The need for national integration

Politics: I was in a sense relieved a couple of weeks back when I saw a tribute by the President to Mr Amirthalingam, who had served as Leader of the Opposition from 1977 to 1983. The tribute was by way of a memorial on the 17th anniversary of his murder by the Tigers, on July 13th 1989.

The former Member of Parliament for Jaffna, Mr Yoheswaran, was killed along with him, while the Deputy Leader of the TULF, Mr Sivasithamparam, was badly injured. Though he survived for a decade and a half, he was a mere shadow of his former self.

Neelan Thiruchelvam, who had also been marked for death, but had failed through illness to attend the meeting the Tigers infiltrated, survived to be the moving spirit of the party until he too was killed, just over a decade later.

I was relieved by the President's very moving reminiscences, because for some time there has been a sense that the government is not well focused on the idea of national integration.

Personally I have not doubted the President's commitment to pluralism, contrary to the propaganda assiduously spread by the LTTE and the UNP leadership from the moment he emerged as the main obstacle to their ambitions.

I also feel that, in the face of immense provocation, his actions and his pronouncements in the last year have amply justified this view. However, the fact is that, in a context in which subtle and influential critics are waiting to find fault, perceptions in general have not been favourable.

Unfortunately, while many of those allied to him do not share his commitment, I fear that even those committed to his policies, as set out in his manifesto, do not feel any urgency with regard to the ethnic problem. I was sorry for instance that the recent Manel Mal Movement, admirable as the idea was to indicate support for the armed forces, did not in its ceremonies give prominence to the minorities.

After all it is members of the minority communities who suffered most from the Tigers in the first couple of years after the ceasefire, following the shameful betrayals at Athurugiriya.

But it is clear that some of those who wish to promote patriotism confuse a nationalism that should be inclusive with a chauvinism that privileges a single component of the nation.

If the armed forces are seen within such a framework, ignoring the slaughter by the Tigers not only of those who served in the forces but also of those who provided logistical support, I fear that the separatist lobby will only be strengthened.

This factor should also be taken into account with regard to the administration in general. Indeed, while I can see some problems now in instituting an inclusive policy of recruitment to the armed forces, increasing the numbers of minorities in the administration would not present difficulties.

Though it is claimed that qualified members of the minority communities do not apply, no one has suggested a policy of positive discrimination in this regard, on the lines of the policy that is seen to have benefited the majority community with regard to university entrance.

And, in the short term, there must surely be a case for recruitment of high level Tamils and Muslims from the private or non-governmental sectors, in a context in which we are crying out for able administrators for the plethora of ministries (and deputy ministries) that have been set up.

Except for the Sunday Leader, I have found no one who questioned the capacity and integrity of Nivard Cabraal and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in the first batch of Permanent Secretaries appointed by the President at the commencement of his term.

Similarly, I would suggest, there should be a concerted attempt to find similar capable people who belong to minority communities who could occupy important positions in the administration, in particular in areas crucial for economic growth and infrastructural development.

Such an approach would require commitment beyond the ordinary, though I believe that unless this is forthcoming it will not be easy to preserve the unity of this country. Meanwhile however even what might be termed ordinary commitment is lacking.

I noticed the other day, for instance, that there is still no Tamil member of the University Grants Commission, surely a body in which minority representation is vital, given how emotive has been the issue of admissions policy over the last three decades.

I hasten to add that I believe the President is aware of this factor, since when he appointed the current UGC three months ago he left one place empty. I remember thinking then that he had doubtless kept the position vacant until he found a suitable Tamil representative. Unfortunately this did not happen, and it seems that the vacancy has been forgotten.

Given all his other problems, the President cannot be expected to remember such lacunae. However, his advisers on Social and Educational Affairs, or the UGC itself, or the Ministry of National Integration should surely have kept this in the forefront of their minds and sought a suitable appointee.

But, as I said, I fear that those around him do not share the urgency that he himself had expressed from the start. My fear was that, without an inner circle that understood the moral as well as the practical necessity of such pluralism, he too had begun to forget it.

Hence my relief at the statement on Mr Amirthalingam which, admirably expressed as it was, indicated that some elements at least of the Presidential Secretariat understand the need for such commitment. I can only hope that such understanding will also lead to more concrete action in the future.