{"id":12433,"date":"2012-11-15T01:58:12","date_gmt":"2012-11-15T06:58:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/?p=12433"},"modified":"2012-11-15T01:58:12","modified_gmt":"2012-11-15T06:58:12","slug":"confusing-advocacy-of-restorative-justice-for-the-minorities-with-determination-to-demonize-the-architects-of-military-victory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/?p=12433","title":{"rendered":"Confusing Advocacy of Restorative Justice for the Minorities With Determination to Demonize the Architects of Military Victory"},"content":{"rendered":"

By<\/p>\n

Prof.Rajiva Wijesinha M.P.<\/p>\n

(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 )<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is clear that Sri Lanka stands today at a cross-roads. Following the successful conclusion of the war against LTTE terrorism, Sri Lanka has an opportunity to build up a prosperous pluralistic future. This however seems increasingly difficult in the light of continuing international criticism, which has in turn put Sri Lanka on the defensive. This has contributed to failure to move swiftly on inclusivity and reconciliation, and I fear that unless there is greater trust, and confidence building, on all sides, we can only look forward to greater tensions, with increasing difficulties for not only Sri Lanka, but also India and the entire SAARC region. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In this context it is also important for India to recognize that she too stands at a cross-roads. Given the remarkable economic development of recent years, India will obviously attract increasing attention on the world stage. In the prevailing state of international relations, this will involve enticements to fall in line with the oppositional approach to global relations that marked the post Second World War period. The Cold War was characterized by efforts to build up confrontational alliances, and this was accompanied by demonization of those who failed to play ball. This conceptual framework has unfortunately continued into an era in which it has no business. <\/p>\n

The greatest victim of this approach was India. What I see as the idealistic but also immensely practical vision of Nehru, to position India as a leader of Non-Alignment, fell prey to the refusal of bigger powers to accept that balance was possible. The obvious fact that India was the biggest gap in the encirclement of the Soviet Union and its allies that the various Treaty Organizations of the forties and fifties set up led to hostility, and support for countries that were seen as a counterweight to India. The saddest victim of this theoretically positive, most favoured nation, type of approach was Pakistan, where the secular determination of Jinnah, perhaps misplaced but essentially liberal in spirit, was overtaken by fundamentalism and militarism, since these were seen in the dark days of the Cold War as the best weapons against evil Communist empires.
\nNew Cold War <\/p>\n

But India too suffered from this demonization, and deliberately so I fear. The continuing problems of terrorism it faces arose from this oppositioning tendency. It was no coincidence, after all, that when the United States ultimately awoke to the threat presented by the monster it had created, and bombed terrorist training camps after the attack on the USS Cole, the victims were Kashmiri terrorists being trained by the same dispensation as had trained terrorists against the Soviet backed regime in Afghanistan. <\/p>\n

All that should be water under the bridge, and the greater enlightenment with regard to India that now characterizes the West is to be welcomed. But old habits die hard, and I fear that India is now being inveigled into similar involvement in oppositioning alliances, as Pakistan was in the old days. The enemy now is not the Soviet Union, with India seen as an acolyte that also has to be contained, but rather China, which of course had been used in the seventies and eighties as a counterweight to the Evil Empire that was seen then as stretching from Vladivostok to Berlin, and from the North Pole to Cape Cormorin. <\/p>\n

International relations <\/p>\n

The demonizing of China that is a necessary part of persuading India to get involved in this new Cold War has contributed to a perverse presentation of China\u2019s role in Sri Lanka. Thus Chinese involvement in Sri Lanka is seen as excluding India and a threat to its security. This is highlighted in discussion of the Hambantota Port development, whereas the project was of course offered to India first, and to China only after India was unable to take it on. <\/p>\n

The fact that India then began to fast forward the Kankesanthurai Port development, which it had pledged to do some years back, but held back on for a range of reasons, makes it clear that Sri Lanka has no plans for exclusivity, and Indian involvement in our development is seen as a necessity. <\/p>\n

But there will continue to be propaganda suggesting the opposite, and this is apparent in the efforts of the diaspora to demonize Sri Lanka and China equally in Indian eyes. Having failed to persuade India to intervene on the side of terrorists in 2009, the diaspora has now developed a more sophisticated way of pressurizing India, and stresses what it claims is Sri Lankan reliance on China. This is of course a persuasive factor as far as the West is concerned too, and the combined efforts of diaspora detractors and Cold War warriors in Washington can well upset Indo-Sri Lankan relations. <\/p>\n

The problem is compounded, I should add, by two types of Cold War warriors within Sri Lanka, where the Foreign Ministry has singularly failed to develop policy guidelines but is instead prey to old ideologies and youthful emotionalism. In the first place, just as India for a long time had officials obsessed by the events of 1962, who saw China as a continuing threat, so Sri Lanka has officials who are obsessed by 1987 and see India as the basis of all our problems. <\/p>\n

This school of thought is led by those who entered wholeheartedly into the Jayewardene view of international relations, when we became a willing ally of the West, more Catholic indeed than the Pope, in trying to flog Trincomalee and its oil tanks to the Americans when they were not particularly interested. After all they had the use by then of Diego Garcia, following the horrendous shenanigans with regard to its inhabitants that Britain perpetrated during the last extraordinarily dark days of colonialism. <\/p>\n

Those Sri Lankan Cold Warriors, instead of admitting that the threat Jayewardene tried to present to India extenuates, even if it does not excuse, the training of terrorists that India engaged in, hold India solely responsible for the debacle of 1987. Instead of attributing the absurdities of the 13th Amendment to stupid Sri Lankan drafting, without attention to principle, they claim that it is all India\u2019s fault. Supported by the prejudice and chauvinism of some Sri Lankan journalists, this world view naturally engenders resentment amongst Indians, and contributes to increasing suspicions on either side. <\/p>\n

This is augmented by some Sri Lankans who fight the Cold War from the opposite side as it were. In part because of their understandable anger with the West for its efforts to prevent the eradication of terrorism, they forget India\u2019s support for our struggle, and lump both together, while promoting a polarization that exalts China as the principal trustworthy ally. The fact that this is not at all what China wants is forgotten. In Geneva and elsewhere China has advocated working together with India, in a very different manner from what the West advocated in the polarizing days of the Cold War. <\/p>\n

We then should more consistently affirm the inclusive policies that the President has formally laid down, namely a return to the Non-Alignment that the SLFP traditionally followed, with our closest relationships being with our closest neighbours. We should not allow Asia to be a playground for other countries, and in that context we must play an active role in building up understanding within SAARC as well as amongst other Asian countries. <\/p>\n

It is essential for India to foster more positive approaches in other branches of government as well as Civil Society, to encourage think tanks to develop policy documents in this regard, and to promote economic links that will strengthen ties between our peoples. <\/p>\n

Several factors unfortunately contribute to continuing misunderstanding and a failure on both sides to understand how we need to work together solidly to promote peace and security in South Asia. The first is the failure on the part of both sides to understand what inclusivity and pluralism should mean in Sri Lanka. <\/p>\n

Technological education <\/p>\n

This has necessarily to be different from what obtains in India. In both countries there were efforts to impose a hegemonic model of government, but the different circumstances in the two countries meant that this played out differently. In both countries language was the initial instrument of domination, but India soon enough realized that the imposition of one language was not going to work. I believe the absence of an efficient centralized school system contributed to this as much as the quasi-Federal structure of government. In addition the Nehruvian understanding of the need for advanced technological education meant that aspirations beyond the limitations of a single language were widespread, and prevented the chauvinism of monolingualism holding sway for a protracted period. <\/p>\n

In Sri Lanka unfortunately we are still stuck in monolingual mindsets, which militate against the full participation in government that all citizens should enjoy. This is especially tragic because all decision makers understand the need for change, and this government in particular has formalized the need for bilingualism, thus giving teeth to the change in language policy that was the single most important reform of 1987. Unfortunately the trilingualism that was originally agreed on then was defeated by the opposition of the old left, still stuck in its anti-colonial mindset. Thus the opportunity for wider activity that could provide dynamic incentives for all to move beyond monolingualism was minimized. <\/p>\n

More seriously, the continuing incompetence of the Ministry of Education to fulfil the current trilingual policy of the President means that the empowerment through language rights which all agree on is still held up. This is an area in which, with its now enlightened language polices and the expertise in language education developed over the years, India could contribute much more. But unfortunately Indian assistance is passive, and thus straitjacketed by continuing statism, without encouragement of alternative models of teacher supply and development. <\/p>\n

Public servants <\/p>\n

The same applies to training for public officials. I am aware that Indians too complain that their public service is not what it was, but comparing the capacity of Indian bureaucrats and their ability to conceptualize and initiate with those of Sri Lanka public servants makes clear how far we have fallen behind. This is especially sad, because the talent of our public servants is enormous, understandably so given the immense competition required to be appointed to established services. Unfortunately our training is limited, and suggestions to work together with India to develop collaborative mechanisms are confined to placements in India rather than the radical adjustments to our current training systems within Sri Lanka. In particular the need for better language and other soft skills is not yet understood here, which means that the capacity to study international developments and benefit from these is limited. <\/p>\n

This is where SAARC could do much more, with institutions that work together to ensure high level skills in administrators, as well as common understanding of the political and social compulsions of the region. My understanding, from the brief period during which I served on the Board of one of the SAARC Centres, is that, with a few honourable exceptions, these contribute little to either development or mutual understanding. It is desirable therefore that SAARC commissions a serious study of the work of these Centres and tries to develop more effective systems of collaboration to share and develop best practice. <\/p>\n

Tertiary education system <\/p>\n

Whilst such collaboration may improve effectiveness, whilst also promoting mutual understanding, perhaps the single most important area in which such understanding is vital relates to political structures. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed in 1987 following the Indo-Lankan Accord of that year, was intended to promote local empowerment, in a context in which centralized decision making had led to continuing neglect of many parts of the country. This was felt most strongly in Tamil majority areas, though the fact that we had two youth insurrections in Sinhala areas indicates that the sense of deprivation, and consequent bitterness, was nationwide. <\/p>\n

This was exacerbated by a comparatively good general education system, which raised expectations, particularly in Tamil areas, only to find them shattered by our moribund and limited tertiary education system, and the statist control of the economy which left little room for independent initiative. Though the economic dispensation has changed, our education system has still failed to keep pace with modern employment needs, and this I fear will be what will lead to continuing unrest, amongst all communities. Here again we need to learn from India which, while its general education still lags behind ours, has encouraged the development of different mechanisms to increase opportunities for all segments of the population. <\/p>\n

Unfortunately, instead of looking at practical needs, our politicians on all sides are obsessed with theoretical models and the protection of personal turf. This has prevented educational reform, and it stands in the way of meaningful political reform. I suppose this is understandable, since their primary concern is the power that they will wield, and to what extent this will have to be shared with others. But what the country as a whole should be concerned with is how power can be conferred upon the people. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

Accountability and transparency <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

National integration <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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.
\nThe 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. <\/p>\n

Reconciliation process <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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 \u2013 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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

Tamil speaking officials <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

SAARC Social Charter
\nWe 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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

Some of this may sound idealistic. But in the current context, ideals are perhaps the most practical way forward. <\/p>\n

Tweet<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Prof.Rajiva Wijesinha M.P. (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 ) It is clear that Sri Lanka stands today at a cross-roads. Following the successful conclusion of the war against …<\/p>\n

Continue reading ‘Confusing Advocacy of Restorative Justice for the Minorities With Determination to Demonize the Architects of Military Victory’ »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[12],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12433"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12433"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12433\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12434,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12433\/revisions\/12434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dbsjeyaraj.com\/dbsj\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}