Forgetting the whole for a part

In analysing any phenomena, whether it is a thing, event or a process philosophers usually consider three categories the Universal, the General and the particular. In other words, they do not consider any phenomenon in isolation. They look at all its connections and inter-connections, thus observing both the external and internal factors that affect it.

 

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be practice in Sri Lanka, especially in analysing political and social phenomena. Take for example the wide discourse that is unfolding on the issue of the Resolution passed last week by the United Nations Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka.

 

It is mostly considered in isolation, at most by deciphering it clause by clause and interpreting them according to one’s prejudices political and otherwise. The Geneva issue is only a part of a bigger picture – the National Question. It should, however, be considered in the context of the latter. Then only one could observe the developments that led to the Resolution.

The vexed question of alleged violations of human rights in the country arose in the course of the war, especially in its last phase when large numbers of people were sandwiched between the warring parties. The allegation is thus not just a figment of somebody’s imagination or a part of a conspiracy against Sri Lanka but a by-product of the war. It is necessary to investigate whether it is true and if so to what extent and who are responsible for it.

 

The particular phenomenon – war, did not occur in a vacuum. It took place in a definite political context and it has a particular history. Thus the socio-political situation in Sri Lanka is the General and the external or world situation is the Universal in this case.  Thus geo-politics as well as national politics had definite influences on the genesis and development of the war.

 

Digging into recent history one could see how the colonial rulers used a policy of divide and rule to consolidate their grip on Sri Lanka, thus causing racial disharmony. Though there was considerable unity in the course of the struggle for freedom from the British the later did succeed in dividing the national communities and made inter-communal relations quite fragile. The situation worsened when rival political parties competing for power used chauvinism to gain power and retain it once in power. These unenlightened policies led to the anti-Tamil pogrom of July 1983 which internationalised the National question with hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils fleeing the country and seeking asylum abroad. Thus the scene was set for foreign influence and mediation in the internal affairs of the country.

 

The Geneva Resolution and the proposed “domestic inquiry” has to be understood only in this context. It is clear that the basis or the excuse for the international community to interfere in our affairs was our inability to settle the National Question, ensure national reconciliation and forge national unity. This failure is also the cause of our failure to achieve rapid development. Thus, when the big picture is taken into consideration it is clear that only a democratic resolution of the National Question could guarantee national reconciliation and stable peace.

 

The outright rejection of the inquiry proposed as demanded by the ex-president and the gang of chauvinistic forces that want him back in the saddle is not going to solve the National Question. It would only worsen inter-communal relations and destabilize the country which would create a situation susceptible to foreign influence and loss of sovereignty.

Whatever be the contents of the UNHCR Resolution or its various concomitant demands a democratic resolution of the National Question would undermine the need for further investigations, domestic or foreign. However, the resolution and proposed mechanism contains many proposals, the implementation of which would facilitate the resolution of the National Question.  Among them are the publication and follow-up off Udalagama and Paranagama Presidential Commission Reports, the review and repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the elimination of obnoxious regulations under the Public Security Act, the strengthening of witness protection etc., to name a few.

 

However, it is a tricky problem since the judicial system has to be updated to modern international standards to guarantee the credibility of any inquiry.  Further, there are also Constitutional hurdles that have to be overcome. It is these technical factors that the defeated Opposition is trying to use in its attack on the UNHCR project. The only way to overcome these technical and political opposition is to enhance political cooperation at the national level in meeting the challenges of the UNHCR resolution. The TNA has taken a positive attitude in this regard and the Sinhala community and the Government should respond in equal measure.

 

It is unfortunate that the Government rather than explaining the pros and cons of the Geneva Resolution and patiently explain the people the ways it would meet the challenge, however, is engaged in a campaign to show that the question of foreign interference is now settled for ever and is taking unnecessary pains to sow that it has rescued Mahinda Rajapaksa and War Heroes from electrocution (mythical?) What is at stake is not the salvation of a few political and military personnel but the human rights of the mass of the people, especially in the North and East, now living and yet to be born. These include their right to life, right to a decent living, shelter, employment, education etc.

 

Unless the National Question is democratically settled democracy and all progress won recently in defeating authoritarianism would be in danger. The political pendulum could swing back towards authoritarianism, if the present Government fails to meet the challenges it face.

 

Here too pitfalls are many. The possibility of corrupt UPFA politicians now enjoying Government portfolios using their majority in the SLFP in alliance with those in Opposition ranks could push the Government on a wrong path. Already they are conducting an extravagant publicity campaign promoting themselves while praising the President as a Hero who saved Sri Lanka. While the people appreciate the gains achieved through the efforts of the President they are averse to making him another President a la Mahinda Rajapaksa. Perhaps it may be a mean attempt to create a chasm between the President and the Prime Minister. The President could be better advised to be careful of his friends than of his enemies.