News
The danger of communal rhetoric in the constitutional discourse
View(s):A dangerous trend that is developing in the country has largely gone unnoticed as a result of the public’s preoccupation with the Constitutional crisis and the political impasse that has brought the machinery of Government to a virtual standstill.
This, is the attempt by certain elements to subtly and not so subtly interpret the consequences resulting from the Presidential Gazette of October 26, 2018 through the ethnic lens. This is not something that emerged after October 26 but was evident even earlier. However currently it has taken an aggravated form and can have a detrimental effect on inter-community relations.
One of the main achievements of the Government that assumed office on January 8, 2015 was the expansion of the space available for democratic discourse. The process of creating communal harmony received an impetus and the minorities began to breathe more freely. National reconciliation began to take centre stage in the nation building effort to heal the wounds inflicted on the country by three and a half decades of armed conflict.
The credit for such a positive change has to be shared by President Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe both of whom gave leadership to the efforts at national reconciliation.
But ironically the opening up of the democratic space also allowed new organisations with an anti minority focus to emerge. Prior to January 8, 2015 organisations like the Bodu Bala Sena, Sinhala Ravaya and the Ravana Balaya created insecurity among the minorities.
However taking advantage of the strengthening of democracy new organisations like the Sinhale Jathika Vyaparaya and the Mahason Balakaya emerged and actively pursued their anti minority agenda.
The Yahapalana Government was characteristically slow to act and took very few steps to curb the anti national activities of these organisations until the attacks on the Muslims in Digana in the Kandy District erupted.
Some of the Joint Opposition politicians too kept the communal pot boiling by repeatedly raising the bogey of the re-emergence of the LTTE using the slogans of ‘koti thrasthwadaya’ and ‘Ranawiru Dadayama’ to create insecurity among the Sinhalese.
One can observe that these forces of communalism are very much in the forefront of the campaign in support of the purported removal of Ranil Wickremesinghe and the dissolution of Parliament.
The fact that the Sinhale Ravaya, Ravana Balaya, Sinhale Jathika Vyaparaya are together with hardline organizations like Yuthukama and the Federation of National Organisations coming together in this campaign is an indication of the nature of the forces that are behind the attempt to subvert democracy.
What is even more alarming is that even non communal politicians like Dulles Alahapperuma seem to be succumbing to the toxic language of hardline communal forces. The day after the brutal killing of the two Policemen in Vavunativu in the Batticaloa district he described the murders as the result of the Yahapalana Government’s nourishing of pro LTTE forces during the past three years.
This accusation was made even before the Police investigations began and was clearly designed to gain political mileage. Investigations conducted so far reveal that two rehabilitated LTTE cadres may have been responsible for the killings. Even if these two cadres are proved to be behind the killings in no way does it indicate that the LTTE is being revived. This may well be ‘lone wolf ‘ attacks by two individuals who may be on a mission of their own.
In the absence of concrete evidence, to attribute every act of violence in the North and East to the re-emergence of the LTTE is as irresponsible as holding the Army responsible for every act of violence by Army deserters.
Dulles Alahapperuma together with Lakshman Yapa Abeywardene conducted a decent and exemplary campaign when they contested the Hakmana seat from the SLFP and the UNP respectively in the 1980s. They addressed the voters from a common platform and their entire campaign was minus the acrimony and violence that characterise political activities in recent times.
Unfortunately the media did not give these efforts the publicity they deserved and no one thereafter has emulated their efforts which could have made a significant positive impact on our political culture.
To observe a politician of the caliber of Dulles Alahapperuma associating himself with the efforts of those who are oblivious to the dangers of political events being given an ethnic label is rather distressing.
Unfortunately there are others too who do not hesitate to fall into the same trap. Bandula Gunawardene has attributed the downgrading of ratings by Financial Agencies to pressure by Diaspora elements rather than objective financial criteria.
Both Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila are very vocal in accusing their political opponents of ‘Ali-Koti Givisumas’ and the setting up of a Federal state.
They have attributed the decision of the TNA to support the UNP nominee for the Prime Ministerial post as the outcome of an agreement between the two parties to create a Federal State by February next year. This reckless accusation in the absence of any evidence to support such an assertion is contradicted by the statement of TELO Provincial Councillor M. Sivajilingam who insists that a written agreement between the two parties must be entered into if the TNA is to extend their support.
Neither Sivajilingam nor Gammanpila and Weerawansa can understand the proposition that political parties can and should take principled stands on larger issues like Constitutional priorities even without their being any benefit for themselves or their parties.
The TNA is being continuously bashed for its subservience to the LTTE at the time the latter reigned supreme in the North and the East. While the TNA may be criticized for playing second fiddle to the LTTE during that period such a role could be explained, although not justified, in the light of the fear created by the LTTE in the minds of the Tamil political leadership when they gunned down anyone who dared to express dissident views.
One should also take note of the fact that the TNA leader R. Sambanthan has gone on record stating that the armed struggle was a mistake. Speaking in Parliament on October 12, 2018 the TNA Leader made three significant observations:
1. He observed that it was a ‘great mistake’ that the Tamil political representatives did not engage in a non-violent course of action in 1977 against the Sri Lankan Government.
2. He expressed the hope that “we will never have violence in this country again.”
3. He went on to appeal to the Tamil people to win their rights without resorting to violence, if the Government failed to deliver on its commitments to find an adequate solution to the national question.
It is also unfair to use the issue of federalism to drive fear and insecurity among the Sinhalese whenever the TNA takes a stand in support of a political party. The TNA has repeatedly made its position on the matter very clear.
The TNA Leader has taken the position that their preferred option is a federal solution but are prepared to accept a different solution if the two major political parties can agree and that solution is acceptable to all three communities—the Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim people.
In the Constitutional crisis facing the country the TNA, SLMC and ACMC have risen to the occasion and put aside their specific aspirations in the larger interest of the citizens of the country. This has to be welcomed and lauded and all credit to the leadership of these parties for placing the country before self.
To the credit of the President he has not sought to communal rhetoric in handling the present situation. However now that he is working together with the Mahinda Rajapaksa faction he needs to reign in the expression of anti minority sentiment by some of his fellow travellers.
Otherwise even his positive contribution to national reconciliation in the past may be rolled back and the mal wattiya that he spoke of recently may be polluted.
(javidyusuf@gmail.com)