welcome dances, holding candles by the side of traditional oil lamps, ushering guests and being used as fillers in political rallies and walks. This is largely the fate of women outside dynastic politics of Sri Lanka. Even within the rightwing liberal democratic UNP, the role of majority of women is pitiful. 

It is reported that Ranil is planning to appoint his sidekick Akila Viraj Kariyawasam as the new General Secretary of the UNP as a part of the promised reforms, replacing Kabir Hashim. Akila Viraj Kariyawsam is a well-established, somewhat fearless minister of the government. There are no reported allegations of corruption against him. Apart from the fact that he believes that mothers of Kurunegala district who hug their sons to sleep end up having sexual intercourse them, justifying the separation of a child from an HIV positive mother, there seems to be no other problem with his liberal views either! The country, Ranil or the UNP don’t stand to gain much in the long run from political pets who have no insight in to human existence, depth or its magic.

Read More

K. Sivagananathan Memorial Trust distributes awards to meritorious students

Text and pix by

Gitika Talukdar- Wednesday, 11 April 2018 

The 16th Annual K. Sivagananathan Memorial Trust (KSMT) Awards ceremony was held recently at the Bank of Ceylon Auditorium.

This Annual Memorial Oration and Awards ceremony is conducted together with the Association of Professional Bankers of Sri Lanka (APB) in commemoration of the late K. Sivagananathan who was an innovative banker and contributed much to uplift and upgrade Sri Lanka’s premier state bank – the Bank of Ceylon. He also worked tirelessly with the APB and IBSL to improve the standard of education in the field of banking and finance in Sri Lanka to be on par with international standards.

Chief Guest at the event IFC Country Manager for Sri Lanka and Maldives Amena Arif delivered the annual memorial oration and she put emphasis on women’s economy and gender equality. She said women and girls make up a little over half the world’s population, but their contribution to measured economic activity, growth, and well-being is far below its potential, resulting in significant socio-economic consequences. Globally, only half of women participate in the labour force, compared to three quarters of men. In developing countries, up to 95% of women’s employment is informal; in jobs that are unprotected by labour laws, or which do not benefit from social protection. Women and girls are also the face of poverty, the latest Progress of the World’s Women 2015-2016 by UN Women finds that women are more likely than men to live in the poorest households in 41 out of 75 countries.

Financial services are a core enabler for consumption smoothing, risk mitigation, self-employment, SME growth, asset accumulation, and wealth creation. Lack of access to financial services reduces women’s ability to climb out of poverty; increases their risk of falling into poverty; contributes to women’s marginalisation to the informal sector; and reduces their ability to fully engage in measurable and productive economic activities.

42% of women and girls worldwide, approximately 1.1 billion, remain outside the formal financial system, according to the Global Findex database. Despite recent progress in financial inclusion rates in general, the gender gap has not narrowed: While account penetration increased by 13 percentage points among men and women between 2011 and 2014, the gender gap remains a steady 7 percentage points. Among adults living in the poorest 40% of households in developing economies, the gender gap is 11 percentage points. The gap varies significant by region and is highest in South Asia.

Guest of Honour of the event Bank of Ceylon Chairman Ronald C. Perera put emphasis on digitalisation of banking services. He said digitalisation of banking services are very important to make discipline in the finance system of any country.

KSMT Chairman and MAS Holdings Chief Growth Officer M. Nathan Sivaganathan briefed about the K. Sivagananathan Memorial Trust and said that it is a non-profit organisation predominantly dedicated to providing assistance to students pursuing higher studies in the field of banking and finance and encouraging them to excel in their examinations to achieve a higher standard to be in par with the developed countries, which was one of late K. Sivagananathan’s wishes.

During the event a total of 40 students who obtained the highest marks in the Diploma in Applied Banking and Finance (DABF) in the March and September 2017 examinations conducted by the Institute of Bankers of Sri Lanka (IBSL) were awarded cash prizes and certificates which were distributed by the chief guest Amena Arif, distinguished guest of the evening State Minister for Defence Ruwan Wijewardene, Guest of Honour Bank of Ceylon Chairman Ronald C. Perera, BOC Former General Manager and KSMT Trustee Rohini Nanayakkara, APB President and Bank of Ceylon General Manager KPS Bandara and Commercial Bank Managing Director Jegan Durairatnam.

The examinations conducted by the IBSL, affiliated to “IFS School of Finance”, UK, formerly known as the Chartered Institute of Bankers London, open to the bankers and public, tremendous enthusiasm has been shown not only by bankers but by those who aspire for a career in banking and finance.

The event conducted jointly by APB and KSMT for the past 15 years has met the objectives of both institutions.