IN DEFENCE OF LOVE

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.