Muslims- 'Ethnically Tamil' with a different religion?

By Kumbakarna

"As a Muslim I am not afraid to state that this country should be ruled by the majority Sinhalese. Let them rule, we will help them in this task," Macan Markar in the State Assembly. Hansard 1939 Column 843.

This was the time of pre-independent India, when nationalistic feelings were running high, when Muslims were dreaming of an independent Islamic state. Nevertheless leaders like Macan Markar supported by others like Razik Fareed were able to guide their people to peace and prosperity.

With the agreement of Pakistan to intervene in the present conflict once again Muslim nationalism has come to the forefront, complicated by the fact that the only other country who has offered help is Israel. While China has warned Western nations against interference in Sri Lanka, India has opted to remain silent yet again for short term gains. Israel intervention is not new to Sri Lanka. In 1986 the Jayewardene regime's request for help was granted by Israel. They trained the Sinhalese 'monkeys' and the Tamil 'tigers' simultaneously separated by a mere wall, according to Victor Ostrovsky.

We are however, now dealing with a 'new' Israel, it is a country 'recognised' even by the Middle Eastern Islamic states at present. They recently consolidated political and military ties with India and China. They are committed to the eradication of Muslim fundamentalism spread via Afghanistan and fanatic Muslim countries of Africa. Considering this background, Israel is an extremely important ally for Sri Lanka.

The nation is grateful to M.H.M. Fowzie and Alavi Moulana who as responsible leaders have adopted a tolerant attitude towards Israel and urge that they take action against those who whip up anti-Israel feelings among the Muslim community. Muslim United Liberation Front for instance is readying action station for just this declaring that the time has come to launch their struggle for Safistan or Nazaristan and achieve success like the LTTE.

History seems to repeat itself. In 1889 when the Muslims agitated for a separate seat for themselves, Ponnambalam Ramanadan vehemently opposed this stating that Muslims are ethnically 'Tamils' following a different religion. In spite of this opposition Muslims were successful in getting their seat in Parliament then. With the formation of the Muslim League in India, again Muslim communal feelings were roused, fauned by Tamil racist activities. The foundation for a Safistan and a Nazaristan were laid at that time. Differences among the Malay and Moor communities added to the fire. Anti-Sinhala slogans adopted by the Malay leader T.B. Jayah were as racist as those of the Tamils. However, heroic leaders like Macan Markar were able to quell these feelings and unite the Muslim community in cooperating with the Sinhala majority, until the formation of the Muslim Congress which was basically a response to Tamil racist attacks on the Muslim people.

The Muslims of Sri Lanka are well aware of their high standard of living in comparison to the lives of the majority of Muslims in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, their GNP per capita, literacy, higher education, women's rights are well above standard. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Sri Lanka even though no Muslim or Islamic country tolerates other religions.

They know that their future is inextricably tied to the cooperation extended to the majority in ruling and strengthening the nation state.

Saumymoorthy Thondaman in his biography "Tea and Politics" admits that Muslims have progressed tremendously due to the alliance they have formed with the Sinhala majority while the Tamils who followed. Chelvanayakam's separatist politics have lost vital ground.

To Thondaman the models were Macan Markar, Razik Fareed and Badi-ud-Din Mahmud not Chelvanayakam or Amirthalingam.

Would the Muslims of Sri Lanka now deviate from their sane stand and take the warring path to fight for a separate state? Firstly, it has to be reminded that Muslims were chased out from the north and parts of the east by the Tamils and not by the Sinhalese. With the consolidation of power by Prabhakaran the north will be inaccessible for the Muslims forever. It will stop at that, Muslims in Trincomalee, Batticaloa and Ampara are equally at risk for Prabhakaran's ultimate goal would be to establish Eelam in all the north and the east. He is a thorough anti-Muslim, the bloody slayings at Kaththankudy and Samanthurai are evidence of this.

Economic and social instability in Sri Lanka will end only to suffering for the Muslims just as it has been for many Islamic communities the world over in recent times.

Censored

Analysing constructive criticism

In a Rupavahini telecast on May 16. 2000 following the evening's Sinhala news bulletin, Iqbal Athas, the popular Defence analyst, was described as being anti-government and was broadly portrayed as a traitor to the country. The announcer went on to raise a question as to whether a person such as he is entitled to be given State protection. This exhortation, to deny him State protection, has very serious implications in the context of some past incidents that had gained much prominence.

On February 12 1998 Mr. Athas' house was stormed by a group of armed intruders who threatened to kill him in the presence of his wife and little daughter.

It was after representations were made to President Kumaratunga, that a proper investigation was initiated. A case is now pending in that regard against two misguided service personnel.

As Mr.Athas continued to receive threats, he has been given police protection at his residence. The exhortation in the Rupavahini telecast, to deny him state protection on the basis of the allegations levelled against him, has to be viewed in the context of the need to give him police protection as deemed fit by the President having personally evaluated the situation.

In such a perspective, the Rupavahini exhortation is clearly seen as a sinister motive of giving a mischievously veiled signal to the police who are providing security to Mr. Athas, as well as to the aggressive elements that have been threatening him. Instances in the past where such signals have been picked up and threats carried out, are numerous.

Instigating violence is a clear offence under section 100 of the Penal Code and the police are duty bound by section 56 of the Police Ord. to take appropriate action.

Mr. Athas' column 'Situation Report' in the Sunday Times, is popular not only among the general readership, but also among the rank and file in the security forces, because he has been drawing attention to their welfare needs as well as their handicaps due to corruption and incompetence at higher levels. Information contained in his reports cannot be said to demoralise service personnel fighting in the front, as alleged in the Rupavahini telecast, as it is service personnel who supply him with the facts that are subsequently verified, when no one else seems to take up their cause.

Chasing after individuals who offer constructive criticism is the folly only of nincompoops who are unable to prove their capabilities,

Censored, Censored, Censored

This may not reflect government policy, as was revealed in this case. Responding to a complaint made by Mr. Athas to Minister Samaraweera protesting over the diabolical allegations levelled against him, an apology was telecast the very next day by Rupavahini for the transgression caused to him.

If state agencies, for whatever reason, are allowed to resort to this sort of irresponsible and vicious instigations aimed at causing hostile collisions among the public, specially in a charged up atmosphere as exists today, Censored, Censored, Censored, Censored, Censored, Censored

It is hoped that the appropriate authorities will take steps to rectify this trend in the lesser mortals, before it is too late.

Focus on Rights

Is this all a really necessary exercise?

By Kishali Pinto Jayawardena

Looking at what immediately confronts the people of this country with as much a measure of objectivity as one is humanly capable of, reactions to the newest emergency regulations imposed on the people can be separated into two broad camps of supporters and detractors. While the detractors of the May 3 Regulations are, of course, easily identifiable, its supporters could again be sub divided into two groups. One the one hand, we have those with regard to whom one cannot but resort to rude parlance Censored... Censored... Censored... and their willing followers in the state media, whose infantile wanderings can only be dismissed with the contempt that they deserve.

On the other hand, we also have honest citizens in this country whose reaction to the Regulations proceeds somewhat on the following lines; that, given the existing situation in the North, exposure by the media of any concern related to the war or any reporting of human rights abuses have a negative impact and therefore should not be allowed. It is with this latter argument that this column is concerned with, this week. Taking this point of view into specific focus, whether such a view could or should justify promulgation of such severe restraints on the media as exists now, is one aspect of the argument. This, of course, would depend on whether one adopts a media friendly or media hostile perspective to the debate.

Where this argument wholly breaks down however is when one puts the media aside for a moment and applies this justification with reference to the rest of the Regulations that were imposed on the people this month. For since the Regulations were promulgated, the omnibus censorship of the media which has been the most dramatic result since, has obscured attention from other equally important and equally draconian aspects of the Regulations. These aspects are put well into perspective by a study that was released this week by INFORM, a Colombo based civil rights documentation centre which has undertaken a comparison of this months' Emergency Regulations with other Regulations that were imposed before, most notably in 1975, 1988 and 1989.

The study is embarked upon on the basis that "it is imperative that we begin to understand the rationale that underlies some of the provisions contained in these Regulations, as well as the ways in which some of them Censored... Censored... Censored... are already in place under other laws of the country. In doing so, we continue a tradition of critique and freedom of opinion that is an essential feature of a democratic society." As has been specifically pointed out in the introduction "……while we believe that every government and every state, at one time or the other, will have to and does take steps that limit the rights of its people for a particular period, we cannot countenance indiscriminate control over our lives by persons whose subjective opinions and decisions may change the shape of our future."

That being said, it is predictable that at the outset itself, the study would deal critically with the fact that the Regulations were promulgated on the people under Section 5 of the Public Security Ordinance which gives the President the power to "make such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in the interest of public security and the preservation of public order and the suppression of mutiny, riot or civil commotion or for the maintenance of supplies to the life of the community". It is pointed out in the study, that at the time of promulgating of these Regulations, Censored... Censored... Censored. Nor was there any obstruction to civil administration in any part of the country except in the North.

The present set of Emergency Regulations was introduced consequent to the Elephant Pass crisis. the study questions the basic rationale for resort to emergency regulations It is in this context that one is compelled to ask whether the imposing of such severe Regulations on the entire country might become an irresistible habit each time a crisis occurs? What is certain for the moment, is that after being accustomed to living one's life under emergency rule for of varying severity for more than two decades, this easy promulgation and equally easy acceptance of the May 3rd Regulations assuredly marks a new phrase in the socio-political life of the citizens of this country.

Meanwhile, for any individual who is looking for a ready reference to the substance of the Regulations with reference to past practices, the INFORM study becomes very useful. Ceratin aspects of the points made in the study are of specific interest. For example, besides the provisions with regard to arrest and detention, it has to be noted that the Regulations also empower the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence to issue restriction orders, restricting a person from being in a specified area; requiring that a person reports his movements; house arrest on specified conditions; impounding of passports as specified; restricting the use or possession of specified articles; and order specified restrictions in employment or business etc.

These restrictions can be placed by the Secretary with a view to preventing any such person from acting in a way that is prejudicial to national security/ public order or to maintenance of essential services; or if any person contravenes three specific regulations; namely, (i) sedition and incitement, (ii) obstruction to essential services and (iii) being engaged in a proscribed organisation. As the study points out, this provision existed intermittently and with minor modifications from 1975 to 1993. Censored... Censored... Censored. The restriction orders imposed under these Regulations can, in fact be indefinite, and empowers the Secretary to control almost all aspects of a person's life. It is also very relevant that under Regulation 8, the Competent Authority may requisition any article etc. and may give directions in connection with the requisition.

After effecting the requisition, the Competent Authority may hold, sell or otherwise dispose of the property (other than land) in the interest of national security, preservation of public order or for maintenance of essential services. Similarly, the Regulations direct that any person could be required to do any work or render any personal service in connection with national security or the maintenance of essential services. Contravention of the regulation has, among other effects, a mandatory punishment of forfeiture of all moveable and immovable properties of such persons. Then again, the Regulations prohibit causing disaffection among public officers, those who are engaged in the service of Republic or in the performance of essential services. (Reg. 25) It further prohibits inducement of disaffection.

The INFORM study highlights the fact that an identical provision was seen in the regulations from 1975 until 1989, although it has not been repeated in the Regulations of 1993 and 1994. Regulation 26 is to the effect that offences such as bringing the President/ Government into hatred; bringing the Constitution and the administration of justice into hatred or contempt; inciting feelings of disaffection against the President etc. would bring mandatory punishment between 3 months to 20 years RI and a fine. Regulation 27 also makes it an offence to advocate or to display slogans etc. that express the desirability of overthrowing the government by unlawful means.

Here again, corresponding Regulations were found from time to time since 1981, but were absent in the Regulations of 1993 and 1994. Regulation 29 meanwhile prohibits the spreading of rumors or false statements which is likely to cause public alarm or public disorder. A similar Regulation existed in 1975 and thereafter, but was not repeated in the1993 and 1994 Regulations. Censored... Censored... Censored. As the study concludes, Censored... Censored... Censored... certainly provided the rationale for the imposition of these Regulations, we believe that the situation does not warrant the imposition of certain of these provisions that deprive persons who are accused of offences under the Emergency Regulations of their basic rights in connection with their arrest and detention, as well as with the investigation of their culpability and the judicial proceedings relating to their offence."

And as is further stated, Censored... Censored... Censored. The study goes on to recommend certain practical steps that could be taken by the executive to lessen the impact of the Regulations. This, is then, a look in some detail at what the May Emergency Regulations mean to the people of this country, quite apart from its effect on the media. We should thus ask ourselves this question. For how long are these Regulations to be kept in force? These, indeed, are questions that should preoccupy us all at this point in time.

More News/Comment

Return to News/Comment Contents