Connect with us

Opinion

Politics as usual no remedy for Islamic extremism

Published

on

By Rohana R. Wasala

A heated exchange took place in Parliament a couple of days ago (November 26 or 27) about the so-called Batticaloa Sharia University, between Opposition MP Kavinda Jayawardane of the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB) and Minister of Education Prof. G.L. Peiris MP (SLPP), as reported on Hiru TV. Following is a rough and ready verbatim translation of the dialogue with essential clarifications in parentheses (It is subject to the usual limitations of a translation, though):

 KJ:- 

The Easter (Sunday) attacks killed more than 350 of our Catholic people and left more than  

 500 physically disabled to this day. Terrorist Saharan carried out those attacks. 

 Former (Eastern Provincial) Governor Hizbullah had direct relations with this terrorist. Even  the Chairman of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (on the Easter attacks) said, in relation to this governor, that the legal process initiated concerning this university was unlawful. You, as the then Opposition, said before the presidential election, that this Sharia University will be taken   over by the government.

GL:- 

There’s no final decision on that (subject). We will not let it exist as a private institution. I say   this to the Hon. Member very emphatically.

KJ:-  

This university’s curriculum includes Sharia Law as a course component. Unless it is brought under government control, this country’s innocent children will be taught the Sharia with extremist ideologies.

GL:- 

Before 2015, Hon. Member, there was a clear strategy to handle the problem. We did not  allow the Sharia law to sow dissension, hatred on the pretext of teaching various courses.  After 2015, they (the Yahapalana administration) even let foreign lecturers come into the country without checking on their  past; they were given ‘visa on arrival’ (facility) at the airport. We didn’t do so in our time. The Yahapalana government gave carte blanche to anyone (any Tom, Dick or Harry) to come and teach any course, at  any place, at any time. We are reaping what you sowed.

KJ:-  

Please tell the House whether this government is going to allow the teaching of the Sharia Law in this country or not? 

GL:- 

Sharia or anything else, we’ll see whether it is in conformity with the Constitution. 

We will find out who created this. It is a problem that you passed on to us.

KJ:- 

Don’t try to pass the buck. You are in power now. During the presidential election, you said 

clearly that you will not allow extremism to raise its head; that you will not allow Sharia to 

be taught; that those who caused abortions will be taken to court; that Dr Shihabdeen will 

be hanged. But now you’ve forgotten about Shafi Shihabdeen; you’ve forgotten about 

Sharia; you’ve forgotten about the Batticaloa Campus. In regard to the Easter Sunday 

attacks, officials are being hunted; but the persons who taught the bombers the terrorist 

ideology and induced the terrorist mindset (that drove them) are left alone.

GL:- 

All these things were done to obtain the support of certain extremist groups for achieving narrow ends. That is the truth. It is now that the evil consequences (of those actions) are becoming obvious.

(End of the translation)

First of all, I beg that Professor Peiris and Dr Jayawardane please bear with me for taking the liberty of subjecting your Parliamentary conversation to a kind of dispassionate critical analysis, that, I hope, will contribute what little it may to the emerging trend of constructive, though usually hostile, criticism in the social media directed at the speeches and actions of our MPs both inside and outside the House. Personally, I have great respect for both: the senior one is reaching the summit of an illustrious career as a celebrated legal studies academic and as an experienced parliamentarian; the junior one, professionally a medical practitioner like his late father the then UNP’s  nationalist-leaning Dr Jayalath Jayawardane, is just starting what is invariably going to be a distinguished political career, given the potential he has already shown. No personal disrespect, humiliation, or offence towards either is intended by the following opinion, offered for what it is worth.

MP Jayawardane may be exaggerating things on the spur of the moment when he says that more than 350 Catholics were killed in the EasterSunday bombings (Of course, there’s no gainsaying the fact even one killed is too many) and when he talks about somebody’s alleged past threat to hang someone. Be that as it may, as a concerned Sri Lankan, I found the exchange between the two Honourable Members in the august Assembly very depressing in these critical times. My impression was that both speakers were ignorant of, or indifferent to, the crucial matter they were, somewhat implicitly, arguing about: how to deal with the emerging Islamist threat to Sri Lanka, which is behind the simmering controversies, including the Batticaloa Sharia University issue, Hizbulah’s connection with it, and complaints that Dr Shafi Shihabdeen had performed non-consensual tubal sterilisations on Sinhalese mothers during a flaunted record number of caesarean section operations.

To MP Jayawardane’s question whether the government was going to bring the Batticaloa Sharia University under government control, Minister Peiris assured him that though no decision had been arrived at regarding that, it will not be allowed to exist as a private institution. This could mean that the college will not be allowed to continue at all (which is unlikely) or it will be assigned to the state university system. However, this is part of the unimaginably thorny issue of what to do about the madrasas that have mushroomed around the country. Neither speaker seems to have the faintest idea about the bigger picture. Obviously, Peiris is bluffing and Jayawardane is trying to call his bluff, though both of them are equally ignorant of the real problem.

Jayawardane is asking whether the government is going to allow the teaching of the Sharia Law. Actually, it is a non-question. There is no question of allowing or not allowing the teaching of Sharia for it is an essential part of Islam. The Arabic word sharia means the ‘way’. Google says Sharia ‘is more accurately understood as referring to wide-ranging moral and broad ethical principles drawn from the Quran and the practices and sayings (hadith) of Prophet Muhammad’. In my opinion, it parallels the Noble Eightfold Path in Buddhism. Of course, the two things are like chalk and cheese or apples and oranges. The issue is whether certain aspects of Sharia law (such as death for blasphemy, apostacy, and amputation for stealing) can be implemented in a democratically governed non-Muslim majority country like Sri Lanka. 

Minister Peiris maintains that, before 2015, extremist Islamic was kept under control, and that the present troubles are the result of the wrong attitude of the Yahapalanaya to the problem. I’m afraid this is not totally true. Rishard, Hakeem, Hizbullah, Salley, etc., pursued their careers in those halcyon days, as ‘powerful allies’ of president Mahinda Rajapaksa while underground Islamic extremist activities were going on, despite the vocal agitations of the monks, which fell on deaf ears. The above-named Muslim politicians cannot be described as terrorists or terrorist backers; but it is quite possible, going by what is being revealed during investigations, that they were abused as a protective phalanx by the Jihadists including suicide bomber Zahran Hashim unbeknown to those popular personages. Unfortunately, it looks like the same thing is happening today, despite the availability of young Muslim leaders, both in parliament and outside, who think out of the box as president Gotabaya Rajapaksa correctly insists on doing. MP Jayawardane, probably unknowingly, forced Minister Peiris to admit what is most likely to be the truth, which applies to politicians of both the main parties/their new manifestations: ‘All these things were done to obtain the support of certain extremist groups for achieving narrow ends. That is the truth. It is now that the evil consequences (of those actions) are becoming obvious.’ 

Trying to please veiled opportunists is no way to tackle the Islamist problem because they, like the few mentally unhinged terrorists, are actually in a really insignificant minority. Such a policy can easily demoralize the educated young Muslim leaders who are braving the few lawless terrorists who may be ruling the roost within the community evading detection under the radar of the security agencies. Jihadist extremists use fear as a weapon. Despite this, increasing numbers of young Muslim women are now publicly speaking up against unwarranted impositions on them regarding their dress, choice of marriage partners, socialization with members of the opposite sex, and so on in the name of religion as decided by a few conservative Muslim males. It is a fact that growing numbers of young Muslims and Tamils of both sexes are establishing close political links with their Sinhalese counterparts. 

Incidentally, the spat between state minister of wildlife protection Wimalaweera Dissanayake, SLFP MP, and some officials of the wildlife department, no doubt, brought an unpleasant sense of deja vu to most of us who were familiar with the escapades of a now discredited and defeated former MP from Kelaniya. Whatever the truth at the centre of the episode, Dissanayake clearly failed to behave as he should have. There appears to be some nefarious activity indulged in by some crooks in that locality who may have won the misplaced confidence of the deputy minister. This impression was reinforced by some well-known young activist monks who symbolically pulled down an unauthorised shed built to shelter cows in the forest reserve; the monks complained that criminal elements were continuing their activities in that place rich with ancient archaeological remains in spite of the relevant authorities having been warned about the matter before. Adding insult to injury, MP Roshan Ranasinghe of the SLFP has also castigated the wildlife officers.  This cannot be approved of either. There may be a few of them who are guilty of various offences, but indiscriminately condemning government functionaries is a bad thing. We know how dedicatedly our doctors, nurses, police and army officers execute their duties in trying to control the Covid-19 pandemic situation; they are doing that in the name of the country, most of them inspired by the example of the new president, expecting no public plaudits unlike most politicians. Had Gotabaya not been there, some of these politicians would not have been elected to parliament. They are obstructing the president’s action plan. It is clearly a crime for a politician to demoralize even a single dutiful public servant.    

The Parliament or the House of Representatives is traditionally described as ‘august’ and the elected members who meet there to legislate as honourable. These are formal words that are ceremonially used, but they are not devoid of serious meaning. The augustness of the Parliament as the supreme legislature of the country and the honourableness of the Members of Parliament as the elected legislators are inviolable, though the persons who man the institution from time to time may or may not be really worthy of those epithet Honourable. ‘August’ in this context means dignified, distinguished, imposing, stately, solemn, etc; the opposite qualities include frivolous, silly, undignified, and so on. ‘Honourable’ has the sense of bringing or deserving respect, honest, moral, ethical, principled, righteous, etc.  Antonyms of the word are dishonourable, despicable, crooked, deplorable, and similar negatives. Having said this, I would like to finally add that it is a reason for consolation for us that our MPs do preserve their personal dignity and the solemness of the institution that they man up, with a few exceptions, that too, under pressure of circumstances. Occasional unparliamentary behaviour among members is what prevails in most democracies around the world, and it is due to fallible human nature.



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