Are we heading for constitutional anarchy

By Harsha Gunasena

There is much discussion about the Constitution of Sri Lanka and about the present constitutional crisis the country is facing. It is the popular belief that the President of the Republic has so much of power derived from the constitution. It is pertinent to examine the powers of the President against the powers of Parliament according to the Constitution. This is tested now since two political parties are dominating the two institutions.

Article 4(a) states that the legislative power of the people shall be exercised by Parliament and by the people at a referendum.

Article 4(b) states that the executive power of the people including defense of Sri Lanka shall be exercised by the President. Similar words are there in the  constitution of 1972  whereas the President, who was not elected by the people, exercised such power as a representative of the National State Assembly. The constitution of France, which is much similar to ours and much clearer than ours, does not mention the executive power of the President whereas the constitution of the US clearly states so. 

According to Article 43(3), the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament who in his opinion is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.

According to Article 44(1) the President shall in consultation with the Prime Minister, where he considers such consultation to be necessary, appoint the ministers among the Members of Parliament. According to Article 44 (2) and 44(3), the President can assign ministries to himself and change the ministers and ministries. According to Article 47 he can remove the Prime Minister or any Minister from the office. According to the constitution of France, the President appoints and terminates the appointments of the Ministers on the proposal of the Prime Minister.

A Bill passed by Parliament shall become law when the certificate of the Speaker endorsed thereon subject to certain provisions if there is a referendum. (Article 80(1)) According to Article 148, Parliament shall have full control of Public Finance. According to the constitutions of France and the US, the President can refer back a Bill passed by the legislature for reconsideration. It shall not be refused according to the constitution of France (Article 10) and it should be passed by majority of two third, according to the constitution of the US (Article 1 Section 7). 

According to Article 43(1) and 43(2), the President shall be a member and the head of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Cabinet of Ministers, charged with the direction and control of the Government, shall be collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament.

Article 42 states that the President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the constitution and any written law, including the law for the time being relating to public security. This apparently borrowed from Article 91 of the Constitution of 1972, where the President was a figurehead. There are no provisions of this type in the constitutions of France and the US. This aspect is further emphasized in Article 38 1 (b) whereas the resignation of the President in writing under his hand should be addressed to the Speaker.

According to Article 70, the President may, from time to time, by Proclamation summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament, subject to certain provisions.

Based on the above, taking into consideration the practical aspects as well, in the present scenario where the majority power of Parliament is held by a party other than the party of the President, it is evident that the President can not solely decide on the ministries and the ministers with out consulting the Prime Minister, although the President is empowered by the constitution to do so, since Parliament can bring no confidence motions against such ministers and force them out. Therefore it is necessary that President should consult the Prime Minister as provided in Article 44(1) of the constitution. 

When the President takes over a ministry with out the concurrence of the Prime Minister, the functions of such ministry can be at a standstill, since all fiscal and legislative powers are solely vested with Parliament. Moreover since the cabinet of ministers including the President is collectively responsible to Parliament, the President has to implement the Government policies in day to day running of such ministry, not his own policies. Cabinet decisions are based on the decision of the majority. Just because the President is the head of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Head of the Government, he cannot impose his will on the Cabinet.

The main weapon the President can use is to dissolve Parliament after one year of the date of the General Election. If the majority of the Parliament is unpopular among the people the President can use this in his favour, but otherwise it is sure way of becoming the President unpopular.

In respect of much debated Defense Portfolio, the constitution states that the executive power of the people including defense of Sri Lanka shall be exercised by the President.  Special reference was given to defense, but one cannot argue that according to the constitution the President should hold the defense portfolio. If that argument is true one can also argue that according to the constitution the President should hold all the portfolios, since the emphasis is, that the  executive power of the people shall be exercised by the President.

The constitution states that the President has the power to declare war.(Article 33(e)) Once again this Article was apparently borrowed from Article 21(a) of the constitution of 1972. Constitutions of France (Article 35) and the US (Article1 Section 8) have not given this power to their Presidents, it is with the legislature. According to our constitution how can the President fight a war if Parliament does not release the necessary funds? Therefore the President has to declare war with the approval of the Government and thereby with the approval of the Parliament, I presume, as stated in Article 42.

In the constitution, certain Articles are checked by other Articles. Therefore one cannot give a piecemeal interpretation to the constitution. Constitution should be interpreted in toto. Based on the above discussion, I suggest that Parliament is supreme, not the President, since Parliament enjoys not only the sole legislative power and the fiscal power but also a large extent of executive power through the Government. According to Article 80 (1) when the Speaker certifies, a Bill will become Law. According Article 42, President is responsible to Parliament. These two provisions are the reverse of the provisions of the constitutions of France and the US and somewhat similar to the constitution of 1972. Therefore the person who commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament is not just a peon as suggested by some. This notion came in to light when the President and the Prime Minister are from the same party where the party leader is the President. In Sri Lanka there is no internal democracy within the political parties. Moreover according to the constitution, if a Member is removed from the party, it is considered that his seat is vacated subject to certain provisions. In this scenario the Prime Minister is forced to act as a peon but not otherwise. If it is we are heading for constitutional anarchy.  

(Published in The Island January 2004) 

A paradigm shift is needed in the peace process

By Harsha Gunasena

It appears that the peace process is at a stand still. The President, just like her father did in 1956, had mobilized the forces against the peace process in order to win the General Election. Having won the General Election and also being a person who is in favour of the peace process, she is now in a dilemma. If I quote a Buddhist Jathaka story, it is just like the position; if you go home your wife would die and if you stay elsewhere you would die. In deed her father faced the same situation. What happened then is history. In my view both, in the sense the person and the country, died or suffered. In fact the situation of the President is much complicated since she wants to be in the helm for some more time, rather than politically resign after the end of her term in 2005?

The LTTE insists that the ISGA proposals should be discussed and the view of the Government is to discuss the ISGA proposals as well as the core issues of the problem simultaneously, to which LTTE disagreed. It appears to be that the basic concept of the peace process is, you against me.  It is a bargaining process, how much we should give and how much they should get. During the time of the previous government of the President there was a political package. The name itself connotes the idea of how much are we giving. Then the opposition comes in saying we should not give that much. One accusation against the previous government was that they did not indicate the envisaged ultimate solution; in the sense how much they were willing to give. The President later said at a television interview that the former prime minister revealed to her with great difficulty that what he intends to give and she said she was quite agreeable to that.

In my view, the requirement of discussing the core issues now, in parallel to the ISGA proposals, comes out of two reasons. One is that the mindset I discussed above, bargaining mentality; how much to give and how much to get.  The other reason is that the ISGA proposals being an interim solution should enjoy somewhat lesser autonomy compared to the final solution. Therefore the parties should have an idea of the final solution. Let us look at the whole issue in a different angle.

I suggest that there should be a paradigm shift in the whole process. The parties concerned should not be involved in bargaining. They should not be in the opposite sides of the table. In fact they should be in the same side of the table finding out a solution to the fate of the people of Tamil origin living in the North as well as in the East, who are citizens of this country. If the situation demands, the fate of the Muslims in the East also can be discussed by adding more parties to the same side of the table.

In this scenario it is not necessary to start the discussion with ISGA proposals, which is a partial solution of the LTTE to the part of the problem, which is how to give the benefits of the peace to the people of North and East immediately. Let the parties go back and discuss the problem, not the solution and arrive at a solution later. There cannot be any opposition to discuss the question of how to give the benefits of the peace to the people of North and East immediately. I do not think JVP or for that matter Hela Urumaya could not agree to this. Let the Government and the LTTE agree to this because there is no point of promoting the ideas of either, you die; I die or you die; I survive.  It should be; we both survive.

Core issues can be discussed once a solution is found for the above problem.  If the Government is going to discuss core issues at the early stages before establishing the confidence with each other, it is sure way of getting the process derailed. Core issues should be discussed at a later stage once all the peripheral issues are sorted out and the solutions are implemented. In my view there should be only one prerequisite for this suggested process, a commitment form the both parties that there should not be war hereafter.

 ( Published in Daily Mirror on July 22, 2004)

The notion of Nation, the task at hand

By Harsha Gunasena

Nation is an alien concept in Sri Lanka, to the extent that there is no word in Sinhala for Nation. We translate it as Jatiya, but when one is asked what is his/her Jatiya, the answer is Sinhala, which is the race. The definition given by the Oxford dictionary to the word Nation is, “congeries of people, either of diverse races or common descent, language, history etc., inhibiting a territory bounded by defined limits”.  I was told that the Tamil word for Nation is Thesam, which I do not know whether the correct translation.

However in ancient Sri Lanka Sinhalas and Tamils lived together as one Nation. There were Sinhalas in the army of Elara and there were Tamils in the army of Dutugemunu, one may be Velusumana. The war was against Elara, the invader, not against the Tamils, as misinterpreted later. Ven. Buddhagosha, who translated Sinhala commentaries of Tripitaka to Pali, was a Tamil monk. Sinhala Princes married South Indian Princesses very often.  There were invasions and wars among the Kings. There were no wars between the two races, Sinhalas and Tamils.  In tenth century we had a great influence of Pandyans in our culture. They were treated as a friendly Nation. In Polonnaruwa era we had separate Tamil platoons fighting for the Sinhala King. Epigraphs were established in Tamil for the use of the Tamils. Hindu gods came to the Buddhist temples to stay. In turn Buddha became a reincarnation of Vishnu. Magha who ruined the country was not a Tamil. Prince Sapumal who conquered Jaffna in the fifteenth century was a Tamil. In Kandy era Tamil Kings who ruled the Sinhalas were the guardians of Buddhism. Since the two ethnic groups lived together through out the history the language of one ethnic group was known by the other group and vice versa. Therefore there were one Nation and two languages.  We wanted to have one language in recent times and as pointed out by Colvin R. De Silva this lead the country to have virtually two Nations. 

However after the invasion of Magha, mostly Tamils and some Sinhalas went to North and mostly Sinhalas and some Tamils went to South. There were predominantly Tamil kingdoms in the Northern Sri Lanka. With the abandoned old Capital there was a natural barrier between the North and the South. This led to the present concentration of Tamils in the North.

Very interesting features we can gather from the history were the establishment of epigraphs in Tamil and having separate Tamil platoons. What is the meaning of establishment of Tamil epigraphs? It means that the State communicated with Tamils in Tamil. We, modern Sri Lankans, had to shed lot of blood to understand this simple truth. What is the meaning of having separate Tamil platoons? It means Tamils were trusted and were treated in dignity. Let alone the Tamil platoons, in modern Sri Lanka we had very limited recruitments of Tamils to the Forces. There was the origin of the problem, the National problem.  Petty minded Sinhalas and their power hungry leaders allowed Tamils to internationalize the problem, rather than solving it at the early stages.  

Nation is comparatively a modern term. In India the concept of Nation derived with the freedom struggle. Gandhi was single handedly responsible for mobilizing masses to such an extent against the British rule. Thereby the Indian Nation was emerged. In respect of Japan, there was the Second World War. Especially the defeat and thereby the necessity to rebuild the country, put the entire Nation together. In the case of Singapore they had a strong benevolent leadership, which mobilized the entire Nation together in order to have prosperity, although there are different ethnic groups. American Nation emerged with the war for the freedom. The emergence of the concept of Nation is associated with fighting together against a common enemy and with strong leadership. Common enemy can be external; another Nation or it can be internal; poverty.   

In ancient Sri Lanka we had enough disasters to put the two groups together. There were wars all the time. There were internal wars among the princes and there were invaders to fight with. In the absence of war, a strong leader ruled the country. This volatile situation helped to put the ethnic groups together and there were no fights between ethnic groups.  

In modern Sri Lanka unlike in India there was no strong freedom struggle, which put all the ethnic groups together for the achievement of a common goal. At the early stages there was  Anagarika Dharmapala at this side and Arumuka Navalar at that side. Those two lead two different streams. The combined struggle, which did not shed blood, was a feeble one. We did not face any disaster like war. We did not know the language of each other. In this vulnerable stage, shortsighted Sinhala leaders fueled communal feelings in order to come to power rather than treating Tamils with dignity. This was equally met by the Tamil leaders and this led the country to the civil war, which further divided the Sinhalas and Tamils rather than uniting them as one Nation. 

At present with so much of mistakes done and so much of distrust has been crated between the two ethnic groups, there is no way of solving the problem within a unitary state. In order to have one Nation we should have at least a federal constitution at this juncture. Now it is not enough to have just two languages as Colvin R. de Silva pointed out. One cannot point out the history and argue that the regions cannot be demarcated based on ethnicity and the different groups should be treated with dignity within a unitary State. Damage is already done. The Sinhalas should realize this. The voters should realize this when they cast their vote, rather than voting for utopian concepts.  If we wait further there would be further damage done and it would be inevitable that we would have two Nations in this country. 

Therefore the President, if she is a real leader, should act right now.  She should shed her sweet dream of continuing as the executive Prime Minister once her term is over. The lady leader in the adjoining country set the example. In any case the Government does not have the majority in the Parliament even with the JVP. If she cannot convince the JVP she should act decisively for the sake of the Nation. The UNP together with the masses, despite her unacceptable conduct, should strengthen her hands for this task, which is the task in my view. 

(Published in Daily Mirror on August 10, 2004)

Management by Chasing Behind

By Harsha Gunasena   

Sri Lankan society is hierarchical. The gap between the parents and the children; the  teachers and the students; the political leaders and the General Public; the managers and the assistants; is wider compared to the certain western countries. The technical term used to identify this aspect of national and organizational cultures is Power Distance. According to Geert Hofstede who conceptualized the national and organizational cultures, the definition of Power Distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.

In high Power Distance countries like Sri Lanka, the dependency of the less powerful to the more powerful is higher. The children are more dependent on the parents. The parents continue to feed the grown up children. This is a rare phenomenon in low Power Distance countries. Parents try to control the children as much as possible and in turn children are trained to get instructions from the parents. They are not encouraged to make independent decisions.

Once they go to the school the teachers teach them. Students rarely challenge the teachers. They learn to respect the teachers. Even at the higher levels, students are dependent on the notes given by the teachers and independent reading is minimal. In other words in high Power Distance countries, the teachers teach and in the low Power distance countries the students learn. 

They are looked after by the parents and the teachers. When they go to the Universities certain political groups influence them. From the beginning they are trained to accept the authority rather than to challenge it. Different viewpoints and the democratic discussions are discouraged even at the Universities. Therefore these students believe that the ideologies of the dominant political parties are the gospel truth.

When they finish the studies and go to the society they are cheated by the politicians over and over again. They do not stand up for their own rights. That is why the civil society is so weak in this country. There are hardly any consumer societies even. As General Public they do not do any pivotal roll in selecting their political leaders, instead the political leaders should take the initiative and unleash lot of lies to win them over. 

Political leaders also talk about decentralization since there is a dire necessity for the same but the centralization prevails. General Public do not try to pressurize the authorities for decentralization instead they individually try to go up the ladder and enjoy the power. 

When they work at the organizations they are conditioned not to take responsibilities. Instead the managers give them instructions. Their duty is to carry those instructions out. Taking initiative is discouraged. Managers should follow up whether the work is done. If there is no follow up and constant reminders the work will not be done. Management is done by the way of chasing behind.

When they are promoted they turn the tables and start chasing behind their assistants. The assistant expects that the manager should chase behind him. If not he thinks that the manager is not interested of the particular piece of work and the tendency is to neglect that piece of work. 

The organization structures are also hierarchical. The span of control of a manager is limited since he has to chase behind his subordinates. Otherwise the work will not be done. Therefore there are no successful large organizations. Instead there are successful small companies. There are also successful groups of companies comprising of large number of small companies/units. 

There are designations created to promote the ego of the managers. The writer was the Finance Manager of a company some time back and then he became the Deputy General Manager Finance.  Finally he was the General Manager Finance and he was doing the same old job.

The salary structures of many of the private sector organizations are catering to the Power Distance. The gap between the highest ranking officer and the lowest ranking officer is very wide. The gap keeps on widening at the every salary increment. Therefore there is more responsibility trusted upon the higher level of managers and the lower levels of officers are forced to become more dependent. The process of chasing behind is encouraged.

The whole trend can be changed at the organizational level. Several organizations have done it. They have reduced the Power Distance consciously.  Common lunchrooms could be introduced. The ranks of peons could be eliminated followed by elimination of the ranks of clerical staff. Clerical mentality is to get the instructions. The executives with defined responsibilities and authorities could do the same work.

More importantly the decision making process should be decentralized. Juniors should be treated as adults. Adult-adult relationship should prevail instead of parent- child relationship between the managers and the assistants. There should not be staff whose job is just to supervise. Similarly there should not be full time decision makers. Team concept should be built up. In a cricket team there is no fulltime captain. In order to be in the team either he should be a batsman or a bowler. Captaincy is in addition to his role as a player in the selected specialization. Same concept should be there in the team of organization as well. 

Responsibilities should be defined and the adequate authority should be given. Pay should be based on performance and the level of performance should be defined mutually. Eventually the gaps of the salaries also should be reduced. When the culture is created that the follow up is not necessary, management by chasing behind cease to exist.

(Published in the journal-3rd issue 2005- of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka)

Culture: Limitations of Sri Lankan Thinking

By Harsha Gunasena

A notable feature prevailing in Sri Lanka today is that there are sharp divisions in the country. There are divisions based on ethnicity; Sinhalese vs. Tamils and now the interests of Muslims are also emerging prominently. Religion also divides people. Recently there were much discussed forcible conversions of religion. It has gone to the extent of burning of religious places.  Politically two main camps have emerged with the third force of Buddhist monks.  The most recent division is the split of LTTE; Northern Tamils vs. Eastern Tamils.  Early twentieth century we had the division of up country Sinhalese vs. low country Sinhalese, which led to the request of Federalism. We still experience the differences of caste, although not so prominently as in the past. We have differences based on regions as well. We are so petty minded that we hardly think of our Nation. It is pertinent to find out the reasons, which led the country to this situation. The culture we operate is responsible to a great extent of shaping our behavioral patterns. Therefore in this article, I try to analyze the Sri Lankan culture, to the extent of understanding the visibly illogical behavioral patterns, based on well-recognized conceptualizations in the field of national cultures.

In Sri Lanka, there are strong ties between individuals and very often relationships prevail over tasks. These types of cultures are identified as collectivist cultures against the individualist cultures where the ties between individuals are loose. Also our society is hierarchical and there is a power gap between the top and the bottom of the hierarchy. There are societies where this gap is very small.  There are several conceptualizations in the area of national culture, and the most prominent conceptualizations were developed by Geert Hofstede, and Harry C. Triandis. Two major dimensions of national cultures are individualism vs. collectivism and power distance, which were developed and analyzed in detail by Hofstede. Triandis identified two dimensions: individualism vs. collectivism, and the aspect of vertical vs. horizontal. The latter is much similar to the power distance. Therefore in this article we try to analyze the Sri Lankan culture particularly in relation to the present day burning national issues based on the above-identified two dimensions of individualism vs. collectivism and power distance.

Study of Hofstede

Individualism vs. collectivism is defined as follows. “ Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: every one is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.”  It should be noted that collectivism does not represent socialism or universalism.  Collectivist societies may have in- groups, which clashes with the members of the out- groups.

Some of the key differences between individualist and collectivist societies are given in Table A.

                                                TABLE A

Collectivist                                                      Individualist

Identity is based in the social net-work to       Identity is based in the individual

which one belongs        

Relationship prevails over task                       Task prevails over relationship

Collective interests prevail over                      Individual interests prevails over collective 

individual interests                                            interests

Opinions are pre determined by group     Everyone is expected to have a private  membership                                                  opinion

Laws and rights differ by group.                    Laws and rights are supposed to be the same for all.

Political power exercised by interest groups.  Political power exercised by voters.

Private life is invaded by groups                    Every one has a right to privacy.

Press controlled by the State.                         Press freedom.

Ideologies of equality prevails over                Ideologies of individual freedom prevails

ideologies of individual freedom                    over ideologies of equality.

Harmony and consensus in society are           Self-actualization by every individual is an

ultimate goals.                                                 ultimate goal.

There is a positive correlation between national wealth and individualism. When the society is modernized the urban family is nuclear, so that it paves way for individualism.

Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.

Some of the key differences between small and large power distant societies are given in Table B.

                                                TABLE B

Small power distance                                    Large power distance

Hierarchy in organizations means an              Hierarchy in organizations reflects the          

inequality of roles, established for                  existential inequality between higher-ups convenience                                                          and lower-downs

Decentralization is popular                             Centralization is popular

The ideal boss is a resourceful democrat        The ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat or a good father       

Privileges and status symbols are frowned     Privileges and status symbols for managers

upon                                                                are both expected and popular

All should have equal rights                           The powerful have privileges

Powerful people try to look less powerful      Powerful people try to look as impressive

than they are                                                   as possible

Teachers are experts who transfer                   Teachers are gurus who transfer personal

impersonal truths                                             wisdom          

The use of power should be legitimate           Might prevails over right: whoever holds

and is subject to criteria of good and evil       the power is right and good

All should have equal rights                           The powerful have privileges

The use of violence in domestic politics         Domestic political conflicts frequently lead

Is rare                                                              to violence

Prevailing religious and philosophical             Prevailing religious and philosophical systems

systems stress equality                                    stress hierarchy and stratification

Prevailing political ideologies stress and        Prevailing political ideologies stress and

practice power sharing                                    practice power struggle

Sri Lankan Culture

According to the studies carried out in Sri Lanka, our culture is collectivist and there is a high score of power distance, much similar to that of India. Based on the analysis of Triandis, our culture could be identified as vertical collectivism.

The main problem Sri Lankans face today is that the inability to understand and evaluate an issue, where the in-groups are involved, with out any bias. The in-group to which we belong colors our opinions. First of all we evaluate whether the interests of our in-group are affected by the opinion we hold. Our opinions are shaped depending on this assessment. As far as an individualist is concerned his/her opinion may be shaped based on his/her interests. However when the broad national issues are concerned the approach of the collectivist is detrimental since there is more impact in collectivist bias than the individualist bias. When an individual tries to safeguard his interests when he expresses his opinion in a national issue, that opinion is not colored to that extent to emerge a bias. Collectivists are less able to be in the shoes of other group than the individualists, in conflict resolution. Also they are hostile towards the members of the other groups whereas the individualists respect the rights of the others. Nepotism prevails. Members of the same ethnicity, religion, caste, school or the region are treated favorably. In order to get things done you need some one known to you.

As far as the other dimension, power distance is concerned the society accepts hierarchy and the powerful persons enjoy privileges. Coupled with collectivism, this leads to abuse of power and corruption. This becomes accepted procedure and instead of trying to eliminate abuse of power and corruption, people try to acquire power by any means in order to be in the privileged class.  People do not want share the power instead they want to grab the whole thing. Therefore there is power struggle. They talk about decentralization since there is a dire necessity, but centralization prevails. These views can be further examined in the background of the national problems we face today.

Ethnic Issue

Since the independence, several attempts were made to resolve the ethnic issue and several agreements were reached. Unfortunately those agreements were abandoned by the Sinhalese leaders due to the pressure of the extremists of the Sinhalese collective group. In reaction to this, the extremists of the Tamil collective group took charge of the issue in their side by sidelining the moderate Tamil leadership. Now Sinhalease and Tamils do not want to give any concession to other party since the hostile attitude towards the opposite groups. Moving towards a win-win situation with out bargaining against the other party is an alien method of conflict resolution to them. 

This conflict emerged prominently when Solomon Bandaranaike came into power with the slogan of Sinhala only. This means the State should deal with the Tamils in Sinhala. Therefore Tamils had to learn Sinhala in order to deal with the State. Hitherto the language of the State was English. Therefore Sinhala only policy redressed grievances of the Sinhalese but it aggravated that of the Tamils. Really speaking the State should deal with Tamils in Tamil if the State wants to keep Sinhalease and Tamils together. Vijayabahu I, a millenium back, understood this idea which was prominently spelled out by  Colvin R.De Silva, and to abandoned by him later. Vijayabahu I, who conquered the Chola invaders, put up an epigraph in Tamil for the benefit of his Tamil platoon. We have shed lot of blood to understand this simple truth because we look at things in our angle only.

There is the question of Tamil homelands. I observed Sinhala academics cite the example of Vallipuram copper plate in order to prove that there was no separate Tamil kingdom at all in the North. Vallipuram copper plate was related to a construction of Buddhist Temple at present Vadamarachchi in Jaffna peninsula at the time of Vasaba, two milleniums back. Also Tamil academics argue that there were continuous Tamil kingdoms in the North and the East as well, conveniently forgetting the fact that the East was under the control of Sinhala kings even during the Dutch period when Robert Knox came to Sri Lanka. Even though they are academics, they are not interested in the truth, instead they argue like lawyers to safeguard the interests of their in-groups.  The real situation, in my view, is that after the invasion of Magha who came from Kalinga( Vijaya also came from Kalinga?) in the 13^th century, there were separate Tamil kingdoms in the Notheren Sri Lanka. Also there were separate Sinhala kingdoms in other parts of the country before and after the invasion of Magha. 

Solution to the ethnic issue is depending on decentralization or devolution of power, whether it is based on ethnicity, region or any other measure. Those who have power are not willing to share it. We know the fate of Provincial Councils. Certain powers are not given to the Provincial Councils and even today there is a power struggle. This is prominent where the opposition is in power in particular Provincial Council. 

 

Political Parties

The two political parties governed this country from the independence tried to solve the ethnic issue when they were in the Government and they opposed the solutions of the then Government when they were in the opposition. The incumbent President at the much debated television interview recently, where she declared that her term was extended, categorically stated that she agrees with the view of the Prime Minister about the final solution of the ethnic issue. Yet they cannot work together. This is a complicated situation where two separate lines of grouping are crossing each other. One line is Sinhalese vs. Tamils, where the division of the groups is based on ethnicity, and the other line is U.N.P vs. P.A., where that is based on the political parties, and both parties comprise of Sinhalease. Both lines are highly polarized. When one political group tries to solve the issue of the ethnicity, obviously by compromise, the other political group does not allow to do that and by that very act they want to become popular among the Sinhalese who do not want to compromise. Therefore a solution cannot be reached. In this context it is interesting to study the proposals made by the Citizens Movement For Good Governance (CIMOGG) in respect of a model for a new political order for re establishing good governance, where the emergence of collectivist group thinking is minimized.  

As far as the policies of the present two major political parties are concerned, it is evident that there are hardly any differences. Yet when one party comes to power they want to change policy hitherto followed, at least the name. We know how Janasaviya has changed to Samurdhi. 

Issue of Conversions

There is an allegation that the fundamentalist Christian Sectors carry out unethical conversions of religion, especially the Buddhists to those sectors. In individualist societies, religion is a private affair. If one wants to convert his religion, it is up to him. In collectivist societies religion is strongly identified with a group of people. Members of one religion do not want to lose any one of its members to another religion. Therefore there is a strong opposition by the in-group members if any member changes the group he belongs to. However it is a fundamental human right to change one’s religion if he wishes to do so. But the question is whether it is ethical to influence the people to change the religion by offering monetary benefits to them. My view is that an organized religion is not that sacred. In the level many people deal with the religion, which is based on belief, it is irrelevant to make the change of religion a big issue since any religion, which advocates good social behaviors, is not harmful to any body. 

    

Let us examine taking the example of Buddhism, what really it is. Buddhism in today’s context differs from what Buddha said. Buddhism is an organized religion and what Buddha preached was Dhamma. Organized religions divide people because those are based on belief, theories and dogmas and not actual facts. One may believe one theory and another may believe another theory so that there is a division between the two. Present day Buddhism is made a dogma and the Buddhists believe in that dogma. Dhamma means law of nature rediscovered by Gothma the Buddha. It is not a theory, a dogma or an invention by Gothma the Buddha. It is a rediscovery and also not the sole discovery in the history of the mankind. There were various others discovered the law of nature earlier than the Buddha and there can be various others discovering the same after the Buddha. I guess Jiddu Krishnamurti was another.

What Buddha says essentially is, there is no self; no I. Entire world is based on this “I”. Superficially yes, but in deep down there is no essence, which can be taken as I. In order to understand this, Buddha suggests doing a research. By observation on one self, one can realize it and feel it at the experiential level.  The research methodology is called today as Vipassana meditation. Krishnamurthi says it is not necessary to have methodology. If so, one can cling to that methodology. Instead he suggests doing a research by your own by just observing the self. Buddha also advised not to cling onto the methodology. In Alagaddupama sutta, he advised a monk who clung to Adhamma, which is opposite of Dhamma, not to do so.  Further he advised not to cling to Dhamma even. Dhamma is like a boat used to cross a river and after crossing one does not need it. This approach to the life, in my view, can be easily conceived by an individualist rather than by a collectivist. That is why Dhamma was degraded to the level of Buddhism in the hands of eastern collectivist cultures.

When a person is engaged in such research about himself, he does not belong to any organized religion or group since he has shed those petty divisions, so that the conversion, which is based on belief, does not arise. Therefore the real issue of this conversion of religion is based on conversion of the group, which is deriving from collectivism. One group tries to get more members to their group from another group and they resist.

General Behavior

In anywhere in the world it is much difficult to find out independent mass communication media. However in collectivist cultures, such as Sri Lanka, media is used in very hostile manner in order to safeguard the interests of one group whether it is a political party, religion, ethnic or any other group, against another group.  It is amazing to note that in academic institutions like universities, students kill each other just because of differences in ideologies. In-groups of our country are smaller. A country like Japan is also collectivist but their collectivity may be extended to the entire Nation. We hardly think of our Nation, instead we throw garbage to the road assuming that the road is not ours but outside of our in-group. Our in-group is small and limited and may be the largest in-group we have is the ethnic group.
Abuse of power is an accepted phenomenon so that there are no challenges against such behavior except a few. It has gone to the extent of that the people with power becoming looters and dictators. Not only the political leadership and the bureaucracy but also the police and judiciary are subject to this phenomenon.

Political Leadership

One way of getting rid of this dilemma is to have a strong leadership, which is favorable to the general public. There are other countries in this region with similar cultural backgrounds like Sri Lanka but consciously managed the situations, which would become otherwise dangerous. Singapore is one good example apart from India. In this context, it is interesting to compare the timid behavior of J.R. Jayewardene, who was supposed to be our most powerful leader, at the time of July 1983 riots, at which period he addressed the Nation after a lapse of several days, to the behavior of Gandhi during Hindu- Muslim clashes in 1947, where he controlled the situation single handedly. In my view, this is one of the best examples of courageous leadership in the history of the mankind.  It may be unfair to compare our dwarf leaders with the giants, but unfortunately that is the reality we face.  

The way we select our leaders is also absurd.  We select the leaders based on their family background. Once again the collectivity is in operation. Except R. Premadasa, ( W. Dahanayake and D.B.Wijetunga were interim leaders) all the other leaders of our country belong to two main groups of families. There is no internal democracy with in the political parties so that there is a restriction for the real leaders to emerge. 

 

Sri Lankan Business

Collectivism is positively used in Sri Lankan business. The leading businesses in Sri Lanka, are groups of companies. Banks have branches instead of companies. Each company or the branch may act in a hostile manner against the other companies and business units in the same Group. This competition thrives business. However it may be difficult to get all of them work together for a common goal. In Sri Lankan business today there is a widely used term that to look at the big picture. By this dictum they mean to widen the angle you look at things and it is never meant that you should look at the things in the angle of the other person as well, which is the total picture.

 If they can consciously do away the power distance, as some of the companies have done, they can achieve wonderful results. The main hindrance to this is the business leadership, which is not willing to reduce the gap of power and also the subordinates who are comfortable with the power gap from their childhood. In large power distance countries the teacher teaches and in low power distance countries the student learns. Similarly in large power distance countries the subordinates follow the instructions of the managers and in low power distance countries the subordinates work consciously with adding value rather than just following instructions.  

Conclusion

Although it is detrimental in the ethnic issue and related issues, Sri Lankan culture can be used positively in certain instances such as in business. It is up to the leaders and also to the general public to be conscious about the prevailing culture and identify the limitations of their thinking so that irreparable damages can be avoided.   It is not easy to change the culture of a country and also it may not be necessary. In this article I have not dealt with the positive side of our culture since I have analyzed the same in view of coming out of the present National crisis situation. What is needed is to understand the limitations of our culture in relation to the burning issues and try to resolve the same by overcoming the said limitations.

(Published in the Journal -2nd issue 2004- of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka and in The Island and Daily Mirror in April 2004)

The Value of Team Work

By Harsha Gunasena 

I was watching 4x100 men’s relay of 2004 Olympics, live on the television. Few days earlier 100 meters event was held. Justine Gatlin of USA came first and the legendary Morris Green of USA came third. Shawan Crawford of USA, who was the gold medalist of the 200m, came fourth. In the relay team of USA in addition to these men, there was another person called Coby Miller. British team comprised of four average persons.

Everyone thought that the USA team would win. I was shocked to see that the British team won the game. I was even more shocked to watch the lousy batten change of the US team. At the end of the event a journalist interviewed the US team. They were giving satisfactory answers about their individual performance. Finally the journalist asked the team “Hey guys are you satisfied with the second slot?” Team was nonplussed.

Timing of the British team was 38.07 and that of the USA team was 38.08. Timing of the relay is lower than the combined individual timing since there is no starting up time other than for the runner of the first lap. Recorded timing of the both relay team members of the 100m final and of the preliminary events are given below. Morris Greene was the gold medalist of the 100m event of the previous Sydney Olympics and his timing was same in 2004 as well.

USA

Shawn Crawford ( 9.89 Final) ,

Justin Gatlin (9.85 Final),

Coby Miller ( Not available)

Maurice Greene (9.87 Final)

UK

Jason Gardener (10.12 Semi Final, Heat2)

 Darren Campbell (10.35 Round1, Heat1)

 Marlon Devonish ( Not available)

Mark Lewis-Francis (10.28 Semi Final, Heat 1)

What went wrong? US team was focusing on the individual performance and their performance was very poor in the baton change in general and the change between Justin Gatlin and Coby Miller in particular. When questioned by the journalist after the event the US team was focusing on their individual performance and not paying any attention to the baton change.

To win a relay, there should be a team spirit. Team spirit is based on trust, understanding, cooperation and coordination. There was lack of trust among the US team members and that is why they look back prior to the batten change to see whether the other member was running closer.

It was proved without any doubt that to win a relay, a team with real team spirit is needed. Results can be achieved even with average members. It is not necessary to have high performers.  If there are high performers and if there is no team spirit, the result would be poor.

The same principle can be applied to business as well. The businesses we are running are not about rocket science. An average person can understand the mechanism. If there is a good team, results can be achieved easily.

I know one organization where at that time the team spirit was at very low levels. There was no proper coordination between the sales team, production team and the purchasing team. The ignorant Chairman of the company wanted to increase the market share of the raw material purchases and this was conveyed to the Purchasing Manager. His performance was monitored based on the quantity he purchased. Incentives were given for the quantities purchased. Quality aspect was ignored and the production was hampered. Higher prices were paid for the raw materials and the production could not be sold at a margin. The result was a massive loss to the company. The leader was not capable of coordinating the operation. Focus was on the performance of the individual and there was no focus towards the batten change. It was not monitored at all.

Most of the organizations prefer to recruit high performers at various levels. When one is a high performer there is a lesser possibility for him/her to become a good team player. High performers are very often associated with high egos. They are individualists in general not collectivists. When one is having more achievements one’s ego strengthens more. To become a good team player one has to control one’s ego to a considerable extent. One has to trust the associates. One should be humble enough and willing to be dependent on the associates. The leader of the organization has to play a very creative roll if there are high performers in the payroll of the organization. The responsibility of the leader is to bring all these high performers together. If they are allowed to perform according to their wishes, they will focus on running their lap and not on the baton change. 

Performance based pay can be effectively used as a tool to promote team work and to strengthen the baton change. Goals can be set in order to monitor the baton change. If the baton change is not done properly, indicators should be set to identify the lapse. Indicators can be set to identify whose lapse it was. In order to achieve best results the responsibility should be with both parties for the baton change.

There are limitations of the tools like performance based pay. Developing team work is an art not a science. It is the responsibility of the leader to promote team work. Team spirit is a feeling that the members of that team are having. It is a sense of belonging, inter dependency and cohesiveness. It is a strong family like feeling of love and friendship. Team members should understand that the final goal can be achieved if and only if they work all together.

Sri Lankan society in general is collectivist compared to the individualistic American or British societies. Individualism vs. collectivism is defined by Geert Hofstede as follows. “Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.”  It is proved that when the income level goes up, there is a tendency to move from individualism to collectivism. When promoting team work the leaders of the organizations can use this cultural bias in Sri Lanka positively.

In Sri Lankan society there are various formal and informal groups. There is a tendency to form a group or a clique consisting of close associates. Leaders should use this tendency to have cliques comprising of various departments and finally comprising of the whole organization.

Japanese management tools like 5S or Kizan are finally promoting collectivism and team work. The rituals associated with 5S encourage the members of the whole organization to work together for a common goal. The informal behavior promoted will encourage greater ties among the members of the organization. This breaks the formal relationships among the staff members which are rigid and promotes the informal relationships which are flexible and strong. Good leaders promote team spirit by organizing informal events where interaction within the staff members is promoted.

What is more important is having a team spirit. Having average individual performers with good team spirit is superior to have high individual performers with poor team spirit as very strongly proved by the US 4X100 relay team in 2004 Olympics. However the best combination would be high individual performers with high team spirit.

 

(Published in the Journal -1st issue 2012-of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka )

 

Buddhism, Dhamma, Collectivism and Individualism

By Harsha Gunasena

Buddhism and Dhamma  

Gothma the Buddha rediscovered the law of nature 2500 years ago. Law of nature is not an opinion, a dogma or a philosophy developed by the Buddha, but he just discovered it.  If he did not discover it, we would be ignorant to that effect but the law of nature would be in force. Also it was a rediscovery. Many discovered the same in the past and many will discover it in the future. Therefore there was no such ownership to the law of nature by Gothma the Buddha.  Law of nature is called Dhamma in Pali.

Dhamma is not sectarian; it is universal. People cannot be divided based on Dhamma; instead it unites people. Dhamma is not for war but for peace. Dhamma is not a belief but the reality. But any one and every one cannot understand Dhamma. It is not so easy to understand and at the same time it is not so difficult either. If one could not understand Dhamma in deep and if one does not want to understand it either, one can develop a philosophy out of it, if one so wishes. This philosophy, which is based on the superficial understanding of Dhamma, could be named also. The name given to this philosophy is Buddhism. Buddhism developed in various countries acquiring the beliefs and ways of life in those societies.

Therefore there is a clear difference between Dhamma, the law of nature rediscovered by Gothama the Buddha 2500 years ago and Buddhism, which was developed by his disciples, who could not or did not want to understand Dhamma. Buddhism is sectarian; it divides people. If it divides people it should also lead them to war although it preaches otherwise. Like any other organized religion, Buddhism is having lot of rituals, which has become an integral part of it.

When the south Indians invaded Sri Lanka, Hinduism also came to the country. Buddhism was accommodative towards Hinduism and with the influence of the Sinhala kings Hindu Gods came to the Buddhist temples in the Polonnnaruwa era. This was the greatest influence the Sri Lankan Buddhism had. In the Kandian era, Rajadi Rajasinghe (I hope the name of the king is correct) ordered only the   members of Govigama caste should be accepted for ordination as Bhikkus since a low caste Bhikku worshiped the king contrary to accepted practice. The order of the king was simply the opposite of Dhamma. But it prevails to date and the members of the other castes had to have different Nikayas for them. When the western powers invaded Sri Lanka and started spreading Christianity, Buddhists became an in-group organized against Christianity.

  

Collectivism and Individualism

Individualism and Collectivism are concepts developed by the scholars who studied the cultures of the countries and the organizations. Geert Hofstede developed the most prominent conceptualization. Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: every one is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

In Sri Lanka, by and large there is a collectivist culture. There are various groups starting from the race, cast, and religion up to the informal in-groups. There are strong ties between individuals and very often relationships prevail over tasks. Identity is based in the social network to which one belongs, rather than based on the individual as in the individualist cultures. Special recognition is given by a person to another if the latter is studied at the same school of the former or the latter’s hometown is same as the former.

Very often opinions are pre determined by group membership and having private opinions are not encouraged. This is evident in the Tamil community in Sri Lanka where by and large the political opinion of LTTE is the political opinion of Tamils. Different opinions are suppressed forcibly since it is the common belief that LTTE is working for the best interests of the Tamils. It is prominently evident in the present university system. In the electoral system also there are a large number of voters who are not members of political parties and who do not want to change their loyalty to a party. It is a question whether proper democracy can be established in collectivist cultures.

Collectivist cultures are not rule oriented. They always try to take short cuts or try to deviate from the accepted procedure/ rule. In Sri Lanka when there is a queue people try to break the order since in the point of view of one person, the other persons who are in the queue are not belong to his in-group. They are generally hostile towards the members of the other groups.

In collectivist cultures, laws and rights differ by group where as in individualist cultures laws and rights are supposed to be the same for all. In Sri Lanka there are different laws and rights based on the level of influence one can exercise. Finally ultimate goal of collectivist cultures is harmony and consensus in the society where as the same in the individualistic cultures is self-actualization by every individual.

However there is a positive correlation between national wealth and individualism. When the society is modernized the urban family is nuclear, so that it paves way for individualism.

Buddhism and Collectivism

In collectivist countries, members of a religion act as members of an in-group. Buddhism also suffered the same fate in Sri Lanka. It was used to organize people against the South Indian invaders by the Sinhalese kings. It organized Buddhists against Christianity. It mobilized the masses against the western invaders. Therefore it established as ‘Sinhala Buddhism’. Later it had different variations such as ‘Rural Buddhism’, ‘Olcott Buddhism’ and ‘Dharmapala Buddhism’ identified by different scholars in order to denote different social groups.

Therefore present day Buddhism is having lot of variations from the original Dhamma. In some instances it is completely the opposite of Dhamma. The laymen and the Bhikkus are practicing different social religions called in various names such as Sinhala Buddhism etc.  In this context only we can examine the behavior of certain Bhikkus coming to politics and promote ‘non-Buddhist’ concepts. In the present day social context there is nothing wrong in this act.

Some time back there was a book called Buddhism Betrayed written by Sri Lankan Tamil social scientist. As we discussed by and large the prevailing Buddhism in Sri Lanka is Sinhala Buddhism. Therefore there is no question of betrayal of Buddhism, considering the acts taken by Sinhala Buddhists against the Tamils.  However there is a question of betrayal of Dhamma in favour of Sinhala Buddhism.

But Dhamma still prevails in this ‘forsaken land’. Still there are people interested in Dhamma. Still there are people practicing Dhamma. Still there are people achieved very high spiritual statuses in life through Dhamma.

Dhamma and Individualism

In a course of vipassana meditation, if a westerner is asked not to talk with other meditators or not to open his/her eyes while sitting in meditation he/she will follow the instructions up to the letter. If the same instructions were given to a local he/she will try to communicate with others with body language or open his/her eyes ‘little bit’ and see what is happening around while in meditation.

If an individualist promise to observe five precepts there are many chances that he/she observe the same so that there is no need to promise over and over again. In respect of a collectivist it would be the opposite.

In Dhamma the final understanding is individualistic. Initially one has to understand that he is a robot not a real person. There is an entity due to causes and effects and there is no real person. The entire view one is having about the world shatters down with this understanding. Yet this understanding is individualistic although the result is that there is no individual.

Collectivism does not promote people to have this type of self-actualization; instead it promotes harmony in the society. Dhamma says that one has to find out his own liberation and there is no God to help him. A Guru can guide him/her but he/she, no one else, has to go along the path. This type of thinking is alien in collectivist cultures. However the individualist Bikkus who meditate in isolation are well supported with food, clothes, lodgings and medicine by the collectivist cultures. Collectivist cultures would help to preserve Dhamma but those cultures would fail to get the benefits out of the same.

Therefore Dhamma was degraded to Buddhism and then to Sinhala Buddhism and finally to Rural Buddhism or to what ever, in the hands of Sri Lankan collectivist culture. Dhamma will get firmly established in the individualistic western cultures if introduced properly.

(Unpublished article- written in October 2005)

“If Burma can do why can’t we?” A critique of mishandling the post war conflicts and foreign policy of Sri Lanka

By Harsha Gunasena

The war ended two years back with the wipe out of LTTE concluding three long decades of agony faced by the entire population and giving victory to the forces of the Government of Sri Lanka. This is the most significant event in the post independent era of the history of Sri Lanka achieved through courageous and dedicated leadership and tremendous level of commitment and teamwork displayed by the armed forces.

The Government unfortunately did not display the same level of efficiency in handling the foreign affairs at this crucial point of the history of the country. As a result the country faces a severe pressure from the international community led by the West. In turn this pressure is also mishandled by the Government by putting forward pseudo heroes cum so called patriots to criticize the West in public.

Today we badly miss Lakshman Kadirgamar   who was mainly responsible for convincing the western governments that LTTE was a terrorist movement and thereby encouraging them to prohibit  LTTE in those countries.  This was indeed a U turn considering the level of reputation Sri Lanka earned during the previous regimes.

The persons including the responsible officers of the Government   who criticize the West should bear in mind that LTTE was a proscribed organization in the countries which led the campaign against Sri Lanka. Till the time of reaching the war to the final levels, the international community was with the Government of Sri Lanka. Surely no sovereign government would like to see a terrorist organization operating anywhere in the world with air and naval power combined with a fleet of suicide cadres capable of killing reputed leaders of neighboring countries  let alone the leaders  of its own country.

India was shocked by the air power of LTTE and had given additional security cover for the nuclear plants in southern India.

 It is no secret that Sri Lanka received valuable military assistance from those very countries who criticize Sri Lanka today for the so called war crimes and human rights situation.  Also Sri Lanka received valuable intelligence tips from those countries to counter the procurement of arms by LTTE. At one point Sri Lanka was supported by USA, UK, India, Pakistan and China which was an odd combination thanks to the tactful handling of rival countries which was a rare phenomenon. So what went wrong during the latter part of the war?

LTTE kept the civilians as a cover since there was a military advantage. LTTE also knew the sensitivity of the West to the human right violations. Government asked the Red Cross and the NGOs operating in the LTTE held areas to move out citing the reason that the security of them cannot be guaranteed. Civilian casualties were highlighted in western media and the world attention was drawn to Sri Lanka. Government did not disclose true picture of either the civilian casualties or the casualties of the soldiers.  The fact remains that there was a genuine humanitarian issue.

When the international community started expressing concerns of the situation, the Government reacted strongly and condemned and labeled them as LTTE sympathizers and terrorists. Several UN dignitaries visited the country and all of them were heavily criticized by responsible Ministers of the Government. Politicians have taken over the function of the diplomats.

This arrogant behavior aggravated the situation further and I think that it was the turning point of the international support towards Sri Lanka. Government unfortunately lacked the services of able diplomats.

When there were reports that so many civilians were killed in the last stages of the war and LTTE leaders who wanted to surrender were murdered, international community wanted an investigation. The best action a sensible Government would have taken was to investigate the matter on its own and take action against who were responsible. These types of things happen during wars and the Governments should be transparent. Two previous Governments, both SLFP, handled similar situations effectively. The first one was Premawathi  Manamperi case during the time of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, a result of an incident happened during the first JVP insurrection. The second one was Krishanthi  Coomaraswamy case during the time of Chandrika Kumaratunga, a result of an incident happened during the war with LTTE. In both cases the two Governments displayed the courage to do the justice for the aggravated parties.

Quite contrast to this approach, the present Government in two previous occasions did not display the willingness to do the justice for the victims. One incident was brutal killing of the students of Trincomalee and the other was the killing of workers attached to an NGO.

The Government did not handle the Tamil population effectively after the war and lost a golden opportunity to rebuild the nation with the support of all the communities. The political solution much talked about is yet to come and is going to be a mirage. After two years of ending the war there is virtual military state in the North. Buddhist religious shrines are erected in non- Buddhist areas and Tamil names in the North are being under sinhalization. Tamils in this country would rate dignity over economic prosperity, which fact is yet to be understood by the Government.

This whole scenario is supported by the ignorant majority Sinhalese population who are intoxicated with pseudo patriotism. If they want to know what true patriotism coupled with able statesmanship is, they should turn to true heroes in the history of this country.  Two of these great personalities were   Vijayabahu the Great and Dutugemunu.

About ten centuries back Vijayabahu the Great defeated decisively the Chola imperialism prevailed in the region at that time. Having defeated the Cholas, he defended the religious rights of the Tamils and more importantly he communicated with the Tamils  in their own language, Tamil. The rock script written in Tamil at Palamottai ( near Kanthale) describes a donation by a brahmin lady to Siva and the script also dealt with the security given by troops of Velakkara . Commenting on this, Dr.Paranavitana said that (E.Z.Vol iv) although the King had placed his full strength to uplift Buddhism, he had not hesitated to patronize the beliefs prevailed among his subjects.

Dutugemunu who ruled the country in second century BC  built a tomb of  Elara who was defeated by him  and ordered everyone who passes by the tomb should not use any mode of transport but walk as a mark of respect. Dutugemunu understood very well that it was of paramount importance to win the hearts of the defeated masses.   Elara deserved this treatment by his very conduct.

These were the actions and the practices adapted by the true heroes of this country after facing similar situations we face now.

 Sri Lanka should win back the confidence of the West for one reason that it would be too dangerous to lean too much towards China or for that matter towards the West or India. Sri Lanka should not think in the type of attitude ‘Why can’t we if Burma can do’.  Burmese Generals who ignored the international pressure for democracy are solely depending on China and the country remains poor.  We should not forget that most of our markets are in the West and not in Asia. This would be of paramount importance considering the post recession and post war development. 

The golden period of Sri Lanka in the field of foreign relations was the time of Sirimao Bandaranaike. She knew how to balance the two blocks of power prevailed at that time and Indian influence. In contrast to her non- aligned foreign policy, her successor J.R.Jayawardene adopted a policy which was lenient towards ‘friends’ and this was turned out to be disastrous.    Having very good examples in the past the present regime should adapt the non-aligned foreign policy which is more suitable for a small country like ours.

Sri Lanka had capable Generals to win the war but the country did not have capable Diplomats to avoid the diplomatic war. Politicians or defense personnel should not be allowed to step in to the shoes of the diplomats. Having diplomats in the caliber of Generals or allowing Generals/ defense personnel   to do the work of diplomats would be a disaster.

(Unpublished article- written in September 2011)