Media Circuses Featuring Cordon And Search Operations Restart

MAY 27, 2019

In clear violation of instructions by President Sirisena and the government little less than three weeks ago to refrain from taking media along on search operations, it appears the military has once again welcomed media crews to tag along.

Media stations, particularly popular, private-owned television outlets started featuring footage of search operations since a few days back. The topic was widely discussed on Twitter today, when a news item aired by TV Derana, featured a raid on a Muslim owned home in Thakkiya Road, Negombo.

The search had been carried out on the home ‘with high walls’ where security forces had come across 28 children and four women and an individual claiming to be the head of the household and the father of the children.

It appeared as though the investigation was being led by the journalist instead of the military personnel. The segment featured the journalist directly questioning the home owner on how he manages to finance the upkeep of 28 children and four women claiming, ‘by the look of it, this land doesn’t look like it yields a revenue of even one rupee,” while military personnel looked on.

Meanwhile, several prominent journalists on Twitter revealed the military has been sending out SMS ‘invitations’ to witness cordon and search operations in various districts.

Sunday Observer Editor Dharisha Bastians tweeted today, a screenshot of the invitations shared by the military, pointing out its in direct violation of the instructions to security forces not to take media with them during search operations.

Video Player

00:00

00:00

1. “Anti-Muslim tweet Dearana”

0:49

On May 6, the President and the government issued clear instructions to all media stations and journalists to avoid accompanying the military during search operations, in consideration of several requests made by civil society groups of potential violation of rights and privacy.

Read More

A melancholy week of many wrongs and no rights

Sunday, May 26, 2019

This was a week of many wrongs and virtually no rights. The optics of the image released to the public when the Bodu Bala Sena’s Galagoda atte Gnanasara and his mother met President Maithripala Sirisena following his pardoning while serving a prison sentence for contempt of court said it best, smiles and merry laughter all around as it were.

The discarding of ‘good governance’ niceties

This presidential pardon must be read for what it is, with no frills and furbelows to obscure the core point. Clearly it is an unequivocal signal that ‘good governance’ niceties have been discarded in what is essentially, a battle for political survival in an election year. Advocates of the Rule of Law may vainly screech themselves hoarse on the palpable affront to Sri Lanka’s judicial institution that this pardon most certainly denotes but let us unflinchingly recognize ugly realities in all their permutations and combinations. Indeed, by keeping silent on this remarkable pardon, the United National Party shifting uneasily in their government seats while trading insults with the President and his men, has also communicated that very same message.

The monk had been sentenced for insulting the Bench in the most horrendous manner possible. But this pardon reduces that fact to a frivolous bagatelle of no worthy account. For those of us with short memories, it may be instructive to recall precisely what the Court of Appeal pronounced in handing down the punishment late last year. This was consequent to the monk’s barging into the hearing of a habeas corpus petition in the Homagama Magistrate’s Court filed in respect of the disappearance of cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda during the Rajapaksa years and haranguing the magistrate and the state counsel as eunuchs.

In exceptionally stern language, the Appeal Court pointed to the fact that the accused who had no connection to the court hearing with no standing to appear, had ‘addressed’ the Bench without express or implied permission, intending to ‘intimidate’ the magistrate into granting bail to the suspect intelligence officers after the magistrate had already refused to do so. His ‘address’ to the magistrate  was in a high tone, heard ‘even by those waiting away from the court room’ and in ‘abusive, offensive and commanding’ language. In doing so and in saying that this was the ‘white person’s law’ and that he did not accept that law, he had tried to coerce the Bench into obeying his commands and to reverse an already pronounced Order.

Pious statements and past reprehensible conduct

The Court observed that whether the law is foreign-made or locally-made, it is the ‘prevailing law that the courts have to apply’ and that ‘the Court will administer justice according to such law irrespective of its genesis.’ The accused’s behavior was assessed as degrading the honour and the Court, amounting to a categorical refusal to accept its authority and deserving therefore of the most stringent response. Later and upon an appeal being filed against the appellate court order, that judicial position was upheld by majority decision in the Supreme Court. Effectively therefore, a punishment affirmed by the apex court in the country has been tossed aside by the Office of the President as mere trivia. This is made worse by the fact that the presidential pardon has been granted after a mere few months of the sentence being served.

So the controversial monk’s pious injunction to the public soon after his release this week that ‘everyone must work prudently and responsibly’ contrasts oddly with his behavior resulting in the sentence for contempt of court in the first place. For this was conduct that was neither prudent or responsible by any standard whatsoever. In fact, his unpardonable behavior before the Homagama Magistrate’s Court was the very least of those wrongs. This was on the heels of even more riotous conduct hardly befitting his robes, to put the matter mildly.  An ugly cacophony of unreasoning hate and racial prejudice had targeted Sri Lanka’s Muslims with no perceptible differentiation between the innocent and the guilty.

Indeed the very violence of that behaviorresulted in warnings issued by the Bodu Bala Sena in regard to the spread of Wahabism in Sri Lanka not being taken with the seriousness that was perchance warranted. If even the part serving of a jail sentence has resulted in the correction of past reprehensible conduct, that is to the good. But dogged skepticism prevents any such assumptions being made in good faith. Ultimately therefore, this pardon by the President, in the wake of increased insecurity of the country’s Muslim community following communal violence politically instigated in Minuwangoda and Kurunegala following the Easter Sunday attacks on Christian and Catholic churches and high-end hotels in Colombo will be read by many as a non too subtle signal to the country’s ethnic and religious minorities; behave or the (literal) barbarians will be at your gates. Unsurprisingly, wary apprehension has been heightened, increasing the persecution complex felt by Sri Lanka’s Muslim community.

A series of diverting and distracting side-events

One month from the Easter Sunday atrocities therefore, we are faced with diverting and distracting side events. The smoke and ashes of that fateful day had hardly faded away before we saw organised violence against Muslims in Minuwangoda and Kurunegala. Now we have the pardon of a convicted monk known for tirades against the Muslim minority and to boot, a Joint Opposition no-confidence motion competing for primacy with a Government supported Parliamentary Select Committee hearing on Minister Rishad Bathiudeen.

Others who face similar allegations of instigating Wahabi radicalism, including the Governor of the Eastern Province who, along with his son, is implicated in a so-called Shariah University in the East escape unscathed. Quite apart from the disturbing scent of a politically motivated witch hunt in the baying of the Joint Opposition for Bathiudeen’s blood, probably as fitting revenge for not joining their ranks in the ill fated and short lived ‘political coup’ last year, why is the Parliament tasked with ascertaining his guilt or innocence as the case may be?

If that is the case, for what earthly reason do Sri Lanka’s criminal investigation agencies exist? Previously, a Tamil Minister was accused of making statements in support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in  addressing a public meeting in the North and the criminal law was moved against her following consultations with the Attorney General. Why is this approach followed in one case and not in the other?

First priority of the political leadership

The first priority of the Government and the Opposition should be to bring to brook those who were responsible as political handlers and protectors of Wahabi jihadists who brought about the Easter Sunday atrocities in Sri Lanka. That must manifestly be the common purpose. Political responsibility must be assessed against the strict standard of the law, evidence and proof and applied equally to wild eyed fanatics preaching devastation for unbelievers and infidels in fiery sermons as well as to a parliamentarian, a Minister or a Governor who promotes or protects them.

But instead of a measured response to twin evils of terrorism and extremism, a dueling President and Prime Minister with their merry men grandstand politically while a Joint Opposition plots and schemes, greedy eyed for power at all costs to the extent of spilling blood without compunction.

These political blocs led by impossible men have become the primary cause in bringing about a nation that is now a powder-keg of communal, racial and religious suspicion, where one match lit with calculated and deadly intent will suffice for a conflagration.
This is Sri Lanka’s melancholy reality.

Yahapalanaya, the curse? May be changing!

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana-May 27, 2019, 12:00 pm 

My apologies to parliamentarian Sarath Fonseka for misquoting him, by changing the term he used "kodivinaya" to "hooniyama", and my thanks to B.S.Perera for pointing out this error on my part, in his piece ‘Bungling Politics’ (The Island, 22 May) wherein he also questions whether I am promoting a party or a person, which certainly is not my intention. In my defence may I point out, not being a believer of the occult, neither kodivinaya nor hooniyama mean much to me and are not too dissimilar. But one thing I know, and many will agree with me, is that by its’ ineptness and subservience bordering on treason, Yahapalanaya has become a curse.

"Worse, the President stands accused of having acted in violation of the Constitution. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet allegedly enter into international agreements without the President’s knowledge. Vital pacts the government signs with foreign powers are not presented to Parliament and thus the people in whom sovereignty is said to reside are kept in the dark."

These are not my words; it is a revealing paragraph from the excellent editorial "Another Danger" (The Island, 22 May), which should wake up Sri Lankans with any modicum of patriotism. I am sure even Venerable Maduluwawe Sobitha Maha Thero, had he been alive today, would agree that this "Yamapalana" administration, parading as a "Yahapalanaya", has become a curse on Sri Lanka. If rebirth is true and Venerable Sobitha is reborn in a place with visibility to the political bungling, surely, he would be shedding a few divine tears too! Unfolding events, on a daily basis, confirms the impotence of an administration held hostage by minority votes. To this end, they do not seem to mind interfering in the good work done by our police and the armed services, even.

Perapalanaya

I am interested in the present and now, rather than hark back on a "Perapalanaya", which is an excellent diversionary tactic. Suffice it to say that ‘Perapalanaya’, though corrupt, handed over a country at peace to a ‘Yahapalanaya’ that sleep-walked into a terrorist disaster, on top of breaking records for corruption and cover-ups as well as destroying the image of the country. I am sure Arjun Mahendran is the happiest man on earth today, as the bond-scam has got submerged in the torrent of terrorism!

Rishad-gate

Interestingly, the latest gambit of the Minister Rishad Bathiuddin is to throw down the gauntlet to the President and the Prime Minister: he will resign if either of them requests him to do so. Otherwise, support him or the government will lose the vital support of him and his henchmen. I do not know what to call it; Hobson’s choice? Catch 22? Rishad’s Ruse?

Even if we agree with the government’s contention that the no-confidence motion on Minister Bathiuddin is nothing but an opposition attempt at mud-slinging, can we disregard the statement of the Army Commander? Afterall, Lt. Gen. Senanayake, who left Si Lanka just after the 2010 presidential election to return soon after the 2015 presidential election, is Army Commander because of the implicit trust of the Yahapalana administration. Further, he won admiration and gained public trust after the terrorist bomb-blast. His statement "I told the Minister to ring me in one and half years-time, as that is the period, I can hold a suspect for" is in utter contrast to the Minister’s explanation. Who does the public trust; the Minister or the army commander?

We were made to believe that the cornerstone of Yahapalanaya is good governance: after all, the term itself is a direct translation. Honouring this concept, is it too much to expect either the President or the Prime Minister, preferably both, to request the Minister to step aside, if any honour is left in him, while accusations levelled against him are investigated? Sorry, if any honour is left in him, the honourable minister would have stepped aside on his own volition. Do our two leaders display a lack of courage or complete deficiency of statecraft? Can the pubic be hood-winked by a select committee?

Venerable Gananasara

The battered President can derive some comfort from the support extended by Brigadier Ranjan de Silva who, in a piece titled "To Be Fair" (The Island, 22 May), states:

"His decision not to pardon Gnanasara Thero on Vesak Day, resisting pressure from politicians and dusseela Buddhist monks is statesmanlike. Media reported that former Ministers Wijeyadasa Rajapaksa and Thilanga Sumathipala had called for the release of Gnanasara Thero.

Dr Rajapaksa must be aware that Gnanasara Thero was jailed for contempt of court. The Thero aspires to be a leader of the people. If this is the example he sets as a leader, how will his followers behave vis-a-vis the country’s court system? Already the courts system is functioning under tremendous pressure to dispense justice without fear or favour. Dr Rajapaksa is also an attorney at law."

Poor Brigadier must be disappointed at the President’s statesmanlike attitude evaporating like a dew-drop struck with the first ray of the rising sun! ‘Hopeless’ politicians like Wijedasa Rajapaksa and dussela monks have succeeded; Venerable Gnanasara is released!! I do hope the venerable monk will behave with dignity, not insulting the saffron-robe he adorns.

It is a pity that the Brigadier fails to understand, had the Yahapalanaya heeded the warnings of Dr Rajapaksa, delivered in the most diplomatic way in the parliament, and Venerable Gnanasara, delivered in a way most of us objected to, we would not be in the current predicament. By the way, the ever-talkative Dr Rajitha Senaratna, who repudiated Dr Rajapaksa, based on his claimed close connections with Muslims of the four-corners of the country, and reassured that there will be no Islamist terrorists attacks, seems to be resting his vocal chords! Why cannot he tender an apology, at least? Pretty obvious, he has no sense of shame.

I have no problem, at all, with the jailing Venerable Gananasara but also feel that the Presidential pardon is justified. Let me explain. I have been regularly expressing concern about the bad behaviour of some Buddhist monks but have not gone to the extent of castigating any pleading for compassion as dussela Buddhist monks, as the Brigadier had done. In my article "Men in Robes" (The Island, 14 October 2017) I wrote:

"Unfortunately, the actions of men in robes in the guise of Buddhist monks have been troubling me for some time. I do not expect Buddhist monks to be perfect; after all they are human and can have faults but I cannot condone conduct that is totally un-Buddhist. The behaviour of some Bhikkhus of BBS leaves me startled. Though I was initially against Buddhist monks engaging in political activity, after reading Venerable Walpola Rahula’s thought provoking and inspirational book, ‘Bhikshuwage Urumaya’ (Monk’s Heritage) I have changed my mind. As long as Bhikkhus indulge in politics for the common good, not for personal benefits, it is totally acceptable. After all, if not for their political activity where would we be today? If not for the campaign led by Bhikkhu’s like Venerable Rahula, we would not have had free education and, in all likelihood, I would not be writing this; would have died some time ago as a retired teacher or clerk."

Crime and punishment - proportionality

What concerns me is the length of the sentence passed on Venerable Gnanasara. Being a lawyer, Dr Rajapaksa probably realised this too. I am sure he would have been greatly embarrassed when lawyers who destroyed property in Colombo courts, shown to the whole nation on television, continued to practice unhindered, whereas a 19-year sentence to be served in 6 years, was passed on a Buddhist monk for contempt of court. Intrigued, I too made inquiries from luminaries of the legal profession and was told that this the longest sentence, ever passed, for contempt of court in Sri Lankan legal history, which goes against the well-established principle of proportionality. Where were the human rights activists? Did any of them move a finger to protest at the undue harshness of the sentence? Maybe, they thought he deserved it, considering his ‘bad behaviour’! But we do not punish for overall bad behaviour, punishment being only for the crime under consideration.

If bad behaviour is to be punished, should not Mr C.V. Vigneswaran, former governor, too be jailed? Inflammatory statements he made, insulting the Sinhala race, made me wonder how such a racist warmed the benches of our supreme court.

Ranil’s reawakening

UNP strategy of a blood-bath, probably following JRJ’s lead of 1983, having failed to evoke a backlash from Sinhala Buddhists, in spite of Lakshan Kiriella’s kela-pattare, Mangala and Thalatha’s loose-talk among many other things, Ranil is announcing a series of measures: ‘Sharia’ University will be taken over; all Madrasas will be under the Education Ministry, not Muslim Religious Affairs Ministry; name-boards will be only in the three official languages; etc., etc. Looks as if Yahapalana blindness has had a miraculous cure. Congratulations, Ranil! May I wish you the courage to stop shielding terrorist supporters and make Sri Lanka one country, under one law!

It was John Milton who said "Every cloud has a silver lining". Maybe, some good has come out of this terrible act of terrorism!

Sri Lanka’s Persecuted Muslims Are Turning Radical

COLOMBO, SRI LANKA ON 3/16/2011 © KEVIN HELLON / SHUTTERSTOCK

After decades of persecution by the Sinhalese and Tamils, Sri Lanka’s Muslims are abandoning local syncretic Islam and turning to a more radical version.

BY   DEEDAR KHUDAIDAD-MAY 23, 2019

The Islamic State (IS) group claimed responsibility for the Easter Sunday attacks across Sri Lanka. This raises many questions about the existence of IS affiliates in the country, the rapid radicalization of young Muslims, and the threat that extremist Islamic groups pose to the island nation.
Suicide bombings have a long history in Sri Lanka. In their separatist war, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE or Tamil Tigers) conducted suicide attacks from the early 1980s to the mid-2000s. However, the bombings of April 21 are a new phenomenon that has not only rocked the country, but also shocked the whole world.

A HISTORY OF PERSECUTION

Commonly referred as the Moors, Sri Lankan Muslims are the third-largest ethnic group after the Sinhalese and the Tamils. Muslims comprise nearly 10% of the total population of 21 million. Most of them earn livelihoods through trade and business. Sri Lankan Muslims claim separate ethnicity from both the Sinhalese and the Tamils. Most trace their ancestry to the eighth-century Arab traders who settled in Sri Lanka. The majority of Sri Lankan Muslims are Sunni Shafiis who speak Tamil, Sinhala and Arabic. Some of them are Malay Muslims and have their own language.
Muslims are widely distributed across Sri Lanka, with two-thirds living in the Sinhala Buddhist-majority region of Central, Southern and Western provinces, and the remaining one-third living in the Tamil-dominated coastal areas of north and east. Substantial Muslim communities live in Colombo, the Sri Lankan capital. The Muslim political leadership comes from the Western province. The reason is simple. This province is home to the Muslim mercantile class and its educated elite, while the Eastern province is inhabited by Muslims who are primarily farmers, fishermen and, to some extent, small traders.
In Sri Lanka as a whole, Muslims suffer from low literacy rates and systematic discrimination. As a result, only few Muslim politicians have managed to secure ministerial jobs or diplomatic positions. During the 26-year Sri Lankan Civil War, the Muslim community was “the target of discrimination, political violence, massacres and ethnic cleansing” by the rebel Tamil Tigers and the government-backed Sinhalese nationalists.

On August 3, 1990, LTTE gunmen entered the Meera Jumma mosque of the Muslim-majority town of Kattankudy, “locked the doors to prevent escape and began firing into the crowd” of 300 worshippers. Using automatic weapons, they killed more than 100 people. Additionally, the Tamil human rights group reported on the LTTE’s massacring of Eravur town, near Batticaloa, in which 120 were killed. The most shocking part of this attack was the “cutting of a pregnant lady’s stomach [and the] baby is said to have been pulled out and stabbed.”

During the 1990s and 2000s, the LTTE killed 1,050 Muslims and forced 120,000 of them to leave their homes, lands, businesses and possessions behind in the north. The government has largely ignored the internally displaced Muslims, and there “has been no government inquiry into the LTTE’s massacres and expulsions of Muslims or meaningful apology.”

Sri Lankan Muslims also suffered from periodic attacks by government-backed Sinhalese mobs in the 1990s and 2000s. In February 1999, a Sinhalese mob attacked the Bairaha outlet, threw grenades at Muslim houses and burned down their shops. A member of parliament from the local ruling party, Jinadasa Nandasena, instructed the police not to be present in the area on that night. In another similar incident in April 2001, two Muslims died and hundreds of houses, shops and vehicles were destroyed by Sinhalese mobs. The clash began when some 2,000 Sinhalese attacked Muslims who were protesting against police inaction after three Sinhalese men assaulted a Muslim shopkeeper.
Riots have a long history in Sri Lanka. In 1915, fierce riots between Muslims and Sinhalese broke out over a Buddhist procession passing by a mosque. More recently, riots broke out in 2014 and 2018. These violent episodes over the years are not widely known to the outside world. Muslims claim they find it difficult to live and carry out their business in Sinhalese-dominated areas of south and western Sri Lanka. It is  fair to say that many feel persecuted.

FROM PERSECUTION TO RADICALIZATION 

Following the increase in attacks on Muslims during the civil war of the 1990s, security became a top priority for the community. They began to arm and protect themselves from both the LTTE and the Sinhalese mobs. They got some weaponsfrom security forces and purchased other armaments from the Karuna faction after its split with the Tamil Tigers.

The acquisition of weapons did not help much, though. Informal Muslim groups were ineffective in defending the community from Tamil Tigers or Sinhalese mobs. In fact, radical Muslim groups who acquired weapons engaged mostly in “intra-religious” disputes. They declared the Ahmadiyya sect as “un-Islamic” and opposed Sufi Muslims, who represent a more spiritual and ascetic form of Islam.
From the 1990s, Sufis have been undermined by the growth of Tablighi Jamaat, who began sending groups of preachers to mosques and other places of worship. They encouraged Muslims to observe religious rituals rigidly and act more devoutly. These radical Muslims insisted on strict dress codes for women by importing the use of the niqab (face veil), abaya (a long dress that covers the entire body of a woman) and jubba (a long flowing garment worn by Muslim men), which were unknown to ordinary Sri Lankans before the civil war.

After the defeat of the Tamil Tigers by the government in 2009, Sri Lankan Muslims gained some respite. However, they gradually replaced their indigenous Islamic practices with Middle Eastern ones. In doing so, Sri Lankan Muslims moved to more ultra-orthodox forms of Islam.

During this time, then-President Mahinda Rajapakse began to stoke Sinhala Buddhist triumphalism to increase his power. For him, Sinhala ethno-nationalism was a strategy to consolidate the majority voter base. His move further marginalized the Muslim community that emerged as a new enemy, creating fertile grounds for radicalization.

The 2014 Sinhala-Muslim riots increased the division between the two communities to its highest level. On June 12, 2014, due to confrontation between Muslims and Buddhist monks during a Buddhist cultural celebration, four Muslims were killed, 80 were injured and 8,000 Muslims were displaced. The attacks by Sinhalese mobs led to the emergence of the Islamic State group in Sri Lanka. It provided a perfect opportunity for radical Muslim clerics to disseminate the rhetoric of the persecution of Muslims in Sri Lanka and in other parts of the world. These clerics started encouraging their followers to target non-Muslims and “kill them in the name of religion.” These speeches came from groups such as the National Thawheed Jamaat, Sri Lankan Thawheed Jamaat and other local Islamist outfits.

From late 2014 and early 2015, radical Islamists like Salafi groups from the Middle East became more visible. They promoted religious education, segregated spaces for the two genders, restricted women from public life and adopted a more rigid interpretation of Islam that was unknown to the history of indigenous Muslims in Sri Lanka. In 2016, four men were arrested for punishing a woman who was found guilty of having an affair with a man. The sentence of guilt was declared at a mosque instead of a court. Such practice violated Sri Lankan Muslim family law and imposed a narrow interpretation of Islam for the first time in the country.

Sri Lankan Muslims, once a peaceful and tolerant community, are now widely susceptible to religious extremism and radicalism. Even as the talk of “espousing jihadi practices” at home continued, Mohamed Muhsin Sharfaz Nilam became the first Sri Lankan Muslim to die in Syria in July 2015, putting in stark view the Islamic State’s outreach in this island nation.

ASKING QUESTIONS

Following the Easter Sunday attacks, Sri Lankan authorities have been looking for at least 140 people linked with IS. Zahran Hashim, the suspect leader of the attacks, is said to have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Hashim was known to Sri Lankan intelligence for disseminating hatred and giving inflammatory speeches over the last few years. While Hashim is in the news for being the mastermind of the attacks, Sri Lanka faces more important questions.

How can the country prevent the rise of homegrown Islamic terrorism? How can it stop the expansion of ultra-orthodox Islamic ideology among young Muslims? How can it stop communal division not only between Muslims and Sinhalese or Tamils, but also Muslims and Christians?

So far, the government has banned the niqab, expelled 200 Islamic preachers from the country, and launched a transnational investigation with the support of six foreign agencies. Even as it takes such actions, the government must protect innocent Muslims from the harassment of Buddhist nationalist groups. Their backlash will only give further fuel to radical Islamists and hurt the cause of peace in a once idyllic island nation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Disregard of governance principles by political leadership should come to an end

Good governance is simply the moral responsibility which a person, an organisation or a government extends toward its stakeholders for delivering what it has promised to them. In the case of the government, these stakeholders are the citizens of a country 

• Enemies of Democracy 4: 

Violation of good governance principles as a matter of routine

Monday, 27 May 2019 

In this uncertain world, there is one thing about which Sri Lankans can be absolutely certain. That is, they can be pretty sure that they would wake up every morning to news of gross disregard of good governance principles by the country’s political leadership.

It may be the use (or according to by some critics, the abuse) of discretionary powers given to them under the Constitution. Or, it may be the use (again the abuse) of majority powers in Parliament to steamroll the views of the Opposition. Or, it may be even making a public statement that they would not listen to the public voice when they approve of public projects funded out of taxpayers’ money.

Whatever it may be, it is not in line with the good governance principles to which a democratic government would have committed itself.

Good governance usher growth and prosperity 

Adopting good governance principles is important for a country if it desires to create prosperity for its people. Empirical studies have shown that countries that are ranked high in good governance also have higher levels of income and those with questionable governance are left in the other end. This is understandable since governance ensures accountability of the political leadership for the action it has taken, on the one hand, and makes the whole population inclusive in the development efforts, on the other.

Thus, the prospect for a select group of people to enjoy the fruits of development is ruled out if good governance is adopted. It improves growth by improving the quality of business environment of a country.

Adopting good governance principles is important for a country if it desires to create prosperity for its people. Empirical studies have shown that countries that are ranked high in good governance also have higher levels of income and those with questionable governance are left in the other end. This is understandable since governance ensures accountability of the political leadership for the action it has taken, on the one hand, and makes the whole population inclusive in the development efforts, on the other. 

However, good governance should cover five other sub-components, which are equally valid. They are the maintenance of law and order, observance of the rule of law, protection of property rights, adhering to disclosure requirements and making government activities transparent. Arising from these sub components are the need for ensuring freedom of thought and expression, creation of a society that accepts, recognises and tolerates human diversity and helping people to attain the highest level of self-perfection through peaceful intercourse with those having diverse views, faiths and values. A country’s political leadership could disregard these essential requirements to its own peril.

Good governance is moral responsibility toward stakeholders

Good governance is simply the moral responsibility which a person, an organisation or a government extends toward its stakeholders for delivering what it has promised to them. In the case of the government, these stakeholders are the citizens of a country.



A country today is made up of a nation which is organised as a State for providing a package of common benefits to its members. The topmost in the list of these benefits is the opportunity made available to citizens to attain the highest state of material, intellectual and spiritual wellbeing. The State which is the ‘boss’ has a permanent existence, whereas the government, made of up those who have been assigned to carry out its mission, is temporary in nature.

The mission of the State changes from time to time depending on the changing values, aspirations and expectations of the citizens. Accordingly, the mission of the State of Sri Lanka today should necessarily be different from its mission, say, many years ago. The political leadership which runs the government should reckon these changing aspirations of people and take the country to the future accordingly.

What this means is that, though they may be nostalgic about the past, they cannot, or should not try to, replicate the past. This is an important lesson which those who aspire to seek political leadership should essentially learn if they are to bring in prosperity to their citizens.

Governance may not come internally

If good governance arises from within a society, that is the best. However, due to two reasons, this may not happen automatically. One is the inherent selfishness of people. The other is what economists call the ‘Principal-Agent problem’. Hence, there has been a necessity for imposing good governance from without or externally.

Man is by nature a selfish creature

A good biological description of man that includes all other species as well is that ‘man is by nature a selfish creature’.

This has been eloquently explained by the fourth President of USA, James Madison. He has said that ‘if men are angels, there is no need for a government’. By the same token, one may say that since men are not angels, they cannot be expected to follow good governance principles on their own.

This has been further elaborated by the Oxford trained historian Yuval Noah Harari in his Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. He has said that concepts like good governance or equality are not inherent human qualities. Genetically, they have been wired to seek their own self-interest. Hence, good governance is just a concept arising in the mind of people without a biological base.

Good governance should cover five other sub-components, which are equally valid. They are the maintenance of law and order, observance of the rule of law, protection of property rights, adhering to disclosure requirements and making government activities transparent. Arising from these sub components are the need for ensuring freedom of thought and expression, creation of a society that accepts, recognises and tolerates human diversity and helping people to attain the highest level of self-perfection through peaceful intercourse with those having diverse views, faiths and values. A country’s political leadership could disregard these essential requirements to its own peril. 

Selfishness of man that includes all other species as well has been further explained by Oxford University based evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in a path-breaking study presented in his The Selfish Gene. He has said that a mother is ready to sacrifice her life her child not because she is guided by motherly love. She does so because it is written in her gene that she should protect the gene that has been transferred to her child. This is obvious when one looks at how a child cares for its parents.
Though the parents are ready to sacrifice their life for the sake of their children, the latter does not have the same motive toward the parents. Instead, they will sacrifice their life for their children. That is why in Sri Lanka’s history there are stories of sons killing fathers to ascend to the throne but not stories in which fathers killing sons to prevent them from assuming kingship. Thus, it is not unnatural for a political leader who has promised the delivery of good governance to a society to go back on that promise and do everything for the prosperity of his kith and kin that are genetically related to him. Even in that case, there is an order of preference starting from own children and then extending to siblings and other lesser relatives.

Agents have incentive to rob principals

The other reason that works against the natural establishment of good governance in society is the Principal-Agent Problem. This problem arises in every case where one has to engage another to have a service delivered to him. The person who engages the other – called the Principal – expects the other – called the Agent – to do the best for him. In fact, that is the contractual arrangement between the two parties.

However, the agent, guided by his selfish motive, would do everything for his own benefit, thereby giving lower priority to what the principal has commissioned to him to do. In the case of a state, the principals are the citizens or voters. They engage politicians who are agents to deliver prosperity to them. The politicians, instead of doing best for the citizens, would use their powers – discretionary or otherwise – for their own benefits. They would appropriate a nation’s resources to themselves thereby creating inequality in the allocation of resources. Look at how the road rights are used by politicians in developing countries.

The use of road rights has been allocated by law in terms of a given set of rules. However, the politicians have been in the habit of allocating priority road use to themselves thereby denying the road use to other users.

Creation of an enemy to muster popular support

Politicians usually justify these arbitrary preferential allocations by intoxicating the citizens with nationalistic ideologies. The usual modus operandi has been to create an enemy in the minds of citizens and drive them against the enemy so created.

That enemy could be a different ethnic or religious group within the nation. Or, that enemy could be a global power that has a notorious track record of interfering with the internal affairs of other nations. The first one will help politicians to divide the nation into ethnically or religiously divided sectarian groups and rob its resources having blocked the people’s rational vision by intoxicating them with pseudo-nationalistic feelings.

To put it into practice, hate is institutionalised by creating and planting hate-promoting stories among the populace. When the rational side of people’s brain is blocked, they would accept any story without further probe or inquiry.

A country today is made up of a nation which is organised as a State for providing a package of common benefits to its members. The topmost in the list of these benefits is the opportunity made available to citizens to attain the highest state of material, intellectual and spiritual wellbeing. The State which is the ‘boss’ has a permanent existence, whereas the government, made of up those who have been assigned to carry out its mission, is temporary in nature. 

There is ample evidence to this phenomenon in Sri Lanka’s recent past. The terrorist group that attacked Christian churches and hotels on the ideals of Islamic State or IS had created so many such stories to lure followers. Similarly, the mobs that subsequently attacked Muslims in some selected parts of the country had also been prompted by similar stories. Politicians on all sides paid a deaf ear to these hate-promoting stories because it may have very well served their purpose of robbing the principal.
Regarding India’s recent elections, similar voices have now been expressed. The writer Jawhar Sircar writing to the Wire has concluded before India’s recent election results were out that India would remain divided and battered no matter who would win the elections (available at: https://thewire.in/politics/2019-elections-result-india-battered-divided?). What he meant was that both the Congress Party leaders and Bharatiya Janata Party leaders are equally guilty on that count. There is an ironic similarity in Sri Lanka’s political leaders as well. Thus, whoever who would come to power in Sri Lanka, the country would remain battered and divided.

If leaders follow the Buddha, no need for imposing governance from outside

Since good governance in government is not established on its own internally, it has to be imposed from outside on a country’s political leaders. The traditional method has been to subject them to a moral and ethical code of governance. The Buddha pronounced it in his Eightfold Noble Path that included right understanding, intention, speech, action, living, effort, attentiveness and concentration.

There is no need for enforcing good governance principles on any political leader who follows this eightfold path. It should not be a strange thing in a country which is said to be belonging to Sinhala Buddhists and dedicated to promoting Buddhism worldwide as its gift to other nations.

In addition, monarchies in both ancient India and Sri Lanka had been guided by another code of statesmanship – The Tenfold Doctrines of Statesmanship. A monarch who follows these doctrines has to cultivate the following qualities in him when ruling a nation: gifting, sacrifice, virtue, austerity, uprightness, softness, non-harmfulness, non-ill will, forbearance and non-conflict. When these doctrines are adhered to by a monarch, there is good governance established internally in that country.

Possibility of breaking the promise by political leaders once they capture power

In a modern republic where the Head of the State or the President is elected by people, there are some practical problems regarding their proper implementation. One is that a Presidential candidate may promise people that he would adhere to these principles after his election to the post. However, he could go back on his promise at any time thereafter.

Another is the difficulty in objectively measuring whether or not he has broken his promise. A political leader can resort to numerous powers that enables him to buy critics and hide his activities from public scrutiny.

Yet another problem is the mass support he can muster to justify his action by intoxicating the minds of people. In such a situation, there should be outside mechanisms to control his activities.

Separation of powers to establish checks and balance

One mechanism is the separation of powers among the three power bases of a modern State: the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. When these three bases are independent from each other, the use of State powers is balanced and each body can function as a check on the other.

This was amply demonstrated in the 56-day saga beginning from 26 October 2018, in which the President used his discretionary powers to sack the Prime Minister and appoint a person of his choice to the post. This power of the President was effectively checked by the Legislature and the Judiciary. Thus, as long as these three institutions are independent and separate from each other, there is hope for people to block any illegal action by anyone of them.

However, Sri Lanka’s present situation is an exception where the President does not enjoy the majority power in Parliament. But, this mechanism will be ineffective if he has majority power in Parliament. In that case, there should be a different mechanism to prevent political leaders from arbitrarily violating good governance principles.

Have a proper institutional structure

That other mechanism is the establishment of an effective institutional mechanism to check on the excesses exercised by these three power bases. Institutions in economics are not just formal bodies but value systems which peoples of a nation would subscribe themselves to.

These values should be pro-good governance and, when they are violated, people should raise their voice against such instances. Hence, it is of utmost importance for a democracy to have a strong institutional system to protect its people from the excesses of political leaders.

(W A Wijewardena, a former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, can be reached at waw1949@gmail.com) 

Controlling Madrasas: Band-Aid Solution

By Ameer Ali –MAY 27, 2019

Dr. Ameer Ali

With President MS, Prime Minister RW and leaders of the Joint Opposition, engaged in “revenge politics” (Stephen Long, Asian Tribune, May 2019), and as the term of the present government and that of the president is drawing to a close, there is neither the time nor an inclination for the ruling regime to look for lasting solutions to the nation’s persisting problems. They are busy counting the size of their respective vote banks.  

Already the Minister of Finance is forced to revise downwards the 2019 budget forecasts and the economy is in dire straits. After the Easter Carnage and subsequent communal violence the prognosis does not look good for the economy, which means the majority of people are destined to endure rising cost of living and prolonged misery. Didn’t the President say earlier that the budget “is not important”? Now, with the release of obstreperous Gnanasara who was imprisoned for contempt of court, the President has shown that it is not only the budget and the economy but even the judiciary is not important. All that the yahapalana regime can do therefore, is to look for band aid solutions to problems that require expert diagnosis and lasting remedies. One such band aid solution is the decision to control and bring all madrasas under the Ministry of Education. Not much details are coming out as to how it is going to be done and with what objective/s and outcome?    

Madrasas like the Buddhist Pirivenas are an integral part of a Muslim child’s early development. They impart not only the elementary knowledge about the Quran and the Prophet of Islam, but also the ethics and mortals surrounding good human behaviour. In fact, madrasa education may have its roots in the early Buddhist monasteries or vihara in Central Asia. In Sri Lanka however, its history goes back to the late nineteenth century when, according to the Department of Muslim Affairs, the first madrasa was established in Galle in 1870.  Today, there are 1669 madrasas and 317 Arabic colleges (Daily Mirror, 3 May 2019). In Kattankudy alone there are seven such colleges and 80 madrasas. In the context of Sri Lanka, the term madrasa normally relate to the elementary Quran schools or maktabs attached to all the mosques in all Muslim villages and towns in the country. A child is normally expected to complete this level of education before it reaches the age of ten.  In contrast, the Arabic colleges are the madrasas proper and the ones that train the ulema who graduate as imams and other religious functionaries, and are qualified to teach Islam and Arabic in government schools and deliver sermons in mosques. This level of education takes about seven years or more to complete.   

Is the government going to take over only the 317 proper madrasas and make them government funded Muslim religious educational institutions? If that is the intention why only the madrasas and not religious schools operating in other communities?             

It appears that the main reason why it has picked the madrasas only is because of the general suspicion, arising from the recent Easter massacre, that they have become the incubators for jihadists and extremists like Zahran Hashim. To start with, this particular individual who engineered that infamy was a madrasa drop out who did not finish his education, but an autodidact who acquired his twisted ideas about Islam through contacts with foreign sources.  In an article published earlier, it was pointed out that, “So far, there is absolutely no hard evidence that madrasas in Sri Lanka are teaching jihadism and producing jihadists. What they are producing instead is a community of religious men and women who are ignorant of the cosmopolitan outlook of Islamic civilization and therefore making the madrasa indoctrinated Islam an inward looking and exclusivist religion. How to make Islam cosmopolitan, inclusive and tolerant is the fundamental challenge Muslims are facing in plural societies like Sri Lanka”. It was in that vein another article advocated that madrasa education should be modernised (Colombo Telegraph, 6 Feb. 2019). The existing madrasas are repositories and transmitters of past knowledge and not laboratories producing new knowledge to face modern challenges. They are churning out graduates who are mostly memorisers and summarisers rather than analysers and innovators. nThe latter skills require access to knowledge outside the medieval texts that are being taught in them, an expertise in modern learning techniques and in addition, familiarity with other languages apart from classical Arabic. 

Lately however, and at least since 1990s, several madrasas have fallen under the influence of Wahhabi orthodoxy because of Saudi funding. That orthodoxy is also spreading through faculties and departments of Islamic and Arabic studies in universities.This does not mean that Wahhabism is solely responsible for the emergence of producing jihadists and extremists. A Wahhabi can become a jihadist or extremist just as a secularly educated young man or woman can become one. In fact, among the Easter bombers were upper and upper middle class youngsters who did not go to the madrasas but were educated in Western universities. It all depends on the situation peculiar to each country and society. The post-2009 wave of far right Buddhist nationalism with its anti-Muslim focus and Islamophobia, and the failure of successive governments to check its spread have a lot to answer for the spread of extremism among sections of Muslim youth in this country. To blame the madrasas for this failure is to bark up the wrong tree. 

Today, one doesn’t have to go to a madrasa or any other institution to get radicalised. We are living in an interconnected world and network society. By sitting at your home or in your bedroom with a laptop or television and watching the pictures of wars and bloodshed relayed almost daily from the Middle East and other Muslim countries, any young Muslim man or woman with an inkling of feeling for his umma (super community) could easily get agitated. He or she only needs some spark from somewhere to get into action, an important ingredient in the growth of home grown terrorism in the West.  This fact must be understood by those who are ready to put the entire Muslim community on the dock for the crimes of a few.     

That there is a need to check the spread of Wahhabism by modernising madrasa education is beyond question. In general, Wahhabism is an ultra-orthodox and purist ideology allowed to spread globally by the US and its Western allies to counter the threat of Iranian Shia radicalism in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution. Unlike Shia radicalism, Wahhabi orthodoxy does not advocate rebellion against governments or revolution. These ideologues would even prefer tyranny over anarchy. Saudi monarchy survives on the strength of Wahhabism. Philosophically, this ideology is essentially anti-Shia, anti-Sufi, anti-rational and even anti-science. It is this outlook that is retarding the culture of progress in many Muslim societies.  In countries like Sri Lanka, Wahhabis are creating religious tension and divisions both within and outside the Muslim community. There is also the danger that this ideology prepares a mindset that can be easily swayed by more vicious ideologies preached by groups like the ISIS. Wahhabism is all about iman (faith or belief), and groups like ISIS are all about (umma) belonging. It is the shift from belief to belonging that creates problem for Muslim minorities. The National Thawheed Jamaat is a classic example of this evolution from belief to belonging. The issue therefore is not to control the madrasas but to unlock the Wahhabi mindset to make it scientific and rational. 

Read More

Niqab When religion becomes a matter of attire

• Reappearance of the Niqab still pose a security threat?

• ACJU also supports restriction on Niqab cladding 

• Niqab ought to be a matter of choice

• Qur’an presupposes a society where women are not necessarily veiled

27 May 2019

There has perhaps been no garment that has aroused so much controversy as the Niqab or face-veil worn by a small minority of Muslim women. Although worn by only a very small percentage of women, it is conspicuous as can be and grabs attention wherever it is worn, making one wonder whether it is really for modesty as it is made out to be, or for attention. 
Jokes apart, it is bound to come to the limelight again no sooner the state of emergency is lifted. As we know, a ban was imposed on all forms of face coverings that prevented identification of persons as part of the state of emergency following the Easter Sunday bombings. This was of course a very valid security concern and received the support of the Muslim community. The All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulama, the apex body of Islamic scholars in Sri Lanka also supported it and in fact issued a statement requesting women not to wear it. 

"Islam prescribes a dress code for both men and women. For men it is the portion extending from the navel to the knees must be covered and for women, it is the entire body except for the face and hands"

However, the question now is will the ban ever outlive its purpose? Would the reappearance of the Niqab still pose a security threat? What are the other implications of the Niqab when it makes its appearance again? These are questions that need serious answers. 
My personal feeling is that Niqab ought to be a matter of choice as in other things. However there are some factors that militate against this ideal, which I shall deal with here. But first let us see if the face covering is really obligatory as some extremist scholars claim. In fact, it is the claim that it is obligatory that has been used to foist the Niqab on unsuspecting women. So let’s see how far this claim is true.

Religious Basis

There is no doubt that Islam prescribes a dress code for both men and women. For men it is the portion extending from the navel to the knees which is the minimum that must be covered. For women it is the entire body except for the face and hands. Prophet Muhammad made it very clear that every part of a woman should be covered when in the presence of a non-related male save for her face and hands. Ayisha, the Prophet’s wife has narrated that when her sister Asma once came to see him, she was wearing a thin dress. The Prophet turned away from her and said to her: “Oh Asma, once a woman reaches the age of puberty no part of her body should be uncovered except this and this” and he pointed to the face and hands (Abu Dawud).
However, there is nothing wrong in covering more for purposes of modesty and this has been left to the choice of the woman concerned. However, what we are concerned about is whether it is obligatory. A renowned scholar of Islam, Sheikh Nasiruddin Al-Albani undertook a very comprehensive study of this in his treatise Jilbab al-Mar’ah Al-Muslimah (1996). He showed that the covering of the face was not obligatory for ordinary Muslim women and marshalled much evidence to support his contention. 

The Qur’an too presupposes a society where women are not necessarily veiled, as in the verses: “Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be mindful of their chastity. This will be most conducive to their purity. Verily, God is aware of all that they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display their charms (in public) beyond what may be apparent thereof” (Surah An-Nur: 30-31). That the Qur’an should instruct men to lower their gaze when in the presence of strange women itself suggests that it was permissible for women to go about unveiled, for otherwise there would have been no reason for the Qur’an to command thus. It is also reported that when a well known companion of the Prophet, Ibn Abbas was asked about the verse regarding women not displaying their charms except what appears thereof, he replied: “it refers to the face and hands” (Al-Musannaf, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Sunan Al-Kubra, Baihaqi).

"The Qur’an should instruct men to lower their gaze when in the presence of strange women itself suggests that it was permissible for women to go about unveiled"

‘The Noble Qur’an’ by Muhsin Khan and Taqiuddin Hilali has inserted the translators’ personal views on to the text of the translation by inserting brackets. This is apparent in verse31 of Surah An Nur: “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands, or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way) and to draw their veils all over (their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms etc)”. Now, this is a very unethical thing to do. If the translators wished to elaborate on the verse in question, they could have easily mentioned it as their personal opinion in a footnote as they have done elsewhere, but here they had surreptitiously inserted it in the body of the text itself so that credulous readers would come to believe that the Qur’an was commanding women to be veiled. This is nothing short of blasphemy, inserting one’s words into the Holy Word of God. 
We see a similar pattern even here in Sri Lanka. I was informed by a friend that his young daughter who was teaching at a leading international Muslim girls school in Colombo had, a couple of years ago, fallen victim to a senior female teacher there who had prevailed on her to don the Niqab despite the objections of her father. One finds many such insidious campaigns to promote Niqab going on even as we speak. 

Is Niqab really a good idea?

Proponents promote Niqab as a means of promoting chastity and preventing the lustful gaze of males and its attendant evils. However this premise is faulty because God clearly tells us in the Qur’an to lower our gaze. So it this divine command that we must follow rather than trying to control our feelings by putting the burden on women. This is in the fitness of things, because this earthly life with its entrapment, as we all know, is a test, and he or she that passes it without falling victim to it is on the right path. 
Furthermore, there have been keen observers who have noted that a lot of vices do take place in societies where women are all covered up. This is because of the anonymity it gives. In fact, there are those who call it ‘liberating’ because a woman thus attired could indulge in adulterous affairs in utmost secrecy without her husband as much as suspecting it. Thus one wonders whether it is really such a good idea to ensure chastity? 

" There have been keen observers who have noted that a lot of vices do take place in societies where women are all covered up. This is because of the anonymity it gives"

As such, the Niqab as we know it today tends to create an aversion towards its wearers on the part of the majority of our people. One only has to see the notices in the shops and schools screaming away ‘No Niqab, no Burka’ and the look of ordinary people on the streets when they see a woman strutting about with it. It is looked upon not only as being alien, but exclusive as well, creating an aversion such as the Jews of the Middle Ages invited in Europe with their exclusivity and as a result suffered its consequences. As such, one cannot imagine that Islam would have ever made such an attire obligatory. Islam is about winning hearts, not about driving people away from it.