Chanaka Amaratunga 1958 - 1996

This article written in 2008 is being republished in the light of the Trilingual Initiative launched yesterday in the presence of former Indian President A.P.J.Abdul Kalam.

Chanaka Amaratunga and the 13th Amendment – a 50th birthday reflection - A lost opportunity

By Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha  President of the Liberal Party of Sri Lanka, 1987-2007

19 April 2008

Had he lived, Chanaka Amaratunga would have been 50 on April 19.  He died a few months after his 38th birthday, in a state of some disappointment, having been denied in 2004 the nomination to Parliament that the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress had promised.

The failure to stick to his promise was one of the shadows that hung over Ashraff and, though he achieved significant status for his Muslim Congress in his lifetime, there is little doubt that his betrayal of Chanaka contributed to his failure to become a national leader. He tried to make amends through establishment of the National Unity Alliance in 2000, but he died before he could fulfil the promise of that new beginning.

It will never be known in the end precisely who was finally responsible for leaving Chanaka out. Ashraff said that President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga had been opposed to him, she is supposed to have suggested that she had no great problem and that the final decision was Mr Ashraff’s.  There was some fear clearly that he would vote with the opposition (there was talk that Anura Bandaranaike, then in the UNP, would be put forward for the Speaker post, and Mrs Kumaratunga was worried, unlike six years later, that he might be selected).  More relevantly, his great friend Asitha Perera ruthlessly used his relationship to the Bandaranaikes, his willingness to become a Muslim, and – I am sorry to admit – my own belief in his loyalty to Chanaka, a loyalty Chanaka more sensibly had realized was subject to personal ambition, to insinuate himself into Parliament and then stick on like a limpet.

It was all a tragedy, but it was a tragedy more for Mrs Kumaratunga and Mr Ashraff, than initially it seemed to Chanaka. Listening recently to her Constitutional Adviser, Jayampathy Wickremeratne, proposing initiatives that she had obviously ignored, one was struck again by the sheer waste of her years in power. One must admire her courage in adversity, particularly the manner in which she blasted LTTE ambitions by dealing firmly with the Wickremesinghe government when it usurped her powers, and stopped the dreaded totalitarian Interim Self Governing Administration it had offered; her reintroduction of English medium will also remain a lasting legacy; but her failure to reform the Constitution and the structure of the State will ultimately determine her place in history. Chanaka in Parliament would have changed all that, by sheer force of conviction, by the trust the Tamils had in him, by his international reputation at that point.

Gamini Dissanayake had turned to him to draft the manifesto on which he was to stand in the Presidential election

In the years between Mrs Kumaratunga’s elevation to the Presidency and his death, the Liberal Party office in Castle Lane was a second home to many Tamil parliamentarians, and his assistance in promoting the proposals that were being formulated was sought by some presidential confidantes. Chanaka faithfully obliged, but his heart was not in it.

Initially he had borne the Asitha/Ashraff/Chandrika betrayal with equanimity because in any case he had much more faith in Gamini Dissanayake, and Gamini Dissanayake had turned to him to draft the manifesto on which he was to stand in the Presidential election. He made it clear to Chanaka that he wanted him in a leading advisory role in Parliament, but he was killed before the election.  Though the manifesto they had agreed on appeared as his widow Srima’s manifesto when she was selected as the replacement UNP candidate, the new leader of the Party repudiated it when he took over.

Kumar Ponnambalam 1940 - 2000

Now everyone recognizes what a wonderful manifesto it was, just as people have also realized that the manifesto Chanaka drafted, together with others such as Kumar Ponnambalam, for Mrs Bandaranaike for the 1988 presidential election was also one of the most enlightened of our political statements, in many respects, but in particular with regard to the ethnic question.

Unfortunately that manifesto too was jettisoned, when the wing represented by Anura Bandaranaike was superseded by his sister’s allies after Mrs Bandaranaike lost the election.  Despite her own enduring pluralistic credentials, Mrs Kumaratunga’s allies at the time were more chauvinistic, and they reverted to a reactionary position for the 1989 election, the statist centralism that she also seems sadly to have hankered after despite her pluralism – which is why perhaps she did not bother, having characterized herself as merely a peon when she was Chief Minister of the Western Province, to make the adjustments that would have allowed greater power to the Provinces on the basis of the 13th Amendment.

Ironically, it is under President Mahinda Rajapaksa that now, finally, the government is taking steps to ensure that the spirit of the 13th Amendment can flourish, with the simple changes in enabling legislation that should have been introduced twenty years ago.

Indo-Lanka Peace Accord signed by the then Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi and former President J. R. Jayewardene

*The 1987 Liberal Party Statement on the Indo-Lankan Accord*

Chanaka’s view of the 13th Amendment way back in 1987 was not, it would seem, particularly different from President Rajapaksa’s now.  In fact the statement the Liberal Party issued at the time of the Indo-Lankan Accord was remarkably in accord with the stance of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party at the time, except with regard to its outstanding initial assertion, an assertion that the SLFP at the time seemed to repudiate, though it may have struck a chord with the rural peasantry that had long been its backbone, and which President Rajapaksa himself represented.

That statement is worth reprinting in full, but I will confine myself here to just two sections, from the first and the fifth paragraphs -

• The Liberal Party welcomes the belated acceptance by the Government of the principle of extensive Provincial Autonomy, its commitment to a fundamental revision of the political and constitutional structure of this country to create democratically elected Provincial Councils with their own Governments and the acceptance of Sinhala, Tamil and English as equal official languages in terms of the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord of 29th July 1987

• …..the Liberal Party is opposed to the merger of any two provinces of Sri Lanka (and therefore of the Northern and Eastern Provinces) even for a temporary period without the prior consent of the people of such a province or of the democratically elected Provincial Council of such a province.’

The fact is, Chanaka believed passionately in devolution as a political principle, not as a principle of ethnic empowerment. His political philosophy was based on individuals, and it had no place for communitarian selectivity, of the sort now advanced by less traditional liberal philosophers.

But as an adherent of individual freedom, and therefore the empowerment of individuals to develop their full potential, he believed in subsidiarity, and the right of small entities to exercise powers in their own interests.  He knew that a highly centralized government could have no idea of the needs and aspirations of regions at the periphery, and that was the basis of his fervent advocacy of devolution long before anyone else in mainstream politics. This was what made the minority parties, who had been in favour of devolution for other reasons, such devoted friends of his, as they expressed so eloquently at his funeral.

At the same time, he understood the importance of ensuring the unity of a country which had devolved power, for his unique study of political principles and their application worldwide had helped him to understand the dangers of fissiparous tendencies. So he had no qualms about expressing the need for strong institutions at the Centre, which would exercise certain powers at the periphery. But an integral part of this was his insistence that the periphery too should exercise power at the Centre, which is why, in the days when it was profoundly unfashionable and he had to stand alone in advocating it, he insisted on the importance of a Second Chamber.

None of this was sufficiently understood or emphasized in the constitutional proposals put forward during Mrs Kumaratunga's time in office

None of this was sufficiently understood or emphasized in the constitutional proposals put forward during Mrs Kumaratunga’s time in office (just as the importance of electoral reform based on clearcut principles of proportionality as well as representativeness was not understood or promoted). Had Chanaka been in Parliament on behalf of the Muslim Congress, it could have played a crucial part in promoting Tamil aspirations whilst assuaging Sinhala fears, but by leaving him out Mr Ashraff ensured that the Muslim Congress remained emphatically Muslim.  That may have been what several of his supporters wanted, but it was not Mr Ashraff’s original vision, and it is what made it much easier for others to entice its leadership away after Mr Ashraff’s death with parochial incentives that Mr Ashraff himself would have scorned.

* Persuading Mrs Bandaranaike to contest Provincial Councils *

That Chanaka could have brought people around to his point of view may seem an optimistic assertion, but the fact is, he did this on several occasions when no one else would have succeeded. The most significant of these achievements, in the present context, is the manner in which he persuaded Mrs Bandaranaike to agree to contest Provincial Council elections 1988.  Sadly, his contact with the party developed too late for this achievement to bear fruit, for it happened only after nominations for four provinces had closed.

The proposal was met with enthusiasm by politicians in the three provinces for which nominations had been called subsequently. I do not know whether  Mr Rajapakse was amongst them, but I have no doubt that he would have taken full advantage of the decision had it been carried out, and become Chief Minister of the South in 1988 and begun the process of rural development that sadly had to await President Premadasa’s very different centralized approach, in which the South was just one amongst several areas which required his attention.

Gamini Guneratne

Typically for the excessively egalitarian SLFP of those days, when Mrs Bandaranaike announced her decision, politicians in the four provinces in which the SLFP had missed the bus complained that this would be unfair, so the Central Committee of the party reaffirmed its original stance. Mrs Bandaranaike did then allow some SLFP members to join the Liberal Party for the purpose of these elections, though we were able, having only been officially recognized (along with the Muslim Congress) earlier that year, to contest in the Western Province alone. I remember we were hopeful that a then very young Jeyaraj Fernandopulle would join us, but it was only his similarly named uncle who contested the 1988 Provincial Council elections as a Liberal. Unfortunately the party did not commit resources, except in Dompe where, with Anura Bandaranaike’s fullest support to his friend Gamini Gunaratne, the Liberal Party obtained at least some representation in Provincial Councils, long before the SLFP or the JVP, which only entered the fray in subsequent elections.

History is of course full of ifs, but there is no doubt that, had the SLFP contested even a few Provinces and won representation, as the United Socialist  Alliance did, its candidate would have done much better at the 1988 Presidential election. It is now forgotten how ruthlessly the UNP, and also the USA, used the resources made available to Provincial Council members to promote their Presidential candidates. Given how narrowly Mrs Bandaranaike lost, with some sections in the South hardly voting because of  the JVP initiated boycott, there is no doubt that with Mahinda Rajapakse as Chief Minister, or even Leader of the Opposition, of the Southern Province, the scare tactics in which the UNP ably abetted the JVP would not have succeeded.

* SLFP failure in the 1988 Presidential election and its consequences *

.. it was Chanaka who had to break the news, which understandably made Mr Ashraff furious

The other area in which ignoring Chanaka’s advice proved fatal was with regard to the Muslim Congress, which had agreed to be part of the Democratic People’s Alliance under which Mrs Bandaranaike contested the Presidential election. Mr Ashraff had asked for various concessions for the forthcoming General Election, and Mrs Bandaranaike had initially been advised by her Muslim supporters not to accede, but we engaged in concerted shuttle diplomacy in which Mr Ashraff was characteristically accommodating. What he asked for at the end was self-evidently just, and Mrs Bandaranaike agreed.

But when Chanaka went next morning for the signing ceremony, it was to find that Mrs Bandaranaike had changed her mind. Anura characteristically said he could not face Mr Ashraff, and it was Chanaka who had to break the news, which understandably made Mr Ashraff furious. He promptly entered into discussions with Mr Premadasa, who granted him the very little he felt entitled to request, and he then threw the full weight of his support behind the UNP.

As we had patiently explained to Mrs Bandaranaike earlier, when she told us that Mr Ashraff controlled only a proportion of the Muslim vote, even that proportion was essential for her to win. As it happened, Mr Premadasa’s plurality over all other candidates was around 20,000, his majority over Mrs Bandaranaike less than 300,000, so that if even a quarter of the Muslim vote is thought to have been influenced by Mr Ashraff, there is no doubt that Mrs Bandaranaike’s failure to stand by the agreement Chanaka had negotiated on her behalf was a disaster – for her, and for Anura Bandaranaike, because it was her defeat then that allowed the old guard in the party to argue that his sister had to be brought back to lead the party to future victory.

It was doubtless Chanaka’s personal affection for and adherence to Anura in the battle between the siblings that prevented him making any running as far as Mrs Kumaratunga was concerned, after she was elected and initiated a process of constitutional reform. This may also have precluded her from making use of his abilities and understanding of constitutional questions,  even though they both shared a pluralistic vision. On the other hand, as was clear from Jayampathy Wickremaratne’s comments as well as her failure to make use of Rohan Edrisinha or Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, who had both enthusiastically contributed to her election, she was perhaps constitutionally incapable of the energy required to advance her ideals.

Sadly there was a great window of opportunity, shortly before Chanaka died, when he told me that Mr Sidharthan had mentioned the possibility of an acceptable compromise whereby the North and East would be demerged in exchange for greater real powers for both. This I believe was the substance of a proposal put forward by a TULF MP, but it was not satisfactorily followed up, and with Chanaka’s death the possibility of a widely respected honest broker, at least as far as the minorities were concerned, also died.

Oddly enough, that concept, which lay at the heart of the Liberal approach to devolution, was ignored for the next decade, to have resurfaced only now.

* An enlightened language policy *

That was not the only aspect with regard to which Chanaka was a visionary, a visionary whose ideas I believe the country will in time adopt, but perhaps too late for their full positive impact. I have mentioned electoral reform above, and a second chamber, both of which have been discussed in full in his seminal work  ’Ideas for Constitutional Reform’, an abbreviated second edition of which was brought out last year for the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Liberal Party. I will therefore confine myself here to just one other element, noted in the Liberal Party statement of 1987 which referred to ‘the acceptance of Sinhala, Tamil and English as equal official languages in terms of the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord’. It has now been long forgotten that that too was a provision of the Accord, the only provision that was not implemented, due largely to the opposition of the United Socialist Alliance, of which the Kumaratungas were then leading lights. 

I would have thought those two would not have been opposed to that provision, but they may have still retained some of their old left inclinations, and therefore acquiesced in the LSSP/CP position that English was an imperial language. Those two parties, still fighting the old Surya Mal battles, were determined that English not be given an official position, and typically J R Jayewardene, to keep them happy, relegated English to the status of a link language, and also managed to denigrate Tamil too in the process, by making it not an official language on the same level as Sinhala, but ‘also…an official language’ while Sinhala retains the definite article.

As a result, nothing much was done to enforce these provisions – again until this government took office, and under the able guidance of Mr Gunasekara a concerted effort to implement the official languages provisions of the Constitution has begun.

Since the Communists, except in the sad sixties and seventies, seem to have been positive throughout about Tamil, perhaps they will be able to change things conclusively now. With regard to English however, their opposition in 1987 may well prove fatal. Very little could be done officially to improve English abilities during the following decade when it became crystal clear that it was a world language we had to institutionalize if our young people were to be empowered to take advantage of new opportunities. It took Mrs Kumaratunga six years to finally decide to reintroduce English medium education, six wasted years during which many of the reforms essential for preparing the country for the 21st century were delayed owing to limitations of vision and sheer lethargy about going beyond personal cronies for ideas and energies.

We are opposed to English if it remains the property of a few, but if it is to be given to everyone, we are all in favour. That can only be done if it is an official language, and the state takes responsibility for spreading it.

Interestingly, when Chanaka realized that the UNP had done away with the Official Language reform component of the Accord, he tried to introduce it into the DPA manifesto on which Mrs Bandaranaike was to contest the 1988 Presidential election. I was not present for these discussions, but he told me afterwards that, apart for from the parties representing minorities, he had received support for this proposal only from the JVP. He used to refer to them as my friends – even though I hardly attended those meetings, and had only a fleeting acquaintance with the politbureau member (I think) who attended, a young man called Dhammika who was killed in the following year – because he thought I was too sympathetic to their social concerns, but for once there was some indulgence in his sarcasm.

The next time I met Dhammika – it was the last occasion – I asked him about this, and expressed some surprise, since the Inter-University Students Federation, which we thought of as a surrogate for the JVP, had been vehemently opposed to English. They do not understand, he told me in essence. We are opposed to English if it remains the property of a few, but if it is to be given to everyone, we are all in favour. That can only be done if it is an official language, and the state takes responsibility for spreading it.

* Appreciation of political acumen *

A few weeks later the JVP withdrew from the talks, and embarked on the process of confrontation that caused so much tragedy, to them as to the entire opposition and the country at large. Before they left, Chanaka told me, they had been forthright in telling him how much they appreciated his contribution. The JVP and the Liberals might disagree on almost everything, they had said, but at least Chanaka was serious about politics. The rest, they said, pointing to several individuals, some of whom are still in active politics, seem to understand nothing of the problems this country faces.

... Cyril Mathew was trotted out of retirement to attack ...

In his own way, I think Chanaka felt flattered. Certainly that was probably his finest year, when he was just thirty, and helped to keep together for so long so many disparate parties, when he persuaded Mrs Bandaranaike to agree to restore Article 29 of the old Soulbury Constitution (only to have her repudiate this when Cyril Mathew was trotted out of retirement to attack her about this), when he flung himself into electoral politics and braved UNP thugs carrying pistols into polling booths (no one voted for us, except in Gampaha, but then hardly anyone voted, for the UNP thugs used to go into booths and fill up all the ballot papers and put them into the boxes themselves, adding a new dimension to the concept of impersonation).

It was a period in which we became full members of Liberal International, only the second Asians to achieve this, in which he was invited to Sweden to help define liberalism in the modern age because the future Swedish Prime Minister thought an essay of his the best exposition of modern liberalism then available, and when he wrote, in his review of John Gray’s ’Liberalism’, a description of his great hero John Stuart Mill that to my mind fits him too, in its account of ‘the incomparable Liberal thinker….. (who) set out the distinction between individual liberty and democracy, the tyranny of the majority, the case for proportional representation, the dangers of excessive state power, the case for equality for women, the dangers of social conformism, and the evils of racism’.

Chanaka wrote then that ‘John Stuart Mill never fails the modern Liberal’.  So, too, in reading what he wrote so many years ago, in studying his initial responses to the Sri Lankan crisis, responses that never wavered in their exposition of pluralism along with democracy, we realize that Chanaka Amaratunga never fails the modern Sri Lankan in his analysis of where we should be going. The current determination of the government to fully implement the 13th Amendment, without its obnoxious enforced merger, is a sign that at last perhaps the visionary will be vindicated, in this respect – which may lead to greater concern with other ideas he put forward, that will also serve to take this country forward.

Chanaka Amaratunga 1958 - 1996

Introduction by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP at the seminar to launch  ‘The Liberal Party of Sri Lanka: History, Philosophy, Presentation’  in celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Liberal Party of  Sri Lanka

Thirty years ago, to paraphrase the article Chanaka Amaratunga wrote to celebrate Liberalism Ten Years After, a political movement committed to the promotion of liberal values and the defence of the liberal democratic process was launched in Sri Lanka. This was the Council for Liberal Democracy, an explicit Liberalism being thought necessary because of the evolving political authoritarianism in Sri Lanka since 1970. A decisive event was the deprivation of the

Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike (1916 - 2000) world's first female head of government

civic rights of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike. Then the Referendum of December 1982 postponed elections for six years, which confirmed the necessity in Sri Lankan public affairs of Liberal values, a necessity made more urgent by the communal riots of July 1983.

All these events and the growing authoritarianism of President J R Jayewardene led CLD activists to conclude that an ideological party of principle, committed to the prom­otion of Liberalism, needed to be formed – though I should mention that I was the only one at the time to disagree, since I thought we were more suited to being a think-tank than a party. Anyway, on 19th January 1987 the Liberal Party was formed and was recognized the following year. In 1986 The Liberal Review was founded as the first political journal committed to Liberalism. The Liberal Party’s Sinhala newspaperLiberal Nidahasa took liberal politics, even if to a limited degree, to those outside the English speaking urbanized class. Seminars both in Sinhala and in English, publications in both languages and the public statements and positions of the Liberal Party, introduced a distinctly novel politics to this country.

Liberals was not then inactive but if the progress of Liberalism is to be judged by the degree to which it is part of the political establishment, it cannot make many claims. The Liberal party has had minimal representation in Parliament and its membership is limited. But it would be misleading to judge its contribution by the level of its involvement in the political mainstream.

The real contribution of Liberalism lies in the realm of ideas. I need only draw your attention to the news today that the Cabinet Spokesman has mentioned the commitment of the government to introducing a second chamber. This was advocated by us a quarter of a century ago, and was condemned by all other parties at the time. But because we have made the case consistently and thoughtfully, taking into account objections but showing how beneficial such an institution should be, the idea has now won general acceptance, and indeed was part of the manifesto of the President in 2010.

In this and other respects, the impact of Liberals on the intellectual and political debate over the past several years has been considerable. From the introduction of the words ‘Liberal’ and ‘Liberalism’ into the political vocabulary of this country, to the attitude to politics and Sri Lankan society developed by the Liberals, the Liberal contribution has been to radically re-examine many of the pedestrian assumptions on which the sacred cows of  Sri Lankan politics have been based.

Liberals alone called in question the two most significant bases for contemporary Sri Lankan politics, which are largely responsible for the crisis, of values, of institutions and of social relations, which nearly brought us to grief. The Liberal Review believes that Sri Lankan society suffered immensely from the political outlook that might be described as springing from the 1956 consensus and from the 1977 consensus.

The 1956 consensus was imbued with narrow nation­alism, social envy, deeply statist economics and an ostentatious if dishonest dislike of all things western. The 1977 consensus was imbued with a profoundly immoral cynicism and selfishness, a total contempt for the traditional forms and institutions which so often assisted in creating fairplay, justice, freedom and tolerance. An integral part of this attitude is theacceptance of the essentials of 1956 and the grafting onto such an outlook of a lionization of developmental autocracy.

The contribution of the Liberals has been to radically and relentlessly question the assumptions that form these two attitudes. Whilst both had their positive features, in solving problems of equity in the first case, and then economic stagnation in the second, they failed to understand that political principles rather than extravagant reactions should be the basis of change.

Liberalism on the contrary affirmed a package that we still think relevant. On the constitution we have upheld the free individual and the limited state where Sri Lankan political orthodoxy still genuflects before the strong state. On the economy we  advocatedlarge scale privatization, including of the plantations, banks, insurance and all state run ventures nationalized after 1970, whereas in the eighties orthodox politicians and the bureaucracy cling to socialist assumptions now thrown overboard even in Eastern Europe. On the ethnic conflict and devolution, we have said what for non-ethnic parties is still assumed to be the unsayable, that true national unity will be achieved only through devolution with a high degree of autonomy to smaller units. On the media we called forprivate channels on radio and television. On education we had courage from the start to uphold excellence rather than populism and have recognized the worth of private education.

Mrs Srima Dissanayake

Some of these policies were rejected by all others in the eighties, but many are now accepted generally, and we have no doubt that the rest will follow. And, though ourselves far removed from power, Liberals twice had the opportunity, at the time Dr Amaratunga first assessed the contribution of Liberalism in 1991, to influence those who do exercise power to implement significant elements of this new radical vision. The first was when Liberals were primarily responsible for drafting the manifesto of the Democratic People’s Alliance. The second (still ongoing) is the All Party Conference created by President Premadasa. And to this we can add the manifesto we prepared for Gamini Dissanayake in 1994, which with his enlightened input remains a model in many respects. That is why we are so honoured to have Mrs Srima Dissanayake as our Chief Guest today, for when she became the candidate after her husband’s tragic assassination, she stood by that manifesto though its profound commitment to freedom and pluralism was not to the satisfaction of some elements in her party.

So much, with a few additions relevant to the present situation, for what Chanaka wrote nearly 30 years ago. Unfortunately, though we have got over the ideological confrontations of the past – or rather the oppositional politics of an outdated socialism against callous crony capitalism – we still have to cope with confrontational politics, with no recognition of the many ideals and aspirations we all have in common. So we find that the education reforms that the country needs so badly are delayed, because we are not clear about what the state should promote; corruption continues with inadequate parliamentary oversight because we have not ensured a productive consensus on the relations between the executive and the legislature with regard to its financial responsibilities; we continue confused about electoral reform because we have not articulated intelligently and comprehensibly the necessary balance between representation of distinct areas and the need for a parliament representative of the country as a whole.

All this and more was discussed at length at our seminars and in writings, including in the Liberal Review from which selections have been culled for the volume on the party which is being launched today. Let me add that, in addition to these and a collection of policy documents, the book also included an essay on the history and impact of the party, together with a number of old photographs that show now old politicians in their distant youth, along with the giants of yesteryear.

Tragically, many of them were assassinated. The roll of those killed by the LTTE who contributed to much to policy making in Sri Lanka, Ranasinghe Premadasa, Gamini Dissanayake, Neelan Tiruchelvam, reminds us of how badly we were set back by the conflict that engulfed this country. But we should recall too Kumar Ponnambalam, who contributed with Chanaka to the manifesto on which Mrs Bandaranaike stood for the Presidency in 1988, and who later fell prey to predatory forces of a different sort. That Chanaka should have been able to ensure positive discussions between all such individuals, and many others, is a tribute to his inclusive genius. And perhaps this record of how we were able to bring people together to promote understanding suggests how we should proceed if we are to stop the forces of confrontation precipitating yet another crisis.

Text of a presentation on January 10th at the Observatory Research Foundation – Delhi, by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, Adviser on Reconciliation to the President

The report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation is now public. It has been generally welcomed, and the exceptions that prove the rule sadly confirm the distinction between those who seek reconciliation and those who have other motives in the extraordinary campaign that has been conducted against Sri Lanka over the last two years.

The vast majority of local and international observers have welcomed the Report, though many have noted that a positive report will serve little purpose if its recommendations are not implemented. This is an understandable caveat, for Sri Lanka has not always acted as swiftly as it should, and it has also often failed to publicize its actions. This latter shortcoming is unfortunate, not just because it allows critics to claim that nothing is being done, but more seriously because it prevents the analysis both by government and by concerned persons with no axe to grind of achievements, and thus, as importantly, understanding of deficiencies that need to be corrected.

This inadequacy has been startlingly illustrated by the failure to work coherently enough on the interim recommendations submitted by the Commission. Initially these were not adequately publicized. This was not because of any commitment to confidentiality, since they were soon enough readily known by anyone who was interested, but simply because government did not seem to realize the importance of the recommendations and of, not only acting, but being seen to act. Though a committee was set up to ensure implementation, the lack of transparency in this regard, and what can only be described as a concomitant absence of any sense of urgency, allowed for the feeling that government was not really serious. The views of the Commission, that many current problems might have been avoided had their recommendations been implemented coherently, is quite understandable.

I say this with a slight but not overwhelming sense of guilt because one of my functions, as Adviser on Reconciliation, was supposed to be to ‘Monitor and report to HE the President on progress with regard to the Interim Recommendations of the LLRC, and promote appropriate activities for this purpose through the relevant Ministries.’ In mitigation I can plead that, though my appointment was made in January 2011, my terms of reference were only received in May. And I finally received an office only in October, with one operational staffer in December. I have no budget for work, though since December I have been supplied with fuel for visits to the North.

Why such incoherence? Whilst I have no illusions about the slowness with which government moves, in general, and find this culpable, I should also note that the more vociferous members of the international community, those who now criticize the LLRC Report, were not really concerned with reconciliation, as opposed to their own sometimes agendas. With a stunning ignorance of history, and exemplars such as South Africa and Chile where the country moved forward without bruising animosities, they confused reconciliation with retribution. Even more absurdly, they thought it was the democratically elected government that should be punished, not terrorists or those who hijacked power and used it brutally as the Pinochet government in Chile or the apartheid regime in South Africa, both of which were allowed to go away quietly as it were.

... worried about the electoral power of the Tamil diaspora ...

What is the reason for this? On the one hand there were countries such as Britain and other European states that were worried about the electoral power of the Tamil diaspora, and assumed that its more vociferous members were decisive factors. Fortunately that populist perspective has now diminished, and perhaps one of the most heartening developments in recent months has been the impression Britain has given of wanting to move on, instead of dwelling in the unprincipled wickedness of the Miliband years.

But, conversely, the United States of America seems to have got more intense, as was exemplified by its efforts to suborn military personnel to give evidence against the Sri Lankan state. The recent efforts of its political affairs officer to pressurize government with regard to Sarath Fonseka, whom earlier the Americans had fingered as a possible war crimes suspect, is only explicable in terms of a sense of guilt about the garden path up which he was led.

I should note that one should not of course generalize about the Americans. Even more than other countries, they seem to suffer from schizophrenia with regard to foreign policy, as was exemplified by the positive approach of their Defence Attache in Colombo, who was promptly rebuked for his pains. But, in addition to the endemic tussle between foreign affairs and defence perspectives, America also suffers from a strange combination of ruthless self interest, as their performances in Iraq and Pakistan over the years have shown, and a desire to be seen as decent guys. For Sri Lanka this has led to astonishing levels of persecution since, as one forthright Republican observer put it, the bleeding hearts had to keep quiet about Guantanamo and everything else they had shouted about before, so they transferred their attention to Sri Lanka.

India’s longstanding interest in a peaceful and politically stable Sri Lanka is best served by strong messages to Colombo ...says Alan Keenan, Crisis Group Senior Analyst and Sri Lanka Project Director

Instructively, and I believe this is where India must be careful not to allow itself to be used, I have heard some Western observers claiming that  the policy of persecuting Sri Lanka is also in India’s interests, since otherwise our government is not likely to move on the political settlement that was anticipated. If so, the adoption of Sarath Fonseka as the preferred candidate for the Presidency was a very strange way of showing it. Instead of recognizing that the President had to repudiate the Fonseka philosophy of post-war-arrangements so as to be able to move on with reconciliation, a strange combination of social butterflies in Colombo and perverse diplomats decided to espouse the Fonseka cause. Sadly they managed to convince the Tamil National Alliance to follow suit, and it seems to be no coincidence that the principal Sri Lankan criticism of the LLRC report came from the TNA, as though to reinforce the otherwise isolated American perspective.

All this has done untold damage to one of the main areas in which action is needed to achieve reconciliation, namely constitutional reforms to promote the empowerment of the Tamil people. I myself believe that the leadership of the TNA is sincere about seeking a solution within the framework of a unified Sri Lanka, but their unremitting persecution of the government with regard to what they suggest are war crimes does not help to create the confidence that is needed if power is to be shared further. If indeed they felt that crimes had been committed, endorsing Sarath Fonseka was a strange way to express indignation. To claim, after having done that, that retributory justice is required seems hypocritical and it is therefore understandable that doubts remain about the commitment to reconciliation of at least some members of the TNA.

These areas then remain problematical. The argument that applying pressure on the grounds of war crimes will lead to a political solution is a pernicious one, and counter-productive. Sadly, I have even heard this suggestion advanced by an Indian general who, with active experience of Sri Lanka, should have known better. That was not however an Indian government view, and I believe India, whilst anxious for a political solution, will work towards this in a manner that develops confidence, as it has done in the past, except of course when the adventurism of the Jayewardene government during the Cold War was seen as irritating, if not quite threatening.

India should pressure Sri Lanka to kick out the Chinese and become a kind of vassal state .... William H. Avery - former U.S. diplomat.

But India too would do well to assess more carefully the additional motives of those who promoted Sarath Fonseka whilst suggesting that this would serve Indian interests. Efforts to present Sri Lanka as a bone of contention between India and China are largely self-serving, though they may not be entirely hypocritical, given the tendency of the West to function in terms of binary opposites. This is also understandable given the manner in which they fought the Cold War, but China has made it clear to Sri Lanka that the primacy of our relationship with India is understood. If rivalries on the lines of those that dogged all of us during the Cold War are to develop, they will be primarily economic in character, and be played out in Africa, and similar fields for large scale investment, without any need for hostilities in South Asia. It would be a pity if either India or Sri Lanka allowed themselves to be used as tools in such developments.

I have dwelt at some length on these factors because they could adversely affect the very positive measures both taken and recommended with regard to reconciliation. I am sorry therefore that, in the mandatory references, given the frenetic campaign that has taken place over the last 12 months, with UN Advisors and former spokesmen acting together as it were to reinforce the shoddy journalism of Channel 4, to accountability, there has been inadequate attention paid to the very constructive recommendations made by the Commission in the latter part of its Report.

In this regard I am sorry that analysts have not noted that this forms the bulk of the Report, rather than what was feared at the time the Commission was set up and began operating, namely endless navel-gazing about what went wrong with regard to the Ceasefire Agreement. The reasons for that going up in smoke, as it were, were fairly obvious, and it was a pity that there was much stress on this in early days since it gave the impression that the Commission was concerned primarily with justifying the military approach that had to be adopted.

That such an approach was essential, given the manner in which the LTTE used the CFA to build up its own military capacity, was obvious to all except the different components of the strange coalition that supported Sarath Fonseka in the Presidential election of 2010. But again, given their influence, that aspect was focused upon, and little attention was paid subsequently to the enormous amount of work the Commission did amongst the people who were affected by the conflict and need support through reconciliatory efforts, as opposed to the backward looking theoreticians in Colombo and other capitals.

It is on what the affected people said, and what they need now, that the Commission has rightly concentrated. In this regard too, I should note, the measures that need to be taken are fairly obvious, and long before I was appointed Adviser on Reconciliation I have been making the point repeatedly. Some of this springs from the work of the Liberal Party which, in the eighties, engaged in detailed discussions about Constitutional Reform, and in looking also at the Causes and Consequences of Conflict in the nineties, identified several areas in which action was desirable. More recently, discussions in  District Reconciliation Committees that we have set up, identified several problems which the Commission has now highlighted, with suggestions for remedial action.

To mention just a few of these,

• we need very practical measures to protect the vulnerable in conflict affected areas, in particular women and children (as to whom more effective measures are needed in the rest of the country too);
• we need to ensure better training and support for productive employment, in the North, with effective micro-credit facilities and incentives for small and medium size business enterprises (which should also be done elsewhere in the country);
• we need to modernize our education system, with greater stress on skills development and in particular communications skills, in two if not three languages;
• we need to encourage religious and social and cultural activities to bring people together.

In short, we need to do what the Liberal Party recommended in its programme formulated in 1987. Most importantly perhaps, as we have noted over the years, is the need for upgrading the public service, to make it more responsive to the needs of the people whom it serves. An  attitudinal change is vital, as the Commission stresses, which also promotes consultation. The revision of Administrative and Financial Regulations, which the Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises has also recommended, is long overdue, and should be undertaken in a manner that promotes public accountability as well as flexibility based on close attention to people’s needs, grievances and aspirations.

Another area we stressed then, which the Commission expands on, is the importance of ensuring Law and Order, and the protection of Human Rights. When I was Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights we did much work in this regard, or rather in drawing attention to what needed to be done. The Action Plan that we formulated, and which was, unfortunately only very recently, adopted by the Cabinet, lays down suggestions as to how to overcome many of the problems the Commission identifies.

Most important in this regard is an issue that was identified even before the Action Plan was prepared, when I chaired a Committee on police reforms. The police sadly were neglected in the concentration on defending ourselves against terrorism of the last couple of decades, which led us to modernize the security forces and ensure they functioned as skilled and disciplined professionals. As senior police officers indicated, their training programmes had meanwhile been cut, while recruitment of minorities into the force, despite efforts to promote this, had suffered. Combined with increasing politicization of the police, the result was inefficiency, compounded by a lack of confidence that particularly affected the minorities.

I am glad therefore that the Commission lays stress on the need for better and more responsible policing. However implementing this will not be easy without adequate will, and insistence that parochial political considerations should not operate. I hope therefore that, while ensuring rapid recruitment of minorities, the discipline and effectiveness that characterized the armed forces over the last few years will be replicated. For this purpose it would be best, at least in the short term, to ensure a command structure such as obtained for the army, with high level education for officers, as opposed to the perfunctory and rote training now provided. It is also important to revive the police manual that was provided to members of the force in the past, and make copies of salient points available to the public too, so that there is transparency and mutual understanding in their relations with the force.

In all these areas, and more, there is need of concerted action. Those anxious for reconciliation should endeavour to support government in setting up mechanisms to work quickly and imaginatively towards the goals laid out in the Report. Unfortunately there seems no urgency at the moment about implementation, or even allocating responsibility for the different tasks. What certainly will not work, as we saw with regard to the interim recommendations, is a Committee of Ministry Secretaries, chaired by someone without executive authority in this regard. Rather, there should be a Ministry for Reconciliation, charged with fulfilling the recommendations of the Commission as best possible. I would also suggest that it be given a limited life span, of two years perhaps, after which it should have made itself redundant.

I have wondered about suggesting this, since it would be assumed that I wished to be Minister myself.  Given the way Cabinets are constituted now, this would not be possible, though I am not sure that any of my senior colleagues would be willing to take on a limited assignment that had only a coordinating role. But whoever does it, there is need of an efficient and experienced Secretary, and dedicated staff, though very few would suffice given that the bulk of the actual work would have to be done by other Ministries.

However, current lethargy, as exemplified for instance by the failure of the Ministry of Education to even think of mechanisms for increasing the supply of competent language teachers – despite the clear commitment of the President to building up a trilingual society – makes it clear that innovative ideas and ensuring their implementation would have to come from a dedicated agency. Similarly, though in theory there are special desks for women and children in all police stations, little thought has gone into institutionalizing procedures, liaison with community workers, whether those in government service or from social service organizations, and there are no clear work plans and goals that can be measured. Certainly individuals can sometimes be effective, but we must build up systems, so that coverage should be comprehensive and supportive rather than reactive.

My own view is that the recommendations of the Commission can be fulfilled very easily, provided initiative and imagination are brought to bear, along with the will to succeed. Similarly, I believe that the process of a political settlement can be expedited if action is taken immediately on recommendations in this regard that are not controversial. For instance the mechanism of a second chamber to promote regional input into national legislation could be put into operation straight away, though of course we would also need better training on legislative principles for potential members. I should note that we should also be ensuring proper training for local government representatives, so that they can use more effectively the powers and resources they do possess, to resolve problems that should not require intervention by distant officials and politicians.

Reconciliation will not be difficult to achieve, and the Report of the Commission shows us the way. We should not be distracted by insistence on retribution and stress on major political problems, when we can so easily deal with the root causes of resentment and, through setting mechanisms of empowerment in place that are generally acceptable, move on to solutions for more contentious issues. But we should also recognize that the failure thus far of government to work consistently in required areas, to have followed intensively the interim recommendations of the Commission even if common sense had not already indicated the way, has led to suspicions which government must assuage through committed action. As the Commission makes clear with regard to Reconciliation, ‘the responsibility for being the prime mover of this process lies squarely with the Government’.

Gareth Evans - a flamboyant and opinionated Gilderoy Lockhart

I have two questions based on the ICG report on women’s insecurity in the North and East:

1. The ICG is critical of the government for not doing enough to address the security concerns of women in the North and East, who face a ”desperate lack of security”. How do you view this?

As yet another exampe of the tendentious nature on the ICG’s interventions on Sri Lanka. You may be remember the desperate efforts made by the ICG head, Gareth Evans, his sidekick in Colombo Alan Keenan and the latter’s old mate Rama Mani to suggest that Sri Lanka was a situation ripe for the doctrine of Responsibiity to Protect to be applied. Gareth declared that there had been ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka and, when I asked what he meant he asked Alan Keenan to explain (clearly

Alan Keenan - slimy, slithery Nagini of the forked tongue

he had no idea what was meant by the speech he unthinkingly delivered). Alan said – this was in 2007 – that he was referring to what the LTTE had done to the Muslims in 1990. But the speech would have led one to believe that they were referring to what had happened recently with government responsibility.

I think we have to be very careful about what is happening now given that ICES, which was the chosen instrument for R2P, with Radhika Coomaraswamy and her protege Rama Mani pushing it is now going through yet another upheaval, the purpose of which is to

Ambika Satkunanathan ... another Radhika protege

install another Radhika protege Ambika Satkunanathan in the Director’s chair. Even worse than Rama Mani. Ambika had direct LTTE connections, which I brought up with the UN where she worked. They said she had got over them, it seemed to be seen as simply a youthful love affair with an LTTE representative, but I still thought that it was wrong of the UN to have her in an influential position during the conflict. Now if Radhika – who has fallen out with the guy she claimed was responsible for the financial mess, and she only signed the cheques he put in front of her – succeeds in getting her way, we might have even more problems to face in the future, with ICG again leading the way with misleading claims.

2. The report states that the heavily militarised and centralised control of the Tamil-speaking areas with mostly male, Sinhalese security forces creates serious problems for their safety, security and ability to access assistance. Do you have any plans / recommendations  to rectify this situation in your capacity as the Presidential Advisor on Reconciliation?

I say misleading because the security problems women face are real, but these have very little to do with the security forces. It is both fashionable as well as politically pointed to blame the army, but in fact the real problems lie elsewhere. I am reminded of the attacks made on the security forces with regard to abuse at Manik Farm, whereas the complaints were of abuse by the IDPs themselves – the UN gave us one instance of a soldier going at night into the tent of a female IDP, being joined by another, and leaving several hours later. As I told one ambassador who said that she had not heard of any instances of abuse by the military, but their presence made women more vulnerable, such blanket assertions drew attention away from the real problem, which is vulnerability within the community, given the large numbers of single women, and shifting attitudes to sexuality that have been exacerbated by the war situation.

We have discussed this issue at length in the initial meetings of the District Reconciliation Committees, though there was more concern about increased consensual sexual activity too and unwanted pregnancies. These could also spring from vulnerability leading to succumbing to pressure not necessarily with full consent, which is also a problem to address. We have suggested several remedial measures including much more cohesive work at Divisional levels by all those concerned with social work and counselling, and the development of support groups, also using the good offices of religious personnel. This should be worked on intensively, with more and better training of counselors.

Unfortunately I can only advise, so whether our recommendations are taken up will be uncertain. It would make sense for government to set up a Ministry to coordinate such work, and deal with the human elements as efficiently as the infrastructure is being set up, but there is generally less recognition of the importance of this aspect, just as there is insufficient attention to dealing on the basis of evidence with pronouncements such as the ICG makes, with no come back.

Expanded versions of the speech of Prof Rajiva Wijesinha at the inaugural session of the Global Languages Meet - January 7th 2012 at the Sir Sayoji Rao Auditorium, Vadodara, India.

I am most grateful to the Bhasha Research and Publication Centre, and the other organizations involved in this conference, for inviting me to this momentous occasion. It was an honour to be present at the launch of the People’s Linguistic Survey of India, and I must congratulate Dr Ganesh Devy, your founder, on so successfully pushing through this initiative, a landmark venture after the pioneering work of Grierson nearly a century ago. The ready collaboration you have received from the Sahitya Academy and the Central Institute of Indian Languages is a reflection of the deep commitment of your country, and its official and unofficial academic institutions, to expanding the boundaries of learning.

I am sorry that we are not so advanced in Sri Lanka. Indeed it was sad that my collection of short stories, written originally in English and Sinhala and Tamil by Sri Lankans, appeared not in Sri Lanka, for we have no similar public service oriented publishing house, but in India. I am grateful to the National Book Trust for taking on the book, and now getting ready a companion volume of poetry. In one sense however I should be thankful that the book had originally to appear in India in English, for this meant that it would be translated into all your national languages. And hence the deep satisfaction yesterday at being able to present Dr Devy, at the Chotro Conference yesterday on ‘Imagining the Intantible: Language, Literature and the Arts of the Indigenous’ with the Gujerati version of those Sri Lankan stories. I look forward now to the Tamil version, whereas in Sri Lanka, where we do not have enough translators, such an initiative would not have been easy.

What I like to think of as that trilingual publication, for the material was originally in three languages though I published English versions initially, is in line with recent policy developments in Sri Lanka. These have been laid out, I hope inspiringly, in our President’s budget speech last year. He dwells at length there on the trilingualism that he hopes to introduce into Sri Lanka, in a programme that will be launched on January 21st. That initiative will I hope fast forward, if not trilingualism in general, at least bilingualism in a significant mass of our people, to break free from the monolingual straitjacket in which absurd policies on the part of successive governments has confined us.

It is difficult for you in India, where anyone with claims to be educated is at least bilingual, to understand quite how rigid were the limits we imposed upon ourselves. Given the general quality of our basic education system, which compares very favourably with yours, in terms of access and literacy and female participation, it is shocking that we should have fallen short with regard to linguistic and technical competencies for the vast majority of those who get such a good basic education. In particular the absurdity of the decision, made in the forties, to force Tamil children to study in Tamil and Sinhalese in Sinhala, ensured that generations of youngsters grew up with no possibility of communicating with each other.

In one sense perhaps we can understand those provisions, as a reaction against what seemed the colonial conditioning we had had before. As had happened after Macaulay’s famous minute in India in the previous century, Sri Lanka had seen English medium schools established to produce faithful adherents of the empire. This was a relatively exclusive system, run in the nineteenth century mainly by Christian foundations, and it did not benefit the vast majority in the country. But around the turn of the century Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims too began their own schools, which were soon producing bright and learned students who were able to use an English education to challenge imperial dogma.

In short, instead of attacking good institutions in the name of equity, we instead replicated them so that their benefits would reach a wider mass, a strategy that was later abandoned in the process of equalizing downwards that we thought, inspired by the politics of envy, was the only way of promoting social justice. So, similarly, in the thirties, our first Minister of Education, who took office in the fairly extensive steps towards self-government we were permitted on an experimental basis – the first non-white colony to be benefited thus, I suppose because we were too small to present any threat, unlike India – introduced a system of Central Schools which opened up knowledge to students in the regions.

But, just as that initiative was bearing fruit, another aspect of nationalism struck, and Sinhala or Tamil became compulsorily the medium of education, at primary level in the forties and then at secondary level in the fifties. Though English was supposed to be a compulsory second language, it was so only in the strange sense of the word compulsory which Sri Lanka has invented, meaning there are no sanctions if the ostensible requirement is not fulfilled. There was no serious attempt either to make Sinhalese students learn Tamil or Tamil students Sinhalese. And so the stage was set for generations to grow up unable to communicate, except for those in the charmed circle of Colombo, whose English of course continued excellent.

And to make matters worse, in 1956 we made Sinhala the only official language, having shut off a quarter of our citizens from learning it. So they were deprived of jobs in the government sector, which contributed to deep and wholly understandable resentment. Sadly, instead of resolving these political problems, we had in the early eighties strong arm tactics on the part of the state that led to terrorism, which became more and more intransigent as well as brutal. But now, having finally rid our country of this, we need to overcome those earlier understandable resentments, and in particular ensure a sane and practicable language policy that provides maximum opportunities to all our citizens.

We began to move in this direction when Tamil too became an official language in 1987, but we took few measures to enforce this. In the nineties however we began to promote bilingualism through ensuring that students learnt the other official language, though unfortunately we have come nowhere near producing enough teachers for this. And then, in 2001, we also introduced the possibility of English medium education. This had been frowned upon previously, in terms of dogmas about the necessity of mother tongue education, though the elite had found a way round the statutory provisions, and ensured good English for their children.

In this regard the comment by Mr Agnihotri, who spoke just before me, about the absurdity in a multilingual society of enforcing mother tongue as a medium was most instructive, for as he indicated, we need to promote better understanding of more languages so as to encourage better communication all round. Schools with mixed populations also encourage this, and we need therefore to promote children learning together, and interacting in all spheres.

I would be wary then of the suggestion in the keynote address yesterday at the Chotro Conference that we should welcome the existence of monolinguals since they ensure that usage of their own languages continues. The argument that language is like money, and when some countries use two currencies and others just one, the currency of the latter will triumph, is not I think convincing. There are other reasons for the dollar to do so well, which have to do with confidence that we should promote with regard to our own currencies, whilst also encouraging free trade. I believe this applies to education too, where artificial restrictions will only contribute to disaster. We need to maximize choice, in the confidence that parents will push for what is best for their children, and those children will use the opportunities granted to them well, to promote their own interests as well as their country.

Given the dogmas that have been drilled to us, in reacting to the impositions of colonialism, such decisions will be difficult. But we need to trust in the decision making power of parents and the capacities of our youngsters to learn. While certainly the right to education in the mother tongue must be upheld, the right to choose what may be more advantageous should also be promoted. Indeed, though we in Sri Lanka are lucky, in that both languages used as mother tongue can easily be used as mediums of instruction, in India you have difficulties given the plethora of languages spoken in small communities. Whilst certainly those languages must be recorded and preserved, as your admirable linguistic survey will ensure, arguing that they must all be available as mediums of instruction is impractical and will not serve the interests of children, who must be also given command of another language that they can use widely for self advancement.

At this gathering then that celebrates the diversity of language, we should also ensure diversity as to usage, and ensure empowerment through education to the widest possible extent. Language, we must remember, is a tool, and it should not be treated as an end in itself. This may be difficult for linguists who appreciate the beauty and the character of the various languages they study, but always at the centre of any vision we wish to advance should be people, and it is their interests we should consider in formulating policy.

Daily News 9 January 2012 – http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/01/09/fea01.asp

We should treat education as a means of empowerment, not simply as a tool for equipping youngsters with the capacity in join the workforce.

Sri Lanka has recently emerged from a long struggle against terrorism, and is deeply conscious that measures must be taken to prevent terrorism being revived. Given what all our people suffered, we must ensure security for them, and we therefore make no apologies for maintaining the security apparatus at the appropriate levels. This is especially vital in a context in which external threats continue, supported sadly by politicians in foreign countries who are concerned about winning votes and therefore continue to pander to those who funded terrorism in the past.

At the same time, we know that prevention is much better than cure, and that the terrorism that troubled us for so long might have been avoided had successive governments not been insensitive to the problems of those who turned against the state and even took up arms against it. After all, the principal proponents of conflict in the problems many societies have faced in recent years are those who feel alienated from the state because of deprivation. Measures to alleviate such deprivation are therefore not only a moral compulsion for governments that derive their authority from the people, they are also essential from a practical point of view.

Based on this obvious truth, I believe education has to focus on two distinct priorities. The first is to promote equity, by ensuring that quality education is available to all, and in particular to those who are, or who feel themselves, deprived. The second is to ensure that the privileged are aware of the advantages of an equitable society in which opportunities are available to all.

The first objective should in theory be easy, but the history of all our nations indicates that great difficulties lie in its way. If I might dwell for a moment on Sri Lanka, the inequities of our education system have caused much resentment, but this has played itself out in different ways. Ironically, efforts to overcome inequities have led to other problems, in a pattern that I have found all too common. Simplistic solutions that are implemented because of great problems all too often cause other problems.

In Sri Lanka, we had an education system which provided English medium education to just a few. Politicians way back in the forties proposed therefore that education should be compulsorily in Sinhala, the language of the majority. When it was pointed out that that would be unfair to Tamils, they readily agreed and instead made Sinhala or Tamil compulsorily the medium of instruction. This was meant to be fair to Tamils, but it resulted in generations of Sinhalese and Tamils growing up unable to communicate with each other. With Sinhalese the language of administration, Tamils were left out when it came to government jobs. And, even when Tamil was made an official language, for people straitjacketed in monolingualism, providing and obtaining services to and from their fellow citizens was nigh impossible.

Secondly, with English being a world language, the privileged continued to obtain English education through their own resources. Thus rural children of both communities fell further behind in the race for lucrative jobs. This led to two Sinhalese youth insurrections, one in the early seventies, the other in the late eighties. During this period, English was known as the sword that cut people down.

Indeed, so deep was the resentment against it, that there were those who suggested it be abolished altogether. That would have led to deprivation for everybody, given increasing globalization and the need for new technologies most readily available in English. Fortunately in the nineties we realized our folly and changed language policies, to encourage the learning of all three languages in schools, and to permit English medium education again in government schools too. Needless to say, from the time when English medium was finally abolished in government schools, the private sector began something called International Schools – politicians who would not change the straitjacket in which the deprived were confined blithely sent their children to such international schools, thus perpetuating both the fact and the perception of continuing privilege, continuing deprivation.

This absurd dichotomy was abolished about a decade ago, but though in theory now all schools can provide education on lines that were earlier available only to those who could afford to pay for it, we have not gone ahead with the reforms that would make this practically possible. Most strikingly, we have not taken steps to ensure that there will be sufficient teachers. We continue to say that we will do better in the future, and when there are sufficient teachers we will make all things available to all children, but we fail to register that after decades of trying, the situation has only got worse.

One fundamental problem is that we are still stuck in the idea that teachers can only be produced by the state, even though the state simply does not have the resources to produce enough good teachers for all sectors of society. Given the demand for them, teachers of important subjects gravitate to towns, and once again it is the rural children who are deprived.

This is obviously true not only with regard to English, but also with regard to mathematics and science, both of which are increasingly important in the modern world. We must therefore develop imaginative methods of creating more teachers of such subjects, and ensuring their deployment in the right places. Sadly we have ignored an obvious mechanism for this, which is a focus on potential teachers from deprived areas, who could then be deployed in precisely those areas where the more privileged will not serve.

The argument against this is that such persons are comparatively ill educated, and therefore would not make good teachers. I find such an argument both false and insensitive. If such persons are comparatively ill educated, it is not their fault, and remedial action should be taken, perhaps through special schools that concentrate on the areas that need improvement. And then, surely, having some teachers in place, even if they are not perfect, would be better than the present situation, which is one where there are no teachers at all in poorer areas. I cannot indeed understand why we have not moved to teacher based recruitment to schools, which would prevent the current situation in which teachers posted to deprived schools spend much time and deploy much influence to get themselves transferred.

Instead, present practices mean that those from areas which have historically been deprived continue to be deprived of the knowledge they need to advance. In addition, we are lagging behind in the soft skills that a good education should also provide, which would enable one to compete on equal terms in the job market. When the state imposes rigid curricula on all education, it naturally stresses subjects that can be measured in the traditional examination system. Other skills are not valued, and the result is that students have paper qualifications that are of little use in the job market.

In that regard, if I might introduce a commercial break, as it were, I would like to emphasize the importance of the model followed by Aide et Action, which has arranged this Round Table Discussion. In training youngsters for vocations, they also include other skills, of communication, of management, of cooperation. They encourage discussions that develop personality, they foster understanding of society as well as of technical capacity. Above all, they foster a spirit of entrepreneurship. This is vital, for we must make sure that as many people as want to will have the skills to start their own businesses, so that they can work where they want to, and provide opportunities for others. At the same time, a spirit of initiative will also be a plus point for those who work for others, and in particular for those who join the ranks of migrant labour in other countries.

In short, we should treat education as a means of empowerment, not simply as a tool for equipping youngsters with the capacity to join the workforce. Providing universal education has for too long meant that governments are content to ensure that basic literacy is provided at primary level. In the modern world, literacy is not enough, we have to work towards productive education for all, which means continuing training for job markets of increasing sophistication.

The second area which peace education should encompass is that of promoting positive attitudes. This often takes the form of encouraging what is termed multiculturalism. That in itself is a good idea, and certainly the need to promote tolerance of others is vital. But I believe for too long we in the East have accepted as gospel what I see as a Western ‘othering’ approach that sometimes suggests conflicts are endemic in society.

What I mean was expressed graphically by the distinguished Hindi writer Nirmal Verma who wrote in ‘India and Europe: some reflections on the Self and the Other’, in 1993, that ‘Sartre’s famous statement, “hell is the other”, carries a strong echo of Hegel, who always defined one’s identity as “identity against the other”, either to be appropriated or to be destroyed. By defining the identity of the self in this manner, however, a European finds himself entrapped in his own contradiction; if he succeeds in completely subjugating the other, the identity of his own self becomes dubious. He wants to become whole by destroying the other, but without the other, he becomes nothing.’

On the world view that Verma characterizes as Western then, we recognize differences and exacerbate them. This is of course a better approach than one that either denies differences exist, or else recognizes them and tries to suppress them. That approach has led to much suffering, much resentment, much violence. But, as Verma indicates, there is another world view, which is much more tolerant and which I believe should govern our concept of pluralism. His argument was that, in the East, ‘The self was always accepted as self-referential; the “other” was neither a threat to their identity, nor a source of confirmation of their uniqueness. This was very different from the European notion of the “other”, an inalienable entity external to oneself, which was both a source of terror and an object of desire.’

On such a world view, we can recognize that differences exist, but these are less important than what makes us kin, namely our common humanity. We respect differences not because they mark us out as different from each other, but because they are part of what makes us human. There is no mould into which each of us fits, in terms of being part of a particular group. However we define the various groups to which we belong, we must recognize that there are overlaps, that characteristics can be shared, that we have much in common with those of what we consider other groups, as well as differences. We are unique as individuals, and do not need confirmation of the validity of our identity through association with a group or dissociation from other groups.

In short, I think in any education that we inculcate to promote peace, we should emphasise an Asian approach that works in terms of concentric and overlapping circles in establishing identities. This means that the promotion of identity can contribute to more widely spread benefits, and will encourage synergy rather than the entrenchment of hostility and suspicion in the face of promotional initiatives.

We should promote cooperation then not in terms of concessions, but rather because it advances the interests of everyone. I suspect that this is difficult to apprehend in terms of the goal oriented thinking we tend to inculcate. We need more attention to lateral thinking skills, and need to incorporate this as well as problem solving into materials used in schools. Analysis and innovation should be encouraged, in the context of cooperative learning and experimentation. This will I hope contribute to lessening of the sense that privileges need to be guarded, that life is a zero sum situation in which we have always to be on the lookout for those who would limit our own success.

Sri Lanka, I should mention, has comprehensively destroyed the idea of learning through cooperation. We keep our peoples distinct, not only by straitjacketing them in different mediums of instruction, but also by religion. Thus we have Sinhala medium schools and Tamils medium schools for Tamils, and also Tamil medium schools for Muslims. It is no surprise then that the three communities grow up conscious of the differences between them rather than the fact that they are all Sri Lankan.

It is difficult now to imagine how stratified American society was then, with prejudice rampant everywhere ...

In this regard we should remember how dramatically American society has changed because of the determination of the state in the sixties to desegregate schools. It is difficult now to imagine how stratified American society was then, with prejudice rampant everywhere, services refused to the blacks with no second thought. The segregation contributed to a deep cultural divide, as was apparent for instance in the fact that through the seventies hardly any blacks ventured into a place like Disneyland. Of course it could be argued that if the values a society shares are only those of Disneyland, one has not achieved much. But the fact that overlaps have begun, that people are aware of common feelings and ideas, has much to do with the fact that people of different communities learn together, and register the commonalities as much as the differences.

Let me conclude then with a plea from the principals of different communities I met in a war torn area of Sri Lanka. It was an area of multicultural habitation, of Sinhalese and Tamils and Muslims, who had been torn apart when the Tiger terrorists invaded the place and seemed to privilege the Tamils against the others, though as we know the Tigers were as ruthless to Tamils who did not follow their dictates as to others.

A year after the conflict there had ended, I visited the place and found the Sinhala and the Tamil and the Muslim principals all without sufficient staff. What they suggested was one English medium school, since then the number of teachers required – given that the numbers of students in each of the three schools was so small – would not increase and they could make do with what they had. The students would learn together, they said, and they would learn in a language that would assure them all of a brighter future.

Training the teachers required would be a saving, I reflected, in the long run given that fewer teachers would need to be deployed. But even if English medium was not adopted, bringing the children together in one school, even with two mediums for most subjects, would still be helpful. But this was not something our hidebound system could conceive of. So the seeds of possible conflict will continue to be sown, and the deprived will once more feel alienated from the state if a catalyzing moment occurs again. We must pray that it will not, but it would make sense also to plan our education better to help our people to learn and work and live together companionably.

Text of a presentation by Prof Rajiva Wijesinha MP at a Round Table Discussion organized by Aide et Action International at Kathmandu, September 29th 2011

Daily News 3 October 2011 – http://www.dailynews.lk/2011/10/03/fea18.asp

Speech in Parliament – 6 October 2011

Craig Murray

After Craig Murray had sent his written objections to what he saw as British condoning of torture, which he thought was in contravention of the International Convention against Torture, his objections were addressed at a meeting in London over which Linda Duffield presided. He was told then that using material ‘obtained under torture and subsequently passed on to us… would be inadmissible in a court of law, but that is the only restriction on the use of such material arising from the convention.’ It seemed that the official British government position was that it saw ‘no legal obstacle to our continuing to receive such information from the Uzbek security services.’

I can understand of course that a country in serious danger from powerful terrorist movements might sometimes feel it had to bend the rules.

I am quoting Murray, but obviously what he puts in direct speech in his book can only represent his recollections of what occurred. Still I feel this makes it clear that the British were condoning and endorsing, indeed even supporting, the use of torture. I can understand of course that a country in serious danger from powerful terrorist movements might sometimes feel it had to bend the rules. But such behavior should be carefully controlled, and should certainly not give carte blanche for the type of appalling cruelties Murray thought he had evidence of. Unfortunately once one gets on the slippery slope of tolerating such excesses, it is far too easy to ignore unpleasant evidence. This can lead too to shooting of the messenger as happened to poor Craig Murray.

I can do no better here than cite other passages from his book which underline the appalling hypocrisy of the New Labour government. I can only hope therefore, as I have mentioned in an Adjournment Motion I have proposed for our Parliament, that the current government makes clear its abhorrence of such practices, and that the current leadership of the Labour Opposition makes sure that such practices are not repeated.

"I had seriously miscalculated when I had believed that British ministers would reject material obtained through torture."

Craig notes that ‘I had seriously miscalculated when I had believed that British ministers would reject material obtained through torture.  What I achieved was to increase to sizzling point the hostility towards me at the senior levels of the British government and particularly from the intelligence services.

I had failed adequately to take into account that I was only seeing the torture material from Uzbekistan.  In the War on Terror, it had been decided to relax our taboo on torture, and we were accepting material from the torture chambers of Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and a number of other countries including even Sudan and Syria. The British government was even to argue in court for the right to use torture material as evidence. The government won this right in the Court of Appeal in November 2004 but lost to a unanimous judgment of seven Law Lords on 8 December 2005.’

Later in the book he goes on to describe what happened in the Courts – ‘Nor is there any end to the use of torture as a weapon to further the Bush-Blair

British soldiers are accused of piling bodies of Iraqi prisoners on top of each other and subjecting them to electric shocks, an echo of the abuse at the notorious US detention centre at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.

agenda and stoke the fires of Islamophobia with false intelligence. In October 2005, the British government, in a historic case before the House of Lords, argued for the right to use intelligence obtained under torture. They argued for a threefold use of this intelligence: to guide security operations, to detain without trials, and as evidence in court of law. This is the first time in over 200 years a British government has sought to legalise the use of torture evidence. On 8 December 2005, the Law Lords ruled resoundingly against the government. They made plain that evidence in British courts must not be tainted by torture, and neither could detainees be held on the basis of information obtained by torture. However, Charles Clarke, then Home Secretary, argued that the government  had won the right to use torture material.  He stated that the Law Lords ‘held it was perfectly lawful for such information to be relied on operationally and also by the Home Secretary in making executive decisions’. Thus ‘the exclusion of evidence obtained by torture……. Will not change, weaken or detract from our ability to fight terrorism’. Thus the British government is quite shameless in its desire to obtain and to use the fruits of torture, and remains a great customer for the products of the torture chambers of dictators like Karimov worldwide. The raw material – people to be tortured – is sometimes local and sometimes delivered by the CIA through the extraordinary rendition programme.

In a sickening example of propaganda doublespeak, the article in which Clarke argued his case was headed: ‘I welcome the ban on evidence gained through torture’, despite the fact that lawyers acting on his behalf had fought the ban tooth and nail through every stage of the British judicial system. The collapse of the ability of mainstream media really to hold politicians to account is very worrying.’

"The CIA were flying terrorist suspects, many of them completely innocent, around the world to destinations where they could be tortured .."

Murray suggests that one reason for the unremitting hostility he faced was that the horrors he was objecting to were connected with ‘the CIA’s extraordinary rendition programme. This is now well understood. The CIA were flying terrorist suspects, many of them completely innocent, around the world to destinations where they could be tortured…in protesting about intelligence obtained by torture in Uzbekistan I had hit an even more sensitive point than I had realized. I had stumbled unwittingly across the extraordinary rendition programme, and my objections were therefore threatening the legal and political basis of a major CIA strategy in the War on Terror’.

The story as it concerns Uzbekistan however has a climax that would be entertaining had there not been so much suffering, encouraged by people who had no excuse for condoning brutality. Even while Murray was serving in Uzbekistan, President Karimov was thinking of changing his allegiance, and in 1995 ‘Karimov served the US with six months’ notice to quit their prized military base at Karshi Khanabad. The US-Uzbek alliance over, it suddenly became open season on Karimov. The US and UK governments discovered that – Shock! Horror! – this guy Karimov had been an awful dictator! British ministers were at pains to claim that they had been in agreement with me about this all along. I started getting invites to seminars in Washington’.

I remember reading somewhere that there had been further developments in the Uzbek conduct of international relations, and I have no doubt that its wily President has been serving the interests of his country, which doubtless are seen as synonymous with his own, ably by balancing possible sources of assistance against each other. But, as far as the West is concerned – and Craig notes that Germany broke ranks with the EU when it finally brought in sanctions against the Karimov regime – I am reminded of Hannah Arendt’s description of the banality of evil, the pathetic inner nature, notwithstanding the enormous harm they cause, of those who succumb to it.