After ending the civil war, the successive governments that came to
power should have made an honest attempt to probe into the circumstances
that led to the armed struggles, violence and the resultant destruction
with the view to rebuilding the State. But, Mahinda Rajapaksa, the
leader who ended the war, and the two main leaders of the Yahapalana
Government, Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe, who succeeded
the former, lacked the wisdom and the courage required for that.
Consequently, the country has fallen out of the frying pan into the fire
– Pic by Shehan Gunasekara
Friday, 30 November 2018
Presently, the Sri Lankan State has lost its dignified existence and the
prowess that a state ought to have. Evidently, it is moving towards a
virtual collapse. This, in my opinion is a direct outcome of the rotten
state of affairs associated with the present Sri Lankan State and its
putrid system of institutions replete with rampant corruption.
The most important aspect of the present crisis is that even the
Constitution of Sri Lanka, the supreme law of the country, the
embodiment of the sovereignty of the people, which defines the public
institutions and their role and serves as the ultimate guide of
democratic governance is also in a jeopardy.
If
we compare the Constitution to a goddess, I must say that she had been
raped from time to time, singly and collectively by the rulers, the
lawmakers and the Judiciary, her custodian. Consequently, she had been
rendered innocent and inglorious. Presently, Sri Lanka is in a state of
complete anarchy without having anyone to guide the rulers thereby
expediting the downfall of the country.
The present situation of the south of Sri Lanka is more or less similar
to the unfortunate conditions that prevailed in the north in the
immediate aftermath of the internal civil war. At the end of the war,
the Tamil north, from a political sense remained in a deranged state
having lost many things. The Sinhalese south is also plunged into a
similar situation consequent to the present constitutional crisis though
there are certain differences in the nature of the circumstance.
In this backdrop, all ethnic groups living in the country can be said to
be caught in a similar predicament. The collapse of the Sri Lankan
State began shortly after defeating the de-facto State claimed by
Prabhakaran. The irony of this scenario is that the Sinhalese and Muslim
populations of the south of Sri Lanka who were excited and jubilant
over the defeat of Prabhakaran are not aware that they are also
embroiled in a similar situation as the State in which they live too has
reached the brink of its collapse.
Destruction caused by violence
The violent struggles in the Sinhalese south and the Tamil north
resulted in untold damage to the country. The Sinhalese rebels attempted
to capture the ruling power while Tamil rebels aimed at establishing a
separate state of their own; ultimately, what both did was to attack the
State.
Even
though the government in power was able to suppress and defeat the
armed rebels, their attacks on government necessarily resulted in
weakening and devastating the country. Both Sinhalese and Tamil rebels
exerted maximum violence and cruelty. In subduing them, the State as an
alternative counter strategy released more violence and cruelty than was
exerted by the rebels. Both the rebels and the government acted in
violation of the law during this long uncivilised period, giving way to
the reign of the law of the jungle which invariably led to blotch the
integrity of the State, politicians and the officialdom. It became
pervasive in almost every sphere with everyone becoming interested only
in himself.
Exploitation of State property by its custodians became the norm of the
State rule during this uncivilised period. The face of the State
underwent a repulsive transformation giving it a look of an exploitative
band of thieves. The violent struggles distorted and weakened the
institutional system of the country.
Similarly, the very foundation of the State itself was threatened,
distorted and weakened. While a substantial number of unfortunate people
had been physically killed in violent struggles, those escaped death
and were fortunate to survive had to suffer a spiritual death. Thus, to a
greater or lesser degree the entire society had been plunged into a
spiritual death.
After ending the civil war, the successive governments that came to
power should have made an honest attempt to probe into the circumstances
that led to the armed struggles, violence and the resultant destruction
with the view to rebuilding the State which was rampant with injustice,
inefficiency and corruption and also to recreate the society which had
been rendered sick.
But, Mahinda Rajapaksa, the leader who ended the war, and the two main
leaders of the Yahapalana Government, Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil
Wickremesinghe, who succeeded the former defeating him, lacked the
wisdom and the courage required for that. Consequently, the country has
fallen out of the frying pan into the fire.
Failure to build the modern nation state prior to or after independence
can be considered the main cause of the Sri Lanka’s crisis. The true
meaning of building the nation state implies negation of ethnic, caste
and religious differences and treating everyone with equal respect,
ensuring equal rights for everyone thereby creating a nation with a
common identity as Sri Lankans who are bound by a common bond and
committed to work in harmony for the upliftment of the country.
India and Singapore are two countries that had achieved this object
successfully. India did it in a formal way. Singapore achieved it in a
different style. Our earlier leaders (Ponnambalam Arunachalam, D.S.
Senanayake and S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike) and those emerged later did not
have a deep political knowledge on this problem. Instead, their thinking
had been shaped by the factors of race, caste and religion.
Role of the caste
Mahatma Gandhi came to Sri Lanka on a 17-day visit on 12 November 1927.
Gandhi’s visit coincided with the arrival of the members of the
Donoughmore Commission which proposed Constitutional reforms to
formulate a system of government for Ceylon (Sri Lanka).
Mahatma Gandhi delivered a short speech at the reception organised on
the same day by the Lanka Jathika Sangamaya at Maligakanda Pirivena to
welcome him. The speech he made addressing the leaders of the Jathika
Sangamaya is produced in the book titled ‘Gandhi in Sri Lanka’ written
by Gopal Krishna. But it does not contain a list of names of those who
participated in this meeting.
However, Sampath Bandara, in his book titled ‘Mahatma Gandhige Lanka
Gamanaya haa Lankeeya Deshapalanaya’ (Arrival of Mahatma Gandhi in Sri
Lanka and Sri Lankan Politics) has included a list of leaders who were
present to welcome Gandhi. E. W.Perera, the President of Lanka Jathika
Sangamaya, D.B.Jayathilaka, James Peiris, Victor Korea, and
W.A.de.Silva, F.R.Obesekara, SWRD Bandaranaike and D.S.Senanayaka were
among many others who were present at this meeting. We can safely
presume that all important leaders of the Lanka Jathika Sangamaya might
have attended this meeting.
Gandhi
used the word “freedom” referring to the Independent Movements of both
India and Ceylon at this meeting. But he was careful in qualifying that
they were not the same but two different movements. He raised a very
important question, a principle in regard to the freedom or independence
that Sri Lanka was aspiring to gain.
Gandhi, addressing them had said that “there exists a community
considered as ‘untouchables’ in India. Though I have no clear idea about
the social life in Lanka, I have heard of a similar community in Lanka
known as Rodiyas treated as untouchables and questioned whether the
Lanka Jathika Sangamaya expects to ensure the freedom of such suppressed
groups in its campaign for freedom. If the freedom of suppressed groups
is not ensured then the freedom that you aspire to gain cannot be
considered true and genuine.”
I do not think that the leaders of the Jathika Sangamaya were capable of
grasping the deep political meaning underneath this statement. Gandhi
called the untouchables the Harijans which means the sons of God!
As stated in ‘Caste in Modern Ceylon’ by Bryce Ryan, an authoritative
account on caste system in Sri Lanka, “towards the end of the nineteenth
century and until 1925 or so, some of the bitterest fulminations in
Ceylon were not inter-communal but inter-caste”. In the passage of time
the open castes conflicts had subsided while the ethnic differences had
taken its place. Yet, the roots of caste animosity have not disappeared.
They remain latent in the social fabric.
B.H. Farmer in his book titled ‘Ceylon – A Divided Nation’ provides a
detailed account of the historical evolution of social conflicts in Sri
Lanka and the circumstances that led to them. He had emphasised that the
caste factor still persists as a formidable force in Sri Lanka’s
politics. Interestingly, Farmer had written this book in 1963, 15 years
after the country had gained independence.
The leaders of minorities viewed with suspicion the independence that
was going to be conferred on Sri Lanka without a strong social struggle
being made on the part of the beneficiaries. The leaders of minorities
had a fear that they will be overwhelmed by a Sinhalese domination once
the British rule was over. Similarly, the leaders of the suppressed
castes in both the Sinhalese and the Tamil society had a fear that they
would be dominated by the Sinhalese Goigama and Tamil Vellala castes
respectively. These two groups of suppressed castes made separate
submissions first to the Donoughmore Commission and later to the
Soulbury Commission seeking redress for their grievances.
Prior to gaining independence the pressure stood on caste and not on
ethnicity. As Gandhi had instinctively felt during his tour of Sri
Lanka, the independence has not become a political phenomenon
guaranteeing freedom to the suppressed castes. It did not pave the way
for the people who served as serfs in temple and manor lands to come out
of the wretchedness associated with their lives.
As a result, the independence could not make a far-reaching impact on
the life of the oppressed classes who had been denied human respect and
human rights owing to the deep rooted caste discriminations that
prevailed in both Sinhalese and Tamil society .
Nationalism
The Donoughmore Commission too, which arrived in Sri Lanka on the day
Mahatma Gandhi’s visit took place, had made important observations on
nationalism and democracy practiced in the country. Its observations are
valid even today.
The Donoughmore Commission observed that Sri Lanka had not yet evolved
into a cohesive society; nationalism which had developed was only an
ad-hoc outgrowth of race, caste and religion and was not aimed at common
welfare of the country and the people; the society lacked democratic
disciplines or a system of political parties for successful operation of
a parliamentary system of government.
The Donoughmore Commission had further stated that there was no unity or
sense of collective responsibility among the leaders and as such, at
this moment, the country should be granted only a system of governance
which could help promote unity, national cohesion and raise social
awareness on democracy.
All frontline national leaders of the day like Ponnambalam Ramanadan,
D.S. Senanayake and S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike had thoroughly opposed the
grant of universal suffrage to the people of Sri Lanka. Ostensibly,
their views and biases on social classes and the caste system had an
impact on their protest.
However; the Donoughmore Commission was of the view that most of the
regressive social elements would slowly disappear once the universal
suffrage was introduced. The commission introduced a special system of
governance based on a Committee System to educate the political leaders
of the country, instil discipline in them to overcome parochial
differences and encourage them to work in harmony and democratically.
Role of ethnicity
It
was after gaining independence that the ethnic issue came to forefront.
In my opinion, it was S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike who aggravated the ethnic
difference between Sinhalese and Tamils and mystified it into a complex
issue which eventually culminated in a ruthless bloodshed. It’s a fact
that the vernaculars suffered badly during the colonial regime. Local
languages had lost recognition and restoring their status remained an
essential condition. Bandaranaike achieved his political dream with the
support of the proponents of the Sinhala Only policy. In this respect,
Tamils can be considered a community more passionate and attached to
their language than Sinhalese people.
What ought to have been done was to give a new and renewed recognition
for both languages, Sinhala and Tamil and adopt a bilingual policy
allowing the Sinhalese people to transact with the government in Sinhala
language and Tamils in Tamil language while English is promoted as the
second language in schools. Yet, what Bandaranaike did was to throw the
English language into the waste bin and disallow Tamil people of their
right to transact with the government in their language, thereby denying
them the respect they enjoyed as human beings.
Ethnicity and caste remained two crucial factors that caused violent
attacks and bloodshed in Sri Lanka. It was Sinhalese youth in the south
who took arms first against the government and not the Tamils in the
north. According to the observations made by the public authorities on
the 1971 insurrection, it was not only a class struggle, even the caste
has had a big impact on it. That was why the authorities were prompted
to look into the caste background of all rebels who were arrested.
Perhaps, this must be the first instance in which a research had been
done about the caste.
President Ranasinghe Premadasa, following the defeat of the second JVP
insurrection, appointed a commission of inquiry to probe into the youth
unrest and report the reasons that had led to insurrections .The
Commission on Youth Unrest too had observed the impact of caste on youth
unrest in both in the south and the north. The violent uprisings broke
out at different times had a destructive impact on the State and the
society. They were instrumental in distorting and making the society
sick and above all rendering the State corrupt and weak. It was an
outcome of the failure on our part to build the modern nation at
independence or thereafter. Sri Lanka has no capacity to move forward,
even one step ahead without recreating the nation.
Even after a great catastrophe, it would still be possible, though late,
to recreate the nation provided we are ready to thrust aside ethnic,
caste and religious differences and adopt a policy of treating everyone
equally irrespective of discriminatory practices and prejudices. The
State which had reached the verge of collapse can still be restored only
if we are capable of recreating the nation.
