Politicians generally are often not alive to the reality around them They are surrounded by sycophants, opportunists and ‘advisers’ who dare not give any advice that the politician will not want to hear. So it is vital that any violation of the rule of law and of the democratic rights of the people are safeguarded by a fiercely independent judiciary, a vibrant free media and a vigilant civil society. These were the elements that protected the people from some of the authoritarian measures in the eighties.
by Shanie
(July 23, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) "To represent history as mainly the story of war and conflict, or even as a series of political events, not merely makes history a divisive force but may be a gross distortion. It becomes fateful when unscientific racial groupings - e.g. ‘Aryans and Dravidians, - are imported into the story. For example, to elevate the spells of fighting between military adventurers and their small armies in the early days of pioneering and colonization in Ceylon into racial and national wars and to give disproportionate place in history books to these is both bad education and bad history. On the other hand, giving due place to progress in social and cultural history makes a truer tale of human relationships as essentially one of peace and co-operation. Naturally emphasis on the cultural contribution of different groups will tend to bring them together today."
The above is from a paper presented over fifty years ago by the then Peradeniya Don Mr K Nesiah. Nesiah was re-iterating what Jawaharlal Nehru had stated in his Discovery of India which we quoted in this column a couple of weeks ago. Nehru had spoken of the ‘first great cultural synthesis and fusion that had taken place in India (in the last millennium of the pre-Christian era) between the incoming Aryans and the Dravidians who were probably the representatives of the Indus Valley civilization.’ Nehru went to say that the basic Indian culture grew out of this fusion and synthesis and it is perhaps because of this inclusivity that India has retained her vitality and rejuvenated herself from time to time.
As Nesiah lamented fifty years ago, the political and even many civil society leaders in our country, in contrast to Nehru, sadly keep repeating myths and legends from history that emphasise our divisiveness rather than our unity. Of our political leaders, it is only Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and R Premadasa, who did not use ethnic and religious differences to score political points; and who did not give contrasting messages on national unity depending on the audience. That is why it was refreshing to listen Kumar Sangakkara deliver the Cowdrey Memorial Lecture. His talk was basically on the story of Sri Lanka Cricket but he wove into it thoughts on how our cricket team has helped to forge national unity and why it is necessary for everyone to have a national identity, rather an ethno-nationalist or a religious identity as the primary label of identity.
Cricket and National Identity
Sangakkara had some critical thoughts on how the game has developed in our country. He deplored the lack of transparency and better standards in cricket administration. It is perhaps symptomatic of the Sri Lankan mind-set that even some well-informed persons, including some senior journalists, have argued that his negative comments on Sri Lankan cricket administration should not have been aired in a foreign forum. It is to the credit of the Island that it alone has forcefully supported Sangakkara against this criticism. The issues that Sangakkara commented on Sri Lankan cricket are well known to all followers of the game, not only in Sri Lanka but in all Test-playing countries. Are we to pretend to the rest of the world that all is well in Sri Lankan cricket or refuse to admit that changes are required in the way we administer the game? That is the precise lack of transparency that Sangakkara that bemoaning. Corruption cannot be eliminated if we sweep wrong-doing under the carpet, within the country or outside. Many, including Ministers of Sport, have commented before about corruption in Sri Lankan cricket and we know how far those allegations have been investigated and even of the fate of those whistle-blowers. So where else was Sangakkara to take his message?
Quite apart from that, Sangakkara’s openness and integrity in relating his story has added prestige to Sri Lankan cricket. Many who had a negative impression of cricket administration in Sri Lanka seem now to have accepted that Sri Lanka may now, after Sangakkara’s lecture, move towards putting things right. Sri Lanka is perhaps the only test playing country (other than perhaps Zimbabwe) where political approval is required in team selections; the controversies over finances, vote-buying at Board elections, TV rights and the world cup tickets are well known to all. Sri Lanka’s, as Zimbabwe’s, image was not a healthy one. It is not only in cricket. This week’s reports from Australia reveal that, following the airing of the Channel 4 video in Australia, Cricket Australia was considering calling off the forthcoming tour of Sri Lanka. But Sangakkara’s lecture had persuaded them that there could be men and women of integrity who could ensure greater transparency on issues of accountability, in the affairs of state as in cricket.
But this column is even more appreciative of the positive contribution Sangakkara has made towards forging a national identity. His comments, together with the stories he related from his personal life, would have changed the image many had of ethnic relations in Sri Lanka. It was worth a thousand times more than the hypcritical statements of politicians and their apologists holding high positions. It would have convinced all those present at Lord’s that day that there are more than political sycophants and hangers-on in Sri Lanka; independent, thinking persons who are concerned with accountability and justice.
Use of Tamil in the North
A national identity cannot be forged in our country unless we build up trust among all the people. It is not only at election time that political leaders should be descending in the North of the country and talking to the people about pluralism and inclusivity. This week, President Rajapaksa opened a new building for a school in Kopay donated by the Uva Provincial Council. The cost of materials was met by the Uva Council and labour provided by the Sri Lanka Army. The building has been named the Uva-Uthuru Friendship Hall. Kopay is a 100% Tamil speaking area and the school is a Tamil school. What then is the message given to the school children and the residents of Kopay when the building bears a Sinhala name? Does that promote pluralism and inclusivity? President Rajapaksa speaks about the need for the Tamil people to think afresh. It is also necessary for the government to think afresh, not to become captive to a nationalist ideology. Uva itself has a sizeable Tamil population and there are elected Tamil members in the Council. The message of national unity could have been promoted, if the government sincerely was interested in it, if those Tamil members received a prominent place at the opening of the new building, in addition to the Governor and Chief Minister. When the President and several cabinet Ministers occupy a prominent place with a local government election due the following week, it is a different message that is conveyed to the people.
It is reported that the National Anthem was also sung at the function. In this 100% Tamil area, was the National Anthem sung in Sinhala or Tamil? When the proposal to abolish the use of the National Anthem in Tamil was mooted in the cabinet, Wimal Weerawansa, in keeping with his nationalist ideology, defended the proposal stating that the no country had anything other than a single language version of her National Anthem. Sadly, President Rajapaksa, without any attempt to understand the facts, repeated Weerawansa’s statement. Subsequently, it was pointed out that all bilingual countries had their National Anthem sung in two languages. Some multi-lingual countries either had multi-lingual versions or incorporated several languages in their National Anthem. But this ignorance of the practice in other countries (excusable in the case of Weerawansa but not the President) does not seem to have made a difference. It appears that the military insists that the National Anthem be sung only in Sinhala at all official functions in the North. No doubt, we will be told that it is the Tamil children who want to sing it in Sinhala. So much for pluralism and the talk of a civilian administration in the North.
Holding democratic elections
Many leading figures from the government, headed by Basil Rajapaksa in Jaffna and Namal Rajapaksa in the Vanni, have pitched camp in the North and reportedly seem determined to win the polls, by fair means or foul. It appears reminiscent of the infamous Jaffna District Development Council election during the administration of President J R Jayewardene which culminated in widespread arson, damage to property and missing ballot boxes. Independent poll monitors have already reported on election malpractices and the intimidation of opposition candidates. Are Sangakkara’s efforts to present a more favourable image of Sri Lanka being undermined? It may be possible to keep away knowledge of malpractices and electoral fraud from some of the Sinhala public by pressuring the media, print and electronic. But the international media is not going to be easily pressured and the government propaganda will once again be necessary to claim that an LTTE rump is misleading the international community.
If Sri Lanka is to remain a democratic country, we need greater transparency and a greater commitment to democratic norms. It should not matter if the government loses an election here or if the Tamil areas continue to return Opposition candidates. It has, in the past, proved the resilience of our electorate and the democratic right to change governments. It has enhanced the democratic image of the country, despite a creeping authoritarianism in between elections. We need a vigilant public to maintain that image.
Politicians generally are often not alive to the reality around them They are surrounded by sycophants, opportunists and ‘advisers’ who dare not give any advice that the politician will not want to hear. So it is vital that any violation of the rule of law and of the democratic rights of the people are safeguarded by a fiercely independent judiciary, a vibrant free media and a vigilant civil society. These were the elements that protected the people from some of the authoritarian measures in the eighties. It is important that these elements are revitalised now. President Rajapaksa was a champion of those rights twenty years ago. Malinga Herman Gunaratne in his Tortured Island has written warmly about the delicate relations that Mahinda Rajapaksa maintained with the government as well as with the local JVP leaders, during the second southern insurgency. He must re-capture that broader vision which made him a champion then of people’s rights.
Post a Comment