The current system of governance introduced by narrow-minded politicians for their short-term benefits is responsible for many national problems the peaceful promising island inherited after independence. The checks and balances in the first post-independence constitution were removed, as these were considered by the ‘patriotic’ leaders as hindrances to the exercise of sovereign power. As the honourable speaker mentioned, even civil liberties have been curtailed in the name of patriotism.

There is certainly a link between corruption and violation of human rights but the underlying causes for both lie in many basic weaknesses in the system and egoism of politicians, whose avaricious desire for power induces them to ignore moral, religious and liberal democratic principles. Some of them enter politics to exploit the power of the people for accumulating wealth and ensuring a bright future for their families. In their quest for gaining or holding on to the power gained often by deceptive means, they grab anything that will help them in their self-serving political mission. The ethnic division in the Sri Lankan society has been exploited since independence for gaining and consolidating power. Tamil politicians too by their challenging approach to gain equal rights and freedom for the Tamil people helped to keep the ethnic problem unresolved for decades. Many good opportunities were lost because of the lack of pragmatic approach to conflict resolution. The political solution sought after the 1976 Vaddukoddai Resolution was unsustainable. An attempt is made in this study to examine the complex rights issue from a wider perspective.

Rights under sovereign rule

Paradoxically, Sri Lankans after gaining their sovereign rights began losing their rights as equal citizens of one integrated multi-ethnic country. The sovereign rights of the islanders under the biased unitary system were not directly beneficial to the members of the ethnic minority communities. The unfair ways the system functioned made the non-Sinhalese second class citizens. It is the reluctance to accept the fact that the island-nation is multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-cultural that is at the base of the national problem. Even after the colossal destruction and setbacks to national development because of disunity and unrest, there are still chauvinistic Sinhala leaders who assert Sri Lanka is a Sinhala-Buddhist Nation. Although attention has been drawn to this misconception in previous articles, it is recalled here, because of its relevance to the freedom and political rights of the minorities, whose sovereignty has been subjugated by the Sinhala majority rule.

The inequitable and assertive ways the Sinhala majority governments functioned, not only the individual rights but also the recognized collective rights of the minorities were ignored. Although the issue of human rights violations affects all citizens, the victims have largely been members of the ethnic minority communities. The aggressive way the LTTE tried to achieve their political objective, violated the human rights of all Sri Lankans and the collective rights of the Muslim minority in the North-East. As a rebel faction operating outside the established system, the leadership was not concerned about violating the laws, human rights and norms of civilized society. The distinction between a despotic rebel organization and democratically elected government of a country that is a member of the United Nations should not be overlooked. The violations of human rights and national and international laws by any recognized government on the grounds that the offensive is against a terrorist organization are indefensible. Sadly, in the case of Sri Lanka, there were some similarities in the operations of the two entities. There is no doubt that the LTTE committed serious crimes that violated national and international laws and moreover were affront to humanity.

Victims of government’s ‘humanitarian operations’

The internment of all civilians, who survived the onslaught that annihilated the LTTE, is also intrinsic part of the so called ‘humanitarian operations’ of the Sri Lankan government! The disturbing events during and after the final stages of the war in the Vanni region have been raised by many international organizations and foreign governments notably by the USA. The U.S. State Department in October released a congressionally mandated report listing accounts of army shelling of civilians and killings carried out by the LTTE in the final weeks of the war. In response to the international cry, Sri Lankan government as usual ordered an internal probe into the allegations while pronouncing all these are “unsubstantiated.” The incomplete/inconclusive outcome of impressive Commissions and Committees appointed by the President has been the pattern in the recent past since 2006, when the military offensive against the LTTE was launched in the Eastern Province. Formation of notable commissions and committees is clearly part of the tactic to appease the pressure groups. The irony is that the LTTE’s maverick leader wanted the war desperately, as he had no faith in other ways of settling the conflict and provoked the government to start the offensives. Monumental blunders were made during the course of the ‘liberation struggle’ at enormous cost to the Tamil people.

The European Union has suspended the trade concessions Sri Lanka received in the recent past under its GSP+ programme, because of non-compliance with internationally recognized humanitarian and human rights norms. The report of the EU expert team condemned the inhuman treatment of the IDPs incarcerated in overcrowded camps with poor sanitary and other basic facilities. According to the Government, these are ‘welfare centres’! Various UN bodies have sought from the Sri Lankan government explanations for the disturbing reports on the plight of the helpless war-victims, who had sought refuge from the government that had earlier declared itself as the liberator of the people living under the jackboot of the Tigers. When the fighting intensified, the LTTE used them as human shields. The harsh way the LTTE treated the civilians made them desperate to seek government protection and help. But they received no better treatment from the new ‘liberator’.

The typical response of the government to the reports of foreign governments and international organizations monitoring human and civil rights in conflict zones has been that these are not based on true facts but hearsay. Among the various hypotheses put forward to counteract the charges, the domestically convincing one is the conspiracy of the envious Western bloc, because of Sri Lanka’s remarkable success in the ‘war on terror’. There is no sign of similar success in their conventional military operations in Afghanistan! The Taliban suicide bombers are able to even enter and strike high security places.

The impulsive reaction of Law Professor G. L. Peiris, presently Minister of Export Development and International Trade on EU’s decision cannot be taken seriously. He declared that the Government would go to the International Court against the EU for not granting Sri Lanka the GSP+ concessionary trade facility. He opined that the EU’s withdrawal of the facility was “tantamount to violating the human rights of Sri Lankans”. The learned Professor should focus on the human rights violations by the local power wielders and the weakened system that helps them to violate fearlessly.

The continuation of GSP+ depends crucially on Sri Lanka ratifying and effectively implementing various conventions for protection of basic rights and governance principles and sincerely abiding by other agreed UN conventions. The EU seems to have focused essentially on the International conventions on Civil and Political Rights, Against Torture and Rights of the Child and Sri Lanka’s failure to ‘effectively implement’ such conventions through, inter alia, National Legislation.

The latest and trickiest revelation that jolted both the government and opposition leaders for different reasons is the interview with the former Army Commander Gen Sarath Fonseka published in the Sunday Leader 13 December 2009 in which he mentioned the reason for killing an unarmed group of surrendees that included three leading members of the LTTE, who were carrying white flags as instructed by intermediaries within and outside Sri Lanka.

According to the well-known British journalist Marie Colvin (UK Times correspondent) who herself played a role in trying to arrange for the safe surrender of LTTE leaders wrote an article May 23, 2009 outlining some of the events in that tumultuous month. She quoted both UN Secretary – General’s chief of staff Vijay Nambiar and Tamil National Alliance MP Chandrakanthan ChandraNehru about assurances being given by President Mahinda Rajapaksa himself on the safety of the surrendering LTTE leaders. She wrote: “Once more, the UN 24-hour control centre in New York patched me through to Nambiar in Colombo, where it was 5.30am on Monday. I woke him up. I told him the Tigers had laid down their arms. He said he had been assured by Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Sri Lankan president, that Nadesan and Pulidevan would be safe in surrendering. All they had to do was ‘hoist a white flag high’, he said. I asked Nambiar if he should not go north to witness the surrender. He said no, that would not be necessary: the president’s assurances were enough”. The silence of UN on Nambiar’s role in arranging a safe surrender for the group is incredible.

The TNA MP had told Marie Colvin: “The president himself told me he would give full security to Nadesan and his family. Nadesan said he had 300 people with him, some injured. ‘I said to the President, ‘I will go and take their surrender.’ He said, ‘No, our army is very generous and very disciplined. There is no need for you to go to a warzone. You don’t need to put your life at risk’.” In addition President’s brother, Basil Rajapaksa, MP and senior adviser to the President had told him: ‘They will be safe. They have to hoist a white flag.’ And according to Marie Colvin’s report ‘the route they should follow” was also given by Basil to the TNA MP Chandra Nehru. [Earlier article, May 23, 2009: LTTE made desperate plea to UK Sunday Times correspondent to help stave off annihilation - Posted again by transCurrents on December 13, 2009]

The letter sent by UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Execution, Philip Alston to Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations office at Geneva on 18 December 2009 also contains the same vital information and in addition the disclosure in the Sunday Leader interview on the killing of the group, including the three senior LTTE leaders who went to surrender. To quote: “On 17 May 2009, the day before your Excellency's Government announced that its forces had completely defeated, the LTTE. Messrs, Nadesan, Pulidevan and Ramesh were trapped with other senior cadres of the LTTE in a small area north of Vellamullivaikkal. Through intermediaries they sought to establish contact with your Excellency's Government to inquire how they could surrender to the Sri Lanka Army (SLA). The reply, coming from the Secretary of Defence in your Excellency's Government and from a Member of Parliament who is at the same time a senior adviser to the President, and conveyed through the intermediaries, was that they should walk towards the positions of the SLA in a way that made their intentions clear and holding a white cloth. The Commander of the SLA 58th Brigade, the unit on the front line with the last LTTE position, however, received a telephone call from the Secretary of Defence instructing him to order his forces to shoot those surrendering. When Messrs. Nadesan, Pulidevan and Ramesh walked towards the SLA positions carrying white cloths in the first hours of 18 May 2009, soldiers opened fire and killed them”.

The fact that there had been consultation with the Sri Lankan government prior to the surrender is undeniable. It is also clear that the Army Chief Gen Sarath Fonseka was not told (who was in China at that time) about the instruction given by the top executives to the intermediaries on the mode of surrendering. The subsequent muddling is to dodge the happening on the ground because of its import to war crime that will possibly implicate not one but many top brass. Not only government politicians but also senior civil servants have hastily tried to sidetrack or confuse the incident. Recent media reports based on the information given by the then Foreign Ministry Secretary Palitha Kohone to the news agency AFP on 21 May 2009 have stated that following IRC contact, he had asked them “to go forward slowly with white flags towards the Army without any show of aggression or threat. However, when they tried to advance forward they were shot by the LTTE from behind."

Former Head of the SL government Peace Secretariat and presently Secretary of the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights Prof. Rajiva Wijesinghe in response to the questions raised by the UN Special Rapporteur Phillip Alston, on the revelations by the former Army Chief Sarath Fonseka implicating Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa in the sequence of events in the last phase of Eelam War IV (May 16 to 19), sent a letter to Geneva on his own initiative, in which he is reported to have stated that “since the retired General Fonseka had distanced himself from the comments attributed to him in the December 13 interview to the English weekly Sunday Leader, the questions raised by the UN were irrelevant” (The Hindu 24 December 2009). The Hindu also reported that the Sri Lankan government announced at a press briefing on Christmas Eve attended by Prof Wijesinghe that “the Secretary’s letter should be treated as withdrawn”. Incidentally, the Professor rushed to London to confront the broadcaster on the authenticity of the video footage televised by Channel 4 depicting Sri Lankan soldiers killing bounded and naked persons. Later Channel 4 based on the detailed examination of the pictures by FBI and other experts confirmed the authenticity of the video footage televised earlier.

Sri Lanka execution video 'not fake', says expert: Ch: 4, Dec 15, 2009

Shanie in ‘The Island’ 26 December has commented on the apprehension of Prof. G. L. Peiris, Minister of Export Development and International Trade, who led the government team engaged in ‘Peace Talks’ with the LTTE during 2002-2003. The Island columnist wrote “G L Peiris is concerned that the fate that befell the Nazi leadership and General Pinochet might fall on the Sri Lankan leadership. One must question if the good Professor is in his right mind. Is he defending the actions of the Nazis and Pinochet and/or comparing their actions and the consequences to that of the present Sri Lankan government?” There were local press reports that the Attorney General Mohan Peiris was examining the issue to frame charges against the former Army Chief Gen. Sarath Fonseka, presently the common opposition candidate challenging the incumbent President in the January 26 Presidential poll under the Official Secrets Act. This also points to the fact that there is some sensitive information to hide. Until there is a truly independent inquiry this controversy will continue to remain a slur. The circumstances and the manner the LTTE supreme leader and his family members (not the parents who were brought to Colombo and detained) were killed also remain unclear. The fate of other LTTErs, who sought refuge along with civilians, is also unknown.

The latest development on downplaying the issue is seen in the statement of Minister of Mass Media and Information, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa who told the media on December 24 at the weekly cabinet briefing that the “Government will not take political advantage over the statement of retired General Sarath Fonseka.” He also said that “the government did not wish to penalize any individual without a valid reason and added that the present administration was a democratic entity”. It took another bizarre turn with Gen. Fonseka’s announcement 28 December that he is preparing to file legal action against the Sunday Leader and its editor Fredrica Janz (a senior journalist who succeeded the assassinated Lasantha Wickrematunge and his journalist wife, who fled fearing for her life) for the ‘erroneous report’ published on December 13!

Reporters and members of NGOs, INGOs, UN organizations, foreign missions in Sri Lanka and other civil organizations including ICRC (Red Cross) personnel whose services were needed badly and parliamentarians were denied access to the war zone during the final stages and after the war to the internment camps, because there was the strategic need to conceal the atrocities (not for their safety as claimed earlier). The price for trying to conceal the questionable activities during the final stages of the war in this manner is evident now. This mode is helpful in the short-term but the truth will emerge eventually. The freed expatriates after returning to their respective countries, notably the UK have disclosed to the media their own observations. These were reported in esteemed UK newspapers like The Guardian, The Times and The Observer. The government continues to dismiss the published reports as baseless, hoping the controversy will fade out sooner or later. It would not have become this serious had there been swift and meaningful actions on the peace/political front soon after the war, including compassionate deeds vital for winning the hearts and minds of the victims and other concerned persons. To the astonishment of genuine peace seekers and many friendly countries, no effort has been made so far to start the important reconciliation process. Some liberal Sinhalese have in their discourses have posed the question – If the civilian victims have been Sinhalese would the government venture to treat them in the same ruthless way? In this instance too the compelling political need seems to be also a decisive factor. The following reports depict the current state of the IDPs.

The December 24 Reuters report compiled by Shihar Aneez tells the plight of the detainees released after long wait in the military-run camps, following external pressures and fortunately because of the forthcoming Presidential election. They are still without the basic services and infrastructure despite the hyped post-war resettlement programme. According to government data, it had resettled 127,352 people in their areas of origin as of 23 December 2009. Over 140,000 are yet to be resettled. The complaints of the resettled persons as mentioned in this report are:

(i) Lack of drinking water and toilet facilities compelling them to use "backside forest as toilet."

(ii) Not enough money to build houses in their own land temporarily before proper resettlement and resume farming. Walls of the 9 square-metre, one-room house are made of coconut fronds and the roof of galvanised tin sheets. The dirt floor gets wet due to pouring monsoonal rain outside.

(iii) Some had been bitten by poisonous snakes when they were using forests for lavatory purposes.

Dr. Rajasingham Narendran who recently visited the resettlement areas close to the A9 highway in his report (transcurrents 26 December 2009) has also observed similar distressing scenes. He did not see any sign of normal activities along the stretch of A9 highway between Vavuniya and Muhamalai. Kilinochchi town is in shambles and has to be almost completely re-built. He saw only few civilians there. The living conditions of the unfortunate people are not better than when they were forcibly detained in the military-run camps in Vavuniya.

The international humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders (also known as Médecins Sans Frontières or MSF) has included Sri Lanka in its latest annual list of top 10 worst humanitarian crises. The worst emergencies of 2009, according to their report were those in which civilians in conflict zones were being “attacked, bombed and cut off from aid.” The organization’s International Council President Christophe Fournier, in a statement (22 December 2009) said: “There is no question that civilians are increasingly victimized in conflicts and further cut off from lifesaving assistance, often deliberately.”

Rhetoric as a convenient political tool

As seen above, Sri Lankan government had continuously did not provide direct answers, but issued vituperative denials with regard to allegations of unlawful or unacceptable conduct during and after the war. Central to this stratagem, rhetoric is also used to hide damaging happenings or for avoiding challenging political decisions. The latter is evident in the case of seeking a durable political settlement to the ethnic issue. The President’s declaration soon after the military victory in May 2009 that there are no minorities in Sri Lanka now is recalled here. What an ingenious way to solve the many problems of the minorities! In contrast, the heroic military leader turned politician Gen. Sarath Fonseka before aspiring to be the Executive President acknowledged the presence of minorities but they are in an exclusive Sinhala nation!

Although the tenor of the rhetoric widened with the launching of the election campaign, the crucial political issues have been excluded. The JVP is supporting Gen. Fonseka mainly because of his promise to abolish the Executive Presidency. Similar promise was given in 2005 by the incumbent President, who is now seeking another term as the Executive President. Addressing the inaugural UPFA Presidential election rally at Salgado grounds, Anuradhapura on December 18, President Mahinda Rajapaksa said that he was very confident of taking the country to greater victories from January 27 after obtaining a second successful mandate, based on the experience and the knowledge gained in the struggles won to date. He said: “We shall also in the same manner ensure development, a morally rich society and a country free of corruption and waste.” What a confession that the country is hit by immorality, corruption and waste!

President Rajapaksa addressing the annual general meeting of the Judicial Officers Association on December 18 in Colombo said, “he succeeded in surmounting the many challenges that the country faced because of his faith in democracy and the rule of law” (The Sunday Times 20 December 2009). He is also reported to have said at a meeting held at President’s House, Kandy on December 24, “when the footsteps of an oppressor with dictatorial tendencies are heard in the vicinity, the first people who will rally round to counter him are the intellectuals”. Ignoring the present imperfect governing system which is in dire need of reform, in regard to many aspects including the conduct of elections which is the main concern now of the democrats in the opposition, in view of the January 26 Presidential election, the sound of dictatorial tendencies from outside the regime are disturbing those exercising power dictatorially.

The gravity of the rights issue in Sri Lanka is also due to the breakdown of the rule of law, good governance and accountability. These weaknesses are intrinsic to the damaged democratic system that has been tolerated by the present government because of political necessity. The prospect of comprehensive political reform towards a real democratic system rid of the present undemocratic features in the near future seems dim. In this regard, the opinion expressed in the Sunday Island editorial (27 December 2009) is relevant. To quote: “With the war over, it makes economic sense that the armed services are cut down at best or at least held at their present strength. But no, we are told that they must be increased to guard against another challenge from the LTTE or whoever emerging in the future. Few will buy that argument. Too powerful a military will always be a threat to democracy”. Those who contemplate another challenge in the future are the ones, who do not want a lasting political settlement of the protracted ethnic problem that escalated to a dirty war. The damage to peace and welfare of the nation caused by dodging a just political solution to the protracted problem is well known and only those believing in miracles will continue to play the same dicey game.

Phoney democracy

Political power has been exercised increasingly in the same way as in authoritarian states. Democracy is seen to function only during election times, notwithstanding the violence and other irregularities. These have also been on the rise after the July 1977 general election. Not all voters who exercise their democratic right benefit by way of better living conditions and future for them and their children. Many are ignored after the elections despite the election promises of the party that secured the power to rule on behalf of the entire citizenry. It is the exercise of the sovereign power of all the people that led to the delegation of powers to the elected representatives, including those in the opposition who should function responsibly in the larger interests of the people and the well-being of the country.

Returning to Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa’s December 24th statement ‘the present administration is a democratic entity’, the crucial question here is what is the government’s concept of democracy? It seems to be perceived to tally with the Sinhala nationalistic version of majority rule. The pinnacle of this version is the freedom to exercise the right to vote at elections held at regular intervals for the voters to decide who should represent them in the Parliament and local bodies. There is no provision to ensure suitable representation at the national level for safeguarding the interests of the ethnic minorities. Nor there are any constitutional safeguards against violation of minority rights. Section 29, notably the sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) in the (1947-1972) Soulbury Constitution were intended to prevent the adoption of any legislation that discriminated against the minority communities. This was the decisive factor in the acceptance of the unitary system by the then minority leaders. It is important here to emphasize that more than any prohibition to discriminatory legislation, what is needed is the sincere feeling of equality of all citizens regardless of ethnic, social and regional differences. The ‘divide and rule’ policy is self-defeating and nationally damaging in a sovereign state. There must be visible moves by both sides to build mutual trust essential for lasting peace throughout Sri Lanka.

Denial of basic right to life

Basil Fernando, Director of Asian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong in a series of articles on the current situation in Sri Lanka has made valuable comments relevant to the present study. In the first part he has said: “The first executive president of Sri Lanka, J.R. Jayewardene, said publically that the time has come for each person to look after his own security. Such a statement to come from the head of a state is the most glaring abdication of the powers of his position. The primary guarantees that a government should create within the citizens is that their lives are secure.

That the government is doing all it can to protect the basic right to life is the most elementary guarantee that a state should create within its population. When the head of a state says that there is no guarantee of that in Sri Lankan society then that is a clear indication of an abdication of the most fundamental guarantee that a government should give to its people. This means a basic betrayal of the very idea of governance and the denial of the most basic reason for the existence of a government.

The heads of state of the governments that came later have not tried in any way to alter this statement made by the first executive president of Sri Lanka. While national security is being talked about the security of the people is not an issue that the government shows any concern about.

The very talk on national security is that the security of any individual can be sacrificed for the sake of an abstract notion of what is called national security. The absolute powers given to the security apparatus to deal arbitrarily with the lives of the citizens is what in essence national security has come to mean. The abuse of the national security doctrine so that it can be used for the survival of the politicians at the expense of the entire nation is the transformation that Sri Lanka has witnessed in the recent decades”.

In Part Two, on the large number of involuntary disappearances in the recent past Basil Fernando has said: “What disappearances have come to mean in Sri Lanka are incidents of direct murder. The law enforcement authorities began to consider causing such disappearances legitimate and necessary. How did this come about? It certainly did not come about as a necessary requirement of combat. Once a person’s arrest has been secured, the question of killing in combat does not arise any further. If the state did want to keep these persons alive and yet to punish any of them for any crime, it was possible for the state to do so, either through special laws such as prevention of terrorism or emergency laws, or through the operation of the normal laws of the country. The state did not choose to use the procedure of detention of these persons after securing arrest, but instead sanctioned a system of extrajudicial execution and disposal of bodies. The question then is as to why the state would have chosen to follow this path of sanctioning the killing of these persons and disposing of their bodies, rather than following the procedure of securing detention and, if necessary, subjecting them to trials and punishing them thereafter. In this question lie very many questions relating to criminal justice in Sri Lanka.” Basil Fernando’s blog can be read at: srilanka-lawlessness.com

Politics and religion

Prof. Charles Sarvan has observed in his article titled - ‘Pervasion of religion is possible when state and organized religion collaborate’: “Violence is an evil, repugnant to the basic principles of religion, particularly to Christianity and Buddhism because the very essence of these two religions is non-violence, peace and goodwill towards all. The existence of violence, therefore, is because belief has become external, formal and nominal; because people have ‘cunningly devised theories’ which superficially ‘reconcile the irreconcilable’, that is, violence and religion. In certain situations, it is argued, violence is permitted. Going further, in a grotesque corruption of religion, it is claimed that violence can be perpetrated in the name of Christ (or of the Buddha). This conviction serves not only to legitimise violence but to encourage it. Violence in the name of religion means there is no need to spare even the pregnant mother, or medical staff trying to succour the injured, the dying, the distressed”. In fact no renowned religion advocates violence as a means of achieving human desires and in the present context these include political aims.

Although Tolstoy has mentioned only Christianity in his treatise on ‘The Kingdom of God is within You (1894)’, Prof. Sarvan has made reference to Buddhism since the majority of Sri Lankans are Buddhists. Mahatma Gandhi used to say that he is not only a Hindu but also a believer of other religions. Having read Tolstoy’s exposition while in South Africa, Gandhi has mentioned in his Autobiography that it “overwhelmed” him. As one committed to truth and non-violence, this is not surprising. The following notion is very relevant at the present time.

“The perversion of religion, Tolstoy argues, is possible because the state and official religion collaborate and cooperate with each other. Anyone who opposes organised religious views and practice is a heretic; anyone going against the state is a traitor. These ‘two ruling powers’ constantly aid each other in the pursuit of power. Together, claims Tolstoy, they deceive and dominate the people, keeping them in superstitious awe (religion) and fear (the state). ....The clergy’s interpretation of religion is right – even when it is blatantly contrary to the actual teaching of Christ (or the Buddha). And so a god of their own is invented, one who - contrary to his own words - is said to permit, even make obligatory, violence and warfare” (transCurrents.com). The interest of Buddhist clerics in politics and politicians in Sri Lanka rushing to seek their blessings and support at crucial times shows the above link. In this regard, the following comment is significant. It is from the article ‘Buddhism hijacked?’ in the Daily Mirror of 22 December 2009.

“Sri Lanka is touted as being a great Buddhist nation. Driving around Sri Lanka the only markers surpassing the sites of all the temples and dagobas are the posters of the president. Every “patriot” sees the need to prove their credentials by showing that they are the only true Sinhala Buddhists. .... All these politicians, backed by trouble making priests led the people astray with their extreme Buddhist/Sinhala rhetoric. We remember the days when the pious Buddhist clergy walked to get their midday danne wearing no slippers, head shaved in humbleness, carrying a makeshift umbrella, clutching the paatheray. So where have they all gone?” On Buddhist priests asking via television and radio “the people to vote for this government, actually daring to state that this government is an honest government and that there is no corruption or intimidation* the author has queried: “How could they lie so blatantly, how could they look people in the face and pretend that the people are better off? These priests are distorting the truth”. In short, Sinhala politicians have found the Buddhist priests useful for achieving their political ambitions. It is shocking the followers of Lord Buddha, the reformer of Hinduism have turned a blind eye to the blatant violations of human rights in Sri Lanka. In the name of protecting the dhamma, the Buddhist priests have contributed indirectly to the destruction of peace, equality and justice for all.

Although there is strong link between the culture of corruption and violation of many individual and collective rights of citizens, the above analysis indicates the imperative to examine the entire political system which is corrupt in many ways. The system ignores the diverse demographic features and traditional settlement patterns of the nationals. It has to agree with realities. Hope this lengthy analysis stimulates others to press for reforming the present corrupt, divisive and autocratic system with the aim of forging unity in diversity and building a robust and sturdy multi-ethnic nation.

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]