IN
DEFENCE OF LOVE
A Square Occupied and a red flag raised against
cultural policing:
by Krishani SAMARAWEERA
In what can be described as the most effective social media driven
public campaign in Sri Lanka so far, a large crowd gathered at the
Independent Square last Sunday, to protest against what’s deemed as
‘madness encountered by couples who sit together’ at the iconic square.
The prelude to the now famous ‘Occupy the Square’ protest is a video
posted on social media on March 5, showing two security guards ousting a
couple from the Independence Square, claiming couples are not allowed to
sit together as per orders of the Cultural Affairs Department.
The protest, which received the support from a cross section of
society, was organised on social media in less than 24 hours. The page
created for the protest read:
“Join us in silent protest to the madness encountered by couples who
sit together at the Independence Square. Protest against meaningless
restrictions imposed by authorities or whoever it may be at their
behest. Be present in twos and make your presence felt, symbolising the
freedom to simply sit together. Be there today (March 6) from 4.00 to
5.00 p.m. to set things straight. Media most welcome!”
According
to the video, the couple demand to know the wrongdoing they committed,
to which the security officers are unable to answer coherently. Mirshad
Buckman, who shared the video online said in a Facebook post that he and
his girlfriend were “just sitting and chilling at Independence Square”
when they were asked to leave.
The protesters, echoing Buckman’s sentiment, question why a couple
holding hands and sitting together is considered a crime and how it can
be called indecent behaviour, and more significantly, how the innocuous
action could be deemed ‘against the culture’.
Is holding hands in a public place culturally indecent? And why
exactly did the protest against cultural policing prove to be so
popular?
Cultural lag
Praneeth Abeysundara, Senior Lecturer, Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, is of the view that
although people claim they are open minded and have evolved with time,
some of have not actually changed the way they think.
“This
is what we call cultural lag. That is when a certain culture takes a
long time to change. As a result social problems and conflicts may arise
and that is exactly what we are experiencing,” he says pointing out that
parts of our culture are not yet developed.
Defending the action
Defending the eviction action of the
security personnel, Anusha Gokula Fernando, Director
Department of Cultural Affairs, maintained the Independence
Square was a national monument and not a park. “If it was a
park then it would be under the purview of some other
Ministry and not under our Department,” she said.
Describing the Independence Square as an
icon, she said all sorts of people come to visit the place
and there was no restriction whatsoever. However, she
cautioned people should keep in mind the importance of the
place and claimed that according to information they had
received the couple who were asked to vacate the Square on
March 5, had been there for a fairly long time and had
misbehaved.
“The security guards confronted them after
that. No one will be evicted if you behave,” she said,
pointing out that this was not the first time they had
experienced such behaviour among couples in the past
Fernando however added that the majority
of people who visit the Independence Square respect the
monument, which has a historical and cultural value.
|
He says is tough to discipline people since there are no role models.
“All unwanted issues arise due to no proper understanding of how they
should live their life,” he claims.
Malinda Seneviratne, Former Editor in Chief of The Nation newspaper,
who participated in Occupy the Square, claims protest is only a small
initiative towards a better society and questions the right of the
authorities to restrict citizens’ freedom. “Who decides the length and
width of our freedom? Who has the right to put restrictions to it? Can
the security guard do that? Can the Ministry of Cultural Affairs do
that? Or can any other politician restrict it? Two lovers sitting and
holding hands is not a crime,” he stresses.
Seneviratne also expresses the notion that culture is something
dynamic and it changes with the time. “People who say a couple holding
hands is a disgrace to our culture should remember that culture is not
written down anywhere. What individuals should possess is discipline and
social understanding,” he elaborates.
Criticising the intervention of Dr. Harsha de Silva, Deputy Minister
of Foreign Affairs, Seneviratne says the minister made a media circus
out of the whole issue and became the hero in front of media, where as
the people who actually took time off to organise the event went
unnoticed and their effort was not appreciated but was criticised.
“Politicians are happy to talk down to some weak individual who has no
options. But when it comes to bigger and more important issues, they are
all smiles and bending backwards,” he says.
Freedom
Writer and Journalist, Kapila M. Gamage, meanwhile appreciates the
way the people reacted. “We live in a society where people have faith on
God and politicians. But going beyond that and trying to win their
rights without expecting the authorities to win those for them is a very
positive sign towards a truly democratic society,” he says.
Constitutionally speaking
The constitution does not penalise public
display of affection, even though Section 365A of the Penal
Code states that “acts of gross indecency” is a crime, an
interpretation that includes homosexuality. However, Section
7 of Vagrants Ordinance states that “soliciting and acts of
indecency in public places” is a punishable offence though
public indecency is not defined. |
He says although physical barriers have been removed at with the end
of 30-year-long civil war, mentally, the people are still living in
their own prisons with outdated and meaningless ideas. “The
architectural meaning of the Independence Square is freedom. So within
that premises, if a person can’t sit with his/her partner and hold hands
what’s the use of that freedom?” he asks.
Samantha
Harshanath Mapitigama, using the social media to express his views,
criticised the Deputy Minister’s intervention, calling it nothing but a
media circus. “It is clearly not his duty to go there and question the
security guards. For some, this incident is a rebellious act done in the
name of true lovers. Some people think that it’s a heroic thing to
humiliate those security guards in public. Harsha is an economist and
the country can benefit from his knowledge. Without resorting to
bi-scope acts in the eyes of money - minded media, he should his render
his service to the country,” he wrote.
Temporary solution
Sathsara Vimukthi notes, “How the authorities solved this problem is
just a temporary solution, whereas they should have provided a permanent
one to prevent such incidents from happening in the future. What is
lacking is proper laws to regulate such places.”
A circular has been issued by the Ministry of Cultural Affairs with
the guidelines as to what is appropriate behaviour. However, it does not
expressly state that couples are not allowed in the premises. Also it is
important to note that since no uniform law is laid down regulating such
premises, it has caused unwanted issues in the country, attracting the
attention of the people by ignoring other significant issues that needs
to be addressed immediately.
If a person asks from ten different people what they have experienced
at the Independence Square, they will give ten different answers, which
is a result of lack of proper laws. There have been instances where
people have been asked to leave the place because they are noisy, some
are harassed and some are. If the authorities intend to prevent this
type of incidents taking place in such an iconic place, what they should
do is to come up with solid and stringent laws so that the public will
be aware of what the restrictions are.
|