federalidea.com

By Dr. S. Narapalasingam

The first (Soulbury) constitution of united Ceylon (the earlier name for Sri Lanka) was drafted according to the guidelines set out in the declaration of 26 May 1943. An important stipulation of the British government was that the draft should have the support of at least 75 per cent of the Members of the State Council, excluding the Officers of State and the Speaker or the presiding officer. This was to ensure that it was acceptable to the ethnic minorities. The original draft of the Board of Ministers (Sessional Paper XIV of 1944) included various safeguards against discrimination of ethnic minorities. Sir Ivor Jennings, who was then the adviser to D. S. Senanayake, the head of the Board of Ministers helped in drafting the Paper.

It is important to note that the exercise then was for preparing a new Constitution to a country that was about to be granted independence. The promising climate that existed at that time favoured the unitary structure for the island with varied regional demographics that underwent considerable changes subsequently as a direct result of discriminatory policies and practices implemented by governments that became increasingly receptive and responsive to the communal interests of the majority Sinhalese community. The educational and employment opportunities the Tamils had enjoyed at that time were portrayed by the Sinhalese nationalists seeking power or prominence as hindrances to the socio-economic advancement of the Sinhala masses. Gradually, the ethnic Tamil minority became a powerless group dependent on the largesse of the Sinhala dominated governments. Any government that sought to address the grievances of the Tamil people was denounced as betraying the interests of the majority Sinhalese people. Inevitably, the society split glaringly along ethnic lines.

New political aims

Besides the intent to promote unity in ethnic diversity, many useful mechanisms introduced in the Soulbury constitution intended to safeguard democracy, rule of law, good governance and the independence of the executive and the judiciary were abandoned. The setting-up of truly independent commissions with members well known for their competence and impartiality to be responsible for the recruitment and appointment of senior officers to the executive and judicial services were also intended to prevent political interference. Moreover, the second chamber, the Senate, served as a safeguard against hasty political decisions of the lower house harmful to the future of the nation. All these were regarded as obstacles to the new political aims of Sinhala majority governments.

The constitutional changes made after independence by successive governments led by the two rival parties, the SLFP and the UNP ignored the multi-ethnic character of the State. Changes were made not in the national interest but to serve the political interest of the ruling party. As intended, these facilitated political interference in administration. Recruitment and promotion within the public sector were mostly for personal or political reasons. Politicization of almost all aspects of administration followed. This became a major obstacle to good governance, effective enforcement of law and order, efficient use of available resources and sustained national development. With the abandonment of the Soulbury Constitution, the aim to foster unity in ethnic diversity vanished. Concerns of the ethnic minorities about their future were not important to the policy makers.

Minority safeguards ignored

Article 29(2) in the Soulbury Constitution was taken from the aforementioned draft of the Board of Ministers and reformulated by the Soulbury Commissioners. Specifically, it sought to prevent discrimination against members of the ethnic and religious minorities by ensuring no law could be enacted to

(i) prohibit or restrict the free exercise of any religion;

(ii) make persons of any community or religion liable to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of other communities or religions are not made liable; or

(iii) confer on persons of any community or religion any privilege or advantage which is not conferred on persons of other communities or religions.

Late Prof. A. J. Wilson has explained how administratively some discrimination against minority Tamils (both Ceylon and Indian origin) was possible despite Article 29, which remained valid until it was replaced by the 1972 homemade Republic Constitution. It did not provide safeguards against administrative discrimination, such as preferential treatment for Sinhalese in public appointments and the setting-up of state projects mainly in Sinhalese areas, as it was intended to prevent the enactment of discriminatory legislations. Nevertheless, the legal challenges in the courts to the 1948 and 1949 legislations that deprived citizenship and voting rights to the Tamils of Indian origin were unsuccessful. The highest tribunal at that time, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (London) approved the Ceylon Supreme Court decision in Mudanayake v. Sivagnanasunderam case (L53 N.L.R. 25, 1952). The argument was that the criteria used to disqualify citizenship and voting rights of Tamils of recent Indian origin would also disqualify members of any other community as well and they were, therefore, not specifically directed at the ‘Indian Tamils’. [The Break-up of Sri Lanka (pp 48-50), published in 1988 by C. Hurst & Company, London]

For some reason, the 1956 Official Language Act (Sinhala only) was not challenged in the courts by the Tamil political leaders. It was only after several years a Tamil public servant (Mr. Kodeeswaran) successfully challenged it in the lower court on the grounds that the Act was unconstitutional as it contravened Article 29 of the Constitution and that it constituted a breach of the contract of his employment. The government appealed against the judgement of the original court to the Supreme Court which without ruling on the constitutional validity point, held that Kodeeswaran as a servant of the government had no right to sue the government for breach of contract. Kodeeswaran appealed against the Supreme Court judgement to the Privy Council which upheld his appeal on the breach of contract point and referred the case back to the Supreme Court directing it to hear the case on the constitutionality of Article 29. While this case was pending, the Soulbury Constitution was replaced in 1972 with a homegrown constitution for the new Republic. Article 29 that was regarded as providing some form of protection to the ethnic minorities was excluded in the 1972 Constitution that gave virtually absolute power to Parliament, the supreme governing body of the people. Not only the second Chamber, the Senate, was abolished but also other checks and balances essential for effective functioning of parliamentary democratic system were removed. The consequences were catastrophic.

Another important observation in Prof. Wilson’s book is: “Neither the 1972 Constitution nor the 1978 which replaced it succeeded in reassuring Tamil opinion, although both documents contained provisions for according rights to minority groups and dubious provisions for the use of Tamil language; the rights provided for in both Constitutions though differing in certain textual details, had blanket clauses which entitled governments to violate constitutional rights in the ‘general and national interest’. Chapter VI, Section 18, of the 1972 Constitution contained the list of fundamental rights and freedoms. But Section 18(2) contained the following saving clause:

The exercise and operation of the fundamental rights and freedoms provided in this chapter shall be subject to such restrictions as the law prescribes in the interests of national unity and integrity, national security, national economy, public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others or giving effect to the Principles of State Policy set out in Section 16.”

Fundamental Rights

The present 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka contain clauses that guarantee fundamental rights including Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 10); Freedom from torture ( Art.11); Right to equality (Art. 12); Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and punishment; and prohibition of retroactive penal legislation (Art.13); and Freedom of speech, assembly, association, occupation, movement (Art.14).

However, the exercise and operation of the fundamental rights and freedoms provided in this chapter shall be subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed by law in the interests of national security, public order and the protection of public health or morality, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others or of meeting the just requirements of the general welfare of a democratic society. [Art. 15(7)]

Following the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987, the Constitution was amended making the Tamil language also an official language together with the Sinhala language (Art. 18). However, successive governments have failed to implement this important constitutional provision thereby continuing to deny the linguistic rights of the Tamil people.

It is to be noted that no Tamil politician or political party has thought it fit up to now to mount a legal challenge in the courts in respect of the denial of the linguistic rights to which the Tamil people are entitled under the Constitution.

The Chairman of the Official Languages Commission, Raja Collure, in his report of 2005 has said: “Neither national integration nor durable communal amity could be achieved without giving effect to the constitutional provisions on language. Any discrimination that results in the failure of the government to faithfully implement the Official Languages Policy also constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens so affected.” This constitutional violation continues to this day despite the fact that the need to implement in practice the language provisions to win the confidence of the Tamil speaking people was urgent from the time they was passed.

Democracy undermined

Not only the serene island has been turned into a volatile field helpful to murderers and corrupt men but also democracy has been undermined. Politicians can boast Sri Lanka is the oldest democracy in Asia with the universal franchise exercised by the islanders from 1931, even before Great Britain gave the women there the right to vote. Democracy worked well from the standpoint of conducting regularly free and fair elections but even this limited feature is now dented. The present constitution contrary to its impressive title-The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka-is neither socialist nor democratic.

Singapore was not a fully democratic country under Lee Kwan Yew’s leadership, as multi-party democracy functions in the developed countries but the national politics was not divisive. Its goal was farsighted to ensure prosperity and security for future generations. The country has throughout been stable, united and advancing rapidly. This is clearly evident from the prevailing unity in ethnic diversity and high per capita income and living standard. Singapore’s success is entirely due to the bold and righteous path taken by him soon after the island became a separate State. He was determined not to follow the path the patriotic Sinhalese leaders of independent Ceylon took, hoping to return to the historic period before the foreign conquests. Their prime interest was to establish the supremacy of the Sinhala Buddhists in the entire island.

Politics of the cess-pit

Former ambassador K. Godage, in his forthright comments on Sri Lanka’s political culture that has evolved from the unremitting adversarial confrontational politics without any consideration for the future of the nation has said: “The cement that has held this form of confrontational politics together, has been the vulgar pursuit of political power, for which goes the opportunity to mount the gravy train and get rich quickly”. He has then posed the pertinent question: “In the process have we not become a morally degenerate society?” Large share of the blame is on the society itself. Had the civil and religious leaders been sagacious and forewarned the public of the dire consequences to the country’s future and dissuaded the politicians from indulging in nationally damaging politics, the moral degeneration would not have happened. Sadly a section of the Buddhist clergy, contrary to the teaching of Lord Buddha helped the politicians to embrace hostile communal politics. “The cancer of corruption that is all pervasive” is due to the impunity enjoyed by those abusing power for personal benefit. Even without ministerial powers just being a Member of Parliament is now a lucrative vocation. Where in the world a parliamentarian is entitled to a handsome pension for life after sitting in the House for 5 years? Strangely all these benefits have not dissuaded them from seeking wealth through dishonest means. He is quite right in saying: “The political system itself breeds corruption”. (Ref – ‘The Nation’ 23 Sep 2007-Politics of the ‘cess-pit’ must end.)

Mr. Basil Fernando, who is now the executive director of the Asian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong, in his report (September 21) on Human Rights situation in Sri Lanka has said: “There is skepticism about the ruling regime’s willingness to deal with law and order problems as it is itself frequently accused of abuse of power and corruption. All attempts to normalize the situation will also affect the type of abuse of power which has become part of Sri Lankan politics since the introduction of the executive presidency by J. R. Jayawardene, the first executive president in 1978. The erosion of democracy developed into a full-fledged collapse of the rule of law. That collapse is no secret to anyone and any number of authorities can be cited admitting such an enormous collapse”. To some political leaders, everything is normal and rosy in Sri Lanka except for the terrorist menace! And human rights violations by the security forces in the so-called ‘war on terror’ are excusable! The Eelam war IV started by the LTTE as the final assault has become a useful tool for the government to seek its political objective.

Missing factors

The interest of the country and the people considered as members of one integrated society that influenced major political decisions in stable democratic countries was not the key deciding factor in independent Ceylon/Sri Lanka. In practice, national interest meant either the political interest of the main ruling party or from a broader perspective the interest of the Sinhala nation. There is also a narrower view evident from the make-up of the 1978 Constitution. It was influenced by the desire of the chief architect to function like a powerful monarch. The unchallengeable power of the Executive President is unique in the democratic world. According to his own admission the powerful Executive President as the head of State, head of government and head of the armed forces has extensive powers, except the power to change a man into a woman and vice versa. He never thought of the consequences, if the incontestable executive powers get into the wrong hands. By ensuring his constitution cannot be replaced easily as he did in 1978 with his party’s five-sixth majority obtained under the previous electoral system, he had acted without forethought. The blind path taken by blinkered leaders is the tragic part of the post-independence history of the island.

J. B. Muller has observed from “a Sri Lankan Burgher’s perspective” that the root causes of terrorism in Sri Lanka are: Discrimination, marginalization, intolerance, bigotry, and poverty and the causes for Tamil grievances are “the utterly myopic language policy, the equally foolish (media-wise) standardization of (examination marks) for university admissions, and discrimination regarding appointments to high posts in the Public Services” The removal of the causes convincingly requires “the formulation of an entirely new constitution-a secular one meant for ALL citizens that would enshrine a Bill of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms that would guarantee, in no uncertain terms, the unfettered pursuit of liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all its citizens”.

“If and when positive steps are taken to ensure that all citizens are fully coequal in all respects, the main grievances of those labeled ‘minorities’ would have been addressed fully. It would also remove the repugnant dichotomy of a ‘majority’ versus the ‘minorities’ and also end, forever, coalition politics and the unethical horse-trading that goes on to form governments before and after elections” (Daily News 24, September 2007). Apparently, he too has recognized that the existing structure of the State is unsuitable for realizing these aims. Any system that covertly recognizes one community in a sovereign democratic multi-ethnic country to be privileged for whatever reason is bound to lead to unrest and disintegration.

It must be stressed here even diligently drafted constitution taking into consideration the regional and demographic realities is helpful for promoting unity and peaceful coexistence of different communities, if and only if there is mutual trust and the confidence of all citizens that the democratically elected governments will act justly according to the underlying principles and aims of the constitution. Particularly, the minority communities will have faith in the constitution only if they have the confidence that no government will violate its principles for political expediency. The problem now in Sri Lanka is this much needed confidence has been completely shattered by irresponsible acts of commission and omission. Britain does not have a written constitution., yet the political system founded on democratic principles works well because of the trust the people have in it and in their political leaders who respect equal rights and freedom of thought and expression of all citizens, follow parliamentary traditions and serve the people either as members of the government or opposition without harming the larger interests of the society and the country. Moreover, under the system no one is above the law

Sadly, no concerted efforts have been made by successive governments towards winning the trust of the ethnic minorities by addressing their grievances earnestly. On the contrary, statements such as the one made recently by President Mahinda Rajapaksa have had the opposite effect. Because of its insensitivity, several analysts have quoted it in their critical essays. “During my election I received few Tamil votes because of the LTTE-enforced boycott. I was elected primarily by a Sinhala constituency on an election manifesto which made it clear that an ultimate solution to the ethnic crisis could be evolved only on the basis of a unitary state. In any peace settlement I have to carry the Sinhala voters with me. I cannot unilaterally impose a settlement” There are two related inferences. One is the doubt about the seriousness of the government in seeking a reasonable political solution to the ethno political problem (the apt term used by Dr. Sumanasiri Liyanage in his articles on the national crisis); and the other is the support extended unwittingly to LTTE’s firm stance that the Tamils cannot expect the Sinhalese to grant the same rights and privileges they have to the Tamils. The LTTE leader has also continuously justified his chosen violent route to reach his Eelam goal on the premise there is no other alternative. The Tamil community is now the victim of two tragedies.

The lack of visionary leadership that gave importance to short-term political interests has been the unfortunate missing feature in the blessed island. It is now, tragically, the stumbling block in the vital national task of restructuring the present constitution in order to avoid the past blunders and move forward. The unitary system has also perpetuated the national issues created by misrule. The country’s future depends crucially on getting rid of this unsuitable system.

The lack of interest of the governments in addressing the grievances of the ethnic minorities, while acknowledging their existence is due to their concern over the possibility of losing the support of the Sinhalese voters. There was absolutely no constitutional problem in taking actions to alleviate the difficulties faced by the minority Tamil speaking people. Even the Provincial Council system of administration with limited devolved powers introduced under the 13th Amendment to the 1978 Constitution failed because of the lack of interest in implementing fully the Provincial Councils Act No. 42 of 1987. The same can be expected with the proposed ‘maximum’ devolution of powers if introduced without any useful structural change.

Devolution under the 13th Amendment

The 13th Amendment was the direct consequence of the 1987 Indo-Lanka Accord following the intervention of the Indian government to end the bloody conflict in Sri Lanka by devolving powers in specified subjects to all the provinces equally with the Northern and Eastern provinces merged into one unit. It is widely acknowledged the Provincial Council (PC) system does not serve any useful purpose and it is a white elephant. The few beneficiaries are the provincial politicians, bureaucrats and their associates. The LTTE was determined to kill any system that diminished the case for separation. In the case of the PC the formidable obstacle they faced then was the government in New Delhi and not in Colombo. The latter sabotaged the spirit and letter of the 13th Amendment by not devolving the powers as envisaged in the PC Act.

At the very beginning itself, the N-E Provincial Administration set up under this Act declared that the devolved powers offered hardly satisfied the aspirations of the Tamil speaking people of the Province. The Status Report prepared in early 1989 stated that the powers as expected under the 1987 Accord (despite India being the guarantor of the stated provisions) had not been devolved. It stated, “Even the meager powers devolved by the 13th Amendment were systematically denied to the province by the Administration of the Sri Lankan Government. The 13th Amendment itself was being interpreted by the Sri Lankan side to the disadvantage of the Tamils”. Apparently this was because the government treated the ‘Concurrent List’ of subjects as its own domain like the ‘Reserved List’. The disappointed N-E Provincial Administration proposed new amendment to replace the 13th Amendment, but it was not taken seriously by the then Sri Lankan Government with the late Ranasinghe Premadasa as the new Executive President. Given his known stance against India’s involvement in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka, he was also not an enthusiastic backer of the PC system.

Durand Appuhamy in ‘The Island’ of 24 September has stated: “The Provincial Council system has become a white elephant precisely because the powers given to the Councils have been usurped by the government. They are, at the moment, merely dollar guzzling institutions providing an opportunity to many of the local politicians to enrich themselves, by plundering public funds. The local people have no voice in the many matters decided on by local politicians mainly for their personal benefit or for the benefit of their cronies. Direct democracy with the Right to Recall will obviously act as a deterrent to the blatant abuse of powers by local politicians. They will be forced to do things for the benefit of the people as decided by the people. This is indeed a political solution where communalism will be replaced by the citizens acting as equals in society for the benefit of the society in which they live, work and play. The discriminating labels such as Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims will have no place in local politics. These will be replaced by issues that concern the progress and development for all the people in the Province.” Not only communal politics but also obstructive party politics of the kind witnessed at the national level has no place in provincial administration.

Deaf to foreign advice

In his speech at the Fulbright seminar on “Sri Lanka: the Way Forward” September 21 in Colombo, the US Ambassador Robert O Blake urged the opposition UNP “for the sake of all Sri Lankans to work responsibly with the Government to ensure a successful APRC outcome.” In August 2000, the UNP recklessly sabotaged former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s efforts to reform the present constitution. Now, its leadership for political expediency is abandoning the earlier decision to go for a federal solution as agreed at the December 2002 Oslo meeting. This position was restated during the last Presidential election. Since the UNP leader has not formally announced the U-turn, there is some doubt as to whether this is to dump the controversial word ‘federal’. The Ambassador’s emphasis on national interest was also evident in his concluding remarks. He said: “In conclusion, let me emphasize that a solution to Sri Lanka’s conflict is in reach. But it will require Sri Lanka’s government and other parties to work together putting the national interest first”. The culture of politics of convenience is another reason for the country’s inability to move forward.

The UK High Commissioner Dominick Chilcott, in his speech in Colombo on International Peace Day 21 September said the sole objective of Britain’s policy in Sri Lanka is to contribute to the achievement of a lasting, fair peace. He defined this to be: “A peace that does not discriminate between people on the basis of religion, language or ethnicity; a peace that allows the majority community and the minority communities to feel equally at home in this country and to feel equally loyal to the country’s state institutions and agencies”. This is what the Soulbury Constitution sought to sustain in the sovereign multi-ethnic State. He also said: “Governments and societies do not need to wait for the absence of conflict to start the task of addressing those underlying grievances. Where they spot unfairness or discrimination, they should remedy it. That way, by removing the causes or drivers of the conflict, they bring nearer the day when the conflict loses its point and comes to an end”. Such sensible actions would have come promptly, if the interest had been on nation building which requires first and foremost uniting the divided society.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court mainly on procedural grounds ruled that the continued merger of the two provinces was illegal. However, it is clear President Mahinda Rajapaksa and other Sinhala nationalists do not want the merger for political reason. The justification for the merger is seen in the 1987 Indo-Lanka Agreement-preamble clause 1.4, which states that “the Northern and Eastern Provinces have been areas of historical habitation of Sri Lankan Tamil speaking peoples, who have at all times hither to lived together in this territory with other ethnic groups”. And clause 2.2 states: “During the period which shall be considered as interim period, (i.e. from the date of the elections to the Provincial Council as specified in Para 2.8 to the date of the referendum as specified in Para 2.3, the Northern and Eastern Provinces as now constituted will form one administrative unit, having one Governor, one Chief Minister and one Board of Ministers”. Apparently, President Rajapaksa’s aim to keep the de-merger permanent taking advantage of the Supreme Court ruling disregarding the 1987 Accord and the advice of present Indian leaders has earned New Delhi’s displeasure.

Addressing a meeting after the official opening of the North Central Province Appeal Court at Anuradhapura, Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva September 22 called for the implementation of a meaningful devolution package to facilitate a negotiated settlement to the national problem. He asserted that such a package would be of critical importance and stressed the importance of making a genuine effort to empower the Provinces. He urged the government not to hold onto power but devolve powers without hesitation. He also dismissed the simmering controversy over the unit of devolution asserting that some of those who talk of a ‘Federal-style of government’ or a ‘Unitary state’ were not at least aware of their meaning. Referring to the efforts being made to restructure the judiciary, the Chief Justice said he had been successful in devolving judicial authority to the provinces and expressed the belief that the government could also do likewise. He also said that the ongoing judicial reforms in Sri Lanka were even far reaching than the Indian system based on a federal concept.

The problem here is the situation on the ground for devolution of political powers is not the same as in the case of judicial powers. The Chief Justice had the co-operation of the members of the judiciary, which is lacking in the political field for the reasons mentioned in this analysis. Importantly there is no common interest amongst the players in the political field. Unlike political power, judicial power does not present ample opportunities to gain personal benefits. Nevertheless in the public interest, the concern and advice of the Chief Justice on various political issues are laudable.

His advice on the approach to integrate the Tamils into the Sri Lankan society is also praiseworthy. Speaking at the opening of the Board of Quazis office in Hulftsdorf on September 20, the Chief Justice conveyed a vital message when he said, “the final victory would not come by fulfilling military objective but only by winning the hearts of the Tamil people”. He also said: “Unless we make them feel and believe that we are one with them we will never get over our problems.” The Chief Justice said there was a long way to go and everyone needed to be together. His concern for the suffering Tamils in the war-torn areas was evident from the statement – “The suffering they are undergoing is unimaginable. There is little fuel and not enough food. They have nothing and have been deprived of everything. On top of all this people go and demand ransoms as well.” He indirectly blamed the civil society leaders for being silent spectators at this time when the seeds of war are being sown in the minds of the people. He said: “I would make this an opportunity to invite everyone to let the Tamil people know that we are with them. I am also coming to a point of exasperation.”

In conclusion

The present approach to induct an amended or new constitution through the APRC-APC process is seen increasingly shaky, despite the promising statements issued by the government frequently. It seems to be serving well if the aim is to give false hope in the short term expecting the pressure for constitutional reform will shrink. President Mahinda Rajapaksa himself is anxious to delay the final recommendations of the APRC. Moreover, his intervention to ensure that the unitary label is not abandoned shows the nature of the problem confronting APRC Chairman Prof. Tissa Vitharana and likeminded persons. It is said that
“the SLFP vacillates on its policies to suit the leadership – it is the leader that determines the policies which undergoes seismic shifts with changes in the leadership”. This seems to be the case with the UNP too according to the dissidents, who have joined the government complaining of the lack of democracy within the party.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa had no qualms when former President Chandrika Kumaratunga as his party leader stood for a ‘union of regions’ with extensive devolved powers to the provinces. He did not object the draft Constitution Amendment Bill presented in August 2000, which did not define Sri Lanka as a unitary State. There was no loud dissenting voice in her party, when she openly advocated a federal solution to the ethno political problem.

According to the President, there are home grown solutions to all the national problems. These are ruses, unless the inputs for growth are from all communities in the land. If the country’s leading politicians think they are also masters in the art of deceiving foreign governments and international human rights organizations they are only deceiving themselves and risking the future of the country.

The political currents flowing in different directions are cause for concern now, as the very forces causing the whirlpool are also involved in the task of reforming the present constitution. If the objective is to come up with a set of rules and guidelines useful for ensuring unity in ethnic diversity, political stability, real peace and development of all regions beneficial to the future wellbeing of the country, it has to be performed thoughtfully from a truly national perspective respecting the equality of all citizens and the aspirations and concerns of all ethnic communities. As in the past, narrow political interest should not influence the outcome. It should be flexible to accommodate the interests of all communities as long as these are not in conflict with the all-encompassing national (and not Sinhala hegemonic) interest. It should be a living article of faith for all communities.

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