The Malwatte Mahanayaka Thero's 'Trust Sutra'

The Mahanayaka of the Malwatte Chapter, the Most Venerable Tibbotuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera has made an interesting pronouncement.  Referring to the fact that President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had said the proposed new Constitution would safeguard the country’s unitary status and the pre-eminent place afforded to Buddhism, the prelate states, “When the two leaders ruling the country have given such an assurance there is no point in questioning about its validity.” 

Let us state at the outset, that the issue of whether or not devolution or the dismantling of the unitary character of the state is prudent is of secondary importance to this article.  The focus is believability; it is about trust and therefore a trust-deficit and consequently the attempt to hoodwink the general public.  

It appears that the learned Mahanayaka Thero has for a moment forgotten the basic tenets of the Buddha’s Charter on Free Inquiry, the Kalama Sutta.  This is what the Buddha proposed to the Kalamas: 

"Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.”

In this instance the Mahanayaka Thero has erred on the side of trust.  We shall return to this matter later.  For now, let us consider the constitutional changes sought by the Yahapalana Government and the manner in which it has proceeded.  

Let’s begin with the proposals for constitutional reform.  What we have today is not a draft amendment but a concept, sorry, 9 concepts — the report of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly and the 8 observations by political parties.  The United National Party, by default has agreed with the report while others have, in their submissions, expressed disagreement on various sections of the report.  The JVP, for reasons best known to it, has submitted a two-page set of observations which seems light considering the weight of changes envisaged in the report.  The Sri Lanka Freedom Party, the Joint Opposition and the Jathika Hela Urumaya have been strong in their objections. In other words, it is not a ‘done deal,’ yet.

The regime is navel-gazing on the matter of coming up with a solid document that incorporates all observations or else goes ahead with what should be called the UNP Proposal.  As such it only feeds suspicion and rumor-mongers.  It could do better, but then again, yahapalana-incompetence seems to be a shackle that is hard to shed.

Let’s consider the UNP Proposal.  With respect to the issues of Buddhism and the unitary status, as has been pointed out, if these matters are to be ‘untouched’ as the President and Prime Minister appear to have impressed on the venerable prelate, then no alteration in the current wording is warranted.  Moreover, the ‘status quo’ should not be touched through caveats on any relevant matter including power-devolution.  

With respect to the status of Buddhism, the so-called privileges supposedly entrenched in Article 9 are negated in effect by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).  A reformulation offered as an option by the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly reads as follows: "Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Article 10 and 14(1)(e).”  A wordy re-statement essentially.  In essence the arbitrary deletion in word and deed of the relevant clause of the Kandyan Convention remains, despite all the rhetoric of this being a country where there is a ‘Buddhist hegemony.’  At least, in this case, there’s no deception.  It’s in the machinations involving the nature of the state where we see the Yahapalana Regime trying to pull wool over the eyes of the majority community.

A nation is ‘unitary’ or ‘federal’ or ‘a confederacy’ not on the label used but on the simple fact (or otherwise) of where legislative power resides.  In Sri Lanka’s case, it is Articles 4(a) and 76(1) which give the state a unitary character.  It is these very articles that the Yahapalana Government is set to butcher.  The moment legislative power of any kind is devolved to the provincial councils, for example, the state ceases to be unitary in character, in procedure and in effect. 

One must hope that the Most Venerable Tibbotuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera would at least in future read such drafts with perhaps the assistance of relevant experts before offering blank cheques to the regime.  With respect to the Charter of Free Inquiry alluded to above, perhaps the Thero focused on the clause ‘these things are praised by the wise.’  As of now the only persons praised are the President and the Prime Minister.  

Does the Venerable Thero believe that presidents and prime ministers are trustworthy on account of the offices they hold?  Has the Venerable Thero considered the track record of all the presidents and prime ministers since Independence?  Were they democrats?  Did they not abuse power?  Were they not guilty of constitutional hanky-panky?  J.R. Jayewardene was the Grandmaster of constitutional hanky-panky.  Ranasinghe Premadasa and D.B. Wijethunga didn't (have to) engage in constitutional tinkering, Chandrika Kumaratunga tried and failed, and Mahinda Rajapaksa came up with the patently anti-democratic and self-serving 18th Amendment.  As for the prime ministers, most of them placed high value on political expediency.  Ranil Wickremesinghe is included in the sorry-column in this regard considering his role in the passage of the 13th Amendment and machinations during his tenure from 2001-2004.

As for the two individuals referenced, are they wise? Are they honest?  Are they trustworthy?  The President’s wisdom can be gauged by the nepotism, incompetence, abuse of resources and political chicanery he has excelled in.  As for the Prime Minister, the appointment and defense of Arjuna Mahendran says all that needs to be said about his wisdom.   Moreover, this regime has established beyond any shadow of doubt that the will of the people is not its concern.  The continued postponement of elections with vague reasons offered for the same prove that the regime either does not give a hoot for the opinions of the voters or is reluctant to go before them for endorsement fearing summary dismissal.  

The Most Venerable Tibbotuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera’s trust, therefore, is patently misplaced.  Unfortunately.  Until such time that the President and Prime Minister back their claims regarding the ‘unitary status’ with a clear affirmation of the same by rejecting proposals to devolve legislative power, it is only prudent to treat flippant assurances as they should be, i.e. with more than a pinch of salt.  

If on the other hand, the regime comes clean and the President and Prime Minister clearly states ‘our intention is dismantle the unitary state in favor of a federal or confederal arrangement or even a division of the country,’ then the good Thero can legitimately place his trust on them and then, if he so chooses, in the Thero’s wisdon, support their proposals.  The Thero also has the option of rejecting them because the Thero wants clauses relating to Buddhism and the nature of the state left intact. 

As things stand, however, the trust-deficit with respect to the regime in general and the President and Prime Minister in particular, is overwhelming.  The wisdom, consequently, of the Most Venerable Tibbotuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera, needs to be questioned, we offer most respectfully.

Email: malindasene@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene.

Read more

The Malwatte Mahanayake Thero and yahapalana devolution machinations

The Mahanayake of the Malwatte Chapter of the Siyam Nikaya, the Most Venerable Thibbatuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thero was spot on about proposals to change the constitution.  The Venerable Thero is reported to have observed the following: ‘Causing unnecessary fear among the people on the Constitutional proposals and then saying tall tales is unacceptable and unhealthy.”

Correct.

The observation had been made to a delegation of the National Freedom Front (NFF) which included Wimal Weerawansa.  The Venerable Thero had further informed the NFF that “President Mairthripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had assured him that any proposal that encourages separatism won’t be included in the Constitution.”

If the word of politicians is what has prompted the Venerable Thero to chide the NFF it is  indicative of an innocence about the ways of the prthagjana at odds with the erudition expected of a Mahanayake.   

The Constitution, after the illegal and preposterous (given history as well as demographic, geographic and economic reality) imposition of the 13th Amendment is in fact a document that is unitary in claim but federalist in effect.  

To this day neither the President nor the Prime Minister has mentioned the rectification of this error when speaking of constitutional reform.  Assurances on the non-inclusion of anything that encourages separatism, therefore, can only be purchased by the politically naive.  Add to all this the various ‘reports’ crafted by federalist cheerleaders of this Government and there is ample reason for concern, even if one were to dismiss the NFF’s ‘fears’ as being wrought of political rather than ideological preferences.  The better audience for the Mahanayake Thero’s remarks is therefore not the NFF but the assurance-givers.  

Let’s make it clear — this constitution certainly does need reform and not only because of atrocious pieces of legislation such as the 13th Amendment and the carelessly written 19th Amendment.  With the proposed 20th Amendment (on Electoral Reform) turning out to be yet another empty election pledge, a complete overhaul is better than any tweaking by politicians who have amended for self interest on 15 occasions (the 6th was an exception but one that was subverted by the Delhi-imposed 13th; the 17th was an incomplete corrective effort as was the 19th).  

The entire exercise has been framed by the need for reconciliation among various communities, a laudable project but one which has unfortunately been hijacked by individuals and groups so fixated by a particular narrative (Eelamist) due to manifest antipathy to all things associated with Sinhala and Buddhist, and (therefore) a clear privileging of myth over history, fiction over reality.  

What we’ve seen so far is an effort by the Yahapaalanistas to market their preferences after what was essentially an eye-washing, legitimating exercise of gathering a range of opinions on these matters.  It offers a veneer of democratic discussion but the intent and machinations are quite visible.  Interestingly it is the absences in the entire exercise that reveals most.

If constitutional reform is about addressing anomalies and relevant grievances then it has to be preambled by an enumeration of these.  Such an enumeration must be weighted with evidence.  Drop substantiation and you get political rhetoric.  Only aberrations that can have serious repercussions including the subverting of the stated intent of reconciliation can result from this kind of planned carelessness in constitutional drafting.  Throw it into a vote and a defeat is most likely; a defeat will open another can of worms which these very architects will describe as ‘Sinhana-Buddhist Majoritarianism’ (or worse!).  

There are basics that have to be adhered to and the yahapalanistas are deliberately dodging.  Reform should ensure a better and more efficient system for both the democratic airing of grievances and the effective addressing of the same.  Basic.  Whatever grievances there may be, their resolution should be appropriate.  For example, it is clear that legislation exists for resolving language-related issues but there are more than hiccups in implementation caused in part by the lack of political will and the absence of resources including human resources, which in turn indicate insufficient training.  There are many such grievances that have been articulated which can effectively be resolved by the effective decentralization of administration.  

The more complex grievances.  These have often been coupled with aspirations for reasons of ‘political expedience’ that ironically result in both the grievance baby being tossed out with the aspiration bathwater.  A sense of belonging and ownership in the nation, for example, that goes beyond the petty arguments over national anthem and national flag, need to be addressed.  It’s here that the contentions are mostly resident and it is the machinations related to this particular issue that gives rise to concerns or even fears, to use the word of the Venerable Mahanayaka Thero.  This is where we see a continuing of the season of pernicious myth-modeling and ‘solutions’ proposed based on these.  ‘Devolution’ is the answer, we are told by the Yahapalanists.  

Any devolution that seeks to address a belonging-deficit based on ethnic identity must assume several things.  The vast majority of the particular community that is aggrieved should live in an identifiable, distinct geography.  Not so in the case of any community living in Sri Lanka.  Devolution OUT on this criteria.  Secondly, the claim of historical habitation and therefore traditional/historical homeland, should be substantiated.  The evidence shows that at best it is a highly decorated narrative and one that comes with aspirations that are best described as a land-grabbing exercise.  Devolution OUT on this criteria as well.  

Devolution cannot be at odds with national development objectives.  The key elements of the devolution discourse certainly run counter to economic logic.   It can be argued that what the state does is in effect getting the Western Province to subsidize the other provinces, considering wealth-creation.  You can devolve power but if you do that you cannot at the same time have the state play Robin Hood or Saradiel. Only a re-demarcation of provincial boundaries would satisfy this particular criteria.  Yahapalanist devolution OUT on this.  

There’s history.  There’s national security.  There is the context of virulent chauvinism by parties that were aligned with a bunch of terrorists and still celebrate the fact.  That ‘context’ does not exactly make anyone salute Yahapanalist devolution proposals.  Devolution OUT on account of context, therefore.    

It is the absence of this ‘basics’ in the Yahapalana ‘reconciliation’ narrative that generates concern about constitutional reform.  This is exactly why this exercise can further distance and not reconcile  communities that mistrust and fear one another.  It will not deliver ‘belonging’ or ‘ownership’ but could very well create further tensions, not to mention a sense of deliberate and constitutional un-belonging of a kind that groups such as the NFF have picked up on.   

The Mahanayake of the Malwatte Chapter of the Siyam Nikaya, the Most Venerable Thibbatuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thero is correct, let us repeat.  It is unacceptable and unhealthy to cause unnecessary fear among the people with respect to constitutional reform and also to churn out tall tales.  The Venerable Thibbatuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thero should convey this to the Yahapalanistas, I offer, most respectfully.

Read more