InfoLanka.asia

Sri Lanka News and Information Portal

 
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Lesson to be learnt: A point of view

Article Index
Lesson to be learnt: A point of view
Lessons
All Pages
Addthis

Had it not been for the Revolutionary war of Independence, America perhaps would have remained a colony of Great Britain for longer than it did. It was the disregard of the demands by American colonists that precipitated this war. The most significant reasons for their discontent were taxation without representation in the British Parliament, and the imposition of unreasonable taxes. If Great Britain had had the foresight that its stand on demands made would precipitate war, it would have been more accommodating. This would have delayed the cry for independence. The lesson to be learnt by those in power is how vitally important it is to continually gauge and ascertain the mood of the people, if consequences with serious implications are to be avoided.

Sri Lanka too has experienced revolutionary wars; one in the South and one in the North. The one in the South was towards gaining control of political power while the one in the North was to establish a separate state. The cause for both was serious discontent among sections of the population. The policies that gave rise to discontent disregarded the early manifestations of the discontent. The ad hoc remedial measures adopted addressed the symptoms, but not the causes of discontent. The cumulative effect was to exacerbate discontent, culminating in violence. The lesson not only for the Sri Lankan democracy is for open dialogue with the widest possible exposure when formulating policies and for responsiveness in a mature manner to public reactions following the implementation of policies.

Sources of discontent

Although the Tamil community had realized that their position of influence would erode with greater democratization long before independence, it was the policies adopted by independent Sri Lanka that were the source of increasing discontent in the Tamil community and which became the justification for demanding political arrangements based on the concept of separate and equal, in the form of federalism and separation. These policies were associated with language, university admission, colonization and disenfranchisement of Indian Tamils. Each of these issues is addressed below.

The "Sinhala only" Act in 1956 is stated as the start of the process of discontent. This policy was implemented despite serious protests from varied quarters. However, with time, successive Governments revised language policies from the reasonable use of Tamil in 1958 to Tamil being made a national language in 1978, to Tamil being accorded official language status along with Sinhala and English in 1987. Despite the fact that the Tamil language is on par with the Sinhala and English, it continues to be a source of discontent for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka mainly on account of administrative shortcomings. The expectation of the Tamil community is that the state should provide facilities for them to conduct affairs in Tamil at every Government institution everywhere in the country. This is not a realistic expectation, and no country in the world has committed to provide such a facility.

Despite this fact, no Government in Sri Lanka has attempted to explain what is realistically possible. Instead, they have attempted to implement policies incrementally from 1956 based on political expediency, the latest being to train public servants to be functional in all three languages, perhaps in the expectation of meeting the utopian goal. By contrast, Tamil is only a regional language of India, in Tamil Nadu. Outside the state of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil language has no status in India. Unlike in Sri Lanka where Tamil is the language of record in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and therefore the language in which Court records are kept, in Tamil Nadu, Court proceedings are conducted in English, and judgments are delivered in English. The lesson to be learnt is that instead of a piece-meal approach to a very emotional issue such as language, it is vital that a clear and realistically implementable language policy is negotiated without limiting these negotiations only to the Tamil leadership, but involving the Tamil people as well, because language is at the heart of education and social advancement of all citizens.

Another issue that was a source of Tamil discontent related to admission to the university. The circumstances that caused the Government to revise the basis for admission from raw marks (merit) were not given sufficient publicity. For instance, until 1969 testing for admission to the University was in the English medium and was based on merit. During this entire period the percentage of Tamil students gaining admission to the Engineering Faculty for instance, varied between 30 - 35 percent, meaning 1/3 of the students in any given batch were Tamil, while 2/3 of the students were Sinhala. Thus, up to 1969 there were about twice the number of Sinhala students to Tamil students in any batch. This was accepted as based on merit and there was no contest. In 1970, the then Government implemented admission testing separately in the Sinhala or Tamil medium with the intention of continuing the shift towards University education in these languages. Even though the basis for selection was merit, it resulted in a complete reversal. Thus, in 1970 the number of Tamil students qualifying for Engineering was 100 compared with 68 Sinhala students (my current location prevents me from citing the reference data from the relevant HANSARD). Hence when testing was based on Sinhala and Tamil media, there were 50% more Tamil students than Sinhala students.

Many explanations were offered as to the possible reasons for the reversal and the issue was also debated in Parliament. Notwithstanding the causes for the reversal, a correction for the aberration was undoubtedly justified, resulting in a revision of the basis of admission to University. Since that revision other revisions were also introduced, all in an attempt to compensate for inequality of access to facilities and resources due to geographic location; a reality that exists in every country. This Affirmative Action targeted for benefit, the less privileged of all communities. The lesson to be learnt is that insufficient transparency in the rationale to justify the need to revise the basis for admission resulted in Tamil students perceiving the Government’s measures as being discriminatory, thus giving grounds for them to be willing recruits into the LTTE.

Another source of discontent was ‘colonization’ - an administrative term derived from British colonial times for settlement of people in newly opened areas of agriculture. The Tamil leadership supported by academics portrayed colonization as an effort initiated by independent Sri Lanka to recreate the glory of the past. This was a total distortion because colonization was initiated during the Governorship of Sir Hugh Clifford in the 1920s.

Another issue was the so called "disenfranchisement" of 1 million Indian Tamils. The facts are: (1) only 1/4 of this number (~250,000) was eligible to vote even under colonial rule. (2) The legislation relating to citizenship eligibility was based on negotiations concluded and agreed upon between Indian officials and a delegation led by Mr. D.S.Senanayake.

Lessons

The issues cited above have been stated by the Tamil community as the reasons for triggering the demand for a separate state that was justified even through violence. For the sake of genuine reconciliation it then seems appropriate that the issues that ignited the conflict are revisited to ascertain whether the perceptions that prevailed three decades ago were in fact correct, or have been distortions that concealed other agendas. If such an inquiry is undertaken with openness and transparency it would perhaps demonstrate that circumstances had existed to vindicate some of the policies adopted by successive Government. Such acknowledgement would go a long way to foster healing and reconciliation among communities and transform the attitude of the International Community towards Sri Lanka. The lessons to be learnt are that Governments in power should involve the people and that there should be transparency in the decision making process regarding issues that affect them. The mistake of not doing so is being repeated even today, at best because political leaders fear that this may result in an opening of a can of worms, or at worst, in the misguided notion that leaders know what is best for the people.

Over a period of three decades the issues that became the causes for the conflict have undergone radical changes. Except for language and colonization the other two issues are non-issues. Since language would continue to be a source of future discontent because of its impact on education and employment, it is vital that open and frank inquiries are held in order to evolve acceptable and doable arrangements if history is not to repeat itself. This would require a Parliamentary Select Committee to be appointed to evolve overarching language policies for administration and for education with the objective of transforming the society into a unified nation. Similar attention needs to be paid to colonization. The Northern and Eastern Provinces cannot be developed with the manpower currently available in these two provinces. Therefore, infusion from the rest of the country is inevitable because the alternative of limiting development to existing man power availability is unacceptable. This would alter demographics with impact on political representation. These contentious issues need to be negotiated and resolved in a transparent manner with minimum effect to the interests of those concerned. The lesson to be learnt is that decisions and policies relating to issues with serious consequences should be held in all parts of the country in order to seek out as many perspectives as possible, maximizing public involvement.

Conclusion

What are the lessons that could be learnt for the future? If a frank and open inquiry reveals that there are grounds for vindication of the policies adopted by successive Governments, the causes for discontent must then be due to the people being ignorant of the circumstances that warranted the policies implemented. Such ignorance is due to the people being marginalized in the decision making process; a consequence of a top down approach to decision making. If the mistakes of the past are to be avoided in a country like Sri Lanka with its high political awareness, the focus has to be in building institutions that strengthen democracy and attendant democratic processes. Since practically all decisions that have a consequential impact on the lives of people are made at the center, the focus of strengthening the democratic institutions should be at the center rather than at the periphery. The four sources of discontent that gave cause to initiate the conflict originated at the center. If the democratic process with its attendant safeguards had functioned effectively at the center the extent of discontent could have been mitigated. The lesson therefore is to ensure that democratic processes and arrangements are strengthened so that they function more effectively at the center than was done in the past. Most importantly, there has to be greater transparency.

If mistakes of the past are to be avoided, the democracy deficit has to be made good. Since most of the decisions with far reaching consequences could continue to be made at the center regardless of the powers devolved to the periphery, it is vital that the institutions and arrangements at the center are organized in a manner to foster the best practices of democracy with fairness and justice - not in its most elemental form of majority rule under all circumstances. This means strengthening Parliament to oversee Executive action and making the Executive accountable to Parliament.

~ island.lk ~ by Neville Ladduwahetty

 

Featured Articles

Defeating LTTEterrorism | How the country could face the threat of UN war crimes inquiry

LLRC told of President Rajapaksa’s right to take military action Senior lawyer Gomin Dayasri says the Sri Lankan government can justify its war against LTTE terror on the basis of...

Sunday, 31 October 2010

read more...

Will there be a Violent Resurgence of the LTTE soon?

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam(LTTE) was virtually demolished in May 2009  by the Sri Lankan armed forces in a series of battles in the Karaithuriapatru AGA division of  the...

TUSEDAY, 16 November 2010

read more...

More in: Politics, Sri Lanka, Defence, LTTE, International

Latest Articles