INSIGHTS of RAVANA
Sri Lanka has already stepped into its seventy-fourth year after independence from the British Raj and the question posed by many is whether we have achievedanything as a free nation. The answer is an emphatic no.
When Sri Lanka received independence in 1948 the British handed down a constitutionwhich is more frequently referred to as the Soulbury Constitution.
It worked well until the Bandaranaike government introduced the Sinhala Only Act in 1956. According to the assertion of the Bandaranaike government, Sinhala became the medium of instruction instead of English and it caused dismay among the Tamil minority.
The Sinhala Only Bill was the first step taken by the newly formed Bandaranaike government in 1956 to realize one of the main campaign promises that brought it it’s landslide victory at the general election that year. Violently opposed by the Tamil-speaking minority in what was then Ceylon,the event was marked by rioting.
However in 1958, the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act was passed to allow the reasonable use of the Tamil language for some administrative purposes as well as in education and higher education. The measure brought temporary relief for the Tamil speaking people. Nevertheless their penchant for federal status within the country, which prompted the introduction of the Sinhala Only Act, never died down. Having introduced the Sinhala Only Act to appease communal sentiments, the Bandaranaike government was of greater distaste to the country more than anything else as there was widespread disillusionment among the Tamil speaking people.
The Soulbury constitution did not expressly provide for fundamental human rights. However, section 29(2) gave ample protection against any untoward act by the government to infringe on the rights of the minorities. It included the right to practice any religion.
Despite the passage of time, nobody has dared to challenge the provisions of the Sinhala Only Act. It has however prompted the Tamil speaking people to demand a separate state within Sri Lanka. The struggle began in 1958 with communal riots that engulfed the entire country. IfBandaranaike had the courage to resolve the problems with prudence or farsightedness, he wouldn’t have rushed to bring the Sinhala Only Act without proper consultation and the necessary safeguards to protect minority interests. Mistakes are frequent but political blunders may compel an entire country to pay for such shortsightedness for a long time to come. In any case, the attempt is not to put the blame squarely on Bandaranaike and his government. Without a doubt, the Buddhist clergy which gave a lot of impetus to the Bandaranaike campaign should take a portion of the blame.
The fault lies with them for not taking rationally based, far-reaching decisions about the rights of all people living in Sri Lanka.
Can this be termed a significant violation of rights as far as the Tamil community is concerned? Many people may have different definitions or explanations, but what is most crucial is to look at the problem from a Tamil point of view, their existence as a part of Sri Lankan society and the cultural outlook.
A few years after receiving independence from the British, Sri Lanka once again became a hot bed of revolt and dissent for neglecting the rights of the minorities.
The home-based constitutions introduced so far spoke voluminously about respecting fundamental rights but the people suffered due to unwarranted measures taken by the rulers from time to time to suppress the democratic rights that were enshrined in the constitution.
As it stands today and as we step into the 75th anniversary following Independence, human rights violations are rampant and go unchecked. This becomes quite evidentthrough the number of human rights violation applications perused by the judiciary and quasi– judicial bodies in the country.
At this point in time the government is moving swiftly to correct those wrongs as a measure to avoid any sanctions by the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC). It perhaps senses that the United Kingdom government is planning to propose something similar. The move to amend the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) 1982 was one such bid to save the GSP+ and the President’s recent announcements are also aimed at this. Given this, government leaders who are preparing to showcase their plan to promote human rights are looking forward to receiving accolades from visiting dignitaries. How far they will go with the plans they have conceived is yet to be seen.
The visit of British Minister Tariq Ahmad was one such occasion exploited by the state to harp about the so called “excellent human rights record” of the state.
A statement by the presidential secretariat to this effect said that the British minister incharge of the Commonwealth and South Asia Tariq Ahmad was impressed by the human rights record of Sri Lanka after having perused the various achievements.
Just before the visit of the minister, the President said “we reject racism. The present government wants to safeguard the dignity and rights of every citizen in this country uniformly. Therefore I urge those politicians who continue to incite people against each other for narrow political gains to stop doing so.”
Soon after his visit, the British minister tweeted “good bilateral exchange with Sri Lankan Foreign Minister G.L. Peiris. We discussed a broad range of issues, including cooperation on environmental issues and human rights with a focus on reconciliation and justice”.
The presidential secretariat said ” theUnited Kingdom’s State Minister for South Asia, United Nations and the Commonwealth, Lord Tariq Ahmad said that Sri Lanka’s programme to empower human rights is making great strides’.
It further said that ‘he stated Sri Lanka will be able to resolve all issues about human rights by moving forward with a pragmatic approach to further strengthen it’.
It said that ‘Minister Ahmad made these remarks when he called on President Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the presidential secretariat this morning (20)”.
When Lord Ahmad visited the North he met with Tamil National Alliance leader, R. Sampanthan who showed his disapproval over the government’s statement on sentiments expressed by Tariq Ahmad. The government statement was captioned “Sri Lanka’s progress over human rights was highly commendable”.
A visibly angry Sampanthan showed his anger to the visiting minister who had to explain his stance and tell them what he had actually said. TNA Parliamentarian M.A Sumanthiran later expressed his regrets on behalf of the TNA over the remarks by Sampanthan.
In addition to meetings with representatives of the main political parties, the visiting British Minister opted for community-level meetings with civil society representatives from the North and East.
The Tamils living in the northern and eastern provinces stated categorically that they do not believe a solution based on the 13th amendment would lead to long-lasting peace. In other words, a majority of the people living in those areas may ask for something more than the 13A which leads to self-determination.
With all these problems at hand the government is busy preparing a dossier for the UNHRC sessions in Geneva later in March. Minister G.L Peiris is now trying to amend the controversial PTA 1982 to save the GSP + facility. Nevertheless, there could be suggestions by the United States backed human rights lobby in Geneva to call for sanctions against Sri Lanka.
Besides, many other events stirred the political pot of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The purported interview by Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa to a vernacular media newspaper sent ripples through the establishment. His announcement that he fetched black money in dollars from the Pettah market to purchase weapons from North Korea caused hiccups internationally. Minister G. L Peris had to scramble to intervene and to make amends for what Basil Rajapaksa said. Peris spoke to Minister Basil to clarify the matter in question and denied the contents of the media reports that the government purchased dollars from the Pettah black market and weapons from North Korea. With this categorical denial, Sri Lanka would have avoided facing other problems relating to money laundering issues. Otherwise, Sri Lanka would have invariably found a significant ranking in the grey list of the Financial Action Task Force(FATF) . The country was removed from the FATF grey list as recent as in 2019 during the Sirisena –Wickremesinghe regime after hectic lobbying by the respective overseas missions who canvassed for the support of the countries that matter.
It is unclear if Basil Rajapaksa made the statement out of ignorance because he lacks knowledge and is unaware of the implications that could arise internationally over such irresponsible utterances on critical matters which could make Sri Lanka a pariah in the eyes of the international community.
The Minister at the same time may be a party to a continuing tiff with the Governor of the Central Bank Ajith Nivard Cabraal. Their differences came to the fore when Basil Rajapaksa initiated moves to consult the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Basil formally asked for IMF help to restructure the debts that Sri Lanka has to pay. But Cabraal contradicted the minister’s position, saying it was only for technical assistance for restructuring. It is patently clear that the minister and the governor are not of the same mindset when it comes to finding a solution to the mess that has been created with state finances.
Be that as it may, over the week the political theatre shifted swiftly from Basil Rajapakseto Arundika Fernando who is the State Minister for Coconut, Kithul and PalmyrahCultivation Promotion, Related Industrial Product Manufacturing and Export Diversification. Fernando resigned from his post temporarily after it came to light that his son was involved in an incident connected with students at the Ragamamedical faculty hostel. Some of the suspects were caught red-handed and others left indelible marks together with a vehicle belonging to the Coconut Board. The investigations undeniably incriminated Randila Fernando who is the son of Arundika who before his resignation publicly said that he will step down from his post if his name was dragged in had no other option but to quit. .
Randila was doing his best to help his classmate Kanishaka Paranavithana, a medical student at the Ragama Medical Faculty. Paranavithana, a victim of unabated ragging, had been subjected to harsh treatment. Randila may have thought it will be better to deal with them summarily rather than seeking the help of the law. Thepolitical culture of Sri Lanka is that politicians and their offspring are a law unto themselves and Randila would havethought the same. However, it was not to bethe case. The President, already high on the promise of upholding human rights, acted on his sentiments and asked Fernando to relinquish his portfolio until he clears his name. Arundika tried his best to hang on but to no avail. Being a Basil loyalist, he met with both Basil Rajapakse and the Prime Minister, who told him to hang on. But nothing worked in his favour. Eventually he met with the president and bowed out stating that the president was a pragmatic leader.
So is the politics and the human rights record of the SLPP government, languishing on the brink of an economic abyss and a looming power crisis.
In addition, the skyrocketing cost of living has created queues, putting the people in a predicament as never before. There have been hiccups in every step the government has taken so far. People are inquiring about the logic behind the launching of various projects when the government has tragically failed to supply the basic needs of the masses who are in a quandary as the country slowly slips away while slipping into the 74th anniversary of Independence.(ALAKESWARA)
