After effecting a historic regime change in 2015, Sri Lanka stares yet again at the spectre of divisive tension and violence among its peoples.
The current anti-Muslim violence, centred in the Kandy district of Sri Lanka, poses the question of whether the country can move on from a post-war phase following the defeat of the Tamil Tigers in 2009 to a post-conflict phase defined in terms of the roots of conflict not being sustained or reproduced.
The violence highlights the fragility of inter-ethnic and inter-religious harmony in this centuries-old multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, as well as the willingness and ability of the current National Unity government to protect and strengthen the pluralist character of Sri Lankan society. The government is yet to recover from the stinging rebuke the electorate delivered it in the local government elections held on 10 February, for its failure to deliver in sufficient measure on the promises made in the historic presidential election campaign of 2015. In that election, an authoritarian and populist president sought an unprecedented third term in office to perpetuate dynastic state capture, majoritarian triumphalism and the perpetuation of the culture of impunity.
Anti-Muslim hate speech and violence spearheaded by extremist Sinhala Buddhist groups was not uncommon under the previous regime of Mahinda Rajapaksa. It was widely believed that groups such as the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) had the patronage and support of the powerful defence secretary and presidential sibling Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and were therefore able to function, as indeed they did, with impunity. It should be noted that the Myanmese monk Ashin Wirathu was the chief guest at the BBS convention in 2014. The argument advanced for this state patronage was that the Rajapaksa regime needed to identify an “other” for the Sinhala community, and by extension for itself, since minority support for the regime was not forthcoming on account of the accusations of grave human rights violations including war crimes, post-war militarisation and majoritarian triumphalism.
While the current government has brought the force of law to bear on some of the monks and extremists, the concern has been that they have been allowed to roam free on bail. In addition, the proliferation of extremist Sinhala groups on social media platforms purveying Goebbelsian propaganda against the Muslim community, hate speech and grossly false information paraded as fact, has gone unchecked.
Indeed, the problems of command, control and communication that may be reasonably expected within any coalition government have been compounded in the current one by partisan politics taking precedence over everything else. Infighting between the President’s wing of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the Prime Minister’s United National Party (UNP), with the former openly undermining the latter and seeking his resignation immediately after the election results, has reinforced the perception of a government beset by problems of unity, political commitment and the capacity for government. The much-vaunted objectives of governance, national unity and reconciliation that were trumpeted in 2015, have suffered accordingly.
Moreover, the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and minister of defence, and the Prime Minister, as the current minister of law and order, is in charge of the police. Most of the violence has taken place during curfew and continued after the proclamation of emergency powers and the blocking of a number of social media applications and platforms. Clearly, orders given are not being obeyed; surely troops can be brought down from the north – the demand and desire of the citizenry there being exactly that!
The recent spate of violence is motivated by the objective of showing up the current government as weak and unable to govern. But the willingness of the majority Sinhala Buddhist community to not only reconcile to the fact of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious Sri Lanka but to protect and strengthen the idea in the firm conviction of unity through diversity, is a major issue for peace and democracy to flourish in the country.
The point has been made that the majority Sinhala Buddhist community see themselves as a majority with a minority complex, cling on to the unhealthy trinity of the land, race and faith, and in a globalised world in particular, constantly requiring an ‘other’ as a threat to define themselves against – fears and insecurities the Rajapaksas fed and exploited. Having dealt with the Tamils, it is now the turn of the Muslims to learn and stay in their place.
What’s clearly lacking is a bold and unequivocal restatement of the social contract of democratic governance in a plural society, underpinned by the demonstrable resolve to honour it in word and deed, without fear or favour. As it stands, emergency powers have been invoked, arrests should therefore follow with prosecutions and convictions where warranted.
The leadership of civil society too can do more, especially religious leaders. Kandy is the home of the Temple of the Tooth, a relic of the utmost importance for Buddhism in Sri Lanka. The Mahanayakes or chief prelates have yet to condemn the violence in no uncertain terms and take the lead in propagating the message of ethnic and religious harmony. This is a tragedy, since most Sri Lankan Buddhists will readily concede that the political thuggery done in the name of this most non-violent of religions is a gross and flagrant distortion of its fundamentals tenets.
After effecting a historic regime change in 2015, voting into government the largest coalition of political forces in the country’s independent history on a platform of governance and on the eve of the seventieth anniversary of independence, Sri Lanka stares yet again at the spectre of divisive tension and violence amongst its peoples. Only strong, democratic governance and government can reverse what otherwise appears to be a tragic return to the future.
Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu is the executive director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives in Colombo.
ties
First grow and make the pie bigger and then talk about distributing the bigger share to less fortunate people. Just about now ignore the inequalities talk as this is the talk of people who have run out of ideas.