Call To Defuse Bombs In Parliament Or Precipitate Explosion Outside Parliament

By P. Soma Palan –NOVEMBER 9 2017

P. Soma Palan

I refer to the article captioned “Secularism and Its Discontents” by, Mr. Malinda Seneviratne (MS), in Colombo Telegraph of 2^nd November. I state my point of view regarding the views expressed

therein. Mr. MS has compared, metaphorically, the two issues in the Constitutional project as two bombs(a) Expunging the Clause relating to Buddhism and (b) Devolution of Power.

Clause Foremost Place for Buddhism-its inclusion or exclusion

Mr. MS states that “the Tamil National Alliance M.P. Mr. Sumanthiran has stated the stand of his Party, and by and large, the group of anti-Sinhala, anti Buddhist NGO lobby”. To say those who express the principle of equity and justice are anti-Sinhala and anti- Buddhist, is an erroneous idea. Indirectly, Mr. MS is saying, even Mr. Sumanthiran ‘s statement  reaffirming the stand of the TNA, is also anti-Sinhala and anti-Buddhist.

Mr. MS cites Articles (9) (10) and (14(1) (c). Article (9) relates to ‘foremost place for Buddhism”, and’ to protect and foster Buddhism’. Articles (10) & 14(1) (c) guaranteeing the rights of other religions.The Articles (10) & 14 (1)(c) are negated by Article (9) is admitted by Mr. MS, when he says “taken together Article (9)  stands in effect negated”. If so, what is the use of the guarantees provided in (10) & 14(a) (c). If the latter Articles are contradicted by the former, it is of no value.  If one knows there is inequity and injustice, why embody them in the Constitution?

Secular State

The concept of a Secular State is a complete divorce between State and Religion in the Constitution. A Constitution has no gender, race or religion. It is an abstract, Impersonal document- the Fundamental Law of the Country. Mr. MS states that “if Secular is the way to go, there cannot be half-way measures. You can’t take away the only privilege that Buddhism has, while being silent on the privileges enjoyed by other religious communities.” Mr. MS enumerates a list of religious Holidays enjoyed by other religions, which he claims violates the Secular concept. As if Buddhists don’t have religious Holidays. The Buddhists have more religious Holidays than other religions. They have every month a Holidays and extra holiday for Wesak. Other religions only have few holidays. Sundays is a statutory week-end holiday for all, irrespective of religion. Moreover, holidays are not embodied in the Constitution of the Country. Holidays are governed by separate enactment of the Law, the Holidays Act. Further, other privileges or concessions are governed by other Enactments as the Labour Statute, Shop & Office Employees Act etc.  Mr. MS confused by associating Holidays granted by other Laws, as non-secular privileges. These laws/ concessions given to different religious faiths do not take away the Secular character of the Constitution. Mr, MS  states“these are other special laws that are certainly at ‘odds’ with the secular vision”. These do not violate the secular vision as he believes, because these do not emerge from the Constitution. This miss-apprehension is due to a misconception of a Secular State. The State has no religion, hence the Constitution of the State does not recognize any one religion.

The State is apart and beyond religion. Mr. MS cites the Personal Laws of the Northern Tamils, the Thesavalamai, and the Kandyan Law of the Kandyans and Muslim Law of the Muslims, as incompatible with the Secular concept of the Constitution. The Constitution has nothing to do with these Personal Laws of a particular community based on customary practices.These have no Constitutional sanction, and does not erode the secularism of the Constitution. These are similar to other Laws of the Country, like the Criminal, Civil and the Common Law .These do not spring from the Constitution. Due to the failure to discriminate the difference between Constitution and the other Laws of the country, Mr. MS comes to the ludicrous conclusion stating that “ if equality is the objective, then all these should be erased off the Constitution, along with Articles (9) (10) and (14(1) c- relating to Buddhism. That is, if we need to separate State and Religion. What is being proposed is to remove Buddhism and allow other religions to entrench their already privileged position in the Constitution.”Mr.MS will discover the fallacy of his argument, whilst citing the specific Articles relating to Buddhism, he does not cite the specific Articles in the Constitution relating to the privileged position entrenched in the Constitution to other religions, which need to be erased off. This is simply because no such Articles exist in the Constitution. What is entrenched in the Constitution is an omnibus Article 14(1) C guaranteeing the freedom for all religions to profess, practice and manifest their respective religions. This is inclusive, all embracing and equal fundamental right available to all citizens of the country. This has to be retained. It is the essence of a Secular State. No particular religion has a place in the Constitution.

Read More