It is good to see a sizeable gathering of Sri Lankan friends on this occasion.
I thought for a while what topic I should speak on today. Surely I would need to speak about my home country, Sri Lanka. What else can interest us at this point in time? So let me speak about my homeland.
We have been impatient and wondering when all these unfortunate happenings are going to be over - Or even wondering when we could take our children to show the place where we played when we were small, where we fought with our friends, how we spent time on the beaches or how we enjoyed the green paddy fields in villages, rivers and the natural beauty of that land.
Would our Tamil friends be ever able to see their home- town in the shape they left it, the temples they prayed or worshipped, the houses where they lived and studied, the libraries which fulfilled their intellectual thirst, the parks where they ran as children and then as good-looking young men walking together with their girl friends. Many of them wonder whether you could even see the traces of your memories.
All these happened within a span of 20 years or so. Whom are we to blame and what do we get by blaming somebody anyway?
I am sorry to say that we all are responsible in some way to the state the land of Sri Lanka is in now. The end results - We have lost over 60,000 of our loved brothers and sisters - both Sinhalese and Tamils. We have created a deadly, yet disciplined Guerrilla force - the LTTE. We lost the trust we had among our communities. We don't trust each other any more! We look at each other with suspicion!
The war is causing irreparable damage to our social fabric and to our environment.
The worst crime of all time is that - I wonder how we can give back the world - or Sri Lanka, in this case, to younger generation, the way it was given to us.
Ladies and Gentlemen, You may consider that these things may be of less importance to us living in Australia. No, No; we should not stay away from this. It is our prime duty to get Sri Lankan peace on track and we all have a big part to play in this. Everyone can no doubt contribute in a constructive way. Let us unite to do something about this situation. Something that needs our urgent attention!
Of course - it is more in the interest of the brothers and sisters living in the land of Sri Lanka.
This is the theme of my talk - tonight.
Background
Australia, the land where we have agreed to settle down, as you know, provides us with a democratic multi-cultural environment with its fundamental right of freedom of expression. However, we could see barriers erected almost everywhere within expatriate communities of Sri Lankan descent, based on nationality, language, ethnicity, religion and political perception. Not only we have created barriers among ourselves but also we are extending the existing barriers and campaigning for more barriers to be created in the future. Like any other community in Australia, Sri Lankan expatriates represent a broad spectrum of views about any issue. Nevertheless, we hardly discuss alternative views openly. Views of some individuals and organisations appear to be projected as the views of a whole community. Why do others tolerate such a censorship of their rights? Is it because they agree with the vociferous noises some people make or, is it because no room is provided for alternate views to be voiced or heard? Constructive dialogue within the community is either non-existent or minimal. I believe this is due to the fears of threat and isolation. The end result is that alternative views are suppressed and the community is compartmentalised.
Compartmentalisation appears to be predominant, in particular, among ethnicity-based organisations. A few try to persuade others not to communicate with those holding different views. Some members of the community appear to be under pressure not to communicate or socialise with members of other groups. Some members appear to be frightened to attend functions organised by others as they would be treated as traitors to the cause and subjected to reprisals. We have to look for, and eliminate causes that lead to such perceptions.
To have similar views is a good thing, but to limit dialogue only to those who have similar views is not a good thing. The world is not homogeneous or simple. It is rich in diversity. Unless there is a consensus on major decisive matters the conflict will worsen. This makes constructive dialogue among groups with differing viewpoints extremely necessary. Only through dialogue would different agendas behind these views come to light.
A majority has become onlookers of what is happenning. When cornered by taking away one’s right to contribute, when one feels helpless, or when fears of threat and isolation start operating, pessimism and dependency set in. Thus a majority of a community become silent and pessimistic. . For instance, this attitude of pessimism has led a sizeable portion of Sri Lankan expatriates to believe that the parties to the conflict are not interested in peace. What can we do about all this.
People tend to believe that those wielding power in Sri Lanka will never grant equal rights, equal opportunities, equality of access, and equality before the supreme and fundamental law of the land. Similarly people tend to believe that the parties to the conflict are not interested in peace. What can we, expatriates, do about all this?
To come out of this situation we will need to talk in public as well as in private, about the role the expatriate community could play. We need to stop for a moment and reassess whether or not we are doing the right thing by the community as a whole? Are we moving in the right direction? If not why? What could we do to rectify this situation?
Where are we now?
The composition of the expatriate community is complex. Ethnic, religious, class, caste and political factors affect the composition and views of the subsets of the community. Representing these subsets there are organisations, associations, groups and other formations. In my opinion, the major subset of our community is the silent majority who does not make its views public.
The conflict in Sri Lanka is the key factor that influences most of us. We have an emotional attachment to the land of our birth that is being destroyed by an on-going conflict. It is natural for us to be rather emotional about things happening in Sri Lanka. However, if we allow our emotions to reign too much, it would not lead us anywhere!
Some expatriates say that they are neutral, meaning apolitical. But these expatriates are clearly partisan. They celebrate independence. They meet with high profiled political visitors. They provide information when needed. Are these not political activities? To say neutral and at the same time act partisan is the name of the game they play!
If we leave them out of the equation, then there are people who show an active interest in what happens back at home and are continuously influenced by it. This is the group that is heavily fragmented into many subsets. They are involved in many activities and many with good intentions.
Some subsets say "we cannot find a solution to this problem by talking. So we will contribute in whatever possible way and annihilate other parties to the conflict, which are wrong anyway". So they continue to send money to defence funds, relief funds, rehabilitation funds, humanitarian funds, funds to assist victims of war and so on and so on many based on their own ethnicity. For a moment I am not saying that helping the innocent civilians who are caught in the vicious cycle of war is wrong. If looked at it in a different perspective such contributions will help parties to the conflict to continue the war.
Let us look at another side of the picture!
Some subsets advocate “Sinhala multiculturalism” as a solution. I respect some connotations of this concept. Nevertheless it is loaded with the idea that in feudal Sri Lanka there was a time when all elements of the society coexisted under the rule of the Sinhalese. And that system could match and even surpass the nations that boast of liberal and democratic institutions and traditions of today. Under feudalism race or religion were not dominant factors. The ownership of land was the issue. Kings and the feudal lords fought to expand their kingdoms and under them fought armies consisting of different racial and religious backgrounds.
I appreciate the fact that the culture of Sri Lanka developed under the main influence of the South Indian culture. Kings or feudal lords did not have problems of language, religion, or cultures. They respected Sinhala traditions as well as Tamil traditions. However with the forced imposition of capitalism on feudal Sri Lanka there have been currents of assimilation and integration where race and religion came to play decisive roles later.
Our community does lobby as subsets. One group will lobby to ban funding made by the other parties. However the said ‘one group’ will continue to send funds to their side, sometimes even in public. The government does not have a problem with it because the receiver of such contributions is democratically elected to use terror against their own people. The ‘one party’ will say that politicians should not attend fund raising events so long as they are for said ‘other parties’, but for their own fund raising activities it is fine for the politicians to attend.
And only the said ‘one party’ should do lobbying. What this ‘one party’ presents is claimed are true facts. What said other parties present are false. They lobby against the terror committed by the said other parties, but hide the terror committed by their own party. What right have those who are not in our fold to do any lobbying! If they do they are our enemies and traitors and have to be silenced!
The said ‘one party’ advocate no mixing with other ethnic groups, with other sub-subsets of the same ethnic group, because this ‘one party’ is from the supreme and the most historical culture of the world! Each of these active groups directly or indirectly advocates dominance over others. Even there should not be love affairs or marriages among members of different subsets. These said other parties, what culture do they have? After having lived here for such a long time enjoying Australian culture and its privileges, this ‘one party’ will question what values have these Australians have got!
When this ‘one party’ inflicts terror, atrocities, casualties on the said ‘other parties’, the supporters of the said 'one party' become elated. 'We are defeating them. Soon all will be over. We will achieve our goal of freedom from whatever terror!' But as soon as the said ‘other parties’ get the upper hand, the said 'one party' will become revengeful and will wait for their next opportunity to become elated.
These subsets have fixed views, eccentric aspirations, and look forward to privileges for their own groups. So they are against equal rights. They should have more than equal rights. The others should have less than equal rights. Right to self-determination! Do not mention that word! It means separation and only separation. Do not attach any other meaning to it! If anyone attributes any other meaning then they are supporting separatists and terrorists! If the ‘other parties’ are not submissive then they should be militarily extinguished! There is no other solution!! Because of time constraints I do not wish to discuss the concept 'right to self-determination'.
Thus where we are could be summarised by citing few major general characteristics of these subsets, namely,
- Extreme and widening polarisation and compartmentalisation
- Formation of exclusive clubs for ethnicities based on language and religion
- Threats, mud-slinging, character assassination, isolation and domination of anyone who do not agree.
To end this saga we need to change our attitudes of sectarianism. We need to develop a sense of collectivism and consensual politics. War has proved to be unwinnable by any of the parties to the conflict!
Where to?
I believe that before discussing other issues, it will be more appropriate to discuss some concepts we consider paramount in the Australian way of life. Concepts like multiculturalism, cultural diversity, equality of access, equality of opportunity, anti-discriminatory and anti-racist legislation, secularity of the constitution, linguistic basis of the state, federalism, federal and state relations, power sharing arrangements, mechanisms for handling problems in power sharing and so on. I am not saying that Australia is perfect. Nevertheless we can gain a lot from the Australian experience. Why should not we do that when we enjoy the right to freedom of expression?
We are equals before the fundamental law of Australia because of the freedoms deriving from the Australian Constitution. Instead of driving us towards compartmentalisation, the Australian environment attempts to draw us together. We are always concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka and the plight of its people as a whole. We sympathise with all the people, who undergo suffering due to many reasons including the war. Any ideology or world outlook does not prevent us from looking at the problems from a humanitarian angle.
Can we apply some of these values in a positive way to the Sri Lankan situation.
Do not think of major constitutional changes. Think of small things. Small is beautiful, isn’t it? For example, think of anti-discriminatory legislation. If one is discriminated against, on the basis of caste, ethnicity, language, religion, gender or political outlook, then, there is an opportunity to use anti-discriminatory legislative framework to redress such grievances. I am not saying Australia is discrimination-free! There is no country in the world free of discriminatory practices. Human nature is to discriminate! However if there is a legislative framework to deal with such grievances people will have some hope, some confidence that fairness could be attained.
Why not all of us get together and do say in unison that Sri Lanka should bring an anti-discriminatory legislative framework to operate! This will create some sense of hope for the people who despair. My belief is that such legislation is not brought forward because the entire political system is based on practising negative discrimination.
When the Equal Opportunity legislation was brought to the Sri Lanka Parliament last year, there were vehement protests. Not so much from the general public! But from within the Parliament itself! May be there were some inappropriate features. Did any of us try to help in a constructive manner? Here in Australia there are some who benefit from such legislation while they advocate denial of such rights to those back at home. What double standards dear friends!
Take the issue of identity cards. During elections we rely on community trust that elections will not be rigged. But in Sri Lanka, most of the time, there are allegations of vote rigging. Many a time proposals were there to make ID cards compulsory for voting; at least that will provide one safeguard. That has not even being considered. Can we say in unison that ID cards should be made compulsory to exercise the right to vote?
Every political party that came to power in Sri Lanka since independence pledged to solve the national problem. But they have made it worse over the years. Though many speak of winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of the people what have those in power concretely done to restore confidence, justice, fairness and dignity of the people, at the end of the day? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
Take the 1983 racial riots. This was the immediate context in which Tamils split with the rest of the expatriate community who came from Sri Lanka. No government in Sri Lanka tried to judicially determine who were behind those riots. All the evidence lead in one direction only; that is, towards the government of the day. Some of us may have helped some of our Tamil friends during those ugly incidents. But as a community have we expressed any concern for what happened in 1983?
Take drafting the constitution! A constitution is a compromised summation of constitutional and legal guarantees in order to keep peoples encompassed by that constitution united, stabilised and confident. It is not the constitution alone that keeps peoples united. It is the attitudes and behaviours of peoples the constitution encompasses and the way it is being implemented. The constitution is the supreme law. It is a political framework comprising a set of rights and legal mechanisms that will keep any excesses of individuals, groups and the state within tolerable limits. It is not a panacea for all problems but a living and changing set of concepts that evolve with the problems and the thinking patterns of the entities it encompasses, making individuals, groups and communities feel equal to the rest of the society.
In summary, people make and change constitutions for their benefit. If a constitution is not flexible enough to bear with changing circumstances then those who do not wish to be under such a constitution will start revolting. That is why the concept of checks and balances play a crucial role in maintaining stability and peace in a democratic society. The decision of the majority is not the sole guidance for every social malady.
Long-term vision of leaders plays an important role here. In the best of advanced and liberal societies there are problems; and constitutions are changed accordingly by means of referenda sometimes involving the whole population of a land and sometimes involving those subjected to imbalances only. It is important to perceive reality, particularly addressing problems of mistrust, and trauma created by a racial chauvinist culture. If all the individuals, groups and communities were to stay united without breaking into separate entities then as an expatriate community we need to be looking at ensuring such an environment. The best yardstick to measure how well a country has handled its people problems is the way the smaller groups have coexisted with the larger group in that society.
The essence of multiculturalism lies in an intricate system of mechanisms developed to guide and move the social, political and economic institutions, communities, groups and individuals to embrace and share cultures with mutual respect and dignity for the benefit of the country. Such a system is not based on dominance of any one particular cultural or ethnic group. We talk about Australian, American or Canadian multiculturalism rather than Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a framework designed to accommodate tensions in the boundaries of a particular landmass at a manageable level. It encompasses all those living in that land. Therefore what we could speak about is a Sri Lankan multiculturalism that enshrines and preserves human dignity with liberty, equality and freedom. There cannot be ’Sinhala’ or ‘Tamil’ multiculturalism. No wonder enriching Sri Lankan multiculturalism involves absorbing positive aspects of humanist traditions of all peoples of Sri Lanka!
As evident our whole approach is based on domination and negativity. We have to turn this around.
Take the case of negotiating with the LTTE. The LTTE is undoubtedly the decisive player in the current conflict and perhaps at this moment of time the strongest player on the Tamil side. But I believe that until they are willing to compromise with regard to their quest for a separate state and to develop and accept international and national guarantees for the protection of the rest of the Sri Lankan peoples, i.e., including Sinhalese and Muslims, no Sinhala political party would have a mandate to negotiate with them. That would be political suicide for any political party in the south, at least in the short term.
The LTTE has taken up arms against the legally constituted Government of the country, maybe for a cause considered just. But there is a general expectation that the insurgency must end for talks to begin. The LTTE believes if they stop the insurgency then they will be decimated. To overcome this, those in power would need to offer a package that would ensure that the Tamils, Muslims and others live and participate in the life of Sri Lanka as equal partners. They should be able to live in security, with dignity and to have a say in their destiny.
The international community including the expatriate community has a role to play to underwrite any agreement that would be reached between the parties to the conflict. The constitutional arrangement could either give the Tamils and Muslims a place in the development and affairs of the whole country or the constitutional arrangement could share power with the Tamils and Muslims consistent with the existence of a united sovereign country and the perceived security needs of all the peoples who inhabit it.
To those who dream of a quick and easy military solution and ‘winner keeps all’ approach, let me say that this is an even more impractical pipe dream. Those who advocate this course from the comfort of their drawing rooms, without having given up their children to the war, and others from the comfort of their religious places, must come to terms with reality. The sooner the better it would be for us all.
How
The way ahead us clearly lies in minimising and breaking down barriers within our communities. This will help develop constructive dialogue among us. We should work as a community to remove fear of isolation and threats of intimidation. Instead of being frightened we should come forward to expose those who threaten. We should not passively help our community to be deprived of its freedom of expression and its freedom of association
We should look at alternative methods to build closer relationships by finding common grounds among us as Australians. These relationships have to represent a higher level of understanding of each other's problems and a genuine desire to overcome prejudices. Multiculturalism is about the harmonious co-existence of different cultures for the benefit of the Australian society, not to its detriment. We have to understand the suffering and hardships of people, who are living in the areas affected by the war and who have lost their relatives, friends and their property in racial riots, or as a result of terror and the war. We also have to understand the plight of those combatants who make supreme sacrifice and of their families. What we have to contemplate is whether or not we should allow these matters to perpetuate misunderstandings among us.
We should forge links with other community groups in Australia not only to raise general awareness, but also to share mutual experiences. Broader action groups comprising representatives of Sri Lankan expatriate community and other broader Australian groups have become a necessity. When broader community understands the destruction imposed by the war, the movement to stop this carnage will gather momentum; the movement to achieve peace with justice and dignity to all peoples in Sri Lanka will be strengthened.
We need to change our attitude of supremacy to one of equality, to treating everybody with respect and dignity, to respecting, appreciating, valuing and contributing to other cultures.
We should work towards a united multicultural society not dominated by any single ethnicity or culture so that all cultures live as equals in partnership. In this regard the denigration of any culture is detrimental. If we let racial prejudices dominate the debate, in particular, in the current context we cannot move forward. Besides, any solution fair to all peoples of Sri Lanka should emerge only by realistically evaluating the role played by all despite their numerical strengths.
Before I conclude I would like talk about some related international experiences.
In Vietnam, the US aggression was brought to a halt not only by the military victories of the People's Liberation Army, but also by the staunch anti-war movement that came to be developed all over the world, in particular, in the United States. There was a dialogue between the liberation movement headed by the Vietnamese Communist Party and American intellectuals who were interacting with the US Government. Of course there was support, aid and assistance provided by Communist countries, and progressive forces the world over to the liberation struggle. Those driven by anti-communist ideologies abetted the US aggression. However not many expatriate Vietnamese were in an economically sound position to help their liberation struggle.
The South African National Congress was a coalition of organisations working towards freedom of the Black people of South Africa. All parties to the conflict committed terror, violence, and atrocities. Communication between the blacks and the whites were quickly stamped with traitor seal and the apartheid law or the guerrilla law became operative. But outside the borders of South Africa there was ongoing dialogue between white intellectuals and ANC leaders. I do not need to remind the example of Nelson Mandela who made Buthelezi, Chief of Zulus, considered a thorn of the liberation struggle, accept a constitutional role in the new South Africa. Again there was support, aid and assistance provided by the Communist countries, and the progressive forces of the world. Again not many expatriate Black South Africans were in an economically sound position to help their struggle.
South Africa provides one of the few and best examples of handling problems within a cultural diversity. Each conflict has its own characteristics and there is no universal formula to solve all issues arising from their social rivalries. If there is one guiding principle that could reconcile the historical rivalries of competing groups it is to compromise at a point where the human rights of individuals and groups are enshrined in inviolable constitutional guarantees, preferably with the backing of international community. Without such a mechanism, the demand for the establishment of separate political entities will arise creating problems of immense nature.
In South Africa the apartheid system designed to maintain the superiority of the white minority over the black majority turned out to be a total failure. Addressing the social problems and trauma created by the apartheid policy is an uphill task, as evident from what happens in South Africa today. Nevertheless, the dismantling of apartheid system has helped to reconcile different interests. All groups were brought under the umbrella of South African constitution designed by its people and even Chief Buthelezi is accommodated by suitable autonomy arrangements for Zululand.
New South Africa is an indication of two important global tendencies. World experiences trends of separation wherever there is bondage, dominance, and oppression. Then there are trends of voluntary unions based on free will wherever there are economic, social and political advantages that could be derived from such formations. Even independent countries have come together voluntarily without coercion, under conditions of fairness, equality and dignity to form united entities. In those countries where society is heterogeneous, but individuals and groups are so intermingled frameworks of multiculturalism, federalism and autonomy have been developed emphasising the importance of coexistence and unitedness rather than separateness, and bringing various nationalities and cultural entities to respect, value and contribute to the country as equal partners thus creating a synergistic environment rather than a divisive environment. South Africa is a classic example of social experimentation where separatist currents were accommodated by developing appropriate mechanism to handle social and cultural tensions. And that is the way forward for global stability, growth and peace.
The Palestine Liberation Organisation was a coalition of forces with a common cause of liberating Palestine from Zionist aggression. The support for the Palestine Liberation struggle had its ups and downs depending on the tactics that they were using. We know of the hijackings, massacres and aerial bombardments of the 70s. All sides committed terror, violence and atrocities. There was a time when Palestinians, or Arabs, who wanted to negotiate with Israelis, were considered traitors. But things have changed. There are many who support the view that Palestinians should have equal rights to those of Israelis. Palestinian side compromised by accepting the right of Israel to exist. Majority of Israelis believe the conflict could be resolved by negotiations. We remember why Yitzhak Rabin was killed. The flow of communication that commenced with him will not stop I hope. Most of the Arab countries and many progressives support the PLO. Many including the Israeli expatriate community, in particular, the US Jewish lobby groups, who do not want to compromise, of course, support Israel.
Northern Ireland is another example. Sinn Fein and Irish Republican Army have been fighting for Irish autonomy. Parties to the conflict committed much violence and terror. Along side their struggle IRA also developed their dialogue. American and other Irish people supported the Sinn Fein and the IRA. I do not want to dwell upon things that happened recently.
East Timor is my last example. In 1975, Indonesia invaded and annexed East Timor, a former Portugese colony. The FRETILIN spearheaded the independence movement. Terror and violence were used against the FRETILIN and the civilians. However with the support of the people world over, who value the peoples' right to self-determination, East Timor has achieved independence. This was achieved not through sheer terror, but through political struggles complimented by the support of peoples' coalitions for independence.
Our community differs from them in many an aspect.
In a way many directly or indirectly support a side they sympathise with in this conflict. Each side encourages and condones terror committed by their side, while condemning violence and terror committed by the other parties. Are there any international comparisons here? May be the Palestine situation. I believe we are passing through a phase quite similar to the Palestinians and Israelis in the 1970s. When Palestinians with different ideologies and world views came together and formed the PLO and when both sides understood the futility of terror tactics and that the war is not winnable by any one party, they agreed to talk with Israelis. Of course there were third parties mediating. Even now there are violent incidents and terror tactics used but the pace set by talks seems to continue.
How many of us are aware that Norway played a key role in bringing those parties together. Of course there are Americans, transnationals and other interests that drive these talks. I believe the world survives because of the determination of the oppressed to fight on but also with enough flexibility to make compromises, to be ready to give and take on all sides. In order to achieve such a situation the Palestinian expatriate community did a lot.
Escalation of the war in Sri Lanka since April has brought the situation in our community to a crisis point. There is a need for an open and constructive dialogue among the community subsets that are generally concerned about Sri Lanka towards:
- Cessation of hostilities (ideally an unconditional ceasefire)
- Opening communication links between the Sri Lanka Government and the LTTE
- Recommencing negotiations for the development and implementation of a workable political solution.
The road to peace will be a long and difficult one. It will involve attitudinal and cultural change. More than one generation has lived in an environment of hatred, fear and terror. Feelings of mistrust have never been higher. What one sees is enemy faces only. Why do we have to carry this burden any longer? We have the opportunity to discuss matters, freely exchange our views, understand each other’s problems, study and help develop mechanisms that would alleviate such problems. This is a hard ask. But we can do it.
Elsewhere where there were similar situations it was people like you and me who contributed to peace building. It is the perseverance, courage, determination and commitment of those people that have led to peaceful situations in their countries. We should bow our heads to those people in admiration of their tremendously hard work. And we must follow their example.
Why do we not get together, break down these barriers, and discuss our situation amicably and peacefully? Every community has its own problems that others do not know. If we do talk to each other, we will be able to understand each other much better. I believe that this world solves its problems only through active participation, constructive engagement, and dialogue. It is one way to practically demonstrate our interest in and commitment to peace.
For the sake of the future we must do it. It is people like us who could contribute to creating history. So let us not be pessimistic. There is a supreme objective that we as a community can help to achieve and let us work towards it!
Can we apply some of these values in a positive way to the Sri Lankan situation.
Do not think of major constitutional changes. Think of small things. Small is beautiful, isn’t it? For example, think of anti-discriminatory legislation. If one is discriminated against, on the basis of caste, ethnicity, language, religion, gender or political outlook, then, there is an opportunity to use anti-discriminatory legislative framework to redress such grievances. I am not saying Australia is discrimination-free! There is no country in the world free of discriminatory practices. Human nature is to discriminate! However if there is a legislative framework to deal with such grievances people will have some hope, some confidence that fairness could be attained.
Why not all of us get together and do say in unison that Sri Lanka should bring an anti-discriminatory legislative framework to operate! This will create some sense of hope for the people who despair. My belief is that such legislation is not brought forward because the entire political system is based on practising negative discrimination.
When the Equal Opportunity legislation was brought to the Sri Lanka Parliament last year, there were vehement protests. Not so much from the general public! But from within the Parliament itself! May be there were some inappropriate features. Did any of us try to help in a constructive manner? Here in Australia there are some who benefit from such legislation while they advocate denial of such rights to those back at home. What double standards dear friends!
Take the issue of identity cards. During elections we rely on community trust that elections will not be rigged. But in Sri Lanka, most of the time, there are allegations of vote rigging. Many a time proposals were there to make ID cards compulsory for voting; at least that will provide one safeguard. That has not even being considered. Can we say in unison that ID cards should be made compulsory to exercise the right to vote?
Every political party that came to power in Sri Lanka since independence pledged to solve the national problem. But they have made it worse over the years. Though many speak of winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of the people what have those in power concretely done to restore confidence, justice, fairness and dignity of the people, at the end of the day? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
Take the 1983 racial riots. This was the immediate context in which Tamils split with the rest of the expatriate community who came from Sri Lanka. No government in Sri Lanka tried to judicially determine who were behind those riots. All the evidence lead in one direction only; that is, towards the government of the day. Some of us may have helped some of our Tamil friends during those ugly incidents. But as a community have we expressed any concern for what happened in 1983?
Take drafting the constitution! A constitution is a compromised summation of constitutional and legal guarantees in order to keep peoples encompassed by that constitution united, stabilised and confident. It is not the constitution alone that keeps peoples united. It is the attitudes and behaviours of peoples the constitution encompasses and the way it is being implemented. The constitution is the supreme law. It is a political framework comprising a set of rights and legal mechanisms that will keep any excesses of individuals, groups and the state within tolerable limits. It is not a panacea for all problems but a living and changing set of concepts that evolve with the problems and the thinking patterns of the entities it encompasses, making individuals, groups and communities feel equal to the rest of the society.
In summary, people make and change constitutions for their benefit. If a constitution is not flexible enough to bear with changing circumstances then those who do not wish to be under such a constitution will start revolting. That is why the concept of checks and balances play a crucial role in maintaining stability and peace in a democratic society. The decision of the majority is not the sole guidance for every social malady.
Long-term vision of leaders plays an important role here. In the best of advanced and liberal societies there are problems; and constitutions are changed accordingly by means of referenda sometimes involving the whole population of a land and sometimes involving those subjected to imbalances only. It is important to perceive reality, particularly addressing problems of mistrust, and trauma created by a racial chauvinist culture. If all the individuals, groups and communities were to stay united without breaking into separate entities then as an expatriate community we need to be looking at ensuring such an environment. The best yardstick to measure how well a country has handled its people problems is the way the smaller groups have coexisted with the larger group in that society.
The essence of multiculturalism lies in an intricate system of mechanisms developed to guide and move the social, political and economic institutions, communities, groups and individuals to embrace and share cultures with mutual respect and dignity for the benefit of the country. Such a system is not based on dominance of any one particular cultural or ethnic group. We talk about Australian, American or Canadian multiculturalism rather than Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a framework designed to accommodate tensions in the boundaries of a particular landmass at a manageable level. It encompasses all those living in that land. Therefore what we could speak about is a Sri Lankan multiculturalism that enshrines and preserves human dignity with liberty, equality and freedom. There cannot be ’Sinhala’ or ‘Tamil’ multiculturalism. No wonder enriching Sri Lankan multiculturalism involves absorbing positive aspects of humanist traditions of all peoples of Sri Lanka!
As evident our whole approach is based on domination and negativity. We have to turn this around.
Take the case of negotiating with the LTTE. The LTTE is undoubtedly the decisive player in the current conflict and perhaps at this moment of time the strongest player on the Tamil side. But I believe that until they are willing to compromise with regard to their quest for a separate state and to develop and accept international and national guarantees for the protection of the rest of the Sri Lankan peoples, i.e., including Sinhalese and Muslims, no Sinhala political party would have a mandate to negotiate with them. That would be political suicide for any political party in the south, at least in the short term.
The LTTE has taken up arms against the legally constituted Government of the country, maybe for a cause considered just. But there is a general expectation that the insurgency must end for talks to begin. The LTTE believes if they stop the insurgency then they will be decimated. To overcome this, those in power would need to offer a package that would ensure that the Tamils, Muslims and others live and participate in the life of Sri Lanka as equal partners. They should be able to live in security, with dignity and to have a say in their destiny.
The international community including the expatriate community has a role to play to underwrite any agreement that would be reached between the parties to the conflict. The constitutional arrangement could either give the Tamils and Muslims a place in the development and affairs of the whole country or the constitutional arrangement could share power with the Tamils and Muslims consistent with the existence of a united sovereign country and the perceived security needs of all the peoples who inhabit it.
To those who dream of a quick and easy military solution and ‘winner keeps all’ approach, let me say that this is an even more impractical pipe dream. Those who advocate this course from the comfort of their drawing rooms, without having given up their children to the war, and others from the comfort of their religious places, must come to terms with reality. The sooner the better it would be for us all.
