|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 25 July 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
The true Johnian Spirit Speech by Prof. S.Ratnajeevan H. Hoole at the St John's College, Jaffna Prize Day early this month.
I wish to explore the Johnian spirit - especially what it ought to be. We find old boys of certain schools boasting in the newspapers that their school can be identified based on how they walk. Others take up time at public meetings in vain banter over their school against their rival school, as though the rest of us have nothing to do and are there to admire them. That surely is not the Johnian spirit. A thoughtful theologian has argued that every organisation is evil because it defines those that are in and, as a corollary therefore, those that are out. That is, if we Johnians are a family, then is a non-Johnian who shares our values not a part of our family? I would like to project Johnians as belonging to a large extended family defined by an international culture of shared values, cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism and liberalism. In the Aims of Education as expressed in Article 29 (1) of the Child Rights Convention, the signatory states agree that the education of a child shall be directed to, inter alia, a) the development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedom b) the development of respect for civilisations different from his or her own c) the preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origins; and It is a broad mandate. I am sure that you are familiar with these rights. What I would like to do is focus on these since they advance a human rights ethos among and through you students who are the future adults and leaders of Sri Lanka. It is very important that you understand these freedoms in all their dimensions. For the wide applicability of these rights and freedoms, you must not only practice them but also demand them. It is in demanding them that you ensure their availability. In my own public life, it is my experience that in the old order, we administrators tended to decide in favour of those in authority. We continue to do so and need to be pressured to change. We rarely ask if the decision is reasonable and right; if it is justified. Usually - I can vouch for this from my experience at the highest levels of academe - we take an arbitrary decision and then minute the decision to give the appearance that it is carefully thought out. This is why many of our administrative decisions are over-turned by the courts. Many of us in turn view the courts as a nuisance that prevents us from doing what we want. Too often when we are caught by the courts doing wrong, we appeal and delay so that the changes demanded by the courts happen only after we have left office. But you I hope will view the courts as friendly agencies acting in our interests, ensuring our rights when we are the underdog, and pushing us towards the right things when we are in authority. Today, no authority is unlimited. Authority must be exercised as a trust with transparency and reason for the public good. As the new human rights culture takes root, we are increasingly aware of our obligations. But it is an uphill task. Remember that when we decide with reason instead of arbitrariness, it diminishes our powers. We lose the power to exercise patronage. Instead, we must now decide what is best for our organisation. That is, while our own powers are diminished by the rights-based culture, our organisation is enhanced by having the services of the best brains available and by having the best practices practised. Fundamental questions This brings us to some fundamental questions. Why should we enhance the human rights and freedom of others? What is the basis of these rights? What is their rationale? At a simple level, there is a simple answer. Without a just system of human rights, it would be the law of the jungle. The strongest would take all the goodies and leave out the weak. It would be that abominable law of Nietzsche's - might is right. We know instinctively that it is a bad thing when the mighty lord it over the meek. But then, a more fundamental question arises, when we are the mighty living in a world of people whom we do not like, or whom we consider subhuman, why should we give up our rights and privileges? We might even argue that those under our feet are better off under our loving care as the high-caste argue and justify their lordship over the low-caste. The world of reason would give an answer as to why we should voluntarily give up our arbitrary powers. It is based on the old adage "The elephant has its moment and the cat too has its." That is we are not always guaranteed our present positions of might and one day will be superseded by someone else. Therefore it is far better to set up a system where we will be all right when bad times fall on us and we become the underdog. These are good reasons for human rights. They are in a sense based on self-interest - to ensure a system for ourselves that would respect our rights whether we are up or down - ensure our rights in good times and in bad times. Be that as it may, this reason may not always convince the powerful who tend to be boisterous. They cannot imagine the day when they are bereft of their present power. In their absolute power, they cannot imagine that day when they might be overtaken by those who today are under them. And in general, arguments based on self-interest do not always carry moral conviction. These reasons, though good, are not enough. So we need more to justify human rights. We can appeal to religion to support human rights. But I do not think that a religious reason can have universal appeal in a multi-religious society as ours. Although many argue to the contrary, I think they make the common mistake of saying goody-goody stuff without conviction; without reason. Indeed I can even argue against human rights using religion. I can argue that the Baghavad Geeta's claim that suffering and happiness are illusions excuses the imposition of pain and suffering on peoples. As Krishna argued, those who were killed were not wronged. So the violation of rights is all right. View I assert my view, unconventional though it might be, that religion in a multi- religious society cannot form a common basis for rights. Any attempt to use religion as a common basis would be counter-productive as the example showed and lead to more division. We need a culturally neutral basis. Others have argued that the basis of rights is the common good. But what the common good is, is debatable. Indeed there is no common good when 2 persons debate over one's right to play loud music and the other's right to quietness for reflection and relaxation. Still others have argued that the rights of the majority should form the basis. Indeed, minorities will reject this outright. Even if Sri Lanka were a homogeneous society, this would pose problems. The coal power plant in Norachcholai will provide the maximum good for the majority by providing cheap electricity for all Sri Lankans. But those in the locality of Norachcholai would appear to have higher rights when their health is affected even though they too will receive cheap electricity. My wife and I, in the International Journal of Engineering Education, have argued for social consensus as reflected in human rights legislation and conventions, as a religiously neutral basis for human rights. Even though this cannot be a universal basis when there is no social consensus, in Sri Lanka we are moving towards such a consensus on human rights. Keeping in mind that the rights of all Sri Lankans to cheap electricity are counterpoised against the rights of the residents of Norachcholai, we have proposed in our paper the concept of a hierarchy of rights. For example, the right to life of the Convention on Civil and Political Rights, anyone would concede, supercedes the right to vacations with pay in the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. When the two are in conflict, the right to life must prevail. The hope then is that judicial decisions will in time establish this hierarchy. When our paper was reviewed prior to publication, an anonymous reviewer objected to judges determining which right of any two is the higher. These objections have some merit. For in the Sri Lankan situation, one in the North-East could argue that a judge sitting in Colombo, in all probability a Sinhalese, cannot set hierarchies for rights. So even our thesis of social consensus and judicial determinations establishing a basis for human rights, has its weaknesses and flaws. Be that as it may, human rights certainly have the benefit of being the only thing on which all Sri Lankans are agreed and our established commitment to them has been a means of stopping the war. To be continued |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
