Functioning with Precision in English
A
wave of problems with regard to Human Rights has swept the country
recently, most tragically the events at Welikada. The resolution to
impeach the Chief Justice has made it clear our constitution has
deficiencies with regard to ensuring the independence of the judiciary
while also promoting accountability and transparency with regard to
judicial decisions. Then we have had the internal UN report on the
conduct of the UN in Sri Lanka during the war, and a spate of
recommendations in Geneva that we thought had to be rejected.
Those who have read this column will realize that I have discussed
these problems, and the dangers they present, and have also suggested
remedies. I pointed this out to the President, but was duly crushed by
his rejoinder, that since I functioned in English, necessarily I had
little impact.
One of the pleasures of talking with him is that he listens, even
when there is disagreement (though occasionally, when one argues too
much, there is the firm injunction not to try to persuade him), and his
rejoinders make a lot of sense. This is a characteristic he shares with
the Secretary of Defence, who is even more definite about what cannot be
done, but extraordinarily positive about most matters – as I found in my
first formal dealings with him when I headed the Peace Secretariat, and
he straight away allowed the A 9 northward from Omanthai to be open
almost every day of the week, when the LTTE had previously not allowed
the ICRC to facilitate this.
Decision makers
The President’s advice about the need for me to function more
actively in Sinhala, and especially in Parliament, clearly makes sense.
Given that my analyses are written in English, I cannot really expect
them to have much impact on most decision makers. I am grateful
therefore to those who do respond, to the letters I write in English
after meetings of Divisional Secretariat Reconciliation Committee
meetings. Health and Defence are always prompt, I should note, which
confirms my view that institutions that observe the proprieties are also
the most efficient. But recently I have been delighted to receive
positive replies from the Ministry of Agriculture (though sadly not
Irrigation, despite the many problems in that field drawn to my
attention), and even the Ministry of Education has been helpful.
But by and large I am aware that most decision makers do not function
in English, and there is certainly no need for them to do so, since
their obligations are to the country at large.
Nevertheless, while I cannot expect the President to know how
strenuously I have argued for implementation of his ideas with regard to
prison reform and better provision of educational services, I don’t
think those who make decisions with regard to External Affairs can claim
that English is an alien tongue. And the same goes for decision makers
with regard to justice. In that respect, I have repeatedly over the last
few months pointed out the need for developing better processes, to
ensure conformity with the law and uniformity – with an emphasis on
rehabilitation rather than retribution – with regard to sentencing.
Incidentally, I have also pointed out, which is most relevant given
the controversy over the 13th Amendment that is developing, that our
lawmakers must develop protocols to ensure that National Policy is
monitored, and that the Central Government, which is responsible for
such policy, has mechanisms to ensure its application. If that is done
systematically, it will be much easier to promote implementation by
provincial and local bodies, without the overlap and interference that
now adversely affects relations between the various levels of
government.
Modern world
Some of those I speak to, such as the current Attorney General, and
the able representative of his Department who attended the meeting
arranged by the energetic new Secretary of the Ministry of Child
Development and Women’s Affairs, understand such conceptualization,
others look blank. But unless we develop a culture in which concepts are
discussed, and the best practices to enforce principles developed
through discussion, we will simply lurch from one disaster to another.
For this purpose it is essential to ensure better knowledge of
English. Principles with regard to Human Rights, and modern methods of
implementing political theories, are developed most often in English.
Unless those who make policy in this country understand what is going on
elsewhere, they will not be able to move quickly into the modern world.
Just as English is no longer a luxury, to be enjoyed only by the
privileged, but a necessity that our educational system must provide
more effectively to all, so too it is now essential for advancement, and
indeed for survival, given what Sri Lanka now faces, in a globalized
world.
I realized how important this was when yet again, at the seminar on
Indo-Sri Lankan Relations I attended in Hyderabad, an Indian journalist
talked about the damage that had been done because we had claimed there
had been no civilian casualties during the war.
He was extremely sympathetic to Sri Lanka and nearly bit the head off
an academic who referred loosely to mass slaughter of civilians (which
Colonel Hariharan also characterized as erroneous). But he rejected my
explanation, that what was meant by the now derided claim was that there
had been no targeting of civilians.
We should have been precise from the start, instead of which, once
the false claim seemed to have been made, the usual gang of sycophants
attacked anyone who said anything more sensible, as I found after my
initial interview with the Guardian in June 2009, when I referred to
civilian deaths of between 5,000 and 7,000, while noting that this did
not mean culpability.
Even now, it is not too late to publish a detailed account of what
did happen, to refute the more extravagant claims. But because of the
difficulties of being precise in English about complex matters, I
suspect this will never be done. |