By Rohana R. Wasala
(An
opinion offered for critical examination)
Addressing
a gathering of jurists in Sinhala at a function in Colombo, justice minister
Ali Sabry said (December 12): To me as minister for justice, and to us all as
citizens of this country, people are the most important factor. It is because
of them that this (legal) profession exists; judges sit because of them.
Ultimately, the interest of the people must take priority over everything
(else). I don’t think I will (Ali Sabry chuckled as he said this) seek to go to
parliament again…. I state this without any fear.. I will revert to my
preferred occupation, that of supporting the judiciary…. We know that some laws
of this country have not been updated for over a hundred years. This task (of
modernising outdated laws) is our key focus… Some thirty committees are engaged
in this work (at present)….”. Then the minister talked about the perennial
problem of law’s delays. He claimed that even the Mahanayake Thera, when he
called on him, asked him to do something about the monks having to visit courts
frequently (due to the slowness of court procedures): We’ll introduce a small
claims court as found in other countries; cases that involve less than (Rs) 2
million need no prolonged examination of evidence, except in special instances.
A method for resolving these cases through an affidavit system will be put in
place. This is to relieve pressure on the district courts”. (Explanations in
parentheses are mine. I hope I have interpreted the minister’s meaning
correctly. C.O.O.L in the title is a re-arranged acronym for One Country One
Law)
The
present ruling alliance, the SLPP, led by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and
Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa sought election on the main platform of One
Country One Law. However sincerely both reached out to the Tamil and Muslim minorities,and
had never practiced discrimination against them in the past, the level of
support expected from them was not forthcoming.This was due to the influence
that certain communalist Tamil and Muslim politicians exercise over those
minorities. It was a fact that the two brothers came to power chiefly on
the strength of the SLPP-ideology-inspired Sinhala votes. But, as could be
expected, they assured the minorities that their interests would not be ignored
in any way; they invited all of them to participate in nation building with the
majority community. Steps were taken to ensure that Tamils and Muslims are
fully represented in the administration. The key ministry of justice was given
by the president to national list MP Ali Sabry. No minister in the
cabinet has to do more with the implementation of One Country One Law concept
than Ali Sabry.
Surprisingly,
he is now talking as if he has forgotten that all important (at least
purportedly so) goal of the government, for which it got the strongest ever
electoral mandate. One may think that Ali Sabry is having the last laugh! He
implies that even the monks, the most vehement advocates of One Country One
Law, are now only complaining about the chronic problem of law’s delays, which,
of course, is not a political issue! The One Country One Law ideal involves
politics, as it is opposed by a minority of communal and religious extremists.
The
appointment of a whistleblower Buddhist monk, who had earned a bad reputation
due to his own lack of basic self-restraint and discipline (in spite of his
cause being a genuine justifiable one), as head of a presidential task force is
as questionable and as irrational as the president’s later appointment of a
trade union leader monk as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Colombo;
but that is a different matter. Bracketing Ali Sabry with the controversial
monk could not be accidental. Though the two are handling closely allied
subjects, they are diametrically opposed to each other in their education,
religious beliefs, and personal attributes. Probably they were coupled together
to neutralize each other, or just to make a mockery of the One Country One Law
project.
But
extremists are a vanishing tribe nowadays, for there are signs that indicate
that these communalists will go out of circulation by the time of the next
elections, replaced by the emerging progressive younger generation of Tamil and
Muslim politicians, just as the old guard politicians of the two major national
parties will be ousted by an alliance of smaller patriotic parties and groups
led by a refurbished JVP further strengthened by the return to its fold of its
earlier stalwarts,and also accompanied by a rejuvenation of its leadership. The
concluding paragraph of an article of mine entitled JVP at a crossroads”
published in The Island Midweek Review on March 7, 2018 was as follows: The
JVP must take a long, hard look at its wasteful past and subject itself to
serious reform as a party. It must get rid of its outdated ideologies and
outmoded leaders. It must not condemn the voters as idiots for not voting for
them. Most important, the JVPers must find political allies with whom they can
coexist and serve the nation.”
(I
would now use the term ‘save’ for ‘serve’ in the last sentence.)
I
imagine that such a broad alliance will absorb emerging young political
activists of all communities including Uvindu Wijeweera (son of JVP founder
Rohana Wijeweera), Amith Weerasinghe, Dan Priyasad, Arun Siddhartan et al, and
non-extremist ordinary young Muslim, and ex-Muslims such as Rishvin Ismath (who
has fearlessly appeared on national TV channels, speaking against Islamists,
risking his life for the sake of the country). Such a winning alliance must
have the last laugh. The One Country One Law ideal must be left for them to
realise.
That
was a sort of anticipatory digression. Let me return to the Ali Sabry factor
that is the subject of this piece. A retrospective survey is necessary at this
point. About a year ago,
Media
secretary Viraj Abeysinghe of the Ministry of Health issued a press statement
warning against spreading false information allegedly concocted by certain
politicians and websites regarding the subject of whether to bury or burn the
bodies of persons who had succumbed to the COVID-19 infection
(lankacnews-Sinhala/December 28, 2020). It notified that the Ministry was
turning its attention to some ‘politically motivated fake news’ stories
featuring powerful politicians connected with the government. The statement
further said that for the time being (daenata) cremation alone was done
on the instructions of all the expert reports received by the Ministry until
then. Very much the same news was carried in Hiru TV News (9:55 pm/December 27,
2020). We felt that this, despite the provisionality expressed by ‘daenata’,
was signalling an end to needlessly prolonged dilly-dallying on the part of the
authorities about an issue where evidence-based science ought to have had
the last word.
Interviewed
by two You Tube channels (Hari TV/Lahiru Mudalige/December 16 and Konara
Vlogs/Avishka Konara/December 23, 2020) Ali Sabry PC, Minister of Justice,
stressed that his struggle was to build bridges rather than walls between the
communities. For over eight months by then he had been advocating burial of
bodies of Muslims who had died of Covid-19, ignoring the decree of the
competent authority, the DGHS (Director General of Health Services). The DGHS
was acting on the advice of the local experts who knew best what was suitable
for our country in the then existing context, i.e., cremation. The reputed
lawyer was the legal consultant of (current president) Gotabaya Rajapaksa at
least for fifteen years from the latter’s defence secretary days; he had
successfully defended the latter against false charges of various kinds
fabricated by political opponents. Sabry’s aim of establishing intercommunal
harmony had been laudable, and he might be sincere in his efforts in that
direction, but how sincere was yet to be demonstrated. This was because it was
puzzling that he repeatedly warned that young Muslims were likely to be pushed
towards extremism by what they’d perceive as a denial of their right to freedom
of religion if the health authorities did not allow the burial of bodies of
Muslims claimed by Covid-19. His totally nonsensical stand on the sensitive
issue (that had to be left for science, but not religion, to resolve) was
likely to give a fillip to extremists and other miscreants opposed to the
government to create trouble. M.L.A,M. Hizbullah, State minister and later
Eastern Provincial governor under the previous yahapalanaya, made a similar
warning, which was not warranted by the then prevailing ground realities, not
long before the 2019 April 21 Easter Sunday terror bombings by Islamists.
During
the first interview mentioned above, Ali Sabry made the patently false claim
that the Aluthgama and Digana incidents drove young Muslims to extremism,
whereas the truth was the reverse of that, as borne out by evidence. (These
incidents must be investigated even belatedly to discover the factual situation
that then obtained. The disastrous policy of political correctness that led to
the submergence of the truth on those occasions then seemed to be at work once
again.) Sabry referred to how the UK responded to incidents of Islamic
extremist violence as a model to follow in dealing with the same problem in Sri
Lanka: the UK government reached out to the mainstream Muslim minority and
acted to win their confidence and support in order to contain Islamic extremism
in that country. That was a false analogy. He implied that Sri Lanka had to do
the same (as if Sri Lanka has not been doing exactly that for centuries) or ‘we
must kill all Muslims and put them into the sea!’ (The violent imagery in his
speech was an indication of the commotion in his own mind resulting from his
subliminal awareness of guilt as he felt compelled to lie in that situation for
political expediency within his own community. His persistent advocacy of
burial against the lawful directives of the DGHS revealed his anxiety to avoid
displeasing pious Muslims who insisted on burying their dead as per strict
Muslim funeral rites.) It was reported that he threatened to resign from his
ministerial post on this issue, but that he was persuaded to stay on, which to
the genuinely concerned sounded fishy, no doubt.
Ali
Sabry had been sounding the warning mentioned above (about possible unrest
among Muslim youth over the ‘no burial only cremation’ problem since early
April 2020. He apparently believed that he was undergoing a sort of public
trial by being blamed by both the Muslim community on the one hand who felt
aggrieved by the compulsory cremation rule imposed on all citizens by the
health authorities for the safe disposal of bodies of Covid-19 victims and the
numerically strong nationalist faction on the other led by the monks, who
insisted] that the rule should not be relaxed to satisfy the whims of one
particular group of people thereby endangering the lives of the whole
population through the possible release of the still inadequately understood
novel coronavirus from the interred bodies to the country’s water table, which,
in many places in Sri Lanka, is not very deep, and lies close to the surface.
The controversial Gnanasara Thera (who is now heading the presidential task
mentioned) was an exception: he spoke up for Muslims who wanted to bury; the
monk said that the Muslims’ demand for burial should be allowed.
Ali
Sabry should know better than most that there has been no lack of
reaching out to the mainstream Muslim minority either by the majority community
or by the successive governments. Muslims as a community are mainly engaged in
business. Seventy-five per cent of their customer base comprises Sinhalese,
making it possible for Muslim businesses to thrive normally, though there’s
been just condemnation, among the citizenry including the majority Sinhalese,
of worsening Islamist extremism in recent years. Be that as it may, it is not
simply because Sabry had served president Gotabaya in the past as his
implicitly trusted personal legal service provider that he was made a national
list MP by the SLPP and honoured and empowered with such a very important key
portfolio.
‘One
country One law’ was the rallying cry that inspired patriotic Sri Lankans at
both the presidential and parliamentary elections to vote for the SLPP, which
won with the largest margins. As minister of justice Sabry has been entrusted
with the task of supervising the making of a new constitution that is designed
to achieve that epoch making change (namely, One Country, One Law) among other
things. Gotabaya made no bones about the fact that he won the presidency almost
exclusively on the strength of Sinhalese votes, as already hinted above; most
Muslims and Tamils chose not to respond positively to his call for support at
the presidential election. His bluntness was a reflection of his characteristic
candour, which had then not been compromised by the hypocrisy of political
correctness, his older brother’s blunt weapon, that fails more often than it
succeeds. But Gotabaya did not hold any grudge against those who rejected
him, for in the same breath president elect Gotabaya said that he was elected
as president of all the citizens of the country and that he would serve in that
post without discriminating against any citizen. There is no doubt about the
fact that he meant what he said. By appointing Ali Sabry to the powerful post
of Minister of Justice, the president incidentally reassured the Muslims that
he would not exclude them from his vision of prosperity and splendour for the
nation.
But
Ali Sabry did not budge an inch from his original unqualified opposition
to the mandatory burning of bodies of Muslim victims of Covid-19 over which he
expressed his disappointment in a Facebook post, something mentioned in an Al
Jazeera news report/April 3, 2020, with the authorities’ decision which, he
alleged, ignored the WHO guidelines that allow both burial and cremation. Were
we to believe that our experts chose to overlook the WHO guidelines without a
rational explanation? Sabry deliberately ignored the various reservations that
clearly qualified the WHO guidelines, leaving the authorised specialists of any
member country to modify those recommendations as appropriate for local
conditions and ground realities. The basic assumption that he seemed to be
operating on, regarding the burial problem, was wrong. For all intents and
purposes, he pretended to wrongly believe that the health authorities insisted
on making no exception for Muslim dead in this case because that was what the
monks wanted. Ali Sabry was the last person that rational people would
expect to demand that Muslims should be allowed to bury their loved ones dead
from the novel coronavirus while cremation was the only safe method ordered by
the Director General of Health Services (DGHS).
This
is not a happy thing to say about arguably the most important and influential
minister in the cabinet, being the closest companion of the president, next to
the prime minister, who is the president’s own brother. It was inconceivable
how Ali Sabry was capable of (no doubt unintentionally) justifying the berserk
behaviour of some virus-infected Muslims (as seen in their show of
insubordination, noncooperation, physical harassment of the health workers
trying to help them including spitting at them (with the malicious intention of
spreading the infection); cases were reported of some Covid-19 positive tested
individuals spitting out of the windows of buses carrying them to quarantine
centres in vicious attempts to spread dreaded infection). Such demonstration of
unprovoked anger is based on the false pretext of alleged discrimination
against them by the government in the matter of mandatory cremation of Corona
dead as prescribed by the responsible health experts to prevent the escape of
the deadly virus with many unknowns into the environment. The virus is no
respecter of people’s religious sensitivities. If the Director General of
Health determined that cremation was the only option for Sri Lanka in the
prevailing emergency, all citizens were obliged to accept that and act
accordingly.
Why
didn’t Ali Sabry make an effort to explain to the agitating Muslims and to the
misinformed Muslim world in general, who have never been enemies of Sri Lanka,
that this blown-out-of-proportion controversy over the burial or cremation
issue had nothing to do with the monks or the government or the health
authorities or the army and police officers (the last mentioned having been
co-opted into the Covid containment operation only as ancillary personnel
employed for a strictly logistical purpose to serve under the DGHS, the
government appointed competent authority, who gives leadership to the whole
enterprise, which involves every single citizen of the country).
The
cremation imperative was not an arbitrary decision taken by the government to
spite the Muslim minority under pressure from the monks as misleadingly
suggested by the hostile foreign NGO elements, Islamists, a handful of
misguided Muslims, and the irresponsible SJB-led opposition. The DGHS was not
acting capriciously either; his recommendations were based on a scientific
rationale collectively defined by a group of experts belonging to a number of
different but relevant fields of study in the best interest of all resident Sri
Lankans and foreign visitors. Ali Sabry seemed to be more concerned about
remaining in the good books of the handful of Islamists and their sympathisers
than about the feelings of the ninety-five per cent of the population who are
against them. Was he in the thrall of the five percent? The fate of the goal of
One Country One Law under Ali Sabry as Minister of Justice is not difficult to
guess.
(Note
to Lankaweb readers: The latter two thirds of this article a timely
rehash of a previous article of mine published here: Even you, Minister Ali
Sabry?”. Readers, please bear with me for repeating myself.)