Fruit forbidden to liberals

 

One of the most thorny problems for self-styled liberals in Sri Lanka is that they use the liberal label as though it’s some kind of impenetrable shield, hiding behind which they take on specific enemies in accordance with preferred outcomes. Scratch them and you find some grotesque creatures.

You would find colonial remnants, elitists who anything said or written in any language other than English has to be inferior, religious zealots rabidly anti-Buddhist, ardent lovers of much discredited neoliberal economic policies and echoers of Washington-speak who swear by Reuters, BBC, AP etc. They would swoon if Julie Chung said ‘hi machang’ and probably lamented the death of Elizabeth, a woman who benefited from and was the unmistakable symbol of genocide, ethnic cleansing and outright plunder. Then of course there are the wannabes with chips on their shoulders who mimic Colombots, Candlelight Ladies, Funded Voices, Rent-a-Protest Agitators in the mistaken belief it will get them automatic citizenship in Kolombia.  

The positions taken (or not taken) on a wide range of issues mark them and indeed question their liberal credentials. Nothing dissolves the liberal shield, however, as the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act.

The Committee for Muslim Law Reforms (CMLR) has proposed that the polygamy law applicable to Muslim be retained albeit with minor adjustments but nevertheless reaffirming inequality before the law and celebrating the subjugation of Muslim women. That’s a double whammy for liberals. We’ll get to that soon.
CMLR Chairman Shabry Haleemdeen is reported to have said, ‘We are deliberating on polygamy since it is a sensitive issue for the Muslim community, for the reason that it is derived from the Quran. It is a religious tenet and people take it very seriously.’

Now, if you really want to take the Quran seriously and use the sensitivity caveat, all manner of atrocities against non-believers would have to be sanctioned (the same with certain tenets of the Bible of course).

Haleemdeen makes much of allowing brides to sign the marriage registration form. Cheers! Well, trivial, really. Let’s get to the more serious stuff. Haleemdeen’s apologies are hilarious. Apparently permission from a ‘Conciliator’ would have to be obtained when a Muslim man wishes to marry again (and again). If the MMDA remains with CMLR recommendations incorporated, some researcher studying patriarchy, discrimination etc., is likely to exclaim, ‘all conciliators happen to be men, oh wow!’ That’s going by how these ‘sensitive issues of the Muslim community’ have played out over time. Let’s put that aside.

The conciliator, Haleemdeen says, ‘will have to mainly consider the equal treatment of the wives, financially, physically, and mentally.’ I suppose financial issues could, in part, be sorted with assets being legally divided between the first and second wives. However, the principle of equality would be wrecked if the man takes a third or fourth wife. In any case, how on earth can anyone ensure ‘equal physical and mental treatment’ of all wives prior to the second or subsequent marriage? The CMLR also insists, ‘the person who is proposing to marry again should have sufficient financial means to support all their wives and children.’ Polygamy for the rich, then? 

Haleemdeen says that a Muslim man wanting a second marriage should have a compelling reason, for example, if the first wife has a terminal illness or an incurable disease or cannot perform in bed (who judges that, though?). Let’s flip it. What if a Muslim man is impotent? What if a Muslim man is terminally ill or has some incurable disease? Why shouldn’t the same principle be applied? What does Haleemdeen and the CMLR have to say? What do liberals have to say? What do feminists have to say? Why aren’t they going for Haleemdeen’s jugular? Why aren’t they launching a protest? #CMLRgetlost, anyone? Haleemdeen hasn’t uttered a word about divorce. That's also interesting given that the MMDA renders the bride vulnerable vis-a-vis the bridegroom from Day One.

 
It boils down to a couple of things. First, men from one community enjoys polygamy while men of other communities end up in jail for the same act. Secondly, it is sexist. Liberals who just cannot stand Article 9 of the Constitution (never mind its negation by Articles 10 and 14) and rant and rave about separating religion from the state, are silent on all this. Why?

Haleemdeen is a sham artist, one has to conclude. The CMLR is a sham show. Liberals who are silent on the MMDA and the CMLR recommendations are ostriches and need to wave a banner with the following legend, ‘#I-left. And shut up thereafter.

Enough. Consider the following. On February 19, 2020, i.e. days before Parliament was dissolved and probably in full cognizance of impending General Elections, a report was released by ‘The Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security,’ appointed following the Easter Sunday attacks almost a year before.

This report contained recommendations on the following areas: 1. Education, 2. Banning face coverings which hinder identification, 3. National Defence Policy, 4. Amending the Immigration and Emigration Law in line with new developments, national and international, 5. Electronic, print and social media, 6. Amending the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Law, 7. Empowering Muslim civil society, 8. Empowerment and legalization of the NGO Secretariat, 9. Amendment of the Wakf Act, 10. Suspension of registration of political parties on ethnic and religious basis, 11. Issuing birth certificates with Sri Lankan Identity Number, 12. Establishment of a ministry of religious affairs that combines all religions, 13. Building and maintaining Dhamma schools and religious centers to ensure inter-religious cohabitation, and 14. Halal certification process.

Now this is as comprehensive a report as we’ve seen on a number of key and interrelated issues. The most important recommendations are related to Muslim marriages and divorces that require amendment of Acts Nos. l3 of l951, 31 of 1954, 22 of 1955, 1 of 1965, 5 of 1965, 32 of 1969,  and Law No. 41 of 1975. These correct the horrendous gender inequalities in that community with respect to marriages and divorce.  

But why even bother amending the MMDA, my liberal friends? Shouldn’t the principle of equality supersede customary law? Indeed, shouldn’t you be pushing for the repeal of all such parochial pieces of legislation? But they nothing but Religious Freedom Nazis who have a bone to pick with certain religions (but not their own) and/or whose faiths have no history or numbers of the faithful of any significance (which is why, ‘equality of the ‘one-religion, one-vote’ kind is advocated even though in countries where THOSE religious communities are the majority, such generosity is hardly seen). That’s their problem. It’s a quintessential Sri Lankan ‘liberal’ dilemma. A disease and a curse, one might add.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance columnist who can be reached at malindadocs@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more

Kandy, forums and ‘exclusionary-integrationists’

Rights. Privileges. Whines. Humbuggery.

There are all kinds of collectives. Forums are essentially gatherings about ideas, i.e. their articulation, exchange and debate. So when a formal forum issues a statement one assumes that it is an outcome of deliberation. In general, there’s a lot to be said for discussion. It’s much better than ad hoc, arbitrary and careless assertions and prescriptions. I had never heard of anything called a Kandy Forum before, pardon my ignorance, but when a missive was issued by an outfit by that name, I was curious.

Kandy. Nice town. Historic. A half century worth of personal association and therefore memories. A place where I’ve witnessed and have partaken of discussion and debate on a multiplicity of subjects. So I wondered what this ‘Kandy Forum’ had to say. 

The topic was interesting and topical: ‘Sri Lankan politics and the dilemma of Muslim Community — an appeal for a change in the political climate.’ This was first published in the website Colombo Telegraph. 

Now any dilemmas suffered by any community is cause for concern of all communities, obviously, and if any forum of citizens was committed to addressing such issues it is certainly laudable. Ideally of course such a forum would include to the extent possible as wide a range of representatives of relevant stakeholders. The signatories were all Muslims. Disappointing. All men. Doubly disappointing. 

Now there’s nothing wrong in Muslims talking about their dilemmas. Using the name ‘Kandy’ however is misleading for it’s not the case that Kandy is a 100% Muslim city or district. Let’s just say it was used as a brand name, just like the clothes store. 

Let’s move to the substance. It was, all in all, a litany of woes about how Muslims have been victimized. Nothing wrong in that. Those who perceive victimization are best positioned to talk about it, after all.

Here’s the story in a nutshell:

First of all, there is reference to the polarization of the nation in terms of communal identity, ethnic and religious, as indicated by the voting patterns in November 2019. There’s a claim (unsubstantiated) about ‘a virulent anti-Muslim campaign by Sinhala-Buddhist extremists to maximize the Sinhala votes (for Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, one assumes).’ Choice is a product of multiple factors. How the KF (Kandy Forum) figured out that the Sinhala Buddhists were moved by anti-Muslim sentiments one cannot tell. The KF quickly shifts terminological gear to talk about ‘Islamaphobic Propaganda Machinery.’ A claim. Unsubstantiated.

They bring in the history-factor. Clever. So it didn’t fall from the sky, ‘it’ meaning the alleged Islamophobia and (resultant?) victimization. The emergence of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and proportional representation are cited as contributing factors. The KF explains that this gave the SLMC leverage in forming government. This enraged the Sinhala chauvinists in the polity, they claim and fault them for ‘not noting the historical contribution of the Muslim community and Muslim leaders for the development of the country.’

It’s an easy play, this: focus on extremists from the majority community, deny by being silent any kind of extremism on the part of minorities, wax eloquent about Muslim ‘contributions’ without talking numbers or ratios. You get ‘victim’ at the end of that road, naturally. The mischief is best revealed in the way the KF talks about the Easter Sunday attacks.

‘From 2012 this situation (anti-Muslim sentiment) started to change and the unfortunate outburst of Easter Sunday attack in April 2019 culminated and paved the way for resentment, animosity and hatred to reach an unprecedented level in the history of Muslims in Sri Lanka.’

Yes, the Easter Sunday attack was ‘unfortunate’ but that’s putting it mildly. No mention of which community the attackers belonged to or what their faith was. Let’s do it now. Muslims. Islamic faith. Jihadists. Led by virulently anti-Sinhala and anti-Buddhist Islamic clerics. What’s interesting is the downplay of all that and the up-play, if you will, of what happened later. Let’s re-quote: ‘animosity and hatred [reached] an unprecedented level in the history of Muslims in Sri Lanka.’ 

Now let’s get some perspective. How many were killed on Easter Sunday? What was the total damage in the aftermath of the terrorist attack? There was suspicion, yes, and that’s understandable, isn’t it? After all, identity-assertion by Muslims and an assertion that mimicked those hate/terrorist-groups spawned by Wahhabism complemented by hate-speech calling that spoke of Sharia ruled Sri Lanka and even attacking Buddhists. Why is the KF absolutely silent on this clearly discernible rise of fundamentalism within the Muslim community? Is it all attributable (in their book) to ‘a response to Sinhala Buddhist extremism,’ never mind the global dimensions of these trends and the violence and hatred they spew? All of that is left out and the act (of terrorism) called ‘unfortunate’. The response is not called ‘unfortunate’. It’s more like appalling!

Another gear-shift follows. This time it is about ‘true national political parties’. The KF is upset that major political parties are strongly biased on majority community interests. Is that surprising in a representative democracy? That’s not being communalist. If Muslims feel threatened for whatever reason, Muslims could and have come together politically and have harvested much from fears (and of course aspirations). So it’s easy: let the Muslims club together but the Sinhala-Buddhists must not! So it’s easy, ‘let there be a Sri Lankan identity asserted by Sinhalese and Buddhists, but let other communities, ethnic and religious, indulge in in-your-face identity-assertion even to the extent of promoting by omission or commission extremisms that could (as they have) unleash terrorism on other communities which, after the fact, could be labeled ‘unfortunate.’

So the KF wants everyone to put country before all other interests and ‘refrain from propagating ethnic and religious hatred and exclusive partisan politics.’ They interject, footnote-like, a light note to Muslims, asking them to ‘develop an integrated policy framework for national and community development and social harmony.’ Nice words. How honest though, considering the abject refusal to place any blame on that particular community for the state of affairs that the KF laments? How honest, indeed, considering that 'integration' within the community is a no-no when it comes to women? How honest, also, when one consider the KF says nothing about the many privileges enjoyed exclusively by the Muslims such as holidays, off-days, half-days way disproportionate to population, not forgetting special 'leave' for widows denied other communities?

The KF appears to be great at prescription but accomplished truants when it comes to affirming prescription by practice. This is evident in the composition of the KF, the exclusionary nature of their thinking and communication and in its slant in narrative, analysis, conclusion and recommendation. 

The beginning and end are nicely put. All about integration. All about co-existence. The meat is in the middle, in mid-sentence, in asides and silences. Nothing nice about it.  

That said, let the KL’s initiative (inauspicious, slanted, silent on culpabilities and complicities though it is) be seen as an opportunity. Let the KL engage in a bit of self-criticism and start practicing inclusivity, integration and integrity at home. A bit of honesty and a retiring of selective memory might also help. 

Let’s see.

malindasenevi@gmail.com

RELATED ARTICLES

SLMC: Having the cake, eating it and more

Blame-shifting will not eliminate threat

The enemy at the gate could be a blessing

'Moderate': a convenient garb for the pernicious

The politics of alienation and isolation

Reconciliation does not grow in the Valley of Lies

And here comes the Equivalency Circus

Easter Sunday Attacks: naming the enemy is a game now!

Ostriches cannot fight terrorists

The problem has to be unveiled

Identity and identification of extremists and extremism

Notes for a manifesto: state, religion and raionalization

The danger of a black canvas in tense times

Wilpattu: missing the ecological woods for the communalist trees

Read more

SLMC: having the cake, eating it and more

The 29th Delegates’ Conference of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress is reported to have adopted a resolution to renounce the proposal to completely repeal the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA). The Conference has instead ‘resolved to reform it in keeping with Islamic teachings and on what had been agreed upon by Muslim parliamentarians.’

The wording of the missive includes condemnation of what the Conference believes is an attempt to ‘deny the democratic right of representation to minority communities and smaller parties by increasing the electoral cutoff point from 5% to 12%.’

The Conference is loud on fundamental rights and human rights. ‘Of every citizen of Sri Lanka,’ no less. It wants to pursue and support ‘reconciliation and good will among communities.’ It has tossed in or alluded to terms such as equality, dignity, peace, co-existence and ‘democratic political aspirations’ via power-devolution. 

They’ve thrown in the Rohingya Muslims too and predictably have not uttered one word about the atrocities committed by that community on Buddhists and Christians — quite reminiscent of certain communalist Tamil politicians maintaining silence on ‘the boy’ (that is, the LTTE, the world’s most ruthless terrorist organization).

The SLMC, as the party name shouts out, is about Muslims. Muslim interests is what that party is all about, if we go by face value. Nothing wrong in that. It’s the whines and the inconsistency that irks. 

Let’s start with the MMDA. They are ok with ‘reform’ and object to repeal. First of all, agreement to reform is a positive step. It indicates (at least) an acknowledgement that the MMDA is flawed. It’s however a teeny-weeny ‘positive,’ considering the strong objections raised from within the Muslim community itself, especially certain Muslim women’s organizations. They have offered cogent arguments to the effect that the MMDA is anti-democratic, sexist and violates multiple fundamental rights. 

I would argue that ‘reform’ in these kinds of situations only produces inordinate delays in true resolution of issues. ‘Issues’ include anomalies within the community and vis-a-vis other communities. ‘Reform’ of the kind that the SLMC envisages is so trivial that considering the long struggle of Muslims themselves and especially Muslim women, resolution (yes, nothing short of repeal) would take that much longer (it’s not hard to do the arithmetic in terms of time-length alone, that being a critical factor here).

What’s strange about the resolutions is the democratic pretensions of the SLMC and the ‘concern’ about human rights. How can one be selective about things like democracy, equality and fundamental rights? How can ‘interests’ only be about Muslims or, in this case, Muslim men?

Speaking of the poorly written and perniciously passed (essentially bypassing the Supreme Court) 19th Amendment, the SLMC mentions ‘democratic gains.’ Maybe Rauff Hakeem and Co haven’t read the 19th at all. The SLMC believes that the 19th Amendment created independent commissions and an independent Constitutional Council (CC). A quick look at the compositions of the CC might educated Hakeem and his friends. The 19th did not defined ‘National Government’. That was deliberate and we must conclude this was only to make a mockery of the limit on cabinet-size. The SLMC makes much of the 19th. What more should we say about that party’s understanding of democracy and indeed all things constitutional? 

Let’s move to co-existence and equality. Does the MMDA affirm the principle of equality? No, it does not. It does not treat men and women equally. Neither do the ‘reforms’ sanctioned by Muslim parliamentarians restore gender equality. The SLMC wants ‘reform’ to be in line with Islamic teachings. Now, which ‘Islamic teachings’ is the party referring to? There are many schools of Islam. Who has the last word on ‘THE Muslim word’? Rauff Hakeem? The SLMC delegates? The ISIS? 

It doesn’t matter. Sri Lanka is not a Muslim theocracy. It’s not a theocracy, period. No religion has any special status in Sri Lanka (yes, we have Article 9, but it is effectively negated by sections of Articles 10 and 14, and yes, we should do away with all). Does the SLMC want religion to override the state and the corpus of general laws? If so, would the SLMC object to legislation that offers certain religions rights denied to those in other religious communities? The Muslims have more religious holidays (in terms of overall days once we count the Ramadan ‘off days’ and ‘Friday Prayers’) than any other religious community. Muslim women enjoy more ‘grief and distress time off’ in the event of divorce or widowhood. 

The SLMC wants all that to remain. It wants to be a privileged religious community. It wants Muslim women to submit to male-will. In the name of ‘religion’ it chooses to be silent about the infamous and terrorist-breeding madrasas. The Delegates Conference is upset about Rohingya Muslims but has not uttered one word about those who in the name of Islam massacred hundreds of people on Easter Sunday 2019. 

The SLMC does not want to co-exist if that term implies mutual respect, equal treatment and so on.

No. The SLMC wants to have the cake, eat it and rub the crumbs in the fact of non-Muslims, virtually saying ‘go fly a kite.’  Correction, Muslim MEN in the SLMC  want to have the cake, eat it and rub the crumbs in the fact of non-Muslims and Muslim women, virtually saying ‘go fly a kite.’  And the liberals who have ranted and raved about religion and cried themselves hoarse arguing for a secular state, separation of church and state and so on, are dead silent.  

Humbuggery is interesting, in a way. We live in interesting times. 

This article was first published in the DAILY MIRROR [February 27, 2020]

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more