Sri Lanka 2007: political turmoil, inflation and a never-ending civil war. Where did this all start? POWER; the quest for power has lead SWRD Bandaranaike, JR Jayawardene and the Maha Sangha to embrace the disasterous path of racism and injustice. We all know and understand how SWRD and JR are among the leading causes for the rise in the current problems of this nation. A relatively less discussed cause has been the negative influence of the Maha Sangha in Sri Lankan politics.

SWRD Bandaranaike, a member of the colonial aristocracy, recognized his inability to turn the electorate in his favour. He realized the the only way he would be able to achieve power was by swaying the majority Sinhala masses. Yet Bandaranaike was a person who had very little in common with the average peasant whose support he wished to gain- he was a notable member of the landed elite (who had close ties with the British Raj), he was educated at Oxford in “Western” classics and law and he was raised an Anglican. He could not even read Sinhalese proficiently. He turned to a tool that was waiting for someone to wield- the power hungry monks of the Maha Sangha.

The Sangha had lost the control and influence it had possessed in its heyday during the Anuradhapura, Polanaruwa and Kotte/Kandy periods. Through the period of British rule they attempted to build themselves primarily as an anti-colonial influence yet their failure and British influence prevented them from having any in power in the government envisioned under the Soulberry Constitution. Upon achieving independence, the monks who had been kept in check by colonial powers, began seeking opportunities to re-exert their dominance . The Colombo based, primarily Anglican hierarchy, prevented the re insurgence of the Sangha at a State level but it was busily at work in rural areas.

This lead to a “double coincidence of wants” with the Maha Sangha needing a member of the elite sic Bandaranaike and his needing of a popular base which the Sangha possessed in the rural Sinhala masses. This is the point where both the Bandaranaike and the Sangha forsook their ideals for Power; Bandaranaike’s vision for unyoking Sri Lanka from imperialism and poverty and the Sangha’ a desire to propagate the Buddhist philosophy. Instead of building national identity and extending the hand forsook erhood and toleration the Bandaranaike-Sangha coalition abandoned sīla ie ethical conduct and embraced the chauvinist path of destruction. Their support was based on whipping up the base emotions of an oppressed and effectively disenfranchised populace. This lead to the “Sinhala Only” policy, the conscience decision to make the Tamils second class citizens and unfortunately landslide electoral victories.

This has lead to the current situation of unspeakable suffering; Bandaranaike’s aims have not been achieved with Sri Lanka falling into ever deeper dependence on aid and intervention from both the traditional imperial powers and the neo-imperial powers viz India and China. The average peasant still struggles to eke out and an existence. The country has effectively been divided in every manner possible; geography, race, religion, knowledge, capital, connections being but a few as a direct result of these decisions. The civil war which rages ever more ferociously is but one of the many divisions our nation is facing. This will continue until the Maha Sangha returns to a truly Buddhist political philosophy of tolerance, ahimsa and self-denial.

As our you read this, a model is developing of the positive power of the Buddhist clergy. The barefooted (not Mercedes-Benz shod) multi-ethnic monks walking peacefully and applying samādhi or mental discipline against the bullets and tear gas of the military junta in Myanmar. They struggle for humanity as they should. The Sri Lanka Sangha is effectively a traitor to its ethics and philosophy:

“It was to help humanity that the Buddha founded the Order. He intended it to be a voluntary association of dedicated persons who would devote themselves to the task of making the process of wayfaring through life easier for such among their fellow beings as were weak, helpless and stricken.

It is another matter that the order never quite became what it was meant to be. The Bhikkhus (homeless ones) very soon became Priests, living in temples built like palaces. Today the lazy and ceremonious Church, split into Nikayas based on caste divisions, maintains its place in society, not by tendering to the sick, the poor and the helpless but by placing a Messianic halo above the Buddha-myth, and by chanting faint Pali gathas to the cold, fruitless moon.”

Buddhist Monks and Politics in Sri Lanka, James J. Hughes

The war-mongering clergy must undergo a revival again originating in Myanmar as it repeatedly has through its history. The Sangha has such potential for positive change, will it take the opportunity like its Burmese counter parts, or will it allow Sri Lanka to become a mockery of Buddhism and a place of hatred for the years to come.

“Do we… want a single nation or do we want two nations? Do we want a single state or do we want two? Do we want one Ceylon or do we want two? And above all, do we want an independent Ceylon which must necessarily be united and single and single Ceylon, or two bleeding halves of Ceylon which can be gobbled up by every ravaging imperialist monster that may happen to range the Indian ocean? These are issues that in fact we have been discussing under the form and appearance of language issue.”

Dr. Colvin de Silva, LSSP

Will the Sangha be a catalyst in hastening the process of dividing Sri Lanka in two bleeding halves, or will it serve only as a tool for the fulfilling the worldly desires of the elite?

Editors note: Article submitted to Groundviews by anonymous author.

My article is in solidarity with the on-going peoples uprising in Myanmar (Burma), led by the Buddhist clergy. In their hundreds of thousands, they have marched across the country and in the capitol Rangoon, to demonstrate against the brutal military junta that denies them democratic governance and basic human freedoms.

I examine the history of the democratic struggle in Myanmar and begin my article with a statement by Aung San Suu Kyi speaking at the Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing 1995. I note that her house arrest is a damning indicator of the junta’s intolerance of democracy. As another author on Groundviews notes:

Seventeen years since elections, the elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who has since been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, is still under house arrest; millions of men, women and children are in forced labour; one and a half million people are internally displaced; over one thousand are held as political prisoners, many still being routinely tortured; the universities have been closed for most of the last decade to prevent protests; spending on health care is amongst the lowest in the world; 60% of the people are in poverty, even though the GDP per capita is about fifty percent greater than that of Sri Lanka; and the Junta along with their cronies has a stranglehold on wealth and power, feeding themselves through tourism, partnership with foreign businesses, and the sale of natural resources.

My article explores the uprising, the challenges it faces and the manner in which the web, Internet and mobile phones have changed the manner in which we get news from deep within the country, making it far more difficult for the regime to brutally kill thousands of protesters as they did in 1988.

Read my article in full, in Sinhala, on Vikalpa here.

The United National Party has changed its policy on ethno-political question and stated that it would withdraw from a federal type solution to a unitary solution that would be based on the 13th Amendment to the Second Republic Constitution. Clarifying this change, its spokesperson, Ravi Karunanayake, even used words decentralization and devolution as synonym. At a meeting in Monaragala, Ranil Wickramasinghe talked about adopting a policy framework that is doable. This change in UNP policies may be a shock to Colombo civil society, but it would not be a shock for someone who carefully observed the political line of Ranil Wickramasinghe since 1987. He took anti-Indo-Lanka Accord position in 1987; he refused to participate fully Parliamentary Select Committee procedure in 1994; he was critical of 1995 devolution proposals and was against 2000 draft constitution bill. In spite of his action in the past, he was branded as a federalist, even as an asymmetrical federalist, mainly because of the Oslo Communiqué. Now it is
clear that for Ranil Wickramasinghe, Oslo Communiqué is an exception rather than a rule as far as his policy orientation is concerned. The Editor, Daily Mirror has welcomed this decision with grand words about conflict negotiation, but at the end taking a position on which all the talks should be based, namely, unitary state with substantial devolution. Wickramasinghe appears to be emulating President Mahinda Rajapakse not only visiting temples and carrying babies, but also accepting unitary state label. This signifies the poor quality of the Sri Lankan current political leadership, especially of the two main parties.

UNP’s new change can also be interpreted as a coup against the progressives of the APRC and APRC’s attempt to find an amicable solution to contested issues in the context of pressure coming from India, the US, Tamil and Muslim civil leaders and many others. Now the UNP has given an excuse to the SLFP so that the SLFP can stick to its post 2005-policy changes, i.e. maintaining the unitary character of the Sri Lankan state. The constitutional discourse in 1994-2004 has generated a consensus that the controversial labels like ‘unitary’ and ‘federal’ should be avoided. And there has been a consensus that a new constitution should be adopted by parliamentary two-third majority and at a referendum or a single majority at a newly- elected constitution assembly and a referendum. So this will answer Ambassador Jayathilake’s argument that keeping unitary would avoid a need of referendum. Mahinda Chinthanaya explicitly stated that the citizen will be allowed to vote for constitutional change at a referendum meaning Mahinda Rajapakse was ready to go for a referendum. (And he has, I agree with Dayan Jayathilake, best chance to win such a referendum)

The draft constitution of 2000 was in fact based on the 13th Amendment, Managala Munasighe Committee suggestions, and civil society proposals for constitutional change. So it was not an outcome of radical change but result of a gradual change. The tragedy of the Sri Lankan politics was that it failed to adopt this step-by-step approach. Both the UNP and the SLFP supported Mangala Munasinghe proposals. The only significant changes introduced by the 2000 draft bill include the proposal to go back to cabinet system of government, an introduction of co-ordinate relationship between two-tiers of government as far as defined subjects are concerned and the requirement of provincial consent to make changes to power devolution. Tissa Vitharana proposals can be easily defined as 2000 draft + a second chamber.

So those who think that drafting a new constitution should begin with 13th Amendment of 1987 forget completely some of the agreements reached by two main political parties. It is necessary to emphasize that this should not be mixed up with Minister Devananda’s suggestion that the full implementation of the 13th Amendment would facilitate the constitutional discourse. In fact I suggested the same idea many a time when attempts at state restructuring were at the horizon in 1995, 2001 and 2005. So, in this article I appeal to federalists as well as to non-federalists that we should redemarcate the boundaries of the discussion to go beyond the conventional dichotomy between federal and unitary. Why do I suggest so? I suggest it for two reasons: First, as I mentioned earlier, the international discourse on power-sharing in pluri-national democracies (PNDs) has advanced very much beyond this conventional binary analysis. Secondly, there has been a general consensus now that two constitutionally separate competencies –namely two-tiers of governments- should be established as one main element of the constitution.

In this context, the most legitimate constitutional questions to be asked are: What should be the relationship between these two constitutionally separate competencies? How this two-tier governmental arrangement could ensure co-operative governance instead of conflcitual governance? We can also add a question that would have economic implications. How and in what manner could governance be effectively adhered to the principle of subsidiarity? The setting up of constitutionally separate two-tiers of government can be justified on multiple grounds. The notion of subsidiarity has increasingly been invoked to legitimize the setting up of a lower level of government. It has multiple meaning, but what is most common and relevant here is that it refers to organizational and territorial principle requiring that decision-making and implementation be carried out in a space that is as close as possible to the citizen. This idea also goes with the notion of deliberative democracy that all the affected should be given an equal opportunity to participate in decision-making as equals in a non-coercive context. Secondly, in pluri-national societies, the concept of majority is a fluid one. Had different national groups been marginalized or dominated by the majority national group, an asymmetry of allegiances to the state would have been the result. Two-tiers or multiple tiers governance would provide a space to these national groups to exercise their authority in contiguous areas where they represent the majority. So it has conflict prevention or resolution aspect. Thirdly, as local representation in the center includes both individual and group interests, decisions that would be injurious to numerically small communities can be prevented. So that pluri-national character of the country will be reflected in making decisions.

I believe that we have now reached some kind of consensus on the above three points although there are unresolved complex issues. However, the question is how this two tier system of governance could be institutionalized to promote cooperative governance and to minimize prevailing suspicion, mistrust and fears of different communities. Different countries have tried different mechanisms. Some worked well while the others were not that successful. This mixture of results once again makes the constitutional design more problematic. In my opinion, the concepts of division of labor and subsidiarity would contribute in resolving these problems. In any country, there are issues that are nationally relevant. These subjects include in modern polity, inter alia, national defense, macro-economic management, international relations, maintenance of minimum standards on social welfare, education, health, environment protection and similar issues. Then there are issues that are locally specific. The distinction between national and regional may be blurred in some issues but quite clear in many issues. So the notions of subsidiarity and division of labor can be deployed in constitutional design. Hence the question of which tier is superordinate or subordinate would become a nonissue. The issue is which tier can perform the function effectively, and efficiently. In this sense, the criteria may be not political but economico-technical. So the relationship between national and provincial with regard to these two categories should be based on the principle of non-hierarchical horizontality.

In my opinion, Tissa Vitharana proposals have elegantly dealt with these issues in noncontroversial manner. Why are we going to invent the wheel once again after spending so much time and resources?

Email the author at sumane_l at yahoo.com

Download a PDF of this article here.

(This article was partly inspired by this article on Homosexuality, Buddhism and Sri Lankan Society)

Quote from cited article:

“A noble disciple should reflect like this: ‘If someone were to have sexual intercourse with my spouse I would not like it. Likewise, if I were to have sexual intercourse with another’s spouse they would not like that. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to another, and how could I burden someone with that?”

This is also the kind of thinking embodied in the “Golden Rule” – “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”.

The problem that I see with this philosophy (am I taking things too literally?) is that it prescribes a process where an individual can extrapolate what must be good for others, based on what is good for him/herself, without necessarily making reference to any prevailing social norms, and automatically making the assumption that others share the same value judgments. And I believe that this assumption is unreasonable.

Let’s take a simple example… a friend once told me “Dhoni is really hot… all the Indian women must be crazy about him“. Well, maybe she found Dhoni attractive, but why assume that all Indian women share her taste? In this particular instance, perhaps it was not intended to be taken literally, and only an exaggeration used for emphasis; but even the fact that it works as an emphasis reflects an underlying tendency to believe that others share your same views.

A comment on the cited article says “homosexuality is sexual misconduct” (which drew some flak on the lines of “who are you to judge?“). If the person had instead written “I believe that homosexuality is sexual misconduct [and therefore I choose to abstain from it]“, I would have found it to be a totally acceptable point of view – just as acceptable as “I believe that homosexuality is not sexual misconduct and therefore I choose to engage in it“. It all becomes problematic only when it is written as a judgment that everyone is expected to adhere to.

What if someone else says “heterosexuality is sexual misconduct“? Why should we intrinsically value one opinion over the other? The only way we can make a comparison is by reference either to dogma (which remains relatively stable) or social acceptance (which varies by society and by time).

Here’s how I see the Golden Rule breaking down… a pragmatic example:

I usually feel embarrassed to be praised in public – I much prefer private feedback. But does this mean that I can assume everyone will be embarrassed by public feedback? And if I know that someone values public praise more than private, then shouldn’t I make an effort to give that person praise in public?
And an extreme example (1):

“A noble disciple should reflect like this: ‘If a male visitor to my house does not offer to have sex with my wife, I would not like it – because it insinuates that my wife is not desirable. Likewise, if I did not offer to have sex with my host’s wife, he would consider it an insult to his wife and would not like it. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to another, and how could I burden someone with that?”

Unless we make some reference to what is socially/legally acceptable, why should the first (original) argument be any more valid than the latter? I admit that if I saw both arguments, I would find the first more reasonable, but that is only because it matches my personal emotions (I would not like it if someone had sex with my wife, and I would not be insulted if male visitors did not offer to have sex with my wife) – but then, how can I assume that my neighbor would think the same way?

Every individual will have his or her own opinion.

I believe that society cannot function as a collection of such individuals where even a minority assumes that what is acceptable to them must be acceptable to all.

I believe a society can function as a collection of such individuals where a majority (preferably all) realize that they can speak only for themselves, and who moderate the actions arising from their opinions according to currently accepted social and legal norms. In constitutional form – “everyone is free to have their own opinions and beliefs, but their freedom to act upon those opinions and beliefs shall be constrained by what is socially and legally accepted”.

P.S. I don’t believe that a society functioning as above will be utopian (2), just that it would function better than one literally based on the Golden Rule.

(1) Written from a male frame of reference only to avoid the “his/her” and “husband/wife” notation.
(2) If you had a society that was 90% ku-klux-klan and 10% negro, the majority opinion would be that the negroes should be disenfranchised and treated as slaves.

TMVP leader V.Muralitharan alias Karuna leaves country to Briton few days ago leaving Pillayan for TMVP administration says several sources. At the same time Moulana reappointed as TMVP spokesman in place of Mahesh. Karuna, Pillayan issue was big headache for government and other anti LTTE groups earlier, as well as inside the TMVP.

Few cadres were killed from both sides in last few months. Finally Pillayan controlled the Trincomalee District, while Batticaloa, Ampara was under control of Karuna’s faction.

The TMVP cadres were mentally tired regarding the deviation.
However Pillayan mostly focused on political wise as well as military from beginning. He received the goodwill and trust from the Tamil, Muslim communities and within the TMVP.

After the deviation few Karuna cadres created tension among the communities. Also the other Tamil movements like EPDP, EPRLF, TELO, etc had worried regarding TMVP activities in the east. Several clashes happened recently.

Specially the Muslim community suspected or mistrusted the TMVP due to several incidents. Therefore Pillayan launched to recapture the eastern part from Karuna carder domination. Cold war continued. Finally Karuna decided to leave the country again. The two main reasons for Karuna’s decision are believed to be:

1. Economic crisis among the TMVP.
2. Pillayan’s strength and trust growing among the TMVP carders.

The first reason created misunderstanding and mistrust on Karuna and other leadership. Corruption might be in the head of mechanism says one of their carder.

The senior members earned big sums of money while at the same time normal carders were given only 6000 Rupees per month. Few leaders were trying to earn more if the opportunity arose. Mnagalam Master (one of Karuna’s military leaders) treasured up over 300 thousand Rupees valuable ancient treasure in the government liberated area recently.

Even a rupee has been spending for the movement says another carder. These issues create unhappy among the TMVP carders.

The second reason was very important issue military wise among the TMVP. Because of Pillayan, build up his strength day by day among the TMVP. Every step was taken to isolate Pillyan from TMVP was failed in the past.

This approaching gave the invisible threaten to Karuna. In the mean time one of the international country might be involved in Karuna –Pillyan clash and give the pressers to be come finish with secret negotiation says military analysis.

However the TMVP‘s internal clash solved. But what will happen for Thileephan, Jayam and few carders of anti Pillayan alliance in future. Will the Pillayan reduce the tension among the communities and other Tamil parties like EPDP, EPRLF, and TELO etc? Will the total problems get solved?