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

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