Focus on Rights December 31, 2006

As this year draws to a close, I find myself bewildered by xenophobic sentiments that are becoming extremely strident in their articulations.
In a recently published letter to the editor in one newspaper for example, a regular anti-war television programme is castigated with the closing remarks that 'Let the dogs bark. This Sinhala Buddhist motherland will move on." In yet another example, Gunadasa Amarasekera attempts to refute Anne Abeysekera's writing that ours is a multi ethnic society and that just and reasonable criticism of the failings of the system should not carry with it, allegations of being unpatriotic. Vastly different in their intellectual content but eerily similar in the tone of the writings, these instances are only two examples of many more such current manifestations in print as well as in speech. And therein lies the crucial question; as Sri Lanka heads towards heightened war in 2007, will we witness a further closing in of public spaces by voices claiming an aggressively mono-ethnic society with the concurrent decimation of moderate opinion? And to what extent is the media itself responsible in the ready permission (if not encouragement) that it extends to such opinions?
There is no doubt that legitimate critiques can be made and opinions expressed without descending to xenophobic levels. For instance, in the first example mentioned above, a good critique could have well been made of the pro-peace television programmes in issue, without making a predominant ethnic identity as the primary focus. Since 2004, a peace process founded purely on a blind desire to pacify what must surely rank as the one of the most ruthless terrorist groups in the world, have affected many thousands of Tamils and Muslims living in areas of the North-East as much as (and indeed more than) the Sinhalese in other parts of the country? Even in a context where there was 'peace tourism' to the North-East, patterns of abductions, disappearances and killings by the LTTE were commonplace but seen as a classic example of 'collateral damage" rather than as a phenomenon that must be negated through collective action.
Responsibility for the failure to propel a more evenly balanced process with a rights protection focus that did not leave the ordinary people to the less than tender mercies of the LTTE must be shared by non-governmental organisations working on the peace process from Colombo as much as the Government. The argument may be made that realpolitik required that the emphasis must be less on rights protection in the North-East in order to compel the LTTE to come to the negotiating table and sign a ceasefire agreement. But this was a costly mistake as was seen in retrospect when the exercise proved to be nothing more than a ploy to enable the LTTE's totalitarian leadership to strike out further at its ultimate goal of a separate state.
And is it not an indictment in respect of the whole that as yet, the most scathing, detailed and devastating reporting emerging from the North East remains the regular bulletins of the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) which are constant in their equally stern denunciation of the atrocities committed by the LTTE, the Government as well as the now ubiquitous paramilitaries? My respect for those engaging in such perilously impartial reporting despite the assassination of Rajini Thiranagama remains undiminished.
And while we are about it, when the South was in turmoil in the eighties, was there bravery shown even to a quarter of this extent by any of the Sinhalese people who were privately, highly critical of the JVP (Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna)? While we have been pontificating for decades that the Tamil people should condemn the doings of the LTTE, this is in fact, what has been happening now for quite some time. Surely these voices deserve the minimum respect for their bravery by being entitled to call this country home rather than by adapting to the 'exclusive' preserve of the Sinhala Buddhists? Or am I engaging in the most inane of reflections? It is hard to determine actually.
Quite some time ago, I had critically discussed the implications of a series of determinations of the Supreme Court in relation to religious conversions and came under severe criticism by a petitioner in one of those applications who professed the view that I was 'normally balanced in my writing but that, this time, I had been influenced by my personal religious background."
In a context where I had for long years, violently eschewed organised religion of all kinds in any shape or form, I was perplexed as to the fount of this criticism- was it purely by the construction of my name that the assumed nature of my religious beliefs had been decided or owing to some other twisted tracing of logic to which I was thankfully not privy to? Hence my wholly nonplussed response to a reaction to what had been (as I had fondly believed) a dispassionate critique of the constitutional context allowing for freedom of religion in Sri Lanka. This is one personal reflection but many more examples could be pointed to. Here again, while the fevered reactions of many to the conscienceless proselytizing of mushroom religious organisations may be absolutely understandable, the attack on the multi religious nature of Sri Lankan society is what should be deplored.
Equally not so many years back when leading lawyers, activists and academics launched an appeal pleading for Sri Lanka's seniormost judge (at that time) on the Supreme Court not to retire prematurely from judicial office for what was recorded as his inability to serve the institution as well as he would have wanted to, I recall a most despicable letter in a daily newspaper insinuating that this was a move propelled by religious sentiments rather than by any respect for the institution of the judiciary itself. It was around about that time that I began to realise, (albeit lamentably naively), the full extent of the subversion of our institutions and our democratic systems on race, religious and even caste issues.
And now we come to the second issue revolving around the question of patriotism? The use or rather, misuse of the term 'patriot,' (a word loaded with the most inflammatory meanings), is of course, peculiar not only to Sri Lanka. In America for example, the enactment of the Patriots Act in the Bush administration's 'war against terror' was meant exactly to tap into these primeval feelings of loyalty until Americans realised that this kind of patriotism was indeed, the last refuge of scoundrels and delivered a well deserved electoral reprimand to its Presidency recently.
In so far as Sri Lankan 'patriots' are concerned, is it not the most profound of ironies that many of those aggressively advocating mono-ethnic opinions are themselves with secure personal ties in the West and who have taken full advantage of all that the West has to offer rather than living the home grown mono-ethnic ideology that they so cacophonously profess in public?
This is to digress but only to illustrate the marvelous hypocrisy of these advocates. The essential question remains as to whether patriotism means parroting a mono-ethnic identity? Does it mean repeating the old familiar refrain that 'if you are not with us (in war) then you are against us?" Does it mean confinement only to glitzy advertising campaigns calling for one country, one people or allowing the term to be used as a cover by opinion makers governed only by rabid chauvinism? Should it mean closing our eyes to the horrors of civilians being killed, abducted, disappeared or tortured, whether they be Sinhalese, Tamils or Muslims? Should it mean denying the dysfunctional nature of our systems of democratic governance and the total contempt manifested for constitutional institutions? Should it mean denying the most singular fact that for the past many decades, the Sri Lankan State, (its constitutional and legal structures and its political institutions) has been wholly unable to ensure accountability of the rulers as well as abusers in positions of power whether they may be in the army camps, police stations or the prisons?
No, it should not. On the contrary, patriotism should mean a medley of voices speaking out against such atrocities, compelling rigid accountability on the part of our political rulers and urging a return to a multi-cultural ethos. Such a surge of voices would negate the need for 'international interventions' of any kind. Make no mistake about this, international scrutiny is called for by those of us genuinely committed to making some difference in the status quo purely due to the fact that domestic pressure has not been working towards those ends for the past many decades. The call has been made in sheer desperation. Perhaps the forthcoming year would take the edge of that desperation off, if patriotic ordinary people compel our systems to be put in order instead of looking in vain to the political and intellectual 'elites' for succor.