The focus of my article in The Sunday Leader of 5 May was on the need for Northern Provincial representation. It now looks as if those elections may be held in September 2013. I will elaborate on the likely consequences of representation, or the lack of it, drawing on past experience in Sri Lanka, India and the USA.

All over Sri Lanka the bulk of the Muslim population are Tamil speakers. It was so almost 100% at every socio-economic level when the Official Language Act was enacted in 1956. But at that time the political leadership of the Muslims comprised mostly Members of Parliament representing Sinhalese majority electorates. All these voted for Sinhala Only, as desired by their mostly Sinhalese voters, even though they were themselves Tamil speaking.

The Muslim MPs representing Eastern Province electorates voted against the Bill, as desired by their voters, nearly all of them Tamil speaking. In the Senate, A.M.A. Azeez, who was not elected by Sinhalese voters, not only opposed the Bill but quit his party on this issue. One of the objectives in forming the SLMC, much later, under the leadership of Ashroff, based in the Eastern Province, was to ensure the election of Muslim MPs responsive to the wishes of the Muslim population.

In India, the Dalits /Harijan /Untouchables and Tribals have enjoyed quota reservations in political bodies and public institutions at all levels for close to a century. The practice had been that the reserved seats had been rotated from election to election with only Dalits standing for elections in the seats reserved for them.  In the 1930s, about the same time as the Donoughmore Commission in Sri Lanka, a dispute arose between the Dalit leader Dr. B. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi as to whether electorates should hitherto be purely territorial or whether Dalits should have separate electoral registers.

Gandhi wanted the former, and Ambedkar the latter, but there was no dispute regarding the need for reservations. Under Gandhi’s proposal even in electorates for Dalits, the majority of the voters would be non-Dalits. Dr. Ambedkar argued that the Dalit candidates would then tailor their manifestos to suit the majority non-Dalit voters. In fact Dalit candidates seeking High Caste Hindu votes would often stand respectfully outside the house, declining any invitation to enter the house or to sit on a chair or to accept a cup of tea. Such practices helped to win High Caste votes.  Dr. Ambedkar wanted Dalit candidates to adopt radical manifestos for 100% Dalit electorates.

The British Colonial Government suspended progress towards independence till this issue was solved. Gandhi started a fast to death and was close to death when Ambedkar caved in, and agreed to purely territorial electorates with both Dalit and Non-Dalit voters in exchange for increased quotas for Dalits. It is this compromise that was embodied in the Indian Constitution drafted two decades later under the Chairmanship of Dr. Ambedkar.

In the USA, Governor Wallace of Alabama, perhaps the most racist of the Southern leaders, had Presidential ambitions. His state had a Black majority but he had ensured that, as in most Southern states, most of the Blacks were denied voting rights on some pretext or the other, such as illiteracy. The Whites all over the South were fearful of being swamped by Blacks if they gained voting rights.

His 1962 campaign slogan was, “From the cradle of the Confederacy, this very heart of the great Anglo-Saxon Southland … Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever! He bitterly and violently opposed the Voting Rights Act, but when he found that he could not stop it, he did a U-turn on many issues. He thereafter supported many Black causes because his vote base was now more Black than White, though he remained as racist as ever.

Hopefully the NPC elections will not only bring about changes in the administration of the Northern Province, but also compel Colombo to take into account the NPC leadership, which may be why these elections have been long delayed. The elections and their likely outcome will surely have a positive impact on the politics of Colombo and also on National Reconciliation.

 

In India, the Dalits /Harijan /Untouchables and Tribals have enjoyed quota reservations in political bodies and public institutions at all levels for close to a century. The practice had been that the reserved seats had been rotated from election to election with only Dalits standing for elections in the seats reserved for them.  In the 1930s, about the same time as the Donoughmore Commission in Sri Lanka, a dispute arose between the Dalit leader Dr. B. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi as to whether electorates should hitherto be purely territorial or whether Dalits should have separate electoral registers.

Gandhi wanted the former, and Ambedkar the latter, but there was no dispute regarding the need for reservations. Under Gandhi’s proposal even in electorates for Dalits, the majority of the voters would be non-Dalits. Dr. Ambedkar argued that the Dalit candidates would then tailor their manifestos to suit the majority non-Dalit voters. In fact Dalit candidates seeking High Caste Hindu votes would often stand respectfully outside the house, declining any invitation to enter the house or to sit on a chair or to accept a cup of tea. Such practices helped to win High Caste votes.  Dr. Ambedkar wanted Dalit candidates to adopt radical manifestos for 100% Dalit electorates.

The British Colonial Government suspended progress towards independence till this issue was solved. Gandhi started a fast to death and was close to death when Ambedkar caved in, and agreed to purely territorial electorates with both Dalit and Non-Dalit voters in exchange for increased quotas for Dalits. It is this compromise that was embodied in the Indian Constitution drafted two decades later under the Chairmanship of Dr. Ambedkar.

By S. Sivathasan

When the Jaffna Development Council started functioning a Minister who made frequent official visits to Jaffna was Hon. Gamini Dissanayake. His known closeness to the President lent some significance to the discussions he had with Mr. Nadarajah the Chairman of the Council. A warm rapport developed between the two. To the Chairman it opened a two-way communication connecting the District with the Centre. The Minister perhaps was not unaware of the political fall-out for the government, if things turned out well.

Quite a few meetings with the Minister were held in Colombo. The Chairman, the Government Agent Dr. Nesiah and the writer participated in these meetings. What were emphasized from the Council’s side were substantially larger funding and more devolved powers to utilize the finances effectively. The proposition struck a sensitive chord with the Minister and he took the initiative in arranging for a meeting with President J.R. Jayawardene one evening at his residence. It was in the latter part of 1982.The five of us took part in the discussions for over an hour. Development priorities with central funding were outlined by us. The Jaffna Lagoon Scheme and bridging the Mahadeva Causeway were among them. There was responsive interaction.

J. R. Jayewardene, Lalith Athulathmudali and Gamini Dissanayake

In mid-1982, to mark the first anniversary of the Development Council a special sitting was organized. Policy and programme set out in a document of fifty pages was read out by the Chairman at this ceremonial sitting. It became the base for discussions in Colombo. In a subsequent document, another exercise was undertaken to define objective principles for block grants to Development Councils. The capital votes were taken together and after setting apart a certain percentage for central government works, the balance was to be given to the districts. Distribution based on the criteria of population and area of each district will compose a share and the remaining amount will be apportioned according to a district’s state of growth, development needs and other relevant criteria.

This proposition with figures extracted from the Printed Estimates and worked out with a district perspective was sent to the powers that be in Colombo. To continuous correspondence and personal contact, there was a response from the President. Three from the Development Council, Chairman, GA and the writer were invited for a discussion on a day of a Cabinet meeting. After the conclusion of the meeting, President retained a handful of Ministers including Lalith Athulathmudali and Cyril Mathew and called on the Chairman to address them. The strategy appeared to be to expose them to the suffocation suffered by a Development Council for want of finances and of authority. The Chairman a former Senator had the respect of the President for his outspokenness. He explained the proposition urging the need for meaningful financial devolution and for increased funding. Lalith showed interest and even appeared impressed with the proposition.

The above meeting was about January 1983, after the conclusion of the referendum and the general election in 1982. About two weeks subsequently, I was summoned by the President for a discussion on budgetary support.  Those present included Lalith, Dr. Ranjit Attapattu from the deep South and the DST. Issues related to making the Councils effective were discussed. In passing even the creation of a District based Public Service from among serving officers was touched on. An important decision taken was to appoint a Committee of Secretaries – about six – to suggest ways for greater financial support.

Lalith was to be Chairman and Mr. Bradman Weerakoon Secretary. Mr. Felix Dias Abeysinghe though retired was in the committee for his Local Government background. I was appointed Assistant Secretary, so that as a wearer of the shoe in the Jaffna District, I could explain where it pinched and how hard. After deliberations spread over a few weeks, an Interim Report was submitted in May 1983. The highlight of it was a recommendation for an allocation to all Development Councils of a sum equivalent to the allocation for the Decentralized Budget (DCB). It meant a doubling of Rs. 420 million to 840 million for direct spending by the districts.

This was far from satisfying. The North South dialogue with the President from October 1982 to September 1983 achieved precious little. No meeting ground came about. Each side was reinforced in its own position and policy stance on the scope of devolution. Political power residing in the South prevailed over the North. There was not even a thought of sharing. The failed attempt at building bridges alienated the Tamils still further. They saw the effort and the minimal financial support through the prism of a Tamil saying – show the moon to distract the child that pesters. The simmering Tamil problem only festered. The Tamil side was neither distracted nor convinced nor satisfied. To those who pegged their vision on a federal arrangement, the Development Council with proven impotence was a far cry.

The Chairman did not wish to continue with a position that offered little prospects for meaningful engagement. He relinquished his post and informed the President accordingly, about the 12th July 1983. The next week the Ex-Chairman and I were invited for a discussion on devolution at the President’s residence. At this point of time we had come to the position that a Province and not a District should be the unit of devolution. We wanted to put forward this point of view.  At the conference seated on one side were about five others including Lalith and facing them were both of us. President’s opening sentence was “Chairman, if you are thinking of any scheme outside the Development Council set up, WE PART”. So the discussion was limited to refining the existing scheme.

The next day July 22nd, we travelled back to Jaffna by car with the GA. Explosions that midnight changed the political scene. In late September I was called for a one to one discussion on the Development Council and Devolution.  In a fortnight I was summoned again. At this discussion senior officials too participated. I said “Sir, if we can take up the most sensitive issue of land and make some progress, it will clear the way to success in other subjects”. Devolution of all powers relating to land was put across. After some deliberations on land Mr. G. V. P. Samarasinghe said, “You can’t override the Minister”. After some more discussions the meeting ended. It marked the end of a year’s effort. India’s involvement grew thereafter eclipsing any local initiative.

After the riots many of the MPs were in self-exile. The Development Council lingered on for a few more months making little impact on economic life. When it was born, there were no comets seen. At its demise there was not a whimper. Having lived up to the objective of the President it derived neither power nor finances. It just withered away. There was no devolution and little development. Even the meager expectations of some Tamils were completely belied. In the words of a Tamil recluse, uttered 1,000 years ago, “everything receded as a phantasm, an old tale and a dream”. The Council merged in the Kachcheri, losing its brief authority and identity. The district had to wait for the next five years for the North-East Provincial Council.

When I heard about the Boston explosions I had many hopes. First, I hoped that my teacher, who is at Harvard, was safe. Second, I hoped no one was killed. Third, I hoped there was no any Muslim connection to the explosion. Finally, I hoped Boston, one of my favourite American cities, liberal, leftwing, cosmopolitan and intellectually bent, was not disrupted by any fundamentalist attacks, internal or external. I found out soon enough that my teacher was safe. Sadly, some people died, including an eight-year old boy – someone from my son’s generation. America has its own fundamentalists.

When it goes to war, America (Washington) itself is fundamentalist. International terrorism is a real problem and all fundamentalists are party to that terrorism. America’s not-so-democratic acts in the past also keep following like the cart behind the oxen as it has in a Dhammapada verse. In Sri Lanka too we have to be mindful of our collective Karma.

My third hope was much more Sri Lankan than personal. In Sri Lanka, Bodu Bala Sena (‘the army of Buddhist power’) – the newest and crudest version of Sinhala nationalism – is up against Sri Lankan Muslims, claiming that they are invading the social, cultural, economic spheres, pushing aside the Sinhala majority. I do not know the factual position. But the rhetoric seems to suggest something much more dangerous than the facts (even if they are correct) ever could. Some of the BBS (or of the populace attracted to the organization) accusations are really absurd: some Muslim-owned clothing store (a chain of shops in fact) is selling an incredible female underwear that makes Sinhala women barren. The argument is that this shop chain is part of a Muslim conspiracy to reduce the Sinhala population in the country.

One of my friends from Scotland wanted to buy that particular underwear so that he can control the population growth in his country. But, according to the BBS, that underwear only upsets the workings of the relevant organs of Sinhala-Buddhist women! So, he did not buy it. Apart from these absurd claims, there is a real lack of understanding between the two communities for which the civil society of both communities is responsible. It is the lack of understanding that gives rise to these absurd urban myths, which are more political than factual. America too had them: McCarthyism was a result of that and McCarthyism is not totally gone.
I do not know what kinds of myths Muslim fundamentalists in Sri Lanka are propagating against Sinhala people. There must be some equally funny ones. Fundamentalisms are fun if no one believes them; but many do. Sinhala people certainly do: look at Facebook.

Anyway, I hoped that there was nothing Muslim about the Boston bombing because it would have been the Sinhala racist BBS who would have benefited by it. (The BBS leaders were to visit the US when the explosion occurred. There is an argument that the US is happy for the BBS because they are against Muslims: I hope the argument is wrong.) They would have claimed that their fight against Sri Lankan Muslims was right and based on facts. Yes. Islamic fundamentalism is much more global than Sinhala fundamentalism and we all have to be aware of that fact while being cognizant that US imperialism actually helps Islamic fundamentalism. Islamic civilization, however, is not all about fundamentalisms or parochialisms. It has a great history of mutual understanding and sharing. Amartaya Sen’s Argumentative Indian (2005) describes some aspects of it. According to Sen, there were some Muslim kings and queens who encouraged democratic debate and participated in them. They saw themselves as Indians not as Arabs.

Scholarly work

There are a significant number of scholarly works highlighting Islamic contributions to human civilization. The Ornament of the World, by Professor Maria Rosa Menocal shows how Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities contributed to the creation of European culture in medieval Spain. Living in Spain when writing this essay, I can see even today hues and flavours of Islam and Arabic culture in an ancient city like Santiago de Compostela, even though the beautiful city is markedly Catholic.

Many Indian scholarly works on Urdu and Hindi literature show how Islamic culture contributed to the making of modern literary cultures in South Asia. The new literary genres brought to South Asia by Islamic scholars and writers made our literary culture even richer. Ghazal would be a famous example. Professor Shamur Rahman Faruqui’s excellent book Early Urdu Literary Culture and History is one of those books I studied with one of the great teachers of mine: Professor Muhammad Umar Memon. When reading Faruqui’s book I always wondered why Sri Lankan Muslim scholars could not engage in such studies. I am still to see a systematic study of Sri Lankan Muslim literature. There may be things in Tamil, I am sure. But our Muslim scholars must present such studies in a way that deepens our inter-ethnic understanding. One aim of their scholarship must be to develop a dialogue with the Sinhala community. To say that is not a pro-majority argument but a cosmopolitan one.

Only my friend, a brilliant poet and scholar, Professor M. A. Nuhman, has made such an attempt worth noting. His recent interview with the Sinhala daily Janarala was a window to the heart of a moderate and liberal Muslim intellectual. We need more like him. (There are some books by Nilar N. Casim, but they are more journalistic than scholarly).

Creating new knowledge

Three days after the Boston bombs, Professor Cesar Dominquez, a rising star in the field of Comparative Literature in Europe, showed me his copy of a brand new book that Routledge has published this year: World Literature: A Reader. It is edited by Theo D’haen, Mada Rosendhal Thomson and Dominguez himself. This collection of essays is sure to enrich our knowledge of the globally-rooted human activity called ‘literary writing.’ But the first essay of the book immediately captured my attention. I borrowed the book right away because there was something in it I want to share with Sri Lankan readers as soon as possible in this age of Bodu Bala Sena.

The essay is an excerpt from a book written by a Spanish Jesuit scholar named Juan Andres and published between 1782 and 1799. Its translator, Cesar Dominguez and the editors, widen our knowledge on the concept ofworld literature by presenting it as the first chapter of the book. The origin of the concept of ‘world literature’ in the West is often attributed to Goethe. This piece shows that the concept has somewhat older antecedents in Europe. Juan Andres has undertaken to write a multi-volume literary history in Italian under the title of On the Origin, Progress and the Present State of All Literature covering Persian, Indian, Chinese and Arabic literature, in addition literature in European languages. During the author’s lifetime alone, the book has gone into many editions.

The book is significant in more than one way. One of the features I like to highlight in this short essay is Juan Andres’ unfailing acknowledgement of the contribution of non-European people to the making of world literature. He points out that modern European literature is indebted to Arabic literature, for the latter has enriched the former by “re-establishing the belles lettres” or artistic writing. “The Arabs”, continues Andres, “with their translations and studies, partly increased Greek science and, via Spain, introduced the natural sciences into Europe. They also, by cultivating all the branches of the belles lettres, gave rise to both a new kind of poetry in our regions and improved our culture and our vernacular languages. Literature was, therefore, reborn in Europe”. Observe the Jesuit-priest author’s generous words in appreciating Arabic (Islamic) contribution to modern world literature. He also praises Indian and Chinese literature in words that were difficult to find in those early days of “Orientalism”.

Understanding ourselves anew

We in Sri Lanka must understand anew our shared humanity and culture rather than falling into the traps of cultural purisms. In this, the Buddhist fundamentalism of Bodu Bala Sena is not going to help us, and, in fact, they are there to destroy our collective memory of commonality. The ideological fathers of this group are still to say a word about their uncultured progeny. Having heard savagely racist speeches the leaders of BBS made in Kandy it is a euphemism to call them ‘uncultured.’ The response to this group from moderate Muslims is far from appealing and convincing. I did not see any Muslim intellectuals saying anything, in Sinhala or English, asking both Sinhala and Muslim communities to understand their shared history and culture that go back many centuries.

The Sinhala community has to realize that our Sinhalaness is a product of many cultural sharings and borrowings. If we were to give away supposedly Muslim elements in our food, so-called Sinhala cuisine will be devoid of some of its great flavours and some subtle taste buds in our ‘Sinhala’ tongues will be dried up like fish without water. People like Samuel Huntington have set up a trap for us in South Asia. Huntington was an ideologue of the American right and of American imperialism and his Clash of Civilizations is a programmatic text for American imperialism. The way he describes the world in it is too simple, flat and one-dimensional. Just remember the way he casts the world under monolithic identities. For example, India for him, for example, is Hindu.

He ignores the fact that so-called Hindu India is a fine mixture of many cultures, differences and languages. For Huntington, Sri Lanka is just Buddhist: no wonder some Buddhist nationalists are big fans of this American rightwing ideologue.
Courtesy: Colombo Telegraph

If you will tell me why the fen appears impassable, I  then, will tell you why I think that I
can get across it if I try… from I May, I Might,  I Must, Marianne Moore (1887-1972)

Fifteen months ago, when the year 2011 was drawing to a close, the political climate in Sri Lanka was such that the position of President Rajapaksa and his government seemed stable and secure. The majority of Sri Lankans were still in a state of euphoria following the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in May 2009. The President and his coalition easily won the elections held soon after. The ethnic issue was still not resolved and there was pressure from the international community to ensure a solution that was acceptable to the major communities in the country. There was also pressure to meet allegations of human rights violations in the closing stages of the fight against the LTTE.

Responding to these pressures, the President appointed the Commission of Inquiry into Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation. The LLRC presented its report to the President in November 2011. The government was tardy in releasing the report for public circulation but it had to be tabled in Parliament. The contents of the report confounded both its supporters as well as its sceptics. The Commission had listened sympathetically to the cries of many whose sons and daughters had been killed, maimed or just disappeared. The Commission refused to white-wash crimes committed by any party nor did it lay the blame on any. They felt an independent and impartial investigation was necessary. They also came up with a set of balanced recommendations to promote reconciliation among the different communities in the country.

At the sessions held soon after, the United Nations Human Rights Council urged the Government of Sri Lanka to draw up a Plan of Action to implement the LLRC recommendations. Again, following pressure from the international community, a Plan of Action was drawn up and presented to the then US Secretary of State Hilary Clintonwhen she visited Sri Lanka. The action plan had ignored many of the recommendations but it at least signified that the government was committed to implementing the LLRC recommendations.
But the troubles for the government began then. Obviously, there was no political will to implement the letter or the spirit of recommendations, nor did it seem in a mood for reconciliation with the minorities and the political opposition.

Up to then, its position had seemed stable and secure. But, as in Lord Acton’s well quoted comment, power can corrupt and absolute power can corrupt absolutely. Much earlier, William Pitt the Elder, a former Prime Minister of Britain, said much the same thing, ‘Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.’  History has shown that political leaders, both dictators as well as who are elected at democratic elections, and who possess unlimited power soon lose their sense of judgement, become unpopular and find themselves driven out of office, sometimes by a political revolt and sometimes at a democratic election. In Asia, Marcos of Philippines, Suharto of Indonesia and a succession of Pakistani Heads of State are among them. Even the charismatic Indira Gandhi was trounced at the general election held soon after she had usurped and abused Emergency powers, though she was voted back to power some years later. Last year’s Arab Spring saw many rulers overthrown in West Asia.

Unlimited power corrupts

In Sri Lanka in 1977, J R Jayewardena had won a four-fifths majority at the General Election. Under the new proportional system of election, such majorities are no longer going to be possible. So the Rajapaksa government did what it has proved so adept at. It manoeuvred, by fair means or foul, for large numbers of opposition parliamentarians to defect and so ensured for itself a comfortable three-fourths majority. Using this majority, the Constitution was amended to give the President virtually dictatorial powers. J R Jayewardene used his majority to re-write the Constitution to create an Executive Presidency with wide powers. Mahinda Rajapaksa has gone better to give himself even wider authoritarian powers.

Executive Presidents have generally not hesitated to use their authoritarian powers for personal or partisan gain. But none so blatantly as the first and the current holders of that office. The most blatant use (or rather misuse) of these powers came with the impeachment of the sitting Chief Justice. J R Jayewardena also did attempt to impeach the then sitting Chief Justice but he was wise enough to realise his folly and found an honourable way to drop the impeachment proceedings. But Mahinda Rajapaksa appears to have had no qualms of conscience in proceeding against Shirani Bandaranayakwe.

Perverting the course of justice

When the gods wish to destroy someone, it is said that they ensure that that person behaves and acts in an irrational way. We do not know how the minds of the gods work but we certainly know that when politicians are given extraordinary powers, they tend to lose touch with reality, to lose touch with the needs of the ordinary masses. It is self-defeating when politicians dismiss all opposition as the work of misguided persons or of conspirators with a sinister agenda.

It is not only the manner in which the impeachment process was handled that led to a massive loss of goodwill both at home as well as abroad. Following the 18th Amendment, the President brought the Attorney General’s Department under him. But even before that, the Department had lost its independence. Prosecutions were based on political considerations. Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra, who was shot dead at Mulleriyawa, was a long-standing loyal SLFP supporter. But the gang that allegedly killed him was led by another politician who had closer links to the political establishment. That probably explains why the Police and the Attorney General’s Department have been tardy about prosecuting the gang allegedly responsible for the killing. The same goes for the killing of British Red Cross worker Khuram Shaikh at Tangalle over a year ago. The killing was done openly in the presence of the hotel staff and guests present there on Christmas eve. Yet various excuses have been given by the Police for failure to indict the killers.

It is well known that the leader of the gang that allegedly killed Shaikh was a prominent local politician who, as in the case of the Mulleriyawa killing, was close to the political establishment. It is such blatantly obvious perversions of the investigative processes and allowing politically well connected criminals to escape justice that have damaged the image that Mahinda Rajapaksa once had as a champion of human rights.

On the other hand, those who have fallen foul of the political establishment are being persecuted with scant regard for the rule of law. The cases of Sarath Fonseka and Shirani Bandaranayake, and even of her husband, are prominent instances of this. Some of those cases are still being pursued by the Bribery Commission. But we have seen the charges and the explanations given by those charged and all we can say at this stage is that it will be difficult for any judicial court, going by the rule of law, to convict them on the evidence presented. We can only presume that the charges and the publicity being given to them are purely to create an impression of misconduct in the minds of the public. It is also sad to know that the Bribery Commission comprises members who once held responsible positions in the country’s law-enforcement and judicial services. Of course, they were appointed by the President under the 18th Amendment.

Another issue that has affected the popularity of the government has been that of urban displacement. It is true that our cities needed a clean-up but is the beautification programme that is being undertaken the priority for development. The upper and upper middle classes are no doubt thrilled that we have beautiful parks with separate tracks for walking and jogging. But the ordinary citizen, already burdened by high costs of living, now with an unconscionable increase in electricity tariffs being introduced as a further burden, would not be convinced that the provision of recreational facilities, however laudable, should have priority over easing the economic burdens he or she has to face.

The country is now facing another problem, a grave one at that, with an organisation that calls itself a religious one, promoting hate and violence against minority communities. M W H de Silva, Queen’s Counsel, was a confidant of S W R D Bandarainaike, and served for three years as the Minister of Justice in the 1956 government. He is reported to have related an incident that took place in the 1956 election campaign. He and SWRD were returning by car from Polonnaruwa when MWH referring to SWRD’s speech at the Polonnaruwa meeting had said something to the effect that SWRD may have raised passions that may be difficult to contain. SWRD’s response was that that he would control that when it came to crossing that bridge. Unfortunately, SWRD was unable to contain the passions aroused and his assassination was planned by a group close to him.

Arousing communal passions

We quote this incident to show that there can be no short cuts to popularity. A leader has to live by certain principles and never compromise on them. It appears to many people that the political establishment courting the Bodhu Bala Sena is not because they support their ideology but as a means of using (or misusing) religious passions to restore their waning popularity. Rousing communal passions will not only harm the country but will ultimately consume the people responsible for rousing such passions. President Rajapaksa, religious leaders, the media and civil society must take a stand to expose those charlatans who promote hatred even among young school children.

From around the country, there are reports of harassment of Muslim traders, of Muslim women and men for the distinctive Islamic dress they wear, of defacement and threats to Muslim places of worship and hate messages on the mobile phone networks. These should have been nipped in the bud at the very early stages. But it is never too late. All our communities and all our people have equal rights. One war has ended and we do not need any more wars. We must stand as one to fight hatred. It will cost the country dearly if the Police are not allowed to enforce the rule of law and instead protect those who break the law. We cannot allow short-sighted men and women to destroy the country for their personal gain.
Colombo Telegraph

President Mahinda Rajapaksa was among the first in the international community to respond to the bombing of the Boston Marathon. In a message to the US President he condemned the Boston bomb attack while conveying condolences over loss of lives. Other government leaders and commentators took the opportunity to remind the world of the sufferings that Sri Lanka underwent for three decades due to terrorism. They also highlighted the irony of Sri Lanka’s leaders being forced to defend themselves for having eliminated terrorism.

The government’s Information Department stated that the Sri Lankan President was “the only leader in the world to eradicate the scourge of terrorism from Sri Lanka completely, has also called on all the countries to get together to eliminate the scourge of terrorism.” The underlying message of the government was clear. It is that the world should be looking to the Sri Lankan model of eliminating terrorism, rather than finding fault with it for having done so.

The government continues to be unyielding in its approach to governance and reconciliation issues. It has hired public relations companies in the United States to get its message across. This action gives an indication of the government’s approach. PR firms are known to give a positive spin to their client’s activities. The hiring of PR firms for lobbying in the United States suggests that the Sri Lankan government is not thinking of changing its own policies. Instead it is thinking it can change the US government by projecting a positive image of developments in the country. However, one part of the picture does not represent the full picture and there will be others, including the Tamil Diaspora, which will present the other part.

The government strategy is to change the messenger and not the message necessarily. Addressing Parliament, External Affairs Minister Prof GL Peiris said that the government was not going to yield on substance. He said “there is no change of government policy towards the United States. We do not concur with their resolution and our representative in Geneva distanced Sri Lanka very clearly from its contents.” The centre piece of the Geneva resolutions has been implementation of the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. The main thrust of this report is the achievement of good governance and reconciliation. The non-implementation of the LLRC will be to the country’s detriment.

Lost Years

The past two years have been galling ones for the government and its leadership. It has seen Sri Lanka’s war-time conduct and post-war performance being critically scrutinized by the international community. The majority of countries in the UN Human Rights Council have voted in opposition to the Sri Lanka to pass resolutions calling on the Sri Lankan government to probe alleged human rights violations and war crimes. The United States gave leadership to both resolutions, which were passed in 2012 and again in 2013 with an increased majority. Even countries that were sympathetic to the logic of government actions during times of war, are not equally sympathetic to it in the context of post-war.

It is unfortunate that in responding to this changed international climate, that the government is choosing a strategy of insecurity as the way forward. In the case of the majority Sinhalese, the government is coming forward as the protector vis-a-vis perceived and projected threats, such as from the international community and Tamil Diaspora. The government would do well to consider that when communities feel that they have no protection from the state, they will turn elsewhere for security. Government thinking has to undergo a paradigm shift from being focused on physical unity to a workable hearts and minds operation, based on the real responses to the insecurities and issues of other communities. It is tragic that having united the country physically, the government is failing to unite it ethnically.

Partial picture

What most Sri Lankans see is only a part of the picture. They have accepted the government position that the Geneva resolutions are motivated by a desire to punish the government for having crushed the LTTE in war. It means there is no internal pressure coming from the electorate that prompts the government to change and adapt to the post-war situation. This is a weakness that needs to be addressed by the political opposition and by civil society. Sri Lanka’s war ended in May 2009. The first resolution on the Sri Lankan war that was passed in the UN Human Rights Council a few weeks later in 2009 was actually one that was proposed by Sri Lanka itself. It commended the government for having ended the war and looked forward to the post-war reconciliation process that the government was promising to take forward.

At the end of May 2009, the UN Human Rights Council dropped a draft resolution calling for an investigation into possible war crimes during Sri Lanka’s recently-concluded war on terrorism and adopted Sri Lanka’s counter resolution with some of the proposals in the Swiss-EU document incorporated into it. Of the 47-member Council, 29 voted for Sri Lanka’s resolution, 12 against and 6 abstained. The resolution condemned the LTTE and welcomed “the liberation by the government of Sri Lanka of tens of thousands of its citizens that were kept by the LTTE against their will as hostages.”

The problem that arose thereafter is the one that Sri Lanka now faces. The promises the government made to the international community did not materialize. Instead of dealing with the issues of emotional trauma and political rights that has arisen due to the war, the government has focused on material development. Government leaders have grown in confidence about the changes they are making to the country’s infrastructure. They see the road network and reconstructed towns that have arisen like the phoenix from the ashes of war. They are now issuing invitations to the international community to come and see for themselves. Those who do come are impressed. They see a geographically united country that is being visibly transformed.

Reuniting country

But reuniting a divided country is not only a matter of what is visible. An unknown number of thousands, or is it tens of thousands, of families of those who went missing in the war, continue to be left in the dark about what happened to them. Many of them continue to hope that their loved ones are still alive, captive in some army camp or prison, and await their reappearance. Despite the large proportion of displaced persons who have been resettled, the quality of their resettlement, and human rights problems, do not yet qualify the Sri Lankan experience to be cited as a model for international emulation. Post war reconciliation also continues to be at a low ebb with no political solution in sight, and with the military still playing a dominant role in the civil administration of the North.
The government is continuing with the logic that meeting development imperatives will erase ethnic cleavages and the need for improved governance. While this may be desired, it will not yield the desired end of negating governance and reconciliation issues. In addition, the demand in time to come will be more general as the populace suffers the burden of economic problems. The public too will necessarily see a disjunction between the professed development of the government and the lack of benefits to them. If good governance requirements continue to be ignored issues of corruption and accountability will arise with greater force, and threaten the government’s continued popularity. The country’s need for good governance does not merely arise from international resolutions. The government cannot ignore governance and reconciliation imperatives. They will not recede from the landscape.

Intolerance is the rejection of pluralism

“The history or the future of Sri Lanka does not belong to any group”: 
Ranasinghe Premadasa - (Speech on 12.11.1990)

Character can be fate, for both individuals and collectives. The answer to where Sri Lanka is headed depends, at least in part, on what Sri Lanka is.

In 1956, the dominant Sinhala opinion deemed that Sri Lanka was a Sinhala country; after two decades of resistance, the dominant Tamil opinion abandoned the struggle for equality, accepted that Sri Lanka was a Sinhala country and demanded a separate Tamil state on that basis.

None clung to the myth of Sri Lanka not being a country for Tamils with greater assiduity than Vellupillai Pirapaharan. In 1956, SWRD Bandaranaike used the Tamil-bogey to come to power. Today the Rajapaksas are using the Muslim-bogey to perpetuate their power.

Just as their politico-ideological forefathers told the Tamils to get back to Tamil Nadu/India, the Sinhala-Buddhist supremacists of today are acting as if every Lankan Muslim is a dual citizen of Saudi Arabia, by birth.

Nothing reveals the reach of this toxic nonsense than a memory shared by Jezima Ismail: “Some years ago at a lecture session at the BMICH a professor waxed eloquent on the feelings he had for Sri Lanka and that this was the only place for him. In the course of this talk he turned round to me and said that if anything untoward happened I could of course seek refuge in Saudi or the Middle East”.

Ms. Ismail is as Sri Lankan as can be, a pedagogue who has served her country and her community for, decades. It was to a woman of such calibre and achievement this remark was made, not to some Saudo-phile extremist wallowing in Wahabism or Salafism. And the person who made this remark was not a raving BBS monk or a common or garden mobster, but a professor, if not a man of learning at least one of education.

Clearly the ‘hosts and guests’ concept of Sri Lanka is not the sole property of the lunatic fringe. From the rejection of the pluralist nature of Sri Lanka flows the refusal to accept that minorities are co-owners of the country. This cements the belief that minorities do not consider Sri Lanka as their motherland and that they are creatures of divided loyalties, not to be trusted.

This mindset can be explained using Aristotelian syllogism:

1) Only Sinhala-Buddhists can love Sri Lanka. Tamils/Muslims/Christians are not Sinhala-Buddhists.
Therefore Tamils/Muslims/Christians do not love Sri Lanka.

2) Aliens want to destroy Sri Lanka. Tamils/Muslims/Christians are aliens.
Therefore Muslims/Tamils/Christians want to destroy Sri Lanka

From the belief that minorities are untrustworthy aliens, forever conspiring to take ‘our’ country away from ‘us’, stems the concept of a beleaguered Sri Lanka, in constant danger of being conquered by external enemies or subverted by internal foes. From that phobia to the hallucination that Sinhala Buddhists are the most endangered species on earth and that great religious and temporal powers are consumed with a desire to undermine us is but a short step.

That is where the global conspiracy theory comes in. Depending on the politico-ideological views of the believer this can either be an imperialist conspiracy or a Christian one, an Indian/Tamil conspiracy or a Muslim one. The villain of the piece may change from time to time, but the plot never does. Someone is always conspiring to deprive the Sinhalese-Buddhists of their one and only country. The ‘reason’ for this varies, again according to the belief system of the believer – it can be Trincomalee, our strategic location, the need to destabilise India or the desire to destroy Buddhism. And those who hold these views regard them as self-evident and axiomatic truths, immune to facts, beyond dispute or debate.

There is an omnipotent postscript to this narrative of ‘ever generous’ Sinhala Buddhists welcoming alien races/religions to their motherland and giving them space to live and opportunities to thrive. When the Sinhalese feel ‘betrayed’ by the ‘minority guests’, when Sinhala ‘patience’ runs out due to ‘minority encroachments’, the Sinhalese go berserk. And Black Julys happen. The inevitable flipside of ‘we are generous and trusting’ is ‘we have been betrayed’.

Much of the bad which happened to this country, post-Independence, are sourced in these myths, hallucinations and phobias and the maniacal manner in which a segment of Sinhala society act under their collective noxious influence.

The Professor who told Ms. Ismail that she has a home in Saudi Arabia/Middle East would never publicly use the same raw language as the BBS/JHU. His type would never say ‘hambaya’ in public. They will not scream threats. They will repeat the same errant and dangerous nonsense as the BBS/JHU in polite language and well-modulated voices. Their contribution to the coming conflagration will be far more potent because many a Sinhalese alienated by the BBS’ ravings will succumb to the ‘opinions’ of these pseudo-moderates. And when the ‘outraged’ majority attacks the minority, the Professor and others of his ilk would not join the mob. They would shake their heads sorrowfully and say that the rage – and its lamentable manifestation – had just causes.

When the resulting conflagration turns the country into a living hell, they will migrate to some Western haven; from that safety and comfort they will inundate the internet with their patriotic twaddle.

It is in the enabling environment created by respectable middle classers like the Professor that the Tigers and the Talebans, the Shiva Senas and the Bodu Bala Senas of this world thrive.

Encouraging madmen

The Rajapaksas may or may not believe in the racist ravings of the BBS; but they are certainly determined to use the resultant hysteria for their benefit, to strengthen their Sinhala base, to justify the unjustifiable (from defence costs and waste to high prices) and to worm their way into American/Western good books. As the Sunday Times confirms, the recent initiatives by Ambassador Jaliya Wickremasuriya indicate a possible new direction for the Lankan foreign policy. Public Relation firms are reportedly being used to present a friendly image of Rajapaksa Sri Lanka to American policy makers/public.
The Rajapaksas would think that being seen as a target of Islamic terrorism will help them to save the Hambantota Commonwealth, win over the West and rule forever.

The possibility that Sri Lanka may end up being the Asian Serbia would not occur to the limited imaginations of the Ruling Siblings.

Already the Muslims live in fear, not knowing when and how the next attack will come. The inability of democratic Muslim leaders to construct a moderate, non-racist response to this challenge will create a deadly vacuum. If sane Sinhala/Buddhists fail to rally round Lankan Muslims, if they allow the BBS to determine the agenda and wreak havoc in their name, a Muslim counter-extremism, deadlier than the Tiger, may emerge.

-Extracted from
Colombo Telegraph

Pepiliyana Attack by BBS

“The elephant is crashing about in the room, trampling people to death, and politely ignoring it is no longer an option”.
AC Grayling - (To Set Prometheus Free)

With the mob-attack on a Muslim-owned shop, Sri Lanka took a giant leap towards a new conflagration.

The attack on the Pepiliyana outlet of the ‘Fashion Bug’ happened less than a month after Gotabhaya Rajapaksa publicly associated himself with the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) and less than a fortnight after the outfit’s Rabble-Rouser-in-Chief, Rev. Galagoda-Atte Gnanasara Thero, launched an uncouth diatribe against the Muslim owners of the ‘Fashion Bug’, accusing them of conspiring to turn pure Sinhala-Buddhist maidens into harem-inmates.

According to media reports, the mob-attack happened consequent to a rumour of a 15-year-old Sinhala-Buddhist employee of Fashion Bug being raped, within the premises, by a Muslim fellow-employee. The connection between this wholly apocryphal rumour and Ven. Gnanasara Thero’s Kandy-diatribe against ‘Fashion Bug’ is obvious. Like the Nazis and the White Racists, the BBS is using the image of the ‘Lascivious and Predatory Muslim’ threatening Sinhala-Buddhist womanhood, and by extension Mother Lanka, in order to weld ordinary, law-abiding Sinhala-Buddhist men into a baying mob. Muslim-owned establishments are being depicted as dens of sexual iniquity; implicit and explicit images/charges of a sexual nature are being used to titillate and incite Sinhala-Buddhist men, and to provide the resultant mob with a cast-iron and time-honoured justification for hating – and attacking – any Muslim.

According to video footage, the mobs were led by monks. Reports indicate that the attackers took their time, undeterred by a heavy police/riot-police/STF presence. The criminal-mob was not tear-gassed, baton-charged or water-cannoned by the uniformed guardians of law and order. Even when the advance guard of the mob manhandled police officers, the police forbore to react. Why the screaming horde got the licence denied to law-abiding political demonstrators is not hard to guess. Which policeman is going to lift a finger against a saffron-mob, after Gotabhaya Rajapaksa came out of the closet and paraded his affinity with the BBS? Which policeman wants to risk a sudden punishment-transfer to nowhere?

The tactics used by the Rajapaksas and the BBS, to clear themselves of any blame for this deadly incident, are identical to the politico-propaganda ploys used during the ‘Humanitarian Operation’. The attack is being de-politicised by depicting it as an ordinary crime, caused by an ordinary girl-boy issue.

The purpose is to deceive the international community and that part of the Lankan public still sane enough to be alarmed by the thought of another Black July.

The modus operandi is clear. Incite the Sinhala-Buddhists to fear and hate Muslims. Instigate/permit a few attacks on Muslim establishments. Mouth pious-platitudes about peace and harmony. Impose an unofficial censorship on the media. Use lies and half truths to explain/justify any crime which cannot be covered-up. Blame the opposition, the NGOs or international conspirators if things get out of hand.

The current anti-Muslim hysteria, like the past anti-Tamil hysteria, did not happen spontaneously; it was created, word by word, figure by figure, image by image, by the BBS and its offshoots, in an enabling environment of Rajapaksa-provenance. Even if the Pepiliyana mob was not a BBS-creation, the BBS is politically and morally responsible for the outrage. In the last few months the BBS monks went from city to city, town to town, village to village, spewing the anti-Muslim toxin among ordinary Sinhalese.

Unless the Rajapaksas do not lock up their baying hordes, a new war will be upon us.

An Encore for Black July

Pity the people who abandon their destiny into the hands of their own barbarians. They will know neither peace nor progress; only endless bloodshed.

In July 1983, the barbarians within the Sinhala community were given a free rein to indulge in their bloody fantasies. In return many – if not most – Tamils abjured moderation and threw their lot in with their own barbarians.
Whether the Tamils have learnt from their Tiger-error remains to be seen. But the Sinhalese seemed to have learnt nothing and forgotten everything.

How can a nation learn from its past mistakes and misdeeds if its leaders deny the very existence of such errors and crimes? Being a Sinhala-supremacist precludes seeing the ‘ Sinhala Only’ as an error or Black July as a crime. In the Sinhala-supremacist cosmos, moderation was the sole error, restraint the sole crime. The war happened and lasted for 30 years because the Sinhalese were too weak, too complacent and unwilling to crack down hard enough and fast enough on the ‘erring’ Tamils.

Today that same logic is being applied to relations with Muslims (and Christians). Since the ‘original sin’, according to the Sinhala-Buddhist creed, is being too soft on the minorities, the way to prevent another war is to ensure that all minorities know their place and they never depart from it, even for a second.

A nation must be driven out of its senses, before it can be induced to commit homicide and suicide.

Black July happened because the South was a dry prairie of anti-Tamil beliefs. Respectable, educated middleclass Sinhalese believed that Tamils were overrunning the country, taking over the professions, the universities, the businesses. The tracts produced by UNP’s Cyril Maththew were avidly read, discussed and distributed not just by UNPers but also by committed anti-UNPers. Both UNP and SLFP parliamentarians freely indulged in anti-Tamil rhetoric. The plague of hatred permeated every nook and cranny of Southern society. No institution was immune to it; it seeped into political parties and professional bodies, universities and schools, the police and the armed forces, ordinary homes and ordinary temples. When the Tigers killed 13 Sinhala soldiers, the South ignited because the prevailing climate of opinion sanctioned madness. Without societal approbation the orgy of violence would have died down in a couple of days; it continued because the perpetrators felt no opprobrium.

There were a couple of mini-riots in the run up to Black July. Had they been condemned by society and cracked-down on by the regime, the final carnage could have been avoided. The regime indulged the mobs. Decent, kind-hearted people justified the horrors. A few years later the mirror images of this approbation became visible in Tamil society.

Today the past is returning. Like then, decent, respectable middleclass people are talking about the ‘Muslim menace’. The same apocryphal charges can be heard across Sinhala society: ‘They’ are everywhere; ‘They’ are taking over our land, our resources and, this time, our women; ‘They’ must be stopped.

In the Merchant of Venice, Shylock asks: “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means… as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed?” We lost this sense of common humanity in Black July and became lost in a moral-ethical wasteland.

We were too busy being Sinhala patriots to be human – a fate that befalls any people who lapses into fanaticism.
Are we going to allow the barbarians within to decide our destiny, again?
Are we going to be amoral and stupid, again?

- Colombo Telegraph

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants…”
- Camus (Resistance, Rebellion and Death)

The Rajapaksas are imposing the superstructure of a prosperous, developed nation on the base of an underdeveloped, cash-strapped economy. The Rajapaksas are antagonising every single ethnic and religious minority in Sri Lanka, simultaneously.

The Rajapaksas are losing friends and isolating the country internationally. Any one of these strategic mistakes would suffice to undermine Lankan stability and security. The harm the confluence of all three can do to Sri Lanka and all her people would be unfathomably immense and unimaginably various. Previous governments were not immune to these mistakes, but none committed all three, all at once. Their simultaneous occurrence is a function of familial rule, of the measures implemented by the Siblings to promote dynastic needs and satiate megalomaniac desires.

The Rajapaksas are parasitic rulers; they can grow and thrive only by sucking the nation dry of its resources, potential and friends. In his Mattala Address, President Rajapaksa tried to justify his regime’s proclivity to borrow. The problem is not debt per say, but how the borrowings are used. Under Rajapaksa Rule money is borrowed to maintain a gargantuan military in peacetime, to create infrastructural monstrosities unnecessary/damaging from a national/popular perspective, to service existing debt. There is very little income or employment generation and negligible forward or backward linkages in these unproductive uses; they just burden the country with a growing herd of white-mammoths. To sustain the unsustainable, the Rajapaksas are implementing a policy of extortionist-taxation; people are milked dry via indirect taxes.

Refuelling at the Mattala Rajapaksa Airport will be done at cut-rates while fuel prices are hiked-up nationally. The proposed electricity hike will reportedly impose a 53% increase on the lowest users (up to 30 units)[i] and a relatively low 22% increase on the highest users (400 units and above). This is just one more indication of how Rajapaksa economics imposes a disproportionately high burden on those at the middle/bottom of the economic totem-pole. For all the rhetoric, the Rajapaksa strategy is structurally biased towards the rich and prejudiced towards the poor and the middle classes. (The conspicuous consumption by a segment of the middle class is enabled not by an increase in household-income but by an increase in household-debt. This is another bubble which cannot last). The anti-minority politics is partly aimed at creating a ‘feel good factor’ amongst the poor/middle class Sinhalese overburdened by the skewed Rajapaksa economics.

In the movie ‘Mississippi Burning’, the Gene Hackman character reminiscences about his racist father who killed the mule belonging to an up-and-coming black farmer and justified his crime by arguing ‘If I am not better than them (blacks) what good am I?’ The poor whites of the Jim-Crow South felt less discontented about their poverty because they were politically superior to even the most accomplished black. The Rajapaksas offer their Sinhala base an identical quid-pro-quo: the pride of belonging to the superior ethno-religious community as compensation for exacerbating economic pains. Once Tamils, Muslims and Sinhala-Christians are rendered lesser citizens, even the poorest Sinhala-Buddhist can forget his/her economic sorrows by wallowing in a sense of political superiority. Such delusions can dull the hunger pangs, for a while.

Unjust equilibrium

President Rajapaksa recently warned about attempts to scuttle peace in Sri Lanka. Last week, the President declared open a memorial of the Arantalawa massacre. The memorial included the statues of the murdered monks in their death-agonies. An Arantalawa-memorial could have been constructed without including those grotesque and hate-inducing statues. Clearly the purpose is to keep Tamil-phobia alive in Sinhala minds.

If there are no enemies, would the Sinhalese need the Rajapaksas? Post-victory, the Siblings could have made an effort to win over Tamils. This could have taken the form of political concessions and/or a Marshall Plan type development-drive prioritising the housing, health, education, employment and poverty alleviation needs of the Tamils. Any act of sympathy and understanding in their hour of politico-psychological nadir would have gone a considerable way in healing the wounds of war and rendering the notion of a common Lankan future acceptable to most Tamils.

But intoxicated by Sinhala supremacism, cocooned in a Chinese embrace and confident of its capacity to deceive India and the West ad infinitum, the Rajapaksas rejected the moderate path. Having won the war on a Sinhala-supremacist platform they saw little reason to depart from it in their moment of greatest triumph. Cementing familial rule and building a dynasty were/are the Rajapaksa priorities. Devolution has no place on that agenda; nor do the minorities, except as bogies/enemies.

A recent speech by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, at a ‘literary’ event, reveals the mindset which made the Siblings reject the possible path towards a consensual peace. According to this Rajapaksa-worldview, the war stemmed solely from Tiger terrorism, aided and abetted by Tamil nationalism, Indian interventionism and Western imperialism. Successive Lankan administrations did not make any errors (except that of being too-soft on Tamils); the Tamils have no specific grievances and thus require no ameliorative measures. Consequently devolution is an undesirable (perhaps even dangerous) irrelevance.

Mr. Rajapaksa depicts life in the ‘welfare villages’ in rainbow-hues; according to his version, these barbed-wire enclosures were oasis of plenty with free rations, cooperatives, banks, post offices, communication centres, schools and vocational training centres; There was capacity building, empowerment and career counselling for adults and ‘Happiness Centres’ for children, facilities for “arts, music, drama, yoga andsports… churches, kovils and mosques….. “. The spirit of Theresienstadt is alive in Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, even if the name is unknown to him.

Today Sri Lankans can’t visit Tamil Nadu, not even to play cricket. A less coercive and more inclusive peace-and-nation-building strategy could have isolated the diehard Tiger supporters. If, for instance, the Northern provincial council had been up and running, subsequent to a free and fair election, the extremists in Tamil Nadu could have been weakened and isolated.

But it was not to be. Nor will it be, so long as the Rajapaksas rule. Devolution is as antithetical to the Rajapaksa project as democracy or separation of powers. Devolution is as impossible under Rajapaksa rule as judicial independence or free and fair elections. The Siblings do not want to cede power to anyone or share power with anyone. The notion of the enemy within, of the minorities as perennial Trojan Horses working to further Indian/Tamil, Western/Christian or Arabic/Muslim, is aimed at justifying Rajapaksa politics and explaining Rajapaksa economics. It is the cord which is expected to bind Sinhala-Buddhists to the Rajapaksas for evermore, despite economic woes and international isolation.

The Rajapaksa-cohorts of the BBS are now gunning for Muslim and Christian extremists. Peace cannot survive in an atmosphere of fear and hate. Progress requires tolerance. Intolerant lands often deprive themselves of some of their most precious resources, when they alienate and exclude the ethno-religious others.

The Siblings are parasites, feeding on Sri Lanka, to the common detriment of all Lankans. Sri Lanka survived 30 years of Vellupillai Pirapaharan. She may not survive 30 years of Rajapaksa rule.

In Sri Lanka the boundary line between myth and history is dangerously amorphous. And this twilight world often plays a decisive role in Lankan politics.
Sinhala school children are taught that they belong to a race which began when an Indian-Aryan princess eloped with a lion. They learn this tale not in the story-hour but during the history lesson.

The lion myth is from the Mahawamsa, venerated by most Sinhala-Buddhists as a history book cum sacred text. It is the grandson of the lion and the princess the Mahawamsa embraces as the originator of the Sinhala race. According to Mahawamsa itself, Vijaya ‘was of evil conduct’; he and his followers committed so many crimes of such horrific nature that his father was eventually compelled to exile them[i]’.

Vijaya’s enforced sea-journey supposedly coincided with the death of the Gautama Buddha. According to Mahawamsa the Buddha, on his deathbed, told the Chief among deities, Sakka, “Vijaya, son of king Sihabahu, is come to Lanka….. In Lanka, O lord of gods, will my religion be established; therefore carefully protect him with his followers and Lanka”.

So the Mahawamsa created the myth of the ‘Chosen race’ with its ‘sacred space’. This myth became the foundation for what I call the ‘Hosts and Guests’ concept of Lanka. According to this, the island belongs to Sinhala-Buddhists, who are its sole real owners. This ‘sacred bequest’ must be protected by whatever means necessary, including the use of violence.

In the teaching of Gautama Buddha there is no concept of holy war, no space for the use of force/violence in the protection of either the Dhamma or those who practice it.
Given the absolute taboo against the taking of any life in Buddhism, killing human beings to ‘protect Buddhism’ could not be justified without adding a major new chapter to Buddhist teaching. This is precisely what the author of Mahawamsa did by depicting the conflict between the Buddhist Dutugemunu and the Hindu Elara for political supremacy as a Sinless/Meritorious War.

Elara, according to Mahawamsa, was regarded by men and gods alike as a just ruler[ii]. He was no invader bent on rampage and pillage, no tyrant crushing the people under his royal feet, but a good man and a fair ruler. But Elara’s admirable qualities were irrelevant and immaterial because he was an ‘unbeliever’. Therefore he had to be deposed and killed, as an integral part of a divinely sanctioned enterprise to save Sinhala-Buddhism and its chosen country, Lanka, from enemy aliens.

Dutugemunu is the star of Mahawamsa, the hero-king of Sinhala Buddhism, the standard against which all subsequent rulers were measured. His life-story, as Mahawamsa narrates, contains the same combination of natural and supernatural, human and divine that passes off as history even in modern day Sri Lanka. He was said to have been conceived immaculately [iii] and with a divine mandate to restore Buddhist rule over the island. If the apocryphal tale of Buddha’s Bequest provides the ideological basis of the Hosts and Guests concept, the Dutugemunu story details the manner in which ‘guests’ who violate the ‘rules’ should be dealt with.

Prince Gemunu’s reply to his mother’s query about his foetal sleeping posture identifies the problem as one of territory and Lebensraum: “Over there beyond the Ganga are the Damilas, here on this side is the Gotha-ocean, how can I lie with outstretched limbs?” The story of the three cravings of Queen Vihara Maha Devi, when pregnant with Prince Gemunu, identifies the enemy: “She craved to drink, while trampling on his very head, the water in which was washed the sword that beheaded the chief warrior among the Elara soldiers…. The queen informed the King and the Lord of the earth asked the soothsayers. Hearing it they said, ‘The queen’s son will vanquish the Damilas…’”. The response of the Sangha to King Dutugemunu’s anguish over enemy deaths introduces the concept of sinless/meritorious war: “By this act of yours there is no hindrance in the way to heaven…. only one and a half men were killed here. One was established in the refuge and the other only in the five precepts. The heretical and evil others who died were like animals…”

That was the moment Buddhism of Siddhartha Gautama was transformed into Sinhala-Buddhism, a new religion of the book, the Mahavamsa. The war against unbelievers was consecrated as sinless and meritorious; a straight path to heavenly bliss, akin to Crusades and Jihads. Not only was Dutugemunu reborn in the highest heaven, according to the Mahawamsa; he “will be the first disciple of the sublime Metteyya, the king’s father (will be) his father and the mother his mother. The younger brother, Saddhatissa will be his second disciple, but Salirajakumara, the king’s son will be the son of the sublime Metteyya”. The Mahawamsa clinches the argument of the meritorious nature of waging war for Buddhism by demonstrating that it will benefit not just the holy warrior but his entire family.

The Mahawamsa was written around seven centuries after the Dutugemunu-Elara war, by a Buddhist monk with a political agenda. Even a passing knowledge of the teachings of Gautama Buddha would suffice to know that shedding all attachments is a sine-qua-non for the attaining of Arhathood. A man or woman with attachments, however understandable or justifiable, is bound to the samsara by those very bonds. Those who have attained Arhathood have no attachments, including to country, race or religion. Nor can they condone any killing. The claim by Bhikku Mahanama that monks who had attained Arhathood justified mass murder in the name of religion was an obvious and an evil lie. Yet this lie has triumphed over the First Precept.

Constantine and his heirs had to remake Jesus from a man of peace to a prince of war; they were aided in this re-make by the vengeful God of the Old Testament. Mahanama had to do the job by himself, without any doctrinal help. He, and not the Buddha, is the true teacher and leader of the likes of the JHU and the BBS.

Myth as Destiny

The Mahawamsa stories are not just popular myths retold in an ancient chronicle. They have determined the trajectory of Ceylon/Sri Lanka in modern times.
The anti-minority nature of the 19th Century Buddhist renaissance, under the tutelage of Anagarika Dharmapala, was fuelled by the Mahawamsa myths. Distorted and enslaved by the Mahawamsa myths, Sinhala-Buddhism lost the ability to appeal to Tamils or to create a Lankan Dr Ambedkar.

Had there been a significant segment of Buddhist Tamils, with a voice within the Sangha, our post-Independence history may have taken a less destructive path. But to be able to appeal to Tamils, Buddhism has to cease being the identity-badge of Sinhala supremacism and reclaim its pre-Mahawamsa universalist potential.

“Our challenge is to devise some arrangement which enables us to coexist if not in amity then at least in forbearance” Jawaharlal Nehru told Andre Malraux (Anti-Memoir). That is the challenge facing any pluralist nation. Sri Lanka will fail to win this challenge, so long as we remain in thrall to Mahawamsa myths.

[i] He “caused Vijaya and his followers, seven hundred men, to be shaven over half the head and put them on a ship and sent them forth upon the sea….”

[ii] He was so just, that gods intervened to end a drought, at his pleading, according to Mahawamsa

[iii] King Kawantissa and his queen were childless for many years. The Queen sought the advice of a sage and was told to obtain the consent of dying monk to be reincarnated in her womb as her son. The queen attended the monk on his death bed and obtained his consent to her wish. While she was on her way to inform her husband of the felicitous tidings, the monk died and “he returned to a new life in the womb of the queen while she was yet upon her journey; when she perceived this she halted. She sent that message to the king….”
- Colombo Telegraph

“Whatever is that distant rumble that I dimly hear?”
Christopher Hitchens (Arguably: Essays)

It is now a virtual certainty. Barring some last-second, utterly unforeseeable, development, India will vote for the new US resolution on Sri Lanka. The original resolution has been amended to take on board Indian concerns. Indian worries would range from a reactive lurch by Colombo in Beijing’s direction to the impact an intrusive resolution might have on Delhi’s own ‘freedom of action’ in Kashmir and elsewhere.

The Indian input ensures that any international investigation into alleged human rights violations by the Rajapaksa administration will happen “only in consultation with and with the concurrence of Colombo…. The provision for taking the Lankan government into confidence was part of the US resolution of March 2012 as well. It had been included at India’s insistence….” (The New Indian Express – 9.3.2013). Though the 2013 resolution is far more critical of Colombo than the 2012 resolution, it is equally toothless; just a slightly harder tap on the knuckles, nothing more.

The Rajapaksas will be irked if India votes for the US resolution, however watered-down. Tamil Nadu would be irked that an international investigation into war crime allegations was rendered effectively impossible by India’s input. Delhi, in its desperate efforts to satisfy both Colombo and Tamil Nadu, may end up by satisfying neither.

India’s capacity to compel the Rajapaksas to do anything they do not want to died in Nandikadal, with Vellupillai Pirapaharan. Though the possibility of another Indian intervention to save the LTTE a la 1987 ended when a Black Tigress garlanded Rajiv Gandhi with death, the fear that Delhi would renew its patronage of the LTTE (indirectly or surreptitiously) never stopped haunting Colombo.

During the Fourth Eelam War, the Rajapaksas took infinite care to anticipate Delhi’s reactions and to prevent any Indian response which would tilt the politico-military balance in the LTTE’s favour. Presidential Sibling Basil Rajapaksa was tasked with neutralising India, and did so, to perfection.

Whenever Delhi pressured about a political solution, Colombo pretended to succumb. Extravagant promises were made and specific deadlines given, with seeming solemnity and sincerity. They would be forgotten the moment Delhi’s eyes moved elsewhere. The APC was a masterstroke which allayed Indian (and Western) anxieties, at a critical time, and camouflaged anti-devolution actions on the ground. A series of a few well-placed, but not overgenerous, economic concessions were made to compensate for the continued absence of a political solution.

After the annihilation of the Tiger, whatever tactical influences India had vis-à-vis the Rajapaksas waned into near nothingness. Post-war, the Rajapaksas can afford to ignore Indian concerns because they believe that India has no aces left, while they have two: China and Pakistan.

So India is in a bind, caught between an unresponsive Colombo and a churning Tamil Nadu. Last week, Delhi increased its financial aid to Colombo, probably to compensate for the coming Geneva vote. India might announce its decision to back the US resolution early, in order to ward off or tone down the general strike in Tamil Nadu, planned for March 12th by the Tamil Eelam Supporters Organisation (TESO). The strike has already drawn significant support from across the political spectrum, including from Congress-ally, DMK (Mr. Karunanidhi wants the day to be declared a holiday).

But moderation and vacillation are not the same. Delhi’s pendulum-swings are likely to antagonise Colombo and radicalise Tamil Nadu. While the Congress administration would be concerned about the electoral fallout, the Indian state would be worried that a seething Tamil Nadu might become a fertile breeding ground for a reactivation of Tamil separatism in the sub-continent.

With every road fraught with danger, Delhi may opt to do as little as possible, for as long as it is politically tenable.

The Spectre of Impeachment

Given India’s unwillingness/inability to do anything other than play a reactive role, the future trajectory of the ‘Lankan issue’ will be determined in Washington, London, Brussels and Beijing.

Whatever noises they might make for public consumption, the Rajapaksas would know that they cannot come to grief in Geneva. The real danger is in New York, and, there, the Siblings are assured of two Security Council vetoes, at least for the time being.
The outcome in Geneva is important, not in and of itself, but because of its potential impact on the Hambantota Commonwealth.

Currently, the greatest of all the Rajapaksas desiderata is a star-studded Hambantota Summit. President Rajapaksa must be counting the days until he can welcome the British Queen.

He may have his Summit but it might be a far dimmer affair than he hopes for. And if his Commonwealth Dream is killed, it may not be by war crimes allegations (the British establishment, given its past and its present, is unlikely to harp too much on that), but by the litany of anti-democratic deeds the Siblings committed, post-war.

The ghost of the unjust impeachment is haunting both Geneva and London. The Bar Human Rights Committee (the international human rights arm of the Bar of England and Wales) has lent the calls for a Hambantota-boycott an unprecedented gravitas by adding its influential voice to it. It did so, subsequent to the Report on the impeachment prepared by Geoffrey Robertson QC, at its request. In his Report Mr. Robertson argues that if Queen Elizabeth/any member of the British Royal Family attends the Hambantota Commonwealth it will strengthen the Rajapaksa Siblings by providing them with useful photo-opportunities: “Royal seals of approval serve the propaganda interests of people like this, and no-shows by powerful nations would signal the unacceptability of their behaviour”.

The Khuram Shaikh case is the other ghost haunting the Hambantota Commonwealth. Fifteen months after Mr. Shaikh was murdered (and his Russian companion was allegedly gang-raped), the case is languishing in a legal-wilderness. The main suspect, Rajapaksa acolyte and the Chairman of the Tangalle PS, Sampath Chandrapushpa, is out on bail and back at his job. Ironically, if the Hambantota Commonwealth happens, the alleged murderer of Mr. Shaikh will be a special invitee to it, in his official capacity.

Last week Mr. Shaikh’s brother and the Shaikh-family MP Simon Danczuk were in Colombo seeking to jolt into action the unmoving wheels of justice. By all accounts they failed. “Mr. Danczuk said…that senior Sri Lankan ministers had refused to meet him… The British MP also expressed concern over the political interference in the case… ‘The case is moving slowly not because the country’s justice system is slow but there is political patronage in this case… There is concern that one of the suspects is alleged to be close to the President of the country…’ the British politician complained” (Daily Mirror – 8.3.2013). Mr. Danczuk said that he will lobby the British government and the British Queen to boycott the Commonwealth Summit.

If the Rajapaksas are compelled to make some behavioural modifications to save the Hambantota Summit, we, ordinary Lankans, will benefit from it. Since the financial burden (and the public-inconvenience) of the Summit will far outweigh its niggardly national benefits, a venue-change/boycott too will not hurt us.

For Lankans, caught in a debilitating losing-streak, a tussle over Hambantota will constitute a rare – and welcome – win-win moment.

Courtesy: Colombo Telegraph (March 10, 2013)