Checks and balances

The term ‘checks and balances’ is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as follows: “Counterbalancing influences by which an organisation or system is regulated, typically those ensuring that power in political institutions is not concentrated in the hands of particular individuals or groups.”
Webster Concise Encyclopaedia elaborates it further as follows: “Principle of government under which separate branches are empowered to prevent actions by other branches and are induced to share power. Checks and balances are applied primarily in constitutional governments. They are of fundamental importance in tripartite governments, such as that of the US, that separate powers among legislative, executive, and judicial departments. Checks and balances, which modify the separation of powers, may operate under parliamentary systems through exercise of a parliament’s prerogative to adopt a no-confidence vote against a government; the government, or cabinet, in turn, ordinarily may dissolve the parliament. In one-party political systems, informal checks and balances may operate when organs of an authoritarian or totalitarian regime compete for power. See also Federalist papers; judicial review; separation of powers.”
Constitution of Sri Lanka
The Constitution of Sri Lanka is a hybrid system of the constitutions of USA and France and comprising of thinking of its creator. Checks and balances are introduced to the constitutions to facilitate the functions of Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary where the responsibility of the Legislature is to impose the laws; the responsibility of the Executive to implement the same and the responsibility of Judiciary is to see whether those are implemented properly.
The President of the US can be summoned by the Judiciary and the British Prime Minister is responsible to the Parliament. These checks and balances are beneficial to the people since thereby the state can provide a better service as a result of lesser power concentration of one entity or individual.
The Constitution of Sri Lanka is quite different. The Executive is above not only the Legislature and Judiciary but also the Constitution itself. As a result the associates of the Executive are also placed little below the Executive but above such constitutional institutions on the directives of the Executive but outside of the constitutional provisions. Whatever the checks and balances imposed by the creators of the Constitution are being destroyed day-by-day.
It was the intention of the creators of the Constitution not to let one party have too much of power in the Parliament since the members of the Parliament were selected by Proportional Representation. It was prohibited in the Constitution to change the party and cross-over to the opponent side by the Parliamentarians.
Violation of provision
The Judiciary of Sri Lanka violated this fundamental constitutional provision and allowed Opposition Parliamentarians to cross-over to the Government benches, thereby making the ruling party stronger with a power not given to them by the people and creating a major hindrance to the constitutionalchecks and balances.
The period of all powerful executive was limited to two terms. In the US constitution this limitation was brought in as an amendment after Theodore Roosevelt attempted to become US President third time, breaking the widely-acknowledged tradition. This key component of the constitution was amended enabling the Executive to stay more than two terms with the power derived by the ruling party with illegitimate crossovers and with the blessings of Judiciary.
When the legitimate checks and balances are faded away, checks and balances are coming in to the system outside of the Constitution giving an extended interpretation to checks and balances and going beyond the accepted limitations.
Rebellions
After the introduction of the present Constitution and when the then President kept on amending the Constitution based on his whims and fancies, the JVP insurrection came in against the authority of the regime. At the beginning people enjoyed the anti-Government activities of the rebels but when the rebellion progressed enjoyment was dissolved. However the autocracy   of the then regime was somewhat controlled by the rebellion.
Although the rebellion by LTTE has taken a communal frontage it was in essence a rebellion against an authoritative rule. If not for the unwise and narrow-minded moves and intentions of its leader it had the potential of controlling autocratic intentions of the State.
These two rebellions were checks and balances immerged outside the Constitution when constitutional checks and balances were substituted with autocracy.
Concept of sovereignty
Modern day, the concept of sovereignty is being challenged in the light of international law. If the national state is supreme then it is argued that no international law norm is valid unless the state has somehow consented to it. The concepts of weapons of mass destruction, genocide and failed states create problems for sovereignty.
Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade whose membership is not limited to a sovereign states but, instead, to a state or separate customs territory possessing full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations.
Therefore today sovereignty is not interpreted in the same way it was interpreted prior to World War II. In this light the international pressure faced by the present Government can be considered as checks and balances to safeguard the people from an autocratic way of governance.
External pressure
It was evident that the Northern Provincial Council election was held due to the pressure of India in light of the CHOGM to be held in Sri Lanka. Because of this piece of checks and balances the country can say that there is a democratic process within although the day-to-day functions of the Council is hampered by the Government intentionally.
When Khuram Sheikh, a British national, was murdered and his girlfriend was raped, the murder investigation was unduly delayed due to political influence. The litigation process was recommenced with the pressure of the British Government and especially after the news that Prince Charles was to inquire about the progress at the time of CHOGM.
These are checks and balances outside the Constitution although the people of the soil are not fortunate enough to get such influence.  Although it is the duty of the Attorney General to appeal against the verdict of the said case going in line with the Royal Park murder case, considering the political influence prevalent related to this case, we should commend the Attorney General for his action.
Disgrace
If the state and the people think in the best way, the checks and balances required for good governance of the country should have been incorporated into the Constitution of the country. It is a disgrace if there are checks and balances outside of the Constitution.Citizens of a country cannot approve of the situation where a part of the people influences an elected government with an armed struggle while the international community influences an elected government with pure might or under international law. Unfortunately the governance structure of Sri Lanka has not learnt any lessons out of three insurrections faced by the country within a relatively short span of the history.
It is the duty of the elected Government to live up to the international standards which are agreed upon by the independent nations and adjust its foreign policy so that it cannot be intimidated by any. If things are not happening in the appropriate way, the people of the country would be benefitted by the working of checks and balances outside of the Constitution.

Following people instead of leading them

When leaders are forced to take decisions related to racial sentiments or sentiments where the nation is divided very sharply, then it is a hard task. Farsighted leaders who lead from the front take strong decisions in such times and take the nation forward during the difficult period. Those who apply the fox theory of Machiavelli and those who have nothing but self-interest act indecisively in such situations. We have ample examples internationally and locally.
In his book ‘The Prince’ written in the 16th century, Niccolo Machiavelli stated as follows in Chapter 18: “…A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves… Of this endless modern examples could be given, showing how many treaties and engagements have been made void and of no effect through the faithlessness of princes; and he who has known best how to employ the fox has succeeded best. But it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.”
India
During the time of Hindu-Muslim religious violence in India in 1948 after the partition which was the worst one India faced, Mahatma Gandhi who did not hold any official position of the Indian Government at that time took a firm stand supported by then Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru.
Gandhi, who was residing at a house of a prominent Muslim leader, entered into a hunger campaign demanding the end of violence which act paved the way for his assassination. He expressed his stance in no uncertain terms which was totally against the stance of the majority of the people at that time and he managed to change the thinking of the people during a short period which was the need of the hour at that time.
South Africa
When Nelson Mandela became the President of South Africa ending the apartheid regime, he was under immense pressure of the activists of the African National Congress to sideline the white Afrikaners. Irrespective of that he kept the bodyguards of the former President De Klerk and invited the former Defence Minister to his cabinet. He asked the white Afrikaner staff of the office of the President not to leave.
Football was the game played by the blacks in South Africa while the game played by the Afrikaners was rugby, which was a symbol of apartheid. Mandela used the South African Rugby team to unite the nation by promoting them. He was following what he has stated at the Rivonia Trial, facing the death penalty to the court at the end of his famous ‘Speech from the Dock’ on 20 April 1964.
“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”
United States
Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, argued against slavery during and prior to his election campaign. He won the presidential election in 1860 with very little support from the southern states which supported slavery.
Southern states formed a secessionist government in 1861 following the election of Lincoln and entered in to war with the Union. Lincoln led the Union in war, taking major decisions in the process. His goal was to reunite the nation. By his actions he preserved the Union, abolished slavery and strengthened the federal government.

“Fearlessness or powerfulness is not measured by popular decisions taken when there is authority. It is measured by the unpopular decisions with accrued benefits in future taken when there is less authority and by the ability to implement the same. Leaders should lead the masses and not follow them unless they follow Machiavelli”

Gandhi, Mandela and Lincoln proved by their actions that they were the leaders of their respective nations and not mere followers of the masses. They also proved that they were not mere leaders but giant leaders of the masses by taking decisive actions to change the views of the masses. These leaders are quite exceptional. However, the situation in Sri Lanka is different.
S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike
Bandaranaike came into power in 1956 capitalising on the sentiments of the Sinhala Buddhist masses and fuelling the same. The power of the UNP was reduced to eight seats in Parliament and the LSSP leader became the Leader of the Opposition.
For two years the Police and the administration was so intimidated by politicians so when communal riots broke out in 1958, the first major riots in the post-independence era, the administration was afraid to move to end the violence
It was not Prime Minister Bandaranaike but Governor General Oliver Goonethilake who intervened and suspended Parliamentary control, declared a state of emergency, imposed martial law and introduced press censorship in order to control the situation. Bandaranaike, the popular, educated and powerful leader, was indecisive – quite in contrast to the decisive way his wife, who was an uneducated housewife, acted subsequently in difficult situations.
J.R. Jayewardene
At the time of the July 1983 communal riots, then President J.R. Jayewardene had all-powerful presidential powers and the power of Parliament with a five-sixths majority together with the undated resignation letters of Members of Parliament of the governing party. There was no leader in Sri Lanka who exercised such a power.
Although he was so powerful, he behaved as a coward would. He failed to impose curfew in time. It took several days for him to address the nation and even in that speech he blamed the oppressed and not the oppressor.
People of this country beli-eve that J.R. Jay-ewardene was a powerful leader. It was not possible to gauge the power or fearlessness of a leader by the acts of directing Police thugs to attack unarmed workers who were on strike or arranging to fence the Gatambe temple to take the revenge over a speech by the chief prelate of that temple where it was stated that the leader of the country could be a traitor.
Fearlessness of a leader is gauged by the way he acts in difficult situations. He did not have a solid backbone to act against the masses when they behaved in an unruly and extremist manner. If he had done so, the history of the country would have been changed.
Mahinda Rajapaksa 
President Mahinda Rajapaksa also exercises extensive power. His popularity among the people due to the war victory is still high, partly as a result of the endeavours of the Government to keep the memories alive.
A large number of people still treat him as a king. There is a possibility that he will become the lifetime president due to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. The power of two-thirds of Parliament comprising of members who are concerned with self-interest most is also with the President against the intentions of the Constitution and with the support of the Judiciary, although the people have not given such power. The Opposition is in shatters, with a large number of its Parliament members having crossed over to Government benches.
The President removed the 42nd Chief Justice of the country, who was not in line with the thinking of the ruling elite in no time. Such a powerful President changed his stance on the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and devolution of power to the minority Tamils several times.
When the international leaders pressurise him, he says yes to them and when the Sinhala extremists pressurise him, he says yes to them as well. When intimidation takes place against minorities, whether it is racial or religious, he blames the minorities. He follows the majority who think that the problem is a conspiracy of the West and not a reaction to the wrong domestic and foreign policy of the Government. Yet, the majority thinks that he is a strong leader.
Ranil Wickremesinghe
The Leader of the Opposition Ranil Wickremesinghe is considered a weak leader by the majority of the country. He became the Prime Minister in the second tenure when the President of the country was the Leader of the party opponent to him. His powers were somewhat limited. With these limitations he decided to enter into a peace agreement with the LTTE even without getting the consent of the Head of the State. It was a bold decision, although there were various opinions on the repercussions of that decision.
Fearlessness or powerfulness is not measured by popular decisions taken when there is authority. It is measured by the unpopular decisions with accrued benefits in future taken when there is less authority and by the ability to implement the same. Leaders should lead the masses and not follow them unless they follow Machiavelli.

(Published in Daily FT on 25th July 2014)

Government rushes in where angels fear to tread

In July 1983, Tamils who were residing in predominantly-Sinhala areas were attacked systematically. Although it was not proved beyond any doubts, the attack was planned by the forces behind the Government.
Attackers were not simply emotional. The attacks were spearheaded by a systematic and planned emotion, which was followed by mass-scale idiotic emotion. There was evidence that the attackers were having lists of the targeted homes and shops of the Tamils. People from Colombo were involved in the attacks on cities outside Colombo.

It was also evident that the attacks were directed against economic targets as well. One reason may be that the persons who were behind the attacks were jealous of the economic prosperity of the elite of the minority Tamils.
That marked the takeoff of Tamil militancy which was fuelled by the Government. President Jayewardene, who addressed the nation after a remarkable delay, blamed the Tamils themselves.
He then brought a constitutional amendment in August 1983 to the effect that the Parliamentarians should take an oath that they do not support a separate state in Sri Lanka, to which Tamil Parliamentarians did not agree and quit Parliament, creating a state where Government had to deal with the militants and not with the elected representatives of Tamils.
History repeating itself
History is repeating itself unfortunately in line with the myopic mainstream thinking of the ‘Sinhala Buddhists,’ which is a near religion now and this thinking is detrimental to the long-term sustainability of the nation.
Muslims in Dharga Town, Aluthgama, were attacked systematically. Why? Like 13 soldiers killed in 1983, there was a Buddhist Bhikku and his driver was attacked by a Muslim. This was followed by a major rally organised by the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) in Aluthgama promoting communal hatred.

“The Government is jeopardising Sri Lanka’s national interest by adopting wrong foreign and domestic policies in order to secure power by ensuring the support of the majority Sinhala Buddhists by means of creating communal disharmony. For sure with this status, economic prosperity would be a wild dream”
Promoting communal hatred is against the law of the land. Sometime back Azath Salley was arrested under false charges of propagating communal hatred. Probably this law is only applicable to minorities.
It was reported that Muslim Ministers and Parliamentarians tried their best to stop this rally and they failed. Finally the attack was carried out, after the rally was not prevented by the Police and the security forces. It was assured that those who were responsible would be punished and that assurance would have the same fate of the assurances given to the former Indian Prime Minister and the Secretary General of United Nations.
Elections on racism grounds
In 1983 there was considerable discontent among the Sinhalese of the country about the killing of Sinhala soldiers in the north. After the incident of July 1983 and facing the grave repercussions of the incident, Lalith Athulathmudali as the Minister of National Security kept on advising the general public not to be provoked by the acts of the LTTE. The Sinhalese majority lived up to those expectations till the end of the war.
After the war, the present regime realised, against the previous belief, that a presidential election can be won solely with the votes of the Sinhala Buddhists. Therefore, there are projects intentionally installed by the ruling regime to promote Sinhala Buddhism at the expense of the interests of minorities.
Their intention is to fight the future elections on the grounds of racism and not on the grounds of good governance or economic affairs. Therefore is it mandatory to promote racism among the majority Sinhala Buddhists, leading to the birth of the BBS and other extremist Sinhala Buddhist organisations with the patronage of the ruling elite. Domestic and foreign policies of the Government are based on this strategy.
Intentional failure
There was no natural discontent of the Sinhala Buddhists about the activities of the Muslims of this country. It was created intentionally by the extremist and loose-headed monks with political patronage, probably with economic jealousy as well.
The Government had the ability to remove the 43rd Chief Justice against natural justice and Rule of Law within a very short period. It was evident in several similar incidents such as at Rathupaswala that direct challenging acts against the regime would not be tolerated.
Therefore it can be reasonably assumed that the failure to stop the rally at Aluthgama was intentional.  Failure of the Police to stop the violence also was intentional. The attackers were probably brought from outside of Aluthgama.
It was argued that the agenda of the BBS goes beyond the electoral intentions of the ruling elite, especially analysing the contents of the Aluthgama speech of the monk who was punished by the courts for drunk driving some time back. It is not. If it is, they will be destroyed by the ruling elite in no time. They are just a bunch of inflated puppets.
A dangerous game
Sinhala Buddhists should realise that the Government is playing a dangerous game of fire with their sentiments in order to secure power for the Government. In 1983 when Tamil militancy took off with Black July, the foreign policy of the Sri Lankan Government was in a different line to the Indian Government.
In addition to that Sri Lanka had just opened its gates to the open economy whereas India was following its closed and pro-Soviet economic policies. This created an opportunity for the Indian Government to interfere with Sri Lanka’s domestic affairs.
India, where 70 million Tamils reside in close proximity to Sri Lanka, helped train Tamil militants at the initial stages. With the expelling of moderate Tamil leaders from Parliament and application of hardline policies towards Tamils, the stage was set for destruction.
Now the same type of ground scenario is set. Due to the Chinese-aligned policies of the Government, Western countries are not in favour with it. The Government is neither cooperating with the international community in the investigation of war crime charges nor carrying it out by its own.
Muslim militancy
There are a lot of Muslim allies of Western nations. There is a possibility of repeating history if Muslim militancy is created and supported by the West. Sri Lanka is depending on the Muslim countries for supply of oil and providing employment opportunities for a large number of Sri Lankans including domestic workers from whom Sri Lanka gets a large portion of foreign remittances to cover its weak trade deficit.
There is no leadership for the Muslims now. Their nominal leader who committed the crime of supporting the 18th Amendment to the Constitution with his team for personal gains was asked to leave recently by none other than the President. He stays. After his people were attacked and after addressing them with tears, crocodile of course, he argues what benefit their people get if he leaves the Government.
He should understand that it is of paramount importance of a leader to hold the followers together rather than surrendering together.  Then only can he stop the rise of a militant leadership. This is necessary for our country since the Government rushes in where angels fear to tread.
Sri Lanka under pressure
Sinhala Buddhists should realise that the origin of the stupid foreign policy of the Government also was based on arousing communal feelings among them and securing votes. There is a different treatment to the north by the Government compared to the treatment to the south.
One example is the interference by the military in civilian affairs. If the Government treated them with equal footing and genuinely found a solution to their political issues, then the demand for investigation of war crimes would be not that strong, or would it have been diminished.
The Government kept on celebrating the war victory and downplayed the political demands of the Tamils and created the grounds for communal disharmony in order to secure the support of Sinhala Buddhists. As a result when Indian pressure was mounting the Government leaned towards China. This antagonised India as well as the West. As a result Sri Lanka is under pressure from the West as well as India.
Jeopardising national interest
Therefore the Government is jeopardising Sri Lanka’s national interest by adopting wrong foreign and domestic policies in order to secure power by ensuring the support of the majority Sinhala Buddhists by means of creating communal disharmony. For sure with this status, economic prosperity would be a wild dream.
Sri Lanka now is on the same path of Sudan and Yugoslavia. Ultimately we may have to end up at the point where the country would be divided with international support if we go along this path.
There is a term Bhava used in the 12 Nidhanas: cause and effect analysis of birth, life and death in Buddhism. It means becoming and being arranged. Sri Lanka is being arranged and set to go on that path. In order to avoid it, there should be a clear and strong political will expressed and actions taken.
Sinhala Buddhists, who are the target audience of the Government, if they have any sense, should be able to break their unholy silence and influence the Government in this respect. Unfortunately Sinhala Buddhism is having a separate religious status now as preached by few of their own separatists. Some Sinhala Buddhists have abandoned their original religion, which was Buddhism. Therefore we should pray for them.
Oh God, forgive them, for they don’t know what they should do. They don’t know that they are being politically used and appeased. They don’t know by their ignorance they ruin their own future, the future of their children, the future of the generations ahead and the future of their beloved nation.

(Published in Daily FT on 25th June 2014)

Who are the war heroes?

When a war is fought between two parties, there are rules agreed upon and applied. War is a test of strength and in the civilised world it is understood that the parties to it would follow the rules of war. Mahabharatha was the oldest instance where rules of war were stipulated.
Mahabharatha was an ancient Hindu epic which described a war between Kauravas and Pandavas of the same clan. Capital of the kauravas was Hastinapura ruled by Dhritarashtra and that of the Pandavas was Indraprastha ruled by Yudhishthira.
The origin of the dispute was a game of dice between Duryodhana, son of Dhritarashtra and his Pandava cousins where Duryodhana won the game by deceit forcing Pandavas to transfer their entire territories to the Kauravas and to go into exile for 13 years. After the period of exile Duryodhna refused to hand over the territories back and as a result the war started. Pandava means five brothers, Yudhishthira, Bhima, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahadeva.

Rules of war
Rules of war agreed upon are as follows.
1.Fighting must begin no earlier than sunrise and end exactly at sunset.
2.More than one warrior may not attack a single warrior.
3.Two warriors may “duel,” or engage in prolonged personal combat, only if they carry the same weapons and they are on the same type of mount (on foot, on a horse, on an elephant, or in a chariot).
4.No warrior may kill or injure a warrior who has surrendered.
5.One who surrenders becomes a prisoner of war and will then be subject to the protections of a prisoner of war.
6.No warrior may kill or injure an unarmed warrior.
7.No warrior may kill or injure an unconscious warrior.
8.No warrior may kill or injure a person or animal not taking part in the war.
9.No warrior may kill or injure a warrior whose back is turned away.
10.No warrior may attack a woman.
11.No warrior may strike an animal not considered a direct threat.
12.The rules specific to each weapon must be followed. For example, it is prohibited to strike below the waist in mace warfare.
13.Warriors may not engage in any unfair warfare.
During the war in some instances, in fact at very vital points, these rules were broken. Battle lasted for eighteen days and on the 13th day second rule was broken when Abhimanyu of Pandavas was attacked by many worriers and was killed. On the 14th day the first rule was broken and the battle continued after sunset. On the 15th day when Drona, then the leader of Kaurava army, laid down his arms on hearing that his son has died, Dhristadyumna killed him breaking the 6th rule. On the 18th day in a mace battle Bhima attacked Duryodhana beneath the waist in which he was mortally wounded and the 12th rule was broken. On the same day which was the last day Kauravas attacked the Pandava camp in the night killing many of them breaking the 1st and probably the 6th rules.
Finally the Pandavas won the war although their strength was lesser compared to Kaurava army. It was told that they fought a war of righteousness considering the cause of war although they broke many a rules!
International Humanitarian Law
Rules of war were developed over a period and now we have International Humanitarian Law which is the law regulates the armed conflicts in today’s context. Given below are the rules of war.
1.Persons hors de combat (outside of combat), and those not taking part in hostilities, shall be protected and treated humanely.
2.It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy combatant who surrenders, or who is hors de combat.
3.The wounded and the sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the ‘Red Cross,’ or of the ‘Red Crescent,’ shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.
4.Captured combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
5.No-one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment, or cruel or degrading treatment.
6.Parties to a conflict, and members of their armed forces, do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
7.Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.
Wars in ancient days were fought by the soldiers face to face and therefore the rules were more like that of a boxing ring. Over the period methodologies of warfare were changed. However the essence of both set of rules is the same which means protecting the injured and those who have surrendered. Since the methodologies of warfare changed later, the recent rules provide for the protection of civilians.
As far as the Pandavas are concerned there were hardly any survivors of the other side and for that matter there were very few neutrals including younger brother of Dhritarashtra, and Balarama. Otherwise Pandavas would have been answerable as war criminals. However finally at the end of Mahabharatha, only Yudhisthira, the lone survivor after ruling 36 years after the war and being of pious heart, was invited by Dharma to enter the heavens as a mortal.

Rules are broken very often
Although the rules are there during a war, those are broken very often. However, the authorities should not encourage breaking of rules by their respective armies. If there is any lapse those should be disclosed and the offenders should be punished. Otherwise the credibility of war victory would be shattered in the eyes of the neutral observers. That is what happened to the Sri Lankan Army today.
The main point that damaged the credibility was the deliberate lie of the Government that there were zero casualties of the civilians. In the past we had credible investigations of crimes during insurgency. Examples were the case of Premawathi Manamperi when Sirimavo Bandaranaike was the Prime Minister at the time of 1971 insurrection and the case of Krishanthi Cumaraswamy during the time of President Chandrika Kumaratunga.
Moreover, the Sinhalese think that they have a proud history of following rules of war such as not to fight an enemy if he is not armed properly. Their hero Dutugemunu in order to save the lives of the both armies suggested to have a one-to-one fight with Elara who agreed to the suggestion irrespective of the fact that he was in his seventies compared to young Dutugemunu.
Once the old king was fallen Dutugemunu in order to respect him erected a tomb for him and ordered that anyone who passes by the tomb in a vehicle should get down and walk that distance. This rule was observed centuries down the line. When Keppetipola was sent by the British rulers to defeat the 1818 insurrection with a British Army, he took the side of the rebellions considering that their cause was just and returned the British soldiers with their arms. Although he was defeated and killed by the British, he was considered a hero by all because of his gracious act.
Investigation of war crimes
Ravinatha Ariyasinha, the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka at United Nations Human Rights Council declared at the recent 26th Regular Sessions in Geneva that the Government of Sri Lanka would not cooperate with the international investigation of war crimes to be carried out under the patronage of the Council. Although the decision was made the Government plays politics with that by referring it to the Parliament.
There should have been a credible domestic investigation long time ago. Sometime back the allegations of genocide against the Sri Lankan Army were renewed at Geneva. This allegation would come down the line over and over again if it is not cleared by an investigation. Genocide in true sense comes to effect when the population of the alleged oppressor ratifies what happened. Therefore it is up to the majority Sinhalese to clear their name and the name of their Army to avoid any black marks in the history. Then only it can be considered that they follow the path followed by their historical heroes.
Let alone what happened at the final stages of war, investigations of the killing of five school boys of Trincomalee and the assassination of 17 aid workers of Action Against Hunger are still pending. As pointed out by JVP there is a series of inquiries to be held including Rathupaswala incident, Welikada prison incident, the killing at FTZ protests and so on.
If there are allegations against the Sri Lankan Army, there should be a credible investigation so that any war crime should be punished and the name of the rest should be cleared. Then and then only the rest can be considered as war heroes. If any one wonders why there is no adequate international credit to the Army which defeated the most dangerous terrorist movement in recent times of the world history, the answer is there. War heroes would not commit war crimes and those who have committed war crimes cannot be war heroes.

(Published in Daily FT on 18th June 2014)

Sri Lanka’s foreign policy and India

New Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi representing the Bharathiya Janatha Party captured more than 50% of the seats in Lok Sabha. After decades India is having a strong government in the centre. It was mentioned that a strong India is good for Sri Lanka. In absolute terms it cannot be and it solely depends on Sri Lanka’s foreign policy.

During the time of President Jayewardene, the Sri Lankan Government adopted a pro-Western foreign policy when India was aligned with the Soviet Union although the official policies of both governments were non-aligned. Economically India was following a closed economy where the Sri Lankan economy was liberalised after a difficult period of a closed economy.
The Indian Government was strong at that time and Indira Gandhi who fought a war with Pakistan and helped to create a separate state in East Pakistan called Bangladesh was the Indian Prime Minister. The Tamil militant movement was rising in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu supported the movement. In retaliation of Sri Lankan foreign policy, India supported training of Tamil militants in the Indian soil.
At the time of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi when he was under pressure from Tamil Nadu and when Colombo was not cooperating, he had to invade the air space of Sri Lanka and drop dry rations for the benefit of northern Tamils. President Jayewardene’s friends did not come to our rescue. The Sri Lankan Government was advised to settle the matters with India. That was the result of strong Indian Government.
During the time of Sirimavo Bandaranaike as Prime Minister, her Indian counterpart was Indira Gandhi. Foreign and economic policies of both Governments were aligned so that there were no issues pending and several issues were sorted out amicably.

When Sri Lankan Prime Minister John Kotalawala had spoken in favour of the West at the Bandung conference in 1955 which was the first African-Asian Conference, it was reported that Indian Prime Minister Nehru asked Kotalawala why he had not shown his script before speaking. Kotalawala shot back asking why Nehru had not shown his script to Kotalawala. This was because Ceylon at the time was adopting a pro-Western foreign policy and India was not. Therefore, Sri Lanka will have to toe the line of India when there is a strong centre in India.
Some are equal more than others
In foreign relations although theoretically all countries are equal whether they are big or small, practically they are not. Some are equal more than others, if I quote George Orwell. One cannot ask that how India is interfering with our domestic affairs where we do not interfere with Indian domestic affairs. It is like managing a village thug at the village level. One can become his henchman and do whatever he asks to do or else one can challenge him complaining to the police – theoretical police not the real one – and face endless problems.
Rather than going to these extremes, one can still manage him at arm’s length and earn his respect as well. One should know how not to antagonise him and also how not to appease him all the time. This is called diplomacy.
How Sri Lanka managed India in the recent past was very interesting. Students of foreign policy should study this. It was neither aligning with them nor working against them and there was no diplomatic management either. It was pure deceiving.
The Indian Government wanted to destroy the LTTE. In the first place they did not want the persons responsible for the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, which was a great humiliation to India, to exist, and in the second place they did not want a terrorist organisation with air and sea powers to exist in its borders. No super power does like that. Therefore India supported the crushing of the LTTE. The Sri Lankan Government boasted that they have managed India well unlike during the time of President Jayewardene. There was nothing to manage in Indian affairs during that time since we were aligned with India.
During that time and after the war Sri Lankan leaders promised the Indian leaders that soon after the war a political solution which would go beyond 13th Amendment to the Constitution would be implemented. This was mentioned in the discussions with several world leaders including the Secretary General of United Nations.
Once when the Indian Foreign Minister came to Sri Lanka he had discussions with the President and soon after the discussions Indian foreign Minister held a press conference and said that the President was in favour of implementing a political solution beyond the 13th Amendment. Later the President denied this claim. For the past five years Sri Lanka managed India like this.
Robert Knox on Sri Lankans
Robert Knox, a sailor in the service of English East India Company was captured by the King of Kandy Rajasinghe II in 1660 during the time of Dutch rule of the lowlands and was detained for nearly 20 years in the interior of Ceylon. After his escape he had written a book called ‘A Historical Relation of Ceylon’ which was published in 1681 in England. In this book in Part III, Chapter I, Concerning the Inhabitants of this Island under the sub heading Their Disposition, Knox stated as follows:
“………They are crafty and treacherous, not to be trusted upon any protestations: for their manner of speaking is very smooth and courteous, insomuch that they who are unacquainted with their dispositions and manners, may easily be deceived by them. For they make neither account nor conscience of lying, neither is it any shame or disgrace to them, if they be catched in telling lyes: it is so customary……..”
It was further stated as follows: “……..Of all Vices they are least addicted to stealing, the witch they do exceedingly hate and abhor; so that there are but few Robberies committed among them. They do much extol and commend Chastity, Temperance, and Truth in words and actions; and confess that it is out of weakness and infirmity, that they cannot practice the same, acknowledging that the contrary Vices are to be abhorred, being abomination both in sight of God and Man…..”
We have come a long way from 1680 but our leaders are proving to the world that we still have the bad genes of our ancestors. It should not be done at diplomatic level under any circumstances.
The China card
One other card played by Sri Lanka was the China factor. When there was pressure from India, Sri Lanka was lenient towards China in order to balance that pressure. This had antagonised the West as well. Now it is going beyond the balancing level to a dangerous game.
India is aligned with the West. If Sri Lanka is going to be aligned with China, Sri Lanka will have to face the wrath of both the West and India. With a strong Government in India and being both in the BRICS organisation, China would like to have strong relationship with India. At a decisive point, there is a possibility of abandoning Sri Lanka by China as happened during President Jayewardene’s time with West and in recent times in respect of Sudan by China. We have to be ready for these power politics.
One advantage
Sri Lanka has one advantage now. That is that the central government does not have to depend on Tamil Nadu in governance although the Tamil Nadu regional governing party won a very large number of seats in the centre.
Another advantage Sri Lanka would have, if India can be managed successfully, is that Sri Lanka would be protected by India from the West if there would be any dispute. This is the same principle of managing the village thug. He will not allow outsiders to come and poke their fingers to his territory.
Some think that since the new Indian Prime Minister is a nationalist – correct word is racist – and the Sri Lankan President is also like that, there would be a harmony with them. India is a well-established secular state and BJP would not be able to change that ground scenario. They use this in order to get power but we have seen BJP governments in the past. They were not biased towards one community as the present Sri Lankan Government.
The election campaign of the BJP was centred on economic achievements of Modi and anti-corruption approach of BJP. It is obvious other than to the Sri Lankan Government that with communal feelings and biases, a nation cannot achieve far-reaching economic goals. For sure Modi understands this.
Sri Lanka must solve internal problems
What Sri Lanka has to do is solve its internal problems and do justice to the Tamils. There is no international support for a separate state here unless the Sri Lankan Government does not provide an acceptable solution to the issue. Let alone 13+ and even 13, with the limited implementation of 13th Amendment, governance of the Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils is disrupted by the Government purposely by using respective governors. It looks like the centre fears decentralisation. Fear is a clear sign of weakness and not of strength.
If the 13th Amendment is not appropriate – it is not actually, with a lot of flaws – we should have a better solution with a new constitution. If the Government can do this simple thing, not so simple anyway, the country does not have to spend time on managing various super powers. Action is the need of the hour, not reaction.
However from the press release of the Presidential Secretariat after the recent visit of the President to India and from certain recent remarks of the Leader of the House, it seems to be that the Government is going to be adamant, most probably in order to secure the vote base of short-sighted, whether they are educated or not, Sinhala Buddhists – probably including the writer as well.
The complacent majority and their voices should realise that all of us are in rough seas. This is not the time to build castles in the air.
(Published in Daily FT on 10th June 2014)

හයිබි‍්‍රඩ් විදේශ ප‍්‍රතිපත්තිය

අද ජාත්‍යන්තර දේශපාලන ක‍්‍රියාකාරකම් අවබෝධ කර ගැනීම තරමක් අපහසු කාර්යයකි. දේශපාලන කුහකකම්, සැ`ගවුණු න්‍යායපත‍්‍ර සහ ද්විත්ව ප‍්‍රමිතීන් ජාත්‍යන්තර සබඳතා තුළ තිබෙන බව බොහෝ දෙනා කියති. රාජ්‍යයන්ගේ ප‍්‍රාථමික අවශ්‍යතා සලකා බැලීමට හැකිනම් සංකීර්ණ ජාත්‍යන්තර සබඳතා වටහා ගත හැක. ප‍්‍රාථමික අවශ්‍යතා යනු කුමක්ද? ප‍්‍රාථමික අවශ්‍යතා යනු ආත්මාරක්ෂාව සහ ආත්මාර්ථයයි.

ඕනෑම සුපිරි බලවතකුගේ විදේශ ප‍්‍රතිපත්තිය සැකසෙන්නේ පළමුව එරට ආරක්ෂක උපායමාර්ග සහ දෙවනුව එරට වෙළෙඳ අවශ්‍යතා සලකාගෙනය. ආරක්ෂක උපායමාර්ග නීති සහ රෙගුලාසි මත පදනම් නොවේ. එයට හේතු වන්නේ සත්‍ය හෝ මනඃකල්පිත බිය වන අතර එය කෙසේ හෝ ආත්මාරක්ෂාව සලසා ගැනීම අරමුණු කරගෙන ඇත.

යුක්රේනයේ සිදුවූයේ කුමක්ද? යුක්රේනියන් කොමියුනිස්ට් පක්ෂයේ ප‍්‍රථම ලේකම්වරයාව සිටි නිකිතා කෘෂෙව් සෝවියට් නායකයාව සිටි අවධියේ රුසියාවට අනුබද්ධව තිබූ ක‍්‍රිමියාව යුක්රේනයට භාර දෙන ලදී. සෝවියට් දේශය බිඳී ගිය පසු 1991 දී යුක්රේනය ස්වාධීන රාජ්‍යයක් විය. සෝවියට් දේශය සතුව තිබූ පරමාණු අවි බොහොමයක් යුක්රේනයේ ගබඩා කොට තිබූ අතර 1994 දී රුසියාව, බි‍්‍රතාන්‍යය, ඇමෙරිකාව සහ යුක්රේනය අත්සන් කළ යුරේනයේ ආරක්ෂාව සහතික කිරීම පිළිබඳ බුඩාපෙස්ට් ලියැවිල්ල මගින් රුසියාව විසින් යුක්රේනය ආක‍්‍රමණය නොකරන බවට වූ සහතිකය මත මෙම අවි රුසියාවට භාර දෙන ලදී. පසුව ප‍්‍රංශය සහ චීනය ද මෙම ලියැවිල්ලට අත්සන් කරන ලදී. වික්ටර් යනුකොවිච් 2004 දී ජනාධිපති වූ අතර පසුව එරට ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය විසින් මැතිවරණ වංචා මත මැතිවරණය අවලංගු කිරීමෙන් පසුව වික්ටර් යුෂ්චෙන්කෝ ජනාධිපති වූ අතර යුලියා ටිමොෂේන්කෝ අගමැති වූවාය. වික්ටර් යනුකොවිච් 2010 දී නැවතත් ජනාධිපති විය. 2013 නොවැම්බර් මාසයේදී ප‍්‍රධාන වශයෙන් යුරෝපා සංගමය යුක්රේනය සමග ඇතිකර ගැනීමට ගිය ගිවිසුමක් රුසියාවට හිතැති ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් අත්හිටවීමට විරුද්ධව සහ සාමාන්‍ය වශයෙන් ජනාධිපතිවරයා යටතේ වන රාජ්‍ය දූෂණය, බලය අයථා ලෙස පරිහරණය කිරීම සහ මානව හිමිකම් කඩ කිරීමට විරුද්ධව මහා උද්ඝෝෂණ ව්‍යාපාරයක් ඇතිවිය.

ඇමෙරිකා එක්සත් ජනපදය විරෝධතා ව්‍යාපාරයට මැදිහත් වූ අතර යුක්රේනයේ ප‍්‍රජාතාන්ත‍්‍රික ආයතන ගොඩනැගීම වෙනුවෙන් ඇමෙරිකාව ඩොලර් බිලියන පහක් වියදම් කළ බව වාර්තා විය. එක්සත් ජනපද සහය රාජ්‍ය ලේකම් වික්ටෝරියා නියුලන්ඞ් සහ යුක්රේනයේ ඇමෙරිකන් තානාපති ජෙෆ්රි පියට් අතර වූ, පසුව ජනමාධ්‍යයට අනාවරණය වූ දුරකථන සාකච්ඡුාවකදී ජනාධිපතිවරයා බලයෙන් පහ කිරීමෙන් පසුව විපක්ෂ නායකයකු වූ විටලි ක්ලිට්ශේකෝ වෙනුවට තවත් විපක්ෂ නායකයකු වූ ආසෙනි යැට්සෙන්යුක් බලයට පත් කිරීමට නියුලන්ඞ්ට අවශ්‍ය වූ අතර දැනට අන්තර්වාර අගමැති වශයෙන් කටයුතු කරන්නේද යැට්සෙන්යුක් ය. නියුලන්ඞ් විසින් මෙම සාකච්ඡාවේදී යුරෝපා සංගමයට එරෙහිව අසභ්‍ය වචන පාවිච්චි කරන ලදී.

ක‍්‍රිමියන් ජනතාව ප‍්‍රධාන වශයෙන් රුසියානුවෝ වෙති. ක‍්‍රිමියාව යුක්රේනය තුළ වෙනම පාර්ලිමේන්තුවක් සහිත සීමිත නිදහසක් ඇති රටක් වන අතර යුක්රේන් නීතියට යටත්ය. ක‍්‍රිමියාවේ සිටින රුසියානුවන්ගේ ආරක්ෂාව මූලික කර ගනිමින් රුසියාව විසින් සිය හමුදා ක‍්‍රිමියාවට එවූ අතර ක‍්‍රිමියානුවන් රුසියාවට එකතු වීමට කැමති දැයි විමසමින් ජනමත විචාරණයක් පවත්වන ලදී. ක‍්‍රිමියානුවන් විසින් 2014 මාර්තු 16 වනදා 95% කට වැඩි ඡන්ද ප‍්‍රමාණයක් මගින් තමන් රුසියාවට එකතුවීමට කැමති බව ප‍්‍රකාශ කරන ලදී.

යුක්රේන අර්බුදයට අදාළ කරුණු සැකෙවින් ඉහත සඳහන් කළ අතර යුක්රේන අර්බුදය විග‍්‍රහ කරන විට අයෙකුට ඇමෙරිකාව වැරදි යැයි කිව හැක. තවත් අයෙකුට රුසියාව වැරදි යැයි කිව හැකිය. සත්‍ය වශයෙන්ම දෙපාර්ශවයම වැරදි වේ. ඇමෙරිකාව විසින් තමන් කැමති අයකු රුසියාවට යාබදව ඇති යුක්රේනයේ බලයට පත් කිරීමට එරට තුළ පැවති සිවිල් අරගලය උපයෝගී කර ගන්නා ලද අතර රුසියාව විසින් අන්තර්ජාතික නීතිවලට සහ 1994 බුඩාපෙස්ට් සම්මුතියට පටහැනිව ක‍්‍රිමියාව ආක‍්‍රමණය කරන ලදී. ඇමෙරිකාව සහ රුසියාව විසින් සිය ආරක්ෂාව තහවුරු කිරීම සඳහා කටයුතු කරන ලද්දේ යුක්රේනියානු ජනතාවගේ ස්වාධිපත්‍යය කැප කරමිනි. ඇමෙරිකාව කටයුතු කර ඇත්තේ ඔවුන් කියන ලෙස නොවන අතර ලංකාවට එරෙහි ජිනීවා යෝජනාවට අදාළව රුසියාවේ ක‍්‍රියාකාරීත්වය සහ ක‍්‍රිමියාවේ ඔවුන්ගේ ක‍්‍රියාකාරීත්වය මගින් රුසියාවේ දේශපාලන කුහකකම පෙන්නුම් කෙරේ. ක‍්‍රිමියානුවන්ට තමන්ට අවශ්‍ය දෙය ලැබී ඇත. යුක්රේනයට බොහෝවිට සදහටම ක‍්‍රිමියාව අහිමිවී ඇත. සිවිල් අරගලය සමග අමෙරිකාවේද සහයෝගය ඇතුව යැට්සෙන්යුක් බලයට පත්වී ඇත. යුක්රේන ජාතිකයන්ගේ දේශපාලන අභිලාෂයන්ට සිදුව ඇත්තේ කුමක්ද? අද දවසේ දේශපාලනයේදී රටක ජනතාවගේ දේශපාලන අභිලාෂයන් එරට නායකයන්ගේ දේශපාලන අභිලාෂයන්ට වෙනස්ව සලකා බැලිය යුතු වන්නේ බොහෝවිට නායකයන් තමන්ගේ පුද්ගලික දේශපාලන අභිලාෂයන් රටේ දේශපාලන අභිලාෂයන්ට වඩා ඉදිරියෙන් තබන බැවිනි.

වර්ෂ 2004 දී මැතිවරණ වංචා කළ දූෂිත එ්කාධිපති එමෙන්ම තම දේශපාලන ප‍්‍රතිවාදිනිය සිරගත කළ මානව හිමිකම් උල්ලංඝනය කරන්නකු සිය ජනාධිපති ලෙස යුක්රේනයට ලැබී තිබුණි. ඔහු රුසියානු හිතවාදියකු වූ නිසා රුසියාවට ඔහු තබා ගැනීමට අවශ්‍ය විය. එබැවින් ඇමෙරිකාවට ඔහු ඉවත් කිරීමට අවශ්‍ය විය. විශේෂයෙන්ම බලගතු රටවලට යාබදව තිබෙන කුඩා රාජ්‍යයන්ගේ අභ්‍යන්තර අරගලවලට ජාත්‍යන්තර බල අරගලය සම්බන්ධ වූ විට සිදු වන්නේ මෙයයි.

මෙයට සාපේක්ෂව ශ‍්‍රී ලංකාවේ තත්ත්වය විමසා බලමු.

ශ‍්‍රී ලංකාව ඉන්දියන් සාගරයේ උපාය මාර්ගික වශයෙන් වැදගත් ස්ථානයක පරමාණු බලවතකු වූ වැඩි ආර්ථික වර්ධනයක් සහිත එමෙන්ම එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ ආරක්ෂක මණ්ඩලයේ සාමාජිකත්වය බලාපොරොත්තු වන ඉන්දියාවට සමීපව පිහිටා ඇත. එයට අමතරව ඉන්දීය ප‍්‍රාන්ත රාජ්‍යයක් වූ මිලියන 72 ක ජනගහණයක් සහිත තමිල්නාඩුව ශ‍්‍රී ලාංකික ද්‍රවිඩ ජාතිකයන්ගේ දේශපාලන අභිලාෂයන් ගැන දැඩි සැලකිල්ලක් දක්වයි. ජයවර්ධන ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ යුගයේදී තමිල්නාඩුවේ ප‍්‍රධාන ඇමතිවරයා මෙරට ජනවර්ග ප‍්‍රශ්නයේ ප‍්‍රධාන කාර්යභාරයක් ඉටුකළ අතර රජීව් ගාන්ධි ඝාතනයෙන් පසුව මෙම තත්ත්වය කණපිට හැරුණි.

එබැවින් ඉන්දියානු දේශපාලන අවශ්‍යතාවයන් සහ තමිල්නාඩුවේ උද්වේගයන් ද එයට අමතරව සිය භූගෝලීය පිහිටීම නිසා සුපිරි බලවතුන්ගේ අවශ්‍යතාවයන්ද තුලනය කිරීමට ද ශ‍්‍රී ලංකාවට සිදුවේ. ජයවර්ධන යුගයේ සිට මෙරට සිදුවූ මානව හිමිකම් උල්ලංඝනයන් නිසා බටහිරින් බලාපොරොත්තු වූ යුද්ධ ආධාර නොලැබුණි. කුමාරතුංග යුගයේ කදිර්ගාමර් විදේශ ඇමති ලෙස කටයුතු කරන විට මෙම තත්ත්වය වෙනස් වුණි. වර්තමානයේ ලංකාව පළමුව ඉන්දියානු බලපෑම් තුලනය කිරීම සඳහා ද දෙවනුව යුද්ධයෙන් පසුව එන බටහිර බලපෑම් තුලනය කිරීම සඳහා ද චීනයට වඩාත් බර තබා ක‍්‍රියා කරන පිළිවෙතක් අනුගමනය කරයි. සිරිමාවෝ බණ්ඩාරනායක විසින් අනුගමනය කරන ලද නොබැඳි ප‍්‍රතිපත්තිය මෙය නොවන බව අවධාරණය කළ යුතුය. එයට ප‍්‍රතිවිරුද්ධව මෙය ප‍්‍රතිපත්තීන් මත නොව අමුවෙන්ම කේවල් කිරීම මත පදනම් වූ දඩබ්බර ක‍්‍රියා පටිපාටියකි. මෙම ක‍්‍රියාපටිපාටිය කොතෙක් දඩබ්බරදැයි ඉන්දියාව ජිනීවා යෝජනාවට ඡන්දය දීමෙන් වැළකී සිටීමට ප‍්‍රත්‍යුපකාර වශයෙන් ජනාධිපතිවරයා විසින් මෙරට මුහුදු සීමාවේ මසුන් මරමින් සිට අත්අඩංගුවට ගත් ධීවරයන් සැණෙකින් නිදහස් කිරීමෙන් පෙනේ. කලකට පෙර ඉන්දියාවේ බුරුම ප‍්‍රතිපත්තිය නිසා බුරුමය චීනය මත රඳා පැවතුණු බැවින් ඉන්දියාව ලංකාව සම්බන්ධයෙන් කටයුතු කරන්නේ පරෙස්සමිනි. යුක්රේනයේ සිදුවූ දෙයද සැලකිල්ලට ගනිමින් බටහිර රාජ්‍යයන් වඩාත් ආක‍්‍රමණික ලෙස හැසිරෙනු ඇතැයි බලාපොරොත්තු විය හැක. ඉන්දියාව දැනට එකතු වී සිටින්නේ බටහිර සමග බවත් ජයවර්ධන යුගයේ මෙන් රුසියාව සමග නොවන බවත් අප මතක තබා ගත යුතුය.

ඕනෑම රටක් තවත් රටකට උදව් කරන්නේ ස්වාර්ථය උදෙසාය. එරටට ඇති අනුකම්පාවකට නොවේ. චීනයේ ලංකා ප‍්‍රතිපත්තිය අප විසින් පරිස්සමින් සලකා බැලිය යුත්තේ ඔවුන් බුරුමයේ සහ සුඩානයේ අනුගමනය කළ ප‍්‍රතිපත්තීන් නිසාය. බුරුමය චීනයේ අධිකාරිත්වය සහ මානව හිමිකම් උදෙසා වූ අන්තර්ජාතික බලපෑම හේතුවෙන් චීනය මත බර නොතබන ප‍්‍රතිපත්තියක් අනුගමනය කරයි. චීනය විසින් ඉතා තීරණාත්මක අවස්ථාවකදී සුඩානය අත්හැර දමනු ලැබූ අතර පසුව ජාත්‍යන්තර ප‍්‍රජාවගේද අනුමැතිය ඇතිව එරට දෙකඩ කරනු ලැබිණ.

ජාත්‍යන්තර ප‍්‍රජාව විසින් ද මතුකරන ලද දේශීය ප‍්‍රශ්නයක් අප හමුවේ තිබේ. ජාත්‍යන්තර ප‍්‍රජාව මෙරට පාලකයන්ට කියා සිටින්නේ මෙරට වැසියන්ගේ මානව හිමිකම් උල්ලංඝනය නොකරන ලෙසත් වාර්ගික සහ ආගමික සුළුතර කොටස්වලට අසමාන ලෙස නොසලකන ලෙසත්ය. ලංකාව විසින් අත්සන් කර ඇති ජාත්‍යන්තර සම්මුතීන්ට අනුව මෙය ඉතාමත් සාධාරණ ඉල්ලීමකි. එයට අමතරව යුද්ධයේ අවසන් අදියරේදී සිදු වූ ක‍්‍රියා පිළිබඳව විශ්වාසනීය විමර්ශනයක් ඔවුහු බලාපොරොත්තු වෙති. ජනාධිපතිවරයා එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ මහ ලේකම් ඇතුළු නොයෙකුත් විදෙස් නායකයන් සමග ඇතිකරගත් එකගතා මත ද ජාත්‍යන්තර නිර්ණායක මත ද මෙය සාධාරණ ඉල්ලීමක් වේ. සිංහල වීරයන් වූ සිය සේනාවේ ද සතුරු සේනාවේ ද සෙබළුන්ගේ ජීවිත විනාශය වළකනු සඳහා සිය ප‍්‍රතිවාදියා සමග ද්වන්ධ යුද්ධයකින් සටනේ තීරණය දැකීමට යෝජනා කළ දුටුගැමුණු ද බි‍්‍රතාන්‍යයන්ට එරෙහි වීමට තීරණය කළ පසු තමන් සන්තකයේ තිබූ බි‍්‍රතාන්‍යයන්ට අයිති ආයුධ ආපසු යැවීමට කටයුතු කළ කැප්පෙටිපොළ ද ගත් ක‍්‍රියාමාර්ග අනුව ද මෙය සාධාරණ ඉල්ලීමකි. නිරායුධ දෙමළ වැසියන් මරා දැමීම, එවැනි දෙයක් සිදුවූවානම්, අප අනුමත කරන්නේ කෙසේද? එය එසේ නොවූවා නම් හමුදාවේ සහ රාජ්‍යයේ කිර්තිනාමය ප‍්‍රතිෂ්ඨාපනය කළ යුතුය.

රාජ්‍යය කරමින් සිටින්නේ කුමක්ද? ඔවුන්ට මෙම ප‍්‍රශ්නය සදහටම විසඳීමේ අවශ්‍යතාවක් නොමැත. එනමුත් සදහටම බලයේ රැඳී සිටීමේ අවශ්‍යතාවක් ඔවුන්ට ඇත. එබැවින් වර්ගවාදී සහ ආගම්වාදී සිංහලයන්ගේ එම හැගීීම් ජිනීවා යෝජනාව ගෙන ආ බටහිර රාජ්‍යයන්ට එරෙහිව අවුළුවමින් ද සුළු ජාතිකයන්ගේ සාධාරණ ඉල්ලීම් බෙදුම්වාදය ලෙස අර්ථ දක්වමින් ද සමස්ත දේශය මුහුණදෙන අභාග්‍යය ඉදිරියේ සිය පැවැත්ම තහවුරු කර ගැනීමට පාලකයෝ සමත් වී සිටිති. බලයේ සිටීම සඳහා වන මෙම උපායමාර්ගය අනුව පහසුවෙන් විසඳා ගත හැකි දේශීය ප‍්‍රශ්නයක් සියුම් ජාත්‍යන්තර බල අරගලය සමග ඉතාමත් අන්තරායදායක ලෙස බද්ධ කිරීමට පාලකයෝ කටයුතු කරති. යුක්රේනයේ සිදුවූ දේ සමග සසඳා බලන විට රටට මේ නිසා දීර්ඝකාලීන ප‍්‍රතිවිපාකවලට මුහුණ දීමට සිදුවනු ඇත.

එබැවින් මෙරට මහජනතාව කුමක් කළ යුතුද? බටහිරට අවලාද නැගීම කිසිසේත්ම ප‍්‍රතිඵලදායී නොවන බව ඔවුන් විසින් වටහා ගත යුතුය. දේශපාලන කුහකකම්, සැගවුණු න්‍යාය පත‍්‍ර සහ ද්විත්ව ප‍්‍රමිතීන් ජාත්‍යන්තර සබඳතා තුළ තිබේ. ලංකා රාජ්‍යයද ක‍්‍රියා කරන්නේ එලෙසය. තමන්ගේ ප‍්‍රශ්නයට අන් අයෙකුට අවලාද නැගීම මගින් තමන් විසින් ප‍්‍රශ්නය තමන්ගේ ග‍්‍රහණයෙන් මුදා හරින අතර එමගින් එයට විසඳුමක් දීමට තමන්ට ඇති හැකියාවද තමන් විසින් අවම කරගනු ලැබේ. ජාතික තලයේදී මෙවැනි ක‍්‍රියා නොකළ යුතු අතර තමන්ගේ ප‍්‍රශ්නය තමන් විසින් නොවිසඳීම මගින් විදෙස් බලවේගවලට මෙරට ප‍්‍රශ්නවලට මැදහත් වීමට රාජ්‍යය විසින්ම මාර්ගය සලසා දෙනු ලැබේ. පාලකයන් තමන්ගේ උපාය සාර්ථක ලෙස ක‍්‍රියාවට නංවා ඇත. මහජනතාවද එම උගුලේ අසුවී ඇති බව පෙනේ.

Published in Samabima on 9th June 2014

Why isn’t the Western form of democracy effective in the East?

I have received a web response for my last article, ‘From Political Autocracy to Economic Autocracy,’ stating that sometimes autocracy is better than chaos of ‘democrazy’. I have heard this view many a time in Sri Lanka, citing examples of Eastern nations – Singapore under Lee, Iraq under Saddam and Libya under Gaddafi. Probably unexpressed examples were Zimbabwe under Mugabe, North Korea under Kim and Sri Lanka under Rajapaksa. Discussing this a little deeper is appropriate since there are deliberations about a new constitution.

We received democracy from Britain where democracy evolved through the centuries and turned into a way of governance suitable for that country. Parliamentary sovereignty is a basic principle of the governance system of Britain. Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Modern constitutions were evolved based on the concepts of liberty, equality and justice. These are the values of the individualist western cultures especially in United States of America and Britain.
Liberty
Compared to the previous governance systems by kings or queens, which prevail in some countries even today, the democratic governance system is a great achievement. Democracy is governance by majority. The persons who drafted the Constitution of USA, which was the pioneering constitution by the people in the modern world, ensured that liberty of the people would not be sacrificed by the rule of the majority. They defined the authorities of Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary; ensured that none of the said institutions could act arbitrarily and thereby ensured democracy and especially liberty which goes beyond democracy. The Preamble of US constitution goes as follows.
“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Liberty is defined in the Oxford dictionary as follows: “The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s behaviour or political views.”
Sri Lanka
In the Constitution of Sri Lanka also, Chapter III of Fundamental Rights deals with Liberty of the people but the collectivist Sri Lankan society does not recognise the value of liberty. Not even a proper Sinhala word exists for the word liberty. It is very freely translated to Sinhala as freedom.
Societies which value liberty respect the rights of the others and the behaviour of the members of the society is rule based. Authority of the law is prevalent. Sri Lankan society comprises of groups, large or small. Largest group they have is race or religion and unfortunately it is not the nation. They do not conceptualise the word nation and very often it is used to denote the race which they belong to. They are hostile to the out-group members. They break rules very often and things happen based on relationships. When there is queue they try to break it and by breaking it they do not realise that they break the rights of the others but they think that they are smarter. Once they belong to a group they are very protective of that group and the tendency is group view supersedes the independent views. By creating political parties under the Western form of democracy, an additional in-group was created. When they support a political party, they defend the wrongdoings of that party even though those have devastating effects to the country. The political party which is in power necessarily would be hostile to the members of the political parties which are not in power. Democracy would be diminished to the level of tyranny of the majority which means autocracy. Majority and the minority do not have a sense of liberty so that minority will wait until they get the power in order to do the same in retaliation. On the other hand political parties which are not in power would try to get power using whatever means. They might try some destructive methods even though those are against the national interest. This is the point one would say that autocracy is better than democracy.
Therefore implementation of democracy in the collectivist Eastern cultures would either create autocracy if the majority rule is powerful or create anarchy if the opposition is powerful. Sri Lanka is an example of the former and Thailand is an example of the latter.
Individualism and collectivism
Geert Hofstede, the foremost social psychologist who developed the theory of cultural dimensions, defined individualism and collectivism 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.”
He further observed: “In collectivist societies Identity is based in the social net-work to which one belongs and in individualist societies Identity is based in the individual. In collectivist societies opinions are pre- determined by group membership and in individualist societies everyone is expected to have a private opinion.”
Western democracy 
Western democracy was evolved in those countries based on their culture and way they think and behave which is individualistic. In these societies it is appreciated that people have different views. The best example is the quote of Voltaire who shaped the minds of the people for French Revolution. He said: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
This type of thinking is alien to the collectivist eastern cultures. In the societies where individual views are appreciated, democracy can be evolved only through a system where majority view gets the priority. In these societies with the sense of Liberty, minority who is having a different view will not be harassed. Therefore there would be no autocracy. On the other hand parties who do not have power would not be impatient and create unnecessary troubles so that there would be no anarchy.
History says that democracy originated in Greek city states in 8th to 6th centuries BC. During the time of Buddha in 6th century BC, Ajasath the king of Magadha and a devotee of Buddha wanted to invade the Vajji territory. Buddha advised the Chief Minister of Ajasath, Vassakara, not to go ahead with war.
The Buddha further said that the Lichchavis, rulers of Vajji, could not be suppressed and defeated until they adhered to the seven Dhammas which were not conducive to defeat (Saptaaparihaniya Dhamma). Those are given below:

•  They held regular meetings to discuss matters pertaining to the day-to-day administration.
• They met, worked and dispersed as a team.
• They strictly followed the law of the country.
• They were submissive to the elders.
• They respected the women-folk and condemned the oppression of women.
• They followed the religious customs and protected them.
• They respected the clergy and held them in veneration.

In the Maha Parinibbana Sutta, the Buddha said as follows.

“Oh, bhikkus, so long as you sit together and discuss your problems together as a matter of routine, you are assured of progress but no set-backs. Oh bhikkus, so long as you are bound together in unity you are assured of progress but no set-backs.” Those were in fact the democratic traditions followed by the Vajjis which Buddha wanted to introduce into the bhikku order.
The values behind these seven points can be identified as follows:

•  Consensus
• Maintain the rule of law
• Protect the weak
• Respect those who are     respectable

These values other than the second one are contrary to the Western protestant work ethic which was defined by Max Weber in 1904. Consensus is prevalent in the thinking pattern of the Eastern nations. In Japanese businesses, decision making time is very longer since they seek the approval of all the members of the team whereas in American business decisions are made by the top management fairly quickly. Implementation time of the decisions in Japanese businesses is much quicker compared to the American companies since the support of all the team members are there since they made the decision.  Therefore if democracy can be introduced to Eastern collectivist cultures by way of consensus instead of majority rule, it would be lasting and beneficial. In collectivist cultures in-groups can be as small as the unit of family and can be as large as the entire nation. Within these in-groups inter personal relationship and consensus would be valued rather than liberty, which is valued very much in individualist countries.
New constitution
In this light we should view the proposal for a new constitution by the United National Party where it was suggested as follows.
“The Member who commands the majority of a Provincial Council shall be appointed as the Chief Minister and the Leader of the political party which has secured the next highest number of seats shall be appointed as the Deputy Chief Minister. The Boards of Ministers of the Provincial Councils will be appointed proportionately to the votes polled by the respective political parties in such Council.”
We had this type of governance under the Donoughmore constitution where a committee system of government was created with consensual decision making and the in-built series of checks and balances. Probably China is trying to follow this type of model of governance although with lot of deficiencies. East should explore the best form of democracy they can implement rather than relying on autocracy.
However whether it is in an individualist, collectivist, capitalist or socialist society it is a must in governance to follow the rules. As adhered by Vajjis, to maintain rule of law is of paramount importance for the strength of a state. Sometimes kings of Sri Lanka placed rule of law above themselves. Elara was one of them. When Elara arrived to a temple for a discussion with Bhikkus, his wagon stuck the stupa and an injury was caused. It was reported in Mahavamsa that the King leaped from his car and flung himself down upon the road with the words: “Sever my head also (from the trunk) with the wheel.” Bhikkus intervened and the King was appeased.
The incumbent Sri Lankan President, all his predecessors and successors if any, are above the law constitutionally and his henchmen are above the law unconstitutionally. The situation was aggravated in recent times resulting lawlessness throughout the country. This is a dangerous situation and this type of state is bound to collapse. Even the Buddha vouched for that.
(Published in Daily FT on 20th May 2014)