Let’s take a different route to true independence

In an intriguingly titled piece "Restarting Independence once again" in The Sunday Times of 03/02/08, Susantha Goonatilake takes a brief look at keeping the country independent in terms of both past and current obstacles as well as future policies to be implemented. Some main themes he touches upon are as follows: (the primacy of preserving) territorial integrity, the (sinister) role of external forces, (a view of) the separatist enterprise as being racist, and multiculturalism (as in the Western Province) in opposition to ethnic enclaves.

Yet any one of these propositions is not as simple as it seems, both on account of the totality of facts surrounding it, and the different experiences of and perceptions about it held by different people and communities. For instance, is the single-minded pursuit of territorial integrity sustainable and worthy of pursuit if it destroys our own citizens' lives and harms inter-community relationships for generations to come? Are all external forces sinister, and can they thrive without internal causes? Is the goal of separation – as distinct from its means – if viewed by its proponents as a last-resort movement of independence from the racist domination of the majority, itself racist? And is multiculturalism unable to coexist with ethnic enclaves?

Some reflection will show us that we can have a range of opinions on each of the above aspects. Rather than attempt to elucidate them, or to explore the extent to which one can agree with Dr. Goonatilake's view of the world, in this piece I put forward some other considerations for "restarting independence".

First, the State would represent all the country's peoples, so that our leadership could see with the eyes and hear with the ears of our different communities. As a nation, we would be equally concerned with the sufferings and deprivation of all our citizens, whatever their ethnic group or place of origin. We would weep over our sons and daughters who die from bullets, rocket-launchers, parcel-bombs, claymore mines or aircraft missiles. Second, we would not want the State to cover up any of its lapses, but learn from its mistakes. So we would not label journalists as "traitors" were they to expose misdeeds of the ruling class; nor would we prevent independent verification of events. In particular we would not remove safeguards for ordinary people caught up in the theatre of war. The agencies of the State would hold a high moral ground by not duplicating the actions of armed subversive groups.

Third, we would seek to do what is right whether or not "external sources" ask us to do it. At the same time, we would not ignore sound advice from outside, or label all of them as part of a conspiracy; instead, we would genuinely seek to verify their claims and obtain their assistance if necessary. The philosophical/ethical basis for our actions would stem from the rich religious traditions we have inherited, and our acceptance of international norms of decency and conduct. Fourth, we would uphold the law equally for all; both the powerful and the powerless. This would be irrespective of whether the law is broken openly or clandestinely. We would want our leaders to implement measures which protect the independence and efficient functioning of our public institutions, especially the police and the judiciary. In public life our leaders would be willing to hold themselves accountable to the people. Fifth, we would not ignore our long history of communal tensions, but condemn the senseless brutality which has gone before and confess our faults to one another, so that we can be reconciled as different communities.

And finally, we would even now, 60 years on, articulate a vision of what being Sri Lankan means. Such a vision should take us away from our failings of the past and provide an alternative to the exclusionary enterprises of different sections of our society. It would also guide our current conduct in prosecuting wars, enforcing law and order, holding elections and other acts of governance.

We would have the wisdom not only to envision a just society beyond the current stage of war, but conduct ourselves today such that tomorrow's dream becomes possible. Perhaps then we can start hoping for peace and freedom both as flowing from and guaranteeing true independence.

By C.R. Abayasekara, via e mail