      |
|
|
|
President usurps powers of
Parliament The Commission will be a continuing Commission with a permanent mandate. It will be responsible exclusively to Parliament". Again, "the Commission will be the master of its own procedure and destiny. There is no authority to stop the work of the Commission." This is what the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs told the Sunday Times in an interview in September, 1994. (Vide "Sunday Times" of 25th September, 1994). Words The Commission "will be responsible exclusively to Parliament", the Justice Minister has said categorically. Then what right has the President to send for the Chairman of the Commission and request that he and the other member of the Commission should resign. Act No. 19 of 1974 is quite clear on the role of the President. Her function is limited in the first instance to appointing the members of the Commission, once their names have been "recommended" to her by the Prime Minister in consultation with the speaker. What the President has to do is to validate the recommendation by issuing letters of appointment. It is her signature on the letters of appointment that gives legitimacy to the recommendation made by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Speaker. Parliament The President enters the picture only in the matter of the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission. That is her prerogative but there too, her discretion is circumscribed by the fact that she can appoint as Chairman only one of the two retired judges who are members of the Commission, and not the other who has had wide experience in the investigation of crime and law, but is not a retired judge. President of Justice, to "be the master of its own procedure and destiny. There is no authority to stop the work of the Commission." If the Chairman and/or members of the Commission are not functioning or conducting themselves in the manner specified in the Act of Parliament under which the Commission has been set up, it is for Parliament, acting through the Prime Minister and the Speaker, to take corrective and remedial action. Suggestions and requests that any or all of the members of the Commission should resign can emanate only from Parliament, if the wording in the Act and the lofty pronouncements of Dr. Peiris are to be taken seriously. Usurped The Minister of Justice says "there is no authority to stop the work of the Commission". Absolute rubbish. By withdrawing the police officers and the attorneys-at-law attached to the Commission and by the failure to appoint a judge to fill the vacancy created by the demise of Mr. Siva Selliah, those responsible have committed contempt of the Commission. I understand that some concerned professionals with a sense of civic responsibility and a desire to ensure that the highest standards of public morality are observed by public officials have already written to the President in regard to this matter. Despite the assurance of the Justice Minister, the work of the Commission has come to a halt, because it has been denuded of its staff. Recruitment Removal of members In a speech to the diplomatic corps on September 13, 1994 (vide "Daily News" of September 28) Dr. Peiris, the Justice Minister referred to the sense of cynicism generated in the public mind by the "huge gulf or chasm that is perceived between aspiration and reality" where governance is concerned. In recent times nothing is more evident of this huge chasm in the work of the government than in the manner it has treated the Permanent Commission to investigate allegations of Bribery and Corruption. The writer is an active member of the Avadhi Lanka movement. A response to Mr.
Hemal A. Pieris Ever since its founding in 1949, the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadtchi, presently the Tamil United Liberation Front, has been on a collision course with every government elected by the people. Year by year it escalated its collision course. It began as a cold war in the name of Gandhism until it assumed the nature of a civil war — rather a terrorist war. Like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, the TULF with their song of liberation has led the Tamil people into wilderness. As Rev. Fr. Tissa Balasuriya in his article published in Race Relations in Sri Lanka (April 1978) says: "The demand for Eelam has not been entirely based on peaceful arguments. Provocative speeches have mentioned the likelihood of help, including arms, being obtained from foreign countries; disparaging remarks have been made against the Sinhalese and the 'Sinhalese government'; the references to the Police Force as 'Police dogs', and the Army as an 'army of occupation' were naturally resented by the Sinhalese, who, it can be confidently stated, are definitely opposed to a division of the Island. It cannot therefore, become a reality". As a matter of fact, the aim and object of the TULF is not to establish Tamil Eelam in a part of Sri Lanka in the combined Northern and Eastern Provinces but as Mr. Bandaranaike pointed out, its aim and object is to be the whole of Sri Lanka under the envisaged Greater Tamil Nadu flag. The World Council of Churches The World Council of Churches is an organization which is representative of the Protestant Christian Churches throughout the world thorough the National Christian Council in every country. All the Protestant Christian sects are represented in the National Council. It is a highly prestigious body. In this connection, we must remember that some of the richest nations in the world are Protestant Christian. The WCC has its headquarters in Geneva. In the early 1990s, the National Christian Council of Sri Lanka requested the World Council of Churches to send a team of experts to Sri Lanka "to study the situation in the country as a whole and make known to the wider ecumenical community the country's problems and the challenges facing the Church there". According to the WCC's report: The team The team comprised not only of experts in many and varied fields relating to human relations but also a membership truly representing both the West and the East. The team came to Sri lanka in mid-November, 1990 and spent sometime here. They visited trouble spots both in the north and the south and spoke to the inmates in the refugee camps. They also spoke to the ordinary people with a view to ascertain their views. They also conferred with the dignitaries of the Christian Churches, both Protestant and Roman Catholic. But what is passing strange is the fact that the Commission for Justice & Peace, National Christian Council of Sri Lanka which was responsible for arranging the itinerary of the visiting team, had so arranged it, that the members of the team met with only those politicians who are either demanding a separate autonomous state and those Sinhalese politicians who are supporting the demand. Thus the team was made to meet Dr. Neelan Thiruchelvam, M.P., a leading member of the Tamil United Liberation Front, the Tamil political party which was the first to demand a separate state for the Tamils, either Federal or autonomous, in the combined Northern and Eastern Provinces — an area more than one third of the land surface in the island. They were also made to meet with Mr. Vasudeva Nanayak-kara, M.P., a prominent member of the Troskyite Lanka Sama Samaja Party which had been supporting the demand of the Tamil politicians for a separate state. It would appear that the National Christian Council had no knowledge of any politician or organization, or a political party or any individual who was opposed to the Tamil demand for separatism. In this respect, the National Christian Council of Sri Lanka did a great disservice to the World Council of Churches by its misdirecting and misleading and also by giving the team a partial picture of the situation in Sri Lanka. The WCC team naturally prepared their report on the basis of the material made available to them and on the views and opinions and complaints of those whom they met during the short period they were in Sri Lanka. The team's report has been published as an official publication of the World Council of Churches under the significant title Plurality, Passion and Power. The local edition has been published by the Commission for Justice, National Christian Council, 368/6, Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7. The report in its introduction says: The team was sent "to see for themselves the situation in the country as whole, and to make known to the world ecumenical community the country's problems". This means that the report was intended for circulation among the Christian community throughout the warld. The report has been held as an authoritative document on the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Even the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in a report to a joint meeting of the ILO and UNHCR on the refugee situation in Sri Lanka has listed the WCC report as a reference document in its List of Reference (vide UNHCR's Report to Joint UNHCR/ILO meeting, May, 1992). After setting out the population percentages according to ethnicity and religions in Sri Lanka, the report says: "Following independence from British colonial rule in 1948, and the establishment of a democratic electoral system of representation, it was inevitable, in a multi-ethnic society, that the majority community would tend to exercise absolute power. The problem of safeguarding the interests of the minorities was compounded when in 1956, in spite of vigorous protests from the Opposition, the Sinhala Only Act was passed, establishing the Sinhala languagee as the only medium of instruction. The warning of Dr. Colvin R. de Silva, an Opposition leader, proved to be one of the most tragic prophecies of modern Sri Lankan politics: ‘Two languages, one nation; one language, two nations'. The perception by the Tamil minority that they were being margi-nalized and that their needs were largely ignored by the Sinhala majority, with the claim that Sri Lanka should become a Buddhist nation, led to much bitterness and counter-claims to establish the north of the country as separate Tamil state" (p.3) Allegations I shall take these allegations one by one and try to find out whether there is any truth or substance in any one of them. (1) The WCC Report says that it is inevitable that in a country like Sri Lanka which become independent recently and where representative government has been established, the majority community would tend to exercise absolute power and trample upon the legitimate rights of the minorities and even to resort to ethnic cleansing. But there are exceptions to this rule. The United Nations Organization says in this connection in its publication Main Types and Causes of Discrimination: "Actually the group discriminated against is a minority dominated by a majority in comparison with the group which is discriminated. However, there may be, and actually are causes in which the group discriminated against is a majority dominated by a minority. They may occur in countries where colonial regimes exist and colonial customs prevail" (p.27) There is no colonial regime in Sri Lanka today. But the country has been under Western imperialist influence and domination for nearly 450 years. Colonial customs and ways of thinking still prevail here. Sri Lanka is one of the very few countries in the world in which the majority is dominated by minorities. The majority in this instance is neither an ethnic majority nor a religious one. It is, as we shall see later, one comprising three ethnic and religious minorities in addition to the majority community dominated by two minority groups, one ethnic and the other, religious. The prestigious and authoritative Annual on World Affairs entitled State of the World published by the World Watch Institute, U.S.A., contains an article by Michael Renner entitled Transforming Security in its 1997 issue. He says that Sri Lanka is one among the very few countries in the world in which a minority creates trouble for the majority. Under the sub-heading — A cult of violence has taken root in many countries. Renner says: "Where ethnic tensions do exist, however they did not rise in a vacuum. One of the continuing legacies of colonial and imperial rule is that boundaries are often arbitrary — drawn not to reflect local realities, but to serve the purposes of the imperial masters. As a result, people of the same culture, language or ethnicity often found themselves separated by international borders and grouped with peoples of other backgrounds and origins, irrespective of whether they had previously co-existed peacefully, being at odds, or had no significant contact at all. To steady their rule, colonial administrations typically favoured one local group, often a minority, over others — Tamils over Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Tutsi over Hutu in Rwanda and Burundi, Christian Arabs over Sunni and Shia Moslems in Lebanon — which generated resentments" (p.117) As a matter of fact, it was not the entire Tamil community in Sri Lanka which was the recipient of favours from the British colonial rulers. They chose two minority communities within minorities for the grant of their favours. They chose the Protestant Christians from among the Christian community and they also chose the so-called high caste Vellala Tamils of the Jaffna Peninsula. The field they chose for the grant of favours was English education. British rule Of these as many as 36 were in Jaffna, 35 in Colombo, 13 in Trincomalee, 12 in Galle, 4 in Kandy and 3 in Kurunegala. All these schools were handed over to Protestant Christian Missionaries for management. It must be mentioned that the 13 schools in Trincomalee were for the exclusive use of the children of English staff at the Naval Base there. Galle got 12 schools because that district had the largest number of Christians next to the Colombo District. It was also a very important Christian missionary centre. The other districts which were populated by Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims were denied an English education during the whole of the 19th century, excepting the Roman Catholics who were able with foreign aid and foreign personnel to establish a number of English schools. The number of Assisted English Schools in 1886 were follows: Wesleyan Mission 18, Roman Catholic 25, Anglican Mission 28; American Mission 8, Baptist Mission 1, private 7, Buddhist 0, Hindu 0 and Muslims 0. Naturally this unjust and iniquitious discrimination against the greater majority of people reflected itself in the fields of employment both in the public and the private sectors where a knowledge of English was necessary. It must be mentioned in this connection that according to the Census of 1946 only 6.3 per cent of the total population could read and write English. The percentage of those who had a working knowledge of English would have been much less. This percentage had been attained after 150 years of English education and after an equal number of years when English was the language of the administration. Of this 6.3 per cent, English literates more than 90 per cent comprised Jaffna Tamils of the Vellala caste and Protestant Christians. They had a vested interest in English. (2). The WCC Report says: "The problem of safeguarding the interests of the minorities was compounded when in 1956, in spite of vigorous protests from the Opposition, the Sinhala Only Act was passed, establishing Sinhala language as the only medium of instruction". In the first place, there is a glaring factual error in this sentence. The so-called Sinhala Only Act (its correct name is the Official Language Act of 1956) did not establish the Sinhala language as the only medium of instruction. It only made Sinhala the language of the administration. This may be due to a typing error or even a printing mistake. The local readers who read the report might think that way. But the foreign readers who read it might come to the conclusion that the Government of Sri Lanka backed by the Sinhalese majority was riding rough shod over the fundamental rights of the minorities by imposing their language on the Tamil-speaking minority. Again, it was not, as alleged by the WCC report, that "in spite of vigorous protests from the Opposition The Sinhala Only Act was passed". At the third reading of the Bill, it was passed by a majority of 37 (Ayes 65; noes 28). The Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (the Government Party), to United National Party and the Bhasha Pera-muna voted for the Bill. The All Ceylon Tamil Congress, the Tamil United Liberation Front and the two Marxist parties, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party and the Communist Party voted against the Bill. At the third reading of the Bill Mr. G. G. Ponnambalam, leader of the All Ceylon Tamil Congress moved an amendment that "The Bill be read the third time upon this day 1,000 years". The amendment was defeated by a majority of 37 — (Ayes 10; Noes 65). SWRD Until these two Acts were passed no Sinhala only or no Tamil only educated youth could not obtain a job even as a subordinate clerk in a government or quasi-government department. The only jobs which were open to them were poorly paid jobs such as those of vernacular teachers, police constables, railway ticket inspectors, excise guards, office orderlies (peons). The only profession open to them was that of Notary Public. Today, as a result of Mr. Bandaranaike's legislation, a Sinhala only or Tamil only educated person can join any and every branch of administration and rise in it provided he or she is efficient and devoted to the work. Contrary to what the WCC Report says, Mr. Bandaranaike did safeguard the interests of the minorities; especially that of the Tamil-speaking Tamil and Muslim minorities more than those Jaffna Tamil politicians who only looked after the interests of the English-speaking middle class group in Jaffna, while paying lip service to the other Tamils and rousing their dormant racial spirit for their own ends. As regards Dr. Colvin R. de Silva's much quoted "prophecy", it might be mentioned that it did not go unchallenged at the time. It is even now being quoted in connection with the "Political Package". Mr. L. H. Mettananda, Principal of Ananda College, who supported Mr. Ban-daranaike's language policy replied to Dr. de Silva, he said: "I am afraid the learned Doctor has overlooked the fact there are already two 'nations' in Ceylon; the English-speaking westernized 'nation' which comprises the microscopic minority of the upper middle class which has the wealth, the influence, the power, the positions and the privileges, on the one side and the Swabhasha (Sinhala and Tamil) speaking vast majority of the people, who are poor and who have neither the influence, nor the power, nor the positions, who are under-privileged and exploited, who comprise the other nation. Those belonging to the former nation want English to continue as the Official Language because it is advantageous to them. The demand for parity of status for the Tamil language with Sinhala is only a red herring to have the legislation relating to the languages of administration postponed sine-die". It might be mentioned in this connection that Mr. Metta-nanda in a memorandum he submitted to the Official Language Commission 1958 advocated the teaching of all the three languages, Sinhala, Tamil and English to all the children. He also submitted a graded programme for the purpose. He also said in his memorandum that he had introduced the scheme to Ananda College and that the pupils as well as the parents were enthusiastic about it. Mr. Mettananda was of the view that most of the misunderstandings between the Sinhalese and the Tamils was due to the communication gap that existed between the two communities owing to the language barrier and if both parties were able to speak both languages there could be better dialogue and a better understanding. It will be seen from the foregoing that the WCC's allegation that Mr. Bandaranaike ignored the interests of the minorities is baseless as well as uncharitable. By his legislation relating to the languages of the administration, he removed for all time a gross injustice and iniquity done to nearly 95 per cent of the population comprising Sin-halese, Tamils and Muslims, during a period of over 150 years. (3) The WCC Report says that the Tamil minority has "a perception that they are being marginalized". This is the same thing as the often repeated complaint of Tamil politicians that the Sri Lankan Tamils are being treated as second class citizens. It is true that a handful of English-educated Jaffna Tamils were on the top of the world and in the centre of power during the colonial days and even later until Mr. Bandaranaike's language policy came into effect. At that time they were the first class citizens of the land. The rest of the Tamils, nearly 98 per cent of the Tamil population was not considered even as second class citizens. They were third class citizens. So, the talk of the Tamils being marginalized or being treated as second class citizens is misleading and mischievous. (Continued tomorrow) Marginal Comments I owe my headline -- a part of it, that is -- to a letter that appeared in the 'Opinion' page of this newspaper last Monday. A correspondent who signed as Rexy -- and described himself as a person 'living in quiet retirement' -- wrote in to express his dismay at the use of undignified and indecorous language on camera by certain individuals in places of power. Conveying his sense of shock, Mr. Rexy (if I may call him that) ended his letter with the following observation: 'Hurling abuse is not a way to win an argument; just plain facts in plain language will do.' Come, come, sir, have you forgotten that you are living in Sri Lanka of the late Twentieth Century. The norms and values that you are alluding to are no longer functional in our political environment. Restraint does not belong in contemporary discourse. What is deployed instead is the 'bambu gahanna' sort of locution and worse. In any event, politics, plain facts and plain language never go together. I do commiserate with you, sir, especially because you sat down before the tv with the 'cup that cheers' in your hand, legitimately expecting what you regard as decent entertainment. The experience would have been particularly galling for the obvious reason that while regulations prohibit publicity on the small screen for the 'cup that cheers,' Ministers and political panjandrums can behave in a manner that denotes excessive indulgence in that elixir. Now, sir, my advice (unsolicited, of course) is that you ought to learn to treat these 'tv shockers' as a form of live entertainment. I have taught myself to view them as such, and recommend the same orientation to all my readers. Consider it an extension of your survival kit, Mr. Rexy, and stop complaining. There are hooligans everywhere -- at the World Cup in large battalions, at boxing matches, and sometimes even at the so-called gentlemans' game of cricket. They are now invading the medium of television. Incidentally, it is worth noting that the most accomplished hooligans in France today hail from Britain, the land that gave us the parliamentary form of government. Apart from my two-cents' worth of advice and counsel for outraged viewers, I also have a prediction. I have a hunch that debates between and among political personages will flower into one of the most popular programme formats on our television. Since such offerings have already caught the advertiser's eye, broadcasters will pep them up a bit more. Sponsors might seek to make the exchanges louder and ruder than they are at present. Right now, politicians appear free on these programs. In all probability, they might decide to charge a fee taking into account the visual and auditory diversion which they provide. That's the future scenario, and I believe that Sinhala teledrama producers should even now prepare for this possible challenge. RATNAVALI Since it is not often that one gets to see good examples of classical Sanskrit drama on the Sinhala stage, the return of 'Ratnavali' must be welcomed. The new production, which came on the boards at the Elphinstone last week before an exceptionally representative audience, transported me back some thirty odd years to my first encounter with the play. . . Memories came flooding in. It was, I think, in 1962 that the late P. Welikala staged the present translation of 'Ratnavali.' The venue was the Havelock Town Senior School hall, now known as the Lumbini Theatre. (The Elphinstone then was very much a 'cinema hall.') I saw it on the opening night, and later wrote about it in the 'Ceylon Daily News,' a newspaper notably different from what it is today. My review was, on the whole, complimentary. I recall two things vividly from the Welikala production. One is the music composed by Jayantha Aravinda. He created a bunch of lovely melodies, few of which have lost their freshness over the years. Raga-based, the melodies are sweet and distinctive, though not dramatic in structure. Married to translator Piyasena Nissanka's verses, they become lovely and haunting songs. They have a secure place in my memory cache. The other thing I remember is the performance of Henry Jayasena in the role of the love-lorn king. Jayasena, then at the peak of his physical charm, made a perfect romantic inamorato. He sang with feeling (in 'Ratnavali' only the male characters sing) in a voice that pulsated with gentle passion. A lovely piece of role playing that gave the right flavour to the production. 'Ratnavali' is not a serious or profound piece of dramatic writing intended to explore adult human experience. It falls into the category of light romantic comedy in which the dominant mood or 'rasa' leans towards the erotic. The plot itself revolves round mistaken identities, surprising discoveries, and seemingly futile passions. It is the kind of play in which the stage enactment matters more than the unfolding of the story. In short, not what is done but how it is done. The bottom line, so to speak, is the quality of the aesthetic experience. The current revival, based on the same translation and the same music, did not (at least on the first night) quite live up to the expectations I took with me on the basis of my remembrances of things past. The production's tone and tenor failed to tally with the material of the play. Nor did it reveal a firm grasp of the stagecraft that such a drama demands. This central weakness was compounded by unimaginative casting. Vijaya Nandasiri, a highly talented actor with long experience on stage and screen, was too strong in voice and gesture to fit convincingly into the persona of the love-sick monarch bewtiched by the image of an unseen beauty. The softness and slightly effeminate tenderness required by the role, so touchingly articulated by Henry Jayasena many decades ago, hardly came within striking distance of Vijaya Nandasiri's portrayal. There was a certain stiffness about him which struck a dissonant note. Nor was the music adequately rendered on stage, although its direction was in the hands of the composer himself. The captivating sweetness of the airs failed to come through. And the 'nadagam' rhythms and tonalities, so different from the vocalized music, diluted and disturbed the mood. The choreography of the production, and the gestural vocabulary used in it, had little dramatic meaning or visual appeal. These weaknesses notwithstanding, I am happy to see 'Ratnavali' back on the stage. The production's shortcomings are not beyond remedy. MUSIC AT JEFFERSON HOUSE U.S. Ambassdor Sean Donnelly and his wife Susan hosted an enchanting evening of chamber music at Jefferson House last week, in commemoration of fifty years of Sri Lankan independence and U.S. and Sri Lanka diplomatic relations. It was also a benefit show in aid of the Symphony Orchestra of Sri Lanka, the proceeds being earmarked for a Special Fund providing for music, instruments and special activities of the Orchestra. Fittingly, the musical fare was inter-cultural in style and content. (I prefer 'inter-cultural' to 'fusion' as a descriptive term. Indeed, I think it's time we dropped 'fusion' altogether.) I have written about this musical stream several times in this column, and spoken about the individuals active within it. However, at the risk of repeating myself, I must underscore once again the importance of what the collectivity comprising Lalanath deSilva, Ravibandhu, Pradeep Ratnyaka, Krishna, et.al., is doing in the field of music at the present moment. These dedicated young talents are engaged in the necessary task of defining and reinforcing musical values at a time characterized by the degradation of standards. At the same time, they are giving us pleasure, as they did last Friday in the genial warmth of Jefferson House. Many thanks to all concerned, and more power to the players concerned. |
|
 |