.

L E G A L W A T C H
Equal Opportunity Bill goes before Court and Cabinet Sub committee

by Nayana
Over twenty petitions are said to have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Government’s controversial Equal Opportunity Bill. The Government has meanwhile referred the Bill to a Cabinet Sub-Committee for review.

As far as the petitioners are concerned, they cannot take the chance of waiting to see whether their objections will be addressed by the Sub-Committee, because the wording of Article 121(1) of the Constitution requires that any citizen or group of citizens seeking to challenge a Bill in the Supreme Court must do so by a petition filed within one week of the Bill being placed on the Order Paper of Parliament. The Bill was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on the seventh of this month but was not tabled.

The phrase "equality of opportunity", though not occurring in the Constitution, has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court to be an integral part of the equality guarantee set out in Article 12(1) and (2). There have been three separate cases where this concept was discussed in relation to the imposition of quota systems of different kinds. While we do not seek to predict what degree of relevance these cases will bear to the petitions against the Equal Opportunity Bill presently before Court, these three judgements of the country‘s apex Court make interesting reading in their own right.

Two of these cases, Seneviratne v. University Grants Commission and P. Perera era v. U.G.C., both decided in 1980 involved admission to the Universities. The third and most recent, Ramupillai v. Festus Perera and others, involved the imposition of an ethnic quota system for recruitment to and promotion within the public service. It was decided in 1990 by a specially constituted Bench of seven Judges and includes a comprehensive review of the earlier two cases as well as several Indian and American authorities on this subject.

The University Grants Commission laid down a three tier system for university admissions, the first 30 per cent of entrants being chosen on merit on an Island-wide selection, the next 55 per cent being selected district-wise on merit, and an additional quota of 15 per cent to be chosen on merit from certain designated districts which were deemed to be under-privileged in terms of educational facilities.

In Seneviratne’s case, the petitioner student challenged this district quota system whereby a progressively lower aggregate of marks was sufficient to gain entrance from the second and third of the categories of admission mentioned above. However this scheme was upheld by the Supreme Court on the basis that as the districts were not equal in their facilities, students from these districts were not competing on equal terms. Being unequal, affirmative action was necessary to mitigate the effects of this inequality.

The principle of affirmative action to redress inequality of opportunity was thus recognized as an integral part of the equality guarantee of Article 12. The Court also held that the State could adopt a rational classification of the sources from which admissions would be made, based on national interest and policy.

However, the classification should be rational, and this was the principal consideration in the case of Perera v U.G.C. decided a few months later. It had been decided that University admissions for the year 1980 would be made from students who had sat two different Advanced Level examinations held respectively in April and August 1979 under two different syllabuses.

There was a common minimum aggregate mark of 160 for a student to be eligible for admission. However, the authorities decided that the available places in each of the categories (merit’ district and disadvantaged district) would be divided between the two batches in proportion to the number from each batch who had attained this minimum aggregate mark.

The April batch had a considerably higher number of students with the minimum mark and hence places were allocated in the ratio of 7.2 to 2.8 in their favour. However the individual aggregates of many of those who qualified in August was higher than that of the best student from the April batch.

The petitioner’s aggregate would have been sufficient to qualify her for the Medical Faculty had the two batches been considered together, but she lost out under the separate allocation by being in the August batch. Although the two syllabuses had been different, the Respondents were unable to demonstrate that one was more difficult than the other.

Justice Sharvananda struck down the separate classification of the two batches with these words: "The discrimination that is manifest in the Respondent’s policy decision is, in my view, not based on any reasonable classification and is violative of the petitioner’s fundamental right to equality of opportunity."

Ramupillai’s case arose as a result of a Government Circular issued at the beginning of 1990 laying down ethnic quotas for recruitment to and promotion within the public service and public corporation sector. The quotas were to be 75 per cent of available vacancies to Sinhalese, 12.7 per cent to Tamils, 5.5 per cent to ‘persons of Indian origin" and 8 per cent to Muslims. By a subsequent Circular, "Muslim" was said to include Malays while all other minorities not expressly mentioned were to be included in the Sinhala quota. [The faulty arithmetic whereby these percentages add up to more than 100 was noted in the judgment but no explanation appears to have been asked for or given, perhaps because the scheme was going to be struck down anyway.]

The issue at hand was the selection of Customs Superintendents for promotion to the rank of Assistant Director. Fifty-three officers applied to fill twenty-two vacancies. On the criteria of merit and seniority hitherto applied within the Department, the Petitioner, a Tamil, would have been eligible for promotion but lost out because he was the fifth Tamil to qualify and the prescribed ethnic ratio only allowed for three.

Chief Justice Parinda Ranasinghe presided over a Bench comprising Justices Tambiah, G. P. S. De Silva, Jameel, Fernando, Dheeraratne and Ramanathan. While delivering separate judgments, they unanimously struck down the ethnic quota system for promotions, stating that Customs Officers, upon their appointment, were integrated into one common class from which there should not ordinarily be any further classification. It was only by a system of promotion based on merit/seniority that the efficiency of the service could be ensured. The question of race, the Court said, was quite unrelated to the maintenance of efficiency.

Justice Tambiah was emphatic that the rights conferred by Articles 12(1) and (2) were the personal rights of every individual and not as a member of a particular community. However, the Court left open the question of whether an ethnic quota system at the initial stage of recruitment could be permissible. In the view of Chief Justice Ranasinghe, that issue would be decided at such time as it directly came up for decision, and the Court would then make a fuller study of the Indian and American authorities cited to Court on such matters as historical background, the felt necessities of the time, national policy, imbalances and reverse discrimination.

Justice Fernando, analyzing Article 12 after reviewing the foreign and local authorities, stated that the principle of equality "requires that equals be treated equally and that unequals may and sometimes must be treated unequally". Affirmative action, in his view, was the unequal treatment of unequals and was not an exception to the principle of equality. However he noted that the kind of ethnic classification adopted by the circular was vague and inconsistent, including elements of both race and religion, and that the Constitution mandates that "there shall be one status of citizenship known as that status of a citizen of Sri Lanka".

The Court also cited extensively from the Report of the Presidential Commission on Youth which had just been published and noted that it did not cite ethnic unbalance in recruitment or promotion as an actual or perceived grievance of youth, either in the South or the North. The "kaduwa" or privileged position of the English speaking elite was cited as the most potent cause of discontent in this regard’ while youth in the North were also aggrieved by the Sinhala Only Act of 1956 and the ensuing language -proficiency requirements, together with the policy of standardizing marks that was applied in the 1970s.

Rejecting the idea of an ethnic quota for University admission for Muslim youth, the Commission stated thus: ‘The introduction of such quotas has in the past led to a great deal of unrest and a sense of discrimination. Any advances made by such schemes are negated by the political repercussions in a multi-ethnic society. For this reason the Commission is of the view that admission ‘handicaps’ or quotas should be targeted more directly towards students from schools which do not have proper facilities."

Military Coup in Pakistan

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
Trouble had been brewing ever since Pakistani-backed militants crossed the Line of Control near Kargil in May this year. India’s minister of defence, George Fernandes, was probably correct when he revealed in public that the Pakistani-backed infiltration had taken place without the knowledge of prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. This was also the view implied in the comments of veteran Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, a close friend of Nawaz Sharif. Naik had hinted that his prime minister had not been aware until late April that the Kargil intrusions had been planned by the Pakistan military.

Relations between Nawaz Sharif and the army deteriorated further when the prime minister returned from a visit to Washington having promised president Clinton that he would get the infiltrators to withdraw from the strategic positions they occupied in the mountains near Kargil.

Nawaz Sharif angers militants and military

When he aborted the Kargil misadventure Nawaz Sharif faced a barrage of hostile criticism. Militants asked him to apologise to Allah for committing a crime against the "Kashmir Jihad". The United Jehad Council, an umbrlla organisation of militant groups vowed to continue the ‘jehad’ according to another strategy.

Nawaz Sharif tried desperately to placate the Mujahideen. In defending his position, the prime minister took great pains to explain that he had avoided a fourth war with India, that he had internationalised the Kashmir issue and that president Clinton had assured him of his "personal interest" in solving the problem.

But the militants and elements in the army felt humiliated and betrayed. Demonstrations erupted and Nawaz Sharif was clearly in danger of being overthrown despite the two-thirds parliamentary majority that he had garnered in the February 1997 elections.

Nawaz Sharif’s strike boomerangs

Battle lines had evidently been drawn between prime minister and the armed forces. Army Chief Parvaiz Musharraf, in Sri Lanka attending the ceremonies connected with the 50th Anniversary of the Sri Lanka Army, heard the news that Nawaz Sharif had relieved him of his position, publicly making it out that this was only an "early retirement". Musharraf’s tenure as army chief was to have ended in April 2000.

Musharraf returned to Karachi on the morning of Tuesday 12 October and met immediately with his army colleagues. Pakistani troops loyal to Musharraf were deployed to occupy the state TV and radio stations and surrounded official buildings in Islamabad, Karachi and Lahore, including the Islamabad airport. Nawaz Sharif and some of his senior colleagues were placed under house arrest ostensibly for "protective custody". The Pakistan Army had staged another successful military coup, a bloodless one this time.

While the world waited anxiously to see what the Pakistani military would do, Musharraf met with his commanders and with other groups to decide how to proceed. Two days later, Musharraf issued a proclamation appointing himself as the "Chief Executive of Pakistan". The Constitution was put on hold. While the president of Pakistan would continue in office, the central and state legislatures have been suspended. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been dismissed. An Emergency has been declared throughout Pakistan. The order has been issued in pursuance of the discussions and decisions of the Chiefs of Staff of Armed Forces and the Corps Commanders of the Pakistan Army.

There was speculation that the military would perhaps try first to legitimise their action to satisfy international opinion, and then to revert to some form of civilian rule, either through an interim government or by announcing early elections. On the other hand, there was the possibility that interim arrangements would last for at least a year or two.

Wars and coups d’etat

For almost half of Pakistan’s 52 years of independence the powerful Army has ruled Pakistan. Army rule and war has loomed large in Pakistan’s journey since independence on 14 August 1947. Tragedy struck Pakistan early. Soon after partition, on 27 October 1947, war broke out with India over the Kashmir issue. Pakistan’s founder, the Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah died in 1948 and in 1951, prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan was shot dead at a rally in Rawalpindi.

Pakistan, which became a Dominion in the Commonwealth at Independence, was formally constituted as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1956, with General Iskander Mirza as the first president.

Pakistan and India have fought three wars in 1947, 1965 and 1971, the first two caused by the Kashmir dispute and the third when Pakistani troops surrendered in East Pakistan in 1971.

On 7 October 1958, military intervention began when president Islander Mires abrogated the Constitutions and appointed General Ayub Khan (1958-69) as the martial law administrator, and banned political parties. Ayub Khan went on to be prime minister and first elected president. He was succeeded by General Mohammad Yahya Khan (1969-71)

The second Indo-Pakistan war erupted over Kashmir in 1965 and ended after a UN call for a cease fire. The third Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 led to the creation of Bangladesh. Yahya Khan stepped down and handed power over to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Martial law was lifted and an interim Constitution was imposed.

Bhutto himself was toppled by army chief General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq who arrested Bhutto and declared martial law. Bhutto was subsequently hanged in April 1979 on a disputed conviction for conspiring to commit a political murder.

In February 1985 Zia held "non-party elections" and lifted martial law later that year. He appointed Mohammad Khan Junejo as prime minister. Zia and many of his top military aides died on 17 August 1988, when his plane crashed under mysterious circumstances near Bahawalpur.

Return to party democracy

In November 1988 after four decades of military rule Pakistan returned to party-based democracy when the Pakistan Peoples party (PPP) led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s daughter, Bennazir Bhutto, won the November 1988 elections with 39 percent of the votes.

Since then the history of Pakistan has been determined by the vicissitudes in the fortunes of the families of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) Short-lived governments have alternated, Benazir Bhutto (1988-90), Nawaz Sharif (1990-93), Benazir Bhutto (1993-97) and Nawaz Sharif (1997-1999). Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have been targets of presidential dismissal for corruption of for misuse of power.

Now, once again party-based democracy has been suspended with General Pervaiz Musharraf taking over control of the administration in a bloodless coup.

Reactions to the coup d’etat.

Pakistan’s neighbours in South Asia were deeply concerned about the unexpected turn of events in Pakistan which they felt would increase tensions in South Asia. Indian prime minister Vajpayee, soon after his inauguration as prime minister for the third time, said "We are monitoring the situation and keeping ourselves fully informed."

The United states, taken by surprise, expressed the hope that there would be an early reversion to democratic governance and that no unconstitutional measures would be taken. Other western countries also expressed concern and were wary about providing aid to a military regime.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said that the toppling of a democratic government through military intervention was unacceptable and urged a speedy return to civilian rule. The Commonwealth Secretary General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku said that Pakistan would inevitably run the risk of being suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth.

Pakistan is heavily dependent on IMF assistance and the suspension of a $ 1.6 billion loan is bound to further aggravate economic conditions which deteriorated after US and other developed countries imposed economic sanctions following the nuclear testing of May 1998.

Strangely, there was no anger among Pakistanis. At first they seemed confused and bewildered. However, there was little sympathy for the Nawaz Sharif government, which had become very unpopular after the Kargil fiasco. A sense of uncertainty prevailed as to what military rule would imply.

Imran Khan, cricketer-turned-politician, expressed relief at the coup. "People are really happy. No one is protesting against the coup. The army has prevented a dictatorship," he said.

Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, sounded cynical speaking from London where she is in exile following her conviction on charge of corruption. She said that Nawaz Sharif had brought the army action upon himself by trying to "politicise the army". She referred to Sharif’s authoritative actions in curbing the powers of the president, the Army and the Courts and that he had tried to discredit and split the armed forces.

A sharp contrast

On the day following the dramatic events in Pakistan, India witnessed the swearing in of a new government - the product of marathon democratic elections, conducted over more than a month in five phases, in which nearly 350 million voters had participated.

In Pakistan, around that time, the Army Chief of Staff justified the dismissal of the civilian government because of its role in bringing about the collapse of various institutions and to "stem the fast deteriorating situation in the country". The contrast in the way the two neighbouring countries have evolved through the years after independence could not have been sharper.

Thus the fallout from Kargil has had different effects on India and Pakistan. In India Kargil created an ambience which was used by Atal Behari Vajpayee to his electoral advantage. In Pakistan, Kargil led to the undoing of his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif, who had adopted a stance different from that of his military advisers.

Paper presented by Mr. K. H. J. Wijayadasa at the Seminar on the Constitutional Proposals of the Sinhala Commission
Restructuring the executive arm of government

It has been said that constitution making is much more difficult than bread making. This is because it is a complex, over arching and highly principled affair. There are several basic principles involved. A Constitution as you know is the basic law of the state. Therefore it has to be comprehensive, yet not too bulky. It should not be too rigid nor too flexible. It should not be absurdly alien or unnecessarily hybrid. It should not be hastily thrust on the people but evolve over periods of time. These are some of the basic principles of constitution making which were not observed in 1978 when the present constitution was rushed through.

In fact Dr. M. M. Perera one of the most brilliant constitutional experts of Sri Lanka described the 1978 Constitution as a hotch-potch of the American and French Constitutions. He said that this mixture does not mix. He foresaw the emergence of a dictator in the garb of an Executive President in the not so distant future. This is precisely what has happened. Obviously, this monstrosity which we are saddled with today is destroying the very foundations of democracy. The task before us is to find ways and means of replacing it with a more acceptable system by general consensus.

Constitutional proposals of the Sinhala Commission

We are assembled here today to discuss the merits and demerits of the constitutional proposals of the Sinhala Commission and arrive at a general consensus. However, in our deliberations we will be constrained by certain limitations which are inherent in these proposals. Firstly, these proposals do not encompass all the essential components of a Constitution such as the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, character of the state, sovereignty of the people, fundamental rights, language, citizenship, franchise, elections and many others. Secondly, the proposals are heavily focussed on overhauling the executive arm of government only. Thirdly, unlike the Government’s Constitutional Reform Proposals of October 1997, these proposals have not been constitutionally structured nor legally worded. Of course these limitations will not prevent us from entering into a fruitful dialogue because they focus on the most contentious and cancerous issues vis a vis our Constitution.

The objectives of these proposals have been clearly spelt out by the Sinhala Commission namely; to put an end to the present system of confrontational politics; to make provision for minorities to participate actively in the process of governance at the centre; to promote the ideal of "one country" and "one people" and to get rid of different types of divisive trends. These proposals are clearly aimed at overhauling the executive arm of government with a view to bringing back orderly and just governance. These aims and objectives are to be achieved through the abolition of the Executive Presidency, the restoration of the Parliamentary System of government coupled with the Executive Committee System and the depoliticization and democratization of administration.

With regard to the need to abolish the Executive Presidential System the Sinhala Commission in Page 12 of its proposals has stated that; "It is not good to have overall concentration of power. It hinders the practice of democracy, impedes economic development and prevents taking full advantage of collective wisdom. Over concentration of power is liable to give rise to arbitrary rule by individuals at the expense of collective leadership; and it is an important cause of bureaucratic inefficiency."

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Sri Lanka’s Executive Presidential System has been vested with unlimited and unprecedented power and authority. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating then the actual operation of the Executive Presidency during the last 21 years has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". In terms of Article 30(1) of the Constitution the President is the Head of State, the Head of the Executive, the Head of Government and Commander in Chief of Armed Forces. In terms of Articles 43 & 44 he is the Head of the Cabinet, appoints the Prime Minister, determines the number of Ministries and Ministers, appoints Deputy Ministers and other Ministers and assigns subjects and functions at his total discretion. In this regard it is not mandatory for the President to consult the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been reduced to a cucumber, absolutely powerless and worse than a puppet. The President is also empowered to appoint Secretaries to Ministries, Secretary General of Parliament, Army, Navy and Air Force Commanders and the IGP, the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court and the President of the Court of Appeal and the Judges of the Court of Appeal. In recent months we have seen the President making such appointments throwing caution to the winds and totally disregarding a basic tenet of natural justice that "justice should not only be done but should manifestly appear to have been done."

The all knowing supremo

In terms of Articles 70(1) the President is empowered to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament as and when he pleases. It is this provision which was used by President Ranasinghe Premadasa to abort the Impeachment Motion against him. But of course, the legality, the morality and the factual accuracy of that motion is still in serious doubt.

In terms of Article 35 (1) the President enjoys absolute immunity against being sued for any act of omission or commission in his official or private capacity. Upon assuming the Presidency he does not cease to be the leader of his political party. As the all knowing supremo he dictates his vision, mission and policy to the Cabinet. He is not a member of Parliament but addresses the Chamber as and when it pleases him. Parliament is no longer the supreme instrument of state power. It is the President who is the supreme instrument of state power.

In terms of Article 42, the President is responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions. But this so called responsibility to Parliament is only a myth. Responsibility implies he is accountable to Parliament for his acts of omission and commission. The test of accountability is the correctives that can be imposed on him by the legislature. But, what correctives can Parliament impose when the President cannot even be criticized excepting on an Impeachment Motion, nor is it possible to dismiss him through a vote of no confidence.

Fundamental rights and freedoms thwarted

The Executive Presidential System has debased and debilitated the freedom and sanctity of democratic institutions such as Parliament, Courts and the Media. It has stood in the way of Parliament asserting the rightful role of exercising the sovereignty of the people through their representatives. It will not be possible to guarantee a just and righteous society when the prosecutor, judge and the jury are one and the same. Above all it has contributed to the politicization of each and every facet of public life, advanced the cause of partisan politics, frustrated the democratic process and built a wall of hatred against politicians and politics. Therefore, there is a clear case for the abolition of the Executive Presidential System and return to sanity by embracing the Westminster system.

Under the Westminster System state power is exercised by the Head of State on the advice of the Prime Minister who in turn is backed by the Cabinet and Parliament. The Prime Minister is personally responsible and answerable to the Cabinet and to Parliament. The Sinhala Commission has clearly stated in Page 8 of its proposals that the Executive Presidency should be abolished because it is a naked dictatorship that has been foisted on our country. However the Sinhala Commission has not advocated a return to purely ceremonial presidency. It has in mind bestowing on the President certain well defined powers and responsibilities. Also, the introduction of the Executive Committee System of Government would enhance the President’s authority, independence and impartiality. The President will be elected from nominees outside Parliament and by Parliament for 6 years.

Bending backwards, forward and kneeling

This is only one side of the story. There is a fair cross section of public opinion especially among the political types who favour the retention of the Executive Presidency with certain modifications. One of the arguments adduced in favour of the system is that in a multi ethnic, multi religious and multi lingual situation such as ours a President directly elected by the people would always safeguard minority rights and interests. This is not altogether untrue, because we have seen Executive Presidents of Sri Lanka bending backward and forward and sometimes kneeling before the almighty minorities, to come to power as well as to hold on to power. A good example is the Equal Opportunity Bill which is now before Parliament. It is a piece of legislation which causes a great deal of harassment, debilitation and discrimination to the Sinhala majority who constitute 74 percent of the population by the minorities usurping their hard fought victories, rights, privileges and positions. This kind of legislation is good for countries which practice racial, religious and linguistic discrimination by way of apartheid, slavery, religious phanaticism, white racism and not for Sinhala Buddhist Sri Lanka which has for 2500 years tolerated and embraced all types of extremists, phanatics and parasites. This is just another silly attempt to appease the minorities. It is not yet known who wanted this, from where it was copied and who is responsible for introducing this infectious disease?

The protagonists of the Executive Presidency have argued that the country needs a stable and strong government to achieve rapid economic development combined with equity, social justice, and environmental protection. Also there is a general consensus that the country needs a strong and powerful ruler during times of internal civil war, terrorism and separatism and external intimidation and threat. This is precisely what President Ranasinghe Premadasa was confronted with; terror and cold blooded murder in the South; terrorism, separatism and civil war in the North; and a 100,000 strong Indian Army of occupation in the North and East; i.e. in 1/3 of the Country.

I am of the firm conviction after having directed operations myself in all three fronts that it is the Executive Presidential System and the iron hand of President Ranasinghe Premadasa that enabled Sri Lanka to get out of that terrific mess. Also, I must add that his hands were further strengthened by a clear UNP majority in Parliament, the unitary character of the state and the supremacy of Parliament. I believe you are aware that if the Government’s Devolution Package of October 1997 goes through we will end up with a federated union of at least 8 regions or states and 9 Parliaments including the one by the Diyawanna Oya; with its head decapitated.

Executive committee system of government

The Second vital and radical recommendation of the Sinhala Commission is the restoration of the Parliamentary System of Government coupled with the Executive Committee System. Under the proposed system political parties as usual will contest the Parliamentary Elections. The leader of the party with the largest number of seats will be appointed to the office of Prime Minister and the leader of the party with the second largest number of seats is made the Deputy Prime Minister. This will ensure bipartisan government. The Prime Minister will name the Cabinet of Ministers and assign subjects and functions in consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister. All political parties which have polled over 20 percent of the votes cast should be entitled to posts in the Cabinet in proportion to their strength.

Cabinet Ministers will not be bound by party directions. All remaining Members of Parliament will be assigned equally to the different Ministries taking into account each MP’s aptitude, experience and professional qualifications. The Ministers and MP’s so assigned constitute each Ministry. All members will have equal rights in the Executive Committee. All policy decisions will be arrived at by consensus; failing which by majority vote. Proposals approved by each committee will be submitted to the cabinet for consideration by way of policies, plans, programmes and draft legislation. Once approved they will be implemented and the draft legislation presented to parliament. If this system is introduced parochial political considerations and divisive party politics will take the back stage. It will ensure consensual politics. The vicious "winner takes all" syndrome will be no more. There will be all party government which will contribute to resolving the ethnic problem too.

Feasibility and practibility

All this sounds so fabulous and fantastic on paper. But is it realistic, feasible and practicable? Party Politics in Sri Lanka have been compared to the beggar’s wounds. If the beggar allows his wounds to heal that is his funeral. All political parties would like the wounds to get bigger and bigger, so that, they can thrive on them. The minority parties in particular thrive on the misery, disunity and chaos of the Sinhalese. How workable is this system? When the leader of the second largest party becomes Deputy Prime Minister who will be the leader of the opposition? Can there be a healthy parliamentary democracy without a vibrant and dynamic opposition? If the policies of the Prime Minister’s party and the Deputy Prime Minister’s party as stated in their respective policy statements and election manifestos are not one and the same can you govern? How do we ensure collective responsibility? Can the Prime Minister sack dissidents and errant Ministers? These are some of the issues we should discuss and try to resolve.

If we can find solutions to these problems the proposed Executive Committee System is ideally suited to our country; torn apart by political greed, communal disharmony, terrorism, separatism, bribery, corruption, nepotism, favouritism, and political victimization. It will help preserve the unitary character of the state and ensure representative government. It will ensure equal rights and provide for the fair allocation of resources. This obviously is the ultimate in participatory government; a true embodiment of government of the people, by the people and for the people. To my mind it is only a distant dream. But there is no harm trying.

Depoliticization and democratization

The third major constitutional change proposed by the Sinhala Commission is in the area of depoliticization and democratization of the administration. A four pronged political and institutional restructuring is envisaged as follows:

(a) Following on the pattern of the State Council of the 1930s; 5 Special Commissions will be established for Defence and Internal Security, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Public Service and Administration and Cultural Policy. They would comprise the President, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister in charge and 2 Members of Parliament selected by Parliament. Other knowledgeable and experienced persons will be co-opted. These Special Commissions are expected to function independent of the Executive Committees and give umbrella cover to all of them.

(b) The Provincial Council System will be abolished and replaced with a District Councils System. This is because provincial administration is alien to Sri Lanka. For well over 100 years what was in vogue was district administration. The Provincial Councils are a terrific financial burden and an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy with many attendant evils such as a Pajero, cellphone and government bungalow culture, among other things. In any case they have resulted only in adding another layer of greedy politicians who are only interested in fattening themselves.

(c) A proposal for which there is a great deal of consensus is the establishment of 3 Independent Commissions in charge of the Public Service, Police Service and Elections. The members of these Commissions are to be appointed by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and also with the prior approval of Parliament.

(d) The fourth recommendation is to set up an Independent National Planning Commission. Formulation of the National Plan will be a bottom up process starting at district level. The sectoral components will be built into it at the ministry level. The National Plan will be finalized by the National Planning Commission and submitted to Cabinet through the Finance Commission for approval.

Are they practible and implementable?

These are of course very pious hopes, aspirations and ideals that are being mooted with good intentions and in good faith. We must examine how acceptable they are to the people? How theoretically sound, practicable and implementable they are in a country where the only interest is self interest; the only goal is political expediency and the greatest aspiration is how much can be pocketed during the 6 years in office. If democratization and depoliticization in this manner are acceptable to the people then we should try and fine tune these proposals so that they are fool proof, logical and workable. My comments on the institutional changes envisaged are as follows:

(a) On the establishment of 5 Special Commissions on Defense, Finance etc.; I am of the view that even though this would have been necessary during British colonial rule, today it is a redundancy. Also, it will cause delays in decision making and become a bottleneck to speedy implementation of programmes and projects. Further, such Special Commissions will be labelled as undemocratic and obstructionist.

(b) The abolition of Provincial Councils and the establishment of District Councils would naturally apply brakes on territorial ambitions and separatist tendencies. Through a process of delimitation of Districts it will be possible to recognize ethnic, religious and linguistic identities and concentrations.

(c) Democracy in Sri Lanka is doomed unless urgent steps are taken to depoliticize the key institutions of government and establish Independent Commissions in respect of at least Elections, Public Service and Police Service responsible to Parliament and appointed on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. The Report of the Citizens Consultation on Free and Fair Elections and Depoliticization of Key Institutions of November 1998 contains the proposals, the rationale and the proposed amendments to the Constitution on this subject.

(d) With regard to the establishment of an Independent National Planning Commission, I have very serious reservations. The processes of privatization, liberalization and globalization now in operation in the world are so vast and rapid that the National Planning Commission will have to update its National Plans at least every 6 months and this is not humanly possible. Moreover, national plans are a thing of the past and even Communist countries; if there are any left; do not rely on them any longer. What we need today is a long term perspective plan containing Environmentally Sound and Sustainable Development Policies, Strategies and Programmes.

The Week That Was
PA crisis cools off

by Shan Wijetunga
Before the commencement of last Wednesday’s cabinet meeting at ‘Temple Trees’ the ministers informally discussed the coup in Pakistan.

When Deputy Minister, Gen. Anuruddha Ratwatte arrived at ‘Temple Trees’ one minister cracked "Gen. Musharaf only just met our General and instantly the Pakistan government was toppled!"

Then another minister said "Don’t know whether he had got instructions from our Generals."

Gen. Ratwatte smiled and replied "Those things do happen."

Then another minister cracked "That General just left Sri Lanka and took over the Pakistan government. But our army can’t even take over Mullaitivu yet."

Minister Gen. Ratwatte replied "Just wait for a few more days."

Muslim Congress

The Muslim Congress politburo which met on October 7 presided by Minister M. H. M. Ashraff to discuss the party’s continued support of the People’s Alliance Government after discussions passed the ball to the Peoples Alliance executive committee.

The PA’s Executive Committee met last Wednesday at "Temple Trees" with the President in the chair to discuss the Muslim Congress issue.

Among those present at the meeting were Prime Minister, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Ministers M. H. M. Ashraff, Batty Weerakoon, Richard Pathirana, Dharmasiri Senanayake, D. M. Jayaratne, Mangala Samaraweera, and MPs Rauf Hakeem, K.P. Silva, Raja Collure, Podi Appuhamy, Kalansooriya, Ranjith Navaratne, I. M. Illyas and Ananda Dassanayake.

The meeting first discussed the devolution proposals. Batty Weerakoon and Raja Collure were not happy about the Devolution proposals not being presented in parliament.

Minister Dharmasiri Senanayake and D. M. Jayaratne told the meeting that as the SLFPs executive committee hadn’t yet discussed the devolution proposals a decision on the date of presentation of the proposals to Parliament could not be fixed.

Minister Ashraff and Mangala Samaraweera want the devolution proposals presented to parliament without any further delay.

Ministers Richard Pathirana and Dharmasiri Senanayake proposed that due consideration should be given to amendments proposed by the public before introducing the bill in parliament.

While the discussions were in progress Minister Richard Pathirana excused himself from the meeting on the grounds that he had to leave early morning next day to attend a ceremony.

After further discussions on the devolution proposals it was decided to appoint a committee to plan action to bring the devolution proposals to the parliament.

Minister D. M. Jayaratne was appointed convenor of the committee. The other members to the committee will be named later.

Thereafter the Muslim Congress issue was taken up for discussion. Minister Ashraff took over ten minutes to explain his party’s stand - all present agreed with him and Minister Senanayake said that it was a minor incident due to a flash of temper.

Batty Weerakoon as well as Indika Gunawardene agreed with Senanayake.

The representatives of the leftist parties said "what has happened has happened. Now it is all over. We have not lost faith in the Muslim Congress." All present were careful not to mention Minister Richard Pathirana in their discussions.

Finally it was decided to issue a statement together with Minister Ashraff signed by the General Secretaries of the Peoples Alliance and the SLFP to the effect that there was complete faith on the Muslim Congress. When discussion on the presentation of the Workers Charter and Worker Reconciliation Bills were in progress Leftist parties MPs were worried over the delay in presenting the bills in parliament.

A committee was appointed again with minister, D. M. Jayaratne as the convenor to plan action to bring the bills to parliament without further delay.

Equal Opportunity

When the equal opportunity bill was approved by the Cabinet its author, Minister Prof. G. L. Peiris was abroad.

He was away even when the bill was taken into the parliamentary order paper. The intention of the bill was to provide equal opportunities to women and the disabled and to rid society of caste and creed differences. But with Minister Ashraff demanding admission of Muslim students to Buddhist and Catholic schools the bill took a different turn.

Finally even those who supported the bill inclusive of minority political parties had withdrawn their support.

Prof. Peiris who was in London was told of events here over the Bill.

Taking a Sri Lanka Airways flight UL-504 for Colombo, he was surprised to see Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar and his wife boarding the same flight. Though Prof. Peiris and Lakshman Kadirgamar are Cabinet colleagues there was hardly any talking between the two in the flight with Prof. Peiris continuing to read periodicals and magazines while Minister Kadirgamar slept all the way.

Prof. Peiris aware of the fate of the proposed Equal Opportunity Bill summoned some lawyers and his staff to Visumpaya to discuss the protests against the bill subsequently he decided to withdraw it.

The past pupils of schools such as Ananda, Nalanda, Vishakha etc. unaware that the Equal Opportunity Bill has been withdrawn met the leader of opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe last Tuesday at Cambridge Place to discuss protest action against the bill.

Ranil informed them that the bill had been withdrawn and no protest action was necessary.

However he proposed that denominational schools be taken out of government control and rested in a management that would include past students. Wickremesinghe was told that the past students, were already thinking along the same line.

Trip to Maldives

The President’s visit to the Maldive Islands last Monday was not known to the media. Though this trip was prearranged it was kept a secret until the President emplaned for the Maldives.

The President was given a grand welcome by Maldive President, Gayoom.

She spent two days in the Maldives and had discussions with President Gayoom.

Mahinda meets Perumal

Varatharajah Perumal, the Chief Minister of the East who exiled himself in India when the IPKF departed returned to Sri Lanka a few months ago.

Though he is here his whereabouts are not known as he is in hiding from the LTTE.

He met Minister of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Mahinda Rajapakse at his ministry last Wednesday evening and discussed the problems experienced by fisherfolk in Jaffna.

Jeyaraj

Though the President had charge sheeted minister, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle he still has to offer his explanation. But he had stated to newspapers that he would not be offering any explanations to the President.

The President had sent a show cause letter to Minister Fernandopulle allegedly criticising the Presidential staff.

Meanwhile at the ceremony to open the Vijaya Memorial Hospital at Seeduwa, Minister Fernandopulle and the President were seated side by side and engaged in friendly conversation. There was no mention of the show cause letter.

Back benchers

Though 14 backbenchers were prepared to meet the President to discuss their problems only five were present at the ‘Temple Trees’ last Friday.

It was the backbenchers of the government who had requested the President for an appointment to discuss their major problems.

The backbenchers present at the meeting were Dickson J. Perera, C. B. Ratnayake, Kesaralal Gunasekera, Nandasena Herath and Sugathadasa Senerath.

It is learnt that the discussions at this meeting were centred on security in border villages, LTTE threat in estates, the lukewarm attitude of government servants etc.

The Sri Lanka Association for Theology call for Reconciliation

We are deeply saddened and extremely concerned by the recent escalation of violence in our protracted conflict in Sri Lanka, resulting in an alarming increase in civilian casualties. We strongly condemn the brutal massacre of 54 civilians in Gonagala in the Amparai District, following soon after the death of 22 civilians in the recent bombings in Pudhukuduirippu in the Mullaitivu District. We extend our deepest sympathy to the grieving families and mourn their loss as our nation’s loss.

We affirm that all life is created by God and is sacred. All killing is abhorrent and no killing can be justified, whatever the circumstances. The victimization of unarmed innocent civilians caught up in this bitter and ruthless conflict is a violation of all human and religious values and international humanitarian law. Even more deplorable is the calculated killing of mostly poor vulnerable villagers, including pregnant women and children.

The process of violence spirals on its own momentum. Today violence prevails and permeates the very fabric of our society. As repeatedly reported in the media it has become the norm in all spheres of our national life. It gradually desensitizes the individual to the horrors of the present spate of bombings, the frequent deliberate and gruesome killings of unarmed civilians, the systematic annihilation of political leaders and the gross violation of and open disregard for the sacredness of human life.

The continuing stalemate has cost over 60,000 lives, mostly of our young people and the poor, on both sides of the divide. With the hope of peace receding further with every such incident, the poorest, the powerless and the voiceless of our land continue to suffer the most.

The time to rise above our present dilemma is long overdue. Nevertheless we must begin now. This calls for a continuous struggle in search of a just and reconciliatory peace, based on a respect for human life and a love of neighbour. We need a transformation in our society, with the rewriting of spiritual and moral values in the hearts of our people and the forging of a true Lankan identity, founded on mutual appreciation, respect and understanding and a just sharing of common resources.

In the wake of this escalation of violence we:

1) make an urgent appeal to the leaders on all sides to seek without delay a just, democratic, acceptable and equitable solution to our ongoing conflict, out of which no one community benefits more than the other. We suggest that peace negotiations and de-escalating military engagement can occur concurrently.

2) appeal to all people of goodwill of all religions and secular ideology, who feel the suffering of our nation and continue to have faith in our people, to make every attempt to build cross cultural, social trust and to prevail on the leadership of all parties to seek earnestly, to bring an end to our national trauma.

3) urge our religious, social, community, professional and political leaders and all our people to corporately and unreservedly identify with the nation’s pain, to rise above their own differences and respond positively with prophetic courage, perseverance and hope to this urgent task. We are confident that the nation’s diverse spiritual and moral resources are adequate to kindle a new lease of spirituality for the good of all.

As a practical step we stress the urgent need for a bipartisan consensus, between the PA and the UNP, on the framework for a political solution. This common platform should be proposed to the LTTE. As negotiations proceed the other parties and interest groups, of all persuasions, should be drawn into the negotiating process. These measures, more than any others, appear to be the most likely to open the way to a lasting peace.

by Duleep K. de Chickera
Chairperson – SLTA
The Sri Lanka Association for Theology (SLAT) is a Christian Ecumenical Association, that engages in contextual theological reflection and study, relevant to Sri Lanka and South Asia.

Neelan Tiruchelvam: A Tamil Who Dissented

I never agreed with Neelan Tiruchelvam all that very much. When I first met him in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he was visiting Harvard and I was an undergraduate at MIT. I, it was rumored in the circles my mother moved in, had fallen in among bad friends, and had turned terrorist.

I remember asking Neelan a question at his presentation that day, and being disappointed with the answer; we didn’t agree really on what constituted political struggle. But I remember to this day the keen open face, and slightly turned head; I remember being heard. And later, and many times over and over again, I remember his arm over my shoulder, his head bent, ear listening, head nodding.

A few months later, I had taken a semester off from MIT and was working as an intern at the International Centre for Ethnic Studies in Colombo. I worked there, then, and for more than 10 years after, on and off, for long periods and short, as I grew in intellectual maturity, and found my scholarly voice. And in all those years, Neelan would be around, listening intently, blue shirt a little rumpled, legs moving restlessly, asking quietly, "What do you think, Pradeep?" He would arrive from somewhere, on his way somewhere else — all distances of thousands of miles — fresh as a cup of morning tea, with a book tucked under his arm for me to review, or an article relating to my work in his mind. Enabling was what he did best.

If I dissented, from a position he took, a direction he wanted to pursue, a project he wanted to start— and I would dissent with the passion of youth, often scornfully, or even angrily - Neelan would listen and he would hear me. And from that day in Cambridge, through many years in Colombo, until our last dinner together in the Sengor Airport in Dakar, Senegal, Neelan simply enabled the consolidation of my position, whatever it was.

For Neelan Tiruchelvam dissent and toleration, intellectual as well as political, were treasured practices. Not only were these practices crucial parts of his own self, but they were, more importantly, institutionalized in a myriad ways by him. Whether in the area of the vexed constitution of our republic, in the brutal arena of Tamil nationalist politics, or for me, most importantly, in that zone, which might be called a postcolonial Sri Lankan intellectual tradition, Neelan made room, repeatedly, remarkably, and relentlessly to institutionalize broader and richer conversations. This was very important work, for our intellectual tradition has, it seems, been beleaguered for some time now. First, by the almost inevitable postcolonial tension between state-led socialism and capitalization, which led, of course, to hard times for some of our finest liberal intellectuals, both economically and politically, leading in turn to massive migrations to metropolitan centers; and then, in more recent years, the continuous, numbing, near-apocalyptic violence that we have faced has done little to catalyze our universities, our learned societies, and their organs of publication. Neelan stood together with a handful of others, who, while located outside those institutions, struggled with extraordinary tenacity to work with Sri Lankanist scholars both in the island and abroad, to preserve, enrich and enlarge that tradition. He laboured hard at this massive task, well and productively. The fruit of his efforts; is plain to the eye, and given this, Neelan Tiruchelvam earns the right to be called the greatest Sri Lankan liberal intellectual of his generation.

That is what he lived for; let us remember that he died in the face of fascism that kills those who dissent — however mutely, however respectfully, however gently. He died because dissent, of any kind, has become impossible for those who would count as Sri Lankan Tamils, because the very idea of dissent has become intolerable to the LTTE. This we should be ashamed of. As Sri Lankans and as Tamils, we should be ashamed, that one of us, an extraordinary person, a man who created unparalleled and unprecedented intellectual spaces in Lanka, South Asia and the Third World, died with his body broken into pieces, died like a dog on the highway, because he did not abdicate his right to dissent.

Why you may ask, should I be ashamed? What have I done, but live a peaceful life’? And I say you should be ashamed if you have never opposed the silencing of dissent, if you are a Sri Lankan Tamil who has never opposed the silencing of dissent. If you have not, and will not, oppose the grinding, brutal, terrifying march of fascism.

I am not optimistic as I consider the long and difficult years that lie ahead. Many of us will die, many will suffer. And yet, of this I am certain: even if it were to take a thousand years for the fascist yoke to lift over the isle of Lanka, citizens of that promised land will remember Neelan Tiruchelvam’s name the day freedom dawns.

Dr. Pradeep Jeganathan
Asst Professor
Anthropology Global Studies
University of Minnesota U.S.A.

Government’s half-hearted approach to war

The government’s approach to the civil war and its carefree attitude to the ever increasing danger facing the civilian population within the entire length and breath of the country is confounding and inexplicable.

The past months have seen intensified peace demonstrations organised by interested parties, local and foreign, and calls for negotiations. The disastrous after effects of previous negotiations with the LTTE are well known and now we see similar effects due to mere calls for negotiations. It is a great tragedy that these peace mongers refuse to see beyond their nose the real situation where the LTTE continues to reiterate its non-negotiable demands. In 1987, an agreement was reached with the full concurrence of Prabhakaran himself but he later went back on it. Such was his deception.

In this backdrop, are these peace mongers hoping for miracles? Could they go further and tell us their idea of what should be yielded? Surely some of them are so close to the LTTE leadership, the three Catholic Bishops, the NGO Peace Council and the Sarvodaya leader. Could they ascertain what Prabhakaran is prepared to accept in relation to what they think can be yielded. The answer would be an eye opener to them unless they expect the army to down arms, surrender and give in to the demands of the LTTE without caring a hoot for the consequences. Considerable harm has been done to the nation by their activities and these dupes of Prabhakaran who connive at and condone his brutality must take more than a share of the responsibility for the LTTE’s brutalities and dishonour and disaster brought on our country.

It is very clear that the LTTE has changed its strategy. Ethnic cleansing of further vulnerable areas and sporadic attacks throughout the country on civilians have intensified. At the turn of a switch the LTTE can turn the hill country (thanks to groundwork by the estate Tamil leadership) into a killing field. The network is in place to target any installation or location in the city of Colombo and to wreak havoc within the city. All this build-up has taken place in spite of strong warnings by certain citizens groups who saw these dangers coming. The right to life has been snatched from us and this will soon be a reality.

The laissez faire attitude of the government is costing lives and other unbearable losses. The state run Sudu Nelum and Thavalama and the peace groups have confused and demoralised the armed forces and have been a counter productive force to the army’s morale and recruitment drives. It has been driven home and proved time and time again that one or two heads even with the best of intentions just cannot decide on a right course for the war. This is placing all our lives at risk. We periodically hear of attempts to reorganise the decision making structure but this never materialises. The view that a 150,000 strong army has failed and is unable to subdue a terror group of 6,000 fighters confined to a very narrow area is preposterous and unbelievable. In this mismanaged situation there is still left to the government two clear options.

One is total surrender to have peace at any cost by withdrawing all forces and evacuating Sinhala and Muslim civilians to safety. Short circuit negotiations will without doubt produce the same result but with more killings and other serious consequences. For a start we will see a State of Eelam established in part of the country. Beyond this only the dreadful finale can be forecast, the linking of the area with the hill country and eventually the unification of the entire country under Prabhakaran. The word Eelam they now say is the whole of Sri Lanka.

The other alternative which we have advocated for a long time is to first defeat Prabhakaran and his LTTE by placing the country on a war footing. This radical change is absolutely essential if the war is to be pursued. It will carry considerably less risks and cost less lives of civilian and military personnel than at present. The change of heart will certainly bring the desired results in a few months. This is also consonant with the tradition and history of this country.

An effective national war council comprising the head of state, the deputy minister of defence, the leader of the opposition, the service commanders, a limited number of retired high ranking military officers of proven competence and integrity and any other useful persons, must be constituted to determine, police, take overall decisions on the conduct of operation and the procurement of military hardware. An intensive recruitment drive with incentives and all other processes that go into a serious war must be activated. Deterrent punishment must be meted to corrupt service personnel. Most importantly, these positive measures will give direction to and restore the lost confidence and sense of patriotism in all ranks of the fighting forces, without which no war can be won.

Vigilance committees must be set up to assist the armed forces in surveillance of their areas. Villages adjoining affected areas must be secured through a crash program to train youth, both men and women, in the use of arms to defend their own villages. The active assistance of retired military personnel must be sought. The recent suggestion by a former national security adviser with experience on this subject merits serious consideration.

The Tamils should also be told that the fight against terrorism and the fascist Prabhakaran is a fight for democracy against terror; that the government cannot allow a racist group to terrorise the Tamils but is committed to ensuring democracy, human rights and a life of honour and dignity to them. The Tamil community must be firmly assured by all political parties that any legitimate grievance will be addressed on ending the conflict. The Tamil leaders must be given the option of falling in line with the above policy or joining the LTTE. Activities of peace mongering organisations including those sponsored by the state must be proscribed and deterrent action taken against such traitorous elements. These persons must be reminded that all fundamental rights are subject to restrictions in the interest of national security.

An intimate dialogue must be established with the international community to win them over to the new approach and to urge them to stop LTTE activities in their countries. Their active support in whatever manner possible must be solicited.

Of these two alternatives the second must surely attract persons of all communities who wish to make an undivided Sri Lanka their home and live in peace and harmony.

We call upon the government and the opposition to agree and immediately implement the second course of action proposed which indeed is the only means which all right thinking people of this country will opt for, and thereby fulfill their common responsibility to save the people of all communities and the country from the grip of the terrorists.

Dr. Piyasena Dissanayake,
Secretary,
National Joint Committee.

Excerpts from Karthigesu Indrapala’s PhD thesis, University of London 1965
Tamil legends are historical myths

Karthigesu Indrapala was the former Professor of History at the University of Ceylon, Jaffna campus.

Until the ninth century, with the exception of the megalithic remains of Pomparippu and the possible exception of those of Katiraveli, there is no definite evidence regarding any Dravidian settlement in the island. (page 5l)

No definite evidence regarding any significant Tamil settlement in the Batticaloa district of the Eastern Province, which is now a predominantly Tamil area, or in other parts of Southern Ceylon has so far come to light. It is possible that there were some Tamil settlers in the Batticaloa district for, from the thirteenth century onwards, we get archaeological, epigraphic and literary evidence pointing to Tamil settlements in the area. (page 233)

It may be recollected that several writers on the history of Jaffna, basing their studies on the traditional legends found in the late Tamil chronicles, have put forward certain theories claiming the establishment of Tamil settlements in Jaffna in the period of the Anuradhapura rulers. These theories are not accepted by serious students of history as they are not based on trustworthy data. Many of these have been convincingly dismissed by scholars in recent years. It is therefore, not our intention to analyse these theories and take serious notice of writings which at best could be described as popular. (page 266)

Jaffna peninsula does not help us to know anything about the identity of the people who lived there in the pre-Christian centuries. The Pali chronicle informs us that the port of Jambukola (Camputturai), on the eastern coast of the peninsula, was the main port of embarkation to Tamralipti in Eastern India from at least the time of Devanampiya Tissa ( 250-210 B.C.). The two embassies from the island to the court of Asoka embarked on their voyage from Jambukola. Sangamitta arrived with the go-sapling at this port. The Samuddapanna-sala, commemorating the arrival of the Bo sapling, and the Jambukola Vihara were built there by Devanampiya Tissa. These facts only reveal that the northern most part of the island was under the suzerainty of the Anuradhapura king in the third century B.C. and that Buddhism had begun to spread by that time in that part of the island as in the other parts. But it is in the second century AD that we get some evidence regarding the people living there. The language of the gold plate inscription from Vallipuram, the earliest epigraphic record discovered in the Jaffna peninsula, is the early form of Sinhalese, in which inscriptions of the time in other parts of the island were written. This may suggest that the Sinhalese were settled in the Jaffna peninsula, or in some parts at least, in the second century A.D. There were perhaps Tamil traders in the port of Jambukola but there is no evidence that points to Tamil settlements in the peninsula. (page 268)

The gold plate from Vallipuram reveals that there were Buddhists in that part of the peninsula in the second century A.D. At the site of this inscription the foundations of a Buddhist vihara were uncovered. These foundations are in the premises of a modern Visnu temple. There is little doubt that the Visnu temple was the original Buddhist monument converted in to a Vaisnava establishment at a later date when Tamils settled in the area. Such conversion of Buddhist establishments into Saiva and Vaisnava temples seems to have been a common phenomenon in the peninsula after it was settled by Dravidians. In the premises of another Visnu temple at Moolai were discovered some ‘vestiges of ancient remains of walls’ and a broken sedent Buddha image. Again in a Saiva temple at mahiyapitti a Buddha image was found under a stone step in the temple tank. A limestone Buddha image and the remains of an ancient dagaba were unearthed at Nilavarai, in Navakiri. Among the debris were two sculptured fragments of shaped coral stones with a stone railing design. According to D.T. Devendra, who conducted the excavation at this site, the dagaba can be dated at least to the tenth century A.D. Near these ruins are the foundations of an ancient building and in the middle of these is a modern Siva temple. It has been conjectured, and rightly so, that the old foundations are those of the vihara attached to the ancient dagaba. Buddha images have also been discovered in Uduvil, Kantarodai and Jaffna town. Kantarodai has yielded very important Buddhist finds which prove the existence of an important Buddhist establishment in the region in early times. Such artefacts as the glazed tiles and the circular discs discovered here have helped to connect the finds with those of Anuradhapura.

The Sinhala Nampota, dated in its present form to the fourteenth or fifteenth century, preserves the names of some of the places of Buddhist worship in the Jaffna peninsula. Kantarodai is mentioned among these places. The others are Nagakovila (Nakarkovil), Telipola (Tellippalai), Mallagama (Mallakam), Minuvangomu Viharaya (Vimankamam), Tannidivayina(Tana-tivu or Kayts), Nagadivayina (Nakativu or Nayinativu), Puvangudivayina (Punkutu-tivu) and Karadivayina (Karaitivu). Of the Buddhist establishments in these places only the vihara and Dagaba at Nakativu has survived to this day. It is justifiable to assume that the Nampota list dates back to a time when the Buddhist establishments of these places were well known centres of worship. This was probably before the thirteenth century, for after this date the people of the Jaffna peninsula were mainly Saivas. The foregoing evidence points to the inevitable conclusion that in the Anuradhapura period, and possibly till about the twelfth century, there were Buddhists in the Jaffna peninsula. Although it may appear reasonable to presume that these Buddhists were Sinhalese like those in other parts of the island, some have tried to argue that they were Tamils. While it is true that there were Tamil Buddhists in South India and Ceylon before the twelfth century and possibly even later, there is evidence to show that the Buddhists who occupied the Jaffna peninsula in the Anuradhapura period were Sinhalese. We refer to the toponymic evidence which unmistakably points to the presence of Sinhala settlers in the peninsula before Tamils settled there. In an area of only about nine hundred square miles covered by this peninsula, there occur over a thousand Sinhalese place names which have survived in a Tamil garb. (page 270-273)

The Yalppana-vaipava-malai, the Tamil chronicle of Jaffna, confirms this when it states that there were Sinhalese people in Jaffna at the time of the first Tamil colonisation of the area. Secondly, the survival of Sinhalese elements in the local nomenclature indicates a slow and peaceful penetration of Tamils in the area rather than violent occupation. This is in contrast with the evidence of the place names of the North Central Province, where Sinhalese names have been largely replaced by Tamil names. The large percentage of Sinhalese element and the occurrence of Sinhala and Tamil compounds in the place names of Jaffna point to a long survival of the Sinhala population and an intimate intercourse between them and the Tamils. This is also, borne out by the retention of some territorial names, like Valikamam ( Sinh. Valigama) and Maracci (Maracci-rata), which points to the retention of the old territorial divisions and tell strongly against wholesale extermination or displacement of the Sinhalese population. (page 276)

The earliest evidence regarding the presence of Tamils in the Jaffna peninsula is possibly the Tamil inscription of Parakrama Bahu I (1153-1186) from Nainativu. We have seen earlier that till about the ninth century our evidence points to minor settlements of Tamils in such important ports as Mahatittha (Manner) and Gokanna (Trincomalee) as well as in Anuradhapura, where there was a considerable number of mercenary soldiers. In the ninth and tenth centuries some villages in Rajarattha seem to have accommodated Tamil settlers but these were by no means numerous. It seems unlikely that there were many Tamil settlers in the Jaffna peninsula or in any part of the island other than the major ports and the capital city before the tenth century. As we stated earlier, there were perhaps some Tamil traders in the ports of Jambukola and Uratota, in the Jaffna peninsula. But we he evidence on this point. (page 282)

The Sanskrit inscription from Trincomalee, discovered among the ruins of the Konesvaram temple, refers to a personage named Cadaganga who went to Ceylon in 1223. Paranavitana has identified this person with Kulakkottan. The inscription is fragmentary and is engraved on a part of a stone door jamb. Among the decipherable words is the name Gokarna, the ancient name of Trincomalee and the root from which the name of the temple is derived (Gokarnesvara). (page 331)

In the Tamil Vanni districts only a few Dravidian style Saiva temples of the thirteenth century have been found. Among these the temples at Tirukkovil, Kapuralla, and Nallatanni-irakkam and the Saiva remains at Uruttirapuram and Kuruntanur are notable. These certainly indicate the existence of Tamil settlements in those places in the thirteenth century.

But monumental remains of a different type attest to the destruction wrought by the invaders and the conversion of Buddhist institutions into places of Saiva worship, effected by the new settlers, thus confirming the statements in the Sinhala sources. The many scattered ruins of Buddhist monasteries and temples all over the Vanni region preserve the memory of the Sinhalese Buddhist settlements that once covered these parts. Several of the pilimages (image houses) attached to the monasteries in places like Kovilkadu, Malikai, Omantai, Kanakarayan-kulam, Iracentiran-kulam, Cinnappuvaracankulam and Madukanda were converted into Saiva temples, often dedicated to Ganesa. Buddha images or inscribed slabs from the Buddhist structures were used to make the Ganesa statues.(J.P.Lewis, Manual of the Vanni Districts. (pp 297, 303-306, 311) A number of small Saiva shrines have been found in association with Buddhist remains. The destruction of several of the Buddhist edifices and the conversion of pilimages into Saiva temples may have begun at the time of Magha. In the North Central Province, too, we find evidence of such activities. On Minneriya Road, close to Polonnaruwa, were discovered a few Saiva edifices which were built of materials from Buddhist structures. A door jamb from one of the Saiva shrines there was found to bear part of an inscription of Parakramabahu I. A broken pillar shaft with Sinhalese writing of the tenth century was recovered from the enclosing wall of another shrine. In one of the Visnu temples of Polonnaruwa, fragments of Nissankamalla’s stone inscriptions were found. In the same place, two fragments of a broken pillar with Sinhalese writing of about the tenth century served as steps to one of the Vaisnava shrines. A pillar in the mandapa of Siva Devale No.5 at Polonnaruwa was discovered with a Sinhala inscription of the eleventh century on it. In Siva Devale No.7 a square stone asana with an inscription of Nissankamalla was used as a base for a linga. Another of the Saiva shrines unearthed at Polonnaruwa yielded apillar with a Sinhalese inscription of Jayabahu I. These examples leave us in no doubt that materials from Buddhist structures were used in the building of Saiva and Vaisnava temples. The date of most inscriptions found on the pillars and slabs is the twelfth century. The date of the construction of these Saiva and Vaisnava shrines is certainly later than that. (page 361-364)

The invasion of Magha with the help of Kerala and Tamil mercenaries was far more violent than the earlier invasions. Its chief importance lies in the fact that it led to the permanent dislodgement of Sinhalese power from northern Ceylon, the confiscation by Tamils and Keralas of lands and properties belonging to the Sinhalese and the consequent migration of the official class and many of the common people to the south western regions. (page 395-396)

Reforming education without a political consensus

by Eric J. de Silva
The editor of Ravaya, Mr.Victor Ivan, has made a strong plea for a national government in an extremely thought-provoking article which appeared in the columns of his journal on 27th June 1999. Although the case for a national government has been made with monotonous regularity by persons of different persuasions, hardly have I seen a more persuasive case than the one made by Mr. Ivan.

He has based his proposal on an assessment of current political trends which he feels do not point towards the emergence of a stable government after the next elections and, therefore, on the need for the contending political parties to agree on a policy framework in the larger national interest to carry the country forward over the next few years without letting it slide into a period of political instability. While it is not my purpose here to deal with the main theme of Mr. Ivan’s article (which, I think, should receive serious attention), I wish to make a few observations on a matter which he has adverted to in support of his basic thesis.

In highlighting the need to arrive at a broad consensus on major areas of national concern, Mr.Ivan has referred to the booklet published by the Education Research and Study Group containing the proceedings of its policy dialogue on the subject of ‘Restructuring of Schools under the New Education Reforms’. He has drawn attention to the question Dr. W. M. K. Wijetunge raised during the discussion as to whether there is a political consensus on the education reforms that are currently being implemented to ensure continuity beyond the span of the current government, and Prof. Lakshman Jayatilleke’s reply which indicated that there is no such consensus. Commenting on this reply, Mr. Ivan has pointed out that reforming education without a political consensus would in effect mean playing with the future of our younger generation.

There are no quick fixes in education and bringing about change is necessarily a longterm process. It cannot move in line with electoral cycles or follow the winds of political change. History is replete with instances where education reforms which formed part of the political baggage of a government in power were thrown over-board by its successor. Thus the need for some consensus regarding the changes that we need to bring about in our education system has been felt for a long period of time. In fact, the establishment of the National Education Commission itself was an acknowledgment of this need at the highest political level.

The present Government fully supported the passage of the National Education Commission Act in 199l from the ranks of the Opposition. The late Mr.Lalith Athulathmudali, who steered the bill through Parliament as Minister of Education had consulted the Opposition in regard to the persons the Government had in mind for appointment as chairman and members of the Commission, and the then Leader of the Opposition, Mrs. Sirima Bandaranaike had given her concurrence to the appointments. Thus was laid the foundation for achieving a basic political consensus on education policy.

The present Minister of Education has often reminded us that, on assumption of office in 1994, the new Government did not make any changes in the composition of the Commission, in keeping with this spirit of bi-partisanship needed to evolve a national education policy. How is it that today, at the end of a decade since the establishment of a National Education Commission, we find ourselves implementing a set of reforms which the Government claims will revolutionize education in this country, without the required political consensus to ensure the continuity of its implementation?

Not only did the NEC Chairman say that there is no guarantee of a political consensus on the current reforms. He also said that educationists can only expect the best of things to emerge from this situation. The question is whether the NEC does not have a larger responsibility than a motley collection of educationists would have of simply making some proposals and hoping for the best!

The NEC has a duty entrusted to it by Parliament on behalf of the nation, a statutory duty which goes beyond the life-time of a government, to assiduously and tenaciously work towards bringing about a national consensus before reforms reach the stage of implementation. To what extent has it performed this duty?

The NEC brought to the attention of Government the deleterious effects that would result if some of the reforms are abandoned mid-stream? Who will be accountable for the chaos and confusion that will result in such an eventuality? Do we expect our children to swim as best as they can or sink, if that happens? These are the questions that Dr. Wijetunge would have had in mind when he raised the issue about political consensus - questions to which the public of this country are entitled to an answer.

The scenario becomes even more worrisome when one finds that some changes have been proposed without a proper examination of the pros and cons. This has been so in regard to the proposal to restructure schools on a two-tier basis, as junior and senior schools. I showed how weak and untenable the arguments adduced in support of the proposal are in an article which appeared in the Sunday Island of 20/9/98 and the Daily News of 29/9/98, and what a futile and enormously costly exercise the whole thing would be. The ERSG policy dialogue amply confirmed this position.

One wonders how such a palpably unwise and unworkable proposal came to be recommended by the National Education Commission. The First Report of the National Education Commission released in 1992, after taking public evidence, did not make any reference to the restructuring of schools on a two-tier basis. Neither is there any comprehensive policy paper which gives the costs and benefits of implementing this proposal, which in fact would cost the country billions of rupees to implement. The participants of the policy dialogue were, however, told that the proposal was based on ‘very hard and sound theory’, and a letter sent by a Unesco official who retired in the mid-1980s to a former Director-General of the National Institute of Education was read out as proof! (My comments on this letter appear in the ERSG publication, and are not repeated here to save space).

The NEC representatives also spoke about streaming pupils into different curriculum channels (differentiated educational provision) at the end of grade 9. In terms of this proposal, children proceeding beyond grade 9 will have to specialize in a selected curricular provision, and schools will be clustered into groups to be able to provide the different curricular streams between them. Some of the specialized areas mentioned were physical and sports capabilities; and agricultural, land and food capabilities. The present eleven year span of general education will be reduced to mne years when this change is given effect to.

Any attempt to implement changes of this nature without a careful study and open discussion of the issues involved, and a commitment from the major political parties to continue with the reform in the event of their coming to power would, surely, not be a serious approach to reforming the country’s education system. The NEC was obviously conscious of this when it said in its reforms document that: "Changes have been introduced at the change of a government or even the change of a minister in charge of education. As a result there is no continuity in implementation and generations of students have suffered". (Reforms in General Education: National Education Commission, 1997).

Can the NEC assure us, and more particularly the younger generation of this country, that this will not happen again?

(The writer is a former Secretary to the Ministry of Education and Director-General of Educational Reform Implementation).

  | NEWS | PROVINCIAL | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |