Lanka doesn’t love India less, or China more - Part III:

Centre won’t take power back as 13-A ends

Text of a presentation by Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP at the International Conference on India-Sri Lanka Relations: Strengthening SAARC Centre for Indian Ocean Studies (CIOS) Osmania University, Hyderabad, November 8-9, 2012

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, MP

Following a series of Divisional Reconciliation Committee meetings, I am now more than ever convinced that we need to work on the principle of subsidiarity, and ensure that power is exercised by the smallest unit possible for which power is relevant. While obviously there must be mechanisms to ensure that the exercise of such power does not harm other units, it will make much more sense to entrust governance of areas affecting the day-to-day lives of the population to a unit that can deal promptly with local problems.

Though clear conceptualization is not generally a characteristic of successful politicians, this approach has been suggested in many of the pronouncements of the President. From the need for regular consultation mechanisms, to the suggestion that educational appointments should be school based, there is understanding of the need to promote accountability to the people, along with responsibility for limited areas. Unfortunately this vision does not sit well with other politicians on all sides, whose idea of what politics means has been immeasurably corrupted by the preposterous electoral system with which we have been saddled for the last two decades.

Accountability and transparency

This has been changed, at last, though only with regard to Local Government elections thus far. If the change is extended to other levels of government, we can look forward to greater responsibility, and greater responsiveness. In particular we can hope for the development of local teams, that will encompass both elected and appointed officials, to address local concerns expeditiously.

This does not mean that, while clearly the 13th amendment must be adjusted, power will be taken back to the Centre. That would be a mistake. Instead, while ensuring regulation as well as monitoring at Provincial level with regard to areas where understanding at that level is essential, responsibility for administration, with a concomitant requirement of accountability and transparency, should be entrusted to Divisions.

The benefits of such a dispensation, which would incorporate features of the Indian Panchayat system, should be made clear, and for this purpose the Indian and Sri Lankan governments should work together to make it clear that the main purpose of reform is to promote empowerment of the people and local communities.

National integration

There should be resistance to reliance on formulaic approaches to devolution. Instead there should be study of best practice in other countries, and appreciation of the fact that the focus of reform, so as to provide better services to the people, should be local government.

In this context, I hope very much that the study team from Sri Lanka that has recently visited South Africa has looked at the local government reforms that followed the initial constitutional model established during the negotiations leading up to the transfer of power from the old apartheid regime. That experience suggests the need, once the formalities of recognizing the need to share power are gone through, to move towards practical measures to make sure that people can share in government at meaningful levels.

At the same time we must do much more to include all our population in decision making at all levels. The failure of anyone in government to advance the commitment of the President to set up a Second Chamber, with equal representation for all Provinces, is symptomatic of the wholesale absence of a sense of urgency in our politicians. We have got used to doing nothing until pressures mount, and then making adjustments, which seem far too little far too late, when some swift action on measures agreed by everyone would have helped to create confidence in the first place. Unfortunately we have grown used to thinking in terms of comprehensive packages, whereas basic problem solving skills would have made us understand that dealing with simple problems expeditiously often reduces the magnitude of seemingly insurmountable problems.

I should note in this context that the failure of our experts in the field to build on the agreement of the major Tamil political party, that empowering small units of government was also desirable, seems to me as reprehensible as the failure to have moved on a Senate.

One of the LLRC sittings. File photo

The latter, by ensuring active and weighted participation in national issues by representatives of the regions, would have strengthened the sense of involvement in decision making which is a vital component of national integration; while the former would have allowed for greater understanding of local issues, and provided opportunities for simple solutions to problems, without threatening structures at central or provincial level.

Reconciliation process

The other area in which we need to do better, while also making clear what has already been achieved, is ensuring greater involvement of the minorities in the administration.

This should include the Security Forces and, while the increasing numbers of Tamil and Tamil speaking policemen are welcome, we should also ensure recruitment at officer level, as well as in the ranks, in Army and Navy and Air Force. Proactive measures for this purpose should be put in place, including cadet schools and other educational initiatives – which would also help to improve general educational standards, whilst assisting with the promotion of trilingualism, since such schools could be models for language learning.

Putting in place inclusive educational and employment policies as a priority would be an effective way of involving the diaspora in the reconciliation process. Thus far there has been no concerted effort to involve the diaspora in nation building which is a tragedy because, at the conclusion of the conflict, there were many in the diaspora who welcomed the quelling of the terrorism that had caused so much misery to Tamils as well as other Sri Lankans. Unfortunately the clear intention of the President, to use the victory to build up an inclusive nation, was stymied by political power plays that strengthened the position of extremists on either side.

On balance the decision to advance the Presidential election, while initially intended to affirm the moderate stance of the government, led to polarization based on prejudice rather than principle.

The encouragement of Sarath Fonseka by shadowy forces, culminating in support for his candidature by the major Tamil political party, suggested that regime change rather than reconciliation were the priorities of those opposed to the President. This in turn strengthened the position of those supporters of the President for whom pluralism seemed a threat.

India, it should be stressed, was no part of this strange maneuver, and indeed the vast majority of the international community was bemused at what was going on. But it has left scars, and the continuing determination to confuse advocacy of restorative justice for the minorities with determination to demonize the architects of military victory has destroyed the mutual confidence that should have been developed. In this context it is a pity that India allowed itself to be drawn into power politics at the Human Rights Council session in March 2012.

The impression then is that the agenda is being set by the more extreme voices in the diaspora, playing on the predilections of politicians in the West and in Tamilnadu who benefit from their support. In Britain David Miliband made clear in 2009 that policy towards Sri Lanka was dictated by electoral considerations. The fact that this policy involved support for a terrorist organization and efforts to prolong its existence was skated over.

Similarly, in Tamilnadu, the antics of extremist politicians, who see separatism in Sri Lanka as their passport to political success, has had an unfortunate effect on mainstream politicians who have necessarily to compete with each other for votes.

Tamil speaking officials

This deficiency, I should note, is widespread, as can be seen from the transfer of Tamil speaking officials out of London, just when it became vital to work with moderate elements in the diaspora. We should also be working with the younger generation to promote understanding, but whereas concerned NGOs are making an effort in this regard, as can be seen from the excellent report produced by a cross-party group of parliamentarians who visited Britain recently. The promotion of projects that will enhance connectivity is not thought of, even though encouragement of educational support, and volunteer teaching assignments that bring together young people of different ethnicities from the diaspora, could do much to enhance understanding of the actual situation in Sri Lanka.

Instead we leave it to extremists to set an agenda, and then respond. Whereas we should have told the story of the war soon after it finished, in 2009, we waited for the scurrilous attacks of Channel 4 and Gordon Weiss, and the Darusman Report that fed on similar sources, and then produced reports that were not precise rebuttals. Thus we allow myths to develop, whereas a careful use of statistics, with reproduction of documents from agencies that worked with us at the time, would have made clear the inaccuracy of much that has been alleged. At the same time, as the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission has made clear, where there is prima facie evidence, we should investigate and publicize the results of our findings, with judicial action where appropriate.

Obviously we are not going to win over the whole of the diaspora. We have to recognize that feelings run deep in those who have left a country because of ill treatment (as is most obviously the case with Irish Americans). In the Sri Lanka case, this is especially destructive because of the undoubted abilities of many of those who left Sri Lanka after suffering from the racist persecution of 1981 and 1983 which was encouraged, or at least not forcefully dealt with, by the Jayewardene government.

In this context our failure to atone for that persecution, through declaration of a national day of mourning, as has indeed been suggested by the LLRC, is regrettable. We should remember all victims, of violence as well as terrorism, and the best day for this would be July 23rd.

SAARC Social Charter

We must recognize that closure requires remedial action. Though the suffering all our people had gone through meant that it was essential to destroy the terrorist movement that had held us all in thrall for so wrong, and though we can show that the force we used in fighting was proportionate and sanctioned by international law and norms, we must also recognize that the reasons for terrorism developing to such monstrous proportions lie, at least to some extent, in the excesses of successive Sri Lankan governments, and in particular the government of 1977 to 1987. Unless this is acknowledged, it will not be easy to convince the more moderate elements in the diaspora that Sri Lanka is truly committed to pluralism.

In this regard India has a seminal role to play. The message to the diaspora must be clear, that separatism, even if divorced from terrorism (which in practice it never can be), is unacceptable. Instead of confrontation, there should be cooperation, but in terms of positive initiatives. Encouragement of these is vital and, with the agreement of the Sri Lankan government, India must support initiatives that bring people together for education and training and multicultural activities.

Some of this can be achieved through SAARC Centres that fulfil the aims of the SAARC Social Charter. This should involve non-governmental activities and community led efforts, and India, with its experience of local activism divorced from political imperatives, should foster such work. Funding for programmes of agencies such as the Gandhi Centre could do much to promote the respect and understanding that communities must be given. Indian involvement would encourage the diaspora also to contribute to such initiatives, and through such support we could move towards the shift in attitudes that is imperative.

Some of this may sound idealistic. But in the current context, ideals are perhaps the most practical way forward.

Concluded