Photo courtesy Getty via The National
The Easter-Sunday attacks have changed a lot of things in Sri Lanka. It proved, if proof was indeed required, the sheer inefficiency of the present government. Some of the responses provided by the President, the Prime Minister and state-officials, in the immediate aftermath, were preposterous. Though Sri Lanka is not a failed state, it has a deeply divided, weak and fragile government, which can embolden terrorist movements such as the Islamic State (IS). In a culture where politicians cannot be held accountable for their negligence, incompetence and arrogance, the only weapon for many appears to be the vote. Never the revolutionary type, the majority Sinhala community is waiting for the next major election.
**
The IS-inspired terrorist bombings of 21 April 2019 have re-ignited debates on a number of issues which are not novel for Sri Lankans. Two such issues which are set to have an enduring impact on our lives relate to: security and freedom, and peaceful co-existence. There have been many occasions in post-independent Sri Lanka when the people got an opportunity to reflect on these issues. The present moment, like many other moments in the past, provides yet another opportunity for such reflection. Sri Lanka is not a place which reforms itself very easily. It reforms, if at all, at a snail’s pace, and that too, when significant pressure is exerted on it by external forces. Thus there is no guarantee that anything positive would come out of the present crisis as well.
But there is, perhaps, a responsibility to reflect and respond, given the seriousness of the situation. And the reflections presented below are not of some neutral entity, claiming to adopt an ‘objective’ position. These reflections remain those of an individual who belongs to the majority community; and being so, they may be partly influenced by some of the varied interests and prejudices that a member of the majority Sinhala-Buddhist community may hold on security, freedom and co-existence.
**
One of the old and immediate questions that arise, given the nature of the terrorist attacks and the subsequent imposition of emergency rule in Sri Lanka, is the question about security and freedom. The popular question is: what should triumph – security or liberty of persons? When asked this question, there is often a tendency to choose one over the other. Where that’s not possible, there is another tendency to suggest, as if to strike a balance, that both security and freedom are not only required but can also be guaranteed. These answers, in turn, have an impact on our understanding about the nature and purposes of the state, with some desiring a strong state and others being highly critical and even dismissive of it.
To begin with, the question is a flawed one. This is because we demand and require both. The interests of humans are too great and varied that it is impossible to choose one over the other, especially in the long term. Security and freedom are values which have much to do with emotions and feelings; for example, quite often, we feel secure or free, without knowing or being able to know whether we actually are. And these feelings often intermingle, producing different demands and interests.
Another reason why the question is flawed is because both security and freedom, taken separately, are broad values which can encapsulate the other. We might demand one, not realizing that in most instances we are actually demanding both. And what is often forgotten is that in demanding security and freedom, we are also inevitably demanding a strong state. This was most evident when we rushed to critique the state for not preventing the Easter-Sunday attacks. It was natural and correct to demand security; but implicit in that critique was the demand for a strong state (and state-agencies) which can guarantee security.
This was also evident in the support the Tamil people (or a dominant segment of the Tamil community) showed for a separate state. In the face of threats to their liberty, the Tamil people demanded not just greater liberty but also security. And since the 1970s, this was expected to be guaranteed by a separate state. In practical terms, that separate state had to be an entity which not only protected the liberties of its citizens but was strong enough to guarantee their continued security.
People need both security and freedom, and this would need to be assured to them by an effective and strong state. Therefore, it is often meaningless to ask whether one is for security or freedom. Barring very specific issues, one naturally wants both. It is equally problematic to assume that security and freedom can be guaranteed by weak states.
However, the above does not mean that the state can guarantee both security and freedom to the satisfaction of all its citizens. To believe that there could be a neat balance struck between security and rights considerations, especially in the current global context, is not only a mistaken view. It is also a dangerous view, for it leads to greater frustration, when one begins to see the balance tilting in favour of security or freedom on given issues and circumstances. When a state attempts to guarantee both freedom and security (as it ought to), tensions arise due to a number of factors. It may be due to the numerous prejudices of the state and its officials (e.g. ethnic-bias); it could be due to the overwhelming character of the demands of citizens; it could be due to the lack of resources; and it may even be due to the relative efficiency or inefficiency of respective institutions (e.g. the police, judiciary, etc.). Thus, constant tension ensues.
This is perhaps best exemplified in the debate surrounding the role and relevance of laws aimed at preventing terrorism; more specifically, the polarized debate surrounding the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The idea of totally abolishing the PTA, as the critics would vehemently suggest, is problematic especially in contemporary times and in a country which has witnessed different forms of terrorism. Far from abolishing the PTA, there are two key tasks involved. One is to strive to reform the law to minimize the chances where personal liberties would be infringed. But an equally fundamental requirement is for state-agencies to develop an ethnically non-discriminatory approach when having to apprehend persons under the PTA. The dominant but flawed perspective of state-agencies at present is that it is largely members of minority communities who could perpetrate terrorism. The vital task is to expand this understanding to include members of the majority community as well. Terrorism can come wrapped in burkas, sarees, denim trousers and yellow robes.
In short, addressing concerns relating to security and freedom, especially in the context of terrorism, is never an easy task (except for academics like us). It is a matter that broadly demands considerations pertaining to rights and liberties, as well as duties, responsibilities, demanding further a certain degree of sacrifice. In the aftermath of the Easter-Sunday attacks, this is an essential truth we would be re-discovering. And without an effective state, there will be neither security nor freedom. But no effective state, in the modern age of global terrorism, can fully guarantee either the complete protection of our fundamental freedoms, or security, or both. Only part satisfaction of these two values can be realized. Destined to live under such tragic circumstances, we would only be able to critique specific policy measures, and suggest alternatives that we think could best guarantee our security and freedom to the most practical extent possible.
**
The other most important question, having both short and long term consequences, is that of ensuring ethnic and religious harmony and co-existence. This assumes heightened importance, especially because the mistrust which undergirded the Sinhala-Muslim relationship for quite sometime has escalated to unprecedented levels. If there are more bombings, mob attacks – organized but sporadic at present – are set to rise exponentially, leading to an unmanageable crisis, and a vast majority of the Muslim community which had no role to play in this mess would be left helpless.
At the outset, it is necessary to point fingers at certain actors (in addition to the state), belonging to both the Sinhala and Muslim communities, for the broader situation we are placed in. It is not correct to suggest that the inability to address minority political concerns within the country led to the development of Islamic extremist groups. Islamic extremism of the IS-variety, the project of creating a global caliphate, has very little or almost nothing to do with issues of constitutional governance in Sri Lanka. Rather, a more pointed accusation can indeed be levelled against groups such as the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS), the dark underside of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism, for its highly divisive rhetoric, including the hateful ideas they spread, especially by attempting to read and interpret the Quran in ways that hurt the Muslim community (when alternative readings were possible). Groups such as the BBS ought to have been far more aware of the possibility of further radicalization of members of the Muslim community when their religion and dignity were under constant attack. Violence, after all, can be both horrifying but also attractive. Even the BBS would know that.
There was also a serious problem with many of the Muslim politicians. Though their utterances these days sound more Sinhala Buddhist than those of the Sinhala Buddhists themselves, many of them were unwilling to acknowledge that there was a growing problem of radicalism within their own community; a problem which the BBS had correctly and confidently pointed out ever since its emergence. The Muslim politicians, by and large, turned a blind eye. A classic case in this regard is the statement made by Minister Rauf Hakeem just last year (March 2018). When asked by The Hindu newspaper about rising Islamic fundamentalism in Sri Lanka, Minister Hakeem was categorical in stating: “I don’t see that Muslims have been radicalized to that extent so as to resort to violence. Whatever radicalization has been happening it is in the cultural domain.” Apparently, the Minister knew what he was talking about: “We local politicians know. We have been monitoring, we keep our ears to the ground and we interact with all these people.” We now know that the Minister was being disingenuous, mainly because certain members and groups representing the Muslim community had already alerted the security agencies about Islamic radicalism.
While taking note of such serious lapses which can be attributed to both communities, the present crisis has created an opportunity for greater introspection, self-critique, and the creation of a more pluralistic political, religious and cultural ethos. And a fundamental task in this regard concerns the reformation of these respective communities, which involves the task of identifying and tackling those ideologies, thoughts and practices which lead to the development of an extremist mentality.
So far, it is the Muslim community that has been asked to reform. There are already calls to limit the operation of Madrasa schools, to reform or abolish personal laws, the banning of Halal products and certain forms of religious clothing. The latter involves the recent legislative measures aimed at banning the burqa and the niqab. While it would have been ideal had the ban been a self-imposed limitation (and that too, based upon the autonomous views of Muslim women), it is a policy that I welcome. The burqa/niqab amount to an extremist form of clothing, especially because they retard the possibility of basic human interaction in society, especially in educational institutions. It is largely for this reason, and not necessarily because of security concerns, that there ought to be a limitation imposed. The ban raises questions concerning the right to manifest one’s religion. Such freedoms pertaining to the manifestation of religion can be curtailed. But that curtailment ought to be prompted by the need to promote a more liberal, equal and secular society within Sri Lanka (which are some of the principles that the European Court of Human Rights used to justify the limitations placed on the the wearing of the Islamic veil and other religious symbols in Turkey and France).
However, all other communities, including especially the Sinhala Buddhist majority, have the responsibility to engage in this task of introspection and reform. What is particularly required in this reformist project is the need to critically confront all ideas and teachings which seek to promote theories of purity and perfection. Seeking purity and perfection, in matters concerning politics, religion and culture, almost inevitably ends up in disaster. All ideas and teachings which seek to promote the view that certain groups of people and their land were somehow ‘pure’ in a distant past and the challenge is to rediscover and reclaim that lost purity, or political notions which promise perfect equality and harmony, are always to be viewed with great caution and skepticism. Such ideas lie at the root of all forms of extremism, both locally and globally. If the Muslims are to revise their attitudes towards their personal laws, educational institutions and religious practices, the Sinhala Buddhists and the Tamils ought to engage in a similar exercise too.
**
Sri Lanka has entered another phase in its history where security, freedom and co-existence have been seriously threatened. They have always been under threat because of our own failings, but the threat appears more pronounced, more real, given the emergence of a more palpable and dastardly form of extremism and terror. Rather than seeking illusive comfort in theories which promise perfection, people will need to realize that in a polarized society as ours, harmonious co-existence often comes at a price. The best that’s possible is to seek ways of minimizing the tendencies that different actors have towards adopting extreme measures. It is a process that all ethnic and religious groups in the country would need to engage in; not with starry eyes, but with the resolve to acknowledge dark and uncomfortable truths about themselves.