Connect with us


Ensure economic growth to improve quality of life



By Lacille de Silva

Sri Lankans, since the 1970s, have not been fortunate to have visionary leaders. They were misfits. Their laws are unjust and unacceptable. Their measures are always cruel and inhumane. They do not respect the Constitution and other laws. History proves that if the leaders desire comforts, love power and prestige they are unable to deliver lasting happiness to the nation.

After ending the brutal war, we were reborn. Why did Lankan rulers fail to achieve economic progress there onwards? They too lacked integrity, vision and accountability. They were narrow-minded and acquisitive. The ensuing culture they created is a toxic process. Power has become addictive to them. Why should probity, ethics and good governance apply for both elected and appointed personnel engaged in the service to the citizens?

Nowhere else in the world do senior cabinet ministers doze off in Parliament in the government benches in the front row. It was particularly important, since it happened, while the Head of State was delivering the policy statement as well, in Parliament at its first meeting, after a parliamentary election. It is true that the President runs the government with the support of the Cabinet Ministers. Such ministers therefore do not challenge the poor behaviour of others. This reflects the actual status of affairs of the government.

They have misused legitimate authority given to them to their advantage. Such sordid rulers have collectively subverted laws and the key state institutions such as Parliament, the judiciary etc., for decades. They cannot comprehend that good administration in every area of the government is vital to keep the people happy and their good name.

Our Constitution (Article 12 (1) stipulates that “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law”. The famous proverb tells “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice, but when the wicked bear the rule, the people mourn”. We should be happy the Constitution takes great pains to ensure justice for all. And to protect everybody from misrule by double-dealer type big-time operators.

They have destroyed the opposition in Parliament. A strong opposition is vital for running a healthy democracy. Such destructive leaders craftily extended beyond their self-interests to biasedly build a motivated and inspired team of acolytes. They are also equally bellicose and self-centred.

At the time we became independent, we had the second-highest per capita income in Asia, excellent literacy rates, improved healthcare, strong economy etc. Sri Lanka now ranks almost at the bottom in global comparisons.

The most venerable Ajahn Brahm, who is the Chief Monk of the Bodhinyana Buddhist Monastery in Perth Australia had said that “the oldest multinational corporation in the world is the Buddhist Sangha”. According to him, Buddhism has been a positive inspiration for many world leaders. He had said that British Statesman and wartime Prime Minister was one of them. He had also quoted Buddha and said: “Good virtuous leaders lead by example”.

Ajahn Brahm had said in a keynote address to the United Nations in 2007 – “The ideal form of governance is that leaders should embrace self-sacrifice and not self-interest. Leaders should lead without any concern for material reward. Their only reward would be in the happiness of service”. He had also quoted what President John F. Kennedy had said to inspire children and adults and to show the importance of civic action and public service – “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for the country”. Sadly, Lankan politicians think differently.

It is the assertion that rulers are constituted by the people for the common good. Our leaders should pledge to commit themselves to refrain from abusing their public positions at the expense of the people, to honestly address the vice of corruption. They should, thereafter, concentrate on how to create a better country for future generations. If they are determined to fulfil their constitutional obligations responsibly and strive hard to win and sustain public trust, it is nothing impossible. They should have the strength of character to correct their wrong-doing.

Government is a trust and the officers of the government, both elected and appointed are trustees. They are entrusted with the powers to make decisions for the benefit of the people. The question of representative roles was conceived by Burke (1968), who argued that representatives should serve as trustees of the interests of those elected them – “virtual representatives”- rather than serving as delegates. If so, how did corruption swallow up the whole country to the detriment of the countrymen? It is the main obstacle to achieve good governance and sustainable development.

They have collectively inflicted misery on every citizen. They are only keen in the pursuit of their prosperity. They are subject to manipulations from superpowers as well. And by crooked godfathers behind ostensible governments. It is a flawed system. The extravagant leaders have only favoured immediate gratifications. It had motivated public officials and even the citizens. Everybody now goes for easy money instead of productive activities.

Entitlements such as infrastructure, education, health care, etc have been curtailed to the citizens. Water, electricity etc are overcharged. The citizens pay bribes to get their legitimate services. Corruption undermines good governance, democracy, and the country’s competitiveness and revenue base.

They use various strategies to gain power. Idi Amin in Uganda won the hearts of the people by expelling British and attacking Western Imperialism. In the 1970s, Sri Lankan leaders criticised the Soulbury Constitution. They had campaigned that the plantations owned by the British should be nationalised. A home-grown Constitution was the only remedy to develop the country according to them.

JRJ did the same thing in 1977. It is a serious flaw in their characters. Nobody wants to correct the shortcomings. This, therefore, is an imbecile system. It does not take you forward. Corruption has become the modus operandi of kleptocrats. It benefits only a handful. It lowers and destroys the quality of lives of millions of others. Nevertheless, we cannot expect every leader to possess the wisdom of Lincoln or Mandela’s large-heartedness. But the need of the hour is true statesmanship.

We need leaders who will chase behind to achieve common goals. We have to ensure a ‘fair go for all’ without any further delay. This could only be done by achieving the SDGs that cut across and integrate economic, social, and environmental dimensions of development, which incorporate the 5Ps (People, Prosperity, Planet, Peace, and Partnerships).

This requires a collaborative and effective response at an unprecedented scale from all traditional and non-traditional actors. If so, we have to change the way we operate at present. We must be more systematic and catalytic.

Forty-two per cent of our population live on less than two dollars a day. Poverty is a punishment for those penniless people. They are paying for others’ sins. Numerous businesses, including professionals too practising privately, tend to hide and not to disclose their actual income, to avoid taxation.

As a result, the income generated by many businesses, professionals etc exists outside the official economy. This has paved the way for the existence of a rapidly growing parallel black money economy. It has grave and disastrous consequences.

The watchdog institutions that should scrutinize government performance need to be further strengthened. The Auditor-General must be given surcharge powers. The Yahapalana government withdrew ‘surcharge power provision’ at the final hour. Special Anti Corruption bodies such as CIABOC should also be permitted to go after powerful politicians. We expect the President to strengthen ethical values to re-create a well-performing bureaucracy.

Why is corruption cancerous? It has the ability rapidly and insidiously to infiltrate and destroy the organs of the state. It had strengthened – bad leadership, politics of the belly, greed and selfishness, clientelism, patronage, nepotism, weak institutions, lack of accountability and transparency, weak ethical values, weak judicial system etc. etc

The destruction caused is inexcusable. They have sold our valuable assets under numerous pretexts. The exploitation is deep-rooted in the bureaucratic and political institutions. The theft of government financial resources too is another serious form of corruption. The government has failed to prioritize its commitment to improving Public Financial Management, which involves a set of responsibilities. The Auditor-General has reported serious shortcomings in revenue management, accounting, monitoring, evaluation areas etc.

Politicians at the national, provincial and local level have become filthy rich overnight. We have heard of instances where customs, inland revenue officers, and many others, pocketing out government revenue with the collision of the payer. We have also heard of ‘ghost workers’ being paid.

Corruption, therefore, thrives in our country. Without ‘political will’ at the highest level nothing can be done to reduce corruption. It fuels injustice, inequality, and deprivation. It also has a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable. It increases costs and reduces trust in government. It has led to violent extremism and conflict. With its negative effects upon political and economic development, it has serious repercussions on national institutions. Constitutionally, the elected representatives are accountable to people through the Parliament. In reality, it does not happen. It is like a spider web. Only the weak get caught.

The World Bank in a report had highlighted “Corruption and corrupt leaders both deepen poverty and make it difficult for ordinary people to get ahead as a result of their efforts”. It has been proved that it is the biggest obstacle for development. Its consequences are always borne by the most vulnerable sections and particularly the poor.

All that we need is a passionate leader. He should foster the trust and confidence of the people. He should be capable of curbing corruption by promoting ethics and integrity among both elected and appointed officials. He should also be an ardent supporter of good governance. However, on the political side, politicians who have enriched themselves through corrupt practices will not surrender their positions of advantage willingly. We know of donations from foreign sources for election campaigns. which have become a controversial issue as well. Similar donations have been banned in several developed countries. Shouldn’t the government think of such reforms as well?

Why did we forget debt is a double-edged sword? When it has been imprudently used, the results we face currently are disastrous. Excessive debt has impaired the government’s ability to deliver its essential services to its citizens. It is amidst the onset of the Corona pandemic and the deepest economic debacle globally. The Government should not any longer delay the necessary reforms.

By 1960, Korea had borrowed 25 billion dollars internationally for industrialisation. The rulers there had invested all those borrowings prudently. Dollars had worked wonders in Korea. China and other sources granted loans for our leaders. We have recklessly borrowed twice the amount and more, at much higher commercial rates as well. Subsequently, the last government handed over the port of Hambantota to China on a 99-year lease together with 15,000 acres of lands.

President should initiate reforms, restructuring, and rebuilding to improve the quality of lives of our distressed people. Another important issue at hand is the need to expedite matters concerning the large number of corruption cases that had been pushed under the carpet. There have been no significant convictions for graft despite widespread evidence of pervasive corruption.

President should direct the relevant authorities to initiate expeditious legal action regarding the 2015 Central Bank fraud committed allegedly with the help of politicians like Ranil Wickremesinghe. Steps should be thereafter taken to recover stolen assets. All these evidence had been amply revealed at the investigations in the Presidential Commission how RW implanted Arjuna Mahendran, who has recently changed his name to Harjan Alexander. We need the culture of impunity to end and a culture of accountability introduced.

The President should manage the ongoing superpower tensions to the best advantage of the countrymen. And secure our birthright freedoms for all our people. The shocking truth is that the country has been devastated by the two governments that ran governance after ending the war. They have pushed

GOSL to go bankrupt. Our external debt is staggering. Yet, we continue to borrow furthermore externally to repay debts. This is unbelievable. The debt service burden for 2020 exceeds $ 4.8 billion.

This requires that the President engage diplomacy – be highly strategic and tactical, based on pragmatic choices without sacrificing the future of our children any further. Sri Lanka is a textbook case of bad governance. People live in poverty having destroyed everything by incompetent leaders. How do we know whether illicit syndicates too are also linked to a wide range of problems such as law-enforcements, including international criminal interests? Everything possible should be done to give a better deal ASAP.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


Constitutions and amendments



By Neville Ladduwahetty

The 20th Amendment (20A) to the Constitution has become a topic of spirited debate and discussion. Much of it is generated by misunderstanding the true intent of 20A. It should not be a durable amendment to the Constitution. Instead, it should be temporary, until a comprehensive new Constitution is developed and presented to the nation.

Until then, 20A should serve as a stop gap for the Executive President to address the unprecedented challenges the country has to face following the COVID-19 pandemic. With this in mind, the intent of 20A should be to either repeal those provisions that had been introduced by the 19th Amendment to seriously dilute executive powers as admitted by the framers of 19A or to repeal 19A altogether and restore the executive powers the President had under the 1978 Constitution. It is only by removing the constraints that exist under 19A that the President would be in a position to address the daunting challenges that lie ahead. Without strengthening the hand of the Executive, the formidable task of social and economic recovery that the country is compelled to face because of the global pandemic would be a near impossibility.


THE NEED for 20A

The two most formidable issues that should engage the full attention of the government and the nation are:

(1) The need to continue with the very effective measures adopted to contain COVID-19 in order to prevent the possibility of a resurgance.

(2) The absolute urgency to revive the seriously depressed economy, brought about nationally and globally by the pandemic.

As far as the first issue is concerned, the government has demonstrated very effectively that it has the capabilities and organizing abilities to implement procedures and practices to maintain the health of the nation to such a degree that the President and the Sri Lankan nation have received international acclaim. An equally encouraging aspect is the support extended by the public to the call of the government to practice the health safeguards recommended by the government. What the government and the nation have collectively achieved is a shining example to the world for which we as a nation could be proud of.

The elephant in the room is how to revive the depressed economy. While the measures that need to be adopted are bound to test the skills and ingenuities of the entire nation, an equally important factor that would have a direct bearing is the freedom for the government, in particular the President and the executive branch, to act without being constrained by the fetters introduced by 19A.

There is no denying the fact that 19A was introduced with the deliberate intent of diluting executive powers of the President. In fact, Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne P.C., (Dr. JW) referring to 19A, has admitted that the initial attempt was “to completely abolish the Presidential system of government”. This attempt failed because the Supreme Court ruled that the intended attempt would require a referendum. The end result was the compromised version of 19A. According to Dr. JW, “The experience under 19A clearly showed the need to completely abolish the Presidential form of government and move towards a Parliamentary form…” (The Island, September 8, 2020).

The approach should not be to analyze which Article should be amended and to what degree, since such an exercise would not only be time consuming but also would add to the confusion that already exists in 19A. Instead, the approach should be to undo the entirety of 19A, and for the executive power of the President that had existed under the 1978 Constitution to be restored, for the simple reason that tough measures are needed to overcome the economic black hole Sri Lanka is in, the likes of which the nation as a whole has never seen.

The argument that such an approach would restore what is often described as draconian executive power amounting to a Presidential dictatorship that had existed under the 1978 Constitution, is unfounded if one realizes the full impact of the economic catastrophe the nation is currently facing. The situation is so dire that the bulk of the nation is more concerned with the basics of existence and survival rather than about niceties of Democracy and Good Governance that only the fortunate few could afford to be concerned about.



Having addressed the short term issues, the next is the long term issue of a new Constitution. The genesis for 19A and 20A is the 1978 Constitution. Therefore, any anomalies and contradictions that exist in amendments invariably are a result of anomalies and contradictions in the 1978 Constitution. Describing the system of government under the 1978 Constitution, Dr. JW quotes Dr. Colvin R. De Silva as having described the 1978 Constitution “as a constitutional presidential dictatorship dressed in the raiment of a parliamentary democracy’ (Ibid). The comment is justified because the 1978 Constitution has features of Presidential and Parliamentary systems, notwithstanding that each represents one of the two ideologically completely different systems of government by which practically all democracies are governed. If such contrasting systems are incorporated in a single constitution confusion is inevitable, as evident from the 1978 Constitution and its related amendments. Therefore, the framers of a new constitution should endeavour to base it on either one or the other, a Presidential or a Parliamentary system, but certainly not a mix of both.




Under a Parliamentary system, Parliament is supreme and as described in the 1972 Constitution is the “supreme instrument of State Power”. This means that Parliament is responsible for Legislative and Executive functions. A few members of Parliament are selected by the Prime Minister to form the Cabinet of Ministers to exercise the executive functions of the government. Consequently, the Cabinet of Ministers is responsible and answerable to Parliament.

On the other hand, under a Presidential system, the cardinal principle is the separation of Legislative and Executive power. This separation is underscored by the fact that each branch is separately elected by the people and responsible for the exercise of separate powers, namely Legislative and Executive. This separation is clearly outlined in Articles 4 (a) and 4 (b) respectively, of the 1978 Constitution.

Article 4 (a) states: “the legislative power of the People shall be exercised by parliament…”.

Article 4 (b) states: “the executive power of the People, including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised by the President…”.

Commenting on the executive power of the people, the Supreme Court in S.D. No. 04/2015 stated: “It is in this background that the Court in the Nineteenth Amendment Determination came to a conclusion that the transfer, relinquishment or removal of the power attributed to one organ of government to another organ or body would be inconsistent with Article 3 read with Article 4 of the Constitution. Though Article 4 provides the form and manner of the sovereignty of the people, the ultimate act or decision of the executive functions must be retained by the President. So long as the President remains the Head of the Executive, the exercise of his powers remain supreme or sovereign in the executive field and to others to whom such power is given must derive the authority from the President or exercise the Executive power vested in the President as a delegate of the President”.

On the other hand, Article 43 (1) states: “There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers charged with the direction and control of the Government of the Republic which shall be collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament”.

Commenting on Article 43 (1) the Supreme Court in the same case, S.D. No. 04/2015 stated: “This important Article underscores that the Cabinet collectively is charged with the exercise of Executive power, which is expressed as the direction and control of the Government of the Republic and the collective responsibility of Cabinet of which the President is the Head. It establishes conclusively that the President is not the sole repository of Executive power under the Constitution. It is the Cabinet of Ministers collectively, and not the President alone, which is charged with the direction and control of the Government.


This Cabinet is answerable to Parliament. Therefore, the Constitution itself recognizes that Executive power is exercised by the President and by the Cabinet of Ministers, and that the President shall be responsible to Parliament and the Cabinet of Ministers, collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament with regard to the exercise of such powers…”.

It is evident from the opinions cited above that the powers of the President depend on whether he acts under provisions of Article 4 (b) or Article 43 (1). For instance, under provisions of 4 (b) the “President as the Head of the Executive is sovereign in the executive field”. However, if the President acts under provisions of Article 43 (1) the Court stated that “the Constitution itself recognizes that Executive power is exercised by the President and by the Cabinet of Ministers”. The potential for such contrasting interpretations that exist in the 1978 Constitution have been blindly repeated in 19A without regard for their relevance or irrelevance.

Another serious contradiction often overlooked is that a President elected by the People should be recognized as being co-equal with Parliament under provisions of separation of power. Therefore, the President cannot be responsible to another organ of government– the Parliament. Furthermore, if the Cabinet of Ministers derive their authority from the President as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Cabinet cannot be responsible and answerable to Parliament either. Under the circumstances, Article 33A that calls for the President to be responsible to Parliament “for the due exercise performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions” is a violation of the principle of separation of power.

The few examples cited above amply demonstrate that while the framework of the 1978 Constitution is essentially Presidential, it has sufficient elements of a Parliamentary Democracy to warrant the Judiciary from giving contrasting opinions depending on which Article it interprets. This ambiguity requires Sri Lanka to adopt either a Presidential or a Parliamentary system, but not a mix of both systems. Despite the fact that such contradictions have been brought to the attention of the public, confusion has reigned uninterrupted. Therefore, the need is for Parliament to vote on which system of government is best suited to govern Sri Lanka. Furthermore, when formulating a new constitution, it is also recommended that a fresh approach be incorporated to devolve power to the smallest practical workable unit in order to strengthen operations in the periphery.



According to media reports the intention of the government is to introduce the 20th Amendment. Indications are that each Article would be reviewed and amended where necessary. Such an exercise is bound to repeat the contradictions in 19A because the framers mechanically copied provisions from the 1978 Constitution without understanding what separation of power is all about in a Presidential system. Therefore, it is best to repeal 19A completely, and go back to the powers exercised by the President under the 1978 Constitution as a stop gap measure until a new constitution is formulated. Such an interim measure is vital in order to prevent a resurgence of COVID-19 and to equip the executive with necessary powers to revive the depressed economy.

Critics to such an approach may consider it to be the death knell to Parliamentary democracy. What such critics forget is that the country is in such dire straits economically, that drastic measures need to be introduced if the country is to get back to some degree of normalcy. Proof of the merits of such an approach is evident from the uncompromising measures successfully adopted by the government to contain COVID-19; a fact acknowledged internationally. The reversal to the past is intended to be only until such time that a new constitution is tabled and adopted by Parliament and the People at a referendum.

In summary, the essence of the recommendation is for the 20A to define a clear two-step approach. Step One is to repeal all of 19A and strengthen the hand of the President and the executive with necessary powers to address all issues relating to COVID-19, and to also adopt all necessary measures to revive the economy. Step Two is for Parliament to vote and give clear direction as to whether the new constitution should be based on a Presidential or Parliamentary system to address all issues relating to good governance in all respects. Adopting such a clear cut approach without ambiguities would enable Sri Lanka to be free of the current fog of confusion, and embark on a fresh Chapter in her history.

Continue Reading


The Downfall of Democracy



All this unwanted fuss about the author or drafter of the 20A has led to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa making it clear he is the leader of the Government and the Pohottuva. Let’s have no doubts about it anymore. Let’s stop asking about any role that the Justice Minister Ali Sabry or Law Pundit and Education Minister G. L. Peiris had in this.  

The five-member Cabinet Committee appointed by PM Mahinda Rajapaksa has also been pushed aside. This clearly shows the declining power-position of Rajavasala Mahinda himself. We are in the reality of a rising authoritarian rule, with a path to what the Pohottuva champions consider to be a “Democratic Dictatorship”.

It has all to do with the two-thirds majority in parliament. We are moving to the total sovereignty of the people-elected President … the stuff  of a monarchy of the past that is being revived more than 70 years after independence from British colonial rule.

The assurance of Democracy in the role of the 20A comes from our acting Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Dayani Mendis, who told the 45th Session of the Human Rights Council that 20A would be discussed and debated in Parliament, following a complete democratic process, where all the stakeholders would have the opportunity to present their views.

What she did not say was that the final decision lay with the ruling majority of the Rajavasala Power Holders. She also said that the UN Human Rights High Commissioner’s comments on the 20A were unwarranted and pre-judgmental, based on presumption. What a wonderful diplomatic analysis of a rising threat to Democracy in this island. 

The democracy that we are telling the world today is about the great Hand Raisers or “Ath Ussanno” in our parliamentary politics. Many of them in today’s parliament raised their hands for the 17A. All of them cheerfully raised their hands for the 18A. All but one of them raised their hands for the 19A, with amendments to it too. And now they are waiting with impatience and restlessness to raise both hands, if necessary, for the 20A. You can’t stop this Ath Usssana promoters of a rising Family Power or Pavul Balaya.

This is a muddled collection of one-time Samasamajists, Communists, UNP players, SLFP  Bandaranaike shakers, MEP – Gunawardena performers, JVP culprits, Central Bank felons, EPF fraudsters, Royal Pavilion destroyers, and current rapists of the ever shrinking forest cover of Sri Lanka.

To think that any of these Hand Raisers have any understanding or belief in democracy is contempt for the entire democratic process. These are political hoodlums and delinquents who have moved far away from the callers and supporters of Democracy, in the fight against colonial rule. 

We are caught in the crooked politics of the Rajavasala Kelikarayas – Royal Family Players – to whom Democracy is the very threat to survival. The 20A is the core and cover of the rising Rajapaksa dictatorship, and nothing else. It is the trampling and burying of everything democratic of the 19A (certainly with its shortcomings) that all of these hoodlums raised their hands for, except one.

A country that obtained its democratic background, moving away from a local and foreign monarchic thinking and attitudes, from the British, we now seem to be moving back to the reality of current British or UK politics. This is the stuff of the Boris Johnson politics that is having its say in the UK today. They are proudly moving to the violation of international agreements and the very substance of the parliamentary process. 

If the UK can violate international agreements, what is wrong in Sri Lanka violating the very substance and reality of democracy, through the play of majority power in Parliament, which was the stuff of those who violated peace and the people through Nazism, and the Idi Amin realities of power?

The opposition to the 20A has to take on a process of public understanding of the crises that lie ahead, as we see the rising power of authoritarian dominance. There is much more than the SJB and Sajith Premadasa’s call for a revived 19A. The need is for the revival of the very substance of democracy. It has to be done throughout the country, moving away from ethnic, religious, caste and other divisions that are the reality of Sri Lankan society and politics. 

Just take a look at the politics of the wholly defeated UNP today. With Ruwan Wijewardene elected as Deputy Leader of the party, it has gone back to the Uncle-Nephew-Party it was known for in its early years in power. This is the stuff in local politics that can give a good playing hand to the Pohottuva activists.  

The Gotabhaya Rajapaksa leadership of the Government and the Pohottuva is the very substance of ruling politics and governance today! The Opposition seems to be playing a Joker with its moves to strengthen Mahinda Rajapaksa power. Mahinda will remain where he is and Gotabaya will be the ruler of the Rajavasala and the Lankadveepa.

Fighting the 20A is the beginning of a new call for a rescued and revived Democracy, whatever we tell the UN Human Rights bodies and the rest of the world about us.

It is the reality of the Downfall of Democracy, and the Rajavasala Rise!

Continue Reading


Social Inequalities and People’s Movements in New Normal South Asia: Emerging Trends



By Shavini De Silva,

Programme Officer, Regional Centre for Strategic Studies

South Asia is home to 40% of the world poor, even though it is considered one of the fastest growing regions in the world. In the last 15 years, South Asia has also experienced the highest number of terrorist activity in the world. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on multifaceted inequalities in South Asia is profound and it affects vulnerable and marginalized groups disproportionately. It tends to widen inequalities and deepen insecurities in society, particularly among marginalized sections. The paradox of the COVID 19 pandemic, on the one hand, has increased the amount of existing social inequalities and on the other hand it has subdued the vibrant social movements in the region. One of the defining features in social and political landscape in South Asia is the existence of a variety of social movements through history. During the pandemic period, the world also witnessed the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter Movement in the United States and the West. It was in this context Regional Centre for Strategic Studies held a webinar on the theme “Social Inequalities and Emerging Trends in People’s Movements in Post- COVID South Asia. The purpose of the webinar was to generate a discourse to identify trends in people and movements in post-COVID South Asia.

Four world-renowned scholars/social activists in South Asia spoke at the webinar. The distinguished panelists consisted of Prof. Kalinga Tudor Silva, former Professor of Sociology and Dean of the Faculty of Arts, University of Peradeniya, Dr. Umakant, a well-known social activists in New Delhi, Prof. Rasul Bakhsh Rais a Professor of Political Science in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), and Mr. Hari Sharma, the Executive Director of Alliance for Social Dialogue/Social Science Baha, Kathmandu. Professor Karori Singh the Emeritus Fellow/Professor of South Asian Studies and Former Director, South Asia Studies Centre, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, INDIA, and Professor Keerawela, Executive Director of the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies. moderated the panel discussion.

In bringing Sri Lankan experience to the discussion, Prof. Kalinga Tudor Silva stated that Sri Lanka could be seen as an outstanding success in terms of control of COVID-19 during the past six months. The well-developed health infrastructure in the country also reflected in earlier success in malaria eradication and various other public health achievements including reduction in infant mortality and progressive increase in life expectancy and coordinated effort at COVID-19 control by a new political regime committed to the task of containing the disease at points of origin are among the factors contributing to the crisis management.

There are, however, some important concerns about the social inequality connected with the pattern of infection. During the early phase, the community infections were reported disproportionately in urban low income neighborhoods, typically with a notable minority presence. The worker returnees from other countries and the substance users and their contacts have been two groups of civilians most affected by the COVID-19 infections. The decision by the state to impose mandatory cremation on all deaths attributed to COVID-19 has been heavily criticized by the Muslim community, who believe in maintaining religious rituals of burying the dead. The National Operation Centre for Prevention of COVID-19 established by the president in response to the pandemic chaired by the military commander is conspicuous by the absence of any civil society representation or any persons with professional skills in understanding and responding to social and cultural issues related to handling the multifaceted social crisis inevitably resulting from the pandemic.

Discrimination and exclusion during COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown in India was the focus of Dr. Umakant’s presentation. He stated that as the number of reported COVID-19 cases has surpassed 3 million in India. It is now high time to not only address the ways and means for ending the pandemic but also to highlight the caste based discrimination and exclusion faced by Dalits, Adivasis and Other Backward Caste (OBC) people in different parts of India during pandemic. Any disaster is not caste/race neutral, it affects the disadvantaged people quite adversely leading government officials along with society at large to maintaining colossal amounts of socio-economic inequality. The case of sanitation workers stands as a dehumanizing experience can be cited as a case in point. Having to eradicate dirt and filth along with the inhumane fact that society at large practices have remained an issue of great concern. Despite being the frontline warrior against Covid-19, they have not been provided with enough safety equipment and even parity with health personnel’s. The fact that migrant workers are been labeled as nowhere people stands at a critical issue. Within a four-hour notice, the national lockdown was announced by the government which led millions of migrant workers to a state of vulnerability. This in turn resulted them to walk thousands of kilometers back to their villages facing great hardships and misery. In recent research findings, it was also noted that the most marginalized sections of society namely, Dalits, Adivasis and LGBT had to endeavor extreme levels of suffering during the nationwide lockdown Furthermore the response of State has been completely dissatisfying as levels of inequality have risen which may take a long time to overcome. The question still lies at the necessary precautions that need to be exercised during the discourse of a pandemic. Social distancing within the South Asian context has its own connotations of discrimination and exclusion relating to cast which makes it more challenging to combat. More than anything else a sense of solidarity, empathy, generosity, warmth, compassion, share and care is needed, not only in helping the humanity but also to inculcate values in the younger generation. This could be distinguished as Ubuntu, a term popularized by Bishop Desmond Tutu during Anti-Apartheid struggle days. A society without Ubuntu is a dead society.

Traditional caste system, tribal identities and ethnic biases along with minority religion and economic class are the contributing factors that play a role in marginalization and discrimination against certain groups, Prof. Rasul Rais said. The issue of economic and social inequality spans to the vast portion of the countrysides as minority of big landlords own much of the agricultural lands, the rest of the remaining majorities work as peasants. The landowning class dominating the political parties and the electoral system have not allowed land reforms to take place. The urban areas that are growing rapidly, with the migration of landless and the rising middle classes show the same trend in housing, allocation of geographical spaces, access to educational facilities and categories of jobs, or joblessness. As an elite-dominated society, Pakistan runs an “elitist economy” and a hierarchical social order. The decades of economic growth and modernisation have not altered much the social structural reasons that continue to reproduce inequality in different forms. The poor have larger families, mostly illiterate and live in congested places and live on daily wages. By their economic circumstances, they have been exposed to the pandemic disproportionally more than the affluent sections of the society that have better education, living conditions and economic means.

The social movements in Pakistan against class discrimination, land reforms, social equality and equal right are weak or non-existent whereas the liberal sections of the civil society are more focused on political, gender and ideological issues replicating the agenda of political parties. The religious groups that have proliferated and have more means and street powers have greater interest in identity construction, Islamization and conservative social ethos while weak, fragmented and divided social movements, equality, rights, health and justice remain marginalized issues.

Dr. Hari Sharma of Nepali Social Science Baha paid attention to impact of political structures on social and political processes. It is of key importance to take political interests into consideration as it is a main factor in deciding how preventive and remedial measures should be exercised accordingly, especially in the face of social, economic and natural disasters. This could be viewed against the backdrop that populist politics has integrated with nationalism over the most recent years posing a grave threat to the democratic political practices and minority interests. The rational politics in Nepal stands at a critical juncture and the Nepalese people live in difficult times, despite unprecedented challenges created by COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Hari Sharma emphasized that it is a vital fact that democratic elements reclaim political space which has been lost.

Professor Singh moderated the session by questioning what went wrong and how new form of inequalities came into existence. Those who want to stick to the status quo turn a blind eye to growing social inequalities emphasizing the importance of growth and development. One of the outcomes of this approach would be that society at large becomes less sensitive to social inequality and academics also play a very poor role in bringing real social issues to the discussion forums. Hence, it is necessary for new social movements to recognize emerging trends of inequality in post COVID South Asia. The discussion underscored the need to give priority to emerging inequalities in post CIDID South Asia in national and regional discourses.

Continue Reading