Friday Nov 15, 2024
Friday Nov 15, 2024
Friday, 3 May 2019 00:10 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Sri Lanka appears to be trapped in a vicious circle of wretchedness, not easy to escape from. Of the post-independence period which spans little over seven decades, the country has passed through a dismal backdrop of cruelty and savagery, swimming in blood for nearly three decades. 
During this uncivilised period the damage and destruction caused to society and the infrastructure of the country was immense. While more than 100,000 people have been killed, most of those who were able to survive physically have undergone a spiritual death, creating a futile, distorted and disoriented society.
The nature of the public service too has changed depending on the character of politicians and bureaucrats, bequeathing the State with a sordid face of rampant corruption and exploitation. The character and the moral fibre of clergy and the religions too has changed drastically, becoming a system of institutions that disseminate hatred and animosity instead of compassion and kindness.
During Black July ’83, maximum cruelty was unleashed on Tamils, particularly on those who lived in Colombo city. Thereafter, during the period of more than three years in which the JVP insurrection prevailed, both the JVP combatants and the security forces, official and unofficial who fought against the JVP released maximum cruelty on society.
Later, the LTTE and the security forces fought against them and released maximum cruelty not only on Tamil society but also on Sinhala and Muslim societies as well. Following the defeat of the JVP, the LTTE was able to sustain its armed struggle for a very long period of 20 years.
By the time the LTTE rebellion was defeated, not only society in its entirety but the entire State had become extremely weak and distorted. The society and the State were in a state of insecurity that required immediate and formal treatment. In other words, the wounds created in the State and society had reached the stage of festering. But, both the Rajapaksa Government which won the internal war and the Yahapalana Government which replaced the former did not possess political intelligence or vision to perceive the gravity of this situation. All other political parties too lacked the wisdom to perceive the situation in its true perspective.
The ignorance that prevailed among them is not a matter for surprise. A deep change occurred in the conduct of politicians too during this long period of uncivilised atmosphere. Most of them, ignoring their role as people’s representatives, ganged up with the criminal elements of society and became businessman earning undue profits, (mis)using their political power. As they were preoccupied all the time with business interests, they did not have consciousness required for realising the deterioration of the society. Their main concern was on power politics and their interest in earning money through undue means.
Muslims in Sri Lanka
The Muslims in Sri Lanka can be considered a community whose history goes as far back as to the Anuradhapura period, which had held the internal trading monopoly of Sri Lanka up to the advent of the Portuguese period.
During the period of the Kandyan kingdom they constituted a community group that was integrated into the caste-based system of Sinhalese social organisation. According to Ralph Peiris, Muslims had been employed in the Madige or the transport bureau; they were considered a semi caste in the Sinhalese caste hierarchy during the Kandyan period. 
As Peiris has mentioned, the only reason which had prevented the upcountry Muslims from becoming a full-fledged Sinhalese caste was their religion which they did not want to abandon. As Peiris has pointed out, the circumstance of a Sinhala Goyigma caste woman married to a Muslim man had been deeply investigated into, in the court case of Ekanayaka Gedara Dingiri Manika Vs Udagedara Hitapu Koraa Arachchila (1829).
Muslims can be considered the community that was most hated by the Portuguese. The main reason of this hatred was not their religion, but the fact of them being a trading community. That was the main reason for Muslims also to harbour a deep hatred towards the Portuguese. They lost the trade monopoly that they had maintained up to then, following the advent of the Portuguese.
When the maritime areas came under Portuguese rule, the Muslims who lived in those regions fled in bulk to Kandyan territories and the Kandyan kings cordially welcomed them. That was how the places like Udathalawinna in the up country had become areas with high density Muslim populations.
Dr. Lorna Devaraja, formerly Associate Professor in History, University of Ceylon, has pointed out that King Senerath (1604-1635) had settled about 4,000 Muslims in Batticaloa (at that time, present Ampara was also constituted a part of Batticaloa) and by doing so, the king expected to recruit soldiers of war from among Muslims, in addition to employing them to produce food. This was the reason for certain areas in the Eastern Province to become locations of high density Muslim population.
Ridee Viharaya is a classic example that can be cited to illustrate the Buddhist-Muslim peaceful coexistence that prevailed at that time. The Buddhist bhikkus of Ridee Viharaya had not only settled down the Muslims in that village as legal heirs, but also allowed them to erect a mosque in temple lands and had allocated a plot of land for the maintenance of the clergy of the mosque.
Though the Portuguese and the Dutch periods were not favourable times for Muslims, the British period can be considered relatively a better era in which not only Muslims but Buddhist and Hindus had freedom to engage in commercial activities in addition to having freedom to follow their religions.
The Sinhalese remained a community that was not interested in practicing trading and commerce as a vocation. But with the opportunities available during the British rule, they too began to evince interest in trading activities which eventually led to create conflicts between the two communities. The Sinhala-Muslim riots which broke out in 1915 can be considered an instance in which these conflicts reached a climax.
The riddle of Muslims
Muslims can be described as a community group which had taken the side of the Sinhalese on many controversial issues that arose after independence. On the national language issue, they were on the side of the Sinhalese. On the question of Tamil Eelam, they were on the side of Sinhalese. They had to pay a big price for this stance. Consequently, the Muslims who lived in the Tamil areas in the north had to flee to other areas, leaving their properties behind. This resulted in a considerable number of Muslims being killed by the Tamil militants.
The contribution of Muslims to the war against the LTTE remained at a significant and conspicuous level. Several names of Muslim officers had been included in the main list of war heroes whom the Sinhalese held in high esteem. While Prabhakaran was alive, it was only Tamil people who became the rival of the Sinhala extremists. But, after Prabhakaran was killed in his struggle for a separate state and the LTTE was completely defeated, the Sinhala extremists wanted to look for a new rival. It was the Muslim people who became their new rival.
With this development, it can be said that a bad time had dawned on Muslims. A derogatory propaganda campaign was launched against them. Cruel attacks were made in several places. It appeared that the attacks made during the Rajapaksa regime had indirect support of the State as well. It appeared that Muslims had voted en bloc to defeat the Rajapaksa regime and it can be considered a factor that influenced in inspiring anti-Muslim sentiments.
It must also be said that during the Rajapaksa regime an enormous amount of work had been done in predominantly Muslim areas in the Eastern Province. If the Rajapaksa regime hadn’t adopted an anti-Muslim policy, perhaps it would have been rather difficult to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa at the Presidential Election 2015.
Apparently, the terrorist attacks carried out on Easter Sunday have caused serious shock and a feeling of shame among the Muslim community. It appears that Muslims have taken the lead in providing information to the Police in the present case.
What is the impact of these attacks on the psyche of the Sinhalese community? Have these incidents generated the most required discipline, enabling them to contemplate on this issue impartially and without being driven by racial passions? Will this dreadful incident provide a suitable platform to bring Muslim society in particular and entire Sri Lankan society in general to perceive this phenomenon from a rational and more modern point of view? Or else, will it cause to thrust everyone into a position where they tend to perceive it from a conservative point of view?
The immense tolerance displayed by the Christian population, the victims of the attack, can be considered as the only silver lining in the dark cloud. The role played by Christian leaders on this occasion is not only exemplary, but will certainly make a salutary impact on the followers of other religions and society in general.
Political conundrums
The President of the country claims that he was not aware of the warnings issued by the State Intelligence Services and that he had come to know of the incident only when someone had shown him a report that appeared on Facebook while he was in Singapore. Despite the reality being such, the President had stated that he would take the responsibility as the Minister in charge of National Security of the country for the failure to protect the people from these attacks.
The explanation made by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is no different from that. The Prime Minister maintains that following the abortive attempt to change the government, he had not been called for the National Security Council meetings; and he had attempted to call a Security Council meeting after the incident, but the members of the Security Council were not in agreement with him. However, as the Prime Minister of the country, he said that he accepted collective Government responsibility for all that had happened. Looking at these statements, it is not difficult to understand the extent of bankruptcy into which the Sri Lanka State and its leaders had fallen.
Can everything be ended so easily by mere admittance of responsibility of a great catastrophe of this magnitude without doing anything to prevent it, after a great damage which could have been avoided has been caused?
If the Prime Minister had participated in the Security Council meetings held prior to the unsuccessful effort to change the prime minister, why was he not invited to participate in the meetings held thereafter? What has the President, as the head of security, got to say about it?
If India had warned beforehand about this attack through intelligence reports with details, was it not discussed by the Security Council? If it had not been discussed, who should be held responsible for that? Why did the members of the Security Council refrain from extending their support to the Prime Minister when he attempted to convene a meeting of the Security Council subsequent to this attack when the President was out of the country? Was it a voluntary decision of the members of Security Council or did they act on an order from the top?
Wasn’t the Prime Minister aware that the subject of Police should come under the Prime Minister who is vested with executive power and not the President? Didn’t the Prime Minister know that executive power sans the subject of Police which has a direct bearing on law and order of the country is not an executive power? Had he known that it was so, then how can a policy of snivelling be justified after a great catastrophe, without taking appropriate steps to bring the subject of Police under his purview?
In the light of this crisis, it would be possible to understand the mockery of the situation the entire system of governance has been plunged into by the 19th Amendment.
According to the changes effected to the Constitution in terms of the 19th Amendment, the executive powers are rested on the Prime Minister, but the Police Department comes under the President and not the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was not being called for Security Council meetings. The members of the Security Council had refused to cooperate with the Prime Minister when he attempted to call an emergency meeting of the Security Council after a violent terrorist attack when the President was away from the country. Both the President and the Prime Minister wanted to remove the Inspector General of Police (IGP). But, there is no way they could do it except on a proposal passed by Parliament. It is interesting to note that despite the powers of the Executive President being nominal, the President is elected by an election held treating the entire country as one single electorate.
How is it possible that legal experts, political leaders and Parliament in general failed to foresee the chaos that the 19th Amendment would create in the system of governance of the country? Does it mean that they all had lost their proper sense? Do the founders of the 19th Amendment admit, at least belatedly, that the formula on political content that they brought forward to defeat Mahinda and also the limited reforms program they introduced resulted in placing the entire country in a chaotic mess rather than being a solution to resolve its problems?
About the State Intelligence Services
It is the opinion of both the incumbent President and the former President that there has been a serious breakdown in the State Intelligence Services following the arrest of Intelligence officers and it has significantly affected the present situation.
But they do not specifically state what they really mean by it. It is not apt to speak in the language of Aesop when serious problems of security lapses like this are being discussed. It is important that they should express their opinion in a language comprehensible to the people.
Do both Presidents intend to say that all members of Intelligence services who have been charged with serious allegations are innocent people without reasonable grounds to be charged? Do both these Presidents think the incident in which 11 youth were abducted and made to disappear is a false charge fabricated and socialised with the view to ruining the Intelligence service?
Do they mean to say that the disappearance of Prageeth Eknaligoda, assassination of Lasantha Wickrematunge, inhuman attacks made on several media personnel including Keith Noyahr and assassination of Thajudeen, etc. are baseless and false allegations? Or else, that these crimes should be ignored just because the people connected with them are officers of the State Intelligence Services who served the country as Intelligence officers?
Wasantha Karannagoda, the then Navy Commander, was the first complainant of the incident in which 11 youth were abducted. He had made this complaint to the Colombo Crime Division on 28 May 2009. It was during the regime of Mahinda Rajapaksa and not during the Yahapalana Government that the complaint was made. He had made the complaint in his capacity as the Navy Commander against Sampath Munasinha, his personal security officer, in charge of his security.
Prior to making the complaint, the Naval Disciplinary Security Unit had checked the room used by those officers and found weapons, a cheque drawn for a sum of Rs. 760,000, two promissory notes, one for Rs. 500,000 and the other for Rs. 400,000, four bank account books of three people, a passport and four ID cards.
The Criminal Investigations Department has disclosed and proved with evidence that the youth who owned the passport and the four other youth who owned the four ID cards found in the room and six more youth abducted and detained at two different locations belonged to the Navy to obtain ransoms.
Later, all of them had been killed from time to time and their bodies dismembered and thrown into the sea. What should be the policy adopted by a country in respect of those who committed such heinous crimes? Is it proper to retain people who committed such heinous crimes in Intelligence services?
