May Day: No rallies but religious unity in diversity

1 May 2019 

Today is May Day, but acting with wisdom, major parties have called off their rallies in view of the still tense security situation, 10 days after the Easter Sunday massacres involving suicide bombers of two ISIS linked terror groups in Sri Lanka. Instead of rallies, the parties will take part in religious ceremonies.

It was the S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike government which declared May Day as a public, bank and mercantile holiday from 1956 and all major political parties, trade unions and other organisations held big rallies to mark worker’s day. In the 1970s, when the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and the Communist Party (CP) were in the United Front Government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, they held spectacular May Day rallies from Havelock Park to the Galle Face.

After 1977, when the J.R. Jayewardene government took office with a five-sixth majority in parliament, Sri Lanka was also forced to swallow wholesale the globalised capitalist market economic policy. With it, May Day was undermined and in 1980, tens of thousands of public servants were sacked after they took part in a general strike. Several months of talks were held to settle the crisis over this, and eventually the sacked workers were not reinstated but paid compensation. This prompted Kurunegala’s Bishop Lakshman Wickremesinghe to declare that this was a case “where justice ended and charity began.”

On a day like this, despite the continuing tension and security operations by some 10,000 security forces personnel, we need to remember great labour leaders such as A.E. Goonesinha, who was neither left nor right, a democrat at heart, and a social democrat championing the Labour cause.
For instance the British Colonial government had introduced in 1891 a Poll Tax of 2 rupees a year for a male adult. Those who did not pay had to work on the roads for one day in lieu of the tax. Mr. Goonesinha campaigned against the tax levied by the Municipal Council and got the members of his Young Lanka League not to pay the tax and to work on the road instead. His determination in breaking metal himself for eight hours with people joining him in greater numbers and showing their support, resulted in the tax being finally withdrawn in 1923, according to Visakha Kumari Jayawardena’s book “The Rise of the Labour Movement in Ceylon”.

For the past 10 days, after the Easter Sunday massacres, in three churches, three five star hotels and two other places in Dehiwala and Dematagoda, religious leaders have been meeting regularly to bring about unity in diversity and play a bigger role in ending this ISIS link terror by two small groups here. For instance, last Sunday’s holy mass was broadcast live on television and radio. Hundreds of thousands of Catholics watched this special Holy Mass and there would have been a powerful manifestation of god in this rare act of unity. Religious ceremonies were also held in temples with Buddhist prelates, Christian, Muslim and Hindu religious leaders taking part. Significantly, in Gampaha, a holy mass was held at a Buddhist temple. We hope the religious leaders will from now play a bigger role in national affairs so that terrorism could be curbed and the country could also tackle together some of the contributory causes such as wide spread poverty, global warming and climate change.

Meanwhile, the government has issued a Gazette notification designating the National Thawheed Jamaath (NTJ) and the Jamathei Millathu Ibraheem (JMI) as terrorist organisations. Under the tough new Emergency Regulations now in place, those found to have committed terrorist offences are liable to face the death penalty. But unfortunately the government is still divided with growing friction between President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghes’ United National Front (UNF). We hope that even in a catastrophe such as this, the major parties will put aside party politics or the desire for personal gain or glory and work together with the mainstream or moderate Muslim community to end the ISIS linked terrorism.  

Thowheed Jamath, BBS both funded by single secret account - By Dr Wickramabahu

(Lanka-e-News -01.May.2019, 9.00PM) ) Thowheed Jamath, BBS both funded by single secret account’ Featured in a report last week. It further explained that Intelligence authorities have now established that during the Rajapaksa regime, a secret account of the defence ministry had funded Thowheed Jamath, Bodu Bala Sena and other Muslim and Buddhist extremist groups. The ‘Sathhanda’ reported quoting sources at the Presidential Secretariat. There is clear information to prove that Thowheed Jamath’s secretary Abdul Rasik Rafiquedeen was an Army intelligence member. It was him who had given information in 2008 that a group of Mullahs from a foreign country were in a mosque at Maradana. Coordinator was a retired major general- a closest ally of ex-defence secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, now a retired major general, had coordinated these Muslim and Sinhala extremists, it has now come to light.

He was also head of the special security operations committee that functioned on Gotabhaya’s instructions during the last presidential elections.

This committee had planned a conspiracy to seize power on January 08, but was foiled. Investigations into the conspiracy made no headway. These leaders misled their followers. The secretary of Thowheed Jamath was arrested on a complaint by BBS secretary Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thera, but both were in the pay from the same account. The two groups had seriously misled their followers and provoked citizens into racial and religious clashes, the sources said, adding that strong legal action would be taken against both to establish peace and reconciliation in the country.

How to check the spread of extremism..

It is clear that the attacks on Easter Sunday were carried out by local radicals, under the pressure s of foreign fundamentalists. It is also clear that there is little support for this group from the wider Muslim community. While those involved could be swiftly identified and dealt with, the bigger question is how to check the spread of extremism. Some say violent extremism is a cult, not a religion. Then one can argue that all god believing religions are cults, except Buddhism. Hence treating violent extremism as a problem of religion or belief is a mistake. The process of radical, violent mobilization shows closer links to that of a belief in mythical irrational power.  If “radical” beliefs produce terrorists, then why doesn’t every political-Islamist mosque produce terrorists? Even more complicated, why have most of those providing material support to Islamic terrorist groups shown little understanding of theology, but instead seem to be attracted to the thrill of jihad adventurism. Then is it strong attraction to mythical adventure that effect modern young people to extreme actions?

If that is correct, counter strategies based on empowering rational, liberal voices by preaching mercy kindness and tolerance in more “extreme” mosques may not be effective, indeed even counterproductive. When confronted with countering evidence, committed extremist individuals may become defensive and cling on initial beliefs more strongly, driving fence-sitters towards extremism.

It is therefore problematic to assume that countering discussions, showing extremists the error of their ways or debating theology would do anything other than produce hostility and even heightened aggression.

To deal with extremism, the focus should be on weakening the organizational ties within the movement in friendly manner, not on debate. In debate people tend to defend more on emotion and intuition than reason. If people are not working from clear ideological standpoints there is little possibility of making headway through discussion. On the other hand it may make more sense to counter the networks and personal ties between individuals and terrorist groups, using sensitive tactics. In that sense, this relief model maintains that since ideology fails to predict or suppress terrorist violence, other social factors such as alienation, mental health, or bonds with other affected actors explains violence. Of course ideology matters; but extremist ideological pulls exist within a social context. Hence it is the social – class context that counter strategies should be focusing on.

Extremist affective bonds grow around friendship, not Belief...

Most recruits to extremists and new religious movements come from those who know one or more members of the group. The personal connection between recruiter and recruited is far more important than the content of the mythology as the testimony of former cult members shows:

“The way the Jesus Army worshiped was a bit odd at first … but I soon got used to it. What really attracted me was the sincerity of the people and the obvious love and bonding that they had with each other”.

Likewise, a participant in another cult reported that: “After his first visit to the ideology center, he thought members of the centre were crazy and decided not to go back. However, he thought about all the people he knew there, and he recalled what a great friendship and warm time he had with them. Subsequently he turned up for the rest of the course.”

Similarly, terror networks operate around bonds of kinship and friendship. One study found that 95% of foreign terrorists who joined ISIS were recruited by friends or family.”

An extremist group is not simply a quixotic fringe group with unorthodox practices: they are a commune of practice. In a sense, it is reemergence of feminist commune of early human existence. For alienated, isolated individuals, these groups create affective bonds of love and attention received from nowhere else. The culture of jihad is more than ideology: a large literature collected has found that terrorist groups have cultures of practice that go far beyond doing terror. Terrorists read poetry, weep and hug, sing, eat, and have a culture that can be observed outside of the material threat they pose. This phenomenon of early commune spirit is the “soft power” of jihad and other extremists, which pulls recruits in not with force, but with social cultural appeal and interrelation ties.

Extremist group thrive on intensive interaction between recruits and elites and forge social interrelation. On the other hand Ex. groups rely on exclusive and isolating bonding practices that forge the conditions necessary for violence. Social inoculates the recruits from outside influence, neutralizes the stigma frequently associated with participation in such groups, and masks their deviant behaviour. Conversely, the more civil connections a group has with others, the more engaged they become in the democratic process. Cohesion and overlapping, bridging ties between communities can prevent splintering, ideological isolation, and foster mutual respect. Thus they become fighters for an imaginary ideal.

By 

Dr Wickramabahu Karunarathne 

---------------------------
by     (2019-05-01 15:39:10)

Exclusive: Gota’s Intelligence Czar Caught Red Handed As Chinese Mole

Kapila Hendawitharana

MAY 1, 2019

Retired Major General Kapila Hendawitharana, a former Director of Military Intelligence (DMI) who had been dismissed by Army Commander Sarath Fonseka as an unqualified “logistics man” was promoted to Major General by Gotabaya Rajapaksa in 2006, and brought back to the high post of Chief of National Intelligence, and given very broad oversight powers over all of Sri Lanka’s intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies.

After being removed from office in January 2015, Hendawitharana was immediately given employment as head of security for the Shangri-La Hotels in Sri Lanka, where he works to this day for a high salary. This was after Rajapaksa and his defence ministry were implicated in the land deal for the Shangri-La.Hendawitharana and the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence are suspects in the several white van abductions of journalists, the disappearance of Prageeth Eknaligoda and the murder of Lasantha Wickrematunge, all of what were done by the Military Intelligence under their command, according to the CID.

After the ruthless terrorist bombings on April 21, including at the Shangri-La in Colombo, many countries including the Americans send specialists to Sri Lanka to assist forces in crushing this new terrorist threat. American investigators have visited the Shangri-La, where several Americans died, and are trying to help Sri Lanka to fight this threat.

But Colombo Telegraph can exclusively reveal that Hendawitharana, Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s right-hand man in the Defence Ministry, is an agent of the Chinese Intelligence. We can today reveal audio recordings of Hendawitharana, who is also the security head of Shangri-La, telling a Chinese Intelligence Officer to use diplomatic means as a “deterrent action” to sabotage the relationship between the US and Sri Lanka.

Hendawitharana is privy to American involvement in Sri Lanka’s new war against terror because of his role in security at Shangri-La, but his concern is not for his employer, in whose hotel so many innocents died, but instead for his handlers in Chinese Intelligence and his political contacts in the Joint Opposition.

In the audio recording, available exclusively below, Hendawitharana tells his Chinese handler to “appraise your diplomatic channels to work on the US-Sri Lanka relationship.”

“There is some development taking place for which the opposition parties, joint opposition, are making hell of a fit,” he warns. “They want to give Americans free passage for any requirement if the requirement arises for them to occupy Sri Lanka, even making use of the harbours and airports.”

“I am also on the watch,” he promised. “The government will deny. I don’t know the underhand plans of them.”

“Make your diplomatic channels aware of this,” the former intelligence chief tells the Chinese, “and ask them to take it up with the foreign ministry of Sri Lanka in advance as a deterrent action.”

Colombo Telegraph can also exclusively reveal how the Chinese have looked after Hendawitharana. In another recording revealed exclusively here, a Chinese contact explains to him how to provide information necessary for China to make tuition payments for the foreign education of a member of Hendawitharana’s family.

We might never know for how long Sri Lanka’s top spy has been in bed with a foreign power, and whether or not he was taking orders from the Chinese at the time he ran our intelligence services and fostered the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS), while other Chinese entities were funding the Rajapaksa family election campaigns.

Read More

The Muslims of Sri Lanka: A quick snapshot

The Muslims of Sri Lanka: A quick snapshot

 

දොර ඇරලා බලපන්
පායයි තව මොහොතින් නව රැස්
ඉර සේවය කරමින්
සිරිපා කඳු මුදුනින්
සිවනදි පාදං
පාරාදීසය
භාවා ආදම් මලෙයි

 

— Mahagama Sekara, “Mak Nisada Yath”

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

 

The earliest recorded engagement of a Muslim with Samantakuta, according to Senerath Paranavitana, occurs in 851 CE in a travel account by an Arab merchant called Soleyman. However, Soleyman does not refer to it as aadam malayi, the name we see in the later Muslim reconstruction of the Peak. Instead he alludes to it as “Al-Rohoun”, a term the 9th century Indian poet Rajasekhara uses in the Balaramanaya. “Rohoun” was a corruption of Ruhuna, to which the area surrounding the mountain belonged; it was a term apparently used by Arabs and even Indians.

Marco Polo, the merchant from the Mediterranean, does not write at length about the Peak’s religious significance, and instead reports what he heard from the inhabitants of the country. A contemporary account, written much earlier, is that of the Franciscan priest Giovanni de' Marignolli, who dwells at length on its geographic contours and cultural associations. Another contemporary, the scholar and traveller Ibn Battuta, is said to have gone on a pilgrimage under the patronage of the then King of Jaffna, after which he observed that an Imam by the name of Abu Abdallah, who died in 953 CE, was the first Muslim pilgrim to climb it. We can thus locate Muslim pilgrimages to the summit in around the 10th century CE.

Muslim engagement with Sri Lanka predates these pilgrimages, and Arab engagement predates even the coming of Islam. We know from the Mahavamsa that Pandukabaya, after winning his war against his uncles, settled the Yonas at the Western gate, and that “younna” was a term used to refer to the Moors by the Portuguese and the Dutch. But while records do sketch out the existence of pre-Islamic settlements, given that these texts were occupied more with ecclesiastical conquests than the day to day lives of the people, we can’t determine whether the yonas that Mahanama Thera refers to were the same younnas who became the Moors of Sri Lanka..

So not until the 6th century AD do we come across references to their settling in the country. From the accounts of merchants we can ascertain that there were three trade routes operating in the region: the Indian to the North, the Chinese to the East, and the Arab to the West. Sri Lanka’s receptivity to the influences of all three had a great deal to do with its emergence as a distinct geographic entity, separated from India. In any case, as historians like Fernand Braudel have noted, by the 7th century trade in the Far East was mainly carried on by the three economies mentioned above.

In what form did the Arabs come here, and where did they settle? We know the answer to the first question: they came as traders, and though they gained recognition from local rulers they desisted from participating in the administration of the country. To the second, however, we don’t know, since scholars are divided.

Some believe that they originally settled in the North in localities like Alupaanthi, Usaan, and Sonakan Palu, which substantiates the claim that they rapidly became a Tamil speaking community. Other scholars contend they moved further south-west; records indicate that a landing was made at Barberyn, modern day Beruwala, in 1024 AD. In fact two of the oldest Mosques in the country, Abrar and Ketchimalai, were built in Beruwela; the Abrar, the oldest, was constructed in 920 AD, indicating that a thriving Islamic community existed even back then.

Sri Lanka was not a thriving trade based civilisation, and though Fa-Hien wrote that the country was inhabited at first by yakshas and nagas who traded with merchants and sources indicate that in the pre-Vijaya era there was a firm agricultural society we cannot take these as evidence that the country was inclined towards commerce before the Indo-Aryan colonisation. In any case this was not a maritime society. Megasthenes does observe that elephants from Taprobana were superior to those from the mainland and we do come across accounts of large Sri Lankan ships conducting trade with China, which would show that we were a thriving export economy, but we don't really know whether the country developed sophisticated mercantile practices before the Arabs began settling here.

In contrast to the later Western colonial powers and the Muslims themselves in other parts of the subcontinent, the Arabs formed one of the most peaceful ethnic groups here. Records indicate that the kings reciprocated their goodwill by encouraging them to build settlements. They soon became intermediaries, exporting cinnamon and other minerals and importing fabric and luxury goods. For their practices, they gained such a reputation that the Janavamsa bestowed on them a Sinhala epithet they carry to this day: marakkalaya (“much shrewdness”).

The adroitness with which they conducted themselves must be contrasted with the almost Evangelical zeal with which they were able to colonise the other parts of the region. This does not mean that they were hostile towards the local cultures the way that later colonial powers were. Vinod Moonesinghe, for instance, tells me of having come across night time Quran reading sessions in the Maldives; these sessions could only have been a creolisation of Buddhist pirith chanting ceremonies, which would have been obliterated after the country was converted to Islam in 1193 AD. In fact the fusion of these two cultures, the indigenous and the Muslim, was seen in North India as well, though perhaps because Islamisation was never carried out as zealously here they did not come together in Sri Lanka.

We can conjecture, though we can never verify, that Buddhists were quite tolerant of the practices of the Muslims even if they ran counter to the teachings of their faith. Paul Pieris in his account of Portuguese rule, referring to two authorities, tells us that after the marauding invaders made friendly overtures to Sinhala people and the latter reciprocated them, the Sinhala people were angered by attempts to kill their cattle. We know that the Muslim population in the island predated the Portuguese by at least nine centuries. Therefore, we can speculate that their customs were tolerated as those of a community which had been absorbed to the country, while the slaughter of cattle by a foreign people was looked at as an act of disrespect, if not aggression.

The ties between the Sinhala people and Muslims of the time were tested, and then strengthened, by attacks made on both groups by the Portuguese. Fresh from their Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula, the Portuguese tried to exclude Muslim traders from the new country the capital of which they planned to establish a Fort at. In 1518 de Albergaria, the Governor, visited the King and asked him to move the Muslims out, but having conferred with his people, the latter was advised not to accede to it, since the Portuguese were seeking to impose their rule through deception; Pieris tells us that a case for the Islamic community was made there by Buddhist monks.

By now their reputation had transcended their position as traders; in fact, they had brought with them their renowned treatises on medicine, which no doubt endeared them to the kings: not only were they allowed to practice their religion freely, but they were also often employed as royal physicians. Owing to their widespread reputation, the rulers thus accommodated them whenever they were ostracised: Senarat of Kandy, for instance, settled 4,000 Muslims in the East in 1626 AD after they had been chased by the Portuguese from the Western coast.

On their part, the Muslims responded. Here we can recount two instances.

The first. It is said that Rajasinghe II of Kandy hid himself in a large tree in the village of Pangaragammana after fleeing from a failed encounter with the Portuguese, and when the Portuguese searching for him demanded of a Moor woman (who knew of his whereabouts) as to where he was hiding, and she refused to divulge the secret, they killed her immediately and cut her to pieces.

The second. There is an account of Narendrasinghe stopping at Sellankendal on his way to Navadkadu; the Moors of Sellankendal ensured his stay was as comfortable as possible. Later, when news of a would be usurper coming to assassinate the King compelled them to raise arms against the intruding forces, those who had come to pay respects to Narendrasinghe laid down their lives to protect him. For this gesture the grateful King is said to have presented the village with his personal flag, along with a horde of other invaluable symbols and items belonging to him.

All of this shows that we have to account for our history in order to bring together the ethnic, religious, and social groups of our country. Here I quote Vinod Moonesinghe: “[W]e must adjust our exclusivist historiographies. Like our ancestors, we should both emphasise the similarities and enjoy the diversity. The first step could be, as the late Regi Siriwardena suggested, highlighting ‘the diverse ethnic strands that have gone into the making of our nationhood and the various elements that these ethnic groups have contributed to our culture, and indeed to our daily existence’.”

I agree with him there. I think we all should.

The writings of Premakumara de Silva, Megasthenes, Paul Pieris, Latheef Farook, and of course Vinod Moonesinghe were used for this article.

Sri Lanka: Ban on face-veil risks stigmatizing Muslim women   

30 April 2019

Responding to Sri Lanka’s emergency regulations imposing a ban on clothing that conceals the face, Amnesty International’s Deputy South Asia Director, Dinushika Dissanayake, said:

“At a time when many Muslims in Sri Lanka fear a backlash, imposing a ban that effectively targets women wearing a face veil for religious reasons risks stigmatizing them. They will be forced out of public spaces to stay at home and will be unable to work, study or access basic services. The ban violates their rights to non-discrimination, freedom of expression and religion.

“Where there are legitimate security concerns, the authorities can carry out identity checks when objectively necessary. It is important that the state provides measures that comply with human rights. Women have a right to choose how they dress, whatever their beliefs. Forcing women to take off the face-veil is coercive and humiliating.”

Background

The amended emergency regulations came into force on 29 April 2019, in the wake of the Easter Sunday massacre that claimed the lives of more than 250 people in attacks on three churches and three hotels. Since the attacks, Sri Lanka’s small Muslim community has been braced for a backlash while refugees from Muslim backgrounds or Muslim-majority countries have been attacked by hardline mobs.

OPEN LETTER TO POLITICAL LEADERS: ESTABLISH THE TRUTH & FIND THE PERPETRATORS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF HR STANDARDS.

Image: After the Easter Sunday carnage (c) Ishara K. /AFP.

Open Letter to the President, the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet and Members of Parliament regarding the situation in Sri Lanka.

Your Excellencies:

30/04/2019

We, the undersigned women and men, are members of civil society and are drawn from all religious and ethnic communities. Our common goal has been to advance the political, social and economic and cultural rights of the people by promoting peace, harmony and social justice for all. We have engaged constructively with all governments in the past and will continue do so in this instance.
We are appalled by the carnage in Sri Lanka. Our sympathies are with the victims and their families and with our beloved country.

We urge the government to expeditiously establish the truth and find the perpetrators and their allies, within the framework of human rights standards.

We draw the government’s attention to the urgent need to contain the developing situation of vigilante justice and mob attacks particularly on the broader Muslim community. We urge the government to establish mechanisms to address these situations with appropriate public messaging and to instruct law enforcement authorities to act swiftly to demonstrate that such acts will not be tolerated.

We recognize the need for emergency laws to respond to this situation and rightly so. Yet, we note with deep regret that the emergency regulations published on 22nd April 2019 are overly broad. It is the responsibility of the government to take measures to ensure that mis-use / abuse of these extremely broad powers are anticipated and addressed.

There have already been reports of ill treatment during searches and there is an urgent need for law enforcement and security personnel to be informed that they must act professionally and with due care. Excesses experienced during times like this are likely to fuel insecurity nurture hate, and even lead to more violence.

There is a communication vacuum and it is the government’s responsibility to provide accurate and timely information to the public. False rumours and misinformation cannot be stopped by legislation – they can only be countered by facts and credible and accurate information. The government must speak with one voice on this matter.

We urge that the President and Prime Minister put aside their personal and political differences and collaborate whole-heartedly and without reservation to bring this situation under control. The high cost of this political in-fighting was most clearly revealed in failures to share vital intelligence. We cannot afford a second breach.

We urge all Members of Parliament to put aside their political differences and act responsibly to support the long-term national interest. We request a joint meeting with the President and Prime Minister to discuss this situation.

We, as civil society offer our assistance through our wide networks of community-based
organisations. They are currently engaged in advocating for calm, for peace, and national unity. These networks can share information and be source of feedback about consequential community issues that may arise. If the government develops the capacity to respond swiftly and decisively to such issues it would certainly strengthen the efforts of the authorities.

Geoffrey Alagaratnam

President’s Counsel

Dr Vinya Ariyaratne

Sarvodaya

K.N.Deen

All Ceylon YMMA Conference

Visaka Dharmadasa

Association of War Affected Women (AWAW)

Fr Rohan Dominic

Claretian Missionaries (CMF)

Mangala Fernando

Women’s Political Academy (WPA)

Fr Oswald Firth OMI

Peoples Association for Peace and Development (PAPD)

Manjula Gajanayake

Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV)

Saman Hamangoda

Partners in Alternative Training (PALTRA)

Rohana Hettiarachchi

People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL)

Sakunthala Kadirgamar

Law and Society Trust (LST)

Sepali Kottegoda

Women and Media Collective

Sri Lanka Women’s NGO Forum

Viola Perera

Action Network For Migrant Workers (ACTFORM)

Jehan Perera

National Peace Council (NPC)

Fr Srian Ranasinghe OMI

Director Oblate Missions

Kumudini Samuel

Women and Media Collective (WMD)

Christobel Saverimuttu

Sri Lanka Council of Religions for Peace (SLCRP)

Fr. Rohan Silva OMI

Centre for Society and Religion (CSR)

Padmini Weerasuriya

Mothers and Daughters of Lanka

Joe William

Centre for Communication Training (CCT)

Mohamed Adamaly (Attorney-at-Law)

Sanchia Brown (Women and Media Collective)

Shashika De Silva

Ramesh Fernando

Adrian Ferdinands

Lasantha Garusinghe (Attorney-at-Law)

Velayudan Jayachithra (Women and Media Collective)

Diana Joseph

Nishantha Kumara

Safi Nayaj

Shantha D. Pathirana

Shivantha Ratnayake (Centre for Communication Training)

Raja Senanayake (National Peace Council)

Vijayanathan Thusandra

Nagaratnam Vijayakanthan (National Peace Council)
Saman Seneviratne

Thiyagaraja Waradas (University of Colombo)

Subha Wijesiriwardena (Women and Media Collective)

The Niqab ban and the politics of distraction

Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

SHAAHIMA RAASHID-04/30/2019

As of last Monday, Sri Lanka is taking a seat at the table next to a list of 13 other countries from across the world who have passed legislation banning the niqab or face veil.

Amidst incensed murmurs from certain parliamentarians, and following a discussion with the country’s main Islamic theological body, the All Ceylon Jammiatul Ulema (ACJU), the President’s office has announced that ‘any garment or item which obstructs the identification of a person’s face would be barred.’ Sri Lanka has been under emergency regulations following the Easter Sunday attacks which killed over 250 people. The ban will hold until emergency regulations are lifted.
Ever since the identification of the all-male terrorists behind the massacre as members of militant group ISIS, Muslim women -for some inexplicable reason- were to bear the hardest brunt. Instances of headscarved Muslim women being refused entry at various supermarkets and prominent establishments was followed by the usual scaremongering via alarmist infographics doing the rounds yet again ‘educating’ the public of the differences between the burqa, hijab, and chador.

A victory indeed for both anti-Muslim voices, as well as to many within the Muslim community seeking to audibly amputate themselves from a supposedly dated form of Islam – one that they claim has no bearing to inherent Sri Lankan Muslim identity.  A view that discards the notion that any religious or ethnic identity is fluid, in flux, and subject to constant evolution.

The grand slam, however, is primarily for the current political establishment, members of whom are probably high-fiving each other as a result of this kneejerk symbol-politics manoeuvre on having supposedly successfully placated the public of their fears of homegrown terrorism. A move that bleeds hypocrisy for it comes at the cost of subliminally ‘othering’ an already marginalised segment of a minority community, while at the same time PSA’ing for peace and coexistence in this time of crisis.

What is most insulting to the intelligence of our society, however, is that amidst all this brouhaha, only few have questioned the actual relevance of this new ban to the current state of our security affairs.

No eye witness report nor CCTV footage showed that any of the suicide bombers from any of the coordinated attacks across the country were on that day wearing the niqab/burqa/chador at the time of inflicting their terror. The men were in fact dressed in men attire, with faces completely exposed. It might serve to add here also that they weren’t dressed in traditional Muslim man garb either.
How then did the face veiling Muslim woman get pushed under the bus as the most identifiable sign of radicalism?

It is obvious that the government was cornered into passing this legislation, as was the ACJU too in having to support this move. While all communities have only their praises to sing for the exceptional work of the security forces in tracking down the attackers within only just hours, the country’s elected leadership was in dire need of respite following what many experts claim was a massive intelligence failure, a blunder involving the wrongful identification of a terror suspect, and incompetence in the handling of events overall. A distraction was desperately required. Something needed to give, and it just so happened that the niqab-donning Muslim woman was the easiest scapegoat.

To an outsider unfamiliar with Muslim religious symbolism, the face-veil can come across as alien, even unnerving. And while our first instinct is to otherwise in an attempt to help deal with the discomfort of dealing with any unknown, a woman out in the street in a niqab is -for as long as anyone can remember- most certainly not an oddity that has compelled anyone to stop and recite their final rites.

The misguided belief that the face veil is a marker of extremism isn’t and hasn’t ever been based on any empirical research. If studies were to be carried out, results would show that Muslim women in general -let alone those with a face cover- have a little role to play, if any, for acts of terror committed in all the countries that have banned them.

Contrarily, there is a clear proven relationship between terrorist attacks and increases in recorded Islamophobic incidents against Muslims, with women being disproportionately targeted. One can then dare infer that being visibly Muslim carries a greater risk to oneself, than to the people around them.

The niqab ban has been put in place as a security measure they say – a flexing of muscles towards any semblance of radicalisation that will deter any future acts of terror in the country. Naturally, the perpetuating of this ideological hegemony is doing Muslim women no favours. If anything, the ban is a wholly counterproductive one, in that it ostracises an already marginalised segment of a minority community – a sliver of a percentage out of the 10% that is the country’s Muslim population.

If -as commonly believed- veiled Muslim women are being hopelessly persecuted, the ban will serve only to increasingly confine these women to their homes, under the control of the men accused of governing their lives, and further disconnected from being able to assimilate with society. Even more dangerous, there are studies which prove that having to live in an environment that is aggressively policed on the basis of belief is more likely to harbour radicalisation.

The absurdity of the non-connection of the attacks with the niqab ban aside, this in itself should be a war cry for secular feminists advocating for everyone’s basic right to the civil freedoms of a liberal society. Where now are the proponents and ambassadors so wholly soaked in the ‘Muslim woman saviour complex?’ A segment of Muslim women has been forbidden from wearing what they feel best represents their Sri Lankan Muslim identity. They were not consulted before this legislation was passed, nor were they given the chance to show their willingness to cooperate on instances where identification was required.

Ludicrously, discourses surrounding veiled Muslim women are paradoxically lobbed back and forth according to the convenience of the times. In times of world peace, they are oppressed and subservient to patriarchal whims and fancies, while in the immediate aftermath of a terror attack there are hostile and threatening, capable of devising all kinds of evil. They are either victims of violence or the perpetrators of it.

This age-old preoccupation with Muslim women’s attire is in actuality a gross conflation of conservatism with extremism. In claiming that a strip of cloth holds the answer to combatting a severe global threat is trivialising the greater issues at hand. If there was a direct correlation between the attacks and veiled individuals, legislation forbidding the covering of the face in public would be wholly justified. But there is none.

Muslim women shouldn’t be faulted for the cracks in the state’s china. In not being able to answer the hard questions of accountability, lapses in acting on available intelligence, and general good governance, those at the top should leave well alone and consider hiding their faces instead.

Easter Sunday Massacre: Daily Mirror Front Page Gossip Is Dangerously Misleading

By M.A. Sumanthiran –MAY 1, 2019

M.A. Sumanthiran PC

Today’s Daily Mirror front page has this ‘gossip’ which is dangerously misleading. It implies that I was to attend the Easter Service at Zion Church, Batticaloa on April 21st but desisted from doing so because President Mahinda Rajapaksa called and warned me of the impending suicide attack! I wish to categorically state that this is absolutely false.

On April 21st I attended an Easter service in Colombo as usual, unaware of any threat. When I learnt of the ‘bomb blasts’ I went to the Kochchikade St. Anthony’s Church and met Rev Fr. Jude Fernando and other clergy. Several bodies were still lying at the explosion site. It was there that I got to know that this was a suicide attack. Thereafter I went to the Accident Service of the National Hospital where I met the Secretary to the Health Ministry, Director Health Services, the Hospital Director and others. I also went to the Casualty Ward to see some of the injured.

Later that evening I spoke to the President of the Pastor’s Fellowship in Batticaloa and decided to go to Batticaloa the next day to meet the affected people and attend some funerals. I got to Batticaloa by about 8.30am on April 22nd and along with the said Pastor and our Party General Secretary Mr Thurairajasingam, visited several funeral houses. We also attended the burial of the young son of another pastor at the cemetery.

While still in Batticaloa, Mr Mavai Senathirajah, the President of our Party spoke to me and Mr Thurairajasingam and we decided call for a day of mourning (NOT Hartal) in the North and East and set the date as 24th April for that purpose. Mr Senathirajah, who was in Jaffna at that time, told me that he had visited the catholic Bishop of Jaffna and the Northern Governer and had informed them of this decision. I said we would do the same in Batticaloa and we accordingly visited the catholic Bishop of Batticaloa and the Eastern Governer and informed them of our decision to observe the day of mourning, before returning to Colombo.

The false ‘gossip’ published today has necessitated this long post. I never had any intention of attending the Easter service at Zion Church nor was I warned by anyone of any impending attack on that Church.

Read More

May Day in times of crisis

The current crisis poses a dangers of isolating the Muslim community. Here  a Sri Lankan Special Task Force (STF) soldier checks a Muslim burial ground in Colombo on April 29, while some Muslims look on.  (AFP)

1 May 2019 

This May Day coming within ten days of the horrendous Easter attacks is bound to be muted as Sri Lanka recovers from the shock. These heinous crimes that have killed and maimed many hundreds go beyond the concerns of working people, and should be condemned as an attack on humanity. The victims and their families, whether it was working people at prayer or the hotel workers in the line of duty, will into the next generation be fraught with challenges of trauma as much as meeting their day to day economic needs and livelihoods.


In this context, how can we think of May Day as a day of solidarity for working people? What should we be considering in our thinking and in our practice as we pass a May Day filled with such great sorrow amidst a climate of fear?

---

• The Easter attacks have overnight changed the political environment in the country
• The Muslim community, in rejecting the extremists, has been in the forefront of identifying the perpetrators of the horrible Easter attacks
• The left both internationally and in Sri Lanka have often failed to understand and sympathise with Muslim social life and aspirations

---

Political tsunami

The Easter attacks have overnight changed the political environment in the country as if a devastating tsunami has hit us. Tremendous fear, clearly the intention of perpetrators, consumes the country, which is now in danger of religious polarisation.

Newton Gunasinghe in his article titled, ‘May Day after the July Holocaust’, in 1984 correctly warned against the fallout of the July 1983 violence against the Tamil community as having over-determined the class contradictions in the country with an ethnic conflict. Indeed the next two and a half decades led to the tragedy of a protracted civil war.

Echoing the recent analysis of Tisaranee Gunasekara in the Himal Southasian magazine, I also fear that we are now in similar danger of allowing religious contradictions to over-determine our future. Certainly, having been ravaged by ethno-nationalist polarisation, we do not want the explosive mix of religious polarisation into our body politic.

In this context, how can we think of May Day as a day of solidarity for working people? What should we be considering in our thinking and in our practice as we pass a May Day filled with such great sorrow amidst a climate of fear

In this context, confronting ethnic and religious polarisation is a paramount challenge when struggling for solidarity among working people. Indeed, historically during the early decades after Independence it was the left and labour movements that played a bridge-building role even as nationalist mobilisations sought to divide communities.

The Christian Church – with constituents among Sinhala and Tamil communities – was a channel for communication both before and during the war. Furthermore, its progressive role with respect to working peoples’ concerns was reflected by the work of Christian institutions such as the Christian Workers Fellowship. In this time of crisis, when the Christian Churches have come under attack, they have the major challenges before them of caring for the victims and containing the threat of a backlash.

The political tsunami that has hit us with tremendous fear among the people absorbed by so many horrible images of violence requires the working people as well as the people of all faiths and progressive ideologies to come together, and form barriers against polarisation by building inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations.   

Exclusion of Muslims

The Muslim community, in rejecting the extremists, has been in the forefront of identifying the perpetrators of the horrible Easter attacks. However, these attacks by a few mad men and women have made the broader Sri Lankan population suspicious of the Muslim community as a whole. Muslim friends tell us of the gaze, the suspicious look on the faces, the checking and the round ups, which they don’t know how to respond. Given their daily humiliation, broader social efforts to safeguard their dignity is a priority.

The isolation of the Muslim community well predates these attacks. In the East and North, Muslims faced the wrath of the LTTE in the horrible Kathankudy and Eravur mosque massacres in the East with close to one hundred and fifty dead, and the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim community from the North.

The eclipse of Islamophobia with the US led “war on terror” after 2001 globally isolated the Muslim communities internationally as the “other”. And again in Sri Lanka, the attacks by the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists including the many riots pushed them into a corner. The current crisis poses a dangers of isolating the Muslim community from the Christian communities, and a backlash by all the other communities in Sri Lanka.

These attacks by a few mad men and women have made the broader Sri Lankan population suspicious of the Muslim community as a whole. Muslim friends tell us of the gaze, the suspicious look on the faces, the checking and the round ups, which they don’t know how to respond

Historically, the left both internationally and in Sri Lanka have often failed to understand and sympathise with Muslim social life and aspirations. The priority of the working class movement in Sri Lanka today – though it has suffered major setbacks with many from the Old Left aligning with the Sinhala Buddhist nationalists – should be to reach out and defend the broader Muslim community.

A reality that is facing Muslim workers, including the many informal workers involved in trades from collecting scrap iron to tailoring, is isolation and the danger of direct attacks on their livelihoods. Indeed, ethno-religious violence often targets people’s working lives and seeks to destroy their capacity to reproduce their day to day economic lives.

If May Day historically remembered the exploitation of working people, this May Day in Sri Lanka amidst the dangers of polarisation should focus on the exclusion of working people, particularly the Muslims. Solidarity with the excluded working people from the Muslim community should begin with engagement that is based on principles of equality and dignity.

The lesson from Sri Lanka: Be wary of radical preachers

April 30, 2019 

Sometimes, I admit, we fail to appreciate the good work done by the police. Certainly there are corrupt policemen, and officers who abuse their powers; certainly there are officers who are unprofessional and politicised. And certainly the police force can do much more to curb crime.

But, on the whole, most of them carry out their duties well enough to keep us safe, especially from terrorist attacks.

This needs to be appreciated even more in the wake of the terrorist bombings in Sri Lanka that killed more than 250 people and injured hundreds on Easter Sunday, hardly over a month since a lone terrorist killed 50 people and injured another 50 in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The attacks could have happened here. There has only been one successful terrorist attack in the country so far – someone threw a grenade into a pub in Puchong, Selangor, on June 28, 2016, injuring eight people. It was done by “Islamic State (IS) elements”, according to then inspector-general Khalid Abu Bakar.

Early this month, Bukit Aman Special Branch Counter Terrorism Division principal assistant director Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay told Bernama that police had thwarted 24 attempts by terrorists since 2013. That deserves praise. I cannot imagine the hours spent and effort put into this; obviously some of them are awake when we are enjoying a good sleep.

And following the Sri Lanka bomb blasts, police said they had increased security at houses of worship and diplomatic missions throughout the country. That is to be welcomed. But for how long can the police continue to monitor such places?

The Sri Lanka terrorist attacks offer some lessons to the police force, to the government and to Malaysians in general.

One is that the nine suicide bombers came from well-to-do families and most were well educated. One even studied law overseas and two were the sons of a wealthy and much respected businessman.

Most people argue that socio-economic reasons, and often political repression, lead to people becoming terrorists. Today, that is not the main reason anymore. So, the authorities have to ask why rich kids with so much to enjoy, and educated people with so much to contribute to the well-being of their community and nation take to terrorism.

Two, some reports blame Wahhabism for the radicalisation of the Muslims of Sri Lanka, especially of Zahran Hashim, the mastermind of the horror, and his followers. The Wahhabis come with plenty of money.

There is definitely a message here for our government and our security forces as Wahhabism has followers in Malaysia.

Three, the Sri Lankan authorities admit they received intelligence information about possible attacks at churches but failed to act decisively.

Its Minister of Public Enterprises Lakshman Kiriella was quoted by Reuters as saying senior officials had withheld intelligence about possible attacks and that, “the top brass security officials did not take appropriate actions”.

According to Kiriella, information about the possible attacks was received from India’s intelligence services on April 4 and a security council meeting was held, chaired by President Maithripala Sirisena, three days later. However, the information was not shared more widely. According to the Reuters report, quoting “a minister”, Sirisena said his office never received the Indian report and that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was not told about the warnings.

Now, this is a serious lapse and it should never happen here. Both our government and security officials should learn from what happened in Colombo and put in place measures, if these are not in place already, to ensure all those who should be informed are informed so that an effective decision can be taken after proper deliberation.

Four, another Reuters report quoted leaders of three prominent Sri Lankan Muslim groups as saying they had held several meetings with Sri Lankan defence and intelligence officials over the past three years warning them about the radical beliefs of Zahran.

If they had acted earlier, perhaps this tragedy could have been prevented.

In fact, a CNN report said the information coming out of New Delhi, following questioning of an IS suspect, specifically named Zahran.

This is an important lesson for our police and military intelligence: nip the problem in the bud. People holding radical beliefs – especially about religion – can do horrible damage to the nation.

IS has claimed responsibility for the Sri Lanka attacks that Sri Lankan authorities say was led by Zahran.

Five, according to a New York Times report, Zahran’s sermons were popular with a segment of youths. Some of what he had said, as reported by the NYT, may sound familiar to Malaysians:

He railed against a performance, in his hometown of Kattankudy, where Muslim girls danced; he railed against a Muslim politician holding a 50th birthday party, saying “infidel” traditions were poisoning his hometown; and in one of his sermons, he said there were three types of people in the world – Muslims, those who had reached an accord with the Muslims, and “people who need to be killed”.

Radical preachers play a major role in the spread of hate in the name of their religion. Remember the Bali bombings? Preacher Abu Bakar Bashir was said to be the spiritual leader of those who carried out the 2002 bombings which killed more than 200 people. A van bombing in Basilan, the Philippines, last August, which killed 11 people, was linked to a preacher.

Just yesterday, April 29, Reuters reported that India’s National Investigation Agency raided houses in Kerala as a follow-up to a case of 15 people who left India to join IS. They recovered mobile phones, sim cards, notes written in Malayalam and Arabic, and CDs and DVDs of preacher Zakir Naik who is wanted by India.

This does not, of course, mean that Naik is to blame; only that he has fans.

Now, can you imagine what a world we would have if preachers spoke to their followers about the common principles at the foundation of every religion instead of talking about the differences or denigrating other religions? Can you imagine the benefit to the world if preachers of every religion were to stress to their followers the need to respect every religion? For, despite our differences, we are human beings who share the same planet and who collectively shape our futures.

By now the police and the government should be wary of radical preachers, and the government has to work harder to eradicate extremist ideology.

I understand from some of my Muslim friends that preachers are in great demand these days as speakers at mosques and suraus, and that they make good money. One said the preaching of some of the younger ones made him feel uncomfortable.

I have, in the course of my work in the past, met with Muslim preachers and all of them stood for Islam as a religion of peace. I salute them. I believe it must be painful for them to have to deal with the damage caused by extremist preachers such as Zahran.

But the lesson is clear: If we do not learn from terrorist actions elsewhere, we may not live to regret it.

A Kathirasen is executive editor at FMT.

The views expressed by the writer do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

How Our Peoples’ Security Came To Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Political Power Games

By Shyamon Jayasinghe –APRIL 30, 2019

Shyamon Jayasinghe

“…doctrines of all religions are one thing and the religious manifestations are another; variedly, another.”

Power-Game Resumes

The horrifying sadness engulfing our nation notwithstanding, we observe, once again, the ruthless play of  the power- game by our senior politicians. In a country like where I live (Australia) competing political parties would have come together, eschewed the blame -game and united themselves to collectively find an agreed strategy in order to prevent this from ever happening again. Not so in Sri Lanka. To begin with, the power -game offered fertile ground for the emergence of Muslim radicalism in Sri Lanka and it resumes even today unashamedly in the face of the Easter Sunday human onslaught that killed nearly 300 persons while in prayer and Western tourists while having breakfast, leaving many more in hospital battling for their lives.

Rajapaksa Brothers Acting

Mahinda Rajapakse rushed to the scene, visiting dead bodies along with TV cameras. Acting outraged, he exclaimed that this would not have happened had they been in power. His once powerful brother, former Secretary to the Ministry of Defence Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who has been for months grooming himself to be Presidential candidate in the forthcoming elections, made a pre-election promise that if he comes to power he would ensure that Islamic radicalism will be banished forever. Foolish and gullible persons (both ‘educated,’ and illiterate) who have bought the Rajapaksa-created myth that the brothers had won the war with the Army General playing only a disposable and supporting role, nods a chorus,  “Yes. Indeed, true”! In Nadagam style, Sinhalese call this an “athwel gaayana.” How familiar I am since playing decades ago in the Maname original cast! The Rajapaksa chorus is observed in the diaspora, too, where otherwise respectable professionals are observed performing that.

Global Radical Islam

A global force of  an onward-march of radical Islam lies at the the depths of the tragedy we saw on Easter Sunday. One cannot properly comprehend the Easter human disaster without knowing what this aggressive march of monstrosity is. It isn’t, plainly, Islam. That’s is for sure. Islam is a doctrine of peace. However, doctrines of all religions are one thing and the religious manifestations are another-variedly another.

The problem of religion is that it is built on unquestionable  faith; there is no search for evidence or resort to reasoned argument possible in any discourse pertaining to any religion. Faith offers a dangerous leap because it is a slippery ground for many a crazy adventure in the name of religion. Christianity has had a violent history of intolerance. Even Buddhism-reputed as the world’s most peaceful religion- is now showing bigotry and savagery. 

Atheists like me advocate the end of all religion and we love John Lennon’s memorable and awe-inspiring song, “Imagine,” which invokes us to imagine (among other things) there is no religion and “all the people living in peace.”

Socio-Political Milieu

This points out to one solid reality, namely, it  is the socio-politico milieu in which a religion takes shape that can give it the horrible potential for intolerance and violence. In the global context it is geopolitics. Western Imperialism needed the input of the Christian religion to give it justification and  driving power. That imperialism is now over. Radical Islam is also driven by  geopolitics. The Arab states have a vital economic hold on the rest of the world in the supply of oil. Yet, looking around, they feel they are under threat from the Western political forces and the Western modernising cultural forces that threaten their whole way of life. They recall the glorious days when Prophet Muhammed went conquering lands of  heathen or unbelievers and expanded into a kind empire. Although in a different world context altogether, modern Muslim geopolitics is driven on this same ideology of expansion and conquest; the missionary objective of religious conversion is only the justifying and energising emotional drive. Any religion can always find some apparent justification from a perception on the part of believers of the founder’s intention.

Osama Bin Laden was the prophet of radical Islam. Today’s radicalists take their cue from him. Born in a wealthy Yemeni family Osama was extremely wealthy himself-owning billions worth at the time of his death. Osama bin Laden mocked the Americans and the West in general as sworn enemies of Islam. and the Islamic way of life. Since, Christianity provides the foundation of the Western civilisation and so Christians everywhere are potential victims of their wrath. Bin Laden’s own destruction by US power is a constant stimulus for anger and hate among fundamentalists.

Read More