Connect with us

Opinion

National integration and 13A

Published

on

National integration would mean that in a country, which is inhabited by several ethnic communities, everyone would harbour similar feelings and thinking about matters of national interest, like independence, territorial integrity, sovereignty, etc. Development of such sentiments cannot be forced on a people. In this regard, what the Indian philosopher S. Radhakrishna said may be of relevance. He has said national integration cannot be made by brick and mortar but should be allowed to develop through education. Without a mutual feeling of respect for one another’s language, religion and culture among people, national integration, of the type defined above, is impossible to achieve. Such feelings would come only with education. It is perhaps this truism that made Radhakrishna utter those words of wisdom. Laws and Constitutions cannot impose something that only education could instill by a gradual process. There may not be any other method, or substitute, capable of bringing about such a change.

The Constitution of a country should not be an obstacle to the development of such feelings in people of different faiths, languages and cultures. It must ensure that all are equally treated by government institutions, have equal opportunity in education, employment, and space for economic and cultural development. However, the Constitution, whatever form it may take, cannot force national integration on people, whether they are a majority or a minority. A Constitution can only provide for laws that would prevent obstacles being put in the way to national integration. For instance, discrimination of a particular communal group would be an obstacle to national integration. The Constitution must provide for the enactment of laws that act against discrimination.

It is in this context that the 13th Amendment should be viewed. It is often said that the implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which came into being as a result of the Indo-Lanka Accord, entered into, in July 1987, would result in national integration. The 13th A provides for Provincial Councils which attempt power-sharing at provincial level. As mentioned above, the Constitution, if it is to facilitate national integration, must treat all the ethnic communities equally and must not try to satisfy one group at the expense of another. If it does, it would be an obstacle rather than a facilitator for national integration. This may happen if political power-sharing is attempted with the provinces as the unit of devolution. Most of the Provinces in Sri Lanka have multi-ethnic populations where one ethnic community is in the majority, while there are enclaves of other communities who would be minorities in a particular province. Creation of autonomous territorial units out of these provinces would result in these minority groups losing their umbilical connection with the central government to a significant degree, and being brought under provincial power. In other words, a law which attempts to solve the problems of minority communities would create new minorities with attendant issues in each of these Provinces. For instance, in the Eastern Province, Sinhalese would be a minority with regard to political power and they may be concerned of being discriminated against. Such an eventuality may not facilitate national integration.

Further, several authoritative world-wide surveys have shown that power-sharing measures, as a solution to ethnic conflict have not been successful. There had been 78 countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, former USSR and the Caribbean which were in intense ethnic conflict during 1980 to 2010. Of these only 20 managed to conclude inter-ethnic power sharing arrangements, many failed, some experienced genocide eh. Rwanda in 1993 and others ended with secession, eg. Sudan in 2005. Only four to six achieved stable arrangements but even these have serious political instability (Horowitz D, 2014).

Following are a few extracts from these research works: ” The core reason why power-sharing cannot resolve ethnic conflict is that it is voluntaristic; it requires conscious decisions by elites to cooperate to avoid ethnic strife. Under conditions of hypernationalist mobilisation and real security threats, group leaders are unlikely to be receptive to compromise and even if they are they, cannot act without being discredited and replaced by harder-line rivals” (Kaufmann, 1997). “Proposals for devolution abound, but more often than not devolution agreements are difficult to reach and once reached soon abort” (Horowitz, 1985).

That Sri Lanka provides ample evidence in support of the above research findings could easily be seen in its experience with its own Provincial Councils. Of the nine PCs, the worst failure was seen in relation to the Northern PC, where it was supposed to be essential for the solution of the ethnic conflict. Its Chief Minister, after willingly contesting for the post, made use of the opportunity to loudly engage in secessionist rhetoric and propaganda. Some Tamil leaders, who engage in such treacherous activity are believed to be funded by pro-LTTE Tamil Diaspora. How could anybody believe that the full implementation of the 13th A would not provide greater opportunity for such secessionist activity, with greater collusion between internal and external separatist elements.

In consideration of the above, what would be more suitable for Sri Lanka is a power-sharing mechanism at the centre, which would suit its geography of ethnicity where in most areas there is a mixture of ethnic groups, and 50% of minorities live outside the North and the East. If all possibility of discrimination of majority or minority communities is avoided, and people are allowed to learn to respect each other’s different cultures, there would develop common feelings and thinking about national issues, which would be the national integration that has eluded us all these years.

 

N.A.de S. AMARATUNGA



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

The passing away of a great cellist

Published

on

Rohan de Seram

by Satyajith Andradi

The Oxford Dictionary of Music compiled by Michael Kennedy is an invaluable source of reference material on the whole gamut of western classical music. Its 1994 second edition has the following entry on Rohan De Saram, in its usual telegraphic language : “De Saram, Rohan ( b Sheffield, 1939 ). Sri Lankan cellist. Studied in Florence with Cassado and later with Casals in Puerto Rico. After European recitals made Amer. Debut in NY, 1960. Settled in Eng. 1972, joining teaching staff of TCL. Wide repertory from Haydn to Xenakis, specializing in contemp. works. Cellist of *Arditti String Quartet.” Rohan De Saram is certainly one of the greatest musicians Sri Lanka has ever produced. He passed away in the UK on 29th September 2024 at the age of 85.

I had the good fortune to see this great musician perform in two occasions. The first was way back in 1975, when my parents took me to see his cello recital, which was given at the newly opened BMICH on 16th August that year. The second was when I took my daughter to his concert at the British Council auditorium on 27th February 2007. There was a marked difference in the type of music he performed at the two recitals. The 1975 programme was dominated by the music of Rachmaninov, Schubert, and Shostakovich, with the first movement of Zoltan Kodaly’s Sonata for Solo Cello added as a sort of outlier. It belonged to the traditional western music repertoire, if you like. In contrast, the 2007 concert was dominated by more contemporary music, although it included pieces by Bach, Beethoven, Rimsky Korsakov, Gabriel Faure, Saint Sean, and Benjamin Britten. The highlights of the evening were Luciano Berio’s Sequenza 14 for solo cello, a through and through avant garde work, and the last two movements of Kodaly’s Sonata for Solo Cello. Needless to say, the two programmes reflected the tremendous change in Rohan De Saram’s artistic orientation from being a performer of classics to that of avant garde music by composers such as Iannis Xenakis and Luciano Berio.

Rohan De Saram was born in the UK on 9th March 1939. He belonged to a well-to-do cultured family. Due to the outbreak of the Second World War, he had to spend much of his early childhood in Sri Lanka. As he showed a special gift for cello playing, he was taken to Europe for his musical education. Initially he studied cello under the renowned Spanish cellist and composer Gaspar Cassado in Florence, Italy. His first appearance as a soloist at the Royal Festival Hall in London was at the age of sixteen. This was followed by performances as soloist at London’s Wigmore Hall and Royal Albert Hall. Winning the Guilhermina Suggia award, enabled him to take master classes from the great Spanish cellist and composer Pablo Casals, who wrote of him: “There are few of his generation who have such gifts” and ” Rohan is already a remarkable cellist of fine technique and musical taste. I can predict for him a brilliant career.”

Casals’ prophesies were to come true. Rohan De Saram had his Carnegie Hall debut at the age of 20. He went on to perform as a soloist with many of the world’s leading orchestras such as the London Symphony Orchestra, the London Philharmonic Orchestra, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, and the New York Philharmonic Orchestra under the leadership of renowned conductors such as Adrian Boult, Malcolm Sargent, John Barbirolli, Colin Davis, and Zubin Mehta. During this early period of his career, he was essentially a virtuoso performer of the classics. However, joining the Arditti Quartet in he late 70s as its cellist signaled a turning point in his musical orientations. This quartet specialized in contemporary avant garde music. Henceforth, the main focus of Rohan De saram was on the works of avant garde composers such as Iannis Xenakis and Luciano Berio. He was a member of the Arditti Quartet from 1979 to 2005. As a virtuoso cellist of international renown, he introduced contemporary music to numerous musical audiences throughout the world. His passing away leaves a void in the musical firmament.

Continue Reading

Opinion

UK’s deal with Mauritius will be a win for all

Published

on

Location of the Chagos archipelago (circled) Wikipedia

Freedom for Chagos islands:

by Peter Harris
Associate Professor of Political Science,
Colorado State University

Britain is close to resolving its territorial dispute with Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago, located in the central Indian Ocean.

For years, Mauritius has claimed the island group as part of its sovereign territory. It says that Britain unlawfully detached the islands from Mauritius in 1965, three years before Mauritius gained independence. The Mauritian position is backed by international courts and the United Nations, creating enormous pressure for Britain to decolonise.

London, however, has been reluctant to abandon the Chagos Archipelago. This is because the largest island, Diego Garcia, is the site of a strategically important US military base. Britain pledged to make Diego Garcia available to its American ally and has been anxious to avoid a situation where it is prevented from making good on these promises.

The US, for its part, has declined to become publicly involved in the dispute. Its private position is merely that the base on Diego Garcia should not be placed in jeopardy.

In a deal announced in a joint statement, London and Port Louis have agreed that all but one of the Chagos Islands will be returned to Mauritian control as soon as a treaty can be finalised. This comes after nearly two years of intense negotiations. It seems as though settling the dispute was a top priority for Britian’s new Labour government.

Though the deal isn’t done yet, it is expected to go through. Both Britain and Mauritius, along with the White House, have endorsed the agreement, indicating that the toughest negotiations are complete.

Diego Garcia will remain under British administration for at least 99 years – this time with the blessing of Mauritius – enabling Britain to continue furnishing the US with unfettered access to its military base on the island.

In exchange for permission to continue on Diego Garcia, Britain will provide “a package of financial support” to Mauritius. The exact sums of money have not been disclosed but will include an annual payment from London to Port Louis. Both sides will cooperate on environmental conservation, issues relating to maritime security, and the welfare of the indigenous Chagossian people – including the limited resettlement of Chagossians onto the outer Chagos Islands under Mauritian supervision.

I’ve studied the Chagos Islands for 15 years, first as a master’s student and now as a professor. It often looked as though this day would never come.

The deal that’s been announced is a good one – a rare “win-win-win-win” moment in international relations, with all the relevant actors able to claim a meaningful victory: Britain, Mauritius, the US, and the Chagossians.

Win for Britain

Britain went into these negotiations with one goal in mind: to bring itself into alignment with international law.

London suffered humiliating setbacks at the permanent court of arbitration in 2015, concerning the legality of its Chagos marine protected area; at the International Court of Justice in 2019, when the World Court found that Mauritius was sovereign over the archipelago; and at the UN general assembly that same year, when a whopping 116 governments called on Britain to exit the Chagos Islands.

Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos group had even begun to be inscribed into international case law.

London could probably have defied international opinion if it had wanted to. Nobody would have forced Britain to halt its illegal occupation of the Chagos Archipelago. But such a course would have badly undermined Britain’s global reputation and its ability to criticise others for breaches of international law.

This agreement will give Britain exactly what it wanted: a continued presence on Diego Garcia that conforms with international law.

Win for Mauritius

Mauritius, of course, went into these negotiations intent on securing full decolonisation at long last. Britain and the US now recognise that the Chagos Archipelago belongs to Mauritius.

Mauritius will not have day-to-day control of Diego Garcia, but it will be acknowledged as being sovereign there. The public description of the agreement also doesn’t seem to prohibit Mauritius from exercising its sovereignty over Diego Garcia as it relates to non-military domains.

Win for the US

The US is another clear winner from the deal. In fact, hardly anything will change for America. Washington will continue working closely with London, and will not need to negotiate an agreement with Mauritius on its rights to the base or the status of forces.

Indeed, Pentagon officials should be thrilled that their base on Diego Garcia has been put on firm legal footing. This is something that Britain alone was unable to offer. The bilateral agreement with Mauritius will ensure the security of the base for 99 years – no small feat.

Good for Chagos Islanders

Finally, the deal is good for the Chagos Islanders.

British agents forcibly depopulated the entire Chagos group between 1965 and 1973. The point was to rid the archipelago of its permanent population so that the US base on Diego Garcia would operate far from prying eyes. Britain deported the Chagossians to Mauritius and the Seychelles, which is where most Chagossians and their descendants still live. Some have migrated onwards, including to Britain.

Britain had long opposed the resettlement of the Chagos group by the exiled Chagossians. Mauritius, on the other hand, has indicated its openness to resettlement of the Outer Chagos Islands – so, not Diego Garcia – something that Port Louis is now free to pursue.

Not all islanders have welcomed news of an agreement. The Chagossians are a large and diverse group, with differing views about how their homeland should be governed. Some would have preferred Britain to administer the entire archipelago long into the future, feeling that Mauritius was an unwelcoming host to the exiled Chagossians. But Britain could not hold onto the Chagos Islands forever – at least, not lawfully.

For their part, the largest Chagossian organisations are content with the deal as it has been announced, and will now work with Mauritius on a resettlement plan.

The critics

This is the first instance of decolonisation that London has attempted since returning Hong Kong to China in 1997. Predictably, some in Britain are opposed to the settlement.

Some accuse the Keith Starmer government of “giving up” the Chagos Archipelago. But the islands were never Britain’s to give up – they were always Mauritian sovereign territory, and Britain was an unlawful occupier.

They are also wrong to blame this deal for jeopardising the base on Diego Garcia. The opposite is true: for better or worse, the agreement will resolve any uncertainty about the US base’s future. It will have total legal security.

Finally, critics are grasping at straws when they raise the prospect of Mauritius permitting a Chinese base in the Chagos Archipelago. This is a baseless smear. There is no indication whatsoever that Port Louis has any interest in hosting the Chinese military.

What happens now?

Britain and Mauritius still need to reveal the text of their bilateral treaty. But the deal is highly unlikely to fall through. Both governments, plus the White House, have welcomed the agreement – a sure sign that the hard work of negotiations is over.

All that remains is for the treaty to be ratified – a process that does not require a parliamentary vote in the House of Commons. There is no reason why this cannot be done quickly.

This could be the end of a shameful saga that went on for too long.

(Courtesy of The Conversation.)

Continue Reading

Opinion

Dr P R (Ranji) WIKRAMANAYAKE (17 01. 1932 – 30.07.2024)

Published

on

A few weeks ago, the Sri Lankan community in Australia lost one its most distinguished sons, Dr P R Wkiramanayake, known as Ranji to his friends, an accomplished and highly regarded endocrinologist. He was 92 years of age and hailed from a distinguished family with its origins in Galle. The ancestry and genealogy of the family is well recorded in the book “Galle as quiet as asleep “(1993) by Norah Roberts.

The elder son of E.G. Wikramanayake, Queens Counsel, Ranji was born into the lap of luxury. Like his father before him, Ranji attended St Thomas College, Mount Lavinia from where he entered the Ceylon Medical School, and from where he graduated, and proceeded to the UK for Post graduate work. On his return from London with the MRCP he was appointed consultant physician at the Out Patients Department of the General Hospital, Colombo.

He soon was interested in the study of diabetes and read a paper at the Plenary Scientific Sessions of the Ceylon college of Physicians, 30 years ago. After serving a Nuffield Fellowship in the UK, he moved to Australia where he worked as Diabetologist at the Prince Edward Hospital.

It was through my close friend and former schoolmate Dr Medduma Kappagoda that I first met Ranji who Kappa brought home one day about 30 years ago, in order to assess my blood sugar. That visit was the foundation on which a strong friendship developed and through which I had the great pleasure of enjoying a dear friendship with his brother Nimal later after I moved to Melbourne.

Ranji lived in the affluent and desirable seaside suburb of Vaucluse and his great hobby was horse racing. His father Guy, a leading Queens Counsel, had owned a string of racehorses in Colombo and was the winner of several trophies when racing was the pastime of “kings and squires”. Ranji too owned at least a couple of thoroughbreds in Sydney whose activities kept him occupied during his leisure.

Ranji married Amara Weerasooria daughter of the late Dr and Mrs SE Weerasooria. Amara was Head Girl of Visakha Vidyalaya and an outstanding netball and tennis player. There combined qualities had to produce extra ordinary children. Their only son Priyan is a popular gastro surgeon in. Bowral, and the two daughters Roshanara a lawyer and Shemara is a highly successful leader in the corporate world of Australia.

It was during the course of last year, and earlier this year that I had close interaction with Ranji. It was during this period that Nimal fell ill and passed away about three months ago. Ranji was highly solicitous of Nimal’s welfare, and chose to convey his medical advice to Nimal through me. Ranji the elder brother was generally of a quiet and unruffled disposition. When Nimal was hospitalized he chose not to disturb him, and instead telephoned me for progress reports. About six weeks ago he rang me from his hospital bed in Prince Edward Hospital where he worked previously, to say in a feeble voice that his heart is failing on him. He left this world a few days later.

Ranji Wikramanayake was of a rare breed, sadly lacking in the old country today. Dedicated to his profession, and guide and guardian to his family, he was honest, hardworking and generous. He was a founder member of the. Ceylon College of Physicians, and a member of the Ceylon Society of Australia for many years until his demise.

A little known aspect of his generosity was his donation of five million rupees in January 2016

to the Ceylon College of Physicians, the interest earned from the donation to be awarded annually to the best research paper on diabetes. Ranji was to personally present the donation, but on their way to Colombo, his wife Amara fell ill and had to return to Australia. He was not a man for excuses and made sure that the gift was made on his behalf by his close friend Tilak de Zoysa. Ranji Wikramanayake certainly earned his rest, may he now rest in peace.

Hugh Karunanayake

Continue Reading

Trending