Sinhala supremacy and democracy

The Sinhala ultra nationalists are trying to justify the Sinhala majority rule based on their baseless claim that the entire island is exclusive Sinhala nation and the ethnic minorities are the descendants of foreign immigrants, especially from neighbouring India. Even if this is the case though it is not, in a democratic country the presumption that the indigenous majority ethnic group has more rights than others is unacceptable. The supremacy of the Sinhalese and the division of Sri Lankans on the above basis has recently been espoused openly by some influential persons. Environment and Natural Resources Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka of the JHU (Jathika Hela Urumaya led by Buddhist monks) and the Army Commander Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka have claimed that all communities except the Sinhalese are just visitors to Sri Lanka and are living at the mercy of the majority community. Based on the notion that the entire island belongs to the Sinhalese, they have declared that the ethnic minorities who are not the native people should not put forward unreasonable demands.

The Army Commander said: “In any democratic country the majority should rule the country. This country will be ruled by the Sinhalese community which is the majority representing 74 percent of the population" (The Daily News – 19.7.2008). In Gen. Fonseka’s view, the Sinhalese have the birthright to rule Sri Lanka and they must sacrifice willingly to protect their dominant status from minority challenges. Further, Minister Champika Ranawaka’s statement that the Muslims must not take the compassion of the Buddhists for granted has disturbed many Muslims and the All Ceylon Union of Muslim League Youth Fronts has condemned it as thoroughly irresponsible.  In a press release the Muslim Union has said: "Minister Champika Ranawaka’s statement in the national media supporting the earlier statement of Army Commander regarding the Muslims and Tamils of this country is nothing but racism. This has not only hurt the feelings of the Muslim community but put our community into ridicule. It is clear that the Minister has either become a slave to racism or has totally forgotten history”. It is significant the government has not publicly dissociated itself from this stance of Sinhala ownership and supremacy declared by two of its leading members. 

In his analysis of Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s statements, Izeth Hussain has taken a mixed view (Sarath Fonseka and the Sinhalese in ‘The Island’ November 16). He has opined: “It is of course true that under any democratic dispensation the majority ethnic group gets power over the minorities. But is SF aware of the terrible dangers of majoritarian democracy?” Izeth Hussain has not mentioned the direct link between majoritarian democracy and Sri Lanka’s unitary structure. The latter per se need not undermine democracy in plural societies such as ours, provided the majority decisions do not target minority ethnic groups to their disadvantage. This has not been the case for the past several decades in Sri Lanka. 

The distinction between majority decisions that affect all ethnic communities almost equally and others detrimental to the interests of ethnic minorities is crucial. Section 29 in the Soulbury Constitution was meant to prevent such damaging majority decisions. This was not included in both the 1972 and 1978 Republican Constitutions. The concerns and views of the ethnic minorities were not considered when these constitutions were drafted. There were also no inputs from independent constitutional experts or other professionals. The proposals incorporated were mainly those of the leaders of the ruling party, who were anxious to strengthen the Sinhala majority rule. The usual checks and balances accompanying a robust democratic system were relaxed for exercising power freely. It is the Supreme Court that is now trying to prevent the rapid shift towards autocracy. Izeth Hussain’s view that the Army Commander’s statements “reek of Sinhala triumphalism” bodes ill for the future of Sri Lanka is also fair. In short, majority rule in Sri Lanka undermines democratic values and freedom of the ethnic minorities.

In a recent article,  ‘Sri Lanka: The State Changes Face’,  Dr. Jayadeva Uyangoda has said  “The idea of Sri Lanka as a multiethnic and multi-religious society is one which the establishment refuses to accept”.  On the Army Chief’s statement that Sri Lanka belonged to the Sinhalese, he has said that “it actually demonstrates some of the dynamics of the politics of Sri Lanka’s ongoing war”. The perception that Sri Lankan state is both ethnic majoritarian and communal “has resurfaced quite strongly under conditions of the present war”. This is very true. The root cause of the national problem and the reluctance to implement even the amendments to the Constitution intended to alleviate the hardships caused by previous discriminatory legislative Acts such as the 1956 ‘Sinhala Only’ language Act have now surfaced glaringly.   

Dr. Jehan Perera of the National Peace Council has also drawn attention to the noticeable rise in Sinhala nationalism now, which has kindled the claim that Sri Lanka is a Sinhalese country, in which “the ethnic majority has the power to impose its own vision of a political solution on ethnic minorities. Unless the Government is prepared to accept the reality that Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic society, this will be a recipe for continued ethnic strife in the years to come”.
And “the inability or unwillingness of the political leadership of the Government to address the issue of Sri Lanka’s multi-ethnic and multi-religious polity indicates that the dominant beliefs of the incumbent administration may be in conformity with those of Sinhala nationalism”.  Moreover, “the relative absence of protest or dissent by members of the Sinhalese community to the statement that Sri Lanka is a Sinhalese country would be a blow to the ethnic minorities, who number about a quarter of the country’s population”.  Along with the sudden rise in Sinhala nationalism which is linked to the military successes in the North-East, the ethnic divide has also widened further.

In the past, especially before the emergence of the LTTE as a formidable force the existence of the ethnic problem served as a handy tool in the contest for power. Promises given just before general elections were meant only to gain votes. Thanks to the LTTE leadership for the miscalculation in 2005, now the war has served admirably the Rajapaksa regime to consolidate its hold on power. It has also helped to divert the attention of the people away from the national economic and financial problems. It is time a clear distinction is made between the war and the ethnic issue which is a political problem. Without its settlement, the military success will not be total and of lasting benefit to the nation.     

Rewriting the history to justify nationwide Sinhala dominance

Dubious ancient history which indeed is irrelevant in the modern world has also been slanted and cited by the Sinhala nationalist leaders to regard the ethnic minorities as mere appendages in independent Sri Lanka. Invented fears have served the Sinhalese political leaders to cast themselves as patriots. Article 9 of the Constitution states “it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana” as if there is some real threat, when there is none from within or outside Sri Lanka. The politically inspired intent of the creators was to please the majority of Sinhalese who are Buddhists.  The ethnic minorities, especially the Tamil speaking people who are the majority group, outnumbering the Sinhalese in the North-East are imagined to be a potential threat to the future of the Sinhalese in their homeland. This hallucination that influenced many political decisions in the past is now also seen in the astounding claims such as the ones mentioned earlier. Attempts are being made to establish that no part of Sri Lanka has been under the rule of Tamil monarchs in the past!

In a five-part series on the “Right of the Sri Lanka Government to reclaim its historical sovereignty over North”, PBS Hemachandra, a retired Lt. Commander of Sri Lanka Navy (SL Guardian October 28 – November 1) has argued that Sri Lanka before the arrival of Portuguese has throughout been a sovereign state ruled by Sinhalese kings, though there were chieftains in the province of Jaffna and the Vanni. During his visits, he has not seen any artefacts, epigraphs or inscriptions of an ancient independent Tamil Kingdom in the North or East, or a single tank or irrigation system developed “by the so-called Tamil Kings” The fiefdom of Jaffna had agreements to pay tribute to the kings of Lanka just like other chieftains of other regions in the Vanni. “When the Portuguese marched into Jaffna, it was the ‘Sinhala forces’ led by Mudaliyar Atapattu who re-conquered Jaffna”, though they were defeated later. Because Mudaliyar Attapatu was sent by the King of Kandy to Jaffna to resist the invading Portuguese army, he has concluded that Jaffna was then a part of the Sinhala Kingdom.  The fact is Kandy was a separate kingdom ruled by Tamil kings. They had close ties with the royalty in south India (now Tamil Nadu). Although, Hemachandra claims his version is factual, it does not explain why the Sinhalese did not settle in the North and East. It is not possible here to review the entire series written conscientiously to establish the right of Sinhalese to rule the entire island.  There are plenty of questionable claims just as the one mentioned above. 

R. Manoharan in his timely article (SL Guardian November 1) has challenged the claims of PBS Hemachandra. His analysis also challenges the assertions of others that the Sinhalese are the indigenous people in Sri Lanka and all others are subsequent settlers. Manoharan has also said that his exposition is “the true history of the Tamils and Sinhalese of Sri Lanka which is in black and white”. His points include the following:

(1) In second century AD, Ptolemy located the Naga Dipu Kingdom covering the territory from Chilaw in the west to Batticaloa in the east. The Tamils have occupied the north eastern littoral as their exclusive homeland.  (2) Tamil kings have ruled Anurathapura(m) and the capital was built by them. (3) It was Tamil King Devanampiya Theesan who received the Buddhist missionaries led by Mahinda, son of Emperor Asoka. He was a Hindu who after embracing Buddhism started spreading the teaching of Buddha. The Hindu Tamil King Devanampiya Theesan also became a Buddhist. (4) The fact that Tamil Kings ruled from Anurathapuram before the rise of Sinhala Kings is clearly stated in the Mahavamsa itself. When Dutugemunu informed his father Kavantisa,  ruler of the southern principality of Ruhuna that he was going to declare war against the Tamils, his father replied: ‘let the Tamils rule that side of the Maha Ganga and this side of Maha Ganga is more than enough for us to rule’. (5) The Great Raja Raja Cholan, the Tamil Chola emperor, when extending his empire invaded Sri Lanka, made Rajarata a part of the Chola Empire and founded Polonnaruwa. The above historical facts show that the Tamils have been living in Sri Lanka from very early time before the arrival of Buddhist missionaries from India.

Another interesting piece from the book ‘Lanka Rani’ which narrates the story of Tamil refugees travelling to Jaffna after the 1977 riots in the ship ‘Lanka Rani’ (translated by Arular Sri Lanka Guardian November 16) reveals the version of history that challenges Mahavamsa and specifically the claim that the Sinhalese are the original settlers. According to this version, only after 12th century, Sinhala language came into existence by the intermixing of Tamil, Pali, Sanskrit and Eelu, one of the tribal languages of Sri Lanka.  If all the original Tamil words are removed, the Sinhala language will collapse. “Tamil rule has prevailed in Anurathapuram before and after the Chola rule of the 10th century. In those times, Tamil was written in the Vatteluthu from which the current Sinhalese script was derived. This script was brought from South India to write Tamil and other languages that existed in Anoor (the original Tamil name for Anurathapuram meaning a village full of cows). The Sinhala language has not come into existence at that time. The tradition of writing Tamil in Vatteluthu was prevalent in Sri Lanka until the 19th century Kandyan period”. From the 13th to the 16th century, Anurathapuram was under the control of the Tamil rulers of Jaffna.

The present “Sinhala race was living as 16 separate races speaking 16 separate languages until the 15th century. It is only after this, it gradually fused into the present Sinhala race. Many races that crept into Sri Lanka after that too have fused to become Sinhalese”. The rigid caste system followed by the Tamils too made many low caste Tamils to become Buddhists and this lineage is visible among the Sinhalese in some areas. According to this version some elite (high caste) Tamils from the North East too became Kandyan Sinhalese following their migration to the Kandyan Kingdom after the conquest of their homeland by the Portuguese. It is not religion but language that is now the main factor that is keeping the islanders separated as majority and minority communities. The British colonial ‘divide and rule’ policy has also contributed to the accentuation of this division. 

According to the author of ‘Lanka Rani’ the Mahavamsa has misrepresented “the Tamil foundations of Sri Lanka civilisation as Sinhalese foundation”.  Apparently, this started “with the arrival Siamese Buddhist sects brought from present day Thailand 250 years ago” by a Tamil King Kithisri, who wanted to bolster Buddhism that was fading out. These Buddhist monks “chose to conspire against the King of Kandy, with the intention of crowning a Thai prince who was brought to Sri Lanka as a Buddhist monk. The conspiracy was uncovered and a number of the Buddhist monks were beheaded. Among those beheaded was the Buddhist monk who re-fabricated and re-wrote Mahavamsa”. The main reason for bringing in ancient history here is to emphasize the futility of claiming that the Sinhalese are the sole national inheritors. 

The election of Barack Obama as US President

The second viewpoint comes from the election of African-American Barack Obama on November 4 as the 44th President of the United States of America. According to some Sinhala nationalists if a member of a minority community in the United States of America can become the President, this is possible in Sri Lanka too. They have conveniently ignored many fundamental differences between the separate history and political system of the two countries and blamed the ethnic minority leaders in Sri Lanka for emphasizing their ethnic identity in national politics and thereby losing the chance of an ethnic minority member getting elected to lead the nation.

S. L. Gunasekara, prominent Colombo lawyer and former President of Sihala Urumaya, the precursor to Jathika Hela Urumaya in his article titled, Obama – What ‘is’ and what ‘would have been’ published in the Daily Mirror 10 November 2008 has said: “Obama is, a quintessential  American, who prides himself of being a member of the single plural ‘American Nation’,  comprised as it is of citizens of different races, with different `mother tongues’ and believing in different religions, which, nevertheless recognizes English, the language spoken by the majority as its sole official language, and gives pride of place to the Christian Faith which the majority professes. This same Obama, the son of a Kenyan and a Caucasian, with an Indonesian step father who spent a part of his formative years in Indonesia, is now the President elect of the United States of America, having been elected to that post by a landslide majority of American voters of all races, colours, classes and religions”. He has blamed the past and present Tamil leaders in independent Sri Lanka to have “proclaimed heretical and downright stupid ideas/policies” such as there is no one nation in Sri Lanka like the ‘American Nation’; there is an identified ‘Tamil homeland’ in the island; and there should be parity of status for the different languages and religions of all the ethnic communities.   

Even the ways democracy functions in the two countries are totally different. This was quite apparent during and after the election campaign in the US. The support extended by Hilary Clinton to Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama who was her opponent before his nomination by the Party also democratically as their Presidential candidate and the notable speeches made by the loser Senator John McCain of the Republican Party and winner Senator Barack Obama at the November 4th free and fair poll, putting the Nation before their political parties is something alien to our political culture.  However, no sensible person will disagree with SLG’s altruistic statement -  “The historic victory of Obama places at least one matter of crucial  importance to us in the multi racial, multi lingual, multi religious State of Sri  Lanka beyond doubt; and that is that the key to progress lies in `integration’  rather than in `segregation’.”  Sadly, his concluding remark as usual exhibits his professional skill as a lawyer arguing the case for his client and not as a neutral objective person who takes into consideration all relevant facts.

His lopsided conclusion is: “The current problems faced by us, including the unimaginable sufferings of the Tamil civilians imprisoned in the Wanni by the LTTE would never have arisen had the so called `Tamil National Alliance’ and its `Lords and Masters’, the LTTE followed the salutary policies of Barak Hussein Obama”.  There is no doubt some blunders have been made by the Tamil leadership in opposing the tyranny of majoritarianism but the fact is the lawyer has ignored many vital facts that led to the need in the first place to form political parties along ethnic lines in Sri Lanka unlike in America with its federal structure, the history of the early African immigrants vis-à-vis the early Tamil settlers in Sri Lanka and the acceptance of English, the language of the British colonialist, which is also an international language as the sole official language. The idea Sri Lanka is a Sinhala nation emerged long before the claim for a separate ‘Tamil homeland’. The latter assumed importance after the moves to marginalize the Tamil speaking people and weaken their influence in the areas inhabited largely by them.
The national flag of Sri Lanka (Lion with two stripes for Tamil and Muslim minorities) depicts Sinhala supremacy and not one integrated multi-ethnic nation. It is important to realize that the national unity in the US is mainly because of the federal structure and strict adherence to democratic freedom, civil liberties and fundamental rights of all citizens. No religion is given any special status.      

Most US citizens are the descendants of immigrants from Europe and slaves brought from Africa to work for the White masters. Today, the American Indians and Alaska Natives constitute less than 1 percent of the country’s population. About 74 percent of Americans are whites of European descent, while only 14 percent are ‘Blacks’.  The latter has no history of controlling any part of the USA and as everyone knows, they won civil liberties only in mid 1960s.  The Voting Rights Act of 1965, (amended in 1975) suspended the poll taxes, literacy tests and other subjective voter tests. It authorized Federal supervision of voter registration in states and individual voting districts where such tests were being used. Subsequent leaders of the two main Democratic and Republican parties never used race as a political weapon in the contest for power. This was not the case in Sri Lanka. No one considered the full empowerment of the Blacks would endanger the future of the Whites. Moreover, affirmative action programmes have made America an inclusive society, whereas in Sri Lanka discrimination in higher education and employment opportunities in the 1970s and lukewarm implementation of the subsequent dual official language policy alienated the minority communities. These are some of the fundamental differences between the two countries.
How can S. L. Gunasekara forget his own bitter experience on 16 October 2000, when he was rejected by his own party the Sihala Urumaya to be appointed as a Member of Parliament under the National List, as he was not a Buddhist (said to be an atheist who was earlier baptised to be an Anglican)? Among those who opposed his nomination is the present Environment Minister Champika Ranawaka (former JVP activist), who entered Parliament in 2007 after the JHU officially became part of the Rajapaksa Government. One of the party’s Buddhist monk MP resigned to permit staunch Buddhist lay member Ranawaka to be the MP in his place. This unique practice does not exist in other real democratic countries.

Conclusion

The Island editorial 14 November 2008 has very relevant comments on the contrasting situations in Sri Lanka and the USA. To quote: “The US has remained a powerful country throughout its history and its economic prosperity exerts a tremendous pull on its people regardless of their differences. A robust economy always forms the bedrock of a democratic society”. Sri Lankan leaders after independence instead of directing their efforts towards the development of the national economy gave importance to party politics. Widening the opportunities for the many disadvantaged Sinhalese to move up the social ladder was a significant step. There was, indeed, the need for action on this front but it is the way these opportunities were created by closing the openings hither to available to the ethnic minorities for advancement that led to the violent disturbances. This hasty decision was influenced more by political expediency than the felt urgency to improve social equality.

No one can disagree with the following observation. “All the people of the US are Americans before being anything else –– White, Black, Hispanic etc. They take pride in their American identity as America is an affluent and powerful nation. But, in this country, not all communities have the same sense of belongingness which alone is capable of kindling patriotism. It is the centripetal pull of the overarching American identity on the populace that has made minorities fight against discrimination and try to win their rights while being part of the American nation without seeking separatist remedies”. 
   
In conclusion the editorial stated: “The situation prevailing in Sri Lanka is a far cry from that in the US. That may explain why Sri Lanka is not yet ready for having an Obama. In this country even the election of ordinary MPs has become a threat to national security, if the conduct of the Tiger proxies in Parliament is any indication. In such a situation how can Sri Lankans be psychologically prepared to act like their American counterparts in electing their head of State?  We will have an Obama the day this country is free from terrorism and secessionist forces; the economy develops and the majority community and the minorities are bound by a common Sri Lankan identity. Until such time, having an Obama in this trouble torn island will be only will-o'-the-wisp”. The mere recognition of the glaring differences is not enough. It is important for all Sri Lankans to know what went wrong in independent Sri Lanka and who were first responsible for creating the secessionist forces.

The Tigers did not emerge suddenly from some hideout. They were the product of the acts of commission and omission of the two main political parties that governed since independence. The lack of foresight, political will and fortitude of the so-called national leaders to implement the known corrective measures also contributed to the present muddle. Some even exploited this unsettled state to achieve their narrow political objectives.  National interest has no identical meaning in Lankan politics. 

There is no point now in beating about the bush. The present system is evidently divisive (50 years is more than enough to prove this) and unsuitable for forming a common Sri Lankan identity, for people to feel they are Sri Lankans before being anything else, for all communities to have the same sense of belongingness and confidence in the national government. The fact that it has failed to ensure unity in diversity and promote nation building and development for more than half a century is ample proof of its unsuitability.

After the fall of the Kandyan Kingdom, the British colonial masters for their convenience brought all regions under one central administration. The system functioned the way they wanted because the supreme power was with them. The unitary system donated by the departing British authorities gave opportunities to the power hungry leaders of sovereign Ceylon/Sri Lanka to use it for achieving their immediate objectives at great cost to the masses and the country.  President-elect Barack Obama called for change in his country after 8 years of George W. Bush leadership. After more than 50 years of misrule, Sri Lanka is in need of a big structural CHANGE for the nation to develop speedily and all communities to coexist harmoniously and prosper. When even the Constitutional Council under the 17th Amendment is yet to be constituted, despite repeated appeals by several anxious groups, this CHANGE seems now to be like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s 28 August 1963 dream.               

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]