Unpacking ‘Who do You think You are?” and “Where do You Come From?”

 I must admit to being initially being apprehensive about answering the questions posed because it always is a tough one for me.

How do you define yourself? Do you talk about where you were born, your family background, your faith?

In recent weeks that question of who do you think you are has resonated widely in many parts of the world. As people of colour have questioned the role of key icons within their countries in promoting racism, slavery and others, they have been questioned as to their allegiances and asked to go back to where they came from. This us and them attitude has meant in many countries like the UK and USA, people of colour are still not seen equally as rightful people of the land. I have hated having that question thrown to me.

When people ask where do you come from? I Say British. But this isn’t enough. Where do you come from? I come from Kent, the garden of England. No that’s not good enough. Where do you really come from? Then I get it, I can’t be British because I am not white and my name is Arabic sounding.

But that doesn’t take away who I am or where I come from: I am British but I have Sri Lankan heritage as my parents are Sri Lankan; I was born in Nigeria and grew up in Ethiopia so I embrace my East and West African Influence. I currently live in Switzerland so have come to accept the Swiss nuances. I am also proudly Muslim in my spirituality, my code of conduct, my outlook on life.

Identity in my opinion and experience has became a conglomerate of 5 things: defining where you came from, who you are, what makes you tick; what makes you do what you do & why you do all that you do

These 5 components mean that identity is not fixed or static and in fact is very dynamic and evolving. One can have multiple identities which are not limiting in their nature. Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen’s premise in his book ‘Identity and Violence’ is that the key to good citizenship and social cohesion is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, disability, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries. It is the recognition of this plurality and the searching for commonalities within this pluralism that will lead to greater respect and ultimately understanding and acceptance.

Thus ‘who do you think you are?’ or ‘where do you come from’ ultimately is about having and recognizing these multiple identities which allows us to to live together as the global tribe we have become. Hence for me it is not about who I am per se but what I do with who I am? If we were born with some privilege (whether it is education, wealth, colour, gender, ability, age, health), then how did we use that benefit to be able to help those who did not share the same opportunities as us?

This is what we will ultimately be judged on now and in the Hereafter!!

This originally appeared on Medium

Commonwealth Could Be Britain’s Post-Brexit Break

Taking on the leadership of the Commonwealth is a boost for the country embattled in precarious Brexit negotiations and trying to reimagine its place in the world.

In April, Britain hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which was billed as the largest gathering of heads of states in the UK for a long time. Taking on the leadership of the Commonwealth is a boost for the country embattled in precarious Brexit negotiations and trying to reimagine its place in the world.

The summit set the agenda for a sustainable future, hosting a civil society forum, as well as forums for women, youth and business — and the UK found its job tricky. As the summit started, the British government was faced with the prospect of an embarrassing apology and a U-turn over the treatment of the Windrush generation — immigrants from the Caribbean who came to rebuild Britain after the Second World War, many of whom recently faced deportation by the Home Office.

If the UK thought that it could breeze into the chairmanship of the Commonwealth, it misread the signs. Britain, mindful of its colonial history, should be careful in how it displays humility in taking up the leadership of the Commonwealth amidst the challenges the organization is facing. The Commonwealth, to some extent, remains a voluntary space for countries to opt into, where everyone from the small island state of Vanuatu to the big three — UK, Canada and Australia — are equal.

FACING CLIMATE CHANGE

One unique challenge for the Commonwealth will be climate change. Many of its members are small island states, and over the next few years they will face increasing humanitarian challenges as extreme weather events, like last year’s Hurricanes Irma and Maria, become more frequent. Leadership toward responding and making communities more resilient to climate change will need to be balanced with sustainable development.

Many countries within the Commonwealth are rapidly developing, meaning they will face the challenge of “people, cities and resources.” The world’s population passed the 1 billion mark in 1810, doubled in the next hundred years, and by 2010 hovered around 7 billion. The projection for 2030 is 9 billion. But the issue here is not pure numbers — it’s resources. When the global total reached 1 billion, just 3% — 30 million people — lived in cities. Today, the world is 50% urbanized, meaning that 3.5 billion people live in metropolitan areas.

While urbanization is by no means bad per se, it provides a different set of issues to contend with. The prospect of shadow economies, political violence coupled with the relentless drive for money and status, manifesting itself in gang violence, creates reasons for concern. Some of the urban violence coming out of Johannesburg and Nairobi showcases the challenge of rapid urbanization, while many of the small island states in the Caribbean or the Maldives struggle with gang violence, especially among the youth population.

In fact the World Health Organization’s Global status report on violence prevention 2014 shows that within low and middle income countries, the highest estimated rates of homicide occur in the Americas, with 28.5 homicides per 100,000 population, followed by Africa, at 10.9 homicides per 100,000, due to gang violence. The lowest estimated rate of homicide is in the low and middle income countries of the Western Pacific, with 2.1 homicides per 100,000. Where state institutions are weak, violence becomes cyclical and relentless, as criminal violence is traditionally met with the violence by law enforcement.

The Commonwealth is also not immune to the global migration crisis, which has seen the highest number of displaced people and refugees since the end of the Second World War. As the UNHCR reports, an unprecedented 65.6 million people around the world have been forced from home. Among them are nearly 22.5 million refugees, over half of whom are under the age of 18. These demographic changes are putting new stresses on how we engage with and exclude each other as societies across the world are seeing a backlash of racism and xenophobia.

BRIDGING THE GAPS

Yet the Commonwealth offers opportunities to bridge those gaps, given its shared history. The Civil Paths to Peace report by the Commonwealth Commission on Respect and Understanding suggested a framework for all stakeholders — government, media, civil society, business and so on — to explore the complexities around violent behavior and its causes, putting forward ways of building dialogue between communities in the Commonwealth.

The report addresses the narrowing space for civil society and asks for its mobilization to confront violence as well as engage in the process of democracy. It includes the removal of gross economic inequalities, social humiliations and political disenfranchisement that can contribute to generating confrontation and hostility. It calls, in effect, for an integrated approach to dealing with all economic, social and cultural issues that are related to conflict.

The report recognizes cultural and social factors, as well as features of political economy, are all important in understanding violence. It puts forward the premise that there is a need for greater respect and understanding of diversity, to counter disquiet, disaffection and violence: “If the cultivation of respect and understanding is both important in itself and consequential in reducing violence and terrorism in the world, the link between the two lies in the understanding the cultivated violence is generated through fomenting disrespect and fostering confrontational misunderstandings.”

The concept of developing respect and understanding is further cemented by the Nobel laureate, professor Amartya Sen, in his book, Identity and Violence, the premise of which states that the key to good citizenship and social cohesion is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries.

It is the recognition of this plurality and the searching for commonalities within this pluralism that will lead to greater respect and ultimately understanding and acceptance. Thus, these new solutions will have to challenge people to accept diversity and create equal opportunities for multicultural communities, ethnicities, traditions, cultures and faiths. The new solutions will also have to take into account the existence of multiple identities that add a richness and variety to diversity and pluralism as part of a common wealth that needs to be celebrated in the global civil society and integrated into life as a positive force for development.

NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Addressing this, the Commonwealth Commission argued for more dialogue and discussion on the richness of human identities and the counterproductive nature of placing people in rigidly separated identity boxes, linked with religion or community. At the 2007 Commonwealth People’s Forum in Kampala, Uganda, civil society leaders called for “the creation of an enabling environment to foster: unity in diversity, where there would be respectful and meaningful dialogue and collaboration between people with different identities and values; and practical grassroots action and community linking partnerships to build peace, prosperity and well-being for all Commonwealth Citizens.” This was very much in keeping with the Civil Paths to Peace mandate for an engaged process toward respect and understanding.

A decade later, the UK government has an opportunity to revisit these principles and create an environment to foster the knowledge and engagement needed for a sustainable future to be created. It must understand that there are lessons to be learned from, as well as provided to, the Commonwealth. It must first start by accepting that there has to be a space for different voices to be heard within the organization, be it the youth, women, the private sector or civil society. The latter in particular is an integral part of the Commonwealth DNA, providing not only dialogue, but also dissonance.

In an era of shrinking civil society space worldwide, Britain should champion the role of civil society globally, seeing it as a partner and not a service provider or instrument of foreign action. There is much to be done to reclaim the basic rights being lost in the clampdown on civic space or even the rights being lost in a digital world. Post Brexit, the UK has to battle the rising tide of populism to respond to the weakness of democracy and use this as an opportunity to reimagine what the Commonwealth can be: not just a club for former British colonies, but a vibrant space for innovation and thinking, with a youth dividend that is multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious, that can pave the way for what diverse societies could and should be — based around partnerships and sharing.

This originally appeared on Fair Observer

Who do you think you are

Incidents that have unfortunately plagued the world for decades but become more pronounced over the last 8 years or so, show an increasing ‘emphasis’ for political violence flavoured by faith, culture and identity where the world is seen through a singular lens of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and  an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ attitude.  This unhealthy uni-polar view, congruent to a ‘Clash of Civilisation’ concept, has led to ambiguities and complexities with regards the perception of current global conflicts and the pivotal role played in the popular mobilisations against the West from sections of disaffected Third World Opinion.   In particular, one key source of trans-national conflict has stemmed from the rise of political Islam as a force in international relations, the end of the Cold War and the emergence of distinct tensions between Western countries with a Christian heritage and countries, around the world, with a distinct Muslim heritage. 

Often one of the key catalysts for these global conflicts  and the ethnic / faith identity violence that stems from them, is the issue of poverty  and  the process of allocation of resources, which perpetuates the view through this singular lens and ensures that  a vicious cycle of competition is generated and maintained.  Many will argue though that in the globalising world of today such rivalry, competition, conflict and ultimately violence are a necessary tool to preserve the ‘values of freedom’.   However the violence we have seen to date has been perpetuated from deeply delusive and divisive assumptions of single exclusive identities by sectarian activists, who want people to ignore all affiliation and loyalties in support of one specific identity.    Such exclusive identities are negative, stressing difference rather than belonging and ‘opposition to’ rather than ‘support for’ something. Unfortunately whilst faith may rarely be the original source, it often becomes the arena in which conflicts are played out.  The result is that 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. As a consequence, faiths (beliefs, culture and identity) become judged by the attitudes and actions of small and aberrant minorities. 

It is precisely in this scenario with the world experiencing such kind of  turmoil, that there are calls for new solutions.  With the collapse of socialism, and now with the global financial crisis, an apparent sign of the failure of capitalism, this search for the new solutions has intensified, to look for answers outside the box that will address the turmoil and their causes. 

Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen’s premise in his book ‘Identity and Violence’ is that the key to good citizenship and social cohesion is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries.   It is the recognition of this plurality and the searching for commonalities within this pluralism that will lead to greater respect and ultimately understanding and acceptance.

Thus these new solutions will have to challenge people to accept diversity and create equal opportunities for diverse communities, ethnicities, traditions, cultures and faiths.  The new solutions will also have to take into account  the existence of multiple identities which add a richness and variety to diversity and pluralism as part of a common wealth that needs to be celebrated in the global civil society and integrated into life as a positive force for development. 

The role of faith and spirituality in particular in the search for new solutions will be very important as it offers a simple and easy access to communities (strong in their spiritual and faith teachings) and a simple language to express the commonalities of existence and create the prerequisites for forgiveness, respect, understanding and acceptance.  Whilst dialogues are a beginning it is important that engagement goes beyond this, engaging practically with faith leaders and communities, to help resolve and avoid conflict and achieve gains that make a difference to people’s lives

In Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, Kwame Anthony Appiah writes eloquently of the urgent need for ‘ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become’ (2006: xiii).  The roots of all global crises can be found in human denial of the eternal principle of peace.   In order to fight this denial there needs to be self-critical reflection.  Sir Richard Burton once wrote that  ‘All Faith is false, all Faith is true: Truth is the shattered mirror strown In myriad bits; while each believes his little bit the whole to own’ (The Kasidah of Haji Abdu El-Yezdi), where he meant that you will find parts of the truth everywhere and the whole truth nowhere.  The shattered mirror concept enables us to see that ‘each shard reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle’. Our mistake in the world today is to consider ‘our little shard can reflect the whole’ (Ibid: 8).

This is the current problem with all spiritual and religious teachings that everyone thinks that their little truth is the whole truth.  However if we think in the grander scheme of things (beyond theology and ideology) to unite humanity with peace, respect and understanding, then each of us (with our faith and spiritual teachings) have a bit of that shard of broken glass. This can be pieced together on issues of commonality, as opposed to focusing on our points of difference. Then we would have made the first step towards  spiritual reconciliation between communities. 

Thus all of the differences mentioned above represent small shards of glass which, in the analogy of Kwame Anthony Appiah, require careful positioning to create a compelling mosaic.  The initiatives described above then offers an antidote to sectarianism, the polarisation of different faiths in multi-cultural societies and the potentially divisive effects of selective aid flows to particular faith communities.   In particular, the partnership between Muslim Aid and UMCOR represents a template for a large cosmopolitan mosaic seeking to piece together the broken shards of a greater truth of serving humanity.  There is a need to remain committed to engineering the software needed to work effectively in a range of situation. This will never be easy, but remains vitally important for, as Kwame Anthony Appiah illustrates, it involves creating the very ‘ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become’.

Initially published in The News Hub

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

My thoughts of the Olympics Opening Ceremony

I am a sports fan and love watching the Olympics.  It symbolises all the best in the human sporting excellence and dedication and somehow also represents an opportunity for a pause button (rightly or wrongly) on world affairs as for about two weeks much of the focus is on the athletes.  I see the Olympics as a great opportunity to learn and understand from each other, as athletes engage with people from countries they probably would never engage with (I’m thinking USA and Iran), and a time for reflection as the Olympic Truce is observed for about 100 days.  Finally it is a time for learning as you actually discover countries that you have not even heard of, but realise that life goes on outside of the bubble that you are accustomed to.  Politics, corporate sponsorship, tickets aside, the Olympics is probably one of the more unifying shows around the world.

When the Olympics was awarded to London, I remember the excitement that greeted it, followed by the sudden realisation of reality as the next day, 7/7 took place.  In those 7 years, the Olympic debate and its engagement with communities took a back shelf as security took a higher priority.  For the Muslim community in particular, the scrutiny on radicalisation and constant obsession with identity and affiliation, has meant that they have been fighting fires and seeking justification, which is a shame as a majority of them primarily reside close to the main Olympic parks and thus should be recipients and equal partners in the infrastructural regeneration that has so far taken place and the social regeneration that is anticipated afterwards.

It is tough to articulate the mood of the country in the run up to the Olympics.  The austerity measures have really started to strangle people and last year’s riots shocked the nation into once again questioning the disconnect within society.  Add to this, the coalition government’s attempt, led by the Tories, to artificially construct some sort of British identity and affiliation by somehow negating multiculturalism, as was apparent by David Cameron’s speech last year in Munich, and has meant that for many migrant and Diaspora communities, it has been a period of a few uncertain years.

Now the actual conversation on multiculturalism is a complex one.  Do we talk about multiculturalism in allowing diversity as a lived experience or one that is a set of policies to manage such diversity?  More often than not we find a conflation of the two, where immigration is encouraged so that the experience of a society is transformed by diversity, making it more vibrant and cosmopolitan, but also there are a set of policies which manage diversity by putting people into boxes (defining individual needs and rights) and using those boxes to shape public policy. 

What this means is that conversation takes place in silos where inequalities in social policies are blamed on the immigrants or one section of the community is targeted as being the problem or that tackling sections of the community is only done through a security perspective ignoring underlying social contexts.

The discussion of identity and belonging also cannot take place in a contextual vacuum. If people feel continuously marginalised by social exclusion or perceived discrimination, they will feel reluctant to articulate an identity that says that they belong.

In the last two years, the debate has been magnified with the Royal wedding in 2011 and the Queen’s Jubilee Celebrations earlier on this year, where despite the best efforts to try and carve a ‘British’ identity from them, it was noticeable that amongst the thousands that celebrated publicly in their localities or in London, very few came from immigrant communities or were second / third generation expats. For a large majority of them in particular those coming from former colonial countries such as the West Indies and the Indian Subcontinent, a British identity that has strong resonance, affiliation and link with the Royal family is problematic as it brings into the discussion the painful issues of colonialism and the past suffering.  Many from previous British colonies are only in the UK because of the mess that their countries of heritage are in after post colonial independence.  However to divorce the Royal family from British identity is equally to strip it of one of its fundamental pillars.  So there remains an impasse.

Hence it was always going to be interesting at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in London as to what route would be taken in terms of defining a British identity.  Much has been written about the ceremony both positive and negative.   Much to the dismay of a lot of people, it didn’t acknowledge the well known icons of the UK nor the empire and perhaps it was felt didn’t represent the old values of the UK. People complained that the historical sequences were not representative enough or that the modern day sequences had missed out bits. Equally though there were people who praised it and felt affirmed by what they had seen.  Some of these positive comments came from people who are normally cynical about anything to do with British identity.

From my perspective, what I enjoyed most about the ceremony was that it was about appreciating everyday people who make up the UK and things to do with their everyday lives, be it music, the health service, their kids.  The people represented were of all colours and all faiths, sizes, gender and age.  It celebrated the inventors, artists and scholars and acknowledged the activists.  

This is what I think is the most important aspect of the opening ceremony as it gave a most vivid blueprint for what it means to be British in the modern day.  Granted that much of what Britain stands for are built on empire and history which means there are those who feel apologies should be made for this or that this should be incorporated in articulating an identity.  However I feel that a 21^st century British identity is one that is made up individuals who have their own multiple identities. As Amartya Sen says in his book, ‘Identity and Violence’ the key to good citizenship and social cohesion which are components in a cosmopolitan society is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries.

Danny Boyle’s piece left me in no doubt of articulating what Amartya Sen was trying to say. It is the sum of these individual parts that a strong vibrant British identity can be borne that has a multi ethnic choir and some one of Asian Muslim heritage doing the 7/7 memorial dance.

Of course there is much to be done within social policies, education and community cohesion to translate that into practice.  The reality is that there are a lot of challenges facing people from their own contexts and heritage, just trying to break through social inequalities and make a better life for themselves and their families without worrying too much about what it means to be British.  What the Olympics Opening Ceremony did was to affirm and appreciate this in the overall pursuit of the grand vision for the identity. In the end, it has opened another window not only into the discussion of what it means to be British but has set a new paradigm for determining British identity, one that has more resonance with everyday people.

An edited version of this was published in the British Council's Our Shared Future Blog

After 60 years, moving forward??

This has probably been the longest (in terms of length) blog I have written.  I had originally sat down in the last week of January/first week of February to write this blog reflecting the  symbolic period surrounding Sri Lanka as well as the region.  The end of January witnessed the 60^th anniversary of the death of Ghandi and the beginning of February saw the 60^th anniversary of the Independence of Sri Lanka.   Maybe it was me, but I seemed to sense some sort of hope and anticipation in the air.  In India, the second freedom struggle to end poverty and the caste system had just been launched at the appropriately named Ghandigaram (The University founded on Ghandi’s teachings).  In Sri Lanka, much of the media carried in various forms, articles on Ghandi and what he said and did.  It did not take much to see the inferences that were being made.  Perhaps after 60 years of independence and 20 years of ethnic strife, there was an expectation that people in Sri Lanka would perhaps move towards this change as it seemed to be happening across the waters.

As the 4^th of February rolled about, the official government celebrations took centre stage under a shadow of the threat of suicide bombs.  Most people escaped to the beaches down south taking advantage of the long weekend.  ‘Independence? From what?’ remarked some of my friends when I asked them what they were planning to do for that day.  My next remark to them on ‘how independence meant freedom from the yoke of colonialism and the working towards a new Sri Lankan identity whose people would wear with pride free from oppression and injustice, and how there was still a way to go for Sri Lanka to truly achieve this despite setting it in motion 60 years back’, received even more cynical remarks.  ‘You are just some romantic idealist Amjad! That’s the job of the government! Never going to happen!’

And so it was, 4^th of February rolled around and people got ready for the actual defining big event, Valentine’s Day.  As the 14^th of February grew ever closer, shops started stocking the cards and heart shaped chocolate boxes; radio and TV stations started advertising special ‘Valentines Night’ and hotels started to promote their special offers.  The shocker was a five star hotel which was promoting a special valentines night offer all inclusive for couples that would cost $2000.  If this was not shocking, then what was even more disturbing was that there were people who had actually bought the package.

And so for me, some expectation for possible change at the beginning of February suddenly fizzled to disillusion.  How could people spend that much on a silly concept night when people are suffering from 24% inflation?  How could people be so insensitive to the sufferings of people in the north and east?   Of course I knew that this was the work of  the ‘Colombo Crowd’, that rare species of established and nouveau rich, that roam around Colombo in their Perspex carriages and live in ivory towers, completely oblivious to reality (a species found in many other developing countries).  Yet I told myself, I could not comprehend that even these people would be able to be so indifferent, insensitive and oblivious to their neighbours’ plights

The sad reality is that it is this apathy displayed at the most basic and inhuman manner by the ‘Colombo crowd’, that is symptomatic of a bigger disease in Sri Lanka.  The lack of giving a damn that means that Sri Lanka can never really progress from the abyss it found itself 60 years ago.  My disillusionment has been reinforced by the fact that when you ask most people in Sri Lanka, what they are proud about.  Their response is normally blank or they say, ‘I was born Sri Lankan, so I have nothing to be proud of, I just accept it’.

With this type of attitude how can the country move forward?  I reflect on my experiences when I first came back to Sri Lanka. Coming back to ‘discover’ Sri Lanka was always going to be a challenge.  ‘So Amjad, you are an engineer from Imperial?’ had been the common question followed by the next question that i know comes into their mind: ‘So what the hell are you doing back here in Sri Lanka?’  Sometimes the question goes even further ‘What is an educated person like you doing working for an INGO?  Are you on some personal crusade for redemption?’

These have been the common questions that have been posed to me.  The main quandary for them is that they cannot really understand why i would seemingly ‘sacrifice’ my life in the UK to come back to Sri Lanka.  When people are desperately trying to leave the country or to send their children abroad it is strange that someone should be making a strategic choice to come back.

Therein is the crux of the issue.  In recent years the brain drain has been evident and intense.  Whilst one can make a case for people leaving the country to seek better fortunes elsewhere, it is also true that now more than ever Sri Lanka needs its people to remain behind. ‘Why?’ is the question someone would ask.    As a development / humanitarian worker, we are engaged in trying to influence a change.  A change in people’s lives, an improvement in their economic status; a change in the attitude to allow respect and acceptance. For me with Sri Lankan roots, it is even more personal.  It is about showing that bringing peace and development to Sri Lanka is the duty of its children regardless of caste, creed and religion. How can we do this when the rest of the people are apathetic?  

One of the greatest spiritual teachings is that ‘change can happen when people set themselves up to be part of that change’ and Ghandi elaborated this so well when he said ‘If you wish to see change, then be that change’.  If people are not interested in this change so why should we be so bothered?