What happened on 9 May was a tragedy; a tragedy that the entire nation should genuinely mourn. Such genuine mourning has the capacity to generate reflections that could transform the thinking and practices of all those concerned about how to avoid such tragedies in the future.
Such genuine forms of mourning are very different to manipulations of a tragedy or a part of a tragedy in order to achieve petty ends, whether these ends are political or otherwise.
It is quite natural for MPs to commemorate the brutal murder of one of their colleagues. This murder is a tragedy that should not have happened, and should not have been allowed to happen. That was the very reason why the reflections conveyed through the speeches in the Parliament should have been of a somber and sober nature with the aim of trying to lead the thinking within the nation about the situation that has arisen in the country with the view to bring about a certain understanding about the ways by which such tragedies should be dealt with in a manner so that such situations could be avoided in the future.
However, instead of such sober observations, what happened by way of the speeches of most of the participants in that debate was an attempt to unleash further violence, and also to encourage greater repression within the country. The target of most of these speeches was not the particular incident, but the protest that is taking place throughout the country for many reasons. Making use of a tragedy in order to unleash further violence could in no way be called mourning. It is another political event used for limited political purposes which will further add to the tragedy rather than resolving the underlying issues.
No tragedy can be discussed without placing it within the context in which it happened, and without placing one tragedy within the overall context of a larger tragedy.
A meaningful discussion of a tragedy like this murder of a MP could have been an occasion within which the larger tragedy that is devastating the entire nation in all spheres – the economy, the political system, the legal system, and above all within the arena of ethics and morality – was brought into the discussion. That is how the literature on tragedy has contributed to the greater understanding of many aspects of the causes that produce such situations.
It is not possible to discuss a tragedy without placing oneself as also a contributor to that tragedy. Whereas tragedy is seen purely in terms of outside actors, it is not possible to portray how not only the so-called villains, but the so-called heroes have contributed to the tragedy.
The murder of the MP, which reflects the enormous gravity of the mental unrest that exists within the entire society if properly discussed in Parliament, could have led not only to the formation of a better outlook within Parliament itself, but also have led to the better understanding of the problem in the entire nation.
The whole effort in this debate was not to acknowledge how far the tragedy that is taking place within the total society of Sri Lanka was also a product of the political failures of various governments and in particular of the recent events, which has in turn brought to the consciousness of the people that an unprecedented calamity is developing in their country. Had many of the speakers in this debate held these views while acknowledging their own contributions to the tragic circumstances that have developed in the country, it could have been a message to the people that there was an attempt by the leaders of their country to grasp the totality of this tragedy, which may have in turn created a more positive response on the part of the people themselves to take a broader outlook about what is taking place.
When former Prime Minister and incumbent Government MP Mahinda Rajapaksa, who himself was the first person responsible for unleashing the situation that arose on 9 May, spoke, even without acknowledging that he himself had an indirect role to play in the loss of one of his own followers, the whole exercise of that commemoration lost its authenticity. If he did make use of this situation to make an apology over what happened on that morning – where people who were called to have a meeting with him went out and engaged in a rampage of peaceful demonstrators – that could have carried a message of some form of acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Also, sober mourning carries within it an element of confession, but there was no such acknowledgement or a confession during this commemoration.
The core of the tragedy was the failure on the part of the law enforcement agencies to maintain law and order at all costs. As the failure in that area was acknowledged, the question that really should have been discussed would have been how much the Government itself is responsible for the failure of law enforcement in the country. There was no discussion about this matter at all, though there were references to what was called the Police inaction to prevent this murder. However, it was not only over the murder that the Police failed. They also failed at the very beginning of these events on 9 May, and failed throughout the country at all points.
It was on that basis that Parliament should have apologised to the family of the deceased MP, that they failed to protect the life of a MP and also a husband and father, by their failure to ensure that there exists a law enforcement agency in the country that is capable of maintaining law and order in all circumstances.
The continuing tragedy of Sri Lanka is that it lacks a reliable law enforcement agency that at all times maintains law and order at whatever the cost. The talk about conflicting commands issued by different authorities is no excuse, and could bring no consolation to the family of the deceased MP.
In fact, Parliament should at least now publicly admit that the failure to protect everyone who suffered on that day primarily lies with the failure of the Government itself to maintain law and order through a competent and efficient law enforcement agency.
There is no attempt at all to resolve this failure. This debate saw no call towards ending the failure on the part of Sri Lanka’s premier law enforcement agency and the expression of a determination to correct this by proper means so as to ensure that the people of the country, including the MPs themselves, are being protected. So long as that does not happen, nobody is safe in the country, whatever be their status or position.
There were several calls for a quick trial relating to this murder. A trial without delay is an obligation of any State. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Sri Lanka has undertaken to ensure a speedy trial for everybody. However, the State has failed in this regard and it has failed everyone.
A speedy trial is not a privilege. It does not depend on the status of the person who has become the victim of a murder. It is a right of every person. The basic principle of equality before the law is that all survivors of murder have the right to see that justice is done in a speedy manner. If the State has failed to provide for ensuring that the people who suffered grave wrongs like murder are unable to get justice in the country, that is the failure of the State, and the State must accept responsibility for this.
It again calls for the basic issue of a failed system of justice which is at the root of all the violence that has taken place in the country. Recently, within just five days, seven murders were reported. The level to which murders are taking place in the country makes Sri Lanka a rather dangerous place. However, there is not a single statement on the part of the Government in order to ensure the improvement of the system of justice so as to ensure protection to the people.
There are more people being blamed for the tragic murder of this MP. The very Parliament of which he was a Member bears a grave responsibility for this sad situation. However, Parliament, in its condolences, did not acknowledge its failure to ensure the protection of everybody, including this MP.
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s speeches, which aimed at provoking more persons with the view to increase repression, are in no way speeches to honour an MP who has dedicated his life, as it was said, to public life, and for achieving public good.
(The writer is the Asian Human Rights Commission’s Policy and Programmes Director)
…………………………….
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.
Parliamentarians’ inability to mourn
16 Jun 2022
Parliamentarians’ inability to mourn
16 Jun 2022
What happened on 9 May was a tragedy; a tragedy that the entire nation should genuinely mourn. Such genuine mourning has the capacity to generate reflections that could transform the thinking and practices of all those concerned about how to avoid such tragedies in the future.
Such genuine forms of mourning are very different to manipulations of a tragedy or a part of a tragedy in order to achieve petty ends, whether these ends are political or otherwise.
It is quite natural for MPs to commemorate the brutal murder of one of their colleagues. This murder is a tragedy that should not have happened, and should not have been allowed to happen. That was the very reason why the reflections conveyed through the speeches in the Parliament should have been of a somber and sober nature with the aim of trying to lead the thinking within the nation about the situation that has arisen in the country with the view to bring about a certain understanding about the ways by which such tragedies should be dealt with in a manner so that such situations could be avoided in the future.
However, instead of such sober observations, what happened by way of the speeches of most of the participants in that debate was an attempt to unleash further violence, and also to encourage greater repression within the country. The target of most of these speeches was not the particular incident, but the protest that is taking place throughout the country for many reasons. Making use of a tragedy in order to unleash further violence could in no way be called mourning. It is another political event used for limited political purposes which will further add to the tragedy rather than resolving the underlying issues.
No tragedy can be discussed without placing it within the context in which it happened, and without placing one tragedy within the overall context of a larger tragedy.
A meaningful discussion of a tragedy like this murder of a MP could have been an occasion within which the larger tragedy that is devastating the entire nation in all spheres – the economy, the political system, the legal system, and above all within the arena of ethics and morality – was brought into the discussion. That is how the literature on tragedy has contributed to the greater understanding of many aspects of the causes that produce such situations.
It is not possible to discuss a tragedy without placing oneself as also a contributor to that tragedy. Whereas tragedy is seen purely in terms of outside actors, it is not possible to portray how not only the so-called villains, but the so-called heroes have contributed to the tragedy.
The murder of the MP, which reflects the enormous gravity of the mental unrest that exists within the entire society if properly discussed in Parliament, could have led not only to the formation of a better outlook within Parliament itself, but also have led to the better understanding of the problem in the entire nation.
The whole effort in this debate was not to acknowledge how far the tragedy that is taking place within the total society of Sri Lanka was also a product of the political failures of various governments and in particular of the recent events, which has in turn brought to the consciousness of the people that an unprecedented calamity is developing in their country. Had many of the speakers in this debate held these views while acknowledging their own contributions to the tragic circumstances that have developed in the country, it could have been a message to the people that there was an attempt by the leaders of their country to grasp the totality of this tragedy, which may have in turn created a more positive response on the part of the people themselves to take a broader outlook about what is taking place.
When former Prime Minister and incumbent Government MP Mahinda Rajapaksa, who himself was the first person responsible for unleashing the situation that arose on 9 May, spoke, even without acknowledging that he himself had an indirect role to play in the loss of one of his own followers, the whole exercise of that commemoration lost its authenticity. If he did make use of this situation to make an apology over what happened on that morning – where people who were called to have a meeting with him went out and engaged in a rampage of peaceful demonstrators – that could have carried a message of some form of acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Also, sober mourning carries within it an element of confession, but there was no such acknowledgement or a confession during this commemoration.
The core of the tragedy was the failure on the part of the law enforcement agencies to maintain law and order at all costs. As the failure in that area was acknowledged, the question that really should have been discussed would have been how much the Government itself is responsible for the failure of law enforcement in the country. There was no discussion about this matter at all, though there were references to what was called the Police inaction to prevent this murder. However, it was not only over the murder that the Police failed. They also failed at the very beginning of these events on 9 May, and failed throughout the country at all points.
It was on that basis that Parliament should have apologised to the family of the deceased MP, that they failed to protect the life of a MP and also a husband and father, by their failure to ensure that there exists a law enforcement agency in the country that is capable of maintaining law and order in all circumstances.
The continuing tragedy of Sri Lanka is that it lacks a reliable law enforcement agency that at all times maintains law and order at whatever the cost. The talk about conflicting commands issued by different authorities is no excuse, and could bring no consolation to the family of the deceased MP.
In fact, Parliament should at least now publicly admit that the failure to protect everyone who suffered on that day primarily lies with the failure of the Government itself to maintain law and order through a competent and efficient law enforcement agency.
There is no attempt at all to resolve this failure. This debate saw no call towards ending the failure on the part of Sri Lanka’s premier law enforcement agency and the expression of a determination to correct this by proper means so as to ensure that the people of the country, including the MPs themselves, are being protected. So long as that does not happen, nobody is safe in the country, whatever be their status or position.
There were several calls for a quick trial relating to this murder. A trial without delay is an obligation of any State. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Sri Lanka has undertaken to ensure a speedy trial for everybody. However, the State has failed in this regard and it has failed everyone.
A speedy trial is not a privilege. It does not depend on the status of the person who has become the victim of a murder. It is a right of every person. The basic principle of equality before the law is that all survivors of murder have the right to see that justice is done in a speedy manner. If the State has failed to provide for ensuring that the people who suffered grave wrongs like murder are unable to get justice in the country, that is the failure of the State, and the State must accept responsibility for this.
It again calls for the basic issue of a failed system of justice which is at the root of all the violence that has taken place in the country. Recently, within just five days, seven murders were reported. The level to which murders are taking place in the country makes Sri Lanka a rather dangerous place. However, there is not a single statement on the part of the Government in order to ensure the improvement of the system of justice so as to ensure protection to the people.
There are more people being blamed for the tragic murder of this MP. The very Parliament of which he was a Member bears a grave responsibility for this sad situation. However, Parliament, in its condolences, did not acknowledge its failure to ensure the protection of everybody, including this MP.
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s speeches, which aimed at provoking more persons with the view to increase repression, are in no way speeches to honour an MP who has dedicated his life, as it was said, to public life, and for achieving public good.
(The writer is the Asian Human Rights Commission’s Policy and Programmes Director)
…………………………….
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.
Kapruka
Discover Kapruka, the leading online shopping platform in Sri Lanka, where you can conveniently send Gifts and Flowers to your loved ones for any event. Explore a wide range of popular Shopping Categories on Kapruka, including Toys, Groceries, Electronics, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Automobile, Mother and Baby Products, Clothing, and Fashion. Additionally, Kapruka offers unique online services like Money Remittance, Astrology, Medicine Delivery, and access to over 700 Top Brands. Also If you’re interested in selling with Kapruka, Partner Central by Kapruka is the best solution to start with. Moreover, through Kapruka Global Shop, you can also enjoy the convenience of purchasing products from renowned platforms like Amazon and eBay and have them delivered to Sri Lanka.Send love straight to their heart this Valentine's with our thoughtful gifts!
Discover Kapruka, the leading online shopping platform in Sri Lanka, where you can conveniently send Gifts and Flowers to your loved ones for any event. Explore a wide range of popular Shopping Categories on Kapruka, including Toys, Groceries, Electronics, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Automobile, Mother and Baby Products, Clothing, and Fashion. Additionally, Kapruka offers unique online services like Money Remittance, Astrology, Medicine Delivery, and access to over 700 Top Brands. Also If you’re interested in selling with Kapruka, Partner Central by Kapruka is the best solution to start with. Moreover, through Kapruka Global Shop, you can also enjoy the convenience of purchasing products from renowned platforms like Amazon and eBay and have them delivered to Sri Lanka.Send love straight to their heart this Valentine's with our thoughtful gifts!