Response to Editorial, lines August 2005 “The Language of Peace Building in Sri Lanka- the Absent Presence”

-Devanesan Nesiah

 

I am in broad agreement with your editorial of 05 Aug. 05.  A recurrent tragic theme in Sri Lankan politics in relation to accommodating minority concerns is, ‘too little too late’.  The gross injustice of the deprivation of citizenship and voting rights inflicted on ‘Indian Tamils’ (who constituted  about a tenth of our population at the time of independence) has since been partly mitigated by compromises made decades later, under which nearly a half of that population eventually secured citizenship and voting rights.  Had such compromises been proposed and negotiated earlier with ‘Indian Tamil’ leaders, it is possible that a mutually accepted consensus would have been reached and any legislation required could have based on that consensus, avoiding much bitterness and suffering. 

 

‘Too little too late’ is also a feature of our language policy.  It is too little because, although Tamil is now de jure an official language, it is not de facto.  Outside the North East, in practice, the rights of Tamil speaking citizens to use their language in dealing with the state are minimal; less now than even before Tamil became an official language after more than two decades of ‘Sinhala only’.  Again, if negotiations had been conducted in the mid-50s with the leaders of the Tamil speaking population, a compromise could have been arrived at to move steadily towards Sinhala-Tamil bilingualism through out the island (and beyond, in due course, to Sinhala-Tamil-English trilingualism) with, perhaps, recognition of the use of the Sinhala, Tamil and English languages in that ranking order in ceremonial matters.  The wide spread loss of capacity to use Tamil (and English too) need not have occurred.  The riots, pogroms, civil wars and political assassinations (yet continuing) that have plagued this country since 1956 may have been avoided.

 

Likewise, timely negotiations and compromises were lacking in respect of colonization policies and programs; ethnic and district quotas in university admissions and in recruitment to the public services including the police, army, navy and air force; the nationalization of the plantations in the early 70s, which resulted in large numbers of ‘Indian Tamils’ being evicted from their plantations and deprived of employment and, in consequence, dying on the streets in the  hill country; the fair interpretation and effective implementation of the 13^th Amendment through an empowered agency such as a Constitutional Council; and a role for Muslims in the peace process.  On these and other critical issues, give and take would have been easier before crises developed than after they soured the political climate.  Unfortunately, the concept of engaging in inter-ethnic consultations prior to introducing ethnically sensitive policies has been alien to our political culture.  In contrast, Malaysia, notwithstanding the serious shortcomings and disparities inherent in the Bumiputra policies, has avoided ethnic riots since 1969 by resorting to such timely consultations.

 

To return to the language policy, as you point out the problem is less technical than political.  For example, it would be necessary to increase recruitment of Tamil speakers and curtail recruitment of non-Tamil speakers till the optimum balance required to ensure the language rights of all citizens is reached.  It would also be necessary to take language competency (demonstrated by capacity to conduct correspondence with citizens in both Sinhala and Tamil rather than by merely passing language proficiency examinations) in to account in making key appointments and effecting service promotions.  In particular, it would be necessary to hold heads of offices, at all levels, responsible for ensuring that all citizens enjoy their language rights in dealing with that office and, if there are unavoidable shortcomings, for taking prompt and effective action to overcome those shortcomings within a specified period.  Measures such as those listed above would encounter a great deal of resistance unless and until there is a radical re-orientation in the thinking of the political leadership and public service personnel. 

 

The long run objective of full Sinhala-Tamil bilingualism at the lower levels of the public service and Sinhala-Tamil-English trilingualism at the higher levels would require that the second language (Sinhala/Tamil) is introduced in late primary or early secondary school and that the third (English) be introduced as earlier as possible and not later than in higher secondary school through out the island.  Entry to the public services could then be restricted to those with the required language competencies.  This measure too is likely to be initially unpopular, but once introduced, students seeking to enter the public service would wish to gain the required language competencies, and the community will also appreciate the schools providing such facilities.

 

But all these requires substantial political commitment which has been lacking hither to.  Unfortunately, the indifference of the ‘liberal/progressive’ elite and the opportunism of those leaders of Tamil speakers who choose to down play state discrimination have not helped.  Both categories may feel more comfortable to acquiesce in the status quo rather than struggle against oppression through embarking on a long, arduous and troublesome journey of nation building.  We have not yet generated the leadership who could take us on such a journey.