|
|
|
| Sunday,13 November 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Presidential election and the minorities by Paul Gnanodayam
I must begin with a word of apology: I am writing under a pseudonym for obvious reasons. I do not have the same courage as the authors of the UTHR (J) reports and other leaders who have dared to write and speak out on issues. Some of them have paid with their lives and others have gone underground or have to lead constricted lives. I opt to remain anonymous. I have felt constrained to write after reading specious messages and advertisements that seem to fill our newspapers in the run up to the Election. Up to now, the election campaign has by and large focused on issues and religious and civil society leaders have steered clear of taking sides. But campaigners seem to be getting desperate and normally responsible leaders seem to have been coerced to drop guard and make indiscreet statements. Religious Freedom Much has been said and written about the anti-conversion legislation and religious freedom in this country. The country is not short of memory. We are aware that when a Venerable monk went on a death fast during the Ranil Wickremesinghe regime demanding anti-conversion legislation, a cabinet minister gave a written undertaking, undoubtedly with the concurrence of then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, that such legislation would be presented in Parliament within a time frame. Shortly thereafter, Parliament was dissolved and fortunately the legislation did not see the light of day. We have also not forgotten that the same Venerable monk went on another death fast demanding a written assurance from the Mahinda Rajapakse regime that the anti-conversion legislation would be presented in Parliament. In this instance, both the President and the Prime Minister refused and the death fast was given up without any such assurances. Ranil Wickremesinghe to date has not revoked the written assurance given by his then cabinet minister and presumably remains committed to that assurance. Undoubtedly, Ranil Wickremesinghe has assured full freedom of worship and practice to all religions. But so has Mahinda Rajapakse. We must also be clear that the Mahinda Chinthanaya has not reference to anti-conversion legislation - neither is there any reference to it in any of the agreements he has signed with his allies in this campaign. This is also the case with the UNP Manifesto. So I fail to understand the lack of integrity in leaders who talk of anti-conversion legislation and religious freedom as if it were an issue in this Election. The stand of both principal candidates is the same - fullest religious freedom. Mahinda Rajapakse and the President are on record as saying that an inter-religious council and not legislation is the answer to problems with evangelical fundamentalists of all religions. This is also the stand of the inter-faith Congress of Religions, Catholic Bishops' Conference and the National Christian Council of Sri Lanka. The stance of Ranil Wickremesinghe on this is anybody's guess. Peace Process The Peace Process was not begun a couple years ago. It was initiated in 1994 by President Chandrika Kumaratunga with much goodwill from civil society. It was she who courageously invited international facilitation and despite feet-dragging by the UNP, she pressed ahead with many draft proposals for a permanent political solution. It culminated in the Draft Constitution of 2000 which spoke of the country being 'a union of regions'. We have not forgotten that it was the UNP that created mayhem when this draft was presented in Parliament by the President herself. Ranil Wickremesinghe has now presumably undergone conversion, ethical or otherwise. In 1983 his party colleagues led the program against the Tamils and he and his then leader went public to say the Tamils received what they deserved - it was the natural reaction of the Sinhalese. Throughout the period of that Government, the Tamils were at the receiving end of abuse, intimidation and killings. But to date, we do not have a word from Ranil Wickremesinghe that his party's past record, particularly in relation to the 1983 pogrom was a mistake no apology for what was done during the UNP Government of that period. On the contrary, the President, as the present Head of State, has on more than one occasion apologised to the Tamils for 1983, even though she and her party had no hand in the pogrom. In fact, she has always maintained a consistent stand on the ethnic question that the minorities have suffered discrimination in the past and a political solution based on wide devolution of power should be basis of a solution. Mahinda Rajapakse has also stated the same position. We are glad to learn that Ranil Wickremesinghe has recently converted to this view on the ethnic question. Most leaders now agree that a solution based on wide devolution is the only answer to the ethnic question. As the President rightfully claimed recently, this has been her stance throughout her political career and it is to her credit that all other leaders, whatever may be the motive, have not been converted to her position. Even the principal allies of Mahinda Rajapakse agree with this though there undoubtedly are differences as to the extent of devolution. But these are negotiable and given the nature of the present political climate, there is every prospect of a consensus being reached that will be acceptable to the broad Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim masses. The country will hope that the services of President Chandrika Kumaratunga will be available in the future when a consensus has to be found. It is her vision that has brought us this far and it is her vision and political acumen that will carry us towards a permanent political solution. Labels like 'unitary' and 'federal' can be quite misleading/ As Ketheeswaran Loganathan recently pointed out, there are federal constitutions with much greater centralised authority than unitary constitution which provide for substantial autonomy and devolution to the periphery. What is required is for us to evolve a system that suitably addresses the needs of our own National Question and is acceptable to and provides for sustainable autonomy and justice for all our people. Over the past years, the President has made several overtures to the parties of the North and South to join her in finding a principal solution that will ensure justice and dignity to all Sri Lankans. Her overtures were rudely dismissed. What then are we to make of the new converts to her stance. Political opportunism or an 'ethical' conversion? Democracy, Egalitarianism and Pluralism Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious country. We are glad that both principal candidates have pledged to uphold this diversity and safeguard and encourage the different groups that form our nation to feel proud of being part of Sri Lanka. We trust there will not be another 1983. It is also the duty of every Sri Lankan to pledge not to support any act of terror under any circumstances. We have witnessed state terror unleashed against the weak and the vulnerable, our youth and the ethnic minorities. We have also witnessed militant groups unleashing terror against political dissidents and the ethnic and religious 'other'. Hundreds of non-combatant civilians have been killed or driven from their homes and areas have been 'ethnically cleansed.' Prophetic church leaders of the past like Bishop Leo Nanayakkara, Bishop Lakshman Wickremesinghe and Fr. Michael Rodrigo courageously raised their voices against such terror and sought justice for the weak and the marginalised. Today we need religious leaders who will also be voices of the voiceless and who will be able to speak for the wider Sri Lankan community. They must not be parochial, raising their voices only in self-interest and throwing stones that only inflicts self-damage. It was a Church leader of revered memory who once said: My father's House has many mansions: and all of them are made of glass! We wish our religious leaders had taken the trouble to study the respective manifestos and track records of the candidates and guided their faithful to study the issues at stake. Which of the candidates has the will and ability to reach a consensus political settlement acceptable to the broad mass of the Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim and other communities who form our nation? Which of the candidates has a pro-poor economic programme that will alleviate poverty, generate both urban and rural growth and development and bring about a more egalitarian society? Which of the candidates can bring about law and order in the country and keep the underworld goons in the place where they rightfully belong? Which of the candidates can control corruption both among their own party persons and in the country at large? Which of the candidates is best able to identify with the broad mass of our people and thereby ensure national unity and a national ethos? Our choice for the next President should be based on our answers to the above questions. Both principal candidates unfortunately carry a lot of baggage with them - among their allies are extremists, communal parties and fellow-travellers of terrorists. Our choice should also focus on our perception of the leadership qualities of the candidates. We need a leader who will lead and take control and not a leader who will sit back and allow things to happen without direction. We need as our leader a person of courage and a person of the people and for the people. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
