Is There An Ethnic Problem In Sri Lanka?

This is a mind boggling poser. If the question whether there is an ethnic problem in Sri Lanka is posed to the minorities and sections of the majority, the response will be an unequivocal ‘yes’.  If the ‘others’, excluded from the above groups are asked they will look askance and say that this question has ceased to have any relevance since the end of the war when the Tamil terrorists were trounced on May 19, 2009.  To these people the end of Prabhakaran terminated once and for all issues related to the ethnic conflict.  That the war is over but the causes for which the war was first waged is a fact that is conveniently overlooked. That Prabhakaran was instrumental in projecting war as a means to secure resolution of Tamil demands is a reality.  It is also an undeniable fact that Prabhakaran, along with his followers confused the cause of the Tamils, one, by projecting Prabhakaran’s ambition to be the ‘Supreme  Leader’ and two, by resorting to unacceptable levels of severity in the violent methods  the movement adopted estranging the rest of the country, eroding sympathy to the cause of the Tamils.  That such leadership should not be allowed to raise its head again can never be up for discussion.

The Sinhala Only legislation in 1956 is a recognized benchmark for the origins of the majority-minority divisiveness.  Some would say that ethnic concerns originated even before that, resulting in numerous violent ‘skirmishes.’  Each time ethnic dissension erupted it ended with a commission being set up to resolve the ‘concerns’ of the minorities.  The ‘ethnic problem’ continued with incremental infusion of hostility resulting in the violent challenge to the Sri Lankan state.  There is thus adequate evidence to recognize the existence of an unresolved ethnic problem.  Every hostile saga that occurred increased the input of momentum to the bitterness and anger until it broke out in the terrorist uprising the country faced in the three decade long violence resulting in the destabilization of, not only the North and the East, but also the rest of the country.

Commissions for Resolution of Ethnic Polarization – Past and Present

Yet another attempt is being made to resolve the minority concerns through a Parliamentary Select Committee. If the government has found it necessary to set up the PSC, it stands to reason that there is an ethnic problem which requires resolution. In the past there have been several noteworthy Commissions, All-party Conferences, Parliamentary Select Committees, and more recently, the LLRC Commission set up by the government for the same purpose. All such discussions ended in reports recommending various prescriptions for the malady – the ethnic profile. These reports provide enriching indicators as to what needs be done to settle this ‘conflict of interest and aspirations’ between the majority and the minorities.

Why then will not the decision makers follow upon these recommended strategies? Is it that we are missing some integral quality of leadership amongst our leaders? A 9 year old grand- son of mine was asked in school what he thought should be the qualities for leadership (the context was the selection of a class monitor) and he had said ‘LISTENING’. Is this not what we urgently need? Listening to the voices of all the people should be the criteria for wise counsel while ignoring those who have biased agendas, not conducive to nation building. That our leaders time and again have failed to have clarity in their analysis of problems and have allowed themselves to be satisfied with short term solutions have been the shortcoming of this country. This prism approach has persisted in being the destructive thread in our political fortunes.  Governments are held captive by elements who threaten to withdraw parliamentary support to dislodge the government. To be captive to such intimidations reflect the inbuilt weakness in the leadership. In today’s context it might be a worthwhile attempt to call the bluff of these groups as it is the latter who will suffer politically by their action; their political base has been proven to be less threatening than the vocal prowess of their leaders.  It is time to listen to the voices of ‘others’- perhaps the majority – who keep their thoughts to themselves away from political confrontations.

Democracy Draws its Energy from Divergent Views

It is vital for leaders to be able to expect and respect diverse opinions on various issues that surface from time to time.  The task of the leaders and civil society is to analyze various viewpoints and problems in an objective way without being influenced by political partisanship and with a keen nose for moral and ethical principles for guidance. Such an approach will inspire others and motivate them to work for a united Sri Lanka.

Nelson Mandela as the Pathfinder

Nelson Mandela, the icon for peace and reconciliation, can be the beacon to shed light to Sri Lankan leaders and civil society, to cut out a path to identify and recognize the ‘reality’ of ethnic issues confronting the nation. A few quotes from Mandela’s “Long walk to Freedom” are cited here as examples of a practical approach that are viable to be adopted to tackle the controversies faced by Sri Lanka:

• Nelson Mandela writes that his mission from the beginning of the political struggle in South Africa was “one of preaching reconciliation, ……… engendering trust and confidence…” He reminded his people that the liberation struggle was not a battle against any one group….but a fight against a system of repression…..must unite and forge hands and say we are one county, one nation, one people, marching together into the future.” These pearls of wisdom are example for the political leaders of the majority as well as of the minority in Sri Lanka.  Unless and until both the leadership of these confrontational groups see the sense and strength in Mandela’s approach it will be difficult to imagine if we will be able to reach consensus on any issue.  For the majority to be constantly threatened by fears of militancy and separation by the Tamil minority and for the minority to be uncertain of the policies of the majority for equity and fair play and to be under constant surveillance by the army for security reasons – to prevent recurrence of violence – are not the vibrant environment for building trust and reconciliation.
• “No one is born hating another person …because of his background or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes naturally to the human heart than its opposite”.  In this country people have lived together and continue to live together in harmony with mutual respect.    Colombo and major townships within the country have developed the art of cohabitation and to live in peace unless and until provoked by marauding politicians or misguided clergy.  It is indeed evidence of admirable statesmanship when Mandela speaks to the white audience (the oppressors and architects of apartheid) and says that “we needed them and did not want them to leave the country.” The South African leader recognized that they were South Africans ‘just like us and this was their land, too.’ He reiterates that he did not mince his words about the horrors of apartheid, but that he said over and over again that they “must forget the past and concentrate on building a better future for all because we have a common loyalty, a common love to the country.” The ‘horrors’ fostered by the majority and the minority are many (in Sri Lanka). There can be no single ethnic group that can absolve itself and say ‘our hands are clean.’  All have bloodied hands but if wisdom is to prevail, Mandela’s attitudes will be the only sane ones to move out of this brinkmanship approach.  It is vital to hear in clear tones that the loyalty of the people in this country, regardless of whichever ethnic group one belongs to, is to Sri Lanka.  The constant struggle for dominance by different groups within the ethnic divide engenders the drive towards unity.  This as well as creation of hate towards the Muslim minority decrying their cultural practices and attempting to destroy their economic interests is a new dynamic the leaders in this country have been confronted with. To fuel hate should not be the agenda of any organization least the clergy who should be espousing the cause of cohabitation, tolerance and understanding.  This ‘hate channel’ has extended to include the minority Christian groups too. What would be commendable will be not to be judgmental but to accept values and cultural practices of the plural society within which we live.  We are all finite individuals, our sojourn in this world is temporary; when we die we take nothing with us except the good and the bad we have committed in this world.  Creating goodwill should be the agenda for all.  Often do-gooders like the Tamil Diaspora who live in an environment far removed from their country of origin and who obviously find themselves in a time warp create more problems for the defenseless, economically deprived minorities in the North and East.  The Tamil Nadu factor is also a major distraction, which, instead of being helpful ends up by putting a spoke in the drive towards reconciliation.  It has to be accepted that the minorities on the ground are not talking of political issues; they want their identity and self-respect restored; they want a home, livelihood and security and would very much want to be allowed to live in peace. At this point it is also necessary to highlight Mandela’s convincing truism: ‘majority rule and internal peace are like the two sides of a single coin …’ and that ‘there will never be peace and stability in this country until the principle is fully applied’ or appreciated.  It is equally important to emphasize that it is critical to recognize the aspirations of the minority for an input in the day to day working of the areas of their habitation.   Development alone is not the answer. In the post conflict period it is the age old cry for power sharing, for devolution is perhaps the appropriate solution.  But with peace, security and progress the minorities are likely to countenance a different scenario, similar to the plural way of life of society in the metropolis: Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslims living, working and interacting with all.
• At the end of a long period of conflict Mandela says that he has just discovered the “secret that after climbing a great hill one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. I have a moment to rest, ….to look back on the distance I have come.  But I can only rest for a moment, for with freedom comes responsibilities, and I dare not linger, for my long walk is not ended.”  This is what both sides to the dialogue, the majority and the minority must grapple with.  Mandela was well aware that at times “a leader must move out ahead of the flock, go off in a new direction, confident that he is leading his people the right way.”  Sri Lankans will like to see such leadership from the leaders of the majority and minority.  The end of a violent conflict does not mean that the struggle is over. An astute man of experience he said “negotiations themselves are a theatre of struggle, subject to advances and reverses as any other form of struggle.” In Sri Lanka negotiations are held in public view which makes it difficult to go through the subtleties of give and take in a negotiation process; the ‘delicacy’ of talks which calls for ‘confidentiality.”  He emphasizes that to make peace one has to work with the opponent until the opponent becomes the partner.  This is an important dictum for our negotiators to adopt.  The first road block one encounters need not be looked upon as a point from which one cannot move forward.  All parties to the negotiations must be self-reliant and confident of working out their own destiny and not be dependent on external sources. Moving premises constantly to suit the ambitions of personalities amongst the leadership will not help in building trust and reconciliation.
• At the installation of South Africa’s first democratic non-racial government Mandela said “Never, never, never again, shall it be that this beautiful land, will again, experience the oppression of one by another…” Leaders have to experience or be acutely aware of the physical and mental pain of struggles, controversies and situations of conflict under which life had to continue…  Mandela was 44 years when he was imprisoned and was 71 years when he was released from prison.  27 years of rigorous imprisonment in Roden Island was not something he could forget nor would he want the future generations to face. To the Sri Lankans too the years 1987-89 and the thirty year war have been nightmarish experiences.  Nothing should impede the reconciliation process and none should be permitted or should be permitted to take cover under the security umbrella and invade civic space.
• The Government is setting up a Parliamentary Select Committee to arrive at resolution of the differences between the ethnic majority and the minorities. It is incumbent on the government to understand as Mandela said “the government could not be player and referee …” If decisions arrived at the PSC are to be adopted and not be put on the shelf as in the past then it is necessary to follow this as a guiding principle.  If the political leaders are thinking of having results then serious thought must be given for objectivity in approach.  When the African National Council did not get a 2/3 majority Mandela was pleased about it.  He realized that had they won a 2/3 majority they would not have been able to write a constitution “unfettered by inputs from others, people would argue that we had created an ANC constitution, not a South African constitution.  I wanted a true government of national unity.”  The progress of the Parliamentary Select Committee will reflect the measure of keenness by the different parties to work towards consensus; in fact, to make the process work at all. It is an easy way out for political parties to stay away from participating in the PSC for one reason or another. If there is no interaction there can be no permanent solution. Unless and until controversial issues are thrashed out in an atmosphere of give and take we can look towards a future of many more commissions to resolve the ethnic issue.
• At the inauguration of South Africa’s first non – racial government the day was marked by the playing of the two national anthems, the whites singing “Nkosi Sikekel I Africa” and the blacks singing “Die Skim” of the Republic. Mandela writes that “although on that day neither group knew the lyrics of the anthem they would soon know the words by heart.”  That is indeed a major conciliatory approach with a view to achieve bigger targets. What better demonstration of good faith do we need?