Why devolution of power should be on linguistic basis
Repost This Article
Image courtesy Sify
Sinhala nationalists who deny that the Tamils have any grievances are now campaigning for the abolition of the Provincial Councils under the 13th Amendment. But S.W.R.D the western educated liberal who introduced the Sinhala Only Law realized that an injustice was done to the Tamil people for it was not only an instrument to discriminate against Tamils in State employment but also to force them to deal with the State and its agencies only in Sinhala which the large majority of Tamil people did not know. How could the Tamil people give voice to their problems to the powers that be unless they learn Sinhala for, given the Sinhala as the only medium of education, future political leaders would know only Sinhala. ? Even then the Tamil people suspected rightly that the Sinhalese wanted to exercise power only for their benefit and since most Sinhala leaders believed in a zero sum game in the economic sphere thought it was necessary to reduce the number of Tamils in State employment. These extremists later realized that the Tamils were entering the high paying professions like the Medical and Engineering and Accounting professions in numbers disproportionate to their numbers in the population. So they introduced media-wise standardization for entry to the Universities. This was the last straw as far as the Tamil youth were concerned and they took to arms to establish their own State where they could manage their resources to serve their objectives of higher education.
Were the Tamil people left with any choice when the motive of discrimination was so patent? So education and higher education would have to be a devolved power. The Tamil people have a human right to deal with the Police in their own language. But Sinhala was the official language which means the language of record n all government offices of the central government. It is not possible to have two official languages in every government office throughout the length and breadth of the country. Nor is it neither necessary nor economically feasible for it would mean enormous extra cost. The British colonial ruler had only English as the official language for their centralized administration through provincial chiefs drawn from the bureaucracy who were free to act with independence and according to bureaucratic values of good governance. But in 1956 a new political and governance culture was introduced by the SLFP. The local MP wanted to exercise power in the Executive sphere instead of confining themselves to the legislative sphere to which they were elected. They wanted to exercise power in appointments, transfers and discipline in the public service which are maters of internal administration. They wanted to influence the Police in their functions. The Tamil politicians were not in the ruling political party and could not exercise power in a similar manner. They were also better educated and understood that it was improper to engage in this new political culture. They probably knew that this new political culture would lead to the collapse of democratic public administration and would lead to a one party military state.
SWRD the liberal politician leader sought to rectify the injustice to the Tamil people because of the Sinhala only policy. He did the only practical thing which was to suggest devolving power to the Tamils through a Regional Council for the North and East where Tamil would be the official language and where Tamil politicians could exercise power through such Council. The British had only English as the official language which meant that all records in government offices were kept in English only although locals could speak to government officials in the local languages and were interpreted for the benefit of English officials, although these officials were required to learn the local languages to converse with and understand locals. Court proceedings were recorded in English only. SWRD probably realized that it was neither practical nor economically feasible to have two official languages in every government office throughout the length and breadth of the country. So he drew up the Bandaranaike- Chelvanayagam Pact in 1958. But Sinhala extremists protested and he was forced to tear up the Pact. Another liberal leader among the Sinhalese- Dudley Senanayake agreed to a similar proposal for devolution of power with Chelvanayagam but extremists forced him too to abandon the pact.
All tempts to get the Sinhalese public servants to learn Tamil by providing incentives have failed. Nor is necessary. Consider Switzerland where four languages are spoken- German. Italian French and Romansh. Three of them are of equal status in the Federal Government but in each Canton there is only one official language and it is the language of the majority. Canada has two official languages but they are not applicable throughout Canada. Here is what the Act of 1988 set in place.
that English and French will have equal status of languages of work within the federal public service within geographically defined parts of the country that are designated bilingual (most notably in National Capital Region, Montreal and New Brunswick), as well as in certain overseas government offices and in parts of the country where there is sufficient demand for services in both official languages. In remaining geographical areas, the language of work for federal public servants is French (in Quebec) and English (elsewhere);
These countries are federal and Switzerland is smaller than in Sri Lanka. The need to devolve is also necessary to reduce the cost and burden of having two official languages in the central government for day to day functions would be done in one language only – Sinhalese I the Sinhala majority areas and Tamil in the Tamil majority provinces. So it is necessary that there should be devolution of power on linguistic basis as India did and there have been no persistent secessionist movements in India and the movement in the South has died down.
Why? Because there are wider economic opportunities in a larger State than in a smaller state provide there is no discrimination against the minority in the larger state. The people also realize that economic development is not a zero sum unlike the Sinhalese who probably because of the insular mentality of an Island people cannot grasp this fact of economics.
Now there is a clamor to abolish Provincial Councils. Some want to reduce the Tamil majority by combining Sinhala majority and Tamil majority provinces. Others who rather naïve about local government want to establish a Grama Rajya or District Councils to which power should be devolved. But this requires another article.
“So it is necessary that there should be devolution of power on linguistic basis as India did and there have been no persistent secessionist movements in India”.
What about Assam, Nagaland, Khalistan, Tripura, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, Bodoland, Jammu and Kashmir?
Yes. you are correct. That is why I am advocating “Power-Sharing”.
Cannot agree more! However, it is heartbreaking to see that the possibility of such a solution being implemented is less than zero percent in today’s Lamborghini culture.
Devolution in Sri Lanka should transcend linguistic, religious and communal identities. It should be designed to bring about better and more efficient management. The units of devolution should have a mix of all major communities in Sri Lanka. Sambanthan is now suggesting 4-5 zones , instead of the present nine provinces as the units of devolution. I think he is on the right track. I however hope he is not thinking of the north and east as one zone. All zones should have mixed populations. In most zones the Sinhalese will be the majority, while in others the Tamils and Muslims would be the majority. This would make us learn to respect each others rights as citizens and accomodate our individual communal concerns in a democratic manner. We Sri Lankans have to identify ourselves as citizens first and foremost, when issues such as devolution are discussed.
Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
To some extent I do agree with Dr.Rajasinglham Narendran, except with his suggestion on “devolution”. It has to be “power-sharing”.
With all due respect to Mr.R.M.B.Senanayake I fully disagree with him. First on his advocacy on “devolution” and second his suggestion “on linguistic basis”. We must start thinking in terms of “power-sharing”. In my humble opinion “Power-sharing” is different from “devolution”. My concept of power sharing is given below:
, it is high-time we start to RETHINK in terms of a solution that would address the ASPIRATIONS OF ALL THE PEOPLE in the country in a just and meaningful way.
A UNIQUE concept that moves towards a meaningful and just power-sharing arrangement (not devolution) based on true democracy – a large number of people participating in the governance of the country based on equality, equity – is a great deviation from the usual thinking of the meaning of the word “sharing of power” is given below for the kind perusal and comments of concerned people.
The best political solution or system of governance to address the problems faced by various sections of the society – particularly the poor, the politically weak and the various categories of “minorities” who do not carry any “political weight” – would be to DILUTE the powers of all elected representatives of the people by separating the various powers usurped in by the present Parliament and by horizontally empowering different sets of people’s representatives elected on different area basis to administer the different sets of the separated powers at different locations.
It should NOT be “devolution” where ONE person or one set of persons, would still be holding the entire political power BUT it must be the sharing of power HORIZONTALLY where each and every set of representatives would be in the SAME LEVEL as equals and in par and NOT VERTICALLY, where one set of representatives would be above (more powerful than) the other, which is the normal adopted practice when talking of devolution, in this power-hungry world. It is because “devolution of power” has been evolved “vertically”, we have all the trouble in this power-hungry world. So, for sustainable peace it should not be the present form of “devolution of power” but “dilution of powers” or “meaningful sharing of powers” in such a way that no single person or single set of people’s representatives be “superior” to another.
This system would help to eradicate injustice, discrimination, corruption and oppression – the four pillars of an evil society – and help to establish the “Rule of Law” and “Rule by ALL” for sustainable peace, tranquility and prosperity and a pleasant harmonious living with dignity and respect for all the inhabitants in the country. Since all political and other powers flow from the sovereignty of the people, it is proposed herein that these powers be not given to any ONE set of representatives but distributed among different sets of people’s representatives (groups) elected on different area basis (village and villages grouped) to perform the different, defined and distinct functions of one and the same institution – the Parliament – like the organs of our body – heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, nose, ear etc. – performing different and distinct functions to enable us to sustain normal life.
In these suggestions the powers of Parliament have been so separated and distributed among different sets of people’s representatives in different areas so as to dilute the powers of an individual representative or that of a set of representatives in any area. (Dilution is better than Devolution)
Election and Composition: Every area would be a multi-member electorate electing a minimum of two members. Members of the various Councils would be elected from among those residing within that area on “first passed the post” basis subject to gender and age group conditions being fulfilled and where necessary and possible trade, political ideologies and ethnicity being considered. The number of members of any one gender or age group shall be a minimum of 20% of the total to be elected from an area to a Council and at least one member from other ethnic minorities if they form more than 10% of the eligible voters. The members so elected would be considered as independents.. The number of elected members in a given Council would vary from Region to Region depending on the number of sub-administrative areas in that region, governed by the principle of equal number of members to the same or similar councils from similar areas – irrespective of the size and population of the area concerned. (Similar to the principle applied in the election to the Senate in the US – two members per State and in the UN one member per country/administrative area).
Eligibility: No person shall be eligible to contest or to become a member of a Council if he/she had been a member of that council within the last two years immediately preceding the date of nomination. He/she shall be eligible to contest to any other Council. This clause shall apply to all members of his/her immediate family. Only one member in a family can seek election to any one of the councils at any one time. A person cannot serve for more than two terms and in more than two councils during his/her life-time.
A person while holding a ‘post’ in the government or government controlled institutions or public limited liability companies quoted in the Stock Exchange shall not be eligible to seek election to any Council.
The term: (period) of all councils shall be four years and elections should be held only once in every four years and dates to be fixed in the constitution itself as in the U.S.A. with a succession clause to fill any vacancy that might occur in between two election dates.
In the existing system, elections are being held for four different institutions or four different establishments with the functions overlapping and connected vertically with one above or below the other – Executive President, Parliament, Provincial Councils and Local Government (Pradeshiya Sabahs) – and while one institution controls another, it is dependent and/or is a competitor to the institution next or all others. But in the new concept it is entirely different –different groups are elected on different area basis to perform different functions – of the same institution, the Parliament – that do not overlap and all these groups enjoy parity of status since they are connected horizontally and are part and parcel of one and the same institution – the Parliament.
Through this system of representation and empowerment – different sets of representatives in different areas elected and empowered by different groups of people to implement different ‘distinct and defined’ functions of one and the same parliament – “corruption” in any form and at any level cannot easily arise. If there is no “corruption” then the Rule of Law will prevail making way for peace and good governance in the country, which is the need of the inhabitants of a country.
In my humble opinion this new concept of democracy while delivering good governance would preserve the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country and guarantee the due respect and dignity of the people – both collectively and individually, who are, under the present system, treated as their “subjects” by the “ruling class”.
I stand to be corrected.
Dear RMB Senanayake,
Sri Lanka already has two official languages.
All Public Servants recruited in one language are required to obtain a prescribed level of proficiency in the second language within 5 years.
Sinhala and Tamil are National Languages and All children are taught BOTH languages (should have been done long ago) while English is taught as a link language.
The Future generation of Lankans will not have a language barrier so why plant seeds of divisive politics?
It is a mistake to delve on the past when they have been already addressed adequately. Language and University admissions are among those that have seen change.
You say “Sinhala nationalists who deny that the Tamils have any grievances are now campaigning for the abolition of the Provincial Councils under the 13th Amendment”
As you correctly point out, when this country was governed by the British, there was only ONE official Language. No other language had any standing. At the start of such rule, no one in this country understood a word of the language. Even after centuries of British governance the percentage of locals that had a command of English comparable to their command of the mother tongue would have been less than 1%. Yet they were governed in a language that 99% of the local population could not understand. The greatest impact was in the dispensation of Justice to the locals. The accused could not understand the proceedings and those sitting in judgement the accused. Both had to depend on the proficiency of language and the integrity of an interpreter. Did that interpreter have the command of both languages to be able to interpret and convey the meaning of what was said by either party? Did some interpreters wilfully mislead? Could Justice prevail under these circumstances?
Grievances were many but it was not specific to one community.
SWRD was shrewd enough to identify the disaffection of the people, the use of English as the official language caused to 99% of the population, but was foolish to provide relief to just 70% of them when the other 30% also had the identical problem. He should have replaced English with both languages of the locals as he did a few years later.
In 1970 a fundamentally racist and totally despicable policy was adopted for University admission. Prof K.M. De Silva says, “Media-wise standardisation,” to use the jargon of administrators, was a device to weight the marks of the candidates so that those qualifying for admission from each language group would be proportionate to the number who sat the examination in that language”
(Affirmative Action in Sri Lanka, p 251)
In 1974 this policy changed to a District Quota system and from then on, it gradually won the support of ALL the minorities, as the District Quota system favoured the Educationally disadvantaged districts, irrespective of ethnicity.
In 1981 there was an attempt to change the District quota system but Sinhalese from rural areas led a protest campaign, but they had the support of the Tamils from the districts of Mannar, Mullaitivu, Vavuniya, Batticaloa, Trincomalee and Ampara—in short, all Tamils except those from the Jaffna district—and the Muslims as a whole.
(please see the following link re Uni admissions for more details
http://groundviews.org/2012/10/04/a-review-of-quotas-in-university-admissions/#comment-49213).
You say “Now there is a clamor to abolish Provincial Councils. Some want to reduce the Tamil majority by combining Sinhala majority and Tamil majority provinces”
Dr Rajasingham Narendran in his comment states the following “Sri Lanka should transcend linguistic, religious and communal identities. It should be designed to bring about better and more efficient management. The units of devolution should have a mix of all major communities in Sri Lanka. Sambanthan is now suggesting 4-5 zones, instead of the present nine provinces as the units of devolution. I think he is on the right track. I however hope he is not thinking of the north and east as one zone.”
I agree with Dr RN and I also agree with you that the Minority’s majority, must be preserved within the unit of devolution. I also agree with TNA leader Mr. Sambanthan on the need for redemarcation of the provinces but probably not for the same reasons. My reason is to allow redistribution of Public Resources of Lanka in a more equitable manner.
I believe that the Provincial Councils in its current form should cease to exist. Instead 13A should be modified to ensure equitable distribution of ALL Public Resources on a per capita basis of the total population (irrespective of ethnicity) resident in the New Province and SUBSEQUENT devolution of Land and Police powers. It should also be possible for the Central Govt to dissolve any Provincial govt if any attempt is made to separate and exist as an independent entity.
Everyone wants to get rid of the 13A and everyone thinks something wonderful is going to come out but what this regime is interested in is not power sharing or wealth sharing or sharing anything for that matter !!!!
The reason for the abolishment of the 13A is the inability to win the northern council and it is for so long that you can promise elections to the international community….
Dear Dev,
Are you for the 13A?
If so why?
The TNA rejected it remember?
As a person who supports 13A (with amendments to change it’s non equitable nature) I am very interested to know your views.
I only made an observation not expressing my views. My observation was….
The 13A was promised to every soul that stopped by “Temple Trees” from the Indians/Americans/British/UN….including the Sec Gen of the UN in 2009.
The government held elections in the east only a short while ago and talked about democracy and what not and then suddenly with divinaguma running into trouble and the inability to postpone the elections in the north (the reasons for the delay which I always highlighted as fake since presidential/local/parliamentary elections had been held there already with no difficulty) the 13 A becomes this demon that needs to be vanquished !
There is nothing to promise it is already in the Constitution.
I requested for your views based on your observation.
Don’t you have any?