Columns

The degree to which the old colonial strategy the British employed to divide and rule their imperial conquests has paid off even more than it was bargained for is evidenced by the fact that even 72 years after Lanka shed the yoke of foreign rule and gained independence, the hot topic of debate presently raging at the dawn of New Year and new decade is whether or not to permit the national anthem to be sung in Tamil as well as Sinhalese at the Independence Day celebrations to be held on the 4th of next month.

Much water has flowed under the bridge since that eventful day when — to paraphrase the words of Nehru — Lanka kept her tryst with destiny and gained her freedom in 1948 but the undercurrent has remained the same, secretly bearing the same racial hate, distrust and enmity which occasionally surfaces when chauvinism beats its drums to rouse it from its restless sleep.

Perhaps it’s one of those instances that made some diehard Sinhalese take up cudgels against the Tamil version of the national anthem being sung at the end of the Independence Day celebrations as it had been the practice these last four years when former President Maithripala Sirisena introduced it in 2016 as a feature of the ceremony.

Seven years after the end of the Eelam war which brought forth an uneasy peace to a divided nation torn apart by thirty years of armed conflict, ex-President Sirisena’s gesture to include the Tamil version also in the day’s agenda spoke volumes to assure the Tamil populous that they were equal sons and daughters of this blessed island and enjoyed the right in the same measure to bask in the self-same rays of the Lankan sun as did the Sinhalese. The President’s extended hand which was quickly grasped by the Tamil minority was a long leap forward on the road to reconciliation between the two communities.

MINISTER BANDARA TENNEKOON: ‘National song must only be sung in Sinhalese’

The message was sent to all that the sovereign state of Sri Lanka was an undivided co-owned property on which every citizen whether born in Point Pedro or down south, in Dondra Head enjoyed the same untrammelled right of equality as guaranteed by the Constitution.

In fact, the right to sing the national anthem in Tamil has been enshrined since 1978 and an authorised version of the original Sinhala lyrics originally composed by Ananda Samarakone is already provided for in the Constitution, even as Article 18 and 19 specifically state that Sinhala and Tamil are the two official languages of this country.

Furthermore, even as court proceedings are conducted in Tamil and English in Tamil speaking areas in the north in the same manner Sinhala and English are used as the medium of language in court proceedings conducted down south and elsewhere where the majority language is spoken, so too is the national anthem sung in Tamil in Tamil speaking schools in the north, and sung in Sinhalese in the rest of the country.

So what’s the fuss? What’s wrong in singing the national anthem in Sinhalese and in Tamil by the Tamils at an official function where both communities meet as but one? Isn’t it far better and more meaningful for the Tamils to sing the nation’s song in their own mother tongue which they can understand and sing with feeling rather than merely give lip and sing the national anthem in Sinhalese in parrot fashion?

Shortly after 2016, when former President Sirisena revived the 1949 practice of singing the national anthem in Tamil as well as Sinhalese at the Independence Day proceedings after a lapse of 67 years, three people invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to adjudicate on a Fundamental Rights petition presented before it on February 28th that year.

TNA MP Sumanthiran: ‘Government considers Tamils second class citizens’

Nine months later, in November a three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising the then Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justice K. T. Chithrasiri and the late Justice Prasanna Jayawardene gave answer. They refused leave to proceed and dismissed the petition. They unanimously upheld the right to sing the national anthem in Tamil if one so wished.

Since that judgement was delivered, the Tamil version of the national anthem at the Independence Day celebrations has continued to be sung in the last three years. Any attempt to deny the Tamil community that right enshrined in the Constitution and fortified by the Supreme Court, would be tantamount to delivering a slap in the face of the Tamil community; and, by that one act, to condemn the Tamils more potently than any Act of Parliament can do to the position of second class citizens of this island nation they call home.

So who is trying to queer the pitch? Who is planning to turn back the tide on reconciliation progress?

A report published in the Sunday Times last week states that the event organiser for this year’s Independence Day celebrations, the Public Administration Ministry, has resolved that the national anthem must only be sung in Sinhala.

Public Administration Minister Janaka Bandara Tennekoon is quoted as saying, ‘The country has only one national anthem. We would do away with the previous administration’s practice of singing the national anthem in Tamil at the end of the Independence Day event. We only have one national anthem. There is no reason to sing it in two languages. This means unnecessary divisions among communities.”

Division? Funny he should see it like that. The Supreme Court didn’t when it upheld the right of the Tamils to sing the national anthem in Tamil. Furthermore, when the Sunday Times pointed out to Mr. Tennekoon that the national anthem had been sung even at the inauguration of the Independence Memorial Hall on February 4th 1949, his reply was that he knew nothing of this and that he did not mean that it should be sung in two languages. Neither was Mr. Tennekoon sure whether his resolve not to allow the national anthem to be sung in two languages.

Meanwhile, Co-Cabinet Spokesman Dr. Ramesh Pathirana said, however, that the issue had not been discussed in Cabinet. He also did not believe the government had taken a policy decision to scrap the Tamil translation of the national anthem altogether.

But reaction to the news that the government was even contemplating scrapping the Tamil version of the national anthem from the Constitution was swift, sharp and resounding.

TNA Parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran declared the decision to sing the national anthem only in Sinhala during official functions was part of a plan to make Tamils second class citizens.  He said: ‘Instead of taking steps to promote unity and reconciliation; the Gotabaya Rajapaksa administration was taking steps to widen the gap between the people’.

“When the Sirisena/Wickremesinghe administration came to power in 2015, the national anthem was sung in Tamil at the Independence Day for the first time. I took part in the Independence Day celebration with TNA leader, R. Sampanthan. It was the first time that ITAK representatives attended an Independence Day celebration in decades.”

He added, “If the government wants the Tamils not to sing the national anthem, we will be glad not to sing it.”

Other countries having ethnic minorities would have been over the moon had a minority community expressed the wish to sing the national anthem in their own mother tongue. It would have been a matter of national celebration, joy and hope if a minority community once driven to take up arms to establish a separate state on the country’s soil, attendant with its own national flag and national anthem as the sole means of redressing their perceived grievances, should now express their desire to sing with fulsome heart in their own mother tongue the national anthem of the country from which they wish to secede.

It should be borne in mind that the need of the hour is to forge a Sri Lankan identity, not a Tamil inclusive or Sinhala identity. The Sinhalese have enriched the minority communities by demanding that they learn everything Sinhalese but had adamantly remained in poverty by their staunch refusal to imbibe anything from their minority’s store of knowledge.

For instance, their vehement opposition to the existence and use of an authorised Tamil version of the national anthem stems from the misguided notion that no country in the world have two versions of the country’s national anthem and that it is up to the majority community to determine which language the nation’s soul shall use to give utterance to its aspirations. They couldn’t be more wrong; and no need to look far.

n Take India, our closest neighbour. Her official language is Hindi, the mother tongue of the majority Hindus but their national anthem ‘Jana Gana Mana’, composed by Rabindranath Tagore, is in Bengali, a language spoken by only 9% of the population. But India’s leaders were not narrow-minded. They saw the bigger picture. They realised how it would forge unity and reconciliation in a nation still culturally, linguistically and religiously divided.

n Take Singapore. Its National Anthem is in Malay, a language spoken by less than 14% of her population. Again, national unity was the overriding factor in adopting this as the National Anthem based on a Malay patriotic song ‘Majulah Singapura’ composed by Zubir Said.

n Take Canada, ‘oh Canada’ as its national anthem is sung in English, French and Inuktitut.

n Then take Belgium. Its national anthem is sung in three languages French, Dutch and German.

n Take New Zealand, its national anthem is sung in English and Maori . Take Suriname, its national anthem is sung in Dutch and Sranan Tongo.

n Take Switzerland its national anthem is sung in German, French, Italian and Romansh.

n And take South Africa it takes the cake, its national anthem is sung in five languages, namely, Xhosa, Zulu, Sesotho, Afrikaans and English.

Now will the man who said that Lanka is the only country in the world where the national anthem is sung in two languages please step forward?

In the environs of the Ruwanveliseya built by Lanka’s most popular King, King Dutugemunu, Gotabaya Rajapaksa made his maiden address to the nation shortly after taking his oaths as the 7th President of Sri Lanka.

In the course of his inaugural speech he said: “I knew that I would be able to win the election with the support of the Sinhalese only, but I requested the Muslims and Tamils of the country to be a part of this victory. But I didn’t get the response I expected. However, as the president of the country I urge you to join me in ushering in progress. I thank all those who voted for me at the election. I also thank others who voted for different candidates and exercised their democratic rights. I come from a Buddhist family from the South. I studied at one of the leading Buddhist schools in this country, Ananda College. Therefore, Buddhist philosophy has fashioned my thinking.”

No doubt President Rajapaksa will take the correct decision to forge national unity and reconciliation when Public Administration Minister Tennekoon poses the question to him for final approval, whether the singing of the national anthem also in Tamil should be banned and only the Sinhala version should be sung at the Independence Day celebrations?

The Sinhalese who clamour for the isolation of the Tamil community must bear in mind that contrary to popular belief when King Dutugemunu left his palace down south and marched with his army in the capital city of Anuradhapura, where the Tamil King Elara held court and had ruled Lanka for 50 years, his sole mission was to free Lanka from the grasp of an alien usurper and unify the country as one nation. He did not carry with him genocidal intent against the whole of the Tamil race.

The great Buddhist King did not leave as his lasting legacy a perpetual vendetta of hate against the Tamils but only a Royal edict to be obeyed in perpetuity that all who pass the spot where the great Dravidian King Elara, whom he slew lie buried in the tomb he built, must alight from their palanquins and carriages and walk barefoot as a mark of respect.

India plans moon shot in 2020: Lanka plans H’tota shot this yearBig brother India, who received its independence a year before Lanka did, has great plans for 2020. On January 1st, India announced that she plans to make another moon shot and will land an unmanned mission on the moon’s surface within this year.This comes in the wake of last year’s failed bid when, just minutes before touchdown, India lost radio contact with the vessel. Did this setback put India in the doldrums and blame it all on karma? Nay, she bounced back with whim and vigour, determined to learn from her past mistakes and get it right the second time around. This time the word is that work is going smoothly on the plan to put a rover probe on the moon, Indian Space Research Organisation chairman K. Sivan told a press conference. Indian sources said authorities had set November as a target for launch. India is seeking to become only the fourth nation after Russia, the United States and China to put a mission on the moon’s surface and boost its credentials as a low-cost space power. The country’s Chandrayaan-2 module crash-landed on the moon’s surface in September. Sivan added that India had chosen four candidate astronauts to take part in the country’s first manned mission into orbit, pledged to take place by mid-2022. The journey to the moon is approximately 240,250 miles from earth. Meanwhile, what is little old Lanka up to? The same day, January 1st, India announced her moon shot plan this year so did Lanka announce her own plan to reach Hambantota this year. The word on the street is that final touches are being put to complete the 60 mile stretch between Matara and Hambantota. The target date is going to be in the first quarter of 2020. It will see the completion of Lanka’s first expressway from Colombo to Hambantota, a total distance of approximately 180 miles. For Big Brother India, who, like the hare, plans to race to the moon this year, Lanka’s snail crawl to Hambantota may not be something to write home about. But though it may have taken 72 years for Lanka to do so, slowly but surely like the tortoise we’re steadily, god willing, getting there, aren’t we?

PROF. PEIRIS: ‘Manifesto promises are not meant to be implemented’ Truth about election manifestos, according to Law Professor Peiris Legal academic turned politician Professor G.L. Peiris, Founder Chairman of the ruling Pohottuwa Party, let the cat out of the bag this week on what politicians really think about the promises in their party manifestos. Unbidden and unasked, he stepped on to the national podium on January 1st and heralded the New Year with a bizarre declaration that manifestos were not worth the paper they were printed. Addressing the media at his Nelum Mawatha office in Battaramulla, he said, “Manifestos of political parties were not really meant to be implemented. The public, too, didn’t believe manifestos were to be implemented whoever won national level elections”. Professor Peiris can only speak for his SLPP party. He has no mandate to speak on behalf of other political party leaders. They may well have a different opinion and consider the manifesto as their sacred covenant with their people; and every promise made therein a sacred pledge honour demands must be religiously discharged. Not a load of crap hashed up, rose water sprayed, glossily packaged to grab enough votes to win an election. Isn’t that obtaining a benefit by uttering falsehoods? Striking a deal by making false representations? Practising a deceit upon the people, wholesale? Wonder under what category of offences the law professor Peiris would place these criminal activities in the next edition — if there is a next — of his legal tome ‘Offence under the Penal Code of Sri Lanka’. Peiris may not realise it but wonder whether Mahinda Rajapaksa feels insulted to be told that the Mahinda Chinthanaya does not contain his genuine thoughts? Or that the present President Gotabaya Rajapaksa may be cheesed off when Prof. Peiris announces in public that implementation of his manifesto promises is not the order of the day? Neither can Professor Peiris presume to speak for the people. He may view them in the privacy of his own attic as suckers born every minute, voter buffalos to be fed the poonac of promises blithely believing that promises in election manifestos are meant to be kept; or, worse, he may treat the public like village idiots who think that election manifesto promises are false anyway but will still go and vote for the candidate who utters them because they think it is fun to do so. Professor Peiris also said that he has had over 20 years of experience in politics and as such he could say that Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s style of governance had received a tremendous public response which the country hadn’t experienced before. Then he comes to the nitty-gritty. He says: ‘A simple majority will not be sufficient at the parliamentary poll this year. A two-third majority is required to ensure the proper implementation of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s manifesto over the coming years. We have won the 2019 polls comfortably. Now our primary objective must be to win a two-third majority in Parliament.’ History repeats itself. The most recent example being when Mahinda Rajapaksa brought in the 18th Amendment increasing not only his presidential powers but also his tenure of office. Insatiability is a law of man’s nature. As with wanting more food, power demands the possessor to crave for more. There is another law of the nature of power that one must studiously guard against. It is contained in the famous 1887 dictum of Lord Acton: ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Nature shows off her fire prowess while Sydney shows its fireworks SYDNEY HARBOUR FIREWORKS: City lights up to dazzle crowds with firework display while bush fires ravage Australia As Australian bush fires ravaged the land leaving a trail of destruction in its wake, an official alert went out on Monday night in New South Wales in the state of Victoria calling over 10,000 people to evacuate their homes as they were directly in the line of a bushfire, the biggest then blazing. The death stood at 7. Over a 100 homes had already been destroyed and thousands of acres fallen to the advancing flames. But while nature was giving a fiery demonstration of her destructive prowess, Victoria’s capital Sydney had other more entertaining things on her mind and  the city’s officials were busy planning how best to give man made exhibition of fire power. Already over 200,000 Australians had signed a petition to the Mayor protesting at the decision taken to carry on regardless and hold the famous annual fireworks display over Sydney harbour. Their protest had focussed on simply one point: that at a time the entire nation should join and express empathy at the death and woe suffered by their fellow citizens, it was simply not right to stage an exhibition of fire when the tragedy that had befallen was caused by fire. The Mayor, however, whilst she stated that she understood the position of the petitioners completely, remained, like a ship in Sydney’s harbour, firmly anchored to her view that the show must go on and steadfastly refused to change her mind. On New Year’s Eve the firework show did indeed go on whilst that day two more lives were lost to nature’s raging inferno. It may have been an impressive display of man-made explosives: Gone up in smoke in a brief moment of dazzling colour. But, however spectacular it may have been in its sorry may fly life span, the decision to hold the event whilst the land was being consumed by fire, with death and destruction all around, was not only in bad taste but, worse, it was vulgar.