A comprehensive response to inaccurate expressions used by writers on the ethnic conflict requires more space than would be permitted by a short comment or letter. Nevertheless, I would like to make a few brief comments on their views.
1. One should be cautious about the use of such expressions as "intolerant" and "extremist" in describing the views and actions of persons, groups and institutions whose views and positions differ from one's own.
2. It is necessary to understand the psyche of ethnic, religious or other such groups who perceive themselves as being under threat, deprived or marginalised or who have a collective sense of grievance either against the state or other groups in the polity. Invariably, their perceptions are rooted in their history or in a historical memory, which in the course of being transmitted to succeeding generations has often been transmitted by exaggeration or distortion. It is also necessary to distinguish perception from reality.
In the present ethnic conflict the Sinhala and Tamil groups see themselves as threatened by the other and both groups feel that the State has not attended to their grievances satisfactorily.
3. Unless we seek dispassionately to understand what is sought to be conveyed by the statement "Sri Lanka is a Sinhala Buddhist country" we shall fail in our search for a lasting solution to the ethnic problem. In my understanding the statement means that the Sinhala Buddhist ethos takes primacy in an inclusive Sri Lankan identity. It is not a denial of the plural character of the population nor an attitude of intolerance towards the minority ethnic or religious groups, but an expression of the uniqueness of the historical phenomenon of the mutually reinforcing relationship between Buddhism and the Sinhalese ethnic group in Sri Lanka.
In a different context one speaks of the civilisational values of Europe being Judaeo-Christian. That does not deny other values but recognises that which is overarching in the value system.
4. Selective and biased reading of history is evident in their depictions of Anagarika Dharmapala as the archetypal Sinhalese revivalist who took the lead in attacking the non-Buddhist groups.
They ignore the fact that Hindu revivalism under Arumuga Navalar (1822-1879) and the Saiva Paripalana Sabhai (1888) openly denounced Christianity and the aping of Western lifestyles. Likewise, the Muslim revivalist movement in the second half of the 19th century, in common with the Buddhist and Hindus was a reaction to the dominant position of Christianity and Christians, which was perceived by those groups as being discriminatory towards them. Also, to ignore the positive achievements of Dharmapala, Navalar and such Muslims as Arabi Pasha, Siddi Lebbe and Wapche Marikkar is further evidence of their bias and blinkered attitude in the reading of history.
5. It is a flawed argument to suggest that those parties, groups and persons who oppose the devolution package are necessarily opposed to a peaceful solution of the ethnic problem. There are viable alternatives to the package and the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) has placed before the Parliamentary Select Committee its proposals. The MEP recognises the need for power-sharing at the centre such as through the Committee System provided for under the Donoughmore Constitution. It also stands for devolution to a District Council system, which is a manageable unit of government and is closer to the people than a province or a region. The DC in turn would be linked to lower-tier structures such as Pradeshiya Sabha and local government institutions. The MEP is committed to a unitary system of government and does not subscribe to the legal fiction of "an indissoluble union of regions".
Recently there was a muted uproar (which rapidly subsided), from certain sections of the press, over the alleged intimidation of a journalist by a Director /Acting Chairman of a state-controlled newspaper.
The genial, media-friendly Minister concerned, at a Press Conference, informed the ladies and gentlemen of the fourth estate, that he had spoken to the Director, who it was alleged, had gone beyond his management rights. The Minister (as reported in the Press, and not contradicted to date), went on to say that the Director had acknowledged that he had erred. The Minister had then told him not to repeat his performance, and to be a good boy in future.
Subsequently the official concerned, wrote to the Free Media Movement (a copy of the letter received publicity in the Press), and accused the media of misrepresentation of the facts, and that he had not intimidated the journalist and attempted to obtain her source of information, but that he had only pointed out that the news item for which she was responsible, was factually incorrect.
These two public views raise certain questions to which the public have a right to have answers, assuming that we are living in a democratic society, where ministers of state and officials in high places should be answerable to the public.
One question is: Is it the business of press management or the editor of a newspaper to inform a journalist, that the journalist's facts are wrong? And if the management is aware that a report is factually incorrect, should not that fact be conveyed to the Editor, whose responsibility it then is to deal with the matter?
The other very important issue is, that the Minister's public statement and the official's publicized letter do not match. According to the former, the official had admitted to having erred, and because to err is but human, the benign minister, merely told him gently; "Don't do it again". On the other hand, according to the official, he had not erred, and the fault lay with a biased media.
Now, from where do we get the correct picture? The Yogi or the Commissar?
Return to the Letters to the Editor contents page
Write a letter to the editor : editor@suntimes.is.lk