Investing In An Educated Society

By Rajan Hoole –January 20, 2016

Dr. Rajan Hoole

The presidential election result that ushered in new hope on 8th January 2015 came about because many in this country felt that we were in a hopeless rut and wanted change badly. The issues around which the change was mooted were centred on corruption, state accountability, and freedom of expression untrammelled by fear and intimidation. In the latter which, for Immanuel Kant, is the pivotal freedom under which democratic change could be pursued, there has been enormous relief. The main challenge is to consolidate the gains, which requires far-reaching institutional transformation.

What transpired on 8th January was an opportunity for change, not a revolution. We still have to contend with the same state structures, the same administration and practically the same MPs. The minorities, who are more sensitive and expected to see benign change towards efficiency and professionalism, frequently encounter the same obstacles. There is no revolutionary solution to such dilemmas. Lenin replaced the Tsarist administration with party functionaries, who became corrupt soon enough; the result was the Kronstadt uprising of 1921 which almost wrecked the Soviet regime. The post-apartheid government in South Africa showed considerable wisdom in trying slowly to transform the old regime’s institutions by putting in place committed persons who would act wisely without giving undue offence. That required a Nelson Mandela.

While the challenges confronting us are enormous, one does not see the necessary bold initiative to challenge institutional decadence that is only too evident. One instance is the shying away from a uniform standard for those under arms who committed crimes. It is a dangerous fallacy to divide them into heroes and terrorists, which is evident in the failure to find a way to release quickly, Tamil PTA detainees who have been languishing many years without charges.

Such disregard for the legal rights of others, or the common courtesy owed to them, are symptoms of a closed society mired in identity politics from before independence. The record we have of Lankan history is one of remarkable tolerance and a willingness to learn and benefit from others from the earliest times on record, in contrast to the religious violence against Jews in Europe at the onset of the Crusades. Lanka, if it is to become a great nation, needs to go much further than technical compliance with pledges made to the UN. It needs to be in earnest about uniting the country behind a common purpose, which requires the healing of past wrongs and complete openness.

Much of our conflict, and the mass murder it witnessed, has behind it the use of history to make claims to land, to mount religious edifices and to exclude others. The State set the precedent and the disease of claims and exclusions becomes an infectious game played by all comers. To cite a typical instance, once our scholars identified Fort Frederick in Trincomalee as the site of Gokanna Vihare in the Mahavamsa through absurdly flawed historical reasoning, based on occurrence of the generic name in contexts far apart in time; it provided the Army, other state institutions and assorted patriots the pretext to turn the area into a ‘historic’ Buddhist location. The contribution of such follies to the making of the ethnic war, and the tragedy of superfluous heroes on both sides, cannot be exaggerated. We have to heal ourselves by changing our attitudes. There is little the UN or a foreign government can do to help in this regard.Read More