Focus

    Nation building: opposed concepts and aims

By Prof. Charles Sarvan

Several Sri Lankans, giving thought to the important and urgent challenge the island faces of ‘nation building,’ are making worthy and well-intentioned contributions. I am privileged and fortunate to know a few Sinhalese individuals who, by innate nature and nurtured principle, uphold justice and our common, human, equality. And there are many other Sinhalese who, though not known to me personally, cherish and live by these same values.

We associate voluntarily with like-minded people; with individuals who hold similar ideas and beliefs, values and goals. They are the ‘world’ in which we have our being. However, living in this small world, we often mistake it for the much bigger ‘world’ external to our circle; forget the wider reality outside. In other words, a small minority forgets the fact that it is made up, after all, by a few, and that the overwhelming majority has quite different beliefs, ideas and goals.

That is when assumptions prove mistaken, leading to surprise, disappointment and hurt. Allow me an analogy. Living in Colombo in the 1950s; keeping the company of Tamil relations and Sinhalese friends who all spoke English, one could be forgiven for assuming that (almost) ‘everybody’ spoke English. The fact is that only a very small percentage of the population was literate in English: the impression held by the English-educated middle class was utterly at variance with the fact.

Never been a ‘nation’

I often read the observation that Sri Lanka in its long history has never been a nation in the true sense of the word. Now, after war and its destruction and tragedy; with emotions (of various kinds) roused; with triumphalism on the one side, uncertainty and anxiety on the other; now with an increased ethnic chasm, Sri Lanka is even less a nation than before, and hence the urgency and importance of the task of ‘nation building.’ But this begs the question: What do we mean by ‘nation?’

One concept of nation is that of different groups, while preserving their distinct ethnic identity, coming together, freely and in equality (‘freely’ and ‘in equality’ emphasised), to form a whole. The variety that multiculturalism brings is seen as attractive and positive. The goal is integration, not assimilation, since the latter implies the loss of a distinct cultural identity. The resulting nation represents unity in diversity; different shades and shapes coming together to form a rich, living, tapestry.

 As Chinua Achebe writes, “Let every people bring their gifts to the great festival of the world’s cultural harvest, and mankind will be all the richer for the variety and distinctiveness of the offerings” (Morning Yet On Creation Day. Also see End Note).

But there is another, contrary, concept that rejects the ideal of a multiethnic, multicultural, nation founded on equality in difference. It is harboured not only by many of the rural masses and urban workers, but also by the middle and upper classes; by professionals and academics.

To flee the island

Attempts to realise this particular ‘dream’ led, among other things, for most Burghers and many Tamils to flee the island in which they were born, for which they care and (I venture to say), in a deep recess, still miss.  The idea and ideal of nation believed in and savoured by this majority harks back to myth; to the belief that the Buddha wanted the island to be the preserve of Buddhism in its essential purity.

Somewhat similarly, Calvinists believe that from all the millions on the planet they, and only they, have been selected for salvation, albeit quite unworthily and inexplicably.

Allied to the notion of being divinely selected, chosen, is that of ‘purity.’  An individual may consciously strive for as pure, as good, a life as he can attain and daily maintain, both in the private and public spheres. This is quite different from attempting to make all who inhabit a certain region or country adherents of a particular religion or to be under the domination and control of those of that faith.

What results in the latter is only a label of homogeneity or, if you will, of purity: ‘Our country is Moslem’ or ‘Ours is a Hindustan’ or ‘This is a Buddhist island’ or ‘We are a Christian nation.’ Such a slogan has nothing do with the moral and spiritual essence of religion. Going further, when the ‘beautiful,’ spiritual, notion of purity is picked up, transferred and expressed in group or ethnic terms, the consequences are ‘ugly’ (destructive and tragic) – as history repeatedly shows.

God and religion become a cloak to carry out an ethnic and economic agenda; an excuse to vent hate, and to legitimise and justify a lust for power and control over others. Again as history witnesses, in such cases, the clergy, rather than opposing these feelings and tendencies, often excite them, become champions of such programmes and pogroms. (To discuss here whether the Buddhism expressed in Sri Lanka over the past few decades represents the Buddha’s teaching in its purity, would be a digression.)

Destined to be Buddhist

The overwhelming majority in Sri Lanka seem to believe genuinely (if conveniently) that the whole island was destined to be Buddhist. Since the Sinhalese are Buddhists, it follows that Sri Lanka should be primarily for Sinhalese Buddhists. ‘Primary,’ at the least, implies ‘secondary;’  secondary, in turn, means subordination: It’s not our fault. The Soul of Greatest Compassion Himself decreed it. Our ‘dream’ of a nation, although it visits a cruel and unjust ‘nightmare’ on others, is now well on its way to being realised. 

So, where ‘nation’ is concerned, there are two diametrically opposed ideas and ideals. According to one, with the defeat of the Tamil Tigers, ‘nation building’ is no longer futuristic: the nation has already been built !  Well, almost, though not quite. Contrastively, a minority feels that the work of ‘nation building’, although made harder, must now commence — and that too, urgently.

Those who cherish the latter concept of ‘nation’  face the Herculean task of presenting their counter-vision of ‘nation,’ and of persuading the overwhelming majority to subscribe to it. Professor K. M. De Silva, himself a Sinhalese, writes in his A History Of Sri Lanka:

There was always a tendency on the part of the Sinhalese to equate their own ethnic nationalism with a wider, all-island one, to assume that these — Sinhalese nationalism and Sri Lankan nationalism — were one and the same (Colombo, 2003 reprint, page 496).

‘Incomprehensible’

A multi-racial or multi-communal nation or state is incomprehensible to the popular mind (p. 512)

Before construction commences, there must be agreement and clarity about what is to be built. At a Sri Lanka peace-conference in Germany several years ago, I observed that to discuss details of different federal models at that juncture was as premature as to work out the finer details of a wedding ceremony when the two parties had not agreed to the marriage.

 Similarly, those who write about ‘nation building’ must first sell the attractions (that is, the virtues and principles, the goodness and the benefits) of the kind of nation they dearly wish for Sri Lanka. It will not do to delineate steps and procedures to realise this nationhood when the majority resolutely heads in the opposite direction. The majority must be convinced; must be persuaded to want and wish this alternate, inclusive, concept of nation.

 Only then can the task of ‘nation building’ really begin. If not, the small world mentioned above will earnestly and busily rotate while the larger world pursues its passionately desired and totally different end. I repeat: The initial, foundational, task is to persuade, not only the rural masses and the workers (a task, it must be emphasised, that must be undertaken in Sinhala) by even some highly educated Sinhalese professionals and academics.

The last two categories include those who live in Western countries (disregarding geography, I include Australia and New Zealand), expect, demand and enjoy that concept and practice of ‘nation’ which they vehemently reject for Sri Lanka.

End note

It should be noted and acknowledged that multiculturalism is not without its dangers:  for example, when a group with extreme and uncompromising religious beliefs and behaviour patterns occupies the same space as another group that is secular and grants a great measure of individual freedom and choice. In such cases, it has been argued, multiculturalism may retard the building of an over-arching sense of nationality, built on shared core-values.

However, this does not apply to Sri Lanka because there aren’t fundamental religious differences between Tamils (majority Hindu) and Sinhalese particularly (as noted by Dr. K. S. Palihakkara, Nanda Godage et al) with the ‘Hinduisation’ of Buddhism.

Seeking a home grown solution to the war ravaged north

By Dilrukshi Handunnetti

Post war challenges are undoubtedly immense for any country, and for Sri Lanka, key among the many priorities is the need to enter into a political phase during which period the Northern Province could begin to play a significant role in a participatory democracy and to create a new generation of political leaders sans the shackles from the past.

While the north’s political leadership remains a challenge, post war, President Mahinda Rajapakse in his inaugural address to parliament on Tuesday spoke of a ‘home grown solution’ to the Tamil question and already there is a diversity of opinion as to what it should be and the fundamentals on which such a solution should be built upon.

Some appear to openly favour the Indian model like TULF Leader V. Anandasangaree while the likes of Udaya Gammanpila of the nationalist JHU feel that first the northern political views should emerge in all its diversity followed by greater discussion, with no ‘foreign models’ be they Scandinavian or Indian, be force-fed to Sri Lanka.

There are political parties that insist on a local solution based on local realities like the SLFP and others like the TNA, now undergoing a process of reform that still prefers a solution that resonates with the positions put forward by the Tamil political leadership and the Thimpu principles that accommodate a federal solution as opposed to one within the unitary framework.

Top most priority

But political parties do agree on principle that while a simultaneous political solution is required, the top most priority remains the rehabilitation and resettlement of the internally displaced people, meeting their basic needs followed by urgent demilitarisation.

Already, there is ‘Uthuru Wasanthaya,’ a programme to rebuild the north and a special task force, mandated to ensure that the north rises from the ashes like the proverbial phoenix bird. But the task force is already drawing flack from the minorities due to its composition, given that the Basil Rajapakse headed task force comprises only of majority community members.

According to Presidential Advisor Basil Rajapakse, the idea is to ensure immediate development benefits to the northern populace and to ensure earliest possible resettlement opportunity.

“The government is keen to ensure economic growth for the north,” he said, buttressing his brother, President Mahinda Rajapakse’s call to those here and abroad to join in the government’s efforts to rebuild the north, in the wake of the military victory.

However, political parties hold divergent views on what turn the north should now take in terms of political direction.  Minority political parties feel that what is offered by the Rajapakse administration by way of political appeasement would be in diluted form and not acceptable to not just the Tamils but also to the Muslims.

Abandoned agreements

TNA’s Suresh Premachandran believes that if people were truly capable of delivering a political  solution, it would have emerged much earlier and recalls the sordid history of abandoned agreements when Sinhala led governments came under political pressure on the issue of sharing power with the Tamil community.

He insists that the Sri Lankan governments have failed to fulfill the Tamil political aspirations which is why it  required third party facilitation that led to Norway playing a role. “There is so much of mistrust and dishonesty involved that the Tamil people feel cheated throughout history. A solution within a unitary structure is what we assume this government would offer and that is such a dilution compared to what our political needs are,” he says.

As for the ‘home grown political solution,’ Premachandran firmly believes it was a statement made for international consumption.

He recalls that the north and the east were merged subsequent to the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord accepting that the two provinces formed the historical habitations of the Tamil-speaking people. “We watch with avid interest as to what stance would be adapted in these new circumstances by the state and whether India would play its historic role, given its role in the merger of the northeast,” Premachandran notes.

But for TULF Leader V. Anandasangaree, it is a different call. A politician who has campaigned for crushing LTTE terror and for allowing the true Tamil political voices to emerge in the north, Anandasangaree unabashedly enjoys the military defeat of the LTTE.

Yet, he believes the government should immediately place a political solution on the table based on the Indian model.

“It will be acceptable to the Tamil people and Indian will also be pleased. Tamil Nadu’s dissent will also peter out. It is the correct formula to please the vast majority of people,” he says.

Enjoy freedom

As for the previous agreements and the likes of Thimpu principles, the senior politician believes that there was no need to harp  on the past or keep going back to previous discussions as the need is to build anew.

The urgent need, according to him is to rebuild the lives of the IDPs and to make Sri Lanka a country where people of all ethnicities could enjoy freedom in the true sense of the word.

“The requirement is also for a free and fair poll. We should now allow fresh Tamil political leadership to emerge in the north and all armed groups must be made to disarm. Only the state should have access to weapons and those who need security should seek state protection,” he insists.

But there are others who are of firm faith that India’s National Defence Advisor M. K. Narayanan and Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon came here with a clear political message and this was to push the government to look beyond the 13th Amendment and to urgently put a political package to meet the political grievances of the Tamil community.

On these lines, it is important to consider whether the Sri Lankan state is willing to completely overlook the agreements between southern political leaders and Tamil political leaders, specially the commitment to power devolution in the afterglow of a historic military victory.

The JHU that had consistently opposed a federal solution to the conflict, doubts whether the political solution that northern Tamils as opposed to disapora and Western Province based Tamils require is one and the same thing.

A simultaneous programme

Legal Advisor, JHU, Udaya Gammanpila feels that these two separate groups have a different approach to the same question.

He believes the country’s priority was to first and foremost demilitarise and prevent armed groups from operating anywhere in the country. There should be a simultaneous programme to rebuild the lives of the IDPS, over 200,000 in number.

“Their needs must be met first in terms of shelter, food and water.  Then we should set up the democratic institutions in the north and hold local and provincial elections to complete the process. It is only then that we can talk about addressing Tamil political grievances,” he opines.

“This also means, the opportunity for a new Tamil political leadership to emerge. Through them, ideas could emerge which could be submitted to a dialogue process before a solution is worked out,” he states. 

“The process gets completed only when the political aspirations of the Tamil community are met, and not forgetting that this should rightfully include the aspirations of the Muslim community also,” notes UNP General Secretary Tissa Attanayake.