Intolerance in governance and towards others who are deemed to be outsiders is increasingly being manifested in the world. Sri Lanka is taking a different path. It is adopting an inclusive approach to all communities that is in the national interest and is winning international support. The country’s recent conduct at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a case in point. 

Rather than forcing a vote that would have been divisive and that would have pitted Sri Lanka against the Western countries promoting the Resolution, the Government opted for cooperation over confrontation. By doing so, it signaled to the international community that the country recognises the precarious situation it is in and prefers engagement and dialogue to confrontation and defiance in the search for a solution. 

This choice is consistent with an evolving domestic policy of inclusion. There was a time when Governments in Sri Lanka treated those from some minority communities as aliens and threats to the nation. This began at the dawn of Independence with the disenfranchisement of the Tamils of recent Indian origin (Malaiyaha Tamils) in 1948, who were, at that time, the biggest ethnic minority in the country. Such early policy decisions set the country on a path of mistrust between communities and laid the foundations of a conflict that was both violent and prolonged. By contrast, the vision articulated by the present Government in regard to the ethnic conflict is that every Sri Lankan citizen is equal and discrimination will not be permitted. 

These are still early days for the Government and this vision has still to be realised in practice. The absence of Tamil and Muslim representation in the Cabinet of Ministers and in key national initiatives such as the Clean Task Force needs to be addressed. The slow pace of progress on the devolution of power further distances minority communities from meaningful participation in governance. Despite repeated assurances of inclusivity, the Government continues to overlook the plural character of the Sri Lankan society in issues of governance. On the positive side, there are indications that the Government is keen on treating everyone equally. The Government is applying this policy across the board to other communities as well.

Protecting minorities

The Government is now planning to apply the principle of equality and non-discrimination to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and questioning (LGBTIQ) community, which is also a minority community that suffers from prejudice and discriminatory laws. This was not always the case. Homosexuality became a legal offence in Sri Lanka only with the imposition of the British Penal Code of 1883. Historical records show that the country had a liberal ethos prior to the colonial era which needs to be regained. The Government needs to amend the archaic laws dating to the colonial period that criminalised same sex relations. These are laws that Britain itself has shed, and which neighbouring India has struck down. The Government has also indicated through the Tourism Development Authority that those who belong to the LGBTIQ community worldwide are welcome to visit Sri Lanka as tourists. 

Likewise, the Government is moving to protect the rights of another minority community, the children of the country, who could be considered a minority community as they are powerless in the face of adult power. At present, they are subjected to corporal punishment by their elders, often in the name of discipline. There are many in educational and religious institutions who believe in this practice and demand the discretion to use corporal punishment. The abuse of this power, whether in the school or at home, is likely at the root of the culture of violence that manifests later in Police torture and university ragging. It is a most unhealthy practice for adults, whether parents or teachers, to use violence against children who cannot defend themselves and depend on those very adults for their sustenance. 

The values that the Government is demonstrating with regard to the LGBTIQ community and to the protection of children are in accord with its pledges with regard to national reconciliation. Those who oppose it claim that the Government is following alien (meaning Western) values. But, loving-kindness and non-violence are part of the religious and cultural ethos of Sri Lanka and these moves suggest a coherent approach to governance, rooted in fairness and inclusion. They indicate that the Government understands that reconciliation is not only about resolving ethnic grievances and that inclusion cannot be compartmentalised. A democratic Government needs to protect all its minorities whether ethnic, sexual, or generational.

Action now

The most recent UNHRC Resolution lists out a long list of actions that the Government needs to take. These include finding missing persons or the truth about what happened to them, the release of those held in detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act as amended (PTA), the repeal of the PTA, the return of land, the demilitarisation of the North and the East and the restoration of the devolution of power by holding the long postponed Provincial Council Elections. The UNHRC Resolution also continues with the ‘Sri Lanka Accountability Project’ which the Government objected to, just as previous Governments have. This is a mechanism located in the UN High Commissioner for HR’s Office in Geneva, Switzerland, which collects information and data on HR violations and war crimes that have allegedly taken place in Sri Lanka.  

Ever since the ethnic conflict ended bloodily on the military battlefields, the concern of successive Sri Lankan Governments has been the demand, emanating in the main from the victim Tamil  community, for accountability and war crimes trials that go beyond the national authorities. The track record of the country in dealing with the horrendous HR violations that occurred during the course of the two Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna insurrections and the three decade long ethnic conflict has been poor. These past failures have contributed to the Tamil and  international demand for foreign judges, as in previous Resolutions by the UNHRC or for action by the International Criminal Court. But, this time around, the Sri Lankan Government appears to have been able to convince the international community of its sincerity in taking the reconciliation process forward through domestic and national processes. 

Overall, the UNHRC Resolution calls for the reconciliation process to take place through domestic or national mechanisms as promised by the Government so that the final decisions are made by Sri Lankans and not by foreigners. This major concession by the international community is likely to have been the reason why the Government did not wish to go for a divisive vote. A confrontational approach might have pleased hardliners at home, but it would have squandered the international goodwill that has only now begun to return. The decision not to force a vote, and to mobilise some countries to vote against other countries was not an act of weakness but of prudence. It showed that the Government recognises that it cannot afford to be isolated or placed in a corner. 

The economy continues to be in a precarious condition due to the economic collapse of 2022 (no fault of the present Government) and a quarter of the population lives below the poverty line (double that of 2019). The country has lost close to a decade of development. It needs all the international assistance that it can get from all quarters. Under the present Government, Sri Lanka looks set to break decisively from its past, and the opportunity is now and needs to be taken up without delay. The reconciliation promises repeated in Geneva must be reflected in the North, the East, the Central hills and in every community that awaits justice. If the Government acts now with spirit and courage, it will not only restore the country’s credibility abroad but rebuild unity at home through its inclusive approach.

(The writer is the Executive Director of the National Peace Council organisation)

…………………………………

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication