Connect with us

Features

Colvin Stories

Published

on

One day, soon after the trade union of Wellawatta Spinning and Weaving Mills, which broke the back of A. E. Goonesinghe’s trade union, was formed, Colvin was travelling in a bus. At the time his face was not well-known and he was merely a name. He found himself sandwiched between two rough looking men. “Ah bung…” said one of them speaking across Colvin. “Who is this Colvin R. De Silva and where does he live?” “I don’t know bung,” replied the other and went on to describe with lurid, blood curdling detail, the horrible things they would do to Colvin, if ever they found him! They happened to be very loyal to Goonesinghe.

***

The shooting of Govindan, a worker of the Wewassa Estate, set off a wave of strikes all over the hill country estates. The small police party that went to the estate to restore law and order were manhandled by the workers who later released them on the ground that both parties were wage-slaves. Later in the day, the enraged police were back, heavily reinforced and armed to the teeth and 208 estate workers were rounded up and arrested, Colvin appeared for all of them at the Badulla Courts and got them released on personal bail.

***

During World War II, Colvin and his friends knew that one day, before long, they would be arrested. But they did not want to give the impression that the leaders were hiding in safety and comfort while the innocent party men were harassed. One day Colvin appeared in a court case, when a man, placing a hand on his shoulder, in a grim and familiar voice said, “Colvin! You will have to come with me. You are under arrest!” It was Inspector of Police Poulier, a classmate of Colvin at Royal. “Just a minute Poulier,” Colvin said. “I can’t come just like that. I have a client to defend right now. But the moment that is done, I am all yours.” Once the case was over, Colvin left the courthouse with Inspector Poulier. Within days N.M. Perera, Philip Gunawardena and Edmund Samarakkody joined him in jail. And two years later they made their jailbreak and fled to India.

***

Colvin went to jail for the sake of the workers of his country and for the country’s freedom from the foreign yoke. He also made tremendous sacrifices, professionally and physically, for the cause he believed in. While in India, evading re-arrest, Colvin, then Govindan, grew a moustache. One day Bernard Soysa was ordered to contact him, at a specific spot in Madras and Bernard was looking all over for him when he heard Colvin’s famous drawl and found Colvin next to him sporting a walrus moustache. “Colvin!” Bernard had said, “I don’t mind a leader who looks like Karl Marx but not one looking like Groucho Marx.”

***

One day, Colvin said that when he was barely two years old his mother died. A few years later, his father married Colvin’s mother’s younger sister. “Those detestable words ‘step mother’ were never used in our home. And, had she lived, I wonder what form my political career would have taken. She loved us very much and wouldn’t bear to see any of us suffer the most minor injury, discomfort or face the slightest danger. Also, had she seen me dragged off to jail and the awful conditions there, and known when I escaped from jail, went underground and was carrying my life in my hands, she might very well have entreated me to give up politics!”

***

At the 1947 general elections, Colvin contested the Wellawatte-Galkissa seat from his Bolshevik Leninist Party of India (BLPI) of whose local faction, he was leader. In the course of canvassing, he went to an imposing Walawwa of a Gate Mudaliyar and knocked at the door. The laird himself opened the door. “Yes” he barked. Introducing himself, Colvin solicited his vote. “I’ll be damned if I vote for you!” “My dear sir, can I please canvass your wife’s and daughter’s votes?” So in soft measured tones he explained the policies of his party, with the mother and the daughter asking intelligent and penetrating questions from him, like the party’s attitude to Buddhism. All this time, the Gate Mudaliyar was seated in an armchair, within hearing distance, puffing a cigar. Tea was served and the candidate rose to leave. The Mudaliyar accompanied him to the gate and said, “I am going to vote for you.” Colvin bowed and said “Thank you sir!”

During one of those bouts for the Wellawatta-Galkissa seat in Parliament, between Colvin and S. de S. Jayasinghe, S. de S., speaking at one of his election meetings, said confidently “Nonawaruni! Mahathwaruni! I am winning this election, for my name begins with ‘Jaya’, Jaya for victory!” Speaking at one of his meetings a few days later, Colvin said “Come election day, I shall be the winner, for my name ends with ‘Win’, Col-Win!”

***

During the 1947 General Elections, a large number of independent candidates contested, whom Colvin labelled ‘three-headed donkeys’. Colvin was once asked what the best election poster he had ever seen was. He had said that it was the poster Dr. A.P. de Zoysa had published against his rival E.A. Cooray for the Colombo South seat in 1936. His one liner was ‘Eeye Cooray Ada Zoysa’ (punning on Cooray’s initials E.A.).

***

Once Manori de Silva presided over an election meeting in Galle. She announced the next speaker thus, “Meelangata mage piyawana Colvin sahodaraya katha karanawa etha: (The next speaker is my father, Comrade Colvin). This reminds me of a Communist MP from the South, who once addressed his father “sahodara piyathumani” (Comrade father).

The Sathasivam case had an impact on Colvin’s political fortunes, when some women voted against him, for defending the cricketer Sathasivam who was accused of murdering his wife.

***

It must be quite a record that a father-in-law, Colvin (Agalawatta), and his two sons-in-law, Sarath Muttetuwegama (Kalawana) and Weerasinghe de Silva (Balapitiya), were sitting together in the same Parliament, along with Colvin’s brother-in-law K. C. de Silva (Katana) in 1970.

***

One day Colvin was making a speech in the House, when a fledgling MP kept on interrupting him. At last, his patience exhausted Colvin paused, gazed at the young MP in a most thoughtful manner, and said in that devastating drawl of his, “You know Mr. Speaker, in our village a creature with one ‘Molliya’ (hump) is called a buffalo. But I do not know what to call one with many ‘Molliyas’. The heckler was Stanley Molligoda, then MP for Nivitigala.

During the 1977 General election, JR was keen to have two of his friends, Colvin and N.M. in Parliament. So, he fielded two weak candidates for Agalawatta and Yatiyantota electorates. But the two UNP candidates rode on the tidal wave and both were elected with convincing majorities. One day Dr. Arnolis de Silva, father of Colvin, went to meet the Registrar of the Land Registry, Galle, to find that he was on leave. He visited the Registrar again and told him that he came there on Wednesday too. “Yes!” the Registrar said, “I took leave to go to court to watch the famous advocate Dr. Colin R. de Silva defend an accused in a murder case. And, what an experience it was!” The doctor smiled and said “I am Colvin’s father.” The Registrar was delighted to hear it.

***

One day Colvin argued an appeal in a case of profiteering in sugar, and for some inexplicable reason, he kept using the term ‘red sugar’ when ‘brown sugar’ was the more popular one.

When he continued to use this term, the Supreme Court Judge, who hailed from Colvin’s own village, commented drily “Dr. Silva, there is too much red in this court.” And gazing pointedly at the Judge’s red robe, Colvin cracked back: “Yes my lord, and that’s the colour that gives much grace and dignity to your lordship.”

***

Colvin was defending an accused in a murder trial and had addressed the court for three consecutive days. As he concluded his address on the third day, Colvin said, “My lord, I hope to finish my address tomorrow.” “You are hoping, Dr. Silva” said the presiding judge E.H.T. Gunasekera, “I am praying.”

***

Colvin had a flair for Johnsonian English of learned length and thunderous in sound. He would use the word ‘pagination’ for a page in a book or the word ‘testification’ for the evidence of a witness. One day Colvin was making submissions in a case at the Nuwara-Eliya magistrate’s court, defending some estate workers of Agarapathana who were indicted, when the trial judge who was an Englishman found it difficult to understand him. So the judge politely told him to use simpler language. “Your honour! I am speaking in your mother tongue and not mine.” “That is so, but please use simple language. Colvin then proceeded to use simpler language but in long sentences, when a red-faced judge postponed the case and adjourned court. At the next trial date, Colvin used simpler language and won the case.

***

I. W. Panditha who was a leading lawyer in Galle, was once the private secretary of P.H. William Silva, the first MP for the Ambalangoda-Balapitiya seat in 1947. At the elections held that year, several persons, including Panditha, were charged with damaging the motorcar of a rival candidate. And they were all found guilty in the magistrate’s court. They appealed against the verdict and Colvin, a comrade-in-arms of the BLPI and also a fellow MP of William Silva, was retained to appear in the appellate court. On the morning of the date of appeal William Silva and Panditha went to Colvin’s house. He was getting ready to go to court. He asked them whether they had had their breakfast, but did not discuss any matter pertaining to the case. Colvin got the conviction of the accused quashed in the appellate court, as not all persons mentioned in the complaint to the police had been charged in the magistrate’s court.

***

In another case, Colvin admitted that his clients sold sprats at the price stated in the plaint, but certainly not ‘sparts’, whatever it may be, as referred to in the Gazette notification.

***

Colvin once said that H.V. Perera K.C. was one of the best lawyers he had known. One day he had been at the Law Library when H.V. had come up to him and said “Colvin! I have just been having a very heated argument with (mentioning the name of a leading member of the Bar at the time) over the interpretation of a certain law. And he said, ‘H.V., your view may be correct, but so is mine!’ Surely Colvin, there are not several correct views of the law? There is only one correct view, and that is the view that fits into the general fabric of the law!” Colvin then could not but think of a more brilliant definition than that of what the law is all about? And that it is the genius of H.V. Perera, that gives him the ability to express the most profound thoughts with utmost clarity.

***

Here are some more H.V. stories. H.V. was one of the most brilliant students to pass through the portals of Royal College, and at the London Inter Arts Exam he won a scholarship to Cambridge. H.V.’s father was a surveyor, who had done a lot of survey work for Sir Solomon Dias Bandaranaike. Meeting him one day, H.V.’s father had told Sir Solomon this good news. “Cambridge? Your son is going to Cambridge? I say Perera don’t be damned silly, ask your son to do what he can over here in Ceylon. Oxford and Cambridge are for the Bandaranaikes and the Obeysekeras!” said an arrogant Sir Solomon.

***

As mentioned above H.V.’s father was a surveyor. One day, when in court, he saw some of his father’s surveyor friends. He then walked up to them and asked why they were in court. They had then said that they were there on a charge of contempt of court over some court commissioned surveys. After getting the facts of the case, H.V. appeared for them and got them out. H.V. once appeared before Justices Garvin and Akbar and had come to the appellate court fully prepared for a case which, if taken up, would last a few days. However, this case was allowed to stand down and another case of his was taken up. It was a case which he had not studied. Undaunted, he then summarised the plaint to the Bench and read the defendant’s answer and the issues involved. When one of the judges asked him what the trial judge held on issue 4, he proceeded to read the entire judgement, saying that it would be best to do so. Thereafter, he put his brief aside and argued a matter of law and won his case.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Decolonising education and critical thinking

Published

on

IN BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS (1952), FRANTZ FANON, the political philosopher from the French colony of Martinique, showed the importance of native language for the colonised to gain independence, decolonise knowledge and come out of their subordination.

By Darshi Thoradeniya

I would like to throw out some ideas on the importance of critical thinking in higher education especially in relation to history teaching by expanding the profound thoughts on decolonising education, expressed by Harshana Rambukwella, earlier in this column.

Just as educational institutions served to colonise subjects in colonial settings, the decolonising project also started through education. In the discipline of history, for instance, we constantly attempt to decolonise knowledge that has been created about the past and create new knowledge about the past through critical inquiry. In other words, critical inquiry is the tool that is used to decolonise knowledge. Thus, these two elements – decolonising knowledge and critical thinking – need to be linked in our discussions of higher education in post-colonial settings like Sri Lanka.

As Louis Althusser (1918-1990) argued, educational institutions are ideological state apparatuses used to promote and reinforce the ideology of the dominant classes. Through the national curriculum, government and private schools, in Sri Lanka, carry out this task meticulously. However, universities do not have a national curriculum; instead they have a subject benchmark statement that needs to be conceded to. Humanities and social sciences curricula are designed to generate critical engagement with key concepts, theories, texts and events. Thus, the school curriculum is unlearnt and critical thinking learnt at the university.

Critical thinking can take different forms according to the field of inquiry, but being able to question existing taken for granted knowledge is a crucial aspect of critical thinking. It is when knowledge is problematised by asking questions, such as who produced the knowledge, for whom it was produced, and by analyzing what sources were drawn upon to create the knowledge, do we become aware of the colonial mindset that we have developed and nurtured over the years through the school curriculum.

This is best illustrated through the way we teach and learn history in schools and perhaps even in some universities. Within the school curriculum, history is taught with an overwhelming emphasis on Sinhala Buddhist culture as if it is a pure, untainted culture sustained over 2500 years. This ideology is put forward mainly through uncritical engagement with sources. Mahawamsa (the great chronicle) is a key primary source that has shaped the history of Sri Lanka. At school level, we are not taught to question the intentions of the author, the sources analysed nor the audience for which the Mahawamsa was written. Sinhalese Buddhist culture became the dominant ideology with the involvement of colonial administrators, such as Alexander Johnston – the Chief Justice of Ceylon from 1811 to 1819 – who played an influential role in the translation of the Mahawamsa to English in the early 1800s. By neglecting these questions, we overlook the fact that this island has been situated in the trade route between the West and the East since the 12th century, and the possibilities of other narratives of ethnicity that could emerge by virtue of its location. Such possibilities are unfortunately not explored in schools because of lacking critical engagement on the historiography of Sri Lanka.

History writing in the colonies was essentially a production of colonial masters, hence a production of colonial knowledge. These histories were written by European travellers, missionaries, officials and administrators of trading companies, such as the Dutch East India Company or the British East India Company. Renowned Indian historian Romila Thapar charts how 19th century utilitarian and nationalist ideas in Europe influenced the Scottish economist and political theorist James Mill making him interpret Indian civilisation as static, leading him to divide Indian history into three sections – Hindu civilisation, Muslim civilisation and the British period – in his work History of British India (1817). The static character of Indian society with its despotic rulers became accepted as “truth” in Indian history as British colonial administrators were mandated to read the text before taking up duties in colonial India. The idea of oriental despotism would also justify the introduction of the British legal and administrative system to India. This colonial historiography remained unchallenged until decolonisation of knowledge took place in mid-20th century India.

When looking at the historiography of Ceylon, we can see many parallels with Indian historiography. Colonial administrators, such as Emerson Tennant and Codrington wrote a somewhat linear, continuous history of Ceylon emphasizing a Sinhalese Buddhist narrative centered on the kingdoms of Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Dambadeniya, Yapahuwa, Kurunegala, Gampola and Kotte. By the 1970s, a group of Marxist historians started applying critical inquiry to the discipline of history and actively decolonising historical knowledge.

In Black Skin, White Masks (1952), Frantz Fanon, the political philosopher from the French colony of Martinique, showed the importance of native language for the colonised to gain independence, decolonise knowledge and come out of their subordination. He believed that human imagination could only be truly expressed through native language and could never be accomplished through the language of the colonial master. Taking this language argument further, Palestinian American public intellectual Edward Said showed in his seminal work Orientalism (1978), how Eurocentric prejudices shaped peoples’ imagination of the Orient (i.e., the Middle East and Asia) as barbaric, backward and traditional, and how such understandings were ultimately bestowed the status of scientific knowledge.

Similar decolonising experiences and projects can be traced in Latin American and African settings. Latin American cultural anthropologist Walter Mignolo believes that formal educational institutions established by the colonisers must be dismantled in order to decolonise the mindset of the people. Otherwise, people’s imaginations are trapped within the knowledge that is produced by these institutions. If people are to freely imagine and experience epistemic knowledge, they should be free from formal boundaries.

The faculties of humanities and social sciences in state universities have a gigantic task in hand. How should we further the project of decolonisation? A first step might be to start teaching Sinhala, Tamil and English languages to all humanities and social sciences undergraduates to facilitate understanding the indigenous cultures in which a specific knowledge is produced. At present, history writing mainly takes place within bilingual settings, and very rarely in trilingual settings, because very few historians are trilingual in Sri Lanka. The inability to comprehend the third language (i.e., Sinhala or Tamil) limits the historian from understanding the mentality of the so called ‘other’.

If we do not know the ‘other’ colonial subject, how are we to write a history of Sri Lanka? Not knowing the other’s language means we can only produce knowledge about one particular segment of society. Historians conversant in Sinhala and English end up servicing the hegemonic discourse (i.e., Sinhala Buddhist ideology), while historians conversant in Tamil and English end up creating an alternative narrative that is very unlikely to reach main stream historiography. There lies a fundamental problem that we need to address in decolonising university education. One suggestion in this regard would be to initiate exchange programmes between departments of national universities so that undergraduates as well as staff will be able to engage with the decolonising project in a holistic manner.

(Darshi Thoradeniya is a Senior Lecturer attached to the Department of History at the University of Colombo.)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Continue Reading

Features

Australian antics and Djokovic’s disgrace!

Published

on

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

It was a drama like no other! It is rarely that one and all involved in a saga ends up being a loser and that is exactly what happened with the ‘Australian Open’ fiasco. Novak Djokovic, his family, Tennis Australia, The Government of Victoria, Federal Government of Australia, the Serbian President and even the media have exposed chinks in their armour! Perhaps, the only people delighted would be our politicians who could now claim, justifiably, that incompetence is a trait shared by their ilk in the developing world, too!

Many, especially youngsters, would look up to sports stars for inspiration. Though many sports are no longer what they used to be, having undergone an unholy metamorphosis to be businesses, still a greater degree of honesty is expected of sports stars than from politicians. After all, sportsmanship is a term often used to express fair and generous behaviour. Considering all this, perhaps, the bulk of the blame should go to Novak Djokovic, the number one male tennis player who could have created history, had he won the Australian Open by being the Male Tennis player with the most ‘Grand Slams’. Perhaps, in his overenthusiasm to achieve this, he attempted to find ways to compete without being vaccinated for Covid. But it failed, and the 11-day drama was finally over when he was deported on Sunday evening.

In a way, it is very unfortunate that Djokovic had to make that sacrifice for the sake of a strong-held belief of his. Though he has not been directly involved in any anti-vaccination campaigns, his refusal to have the Covid-19 vaccine had been made use of by anti-vaxxers on social media. At the very beginning of the epidemic, he got into trouble by organising a tournament in Serbia, where a number of players, including himself, got infected. Though there were rumours that he was not taking vaccines due to medical contraindications, it is very likely the actual reason is his going by the opinion expressed by some specialists that infection gives better immunity than vaccination.

Though Djokovic’s vaccination status had been shrouded in secrecy for a long time, what transpired during this fiasco confirmed that he was not vaccinated and that there were no medical contraindications for vaccination. Whatever your beliefs or however important you are, one is still bound by rules and regulations. Australia is among the countries that imposed the strictest controls during the pandemic. In fact, many Australian citizens were stuck in many countries unable to return home, some for over a year. Even now, only dual vaccinated are allowed entry. If Djokovic had wished to stick to his principles, he should have done the honourable thing by staying out of the tournament, which is what some other players did.

It is surprising that Djokovic was given a medical exemption to enter Australia by two different independent health panels––one commissioned by Tennis Australia, the other by the state government of Victoria––after testing positive for coronavirus in mid-December, given that the rules are otherwise. Perhaps, they were more concerned about the success of the Australian Open tournament and were willing to bend rules! It is even more surprising that the Federal Government did not question this as immigration is not a function devolved to state governments. The moment Djokovic announced on Twitter that he would be attending, there was a hostile public reaction which may be the reason why Djokovic was detained on arrival but what followed could easily have been avoided had the Immigration Minister taken pre-emptive action. Whether the state government and the federal government being run by two different parties had any bearing on these actions is a moot point.

Djokovic made a false declaration that he had not been to any other country recently in spite of clear evidence to the contrary but later blamed his team for making the error. Surely, he should know that the responsibility is his, once he signs any form! When he had the infection in mid-December, rather than isolating himself, which even anti-vaxxers would do, he attended a number of indoor public events. And his explanation; he did not want to inconvenience the French TV team there to interview him. Serbian President overlooked all this, to blame Australia!

The state judge reversed his visa cancellation citing procedural issues. A BBC report exaggerated this by stating that the judge had allowed him to play in the Australian Open! Although the Immigration Minister could have taken immediate action, he chose not to do so, taking a number of days to cancel the visa on ‘Health and good order grounds. To hear Djokovic’s appeal the federal high court sat on a Sunday, just like our courts being kept open to grant bail to MPs! The three judges unanimously rejected his appeal, the Chief Justice stating that the court ruling was based on the legality of the Minister’s decision, not on whether it was the right decision to make. Interestingly, BBC implied that Djokovic’s efforts would reach fruition!

Perhaps, the federal government was forced to act by the injudicious press conference held, after the success of the first appeal, by Djokovic’s family in Belgrade, wherein they attempted to portray him as a poster-boy for choice. It had a disastrous ending by the family terminating the press conference when journalists questioned why Djokovic had attended functions soon after testing positive! After the deportation, Djokovic’s father has called it an assassination, of all things, failing to realise that he was hampering the chances of reversal of the three-year entry ban to Australia, Djokovic was facing! Serbian political leaders hitting out hard, calling it scandalous treatment was not very diplomatic, and did not help Djokovic.

The lesson we can learn, except that politicians play politics wherever they are, is that federated states have their own problems, as illustrated by this sad, winnerless episode.

There were varying shades of reactions to this saga. Perhaps, the words of wisdom came from Rafael Nada, who said, “He made his own decisions, and everybody is free to take their own decisions, but then there are some consequences”

Continue Reading

Features

Historic task—a non-racist and human security ideology

Published

on

By Jehan Perera

The media has reported that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa will be announcing a new policy on national reconciliation in his address to Parliament at this inaugural session following prorogation last month. Apart from bringing peace of mind and comfort to those bereaved by the three decades long war, the central issue of national reconciliation is to find an equitable solution to the ethnic and religious conflicts that have plagued the country since the dawn of independence more than seven decades ago.   The focus now needs to be on the development of the country and its economy rather than to support any parochial or ethnic cause and continue with the divisive politics of the past. It is only by this that the country can get back on its feet, and as many countries which had done so following traumatic events.  President Rajapaksa was elected by a large majority with this hope in mind.

Indeed, it is unlikely that any other President could have faced the multiple crises the present government has got the country into and remained with its 2/3 majority intact, as it has done so far.  The recent announcement of the SLFP, headed by former President Maithripala Sirisena, that it would remain within the government alliance, while criticising it from within, is an indicator of the government’s stability.  This follows the similar declaration by the three leading cabinet ministers from the 11 party alliance of small parties within the government, who have filed cases in the courts against the government.  They too have said they would remain within the government and continue to challenge its decisions that they deem to be incorrect.

There are two key reasons why the government has a measure of stability despite the deteriorating economic situation that is impacting severely on the wellbeing of the majority of people.  The first is the pragmatic calculation of the government leadership that it is better to have its critics within the government than out of it.  It seemed possible that the sacking of Minister Susil Premjayantha for being overly critical of the government would be the start of a purge of internal critics of the government that could cause an unravelling.  But so far it is only Minister Premjayantha, who has had to pay the price for his independence.  This has been explained by the fact that the former minister was a member of the ruling party itself, unlike the other critics who belong to other parties.

SECOND STRENGTH

Due to the multiple perspectives within the government, and which represent the diversity of the government alliance, it has been able to reach out to the widest possible swathe of society.  At the same time, it is able to woo diverse sections of the international community, including the three big international formations that hold the key to the country’s economic progress.  These are China, India and the Western countries. China is continuing to provide economic resources on a large scale along with India.  Both of these big powers seek to improve their position of influence on Sri Lanka and ensure a physical presence in the country which is being granted. Dealing with China has been the easiest, as it only seeks to gain more economic and physical assets within the country to ensure its permanent presence.

Dealing with India and the Western countries is more challenging as they require political concessions as well. In the case of India it is a political solution to the ethnic conflict which involved power-sharing with the minority Tamil community.  In the case of the Western countries it is progress in terms of protecting human rights.  With Sri Lanka being a country of interest to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, this means that its human rights record is scrutinised every three months.  The forthcoming session in late February, which continues through March, will be especially important.  The Sri Lankan government is expected to present a written report on its progress in terms of issues of accountability, truth seeking, reparations and institutional reform.  The response of the majority of countries at the UNHRC can have a significant impact as it would influence the European Union’s pending decision on whether or not to suspend its GSP Plus tariff privilege which is a source of support to the Sri Lankan economy.

In this regard, it will be necessary for the government to rein in its champions of ethnic nationalism and national security that give emphasis to the perspective of the ethnic majority community alone.  This is going to be the great challenge as the second strength of the government is its ideology of ethnic majority nationalism and national security which it invokes at frequent intervals, and especially when it faces challenges.  These help to keep the ethnic majority’s loyalty to the government. But they alienate the minorities and also those sections of the international community who are concerned with human rights. The country remains deeply traumatised by three decades of internal war, in which acts of terrorism could strike anywhere, a separate Tamil state led by the LTTE was a short distance away and the centre itself was at risk of being taken over violently by the JVP.  These crises led to extreme measures that have left indelible scars and memories on the people that are easy to reinvoke.

BOTCHED ATTEMPTS

The botched attempt to explode a bomb in All Saints Church in Colombo and the botched police investigation into it have given the impression of a created event that has been questioned by the Catholic Church.  The bomb discovery, in which the Catholic priests did more to uncover evidence than the police, served to divert attention from the 1,000, day commemoration by the church of the 2019 Easter bombings, which killed over 280 persons, set the stage for conflict between Catholics and Muslims and reinforced the need for national security, and racists, to take the centre stage of national politics. On that occasion, as on this, Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, the Archbishop of Colombo, played a crucial role in preventing an escalation of the crisis and in calling for the truth behind the bombings to be known. Like the prophets in the biblical tradition, he is increasingly powerful in speaking truth to the rulers, even truths they do not wish to hear.

Events such as the Easter bombing, and now this latest incident, give the impression of security failure that is detrimental to the country’s internal communal harmony and to the international image of the country as a peaceful and secure one for both investment and tourism. Sri Lanka is yet to emerge from the thrall of nationalist politics, and its falsehoods and violence, where political leaders make deliberate and purposeful use of communal differences to win votes and come to power.  They have succeeded time and again in this dastardly practice, but with it the country has failed to reach its full potential time and again.  The costs have been unbearable, whether in terms of lives lost, properties destroyed and economic growth stymied.  Sri Lanka has one of the largest standing armies in the world, with the number of its military personnel being five times larger than that of Australia, though the populations of both countries are about the same.  This means economic resources being taken away from development purposes.

The historic task for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the government is to make a shift away from a mindset that emphasises the interests of the ethnic majority and national security being the preserve of the security forces to a new mindset that includes the ethnic minority and sees human security and wellbeing as the country’s need. The Sri Lankan state needs to consider all its people as citizens with equal rights, and not as ethnic majorities and ethnic minorities to be treated differently.  And it needs to give priority to human security and wellbeing where gas cylinders do not explode and people have food and education at affordable prices. Both religious leaders and political leaders need to come up with an ideology of the wellbeing of all in which solutions that are beneficial to all are found, where basic needs of all are met, and there is no divide and rule, which is a recipe for long term failure.

Continue Reading

Trending