Focus on Rights

It is Sri Lanka's great tragedy that its counter state forces have to be fashioned out of such unreservedly totalitarian material. We experienced this to the most extreme extent in the eighties when journalists and lawyers were killed by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, (as well as by counter terror agents of the state), purely for the positions that they held, the opinions that they professed or the clients that they defended.

Unfortunately we lack for example, someone like Nepal's Prachanda who was able to minimise the excesses of his Marxist forces resulting in the killing and intimidation of dissenters, by clever and strategic leadership. His offering of a democratic alternative to the country's traditional political parties as well as the institution of the monarchy is good witness to the strength of this strategy.

Sri Lanka is a study in contrast. In the North, the stranglehold that the LTTE terrorists maintained on those who opposed their policies increased through the years with outright killings of vociferous intellectuals and activists, right down to even the most innocuous individuals showing their defiance in countless small ways. It was no wonder that after decades of such collective and individual terror, dissenting voices became few and far inbetween.

In Irish Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney's inspired wanderings, he talks of a Republic of the Conscience, for whose inhabitants, it is an article of faith that "all life sprang from salt in tears, which the sky-god wept after he dreamt his solitude was endless". The sacred symbol of this Republic is a stylized boat, the sail is an ear, the mast is a sloping pen, the hull is a mouth-shape and the keel is an open eye. To enter this space, there are no formal immigration procedures, "you carried your own burdens and soon, your symptoms of creeping privilege disappeared".

For each Sri Lankan who aspired to become a member of this Republic of the Conscience, great numbers have now paid a heavy price. And with each death, the immense potential that this society once possessed in South Asia has dwindled as indeed, it still continues to do so.

Instead, the phenomena of death, whether in relation to a journalist killed for expressing his or her views, a judge murdered because he was perceived as being an obstacle to organised criminal forces or a torture victim killed by police officers for persisting in his call for accountability of his torturers, has now become commonplace. In the absence of true mechanisms of both legal and social accountability, the country has slid relentlessly towards a further abandoning of its collective and individual conscience on so many issues, including the basic functioning of cherished institutions and norms of decent life.

In this process, the media has played a not particularly creditable role. The prevalence of agenda driven reporting, lack of professionalism and basic training led to the media contributing to the general decline of standards in civic life in the country notwithstanding exceptional efforts by some to arrest this decline. It is a predictably cruel irony that those who were killed during the past several decades of varied crises, distinguished themselves in not belonging to the common herd but rather, were meticulously professional albeit highly challenging in their writing and analysis.

In the current political scenario, the heightening of such totalitarian forces has now become very evident. The LTTE and (as is now increasingly apparent) the Southern based twin forces of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna and the Jathika Hela Urumaya possess a common inability to brook resistance to their ideas. The disruption of Thursday's peace march by a collection of activists and representatives of political parties is just one indication of this. The disgraceful spectacle of Buddhist monks being physically assaulted and virtually disrobed in public after attempting to disturb the rally, is not a sight that would endear itself to any devout Buddhist. We need to see a stringent denunciation of what happened this week by the Sangha Council. And let us look at some of the issues that are relevant in this regard.

Firstly, there is no doubt that while some of the organisers of this peace march could have been more credible in their commitment to the democratic struggle, the argument advanced by some that this lack of credibility in some way, justifies the disruption on Thursday is downright ridiculous. It is a steadfast principle after all that even the most hardened criminal has his or her right to expression of ideas, whether this may be in direct counter opposition to the ideas of others. The analogy may be somewhat farfetched but it serves its purpose.

Secondly, many of those calling for greater transparency and accountability within the non-governmental sector are hampered by such unprovoked attacks on peaceful demonstrations accompanied as they are by the now common call that NGO's are working to destabilize the country. As much as activists themselves need to turn "the searchlight inwards " as one editorialist cannily if not somewhat un-originally put it this week, those who critique NGO's need to be also careful as to the general nature of the critique and the manner in which it is expressed.

From a more welcome perspective, it is good that President Rajapksa while warning the media to be careful in highlighting positive stories in regard to the ongoing conflict, refrained from imposing any censorship. Censorship of the media has also been a long standing victim of conflict situations in the country. In one instance, the 1998/1999 censorship regulations were exhaustively examined by the Supreme Court in early 2000 when a human rights activist petitioned the Court stating that the regulation violated her constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression, her right to equality before the law and her right to freedom of thought.

One specific line of attack was that the regulation in question aimed not to protect national security but rather to prohibit the publication of information embarrassing to the Government. She contended that as a result of the said Regulation, she was prevented from forming and communicating information on matters of public debate which are of vital concern to the nation. The Court, historically reluctant as it had been to strike down an entire regulation on its substance unless it is arbitrary to the point of being perverse, did not uphold her argument.

Nevertheless, the judgement by Justice A.R.B. Amerasinghe J. (with Wadugodapitiya J and Weerasekera J.agreeing) went on to state that while the preservation of the morale of the Armed Forces is an important matter, yet, in a democracy, freedom of speech performs a vital role in keeping in check persons holding public office. Accordingly, restrictions imposed on publications which refer to the activities of public authorities should be applied particularly strictly.

It was indeed, in this context that the Court restricted the ambit of the application of the 1998/1999 Regulation to the conduct of the persons named therein, such as the Head, any member of the Armed Forces, Police and so on, with regard strictly to "their activities in the North and the East" and not in other parts of the country even though the Regulation itself did not say so in so many words.

In countries where strife is rampant, the space for democratic dissent inevitably becomes restricted. This assertion needs no particularly skilled rationalisation; it is a simple fact of political life. Restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly are a natural accompaniment of such conflict situations. Sri Lanka has seen past instances where such restrictions were carried to unnatural and counter productive lengths. It is hoped that this pattern will not be repeated given the inevitability of the conflict that now lies ahead.