'The President and PM must be proud of having promoted a Speaker who is the symbol of democracy in this country'

Speech made by Mangala during the adjournment debate on the Constitutional Council in Parliament on Today

(Lanka e News - 21.Feb.2019, 7.00PM) This is the speech made by Minister of Finance and Media, Mangala Samaraweera in Parliament today (21), during the adjournment debate on the Constitutional Council.

Hon. Speaker,

• If my memory serves me right, I cannot recall an occasion in Sri Lanka’s recent history when the Executive and the Legislature of Sri Lanka drew as much praise and applause as they did, both from our own citizens and the international community, than on the occasion of the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.
• It is perhaps the single greatest achievement of this House in recent times, and it stands as President Sirisena’s single greatest achievement since his election to office in January 2015. When, at some point in the future, Sri Lanka pauses to reflect on its history, this piece of legislation will perhaps stand as a milestone, and the beacon that heralded change in Sri Lanka towards good governance and strengthening of democratic institutions that facilitated our nation’s advancement as a strong, vibrant and stable democracy and prosperous and peaceful nation.
• The 19th Amendment that was signed into law on 15 May 2015 by the then Speaker of the House, Hon. MP Chamal Rajapaksa, after being voted in favour by nearly every single Member of this House, was not the result of a personal agenda of an individual or a group of individuals. This was the realization of the vision and the will of the majority of our people who are pro-democratic and progressive minded. It was the result of a movement to which people of our country including the late Venerable Maduluwawe Sobhitha Thero, politicians, civil society activists, human rights defenders, students, religious leaders, academics, journalists, artists breathed life and gave momentum.
•  There was a time in Sri Lanka where the judiciary operated through “telephone call judgments”. Under this system, all judges were appointed by one man. All ministers were chosen by that same man. In that time, the executive, legislature and judiciary all operated in lockstep in service to that man. If you were with that man, you could never be charged or convicted, whatever your crime. If you went against that man, his sons, his brothers, or some distant cousin, you would be arrested, charges fabricated against you, accused of terrorism, convicted, or worse, thrown into a white van.
• That man was invincible. The country was helpless. Then on one day in November 2014, Your Excellency, you risked your life and brought this self-made God to his knees. All of us united, under Your Excellency’s leadership, defeated that man on 8 January 2015, and ushered in a new era of true democracy, of liberty and independent institutions, to this country
• Under our government, we fortified our nation’s Constitution against the tyrants of tomorrow. We took politics out of the appointment of judges and key government positions and created an apolitical process where representatives of all political parties and eminent persons from civil society would vet judicial candidates. 
• For the first time in decades, judges of every level could travel the country and the world with their head raised high. It became clear to the public that they were nobody’s lapdog, that their appointments and promotions were removed from politics.
• Today, independent judges give independent verdicts. One former Member of this house has already been sentenced to death for a number of murders. 
• A former DIG has been sentenced to death for running a contract killer squad. The former president’s secretary has been sentenced for misappropriating public funds. 
• During the 56 days in which Mahinda Rajapaksa purported to serve as Prime Minister, we all got to see what their intentions really were. Several police officers and witnesses involved in cases against ‘budding flowers’ received calls suggesting that they put their lives and the lives of their families before their commitment to their jobs. Suspects waltzed in and out of the FCID wearing shorts and t-shirts. A man under investigation for robbing our national airline was reappointed as the head of that airline.
• Then, all of a sudden, after the 26th October attempt to seize power was ripped apart by an independent judiciary on the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, they realized that their true enemy was the very existence of an independent judiciary, and the Constitutional Council and its chairman who guard that independence. Suddenly they realized that the judges and Speaker will not bow down to their threats.
• An independent judiciary, or independent Speaker, is a deadly poison to the Rajapaksa way of governing. Such critical positions must be entrusted with “Sahodharayas” in their world, not patriots like Karu Jayasuriya who will put the country above all else.
• The President and Prime Minister must be proud of having promoted a Speaker who is the symbol of democracy in this country. This former army officer does not travel around the island climbing on stages, thumping his chest and bellowing about how much he loves this country. Instead he shows us how much he loves it by fighting to defend and strengthen our democracy. 
• This is also why, your Excellency, they are targeting and maligning the Hon. Speaker, Karu Jayasuriya. They learned the hard way that he is fearless, honest, and truly independent. 
• The Constitutional Council is primarily aimed at de-politicizing the state and public service, and within the brief period that it has been in operation, it has proved to be successful in its intended objective.
• It is no secret, Hon. Speaker that, since the establishment of the Constitutional Council, our country has witnessed a remarkable improvement in the quality of delivery of justice. I am confident that this is a cause for pride for our learned judges themselves when they interact with their peers in other countries. As the Hon. Speaker has clarified, seniority, while being one of the criteria employed by the Constitutional Council in nominating and approving persons for appointment, is not the onlycriteria. For a country to develop, meritocracy is essential.
• If, on occasion, the Constitutional Council had not approved a nominee submitted by His Excellency the President, which had resulted in the President having to submit fresh nominations to the Council, this is not a reason to feel slighted. It must be a reason for the President to feel proud that our democracy is becoming stronger. This is what checks and balances are about. This is what democracy is about. This must be a reason for pride to see that what one set in motion is actually yielding the intended results. If an impasse were to arise in the course of business, then the Constitutional Council and the President must work together to find a solution rather than engage in action that would exacerbate a situation. This, to me, is the beauty of democracy and what sets us apart from an autocracy or dictatorship.
• Since January 2015, we who are the elected representatives of the citizens of this country have managed, despite hindrances and obstacles, to achieve remarkable progress in terms of strengthening systems of checks and balances, thereby curbing unbridled power vested in the executive. Some of the mechanisms that we have set up, such as the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and the Police Commission perform a commendable role in protecting the rights of our citizens and empowering our citizens. This, in turn, strengthens us as a nation.

The Human Rights Commission in particular, which has been accorded Grade “A” status by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, has become an institution that all of us as Sri Lankans can be proud of.

• Any reversal of these good governance gains will not only make our citizens suffer in the hands of autocracy, it will isolate us internationally and plunge Sri Lanka into isolation once again. It will have a detrimental impact on Sri Lanka’s potential for economic development and the achievement of prosperity that all our citizens yearn for and deserve.

21.02.2019

---------------------------
by     (2019-02-21 13:28:46)

Sri Lanka: I will take the right decisions and move forward

 Feb 22, 2019Feb 22, 2019

Ports, Shipping and Southern Development Minister Sagala Ratnayaka yesterday assured that all maritime development plans will be accelerated, while outlining some of the key projects in progress.

“I assure that no plans of the ports and shipping sector will be delayed. I will take the right decisions and move forward. It is imperative that we move ahead with the development of the port of Colombo, otherwise we will lose out on business and we don’t want that to happen. We have already delayed too much, so I don’t want to be stuck in that situation any longer,” he told journalists, meeting the press for the first time after assuming duties at the Ministry.

He believes that the SLPA master plan supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) would lay a robust foundation for the ports and maritime sector’s development until 2050. 

“We had a lengthy meeting with the ADB officials on Wednesday regarding the SLPA master plan, and its proposals for all the ports in the country. It is a comprehensive program that will serve as a roadmap for the sector’s growth. These studies have been conducted technically by specialists who have worked on it and proposed to us a few models that could be implemented till 2050. We are still having discussions with the ADB, and soon we will review and execute plans accordingly,” the Minister said.

Underscoring some of the key developments in progress, Ratnayaka emphasised that they were also in the process of deciding the course of action on the much-talked-about East Container Terminal (ECT) in the port of Colombo.

“I have requested the Ministry Secretary and the SLPA to present their observations on the matter. They will have to evaluate if it is financially viable for the SLPA to invest in the ECT project alone, or if it should require a partnership with an external party. Based on their recommendation, I will discuss the matter with the President, Prime Minister and the Cabinet,” he added.

He also said that they were conducting a technical evaluation to further expand CICT without distracting the developments of the West Container Terminal of the Colombo port, where they hope to set up an LNG plant.

“We will build all these terminals based on the demand we have as well as on the capital involved to develop them,” he pointed out.

When asked about India’s involvement on Sri Lanka’s port industry, the Minister said the level of their involvement is still being discussed.

“The Indian Government has shown keen interest in Sri Lanka’s shipping industry and in assisting us. They (Indian Government) don’t want to go into any major stake anywhere, but they want to be involved. What that involvement has to now be finalised. The two Prime Ministers have discussed at a very high level, but we have to finalise those. I am still not aware of any final agreement,” Ratnayaka stressed.

In terms of Kankesanthurai port development project, which is being developed with a $44 million credit line from India, the Minister said it will be developed into three piers where two will be for commercial purposes and the other for Sri Lanka Navy.

He said the Ministry intends to fast-track the Kankesanthurai port development project and appoint consultants by July.

In addition, Ratnayaka also highlighted that ports of Trincomalee and Galle will be developed to have night navigation before the end of this year.

“New infrastructure and radar systems will soon be set up to make night navigation possible at Trincomalee harbour, with the financial assistance of one billion yen from Japan, which will be completed by the first half of this year. The SLPA will invest its own funding to install night navigation at the Galle harbour by August,” he said.

Ratnayaka said he was yet to study and review the Hambantota port development activities, which involves a joint venture agreement with China.  

The Minister also launched a maritime news website initiated by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) (news.slpa.lk) to disseminate up-to-date information on the ports and shipping sector, in a move to strengthen Sri Lanka’s image in the global maritime sector. 

Discipline and freedom under the reign of Gota

Marketing slogans must match reality

Saturday, 23 February 2019 

There’s nothing like a well-crafted marketing slogan for a prospective Presidential candidate. Gotabaya Rajapaksa is emerging more clearly into the daylight as the Opposition’s candidate for executive president. Against a redone image in the background of a library of books one observes our Gota, with appropriate gestures of hands, pontificating something we didn’t know: “How can we have freedom without discipline?”

Fortunately, the slogan hasn’t any racist connotations. ‘Discipline’ is his point of emphasis. The implication is that, if elected, Gota will guarantee discipline and then you can have your freedom.

The problem about all this is that a marketing program must match with reality. Gota’s doesn’t.

No match

Both Gota’s library background and his slogan cries for that matching experience. A man who has not gone beyond the formal O/Level cannot be expected to be perceived as someone who is learned. Of course, he has a doctorate; but that is an honorary one granted by our impoverished and rotting universities to placate those in power and satisfy their narcissism. Our Gota will probably use that doctorate sometime in the future.

Let’s take a look at the reality of the 10-year period of rule when Gota ran the show along with his President brother and other family siblings. It is fair to name this period as ‘Gota’s Reign’. Like his other powerful brother Basil, Gota was known to give orders to all and sundry. Although officially a Secretary, everybody knew the truth.

Gota’s discipline was ruthless

The term ‘discipline’ comes from the Latin word,’disciplus,’ and it had something to do with the processes of making kids follow codes or rules of behaviour and enforcing them by bringing in the heavy hand of punishment, if needed. The activation of discipline still remains as punishment. Gota wants to punish us if we do not follow ‘rules.’ That is the only way to maintain discipline.

Now, we know only too well that in his reign punishment was heavy. He himself recently admitted in public that white vans were put into use in that period. All sorts of charges were rife then namely, that anybody who went counter were chastised, sent missing or murdered brutally.

The illustrations of so many missing journalists come to mind and the case of Ekneligoda has come to life after Galaboda Aththe Gnanasara invaded Court when that case came up. There were many murders, the most brutal of them being that of The Sunday Leader Editor, Lasantha Wickrematunge, and that of the young rugby player, Wasim Thajudeen.

Lasantha published documentation that pointed to fraud in the purchase of MIGs for the Defence Ministry that was in Gota’s control. Although it was originally stated that the purchase was a Government to Government deal, it came to light that the purchase had been from a non-existent company in Ukraine. That incident was never investigated even after Lasantha had been ‘disciplined’.

Thajudeen’s murder was first dressed to be an accident but when the Government changed hands the Court confirmed the youngster had been murdered. The cops had vainly tried to do the dressing and the cops came under the Ministry that Gota ran with an iron hand.

In Gota’s reign the ruthless iron hand of discipline was indeed exercised and the public must be thankful to Gota for having shown what discipline meant, in the sense he used the relevant devices.

Where then was freedom under Gota’s discipline? For the millions of powerless, freedom was not there since the population was living with a Damocles sword over their heads. That sword could be exercised at local level by the corrupt elite of Pradeshiya Sabhas who had won recognition from the top; it reached up to the highest supremo levels at varying degrees of intensity. The simple explanation is that Gota’s discipline wasn’t an objective phenomenon but one that had been applied subjectively. The discipline itself was indisciplined. Such a discipline cannot bring forth freedom

Six flaws in Gota’s discipline

The problem in Gota’s discipline was manifold. First, the iron hand was not exercised to cover all disobeyers. The 100-exceeded cabinet of Ministers that his powerful brother headed had a majority whose names are involved with theft of taxpayer money, embezzlement of funds, bribery and so on. Many ministers of that era are lined up in Court today.

Second, according to charges now levelled against him, Gota had not himself set an example in discipline. The best discipline is self-imposed but there is a case before court that our supremo had embezzled Treasury funds in order to build a monument for his dear dad. (Ironically, this contrasts with the recent pictures showing Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe developing a poor temple out of his own personal funds.) What transpires as far as evidence and judgment in the Gota case is not for us to predict. The independent Judiciary will decide in a week or so – and that isn’t far away.

Third, Gota’s discipline had been selectively abused. The dramatic example was that of the jailing of our then Army Commander who fought and won the war in the battlefield – Sarath Fonseka (SF). The objections laid by SF at the time was that officers he had punished and who were persona non-grata with the latter were appointed to a cooked-up military court.

In the first place the choice of using a military court instead of resorting to our civil Judiciary had been a controversy. However, Gota and his brother thought otherwise and, in a case that provoked the headlines “Shame!” in our otherwise ‘disciplined’ national press, concluded with SF being thrown to jail.

On the other hand, there was no discipline exercised at other levels where the Rajapaksa cohorts were appointed to run. Examples are SriLankan Airlines and the Ambassadors in Washington and Russia – all run by Gota relatives.

Fourth, the foundation for civil discipline in any democratic country is the Judiciary. However, it is public knowledge that our Judiciary had been ruined under Rajapaksa control. The Chief Justice was allegedly a man like the Eveready battery – ready to follow orders. Key decisions were taken in Temple Trees.

Fifth, discipline is something that should be logically extended to cover other areas such as the government’s financial transactions. Financial discipline under Gota’s reign came to virtual zero as knowing persons watched with dismay when taxpayer funds were wasted at will in extravagant ministerial behaviour and ill-considered projects like the International Airport at Mattala. At the time of the fall of the regime in 2015 the country had been rendered almost broke.

Finally, the above considerations point to the fact that the discipline in Gota’s reign was meant to apply only to the millions of powerless people. The few hundreds who were under the sunshine of the controlling elite were safe with their indiscipline.

The prominent illustration had been at Rathupaswala where farmers had genuinely protested against the pollution of their underground water systems. They were shot by soldiers who belonged to the Defence Ministry. The previous shooting and killing at the garment factory premises in Katunayake was similar.

The term ‘discipline’ comes from the Latin word,’disciplus,’ and it had something to do with the processes of making kids follow codes or rules of behaviour and enforcing them by bringing in the heavy hand of punishment, if needed. The activation of discipline still remains as punishment. Gota wants to punish us if we do not follow ‘rules.’ That is the only way to maintain discipline. Now, we know only too well that in his reign punishment was heavy. He himself recently admitted in public that white vans were put into use in that period. All sorts of charges were rife then namely, that anybody who went counter were chastised, sent missing or murdered brutally

Where, then, was freedom?

Where then was freedom under Gota’s discipline? For the millions of powerless, freedom was not there since the population was living with a Damocles sword over their heads. That sword could be exercised at local level by the corrupt elite of Pradeshiya Sabhas who had won recognition from the top; it reached up to the highest supremo levels at varying degrees of intensity. The simple explanation is that Gota’s discipline wasn’t an objective phenomenon but one that had been applied subjectively. The discipline itself was indisciplined. Such a discipline cannot bring forth freedom.
(The writer can be reached via sjturaus@optusnet.com.au.)

CC must be like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion

Sugeeswara Senadhira-Saturday, February 23, 2019

It is very unfortunate that the Constitutional Council (CC) which was once hailed as the biggest achievement of the Yahapalana government has been maligned, challenged and questioned today.

This high authority which has powers to appoint/nominate the Supreme Court judges as well as the judges of Court of Appeal and other courts, chairpersons of state institutions as well as the members of the independent Commissions should be ‘above suspicion’ like Caesar’s wife Pompeia.

There are allegations of serious nature that some actions of the CC are beyond its given mandate. Recently, former Justice Minister Wijeydasa Rajapakshe accused the CC of taking bias and negative decisions detrimental to the public administration.

In a letter addressed to the President and the Speaker, Rajapakshe listed out some of the decisions he considered to be bias. The following are some of them:

President’s Counsel Suhada Gamlath was Secretary to the Justice Ministry. He was not appointed as Attorney General despite fulfilling all the requisites. He added that Senior DIG S.M. Wickremesinghe was not appointed as Inspector General of Police. The reason was that he was the Chief Security officer of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The letter stated that Justice Deepali Wijesundara was not appointed as the Chairperson of the Court of Appeal. According to Wijeyadasa Rajapakhe, the verdict given in the “white flag” court case affected this appointment.

Unfair and unethical manner

The letter goes on to say that Justice Kusala Sarojini Weerawardana was not appointed to the Court of Appeal because of her decision to release Lalith Weerathunga and Anusha Palpita, two accused of ‘Sil Redi’ case, on bail.

Further his letter states that A. A. Heiyanthuduwa, Manilal Widyathilake, and Aruna Ranasinghe were not promoted to the Appeal Court. They all had the necessary qualifications. The former Minister notes, that it is clear that the Constitutional Council is functioning in an unfair and unethical manner. He says that it has become an institution committing political persecution. He requested the President to publish a gazette asking for expert advice. He also suggested a set of guidelines for the Constitutional Council.

The CC was first established in 2000 under the 17th Amendment. However it was replaced by a Parliamentary Council under the 18th Amendment. The CC was appointed as a comprehensive democratic appointing authority by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 2015.

Although it was established with good intention, the CC ran into problems with the end of Yahapalanaya leading to serious differences between the Executive and the CC on issues pertaining to certain appointments to top post in judiciary and public institutions.

The President’s authority over the CC is well spelt out in the Constitution. The 41G clause of 19th Amendment states that ‘The Council shall, once in every 3 months submit to the President a report of its activities during the preceding 3 months’.

One of the nominations rejected by the CC was the name sent by President Maithripala Sirisena for the post of Chairperson of the Appeal Court. The name proposed by the President was that of the second most senior Judge of Sri Lanka, Justice Deepali Wijesundara. However, it was rejected by the CC. Furthermore, the names of Judges Anura Ranasinghe and Wijesinghe were also rejected for certain promotions.

These rejections have created a controversy on the appointment or rejection criterion adopted by the CC.

It was reported that some names were rejected because the CC had certain reservations about these judges because of some of the judgements given by them in the past. This is a very strange logic. If there are any doubts about a verdict, it is necessary to appeal against the judgement and call for a retrial. It is inappropriate to reject a promotion of a judge to a higher position on grounds of hearsay that some judgements were wrong. Such decisions are arbitrary and also a violation of the judiciary concept that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If the recommendations of the President were rejected due to judgements given by these judges, the CC or the Chief Justice should inform about those reasons to the President rather than keeping the Executive in the dark.

Controversial decisions

These controversial decisions of the CC could be due to the fact that there are no standard guidelines to the CC members with regard to the evaluation of nominees to judiciary services or public institutions. This is a legal lacunae in the 19th Amendment.

There should be key performance indicators (KPI) and other guidelines to ensure their impartial performances. Otherwise there could be misjudgements in appointments due to judicial temperament or attitude.

In most of the countries there are checks and balances on such appointing authorities. In the United States there is a Special Council to oversee such appointments.

The composition of the Constitutional Council consists of ten members, of whom three are ex-officio members while the rest are appointed. They are; (a) the Prime Minister, (b) the Speaker of Parliament, (c) the Leader of the Opposition, (d) one person appointed by the President, (e) five persons appointed by the President, on the nomination of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and (f) one person nominated by agreement of the majority of the Members of Parliament belonging to political parties or independent groups, other than the respective political parties or independent groups to which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition belong, and appointed by the President.

The current members are Karu Jayasuriya (Chairman), Ranil Wickremesinghe, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Mahinda Samarasinghe, Thalatha Atukorale, Chamal Rajapaksa, Bimal Rathnayaka, Jayantha Dhanapala, Naganathan Sellvakumaran and Javed Yusuf.

The CC appoints Chairpersons and Members of Election Commission, Public Service Commission, National Police Commission, Audit Service Commission, Human Rights Commission, Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, Finance Commission, Delimitation Commission, National Procurement Commission, University Grants Commission and Official Languages Commission.

The CC is responsible of giving their recommendations for high ranking posts of government institutions such as, Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court, President of the Court of Appeal and Judges of the Court of Appeal, Members of the Judicial Service Commission except its Chairman, Attorney General, Auditor General, Inspector General of Police, Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) and Secretary General of Parliament.

The Executive and the Parliament should give serious attention to the imperative need for establishment of guidelines for the members of the Constitutional Council in order to prevent such issue disrupting the public institutions of national importance in future.

Sri Lanka: Time to Set-up a TRC?

Mark Salter-22 FEB 2019

Is Sri Lanka on the path to establishing its own Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)? The answer, at least if Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is to be believed, is ‘yes.’ Speaking at a recent meeting in Kilinochchi, the wartime capital of territory ruled by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) during its 23 year-long conflict with government forces, Wickremesinghe suggested that setting up an TRC was now a priority, the aim is to establish a process and mechanism for ‘telling the truth related to the war,’ ‘expressing regret for the past’ and ‘asking forgiveness in order to establish genuine reconciliation.’ Like others before him, too, Wickremesinghe pointed to South Africa as a model for how to design such a process.

Critics will be quick to detect the hand of instrumental politics in this move. With the next Geneva review session of the UN Human Rights Commission now less than a month away, it is indeed tempting to see an announcement of moves to establish a TRC as a sop designed to keep the international community at bay over demands for demonstrable progress on accountability for alleged war crimes. And given the government’s past record of last-minute official announcements prior to UNHRC review sessions, most recently in 2017, with regard to an Office of Missing Persons (OMP), a certain measure of political sangfroid over moves to establish a TRC indeed seems in order.

That said, it’s important to keep in mind that setting up a TRC was one of four core elements of the wide-ranging and ambitious transitional justice (TJ) strategy outlined by then Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera at the UN in autumn 2015: the others being the OMP, an Office of Reparations and, most controversially within Sri Lanka at least, a hybrid court to address war crimes allegations.

Samaraweera envisaged an 18-month timeframe for rolling out the new set of TJ instruments. In practice, however, progress on realizing this agenda has been either painfully slow or, in the case of a hybrid court, non-existent. Following seemingly endless debates regarding its mandate and composition, the OMP was finally established in May 2018. To date it has held victim consultations and produced an interim report but not much more, compounding suspicions, notably among the northern Tamil population that bore the brunt of the carnage during the conflict’s final stages – that it will prove to be yet another ultimately toothless official instrument incapable of providing victims with the information they most want: the truth regarding the thousands of civilians and combatants still officially ‘missing’ almost 10 years after the war’s ending.

With regard to an Office for Reparations legislation enabling its establishment finally passed through parliament in October 2018, though there was some criticism of the envisaged mechanism as lacking in independence from government. No doubt at least partially due to the turmoil that descended in the wake of the (ultimately failed) late November takeover attempt by President Sirisena in cahoots with former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, little has been heard of the Reparations Office since, and it remains to be seen what happens once, or if, the Office eventually gets up and running.

Finally, at this juncture moves towards setting up the hybrid court proposed in 2015 appear to be completely stymied. If anything, indeed, things have moved backward, with a succession of government officials, President Sirisena included, lining up over the past few years to voice criticism of everything from international judges’ prospective involvement in a court to the wholesale rejection of allegations of war crimes committed by Sri Lankan armed forces.

In response to this situation, some will argue strongly that unless and until issues of accountability are adequately addressed in Sri Lanka, moves to establish bodies such as a Reparations Office or TRC are little more than window-dressing and should be treated accordingly. A more nuanced position might be to welcome the (limited) progress made to date on implementing the 2015 transitional justice agenda while also urging the government to move forward resolutely on all four pillars.

At the same time it’s important to underscore the fact that in Sri Lanka, as in all post-conflict contexts, there are critical issues of timing, sequencing and balancing what may sometimes appear to be competing objectives in the context of an overall transitional justice agenda. By its very definition, transitional justice implies compromises and as such the delivery of less than perfect outcomes, not least with respect to justice itself. In transitional contexts, in other words, no one, either victors or victims, gets everything they want and/or quite possibly deserve.

On the one hand, there is clearly a fundamental need to avoid the pursuit of what is perceived as ‘victors justice.’ But at the same time, and here’s the rub, if national reconciliation is considered an overriding objective, it may be that some of the victim’s legitimate demands for justice may have to be deferred until satisfying them becomes politically practicable.

In this context, too, there’s a need to bear in mind the political risks potentially involved in pursuing justice. An instructive example in this regard is Croatian General Ante Gotovina. Following a 2001 announcement that the ex-Yugoslavia War Tribunal (ICTY) had issued sealed indictments against him, Gotovina rapidly assumed the status of nationalist symbol and rallying point for all who rejected criticism of Croatian forces’ conduct in the Balkan wars.

In a similar vein, it doesn’t take too much imagination to conjure up the kind of reaction that the indictment or arrest of wartime Sri Lankan military leaders such as Sarath Fonseka or Shavendra Silva might still provoke among the majority Sinhalese population.

The implication and lesson learned from other experiences here is that when framing the transitional agenda, some key aspects of justice may have to wait until such time as a country’s judicial institutions, and in particular its civil-military relations, have undergone the thorough-going transformation necessary for them to be able to deal adequately (and safely) with them. Critically, there is also hope here. For the victims of General Pinochet in Chile, Hissène Habré in Chad, Charles Taylor in Liberia and Sierra Leone, and Radko Mladic in Bosnia, for example, the wait for justice has been a long one. At the wait’s end, however, has come real justice, invisible, tangible form.

In the meantime, it is equally clear that efforts to move the majority population towards acceptance of the need for an honest examination of the wartime past requires clear, resolute political leadership. In other words, precisely what barring a few exceptions has been so signally and disappointingly lacking from the current administration. And with a sequence of elections, provincial, presidential and parliamentary, looming over the horizon, the window for action appears to be getting smaller by the day. Following his announcement of the government’s new TJ agenda in 2015, Mangala Samaraweera placed great store on consultation with the population. While it may have appeared an appropriate mantra at the time, what’s required more than anything else from the government today is action.

Finally, and returning briefly to reconciliation, the Prime Minister’s recent remarks in Kilinochchi suggest two further things that demand closer scrutiny. The first concerns the so-called ‘South African model’ for a TRC. Does such a thing exist and if so, can it be copied or otherwise replicated elsewhere? Certainly its leading figure, Archbishop Desmond Tutu doesn’t think so. ‘There is no handy roadmap for reconciliation,’ he cautioned some years ago. ‘As our experience in South Africa has taught us, each society must discover its own route to reconciliation. Reconciliation cannot be imposed from outside, nor can someone else’s map get us to our destination: it must be our own solution.’

Tutu’s advice thus points away from fixating on South African experience and towards the need for Sri Lankans to identify and articulate their own vision and version of reconciliation. Second, alongside truth-telling about the past Wickremesinghe points to the desirability of ‘say[ing] sorry and reconcile[ing].’

I would argue, however, that forgiveness is neither inherent in or necessary to the notion of reconciliation. What reconciliation does require is: minimally, recognition of the other’s right to exist regardless of what he or she may have done in the past; a future preparedness to co-exist, including with former enemies; and a willingness to (re)build the social relations necessary for a society to function effectively. Forgiveness, while essential to some and certainly a notion deeply embedded in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, is at root an individual act that cannot and should not be legislated for as part of an approach to reconciliation and transitional justice.

For reconciliation to ‘work’ in Sri Lanka the first task is to establish a solidly-anchored localized understanding of what the term implies. And in doing this, crucially the country needs to draw on its own key religious traditions – Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu as much as Christian. Exactly what that understanding entails will require further exploration. Indeed should it be established in the coming months, one of the first things a TRC could usefully do is to undertake precisely such a broad-based, consultative inquiry. By doing so it would help to ensure that any concerted effort to promote a process of truth-telling and reconciliation is firmly anchored in an authentically Sri Lankan roadmap.

If you're interested in writing for International Policy Digest - please send us an email via submissions@intpolicydigest.org

More cuts on Ceylonism

Ceylon planters during British rule

 22 February 2019

Replying to my column last week (“Reflections on Sri Lanka’s Nationalisms”) Dr Dayan Jayatilleka posted the following comment:   
“Ceylonism did exist and not only as the consciousness of a socioeconomic elite. The spearhead of the anti-imperialist movement, the LSSP and CPSL, was hardly pro-elite and was in the vanguard of the opposition to the comprador class. The identity of the Left, which was multi-ethnic, was not only Marxian class-based ‘proletarian’ internationalist, but a progressive Ceylonese one. This anti-imperialist Ceylonism was also the ideology of an upper middle class... quite distinct from the socioeconomic elite. This was the agency of Ceylon’s/Sri Lanka’s nonaligned ‘third worldism’. What after all, was the ideology of those who played the greatest role from among the Sri Lankans in the battle for a more just international order? A comprador Ceylonism or an ethno-nationalism? Obviously not! What was the ideology of Hamilton Shirley Amarasinghe, Neville Kanakaratne, Godfrey Gunatilleke, et al?”   
I admit that conflating Ceylonism with the bourgeoisie was a mistake. While I was arguing about (and against) it in terms of the dichotomy drawn up between Ceylonese and Sinhala Buddhist nationalism, I was not aware of, or chose to ignore, the position of those who articulated neither: the radical sections of the middle and working class, to which the Left movement and the group that called itself the “Cosmopolitan Crew” (led by James Rutnam) belonged. This piece is an attempt at “clarifying” what was a more complex historical phenomenon: the bifurcation(s) of nationalism.   

"In the colonial era there were three socioeconomic groups outside the peasantry: the conservative elite, the liberal middle class, and the radical class"

In the colonial era there were three socioeconomic groups outside the peasantry: the conservative elite, the liberal middle class, and the radical class. The second group did side with the third, but only insofar as its interests were not threatened; in other cases it sided with the first. It was amorphous: neither as uprooted as the conservatives nor as sympathetic towards class/communal aspirations as the radicals. K. M. de Silva’s assertion that this milieu was not uprooted from the world around it is hence correct, since the bourgeoisie could not remove themselves from the estate culture, which required frequent contact with workers, intermediaries, and officials.   
Nationalism as understood by the conservatives meant loyalty to the British. The conservatives were opposed to any reforms which would clash with their privileges and hence “used their official positions and access to the British rulers to their own advantages.” On the other hand, nationalism as understood by the new bourgeoisie was more complicated. In fact the very nature of their enterprises, which put them at the mercy of colonial policies and global economic fluctuations (although they provided good returns), precluded any radical tendency among this milieu.   

James Peiris articulated the complex relationship between the local capitalists and plantation officials when he stated that “the interests of the Ceylonese planters are identical with those of the European planters.”   
A similar analogy can be obtained from France after the Revolution. While the Third Estate denounced the feudal nobility, they wanted power to pass to them, and not the peasantry.   
Here the analogy becomes clearer. In France the middle class was opposed to the nobility. Like them, Sri Lanka’s equivalent of the Third Estate, the nobodies who became somebodies, at first clashed with the conservatives, and later sided with them. They were as willing as the Third Estate to go beyond the conservatives with regard to, say, the franchise, but only that far.   

"By the time of the 1971 JVP insurrection, Ceylonism in the benevolent, rational, and socially equitable sense was eroding"

The three threats   

The snitch, though, was that it wasn’t ‘the people’ who were loyal, but those to whom the power to vote had been granted; by the time of the Donoughmore Constitution in 1931 only four percent of the population held that power. In fact universal franchise was never a demand of the Ceylon National Congress, which was more representative of the aspirations of the propertied and professional classes than the people even at its inception; the vote had to be granted in the face of opposition by the Congress. I like how Vinod Moonesinghe put it: “The right to vote had to be shoved down.”   

The nationalism of the socioeconomic elite was in that sense a nationalism devoid of an ethnic or class content. It was “Ceylonese” not because it stood for a multicultural identity, but because it affirmed an elitist identity that transcended, or trivialised, the cultural contours of the nation.   
But there was another Ceylonism, the Ceylonism of the Left in the early decades of the 20th century and of the SLFP following the 1956 election. Dr Jayatilleka writes on it extensively in his work Long War, Cold Peace, particularly in Chapter Four (“The International Dimension”). It was that which invigorated the most enduring legacy of the Bandaranaike years in terms of foreign policy: nonalignment.   

"Here the analogy becomes clearer. In France the middle class was opposed to the nobility. Like them, Sri Lanka’s equivalent of the Third Estate, the nobodies who became somebodies, at first clashed with the conservatives, and later sided with them"

Dr Jayatilleka identifies three threats to Sri Lanka’s contribution to nonalignment: the UNP, presumably under the populist J. R. Jayewardene (whose contradictory political personality, oscillating between “Sinhala Only” and robber baron capitalism, is yet to be done justice to in a biography); the SLFP’s right wing; and the “ultra-nationalistic” domestic policies of the two Sirimavo Bandaranaike regimes.   
In the transition in leadership in the UNP from the gentle Senanayake to the more scheming Jayewardene, there was a transition from the former’s liberal streak to the latter’s expedient populism. The same person who had mooted “Sinhala Only” and later opposed it would invoke the kings of the past to justify and sanctify the selling of national assets.   
By the time of the 1971 JVP insurrection, Ceylonism in the benevolent, rational, and socially equitable sense was hence eroding. The country saw the last few embers of this Ceylonism more on the foreign policy front: Hamilton Shirley Amarasinghe, Dr Gamini Corea, Neville Kanakaratne, and Lakshman Kadirgamar, all of whom contrast discernibly with the level to which the Foreign Ministry stooped in both the Rajapaksa and the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe regimes.   

On the domestic front, Ceylonism in the inclusive sense was disappearing faster. Ironically it was not the Sinhala Buddhist fascist monks and laymen who facilitated this, but the propertied professional class that had earlier stifled the rise of communal and class consciousnesses, to protect and preserve their interests. History, it would seem, is accursed with such ironies. Especially our history.   

Abolition of executive presidency: Maithree, Mahinda, Ranil agree

February 22, 2019, 12:42 pm 

Former President and Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa has, at a recent meting with the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) heavyweights, said that the executive presidency should be abolished.

Sources told The Island he had sought the opinion of those present on his suggestion. Some of them had endorsed it while others remained noncommittal, sources added.

Sources said President Maithripala Sirisena was also agreeable to the abolition of executive presidency. President Sirisena yesterday told parliament that it was upto parliament to decide whether the executive presidency should continue or not. If it wanted that institution abolished he had no objections, he said.

"I am not angry with anyone. Even if this august assembly decides to abolish the executive presidency, I am not against it. I made that promise when I assumed the duties of this post. It is a task before Parliament. There is no change in my stance. So, Parliament could make a decision on that, too."

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has also indicated his willingness to have the executive presidency scrapped in keeping with the yahapalana manifesto presented to the people before 2015 presidential election. That was one of the main demands put forth by the late Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha thera for supporting the common presidential candidate.

The UPFA has 95 MPs and the UNP 107. The JVP, which has also been campaigning for the abolition of the executive presidency has six MPs.

Former President Rajapaksa and President Sirisena are scheduled to meet today (Feb. 22) to discuss the current political situation. The issue of abolition of the executive presidency is expected to be figure in their talks.

Exposé: Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Intervene To Protect Corrupt FCID Chief Cop

FEBRUARY 21, 2019

Intervention at the highest levels of Government has permitted Senior DIG Ravi Waidyalankara to continue as head of the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) despite serious allegations of corruption and sabotage of sensitive investigations being levelled against the high-ranking cop.

In May 2018 Waidyalankara was given a service extension of eight months by the UNP-led Government when he reached the retirement age of 60. The extension was granted despite opposition from the IGP, the National Police Commission and several other quarters.

Waidyalankara is currently under investigation by the Police Special Investigations Unit (SIU) and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption. The Bribery Commission is currently investigating SDIG Waidyalankara over his alleged assets.

Monarch Apartment

One such “asset” under scrutiny is the Monarch Apartment the senior DIG allegedly purchased in his son Asela Waidyalankara’s name. It was previously reported that the Monarch Apartment No 16/A2 is registered in Asela Waidyalankara’s name. Other properties allegedly purchased by SDIG Waidyalankara – several using frontmen – have also come to light including a prime property in Colombo 05 that was purchased in 2017-2018. (Details to follow)

Colombo Telegraph can now reveal that SDIG Waidyalankara has deliberately sabotaged several high profile corruption probes involving top members of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime.

A lawyer by training SDIG Waidyalankara has been able to subvert or divert several investigations into key players in the Rajapaksa administration including Sajin Vaas Gunewardane, Gamini Senarath, Thiru Nadesan and Dilith Jayaweera that were originally under the purview of the FCID.

Additionally, SDIG Waidyalankara is alleged to be hand-in-glove with a notorious money launderer indicted in the US-Sri Lankan businessman Rienzie Edwards. A US court ordered Edwards assets frozen after he was indicted on money laundering charges in 2017 but Colombo Telegraph learns that the funds in several bank accounts in Sri Lankan banks were dispersed after the order was communicated to the FCID.

Law enforcement circles are also buzzing with information that SDIG Waidyalankara has made several attempts to smuggle crucial documents out of the FCID headquarters in Fort. At least one such attempt was shortly before the top cop boarded a flight to Singapore where several suspects in the highly sensitive MiG-27 deal investigation are known to be in residence. More recently Waidyalankara was also suspected of attempting to smuggle files pertaining to the Krrish dealinvestigation out of the FCID HQ.

The two investigations Waidyalankara tried to sabotage are directly linked to key members of the Rajapaksa family – namely Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Namal Rajapaksa.

Read More

Intellectual poverty in Sri Lanka

by Victor Ivan-Feb 22, 2019

Feb 22, 2019

If Sri Lanka wants to get out of the present miserable situation, it needs to make a profound change, a paradigm shift in the way it views at everything including the religious, political and economic issues. Such a change could be made only by looking insightfully at the question of what went wrong with Sri Lanka and finding the right answer to the question.

Collapse of progress

Sri Lanka remained a shining example among the other Asian countries by the time it gained independence from the British rule in 1948. It was second only to Japan in terms of per capita income. But, the gap between the two countries was not so big. Per capita income gap was very narrow. It excelled Japan in the indices of education and health enjoying number one position in their rankings.

Even in infrastructure facilities Sri Lanka had maintained a significant place. Though there were no carpeted roads like today, Sri Lanka was considered the country which had the best road network in Asia. It also had the best railway service in Asia. The Colombo harbour was acknowledged to be the best harbour in Asia. Sri Lanka had a sophisticated civil service composed mainly of career bureaucrats and a reputed Judiciary. The amount of foreign assets the country had at the time of independence was in excess of Rs. 1,200 million.

Despite all this, Sri Lanka had not been able to sustain the favourable conditions it inherited from the British. After independence, it has become a country headed for destruction rather than making progress. Some of the Asian nations which remained far behind Sri Lanka at the time when the latter gained independence had made an unprecedented progress. On the contrary, Sri Lanka, even after 71 years of independence, remains in an extremely miserable position.

The significant progress that Sri Lanka had made up to the point of independence was not an achievement by the Sri Lankans themselves. It was a direct outcome of the progress made by the British who ruled the country. Unfortunately, after independence, we have failed miserably to maintain the momentum of the progress that the country had achieved at the time of independence. Both our political leaders and the society must be equally responsible for this situation. Our political leaders and society did not have the adequate maturity or insight needed to sustain and continue the progress that had been achieved during the British rule.

Making the splendour of the ancient history, a protective shield

Sri Lanka can be described as a nation that had got accustomed to cover up its faults and weaknesses in a shield of the splendour of its ancient history. From a civilisational point of view, Sri Lanka had been a far more developed country than the British at one distant time in its past history. Interestingly, it was the British civil servants themselves who served in Sri Lanka made us aware of this fact. It was a lesson they taught us. Even that we have misunderstood and failed to grasp its meaning in its proper perspective.

In the journey of human history, a nation which had made major advances in one era can become a backward nation in another era. Babylonia, Egypt and Peru can be cited as examples for this phenomenon. Similarly, a nation which had remained backward in one era can become a progressive nation in another era. Great Britain is the best example that can be cited for this.

In this context, if a nation which has had a great splendour in the ancient history, but lingers in the backseat of the development process today points to an advance nation and tells them, “Hey, look here, we belonged to a great civilised nation in which our forefathers were clad in fine clothes by the time you people were living in jungles wearing leaves of trees,” it will be as good as an irrational and arrogant attempt to cover up its present failure as a nation. This can be considered the ugliest characteristic that one can witness in the anti-imperialistic attitude prevails in Sri Lanka.

It is a fact that Sri Lanka was a developed country when compared to Britain in one era of its long history. But, by the time Sri Lanka was subjugated by the British and taken control of it, they had made an exceptional progress which had been 100 times greater than the level of our country. It was this progress they had achieved, that, despite being a small country, the British were able not only to capture Sri Lanka, but also to build a large empire on which the sun never set.

I have read many books written by Sri Lankan scholars on the impact of colonialism in Sri Lanka. Except very few scholars like G.C. Mendis and Michael Roberts, all the others can be said to have attempted intentionally to cover up the backwardness that prevailed in the country by the time it was captured by the British, highlighting the ancient grandeur of the country.

Undoubtedly, the British exploited the resources of Sri Lanka and enjoyed the economic benefits after they captured it. But, the policy they adopted in respect of Sri Lanka cannot be considered to be totally rigid and predatory when compared to the policy they had followed in other countries of the British Empire, like India. It can be said that they had treated Sri Lanka more as an attractive holiday resort than a source worthy of plunder and exploitation.

Though they had acted ruthlessly in several instances, particularly in suppressing the rebellion of the 1818, they had effected relatively significant progress in the country by the time they left it. The changes that had come over Sri Lanka during the British rule were evidently poles apart when compared to the most backward conditions that prevailed in Sri Lanka when they captured it. Any study made on the British colonialism in Sri Lanka ignoring this fact cannot be considered a reasonable and objective analysis.

The positive aspects of colonialism

By the time the Kandyan kingdom was captured by the British, the society of its domain stood at a primitive level beset by extreme poverty and ignorance. The rate of infant mortality at birth and the rate of infanticide or intentional killing of infants for various reasons like economic hardships and credulous (astrological) beliefs remained high. The literacy rate too stood at a very low level.

According to Robert Knox, the Kandyan people did not have many possessions and “their houses are small, low, thatched cottages built with stick, daubed with clay; as to the furniture, their furniture is but small; a few earthen pots, a stool or two without backs, for none but the King may sit upon a stool with a back,” and a few basic implements for their cultivation, a few clothes barely adequate to cover the secret areas of the body. According to Knox, the people felt self-sufficient so long as they had adequate salt and rice. “Their diet and ordinary fare, if they have but rice and salt in their house they reckon they want for nothing.”

According to Knox, the people did not own lands. They tilled the lands belonged to the king, the queen, the temples, kovils, the nobility (radala) and the chieftains. This system obliged the tenant to perform services and duties, based on caste system. Among these obligations, there were some services which can be termed as mean and discriminatory.

Caste determined the entire lifestyle of the people. Their income, power, education, domicile, the area in which they lived , clothing, marriage and funeral rituals, customs and etiquettes, furniture and implements they used, their speech and articulation were all dependent on the caste system. There were certain community groups which were forbidden to cover the upper portion of the body and the areas below the knee.

The feudal service system linked with the land tenure constituted the serfdom structure of feudalism in Sri Lanka. The British abolished the feudal land tenure system of Sri Lanka to a greater extent, not in response to public agitations and revolts against the system as it happened in the medieval Europe, but by regulation and on their own accord. It was the British rulers and not the ancient kings of Sri Lanka who introduced the policy that recognised that all persons shall be equal before the law. It was they who introduced a system of modern schools and made the education an institution that embraced the whole society.

Intellectual poverty

The feudal system of production, the productive forces of that system which constituted the main elements of it and the relations in production process , production techniques and feudal institutions associated with it, were to a great extent wiped out or weakened by the British. In fact, these elements cannot be considered as entities which ought to have been preserved. Instead they deserved to be destroyed for the progress of the country and the benefit of the people.

The system of colonial capitalist production and its corresponding institution network introduced by the British can be considered a progressive move compared to the feudal system. However, after independence, Sri Lanka should have continued to use them only after effecting appropriate adjustments to suit the needs of the independent nation.

In this respect, India had a progressive vision. Sri Lanka did not have such a vision. While India had the systems it inherited from the British rule amended and reformed to suit the conditions of the independent India, Sri Lanka can be said to have pursued a different but an apathetic policy of using them as they were and without modifying them to suit the changing needs of the country.

This shows that there had been a significant difference between India and Sri Lanka in the way of their thinking. The protest movements launched for constitutional reforms in almost every country which were under colonial rule were usually preceded by religious revival movements. Compared to the religious revival movements of Hindus and Muslims in India, those of the Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka can be considered as extremely backward movements.

In fact, The Hindu and Muslim Religious revival movements in India appeared for religious reconciliation and intra religious harmony. And they were concerned with the removal of outdated practices and rituals in their own faiths which were not compatible with the modern world and conducive to oppress the people. In doing so, they tried to give the religious ideology, a progressive orientation.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the leader of the Hindu Revival Movement in India and Syed Ahamed Khan, the leader of the Muslim Revival Movement in India were two erudite scholars who had grasped the true essence of the European renaissance movement in its proper perspective. They were adequately conversant with colonialism, capitalism and feudalism as well as the other religions and various other disciplines such as Science and Arts. They possessed a pragmatic and objective vision about religions.

But the situation of the Buddhist and Hindu revival movement in Sri Lanka was totally different from that of India. Both Anagarika Dharmapala who gave leadership to the Buddhist revival movement and Arumuga Navalar, the leader of the Hindu revival movement in Sri Lanka fought defiantly against the Catholic domination in the religious domain in the country. But they did not attempt to reform the outdated practices and rituals in their own faiths such caste discrimination. They cannot be considered as leaders who were concerned with the promotion of national harmony. Instead, their approach led more to create dissent and division among the people along the lines of race, religion and castes than to integrate them.

It was the strong caste differences that prevailed among the leading Buddhist priests that led Colonel Henry Steel Olcott, an American theosophist to be elected as the leader of the Buddhist revival movement in Sri Lanka. Olcott is honoured as one of the heroes and a pioneer of the religious, national and cultural revival in Sri Lanka. But it must also be mentioned here that no mention has been made in any one of the biographies written on Colonel Henry Steel Olcott as to why he had eventually left Sri Lanka with a firm resolution not to return again.

Founding of a new Nikaya or a sect of Buddhist Sangha and introducing a system of higher ordination for the bhikkus of non-Goyigama caste can be considered the most significant change effected by the Buddhist revival movement in Sri Lanka against the caste system that prevailed among the Buddhist priests and the monopoly enjoyed by the bhikkus of Goyigama caste in the sphere of conferring higher ordination for novice monks. This change eventually resulted in institutionalising the caste system within the order of the Buddhist Sangha rather than to abolish it. How sad it was to confine a great religion like Buddhism within a narrow frame of caste system which is contrary to the teachings of the Lord Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, who stood vehemently against the caste system.

A majority of the leaders of the temperance movement (except few leaders like Anagarika Dharmapala and Sir D.B. Jayatillaka) who played a predominant role in the Buddhist revival movement were leading liquor businessmen who had become rich by making fortunes by popularising liquor among the public.

Those interested in knowing more about this are advised to read two books written by me under the titles ‘The Tragic Plight of a Nation’ and ‘Revolt in the Temple’. The lack of proper appraisal of main issues of the country can be considered one of the most important factors influencing the parochialism of the present day thinking of Sri Lanka.

The independence movement of Sri Lanka

Anagarika Dharmapala and Arumuga Navalar can be described as the two thinkers who had influenced most in shaping the psyche of Sinhalese and Tamil people respectively. But the independence movement of Sri Lanka cannot be considered to have influenced the thinking of Sinhalese and Tamils. The independence movement of Sri Lanka did not have the leaders who can be deemed to be thinkers with a far-reaching vision.

Even though some of them who had pioneered the independence movement were educated in the universities in England, they cannot be considered to have been inspired by the thinking of eminent liberal philosophers of the calibre of John Locke, Charles Louis, Montesquieu, and John Stuart Mill. The representative principle which ought to have formed the basis of political reforms can be considered the biggest issue which had caused a dissent among the Sinhalese and Tamil leaders.

While the Sinhalese leaders appeared for a system of local representation for minority groups, the Tamil leaders insisted on equal representation for both the Sinhalese and Tamils. If the leaders of Sinhalese and Tamils had a sound understanding on liberal democratic principles, this issue could have been resolved without causing a rift between them and in a manner promoting mutual confidence and respect.

The biggest concern of the Tamil leaders was whether they would be oppressed by the Sinhalese if they get the majority power. This doubt appears to be the main factor that had led the Tamil leaders to insist on a system of equal representation for both communities. If, however, G.G. Ponnambalam had a proper understanding of the concept of liberalism, most probably, he could have demanded for a resolution that would safeguard the rights of the minority groups to be incorporated in the constitution rather than demanding for a system that provides 50% representation for the majority Sinhalese and the balance 50% for all other minority groups.

It is the lack of knowledge of both Sinhalese and Tamil leaders on democratic principles that can be deemed to be the main factor for not having a resolution on minority rights incorporated into the first Constitution, the Soulbury Constitution of Sri Lanka. This illustrates the extent of intellectual poverty of the then leaders of all communities who spearheaded the independence movement.

In the next article I intend to discuss the independence movement of Sri Lanka and the reasons that had brought down the country in to its present abyss thereafter.