Place reconciliation on top of the agenda

by Shanie

I’m nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there’s a pair of us – don’t tell!
They’d banish us, you know.

How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!

(July 17, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In one of his essays on Identity, Regi Siriwardana relates a story that his mother used to tell him in his childhood, a story that was not uncommon among rural families in that era. An Appuhamy, a man of ‘superior’ caste in the village, once went on a journey taking with him a retainer, a man of much ‘lower’ caste in the village hierarchy. Siriwardana says that what is striking in the story is that, throughout, the Appuhamy is characterized as stupid, feckless and cowardly, while it is his servant – the man of low caste – who is the hero, ingenious, resourceful and brave.

Siriwardana perhaps rightly concludes from this peasant story that the Appuhamy is subject to ridicule because he belonged to the upper class. Class antagonisms win out over caste stratification and caste loyalty. Now to the story:

In the first lap of the journey, at midday, the Appuhamy discovers that he has forgotten to bring any food, so he asks the other to give him as share of his bathmulla, his bundle of rice. Of course, this is breaking the caste taboos, so that the Appuhamy strictly enjoins him not to blab when they get back home. This leads to a series of situations on the course of the story in which the servant blackmails the Appuhamy who prohibits him to do this or that: ‘ehenan mama ara vitiya kiyanawa’, ‘then I’ll talk about that happening’, and the Appuhamy has to give in. The climax of the story is about the pair seeking lodgings in a home where, unknown to them, a rakshaya or demon also lived. The demon finds them out and threatens to eat them up. But it is the servant who is equal to the occasion and succeeds in intimidating and outwitting the demon.

Emily Dickinson’s poem and Regi Siriwardana’s ‘tale his mother told him’ seem apt for our time, with politicians making laughing stocks of themselves and playing games at the expense of the future of our country. One feels sorry for the predicament of President Mahinda Rajapakse. Mangala Samaraweera was probably right when he stated that the President appears to have become a prisoner of the chauvinistic and nationalist forces. Left to his own devices, he would perhaps be acting differently. Whether one agrees with Samaraweera or not, we have to agree that the country can do with a firmer grip on good governance, with a greater sensitivity to the political and economic have-nots, a higher tolerance of political dissent and more meaningful steps towards national reconciliation.

For whom was the Kilinochchi Show intended?

What was the purpose of holding last week’s cabinet meeting in Kilinochchi? If it was to establish that the former LTTE heartland is now firmly under Sri Lankan state control, the government has got its priorities horribly wrong. As anyone who has visited the Vanni area knows, there is a heavy military presence in the whole area, just as there was a heavy LTTE presence in the bad old days. The displaced civilians who have been re-settled suffer from inadequate housing, educational and medical facilities and opportunities to earn a livelihood. The priority for the government should have been to announce implementation of concrete steps to address these issues. But instead we have an announcement that, apart from a reduction in fuel prices, the high security zones will remain intact. There is even a hint that more private lands will be occupied to create more high security zones. So instead of moving towards reconciliation, we have the government reinforcing the fear that many Tamils have expressed – that the government plans to implement the Sinhala nationalist agenda of occupying lands in the North and creating new settlements with people from outside the North. This would be a retroactive step that further divides our people. The LTTE’s then agenda appeared as designed to create a pan-Tamil homeland in the North. The agenda of their clones on the other side of the ethnic divide seems to be to work towards the minorities becoming minorities in the North and East as well.

This is similar to the policy followed by the Israeli government in occupied lands. Both provide security concerns as the rationale for their policies and actions. Dr Nurit Peled-Ehsalan is an Israeli peace activist who lost her 13 year old daughter to a suicide bomber. But that did not embitter her. On the contrary, it made her more determined to struggle for peace and reconciliation. She said at that time: "When my little girl was killed, a reporter asked me how I was willing to accept condolences from the other side. I replied without hesitation that I refused it: When representatives of Netanyahu’s government came to offer their condolences I took my leave and would not sit with them. For me, the other side, the enemy, is not the Palestinian people. For me the struggle is not between Palestinians and Israelis, nor between Jews and Arabs. The fight is between those who seek peace and those who seek war. My people are those who seek peace. My sisters are the bereaved mothers, Israeli and Palestinian, who live in Israel and in Gaza and in the refugee camps. My brothers are the fathers who try to defend their children from the cruel occupation, and are, as I was, unsuccessful in doing so. Although we were born into a different history and speak different tongues there is more that unites us than that which divides us." Those were courageous words indeed from a bereaved mother which all those seeking reconciliation, in whatever circumstances, should take to heart.

Not long ago, Peled-Ehelan was invited to address the European Parliament on the occasion of International Women’s Day. She began her speech by dedicating it to "Miriam R’aban and her husband Kamal, from Bet Lahiya in the Gaza strip, whose five small children were killed by Israeli soldiers while picking strawberries at the family’s strawberry field. No one will ever stand trial for this murder." She concluded her speech thus: "I cannot completely understand Palestinian women or their suffering. I don’t know how I would have survived such humiliation, such disrespect from the whole world. All I know is that the voice of mothers has been suffocated for too long in this war-stricken planet. Mothers` cry is not heard because mothers are not invited to international forums such as this one. This I know and it is very little. But it is enough for me to remember these women are my sisters, and that they deserve that I should cry for them, and fight for them. And when they lose their children in strawberry fields or on filthy roads by the checkpoints, when their children are shot on their way to school by Israeli children who were educated to believe that love and compassion are race and religion dependent, the only thing I can do is stand by them and their betrayed babies, and ask what Anna Akhmatova—another mother who lived in a regime of violence against women and children—asked:

Why does that streak of blood, rip the petal of your cheek?"

Constitutional Amendments

The government appears to have given up on the proposal to bring forward a constitutional amendment to allow a sitting President seek re-election even after completing two terms, the maximum as currently provided. The reason only being that they have been unable to muster two-thirds of the votes in Parliament that is required to proceed with the amendment So now a new strategy is being explored – to have an executive Prime Minister reporting to Parliament and abolishing the executive Presidency. This will enable the incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa, if elected, to continue as the executive head of government. The cynic will say that it will enable the Raiapaksea to continue in their present positions. Whatever the motives, such an amendment may be a reasonable option in our circumstances. This will be a reversion to our earlier system but with a Prime Minister enjoying more executive powers and a ceremonial Head of State serving as the conscience of the people, just as President Gopallawa performed this role with much acceptance. Of course, adequate safeguards need be built in the amendment to ensure that there is no blanket immunity for the executive actions of the Prime Minister.

Another amendment proposed is in respect of electoral system. A mix of the first-past-the-post and the proportional representation systems appears to have been agreed upon. The SLFP and the UNP must give due consideration to the concerns of the minority groups and smaller parties about the abolition of the PR system. Mano Ganeshan has given a cautious welcome to the new proposal. Much thinking has already gone into this over the past decade and it should not be difficult to arrive at a consensus in this regard.

Constitutional amendments must not be designed to suit one individual or one party. While there can be no objections to President Rajapaksa seeking to continue a political role in some other capacity even after completion of his statutory two terms, he must adhere to the letter and spirit of the present Constitution before any amendment to the Executive Presidency is considered. The 17th Amendment provides for an independent Constitutional Council and several independent Commissions. This must be adhered to. If there any flaws in the 17th amendment, any further amendment must necessarily be to strengthen the independence of these Commissions. The country is already paying a price for the politicization of the institutions of governance as a result of the blatant violation of the 17th Amendment. It will not be long before such politicization comes to haunt those who seek short-term gain by doing so.