The Way Forward After Communal Violence in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka needs a platform for genuine and objective discussion in the hope of moving forward and achieving reconciliation.

In Sri Lanka, the start of February was about celebration for the past 70 years of independence, but its end was about reflective contemplation over an uncertain future. Following a wave of anti-Muslim violence in the central district of Kandy, a nationwide state of emergency was declared on March 6 — and lifted on March 18 — the first time in seven years in a country with a history of civil war.

Amidst a curfew enforced in the central province, mobs comprising disaffected youth from the majority Sinhala community — often led by Buddhist monks and individuals linked to ultra-nationalist Sinhalese groups — attacked and destroyed premises belonging to the minority Muslim community. Businesses, homes and mosques were torched and looted.

The attacks were in apparent retaliation for the death of a Sinhalese driver after an altercation with drunken Muslim youth. Yet this was not a simple rise in anger symbolizing grassroots tensions between two communities. It was organized mob violence with a plan and strategy to target Sri Lankan Muslims, united on social media and fed with local intelligence about where they lived.

To some extent, the violence was not entirely unexpected. For many of us who have been working on post-conflict reconciliation in Sri Lanka and kept an eye on community relations, for a number of years there has been a feeling that although relative “calm” had descended on the island at the end of the decades-long civil war in 2009, this was just surface-led. It was inevitable that some sort of communal violence would return. After all, the conflict indicators showed that Sri Lanka faced trouble every 10 years after independence.

BEHIND THE VIOLENCE IN KANDY

For those of us who were tracking the rise of extreme nationalism and ethnic and religious hatred — being pushed by a small minority speaking on behalf of the majority Sinhala Buddhist community — the latest round of violence is a worrying sign of a link and trend of globalizing hatred and fragility.

Over the last 100 years, there have been at least six incidents of large-scale violence between the Sinhalese and Muslims in Sri Lanka. Today, the time between recent incidents has dropped (the previous flare ups happened within the last four years), and the rhetoric around sectarian violence has mirrored what is coming out of Myanmar with hardline Buddhists and the minority Rohingya.

It is in this light that Sri Lanka is seen through a singular lens of good vs evil, us vs them. This perpetuates deeply delusive and divisive assumptions of exclusive identities by these sectarian actors, who want people to ignore all affiliation and loyalties in support of one “religious” identity.

The violence of February comes on the back of what has been a relentless and sustained campaign of anti-Muslim rhetoric. This has involved public meetings, the distribution of pamphlets and the publishing of articles in mainstream Sinhala and English papers, which have borrowed rhetoric used globally to demonize and stereotype Muslims. In the face of “fake news,” the propagation of myths is wide and wild. For instance, the week preceding the flare up of violence in Kandy, a tense situation erupted in the east where Sinhalese had accused Muslims of serving them food with infertile pills. Such was the seriousness of the claim that the United Nations Population Fund, the World Health Organization, and the Government Medical Officers Association had to issue statements to refute this.

It would be naive to blame the violence just on faith. There are other factors that combine to make this flare up and its causes deep and problematic. The majority misperception is that Sri Lankan Muslims are successful businessmen and, therefore, economic interests mean there is an attempt to squeeze Muslims out of the market. From the halal boycott — a move by a hardline Sinhalese Buddhist group — to the extensive damage and looting that has been inflicted on businesses, it is clear that there was an economic dimension to the violence aimed at hitting the Muslim community.

There is also an attempt to decrease the visibility of Muslims. For hardline Sinhalese, Muslims are seen as a threat to Sinhala identity and ultimately Sri Lanka, which manifests itself in the rhetoric around dress codes — in particular what is deemed as Arab clothes such as the thawb for men or the abaya and niqab for women — and the attacks on mosques.

Government Response

What is ultimately surprising is not that these actions took place, but the silent complicity of the Sinhala majority. For a lot of us in Sri Lanka who grew up with people from other communities, what has been disconcerting (although there are exceptions to this) has been the silence of condemnation for violent actions by mainstream Sinhalese. This is by no means a generalization as there have been strong statements, including by Buddhist monks, condemning the violence.

However, the disappointment was the reaction of the government, who seemed to have been caught by surprise by the violence and struggled to contain it. Despite a curfew and social media censorship, in the initial phases of the violence the government appeared unable to mobilize law enforcement to act. Though a number of arrests were made and there have been strong statements issued, the Sri Lankan government struggled to ensure that the rule of law and justice had been followed. This perhaps remains the biggest disappointment for many who thought the government change in 2015 would bring about a shift in the narrative of racist, ethno-nationalist politics.

So, what needs to be done?

Clearly there is a lot to be done politically. The present government entered office on the agenda of good governance and equality, and it was largely supported by minority voters, including the Muslim community. There needs to be trust built once again with the government and between the government and Sri Lankan Muslims. In addition, however, there needs to be work done at the grassroots level. There is currently a lot to be done around improving social capital. Hence, a change of narrative and thinking has to be the order of the day on top of any structural alignments toward ensuring that such bouts of violence do not happen again. There also has to be a change of narrative about who Muslims are and where they belong in Sri Lanka.

DIVERSITY IN SRI LANKA

By hardline Sinhala Buddhists declaring Sri Lanka as a “Sinhala-only country,” those perpetrating this mindless rhetoric of Sinhala supremacism presuppose the acceptance of Sri Lanka as a land sacred to Buddhism and with Buddhists as its chosen people. According to this vision, minorities, including Sinhala Christians, are not co-owners or even guests (because guests have to be given certain privileges and rights). Rather, they are second-class serfs (untouchables) who should thank the benevolent majority for being given the chance to live there.

In so doing, this completely rewrites the rich history of a country whose mosaic is made up of different ethnicities, faiths and cultures. They have chosen to rewrite a history of the accumulation of unfinished business, the piling up of debts and the stacking up of fortunes and misfortunes. Whilst it is true that Sri Lanka is the only place in which there are Sinhalese and where the Sinhalese language is spoken, this does not equate to ownership of the island solely by one race or another, nor does it speak of the rich inter mingling of all races and faiths that influence much of Sri Lankan culture, food, art and music today. It also does a huge disservice to the Buddhist way of life, which is about peace, tranquility and tolerance of others. Declaring Sri Lanka as Buddhist does not preclude it from having minorities of other faiths and ethnicities coexisting with equal rights.

This change in narrative also has to start from the Muslim community itself. For years, we have claimed that Muslims arrived in Sri Lanka around 1,000 years ago. This simplifies a complex history of Islam coming through trade — mostly by Arabs — and of a rich history of engagement with local people. Islam came to Sri Lanka via traders who interacted with local communities. Thus, there is a mélange of identities, ethnicities and cultures that make up the Muslim community, not the homogeneous identities that both the Muslim community and those outside of it choose to define.

RECONCILIATION

The recent events are also a wake-up call to those who have been engaging in reconciliation work in Sri Lanka. For too long, there was a binary notion from the international community about the decades-long civil war being between two parties: the Sinhalese and the Tamil. Yet the history of the conflict is much more than that. Though not direct parties to the war, Sri Lankan Muslims suffered during the conflict, and it is important to note that for full reconciliation to take place, it needs to be holistic and comprehensive. This means everyone should be considered from all parts of Sri Lanka. Reconciliation is not about north and south.

The violence in Kandy shows that a lot more needs to be done at the grassroots level. It is fine to talk about political solutions, but if people at the grassroots still do not trust or know each other, then political solutions will just be a band-aid to a deep burn. The vitriolic rhetoric that has been spread is testimony to the fact that we need to start once again from scratch in developing a discussion that is not only top-down, but bottom-up too. There needs to be parallel efforts to build trust between people and communities through multi-faith interactions and crossing ethnic divides.

This is the role that civil society and, in particular, religious leaders should be playing in order to bring out about reconciliation. The aim should be to rebuild trust through reducing suspicion and infusing human values, with an understanding of the need to move away from apportioning blame for deceit and destruction. Trust can only be rebuilt when a space is created for effective dialogue and understanding. This space is one that starts at local levels with community organizations, leaders and intellectuals. It is not the sole responsibility of the political establishment, but of everyone interested in this endeavor.

Rebuilding trust is about honoring unity and celebrating diversity, working toward equity and justice, and ensuring the eradication of social prejudices in building a collective identity. We cannot abrogate our individual responsibilities in this task. The simple question to ask ourselves is: How much do we know of and understand our friends/colleagues who come from a different faith and ethnicity? By knowing, understanding and respecting each other’s faith and community, we move from just tolerance to acceptance. These are the first signs of a mature, diverse society and democracy. It is the first part in accepting the social contract of citizenship of a nation.

Solutions are needed for the restitution of a fractured polity, which involves a healthy acceptance of minorities. Hence, there must be legal and constitutional structures that not only guarantee equal rights for citizens and freedom of religion, but also legislates against incitement for racial and religious hatred and discrimination. No one argues about removing the privileged place of Buddhism in Sri Lanka or doing away with rights of the majority. But it is expected that the spirit of Buddhism has to ensure tolerance and respect for others, and with legal safeguards in place to enforce this.

Sri Lanka is at a crossroads of uncertainty, with bitter interethnic rivalries fanned by divisive politics. Constitutional amendments and projected development, however, are not enough to make hearts forgive and forget. Sri Lanka needs a platform for genuine and objective discussion in the hope of moving forward and achieving reconciliation. This has to start at the grassroots and involve all aspects of society. Reconciliation has to ultimately work through the hearts of individuals who harbor pain from the long years of their inability to meet basic human aspirations or from the loss of loved ones and properties as they became innocent victims of calculated and indiscriminate violence between fighting forces.

We are nearly 35 years on from the horrible riots of July 1983 that sent the country down a treacherous path, because it is exactly the same scenario where anti-Tamil propaganda was pumped over in the years. We are also 103 years on from the first Sinhala-Muslim riots and violence that took place in exactly the same place: Kandy. Despite the multiple incidents of anti-Muslim violence that have occurred since 1915 without any such armed reaction from the community, lessons should be taken from history in terms of the ramifications of not addressing the causes of conflict.

If we want to aspire to tackle the root causes of the ethnic and racist rhetoric and violence, then the challenge is to actually learn from what has happened in order to have a county that respects its diversity and is united in its principles and values that are influenced by Buddhism. Otherwise, we condemn future generations to the vicious cycle of hatred, intolerance and violence that will destroy Sri Lanka, not unite it.

This originally appeared in Fair Observer

The Buddhist-Muslim Fault Lines in Sri Lanka

Just more than a year ago, I wrote about a new conflict  that was threatening to overshadow Sri Lanka’s post conflict reconciliation journey.  The fear was that the constant organized provocation by extreme Sinhalese Buddhist groups particularly on the Muslims would necessitate a response, thereby culminating in communal clashes of a severe magnitude.  The fear for many was that a repeat of the infamous  1983 ‘Black July’ pogrom (then against the Tamil community) would once again be re-enacted.  The 1983 state sponsored pogrom is a stain on Sri Lanka’s conscience and history but in effect led to the 30 year old conflict which came to a bloody conclusion in 2009. Like then, there was a ramping up of provocative rhetoric against theTamils until an incident against the Sri Lankan army by the then relatively small LTTE group provoked the organized response. Whilst there was a pubic apology in 2004 by the then president, the underlying issues have never really been discussed and potential fault lines have been hidden.

On Sunday, those fears once again resurfaced after clashes erupted between Sinhalese protesting in a Muslim majority town in the South of Sri Lanka and Muslim inhabitants.  Like many of these incidents, it is hard to pinpoint who instigated what, but it is clear that there was enough of a provocation from the Sinhala Buddhist extremists to warrant a response from the Muslim community.  The rest is as they say history.  As riots, attacks and rumours started circulating, it was clear that the government was either caught off guard or as some people have alleged, was reluctant to properly intervene.  There is strong suspicion of a state complicity because clashes could have been avoided, had the planned protest through the Muslim town been prevented as many community leaders had requested.  In addition, the self censoring of state and national media to highlight the events taking place, the lack of an official statement on the issue and the general intransigence of the law enforcement agencies highlight a drop in confidence with regards the intentions of the government at least amongst the Muslim community.  Despite this social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook were able to keep an international spotlight on the incidents.  Of course, the events are evolving and there are reports of a snowball effect with clashes  taking place and tension in other parts of the south.  It is not necessarily clear whether  these are linked, or whether it is copy cat incidents.  However it does point to a wider malaise within society of a breakdown of understanding and trust between communities.  It is clear that there are deeper issues which are manifesting and being exploited into violence.

As things begin to calm down slowly, the effects of the weekend violence have long reaching ramifications.  There is an uneasy calm in Colombo as people are unsure of what the next couple of days hold.  Many Muslim children have not gone to school and businesses seem to be quieter than usual.  In other parts of the country, there have been protests.  There is a fear as to what the international community’s response would be especially the Muslim countries in particular the Middle East.  Sri Lanka has long dependent on the latter for support in international forums such as the UN Humani Rights Council sessions, whilst a large proportion of Sri Lankans are employed in the Middle East providing a huge contribution of GNP.

 It is also clear that the relationship between the communities has been affected.  Beruwala where some of the violence broke out is reputed to have the oldest mosque in Sri Lanka and is one of the first areas where Arab and Muslim traders came to Sri Lanka.  The Muslim communities in the south have traditionally prided itself on its close relationship with the Sinhalese and have always formed the Muslim political leadership that engaged within the political process and with the main political parties.  This familial trust has now been broken and will take a long time to be rebuilt.  It is not just about a political solution, now but it involves moral and astute religious and community leadership from all sides.  For the Sinhalese Buddhists in particular, it will need greater protection and confidence as they come under pressure from their extremist constituent’s for  ‘betraying’ their community.  There is hope though in terms of the monks and the lay people who have spoken out against the violence. 

There is no justification for the violence that ensued, but what is clear is that like in Myanmar, the Buddhist extremist groups are on a campaign to denigrate and eradicate the Muslims.  The Muslims of Sri Lanka can not fall into that trap of reacting as is expected nor can Sri Lanka go down the route of the Xenophobia exhibited by Myamar. They can take some comfort from the fact that with social media, there are more people speaking out and campaigning to stop such violence.

The international Islamophobia campaign that seeks to denigrate Muslims in the west has a ready audience in places like Sri Lanka and Myanmar where these extremist groups latch onto the hate rhetoric.  Unlike in the west though, whilst the campaigns are really steered around the issue of immigration and assimilation of migrants, in his part of the world, where the Muslim communities are indigenous and native, the rhetoric is spun around the very existence of the communities.

Sri Lanka’s  ethnic and religious fault lines are no closer to being healed or solved by this violence.  However what this has shown is that any part of the country (and not just the former war affected areas) are not only vulnerable but extremely fragile.  It is clear as the weekend violence has shown, that personal disagreements between people of different faith and ethnicities have a potential to flare up into communal clashes.  Thus community, religious and ultimately political leaders have to ensure that these differences are not hijacked by extremists.  This is now the challenges coming out of the recent spate of violence in Sri Lanka.

A tale of two countries

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way….”

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Over the past year, one can be forgiven if one thought that in fact that there were two countries called Sri Lanka or at least two visions for a country called Sri Lanka.  Both have seemingly emerged out of the shadows of the end of the bloody 26 year old conflict when Sri Lanka faced a cross roads in terms of moving forward cleansed of the past and with a chance to develop a common vision shared by all towards collective nation building and prosperity.  One version of that vision for the country has emerged of a nation struggling to rebuild, reconstruct and reconcile.  It is one where economic and infrastructure development whilst not being matched by good governance or the creation of a secure environment of equity and social justice, still provides some hope for what might come.  The second version of the vision for the country is one of extreme nationalism and ethnic and religious hatred; being pushed forward by a small minority speaking on behalf of the majority Sinhala Buddhist who are intent on propagating the spirit of separatism, oblivious to the disastrous consequences from the past and for the future. With the lens of the latter vision,  Sri Lanka is seen through a singular lens of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ attitude which perpetuates deeply delusive and divisive assumptions of single exclusive identities by these sectarian activists, who want people to ignore all affiliation and loyalties in support of one specific ‘religious’ identity. Such exclusive identities stress difference rather than belonging and ‘opposition to’ rather than ‘support for’ a Sri Lanka that follows the first vision. The result is that these conflicts manifest themselves into rumour, hearsay and generalization which are the first steps towards the stereotyping of people (their faith, their culture and identity) and the denial of a diverse, lived reality, the opposite of respect, understanding and acceptance. It thus describes a vision where hope begins to fade for the country to move forward.  As a result, the gap between these two visions for Sri Lanka seems as stark and vivid as Dicken’s account of two capitals in his Tale of Two Cities.

The rising anti Muslim rhetoric over the last 4 years, led by Buddhist monks, is symptomatic of the second vision and have involved public meetings, the distribution of pamphlets and articles in mainstream Sinhala and English papers which have ‘borrowed’ rhetoric being used globally to demonise and stereotype Muslims (especially by Islamophobes in the west).  It is an irony that the same anti Muslim movement are as dismissive of the west as they are of the Muslim community but use rhetoric available from the west to justify their stances,  oblivious to the lived experience of Sri Lankan Muslim society and the context in which the rhetoric is being used in the west.  The Dambulla Mosque incident of April 2012 and the recent proclamation of the halal boycott are aimed at hitting the Muslim community in areas that aim to ‘decrease’ their visibility and thereby the ‘threat’ to Sinhala identity and ultimately Sri Lanka (in the eyes of the protagonists).  This is in line with many of the right wing racist and conservative movements in the US, UK and Europe such as Geert Wilders (from the Netherlands) or Pamela Geller (from the US) who are intent on limiting the presence of migrants and especially Muslim migrants.

These types of views in Sri Lanka would be laughable in this day and age, given the fact that those targeting Muslims in the west use the issue of immigration to stop their communities becoming heterogeneous (in culture and colour) whilst in Sri Lanka, we are talking about people from the same country, if the potential consequences were not so tragic and dangerous.  The views are not only factually wrong but employ a level of ignorance, naivety and immaturity with respect not only to international relations but also actually to history.  By perpetuating these anti Muslim sentiments, there is also a sense of ingratitude to the fact that large parts of the Muslim world (and domestically the Muslim community) have been supportive of Sri Lanka in many international fora and during the times of the conflict and continue to do so despite the international pressure and scrutiny. However future support from such countries could be questionable given the sentiments being expressed in the country.

By declaring Sri Lanka as a ‘Sinhala only’ country, those perpetrating this mindless rhetoric of Sinhala supremacism presuppose the acceptance of Sri Lanka as a land sacred to Buddhism with Sinhala Buddhists as its chosen people. According to this vision, minorities, including Sinhala Christians are not co-owners or even guests (because guests have to be given certain privileges and rights) but they are second-class serfs (untouchables) who should thank the benevolent majority for being given the chance to live there.  In so doing, these organisations have completely rewritten the rich history of a country whose mosaic is made up of different ethnicities, faith and culture. They have chosen to rewrite a history of the accumulation of unfinished business, the piling up of debts and the stacking up of fortunes and misfortunes.  Whilst it is true that Sri Lanka is the only place in which there are Sinhalese and where the Sinhalese language is spoken, this doesn’t equate to ownership of the island solely by one race or another nor does it speak of the rich inter mingling of all races and faiths that influence much of Sri Lankan culture, food, art and music today.  It also does a huge disservice to the Buddhist way of life which is about peace, tranquillity and tolerance of others.  Declaring Sri Lanka Buddhist doesn’t preclude it from having minorities of other faiths and ethnicities coexisting with equal rights.

As a country under scrutiny for its treatment of minorities, these actions provide ample fodder for those anxious to paint the incident as one more infraction of an increasingly intolerant country.  The forces that have been anti Sri Lanka have wasted no time in rejoicing in the public relations victory that had been handed to them by this stupid and mindless ignorant group, made even worse by the muddled responses emanating from the Government.

However for me what has been even more disappointing has been not only the deafening silence of many prominent  Sinhalese activists, a large number of them friends, but the actual support for some of these  statements and actions by a lot of educated people worldwide. I have been especially disappointed that those who vociferously campaign in the interests of the country’s unity have been so far quiet as this rhetoric threatens to set off events that could lead to another July ’83, and even more inter ethnic conflicts.  It is the tragedy as Martin Luther King said, ‘that it is not the bad people are very loud but the good people are very quiet’.  For too long, incidents across history in Sri Lanka have happened because a lot of good people were very quiet and this has condemned the country to the state that it is in today.  If we want a semblance of the first vision for the country, as outlined above, this can no longer be the case.

I say this as a Muslim and a person with a shared Sri Lankan heritage – if we want to cohesively move forward, we must be prepared to condemn those unjust acts perpetrated by our co-religionists or from the same ethnic background supposedly in our name.  As a Muslim, I am continuously challenged on this for incidents my co-religionists have done globally.  I choose to do that not because I am solely a Muslim, but because it is about speaking out against injustice and oppression and being a voice for the voiceless no matter who they are.  Hence we do not and should not respond because we are Sinhalese or because someone has said something in favour of Tamils or we are Muslim.  We respond because we are Sri Lankan and we believe in justice and equality even if it is against our own community and society.  This is the sign of a mature and intellectual community.  This is also the sign of a society that has learnt from past mistakes where silence has meant complicity for what the country has suffered in its entirety.

So where do we go from here?  What are the possible lessons we can derive from the past that can help us out of this abyss we as a nation are staring into?

Firstly, the rise of such rhetoric is a wakeup call to those who are engaging in reconciliation work in Sri Lanka that a lot more needs to be done at the grass roots level.  It is fine to talk about political solutions but if people at the grass roots still do not trust each other or even know each other, then political solutions will just be a band-aid to a deep burn.  The vitriolic rhetoric that has been bombarded around is testimony to the fact that we need to start once again from scratch in developing a discussion that is not only top down but bottom up.  There needs to be parallel efforts to build trust between people and communities through multi faith interactions and crossing ethnic divides.   This is the role that the civil society and in particular the religious leaders should be playing  in order to bring out about reconciliation that rebuilds trust though reducing suspicion and  infusing human values with an understanding of the need to move away from apportioning blame for deceit and destruction.   Trust can only be rebuilt when a space is created for effective dialogue and understanding.  This space is one that starts at community levels with community organisations, leaders and intellectuals.  It is not just the sole responsibility of the political establishment but of everyone interested in this endeavour. Rebuilding trust is about honouring unity and celebrating diversity, working towards equity and justice and ensuring the eradication of social prejudices in building a collective identity.  We cannot abrogate our individual responsibilities in this task.  The simple question to ask ourselves, is how much do we know of and understand  our friends / colleagues (who come from a different faith and ethnicity)?  By knowing, understanding and respecting each other’s faith and community, we move from just tolerance to acceptance.  These are  the first signs of a mature diverse society and democracy.  It is the first part in accepting the social contract of citizenship of a nation.

Secondly solutions are needed for the restitution of a fractured polity which involves a healthy acceptance of the minorities. Dayan Jayatilleka goes further in saying that the minorities (like the Muslims, Tamils, Hindus, Christians) are the bridges between the Sinhalese and the outside world “and if those bridges are burned the Sinhala heartland will find itself isolated– which ironically, is exactly the situation in which those hostile to Sri Lanka want to place the State and the Sinhalese!”.  Hence there must be legal and constitutional structures that not only guarantee equal rights for citizens and freedom of religion but legislates against incitement for racial and religious hatred and discrimination.  No one argues about removing the privileged place of Buddhism in the country or doing away with rights of the majority, but it is expected that the spirit of Buddhism has to ensure a tolerance and respect for the other with legal safeguards in place to enforce this.

Sri Lanka is now staring into an abyss of uncertainty with bitter interethnic rivalries fanned by divisive politics. It is in the choices that are made and actions that are taken that will determine whether its inhabitants will be able to live in peace and harmony.  Transparency, accountability and social justice are the pillars of a mature democratic society.  Sri Lanka’s journey is still very early in trying to achieve this, but nevertheless it has started. The rise in anti Muslim hatred is not helpful in this journey as it sets the country back decades.

Constitutional amendments and projected development though are not enough to make hearts to forget or forgive. It needs a platform for genuine and objective discussion in the hope of moving forward towards achieving reconciliation and a new direction for the country.  This has to start at the grass roots and involve all aspects of society.  Reconciliation has to ultimately work through the hearts of individuals who harbour pains from the long years of their inability to meet basic human aspirations or from loss of loved ones and properties as they became innocent victims of calculated and indiscriminate violent attacks between fighting forces.

We are twenty years on from those horrible riots that sent the country down a treacherous path because it is exactly the same scenario where toxic Anti Tamil propaganda was pumped out in the years preceding the final riots of July ’83.  Lessons should be taken from history.   However it is obvious as Georg Wilhelm Hegh said “what experience and history teach is this – that people and governments never have learnt anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it.”  If we want to aspire to the first vision for the country (as articulated above), then the challenge for us is to actually learn from what has happened in order to have a county that respects its diversity and is united in its principles and values (that are influenced by Buddhism); otherwise we condemn future generations to the vicious cycle of hated, intolerance and violence that can only destroy the country and not unite it.

This originally appeared in Groundviews