Walpola Rahula Thero wrote a book called ‘Brikshuvage Urumaya’ in Sinhala in 1946, justifying so-called Bhikkhu politics or as he emphasised public service of bhikkhus. He translated this book into English later.
The reason for writing this book was that there was an ideology in those days mainly promoted by a group of politicians headed by D.S. Senanayake that the bhikkhus should not be engaged in politics. The well-known declaration of Vidyalankara Pirivena supporting bhikkhu politics under the signature of Ven. Kiriwaththuduve Pragnasara who was the Head of the Vidyalankara Pirivena at that time also was released in this very year.
Rahula Thero started his book as follows: “Buddhism is based on service to others. Sumedha the hermit (Bodhisattva who became Gothama the Buddha) renounced nirvana, which was accessible to him, at the feet of Buddha Dipankara and resolved to remain in samsara to serve the world…A true Buddhist should have the strength to sacrifice his own nirvana for the sake of the others.”
He then highlighted the Buddha sermons related to worldly affairs such as Sigalovada sutta and Parabhava sutta. Then he pointed out that the Buddha himself changed his own disciplinary rules subsequently depending on the circumstances. Different sects were originated and Councils (Dharma Sangayana) were to be held due to different views of the monks.
As a result Buddhism continued without extinction. After Buddhism came to Sri Lanka it became the national religion so that there was a union of the nation and the religion, resulting in increasing influence of the bhikkhus in governance of the country.
Role of the bhikkhus
Going by the interpretation of the Dutugemunu-Elara battle in the ‘Mahavamsa,’ he pointed out that the bhikkhus in that era played a leading role in national and religious service. It was stated in the Mahavamsa that the Arahats approved the killing of Tamils in the battlefield. Although it was against the Dhamma, he stated that it revealed the common thinking of the people at that time.
Rahula Thero emphasised that during the time of King Valagamba after the Baminitiya famine, bhikkhus came to a conclusion that doctrine (pariyatti) was more important than practice (patipatti) and realisation of ultimate truth (pativedha). Even Rahula Thero admitted that this was against what Buddha preached.
However this cannot be discussed taking it in isolation of the background. The reason for this conclusion was that then the Buddha’s teaching was carried forward by memorising the same by the monks. This was only possible through the emphasis of doctrine rather than practice.
During the Baminitiya famine, several bhikkhus died and some migrated to India. Hence the continuity of Buddhism was challenged. However during the same period bhikkhus took a decision to write down the teachings of Buddha in ola leaves for the first time in history. That was the greatest service done by the bhikkhus in Sri Lanka to Buddhism.
Doctrine vs. practice
The conflict of doctrine against practice and realisation of the truth was later developed in to two; village-dwellers who were engaged in scholarship (grantha dhura) and forest-dwellers who were engaged in practice (vipassana dhura). This is how Rahula Thero justified the scholarship citing a book written by a forest-dweller who engaged in practice.
“It is probable that by this time they were forest-dwellers only by name, but for the most part they behaved like the village-dwelling bhikkhus. Undoubtedly these forest-dwelling bhikkhus also must have realised that the village-dwelling bhikkhus’ way of life was more useful and beneficial and won the respect of most people.”
Thereafter Rahula Thero citing the illustrations given in the Commentaries (atuva) proved that during the Anuradhapura regime scholarship was considered greater than the practice. “I have become a monk in old age. I am incapable of following the vocation of scholarship. Hence I will follow the vocation of meditation.”
In the early stages scholarship was meant teaching and learning of what Buddha has said but later it meant teaching and learning of history, languages and laws imposed by the kings. According to Rahula Thero, all most all the temples were institutions of free education and as a result learned bhikkhus were bestowed with lot of respect. Also the Government provided large amounts of funds for the maintenance of temples since the bhikkhus were doing yeoman service for the upliftment of literature and art and preserving national independence and peace.
Rahula Thero pointed out that during the time when the country was under the rule of Western nations and when they tried to spread Christianity by creating conflicts between bhikkhus and laymen, bhikkhus worked tirelessly to safeguard Buddhism. The Government withdrew from the administration of Buddhist temporalities in order to put Buddhist prelates in a difficult situation. Finally Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara pirivenas emerged against the efforts of the Government to uplift Christian education in the country.
In the declaration of Vidyalankara Pirivena, it was stated as follows: “We therefore declare that it is nothing but fitting for bhikkhus to identify themselves with activities conducive to the welfare of our people – whether these activities be labelled politics or not – as long as they do not constitute an impediment to the religious life of a bhikkhu.”
The time when Walpola Rahula had written the heritage of the bhikkhu was the golden era of Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara Pirivenas. It was the era where the bhikkhus had a great influence over the education of this country although they did not have monopolistic authority over it.
It was the era where great monks such as Welivitiye Soratha, Kiriwaththuduwe Pragnasara, Yakkaduwe Pragnarama, Kotahene Prajnakirti, Naththandiye Pannakara and Bambarande Siri Sivali directed the bhikkhu education of this country. Also it was the era where there was a great interest of the people about independence.
Buddhist rejuvenation worldwide
Now the situation has changed. Firstly the authority of the bhikkhus over the field of education was reduced. The Bandaranaike Government upgraded Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara pirivenas to the level of universities and there was lesser demand for the learning of the subjects thought by the bhikkhus due to the socioeconomic changes of the country. As a result the social recognition of the bhikkhus was reduced.
Secondly, there is a Buddhist rejuvenation worldwide due to the introduction of vipassana meditation techniques, which were brought down from generation to generation by Thai and Burmese bhikkhus to the laymen. There are 166 meditation centres spread throughout the world teaching a method of Burmese origin of S.N. Goenka, a well-respected meditation master who passed away recently. The control of those centres are with the laymen and not with the bhikkhus.
Extensive research is carried out in Western countries about vipassana meditation and awareness – Sati. Western medical practitioners prescribe vipassana meditation for reduction of stress. Vipassana meditation is being spreading in this country as well and there are quite a number of lay persons engaged in that and they are well ahead of the village-dwelling bhikkhus.
Rahula Thero once met J. Krishnamurthi, one of the great thinkers who lived in the last century. After listening to the detailed explanation of Buddhism by Rahula Thero, Krishmanurthi said a person cannot be liberated by his knowledge. Knowledge uplifts ego. As pointed out by S.N. Goenka, there is no point of mastering the prescription without taking medicine. Hence practice is certainly more important than scholarship.
What is Buddhism?
What is Buddhism? Buddhism is the research methodology of the noble research one has to undertake in order to understand self in this very life before death and not at the time of Maithree Buddha. Buddhism is propagated in the world today because of documentation of the same at Aluvihara, Mathale during the time of King Walagamba and because of the introduction of age old vipassana meditation techniques brought down from teacher to pupil by Burmese and Thai meditation masters to lay persons as indicated above.
Michael Porter is a professor based at the Harvard Business School and he is a leading authority on competitive strategy and the competitiveness and economic development of nations, states, and regions. Michael Porter introduced his generic strategies in 1980.
Empirical research on the profit impact of marketing strategy indicated that firms with a high market share were often quite profitable, but so were many firms with low market share. The least profitable firms were those with moderate market share. This was sometimes referred to as the hole in the middle problem.
Porter’s explanation of this is that firms with high market share were successful because they pursued a cost leadership strategy and firms with low market share were successful because they used market segmentation to focus on a small but profitable market niche- differentiation. Firms in the middle were less profitable because they did not have a viable generic strategy. (Porter’s Generic Competitive Strategies-Ritika Tanwar) They had neither cost leadership nor differentiation. So that they were stuck in the middle.
Therefore what Bhikkhus have to do now is abandon scholarship – granthadhura – which was a deviation of the original teaching of the Buddha and by which they could not get a prominent place in the society now due to socio economic changes of the country. In turn they can adapt practice – vipassanadhura – which was the main objective of the Buddha.
The interpretation given by Rahula Thero to practice has changed due to the introduction of vipassana meditation to the laymen. One do not have to go to a forest and spend his whole life meditating. He can learn meditation, achieve a certain stage and come and direct lay persons in meditation.
Bhikkhus either should excel in granthadura or in vipassanadhura. One has to be an emperor or one has to attain Buddhahood. If neither can be achieved, bhikkhus would get stuck in the middle as preached by Michael Porter. If different words are used, in the future we may have to learn vipassana meditation from the West institutionally. That would be a real challenge and disgrace.
Published in Daily FT on 14th March 2016
- See more at: http://www.ft.lk/article/530896/What-should-the-strategic-direction-of-the-Bhikkhu-society-be-today-#sthash.TDW9UQeF.dpuf
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Would Wigneswaran be a spoiler?
I have been a columnist for the Sinhala monthly publication Samabima. In early 2013, I along with the fellow columnists, were criticised by a Buddhist monk that we were writing against the Sinhala extremism but not against Tamil or Muslim extremism. I have responded to the criticism by stating that we were against all forms of extremism irrespective of whether those were Sinhala, Tamil or Muslim. However, at that time the dominant ideology was Sinhala extremism and as a result, all the other communities were marginalised. We were against that situation which was the need of the hour and it did not mean that we were in favour of Tamil or Muslim extremism.
The time has come to write about Northern politics. When C.V. Wigneswaran’s name was nominated as the chief ministerial candidate by Sampanthan, according to columnist D.B.S. Jeyaraj, none of the party leaders of TNA was in favour. Instead, they proposed the name of Senathirajah, a fellow ITAK member of Sampanthan. Finally Sampanthan was able to get the approval of other party leaders. Jeyaraj himself was not in favour of Wigneswaran, based on the tone of his articles written at that time. After winning the election, Wigneswaran came to Colombo along with Sampanthan to take oaths in front of President Rajapaksa although it was not mandatory. In an article written to this paper, I praised Wigneswaran and Sampanthan for this political gesture.
The time has come to write about Northern politics. When C.V. Wigneswaran’s name was nominated as the chief ministerial candidate by Sampanthan, according to columnist D.B.S. Jeyaraj, none of the party leaders of TNA was in favour. Instead, they proposed the name of Senathirajah, a fellow ITAK member of Sampanthan. Finally Sampanthan was able to get the approval of other party leaders. Jeyaraj himself was not in favour of Wigneswaran, based on the tone of his articles written at that time. After winning the election, Wigneswaran came to Colombo along with Sampanthan to take oaths in front of President Rajapaksa although it was not mandatory. In an article written to this paper, I praised Wigneswaran and Sampanthan for this political gesture.
Lasting policy decisions
Wigneswaran faced numerous obstacles in continuing in the capacity of Chief Minister. His political gesture was never returned. He had to face a tug-of-war with the then Governor. This was the case in the Eastern Provincial Council as well. He had no authority to have a secretary to the council of his choice. Although the situation started changing with the election of the new President in January 2015, more recently, by increasing the allocation to decentralised budget of the MPs, the Government interfered with the work of provincial councils. However, the speed of change since January 2015 had been slow, which was applicable not only for the north but also for the whole country.
The country had two main problems at hand during the previous regime, one was authoritarianism of the regime and the other was non-reconciliatory approach to the ethnic problem. The south is not happy at the way things have been happening after the election, mainly because of the slow pace of the change. That is attributable to the composition of the Government. It is mandatory to maintain this composition in order to have a new Constitution which would be a solution at the fundamental level for the two main problems the country had during the previous regime.
In respect of the ethnic problem, the country had ample opportunities to avoid the war had the national, opposition and minority leaders adopted non-divisive politics. When solutions were agreed by the Government, those had to be abandoned due to political pressure of the Opposition. It happened repeatedly although the parties shifted sides from Government to Opposition and vice versa. Therefore, this composition of the Government is ideal for lasting policy decisions.
The spoilers
In the way forward, the ‘spoilers’ should be identified and the forward thinkers should not allow them to hijack the process as mentioned by Jayampathy Wickramaratne. There were spoilers in 1957 and 1967. On the other hand, the process the country adopted in drafting the two Constitutions in 1972 and 1978, were merely authoritative. The seeds of the war were sowed after the 1972 Constitution; the 1978 Constitution aggravated it and paved the way for the JVP insurrection as well. As we all know, the impact the 1978 Constitution had on our social structure was devastating.
Therefore, in the constitutional amendment process and in the process of giving more powers to the provinces, the country had not adapted consensual processes. As a result, amendments were either adopted by force of “democratic” power (that was the irony of it) or the governments were forced to withdraw the positive amendments by the spoilers. This is how the democracy operates in the countries of the Asian region in contrast to the countries it originated in, as pointed out by the writer in his articles. This polarisation has to be conquered by consensual politics. That is the task at hand now.
However, during the British period the Colebrooke and Donoughmore Commissions went throughout the country and sought views of the people prior to drafting the constitutional amendments. The Soulbury Commission also went throughout the country. It is a welcome move by the Government to appoint a commission to seek the views of public in relation to the framework of the new Constitution.
The situation will be conducive if there would be consensus in the northern front as well. Due to the operation of Wigneswaran, it seems to be that there is no consensus. He authored ‘genocide’ resolution at the Northern Provincial Council at a crucial time of reconciliation, did not support TNA at the last elections, and recently formed the Tamil People’s Council which he says is an apolitical organisation.
Jeyaraj pointed out in his Daily Mirror article on 12 December, 2015 that when Samantha Power, US Ambassador to the UN, met Wigneswaran in Jaffna recently, he repeated his anti-government tirade. When Power asked him about the situation after the new Government was set up, Wigneswaran kept parroting that nothing had changed and that there was no progress. He was taken aback when the US envoy disagreed strongly. Samantha Power then outlined eleven specific areas of concern to the Sri Lankan Tamils where reasonable progress had been made by the Government. Wigneswaran had no choice other than to admit that progress had indeed been made. Jeyaraj further reported that the Chief Minister then tried to save face by saying not enough progress had been made or speed shown. Power then pointed out that saying “not enough progress” had been made was different to saying “no progress” had been made. However, she agreed that the pace was slow yet understandable within the current political context as discussed in this article as well.
Agitating together
The writer had a similar experience with the Chief Minister and this was prior to the meeting he had with US envoy to the UN.
Shri P. Chidambaram, former Union Minister of Finance of India, came to Sri Lanka recently to deliver an annual tax oration of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka. He wanted to visit Jaffna to get firsthand information of the civilian life there. I accompanied him in this journey. A meeting was arranged with Wigneswaran as well. Prior to meeting with Wigneswaran, I told Chidambaram in the presence of the officials of the Indian High Commission of Jaffna that Wigneswaran was a well-respected judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. Praising him, I specially mentioned his keynote speech at the annual convocation of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka in March 2013 where he criticised the act of Parliament to remove CJ Bandaranayake. I also told Chidambaram that the political line of Wigneswaran was then somewhat different to that of Sampanthan.
I happened to be present at the meeting of the two and only three of us were there. Wigneswaran did the same thing as he did at the meeting with Power as reported by Jeyaraj. He started the discussion with a long list of complaints against the Government as if there was nothing positive towards the Tamils by the Government. He said that the Central Government was taking power back. After a while I asked two gentlemen whether I can say a few words. Although I was not entitled to do so, both of them readily accepted my offer. I told him that in the south the same thing happened. If the Central Government wanted to take over a good school from the provincial council, it was made a national school and was taken over. Therefore, we should agitate together, not separately. He responded that he liaised with the chief ministers of other provinces. Chidambaram like Power, although not aggressive as such, advised the Chief Minister to work with the Government to have a permanent solution to the issue.
After I came back to Colombo, I told his Secretary Sundaralingam that a delegation of civil society could be brought from the south to Jaffna to discuss the issues and to have a bridge between the two sides if the Chief Minister would agree but I did not get any response.
The main question remains whether Wigneswaran would act as a spoiler? I sincerely hope he would not. We are a nation which missed a lot of opportunities. We opened the economy before India did. At that time, if the ethnic problem was solved, we would probably be in the level of ASEAN countries now. It is time to act and move forward rather than paving the way for the spoilers.
Published in Daily FT on 6th January 2016
Republished by D.B.S.Jeyaraj
http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/44638
Constitutional reforms are on the way
Members of civil society gathered in Colombo recently under the guidance of Center for Policy Alternatives and formed a movement named Citizens Initiative for Constitutional Reform in order to spearhead the process of gathering suggestions from the General Public for constitutional reforms.
There would not be a Constituent Assembly as in 1972 and instead there would be a whole-house Parliamentary method where the entire Parliament sits as members of a Constitutional Assembly and prepare a consensus document to be submitted to the Cabinet followed by Parliamentary procedure and a referendum. There would be a mechanism to submit the representations of the public for the Constitution to the Constitutional Assembly for consideration.
This process would be a deviation from the drafting processes applied in the constitutions of 1972 and 1978. It appears to be that the Government do not wish to go to the extent of the process applied in drafting the South African constitution where the Public was consulted extensively.
The resolution to this effect was published in the website of the Prime Minister and the link is given below – http://www.pmoffice.gov.lk/download/Constitutional%20Reform%20-%20Resolution%20E%2020151117.pdf.
There would not be a Constituent Assembly as in 1972 and instead there would be a whole-house Parliamentary method where the entire Parliament sits as members of a Constitutional Assembly and prepare a consensus document to be submitted to the Cabinet followed by Parliamentary procedure and a referendum. There would be a mechanism to submit the representations of the public for the Constitution to the Constitutional Assembly for consideration.
This process would be a deviation from the drafting processes applied in the constitutions of 1972 and 1978. It appears to be that the Government do not wish to go to the extent of the process applied in drafting the South African constitution where the Public was consulted extensively.
The resolution to this effect was published in the website of the Prime Minister and the link is given below – http://www.pmoffice.gov.lk/download/Constitutional%20Reform%20-%20Resolution%20E%2020151117.pdf.
Executive presidency
There is a debate whether we should abolish the executive presidency in toto and go back to the Westminster model or whether we should reduce the powers of executive presidency, keep the president under the law of the country and go on with the existing system.
Under the present system even without the 17th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution we have seen how fragile the powers of the executive president from 2001 to 2004 where the President Kumaratunga was from one party and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was from the opposing party. Wickremesinghe got 109 seats out of 225-seat Parliament where the opponent People’s Alliance got only 77 seats.
It should be noted that only two governments got the minimum required seats of 113 under the 1978 constitutions. One was the UNP Parliament in 1989 where the elections were held under JVP insurrection and the UPFA Parliament in 2010 where the elections were held soon after the end of war where the popularity of the then President was very high.
During the period from 2001 to 2004 Wickremesinghe governed the country in a phase where rapid changes were taken place. Financial control and the governance was entirely with the Parliament. The President had taken over three ministries and eventually the Parliament could have blocked the finances to the said ministries, causing a standstill. However the President dissolved the Parliament and Wickremesinghe lost the next general election. Had the power of the people was with Wickremesinghe the President could not have done any intervention of the policies of the Government apart from pinching it on and off.
Therefore the problem of the existing system is that the President is above the law and excessive powers are given to the President. The reason for Jayewardene to have this type of system, I suppose, is that under the proportional representation system there would be a hung parliament in most of the cases. We have already experienced this. Therefore in order to have stability in the entire system the Executive will have to be strong.
What really happened was that the executive was strong beyond the parameters of the “law” but unfortunately within the provisions of the constitution so that the situation was virtually “illegal”. That was the case although it was paradoxical. I presume that Jayewardene initiated the Presidents Fund in order to have a safeguard against financial control of the Parliament.
Therefore if the executive presidency would be abolished there should be a strong Parliament. However the entire governance system should not be strong to the level of present system taking the executive presidency and Parliament together and also should not be weak to the level of present Parliament elected under the Proportional Representation system.
It should be noted that under the initial system proposed by Jayewardene there were no preferential votes and instead the party secretary had the authority to nominate the Members of Parliament according to the number of seats allocated to the Party under PR system. It was changed subsequently in order to get the views of the people rather than the views of the party secretary represented in the Parliament. In the Constitution it was not allowed to change the parties by the elected members but the practice is different today due to the arrogance of the Judiciary which overlooked the big picture comprising of inherent checks and balances of the Constitution.
There is a debate whether we should abolish the executive presidency in toto and go back to the Westminster model or whether we should reduce the powers of executive presidency, keep the president under the law of the country and go on with the existing system.
Under the present system even without the 17th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution we have seen how fragile the powers of the executive president from 2001 to 2004 where the President Kumaratunga was from one party and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was from the opposing party. Wickremesinghe got 109 seats out of 225-seat Parliament where the opponent People’s Alliance got only 77 seats.
It should be noted that only two governments got the minimum required seats of 113 under the 1978 constitutions. One was the UNP Parliament in 1989 where the elections were held under JVP insurrection and the UPFA Parliament in 2010 where the elections were held soon after the end of war where the popularity of the then President was very high.
During the period from 2001 to 2004 Wickremesinghe governed the country in a phase where rapid changes were taken place. Financial control and the governance was entirely with the Parliament. The President had taken over three ministries and eventually the Parliament could have blocked the finances to the said ministries, causing a standstill. However the President dissolved the Parliament and Wickremesinghe lost the next general election. Had the power of the people was with Wickremesinghe the President could not have done any intervention of the policies of the Government apart from pinching it on and off.
Therefore the problem of the existing system is that the President is above the law and excessive powers are given to the President. The reason for Jayewardene to have this type of system, I suppose, is that under the proportional representation system there would be a hung parliament in most of the cases. We have already experienced this. Therefore in order to have stability in the entire system the Executive will have to be strong.
What really happened was that the executive was strong beyond the parameters of the “law” but unfortunately within the provisions of the constitution so that the situation was virtually “illegal”. That was the case although it was paradoxical. I presume that Jayewardene initiated the Presidents Fund in order to have a safeguard against financial control of the Parliament.
Therefore if the executive presidency would be abolished there should be a strong Parliament. However the entire governance system should not be strong to the level of present system taking the executive presidency and Parliament together and also should not be weak to the level of present Parliament elected under the Proportional Representation system.
It should be noted that under the initial system proposed by Jayewardene there were no preferential votes and instead the party secretary had the authority to nominate the Members of Parliament according to the number of seats allocated to the Party under PR system. It was changed subsequently in order to get the views of the people rather than the views of the party secretary represented in the Parliament. In the Constitution it was not allowed to change the parties by the elected members but the practice is different today due to the arrogance of the Judiciary which overlooked the big picture comprising of inherent checks and balances of the Constitution.
Democracy in Sri Lanka
Democracy which is practiced in Sri Lanka and for that matter in other countries in the Asian region is quite different to the democracy practiced in the countries it was originated and evolved over a period. Democracy in essence is the rule of the majority. Once again democracy in essence does not suppress the rights of the minorities. In fact it should safeguard the rights of the minorities.
Collectivist behavioural patterns of the societies of the Asian countries lead to have different treatments to in-group members and to out-group members. The division of in-groups and out-groups can be based on the ideology, ethnicity, religion, caste, political party or any other division of the society. If there is a large number of any divided fraction based on any criterion given above it would be identified as majority. Similarly if the number is small it is identified as minority.
In the cultural systems of the Asian countries the different treatment to the out-groups is accepted. Hence the different treatment to the minorities by the State is also accepted by the majority of that State. This is against the very essence of the democratic principles. Every one of us should be conscious of the cultural roots of this undemocratic behaviour and try to correct it consciously.
In Sri Lanka this cultural root of collectivism which leads to different treatments to in-group members and out-group members in turn goes in two directions. One is authoritarianism in governance which is associated with another trait power distance and the other is ethnic problem which had devastating effect in recent history.
Democracy which is practiced in Sri Lanka and for that matter in other countries in the Asian region is quite different to the democracy practiced in the countries it was originated and evolved over a period. Democracy in essence is the rule of the majority. Once again democracy in essence does not suppress the rights of the minorities. In fact it should safeguard the rights of the minorities.
Collectivist behavioural patterns of the societies of the Asian countries lead to have different treatments to in-group members and to out-group members. The division of in-groups and out-groups can be based on the ideology, ethnicity, religion, caste, political party or any other division of the society. If there is a large number of any divided fraction based on any criterion given above it would be identified as majority. Similarly if the number is small it is identified as minority.
In the cultural systems of the Asian countries the different treatment to the out-groups is accepted. Hence the different treatment to the minorities by the State is also accepted by the majority of that State. This is against the very essence of the democratic principles. Every one of us should be conscious of the cultural roots of this undemocratic behaviour and try to correct it consciously.
In Sri Lanka this cultural root of collectivism which leads to different treatments to in-group members and out-group members in turn goes in two directions. One is authoritarianism in governance which is associated with another trait power distance and the other is ethnic problem which had devastating effect in recent history.
Authoritarianism in governance
Authoritarianism in governance is against the democratic principles and this comes to existence when the majority in power exercises absolute majority and the minority rights are diminished. On the other hand if the majority in power does not have the absolute majority the minorities would start agitating so that the situation may lead to anarchy in the State. There are enough examples for these situations in Asian democracies. In the recent regimes of Sri Lanka we have experienced authoritarianism. In Bangladesh in the recent history we have seen the anarchist situation due to political rivalry of the two lady Prime Ministers.
Therefore taking into consideration of the democratic rules and our cultural traits, the governance structure we propose should neither be too strong or too weak. If the executive presidency is to be abolished PR system of electing members to Parliament is also to be abolished. It is not because of the ugly tussle to get preferential votes but because of the weak government the country is going to inherit.
In alternative we can do away with this government-opposition relationship which is an essential part of the Western democracies. In this model we have to think of whether the government is going to be stronger or weaker which is in relation to the opposition. If this base is demolished there is no question of strong or weak government. Government should be comprising of the members of all parties represented in the Parliament. This is the model practiced at the present Parliament which can be improved further.
Constitutional reforms should also address the other effect of our cultural root, ethnic problem or devolution of power. There is no room left to postpone the two major issues faced by the country, namely developing a new constitution and addressing the problem of devolution of power. Governance structure is shaped to deal with these demanding issues and it is the time to act now.
Authoritarianism in governance is against the democratic principles and this comes to existence when the majority in power exercises absolute majority and the minority rights are diminished. On the other hand if the majority in power does not have the absolute majority the minorities would start agitating so that the situation may lead to anarchy in the State. There are enough examples for these situations in Asian democracies. In the recent regimes of Sri Lanka we have experienced authoritarianism. In Bangladesh in the recent history we have seen the anarchist situation due to political rivalry of the two lady Prime Ministers.
Therefore taking into consideration of the democratic rules and our cultural traits, the governance structure we propose should neither be too strong or too weak. If the executive presidency is to be abolished PR system of electing members to Parliament is also to be abolished. It is not because of the ugly tussle to get preferential votes but because of the weak government the country is going to inherit.
In alternative we can do away with this government-opposition relationship which is an essential part of the Western democracies. In this model we have to think of whether the government is going to be stronger or weaker which is in relation to the opposition. If this base is demolished there is no question of strong or weak government. Government should be comprising of the members of all parties represented in the Parliament. This is the model practiced at the present Parliament which can be improved further.
Constitutional reforms should also address the other effect of our cultural root, ethnic problem or devolution of power. There is no room left to postpone the two major issues faced by the country, namely developing a new constitution and addressing the problem of devolution of power. Governance structure is shaped to deal with these demanding issues and it is the time to act now.
Published in Daily FT on 3rd December 2015
- See more at: http://www.ft.lk/article/503191/Constitutional-reforms-are-on-the-way#sthash.J4fOedu7.dpuf
The direction of the Government
The direction of the Government is being criticised by many. It was stated that the Government is not efficient and it is slow. It gives confusing signals and being dragged to different directions. It catches the sprats and not the sharks. It accommodated defeated Parliamentarians through National List not only to the Parliament but also to the Cabinet. Politicians perceived as corrupt or who broke the law are in high positions. All in all this is an ‘achcharu’ Government which has no direction.
The President was elected mainly by UNP votes. After the election he was offered the leadership of the SLFP. Thereafter he tried to gain control of the party but was not successful. The former President influenced the party machinery and got nominations for all his supporters and the behaviour of some of them were quite opposite to the expectations of the March 12 movement. In addition to that allies of the former President made sure that the allies of the President were defeated in the Parliamentary elections.
In this background the President exercised his power as party leader, sacked the two Secretaries of the SLFP and UPFA and appointed his allies who were defeated to the National List through the new Secretary of the UPFA. Eventually some of them were appointed ministers.
Ethnic conflict issues
The UNP Leader stated his intentions of forming a lichchavi style consensus government well before the presidential election. There are valid reasons for this. Firstly Sri Lanka should resolve the issue of ethnic conflict once and for all. Before the armed conflict started in the early 1980s there were enough opportunities for the Sinhala and Tamil leaders to resolve this. Due to the pressure of extremists and due to various silly issues, some of which are non-existent today, a solution was delayed.
In several instances when the party in the government tried to give a solution the party in the Opposition opposed it. When the very party in the Opposition came to power and tried to give a solution, the very party which tried to give a solution when they were in power opposed it. This nonstarter situation paved the way for the bloody war fought over 30 long years. Even the issues debated today which are entertained by the extremists of both sides are silly when one observes those issues objectively and compared to the opportunity cost the country will have to incur if issues are not resolved immediately.
The UNP Leader stated his intentions of forming a lichchavi style consensus government well before the presidential election. There are valid reasons for this. Firstly Sri Lanka should resolve the issue of ethnic conflict once and for all. Before the armed conflict started in the early 1980s there were enough opportunities for the Sinhala and Tamil leaders to resolve this. Due to the pressure of extremists and due to various silly issues, some of which are non-existent today, a solution was delayed.
In several instances when the party in the government tried to give a solution the party in the Opposition opposed it. When the very party in the Opposition came to power and tried to give a solution, the very party which tried to give a solution when they were in power opposed it. This nonstarter situation paved the way for the bloody war fought over 30 long years. Even the issues debated today which are entertained by the extremists of both sides are silly when one observes those issues objectively and compared to the opportunity cost the country will have to incur if issues are not resolved immediately.
Fresh constitution
Secondly Sri Lanka needs to have a fresh constitution. There is a widespread protest for a long time for the existing Constitution which has 19 Amendments. Constitutional processes in 1972 and 1978 were spearheaded by the Legislature or by a few individuals. We need to have the views of larger society in drafting the constitution since democratic constitutions as the democratic governments as stated by Lincoln should be of the people by the people and for the people. We need the support of the parties in the Parliament without any hidden political agendas as we have seen in passing the 19th Amendment.
Secondly Sri Lanka needs to have a fresh constitution. There is a widespread protest for a long time for the existing Constitution which has 19 Amendments. Constitutional processes in 1972 and 1978 were spearheaded by the Legislature or by a few individuals. We need to have the views of larger society in drafting the constitution since democratic constitutions as the democratic governments as stated by Lincoln should be of the people by the people and for the people. We need the support of the parties in the Parliament without any hidden political agendas as we have seen in passing the 19th Amendment.
Geneva
Thirdly Sri Lanka need to face Geneva resolution and subsequent judicial process. Country should be united in the approach adapted and the process should be managed effectively. For all these things consensus among the political parties is needed. Hence although the approach of the President of appointing questionable characters to ministerial posts and appointing defeated candidates from the National List is against the short term objectives of the Government, it is in line with the long-term objective of the Government and the country.
It is true that the political wish of the people who voted for UPFA is not a coalition government and therefore when the President ‘hijacked’ the party after the election and entered into a coalition Government it was against the wish of the people. However the coalition Government is not for the sake of the coalition Government. It is for the sake of the broader objectives of Sri Lanka.
In advanced democratic countries, political parties do not put their political objectives ahead of the objectives of the country. But in Sri Lanka it happened. The general public in those countries also would be loyal to the elected national leaders irrespective of their political alliances. The situation in Sri Lanka is different mainly because of the cultural biases. Therefore Sri Lanka needs to have a different mechanism to handle these issues.
That mechanism would be sometimes against the accepted democratic norms of the developed countries. But we should be mindful that the democracy operating in Sri Lanka is a bit different to the application of the same in the countries it originated. Therefore there should be a different mechanism to achieve our objectives although that mechanism is different to the textbook principles of democracy. In essence it is purely an indigenous system derived from Sri Lankan situation. Those who shout against Western thinking and Western systems should be able to digest this.
Thirdly Sri Lanka need to face Geneva resolution and subsequent judicial process. Country should be united in the approach adapted and the process should be managed effectively. For all these things consensus among the political parties is needed. Hence although the approach of the President of appointing questionable characters to ministerial posts and appointing defeated candidates from the National List is against the short term objectives of the Government, it is in line with the long-term objective of the Government and the country.
It is true that the political wish of the people who voted for UPFA is not a coalition government and therefore when the President ‘hijacked’ the party after the election and entered into a coalition Government it was against the wish of the people. However the coalition Government is not for the sake of the coalition Government. It is for the sake of the broader objectives of Sri Lanka.
In advanced democratic countries, political parties do not put their political objectives ahead of the objectives of the country. But in Sri Lanka it happened. The general public in those countries also would be loyal to the elected national leaders irrespective of their political alliances. The situation in Sri Lanka is different mainly because of the cultural biases. Therefore Sri Lanka needs to have a different mechanism to handle these issues.
That mechanism would be sometimes against the accepted democratic norms of the developed countries. But we should be mindful that the democracy operating in Sri Lanka is a bit different to the application of the same in the countries it originated. Therefore there should be a different mechanism to achieve our objectives although that mechanism is different to the textbook principles of democracy. In essence it is purely an indigenous system derived from Sri Lankan situation. Those who shout against Western thinking and Western systems should be able to digest this.
‘Achcharu’ Government
This ‘achcharu’ Government in its essence challenges the silo mentality of the Sri Lankans which is a menace not only at the national level but also at the organisational level. They think in the line of Sinhalese, Tamils, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Govigama, Karava, Vellala, Marketing Department, Finance Department, Factory and all the rest of it. They sometimes sacrifice national level objectives in favour of the goals of their racial/religious group and organisational level objectives in favour of the goals of their respective departments.
This petty-mindedness which derives from the cultural heritage of collectivism is a major obstacle to progress and it should be attacked consciously. Patriotism should be connected to Sri Lanka and not to Sinhala or Tamil races. Similarly at organisational level objectives of a department cannot be bigger than the objectives of the organisation.
This ‘achcharu’ Government in its essence challenges the silo mentality of the Sri Lankans which is a menace not only at the national level but also at the organisational level. They think in the line of Sinhalese, Tamils, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Govigama, Karava, Vellala, Marketing Department, Finance Department, Factory and all the rest of it. They sometimes sacrifice national level objectives in favour of the goals of their racial/religious group and organisational level objectives in favour of the goals of their respective departments.
This petty-mindedness which derives from the cultural heritage of collectivism is a major obstacle to progress and it should be attacked consciously. Patriotism should be connected to Sri Lanka and not to Sinhala or Tamil races. Similarly at organisational level objectives of a department cannot be bigger than the objectives of the organisation.
Rajapaksa regime Budget
This writer criticised the last Budget of the Rajapaksa regime partly orchestrated by the arrogant Secretary to the Treasury, on the grounds of widening disparity of the affluent and the poor. (http://www.ft.lk/article/366111/Thinking-behind-the-economic-policies-of-the-Government-and-the-Budget). That Budget was acclaimed by the private sector generously.
The fiscal policy of the then Government was to give more tax concessions to the affluent class while keeping the basic governance style anti-private sector and anti-democratic. Regime wanted more control everywhere including the economy. What was really needed was to keep the governance style promoting the private sector and having lesser direct control of the economy. To the credit of the previous regime it should be stated that it took several steps to develop the infrastructure of the country, mainly the road network.
Without having investor friendly environment, transparent and democratic government, just and fair judiciary and sound infra-structure, investors would not come just because the Government offered lower taxes and tax concessions. It would only pamper the existing private sector and that was what happened during the previous regime.
This writer criticised the last Budget of the Rajapaksa regime partly orchestrated by the arrogant Secretary to the Treasury, on the grounds of widening disparity of the affluent and the poor. (http://www.ft.lk/article/366111/Thinking-behind-the-economic-policies-of-the-Government-and-the-Budget). That Budget was acclaimed by the private sector generously.
The fiscal policy of the then Government was to give more tax concessions to the affluent class while keeping the basic governance style anti-private sector and anti-democratic. Regime wanted more control everywhere including the economy. What was really needed was to keep the governance style promoting the private sector and having lesser direct control of the economy. To the credit of the previous regime it should be stated that it took several steps to develop the infrastructure of the country, mainly the road network.
Without having investor friendly environment, transparent and democratic government, just and fair judiciary and sound infra-structure, investors would not come just because the Government offered lower taxes and tax concessions. It would only pamper the existing private sector and that was what happened during the previous regime.
Corrective action
This is a democratic government. Institutions like the Police do not know head or tail of the concept of democracy. For that matter a large number of Sri Lankans do not know that. They think that democracy by default is the rule of the majority and thereby suppression of the minority. It is the rule of the majority while respecting the views of the minority and safeguarding their basic rights and interests.
Democratic governments do not use excessive power against their citizens. When the Government is in investigative mode Police officers down the line tend to be more investigative. Eventually they, if not guided well, will jeopardise the entire governance mechanism investigating and questioning without any sense of materiality. Thereby they can bring a more rule-based culture which is a hindrance to positive work ethic.
Already Government departments are lethargic and these so-called investigations would create a more lethargic and work to rule type of culture in the Government institutions. Therefore the Government should be mindful in this respect and need to take corrective actions early as possible.
This is a democratic government. Institutions like the Police do not know head or tail of the concept of democracy. For that matter a large number of Sri Lankans do not know that. They think that democracy by default is the rule of the majority and thereby suppression of the minority. It is the rule of the majority while respecting the views of the minority and safeguarding their basic rights and interests.
Democratic governments do not use excessive power against their citizens. When the Government is in investigative mode Police officers down the line tend to be more investigative. Eventually they, if not guided well, will jeopardise the entire governance mechanism investigating and questioning without any sense of materiality. Thereby they can bring a more rule-based culture which is a hindrance to positive work ethic.
Already Government departments are lethargic and these so-called investigations would create a more lethargic and work to rule type of culture in the Government institutions. Therefore the Government should be mindful in this respect and need to take corrective actions early as possible.
Bold decisions
The Prime Minister is capable of taking bold decisions. During the time he was the Prime Minister a decade back he took very bold decisions which were independent from the then President and which led eventually to him being thrown out of power since the decisions were ahead of that time and the people were not able to digest those. Learning from his past experience he may be adopting a collaborative style with the President in order to have sustainable government. However the real leader of the Government is the Prime Minister and not the President.
Now Sri Lanka is labouring to deliver a new era. It would take some time for its dawn. There are underlying reasons of the acts of the Government. Civil society should be conscious of the long-term direction of the Government. There can be and there are short-term failures and issues which should be criticised and corrected. However we should not hurry to crucify the Government at this moment.
The Prime Minister is capable of taking bold decisions. During the time he was the Prime Minister a decade back he took very bold decisions which were independent from the then President and which led eventually to him being thrown out of power since the decisions were ahead of that time and the people were not able to digest those. Learning from his past experience he may be adopting a collaborative style with the President in order to have sustainable government. However the real leader of the Government is the Prime Minister and not the President.
Now Sri Lanka is labouring to deliver a new era. It would take some time for its dawn. There are underlying reasons of the acts of the Government. Civil society should be conscious of the long-term direction of the Government. There can be and there are short-term failures and issues which should be criticised and corrected. However we should not hurry to crucify the Government at this moment.
Published in Daily Ft on 10th November 2015
- See more at: http://www.ft.lk/article/494383/The-direction-of-the-Government#sthash.QliVg0UQ.dpuf
Geneva resolution and a few points to contemplate
The resolution about Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council was co-sponsored by Sri Lanka as well.
It was stated as follows in the resolution in respect of the so-called hybrid system:
“Welcomes the Government’s recognition that accountability is essential to uphold the rule of law and build confidence in the people of all communities of Sri Lanka in the justice system, takes note with appreciation of the Government of Sri Lanka’s proposal to establish a Judicial Mechanism with a Special Counsel to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, as applicable; and affirms that a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by individuals known for integrity and impartiality; and further affirms in this regard the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the Special Counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers, and authorised prosecutors and investigators.”
The mechanism will be local and the judges, defence lawyers, prosecutors and investigators can be foreigners. The main reason of this suggestion is that we have lost the credibility of our Judiciary and the prosecuting system.
It was stated as follows in the resolution in respect of the so-called hybrid system:
“Welcomes the Government’s recognition that accountability is essential to uphold the rule of law and build confidence in the people of all communities of Sri Lanka in the justice system, takes note with appreciation of the Government of Sri Lanka’s proposal to establish a Judicial Mechanism with a Special Counsel to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, as applicable; and affirms that a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by individuals known for integrity and impartiality; and further affirms in this regard the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the Special Counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers, and authorised prosecutors and investigators.”
The mechanism will be local and the judges, defence lawyers, prosecutors and investigators can be foreigners. The main reason of this suggestion is that we have lost the credibility of our Judiciary and the prosecuting system.
Strong rulings of the Supreme Court
There were very strong rulings of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka manifesting of its independence. One of the most prominent cases was the Bracegirdle case in 1937. Mark Anthony Bracegirdle was an Anglo Australian planter in Ceylon who joined the Lanka Sama Samaja Party. His anti-capitalist and anti-colonial approach angered the Governor Reginald Stubbs who in turn ordered that Bracegirdle should be arrested and deported.
The LSSP filed a writ of Habeas Corpus application against the arrest and the Supreme Court comprised of three British judges headed by the Chief Justice Sidney Abrahams ruled that the Governor’s order was illegal and ordered the release of Bracegirdle.
Provincial council elections were postponed by President Kumaratunga using emergency regulations in 1998. In the fundamental rights case filed by Varuna Karunathilaka and Sunanda Deshapriya against the Commissioner of Elections justice Mark Fernando who delivered the judgment in concurrence with Chief Justice G.P.S. Silva, and Justice Gunasekara redefined the immunity of the President described in Article 35.
Said he: “I hold that Article 35 only prohibits the institution (or continuation) of legal proceedings against the President while in office; it imposes no bar whatsoever on proceedings (a) against him when he is no longer in office, and (b) other persons at any time. That is a consequence of the very nature of immunity: immunity is a shield for the doer, not for the act. Very different language is used when it is intended to exclude legal proceedings which seek to impugn the act. Article 35, therefore, neither transforms an unlawful act into a lawful one, nor renders it one which shall not be questioned in any Court.
It does not exclude judicial review of the lawfulness or propriety of an impugned act or omission, in appropriate proceedings against some other person who does not enjoy immunity from suit; as, for instance, a defendant or a respondent who relies on an act done by the President, in order to justify his own conduct.
It is for that reason that this Court has entertained and decided questions in relation to emergency regulations made by the President.”
There were very strong rulings of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka manifesting of its independence. One of the most prominent cases was the Bracegirdle case in 1937. Mark Anthony Bracegirdle was an Anglo Australian planter in Ceylon who joined the Lanka Sama Samaja Party. His anti-capitalist and anti-colonial approach angered the Governor Reginald Stubbs who in turn ordered that Bracegirdle should be arrested and deported.
The LSSP filed a writ of Habeas Corpus application against the arrest and the Supreme Court comprised of three British judges headed by the Chief Justice Sidney Abrahams ruled that the Governor’s order was illegal and ordered the release of Bracegirdle.
Provincial council elections were postponed by President Kumaratunga using emergency regulations in 1998. In the fundamental rights case filed by Varuna Karunathilaka and Sunanda Deshapriya against the Commissioner of Elections justice Mark Fernando who delivered the judgment in concurrence with Chief Justice G.P.S. Silva, and Justice Gunasekara redefined the immunity of the President described in Article 35.
Said he: “I hold that Article 35 only prohibits the institution (or continuation) of legal proceedings against the President while in office; it imposes no bar whatsoever on proceedings (a) against him when he is no longer in office, and (b) other persons at any time. That is a consequence of the very nature of immunity: immunity is a shield for the doer, not for the act. Very different language is used when it is intended to exclude legal proceedings which seek to impugn the act. Article 35, therefore, neither transforms an unlawful act into a lawful one, nor renders it one which shall not be questioned in any Court.
It does not exclude judicial review of the lawfulness or propriety of an impugned act or omission, in appropriate proceedings against some other person who does not enjoy immunity from suit; as, for instance, a defendant or a respondent who relies on an act done by the President, in order to justify his own conduct.
It is for that reason that this Court has entertained and decided questions in relation to emergency regulations made by the President.”
Independence of the Judiciary
However, recent acts of and related to the Supreme Court negated this independence of the Judiciary. At a public meeting, Sarath Silva, a former Chief Justice, apologised about his decision of infamous helping Hambantota case favouring Mahinda Rajapaksa, then Prime Minister. CJ Shirani Bandaranayake was removed by the Government without following the proper legal procedure. President Sirisena declared that Mohan Peiris was not appointed to the post of Chief Justice properly and hence needed no removal.
It was also reported that Peiris was at Temple Trees at the night of the presidential election day on 8 January and he informed President Sirisena that he would deliver the judgments in favour of the Government if the President kept him in office. A sitting Supreme Court Judge was appointed while he was charged for assaulting one of his security officers. Once becoming a Supreme Court Judge, he assaulted a domestic aid. Another sitting Supreme Court Judge was once punished by the Judicial Services Commission for delivering biased judgments.
However, recent acts of and related to the Supreme Court negated this independence of the Judiciary. At a public meeting, Sarath Silva, a former Chief Justice, apologised about his decision of infamous helping Hambantota case favouring Mahinda Rajapaksa, then Prime Minister. CJ Shirani Bandaranayake was removed by the Government without following the proper legal procedure. President Sirisena declared that Mohan Peiris was not appointed to the post of Chief Justice properly and hence needed no removal.
It was also reported that Peiris was at Temple Trees at the night of the presidential election day on 8 January and he informed President Sirisena that he would deliver the judgments in favour of the Government if the President kept him in office. A sitting Supreme Court Judge was appointed while he was charged for assaulting one of his security officers. Once becoming a Supreme Court Judge, he assaulted a domestic aid. Another sitting Supreme Court Judge was once punished by the Judicial Services Commission for delivering biased judgments.
Citizens need justice from the Judiciary
We as citizens need justice from the Judiciary, not anything else, and also it should appear to be that the Judiciary is capable of delivering justice.
If the Government is unable to appoint independent local judges who are capable of doing their job, it is very much appropriate to appoint foreign judges for that. Therefore the Government should look into the appointment of foreign judges not only to the special courts to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law but also to the Supreme Court.
The Attorney General’s post as the main prosecutor was abused for a long time. When Tilak Marapone was the Attorney General he tried to file a criminal deformation case against Victor Ivan, Editor of Ravaya newspaper who revealed the malpractices of the then Head of the Department of Railways rather than investigating the allegations.
When Sarath Silva was appointed Chief Justice, there were very serious allegations against him as the Attorney General.
When the Udalagama Commission was appointed and foreign experts were invited by the Government to support the process, then Attorney General C. R. De Silva took an unusual stance and criticised the role of the foreign experts who in turn left the services.
The Attorney General has no independence whatsoever as the legal advisor of the Government. Therefore his role should be redefined.
We as citizens need justice from the Judiciary, not anything else, and also it should appear to be that the Judiciary is capable of delivering justice.
If the Government is unable to appoint independent local judges who are capable of doing their job, it is very much appropriate to appoint foreign judges for that. Therefore the Government should look into the appointment of foreign judges not only to the special courts to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law but also to the Supreme Court.
The Attorney General’s post as the main prosecutor was abused for a long time. When Tilak Marapone was the Attorney General he tried to file a criminal deformation case against Victor Ivan, Editor of Ravaya newspaper who revealed the malpractices of the then Head of the Department of Railways rather than investigating the allegations.
When Sarath Silva was appointed Chief Justice, there were very serious allegations against him as the Attorney General.
When the Udalagama Commission was appointed and foreign experts were invited by the Government to support the process, then Attorney General C. R. De Silva took an unusual stance and criticised the role of the foreign experts who in turn left the services.
The Attorney General has no independence whatsoever as the legal advisor of the Government. Therefore his role should be redefined.
Mandatory to establish a credible system
By observing the serious charges levelled against the armed forces and the LTTE, it is mandatory that we should establish credible system so that we can find out the truth. Having faced several armed conflicts and ignored to find out the real reasons for those conflicts, we as a nation comprise a bunch of indifferent people to say the least. Therefore this investigation should also be extended to the JVP insurrection in the late 1980s.
The wounds of the nation should be observed and investigated and that very observation could lead to the healing. These wounds may be one factor that contributes to the wave of crimes prevalent in the country.
Presently the due credit is not given to the armed forces who defeated the LTTE mainly because of the allegations of war crimes. If there were war crimes it would be against the international law and it would undermine the war victory.
Moreover, it would be against the age-old tradition of the Sinhala warriors that they would not fight against an unarmed enemy or the enemy who wants to surrender. It would go against the pride of the Sinhalese and it would completely the opposite of the way taken by Dutugemunu, the iconic Sinhala worrier and the king. Therefore it should be investigated in order to find out the truth.
The fact is that the armed forces and LTTE are Sri Lankans and this fact is being ignored by many. Sinhalese think that the LTTE are outsiders and Tamils think that the armed forces are outsiders.
Those who pioneered in training suicide bombers in modern times; those who had an army, navy and air force as only non-governmental terrorist organisation in the world and those who defeated the hitherto believed undefeatable are all Sri Lankans. If united all of them would have immense power.
By observing the serious charges levelled against the armed forces and the LTTE, it is mandatory that we should establish credible system so that we can find out the truth. Having faced several armed conflicts and ignored to find out the real reasons for those conflicts, we as a nation comprise a bunch of indifferent people to say the least. Therefore this investigation should also be extended to the JVP insurrection in the late 1980s.
The wounds of the nation should be observed and investigated and that very observation could lead to the healing. These wounds may be one factor that contributes to the wave of crimes prevalent in the country.
Presently the due credit is not given to the armed forces who defeated the LTTE mainly because of the allegations of war crimes. If there were war crimes it would be against the international law and it would undermine the war victory.
Moreover, it would be against the age-old tradition of the Sinhala warriors that they would not fight against an unarmed enemy or the enemy who wants to surrender. It would go against the pride of the Sinhalese and it would completely the opposite of the way taken by Dutugemunu, the iconic Sinhala worrier and the king. Therefore it should be investigated in order to find out the truth.
The fact is that the armed forces and LTTE are Sri Lankans and this fact is being ignored by many. Sinhalese think that the LTTE are outsiders and Tamils think that the armed forces are outsiders.
Those who pioneered in training suicide bombers in modern times; those who had an army, navy and air force as only non-governmental terrorist organisation in the world and those who defeated the hitherto believed undefeatable are all Sri Lankans. If united all of them would have immense power.
Published in Daily FT on 3rd October 2015
- See more at: http://www.ft.lk/article/478311/Geneva-resolution-and-a-few-points-to-contemplate#sthash.5pMi8YgZ.dpuf
From ‘A Gentle Creature’ to ‘With You, Without You’
By Harsha Gunasena
This is not a critique of a film but I would like to pen down my feelings after viewing ‘With You, Without You’, the one hour and 30 minute film directed by Prasanna Vithanage.
Lead roles were played by Anjali Patil and Shyam Fernando. The script was adapted from a short story ‘A Gentle Creature’ by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) one of the greatest novelists the world ever produced. This was adapted to films in several other occasions by renowned directors including Robert Bresson and Mani Kaul from France and India respectively.
Dostoyevsky’s story was narrated by an owner of a pawnshop. A young girl, an orphan, raised by her aunts, was a frequent visitor to the pawnshop. When her aunts tried to get her married to an old man the pawnshop owner countered this with his own proposal. The girl decides to marry the narrator after some deliberation. The expectations of the wife clashed with that of the husband since he wanted to save money and buy an estate which led to a miserly way of life.
After an argument about the way the pawnshop should be run, the wife started to make a habit of leaving during the day, and later it was discovered that she was visiting Efimovich, a member of the narrator’s former regiment. The narrator’s wife eventually confronts the narrator with the details that she learned from Efimovich: details about the narrator’s shameful departure from his regiment as a result of refusing a duel with a rival. The narrator explained that it was not necessary to enter into a duel. Hence he did not succumb to the pressure to do so and departed.
However, his wife continued her visits to Efimovich. Once, the narrator followed his wife to Efimovich, bringing a revolver. He listened to a verbal duel between his wife and Efimovich, where she refused his advances. Eventually he came in and took his wife. The following morning, the narrator opened his eyes to see his wife standing over him with the revolver pointed at his temple. He simply closed his eyes again and he was convinced that he conquered her with his readiness to accept death which proved that he was not a coward as believed by her. She did not shoot and the narrator bought her a separate bed that day. That same day, she becomes ill.
She recovered slowly. Throughout the entire winter the narrator watched his wife secretively. Once she began to sing in his presence and the narrator was shaken up. Thereafter he kissed his wife’s feet and promised to be a changed man. He recounted the story of his shame in the regiment and he promised to take her on a trip. Several days later, the narrator left the house to make arrangements for passports. When the narrator returned home, he realised that his wife had committed suicide. The turning point of the mentality of the wife was the point he kissed her feet. This is how Dostoyevsky described it as translated by Constance Garnett. “Everything within me seemed quivering and I simply fell down at her feet. Yes, I grovelled at her feet. She jumped up quickly, but I held her forcibly by both hands.”
Dostoyevsky in several instances arranged his characters to kiss the feet of other characters. In Crime and Punishment, one of the best novels ever written, Rodion Raskolnikov the student who killed the old pawnbroker lady worshiped Sonia who sold herself for the benefit of her family.
This is not a critique of a film but I would like to pen down my feelings after viewing ‘With You, Without You’, the one hour and 30 minute film directed by Prasanna Vithanage.
Lead roles were played by Anjali Patil and Shyam Fernando. The script was adapted from a short story ‘A Gentle Creature’ by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) one of the greatest novelists the world ever produced. This was adapted to films in several other occasions by renowned directors including Robert Bresson and Mani Kaul from France and India respectively.
Dostoyevsky’s story was narrated by an owner of a pawnshop. A young girl, an orphan, raised by her aunts, was a frequent visitor to the pawnshop. When her aunts tried to get her married to an old man the pawnshop owner countered this with his own proposal. The girl decides to marry the narrator after some deliberation. The expectations of the wife clashed with that of the husband since he wanted to save money and buy an estate which led to a miserly way of life.
After an argument about the way the pawnshop should be run, the wife started to make a habit of leaving during the day, and later it was discovered that she was visiting Efimovich, a member of the narrator’s former regiment. The narrator’s wife eventually confronts the narrator with the details that she learned from Efimovich: details about the narrator’s shameful departure from his regiment as a result of refusing a duel with a rival. The narrator explained that it was not necessary to enter into a duel. Hence he did not succumb to the pressure to do so and departed.
However, his wife continued her visits to Efimovich. Once, the narrator followed his wife to Efimovich, bringing a revolver. He listened to a verbal duel between his wife and Efimovich, where she refused his advances. Eventually he came in and took his wife. The following morning, the narrator opened his eyes to see his wife standing over him with the revolver pointed at his temple. He simply closed his eyes again and he was convinced that he conquered her with his readiness to accept death which proved that he was not a coward as believed by her. She did not shoot and the narrator bought her a separate bed that day. That same day, she becomes ill.
She recovered slowly. Throughout the entire winter the narrator watched his wife secretively. Once she began to sing in his presence and the narrator was shaken up. Thereafter he kissed his wife’s feet and promised to be a changed man. He recounted the story of his shame in the regiment and he promised to take her on a trip. Several days later, the narrator left the house to make arrangements for passports. When the narrator returned home, he realised that his wife had committed suicide. The turning point of the mentality of the wife was the point he kissed her feet. This is how Dostoyevsky described it as translated by Constance Garnett. “Everything within me seemed quivering and I simply fell down at her feet. Yes, I grovelled at her feet. She jumped up quickly, but I held her forcibly by both hands.”
Dostoyevsky in several instances arranged his characters to kiss the feet of other characters. In Crime and Punishment, one of the best novels ever written, Rodion Raskolnikov the student who killed the old pawnbroker lady worshiped Sonia who sold herself for the benefit of her family.
As described by Dostoyevsky
This is how it was described by Dostoyevsky as translated by Constance Garnett:
“Five minutes passed. He still paced up and down the room in silence, not looking at her. At last he went up to her; his eyes glittered. He put his two hands on her shoulders and looked straight into her tearful face. His eyes were hard, feverish and piercing, his lips were twitching. All at once he bent down quickly and dropping to the ground, kissed her foot. Sonia drew back from him as from a madman. And certainly he looked like a madman. ‘What are you doing to me?’ she muttered, turning pale, and a sudden anguish clutched at her heart. He stood up at once.
‘I did not bow down to you, I bowed down to all the suffering of humanity,’ he said wildly and walked away to the window.”
Would-be reasons of the decision of the narrator’s wife
Dostoyevsky was the one and only novelist who bowed down to all the suffering of humanity.
Dostoyevsky described later through the narrator, the would-be reasons of the decision of the narrator’s wife as follows. (translated by Constance Garnett):
“She was frightened of my love, asked herself seriously whether to accept it or not, could not bear the question and preferred to die……. It was simply because with me she had to be honest — if she loved me, she would have had to love me altogether, and not as she would have loved the grocer. And as she was too chaste, too pure, to consent to such love as the grocer wanted she did not want to deceive me; did not want to deceive me with half love, counterfeiting love, or a quarter love.”
The main difference
Prasanna Vithanage has adapted all the features of the story of Dostoyevsky but the main difference was the background of the two. She was a Tamil and her brothers who were school children were killed by the Army. Her parents hid her in upcountry plantations. After the end of the war she found that they were missing. She comes to know from a friend of his that her husband was in the Army. Conflict started from here. She once said had she known this she would not have married him. When he worshipped her; begged for her love and subsequently changed to a caring husband, she was in two worlds.
Therefore Vithange’s plot was much stronger than that of Dostoyevsky especially in Sri Lankan context. By way of very limited, concise and strong dialogues the director focuses more on the expressions of the characters. Fernando and Patil have done justice to the complicated nature of the characters. The film was released at a crucial time. The newly-elected Government of Sri Lanka pledged to move on the path of reconciliation which is quite in contrast to the policy adapted by the previous government. There were reports of formation of a commission to investigate the crimes by all during war time similar to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission formed by the South African Government headed by Nelson Mandela to investigate the crimes under the apartheid regime.
It was reported that the United Nations Human Rights Council report on Sri Lanka would be released shortly. It was further reported that the probe team has made strong indictments against both the troops and the guerrillas over purported war crimes.
However we should go for a domestic investigation as agreed by the former President and clearly mentioned by the Prime Minister. Mentality of the Sinhalese people should be geared to that. In that context I presume that viewing this film of Prasanna Vithanage would help all of us.
Published in Daily Ft on 19th September 2015
categarised all reviews
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2274706/externalreviews
Rising of democracy and fading away of autocracy
The unconventional move of former President Rajapaksa to contest and win the general election failed. The Central Committee of the UPFA has already taken the line of the President and agreed to a National Government. At the same time, although he was defeated, we should congratulate Rajapaksa for his contribution to form the strongest Opposition against several odds under the second republican Constitution.
Rajapaksa was defeated twice during a short span of time period, firstly at the presidential elections held on 8 January and at the Parliamentary elections held on 17 August. His aspiration firstly was to be the President of Sri Lanka for a third consecutive term and secondly the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka under the recently-amended Constitution, which reversed the draconian amendments to the Constitution introduced by him.
Rajapaksa was defeated twice during a short span of time period, firstly at the presidential elections held on 8 January and at the Parliamentary elections held on 17 August. His aspiration firstly was to be the President of Sri Lanka for a third consecutive term and secondly the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka under the recently-amended Constitution, which reversed the draconian amendments to the Constitution introduced by him.
It appeared to be that the intention of his second attempt for power at the general election was twofold. Firstly to take a cover from the charges of corruption, abuse of law and murders against him and his regime. It would have been safer and able to make deals if he could be among the masses rather than staying at his home alone in retirement. Secondly to appease a similar minded group of corrupt politicians and a group of politicians representing minority parties of UPFA who would not have any political future without him.
However the real reason underneath is his addiction to and intoxication of power which he used based on his whims and fancies with utter disregard for law and order of the country. It would be very hard for an autocratic leader to let the power go out of his hands. In the background of the developing political situation within UPFA and SLFP it is most likely that he would lead a break away fraction of SLFP along with the minority parties of UPFA who are the parasites living on SLFP.
As per the results the UNP secured 106 seats out of 225 seats and UPFA secured 95 seats. The TNA obtained 16 seats and the JVP obtained six seats. The EPDP secured one seat in Jaffna District and the SLMC obtained one seat in Batticaloa.
It is clear that there was a reduction of votes for the UPFA gradually considering the trend of voting of the majority Sinhala electorates from 2010 general election through presidential election 2015 to general election 2015. A significant number of voters who voted in favour of the UPFA gradually changed their affiliation to UNP.
There was a reduction of voter turnout of the general election 2015 which was 77.6%, compared to the voter turnout of the presidential election 2015 which was 81.52%. The JVP did not contest for the presidential election but worked against the Rajapaksa
regime and apparently they have obtained a portion of the votes given to Sirisena in the presidential election.It was stated by many that this election was the freest and fairest election held under the second republican Constitution. The credit should go to the Government of good governance. Minimum number of seats required to obtain the simple majority of the parliament is 113. Number of seats obtained by the two major parties in the previous general elections held under the second republican Constitution is given in the Table A.
The victorious party obtained a minimum number of seats only in two occasions, in 1989 and 2010. One was held under the threat of JVP insurrection and the other was held soon after the war victory. These Governments which did not have the required number of minimum seats were not weak governments since members of the Opposition joined the Government in order to strengthen its hands.
It was announced that the UPFA Central Committee decided to support the President to form a National Government at least for a two-year period. However even if UPFA tries to topple the Government, if the TNA decided to stay independently without supporting either the UPFA or the UNP it would be impossible to topple the Government. Both the TNA and JVP are in the same line of thinking of the Government.
Out of all these elections, in this election the main Opposition party secured the highest number of seats, which is a notable feature and would be a challenge for the new Government. This election with the arrival of Rajapaksa polarised the voter base so that there were twofold effects. Firstly small parties suffered. Voters thought empowering small parties would hamper the possibilities of their favourite party coming to power. The JVP expected more seats but due to the tight battle of the two major parties they have to be content with six seats.
Secondly it helped to negate the expectations of the March 12 movement to a great extent. Election results as well as the selection of candidates mainly by the UPFA was a gross violation of the expectation of the March 12 movement which was taken forward by the civil society. The main request was to nominate or elect candidates with following qualities:
- Should not be a criminal
- Free of bribery and corruption
- Free of anti-social trades
- Environment friendly
- Not abusing authority
- Free of abusive financial contracts
- Close to their electors
- Adequate opportunities for women and youth
Several party leaders and general secretaries signed this declaration. There were many candidates who were nominated by UPFA and eventually elected by the people with very high preferential votes, with those anti- social qualities. Let alone the UPFA even in UNP there were prominent candidates who were elected used underworld connections for the election.
Some UNP candidates aroused religious feelings in order to get preferential votes against their colleagues. These Gnanasara-style acts should be condemned. Several deserving candidates of all the parties were not selected.
The Rajapaksa campaign once again raised racism to gain votes of the Sinhala Buddhists. Although there was a reduction of the voters who favoured Rajapaksa, it was a considerable number amidst the revelations of various corrupt activities taken place under his regime.
Voters considered this as a battle. Therefore candidates who can attack the other party vociferously even though they were corrupt and murderous were voted in. This may be a result of strong collectivist culture prevalent in Sri Lanka where in group members are favoured even though they are not up to the level.
However the stance taken by the majority of voters was in favour of the broad democratic principles. Therefore the March 12 movement should proceed with educating the people continuously otherwise we may have to dissolve this set of voters and appoint a better set.
Some UNP candidates aroused religious feelings in order to get preferential votes against their colleagues. These Gnanasara-style acts should be condemned. Several deserving candidates of all the parties were not selected.
The Rajapaksa campaign once again raised racism to gain votes of the Sinhala Buddhists. Although there was a reduction of the voters who favoured Rajapaksa, it was a considerable number amidst the revelations of various corrupt activities taken place under his regime.
Voters considered this as a battle. Therefore candidates who can attack the other party vociferously even though they were corrupt and murderous were voted in. This may be a result of strong collectivist culture prevalent in Sri Lanka where in group members are favoured even though they are not up to the level.
However the stance taken by the majority of voters was in favour of the broad democratic principles. Therefore the March 12 movement should proceed with educating the people continuously otherwise we may have to dissolve this set of voters and appoint a better set.
"This election result is a victory for the good governance and democracy in Sri Lanka and victory against authoritarianism. This victory proved the power of the people in democratic states and would mark the dawn of new era of good governance and democracy in Sri Lanka"
This would be the beginning of a democratic trend of the country after a lapse of several long years. Wickremesinghe was talking of the Sri Lankan brand of a democratic model which would be a slight deviation from the multi-party system. This materialised with the signing of MOU between UNP and SLFP the two major parties of the country. Although it was not mentioned in the agreement it would be appropriate to concentrate on a new Constitution together with devolution of power before the spirit of victory fades away.
President Jayewardene failed to convene an all party conference to find a solution to the ethnic conflict although he has promised it prominently in his election manifesto in 1977. The Prime Minister has been talking about Lichchavi system for a long time. This would be a solution for the collectivist Sri Lankan cultural biases which hampered the implementation of Western developed democratic systems in the country.
The Government should not only follow the Lichchavi system but also it should follow the footsteps of Asoka, Dutugemunu and Vijayabahu I who were great leaders as well as great warriors.
Asoka who ruled a vast area of India two and half millenniums back, although a promoter of Buddhism, never imposed it on his subjects. He treated all his subjects as his children. Dutugemunu after defeating Elara in a duel two millenniums back ordered to erect a tomb to respect his opponent and ordered everybody who passed that tomb with no exceptions to respect it. The order was followed for millenniums.
Vijayabahu I after a decisive victory against the Chola invaders a millennium back ordered the erection of rock scripts in Tamil for the benefit of the people who knew only Tamil. Although they were autocrats they understood well about the multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies they ruled. They were able statesmen who knew the art of governance and thereby won the hearts of all their subjects.
Having experienced a rule of a pseudo king for long years the present Government should take necessary steps without delay to bring about reconciliation, which is a prerequisite for much-needed development and economic progress.
This election result is a victory for the good governance and democracy in Sri Lanka and victory against authoritarianism. This victory proved the power of the people in democratic states and would mark the dawn of new era of good governance and democracy in Sri Lanka.
Since the Opposition also becomes a part of the Government, civil organisations which signed agreements with the ruling alliance before the elections should be vigilant throughout and should criticise the Government constructively if it tries to move away from the set direction. Thereby they should build an active democratic opposition outside the Parliamentary system, paving the way to experiment on democratic models further.
Published in Daily FT on 25th August 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)