Commemorating independence with reconciliation

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

An unfading memory of my childhood is watching the Father of the Nation hoisting our national flag at the octagon of the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic, 74 years ago. Seated next to my father on the planks of a wooden viewing platform erected in front of the Dalada Maligawa, I watched D. S. Seananayake raising our national flag, after the symbolic lowering of the Union Jack; it got stuck momentarily as it passed through the hole in the roof, causing DS give it a tug, and my father said, “That is DS, our hero.” Does that hitch signify what we had to undergo to gain independence, or what has happened since?

The buzz-word of the moment is reconciliation and on this occasion of commemorating our Independence, we should ask ourselves whether we have done enough. ‘Reconciliation’ has been defined as ‘the restoration of friendly relations’ or ‘the action of making one view or belief compatible with another’. If one were to go by these definitions, the question is whether talking about reconciliation in Sri Lanka is superfluous as it already exists, perhaps to a greater extent than in the countries that attempt to judge us and force pseudo-reconciliation down our throats!

What DS raised was the Lion Flag, which was adopted as the national flag of the Dominion of Ceylon by the Parliament following a proposal made by the Member of Parliament for Batticaloa, Mudaliyar A. Sinnalebbe, on 16 January, 1948. To represent minorities two vertical strips of equal size in teal and orange were added in 1951. Even after independence our national anthem was “God Save the King’, till the Independence Commemoration Ceremony of 1952, when ‘Namo Namo Matha’ was sung in Sinhala. It is notable that an official Tamil version was sung in Tamil majority areas like Jaffna on this occasion though some narrow-minded nationalists have objected to this lately.

Ours is a country where differing ethnic and religious groups live in relative harmony. After all, minorities live freely within majority areas in spite of the denial of reciprocal rights in some minority areas.

Sri Lanka, a country which has been influenced for over 23 centuries by the pacifism of the majority religion, Buddhism, has shown great religious tolerance. Sinhala Buddhists co-exist with others despite grave injustices done to them during colonial times.

The Portuguese converted Buddhists to Christianity forcibly, though the British were subtle in their manoeuvres. Fortunately, all that has been put behind. In fact, the head of the Catholic Church, whilst acknowledging that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country, has declared that Catholics are more at liberty to practise their religion in Sri Lanka than in most other countries.

When terrorists bombed Catholic churches, even Buddhist priests assisted in the rebuilding efforts. Buddhists are seen by the hundreds in some Hindu Kovils.

Of course, there are occasional hiccups, but which country does not have religious and ethnic tensions? However, if one were to analyse the root causes of such issues, one finds that these invariably are politically motivated or engineered. Admittedly, one thing that Sri Lanka lacks very badly is an enlightened political class. The majority, as well as the minorities are represented by self-serving politicians who are corrupt. In the past, we had politicians who contributed to world peace. J. R. Jayewardene, the young Finance Minister, who represented Ceylon at the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, changed history, though his achievements later as President left much to be desired. We have politicians who were brave enough to take on terrorists and defeat them, going against the advice of so-called experts who declared that some terrorists were invincible. Unfortunately, though Mahinda Rajapaksa won the war, he was only partially successful in establishing peace. However, it was not entirely his fault, let down by the leaders of the so-called Free World.

Can Sri Lanka do better? Of course, it can. For that to happen Sri Lankans should be allowed to sort out problems themselves without external interference. Co-existence as well as reconciliation cannot be imposed. It has to emerge from the hearts and minds of the people. First and foremost, the continued harassment by the UNHCR, which is based on biased reports, must stop.

The other key factor that hampers progress is the behaviour of the Tamil diaspora. Their attempts at keeping the Tiger dream of a separate state alive, only antogonise the majority. Instead, they should concentrate on economic development measures for the benefit of their brethren back home. Is it not paradoxical that most of the young Tamils who are waving Tiger flags today were sent to the West by their parents, sometimes using devious means to avoid conscription by the Tigers?

Unfortunately, minorities always seek rights forgetting that they too have responsibilities. The ‘50:50’ demand by G.G Ponnambalam was totally irresponsible.

What about the demand for the merger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces? Is it not a demand that one minority be allowed to undermine another minority?

The more important question is the situation of the Muslim community in the East. In a merged province the Muslim voice would be significantly diluted and, if this happens, Islamic extremists are likely to have a field day.

Sometime ago, there was an excellent suggestion for redemarcating provincial boundaries and reducing the number of provinces to five with each province having access to the sea, one of our most valuable resources. With the reduced number of provinces, more effective devolution could be envisaged with less financial outlay. These are the sort of innovative solutions politicians of all shades and ethnicities should seriously consider if they seek prosperity, which would eventually lead to true reconciliation. I do hope the present government would implement its promise of the ‘one country-one law’ concept. If laws separate and distance communities, won’t they hamper reconciliation?

Another important issue is the banning of all religious and ethnic political parties so that voters would choose governments based on policies alone. Bhikkhus and other religious dignitaries should also be banned from taking to active politics as it is very important to keep religion and politics apart.

We must also do away with is the caste system, which plagues both Sinhala and Tamil communities. This archaic division persists because it is exploited by politicians. Some Buddhist Nikayas are also guilty of upholding a practice abhorred by the Buddha. Even if a classless society is a distant dream, a casteless society is long overdue.

It is sad that the Buddhist majority has a tendency to overreact due to the false impression that Buddhism is under threat. Of course, politicians are ever ready to exploit and encourage this sort of irrational behaviour. What needs to be understood is that from the time of formal introduction in 3rd Century BCE, Buddhism came under numerous threats but has overcome them all. It has been able to do so because Buddhism is not simply a religion but a philosophy that laid the foundation for modern scientific thinking. Even if it does not survive in Sri Lanka, it will survive in the West, as more and more have come to understand the true value of Buddhism. Therefore, we should not make Buddhism an excuse for inaction but the reason for true reconciliation and peace.