On Rudrakumaran’s Opportunistic Hypocrisy Of Reconciliation

A recent post in the Colombo Telegraph by the ‘PM of the TGTE’ expressed solidarity with the Muslim community whilst “extending our fullest support to the Muslim people, we also extend our solidarity to the Muslim community, as a community whose mother tongue is also Tamil, asking them to join the Tamils in their struggle to build a secure future for all in the Tamil state”.  The article was written on the back of rising incidents of attack against the Muslim community by extreme Buddhist groups.

I not only found this article laughable but highly delusional in the assumptions that the Muslim community would entertain any notion of an alliance with the TGTE, whose singular premise has been to extend the LTTE mantra and campaign on a separate Tamil state.  Making this statement, the TGTE was not necessarily ‘concerned’ about the Muslim community per se, but it was aimed at showing the ‘intolerance’ of Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism.  At quite a crucial time for Sri Lanka, during the anniversaries of the Black July pogroms 30 years ago, the article aims to draw parallels with then and now and to show that nothing has changed.  Yet interestingly it seems to have taken the TGTE 4 years since the end of the conflict (and the occasions of these incidents) to publicly reach out to the Muslim community

At one level, it is rather presumptuous  and hypocritical of the PM of the TGTE to call for solidarity with Muslims and to suggest that there is a secure future for them in a Tamil state.  The experience of the Muslims with the Tamils has far from been the case.  Without acknowledging let alone at least apologising for what took place in Jaffna and the north in 1990, with the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim community by the LTTE, the TGTE’s sincerity will be questioned and the notion of the safe presence of Muslims in a Tamil state is merely academic.

However it is not just the expulsions from the north that needs to be discussed.  There are other elephants in the room that need to be acknowledged between the Tamils and the Muslims. Whilst the end of July was the anniversary of Black July, the beginning of August brought about two poignant yet painful memories for the Muslim community of the 30 year old war which apart from discussions on facebook, didn’t elicit much of a public response.

The horrific shootings at the mosques in Kathankudy, Batticaloa Province, in August 1990 by the LTTE is a painful reminder that the sanctity of religious places of worship is a stain on inter community relations in Sri Lanka and is not something that has been only violated by today’s proponents of Sinhala Buddhist extremism.  Visit Kathankudy today and the physical scars of that day are just as visible as the mental scars.

Fast forward to August 2006, and the precursor to the start of hostilities between the government and the LTTE which led to the end of the conflict in 2009, triggering international protests around the world for the way it ended, the killing of civilians and treatment of displaced people. Almost 50,000 mainly Muslims were displaced once again by the LTTE  from the village of Mutthur in the Trincomalee district, after leaflets were sent around the town  by the LTTE in April of 2006 warning Muslim residents to leave,  in a scene almost reminiscent of what happened in Jaffna in 1990.   Despite this mass exodus of people from the  town and being kept in refugee camps, the international outcry and remembrance will be for the 17 aid workers who were killed in Mutthur during this time.  What is also little talked about apart from the actual displacement and the refugee crisis that ensued are the eyewitness accounts that talk about how LTTE cadres intercepted evacuees from Mutthur and separated youth from the group, executing them,  with some dying as a result of government shelling.

Without such acknowledgements and recognition of such incidents, the rhetoric of TGTE and many other Tamil representatives (both outside and within Sri Lanka) ring hollow as they opportunistically ‘reach out’.

Of course the opportunistic hypocrisy is not just one sided.  There are those in the reconciliation movement who will have to ask themselves some serious questions as they fail to address the trajectory of Sri Lanka currently.  30 years ago when the mobs came hunting for the Tamils, many Muslims were warned that their time would come. It seems recent incidents involving the Muslim community seem to be proving this statement to be true.  In the week of the commemoration of the Black July anniversary, there was a lot of naval gazing and hand wringing as people  not only openly apologised for the sins of their community but also spoke eloquently about the need for lessons to be learnt.

Yet a few weeks afterwards in the wake of an attack on a mosque in Colombo, seeming to put into action the threats from 30 years ago, it was evident that those laments were nothing more than just rhetoric.  The deafening silence of many prominent Sinhalese activists (a large number of them Buddhist), especially those involved in reconciliation work, a large number of them friends (from the UK),  has not only been disappointing, but frustrating and disheartening.  In the height of the real challenge for reconciliation for the country, it was met with silence and inaction.

Thus in that light, the premise of the article the PM of the TGTE could be interpreted as right:  The actions of the minority extreme Sinhala Buddhist elements actually reflect the sentiment of the majority. If that is the case, then there is no hope for any united Sri Lanka where anyone who is non Sinhala Buddhist can hope to live peacefully. One can argue whether that would also exist for non Tamils in the TGTE, but again that is academic.

There are many who argue that had they been able to, they would have spoken out or tried to help during Black July as lessons were learnt  The opportunity that they missed then presents itself now.  In the absence of any real effort to tackle ethnic and faith problems now, all the rhetoric of reconciliation (by all stakeholders) smells just of opportunistic hypocrisy.

If we truly want reconciliation, then we have to be consistent and at least speak out against any injustice perpetrated in our name.

this originally appeared here

Protecting Refugee Rights: The Role of Religion

Religious teachings and practices cannot be ignored if we are to effectively protect the rights and wellbeing of refugees.

During my time as country director for Muslim Aid in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, I dealt with refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) fleeing man-made and natural disasters. Very often, I came away from each project thinking the same thing: “We are not doing enough”.

This is not aimed as a criticism for the sterling work many humanitarian agencies undertake during emergencies and in trying circumstances, but there is a gap in the work that is currently being done. This gap is the failure to recognise the role of religion in the protection of refugee rights, as well as a failure to recognise the traumatic spiritual experience that many people, who are forced out of their houses losing everything of material value, often face.

Being made a refugee is possibly one of the most testing times of one’s faith and patience — barring the loss of a loved one. However, because of the nature of how international non-governmental organisations (INGO), donors, humanitarian agencies, and faith based humanitarian agencies view the concept of faith — as an elephant in the room — the role of religion and spiritual counselling are not considered for refugees. Often, the latter are reluctant to engage in this, and rightly so when there have been instances of abuse involving faith based organisations preying on the vulnerability of refugees and trying to proselytize. Hence, the blanket unwritten rule that comes into operation: “we don’t do faith”.

It is also not helped by the fact that current debates on migration and displacement largely exclude discussions of religion whilst in refugee studies, “religion receives most attention for its role in violent conflicts and the politicization of religious identities”. These gaps in academic research tend to influence government policy towards refuge and asylum, which in turn ignores religious influences on forced migrants.

This is a shame, because part of the counselling and healing needed for refugees has to go beyond the emotional and psychological. Many of the people who are made refugees come from religious and spiritual backgrounds, and in order to restore them to some normalcy, we have to address the cracks in their faith as a result of their traumatic experience. In addition to this, and more importantly, by failing to consider religion as a fundamental factor in the protection of refugee rights, these academic scholars ignore the fact that religious beliefs and practices can be crucial to many refugees’ wellbeing once they have been granted asylum, providing a sense of security in strange and often threatening environments.

Protecting Refugee Rights From an Islamic Perspective

Largely because a lot of my work has been centred around Muslim displacement, and being a Muslim myself, I was curious to see what Islam had to say about this.

We are constantly told in history lessons about the migration of the early followers of Islam, and in the Qur’an, the stories of the lives of the Prophets Abraham and Moses (upon whom be peace), are also testimony to the fact that migration and seeking refuge are part and parcel of spiritual development.

Thus, based on an initial study on the subject, I was curious to delve into the history and theology of Islam and migration. Bearing in mind that refugees from Syria could soon number close to three million and that since 2007, Muslims have constituted the largest refugee populations worldwide with nearly half of the world’s refugees coming from Muslim countries, whilst a significant amount of the total IDPs are displaced in the Muslim world, it seems quite a timely topic to try and address. Especially as one of the current issues seems to be the lack of protective mechanisms for refugees in the Muslim world — where most Muslims seek asylum.

The concept of migration, or hijrah, is central within the teachings of Islam and its history, especially in the case of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him), who fled persecution in Mecca and sought refuge in Medina in 662 AD. This hijrahcame to symbolise the movement of Muslims from lands of oppression to those of Islam (although in current discussions this has been elaborated by scholars to lands of safety). Moreover, the hospitable treatment of Muhammed by the people of Medina embodies the Islamic model of refugee protection contained in the Qur’an. Thus, individuals not only have the right to seek and be granted asylum in any Muslim state, but it is the duty of Muslims to accept and protect these refugees for as long as they seek protection. Here, it is interesting to note that in comparison to modern refugee law, hijrah offers a broader definition of refugees and gives individuals, rather than states, the right to the determination of asylum.

The Qur’an speaks explicitly about the issue of asylum seekers and refugees:

“And if anyone of the disbelievers seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the word of God, and then escort him to where he will be secure.” [Chapter 9, Verse 6]

The concept of sanctuary, as is popular in Christianity, is also affirmed within Islamic law and history. On the conquest of Mecca by the Prophet Muhammed, anyone who sought refuge in sacred spots or the home of one of his companions was safe and secure. Thus, this is usually extended by scholars of Islamic law to conclude that asylum is not confined only to sacred places – it is also granted in homes and designated communal places under the protection of Islam, with the responsibility of asylum being provided without discriminating between free persons and those who are enslaved, rich and poor, men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim. This responsibility is formalised in the fourth chapter of the Qur’an:

“He who emigrates in the path of God will find frequent refuge and abundance.” [Chapter 4, Verses 97-99]

This responsibility is known as aman, or trust/safety, which encompasses the rights of refugees and asylum seekers and the duties required by their hosts. Aman also refers to the refuge and safeguard offered to non-Muslims, even if they are in conflict with Muslims. It requires that host populations facilitate the voluntary return of refugees to their places of origin when considered safe. Such refuge remains inviolate, even if the person who is being offered protection is in a conflict against Muslims.

However, principles in Islamic law regarding refugee assistance and protection remain largely ignored in academic and political discourse, and certain challenges need to be discussed. For example, Islam recognises two types of rights: rights that humans are obliged, by virtue of being the creations of God, to fulfil and obey, and rights that they are entitled to expect from their fellow human beings.

This may appear to have some contradiction with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), where the latter corresponds to what are elsewhere termed "human rights". The former are rights that stem from, and are obtained through, belief in God and religion. In this concept, only God truly has rights and the rights of humans are understood as their obligation to abide by God’s commands. They are, first and foremost, the rights of individuals to abide by and adhere to the laws that God decreed and are only possible through this belief system; thus potentially excluding people who do not believe in God.

Another potentially difficult point to reconcile is the principle of equality between men and women. The UDHR affirms unconditionally the complete equality between the two sexes. The discussion in Islamic law does offer different rights and obligations to men and women, which means that in the situation of the rights of restitution of property to refugees, for example, the following question may be raised: What are the implications for the many female-headed households trying to survive or rebuild lives and livelihoods after conflict and displacement?

The Role of Religion

What this brief discussion on Islamic rules and regulations shows is that there are valuable sources for the protection of the rights of refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers from Islamic sources. No doubt Muslim countries and faith based organisations need to understand them fully in order to deal with some of the crises affecting the Muslim world today. More broadly speaking, religious teachings and practices cannot be ignored when dealing effectively with refugees. Space needs to be provided for these discussions and it needs to be considered at all levels. As we commemorate World Refugee Day and Week, we need to now think about new paradigms for dealing with refugees which involve engaging in faith, religion, and spirituality issues.

*[Note: This article is an adapted version of an earlier report by the author for Islamic Relief Worldwide and the UNHCR.]

This was originally posted on Fair Observer