Connect with us

Features

Sir Waitialingam Duraiswamy

Published

on

Sir Waitialingam Duraiswamy

Extracted From All Experience: Essays and reflections by Sam Wijesinha, 2001.

The State Council created under the Donoughmore Constitution had its first meeting on July 7th, 1931. It ran its full term and was dissolved on December 7th, 1935.The elections to the Second State Council were concluded on March 7th, 1936. Of the fifty seats for which nominations were received seven returned uncontested members, viz.

Bandaranaike   Mr.SWRD for  Veyangoda

Corea               Mr.GCS for Chilaw

Duraiswamy     Mr.Waitialingam for Kayts 

Freeman          Mr.HR for Anuradhapura

Jayatilaka        Sir DB for Kelaniya

Kotalawela      Col JL for Kurunagala

Senanayake    Mr DS for Minuvangoda

 On March 17th at the first meeting of the Council three persons were nominated for the post of Speaker. On the first ballot the result was:

Mr. Waitialingam Duraiswamy 27 votes

Mr. Francis de Zoysa KC. 17 votes

Mr. Charles Batuwantudawa. 14 votes 

The third candidate was eliminated, and there was another ballot between the first two which resulted in:

Mr. Waitialingam Duraiswamy 29 votes 

Mr. Francis de Zoysa KC 29 votes

Since both had equal votes there had to be a third ballot on which finally a Speaker was chosen:

Mr. Waitialingam Duraiswamy 30 votes

Mr. Francis de Zoysa KC 28 votes 

So Mr. Duraiswamy, the Member for Kayts, was elected Speaker. It was a remarkable tribute that, in a Legislature of 39 Sinhalese and 19 others, a Tamil from Jaffna was elected to this prestigious post. Of the other six members who were uncontested, five were elected Ministers. The sixth Mr. Freeman, the former British Civil Servant who was elected the member from Anuradhapura, remained a back bencher.

Who was this remarkable member from Jaffna who defeated Francis de Zoysa, one of the foremost statesmen of this country, an eminently distinguished lawyer, a King’s Counsel and President if the Ceylon National Congress in 1925-26?

Sir Waitialingam Duraiswamy (he was knighted in 1936 was born in Velanai, an island on the west of the Jaffna peninsula, on June 8th, 1874. He was a son of Ayampillai Waitialingam who had spent some time in Malaya. Young Duraiswamy had his education at Jaffna College, Vaddukoddai where he excelled both in studies and in sports. Following the Jaffna tradition of seeking education whatever the difficulties, he was then sent across to India and joined Presidency College in Calcutta University. In 1897 he graduated with double honors in Mathematics and Science. He had the distinction of studying under Professor PC Roy and Jagdish Chandra Bose.

 Returning to Ceylon, he joins the Colombo Law College and was admitted as an Advocate in 1902. He worked in the chambers HJC Pereira KC, who was later President of the Ceylon National Congress.  HJC, as he was popularly known was not only a leading lawyer, but also a fighter for fair play and freedom. He exhorted workers to unite, which led in due course to the formation of Trade Unions. Young Duraiswamy this certainly had a great opportunity to obtain a good, all-round training in Pereira’s chambers.

 Due to family responsibilities he returned to Jaffna and left behind his association with HJC, thereby abandoning the prospect of a successful career in Colombo. He set up his legal practice in Jaffna and in 1905, as an eligible young lawyer, married Rasamma, the daughter of Mudaliyar Sittampalam Sathasivam.

 Whilst immersed in his advancing professional practice, he began his public life as a Founder member and Secretary of the Jaffna Association which, like the Ceylon National Congress, worked for the political advancement towards independence by democratic means. He was also a member of the Liberal party, led at that time by Sir James Pieris. In addition, he was joint Founder and Secretary of the Hindu Board of Education, which was responsible for establishing a series of schools. He was on the governing body of Jaffna Hindu College and the President of the Jaffna Paripalana Sabha, which was responsible for the publication of two newspapers.

For the next two decades he made steady progress in the profession to become the leader of the Jaffna Bar and to be appointed Crown Advocate, always the most coveted position in the field in Ceylon at that period. With his diverse interests in religious affairs, educational development and social service he was well recognized, warmly respected and deeply appreciated by the public of Jaffna.

By Ordinance No 13 of 1910, in terms of what are known as the McCallum reforms, a small semblance of the principle of representation through election was recognized for membership of the Legislative Council. One member was therefore elected in 1912 for the Educated Ceylonese Electorate of about 3,000 voters. One is very limited Educational franchise. Ponnambalam Ramanathan who had been in the Council from 1879 to 1892 as an Unofficial Nominated Member, was the choice of the electors. But agitation against the niggardliness of the concession, carried on for the next 10 years, resulted in the elective principle being extended by the Order-in-Council of 1920. This provided for election to 11 territorial and five non-territorial seats. Each of the provinces was to elect one member on a limited income franchise, with the much more largely populated Western Province being allocated three seats.

With his professional standing and his record of service to the public, Advocate Waitialingam Duraiswamy became the obvious choice to represent the Northern Province. He was the only Hindu elected to the Legislative Council of 1921 and was unopposed. Sir Henry Kotalawela (knighted in 1947), elected to represent the Uva Province was the only Buddhist. All the other nine territorially elected members, including Advocate ER Tambimuttu who represented the Eastern Province were Christians.

Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan who was elected by the people both in 1912 and 1917 was knighted and nominated by the Governor as an Unofficial Member of the Legislative Council in 1921. It was claimed by NE Weerasooria in his book Ceylon and her People that ‘The distinction conferred on Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan was the precursor of his secession from the Ceylon National Congress.

’ However, disappointment at the manner in which Sinhalese politicians insisted on taking all the elected seats in the Western Province as well as those for special groups (such as the Low Country Products Association, which had a voting membership of just 11) also doubtless contributed.

 In 1922 Sir Waitialingam successfully moved a motion in the Council for prohibition on the basis of local options, which resulted in all taverns and foreign liquor shops being abolished in the Jaffna District. The option, it should be noted, was not exercised elsewhere and prohibition in the South seems to occur only through impositions on specific occasions.

It was at this time that the recommendations of the Salaries Commission for increases were included in the budget for 1923-24, a contravention of a promise given by Sir Andrew Caldecott, the Colonial Secretary. The Unofficial Elected Members recorded a protest and eventually all 11 of them walked out of the Council. They resigned but were re-elected unopposed. Sir Waitialingam was one of the leaders of this protest which was organized by Sir James Peiris.

In 1923 the communal tensions that had been simmering for a couple of years came into the open with the question of a Memorandum about Minorities which had been ‘sent secretly’ to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Rt Hon Winston Churchill, with a view to thwarting the grant of responsible Government and recommending a return to communal representation.  The Colonial Secretary refused to table a copy of this ‘Secret Memorial.’ But the Ceylon Daily News published a scoop about it which created a sensation.

At a public meeting in honor of Governor Manning at Jaffna, the genesis of the ‘Secret Memorial’ was revealed. Sir Ambalavanar Kanagasabai (Nominated Unofficial Member) said, ‘It was Sir William Manning who obtained for the Tamils the preferential treatment and concession as outlined in the draft.’ The Governor in reply paid a fulsome compliment to Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan for what it was suggested for assistance rendered in drafting these proposals.

Reflecting on these events, I feel today what Prof. KM de Silva so elegantly expressed when he wrote, “The Sinhalese Leaders of the Ceylon National Congress allowed themselves to be embroiled in a needless conflict. It was on an intrinsically unimportant issue – that reserved seat for the Tamils in the Western Province. A timely concession generously made would have removed it from the arena of political controversy.

” This big mistake on a small matter eventually cost us the friendship and the benevolence of two of the most outstanding men produced in 152 years of British rule. Ponnambalam Ramanathan and Ponnambalam Arunachalam, to both of whom so much is due from so many in our land. But this unwillingness to yield gracefully from a position of strength, so that concessions have to be exhorted with ever increasing suspicion, seems to be part of a congenital incapacity that continues to destroy the country.”

It should be noted however that the two elected Tamil members from the Northern and Eastern Provinces – Waitialingam Duraiswamy and ER Tambimuttu rejected the “Secret Memorial.” Duraiswamy indeed went on record saying, “I cannot understand how age and experience could have been guilty of such egregious blunders; this is all the work of our old men. If they cannot lead in the right way they lead in the wrong way, but they always lead, that is their one and only ambition.”

Meanwhile he was again elected uncontested to the enlarged new Legislative Council of 1924 to represent the Northern Province (Western Division). Tambimuttu was also re-elected to represent the Batticaloa District of the Eastern Province. During this period Duraiswamy was the architect of the Conference held in 1925 at Mahendra, his home in Jaffna, at which the delegates of the Ceylon National Congress led by Mr. CE Corea and the Ceylon Maha Jana Sabha led by himself discussed further reforms. Incidently Mahendra was the home graced by the visits of Mahatma Gandhi and Rajagopalachari in 1927 and in 1931 by Jawaharlal and Kamala Nehru and their daughter Indira.

During this time Duraiswamy was a member of the Akbar Committee of the Legislative Council which opted for establishing the Ceylon University in the Kandy District. Regrettably he remains, I believe, the only outstanding member of that Committee not recognized by a tangible memorial on the Peradeniya Campus.

In 1928 as the President of the Jaffna Association he gave evidence before the Donoughmore Commission and pressed for self-government. This was accepted but, together with many others in the Legislative Council at that time, he was not entirely happy with the Donoughmore Commission’s recommendations. At the debate in the Council in 1929 on the proposal that they be brought into operation, he was in opposition, and subsequently led the Jaffna boycott of the 1931 elections to the newly created State Council.

In a speech at Jaffna in 1931 Sir Waitialingam repudiated the suggestion that the boycott was for communal reasons. He went on to say, “We are not weak to depend on such sectional ideas, we are able to think for the good of the whole of Ceylon. Never did I think of communalism when I advocated reforms for the Island. We Tamils always worked for the good of the whole country, making no difference between race and race. Our safety lies in the safety of the Sinhalese, our freedom lies in the freedom of the Sinhalese, our progress in constitutional reforms depends on the co-operation of the Sinhalese. The policy of “Divide and Rule” shall not make us great. Therefore, let me once again assure the people of Ceylon that we are acting on behalf of the whole of Ceylon, and not from sectional motive.”

Jaffna abandoned the boycott and came back into the mainstream of national politics in 1934 when elections were held for the four seats in the district.  On this occasion Duraiswamy did not contest. Kayts therefore was won by Mr. Nevin Selvadurai. In 1936 however, in the general elections to the Second State Council, he was as noted above elected uncontested to the Kayts constituency.

I have tried briefly in these paragraphs to answer the questions I proposed at the beginning as to who this remarkable gentleman was who came from Jaffna to defeat Francis de Zoysa for the post of Speaker. His election to this post was a demonstration of the unbounded popularity, and the high esteem in which he was held by all sections of the country. He was a gentleman of a genial disposition with a ready smile, full of kind thoughts, kind words, and kind deeds. Blessed by nature with a graceful appearance, he had dignity in his deportment and the gift of a sharp intellect. Impartiality and fairness came to him naturally,

On his election as Speaker, Sir Baron Jayatilaka, the Leader of the House and Minister of Home Affairs, congratulating him said, “You can bring to bear on the questions that will come up a trained and disciplined mind and long experience, not only as a prominent member of the legal profession, but also as a member of the Old Legislative Council for over 10 years.

Jayatilaka and Duraiswamy were born in the third quarter of the last century, both were graduates of the Calcutta University when such academic qualifications were uncommon, both were professionally experienced lawyers and dedicated educationists with long records of public service. They were interested in their own literature, deeply learned in their respective religions, and highly respected by their own people.

They brought trained and developed minds to bear on the problems of their country without fear or favour. They advanced into parliamentary politics with the ripe experience of their chosen disciplines and the mature mellowness of their age. Both faced three elections, and both were returned three times without contest. Both had a serenity that reflected contentment.

In concluding his response to Jayatilaka, Duraiswamy said, “When the time comes for me to lay down the authority with which you have clothed me, I will do so conscious of having done our best, to help forward the progress of Ceylon.” That authority he was entrusted with in 1936 he laid down in 1947, having maintained the dignity and safeguarded the privileges of the State Council for an unparalleled 11 years.

He created healthy precedents and built-up honorable traditions. He sometimes quoted from Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the Thirukkural and the Bhagavad Gita to defend the rights of backbenchers and protect those of the less influential members of the House. He was able to direct, guide and inspire the most difficult raw material to handle – the young enthusiastic legislators of the State Council.

At this point it may not be irrelevant to mention that Duraiswamy was an outstanding athlete in his day and continued to maintain his healthy mind in a healthy body. He was the Founder member of the Tamil Union and its President for several years. I still remember a picture in a newspaper that showed him as Speaker bowling to the Governor Sir Andrew Caldecott, with Minister DS Senanayake behind the stumps.

When he laid down his office there was not one person in the State Council who had a single word against him. He was an exemplary Speaker by any standard, totally free from sectarianism and deeply devoted to the ideal of a Ceylonese nation.  As he wished on the day he was elected, so he downed his authority, having done his best to help forward the progress of Ceylon. The never-failing springs of his constant strength were the fundamental principles of his deep faith and the unbroken traditions of his ancient culture. Truly then it might be said of him that, ‘he was a man not for an age, but for all time.’



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Trump’s tariffs, AKD’s gazette and Sri Lanka’s diplomatic slumber

Published

on

“We are rather respectable in Colombo. We go to bed fairly early, and we remain there till morning. “

According to Sri Lanka’s diplomatic folklore, the late S.W. R. D. Bandaranaike uttered these words while explaining the reasons for Sri Lanka’s abstention on the UN resolution condemning the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Apparently, SWRD’s foreign ministry officials were asleep at home when the diplomatic cable seeking instructions was received from New York. In those days, there were no cell phones, Internet, or even fax or telex machines. The diplomatic cables were sent through post offices. Decoding them was a slow and time-consuming process. Thus, the government could not provide appropriate instructions to our mission in New York in time, and the Sri Lankan delegation abstained on that sensitive UN vote.

Sri Lanka’s Absence from Section 301 Consultations

But then, how does one explain Sri Lanka’s absence from the crucial bilateral consultation held in Washington by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) during March-April on “Forced Labour” under the Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974? Didn’t our foreign and trade ministries send appropriate instructions to Washington in time? Even if the instructions from the foreign ministry were transmitted to our embassy in Washington by pigeon carriers, there was enough time for Sri Lanka to participate in those meetings.

In March, the USTR initiated these 301 investigations on 60 trading partners, and invited all of them for confidential consultations. Out of the 60, 46 participated in these consultations. Sri Lanka was not one of them. Other countries that didn’t participate in these consultations included China, Russia, and Venezuela! In addition to that, the Section 301 Committee conducted a public hearing with interested parties on April 28 and 29. Washington-based diplomats, representatives from few trade ministries as well as representatives from many foreign trade associations and chambers participated in these hearings. Sri Lanka was once again conspicuously absent.

As a result, when the USTR published the proposed forced labour tariffs on June 2nd, Sri Lanka ended up with a 12.5% duty. Pakistani and Indonesian diplomats participated in these consultations and took appropriate follow-up measures, and managed to enter the 10% duty category. As even a threat of a modest tariff hike could disrupt supply chains and reduce competitiveness, particularly in an industry such as garments, I discussed this issue on 15 June and underscored the importance of Sri Lanka’s participation at the next hearing, which was scheduled to be held from July 7th .

Awakening from Diplomatic Slumber and AKD’s Gazette

Fortunately, Sri Lanka finally awoke from weeks of diplomatic slumber, and Ambassador Mahinda Samarasinghe participated in the public hearing on 9 July, and promised, “…. · We have agreed to the text in our negotiations with the USTR on forced labour, …. The gazette as we speak is being printed and I’m getting the gazette tomorrow morning, and the gazette will be shared with USTR as I get it“.

As promised, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake issued a gazette on 10 July banning the imports of goods produced by forced labour. These new regulations are very similar to what Pakistan and Indonesia enacted in April, after their consultations with USTR in March. Why couldn’t we do it in April? Why did we wait till the very last minute?

Challenges ahead

“War is too important to be left to generals alone,” is a famous saying attributed to former French Premier Georges Clemenceau. Similarly, monitoring our main markets is too important to be left to diplomats alone. The United States is the largest single-country market for Sri Lanka. Therefore, Sri Lankan trade chambers and associations should become more proactive in these markets and participate in these events. For example, the chairman of the Pakistani apparel exporters association participated in the April hearings. Similarly, representatives from the Indian Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the Confederation of Indian Industry, and Reliance Industries also participated in July hearings. At an event where each speaker is given only five minutes (strictly enforced), having a number of speakers from a country is an advantage. The presence of industry representatives in these kinds of events also help them understand the market dynamics and the future challenges. This is important, particularly because there will be many more challenges with Trump’s tariffs.

With the gazette issued on 10 July, Sri Lanka has imposed a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labour. Now, the challenge will be to effectively enforce the prohibition. And what are the goods produced with forced labour? The USTR list only focuses on aluminum, cotton, electronics, lithium-ion batteries, rice, and tobacco. However, according to the U.S. Department of Labour, the list is much longer. Hence, this list may change continuously during the next two years and tariffs may fluctuate once again.

So, this is definitely not the time to slumber.

(The writer, a retired public servant, can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

by Gomi Senadhira ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

Tales of Mystery and Suspense 10 Casino for Sale

Published

on

After the overwhelming grotesquerie of J K Rowling’s latest Cormoran Strike novel (written, I should have noted, as the others were, under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith), I thought I should return to the world of fun, and also a much shorter description since this thriller moves quickly without the layers of detail that Rowling engages in.

I then move to the second comic thriller by Caryl Brahms and S J Simon. This, their second story to feature Vladimir Stroganoff and Adam Quill, was Casino for Sale, as lunatic a romp as the first, though without the emphasis on the ballet that characterized A Bullet in the Ballet.

This one begins with the impresario Stroganoff buying a casino cheap from Baron Sam de Rabinovich, only to find that it was a rundown place, not the grand casino of La Bazouche, a resort on the Frenc+h Riviera, as he had initially thought. The grand one belonged to Lord Buttonhooke, and Stroganoff could  not compete, until he thought of bringing the Ballet Stroganoff to the casino – which of course leads to Buttonhooke deciding to have ballet performances in his Casino too.

Stroganoff invites Quill to visit him, which Quill decides to do since he has left Scotland Yard, having come into a legacy. No one believes this, and he has to face questions as to what he did to have been sacked, with sympathy for having been found out.

Caryl and Simon

The day he arrives in La Bazouche there is a murder, of a vitriolic critic called Citrolo, in Stroganoff’s office. He had been going to write a damning review of the opening night of the ballet and Stroganoff, when he realizes Citrolo cannot be swayed, drugs him and dictates the review himself to the papers. He leaves Citrolo sleeping and finds him shot the next morning, whereupon he decides to muddy the waters and leave a suicide note and lots of other murder weapons. So much overkill, as it were, of course ensures that he is arrested.

But the excitable French detective who makes the arrest follows up his suggestion that Buttonhooke was also involved, and so the two casino owners find themselves in cells next door to each other, with the detective Gustave quite happy to provide creature comforts for a fee.

Quill decides he must investigate, and finds Gustave most cooperative, since he has a laid back attitude to work. So it is Quill that finds a notebook which makes it clear Citrolo is an accomplished blackmailer, and that there are lots of possible murderers, including Stroganoff’s croupier, who was crooked, Rabinovich, who was now working for Buttonhooke, a confidence trickster called Kurt Kukumber, whose prospectus for a dud gold mine was found in the office and Prince Alexis Artishok who was engaged in a deal to buy diamonds from the ballerina Dyra Dyrakova.

Stroganoff had been trying to get Dyrakova to dance for him, but having done so previously she had refused. But then to Stroganoff’s chagrin she agreed to dance for Buttonhooke. The clearly crooked Artishok had told Buttonhooke’s mistress Sadie Souse, who was not very bright, that Dyrakova possessed diamonds she was willing to sell cheap, and Sadie was determined to have them.

Quill meanwhile finds out that there was a secret passage to Stroganoff’s office, the obvious solution to what had begun as a locked room mystery, and that this was known by almost everyone apart from Stroganoff himself. And then Rabinovich is murdered, just after Gustave had released his two original suspects, leading him to blame Quill for having insisted on that and thus allowing them to kill again.

Soon afterwards Dyrakova arrives, and the town is full of posters announcing that she will appear in the casinos, elaborate posters for either one, since Stroganoff is determined that she will dance for him, and if she does not come willingly, he has devised a scheme to make her do so unwillingly. So, though Buttonhooke has her taken off to his yacht immediately she arrives at the station, Quill along with Arenskaya gets her into a launch and to Stroganoff’s casino, where she performs to tumultuous applause, not knowing for whom she is dancing.

When Quill asked her about the diamonds, she said she had sold them long ago, and that gave Quill the solution to the mystery. Rabinovich had known about this, and Artishok had killed him to prevent Sadie learning it from him, he had killed Citrolo who had recognized him for an accomplished card sharper, not a Russian prince at all. But before he is arrested, he gets away in a boat, and the police launch that pursues him is on the point of catching him up when it runs out of petrol.

Again, lots of excitement, and entertaining references  – Gustave grows marrows – and if not quite as brilliant as its predecessor, Casino was certainly a delightful read.

Continue Reading

Features

The challenge of being positive about SAARC

Published

on

The RCSS forum addressed by SAARC Secretary General Ambassador Md. Golam Sarwar in progress. (Pic courtesy RCSS)

It was a few years back that a former President of Sri Lanka took it on himself to pronounce SAARC ‘dead’. Since then there have been other sections of Sri Lankan opinion that have joined the critics of SAARC and taken the solemn stance that SAARC has indeed died what may be called a natural death.

Their fatalism is understandable. SAARC has failed to meet at heads of government or state level for the past several years to take the SAARC process notably forward. Regional cooperation has more or less been only an appealing idea. No substantive concrete projects have taken off to make the idea a hard reality. ‘Inner paralysis’ seems to be SAARC’s lot. Hence the fatalism in these circles.

However, being one of the worst cash-strapped regions of the world and a teemingly populated one with people virtually left to their devices, what choices do the ‘SAARC Eight’ have other than to try their best to band together and continue with their cooperation efforts, however small they may be?

There is no escaping the mounting debt trap for many of these countries and bankrupt Sri Lanka is a glaring example, but ‘throwing in the towel’ and abandoning themselves entirely to the diktats of the strongest economies and their agencies will prove a ‘living death’ for many countries in the SAARC fold.

The gains may be meagre but giving-up on SAARC cooperation in full would prove self-defeating for the organization and South Asia. Right now, the collective intention ought to be to salvage what the region could from the tenuous cooperative efforts. Moreover, such initiatives could go some distance to generate a degree of goodwill among the Eight and help in sustaining a dialogue process.

Given this backdrop it proved ‘a stich in time’ for the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, to recently host the SAARC Secretary General Ambassador Md. Golam Sarwar to a round table discussion on the unifying potential of SAARC and its future possibilities, besides other related issue areas.

Held on June 24th and moderated by RCSS Executive Director and former ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, the forum brought together a vibrant, wide ranging audience comprising academicians, diplomats, senior public servants, civil society activists and many others. Following the presentation by Ambassador Golam Sarwar titled, ‘Reigniting SAARC: Achievements, Challenges and the Way Ahead’, a lively Q&A followed.

The above forum could be described as an act of lighting the proverbial ‘candle’ rather than ‘cursing the darkness.’ It surely is a ‘darkness’ that could be seen as daunting considering that the region’s pivotal powers, India and Pakistan, are failing to act in a spirit of accord but are engaged in bitter finger-pointing on a number of questions of vital importance to SAARC.

On the other hand, what is the rest of the region doing to bring the above sides together? It is disappointing that to date the rest of SAARC has failed to launch a major diplomatic drive to bring peace between the feuding regional heavyweights. It needs to act without delay and establish its earnestness and this effort would need to prove SAARC’s staying power in the unfolding months and even years.

In assessing SAARC’s seeming failure local opinion in particular has failed to factor in what could be described as weak leadership. Since Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh, the founding father of SAARC, the region has failed to produce a visionary leader who could advance the SAARC cause with charisma and drive.

Among other reasons, weak leadership accounts considerably for the faltering and stuttering status, as it were, of SAARC. Badly needed are leaders who could go the extra mile, think less of narrow national interests and work diligently towards the collective well being of the region but SAARC’s millions of ordinary people have been made to wait in vain for leaders of such stature. Instead, they have been burdened with politicians who seem to be relishing the apparently moribund state of SAARC.

Looking back, it could be said that it was the dynamic leadership factor that led to the launching of the Non-Aligned Movement and for its sustenance for a few decades. True, it could be seen in some quarters that NAM is no more, but as in the case of SAARC, the former too has been unfortunate to be burdened over the years with politicians who lack the vision and drive to unflaggingly advance the fortunes of the South. NAM and SAARC lack the dynamism and vision of leaders of the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru, for example, to give them the required guidance and intellectual depth.

The reasons are complex for there not being among us currently political leaders with the vision and the steadfast commitment to advance the legitimate interests of the South. However, it could be stated with conviction that the majority of Southern leaders have too easily caved in to the demands of the global North and its financial agencies.

These leaders have failed to see, for instance, that the largely market economy oriented Northern governments would not view with favour a centrist economic model that attaches priority to the interests of the dis-empowered publics of the South. This realization ought to have dawned on the current government in Sri Lanka, for instance, some while ago but it has no choice but to abide by IMF dictates since economic survival at present is unthinkable without the latter’s succour.

Accordingly for SAARC this should be the time for some soul-searching. Priority needs to be attached to ending the feuding between India and Pakistan since at present the material fortunes of the region hinge largely on these regional giants giving peaceful relations among them a try. This is no easy challenge to meet but some daring, visionary diplomacy needs to take hold among the rest of SAARC.

There is some sense in SAARC bringing the peoples of the region together through programs that address their best collective interests. A meeting of minds among SAARC nations could enable SAARC and its agencies to build a region-wide people’s movement for progressive political and economic change that could in turn lead to the region’s political leaders sensitizing themselves more to the neglected needs of their publics.

However, the time is ‘now’ for the initiation of these progressive changes and the voice of SAARC well wishers would need to drown out those of their critics.

Continue Reading

Trending