The Final Report of the Consultation Task Force (CTF) on Reconciliation Mechanisms has been derided by both sides of the political divide. The nationalists, predictably, argue that it attacks, vilifies, and in general tries to do away with Buddhism (as enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution). The anti-nationalists (if you can call them that) argue that it doesn’t do enough to crack down on majoritarianism. Both sides have their point, but for the moment I am interested in the thinking of the former group.
Two
articles, penned by columnists who can be described as nationalists, caught my
attention last week. C. A. Chandraprema in his article “The 58 preconditions to obtain GSP+” conjectures that in return for the GSP+ facility,
the government has been forced to, inter alia, review or repeal the Prevention
of Terrorism Act, expedite and conclude all cases relating to all remaining
LTTE detainees, and set up a transitional justice mechanism in line with the
Human Rights Council. The latter precondition, implies Chandraprema, privileges
outside intervention so much that “it obviates the need for an elected
government in Sri Lanka.”
Malinda
Seneviratne in his article “So you want to take out ‘Buddhism’?” criticises the CTF and argues that the authors of
the Task Force envisage the kind of secular state for Sri Lanka that doesn’t
exist and has never existed in the West (the Global North, this clearly
assumes, is behind the Task Force’s recommendations). ” The CTF hasn’t gone
into these important areas of secularism simply because it wants non-Buddhists
to have religious privileges,” he concludes. Like Chandraprema, he observes
that we are being suckered into congratulating our government over something
they didn’t achieve without those proverbial strings attached.
Chandraprema
is more concerned about sovereignty. Malinda is more concerned about identity.
Both are acutely aware of the tendency of outside interventionists to play
pandu (wreck havoc) with the democratic process here and both are (to a
considerable extent) correct. My contention with their (in particular,
Malinda’s) arguments is hence not their sincerity or their premises, but the
extrapolations they lead themselves to (even as they warn their ideological
opponents against other such extrapolations). Before I get to what these are,
though, I will try to sort out the dichotomy between identity and nationhood
the likes of these columnists have for better or worse unearthed.
When
I wrote on reconciliation and the rift between secularism and multiculturalism some months back, I was acutely conscious of two
points: one, that conceding ground to the minority isn’t coterminous with
taking away from the majority, and two, that secularism wouldn’t and won’t work
with collectives that think of themselves as collectives before individuals.
This led me to a third, as salient point: that reconciliation must begin with
equality and end with equity. While I trust myself to have been correct with
the latter argument, I realise now that I used the wrong comparison to validate
myself: the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. No, not because it was
a failure, but because I thought that equity superseded equality there, when it
has not.
Malinda
has been in the United States. He knows the institutionalised racism that
exists there and he has written about it. That is why it bothers me when he implies in column after
column that Sinhala Buddhists have been vilified unreasonably, even though they
clearly have got the better deal (regardless of attempts by successive
governments to ignore them) owing to their local (not global) numerical
strength. I believe he is aware of identity politics and the nexus between it
and the legal process of a country. I also believe that he is aware of how even
the most stringent anti-racism laws, whether or not paved with good intentions,
have not stopped the majority from stabbing, raping, maiming, and in other ways
injuring the minority, in America or in Sri Lanka.
Let
me explain. The Civil Rights Movement in America did not do away with the White
American hegemony engendered in the laws of that great country. What it did was
equalise everyone in the face of that law without doing away with the racist
base in which that equality was rooted. In other words, the Civil Rights
Movement didn’t end with equity, only a formal equality that birthed and
propped up Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and (more recently) Black Lives
Matter. That is why Critical Legal Studies turned to Critical Race Theory and
that is why legal scholars contended (quite correctly) that the law was not the
last resort for the achievement of racial equality. That is also why those same
legal scholars proposed that to resolve the race issue, the equality discourse
as such should be stripped of the White America hegemony and its buttress,
classical liberalism.
The
law has not been enough to stop pogroms, xenophobia, paranoia, and race riots.
The law has not been enough to contain majoritarianism. It has not been enough
to lead America and Sri Lanka out of their hate-driven past. In this context I
don’t think anyone can contend against the CTF's efforts to institutionalise
secularism, given the pitfalls we (the Sinhala Buddhists) have let ourselves
fall into. “The Sinhalese forget easily,” Prabhakaran is reported to have said.
He could have added, and I would have agreed, that they also fight amongst
themselves and pick on other collectives without righting their wrongs.
My
question to the likes of Malinda Seneviratne (and even C. A. Chandraprema),
therefore, is this: since the CTF is laying the foundation on what can possibly
be a process aimed at racial equality in the face of the law (after which, of
course, they will do their best to level on equity), and since the majority in
this country have asserted enough and more power for the past 2,500 years, what
is wrong with bringing up secularism as a mere proposal and recommendation?
Not
that he is entirely in the wrong, of course. The law and the Constitution will
not, I know (and he knows), end the racist curse. It will in some instances
help the racist. Despite this though, the law will be a helpful first step. A
necessary first step. Not the only step there is. Secularism may or may not
figure in there, but there I disagree with Malinda’s argument because of
something he can count on to oppose it: the nationalists of this country
(including myself), opposed to it not necessarily on racist grounds but for
pragmatic reasons (prime among them, the fact that secularism will not work for
communities that think of themselves as communities first and only then
individuals).
As
an enlightened nationalist (I hope), I am aware of the need to do away with
binaries and extreme positions. C. A. Chandraprema argues convincingly that
outside intervention figures quite discernibly in the strings attached to the
GSP Package. To the point that this leaves room for a subversion of our sovereignty,
I am in agreement with him. While I can’t pretend that I am aware of the
intricate details of the process behind War Crimes Tribunals and transitional
justice, I do admit that the argument against hybrid courts (which are in line
with the Human Rights Council) by those who say that our Judiciary is adequate
to the task of trying our Armed Forces is flawed on one pertinent point: that our laws also are adequate
to this task. They are not.
As
long as we live in a country where the law was not enough to stave off
anti-Tamil riots and not enough to bring to justice the many police-officers
and members of the Armed Forces who maimed members of other communities, we
have no moral right to champion our justice system. Nationalists are fond of
claiming that ours is a virtuous country and society, far superior to America,
Britain, and the rest of the West. I don’t know what country these nationalists
reside in, but I do know that
the claim we are the most virtuous society is far-fetched when we rank highly
in lists of countries which Google sex and engage in child prostitution.
There’s
more.
We
don’t really know whether the judgment of the Nadarajah Raviraj case is correct
(given that we don’t possess all the evidence). However, we do know that the
minute the judgment was given, the extremist faction of the Tamil Diaspora (andeven some of our Tamil politicians)
were up in arms shouting, “No to a local (Sri Lankan) reconciliation
mechanism!” I agree with them, even though I don’t agree with their politics,
not (only) because our justice system is tainted with bigotry but also because
those who’ve been tasked to prepare recommendations on reconciliation have been
handpicked from a socioeconomic class wholly blind to the aspirations of the
common Tamil, Muslim, and Sinhalese. That is why I personally have second
thoughts about the CTF, and not (as Malinda or Chandraprema might contend)
because of the insincerity of its objectives.
Where
does this lead us to, though?
From
1994 to 2005, the Sinhala Buddhists got a raw deal. Through and through. They
were ignored, scripted out, and antagonised. The Task Force is being chaired by
the lady who presided over us in those dark, terrible years. While this should
not make us cynical about the entire reconciliation process, it should make us
aware of the inimical prejudices of those who’ve been handpicked to script the
Final Report. On the other hand, however, the rants and raves of the discordant
nationalist, in his or her attempt to belittle any step towards reconciliation,
secularism, and multiculturalism, will amount to nothing if the end-result is
an even more fragmented society. Reconciliation should continue. Those selected
to head it should not. I am sure Malinda would agree, given his stances against
black/white binaries. The one, he would know, does not imply the other.
So,
to conclude: the law isn’t a miracle worker, we are not the most virtuous
nation in this world, nationalism without a pinch of salt would be disastrous,
and advancing the rights of the minority shouldn’t be equated with cracking
down on the rights of the majority. The Civil Rights Movement was, admittedly,
a partly successful project, but then (as Malinda would know) institutionalised
racism has to end with a cohesive campaign aimed at equality (the transition
from which to equity the Americans are yet to achieve). The problem with the
nationalist is that s/he is unwilling to even level on equality. Why, I wonder.
Haven’t we had enough privileges already?
The
answer, I sincerely hope, is there. Somewhere. I predict that sooner, rather
than later, the nationalist will have to acknowledge it.
Uditha Devapriya is a freelance writer who can be reached
at udakdev1@gmail.com.
Written for: Ceylon Today, January 24 2017
Written for: Ceylon Today, January 24 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment