The grand gesture of recognition that President Mahinda Rajapaksa bestowed upon Muttiah Muralitharan for his long career contribution to Sri Lanka cricket has been widely appreciated throughout the country. The President found time to make an unscheduled visit to the Galle Cricket Stadium where Sri Lanka was playing against India, and Muralitharan was playing his final game prior to retirement. The President presented the world famous cricketer with a gift on the occasion and made a speech in which he hailed him as a son of the soil. The President also sent a message to the world at large that what mattered to him was the contribution to the country, and not the contributor’s ethnicity. This is a powerful message of national reconciliation.

This was not the first time that the President had supported Muralitharan. When the cricketer was accused of bowling with an illegal arm action and threatened with an international ban, he was given full support by President Rajapaksa, who was then the Prime Minister. At that time the war against the LTTE was also at its height, and there was suspicion that the LTTE had penetrated everywhere and even into sports. As a result, whether it was politics, business or sports there were security issues whenever it concerned Tamils. But Prime Minister Rajapaksa was not deterred and mobilized a team of lawyers who would fight for Muralitharan’s right to play international cricket. The battle was won, and Muralitharan went on to break the world record for the number of wickets taken by a bowler in test cricket.

In his own speech the great cricketer acknowledged the contribution that President Rajapaksa had made to his cricketing career. The relationship between the President and Muralitharan shows how the President is prepared to give value to those who contribute to the interests of the country. One of the President’s most electrifying and clarion calls to the electorate is to be patriotic, to love and serve the Motherland, and not to undermine his government. In this respect all individuals appear to be equal in the eyes of the President. The problem is that the President has still not been able to transfer his universal values, where every Sri Lankan citizen obtains equal protection, to the macro-level which affects entire communities of people. This is where great leadership that can transform situations is necessary.

Over a year has now passed since the end of that war. During the past year, there have been many beneficial effects of the end of war. Most roads have been reopened and there is free access to nearly all parts of the country to ordinary citizens. Economic life has revived with the return of agricultural lands and seas to productive activities. Many members of the diaspora have been able to return and visit their relatives or engage in economic activities. However, here has been no progress at all on finding a political solution to the issues that gave rise to Tamil militancy and war and a host of other problems that continue to cause deep discontent within the Tamil community.

INEQUITIOUS PATTERN

There are many who would rightly praise President Rajapaksa’s actions in going to Galle to honour Muttiah Muralitharan and call him a son of the soil who had served his country well. However, governing a country well requires that these values be transferred to the entire system of government. Sometimes the main requirement of a society is to break out of the pattern of the past that re-produces conflict. It is the inequities that arose in previous governments’ relations with different communities that gave rise to the ethnic conflict and to the war. Unfortunately, even after the end of the war, governance in Sri Lanka continues to possess the infirmities that gave rise to Tamil separatism. There is a need to ensure that the protective values that President Rajapaksa demonstrated towards Muttiah Muralitharan regardless of his ethnicity are deployed to shape the structures of governance in the country.

It is unfortunate that much of what is happening in the country to the Tamil community is adverse to the spirit of reconciliation. The recommencement of police registration in the predominantly Tamil inhabited areas of Wellawatte and Kotahena in Colombo has created immense heartburn amongst the community. During the war period, the government used the Emergency Regulations to enforce the registration of all Tamil residents and also Tamil visitors to Colombo. After the end of the war, the government announced to the world at large, and particularly in international forums, that these Emergency Regulations had been revoked and the practice of registration would cease. However, this practice has now recommenced using the Police Ordinance.

The Democratic People's Front Leader Mano Ganesan has requested President Mahinda Rajapaksa to intervene to halt the police registration of Tamils in this manner as discriminatory and against the spirit of reconciliation. The government is expected to uphold the Constitution which affirms that everybody will be treated equally irrespective of race or creed. The President himself has frequently proclaimed that there is only a single nation in this country. The Police now claim that they have been instructed by higher authorities to register all people -- including Tamils. It is incumbent on the government to ensure that there is no discriminatory targeting of Tamils, or any section of the Sri Lankan people, as this is root of conflict.

While recognising that security measures may need to be taken, the singling out of any one community for such targeted actions goes against democratic values. The positive actions of the government, such as its appointment of a Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation must not be undermined by its discriminatory and heavy handed actions in other areas. The government also needs to be more open about the situation of those who have been taken into government custody both during and following the war. The most obvious of these instances is the detention of a reported 11,000 hard core LTTE cadres to which even the International Committee of the Red Cross has not been given access. Some of them have been released but most are being held incommunicado.

VULNERABLE GROUPS

In any situation in which a group of people have complete authority and power over others, there is bound to be an abuse of powers, unless this is checked by other means including systematic and independent monitoring. Ad hoc visits by important personages or even organizations are no substitute for an accountable and effective system to halt acts of impunity. The exclusion of the ICRC which has a long tradition of such monitoring, and is accepted worldwide, is a serious lapse in protection. The government would do well to rectify this deficiency, if it is to gain credibility in its defence of its human rights record.

It is not only the LTTE suspects inside detention centres who are vulnerable in the absence of independent monitoring systems. Even the war-displaced people who have returned to their home areas without any resources, and whose entire villages are destroyed, are also vulnerable and requiring of special protection. They have no homes, no community, and no jobs, and have no strength as a community group. In their very midst is a very strong military presence, which is organized, whereas they are not. In these circumstances, the war-displaced people need to be strengthened as communities so that they may protect themselves in the absence of external monitors such as the ICRC. This is a task that non governmental organizations such as the long established Sarvodaya Movement have specialized skills in.

However, in a recent development, the government has brought the NGO sector under the Ministry of Defence. In the past the NGOs were, more appropriately, under the Ministry of Social Services. The Ministry of Defence has also issued a circular that directs NGOs who intend to do projects in the North to register with it and to follow a stringent procedure of getting prior governmental permission for all activities and movements. The bureaucratic delays inherent in the approval system will be detrimental to the service that these organizations can do. Various other statements made by government officials to NGOs also suggest that the government does not wish them to engage in community level capacity building, monitoring and protection work.

The government’s desire to be informed and to know what NGOs and in any other agencies are doing in the country is both understandable and justifiable both on efficiency and security grounds. There is a valid monitoring and information gathering task for the government. However, this must not be made into an issue of control where the government decides on a daily basis what NGOs and civil society can and cannot do, so long as what they do is within the laws. In a democratic society, the government cannot seek to be the only decision maker, nor can it be the only monitor of itself. This is a recipe for abuse of power and is not favourable to the reconciliation process that the country needs.