In his analysis of the results of the recent North Central and Sabaragamuwa Provincial Council elections, under the caption ‘Increased polarisation is the other side of euphoria’ Jehan Perera in the Daily Mirror 26 August has attributed the psychology of resistance that developed among the Tamil people in the Tamil majority north-east to the reality of overall ethnic majority rule over the ethnic minorities. The awareness that “their fate was being decided in the electoral verdicts that the more numerous southern (Sinhala) electorate would be delivering, and which they in the north had little or no opportunity to influence” was indeed frustrating.
Phobia

The disintegration of the multi-ethnic nation of Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims and other ethnic minorities started with the move to curtail the rights and opportunities enjoyed by the ‘Ceylon Tamils’ at the time of independence. This was politically advantageous for the parties whose supporters were mainly ethnic Sinhalese who had also been infused with the fear of Tamil domination. The marginalization of ethnic Tamils, who under the British colonial ‘divide and rule’ policy prospered relatively well was also perceived as useful for safeguarding the supremacy of the Sinhala Buddhists in the independent island nation.

Although the proportion of Tamils in the entire island is relatively small, taken together with the 70 million Tamils in south India the ethnic community is perceived by some nationalists a threat to the Sinhala nation. The language, religious and cultural ties of Sri Lankan Tamils with their brethren in Tamil Nadu give a basis for this phobia. Moreover, India with nearly a billion people and considerable military and economic power is perceived by some Sinhala nationalists a potential threat to their sovereignty. Because of this fear close economic ties and Indian investment in Sri Lanka are viewed suspiciously.

Although the upcountry Tamils (earlier known as Indian Tamils) are the known descendants of the migrants who arrived during the British colonial period to work mainly in the tea and rubber plantations they are not considered to be a potential threat by the Sinhala nationalists. Their leaders did not make the kind of demands made by indigenous Tamil (Ceylon Tamil) leaders before independence. This was in response to the historical connections with ancient Sinhalese monarchs claimed by the then Sinhalese patriotic leaders, although the entire island was not at any time solely under one or more Sinhalese rulers.

Elitism

The claim for territorial and communal representation was made by Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan from the standpoint of maintaining “the good relations that existed between the ethnic communities”. Regrettably, he opposed the extension of the franchise recommended by the Donoughmore Commission as he thought universal suffrage would institutionalize Sinhala majority rule, which was detrimental to the interests of Ceylon Tamils. The social class distinction influenced his political thinking. The Tamil Vellalas who had high proportion of educated members wanted to be at the center of influence. Ramanathan advocated property and educational qualifications for the exercise of franchise knowing fully well this would only empower the better-off and more educated sections, leaving the poor and less educated lot as second class citizens. The attitudes of Sinhala and Tamil elites were not very different. The Sinhala nationalists anxious to keep the Tamils under control are from the elitist class.

In a 50-page Memorandum to the Secretary of State for the Colonies dated 18 July 1930 Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan asked: “What then would be the fate of the different races in Ceylon where only a very small percentage of the people have received elementary education, where the vast majority of the people have not learnt to manage their own affairs properly…? Universal suffrage for a people who have not been given universal elementary education and sound education in business methods will assuredly lead to the filling of the legislature with speculators and schemers, skilled in robbing Peter to pay Paul”. (The break-up of Sri Lanka by Prof. A. J. Wilson 1988)

Education

The universal free education introduced on the eve of independence raised the literacy rate appreciably as well as the demand for white collar jobs. Initially many were able enter the government service but later unemployment of educated youth shot up. The education system after abandoning English completely and students compelled to learn exclusively through the medium of their mother tongue turned out to be nationally damaging and unhelpful, especially to those seeking professional careers. Had the parents been given the choice to choose the medium of education for their children, many would have opted for English, while retaining Sinhala and Tamil languages as compulsory subjects in the school curriculum. But the choice was not available because the politicians were anxious to portray themselves as patriots.

The new system promoted the concept of two nations based primarily on the linguistic difference (not religious) of the citizens. The frustration of the educated youth increased because of the difficulty in securing employment. In general, even present graduates of Sri Lankan universities lack basic skills as well as proficiency in English essential for high level employment in the organized private sector. Education is a much broader concept than just obtaining a paper qualification.

Education from the kindergarten to the university denied opportunities to cultivate friendship between students from different ethnic groups and importantly the sense of all fellow citizens belonging to one Sri Lankan nation. The media-wise standardization of marks to reduce the number of Tamil students qualified to enter the universities was a deadly blow to Tamil aspiration. Thus, parochial politics denied gainful education to the children and promoted the concept of two nations in the island.

Modernizing the education system to conform to present and future social and economic needs is resisted even now by the power seeking Sinhala nationalists. Dr. Tara de Mel has drawn attention to the “destructive and savage behaviour” of some university students and the continued practice “to bow to their ridiculous demands” and the “reluctance in pursuing important policies connected to modernising education”. The fear of antagonizing the Sinhala nationalists who have been supporting parties like the JVP seems to be the reason. Incidentally, most JVP members are also the product of the divisive education system that promoted the wrong idea of patriotism based on racial prejudice.

To quote from her article in ‘The Island’ 21 August 2008: “A few years ago, when the regime in power at that time proposed progressive reforms to the school and university education sectors, the hue and cry orchestrated by the JVP was deafening. Except for a minority, many in that Government feared and held in awe the JVP. And this was not just due to the power they held over the Government with their numbers in parliament. Several excellent and landmark initiatives related to education that had been proposed, planned and approved by the cabinet had to be aborted due to the irrational fears that the regime harboured about the JVP” (and nationalists in other parties including its own).

Another damning report ‘Teachers` pact with the devil a la Faustus’ dated 27 August 2008 stated: “The JVP is in a position to wreak havoc on schools, catch students young, indoctrinate them and turn them into cannon fodder in a future insurgency! In the late 1980s, it may be recalled, the JVP shamelessly took out school children, some of them as young as five or six years, to take part in its demonstrations against the JRJ government. Many students perished in the uprising, as could be seen from the Suriya Kanda mass grave, where over a dozen school children were found buried. Governments are callous and politicians stupid and inconsiderate. They won’t give two hoots about teachers` or students` problems, as they love to have a nation of ignoramuses who will vote for them without asking questions. Let there be no argument about that fact”. Although the LTTE does not have similar power to meddle with the system, the damage done by them to the education of Tamil children in the North- East is enormous. The point here is the past negative political developments because of weak and parochial leadership with no long-term outlook are now major obstacles to reforms that are vital for the future of the nation and the people.

Grievances

There are some Sinhala nationalists (patriots) who intentionally want to downplay (some pretend not to exist) the grievances of the ethnic minorities. Their real motive is to retain the present unitary structure without devolving powers to the provinces. S. L. Gunasekara a well-known Colombo lawyer has argued in his article in the Daily Mirror 28 August 2008 that the Tamils in Sri Lanka do not have a monopoly of grievances that need to be addressed by a political solution. He was responding to Indian National Security Adviser M. K. Narayanan’s recent interview with the Strait Times in which he said: “What the Sri Lankans are not factoring in is the great deal of sullenness in the Tamil man…..unless you give the Tamils a feeling they have the right to their destiny in many matters, you will not succeed.”

He has ridiculed Narayanan’s remark made in the context of the ongoing conflict which has nothing to do with the grievances of the Sinhalese people. It is certainly not his “extreme myopia” that made him to refer to the “sullenness” of the Tamil man. Also, he did not say that he saw, “only smiles of supreme contentment in all others - be they Sinhalese, Muslim or any other…” Indeed, vast majority of Sri Lankans in all ethnic communities have common grievances regarding their children’s education, present high cost of living, employment opportunities, public services, security and uncertain future.

Narayanan was not commenting on the prevailing social and economic conditions in Sri Lanka but specifically on the lingering ethnic problem.

The way the lawyer has responded, seems like arguing a case in a court of law. The distinction between the general grievances and those specific to the ethnic minorities is directly connected with the monopoly of control, the system has bestowed on the Sinhala polity, which has denied the ethnic minorities the right to their destiny in matters concerning their general welfare, aspirations, security and socio-economic advancement.
On the common grievances he has said - “those who suffer because of these ailments in the body politic are the ordinary people and, in particular, the poor, be they Sinhalese, Tamil or Muslim. No one or more communities have a monopoly of such suffering: we are, in this regard, partners in misfortune. Nobody can enjoy his undoubted right to his destiny when much of it is controlled by functionaries to whom a `sense of shame’ is something that is extinct!!!” If there is the will, these can be addressed by implementing apt policies. Why concerned persons like S. L. Gunasekara have not pressed for counteractive measures? Were there other pressing issues requiring the full attention of successive governments?

With regard to the specific grievances of ethnic minorities, he has cited the plight of the Tamils because of the harsh war not mentioning those connected with the neglect and unfair treatment for decades by successive governments. “Thus, today, the Tamils of the Northern Province suffer untold hardships because of the terrorism of the LTTE in the same way that the Sinhalese suffered untold hardships because of the terrorism of the JVP. Such hardships, however, must necessarily end with the now inevitable defeat of the LTTE in the same way that the particular hardships suffered by the Sinhalese ended with the annihilation of all but one of the leadership of the JVP”. Surely, he cannot be unaware of the many hardships continuously endured by the Tamils and Muslims because of their helpless state in the present setup. Over 5 decades of bitter experience with the Sinhala majority rule that is sensitive to the concerns of Sinhala nationalists, on what grounds the ethnic minorities can believe their separate sufferings and concerns about their future will ease? What gives them the confidence in the expressed hope that the restoration of “standards” and “a sense of shame” will resolve the ethnic problem? The optimism seems to be based on the military defeat of the LTTE as if that is the main obstacle in the path to lasting peace. In the past promises and official declarations gave false hopes. This too contributed to the distrust, especially of desperate Tamils in the unitary system.

The post war hope for change is based on the imagined unity of the people of all races and collective action for ethical improvements within the present polity. “The military defeat of the LTTE will only serve to create conditions conducive to the restoration of `standards’ and a `sense of shame’ and it will be for the People of this Country regardless of race, caste, religion and political affiliation to act in unison to compel the politicians to restore them – for if that is not done, there is no future for us, whether we be Sinhalese, Tamil or Muslim …” Whatever unity that existed at the time of independence was shattered by discriminatory policies and practices that hurt severely the ethnic minorities and to expect the restoration of the unity without fundamental changes to the present system is as unrealistic as the establishment of a separate Tamil State. Unity can be achieved only by suitable power sharing arrangement in a reformed democratic system.

Another lawyer Gomin Dayasri (also member of the Expert Panel B that submitted the minority report to the APRC containing maximum safeguards and minimum devolution to retain the unitary system in its present form) has suggested a way “to bind the nation which was disturbed by separatist forces with the connivance of mischievous NGO elements”. (Amity after the War – Asian Tribune 29 August 2008). The division had occurred long before the Tamil Tigers exploited it to achieve their political aim. In fact, they wanted more of the same policies and practices that brought about the division. Anyway, he has said “some of the prime grievances of the Tamils can be identified as – (1) Failure to implement language provisions enshrined in the law; (2) Security Concerns; (3) Acquisition of Land and payment of compensation and/or release; (4) Land and Water; (5) Child Recruitment; (6) Lack of development; (7) Multi ethnic defense and police force; (8) Lack of Employment opportunities; (9) Rehabilitation of internally displaced persons; and (10) Inadequate infrastructural benefits.”

The problems caused by the destructive war must not be confused with those created by discriminatory policies and practices that were possible freely under the present unitary constitution. There are no safeguards like Section 29(2) in the Soulbury Constitution to protect minority rights. He also wants the “legitimacy of these grievances” to be examined. “The Tamils must establish their grievances are legitimate and the government must examine and satisfy their validity and thereupon ensure that remedies of a lasting nature are provided while assuring that no harm befalls the other communities. Tamils, if they fall prey to extreme elements and the NGO community; if the Sinhala leadership listens to the fanatic elements- the hand of friendship cannot be extended in the hour of need, after the culmination of the War”. He has also dismissed the provisions relevant to political settlement in the Constitution Bill of 2000 submitted to Parliament by former President Chandrika Kumaratunga as weird. Apparently, he is glad these “were shot down at conception”. It is clear from the conciliatory rhetoric that the intent is to avoid any changes to the lopsided structure that has bestowed Sinhala majority rule throughout the island.

The following statements substantiate this conclusion. “Provincial Council system has proved to be a colossal failure-another in the series of blunders made by J.R. Jayawardane who can be described as the father of terrorism in the North and the South with Prabhakaran and Wijeweera as the off springs”. “The satisfaction of the grievances will directly benefit the minorities while devolution alone will enhance powers acquired by politicians and how much of it will trickle down to the constituents, as past experience has shown is doubtful”. “Grievances of the minorities can be addressed forthwith without the tinkering of Constitution which is an impossibility t o amend with provisions dealing with 2/3 majorities and a referendum”. He must be grateful to JR for putting down these conditions! Finally, the phobia that has stood in the way to reasonable settlement taking cognizance of the diverse demographic and regional features is evident from the statement – “Minorities can gain much if they can convince the majority that they do not make claims that give rise to separatism”.

Superficial democracy

Democracy in sovereign Sri Lanka has been perceived as the majority rule of the people who elect periodically their representatives to the Parliament. In the Cabinet system policies and programmes are not decided according to the specific needs of the people in the different provinces. There is no way to consider their concerns, views and suggestions before decisions are made on important matters. The Executive Committee system that existed before independence provided space for members from different parties to participate in the decision-making process.

Regular elections are a good indication of strong democracies, provided the results reflect the free will of the voters. In a representative democracy, all parties must be allowed to compete on an equal footing and the citizens given the opportunity to make their own choice. With the intrusion of corrupt practices, elections have not been entirely free and fair. Many voters do not cast their votes on the basis of past performances of candidates and/or their known stands on national issues relevant to the general welfare of all citizens and overall development because politicians have made parochial and nationalistic issues more important. Under the present system even the candidates rejected by the electorate are able to become immediately parliamentarians and even Ministers!

The stark truth is democracy and the unitary system ignored the diverse ethnic and regional features and majority rule did not represent the real structure of the Lankan society. In the North and East, the vocal language is mainly Tamil and the customs are also different. The ethnic composition in the East changed significantly because of government sponsored colonization schemes. There was no concerted effort to integrate residents of all ethnic communities as stakeholders in the development of the region and allay the fears of the ethnic communities previously settled there. The official policies after independence polarized the society along ethnic lines and underscored the division between traditional Tamil and Sinhalese regions.

The culture of impunity that grew rapidly in recent years has also undermined democracy. Sri Lanka is now widely recognized as a dangerous place for journalists, following several violent incidents where media personnel have been abducted or assaulted and their equipment damaged or seized or arrested on flimsy charges. The journalists unions have accused the government for creating a culture where any one is free to assault a journalist with a camera or a notebook. This recent accusation is the culmination of several earlier incidents where the assailants were goons including a Cabinet Minister. None of them were apprehended and brought to justice. The latest incident occurred on August 28 when three journalists who were interviewing members of the public were attacked by Colombo university medical students. The Sri Lanka Working Journalists Association secretary, Podddala Jayantha said: “The government has worked towards establishing a Mervyn Silva-media culture in the country. This is why medical students assaulted journalists, who were collecting material for a current news matter.” He also said “the country had reached a point, where the public believed that journalists could be manhandled and assaulted and their equipment damaged or stolen and that nothing would be done about it”.

In real democracy, governments must be committed to human rights, rule of law, basic freedom including freedom of expression (media freedom), good governance, social justice and the welfare of all citizens. The lawful right to information in many countries has helped to observe the doctrine of accountability. Politics in Sri Lanka is largely parochial and self-interest takes precedence over other wider interests of the society and the country. An article in Sri Lanka Guardian 29 August 2008 captioned ‘Politicians dragging Lanka towards anarchy’ states “Politics in Sri Lanka has proved an easy way for politicians to become rich fast. Many politicians who have not had a proper education, but the ability to dupe people with their rhetoric are having a field day. The racist war created by them for personal gain has reduced this country to a pariah state where only rulers enjoy life while others starve”.

Devolution

In her article in the EPW Economic & Political Weekly, August 9 ‘Democracy as Solution to Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Crisis’, Rohini Hensman has proposed a shift in emphasis from devolution to democracy as the current system is not majority rule (of the collective Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims and others) but that of the minority elitist class. “The representatives who are elected - and they tend to come from the wealthier strata of society - can go on to do what they like without any reference to the wishes of their constituents and there is very little the latter can do about it until the next elections”. It is important to remind here, the ethnic divide was exploited by the ‘minority elitist’ class in the south to gain mass support vital for seizing power. The power seekers also gave confidence that they would protect the Sinhala people against future Tamil dominance. Many Sinhala voters believed this was necessary for a better and secure life. The reasons for denying political power and economic benefits to the ethnic minorities are not because of the class distinction in the Lankan society. There are problems associated with class distinction but these are different from those faced by Tamils as members of ethnic minority community.

Rohini has said that the discriminatory acts such as “the disenfranchisement of upcountry Tamils and the Official Language Act to the recent revival of attempts at Sinhala colonisation of the East, successive governments or parties hoping to come to power have enacted or advocated policies that deprive members of minority communities of their citizenship, franchise, employment, education, land, homes and in many cases their lives, all in the name of the Sinhalese majority” have only benefitted a “Very few” Sinhalese. “….majoritarianism is a way in which (elitist) ‘minority rule’ seeks to legitimise itself by creating the illusion that a small elite speaks and acts in the interests of the majority” (Sinhalese). Let us not get confused between two different problems With regard to the ethnic conflict, the issue is not how many Sinhalese have benefitted from the pro-Sinhala discriminatory policies but the fact that the entire Tamil speaking ethnic minority has suffered immensely.

The choice is not between more democracy and less devolution or vice versa. Given the nature of the problems that are hindering progress, real democracy and maximum devolution are needed. By allowing the representatives of the people in the provinces to decide on matters concerning the needs, welfare and security of the residents, democratic process is made more meaningful. Empowering the people in the provinces to influence the decisions that directly concern their day-to-day living is not a sinister move towards separation. The federal system was initially proposed by the Kandyan Sinhalese chiefs in their appearances before the Donoughmore Commission in 1927. The suggested federal polity consisted of (i) the Tamil areas of the Northern and Eastern Provinces; (ii) the Low Country Sinhalese provinces (the Southern and Western) ; and (iii) the Kandyan Sinhalese (upcountry) provinces. It is worth mentioning here that the Donoughmore Commissioners as a compromise suggested Provincial Councils (Chapter VII of their Report). Moreover, the Soulbury Commissioners in their Report of 1945 “echoed more positive views on the subject of Provincial Councils. They took cognizance of the fact that the then Ceylon Government had already proposed Provincial Councils” (Prof. A. J. Wilson in ‘The Break-up of Sri Lanka’).

The present Constitution allows the abuse of power, misuse of public funds, violation of the rule of law, nepotism, discriminatory policies and practices against ethnic minorities, human rights violations and autocratic rule via the powerful Executive Presidency. Despite all these weaknesses that have hindered stability, peace and progress, it is very valuable for some because of the unitary structure enshrined in it. This is crucial for safeguarding their interests and status, hence their keenness to hold on to the 1978 Constitution with the 13th Amendment dormant. If this is going to be the case, it is not difficult for any sensible person to predict the future of Sri Lanka.

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]