A poser for the self-righteous: how about a Tamil or Muslim presidential candidate?

Yahapalanists, i.e. those advocating yahapalanaya or good governance, as per their own articulation of the term, are for equality, justice, truth, transparency, accountability and other such lovely things. Again, as per their rhetoric, they abhor injustice, corruption, nepotism, graft, misuse of state resources and abuse of authority, among other things. 

Yahapalanaya, in the way the term has been used by its advocates, is not just about good governance. Yahapalanist rhetoric has waved many other flags, with noble objectives beautifully embroidered on them. They have called for a separation of religion and state, regularly rant and rave against assertion of identity (usually limited to those by  Sinhalese and Buddhists) and insist that Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country (carefully omitting relevant numbers and percentages).  As such we have to take ‘yahapalanaya’ as a political concept that embraces all these things and it is the broader definition that we use here. 

Yahapanlanists, in the sense the term is used here, refers to all those in the United National Party (UNP), the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and other parties who directly or indirectly backed Maithripala Sirisena’s presidential campaign and all individuals and organizations opposed to the previous regime.

Alright. Various key Yahapalana spokespersons have often dismissed and vilified their political rivals, in particular key personalities in the Joint Opposition and the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna as well as those in organizations claiming to represent Sinhalese and Buddhists. They have been called racists and chauvinists. They are said to be out of touch with the times, accused of living in the past and being obstacles to progress.  

This is not a defense of those accused thus. The ululation notwithstanding, there is truth in some of these charges at least with respect to some of those charged. The issue here, however, is about the integrity of the accusers, or put another way, the yahapalanist worth of the yahapalanists. In short, the question is, ‘do/can they put their money where their mouths are?’

Now both the parties led by the President and Prime Minister, the SLFP and UNP respectively, have a long history of positions taken than yahapalanists would not hesitate to call chauvinistic, racist, extremist, intolerant etc. These parties have spawned many leaders who have in their operations turned the basic premises of yahapalanaya on their proverbial heads and kicked them in their proverbial behinds to boot.  Furthermore, it is not as though the current lot are squeaky clean when it comes to upholding the yahapalana articles of faith.  Let us be generous, however. 

Let us assume, for arguments sake, that the yahapalanists are actually abiding by yahapalana principles. Assuming thus, among all litmus tests one can theoretically conduct to ascertain integrity with respect to the noble objectives articulated by them in the run up to the January 2015 election there is one that I believe would demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt their commitment to the yahapalana cause: the ideal profile of a Yahapalana presidential candidate? 

If, as they claim, the JO, SLPP and other non-yahapalanist political groups are ‘majoritarian’ cannot they, the yahapalanists, being the righteous, noble and exemplary political actors on the Sri Lankan stage, be they members of political parties or not, argue for a presidential candidate who is the antithesis of whoever a JO/SLPP-led coalition puts forward (i.e., a racist in the eyes of yahapalanists)?

No, it would not be enough for such a candidate to be a Sinhalese or a Buddhist uttering yahapalana terminology at every turn. They should go the whole hog. Get a non-Buddhist who is also a non-Sinhalese as the candidate.  If they don’t, it could mean that they are playing ethnic-politics that is a far cry from yahapalana ideals. 

Let’s take Ranil Wickremesinghe. His religious affiliations are not clear, but there’s no doubt that he is a Sinhalese. Sajith Premadasa is a Sinhala Buddhist.  Ravi Karunanayake is a Christian, but he’s a Sinhalese. Sinhalese are out, so let’s not labour the point with other potential UNP candidates. Among those who are neither Sinhalese nor Buddhists, the most senior is Kabir Hashim. How about Kabir as the UNP’s next presidential candidate? Has any yahapalanists stopped to even consider him? 

It doesn’t have to be someone from the UNP, after all that party has not fielded a candidate at a presidential election since 2005. The UNP can find someone from outside the party system (e.g. Sarath Fonseka in 2010) or back a candidate from another party (e.g. Maithripala Sirisena in 2015). And the UNP need not worry if the political history of the particular candidate being embarrassing either due to wrongdoing (e.g. Fonseka, who was called all kinds of names by UNP stalwarts) or association (e.g. Sirisena). What counts is agreement on a program, never mind ability to deliver or lack of political will (e.g. Sirisena).

I am sure there are exemplary Tamils and Muslims untainted by political affiliation and endowed with the kind of integrity and aloofness from the dust and grind of ideological/political engagement. Can the yahapalanists come up with some names? Better yet, will they sweat and toil for such a person to be nominated as a candidate who runs against ‘the racists’?   

Let’s assume that they want someone who is already ‘political’ (considering the utter failure of the Fonseka experiment); let’s lower the bar. Let’s just say ‘ok’ to any Tamil or Muslim politician, regardless of his/her track-record ideological or political.  

R Sampanthan is the most senior politician in today’s Parliament, along with John Amaratunga, the latter not relevant since he’s a Sinhalese.  Sampanthan had his black marks thanks to circumstances forcing his party to be an LTTE mouthpiece and before that for subscribing to Appapillai Amirthalingam’s chauvinism, such blemishes can be ignored. He’s not disgraced himself as the Leader of the Opposition. Moreover on countless occasions Sampanthan has spoken for all citizens and not just the Tamils.   

Age is not on his side, obviously, for he’s 85.  How about M.A. Sumanthiran, then? The occasional Tamil nationalistic rhetoric aside, Sumanthiran has also, like Sampanthan, spoken for all citizens, articulating their concerns and critiquing policies that could have a detrimental impact on them. How about a Sirisena-like deal, where Sumanthiran is nominated as the ‘Yahapalana Candidate’ with all yahapalanists backing him?  Would the main ‘yahapalana party’ go along? That’s the UNP, by the way, which added a ‘yahapalana’ tag to the party name when contesting as a coalition in August 2015.  How about Rauff Hakeem?  He’s been embraced by the UNP and the SLFP at different times. Arumugam Thondaman?  

Would all this shock the yahapalanists? Would they say I’m being mischievous and just trying to tease yapalanists to find someone who is unlikely to win?  Well, the fact of the matter is, either you are idealistic or else you are abusing idealism. You can’t be a yahapalanists who is willing to bend the yahapalana yardstick, surely?  

Let’s hear it from them.  Dear yahapalanists, would you go with a candidate whose choice will do justice to your multi-ethnic, multi-religious rhetoric or would you not? 

Read more

Good Governance, Democracy and the Opposition Leader

What’s the worst thing this Government has done? Well, one could make a long list and shake it many times. One could do a compare-and-contrast exercise with the first three years of previous regimes going back to Independence and play that familiar game of suppressing the bad, inflating the good and so on.  It would be hard to deny however that however long the list is and whatever it may contain, among the worst things this Government has done is to turn ‘Good Governance’ into a cuss word.

How Yahapalanaya became a bad word would be an excellent thesis topic for an political science undergraduate in any university.  That unwritten thesis is known. The results of the recently concluded local government election proves it. The verdict was clear: ‘not only are you people not serious about good governance, you are also utterly incompetent.’ It was a vote of no confidence if ever there was one.

The incompetence, nepotism, corruption, abuse of state resources and buttressing of the system of political patronage is all too evident. It has come to a point where it is utterly hilarious when diehard loyalists defend the regime. 

Some talk about the dark days of the previous regime, as though they don’t know that many in this government were part of that regime or that some were part of regimes as bad or worse. It is also funny when some of those who take issue with the way things were before January 2015 were quite supportive of Velupillai Prabhakaran and even wanted to let him and his bunch of terrorists to rule one third of the island and control two thirds of the coastline.  

It is funny when they take umbrage at certain ministers supporting the vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister and invoke the notion of collective responsibility when the entire cabinet by omission or commission is guilty of criminal irresponsibility on multiple counts.  

They could put it all down to ‘political culture’ and the lack of human resources, but they would be hard pressed to deny that it was deliberate, irresponsible and pernicious to script a clause into the 19th Amendment to get around the limit to cabinet size promised in manifesto and preambled in the amendment itself.  All illusions about good governance from this lot died that day.  Some however are in denial, naturally.

Let’s consider the business of the Opposition Leader. ‘Business’ not in the sense of his/her responsibilities but the post itself. 

It was strange when Nimal Siripala Silva was made Opposition Leader because he was a member of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) which was officially part of the Government. It was less strange when R Sampanthan was made Opposition because the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) had the most number of MPs outside of the parties that made the Government. It is strange that he remained the Leader of the Opposition after some 50 MPs of the SLFP decided and made it known to the Speaker that they are not part of the Government and would function as a separate group in the Opposition.  Sampanthan’s position looks even more politically grotesque considering that he has sided with the Government on a key no-confidence motion. That the Speaker, in all his wisdom, appears to be absolutely ignorant about parliamentary arithmetic and political realities, especially considering the fact that parliamentary composition is at odds with general voter sentiment, is itself strange. 

If any proof was necessary that this Government has no clue about ‘good governance’ or ‘democracy’ and probably never really cared about either, we need look no further than the recent response of Cabinet Spokesman Rajitha Senaratne to a question posed to him regarding the post of Opposition Leader. This was the question: ‘If the UNP forms a government on its own, shouldn’t the post of Opposition Leader go to the SLFP?’  

First of all, whether or not the UNP can form a government on its own is a moot point, given that the President is not from that party but would be a part of the Government and thereby fulfill the ‘National Government Escape Clause to Inflate the Cabinet’.  Senaratne did not mention any of that. He ignored completely basic arithmetic. One might say he dodged the question.

He simply said that it’s good to have a Tamil as Opposition Leader. He then compared apples with oranges, talking about J.R. Jayewardene removing A. Amirthalingam as the Leader of the Opposition. J.R. Jayewardene did a lot of cunning things. He orchestrated the removal of Amirthalingam through the 6th Amendment to the Constitution (J.R. Jayewardene was an UNPer, by the way, a fact that Senaratne might have forgotten). J.R. Jayewardene was not, however, arithmetically challenged the way Senaratne obvious is.  

Senaratne went on to say ‘as a result Prabhakaran became the Leader of the Opposition.’ Clever twist, but still dodgy, for Prabhakaran was not a product of a single piece of political manipulation.

In any event, short-sighted legislators (of all parties, including those in the Joint Opposition) gave us a constitutional bind that prevents the correction of the representational anomaly that the February 10th election revealed. That said, there’s nothing to prevent the correction of the obvious travesty of the group that has the most numbers among the parties in the Opposition from having the right to select the Opposition Leader.

It is convenient for Senaratne and others to dodge the issue and talk political nonsense. In fact one might even say that Senaratne, in this, is the ideal spokesperson for this cabinet. However, those who swore and swear on good governance and democracy need to rethink or shut up, for silence on this is telling.  

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. 

Read more

Buds that (are said) to bloom

A bud is a metaphor and it is one that has naturally led to over-use because it is the party symbol of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), the nelum pohottuwa. ‘The bud will bloom,’ they said with as much conviction as the rhetoricians of other parties predicted its withering. The results are out but the metaphor-play has not abated.  

Rajavarothiam  Sampanthan is the latest to have indulged. Speaking in Parliament, the veteran Tamil nationalist attacked former President Mahinda Rajapaksa conjuring up the specter of Eelam-creation in campaign rhetoric. He has a point.

Sampanthan said that Rajapaksa, as President, had talked of ‘maximum possible devolution,’ when he inaugurated the All Party Representative Committee (APRC). He mentioned also the ‘Experts Comittee’ appointed by Rajapaksa and led by Prof Tissa Vitharana. He noted that the report of this committee recommended reforms that went beyond the 13th Amendment. Of course Rajapaksa didn’t get excited about the APRC Report and Sampanthan didn’t mention this fact. On the other hand neither did he remind people that Rajapaksa had talked of ‘Thirteen Plus.’    

However, Sampanthan did mention that all the members of the Joint Opposition (which morphed into the pohottuwa so to speak) had unanimously supported the Resolution to turn Parliament into a Constitutional Assembly and had participated in the proceedings of the Steering Committee appointed thereof. Neither Rajapaksa nor anyone else talked of Eelam either in Parliament or in the Steering Committee, he quite rightly points out.  

All this he weighs against Rajapaksa, during the course of the election campaign saying that Tamil Eelam could bloom after the election if the people choose poorly. It was not only Rajapaksa who said it. Many of the key spokespersons for the SLPP issued that warning. 

Now appointing a committee to come up with solutions does not necessarily mean that one always knew about the outcome.  There was an issue with the composition of the Tissa Vitharana Committee. It was federalist-heavy. The outcome was unceremoniously dumped.   

That error was repeated in the Steering Committee. Voting for turning Parliament into a Constitutional Assembly does not mean that Rajapaksa or anyone else were voting for Sampanthan’s outcome preference. There were more than one report that came out of the deliberations of the Steering Committee. Nothing concrete has come out of it. 

The contradiction comes from the ‘thirteen plus’ statement and from the ‘maximum devolution’ pledge.  Only Rajapaksa would know why he made such careless statements.  He did make them, and that’s what counts.  And that’s why Sampanthan is absolutely right in chastising Rajapaksa for what is clearly double-speak and therefore irresponsible. [Read also 'The pluses and minuses of the 13th Amendment']

Whether such irresponsibility on the part of ‘The lotus bud’ as Sampanthan puts it results in Eelam blooming is a different matter, however.  The notion is interesting. What it implies is that there is an Eelam bud already which is not a product of the lotus bud.  

What is this Eelam bud? Well, Sampanthan describes it unwittingly. Listen to him:

‘I want to put on record  that my Party at this Election, in our manifesto, talked of a political solution within the framework of an undivided, indivisible, single country. There was no campaign carried on, anyway, in the North and East which talked of division of the country. We only talked of a solution that is acceptable to our people, that is reasonable substantial power-sharing within the framework of a united, undivided, indivisible single country.’

The bud’s right there.  The Eelam bud that is.  What is power-sharing if not Federalism? What is Power-sharing without talking of history, demography and geography if not devious machinations for land theft based on a myth-model? What is ‘substantial’ in this context if it is not a legitimation of a lie in its extrapolation? Rajapaksa, like others, have purchased the lie of Eelamists by indulging in vague-speak on devolution.  He has bought into the Eelamist bud, knowingly or unknowingly, or else used the term carelessly and irresponsibly for petty political purposes.  Sampanthan is however the real deal. He’s not playing politics-of-the-moment. He is not indulging in conveniences. He is speaking the truth of the Eelam bud.

Both men are talking ‘substantial devolution’ or ‘maximum devolution’ in a context where Eelamists have superimposed the concocted territory of ‘historical (sic) homelands’ on lines drawn arbitrarily on by the British. Such words are tossed around in a context of a constructed history, a refusal to peruse archaeological evidence to back claims, and  absolute silence on demographic and geographical realities (almost half the Tamils live outside the so-called ‘historical homelands’ while even the Eelam map shrinks when we factor in territories where communities have actually lived in for long periods of time, especially in the Eastern Province). 

Against this background and the considerable Eelamists posturing by Tamil Nationalists, Samoanthan included, talking of Lotus buds blooming Eelam flowers is laughable. It makes one conclude that tossing out words such as ‘indivisible,’ ‘undivided’ and ‘single country’ is nothing but eyewash. That;s just frill in whose shade the Eelam bud can be nurtured into full bloom, remembering of course Chelvanayakam’s famous strategic plan for Eelam, ‘A little now, more later’.   

Let’s get this straight.  Sampanthan and the Eelamists, now in defence mode and in reduced circumstances following the military rout of the LTTE, are indulging in federalist talk.  Federalism is about territories with distinct peoples voluntarily coming together. It naturally implies that having come together, any of the entities thus ‘united’ (another problematic words used by Sampanthan and his ilk) can voluntarily choose to go it alone.  This is bud. This is the rub.

This is the bud that the federalists in the business of constitutional reform are carefully and surreptitiously watering and fertilizing.  Rajapaksa, because of his careless of ill-advised uttering, has no moral authority to cry foul over Eelam-budding, but that does not mean people need not be concerned about it.  After all, when G.G. Ponnambalam was spouting communalism, few would have thought that the 50-50 bud would bloom into a rabid terrorist outfit like the LTTE which would reduced people like Sampanthan into choirboys and cheerleaders. 

The Rajapaksa camp, then, does not have the moral right to raise fears over an Eelam-bud, but it does not follow that the fears expressed are without basis. He cannot talk, but others can and must. They must because Sampanthan has clearly reiterated that there is an Eelam bud and because the entire constitutional reform project is run by lackeys of the bud-blooming project. Most importantly, they have demonstrated their utter lack of integrity in ‘process’ by refusing to enumerate grievances and by refusing to consider undeniable historical, demographic and geographical factors.  It has been reduced to a process of predetermining telos and constructing conditions and modeling myths to obtain that end point. 

As long as the Eelam-bud exists, then it will be named as such, Sampanthan should understand this. Just because someone doesn’t have a moral right to call it such does not mean it does not exist.  Sure, various people can nurture it, but the principal gardener is the federalist. Sampanthan, if you want to put a name to it.

READ ALSO:

Devolution talk and devolution-talkers

Words, deeds and devolution-fixations

The LLRC and devolution: the politics of skipping the caveats

Power-sharing, yes; devolution, no

Devolution-justification: how about some truth, justification and reconciliation?

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. www.malindawords.blogspot.com.

Read more

Let’s make Mr Sampanthan’s New Year wish come true

R. Sampanthan is the Leader of the Opposition.  He is also the Senior-Most Citizen of Tamil Nationalism.  Some might demand that the ‘Nationalism’ descriptive is incorrect, but let’s leave it at that.  It’s a new year, after all.  Let’s also leave aside track records.  Mr Sampanthan has made a statement, a gracious one in fact, and as such is richly deserving in reciprocated grace.  

In his New Year message as the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Sampanthan has made an appeal to all citizens to put aside difference and build a prosperous and peaceful country.  He has also predicted that 2017 would be a crucial year in the history of the country if a permanent and lasting solution to the ‘national question’ is found.  He believes that a new constitution will deliver this.  

It is an important and hopeful message.  If we don’t read too much into it and delve into the subtext, as contextualized by Mr Sampanthan’s past and the past of all the Tamil political organizations he has been in or supported, directly or indirectly, it can be read as a wholesome message that rises above tired ethnocentric narratives typical of Tamil nationalists.

Mr Sampanthan, while acknowledging ‘diversity in (our) communities’ has appealed to all the people in the country to ‘strive hard to not not let such diversity become a barrier to building a prosperous and peaceful country for (our) future generations’.

Laudable.  Utterly.

The issue is that he has pinned all this to what he calls ‘the national question’.  

So what IS this ‘national question’?  Which description of this much used and even over-used term are we to take in our deliberations?  Are we to take one of the many versions articulated by various strains of Tamil Nationalism, then invariably we get to the autonomy theme which, in its proposed concretization, is about devolution.  That, however, goes against the all-embracing, rising-above-communalism tone of Mr Sampanthan’s statement.  

He cannot, for example, ask for people to ensure that diversity is not a barrier to forging a better nation and then restrict relevant discussion to one that calls for all non-Tamil communities to accept the Tamil nationalist (we are being generous with the terminology here) frame of reference.  

We must hope that this is not what he is proposing.  

So, if we were to take the generous interpretation, we have to first and foremost contend with definitions and of course the underlying assumptions, claims and relevant extrapolations towards the multiplicity of preferred outcomes.

Mr Sampanthan has issued a statement.  He has made an appeal.  He has, at least in statement, asked people not to be fixated about their identities and relevant politics.  Instead of fixing a solution and politicking towards its realization, Mr Sampanthan’s statement implicitly calls for a reconsideration of the terms and conditions.  ‘Terms’ as in terminology and ‘conditions’ as in context, history, demography, economy rationalization and of course pragmatism which takes into account the kinds of violence and destruction that mindless and racist myth-modeling produced over the past few decades.  

What is the reality that supports calls for a devolution-based solution to this ‘national question’ as described by Tamil nationalists?  Not much.  You can’t have autonomy when almost half the community lives outside the historical homelands, so-called.  You can’t, in the first instance, even talk of history when all you have is a version that is thin on fact and heavily laden with chauvinistic historiography.  

The reality that needs to be acknowledged, discussed, debated and, where anomalies are established, resolved, comes under the subject-heading grievances.  What are these grievances?  They should be spelled out.  They should be shed of myth and supported by fact.  Once this is done, then and then alone must ‘devolution’ even be considered.  And, if indeed ‘devolution’ makes sense, then the question of boundaries need to be discussed, considering that the relevant lines are colonial constructs which ought to have been ‘un-made’ almost 60 years ago.  

Mr Sampanthan is calling for nothing less, nothing more, I like to believe.  In the spirit of the new year, let me add.  Let us all support him.  

See also:
The management of insecurities
The vague-speak of Tamil 'moderates'
Death by obfuscation: the prerogatives of the federalists
Cheating Sinhalese in proposal and Tamils by outcome
Reconciliation and hallucination
A tutorial for federalists

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene.  This article was first published in the Daily Mirror, January 5, 2017.

Read more

A tutorial for federalists

Three senior TNA politicians, R Sampanthan, M Sumanthiran and S Sridharan are reported to be on their way to Britian to study the power-sharing arrangements in that country.  This reminded me of an article I wrote for the Sunday Island more than 10 years ago when a team of Parliamentarians went to Brussels to study federalism.  Re-posting because I believe there are relevant lessons.
 

Ranil Wickremesinghe has realised one thing. He knows he can promise heaven and earth to Anton Balasingham in Oslo, Thailand and goodness knows where else, but at the end of the day he has to come to parliament and talk "co-habitation" because promises have got to be translated into constitutional enactment. And for this he needs the numbers.

There are two ways of obtaining the numbers. He could obtain public support for one’s proposal in 
overwhelming proportions so that the opposition will be politically forced to toe the line. This "option" is out as far as Ranil Wickremesinghe is concerned because the "peace" lie has lost its currency. This is why he has to go for the second option, that of buying/convincing the opposition. This is the secret of the everything-paid tours that have been arranged for PA parliamentarian so that they can benefit from the best lectures on federalism around.

There is nothing wrong in people studying federalism or anything else for that matter, not least of all because studying anything is something that parliamentarians never do. Getting idea-less people who know nothing of historical process and historicity lectured to about these things is a good strategy because the chances are that they will swallow the line whole, ill-equipped as they are to offer counter arguments.

There is another side to the political equation, however. If politicians make up one side, on the other side there are the people. Ranil has lost the people. This he knows. What he might not count on is that people are better students than politicians. They will listen to federal proposals, look at federal models and if there are holes to pick in these arguments they will pick them. They will do this objectively and empowered with an historical perspective, the things which politicians lack most.

Our politicians are touring Europe, "studying" federal models. There are four such "models"; Italy, Austria, Germany and Belgium. Apparently, our political worthies are going to design the political solution to our "ethnic" problem after considering these models. As the eventual "beneficiaries" of these deliberations, it would be useful for us to study these models and the historical contexts within which they were developed.

Let us start with Italy. In Italy, "the problem" was referred to as "The Roman Question". It arose in 1870 when the newly formed kingdom of Italy annexed the Papal States. The issue was resolved through the Lateran Treaty in 1929, signed for King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy by Prime Minister Benito Mussolini and for Pope Pius XI by Pietro Cardinal Gasparri, papal secretary of state. The agreements included a political treaty, which created the state of Vatican City and guaranteed to the Holy See full and independent sovereignty. Also agreed on were a concordat establishing Roman Catholicism as the religion of Italy and a financial arrangement awarding money to the Holy See in settlement of all its claims against Italy arising from the loss of temporal power in 1870.

At the end of the day, what does the Italian Constitution have to say? Article 5 says that "The Republic, one and indivisible, recognises and promotes local autonomy, it shall apply the fullest measures of administrative decentralisation in services dependent on the State and adjust the principles and methods of its legislation to the requirements of autonomy and decentralisation. Let’s talk about Italians now. Ninety eight per cent of them are Roman Catholic. Everyone speaks Italian. The people are 100% ethnic Italians. It is a homogenous country in this sense. The constitution reflects the socio-political-historical picture.

On to Austria. It is a federal state, made up of 9 autonomous states, all German-speaking in a country where 99% of the population is ethnic Austrian. Historically a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, when it became a republic, the states made up of ethnic Austrians came together to create present-day Austria. Article 8, pertaining to the official language says, "German is the official language of the Republic, without prejudice to the rights provided by federal law for linguistic minorities. In a nutshell, it is a mono-ethnic, mono-lingual state with an 80% population of Roman Catholics.

How about Germany? The Federal Republic of Germany is a federal union of 16 states. A region with a long and complex history, Germany did not become a unified nation until 1871. Before that time, Germany had been a confederacy (1815-1867) and, before 1806, a collection of separate and quite different principalities. Protestants live primarily in the North and the majority of the Protestants are Lutherans and they make up about 37 percent of the people. This is what is key: It is an almost 100% ethnic German state, and everyone, including the Turks (4% of the population) speak German and in fact have been naturalised to speak German. It is basically a mono-ethnic, mono-lingual and mono-religious (Christian) country.

Finally we have Belgium and there are good reasons why I left this for the last. In Belgium there are two distinct communities. In the North, there are the Flemish who speak Dutch and in the South the French speaking Walloons. Flemish outnumbered Walloons, but French was the language of the upper classes who controlled much of Belgium’s wealth. Thus, Walloon interests were disproportionately represented in the government, and only the small segment of the Flemish who were bilingual could participate equally. The expansion of suffrage began to redress this imbalance, forcing the government to accord equality to both languages when transacting official business.

The Walloons have inhabited the region now known as Wallonia for thousands of years, descending from an ancient Celtic people known as the Wala. The historic Flanders region (the Flemish North) was an economic power during much of the Middle Ages, and included parts of what are now the Netherlands and France. When Belgium gained its independence in 1830, it retained from this historic region only the area that became the provinces of East and West Flanders.

Wallonia was not recognised as a region until the early 1960s, when Belgium was partitioned along historic language lines (with the exception of the city and suburbs of Brussels, which remained bilingual). Between 1970 and 1993 constitutional revisions transformed Belgium into a federal state, with most governmental authority devolving to Flanders and the other two administrative regions, Wallonia and Brussels.

Belgium’s history could have unfolded in other ways. For instance, the South could have joined France and the North, the Netherlands, based purely on linguistic considerations. Being neither Dutch nor French, ethnically, they chose to remain separate.

So, in summary, in Belgium we have a union of two states, made up of the Dutch speaking Flemish and the French speaking Walloons. However, they have one thing in common; the vast majority of them (80%) are Catholic. There will be no wars, no crusades. "Ethnic harmony" is guaranteed, because they are beholden to the spiritual leadership of John Paul II.

Let’s summarise these findings. In Italy, we have a mono-ethnic (Italian), mono-religious (Roman Catholic), mono-lingual (Italian) unitary republic. Then we have a set of mono-ethnic (Austrian), mono-religious (Roman Catholic), mono-lingual (German) independent states coming together to form Austria. Germany is a mono-ethnic (German), mono-lingual (German), mono-religious (Christians of various denominations) federation.

Now we come to the real focus of Ranil’s Federal Tuition Exercise: Belgium. In the end, it will be the Belgian model that will be considered. This is why we should compare the Belgian example with Sri Lanka. Belgium and Sri Lanka are roughly equal in size and both have (on the face of it) a North-South issue on linguistic and ethnic lines. This is where the comparisons stop.

Personally, I like the Belgian model. It is the product of historical geo-political realities expressed in the form of a constitutional document. Like in Austria, Germany and Italy, it is the representation of the true state of affairs, not a historical fabrication or an imposed "geo-political reality".

What of the Sri Lankan case? Just as the historic Flanders region (Flemish North) was an economic power during Middle Ages, the Sinhala Nation was during the same period (Anuradhapura-Polonnaruwa) a flourishing economic power. Like the Flemish in the North outnumbering the Walloons, the Sinhalese outnumbered the Tamils. We had a rich Tamil upper class dominating politics, the public service and the economy at the time of Independence. Like the Belgian Walloons. They controlled much of the country’s wealth. Tamil interests, like those of the Walloons were disproportionately represented in the government and the public service and only a small segment of the Sinhalese who were bilingual could participate equally (just like the Flemish). In Belgium this historical anomoly was corrected through federalism. After Independence, this skewed political culture began to correct itself. What federalism would do, is to reverse this and re-entrench the anomaly.

In Sri Lanka, furthermore, the "issue" does not "enjoy" a similar history or historical span. In Sri Lanka the geo-political-historical reality was one where the Sinhala Buddhist Nation flourished from Nagadeepa to Deegawapiya and from Mahatitta (Mannar) to Gokannatitta (Trincomalee). The evidence is irrefutable. The Sinhalese, however, made two historical mistakes. The first was when the Dutch and Portuguese traders were harassing the Muslim traders. When they ran to the Sinhala king, he granted them relief. Traders became "temporary inhabitants" then "permanent residents" and later "refugees". Now they are claiming a historical mono-ethnic/mono-religious enclave and are moving towards a separate state.

The second historical mistake was when the British decided to plant coffee. The Sinhalese could have worked in the coffee plantations (and later tea), poisoned or otherwise sabotaged the destructive enterprise. Instead, they refused, making room for the influx of indentured labour from Tamil Nadu. Today, the descendants of these Tamils who arrived after 1853 are also making "traditional-homelands" noises. These plantations were set up consequent to evicting the Sinhalese from their ancestral lands and destroying the forests that they had preserved for centuries.

In both cases, the Sinhalese cannot blame the Muslims, Tamils, the Dutch, the Portuguese or the British. They were/are merely pursuing their self interest. The Sinhalese ought to have pursued theirs. The Sinhala leaders and the clergy of that time, instead, colluded with these invaders and betrayed the Sinhala people.

Things could have been much worse. When coffee went into decline during the 1850’s and 1860’s, successive governors undertook an ambitious task of rehabilitating the complex tank systems that existed the North Central and Eastern Provinces. This began in 1855. Governors such as Hercules Robinson and William Gregory intensified this effort. The objective was to develop paddy cultivation in the Vanni, Ampara, Polonnaruwa, Ganthalawa (Kantale) and Mahatitta areas. These areas, by that time, were sparsely populated. There was a large land mass, countless acres of abandoned paddy fields and a dilapidated irrigation network. They used the Indian labour in these regions to begin the shift from coffee to paddy. Fortunately for the Sinhalese, a tiny insect called Anopheles struck a cohabitational arrangement with the malaria parasite to drive away the invaders. Had this not happened there would have been nothing for Balasingham to discuss in terms of "political realities". The Sinhalese would have been an almost extinct minority.

These are mere facets of how the "ethnic equation" came about. The historicity, however, is not easily obliterated. Unlike in Belgium, the Tamils don’t have any historical basis comparable with that of Walloons or the Flemish who have been living in those areas for thousands of years. In none of the four "federal cases" under study was an immigrant or transient population granted autonomy. In our case, the Tamils either came to grow tobacco (for the Dutch) or coffee and tea for the British. The Muslims came as traders. The Sinhalese built this civilisation and all the archaeological remains in every nook and cranny of the country (and especially in the North and East) and the irrigation works similarly scattered all over the island stand as incontestable evidence of continued Sinhala presence. That they are no longer the dominant community in some areas is due to systematic evictions due to invasions beginning from the Anuradhapura period right up to the recent exercises carried out by Prabhakaran.

The "Belgian Way" proposal can only be met with a two-word response: "NO WAY". There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. It works, but only when the political and historical realities and antecedents point to such arrangements. Sadly for Ranil and for Balasingham, our history and our political reality do not extrapolate towards federalism. In Sri Lanka, the indisputable historical fact is that of an unarmed peace loving peoples continuously subjected to the terrorism of successive invaders. Accepting the product of such violent processes amounts to one thing. Abandonment. Of the Sinhala people. It is possible that Ranil is too poor to do anything else, but we are not.
There is another "way". The solution to a political crisis is best obtained when a truly representative body engages in a frank discussion. All this time politicians have ruled the country. It is high time that they give way to human beings. I once again reiterate the need to establish a "Constitutional Commission" representing all segments of the citizenry. The result of deliberations engaged in by such a body will necessarily be representative of historical and political realities.

The monopoly enjoyed by the politician in constitutional reform has to be done away with. Constitutional reform has been a business for the politicians. We have had parliamentary select committees, all-party conferences, individual pacts between politicians, and now study tours in the name of familiarisation, all of which soak up large amounts of public funds. They have had serious political repercussions as well. This has to stop. Citizens have to put a stop to this.

Sarath Amunugama and others need not have gone all the way to Brussels to study federalism or the Belgian model. Someone could have breathed a simple word in their ears, "libraries". However, now that they have gone, I would like to ask them one question (and of course Ranil and G.L. Peiris and anyone else can also answer it if they like): "Where does history start for you?" Is the answer 1983? 1956? 1948? 1853? 1815? 1505? For me, it goes back at least until Pandukabhaya. Belgium, ladies and gentlemen, resolved its case based on a history that for them began in the Middle Ages. In any case, Sri Lanka’s history does not begin with the demarcation of High Security Zones or the mapping out of "traditional homelands" of Tamil separatist imagination.

Read more

R Sampanthan’s hour of reckoning

Objection to Rajavarothiam Sampanthan being made Opposition Leader has ranged from rank communalism, justifiable fears given his and his party’s unabashed endorsement of a terrorist outfit, through a questioning of representational power to the machinations that are claimed to have disenfranchised over 4 million voters by the simply and pernicious presidential act of looting the coalition that came second in the General Election by a relatively small 350,000 votes.   

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and its constituent parties have hardly ever waxed eloquent on matters that concern the entire country.  The focus has been consciously, deliberately and understandably, issues of the Tamil community.  It is also true that the TNA, Sampanthan included, have indulged in Eelam-speak for years, going as far as to name the LTTE as ‘the sole representative of the Tamils’, and later in reduced circumstances after the LTTE was defeated reverted to federal-speak and other devolution tongues.  There’s nothing wrong in all that.  Ideological choices and aspirations are not the preserve of any community or any political party, after all.  

The more compelling objection has been about the legitimacy to represent ‘The Opposition’.  Sampanthan’s party polled a mere 5% of the total vote (515,963).  Those who neither voted for the winner, the United National Party (UNP) nor went along with the promise of that party regarding ‘a national government’ (or more correctly a ‘coalition government’ between the UNP and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)), returned 95 members to Parliament through the United People’s Freedom Party (UPFA) of which the SLFP was the main constituent.  Today, that number has dwindled down to 8.  In effect some 4 million voters have been disenfranchised in the process.  

The objectors (to Sampanthan) argue that the number is higher, pointing out that over 50 wanted Kumar Welgama to be the Opposition Leader.  However all SLFP MPs have to be considered part of the ‘government’ for several reasons.  First, their party has signed an MoU with the UNP. Second, many have received ministerial portfolios.  Thirdly, the leader of the SLFP (whose near-dictatorial powers in the party were amply demonstrated recently) is also a part of the Cabinet.  Object as they might to the way things happened, they are nevertheless trapped as lesser-members of the ruling coalition.  Ergo they cannot propose any in their ranks for the post of Opposition Leader.  

The TNA is, for all these reasons, the party which has the highest number of seats among those groups that are not part of the Coalition Government (misnamed as ‘National Government’ and ‘Unity Government’).  The number of votes polled ceases to matter the moment the results are announced.  From that point onwards the arithmetic is limited to parliamentary composition.  In 1977, one remembers, the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) polled a fraction of what the SLFP did and yet returned more MPs to Parliament and thereby secured the Opposition Leader’s post. 

In any event, the fact that SLFP MPs are suffering from a debilitating identity crisis (perhaps handed down by their leader), automatically disqualifies any of them from being considered for the post of Opposition Leader.  For all intents and purposes, in a multi-party democracy, clarity with respect to status vis-a-vis the ‘government’ is a non-negotiable ‘must’ in the office of Opposition Leader. No one in the SLFP can claim this.  

Sampanthan, like all ‘opposition leaders’ will be expected to lead ‘the opposition’, in and out of parliament.  That opposition is made of all communities, all parties other than the UNP and SLFP.  He has pledged to do so.  His ideological preferences aside, Sampanthan is eminently qualified to play this role given his considerable experience as a Parliamentarian and a politician who has at all times, even while supporting the LTTE, acted with decorum and dignity in debate.  As a person who first came to Parliament on the Eelam-pledge of the TULF and who has seen first hand where that took the country and especially the Tamil community, one expects him to do much better than A Amirthalingam.  

He has, by default, earned the right to represent over 4 million voters.  None of them will expect him to articulate all of their political aspirations, but they will hope that he will be as representative of he can be of general citizens’ concerns on all matters.  It is not impossible.  There was a time, after all, when the sole member of the Communist Party, Sarath Muttetuwegama, was a virtual one-man Opposition to the J R Jayewardena Government.  He has his work cut out for him.  The Government pledged ‘Good Governance’.  If he leads the handful that make the opposition after the UNP-SLFP marriage (made in hell?) to cry ‘foul!’ if and when the Government strays, he will be applauded.  If he reduces his role (outside of tokenist assertions of 'Sri Lankanness') to direct or indirect buttressing of Eelamism, he will not.  

Rajavarothiam Sampanthan’s hour of reckoning has arrived.  It will last a few years.  We must wish him well.  

Read more

Shall we be a ‘forgive, forget and move-on’ kind of nation?

Certain lines have been opened, hearts open more reluctantly it seems.  

This was written one year after the military defeated the LTTE.  It is perhaps an indictment of sorts that it is still relevant five years later.  Or perhaps it takes longer than we think for certain kinds of wounds to heal.

It is barely one year since the historical trajectory of this country took a sharp and decisive turn, i.e. the complete annihilation of the LTTE leadership.  Since then we’ve had two major elections, one fiercely fought and the other hardly making any ripples anywhere.  We had what was dubbed a ‘split among the nationalists’ (described as such by rabid federalists, closet Eelamists and those with a long history of Sinhala-bashing and Buddhist-bashing) when Gen (Rtd) Sarath Fonseka, arguably the most visible of the many heroes associated with ‘turning the point’, challenging Mahinda Rajapaksa (clearly a name that history will not ignore) to the Presidency. 

When Prabhakaran perished in or around the Nandikadal lagoon all peace-loving people in the country cheered. They were vilified for being ‘triumphalistic’ by those who clearly were unhappy about how that particular Act of the Eelam drama ended (yes, it is not over it).  I did not light crackers, but I was thrilled because I felt more at ease as a parent and proud to be a citizen of a country that had vanquished the greatest threat to democracy and civilization since ‘Independence’. 

Not everyone was happy of course.  The Eelam boys and girls in the I/NGO circuit changed their tune, trying to resurrect the Chelvanayagam doctrine (‘A little now, more later’), urging the President to give what he has no mandate to give (devolution beyond the 13^th Amendment) in order to ‘address Tamil grievances’ (read, ‘myths’).  They were careful not to describe these ‘grievances’ nor to draw logical lines from grievance to their called-for ‘resolution’ (devolution), skirting around the relevant historical (the ‘exclusive traditional homeland’ claim is full of holes), demographic (at least 53% of Tamils live outside the North and East), practical (some 64% of the budgets for Provincial Councils go to maintain institution and personnel) and of course economic (‘devolution for development’ is now passé!) issues.

R. Sampanthan, a racist Tamil politician if ever there was one, and a shameless puppet of V. Prabhakaran, has called on the Tamil people to ‘mourn’ on May 18, 2010.  Why ‘mourn’?  Mourn what?  The end of the war?  We are not sure.  Does he want suicide bombers roaming in Colombo? Does he want to risk what he has often described as a ‘racist Sinhala regime’ to react in ‘racist’, ‘extremist’ ways and thereby cause further suffering to the people he claims to represent? How much blood is enough to satiate Sampanthan’s thirst, we are forced to ask. 

Isn’t Sampanthan, by ‘mourning’ Prabhakaran’s death (nothing else happened of note on May 18^th, 2009), essentially reiterating endorsement of everything that ruthless terrorist did, lamenting the fact that Tamil children are no longer being recruited for military purposes, sad that Tamils civilians are not dying in the inevitable crossfire that is so much a part of war, aggrieved that bombs are not going off in crowded places, school buses, supermarkets etc?  He is and anyone else who wants to mourn the end of the LTTE essentially being nostalgic about terrorism and wishing for another round of violence? 

It is Sampanthan’s right to mourn whatever he wishes to mourn.  Let him mourn.  Let him also remember that the hatred that he is spewing will not produce happy outcomes for the Tamil people. Wallowing in the blood-memory that describes the LTTE will not help them.  There was heroism, yes, and this should not be forgotten.  Not by the Tamils or by the Sinhalese.  Heroism is ethnicity-free and we can recognize this, we can all benefit.  But hatred is not healthy.  It breeds unwholesome things.  It sidetracks real issues.  Just like the 13^th Amendment and the whole devolution whine.  It’s essentially a red herring that postpones acknowledgement of true grievance and resolution for the same. 

A year after, there are a lot of things to be happy about.  It is also a time to mourn, not that which Sampanthan wants people to mourn, of course, but other things.  We mourn the fact that we lost close to a hundred thousand of our fellow-citizens, among them many who would have helped make us a better, stronger and more benevolent nation.  We lost children, we lost hospitals and schools, lost infrastructure and livelihoods. The nation was dented in many ways. We bled. We are poorer, whichever way we want to look at it.  Yes, we lost something of our humanity and it will take a long time for us to recover and move forward. 

We ended a 30 year war. That is the consolation. We proved that we are in the end a we-can nation, a we-can people. We proved we are resilient.  We have to show now that we are also a ‘forgive, forget and move-on’ nation, a ‘put-the-past-behind-us’ people.  One year later we are not close to a healing embrace but neither has that ‘option’ being deleted from the universe of the possible. 

The Tamil people will have to come to terms with who they are, what their self-appointed representatives want them to be, the blood with which their ethnic signature was tainted (or embellished, if they want to see it that way) etc.  So too the Sinhalese.  Wars are not pretty things but they can be unnecessarily ugly.  There was heroism and sacrifice and there were terrible decisions and barbarism as well.  We are all tainted. 

We need to be angry with one another if not for anything, to get the anger out of our respective systems.  But if we are made of anger and anger alone, then we are doomed as a nation.

One year later, we have secured a magnificent victory. It is called ‘tomorrow’.  Not a ‘tomorrow’ of triumphalism but a tomorrow of going beyond unwholesome attachment to identity and a search for the commonalities that made for the full flowering of citizenships, citizenry and civilization. 

One year later, as we remember all the heroes, let us remember, I repeat, that heroism does not have an ethnic identity.  Courage is language-free.  Sacrifice is a death mourned by parent, child, lover and death. Grief is a tear that does not have signature.

I am hopeful.  

Malinda Seneviratne is the Editor-in-Chief of 'The Nation' and can be reached at msenevira@gmail.com

Read more

Sampanthan as Opposition Leader

Nimal Siripala Silva is the official Leader of the Opposition.  The leader of his party is the President of the country. No office is vested with even a fracture of the powers of the President.  Silva’s party, moreover has a parliamentary majority.  That Silva is the Opposition Leader in these circumstances is a monumental joke.  It makes a mockery of accepted democratic norms.   The cry for a ‘true’ opposition leader therefore makes a lot of sense. 

In the context of an SLFP-UNP led ‘National Government’ meaningful opposition cannot come from either party.  Leave them out and the ‘next in line’ is the Tamil National Alliance.  They have 14 MPs.  Individuals belonging to other parties that contested under the UPFA or later joined that coalition are either part of the Government (Champika Ranawaka of the UPFA and Rauff Hakeem of the SLMC for example) or are single-member entities in Parliament (Wimal Weerawansa of the PPF, Dinesh Gunawardena of the MEP and Vasudeva Nanayakkara).  Even if they join hands they are still ‘smaller’ than the TNA. 

The TNA supported Maithripala Sirisena at the last Presidential Election but didn’t take up any ministerial portfolios.  Many members of Silva’s party, in contrast, have prospered even though they had backed Sirisena’s opponent.  The case, therefore is strong for an Opposition Leader from the TNA. For many reasons, the natural choice would be R Sampanthan.

Rajavarothiam Sampanthan is as senior a parliamentarian as Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, both having been first elected in 1977.  At 82 he is one of the oldest MPs if not the oldest.  A staunch Tamil Nationalist whose political positions have seen him first as approver and later as servant of terrorism, Sampanthan nevertheless has been an ardent defender of general citizens’ rights when it comes to issues that are not of the ethnic kind.  He is not without blemish, his detractors would argue.  Then again, who among the 225 in Parliament is without blemish? Who is not guilty of crimes of omission and commission? 

There will be comparisons with A Amirathalingam’s tenure as Opposition Leader of course.  But that was then and this is now and there’s nothing to say that what followed then would come about now.  Different factors.  Different context.  It is wrong to single out one factor and call in ‘overriding’ in producing particularly horrifying outcomes. 

The point is, even if that were the case, it is always better to leave emotions out, err on the side of propriety and do the right thing, procedurally speaking. 

I vote for Mr Sampanthan.  

[The above is the second part of a two-part editorial published in 'The Nation' April 4, 2015]

Read more

Sampanthan’s non-aligned bluff

Former TNA leader and veteran politician R Sampanthan has raised important concerns that are shared by many outside his party’s constituency.  China.  He is worried that ‘Chinese influence on Sri Lanka has grown exponentially’.  This goes counter to a foreign policy that has ‘followed non-alignment for decades,’ he says.

Sampanthan is particularly upset that the Government has privileged China over India.  He gives it in numbers.  Chinese support is 98% loans and 2% grants, he argues, comparing it with ‘a more generous India’ that has 2:1 loan-grant ratio.  China’s support-share is almost twice that of India, he concedes, but nevertheless laments the Government’s ‘insensitivity to the concerns of its neighbor’.  He stresses that the Chinese loans would be turned into equity and points out that ‘it was a grave concern for many Lankans worried about its impact on the island’s independence and sovereignty’. 

Now first of all, Mr Sampanthan seems to have forgotten that non-alignment was effectively abandoned in 1977.  The UNP first danced to US-Japan tunes and then fell on knees before India.  Ranasinghe Premadasa tried to clear some independence-ground but at the cost of mollycoddling the LTTE.  He paid more than he bargained for.  Chandrika Kumaratunga went the JR-way for the most part.  Mahinda Rajapaksa, to his credit, smiled at everyone but did not harbor any illusions about stated friendship. 

It is heartening that Sampanthan gets hot under the collar about things such as independence and sovereignty, given a considerable track record of undermining both.  If this change of heart is real then the confusion over history and reality can certainly be forgiven.  The problem is that it is difficult to trust the man.  

Even as he bats for non-alignment, Sampanthan wants Sri Lanka to keep India happy.  He doesn’t want Sri Lanka ‘to undermine India’s interests’.  Well, Sri Lanka has to look after its own interests and if this upsets some other country, hard luck.  Sri Lanka can plead ‘non-alignment’ and ask Sampanthan to defend positions against all objections.  But Sampanthan can’t because he is not non-aligned.  

He believes that there’s a deliberate plan by the Government ‘to isolate India and thereby free itself from obligations made to India in the interests of reconciliation, peace and harmony’.  Why is this great champion of Sri Lanka’s independence and sovereignty not upset about obligations made to the people of this country in the first instance?  He knows, for example, that the 13^th Amendment was a document JR had to sign while a pistol was held to his head, so to speak.  Recovering independence and sovereignty, therefore, must begin with an unceremonious burial of the same, surely? 

And why is he upset about India getting isolated?  If Sri Lanka can isolate India, then Sri Lanka must indeed be far more powerful than people believe it is.  Is India so weak that it can be isolated by Sri Lanka?  And even if that were possible why should this great and proud Sri Lankan who is so fixated with the island’s independence and sovereignty be upset about anyone else getting upset by Sri Lanka’s foreign policy? 

Finally, what moral right does Sampanthan have to indulge in independence-speak when he rushes to India every time he suffers political indigestion?  He has none.  He nails his own sovereignty-claim coffin when he says ‘The establishment of a maintenance facility in Trincomalee by China contravenes the Indo-Lanka Agreement’.  He’s seasoned enough to know that the true squandering of sovereignty took place the day JR signed that very agreement.  Transferring that which was robbed from India to China should not upset Sampanthan because what is key is sovereignty (or its loss) and not the identity of the sovereignty-robber. 

Yes, there are legitimate concerns about the Chinese footprint in Sri Lanka.  That China has not interfered in political processes or armed, funded and trained terrorists like how India did is not consolation enough for anyone who wants Sri Lanka to recover independence and sovereignty.  Sampanthan, however, has no right to complain. 

Read more