Expanding Rift Between the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and the United Peoples Freedom Alliance

An Exhaustive Interview with SLMC General Secretary M.T.Hasen Ali M.P.

The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) has decided to contest the upcoming Provincial Council elections independently, shunning requests to contest on the ticket of the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) under the common ‘betel leaf symbol’. The move signals an expanding rift between the SLMC and the ruling UPFA over issues concerning increasing violence directed at Muslim places of worship and anti-Muslim sentiments being vocalized by several groups.Only recently the ‘Grandpass incident’ saw a Muslim prayer centre attacked and this prompted widespread condemnation from a cohort of Muslim Ministers, including SLMC Leader, Rauff Hakeem. In a statement subsequent to the attack, the collective of Muslim Ministers asserted this was, ‘…a pre-meditated and planned attack,’ and went onto criticize ‘police inaction to arrest the perpetrators.’ Ceylon Today engaged in a dialogue with SLMC General Secretary and Member of Parliament, M.T. Hasen Ali, on the move to contest the upcoming Provincial Council elections independently and the future of the SLMC as a constituent party of the ruling UPFA.

Following are excerpts:

Why has the SLMC decided to contest the upcoming Provincial Council elections independently under the ‘tree’ symbol, despite being a constituent party of the UPFA?

A: Due to the support we rendered to enact the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, at that time, we were given a lot of promises by the President. He promised that he will not deal with the SLMC only via its leadership. These promises have not been fulfilled. They are creating divisions within the Party. At the Eastern Provincial Council elections, the government requested we contest under the UPFA ticket, but the SLMC High Command did not agree. This is because SLMC local council politicians elected and serving in various Pradeshiya Sabhas were denied their due place and the allocations always favoured other parties. However, post-elections, the equation was such that the government could not form the Council without our help. Thus, we held negotiations with the government and they gave us some important community-based assurances. For instance, we were promised that we would be granted the political authority to represent the government in the five local authorities we control in the Eastern Province. But we were not considered, and instead, they have promoted ‘their people’ over us.

Since you alluded to the fact that many promises made to the SLMC are not ultimately fulfilled, do you think the SLMC has been misled by the UPFA leadership and are you disappointed with the leadership?

A: I don’t blame the President individually. It is a collective problem with the entire government and some elements in the government are not ‘minority –friendly’.

In the SLMC’s view, is the President ‘minority-friendly’?

A: The President is giving more attention to the group that is antagonistic to the minorities and less attention to the minorities.

On what grounds do you assert the President gives the minorities less attention?

A: I really can’t tell you an exact reason. The entire international community is aware of the discrimination and atrocities faced by the Muslim community recently. But not a single person is brought before Courts or the judicial system.

In pure political terms, do you really think the SLMC has a viable chance of acquiring seats in the Provincial Councils by contesting independently, or don’t you think it is perhaps more feasible to contest with the UPFA in this light?

A: If we contest with the UPFA at this juncture, we would have lost. Due to the problems faced by the Muslim community and lack of action, the Muslim voters would not vote for us, if we ally with the government.

Is the reason to contest independently more because the SLMC High Command is disenchanted with the UPFA, or the SLMC voters are dissatisfied with the government?

A: The voters, primarily. The voters are not happy with the atrocities facing the Muslim community and are dissatisfied with the government.

The SLMC recently sacked five members for obtaining nominations to contest the Northern Provincial Council (NPC) elections from the UPFA defying the Party’s decision to contest the Provincial Councils independent of the ruling coalition. Why was such a strong decision taken?

A: As a Party, we took a decision to face this election independently and these five members were also in the High Command when this decision was taken. These five were not happy with the decision because the government has provided them some job opportunities for their electorates. While this is important, it cannot be at the expense of Party policies. These job opportunities should be granted regardless of our decision to contest the Provincial Councils separately, because we have supported the government for three years. However, whenever job opportunities are granted there is discrimination against the SLMC.

But is it fair of the SLMC to take such strong action against dissenting members when after all, these members have not sought nominations from the Opposition but rather from the ruling UPFA, of which the SLMC is also ironically a member?

A: The SLMC is a separate political party with its own policies and we are contesting these elections under our own symbol. When we are contesting under one symbol, how can some of our High Command members contest under another symbol? If they are members of the SLMC, they have to abide by the Party decision. How can they contest the same electorate under another symbol, whilst belonging to our Party?

There appears to be a lot of intra-party rivalry and dissension within the SLMC over its move to contest the Provincial Council elections independently and speculation is rife that Chairman Basheer Segu Dawood, is on the verge of defecting to the government. Is this true?

A: Even recently in the Northern Province, Dawood sought to acquire more job opportunities for his electorate from the government. There is no problem in this. But this should not mean the Party should compromise its position and contest the elections with the government. It is because we have been given promises before and none of them were fulfilled. So, to join with the government again over some job opportunities, will not be accepted by the people. Job opportunities, contracts and development assistance are the rights of the people. This should not be linked to contesting elections. This is a kind of bribe and should not be accepted.

Isn’t it fair to say the persistence of such internal dissension within the SLMC is making it difficult for the Party to act as an effective representative of the Muslim community?

A: The people are with us. We have had worse problems than this and throughout the people have been with us and we will prove this in the upcoming elections again.

Subsequent to the recent Grandpass incident, where a Muslim mosque came under attack, SLMC Leader Rauff Hakeem voiced his displeasure over ‘police inaction to arrest the perpetrators.’ What led him to make such a strong accusation?

A: It’s not only the Grandpass incident, what about the Fashion Bug incident where the attackers were not apprehended? But I don’t blame the police. The police must get orders from a higher authority and an ordinary police officer cannot act on his own. So, somebody must have given orders to that effect, asking the police to turn a blind eye.

Who is this ‘somebody’ you are referring to?

A: This is what the SLMC cannot understand. Nobody is taking the responsibility for this issue, so it is anybody’s guess, as to who is behind it.

Is it fair to say that support among the Muslims for the incumbent government is at an all-time low as a result of these recent attacks on Muslim communities and their places of worship?

A: Analyzing the election results and the minority vote, minorities have consistently expressed displeasure with the government. Out of the minority parties in Parliament, we have a majority representing people in the Eastern Province. Our views need to be taken into consideration by the government because we directly represent the minorities. Though we are associated with this government, our vote bank is not aligned with the government at all. The government must consider us as the true representative of the Muslim community because this has been proven beyond doubt.

A statement issued by a collective of Muslim Ministers, including Hakeem, after the Grandpass incident notes ‘…this is a pre-meditated and planned attack.’ Who are these ministers referring to?

A: You must pose this question to the government. It is their duty as a stable and responsible government to see that justice is done in this case.

Are you trying to allege the people with strong links to the government are spearheading the attacks on Muslim places of worship?

A: I don’t know, because those who engage in these attacks get off scot-free. I also don’t understand how else we are supposed to interpret the lack of arrests. All the Muslim ministers, subsequent to these attacks, took a decision to meet the President under the chairmanship of Minister, A.H.M Fowzie. This never materialized. It is useless meeting the President now, because it is too late. In the statement subsequent to the Grandpass incident the ministers have sought that all previous incidents including the incident at Fashion Bug be investigated thoroughly. Only if all these incidents are collectively investigated can we stop this nonsense from occurring in the future.

Do you think the doing away of the independent police commission with the enactment of the 18th Amendment has contributed to these crimes taking place with apparent impunity?

A: Definitely. People feel the democratic institutions in this country are polluted. There is no institution that is effective in looking into such problems. People must feel confident in the administration of justice and they are not.

But, ironically, the SLMC lent its support to introduce the 18A with Minister Hakeem and yourself even voting in its favour. Why is the SLMC exhibiting a contradictory stance in relation to the 18A and isn’t it fair to say that supporting the 18A in the first place has backfired on the SLMC?

A: The Party did not take a collective decision where the 18A was concerned. In fact, I can openly say, I did not support it. I was forced to support it. Everybody knows this, it is common knowledge. I was dragged into supporting the 18A. This is a result of not having a proper discussion with the government regarding the 18A.

Looking back, does the SLMC regret supporting the 18A?

A: I don’t know about the SLMC, but I regret that I voted for the 18th Amendment.

In the SLMC’s view, what measures must be taken to end the apparent religious discord that persists between religious and ethnic groups?

A: Our President can become another Nelson Mandela, if he takes this country to the right path. He is the only Buddhist leader the Sinhala community will listen to. He commands their trust. Only he and not any other Sinhala leader can guide them properly in the right direction and change their mindset. I am calling on the President to do this. We the Muslims will never allow anyone to divide this country. This is why we cannot openly support the Tamils because of their Eelam concept. We will never subscribe to Eelam, but we also want to live peacefully.

The SLMC vocally opposed attempts by certain UPFA factions to dilute the 13A. But it now appears the SLMC’s opposition to altering 13A has fizzled out. Your thoughts?

A: No, this is not true. We are not happy with the 13A as it is. It has to be enhanced. The government gave the international community a pledge that it would implement 13 plus. But now, suddenly in response to an election in the Northern Province, a problem over the 13A has arisen. I am confused as to why the 13A is being linked with one ethnic group. 13A is about sharing power with the periphery in general. It is not only about minorities. People in the South should also enjoy devolution.

Can you clarify whether the SLMC is in favour of sustaining the 13A in its present form?

A: The SLMC is for a complete overhaul of the entire Constitution. We don’t seek amendments to the 13A because this is only done to appease certain parties. If 13A is going to be altered, it must be changed fully and not changed in a manner that will polarize the country further.

Isn’t it becoming increasingly difficult for the SLMC to justify its association with the government to its voters, who are largely pro-devolution, when the official position of the government does not appear to be favourably disposed to devolution?

A: It is only by being in the government that can we exert a lot of pressure on the importance of devolution. We the Muslims are concentrated in the Eastern Province. If the centre is going to make every decision for us, that is not going to meet our needs. The Muslim community seeks to create a culturally-friendly environment for all ethnicities. For example, let us consider the attempts of the government to boost tourism in the Eastern Province. I wouldn’t like tourism boosted in my village, which is an all-Muslim village. I don’t want half-naked foreigners, roaming in my village and walking on the streets.

But isn’t it fair to expect the Muslim community to be flexible about its religious practices in view of the fact that certain practices can affect the sensitivities of other groups?

A: We must be flexible, but not at the expense of our beliefs. Tourist activities can be limited to certain areas and restricted. Certain groups are criticizing halal and the hijab, but I question whether this is really a problem for the other ethnicities. Ironically, the government is allowing gambling, casinos and liquor shops to operate and the government itself is running a lotteries board. If this is a true Buddhist country, the government won’t be running a lotteries board.

The President in the past promised 13 plus, but we now appear to be heading for 13 minus. In your view, what prompted this change in position?

A: The President is being pressurized by the hard liners. He can’t deny that he promised 13 plus in the past, so he should explain why the position has changed. I don’t see Sri Lanka as belonging to any ethnic group. The minorities must also be considered as part of the country.

Several critics hold the view the SLMC functions as the ‘doormat’ for the government and Hakeem will, to put it bluntly, ‘make a big noise, but ultimately do nothing’. These critics opine that Minister Hakeem will eventually capitulate where 13A and the BBS is concerned and toe the government’s line. What is your response to these critics?

A: This is a very unfortunate situation. We joined with them because of the promises they gave and they were not fulfilled. But the culture here is that if we fail to realize any of the promises made to us by the government, the voters apportion the blame on the SLMC and not the government. This is the mentality of the people. The voters don’t blame those who are causing these issues.

Given the apparent rift between the SLMC and the ruling UPFA, is there any move by the SLMC to break away from the UPFA in the near future?

A: No, we don’t need to leave the government. There are still a lot of promises remaining that are yet to be fulfilled on their part. We need to work together and we still try our utmost to change their mindset. Leaving the government won’t be fruitful unless they push us out. If they think we are useless, they have the right to push us out.

COURTESY:CEYLON TODAY