Connect with us


Easter Reflections on Human Rights: No one is without sin, but everyone is throwing stones!



by Rajan Philips

The caption above is from the gospel story in John about Jesus exposing the male and religious hypocrisies of the scribes and the Pharisees, who were trying to trick the Nazarene to say yea or nay to their question whether they could punish, without trial, and only the woman for an alleged act of adultery. John 8:1-11 is not the assigned gospel reading for Easter Sunday. But it is appropriate reading for secular reflections on a religiously significant day and in the current global context of human rights assertions, disputes and controversies.

Sri Lanka is in the vortex of all of these, even though its immersion is hardly consequential globally but hugely so nationally. There is also the added and very painful twist because today is the second anniversary of the 2019 Easter bombings in Sri Lanka. And in many parts of the world for the second year in succession, Covid-19 and its new mutations are preventing full congregations celebrating their traditional Easter service.

There is really no serious parallel between the dispute over adultery in Judea and the contemporary disputes over human rights except for the symbolism of throwing stones. In the old patriarchal way of dealing with adultery the woman is condemned to double jeopardy and any man on the street gets to feel entitled to throw stones at her. The gospel story pushes back on men by questioning their entitlement when they themselves are not without sin. Worse, they are the perpetrators. In the matter of human rights, there is hardly a government that is without the sin of violating human rights, but that does not stop governments from throwing stones at one another. And the victims of human rights violations are caught in the middle, in the crossfires of often cynical realpolitik stones, with little agency and even less reparations.


New Cold War

There are opinions that human rights are becoming the defining premise for a new Cold War between the US and China. The world is a different place now for a replay of the old Cold War that involved the decoupling and the disengagement of the US and the Soviet Union, and the division of world polities into two camps behind the two superpowers. The world is far too integrated by markets to become decoupled and disengaged all too easily. What is already evident is the disposition of governments to selectively engage in some matters and disengage in others, to cooperate on some issues and confront over others, and to be part of different alliances for different goals and objectives. The Biden Administration has said as much in signaling its approach towards China.

There could be a restatement of the old wisdom that there are no permanent allies or enemies or camps, but only permanent interests. This is evident in the stone throwing over human rights. In what some observers are calling ‘a big thing in international politics,’ the US, EU (with its 27 countries), Britain and Canada have combined to impose sanctions on four Chinese officials and one state corporation for alleged human rights abuses of Uyghur Muslims in China’s Xinjiang province.

Sanctions targeting individuals are the new tool of choice to deal with human rights violations. There are now sanctions imposed against Russians, North Koreans and the military junta in Myanmar. The US began this procedure after the Magnitsky Act, a bipartisan US legislation that President Obama signed into law in 2012 to sanction Russian officials who were accused of killing Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax lawyer, in a Moscow prison in 2009. Although controversial, the law authorizes the US government to act globally against individuals accused of human rights violations by freezing their assets and banning them from entering the US. Other western countries, including the EU, have since developed their own sanction mechanisms.

China has hit back with its own sanctions but has escalated its rejoinder to include political leaders and parliamentarians in the EU, Britain and in Canada. The unconventional escalation is in keeping with China’s aggressive global outlook and its ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy in western capitals that have become the hallmark of Xi Jinping presidency. Xi has emerged as the most powerful Chinese leader after Mao, and he has transformed China’s global outlook in his own assertive image, quite different from the approach of peaceful cooperation and development favoured by predecessor Hu Jinato.

The transformation in China may have come about after Trump became President in America. During President Obama’s first term, Xi Jinping was Vice President in China and he frequently met with Joe Biden, then Obama’s Vice President. Biden is said to be the western leader who has spent the longest time and travelled together with Xi. But Biden has to contend with a different Xi now. At the same time, unlike any other President before him Biden carries on his shoulders the expectations of human rights organizations and activists. This became evident during his first call with Xi lasting two hours, during which Biden reportedly highlighted the issues of Hong Kong and Uyghurs. And gloves came off when their foreign secretaries met face to face in Alaska.

Along with sanctions, China is also being accused of genocide against Uyghur Muslims. The paradox here is in the ‘othering’ harassments of Muslim citizens in Western countries even as sanctions are imposed against China for its treatment of Uighur Muslims. So much so, “The Jew, Europe’s prototypical ‘other,’ has largely been replaced by the Muslim ‘other’,” according to the Israeli Political Scientist Amikam Nachmani. The paradox is also that India, while being a Member of the Quad (with Australia, Japan and the US) for the containment of China in Asia, will not join others in sanctioning China over Muslims. The Modi government in India is not ‘without sin’ in its treatment of India’s Muslims. Nor will Pakistan that calls out for international attention to the plight of Muslims in India’s Kashmir, raise its voice or throw a stone in support of Muslims in China’s Xinjiang.

There is more. While joining the Quad group as a strategic measure to counter China’s power in Asia, India is not abandoning its old ties with Russia for arms production. Nor is it going to risk or reduce its growing economic ties with China despite the border clash setbacks in Tibet. Australia is the first western country to seriously challenge China over the handling of Covid-19, and has been economically punished by China in return. Yet, while being part of the Quad for the containment of China, Australia will do everything not to lose the huge Chinese market for its exports.

It is the same with the EU and all of its member countries. More so with post-Brexit Britain looking for new trade agreements, and where Prime Minister Johnson is being ridiculed by his critics for going soft on Hong Kong for trade rewards from Beijing. In sum, the current global circumstances are not contributing to the formation of permanent blocs and alliances among countries. Rather, countries seem to be open to choosing between allies and alliances depending on specific issues and their specific interests.

Closer home, 11 of the 22 countries that voted for the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka have signed up for China’s intercontinental Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) that includes a total of 140 countries. The eleven countries are: Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Cote d’Ivore, the Czech Republic, Fiji, Italy, Poland, Republic of Korea, Ukraine and Uruguay. Also, 18 of the 22 countries are new members without prior baggage. And a majority of the countries in every region either voted for the resolution or abstained from voting. China stood by the Sri Lankan government in Geneva and helps with currency swaps to tide over foreign exchange depletions. But Sri Lanka needs the key countries who canvassed for the resolution – to access their markets for Sri Lanka’s exports. Without them, the government will have to permanently depend on currency swaps.


Human Rights Genealogy

A common assertion in debates over human rights is that they are a creation of western countries and imposed on developing countries as a new form of domination. This is a false assertion and/or manifestation of ignorance. The Cold War history is replete with examples of subversion of human rights by western countries and the fight by non-western countries and their leaders to defend human rights against their subversion. There is also a tradition of social movements in developing countries to expand the scope of human rights by emphasizing public interest over property rights and to privilege cultural specificities over universal similarities. And specific to the current debate over UNHRC and human rights, Sri Lanka has a tradition of civil rights and human rights movements that can be traced to the 1970s, if not earlier.

As Easter recollections go, four men of the cloth played key roles in championing human rights and protesting against their violations. Bishop Lakshman Wickremesinghe became the face of the Civil Rights Movement whose moving forces were Suriya Wickremesinghe and that doughty courtroom defender of human rights, S. Nadesan, Q.C. Complementing Bishop Wickremesinghe were Bishop Lakshman Nanayakkara, Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, and Fr. Paul Caspersz, who were in the forefront of progressive Catholic action championing the goals of social justice, equality, workers’ rights, and, yes, human rights.

It is fair to say that the nucleus of the Civil Rights Movement was formed as a Sri Lankan protest response to the snuffing of the 1968 Prague Spring by the tanks of the Warsaw Pact countries. Then it was to protest against the forces of Yahya Khan trampling over what was then East Pakistan and soon to be Bangladesh. Strange as it may seem now, there were no domestic human rights issues to complain about. Everything changed with the JVP insurrection of 1971 and the deployment of the armed forces to put down the insurrection. The Tamil youth took their turn and went to lengths that no one could have imagined when Sri Lanka became a republic, one year after the insurgency. Human rights would no longer be a non-issue in Sri Lanka. And it was not the result of some neo-colonial imposition.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


What JVP-NPP needs to do to win



A JVP protest


A young academic at the Open University writing on a popular website has recently defined the NPP project as ‘Left populist’, a term which is very familiar to us at least from the writings of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. He also mentions several parallels and precursors internationally.

As one who has been advocating a ‘left populist’ project for years, I am disinclined to nit-pick about whether or not the JVP-NPP fits the bill. At the moment and in its current incarnation, it is indeed the closest we have to a ‘left populist’ project. Its competitor the SJB, which its founder-leader identifies as social democratic, would be as approximate –and as loose– a fit for the labels ‘progressive populist’, ‘moderate populist’ or ‘populist centrist’, as the JVP-NPP is for ‘left populist’. But that’s the deck of cards we have.

The points I seek to make are different, and may be said to boil down to a single theme or problematique.

Distorted Left Populism

My argument is that the JVP-NPP is as distant from ‘left populism’ globally as it was from ‘left revolutionism’ globally in an earlier incarnation. In both avatars, it is unique in its leftism but not in a positive or helpful way for its cause at any given time.

Mine is not intended as a damning indictment of the JVP-NPP. It is intended as a constructive criticism of a rectifiable error, the rectification of which is utterly urgent given the deadly threat posed by the Wickremesinghe administration and its project of dependent dictatorship.

The JVP-NPP has a structural absence that no ‘left populist’ enterprise, especially in Latin America, has ever had. It is an absence that has marked the JVP from its inception and has been carried over into the present NPP project.

It is not an absence unique to the JVP but figures more in Sri Lanka than it has almost anywhere else. I say this because the same ‘absence’ characterised the LTTE as well. In short, that factor or its radical absence has marred the anti-systemic forces of South and North on the island.

The homeland of left populism has been Latin America while its second home has been Southern Europe. With the exception of Greece, it may be said that ‘left populism’ has an Ibero-American or culturally Hispanic character, which some might trace to the ‘romanticism’ of that culture. But such considerations need not detain us here.

‘Left populism’ has had several identifiable sources and points of departure: the former guerrilla movements of the 1960s and 1970s; the non-guerrilla movements of resistance to dictatorships; parties and split-offs from parties of the Marxist left; left-oriented split-offs or the leftwing of broad flexible even centrist populist formations; leftwing experiments from within the militaries etc.

Populism, Pluralism & Unity

Despite this diversity, all experiments of a Left populist character in Latin America and Europe, have had one thing in common: various forms of unity – e.g., united fronts, blocs etc.—of political parties. I would take up far too much space if I were to list them, starting with the Frente Amplio (which means precisely ‘Broad Front’) initiated by the Tupamaros-MLN of Uruguay and containing the Uruguayan Communist party and headed by a military man, General Liber Seregni, in 1970. The Frente Amplio lasted through the decades of the darkest civil-military dictatorship up to the presidential electoral victories of Tabaré Vasquez and Mujica respectively. Another example would be El Salvador’s FMLN, which brought together several Marxist guerrilla movements into a single front under the stern insistence of Fidel Castro.

Though the roots of unity were back in the 1970s, the formula has only been strengthened in the 1990s and 21st century projects of Left populism. There is a theoretical-strategic logic for this. The polarisation of ‘us vs them’, the 99% vs. the 1%, the many not the few—in socioeconomic terms—is of course a hallmark of populism. But pro-NPP academics and ideologues are unaware of or omit its corollary everywhere from Uruguay to Greece and Spain. Namely, that socioeconomic ‘majoritarianism’ is not possible with a single party as agency.

When the JVP and the NPP have the same leader, and the JVP leader was the founder of the NPP, I cannot regard it as a truly autonomous project, but a party project. Left populism globally, from its inception right up to Lula last year, is predicated on the admission of political, not just social plurality, and the fact that socioeconomic, i.e., popular majoritarianism is possible only as a pluri-party united front, platform or bloc.

This recognition of the imperative of unity as necessitating a convergence of political fractions and currents; that unity is impossible as a function of a single political party; that authentic majoritarianism i.e., “us” is possible only if “we” converge and combine as an ensemble of our organic political agencies, is a structural feature of Left Populism.

It is radically absent in the JVP-NPP and has been so from the JVP’s founding in 1965. It was also true of the LTTE.

It is this insistence on political unipolarity (to put it diplomatically) or political monopoly (to put it bluntly) is a genetic defect of the JVP which has been carried over into the NPP project.

I do not say this to contest the leading role and the main role that the JVP has earned in any left populist project. I say it to draw the Gramscian distinction between ‘leadership’ and ‘domination’. Only ‘leadership’ can create consensus and popular consent; domination through monopoly cannot.

The simple truth is that however ‘left populist’ you think you are; no single party can be said to represent the people or even a majority – as distinct from a mere plurality– of the people. Furthermore, the people are not a unitary subject, and therefore cannot have a unitary leadership. This is the importance of Fidel Castro’s insistence to the Latin American Left of a ‘united command’ which brings together the diverse segments of the left by reflecting plurality.

Anyone who knows the history of Syriza and Podemos knows that they are not outcrops of some single party of long-standing but the result of an organic process of convergences of factions.

Had the JVP had a policy of united fronts – within the Southern left and with the Northern left– it would not have been as decisively defeated as it was in its two insurrections, and might have even succeeded in its second attempt. Though it has formed the NPP which has brought some significant success, it is still POLITICALLY sectarian in that it has no political alliances, partnerships, i.e., NO POLITICAL RELATIONSHIPS outside of itself.

I must emphasize that here I am not speaking of a bloc with the SJB, though it is most desirable, to be recommended, and if this were Latin America would definitely be on the agenda of discussion.

Post-Aragalaya Left

Let us speak frankly. The most important phenomenon of recent times (since the victorious end of the war) was the Aragalaya of last year. The JVP, especially its student front the SYU, participated in that massive uprising which dislodged President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but it played a less decisive role in the Aragalaya than did the FSP and the IUSF which is close to it. This is by no means to say that the FSP led the Aragalaya, but to point out that it played a more decisive role – which included some mistakes– than did the JVP.

How then does one remain blind to the fact that the JVP-NPP’s ‘left populism’ does not include the FSP and by extension the IUSF? How can there be a ‘popular bloc’ – a key element of left populism—without the IUSF?

Given that Pubudu Jayagoda, Duminda Nagamuwa, Lahiru Weerasekara and Wasantha Mudalige are among the most successful public communicators today (especially on the left), what kind of ‘left’ is a ‘left populism’ devoid of their presence, participation and contribution?

What does it take to recognise that unity of some sort of these two streams of the Left could result in a most useful division of labour and a quantum leap in the hopes and morale of the increasingly left-oriented post-Aragalaya populace, especially the youth?

Surely the very sight of a platform with the leaders of the JVP-NPP and the FSP-IUSF (AKD and Kumar Gunaratnam, Eranga Gunasekara and Wasantha Mudalige, Wasantha Samarasinghe and Duminda Nagamuwa, Bimal Ratnayake and Pubudu Jayagoda) will take the Left populist project to the next level?

As a party the JVP from its birth, and by extension, the NPP today, have set aside one of the main weapons of leftist theory, strategy and political practice: the United Front. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Dimitrov, Gramsci, Togliatti, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro have founded and enriched this strategic concept.

It is difficult to accept that Rohana Wijeweera and Anura Kumara Dissanayake knew/know better than these giants, and that the JVP-NPP can dispense with this political sword and shield and yet prevail–or even survive the coming storm.

The JVP must present a LEFT option in the leadership of which is the major shareholder; not merely a JVP option or para-JVP option, which is what the NPP is. A credible, viable Left alternative cannot be reduced to a single party and its front/auxiliary; it cannot but be a United Left – a Left Front– alternative.


[Dr Dayan Jayatilleka is author of The Great Gramsci: Imagining an Alt-Left Project, in ‘On Public Imagination: A Political & Ethical Imperative’ eds Richard Falk et al, Routledge, New York, 2019.]

Continue Reading


Obtaining fresh mandate unavoidable requirement



Protesters demanding local goverment elections

by Jehan Perera

The government’s plans for reviving the economy show signs of working out for the time being. The long-awaited IMF loan is about to be granted. This would enable the government to access other loans to tide over the current economic difficulties. The challenge will be to ensure that both the old loans and new ones will be repayable. To this end the government has begun to implement its new tax policy which increases the tax burden significantly on income earners who can barely make ends meet, even without the taxes, in the aftermath of the rise in price levels. The government is also giving signals that it plans to downsize the government bureaucracy and loss-making state enterprises. These are reforms that may be necessary to balance the budget, but they are not likely to gain the government the favour of the affected people. The World Bank has warned that many are at risk of falling back into poverty, with 40 percent of the population living on less than 225 rupees per person per day.

The problem for the government is that the economic policies, required to stabilize the economy, are not popular ones. They are also politically difficult ones. The failure to analyse the past does not help us to ascertain reasons for our failures and also avoids taking action against those who had misused, or damaged, the system unfairly. The costs of this economic restructuring, to make the country financially viable, is falling heavily, if not disproportionately, on those who are middle class and below. Fixed income earners are particularly affected as they bear a double burden in being taxed at higher levels, at a time when the cost of living has soared. Unlike those in the business sector, and independent professionals, who can pass on cost increases to their clients, those in fixed incomes find it impossible to make ends meet. Emigration statistics show that over 1.2 million people, or five percent of the population, left the country, for foreign employment, last year.

The economic hardships, experienced by the people, has led to the mobilization of traditional trade unions and professionals’ organisations. They are all up in arms against the government’s income generation, at their expense. Last week’s strike, described as a token strike, was successful in that it evoked a conciliatory response from the government. Many workers did not keep away from work, perhaps due to the apprehension that they might not only lose their jobs, but also their properties, as threatened by one government member, who is close to the President. There was a precedent for this in 1981 when the government warned striking workers that they would be sacked. The government carried out its threat and over 40,000 government officials lost their jobs. They and their families were condemned to a long time in penury. The rest of society went along with the repression as the government was one with an overwhelming mandate from the people.


The striking unions have explained their decision to temporarily discontinue their strike action due to President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s willingness to reconsider their economic grievances. More than 40 trade unions, in several sectors, joined the strike. They explained they had been compelled to resort to strike action as there was no positive response from the government to their demands. Due to the strike, services such as health, posts, and railways were affected. Workers in other sectors, including education, port, power, water supply, petroleum, road development, and banking services, also joined the strike. The striking unions have said they would take up the President’s offer to discuss their concerns with the government and temporarily called a halt to their strike action. This would give the government an opportunity to rethink its strategy. Unlike the government in 1981 this one has no popular mandate. In the aftermath of the protest movement, it has only a legal mandate.

So far, the government has been unyielding in the face of public discontent. Public protests have been suppressed. Protest leaders have been arrested and price and tax hikes have gone ahead as planned. The government has been justifying the rigid positions it has been taking on the basis of its prioritization of economic recovery for which both political stability and financial resources are necessary. However, by refusing to heed public opinion the government has been putting itself on a course of confrontation with organized forces, be they trade unions or political parties. The severity of the economic burden, placed on the larger section of society, even as other sectors of society appear to be relatively unaffected, creates a perception of injustice that needs to be mitigated. Engaging in discussion with the trade unions and reconsidering its approach to those who have been involved in public protests could be peace making gestures in the current situation.

On the other hand, exacerbating the political crisis is the government’s continuing refusal to hold the local government elections, as scheduled, on two occasions now by the Elections Commission and demanded by law. The government’s stance is even in contradiction to the Supreme Court’s directives that the government should release the financial resources necessary for the purpose leading to an ever-widening opposition to it. The government’s determination to thwart the local government elections stems from its pragmatic concerns regarding its ability to fare well at them. Public opinion polls show the government parties obtaining much lower support than the opposition parties. Except for the President, the rest of the government consists of the same political parties and government members that faced the wrath of the people’s movement a year ago and had to resign in ignominy.


The government’s response to the pressures it is under has been to repress the protest movement through police action that is especially intolerant of street protests. It has also put pressure on state institutions to conform to its will, regardless of the law. The decisions of the Election Commission to set dates for the local government elections have been disregarded once, and the elections now appear to have to be postponed yet again. The government is also defying summons upon its ministers by the Human Rights Commission which has been acting independently to hold the government to account to the best extent it can. The government’s refusal to abide by the judicial decision not to block financial resources for election purposes is a blow to the rule of law that will be to the longer-term detriment of the country. These are all negative trends that are recipes for future strife and lawlessness. These would have long term and unexpected implications not to the best for the development of the country or its values.

There are indications that President Wickremesinghe is cognizant of the precariousness of the situation. The accumulation of pressures needs to be avoided, be it for gas at homes or issues in the country. As an experienced political leader, student of international politics, he would be aware of the dangers posed by precipitating a clash involving the three branches of government. A confrontation with the judiciary, or a negation of its decisions, would erode the confidence in the entire legal system. It would damage the confidence of investors and the international community alike in the stability of the polity and its commitment to the rule of law. The public exhortations of the US ambassador with regard to the need to conduct the local government elections would have driven this point home.

It is also likely that the US position on the importance of holding elections on time is also held by the other Western countries and Japan. Sri Lanka is dependent on these countries, still the wealthiest in the world, for its economic sustenance, trade and aid, in the form of concessional financing and benefits, such as the GSP Plus tariff concession. Therefore, the pressures coming from both the ground level in the country and the international community, may push the government in the direction of elections and seeking a mandate from the people. Strengthening the legitimacy of the government to govern effectively and engage in problem solving in the national interest requires an electoral mandate. The mandate sought may not be at the local government level, where public opinion polls show the government at its weakest, but at the national level which the President can exercise at his discretion.

Continue Reading


Sing-along… Down Memory Lane



Sing-alongs have turned out to be hugely popular, in the local showbiz scene, and, I would say, it’s mainly because they are family events, and also the opportunity given to guests to shine, in the vocal spotlight, for a minute, or two!

I first experienced a sing-along when I was invited to check out the famous Rhythm World Dance School sing-along evening.

It was, indeed, something different, with Sohan & The X-Periments doing the needful, and, today, Sohan and his outfit are considered the No.1 band for sing-along events.

Melantha Perera: President of Moratuwa Arts Forum

I’m told that the first ever sing-along concert, in Sri Lanka, was held on 27th April, 1997, and it was called Down Memory Lane (DML), presented by the Moratuwa Arts Forum (MAF),

The year 2023 is a landmark year for the MAF and, I’m informed, they will be celebrating their Silver Jubilee with a memorable concert, on 29th April, 2023, at the Grand Bolgoda Resort, Moratuwa.

Due to the Covid pandemic, their sing-along series had to be cancelled, as well as their planned concert for 2019. However, the organisers say the delayed 25th Jubilee Celebration concert is poised to be a thriller, scheduled to be held on 29th April, 2023.

During the past 25 years, 18 DML concerts had been held, and the 25th Jubilee Celebration concert will be the 19th in the series.

Famous, and much-loved, ‘golden oldies’, will be sung by the audience of music lovers, at this two and a half hours programme.

Down Memory Lane was the brainchild of musician Priya Peiris, (of ‘Cock-a-Doodle-Do’ fame) and the MAF became the pioneers of sing-along concerts in Sri Lanka.

The repertoire of songs for the 25th Jubilee Celebration concert will include a vast selection of international favourites, Cowboy and old American Plantation hits, Calypsos, Negro Spirituals, everybody’s favourites, from the ’60s and ’70s era, Sinhala evergreens, etc.

Down Memory Lane


Fun time for the audience Down Memory Lane

Singers from the Moratuwa Arts Forum will be on stage to urge the audience to sing. The band Echo Steel will provide the musical accompaniment for the audience to join in the singing, supported by Brian Coorey, the left handed electric bass guitarist, and Ramany Soysa on grand piano.

The organisers say that every participant will get a free songbook. There would also be a raffle draw, with several prizes to be won,

Arun Dias Bandaranaike will be the master of ceremonies.

President of the Moratuwa Arts Forum, Melantha Perera, back from Australia, after a successful tour, says: “All music lovers, especially Golden Oldies enthusiasts, are cordially invited to come with their families, and friends, to have an enjoyable evening, and to experience heartwarming fellowship and bonhomie.”

Further details could be obtained from MAF Treasurer, Laksiri Fernando (077 376 22 75).

Continue Reading