Editorial

That a book titled “Dictatorship within a Democracy”, authored by the grandson of the Executive Presidency’s architect J. R. Jayewardene, was launched just when the Supreme Court sat last Tuesday to adjudicate on the 20th Amendment (20A) to the Constitution was sweet irony.

The incumbent President who is being accused of trying to draw virtual dictatorial powers through the democratic process (20A) had only a few days earlier uttered a jaw-dropper comment in a remote village near Haldummulla in the salubrious Uva highlands. He told a group of villagers, in effect; “My word is law”.

One has heard the saying; “My word is my bond”, but to say as he did that what an Executive President says orally needs no written or formal communication (by way of a circular or otherwise) is particularly significant at a time when the country is engrossed in this national debate on the powers to be vested in such an exalted office.

The President quickly backpedalled from what sounded a very monarchical statement – “The King’s word is Law”. In almost the same breath he said his officials would need to answer if the circular did not follow to what he said orally on any decision he made.

The announcement may have passed for just a good natured, good humoured comment to a group of villagers except that it was given front page publicity in the state print media and other state media channels. Thus, there was added gravitas that it was a serious statement rather than what could have been dismissed as an innocent remark by an inexperienced politician, and more of a technocrat.

So, read with the proposed provisions of 20A, it is manifestly clear; the President must have meant what he said. There is no doubt, a burning desire on his part to implement decisions quickly without being burdened by the red tape of administrative regulations (ARs) and financial regulations (FRs) that are the textbooks of the public service.

These ARs and FRs are an inheritance from the British civil service. They are slow in moving the cogs of the administrative machinery, but they are also safeguards against abuses, especially financial, of public funds by errant officials. Nowadays, many public servants have on the one hand exploited these regulations to feather their own nests, while on the other, honest officials have been put into great difficulties having to follow the orders of their political masters demanding they bend the rules.

The President underpinned his words by drawing attention to the manner in which “the war was won” (against the LTTE) under his guidance and direction. If everyone waited for circulars after a command from the top brass, the war would still be going on, he pointed out.

Clearly, there is a difference in fighting a real-time war having to take split decisions on the battlefield. That is why soldiers in times of war are provided indemnity cover from ordinary criminal prosecutions. It might seem the President wants this same principle extended to the field of governance. The immunity that is being sought for the President by 20A and curtailing the rights of citizens to challenge future laws appear moves in this direction.

Taken together, the drift is clear.

The ‘humanitarian’ bait

During last weekend’s Indo-Lanka virtual summit, the Colombo Government seems to have creditably stuck to its still undecided position on the way forward with the 13th Amendment dealing with Provincial Councils. However, it seems to have caved in to pressure from New Delhi on the continuing issue of Indian fishermen poaching in Sri Lankan waters.

That the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) in the Palk Straits and the Gulf of Mannar is at least on the agenda of summit talks is a good thing even if it did remain unresolved. The South Indian fishing armadas that brazenly make thrice-weekly incursions into Sri Lanka’s territorial waters and take away their catch while ruining the environment are not only violating UN Law of the Sea Conventions but local laws such as the Fisheries (Regulation of Fishing Boats) Act.

The Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation (TNFDC), an Indian state entity, reports that the state’s recommended per capita requirement is less than what it should be. “With the increase in the demand for fish, there is a need for augmenting the overall fish production of the state substantially from all available fishery resources,” the report states. Unfortunately, this reference to “all available fishery resources” seems to include violating the sovereignty of a neighbouring country and stealing its fisheries resources.

The Indian Government keeps maintaining the issue is a “humanitarian” one affecting fishermen’s livelihoods. While it certainly is, it ignores the fact that it is exactly that which affects Sri Lankan fishermen from the Northern districts of this country for whom the Indian Government otherwise sheds’ crocodile tears’ calling for the full implementation of 13A.

The Sri Lankan side at the summit was unable to push the issue beyond the threshold of it being a “humanitarian” one. This is not a matter that involves the livelihood of poor Tamil Nadu fishermen. It involves big boats owned by big business backed by Tamil Nadu politicians.

The TNFDC’s own official annual report for 2018-2019 records that the state earned Indian Rupees 5591.49 crore. i.e. Rs. 56 billion (US Dollars 763 million) or Sri Lankan Rupees 140 billion from the export of 1.29 lakh metric tonnes out of a total of 6.9 lakh metric tonnes of marine products. Tamil Nadu state ranks fourth in total fish production in India.

With this kind of earnings, partly from what belongs to Sri Lanka, giving Sri Lanka extended financial packages seems poor compensation for the rape of its maritime and financial resources on its side of the International Maritime Boundary Line drawn between the two countries and upheld by Indian courts and its Parliament.

The previous Government pussyfooted on this issue under New Delhi’s pressure. Arrested fishermen and boats in custody were released when telephone calls were made. The incumbent President bravely said in his Policy Statement just last month that foreign fishing vessels will not be tolerated in Sri Lankan waters. It seems easier said, than done.