Thursday Nov 14, 2024
Thursday Nov 14, 2024
Tuesday, 28 May 2013 01:24 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The Sinhalese have been too tolerant and the minorities have abused that tolerance in an undue manner, stresses Udaya Gammanpila, Senior Member of the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) and Minister of Agriculture, Agrarian Development, Irrigation, Trade and Environment in the Western Provincial Council.
“We are the champions of minority rights. We have no international obligation to devolve power. There is no minority right called devolution of power,” Gammanpila points out.
The JHU announced that a bill would be brought to Parliament to repeal the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. “This is not a mere dream. This is something realisable. We are quite confident and hopeful that both these leaders will allow their members to have free vote,” he added.
Following are excerpts from the interview:
Q: What is the JHU’s position on the provincial council system?
A: From the inception we were of the view that provincial councils are totally unnecessary. It was forced on us by India. It has no legitimate right to be in existence. So we believe that it should be abolished in toto.
Q: You are a provincial councillor; why are you against it?
A: Whether we like it or not, it is in existence. So we use the provincial council system for our political advancement. This is similar to leftists using the Parliament for their political advancement. We don’t believe in it but since it is around we use it. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) does not believe in a unitary state but they somehow work under a unitary state.
Q: What are your views on the 13th Amendment to the Constitution?
A: There are two major issues in the manner it was constitutionalised. Firstly, there is a political issue. The Indo-Lanka Accord was signed by the President of Sri Lanka under duress. He was forced to sign this. Soon before the Indo-Lanka Accord, not only did India threaten, they converted their threat into action by airdropping food parcels. President J.R. Jayewardene at that time did not want Sri Lanka to be annexed to India as its next state. So with great reluctance he had to agree to this agreement. According to contract law, any agreement signed under duress is voidable. So we are in no international obligation to honour the Indo-Lanka Accord.
Secondly, there is a constitutional legal issue. The nine-member Supreme Court panel who heard the 13th Amendment case had a divided judgment. Four judges said this amendment does not require approval by the people at a referendum. But others said that the entire bill or provisions of the bill require the approval of the referendum. Those judges further said in their determination that they were not going to suggest any alternative provision. When the Supreme Court says a certain provision is not constitutional, it suggests how it could make it constitutional. But in this case they have mentioned that they are not going to make any suggestions. In other words, Parliament had no option but to go before the people.
Then Parliament in a surreptitious manner amended the relevant clauses, namely 154G 2B and 154G 3D, and then obtained an opinion from the Attorney General that it is now constitutional. What they should have done was keep submitting the bill granting the opportunity to the Supreme Court to review it again and determine its constitutionality. So this is politically invalid and legally un-constitutionalised.
Therefore, as lawful duty-bound politicians, it is our obligation to bring an act to repeal this. In fact, we must apologise to the nation for the delay for the last 26 years.
Q: We see your opposition as a sudden move. Why did you not oppose before? Why wait till Northern Province elections were announced?
A: We have been campaigning against the 13th Amendment since our inception. When we formed our party in 2000, we mentioned that the abolition of the provincial council system was our core objective. We have never expressed views in support or in defence of provincial councils. So we were campaigning against it. As Buddhists we believe there is a suitable time for everything. Since we are on the eve of establishing northern provincial council elections, people are scared. People are wondering if the northern provincial council is going to exercise police powers.
We established a provincial council for the North and Eastern Provinces in December 1988 and made Wardajaja Perumal the Chief Minister. He established a paramilitary force called the Volunteer Citizen Force. Relying on the strength of that force, he unilaterally declared independence for Tamil Eelam in March 1990. This was an inerasable nightmare in people’s minds. People are worried that this kind of jeopardy will take place in the north again.
Secondly, in the recent past, we experienced how difficult it is for Parliament to pass an act on a provincial subject. According to Article 154G, when Parliament is to pass an act on a provincial subject, Parliament should obtain the consent of all the provinces. And if one province does not agree to that, the only available alternative is to pass it with a two-thirds special majority in Parliament.
We are fully convinced that such a bill brought by the Government would not be approved by the northern provincial council. In that backdrop, the Government has to pass such a bill with the two-thirds majority. We have witnessed that no Government has been able to obtain a two-thirds majority under the PR system. In that context we will never be able to pass an act in Parliament on a provincial subject.
The danger is the interpretation given to the provincial subject called rural development by the Supreme Court in the Divi Neguma Bill determination. In that determination the Supreme Court gave a very broad interpretation for rural development: that anything which does not belong to foreign affairs and urban development would fall into rural development. Because of that, Parliament will not be able to pass a single act without obtaining consent of all provincial councils, resulting in Parliament and thereby the entire country becoming dysfunctional.
Q: What will be your next step?
A: We will introduce a bill to repeal the 13th Amendment through Ven. Rathana Thero during the next week. The JHU’s core policy is total abolition of the provincial council system; therefore we cannot bring a bill for something less. Nevertheless we understand that the present national and international atmosphere would not help us to obtain a two-thirds majority for the repealing of the 13th Amendment. Therefore, we are ready to compromise for something less. For instance, we can repeal Police powers and the ability for provincial councils to amalgamate and establish one provincial council and to amend the procedure set out for passing a parliamentary act on a provincial council subject. Those are the three main burdens in the 13th Amendment.
Q: Do you believe it is achievable in this present Parliament?
A: Yes. This is not a mere dream. This is something realisable. Let me come out with the arithmetic. Successive governments failed to touch the 13th Amendment not because they like it but because they tried to get the required majority only from the government. But we can seek the support not only from the government but from the entire Parliament.
The Government has 161 members except the Speaker. There are five leftists and 18 Parliamentarians who respect minority political parties who are for devolution. There are 23 Parliamentarians who won’t go against the bill. Then our support comes down to 138. The DNA led by the JVP has six members. The JVP sacrificed 67,000 lives in the late ’80s to fight against the provincial council system. In fact, they have already pledged support for not repealing just several provisions but repealing the entire provincial council system. Then with the support of the DNA, the shortage comes down to six. We have urged the President and the Leader of the Opposition to allow the members to have a consensus vote. Right now 11 UNP Parliamentarians have personally pledged support to our bill in the event they will be allowed to cast a free vote.
I am sure if we start a campaign led by Buddhist monks, the wave would be very strong. There are a lot of politicians who support the provincial council system but are against Police powers, amalgamation provisions and procedure set out for passing an act on provincial council subjects.
I am confident that we can easily reach a two-thirds majority in Parliament provided that the President and the Leader of the Opposition allow members to give a consensus vote. If you go further, that’s the best available option. Both these leaders will be under tremendous pressure from all these forces. Nationalists led by Buddhist monks will influence them. Similarly, the international community led by India would force them to oppose the bill. The ideal salvation available for them will be to be independent and allow members to cast their free vote. This is not a dream. This is a reality. I am so confident that we can achieve this.
Q: At a time international pressure is mounting against the country, don’t you feel bringing such a bill would further worsen the situation?
A: I must say the Sri Lankan Government has honoured an international covenant on minority rights better than so-called defenders of minority rights. There is an international covenant passed in 1992 on ‘Rights of National, Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic and Minorities’. All the obligations set out in that covenant have been honoured by Sri Lanka. In fact, we have gone further; Tamil is an official language in Sri Lanka. Tamil does not enjoy that right in its birth place, India. It is only a State language.
Again, we have guaranteed unlimited religious freedom. No religion has been placed superior to other. But in the United Kingdom and Norway, special status has been granted for their official religions. Although Sri Lanka has given priority to Buddhism, as a religion it has not been granted official status. Legally there is a huge difference between these two.
500 years ago several Muslims came to Sri Lanka as traders. They now represent almost 10% of our population; simply because of inter-religious marriages and conversions. Nobody has fought against it; people have tolerated it.
We have the highest number of holidays in the world because of our tolerance and accommodation of all different views. We are the champions of minority rights. We have no international obligation to devolve power. There is no minority right called devolution of power. Countries such as France and Norway as well as Japan to some extent do, though they force us to devolve power; they haven’t done that at all. Why don’t they practice what they preach if it is so good?
This is only an attempt to weaken Sri Lanka which is positioned at a strategic location in the world. They want to weaken us and make us vulnerable so they could easily influence and control us. That is the strategy behind promotion of the devolving power; they are not worried about minority rights. If they are worried about minority rights Americans should look after the blacks and the Spanish community in the USA rather than worrying about the Tamils in Sri Lanka. This is part of their power game.
Q: Do you have the blessing of the President to repeal the 13th Amendment?
A: We have planned not only talk to the President but also to speak to the Leader of the Opposition. As I explained before, this is the ideal position for them to take. We are quite confident and hopeful that both these leaders will allow their members to have free vote. But we are yet to talk to them. After tabling the bill we hope to meet and hold discussions with all Parliamentarians representing political parties including the TNA.
Q: If someone alleges that the Government is using the JHU as a tool to distract from the Northern Province election simply because it is unable to secure votes, how would you respond?
A: This is not something to do with the JHU. This is not a sudden change of position taken by the JHU. Since the inception we have been dead against the provincial council system and we have vowed to abolish it. We are quite happy to weaken it as much as possible when opportunities permit us. So there is an opportunity and we decided to use it. It is simple as that. As the person behind this bill I am the best person to say that.
Nobody influences us; this is our policy. Nobody can challenge us. Everybody knows that we have been standing for this position for nearly two decades now. It is quite natural for the JHU to come out with this bill. Why should the President or somebody else influence us? They should influence us to do something we don’t like. Our political life has been dedicated for this cause. We are in politics because of this.
Q: What are your views on allegations about ‘Sinhalisation’ in the north’?
A: First of all we have to remind the entire world that according to the 1971 census, 4.6% of the Northern Province population was Sinhalese. It is now less than 1%. The Sinhalese had to first leave the north after the protest against the 1972 Constitution led by Chelvanayagam. Thereafter Sinhalese properties were burnt and they were chased away in 1977 when the north was celebrating the victory of the TULF. There was a third wave in response to the 1983 July riots. The final and fourth wave took place soon after signing the Indo-Lanka Accord.
So the Sinhalese were virtually not in the Northern Province because of these four waves of expulsion and the ethnic cleansing. Normalcy has come once again. The true sons of the north have the right to go back to their homelands. Our Constitution has guaranteed that any citizen can live in any part of this country. It is a right freely enjoyed by Tamils. It is very unfair for Tamils to enjoy that right and complain about the Sinhalese enjoying the same.
According to the 1971 census, the Sinhalese were 51% in Sri Lanka’s commercial capital Colombo. But it has come down to 28% in 2012. Have we grudged this? Have we asked Muslims and Tamils not to come to our capital city? Have we asked them to go back to the north since there is normalcy after 2009? We Sinhalese being the majority have respected and accommodated the minorities. The Sinhalese have been so tolerant and the minorities have abused that tolerance in an undue manner.
Q: How would you respond to the claims on militarisation of north and east?
A: We had to maintain our military forces in the north for several reasons. Although we were able to eliminate the terrorist element of the separatist movement in Sri Lanka in total, these separatist movements are very much active outside of Sri Lanka now, with the blessings of super powers. There is always a risk of the terrorists bouncing back, so the Government has to be ready. Since Sri Lankan military forces were mere ceremonial forces in the early ’80s, we were not ready to face that kind of an arms struggle. Secondly, we increased our forces from 20,000 to 300,000 during the war. If we are to withdraw them from the north, where are we going to place them? We have already built camps in the north. If we are to accommodate those forces outside the north and east, we have to build military complexes in the south. We don’t have adequate land as well as resources to repeat what we have done in the north.
Third reason; for the last 2,600 years of our record of history, 99% of invaders have entered the country from the Northern Province. Because of that we are forced to deploy much of our security forces in the north. These critics should not forget the fact that the most of the military have been deployed in the Northern Province even before the war. Those days the major tasks of the military forces were to control illegal immigration as well as smuggling.
The fourth reason is that our civil administration network is yet to restore and tune to the efficient state it used to be, because we have passed just four years from the war. The military network is very established and very efficient. Even in the south we use the military for development purposes because they are efficient and they have adequate resources. So we do the same in the north.
Because of these four reasons, we have no choice but to keep the military forces in the north. However the Government has gradually and significantly reduced the military forces in the north during the last four years. Unfortunately we cannot appease the separatist forces by doing what they want.
Q: The Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) today acts as a prominent Sinhala- Buddhist organisation. They claim the BBS was formed to fill the vacuum of a true Buddhist force. Does this mean the JHU has failed to fulfil its duties?
A: We have been a non-political mass organisation for several decades. Thereafter we thought our movements were not a political threat to other political parties, though they listen to Buddhist monks they never implement what they promise. Buddhist monks have no choice; they have to choose blue, green or red. Therefore we wanted to build a Buddhist political force to pressure other political parties to listen to Buddhists and meet aspirations. We achieved what we wanted to a great extent. Before the establishment of the JHU, we had the support of all political parties. Now they consider us as a threat and they don’t listen to us. Apart from the JHU, there must be an apolitical Sinhala Buddhist force as well. We also see this vacuum and we are glad that Bodu Bala Sena has filled that vacuum. Our blessing is with them.
Q: What do you think about the allegations that the BBS acts in a manner that is contrary to the teachings of true Buddhism?
A: Philosophical Buddhism and practical Buddhism are two different things. You cannot do what Lord Buddha did because you don’t have the same personality. Unfortunately we don’t have a single Buddhist monk who can compare with a fraction of Gautama Buddha. Secondly, different scenarios force us to take different courses of action. In Buddhism there is something called parajika, meaning if a Buddhist monk does one of those things, he would automatically be de-robed. One is homicide. But there is an exception. If homicide took place in self defence, then the monk does not become parajika.
Take the European heroes – Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great – all are thugs and rogues in our perspective. They have invaded other countries and they have taken their treasures. But our heroes Dutugemunu, Parakumba, Wijeyaba all are liberators of their nation. They have never invaded any other country. Wijeyaba captured southern India and gave it back to them. Therefore, we as Buddhists have a right to fight in self defence.
We may be innocent but we are not weak. As much as possible Buddhists should show Buddhist values but if someone is going to abuse it or exploit it, we have to show them that we can also fight back. When Alawaka tried to abuse Lord Buddha, he said: “I am not leaving this chair; do whatever you can do.” This was a kind of threat. If Lord Buddha can do that, why can’t we?
Q: Are you also justifying the hate campaign against the Muslims?
A: We don’t hate them at all. Most of my financiers and sponsors of my election campaign were Muslims. Simply what happened was that we reacted on two things. One was the mushrooming of unauthorised constructions of what is called madrasas. There is a law in this country. Just because you are religious institution, you cannot abuse or disobey the law. Secondly, for the last 500 years they have been eating Halal food; we have never grudged this. But when they try to force us also to eat Halal, of course we have to resist. As much as we respect their values and beliefs, they should respect ours. In fact our campaign was against the manufacturers of Halal food and the majority of them are non Muslims. This whole issue was misinterpreted.
In 1597, there were only 4,000 Muslims in this country. Now they have grown to two million because of religious conversions. If we didn’t allow them to marry Sinhala Buddhist girls, the scenario would have been a lot different. This is why I say we are too innocent and too tolerant. Unfortunately, instead of appreciating that, they abuse it.
Q: The JHU is in a coalition partnership with the Government. Your party played a key role in bringing President Rajapaksa to power. But the JHU is no longer the powerful ally it used to be. Why?
A: Naturally we have lost our significance after the 2009 military victory and further in 2010. With or without the JHU, the Government was fully secured because it was immensely popular thanks to the unbelievable achievement brought to the nation. Secondly, in 2010 the Government got nearly a two-thirds majority in Parliament so the JHU has been very insignificant in this collation Government. But ideologically the JHU is quite influential to the Middle Class in this country. In fact, they can influence the entire nation. They are the trendsetters in this country. I feel President knows this very well and that is why he listens to us and maintains a cordial relationship with us.
One should not misunderstand and misinterpret our struggle with the Government. There was an election manifesto called the ‘Mahinda Chinthana Future Vision’. We contributed to that manifesto. We requested the people to vote for that manifesto. This election manifesto is the contract between the Government and the people. We are duty bound to ensure that this Government implements this manifesto. We fight with the Government to ensure that the Government is on track. Whenever it is apparent that the Government is derailing, we always fight, shout, influence and try to put them back on track. Whether we like it or not, this Government will continue to be in power for another three years; it is our duty to ensure that the Government is on track and they deliver what they promise at the election. Usually anybody would like an obedient son over a rebellious son. We are a rebellious son.
