SRI LANKANS – who are they?
Posted on March 21st, 2011
by Revd. Father Tony de Alwis (M.A., LL.B. (Hons.), Grad. Dip. in Law)
ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Very soon, on May 22nd, we shall mark the second anniversary of the removal of the LTTE terrorist threat, at least from our immediate vicinity.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Although that memorable event secured the territorial integrity of our island homeland, it didnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” indeed, it couldnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” define and secure our national identity as Sri Lankans.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚
We seem to have worked out a reasonably well-defined way of identifying ourselves ethnically ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” as Sinhalas, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers etc.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ But if there is any worthwhile lesson to be learned from the warfare that appears to break out periodically among our tribes, isnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t it that we should expedite the process of establishing the definingƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ characteristics of being a Sri Lankan which overrides those of belonging to the racial sub-sets ?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ So, Sri Lankans ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” who are they?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Finding an acceptable answer to that question poses, in my view, a challenge every bit as crucial to our national well-being as defeating the enemies of our country on the battlefield.
In a civilised nation, the law performs several valuable functions, not least in helping to shape the kind of society in which that nationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s people are enabled to live meaningful and purposeful lives.
In the U.S. there is a group of persons who are intriguingly called ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Resident AliensƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The title seems to rather neatly delineate a class of persons who, in the eyes of the law, may be said to legally live among the accredited citizens of the country but are not actually citizens themselves.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In practice, they are treated as permanent residents of the country who have earned the right to that status by virtue of having lived in the country for a specified period of time but who, for one reason or another, are not viewed by the law as being entitled to all the rights of outright citizenship.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚
The primary use of the device of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”Resident AliensƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ as applied in the U.S. is, of course, to bring into the income tax net persons who may otherwise be able to escape such liabilities.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ However, that specific application should not, in principle, preclude the concept from being adapted for use in other contexts, in my view.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Some of those applications may conceivably turn out to be controversial, to say the least but, then, the victories against the LTTE on the battlefield, for instance, were not won by being daunted by the difficulties inherent in overcoming an enemy who posed an obstacle to our regaining national oneness.
Surely the absolute minimum requirement to being a Sri Lankan must be that one owes an overarching loyalty to oneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s country which loyalty takes precedence over oneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s other loyalties, be they racial, religious or political?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Should not the defining characteristic of one deemed to be a Sri Lankan be that they put their country first?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚
Certain obligations follow from that.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚
ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ One does not permissibly stalk the earth denigrating oneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s country.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ One does not argue for international action that causes economic disadvantage or downright harm to the people of oneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s country.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ If it be a legal offence to speak or write about a person in a way that harms that personƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s reputation or good name, then how much moreƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ unpardonable should it be to slink away to foreign lands for no purpose other than to find platforms from which to throw mud in the fair face of oneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s own country?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Do not those who resort to such actions internationally betray their impotence within their own national political environment?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Why else would they seek to be propped up by foreign powers if it is not because they have dismally failed to win the hearts and minds of their own people?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Should not such behaviour attract certain legal sanctions?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Should not the perpetrators of such dastardly behaviour incur the disapprobation of the population at large by being deprived, by due process of law, of their civic rights such as those of being eligible to vote and to stand for public office and Parliament?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Should not persons, be they Sinhala, Tamil or members of any other ethnic group,ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ be found guilty in a Court of Law of such neo-treasonable behaviour be reduced to the status of Resident Aliens ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” tolerated among us but not counting as one of us for certain legally defined purposes?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ It is perhaps a question to which our legal community, in particular, might wish to address their minds.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚
March 21st, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Well said, Reverend Father.
Unfortunately logic fails. So your noble intentions will not mean anything on ground which is still divided along racial lines in the north. Sri Lankan way should be done in the areas where national loyalty lacks. That can be done by settling people of all ethnicities in the north.
Another thing, loyalty for the nation must come from the top. If the top is only interested in patriotism to stay in power or make money, then that defeats the purpose. As you said, law must be enforced.
March 22nd, 2011 at 2:55 am
Can this “father” explain why Christian/Catholic church supported LTTE ? Is he telling here that Churches supported LTTE to enforce LAW?
March 22nd, 2011 at 7:45 am
We thank Rev. de Alwis for his analysis. I like to add that considering the number of problems Lanka has faced, it is a wonder that we have held together.
I totally agree with these lines : “Surely the absolute minimum requirement to being a Sri Lankan must be that one owes an overarching loyalty to one’s country which loyalty takes precedence over one’s other loyalties, be they racial, religious or political? Should not the defining characteristic of one deemed to be a Sri Lankan be that they put their country first” ?
We would first have to define what it means to be Loyal to ones country. In order to do so, we may have to first define what it is to be Disloyal. It may range from Bribery & Corruption, Conniving with foreigners to the detriment of the country, to outright terrorism to divide the country ?
It would be a good thing to introduce the practice of Loyalty to Lanka at a young age in every school and home. We earlier suggested an Oath of Loyalty be taken by the Armed Forces, the MPs, children in schools, workers at both govt. & private levels, etc., if not every day, it should be done once a week/or once a month, on a Monday morning, preferably in the presence of the new Flag of Lanka.
Definitely a set of Penalties & Punishments should be devised if non-compliance is proved.
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Your phrase so perspicaciously highlighted by Mr.Fran Diaz immediately struck my attention too. Quite justly and logically the “overarching loyalty to one’s country…takes precedence over one’s other loyalties, be they racial, religious or political”. Now, in the light of your expressed conviction, I have two queries for you.
(1) Your confrere in the priesthood (I assume you are a Catholic priest) S.J.Emmanuel boldly and openly stated that he was a Tamil before being a Catholic. What you say is that you are Srilankan before being a Catholic. As you know the Church, be it here or Rome, never condemned S.J.Emmanuel (Dr.and Prof) who was at various times the Dean of the Department of Theology of the Catholic Seminary, Ampitiya: the Rector of the St. Francis Xavier (major) Seminary, Jaffna; and the Vicar General of the Diocese of Jaffna. Could you comment on the contradictory statements, yours and S.J.E’s
(2) If I remember well, the Vatican, through its press the ‘Osservatore Romano’ echoed the sentiments of the European Press (the so called ‘International Community’) asserting the rights of the Tamils to self determination and to their traditional homeland (North and East) and blaming the Sri Lanka Government for ‘repressive measures’. This provoked a lengthy remonstrance from our Ambassador in Rome.
What would be your position should the Vatican reiterate these demands of this so-called ‘International Community’, for example for the implementation of the 13th amendment? The right to the North and East as traditional Tamil homeland?
Hoping to hear from you.
Mario Perera, Kadawata
Author of: The Kingdom, the Glory and the Power
March 22nd, 2011 at 11:56 pm
This is not the first time I have read on this Website statements like “an overarching loyalty to one’s country which loyalty takes precedence over one’s other loyalties, be they racial, religious or political”. But it seems to me that comparing one’s loyalty to one’s country with the allegiance to one’s religious faith, is essentially flawed – the two things are different in nature. Loyalty to one’s country is being faithful to it in respect of matters of state and of standing by one’s country as against other countries whereas allegiance to one’s faith involves fidelity to one’s religious beliefs and not to an institution or a state. So, there is no valid comparison. And to say that loyalty to one’s country should over-ride one’s loyalty to one’s faith is, to me, irrelevant.
We need to also remember that when we speak of loyalty to one’s country it is necessarily implied that such loyalty only covers being loyal in respect of legitimate and moral actions of the state, it is not a blind and unquestioning loyalty, it is not slavishly standing by your country even when it is committing heinous crimes. Take the case of Nazi Germany. Would you have expected the German people to stay ‘loyal’ to the German state even when it was carrying out the extermination of European Jews? Could we consider those non Jewish Germans who gave clandestine protection to Jews from being rounded up and killed by the German state to have been disloyal to their country?
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:06 pm
In delving deeper into the issue of Loyalty to ones country, Cassandra brings in a valid point re Nazi Germany. Germany was not a Democracy at the time of WW I & II. Germany went from the Kaiser to a Dictatorship. Besides all that, Europe & the Middle East espousing Christianity & Islam, have been a conundrum of many factors special to those regions for many centuries, a mix of power play, religion, land, trade routes, and since WW I&II, oil. Today, for the sake of mutual safety, Europe is a Union of Democratic countries, and as such seems relatively stable. Middle East stability is still in the making.
The situation is somewhat different in Lanka. I think, in a Democracy in a small island nation such as Lanka, analysing the words “Loyalty to ones Country”, really means Loyalty to the country when it is threatened by outside forces which may be in tow with smaller inside groups.
If we put Religion in another category apart from ‘Loyalty to ones country’, and follow the Core Teachings mostly (as opposed to Belief Systems), then the country would be automatically safe guarded.
Also, regarding following Religion, there are ‘good parts of religion’ & ‘bad parts in religion’ as analysed in James Carroll’s latest book “Jerusalem, Jerusalem”. James Carroll is an ex-Catholic priest, now a resident scholar at Suffolk University, UK.
I have read only the reviews on this publication, but am sure this particular book gives good analysis on the play of the three religions of Jerusalem (Judaism, Christianity&Catholicism/Islam) on the affairs Euro-American world & of the world in general. This book goes far beyond its intended borders, and delves into Evolution of life, History of the Church, as well as the Church’s effects on American leadership. It examines the belief that “the way to Salvation may lie through Destruction”, as Sacrifice was part of Jerusalem’s belief system, said one analyst on tv, and thus justification for war. We would like to emphasis that Core Teachings of the Masters are different from Belief Systems which sprang up around the Core Teachings, in most cases after the Masters passed away.
However, I am sure one has to read the book to get the full message, because the ultimate goal is Peace. We ask : is such a thing possible, when the individual constituents of a country, i.e. each citizen, is not at peace all the time ? and then again, the degree of peace in each person differs. So the goal must be that each person must be in relative peace, i.e. more in peace than disharmony, for a country to be in relative peace at any given time, whatever the religion.
I hope I make some sense here … this is a difficult subject to analyse.
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:04 pm
When there is a situation where there is a conflict of interest between the State and the religion then the State must have precedence. For example during the LTTE war over 30 years the Catholic Church took the side of the LTTE. In this situation it was the duty of all Sinhala Catholics to stand by the Country and not do as the Pope directed. Even today the same applies.
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Agree with Casandra
I am a christian and I do not agree when people ask me to convert to Hiduism or Bhudhism or Jewism
We are living in the 21st century Peek sake Can we all live together like brothers and sisters
As I said before I highly highly recommend Government spend lot of money in counseling for each and every Proud Srilankans
Government should make sure every one go for counseling . we have no damn time or energy now to divide us on religion and race
God help us
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Jimmy,
When you say “God help us” who are the “us” ? “us” become minority.
As Buddhist your “God” idea is foolish but you have the right to keep it. No problems with it.
However, you are not allowed to bring “us” into it. We are not fools. We know there is no “God” to give us food. we know you are trying to impose your religion to us.
Next time please say ” God help me (you)”. Don’t assume Buddhist are fools.
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Mario,
You have aske important questions. Still no answers.
Cassandra,
People leave countries and settle in other countries but they keep their religion. Therefore, religion become more important. However some religions become hostile to other religions and thus the fighting and betrayal.
I have not seen a single Jew who is more loyal to the country than to religion. As they consider themselves as “the chosen people” , regardless of thier country, they do not need a country. Most Muslims behave in a similar way because of “flaws” of their religion in condemning good people to hell just because they belive in another religion.
If there are religions which consider good people as good regardless of their religion, then those religions can co-exist and loyality to country can be maintained – no “flaw” in that.