By

Ranga Jayasuriya

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Just like Mervyn Silva, who is sounding like the self-appointed spokesman of the government, unleashed a wave of vitriol against the Muslim Congress, early this week. He warned SLMC Leader, Rauff Hakeem, that the fate of the Tiger supremo, Velupillai Prabhakaran, awaits any traitor.

The controversial minister, who is a close confidante of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, has regularly indulged in fiery rhetoric and invectives against the perceived enemies of the government. At that rally in Wewelduwa, Kelaniya, Silva had warned Hakeem to “keep his mouth shut, in order to keep his ministry without losing it.”

That was after Hakeem reportedly told the media that the SLMC was able to bring down the Government of Chandrika Kumaratunga, and that the same could happen to the incumbent regime should the SLMC pull out. That is however wishful thinking on Hakeem’s part. The Rajapaksa juggernaut is unlikely to be derailed by any immediate domestic initiative, unless Mahinda Rajapaksa himself miscalculates, just like Yanukovych of Ukraine did.

The President is in full control of his rank and file, and holds near absolute control of the country. Therefore, it is naïve to suggest that some lesser mortals such as Mervyn Silva would divert from the official policy, to vituperate someone who is not on good terms with the President. The truth is that Silva speaks on behalf of the regime. That is exactly why observers should take him seriously, and some others such as Wimal Weerawansa and Champika Ranawaka as well. They speak the regime’s mind, and their venomous statements have the silent endorsement of the powers that be.

Conflicting signals

An outsider would find it difficult to read the regime. It sends conflicting signals. The President would promise the 13th Amendment plus as part of the political solution during his meetings with the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and on his return to the island, he would change the tune. Then, his acolytes from the JHU and Wimal Weerawansa’s NFF would shred Mother India to pieces.

There is confusion and inner contradiction.Worst still, official government announcements on key issues are banal and most of the time, self contradictory.

The best way to get a sense of the government’s psychology is to listen to the close confidantes of the President.

Mervyn Silva and Wimal Weerawansa do not need to mince their words, but the President needs to be diplomatic. He cannot speak out his mind as freely as his subordinates do, without offending the Indians, religious minorities or the Americans. So that job is outsourced to the rabble-rousers within his government.

That is why the outbursts by the like of Mervyn Silva, may be better representative of the government’s ideological leaning than the official statements.

Their outbursts, with a full dose of venom, are better reflective of the government’s policy than whatever official statement that had been delivered by External Affairs Minister, G.L. Peries at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Discredited

Now, the apologists of the regime would argue that Silva’s remarks are his own or that they are part and parcel of the freedom of expression. Sounds like a convincing argument in a practising democracy, especially in a system that respects internal Party democracy. To test this hypothesis, one would only have to analyze the President’s response to several ministers who had sent a letter to him, urging him to take international concerns on the country’s blight human rights record seriously. Those ministers have faced the wrath of the powers that be in the government. They were discredited through the inspired media leaks and threatened with removal from the Cabinet.

Why Hakeem and the SLMC had offended the President was because the Party had handed over a dossier to the UN Human Rights Chief that enumerated the incidents of attacks that had taken place last year against the religious minorities in Sri Lanka.

The dossier had outlined 241 anti-Muslim attacks and 69 anti-Christian attacks that had occurred the last year; 51 anti-Muslim attacks and 15 anti-Christian attacks were violent and had involved physical violence and destruction of property, the report said.

Hakeem could well argue that he had been exercising ‘internal democracy’ within the UPFA to which Wimal Weerawansa et al., are entitled. But what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. While Wimal Weerawansa and Mervyn Silva could indulge in rhetoric, which is the polar opposite of the stated government policy, it appears that same liberties could not be accorded to Hakeem and others.

This lopsided practice has compromised the government’s integrity and is proof of the influence wielded by the Sinhala Buddhist hardliners within the government. Sinhala Buddhist ultra-nationalism has become part of the strategic culture of the government. Their success within the government and their affiliation with some of the key individuals within the government has now enabled the Sinhala Buddhist right to expand its tentacles. Fringe groups such as the Bodu Bala Sena, Sihala Ravaya and Ravana Balakaya, have encroached the public space. The BBS had recently challenged the rights of Muslim female students’ to wear the hijab, and the traditional long pants they wear as part of their school uniform.

Convenient strategy

The campaign of the religious right does not take place in a vacuum. It is thriving in a context where the government itself is using religion in order to legitimize the regime, which is a practice adopted by rulers from Saudi Arabia to Northern Sudan.

To grasp this policy disposition of the government, one should listen to Wimal Weerawansa et al., whose outbursts are closer to the State of Union Address of Sri Lanka, than the hackneyed media statements.

The government’s strategy appeared to be convenient, but it is also the primary reason that the government had lost confidence in the eyes of advanced democracies. When statements by those of Mervyn Silva’s ilk are better reflective of the government’s psychology than the official statements, there is little credibility left with the government. That is why world leaders (those representing the civilized world, to be precise) are not impressed by the government’s undertakings on human rights. They appear to have decoded the message.

COURTESY:CEYLON TODAY