Features

Unique opportunity for fast-tracked social integration, if only…

Published

1 year ago

2024/11/26

by Susantha Hewa

Surely, racism has caused enough damage to us to warrant its erasure from our midst with the condemnation it deserves, without leaving it more room to further flourish in deceptively benign ways. As showcased by the November 14 election results, many Tamils and Muslims, not forgetting Catholics and Hindus, have voted to power the NPP, led by the JVP, which they might have previously labelled, and avoided, as a ‘Sinhalese’ party.

This turning of tables has obviously been triggered by the country’s worsening political and economic conditions, but the story should not end there because people’s unprecedented shift of faith strongly indicates the relaxing of the rigid social and cultural postures which may prove to be more important in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. This is because, if used wisely and sensitively, it has the potential to be directed towards the evolution of a society where there wouldn’t be much room for further social fragmentation, hitherto sustained by the biases felt at the deepest levels of our sense of ‘self and other’. Dr. Jehan Perera in his article titled “Reading demands for change” (The Island, November 19, 2024) says, “Unlike in the case of economic recovery for which there are no short-term panaceas, the solution to the ethnic conflict is one that can be resolved soon as it has been discussed, negotiated and publicised on several occasions, but not implemented due to the failure of leadership”. The government may seize the opportunity to “make hay while the sun shines”.

The mercurial nature of ‘identity’ and ‘self’ is well-known. They are a topic of discussion in neuroscience, psychology, humanities, social sciences, religions and, notably, in Buddhism. In humanities and social sciences, ‘identity’ is used to refer to one’s social ‘face’. According to psychology, ‘self’ is a multi-dimensional concept that “includes cognitive and affective judgments about ourselves”. Simply put, it is a social construct and “is shaped by interactions with others, and how a person views themselves in relation to their culture, history, gender, class, and more”. In other words, ‘self’ and ‘identity’ are social constructs; they may not be sufficiently understood as entities independent of the dynamic links between the individual and society.

Given the above insights, it is not hard to understand that our collective gut feeling of ‘identity’ has much room for updating and improvement for us to move ahead as a united nation. It’s not difficult to understand that unity is more conducive to social wellbeing than prudish affirmation of our different identities. In particular, Buddhists shouldn’t find it much difficult to understand ‘identity’ as an illusion, because in Buddhism, “The ‘I’ or sense of self is considered an illusion, and is viewed as fluid and ever-changing”. However, many of us Buddhists don’t seem to have taken this illusory nature of self all that seriously. Of course, one may argue, that it is too deep a concept to be grasped by ‘prthagjana’ (not sufficiently enlightened) people. Perhaps the argument is more expedient than sincere, for it can readily be used to silence those who wantonly accuse us of being wicked. Humour apart, surely, we all have among our acquaintances, those who seem to have understood this concept to the extent that they can view ‘identities’ with more detachment thus contributing to enhance a sense of togetherness, at least in their small circles. And, among them are people of all ethnicities and faiths – Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and even those who refuse to follow any established religion; the late Dr. E.W. Adikaram comes to mind easily. Our tendency to cling to the rigid cast of ‘self and other’ comes from the habit of finding security in our accustomed ‘comfort zones’. That is, we thrive in the feeling of togetherness in small communes. In other words, being immersed in the feeling of belonging to this or that ethnicity, religion, caste, gender, etc., is too appealing and reassuring to be got rid of with the weapons of knowledge, judgement and reason you acquire as you grow up.

Such cast-iron ‘identity’ jackets we are proud to wear would do little to help forge a more cohesive society. In all these years, we have had little help from our society, its various institutions, cultures, customs and religions to think in terms of an integrated society, despite all the rhetoric and popularized cosmetic programmes that were made to be soothing to the ear and the eye. The uselessness of all these haphazard and dispersed projects often surfaces when our ‘naturalized’ social instincts begin to assert themselves against wiser counsels. Up to the present, all our political potentates have never lost an opportunity to wax inspirational about ‘unity in diversity’. Their sincerity is in public display today, courtesy their spirited scuffles to enter Parliament through National Lists.

Despite their usual bombast on peace building, our past is scattered with loud assertions of our ‘purity of stock’ where political collusion was too apparent to escape notice. We have not forgotten those horror stories about ‘wanda kottu’, ‘wanda sethkam’, etc. – all supposedly ‘neutering missions’ that stirred communal disharmony. Had the years of political sermonizing, pontification, programmes, launched with much sound and fury to purportedly promote ethnic cohesion, been able to make us any less susceptible to our ancestral instincts?

By the way, how about gender-based discrimination, which most of us are unconcerned about? We have enough academic interest in such fields but not much of it goes to help to subdue the persistent feelings of women who feel being oppressed and discriminated. Of course, it goes without saying that not many religions have addressed the social and cultural oppression of women in a ‘language’ which has made any sufficient dent in our deep-rooted gender biases. As we have seen above, it is the same with other forms of oppression that we have perpetuated and unwittingly fostered at our own peril.

Let’s think for a moment about the rumblings felt in some segments of society about their ‘underrepresentation’ in the new government’s power hierarchy. There is no doubt that these are genuine feelings of disaffection coming from their dormant feelings of being subject to discrimination; for example, with regard to Muslim representation and female representation. There is no doubt that it is better for all of us to assuage these deeply felt hurts as they arise in society to create uproar. However, at what level do we have to address them? Surely, not at the highest levels of their visibility and urgency, which has resulted from prolonged neglect. They should be addressed at their most rudimentary levels for us to get rid of these ‘anomalies’.

Instead of thinking of quick fixes, as has been the practice in the past, it is time we grasped the nettle. The solution to women’s problems is not to find a few more slots for them in Parliament and other powerful positions, although it would instantly satisfy the disgruntled parties. The underrepresentation of women in privileged positions is just a sign of the basic problem of their culturally imposed subservience in the family. It’s not different from the subjugation of social groups on the basis of hoary divisions shielded to perpetuate power structures in different parts of the world. For examples, women’s subservient state in the family is extolled by platitudes about their unrestricted maternal love, sacrifice, self-denial, abstinence, etc., which indirectly help their subjugation effected by overtly discriminatory means. In trying to expose the wrappings of India’s age-old caste system, Arundhati Roy says, “it [casteism] has come to be so fused with … so much that is seen to be kind and good—mysticism, spiritualism, non-violence, tolerance, vegetarianism, Gandhi, yoga, backpackers, the Beatles—that, at least to outsiders, it seems impossible to pry it loose and try to understand it.” As for oppressive systems, casteism is not alone in its capacity for working in complicity with most prevalent forms of human engagement. Can’t we see a similar congruence of seemingly uplifting cultural interventions with regard to deifying ‘motherhood’, which obscures the cultural oppression of women in society.

With regard to the current misgivings about underrepresentation in politics attributed to the lack of concern about ethnicity/religion and gender, perhaps easy solutions will be effective in the short term but they are likely to help perpetuate the basic problems crying for a lasting solution. The unsatisfactory visibility of women in higher ranks, in politics or elsewhere, has to be addressed at the roots by taking awareness to the people of the sociocultural character of the issue. Same applies to any unfairness, whether it is perceived by any community – be it concerning the majority or a minority.

The political and social context we find ourselves in today is a good opportunity which shouldn’t be left unexploited, if we don’t wish to postpone any further the possibility of ushering in a more friendly society with less unwarranted enmities.

All News Advertisement

Features

Rebuilding the country requires consultation

Published

3 hours ago

2026/01/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

A positive feature of the government that is emerging is its responsiveness to public opinion. The manner in which it has been responding to the furore over the Grade 6 English Reader, in which a weblink to a gay dating site was inserted, has been constructive. Government leaders have taken pains to explain the mishap and reassure everyone concerned that it was not meant to be there and would be removed. They have been meeting religious prelates, educationists and community leaders. In a context where public trust in institutions has been badly eroded over many years, such responsiveness matters. It signals that the government sees itself as accountable to society, including to parents, teachers, and those concerned about the values transmitted through the school system.

This incident also appears to have strengthened unity within the government. The attempt by some opposition politicians and gender misogynists to pin responsibility for this lapse on Prime Minister Dr Harini Amarasuriya, who is also the Minister of Education, has prompted other senior members of the government to come to her defence. This is contrary to speculation that the powerful JVP component of the government is unhappy with the prime minister. More importantly, it demonstrates an understanding within the government that individual ministers should not be scapegoated for systemic shortcomings. Effective governance depends on collective responsibility and solidarity within the leadership, especially during moments of public controversy.

The continuing important role of the prime minister in the government is evident in her meetings with international dignitaries and also in addressing the general public. Last week she chaired the inaugural meeting of the Presidential Task Force to Rebuild Sri Lanka in the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah. The composition of the task force once again reflects the responsiveness of the government to public opinion. Unlike previous mechanisms set up by governments, which were either all male or without ethnic minority representation, this one includes both, and also includes civil society representation. Decision-making bodies in which there is diversity are more likely to command public legitimacy.

Task Force

The Presidential Task Force to Rebuild Sri Lanka overlooks eight committees to manage different aspects of the recovery, each headed by a sector minister. These committees will focus on Needs Assessment, Restoration of Public Infrastructure, Housing, Local Economies and Livelihoods, Social Infrastructure, Finance and Funding, Data and Information Systems, and Public Communication. This structure appears comprehensive and well designed. However, experience from post-disaster reconstruction in countries such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami suggests that institutional design alone does not guarantee success. What matters equally is how far these committees engage with those on the ground and remain open to feedback that may complicate, slow down, or even challenge initial plans.

An option that the task force might wish to consider is to develop a linkage with civil society groups with expertise in the areas that the task force is expected to work. The CSO Collective for Emergency Relief has set up several committees that could be linked to the committees supervised by the task force. Such linkages would not weaken the government’s authority but strengthen it by grounding policy in lived realities. Recent findings emphasise the idea of “co-production”, where state and society jointly shape solutions in which sustainable outcomes often emerge when communities are treated not as passive beneficiaries but as partners in problem-solving.

Cyclone Ditwah destroyed more than physical infrastructure. It also destroyed communities. Some were swallowed by landslides and floods, while many others will need to be moved from their homes as they live in areas vulnerable to future disasters. The trauma of displacement is not merely material but social and psychological. Moving communities to new locations requires careful planning. It is not simply a matter of providing people with houses. They need to be relocated to locations and in a manner that permits communities to live together and to have livelihoods. This will require consultation with those who are displaced. Post-disaster evaluations have acknowledged that relocation schemes imposed without community consent often fail, leading to abandonment of new settlements or the emergence of new forms of marginalisation. Even today, abandoned tsunami housing is to be seen in various places that were affected by the 2004 tsunami.

Malaiyaha Tamils

The large-scale reconstruction that needs to take place in parts of the country most severely affected by Cyclone Ditwah also brings an opportunity to deal with the special problems of the Malaiyaha Tamil population. These are people of recent Indian origin who were unjustly treated at the time of Independence and denied rights of citizenship such as land ownership and the vote. This has been a festering problem and a blot on the conscience of the country. The need to resettle people living in those parts of the hill country which are vulnerable to landslides is an opportunity to do justice by the Malaiyaha Tamil community. Technocratic solutions such as high-rise apartments or English-style townhouses that have or are being contemplated may be cost-effective, but may also be culturally inappropriate and socially disruptive. The task is not simply to build houses but to rebuild communities.

The resettlement of people who have lost their homes and communities requires consultation with them. In the same manner, the education reform programme, of which the textbook controversy is only a small part, too needs to be discussed with concerned stakeholders including school teachers and university faculty. Opening up for discussion does not mean giving up one’s own position or values. Rather, it means recognising that better solutions emerge when different perspectives are heard and negotiated. Consultation takes time and can be frustrating, particularly in contexts of crisis where pressure for quick results is intense. However, solutions developed with stakeholder participation are more resilient and less costly in the long run.

Rebuilding after Cyclone Ditwah, addressing historical injustices faced by the Malaiyaha Tamil community, advancing education reform, changing the electoral system to hold provincial elections without further delay and other challenges facing the government, including national reconciliation, all require dialogue across differences and patience with disagreement. Opening up for discussion is not to give up on one’s own position or values, but to listen, to learn, and to arrive at solutions that have wider acceptance. Consultation needs to be treated as an investment in sustainability and legitimacy and not as an obstacle to rapid decisionmaking. Addressing the problems together, especially engagement with affected parties and those who work with them, offers the best chance of rebuilding not only physical infrastructure but also trust between the government and people in the year ahead.

by Jehan Perera

Features

PSTA: Terrorism without terror continues

Published

3 hours ago

2026/01/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

When the government appointed a committee, led by Rienzie Arsekularatne, Senior President’s Counsel, to draft a new law to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), as promised by the ruling NPP, the writer, in an article published in this journal in July 2025, expressed optimism that, given Arsekularatne’s experience in criminal justice, he would be able to address issues from the perspectives of the State, criminal justice, human rights, suspects, accused, activists, and victims. The draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), produced by the Committee, has been sharply criticised by individuals and organisations who expected a better outcome that aligns with modern criminal justice and human rights principles.

This article is limited to a discussion of the definition of terrorism. As the writer explained previously, the dangers of an overly broad definition go beyond conviction and increased punishment. Special laws on terrorism allow deviations from standard laws in areas such as preventive detention, arrest, administrative detention, restrictions on judicial decisions regarding bail, lengthy pre-trial detention, the use of confessions, superadded punishments, such as confiscation of property and cancellation of professional licences, banning organisations, and restrictions on publications, among others. The misuse of such laws is not uncommon. Drastic legislation, such as the PTA and emergency regulations, although intended to be used to curb intense violence and deal with emergencies, has been exploited to suppress political opposition.

International Standards

The writer’s basic premise is that, for an act to come within the definition of terrorism, it must either involve “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” or be committed to achieve an objective of an individual or organisation that uses “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” to realise its aims. The UN General Assembly has accepted that the threshold for a possible general offence of terrorism is the provocation of “a state of terror” (Resolution 60/43). The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has taken a similar view, using the phrase “to create a climate of terror.”

In his 2023 report on the implementation of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the Secretary-General warned that vague and overly broad definitions of terrorism in domestic law, often lacking adequate safeguards, violate the principle of legality under international human rights law. He noted that such laws lead to heavy-handed, ineffective, and counterproductive counter-terrorism practices and are frequently misused to target civil society actors and human rights defenders by labelling them as terrorists to obstruct their work.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has stressed in its Handbook on Criminal Justice Responses to Terrorism that definitions of terrorist acts must use precise and unambiguous language, narrowly define punishable conduct and clearly distinguish it from non-punishable behaviour or offences subject to other penalties. The handbook was developed over several months by a team of international experts, including the writer, and was finalised at a workshop in Vienna.

Anti-Terrorism Bill, 2023

A five-member Bench of the Supreme Court that examined the Anti-Terrorism Bill, 2023, agreed with the petitioners that the definition of terrorism in the Bill was too broad and infringed Article 12(1) of the Constitution, and recommended that an exemption (“carve out”) similar to that used in New Zealand under which “the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that the person” committed the wrongful acts that would otherwise constitute terrorism.

While recognising the Court’s finding that the definition was too broad, the writer argued, in his previous article, that the political, administrative, and law enforcement cultures of the country concerned are crucial factors to consider. Countries such as New Zealand are well ahead of developing nations, where the risk of misuse is higher, and, therefore, definitions should be narrower, with broader and more precise exemptions. How such a “carve out” would play out in practice is uncertain.

In the Supreme Court, it was submitted that for an act to constitute an offence, under a special law on terrorism, there must be terror unleashed in the commission of the act, or it must be carried out in pursuance of the object of an organisation that uses terror to achieve its objectives. In general, only acts that aim at creating “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” should come under the definition of terrorism. There can be terrorism-related acts without violence, for example, when a member of an extremist organisation remotely sabotages an electronic, automated or computerised system in pursuance of the organisation’s goal. But when the same act is committed by, say, a whizz-kid without such a connection, that would be illegal and should be punished, but not under a special law on terrorism. In its determination of the Bill, the Court did not address this submission.

PSTA Proposal

Proposed section 3(1) of the PSTA reads:

Any person who, intentionally or knowingly, commits any act which causes a consequence specified in subsection (2), for the purpose of-

(a) provoking a state of terror;

(b) intimidating the public or any section of the public;

(c) compelling the Government of Sri Lanka, or any other Government, or an international organisation, to do or to abstain from doing any act; or

(d) propagating war, or violating territorial integrity or infringing the sovereignty of Sri Lanka or any other sovereign country, commits the offence of terrorism.

The consequences listed in sub-section (2) include: death; hurt; hostage-taking; abduction or kidnapping; serious damage to any place of public use, any public property, any public or private transportation system or any infrastructure facility or environment; robbery, extortion or theft of public or private property; serious risk to the health and safety of the public or a section of the public; serious obstruction or damage to, or interference with, any electronic or automated or computerised system or network or cyber environment of domains assigned to, or websites registered with such domains assigned to Sri Lanka; destruction of, or serious damage to, religious or cultural property; serious obstruction or damage to, or interference with any electronic, analogue, digital or other wire-linked or wireless transmission system, including signal transmission and any other frequency-based transmission system; without lawful authority, importing, exporting, manufacturing, collecting, obtaining, supplying, trafficking, possessing or using firearms, offensive weapons, ammunition, explosives, articles or things used in the manufacture of explosives or combustible or corrosive substances and biological, chemical, electric, electronic or nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, nuclear material, radioactive substances, or radiation-emitting devices.

Under section 3(5), “any person who commits an act which constitutes an offence under the nine international treaties on terrorism, ratified by Sri Lanka, also commits the offence of terrorism.” No one would contest that.

The New Zealand “carve-out” is found in sub-section (4): “The fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy or dissent or engages in any strike, lockout or other industrial action, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inferring that such person (a) commits or attempts, abets, conspires, or prepares to commit the act with the intention or knowledge specified in subsection (1); or (b) is intending to cause or knowingly causes an outcome specified in subsection (2).”

While the Arsekularatne Committee has proposed, including the New Zealand “carve out”, it has ignored a crucial qualification in section 5(2) of that country’s Terrorism Suppression Act, that for an act to be considered a terrorist act, it must be carried out for one or more purposes that are or include advancing “an ideological, political, or religious cause”, with the intention of either intimidating a population or coercing or forcing a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.

When the Committee was appointed, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka opined that any new offence with respect to “terrorism” should contain a specific and narrow definition of terrorism, such as the following: “Any person who by the use of force or violence unlawfully targets the civilian population or a segment of the civilian population with the intent to spread fear among such population or segment thereof in furtherance of a political, ideological, or religious cause commits the offence of terrorism”.

The writer submits that, rather than bringing in the requirement of “a political, ideological, or religious cause”, it would be prudent to qualify proposed section 3(1) by the requirement that only acts that aim at creating “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” or are carried out to achieve a goal of an individual or organisation that employs “terror” or a “state of intense or overwhelming fear” to attain its objectives should come under the definition of terrorism. Such a threshold is recognised internationally; no “carve out” is then needed, and the concerns of the Human Rights Commission would also be addressed.

by Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne
President’s Counsel

Features

ROCK meets REGGAE 2026

Published

3 hours ago

2026/01/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

JAYASRI: From Vienna, Austria

We generally have in our midst the famous JAYASRI twins, Rohitha and Rohan, who are based in Austria but make it a point to entertain their fans in Sri Lanka on a regular basis.

Well, rock and reggae fans get ready for a major happening on 28th February (Oops, a special day where I’m concerned!) as the much-awaited ROCK meets REGGAE event booms into action at the Nelum Pokuna outdoor theatre.

It was seven years ago, in 2019, that the last ROCK meets REGGAE concert was held in Colombo, and then the Covid scene cropped up.

Chitral Somapala with BLACK MAJESTY

This year’s event will feature our rock star Chitral Somapala with the Australian Rock+Metal band BLACK MAJESTY, and the reggae twins Rohitha and Rohan Jayalath with the original JAYASRI – the full band, with seven members from Vienna, Austria.

According to Rohitha, the JAYASRI outfit is enthusiastically looking forward to entertaining music lovers here with their brand of music.

Their playlist for 28th February will consist of the songs they do at festivals in Europe, as well as originals, and also English and Sinhala hits, and selected covers.

Says Rohitha: “We have put up a great team, here in Sri Lanka, to give this event an international setting and maintain high standards, and this will be a great experience for our Sri Lankan music lovers … not only for Rock and Reggae fans. Yes, there will be some opening acts, and many surprises, as well.”

Rohitha, Chitral and Rohan: Big scene at ROCK meets REGGAE

Rohitha and Rohan also conveyed their love and festive blessings to everyone in Sri Lanka, stating “This Christmas was different as our country faced a catastrophic situation and, indeed, it’s a great time to help and share the real love of Jesus Christ by helping the poor, the needy and the homeless people. Let’s RISE UP as a great nation in 2026.”