12 November 2021 02:02 am Views - 1238
More than the composition of the Task Force which was originally appointed on October 26, its Terms of Reference had reportedly compelled Justice Minister Ali Sabri to tender his resignation as Member of Parliament as well as a minister. It was also reported that the President had declined to accept his resignation
Chairman of the Task Force and General Secretary of Bodu Bala Sena Ven. Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thera said nobody need to worry over the absence of Tamil representatives in his Task Force as it would not do any injustice to any community
Ven. Gnanasara Thera, during the media briefing rightly said that Tamil and Muslim students must be permitted to attend Ananda College while Sinhalese students must be admitted to Zahira College, the question remains where we would stand, if really such a move is put in practice
Earlier he was criticized by political parties and various civil society organizations for not making the Task Force reflect the pluralistic character of the Sri Lankan society and absence of gender equity in the composition of membership of it, as no Tamil representatives or women had been included as members. The President by a new Gazette notification has appointed three Tamils one of whom is a female, rectifying the error.
The original 13-member Task Force now has 14 members, eight Sinhalese, three Tamils and three Muslims, as one Sinhalese and a Muslim had resigned from it.
More than the composition of the Task Force which was originally appointed on October 26, its Terms of Reference had reportedly compelled Justice Minister Ali Sabri to tender his resignation as Member of Parliament as well as a minister. It was also reported that the President had declined to accept his resignation and seems to have been prompted to make amends.
The Task Force had originally been tasked to “make a study of the implementation of the concept; One Country, One Law within Sri Lanka and prepare a draft Act for the said purpose. The members of the Task Force were also assigned to “study the draft Acts and amendments that have already been prepared by the Ministry of Justice in relation to this subject and their appropriateness and if there are suitable amendments to submit proposal for the purpose and include them in such relevant draft as is deemed appropriate.”
In absolute terms, any committee or political party or government that does not consist of relevant major stakeholders in it can vow to perform absolutely well, without giving room to any injustice to any group in the society
These two clauses were highly intrusive into the areas come under the Justice Ministry and also offensive in nature as one of them requires the Task Force to “study the draft Acts and amendments that have already been prepared by the Ministry of Justice in relation to this subject and their appropriateness” before proposing amendments. The minister would have been irked as the members of the Task Force were going to review what his ministry had done.
Both these clauses have now been replaced by a single clause which is vague and largely watered down in essence. It reads “Presenting proposals for formulating a conceptual framework ideally suited for Sri Lanka after making a study of the said concept taking into account the views and opinions held by various parties with regard to the implementation of the concept: “One Country, One Law”. One might be at a loss to understand what is meant by “formulating a conceptual framework after making a study of the concept”
During a media briefing conducted by President’s media spokesman Kingsley Ratnayake on November 1 at the Presidential Media Division, Chairman of the Task Force and General Secretary of Bodu Bala Sena Ven.
Galagodaaththe Gnanasara Thera said nobody need to worry over the absence of Tamil representatives in his Task Force as it would not do any injustice to any community. However, there is a universally accepted notion of inclusivity in dealing with issues that concerns various groups in the society and the President seems to have understood it at least after representations were made by various groups including the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. The government similarly drew criticism when the President appointed the “Presidential Task Force for Archaeological Heritage Management in the Eastern Province” on June 2 last year. That Task Force was an all-Sinhalese body in spite of the Eastern Province being almost equally inhabited by all three major communities in the country, the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims.
In absolute terms, any committee or political party or government that does not consist of relevant major stakeholders in it can vow to perform absolutely well, without giving room to any injustice to any group in the society. However, the rationale behind the universally accepted norm of inclusivity could be attributed to the impossibility or difficulty in doing so in practical terms. More than half (around 23 million) of Afghanistan’s population is facing acute hunger now as the country’s US$ 10 billion foreign reserves have been frozen by the Western countries subsequent to the Taliban’s taking over of the country, due to a conflict over the inclusivity of the Taliban government. None of the countries in the world have recognized the Taliban government yet due to this inclusivity issue.
While the entire world is insisting on a government inclusive of all major ethnic groups and women as a condition for the recognition of Taliban government, the extremist group argues that injustice would not be meted out to any group in the society despite its government mainly consists of Pashtuns.
The insistence of the concept of inclusivity itself is an indication of human weakness in viewing all humans alike. But one cannot avoid accepting it, as even a most progressive revolutionary cannot walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. It is more so in a highly divided society on ethnic lines and at a time when the opportunistic politicians have emotionally charged the masses over ethnicity related issues.
It was mainly due to lack of dynamic inclusiveness or ideological inclusiveness in major political parties that we still have ethnic and religious political parties in the country which are ironically blamed for being insular. Despite historical reasons for the formation of minority political parties which too could have averted, the so-called national parties could have drained the minority parties of their support bases in the recent past, had they acted with ideological inclusivity or in a manner that could have addressed the concerns of minority communities.
To simply put it, they could have won over the minorities had they just refrained from stirring communal feelings among the majority community against the minorities, just for electoral mileage. Any communal efforts by minority leaders in retaining the masses with them would not have succeeded in such a scenario, as only the major parties as ruling parties have the leverage to change the lives of the people.
Despite the concept of inclusivity has to be inculcated in students during their early years of education, the very school system in Sri Lanka which is divided on ethnic lines runs counter to it. Though Ven. Gnanasara Thera, during the media briefing rightly said that Tamil and Muslim students must be permitted to attend Ananda College while Sinhalese students must be admitted to Zahira College, the question remains where we would stand, if really such a move is put in practice. Sri Lankan students of a past generation including the writer were fortunate enough to study in such a considerable plural environment.
However, amidst the current virulent competition for education and employment opportunities and the highly divisive PR electoral system, the demand for inclusivity in all entities would naturally be on the rise. It would yet be an acid test for the ruling SLPP since it normally thrive on the absence of it.