Warmongering and statesmanship

In defeating the LTTE, the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, then Army Commander and the then military leaders did a wonderful job by way of strategic military plans and implementing the same.

Sun Tzu, a military commander who lived in China in 5th century BC wrote a book called ‘The Art of War,’ where he discussed military strategies at length. This book is used today as well not only in war but also in marketing, management, sports and statesmanship.
Sun Tzu was of the view that the greatest victory was that which required no battle. “Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”
He said that the person who knew when to fight and when not to fight and the person who knew how to handle both superior and inferior forces would be the winner. Sun Tzu was not a warmonger. Warmongers like to engage in war. Sun Tzu’s intention was to conquer the enemy. He would be happier if the intention could have been achieved without a war.

Foreign policy
The behaviour of the Sri Lankan Government after the end of the war was aggressive and arrogant. The military has adopted an offensive approach instead of a defensive approach in dealing with war.
The approach in relation to the foreign policy of a country like ours should not be equal to the approach the military has taken against the LTTE. India used an aggressive foreign policy against Sri Lanka during the time of President Jayewardene based on the geopolitical situation prevailed at that time which was a creation of the Government of Jayewardene.
Sri Lanka cannot afford to have a hostile foreign policy against any powerful nation. As Sun Tzu said, the person who knew how to handle both superior and inferior forces would be the winner. If a person handles superior forces in the same way he handles inferior forces, eventually he would lose.
Although the Government boasted that India was handled effectively during the latter part of the war, there was nothing there to handle in the Indian relationship since India also wanted to destroy the LTTE.
In the early stages of war, since India has taken a hostile approach towards Sri Lanka, India needed to be handled where the Government of Sri Lanka failed and the situation deteriorated to the extent that India invaded the air space of Sri Lanka, mainly because of the aggressive stand taken by the then Prime Minister R. Premadasa.
However, Sri Lanka needs strategic handling of Western nations which are more powerful than Sri Lanka and very critical in relation to the economy of Sri Lanka.

Street fighter mentality
From the final part of the war, Sri Lankan foreign policy was handled with a mentality of a street fighter and not even that of a general considering the viewpoints of Sun Tzu, let alone the desired mentality of a statesman. This has come to the zenith now where an ambassador of the country has supposedly been physically assaulted by the de-facto Foreign Minister of the country. This situation is quite in contrast to the way the foreign policy was handled during the time of Sirima Bandaranaike.

Dutugemunu
Dutugemunu, who is a hero of the Sinhalese, was not a warmonger. He was a finest statesmen produced by Sri Lanka and a strategic military leader. He had taken bhikkus to the battlefield and stationed them in geographical areas captured from the enemy. The act of keeping bhikkus rather than soldiers in those captured areas positively influenced the mentality of the people lived in those areas and also supported the requirement of the military commanders to have more soldiers at the battle front.
Dutugemunu was well aware that he was engaged in a civil war since there was lot of Sinhalese in Elara’s army. At one point the Mahavamsa says, “Not knowing their own army, they slay their own people.”
Dutugemunu’s intention was to unite the nation after winning the war. Dutugemunu at the end of the war with Elara erected a tomb for the slain leader. The Mahavamsa states as follows: “In the city he caused the drum to be beaten, and when he had summoned the people from a yojana around, he celebrated the funeral rites for King Elara. On the spot where his body has fallen, he burned it with the catafalque, and there did he build a monument and ordain worship. And even to this day the princes of Lanka, when they draw near to this place, are wont to silence their music because of this worship.”
This symbolic act of Dutugemunu paved the way for the much-needed reconciliation at that time.
Vijayabahu I who had defeated the Cholas decisively a millennium back which was a crucial point of the history of Sri Lanka was another fine statesman produced by Sri Lanka. After uniting the nation he had erected rock scripts written in Tamil in the places where Tamils, especially his hired army of Tamil origin, were inhabited. He had extended State patronage to Hinduism, the religion of Tamils.

Sinhala Only Act
Neville Jayaweera, a retired prominent public servant who was the Government Agent in Jaffna from 1963 to 1966, has written an autobiographical reflection on the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. He was handpicked to be posted as GA Jaffna in order to implement the Sinhala Only Act in Jaffna by the then powerful Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Affairs, N.Q. Dias, and the then Prime Minister, Sirima Bandaranaike.
According to Jayaweera, Dias at that time prophetically expected that the Tamil professionals would lose control and there would be a Tamil armed uprising with the help of India and established a chain of military camps encircling the Northern Province to counter such an uprising. Ironically Dias wanted to implement the Sinhala Only act forcibly in Jaffna, which process in fact was supportive of such anticipated uprising.
Is not history repeating itself now?

President Rajapaksa 
President Rajapaksa was strong enough to defeat separatism decisively but he was not strong enough to defeat the anti-Tamil collective consciousness of the Sinhalese. Moreover, he has been adopting an approach which has facilitated further marginalisation of the minorities, ethnic or religious, of the country.
In the north, a Provincial Council election was delayed unduly and was held under Indian pressure. Even after the election, the state of affairs in the north by and large has been handled by the Central Government using the Governor, which is the situation in the Eastern Province as well. This situation prevailed despite the clear signal of conciliation given by the Chief Minister elected when he decided to take oaths in front of the President in Colombo.
This situation has to be viewed in relation to the conciliatory approach adapted by Jayaweera in the capacity of GA Jaffna, where he abstained from implementing the Sinhala Only Act in Jaffna District and refrained from using force against democratic processions with the approval of the Centre arrived after much deliberation on his part.
Jayaweera was critical of the approach of the Sirima Bandaranaike Government (1960-1965) to the ethnic conflict and was of the view that his actions in Jaffna paved the way for the Dudley- Chelvanayakam pact.

Northern travel ban
It was reported a few days back that the Government had imposed a travel ban on visits by foreign passport holders, including tourists to the north. It was also reported that the restrictions had been imposed in view of threats posed by some foreign passport holders to national security. By hitting the tourist industry indirectly, this act was directed at Tamil diaspora members who visit their kith and kin in Jaffna.
The current situation has deteriorated to the level that the TNA is asking for a foreign mediator for negotiations and they virtually boycott all Government functions including the planned visit by the President. Are the actions of the Government an extension of a paradoxical policy towards the ethnic conflict advocated by N.Q. Dias and the Sirima Bandaranaike Government in 1960s?

Nelson Mandela
President Rajapaksa received a similar opportunity as President Mandela did. Just as Rajapaksa defeated separatism in Sri Lanka, Nelson Mandela defeated apartheid in South Africa. Rajapaksa was unable to defeat the anti-Tamil collective consciousness of Sinhalese; Mandela once he became the President of liberated South Africa defeated the anti-White collective consciousness of the black Africans. Rajapaksa was unable to unite the nation; Mandela united the nation, which was the need of the hour.
That is the difference between political myopia and political farsightedness and the difference between political opportunism and political vision. As a nation that was the difference between regressive tribalism and progressive nationalism.

(Published in daily FT on 16th October 2014)

Suppression in Sri Lankan society

There was a news item in the media a few weeks back about a girl, namely Thilini Amalka, delivering a series of slaps to a young man at the Wariyapola bus stand. The incident was videoed and published on the web by a freelance journalist. This resulted in several web comments, especially by men, criticising Amalka’s act, saying that she has done it excessively.

Subsequently she was arrested by the Police, produced before the Judicial Medical Officer to examine her mental condition and then produced before the magistrate. She was later released on Rs. 50,000 surety bail.
Her Attorney Lakshan Dias of Rights Now Collective for Democracy was of the view that the action taken by the Police was not correct and she was protected by Sections 345 and 346 of the Penal Code. Hence there would be a fundamental rights case against the Police by Amalka. He said that the young man made vulgar comments about her dress and then made obscene gestures.
By viewing the video it is clear that the young man was enjoying the slapping, which act suggested that firstly Amalka’s claim about his sexual remarks and gestures would be true and secondly that he should be subjected to a medical examination and not Amalka.
Women face harassment daily
Women in this country face a similar situation and are harassed by men every day, especially in tightly-packed public transport system. In public places there are enough men who ‘accidentally’ touch bodies of women and hardly any woman raises her voice against this situation, mainly because of shame and fear.
One reason for this may be social suppression of sex which is eased by unorthodox ways such as this. Yet when one person rises and protests against this discriminative system, there are enough comments and much criticism, some in obscene language, against the girl who acted against the so-called authority of men. These male commentators were visibly shaken by the repeated slaps of the girl against the dominant male authority prevalent in the country today.
Sri Lankan women a discriminated lot
Women in Sri Lanka are a discriminated lot although they are the driving force of the highest income generation avenues to Sri Lanka – firstly, foreign remittances where the majority comes from Middle East housemaids; secondly, the apparel industry where factory floor workers are mainly girls coming from rural areas; and thirdly, the plantation industry where there are a lot of females working as tea pluckers and rubber tappers, in addition to the household chores, which are not included in any economic calculation.
Although their contribution is high at the lower levels of economic activities, which brings volumes to national coffers, their contribution to the higher level decision making is very low compared to the percentage of their population and compared to the level of their education.
Most men would not agree to this fact of discrimination against women although it is evident but yet when someone uses force against it, there are several criticisms.
Racial discrimination
This is the situation against Tamils in Sri Lanka as well. When Tamils of Indian origin in plantations have voted with left parties in the first general election, their voting rights were removed against the provisions of safeguards of the Soulbury Constitution.
When Chelvanayakam staged a peaceful satyagraha campaign against the Sinhala only Act in 1956, he was booted away. When Amirthalingam became the Opposition Leader in 1977, Tamils in Colombo were attacked. When the 6th Amendment was introduced to the constitution in 1983, soon after the riots, Tamil parties had to withdraw from the Parliament. Finally when the LTTE came to the fore, operating in far more excessive manner, they were destroyed.
Whenever there was a protest against discrimination and prevalent authority, whether it was peaceful or otherwise, it was crushed and no solution was given thereafter. However just like in Amalka’s case there is lot of criticism and actions against the very actions opposing discrimination and authoritarian rule.
Religious discrimination
Christians in this country were privileged during colonial time and that status faded away gradually and the church started to integrate culturally with the rest of the society. However, there were several instances where the churches and temples of religious minorities were attacked and their religious activities were protested in the recent past.
A protest campaign was launched against the Muslims and they were systematically attacked in Aluthgama recently. Religious intolerance becomes evident in various ways in recent past.
Underprivileged discrimination
Poor in Sri Lanka are discriminated without any notice. Nowadays since national politics is centred on pseudo patriotism and show-off development, the poor of the country are affected. They are chased away from their inherited lands in the name of development.
The gap between the rich and the poor is widening whereas the policy makers focus on per capita income. This is the total income divided by the population which does not reflect the unequal distribution of income. Gini coefficient is the indicator which measures income inequality where if it is 0 it is a perfect equal society and if it is 1 it is a perfect unequal society.
According to the available statistics, Sri Lanka’s Gini coefficient in 2010 was0.49 which was higher than India and Indonesia and was lower than Hong Kong. The dependence of direct taxes is low whereas there is heavy dependence of indirect taxes such as Value Added Tax.
In Sri Lanka the ratio of direct taxes to indirect taxes is around 20:80 where as it is around 55:45 in India. This means that the contribution of the rich to the national coffer is less and the same by the poor is more in Sri Lanka compared to India. In tax structure changes of the past years we saw that the import taxes of small cars and three wheelers were increased whereas the taxes of sports cars were decreased.
Caste-based discrimination
Although it is not prominently discussed and gradually fading away, the caste system in Sri Lanka still plays a discriminative role in the society.
Ranasinghe Premadasa was the only non-Govigama national leader produced by Sri Lanka. He was severely criticised and lot of barriers was created because of his caste. He came to the top as a result of sheer perseverance. The other leader who came close to Premadasa was C.P. De Silva who led the June 1960 election successfully and was deprived of the premiership mainly because of his caste.
This system was somewhat challenged by the rebellions the country faced. The leaders of three rebellions faced by Sri Lanka after the independence were spearheaded by non-Govigama and non-Vellala leaders and followers.
High suicide rate
Suicide rate in Sri Lanka is very high with 28.8 deaths for every 100,000 people according to the data of World Health Organization (WHO). According to the WHO, suicide victims are often from marginalised groups of the population and many of them are poor and vulnerable to a string of pressures.
In Sri Lanka, the suicide rate among younger age groups is higher compared to older age groups where the reverse is the case in developed countries. The country faced three rebellions after independence, where deaths on both sides were of the youth and it appears to be that the authorities and society have learnt no lesson except for President Premadasa who implemented certain recommendations of an appointed commission.
Power the main cause of oppression
Power is the main cause of oppression in Sri Lanka. Successive governments misused power and subjugated the powerless, which process has reached the zenith now with the virtual control of Executive, Legislature and Judiciary being in one hand. Ironically this is with the support of the oppressed.
The Leftists of this country tried to focus on the discrimination by haves against the have-nots. According to their view, the oppressed were the poor. In this intolerant nation, suppression can be exercised by men against women, Sinhalese against Tamils or Muslims, Buddhists against Christians or Hindus, higher castes against lower castes, the old against the young, people with power against the commoners and finally the rich against poor.
If a nation wants to prosper economically, let alone the humanitarian aspect of social development, respect for all citizens irrespective of their ethnicity, religion, caste, age or gender should be prevalent and developed ahead of economic development. It is only then that economic development would be inclusive and sustainable and pave the way to distribute the benefits of development to the masses.

(Published in Daily FT on 18th September 2014)

Nudity and sex in cinema

I was watching movies directed by world-acclaimed artistes one after the other shuttling among the theatres of Regal, NFC, MC Superior, Empire Cineplex and Goethe Institut. It was a wonderful experience.
The movies showed during the film festival were not censored, which was an achievement considering the fact that there is a Cultural Police operating in Sri Lanka and sometime back when Fanny and Alexander by Ingmar Bergman was brought in for a film festival, some scenes were censored and the organiser TissaAbeysekara had to withdraw the film from the festival. Recently the film Aksharaya was banned from public screening.
Sex is taboo in Sri Lankan society mainly in middle class where Victorian values, which were the moral views of the people living in England in 19th century during the time of Queen Victoria, prevail. The Cultural Police operates under these circumstances. This social taboo is one reason for the sexual harassment against women in Sri Lanka.
Robert Knox in his book An Historical Relation of Ceylon, written in 1698 relating the period of Rajasinghe II, stated about Sri Lankan society as follows: “Where their houses consist but of one room, the children that are of any years always go and sleep in other houses among their neighbours… For so they come to meet with bedfellows, nor doth it displease the parents… So that youth are bred up to whoredom…”
Vinaya Pitaka
In the Vinaya Pitaka, the Buddha said that to engage with sexual intercourse is one of the conditions to lose Bhikku-hood. There cannot be any taboo in describing it in literature since it had to be done. Vinaya Pitaka further describes the rule as follows.
“If a Bhikkhu puts his sex in the sex, anus or mouth of a human being, man or woman – as well as in his own anus or in his own mouth –, an animal (male or female) or a dead body even if it is of the length of a sesame seed, he loses his status as a Bhikkhu (for life). Even if he does it while having his sex in plaster, in a condom, wearing the clothes of a layman, or being fully naked or not feeling any sensation (due to loss of tactile sensation on the sexual parts of the body for example), in the same way, he loses his status as a Bhikkhu.”
Three of the cases and the rulings are given below:
“Opponents of monks having brought a human woman into a monk’s presence associate his male organ with these three places. If he agrees to application, if he agrees to entry, if he agrees to remaining, if he agrees to taking out, there is an offence involving defeat. Opponents of monks… if he does not agree to application, but agrees to entry, to remaining, to taking out, there is an offence involving defeat.”
“Now at that time the monk called Sundara, who had gone forth from Rajagaha, was walking along a carriage road. A certain woman said: ‘Wait, honoured sir, for a moment, I will pay homage to you.’ As she was paying homage she held up his inner garment and took hold of his male organ. On account of this he was remorseful… ‘…Monk, did you agree?’  I did not agree, lord,’ he said. ‘There is no offence, monk, as you did not agree.’”
“Now at that time a certain monk was in love with a certain woman. She died, and her bones were thrown in the chamel-ground and scattered. Then the monk, going to the cemetery, collected the bones and behaved in an unsuitable way. On account of this he was remorseful….’ ‘…Monk, there is no offence involving defeat, there is an offence of wrongdoing.’”
In the Sathipattanasutta, the Buddha said: “And how, Bhikkus, does a Bhikku dwell perceiving again and again five hindrances as just the five hindrances? Here (in this teaching), Bhikkus, while sense-desire (kamachchanda) is present in him, a Bhikku knows, ‘There is sense-desire present in me’; or while sense- desire is not present in him, he knows, ‘There is no sense-desire is present in me’…”
They are all phenomena to be observed, good or bad in social context, and not to be tabooed. As Hermann Hesse said in Siddhartha in 1922, ‘all this is life’.
Nudity and sex cannot be out of bounds
Nudity and sex are part and parcel of life. Therefore they cannot be out of bounds for any artiste, including a film director.
A film director can use nudity and sex in different ways. One way is to impose sex scenes deliberately without any connection to the main theme of the film in order to attract a particular audience, which is not appropriate. What happens is that the audience simply enjoys the sex scene.
Another way is to impose a nude or sex scene as an essential part of the film although the audience simply enjoys nudity or sex. One example was El Condor directed by John Guillermin in 1970 where an attack was launched against a fortress which was said to contain gold reserves. The wife of the commander of the fortress was nude, anticipating her husband in bed. The soldiers of the fortress were watching this scene together with the audience of the film, sacrificing their alertness, which paved the way for the enemy to overcome them.
Another way is to incorporate nudity and sex as part and parcel of the main theme so that the audience cannot enjoy the nudity or sex as it is since those scenes are strongly linked to the main theme. In a German film the writer watched a long time ago, the relationship between a husband and wife, where husband was an author and wife was a librarian, deteriorated when an uneducated young man came in between them.
Although there was intellectual relationship between the husband and wife, the relationship between the young man and the woman was purely sexual. She gradually realised this and was sad about what she had done. At one point when there was sexual intercourse between the young man and the woman, the woman stabs the young man to death. The audience would not be obsessed with the sex scene since the director depicted it in such a way that raw sex was nothing but tragedy.
A long time back the writer watched a German film where a relationship developed between a male African migrant and an old woman. Both of them for various reasons were not accepted by society. What the director was trying to say was that when bondages with society loosen, the bondage between lovers would get stronger.
The sexual relationship between the African migrant and the old woman could be watched distantly because of the age of the woman and the director would have intentionally chosen an old actress. This alienation effect was first discussed and used by Bertolt Brecht in theatre which was the opposite of the promotion of ‘rasa’ or emotions identified by Bharatha Muni in his Natya Shastha in 1st century BC.
The challenge of the film director is to keep the audience distracted from the nudity and sex scenes while attracting them to the main theme.
Carlos Reygadas films
At the Colombo Film Festival the writer was fortunate to watch three films by world-renowned Director Carlos Reygadas, namely, Japan, Silent Light and Light After Darkness out of four films screened. All three were awarded at Cannes Film Festival in 2002, 2007 and 2012 respectively.
In the film Japan, a painter who wanted to commit suicide went to a remote canyon and stayed at the barn of a very old religious woman (this woman was much older than the woman in the German film which was described earlier) in order to reach some calmness. At the discussion when asked why the title Japan was used, Reygadas responded that since the main character was undergoing a samurai type of experience at a hilly area, he selected the title Japan.
In this film a relationship between the man and the old woman built up and he abandoned the idea of suicide after nearly attempting it. The day before he left, the man suggested to the old woman that they should have sexual intercourse. The film shows their naked bodies and sexual intercourse.
Reygadas said at the discussion that this actress was very pious and only revealed her body to her husband. However, he managed to convince the actress that she should face this scene at the film and all that she should do was to be guided by the directions of the main actor.
In the film the man told her to turn this way and that way and finally they were engaged. During a brief private discussion with the writer when the question was asked whether he selected the character of this old woman rather than a younger one since when the relationship built up and finally when sexual intercourse took place the audience would be alienated from the characters especially the old woman and they would be better equipped to understand the main theme, Reygadas responded affirmatively with a pleasant smile.
Silent Night was a masterpiece. The film starts with a sunrise and ends with a sunset in natural phase. It was like a huge painting. Someone said at the discussion that the film was slow and Reygadas asked, ‘in comparison to what?’ Probably in comparison to Goliath, Hollywood and Bollywood cinema, which have corrupted the minds of the audiences as expressed by Sumithra Peiris at the public forum of the film festival.
The writer would say that the film was certainly faster than life itself. The sex scenes were essential since the film was painting a picture of a relationship of a married man with another woman with the knowledge of his wife.
There were 92 films all together, including a certified copy of Abbas Kiarostami, from across 30 countries representing all continents, shown in five theatres from 3 to 7 September. All were award-winning films. In addition to that there were short films as well. We congratulate Asoka Handagama and the Film Directors Guild of Sri Lanka for the excellent work done.
(Published in Daily FT on 12th September 2014)

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)