Devolution Of Power In The Truest & Most Relevant Sense

By Upatissa Pethiyagoda –MARCH 29, 2019

Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda

We are incessantly bombarded with “Devolution of Power” in a spurious sense. This is to be expected in a society where sectarian politics are all-pervading. Here I am using it in the more relevant sense, and which affects us all. Ten years of my working life was outside my country, and not once (yes, not even once) was there a domestic power failure. Back home, there have been dozens. This is not a matter of being “poor”. It is more a matter of bad planning, lack of a sense of pride in whatever paid work that we do, and a propensity for NATO ! Recently, an element of sabotage (at power plants) and an official desire to bring in private suppliers into a very lucrative game, even after oiling the relevant palms. Plans, projects, calculations and technicalities can do no good to assure the people with a regular supply, obscured by the boast that we have “electrified” all of the country. Yes, but not in the sense of Kilowatts, Gigawatts and other less understood jargon. But in terms of surprise, wonderment or incredulity.

Let us “get back to basics” a slogan that the UK’s Blair introduced just before getting kicked out into the Consultancy Business and State-sponsored visits to Sri Lanka – at the behest of our callous rulers and the cost of all of us! This is despite all the prattle about our sovereignty and integrity!

All power has as its source, the Sun. The longer the processing chain to the eventual form in which we use it – heat, light, motive power etc., the greater the losses along the way. The most direct way in which we could use it is via photo-electric devices. Just fancy what it would have cost us if we had long Winters during which we would be compelled to warm ourselves. We would most likely have perished, with no money to buy coal or petroleum products. The “natural” way to make use of the sun are plants. With leaves, and chlorophyll and thence to wood, coal and petroleum (through the fats of herbivorous animals).

Realizing the value of wind and sunlight as “free” sources of energy, developed countries have tried to maximize their use. I believe that Germany and other industrialized countries have managed to supplement other renewable fuels to extents of around 10 to 15%. The saving is probably in millions equivalents of tons of coal or petroleum.  The reduction of their “Carbon Footprint” is massive, in both financial and conservation terms. The Scandinavian countries (principally Norway) use their natural gift of rivers and waterfalls, to the fullest. We are said to have nearly exhausted our main hydro-electric capacity. A few small units, similar to the earlier “Peltons” that provided energy to the house of the Periya Dorai (PD’S) on larger Tea Estates, make only a minor impact. However the new “net metering system”, is a huge asset in promoting small scale power generation, especially of solar.

We have limited potential for wind power in a few sites located in the deep South and elsewhere.

Our best option is for fuelwood or Dendro-Thermal (or Biofuel). A considerable amount of work by that great inventor, engineer and innovator, the Late Dr Ray Wijewardena prompted a much work to establish that Gliricidia would be the best option in practice. Matching his theory with practice, he ran his battery-driven car, charging it on electricity from a generator of his design, from wood grown on his coconut garden as an intercrop. He also maintained a small plot in his house garden on Dharmapala Mawatha for regular observation. Industrial scale use has been adopted, by Hayleys in their factory. Ray’s vision was for small farmers to function as “out-growers,” supplying commercial operators. Interestingly, he examined the feasibility of using the “alien invader”, Prosopis julifera thriving and spreading in the South, and even threatening The Yala National Park. His vision was that this was a resource rather than a menace. Because of its thorny nature, it required tractors (as a pair linked by a chain) for harvesting. The wood, he found to be of high calorific value.

The vision was for establishing plantations of appropriate size, to serve small scale, power stations of fuelwood plantations. This is how things were in the past. A few urban centres had such Power Stations designed to provide for urban needs. The obvious reduction of transmission costs and providing small scale farmers with an additional income. At the same time, an improved environment and reduction of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, makes this a ‘win-win’ situation. Opposition from the formal establishment (wickedly called the “energy mafia”, is to be expected and is very evident. We need to think outside the box!

Several countries (eg. Turkey) have I am told, making roof-top panels a condition for building permits. This was to make individual homesteads self- sufficient for their lighting and hot water needs.  However modest the contribution, the saving on transmission costs and freeing main (eg Hydro-electric) power for the needs of the envisaged industrial expansion and to supply big consumers (eg Tourist Hotels). This would provide other benefits such as reducing power cuts and major failure (as indicated by events at Norocholai), and when hydropower potential is reduced because of drought.

Read More

Democracy and Reconciliation’ by S. I. Keethaponcalan

‘Post-war Dilemmas of Sri Lanka:

 

Review by Laksiri Fernando-March 29, 2019, 8:11 pm

Political science and political scientists, among others, could play a major role in resolving Sri Lanka’s most important problems like post-war ethnic reconciliation, construction and reconstruction of democracy, and overcoming dangers of authoritarianism through critical thinking, scientific research and lucidly written publications aimed at supplying inspiration and new thinking to policy makers and the public alike.

The value of the new book by Dr S. I. Keethaponcalan titled ‘Post-war Dilemmas of Sri Lanka: Democracy and Reconciliation’ can be assessed particularly in that context although its importance undoubtedly goes beyond the shores of Sri Lanka.

Keethaponcalan teaches conflict resolution at Salisbury University, Maryland, USA, and recently held the Chair of the Department of Conflict Analysis and Dispute Resolution at the same university. Before joining Salisbury University in 2011, he was Professor and Head of the Department of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Colombo and held several international assignments in the fields of conflict resolution, peace studies, transitional justice and disarmament throughout years. His recent most two publications – ‘Conflict Resolution: An Introduction to Third Party Intervention’ (Lexington Books, 2017) and ‘Violence, Nonviolence, and Ethnic Reconciliation in Post-war Sri Lanka’ (Peace & Policy, 2015), stand most relevant to the present study and publication. The present book is a Routledge publication, London and New York, just out.

What is Investigated?

In the investigation encompassing the book, Sri Lanka appears a case study but a fitting one. It is fitting not only because it is the author’s home country, but because the ethnic conflict and the war have had a protracted character and consequences. Even after the end of the war in 2009, the progress or rather the events have been tortuous, contradictory and uncertain.

With an undoubted focus on Sinhala-Tamil ethnic reconciliation, the approach of the investigation challenges a popular conception or a myth that the ethnic conflict could be reconciled automatically by making Sri Lanka more democratic or economically developed. These are the conceptions that the author has challenged and refuted. This is also the novelty of the book that the author has compiled, without neglecting the Muslim question. This does not mean that the author has disregarded or disputed the importance of democracy or economic development for reconciliation, but has emphasized the need to go beyond and engage more directly in proper conflict identification, dialogue, negotiations, peoples’ involvement and conflict resolution.

There are so many other merits, values and uses of the book, theoretically and empirically. As the author says, "The end of the war had a profound impact on post-war governance and ethnic relations in Sri Lanka." He has highlighted more of the way the war ended which is one of the reasons why reconciliation continues to be problematic. His profound chapters on the subject of post-war dilemmas, written from the perspective of reconciliation throw light on this matter tracing the history of events, the characterization of two types of post-war regimes and the emergence of new fault lines between the Sinhalese and the Muslims.

The book consists of six chapters: (1) Theoretical overview, (2) Ending the war: a zero-sum situation, (3) Democracy: a struggle, (4) Reconciliation: a distant dream (5) Sinhala vs Muslim: a new frontier, and (6) Conclusion. The theoretical overview would be immensely useful for political science and conflict resolution students. Others are equally useful for political leaders, peace activists, international observers and future researchers, apart from the students in the field. This review cannot cover all, but some aspects of the book.

In discussing the ‘zero-sum’ ending of the war, the author without limiting to the ‘how’ questions, has investigated ‘why’ the LTTE got defeated. There are three main reasons given: (1) the strategies of the Rajapaksa government, both militarily and politically (2) the delegitimization of the LTTE within the Tamil community and the emergence of military weaknesses, and (3) the international support extended to defeat the LTTE although ambiguous at times. This is a valuable analysis on the ‘end of the war’ from a political scientist, who has had immense experience in the North.

Tracing Political Developments

The immediate effect of the military victory of the Rajapaksa government, as the author traces, is the democratic degeneration. "In other words, Sri Lanka became a de facto authoritarian state." He does not however suggest that Sri Lanka was an effective democracy before, or even before the war started. The author traces the rapid democratic degeneration of the country to 1970s. "However, in the immediate aftermath of the war, the slide, or the descent, was deep and it affected almost all aspects of political and social life."

There is a major portion of a chapter devoted to trace the democratic degeneration under Rajapaksas involving power consolidation through electoral processes, instituting quasi-family rule, the centralization of power via constitutional tinkering, and bringing the judiciary, the media, and civil society under control. It is in the same chapter that the intended ‘Democratic restoration?’ after 2015 is discussed with a question mark.

Why a question mark? The author admits that the manifestos of the opposition that came to power in 2015 in two elections were quite broad and entailed ‘peace, reconciliation, constitutional reform, the elimination of corruption and the reduction of living costs’ and many more things under the rubric of good governance. It is true that considering the protracted degeneration that the author himself has traced, the restoration of democracy and good governance is not an easy task. But was it completely correct to place the tasks of ‘national reconciliation’ within the same bag and consider it just easy and ordinary? These are specialized areas that should go beyond political rhetoric in the author’s indication.

Even on the question of general democratic restoration, the author’s judgement is relative. He concludes the chapter saying "There is general agreement that the working environment in Sri Lanka had improved since the inauguration of the new government. However, the democratic outlook of this government was negatively impacted by the bond scam and the delaying of the local government elections, for example. It is safe to argue that, compared to the Rajapaksa administration, the rule of the unity government was relatively more democratic."

The Problematic?

In the chapter on ‘Reconciliation: A Distant Dream’ the author brings his own observations, ideas and down to earth research findings to the notice of the reader. These may particularly be useful for the international community who are in the forefront of promoting reconciliation. It is the contention of the author that the ‘quest for reconciliation in Sri Lanka is essentially an exogenous construct forced into the country mainly by Western states and international institutions.’

Based on a survey conducted in 2012 and recent interviews (2017), the author concludes that both the Sinhalese and the Tamils are quite unconcerned on reconciliation for different reasons. "The majority of the Sinhala people traditionally believed that there were no issues specific to the Tamil community." Therefore, the end of the war or the defeat of the LTTE in their opinion was in fact the end of those problems. "Obviously, many Tamils would refute the claim that Sinhala-Tamil problems have been resolved, but they remain unconcerned about reconciliation for different reasons." On the part of the majority Tamils, the devastated socio-economic conditions and the day to day living problems (in the North and the East) stand priority. On political issues they do not have any or much trust on any government. Under the circumstances, the TNA’s collaboration with the government has given rise to much frustration and to the emergence of a ‘relatively radical faction within the community.’

The author has mainly investigated the conflict problem as a confrontation or mismatch between different communities and thus the reconciliation as a matter of those communities coming together. While the political factors underpinning the conflict have been thoroughly investigated what has been beyond the scope of the book is the proposition or hypothesis of ‘conflict as a confrontation between political elites for political power.’ That kind of a hypothesis or assumption speaks for the partial validity and also the monumental weakness of the present efforts for political-elite reconciliation through alliances and co-habitation.

The power ambitions and competitions of the elite are highly asymmetric. The hegemonic disposition of the Sinhala-Buddhist elite is overwhelming and uncompromising, apart from extremism and idealism from the other sides. The situation is very clear from the analysis that the author has made on the new frontier, the Sinhala vs Muslim fault lines. The investigation and the analysis is up to date. After covering the historical background, also tracing the Tamil-Muslim hostility, the author has given a comprehensive account on the anti-Muslim riots in recent times. It is with this Islamophobia and also counter extremism, that reconciliation has again become problematic and a distant dream unless the political leaders, political activists and the concerned international ‘players’ employ more realistic and constructive approaches.

What the author has concluded at the very end is the following.

"As long as the Tamils’ dissatisfaction with the status quo remains high, the gulf between the Sinhalese and the Tamil people will also remain deep. The Sinhalese resisted the devolution on the premise that the devolved power would be used to promote separatism. The continued insistence of self-determination, internal or external, by Tamil nationalists only contributes to Sinhalese distrust and thus, resistance. A devolution of power scheme, which guarantees the Tamils a degree of autonomy and provides security guarantees against separation at the same time, has the potential to move Sri Lanka towards durable peace and reconciliation."

Local rhetoric amidst submission to foreign pressure

How the Governments are lying to people of their respective dealings with the UNHRC

• Both the current and the former Governments have been lying to the people
• The local rhetoric by politicians is a far cry from how they respond to international pressure
• While claiming zero casualty; commissions were appointed under pressure

29 March 2019

Both the current and the former Governments have been lying to the people in respect of their respective dealings with the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 
Both the governments have been attempting to say that they have not been succumbing to the pressure by the world’s human rights body, despite both having been submitting to it.
Opposition MP and former Minister Sarath Amunugama who travelled to Geneva last week as a nominee of the President in the Sri Lankan delegation to the 40th regular session of the UNHRC said on Tuesday in Parliament that Sri Lankan delegation informed the UNHRC that Sri Lanka was not prepared to allow foreign judges to participate in any hearing on war crimes allegations.
During the same Committee Stage budget debate on his Ministry, Foreign Minister Tilak Marapana, who led the Sri Lankan delegation to this year’s UNHRC session also said that he stressed in Geneva that foreign judges were out of the question. 
This was confirmed by another Sri Lanka Freedom Party MP, Mahinda Samarasinghe who is not a stranger to the UNHRC issues. 
He said that Marapana in his statement made on behalf of the country at the UNHRC session rejected the call for an international probe on human rights violations.
In the meantime, JVP MP Bimal Ratnayake also commended the Government for rejecting the setting up of a hybrid court to investigate into the allegations of human rights violations against the security forces and the LTTE during the war.

Did the Government delegation reject the hybrid court or the participation of foreign judges in the process of accountability for violations of international human rights laws and humanitarian laws at the UNHRC session? 
Yes, they did in their statements but while accepting a resolution that provides for the participation of foreign judges in such a process.
Minister Marapana as the leader of the Sri Lankan delegation to the world’s Human Rights body made a statement stressing that the Sri Lankan Constitution did not provide for foreign judges to participate in Sri Lankan judicial mechanisms. 
But, as happened in 2015 and 2017 Sri Lanka was among the countries that co-sponsored a resolution on Sri Lanka that was adopted at the UNHRC session last week. The resolution says, among others, the council:
“…Takes note with appreciation of the comprehensive report presented by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Human Rights Council at its fortieth session, pursuant to the request made by the Council in its resolution 34/1, and requests the Government of Sri Lanka to implement fully the measures identified by the Council in its resolution 30/1 that are outstanding…”

"Appointment of the Udalagama Commission, LLRC the Paranagama Commission and the foreign experts to the Paranagama Commission were not voluntary"

This clause has two parts; one says that the council appreciated the High Commissioner’s report, while the other says that it requested Sri Lankan Government to implement fully the council’s resolution that was adopted in 2015 (resolution 30/1). 
Samarasinghe told Parliament that the first part of the clause was a mistake. But it is not clear whether the officials of the UNHRC are agreeable to his claim.
Nevertheless, he did not say that the other part of the clause was a mistake and it is the crux of the issue. With that part of the clause Sri Lanka for the third time has undertaken to implement the resolution passed in the council in 2015.
The 2015 resolution says among others, that the council:
“…notes with appreciation the proposal of the Government of Sri Lanka to establish a judicial mechanism with a special counsel to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, as applicable; affirms that a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by individuals known for their integrity and impartiality; and also affirms in this regard the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the special counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators”

Thus, it is clear that Sri Lanka has undertaken this year to implement the 2015 resolution which in turn provides for the participation of foreign judges. 
But, even after the government co-sponsored this year’s resolution, some people seem to believe and some others try to make the masses believe that the government has rejected the participation of foreign judges in Sri Lankan judicial process.
The strategy followed by the previous regime of President Mahinda Rajapaksa has not been different.
Appointment of the Udalagama Commission, Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission the Paranagama Commission and the foreign experts to the Paranagama Commission and giving a second mandate to the Paranagama Commission by Rajapaksa were not voluntary, but measures taken under pressure by the outside world. He took these steps while the leaders of his government were shouting on top of their voices that the Government had never given in to foreign pressure.
By 2013, four years after the end of the war, the Government has been claiming that it pursued a “zero civilian casualty policy” during the war and there were no civilian deaths or disappearances. 

The then Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and the Army had publicly denied the reports of disappearances during the war. 
At a press briefing on January 24, 2013, Gotabaya Rajapaksa rejected claims of civilian disappearances in the North during the last stages of the war, insisting that all records maintained by the Army and the ICRC tallied with no discrepancies. 
“Not a single person is missing from that list,” he had said.
The first part of a report of an SL Army-appointed six-member Court of Inquiry that was handed over to the Defence Secretary in April 2013 too had exonerated its troops from the civilian casualties during the last phase of the war. 
It had concluded that the military operation was conducted strictly in accordance with the Zero Civilian Casualty directive made by the President. 

"Both the governments have been attempting to say that they have not been succumbing to the pressure by the world’s human rights body, despite both having been submitting to it"

However, when international pressure mounted with the UNHRC having warned to appoint an international probe on Human Rights violations with its second resolution on Sri Lanka in 2013, President Rajapaksa appointed the Paranagama Commission on August 15, 2013, which recorded more than 19,000 complaints.
The Rajapaksa Government accepted the prevalence of civilian deaths during the last stage of the war as well, a year later, by giving a second mandate to the Paranagama Commission apparently in response to the team set up by former UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navanetham Pillay to conduct a comprehensive investigation of alleged human rights violations in Sri Lanka. 
The second mandate was to “address the facts and circumstances surrounding civilian loss of life and the question of the responsibility of any individual, group or institution for violations of international law during the conflict that ended in May 2009.”
These facts show that the local rhetoric by politicians, irrespective of their party affiliations, has been a far cry from how they respond to the international pressure. 

Reconciliation: Sinhalese attitude, Buddhist perspective and Indian solution

The tragedy of Sri Lanka is the extension of the mindset created during the struggle against the suppression in the colonial period into the era of independent Sri Lanka

- Pic by Shehan Gunasekara - Saturday, 30 March 2019


Through the entire period of independence Sri Lanka experienced ethnic conflicts. The majority Sinhalese had conflicts with Tamils of Indian origin, Sri Lankan Tamils and Muslims. After the independence, especially after 1956, the Burgher community of Sri Lanka started migrating to various countries mainly to Australia. Sri Lankan Tamils also started migrating later and created an influential diaspora now. A large number of Tamils of Indian origin were sent back to India under Sirima-Shastri pact.

There were a number of violent conflicts with the Muslims, the major one being in the pre-independence era in 1915. The conflict between Singhalese and Tamils paved the way for a 30-year-long civil war and damaged a considerable extent of national resources along with a large number of human lives. In addition to that there were two armed conflicts in the south destroying property and taking human lives. The country goes on in the same manner.

It appears to be that the people and the leaders of this country do not think seriously of the situation of the country. People blame the leaders and the leaders blame one another.

Successive Sri Lankan governments were not hesitant in applying force against ethnic groups. Soon after the independence, the Senanayake government deprived the voting rights of the Tamils of Indian origin with the help of the Sri Lankan Tamils as well. Peaceful requests of the Sri Lankan Tamils were suppressed by successive governments in many an occasion pushing them towards an armed struggle.

This thinking of the Sinhalese acts as an obstacle to have a reconciliation among various ethnicities in Sri Lanka. Opportunist politicians arouse this feeling of the Sinhalese for petty political gains and in turn the leaders are reluctant to take decisive steps towards reconciliation. It is quite evident throughout the history of independent Sri Lanka. It is evident today as well more prominently.

Israel

Israel was established soon after World War II as a result of the holocaust and Jews did not have a state of their own. This request was initially made in the 19th century. To create Israel around 50% of the area of Palestine was acquired. Thereafter Israel expanded the boundaries by force. Recently the President of USA unilaterally accepted the right of Israel to keep Golan Heights which was forcibly taken over from Syria, ensuring that there will be no peace in Middle East in time to come.

In the Israeli declaration of independence, it was stated as follows: ‘Accordingly we, members of the people’s council, representatives of the Jewish community of Eretz-Israel…hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the state of Israel.”

In July 2018 Israel passed a basic law; Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people of which the basic principles are, (a) The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established. (b) The State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish People, in which it realises its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination. (c) The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish People.

Therefore Israel is predominantly a Jewish state. However as a democratic state they have accepted the civil liberties of all of the Israeli citizens irrespective of their ethnicities under Basic Laws of Human Dignity and Liberty and Freedom of Occupation. There was a Supreme Court decision in 1996 that there was no contradiction between Israel’s identity as a Jewish state and a state of all its citizens.

With all this background when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recently that Israel is a nation state of Jewish people and of it alone in response to a TV presenter’s claim that Israel was a country for all its citizens, there was a huge public outcry not only in Israel but also world-wide.

Sinhalese attitude

Most of the educated Sinhalese think in the line of Netanyahu in relation to the Sri Lankan situation. This would be the thinking pattern of educated Tamils as well. In rural Sri Lanka where different ethnicities are mixed, they coexisted for centuries or millennia. In the distant past wars were fought among kings and princes. There were no wars among ethnic groups.

Even Elara’s army was comprising of large number of Sinhalese although Mahavamsa tried to portray it as a conflict of Sinhalese and Tamils. Sinhalese kings of cause fought against the invaders. They were mostly Cholas. Sinhala kings had agreements with Pandyan kings against Cholas. Sinhalese kings when they were powerful invaded South India and went up to Burma. Except for very few instances, at any given time the country was ruled by different kings who were based in different areas of the country.

Therefore Netanyahu’s thinking is not applicable in Sri Lanka since Sri Lanka is not solely a Sinhala Buddhist country. The country belongs to all its citizens. Even in Israel they have passed basic laws to protect the dignity of their citizens. With all this there is a public outcry against the status quo of Israel. These are present day democratic values of the world.

This thinking of the Sinhalese acts as an obstacle to have a reconciliation among various ethnicities in Sri Lanka. Opportunist politicians arouse this feeling of the Sinhalese for petty political gains and in turn the leaders are reluctant to take decisive steps towards reconciliation. It is quite evident throughout the history of independent Sri Lanka. It is evident today as well more prominently.

We are a democratic country and democracy is not only to go with the majority view but also to safeguard minority interests as well. Otherwise it will be a dictatorship of the majority.

We are a democratic country and democracy is not only to go with the majority view but also to safeguard minority interests as well. Otherwise it will be a dictatorship of the majority.

Buddhist perspective

Buddhism is the predominant religion in Sri Lanka which is having age old roots in the country. Buddhist approach to the life is quite different to established norms. It is centred around understanding of the entity called self which is a misconception. Nyanaponika Thero, a renowned Theravada Buddhist monk of German origin stated as follows in his book, ‘The Power of Mindfulness’: “The Buddha points out four basic misconceptions that result from distorted perceptions and unmethodical attention: taking the impure for pure, the impermanent for lasting, the painful and pain-bringing for pleasant and the impersonal for a self or something belonging to the self. When the seal of self-reference is thus stamped again and again upon the world of everyday experience, the basic misconception, ‘this belongs to me’ will steadily put forth roots into all the bodily and mental factors of our being…..These grave consequences issue from the fundamental perceptual situation: our rush into hasty or habitual reactions after receiving the first few signals from our perceptions. But if we muster the retraining forces of mindfulness and pause for bear attention, the material and mental processes that form the objects of mind at the given moment will reveal themselves more fully and more truly.”

In order to understand the reality one has to engage in a noble and scientific research on oneself carried out through pure observation. Nyanaponika Thero explained the process to overcome the obstacles as follows: “The antagonistic forces that appear in meditation and that are liable to upset its smooth course are of three kinds: external disturbances, such as noise; mental defilements such as lust, anger, restlessness, dissatisfaction or sloth, which may arise at any time during meditation; and various incidental stray thoughts, or surrender to day- dreaming…When faced by inner and outer disturbances, the inexperienced or uninstructed beginner will generally react in two ways. He will first try to shove them away lightly, and if he fails in that, he will try to suppress them by sheer force or will.”

He explained that it would be a futile effort since those obstacles will come over and over again with an additional force.

“But by observing carefully their nature and behaviour when they arise in one’s own mind, one will be able to meet them well prepared often to forestall them and finally to banish them fully.”

This is called non-coercive approach. This will be applied even towards defilements. This is the Buddhist approach to understand the self and eventually understand the life.

As a result of this non-coercive approach Roman Catholics were safeguarded from the Protectants by Sinhala Buddhists during the Dutch period and before that Muslims were settled in Kandyan areas by Sinhala kings to safeguard them from European invaders. This approach was changed after the introduction of ‘Protestant Buddhism’ to Sri Lanka in the late 19th century as a result of Buddhist revival. It was essential due to the socio-economic and political factors prevailed at that time but the continuation of the same in the independent Sri Lanka was detrimental to the wellbeing of the Sri Lankan nation. Therefore, the age-old Buddhist approach should be revived to meet current challenges.

Indian solution

Concept of separate Dravidian State in India received political patronage after Justice Party came in to power in Madras Presidency in 1921. Not only the Tamils but also the users of other Dravidian languages such as Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada were part and parcel of this Dravidian State. The origin of this concept was in the movement against the Brahmins and their authority in Madras Presidency in the latter part of the 19th century.

At the time of independence Indian states predominantly divided based on the demarcations of British rulers and the areas acquired from the former Maharajas. South India was divided as Madras Presidency which was under the British and the states acquired from Maharajas namely Mysore, Hyderabad and Travancore-Cochin. These divisions were not done based on ethnicity.

Subsequent to the political pressure to demarcate the states based on the languages used, in 1953 sixteen provinces using Telugu language in Madras Presidency were clustered and a new state called Andrastate was created. The States Reorganization Act was enacted on 31 August 1956 and based on that all the states in India were re-demarcated in line of the languages used. Hyderabad state and Andra state were combined and Telugu speaking Andra Pradesh was created. Travancore-Cochin state and Malabar provinces of Madras Presidency were combined and Malayalam speaking Kerala state was created. Tamil speaking Southern provinces were amalgamated with Madras Presidency which was renamed as Tamil Nadu in 1968. Kannada speaking provinces of Hyderabad state and western Bombay state were combined with Mysore state which was renamed as Karnataka in 1973.

These changes were carried out with the blessing of leaders of the Dravida Nadu movement as well. After these re-demarcations the demand for a separate Dravida Nadu was diminished in the States of Andra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. At that time, Annadurai who was in power in Tamil Nadu brought the slogan Dravida Nadu is for Dravidians and Tamil Nadu is for Tamils. Subsequently Tamil leaders abandoned the idea of Dravida Nadu as a result of war with China in 1962 and the 16th amendment to the Indian constitution in 1963 which prohibited demands for separate states. In 1962 while Indian National Congress won majority seats in Madras Presidency, DMK party won only 50 seats. In 1967 after the abundance of separatism, DMK party won 138 seats while Congress won only 50 seats.

Therefore, it was proved in India that demarcating of provinces based on the language and ethnicity would run down the demands for separate states. This is quite contrary to the popular belief in the south of Sri Lanka.

As the main ethnic group of the county it is the duty of the Singhalese to initiate the process of reconciliation in order to ensure the peaceful coexistence which would eventually result in the economic progress of the country. Democracy would function smoothly if and only if the main participants are content and happy.

Conclusion

As the main ethnic group of the county it is the duty of the Singhalese to initiate the process of reconciliation in order to ensure the peaceful coexistence which would eventually result in the economic progress of the country. Democracy would function smoothly if and only if the main participants are content and happy.

The tragedy of Sri Lanka is the extension of the mindset created during the struggle against the suppression in the colonial period into the era of independent Sri Lanka. This was the result of the wrong and myopic mindset imposed on them by the leaders of the freedom struggle in the early stages. This myopic mindset is quite in contrast to the inclusive mindset created in the Indian population by their leaders of the freedom struggle. Sri Lanka should get over this mass myopic mindset of its majority community as soon as possible for the prosperity of the country.
(The writer is a chartered accountant and holds a MBA degree from PIM.)

Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers: the Sri Lankan context

(Lanka e News - 29.March.2019, 11.30PM)  The past decade has seen the largest number of people forcibly displaced as a result of conflict, violence, or persecution since the Second World War. With most recent numbers reaching 68.5 million, the global refugee crisis is indeed one of the most devastating events in recent history.

UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, estimates that 5.2 million people were newly displaced in the first half of 2018 and that there are 20.2 million refugees and 3.2 million asylum seekers across the world as of 2018.

Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers – are they one and the same?

Often used interchangeably to refer to refugees, the terms migrant, refugee and asylum seeker each refer to specific situations in which people who are displaced find themselves. Conflating these meanings may undervalue a person’s experience or even cause serious issues with regard to their safety and security.

The simplest definition of a migrant is a person who moves from their country of origin to another in order to reside there for more than a year. Reasons for doing so may vary but are often in pursuit of better opportunities – this can include work, studies and even to move away from sites of violence and conflict.

A refugee, on the other hand, is someone who has fled armed conflict, violence or persecution on the grounds of religion, ethnicity, nationality, political opinion or belonging to a particular group and has sought international protection as they are unable to access protection within their country. More often than not they can no longer remain in their country of origin due to fear of serious harm and even death.

An asylum seeker is someone who claims to be a refugee but whose claim is still being determined or assessed. They initially register with the relevant authority in the country of asylum or if there is no such authority with UNHCR, who then evaluates their claim and determines whether or not they are in need of international protection.

Global Protection Schemes

Most refugees and asylum seekers live in fear of persecution and having left behind their country of origin due to the lack of state protection available to them, they must then rely on international protection. The 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, based on the principles of non-discrimination, non-refoulement and non-penalization as well as providing minimum standards for treatment, are two of the key documents that provide for the protection of refugees.

More recently in 2015, 193 states affirmed the importance of refugee protection.  This resulted in what became known as the Global Compact on Refugees which was affirmed by the UN General Assembly in November 2018. The Global Compact provides a framework that recognizes that a sustainable solution to the refugee crisis cannot be implemented without international cooperation. Therefore, it provides additional guidelines for governments, international organizations and other stakeholders to equip them to both support host communities and refugees. Its key objectives are to support host communities in order to ease some of the pressure they feel, to help refuges be more self-reliant, expand and improve access to third-country resettlement whilst also supporting the conditions in the countries of origin to allow people to return safely and with dignity.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka has yet to ratify the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol but has recognized the importance of the Global Compact on Refugees as a ‘rallying point for multilateralism and solidarity’ that could help protect and address the needs of the millions who have been displaced as a result of conflict.

Despite not being party to the convention or the 1967 protocol, the Sri Lankan Government provides asylum space for refugees and asylum seekers to submit their claims to UNHCR in Sri Lanka and to remain, while a durable solution is achieved in each specific case. As per the Government’s agreement with UNHCR, they are granted space in which to reside until UNHCR processes their claims of asylum which can take between one and a half to two years. At present there 844 refugees and 826 asylum seekers awaiting the determination of their claims in Sri Lanka. Since Sri Lanka is not party to the Convention, these refugees and asylum seekers have no official legal status and are therefore unable to work during their stay in Sri Lanka. As a result, they are provided with a living allowance by UNHCR which can be used to meet their basic needs. This living allowance, however, is only available to refugees.  Asylum seekers have to rely on the support of non-governmental organizations such as ZOA and Muslim Aid as well as support from family back home to meet their basic needs.

The children of refugees and asylum seekers also have limited access to education. While primary education is made available to refugee children, children under the age of 5 and over 12 receive no official schooling. Similarly, asylum seekers must once again, rely on charities and individual benefactors to facilitate learning opportunities for their children.

The lack of access to employment and the lack of educational opportunities, especially for secondary-school age students and youth severely impacts the self-reliance and motivation of refugees and asylum seekers in Sri Lanka. UNHCR in collaboration with Citra’s Social Innovation Lab is currently exploring opportunities to provide increased support for skills development and vocational training for refugees and asylum seekers in Sri Lanka and the 3rd edition of the Colombo Development Dialogues will provide a space at which possible solutions might be formulated.

***

The ‘Colombo Development Dialogues’ (CDD) is a collaborative initiative by the LSE South Asia Centre (LSE-SAC) and the United Nations Development Programme in Sri Lanka, in partnership with Dilmah Tea, the Citra Social Innovation Lab and the Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Colombo. The CDD series comprises three components: (1) A Masterclass for research students on the selected thematic area, conducted by an academic brought down by LSE-SAC; (2) The CDD forum; and (3) A post-dialogue Policy Working Paper.

The third Colombo Development Dialogues on ‘Refugees, Asylum-Seekers and the 2030 Agenda’ will be held on 5 April 2019.

About the author:

Sarika Warusavitarana currently works as a Sociologist at Citra Social Innovation Lab, a joint initiative between UNDP Sri Lanka and the Ministry of Science, Technology, Research. Sheconducts analysis of developmental issues undertaken by Citra. She brings a wealth of experience from working at the Governance Unit in UNDP Sri Lanka and continues to study the interaction between societal trends and issues on the ground.

---------------------------
by     (2019-03-29 22:49:15)

Does Increasing Use Of Cell-Phone & Wi-Fi Radiation Pose An Increasing Health Risk?

By Chandre Dharmawardana – MARCH 30, 2019

Dr. Chandre Dharmawardana

A 2016 talk by an engineer gives a “wake-up call” about-the danger of cell-phone use and Wi-Fi radiation. It is titled: Wireless wake-up call | Jeromy Johnson | TEDxBerkeley

A Silicon-valley engineer turned technology-health advocate, Jeromy Johnson discusses our attachment to technology.

This video is  once again making the e-mail rounds. Some of you may have seen this before, and our discussion then. Such talks are found in the internet all the time. Of course, it is better to be safe than sorry, and so one may wish to take some precautions if the risk is substantial. But is it?

At every stage of human existence, humans had to judge the amount of risk they have to face, in order to exist and move forward. This was true for the hunter gatherers as well as the first people who learnt how to tame fire.

Is the radiation from smart power meters, cell phones, home wif-fi etc. dangerous, carcinogenic, or capable of causing nausea, sleeplessness etc, and incapacitate you as stated in these reports?

The main-stream professional and scientific organizations do not support the view that there is any risk from Wi-Fi radiation. Of course, the frightened public will immediately point out to examples of collusion between industry and scientific regulatory bodies. This can be significant in the USA where Capitalism is King.   Nevertheless, when the professional and academic associations of a majority of countries say the same thing, I prefer to follow main-stream science instead of claims made by small, seemingly very concerned groups using anecdotal accounts.

So let us look at the science from the main-stream point of view.

The American Cancer Association, and other professional associations do not support the view that radiation from smart meters or cell phones cause cancer.

Smart Meters  transmit the reading to the power company at frequent intervals (e.g., every hour or in full real time). See, for example, the ACA’s comments on smart meters.

The amount of radiation that we get from the sun at all frequencies is a usually many  times higher than what comes from these devices and from cell phones. The sun radiates at low frequencies as well as at very high frequencies, and it is the very high frequencies (short wavelengths) that are most dangerous, compared to Wi-Fi and radio waves.

1. Johnson’s argument that the radiation density has substantially increased because of Wi-Fi is not correct. Typical cell-phone or smart-meter radiation is at 2.4 GHz which is about 12.5 cm. The sun radiates at wavelengths of 100 nanometers to about 1 mm strongly, and beyond into radio frequencies as well. So it is radiating in the Wi-Fi range as well. In fact, 52% of the sun’s radiant energy is in the near infra red and millimeter range.

A Wi-Fi wave of 12.5 cm is more than 10 million times larger than a micron sized cell in the body or in the brain. Think of a boat in the ocean, and a wave which takes a very long time to swell up because its wavelength is a million times longer than the boat. The boat  merely gets gently lifted up, and nothing happens. It is only if the wavelength is comparable to the boat and turbulent (i.e., many short wavelengths and eddies mixed up with long ones) that the boat gets into trouble. So Wi-Fi radiation, which is largely monochromatic (single wavelength) near 12.5 cm cannot latch onto the electric circuits of the cell either due to size based electrodynamic effects, Q-cavity effects, or due to resonance effects unlike a cell phone which “picks up” the wave as it is constructed to have a circuit  in resonance with the 12.5 radiation.

One may imagine that if the wave were very strong (i.e.,if  it had a large amplitude), as wold be the case near a Wi-Fi tower, then its effect would be correspondingly stronger. This is in fact not so, as Einstein showed in 1905. Unlike with ordinary water waves or sound waves, it is the quantum theory that controls the interaction of radiation with matter, and here it is the frequency, and not the amplitude that matters.

2. The total number of cell phones and Wi-Fi sources in the world is over 5 billion according to some estimates. Such radiation is in my view a negligible increment over the existing background. But you can make your own estimates. Also, such cell phones have existed now for several decades. Scientists haven’t still been able to pin point any cases (e.g., of brain cancer) exactly linked to the illness and the presence of cell phone radiation – i.e., there is no evidence. There has been NO INCREASE in brain cancer while the amount of Wi-Fi has increased exponentially. In fact the incidence of brain cancer in the US has slightly decreased, over the years.

2. Of the 3 billion users, let us say we have perhaps a some thousands of people who complain of nausea, inability to sleep etc., as stated by this engineer Jeromy Johnson. He refers to a paper by an Australian Doctor Frederica Lamech published in 2014 in a fringe journal known as “Alternative therapies“. The report is anecdotal, and does not compare a group of patients with a control group. There are many such reports, published in “predatory” journals which have no scientific standing, and reveal  poor “experiments” that are simply not up to scientific standards. We have the same problem in many environmental studies. A most notorious case is that of a Sri Lankan Psychic Lady from kelaniya publishing a paper with  academics from the Rajarata University, claiming that kidney disease in the Rajarata is caused by arsenic acting together with residues of the  herbicide glyphosateclaimed to present in the hard water of the region.  No evidence was presented, but a “hypothesis” was published in a predatory journal. The  journal  had no connection with a learned society or professional body, but it is maintained by a Chinese businessman who publishes what is  sent to the journal as long as you pay a page charge, although there may even be a pretense of “peer review”..

Do you know of ANYONE who has faced the conditions described by Engineer Johnson that you can be ascribed to the use of a cell phone? Most people  don’t.

However, let us we assume that there is actually a problem, and that 5,000 such people have been definitively identified, and that there are 5 billion sources of Wi-Fi radiation in the world. Then we have  5,000/(5 billion) = 5/5000,000,000 gives us one chance in a million that this is probably going to affect us within the next decade. There is a much bigger risk from second hand smoke, and an even bigger risk from fumes from motor vehicles, or falling in your bath tub. The risk for getting hit in the street by a car and dying is about 30 times higher (for New York, and much higher in Colombo or Cairo). Ten times more kids are killed in bath tub accidents in the US alone, compared to the 5000 that we assumed here. That figure may be contested. If so, any one is free to use their own figures and make the risk calculation, and do it in a more sophisticated way using advanced notions of probability distributions etc.

4. So, even if the fringe science reports are not up to standard, it is important to check if there is a danger, by carrying out good experiments with double-blind controls. The WHO has sponsored or carried out several such studies on the effect of cell phone radiation. In 2015, the European-Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the epidemiological studies on cell phone radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of other cancers of the head and neck region.

For Cell Phones and Cancer Risk click here

This is a WHO fact sheet that outlines the available evidence regarding use of cellular/mobile telephones and cancer risk, but does not indicate a definite risk. And yet this engineer seems to say that the WHO arrived at the opposite conclusion. So what he says is, in my view,  incorrect.

Read More

The effervescence of hate

Sanjana Hattotuwa-March 23, 2019, 7:29 pm 

It’s the birth-rates.
It’s the birth-rates.
It’s the birth-rates.

In June 2018, a senior politician publicly condemned the incarceration of Buddhist monks, noting that the clergy would do well to transform their saffron robes to saffron jumpers. The dog-whistling and coded message was clear to the intended recipients. The infamous Gnanasara Thero had just been incarcerated for criminally intimidating the plaintiff in court, two years prior. The politician went on to say that in the past, there were around nine or 10 in a family, but now there’s just one or two, or at most, three. He unequivocally noted that the Sinhala Buddhist race is also nearing extinction, and that what the current government is doing to reduce the population is quite heinous.

What I’ve done above is to juxtapose the first three lines of a document that the killer in Christchurch, just over a week ago, uploaded to the Internet before slaughtering 50 Muslims and the speech made by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa at a temple, to a large group of people. The Christchurch killer’s document, just over 70 pages, is disturbing and unhinged. In an op-ed I wrote last week, I noted that the killer’s language is simple, precise and clear, even if and indeed, mainly because, the logic is so twisted.There is considered intentionality behind the document, written in the format of questions and answers, with a clear political agenda. The author shows an acute awareness of the media landscape and how violent extremism can be seeded in ways that almost guarantee wide distribution in the short-term and over time. Prejudice is projected as fact. Hate is promoted as reason. Killing is normalised as an entirely justified and necessary response. Though the Christchurch killer’s document is anchored to right-wing extremism and its pantheon of conspiracy theories, reading it, what’s quite disturbing is how much of it resonates with the anti-Muslim rhetoric spewed by extreme Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist monks in Sri Lanka, and their powerful, populist political enablers.

The top 25 words used in the Christchurch killer’s writing are revealing insights into man and mentality, as well as right-wing terrorist ideology. There is an overwhelming emphasis on ‘people’ – his people, or his race. There’s also repeated reference to ‘invaders’, referring exclusively to Muslims. ‘Culture’ is also used a lot, capturing what is perceived as cultural violence brought about by foreigners who are visibly Muslim. The emphasis on ‘land’and a love of the natural environment flows from this, where native lands are portrayed as being invaded by hordes of Muslims, contributing to everything from overpopulation to environmental degradation. This logic frames the more disturbing prevalence of words like ‘death’ and‘attack’in the imperative, with‘victory’ as the ultimate outcome. The document makes specific reference to the killing of children as well, as necessary.

All this and more in the killer’s document is absolutely heinous and horrifying. However, it is neither shocking nor surprising. Anyone who has over the years studied the public rhetoric from Mahinda Rajapaksa, the language used and content generated by supporters of Gotabaya Rajapaksa on Facebook, the symbolism and rhetoric projected by the BBS and their supporters, the explicit references to Muslims by Gnanasara Thero or the hordes on social media who openly associate themselves with the Sinha-le movement and ideology will immediately recognise the targets of hate as unnervingly familiar.

Just last week, there were repeated calls to hang or kill Member of Parliament and Minister Rishad Bathiudeen for his perceived role in the purported deforestation of Wilpattu. One tweet made explicit reference to the recent terrorism in New Zealand, noting that if Bathiudeen wanted to transform Sri Lanka into a Saudi Arabia, the author of the tweet was ready to do what the Australian in Christchurch did. Another tweet quotes a Buddhist monk noting that Bathiudeen should be hanged and killed. The rule of law, due process, robust investigations and the role of democratic institutions are rendered entirely unnecessary to, or weak in the face of what is taken to be, projected and strategically promoted as violence against Sinhala Buddhists by Muslims. Fascism, violence, theocratic fiat and communal uprising are the leitmotifs of this discourse. The strong resonance with the Christchurch killer’s right-wing terrorism is unnerving.

Racism and its promotion is so normalised in mainstream political and social discourse in Sri Lanka, it is invisible. During just the unprecedented political and constitutional chaos late last year, the study of reams of content generated directly by the Rajapaksas, as well as vast constellations of supporters online, reveals that racism, majoritarianism, prejudice and communal bias are ingrained into almost all their political communication. As I flagged early December, "the racism is ingrained in and featured on official accounts, where the text and imagery both explicitly and implicitly hold Tamils to be, by nature, separatists and the TNA to be, by default, terrorists." It is entirely unsurprising therefore to find at present, on around 100 pages I monitor on Facebook deeply supportive of and promoting a political future for Gotabaya Rajapaksa, a lot of content around Wipattu is almost exclusively through communal frames - calling for the Sinhalese to rise up and respond, violently if necessary. From Muslims portrayed as invaders to prostitutes, content on just one active page calls for the protection of the environment to be given to the Army and the killing of anyone perceived to be responsible for the environmental devastation. Coincidentally, when writing this column, I was also sent links to around ten WhatsApp groups on Wilpattu. A prominent lay person who is officially part of the BBS is in almost every one of them.

Importantly, this radicalisation happening apace and at scale is not just through social media. The counter-terrorism chief of the UK, Neil Basu, in response to the coverage of the Christchurch killer’s material on British tabloids and media, decried how traditional media coverage of violence helped promote fascism. In Sri Lanka, an anchor working for the popular Derana TV channel said on Facebook that New Zealand deserved the massacre for sending Sri Lanka poisoned milk. The post was taken down by Facebook for the violation of community standards. Incredibly, another senior journalist at the same channel supported her colleague’s assertion by false equivalence, noting that both New Zealand sending Sri Lanka contaminated milk and the massacre were wrong. Now banned in New Zealand from any sort ofpromotion or distribution in public fora, the Christchurch killer’s self-made video was broadcast on some Sri Lankan TV channels in full. Dozens of gossip sites self-hosted the video in full, promoting it over Facebook and respective websites. It is not just the macabre fascination with mass murder that’s disturbing. It is the justification of it by tropes, expression, symbolism and language that just like the killer, normalises violence and extreme prejudice.

In under a week after the worst act of terrorism in New Zealand’s history, the government banned automatic weapons and assault rifles. PM Ardern completely sided with and visibly stood by the Muslim community as victims, condemning right-wing extremism and refusing to ever mention the name of the killer. City, community and country are united in grief. The mainstream media have been dignified and respectful in their coverage. The same right-wing extremism and fascism are present in Sri Lanka. It is openly promoted. From the public stage to political communication, from prominent politicians to influential monks, violence is promoted by personal accounts as well as leading traditional media outlets. Politicians who employ the same racism as the Christchurch killer are blessed by Buddhist clergy. Buddhist clergy that espouses precisely the same ideology as the killer’s right-wing extremism are courted by politicians.

In an election year, where possibly one of the prime candidates is so closely associated with and condones fascism, it doesn’t take specialist knowledge to fear what all this could engineer, leading up to as well as far beyond, electoral outcomes.