Sri Lanka: The Uncertain Future for IDPs

Sri Lanka’s internally displaced persons continue to face significant challenges for resettlement.

In a previous piece for Fair Observer, I wrote about the plight of internally displaced persons (IDPs) who were victims of the Sri Lankan conflict at the hands of the LTTE, and who still remain without much hope of any viable solution today.

These victims, who have languished in camps for the last 23 years, have barely elicited a response except at election time when they become pawns of politicians. Recently, the politicisation and the ethnicisation of this agenda have pitted a Muslim politician against a Tamil religious leader in terms of who gets priority for resettlement — and effectively the bigger share of the resettlement pie. This development does not bode well for relations between the two communities.

Ethnic Cleansing

Worse still is the hypocrisy of many human rights organisations and Tamil Diaspora groups, who neglect to mention these particular IDPs as they have vociferously campaigned for the rights of the displaced Tamil people affected by the end of the war.

However, recently, the plight of IDPs has been recognised in a few ways. Firstly, the recent admissions over the last few months by Tamil politicians of the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1990, shows the beginning of a process of healing and recognition for this group of people. The second issue concerns a report issued by the Commission of Inquiry for Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation (LLRC), set up by the Sri Lankan government in the wake of international condemnation over the end of the conflict and post-conflict reconciliation.

In its 407 page report, one chapter is dedicated to the issue of resettlement. Within this, the displaced Muslim community from the north warrants special reference.

The report also highlights some of the challenges faced in terms of once again resettling these displaced people in their places of origin. These challenges range from political will and financial obstacles, to the will of the people to actually move.

One of the biggest challenges appears to be uncertainty in the actual process of physical resettlement and reconstruction. There seems to be a grey area in terms of which entity is actually doing the resettling and reconstruction. Once the purview of international humanitarian agencies and international donors, it now appears that this is no longer a priority as many agencies and donors are now winding down operations in the country — citing lack of priority or challenges in working with the Sri Lankan government.

It seems that the government is also keen on keeping its cards close to its chest, which could be interpreted as either a lack of political will or based on an already negative perception and poor confidence in the NGO community;  a lack of willingness to engage with them. The most common excuse has been that they want to “avoid the same mistakes post-tsunami”. This is a reference to the influx of agencies into the country post-tsunami that largely worked unregulated and without much accountability; such that questions are still being asked today about the amount of money that flowed into the country versus what was done in the post-tsunami venture.

Evidence of the lack of confidence in NGOs is present with the government; the private sector and now the military is being engaged in post conflict reconstruction and welfare in parts of the north and east of Sri Lanka.

Somewhere between these two arguments is probably the truth, as is often the case in scenarios of past experience. In addition to this is the fact that, despite the publication of the LLRC, it appears that the government has been reluctant to move forward on some of the key issues — especially on a comprehensive plan for resettlement. This reluctance has now been made worse by the fact that the Government of Sri Lanka has now withdrawn from public domain the LLRC report citing “completion of work”, according to a Twitter Q&A session conducted with the president, yesterday. This confirms fears that the LLRC will now rest in the annals of Sri Lankan history and disappear from any practical implementation, as has been evidenced by the lack of mention in any public space by representatives of the government

Where to?

However, if we are to be truly honest, it would be very surprising if anything detailed has been drawn up because the task is huge and should not be underestimated. The issue is not confined to resettling the estimated 300,000 people who were displaced as a result of the end of the conflict. The issue is potentially resettling people from south India, as well as people who have been displaced over the last 20 years.

With large sections of the Muslim community, who were displaced from Jaffna and the north in 1990 by the LTTE, there are now new challenges that will need to be understood before these people go back. For most of the people who have been living in welfare camps for the last 20 years, they will not want to go back to the north and stay in camps there. Most of them want fully developed houses, schools, roads and other infrastructure before they move back. In short, they want new towns and livelihoods.

We are now talking about two or three generations as families have expanded. Where there was one family and one house, you now have three families and three houses.  The other issue concerns the generation that grew up in welfare camps with only a tacit knowledge of the north. Many of them have expressed a desire not to move back — as have many of those who were initially displaced. Hence, there will need to be resettlement plans made in areas where people are already residing.

Reconciliation

The mental challenges, however, outweigh the physical challenges. How will the Muslims and Tamils be able to reconcile after being separate for 20 years? If one goes to Jaffna today, there are only remnants of the Muslim presence there; many of the houses that were occupied by Muslims have been taken over by Tamils. Already, a plan initiated by the Indian government to re-house displaced Tamils in the north has come under criticism for not including Muslims in its quota.

One of my friends who is a priest in Jaffna remarked candidly to me: “Before the Tamils reconcile with the Muslims, we have to reconcile between ourselves. We will have to also reconcile why we allowed the Muslims to be kicked out in the first place.”

There is much truth to this statement. Jaffna is testimony to the challenge of reconstruction and reconciliation. Despite being in government controlled hands for at least a decade, it still bears the hallmarks of a town very much recovering from the conflict. The internal rivalry between Tamil political groups is as serious as the need to reconcile between communities. There will need to be a supreme effort from all sides in order for this to happen.

The real test for Sri Lanka and all its citizens (regardless of their affiliation) will be the planned and complete rehabilitation and reconstruction of the war affected areas and its people.

This originally appeared on Fair Observer

Post Conflict challenges for Sri Lanka - a Buddhist Muslim dilemma

On 18 May 2009, the prolonged separatist conflict in Sri Lanka between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) came to an end with the death of the LTTE Leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran (VP).

The demise of the LTTE, one of most ruthless terrorist groups in the world signalled the conclusion of one of the most turbulent periods of Sri Lanka’s history. The LTTE had been a powerful military force, and had controlled territory running a civil administration in the north and east of Sri Lanka for many years.   The Muslims in particular had suffered at the hands of the LTTE in the late eighties and early nineties with the mosque massacres in the east of the country and being expelled from the north. Thus its end symbolized an opening of a window of opportunity, albeit with some uncertainty, for the country’s future, in terms of trust building and reconciliation between increasingly suspicious and polarized communities.  

The 28 year old conflict extenuated already fragile cracks between the different ethnic groups, along faith lines, such that identity was strengthened not only by an insecurity of religious affiliation but a religious affiliation that is borne from a sense of the ‘other’ who is not only someone of a different ethnicity but someone of a different religion. Like many post-colonial societies, Sri Lanka drew on pre-colonial culture, including religion, to form a national identity after gaining independence.  These post colonial identities subsequently contributed to the conflict and have been abused and manipulated by the political elites to justify certain actions. This insecurity of identity has been felt on all sides, but the Sinhala Buddhist, who form the majority of the population, exhibit the most extreme of strains.     In particular the ideological strand of Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka has undergone a massive change and reinterpretation of its doctrines not only as a result of the conflict, but also by the political and social climate which has resulted in the steady growth of political activism on the part of a new generation of Buddhist monks.  This  means that the Sinhala Buddhist has become more militant, violent and ultimately intolerant towards other ethnicities and religions, largely led by the clergy.  The past three and a half years has seen a rise of violence against religious sites and members of religious communities, with a number of incidents including mob attacks on places of worship; robberies and vandalism; the killing of clergy; protests against communities and the proliferation of hate speech on social media, the internet and via the audio – visual media.   In particular once again it seems to be the Muslim community that is the  main target from both a commercial, social and religious perspective with some high profile cases such as the attack on a mosque in Dambulla in Sri Lanka in 2012.  In addition there have been many more incidents that have received little or no attention, either locally or internationally.  Of the accounted reports, there are 65 cases of attacks on places of religious worship with all the minority religious communities bearing the brunt of  the violence, the majority being from the Christian community (mostly against the non-traditional churches accused of forced conversion); Buddhist temples from the non Theravada sect; Hindu places of worship and the Muslim community.  At the front of this coordinated hate campaign is   an extreme Sinhalese Buddhist organisation called Bodhu Bala Sena (BBS), enjoying tacit support from the Government.   This  rising anti Muslim rhetoric over the last few years 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).   There are also rumours that on a recent visit to the USA, the BBS were scheduled to have met Pamela Geller as well.

It is an irony that this anti Muslim movement are  oblivious to the lived experience of the Sri Lankan Muslim society which has over 1000 years of coexistence in the country and contributing at all levels of the State.  However it is clear that the movement is 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).  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.

Of course, questions need to be also asked of the Muslim community in terms of their isolationist attitudes which have led to large misperceptions about them and their practices.  Despite a history of coexistence, the past 30 years have seen more communities living in parallel to each other.  The BBS movement have brought to the fore basic ignorance about the rituals and  practice of Muslims.  In addition the inability of the community to define a home grown organic identity and instead adopting more of an identity similar to that found in the Middle East caused a lot more questions.  One such question that the Muslim community will have to discuss and deliberate on is the whole issue of a national identity vs. religious obligations.  Their commitment to the process of reconciliation of Sri Lanka should not be questioned at the expense of their identity.

The Muslim issue in particular adds an additional significant challenge to Sri Lanka’s external relationships especially as in the recent and distant past; it has been the Muslim world which has been supportive of the country on the international sphere.  In addition, with the significant amount of income coming from Sri Lankans employed in the Middle East, the destination for Sri Lankan exports and Middle East tourism, the challenges faced by the Muslim community will only serve to deteriorate Sri Lanka’s international standing even further.

Thus for Sri Lanka to move forward, it will need to have some serious deliberations on the path it chooses to take.  The Muslim community themselves have a role to play in this, but will have to exorcise some internal demons as well.

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

The Limitations of Free Speech

For those of us working in the field of intercultural dialogue and understanding, it has been a frustrating few weeks.  Just as you think progress is being made between communities, global events peg you back displaying once again the vulnerability of human endeavours in trying to achieve peaceful coexistence and showing the very challenges that need to be overcome in order to ensure that the wheels are kept on the track.

For me this past two weeks has shown two different perspectives on the issue of the Freedom of Speech and how difficult it is to draw acceptable boundaries of such freedoms that people can readily and wholeheartedly agree on.

The first perspective of course has been the production of a so called film that insults the Prophet Muhammed (Peace Be Upon Him - PBUH) which has evoked much heated debate on all sides of the spectrum.   The riots across the globe aimed seemingly at this miniscule inflammatory film, has shown an outrage over the insult of the Prophet and a slight on the entire religion of Islam.    For those on the outside, it is not easy to understand the reverence that Muslims have for the Prophet (PBUH) in particular.   It is hard to explain in words but suffice to  say that any insult on the person or character of the Prophet (or indeed any of the other Prophets before)  goes to very heart of denigrating the very nature and identity of Islam and Muslims. Whilst the overall response was largely civil, groups here and there went on rampages and caused damage to public buildings, burnt flags and in the case of Bengazi in Libya, killed the US Ambassador and 3 other embassy staff. As is to and should always be expected, those small groups ultimately monopolized the media coverage, and it has been portrayed that the entire Arab/Muslim populations went on the rampage and engaged in a violent reaction to the film, when actually the truth was different.  This has been pounced upon by apologists for the film, who use the Freedom of Speech as an excuse, to show that  Muslims are either anti Freedom of Speech, or only supportive of such freedoms unless it affects them. 

The second perspective which perhaps has been missed globally but has certainly occupied headlines here in the UK has been the incidents related to the production of photos of the Duchess of Cambridge sunbathing topless.  Here again there have been small incidents of protest and in fact a quick reaction from the Royal Family who  have been quick to portray this as an invasion of privacy and brought about legal proceedings to end it.

In the wake of the current debate in the UK  on privacy and the role of the media these two seemingly different incidents throw interesting issues to discuss and debate.

The first is the issue of the freedom of speech which has been used in both the cases.  The argument goes is that we are free to say and do whatever (as long as it is not incitement to hatred or violence) and this includes things that we would find distasteful.  However how true is that statement?   In the UK over the last two weeks, there have been  two cases of things being posted on Facebook which have been deemed offensive and insulting resulting in the questioning and the imprisonment of those responsible.  The case with the royal family is about the right to privacy.  So there emerges from this a sense of some moral and ethical boundaries which are put in place by society and cannot be crossed without there being some legal or judicial implications.  So whilst it is deemed ‘proper’ to insult a religion or one of its holiest people / practices in the name of free speech regardless of whether it offends and insults the very private beliefs of its adherents, it is not ‘acceptable’ to publish photos of a topless Duchess or talk in a derogatory manner about the deaths of policewomen or soldiers killed in combat. 

One of the real issues for me that arises from this whole series of sad incidents is the fact that we need to collectively redraw the moral and ethical boundaries of free speech that takes into account the growing role of religion in the public sphere and that society doesn’t feel pushes them into.  Where does religious thought lie?  By insulting the very fabric of faith, do you somehow invade the privacy of people?  Is that acceptable? How can we have a conversation that can criticise without offending people?  How do we address the concept of freedom of speech, when something is done deliberately to insult and provoke?  The film which was a pathetic, poorly produced, cheap and highly insulting piece of work has been unanimously described as far from being an extremely poor production with no relation to art, no artistic or cultural message and has been agreed that the film aimed to insult, offend and maybe even stir problems and bring about violence and riots in the manner that we unfortunately saw.  Whilst the objective of inciting hatred and insulting was undeniable, can it still be defended under the freedom of speech?  What if something that denied the Holocaust was produced in the same lines?

The second issue is perhaps a little bit more subtle and deserves some deeper reflection.  Whilst at the very base level, the protests have reflected real anger at an insult to the Prophet (PBUH) and by extension an insult to Islam, it would also be naive to analyse what happened last week with the same lens and to not consider the concept of context.

 In almost all the countries were the riots took place and where it became violent, one cannot ignore the aspect of power dynamics and issues of governance.  Underlying all of these protests and riots is a deep sense of frustration and tiredness of an oppressed people who have been subjugated to trials and tribulations where their only identity and escape has been their faith and belief.  As Myriam Francois wrote “Broken by poverty, threatened by drones, caught in the war between al Qaida and the US, to many ‎Arab Muslims, the film represents an attack on the last shelter of dignity - sacred beliefs - when all ‎else has been desecrated”. 

The protests mirror similar protests held in the early twentieth century in India against British colonial powers when it was felt that the occupying colonial power was denigrating the beliefs and identity of its subjects ( as situation that led to the infamous Indian Mutiny).  Hence in order to understand the reason for the protests, one must not forget the context that has contributed to a mass dehumanisation of a group of people who feel that  an insult to their religion is just another step in their colonial and neo colonial subjugation.

The issue thus becomes that these debates of the freedom of speech has to be considered within the wider and more complex and evolving social and cultural context where class, race and faith are central. Lacking access to a public forum, often these protestors are seeking alternative means to make their voices heard and have their cultural and religious sensibilities recognised in the public sphere as a means of also protesting against the very nature of their current plights.

This was originally published in State of Formation

The Rohingya of Myanmar: Staring Into the Abyss of Uncertainty – Part 2

The recent violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar has brought to the fold the hidden tensions within a society long isolated from the international community. This is part two in a series of two articles. Read part 1 here.

An ‘Open’ Myanmar?

Presently leading the anti-Rohingya charge in Myanmar is the Rakhine [Arakan] Nationalities Development Party, which came second in the last general election of November 2010. Statements released by the party have not only called for swift action to segregate the Rohingyas from the Arakanese and eventually resettle them overseas, but also for Myanmar to emulate Israel in the way the latter deals with the Palestinians. However, the party is not alone and other religious figures and veterans of the pro-democracy movement have had a hand in stirring tensions, by using language reminiscent of that which accompanied the Nazi pogroms. Groups like the UK-based Burma Democratic Concern have resorted to wild fear mongering, alleging that the Rohingya have massacred “tens of thousands of Burmese Buddhist Arakanese in the past”, while others argue that Myanmar cannot support a “refugee” population.

This current conflict has also had other less conspicuous effects. Most importantly, it has triggered a dramatic realignment of political allegiances in the country. Many so-called democrats have vilified an entire minority group, employed apartheid-like segregationist measures, and forged reactionary ties with their traditional enemy, the Burmese military. This includes a number of prominent members of Myanmar’s pro-democracy opposition who have begun calling for collaboration between civilians and the military (the very same who spent decades persecuting the political opposition, forcing tens of thousands into prison or exile), in a bid to drive out what they claim are illegal Muslim immigrants who threaten the delicate fabric of Burmese society.

This has put Aung San Suu Kyi in a very awkward position, forcing her to choose between the morally unassailable but politically unpalatable high ground (since defending the Rohingya likely entails losing a large number of votes especially from the Arakan state’s Buddhist population), or a more populist stand that yields to widespread bigotry. Her own party, the National League for Democracy, viewed by the outside world as the driving force for change in Myanmar, itself tiptoes around the subject. One party official told the BBC earlier this year that “even in our organisation, the Rohingya question has not been settled”.

Recently, a foreign journalist asked the Nobel Laureate whether she regarded Rohingyas as citizens of Myanmar. “I do not know,” she prevaricated. “We have to be very clear about what the laws of citizenship are and who are entitled to them”, she replied, thereby choosing to avoid amplifying the situation and speaking vaguely of a need to reform Myanmar’s citizenship law as a way of resolving the conflict.

Ground Realities of Moving Forward
So where does this leave us in the wake of international excitement about the election of Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar’s march towards becoming an open democracy? The incidents with the Rohingya show an apparent breakdown in the moral logic of Myanmar’s internationally vaunted opposition force. However, much of the fault also lies on our end rather than solely with them. Have our own perceptions of the pro-democracy movement been slightly over-romanticized, in terms of representing their battles against the junta as some sort of pure quest of good vs. evil? Did we mistake their opposition to the junta to be an acceptance of universal human rights and a commitment to tolerance?

“Once the Burmese opposition no longer was confined to simply opposing (saying the right things), and actually had to suggest policies, what occurred was a sort of ‘return of the real,” Elliott Prasse-Freeman, of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights, wrote in an email. “It became clear that ‘Human Rights’ were just demands against power, and they didn’t mean anything in terms of the kind of politics the opposition actually stood for.”

Or perhaps it is a case for the fact that Myanmar is no democracy and Aung Suu Kyi was perfectly justified in saying that we cannot resolve this problem unless there is democratic government and citizenship rights are decided according to the Constitution.

Regardless though, these have been eye opening times for all. Myanmar’s opposition movement, which won international admiration for its efforts (with many dying or being put in prison for long terms), risks unravelling the delicate transition to democracy, by its hypocrisy regarding the unfolding crisis.

As Myanmar stands ready to open its doors to the outside world, the longstanding fear of outsiders, an effect of decades of isolation – will need to be conquered, especially as the population interacts with far more non-Myanmarese and non-Buddhist communities.

The immediate task before the international community is to stop the violence from taking place and then to push for humanitarian access and rendering of relief. The international community should push both the governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh to allow NGOs and other voluntary agencies to provide humanitarian relief. Eventually, those responsible for the atrocities against the Rohingya should be brought to justice.

There is another important role for the international community to play. Such discriminatory policies against its citizens are a major shadow on Myanmar’s revamped international image, but are largely obscured by the taboo that surrounds their exposure. Observers are loath to broach the subject, given the ramifications that accompany accusations of racism. If Myanmar is to truly join the global community, the floor must be opened to debate. There must be acknowledgement that a malaise exists in Myanmar, which has felt the pain of antipathy and isolation for decades. Taking a sensitive but head-on approach to addressing the problem would be the first step. Britain and America must be part of this international approach as they embrace Myanmar. They must not only welcome Myanmar to the international stage, but also teach about it about universal democratic principles and human rights.

The demand of the Rohingyas to be treated as human beings and given their basic human rights is something that should not stain the conscience of the international community.

History has taught us that if swift action is not taken to stop these senseless acts of violence, then they perpetuate into bigger problems. However, George Bernard Shaw also said: “What experience and history teach is this: that people and governments never have learnt anything from history or acted in principles deduced from it.” This is perhaps the sad irony of “Never Again”.

This originally appeared on Fair Observer

The Rohingya of Myanmar: Staring Into the Abyss of Uncertainty – Part 1

The recent violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar has brought to the fold the hidden tensions within a society long isolated from the international community. This is part one in a series of two articles.

The two most repeated words in the English Language are “Never Again”, heard in commemorations of the Holocaust to express the commitment that genocide will never again take place. Yet “Never Again” has also come to symbolise the absolute weakness in the will of the international community to act against genocide. This weakness was exposed in Bosnia and in Rwanda and now it seems that it is being exposed yet again, now in Myanmar with its ethnic Rohingya people, a Muslim minority living in the Arakan region.

As reports of mass killings, mass graves, rape, and torture come out of Myanmar with figures of at least 20,000 Rohingya killed since June 28, it seems that like Rwanda and Bosnia, a group of voiceless people are once again being systematically wiped out. This seems to be sanctioned by their government, under the eyes of the international community. The pictures in circulation (although it is hard to verify their authenticity sometimes) depict the horrific nature and scale of the existing tensions in Myanmar.

Many of the Rohingyas have been forced to flee to Bangladesh by boat with some reportedly travelling for days on end to escape the trauma of the current situation. However, they have been refused entry by the Bangladeshi government which has also suspended aid agencies from working in the camps which harbour Rohingya refugees.

Perhaps what is even more shocking is the complicity of the entire country of Myanmar, from the President down to the grass roots. The President has come on record to tell the UN to “establish refugee camps and allow for the deportation of ethnic Rohingya as the ‘only solution’”, whilst Buddhist monkshave backed calls for the extermination of the race of Rohingyas. This statewide support for the killing of “Kalaras”, which is the pejorative slur that has become a popular and casual way of referring to Muslims of South Asian decent – or the Rohingyas – is once again reminiscent of Rwanda which witnessed an exhortation for mass killings over the public airwaves.

The flood of nationalist sentiment that has followed these incidents will serve to distract the population from ongoing ethnic conflicts in the north, public anger at rising electricity prices, and industrial workers' strikes in Rangoon, all of which have threatened the government's standing in recent months. There is in fact good reason to suspect that government officials may also have a role in whipping up anti Rohingya sentiments. This has been verified by a Human Rights Watch report, which accused security forces of actively persecuting ethnic Rohingya during the most recent bout of violence. There are some who have also suggested that the timing of the latest cycle of violence is related to the growing acceptance of the country within the international community and the rising prospects for investment. Myanmar has untapped natural resources (which could render the country quite prosperous), yet a fair proportion of this is in areas which are now occupied by the Rohingyas. Hence the pogroms perhaps have an economic incentive as well.

The violence has reached an international level and the United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay has called for an independent investigation into claims that security forces are systematically targeting the Rohingya. Yet with the banning of Foreign NGOs from the region by the government of Myanmar, and the prohibitions imposed by the government of Bangladesh, the ground realities are unclear. Whilst the Turkish government has led the way in its response to the humanitarian crisis, it seems that there is still some uncertainty in the international community over how best to respond to the humanitarian and human rights crisis unfolding in Myanmar.

The trigger for this violence was the alleged rape of a Buddhist girl by Muslim boys. Though the exact details of what had happened are unclear, what is clear is that the ethnic (and religious tensions) are so high, particularly in the province of Rakhian, that a strong rumour is enough to spark off riots and killings.

Rumours or not, the violence is a symbol of the underlying tensions that run deep in Myanmar and have to do with the fear of "the other"; a fear that has reared its head sporadically in the anti-Chinese and anti-Indian riots of the past century. However, this fear of the “other” has not been as great as the simmering resentment against the Muslims of Myanmar (and in particular against the citizenship of the ethnic Rohingyas who are all Muslims). This resentment is exploited by politicians pandering to nationalist passions and religious prejudice, and has been largely overlooked in black-and-white depictions of the situation.

Resentment Against Muslims 
Whilst there are at least a dozen “ethnicities” in Myanmar, the Muslims are particularly diverse. There are very few ethnic Burmese Muslims, with most being migrants from different parts of India from when Burma was a part of India. In addition to their Muslim names, these Muslims also have Burmese names. They are known publically by the latter, and in private in their own communities, by the former. For example, a person may have “Chitko O-O” as his Burmese name and “Mohammad Nasiruddin” as his Islamic name.

Accusations that the government has sought to dilute, or "Burmanise", Myanmar's 135 distinct ethnic groups, in particular the Muslims, have existed for decades. These accusations factor in the apparently institutional practice of rape of ethnic women by Myanmar’s troops, as well as the forced teaching of the Burmese language in ethnic schools. Governments have used the premises "illegal migration management" and "control on population growth" to justify the persecution of this group. However this is not consistent, as millions of Chinese who have migrated to Myanmar in recent decades have become powerful players in the economy.

This hostility towards the often darker skinned Muslim groups in Myanmar (or between Muslims and Buddhists) has its roots in colonial history. The same key issue that fuelled the infamous anti-Chinese riots of the late 1960s and 1970s, being that Myanmarese were aggrieved at jobs going to foreigners, had also driven the anti-Indian and anti-Muslim riots in 1930 and 1938. The post-colonial civilian government in the early 1950s expelled the Burma Muslim Congress and made Buddhism the state religion. This was followed in the 1960s by the mass expulsion of Indians (brought in for work by the British), on the rhetoric of anti-Muslim propaganda, and the latter were branded as colonial stooges. Subsequently, anti-Islamic sentiment was used to ban all Muslims from the army. This propaganda has had lingering effects within the country such that Muslims have been deprived of their basic rights to education and employment and are subjected to forced labour, extortion, and other coercive measures.

The ethnic Rohingyas are currently the ones facing the brunt of the ethnic killings and tension. This happens under the claim that they are illegal immigrants or are Bangladeshi (because of similar cultural and physical characteristics that they share with people from Bangladesh).

However, it is not true that the Rohingyas are illegal immigrants. The ancestors of the Rohingya settled in the Arakan region between the 14th and 18th centuries. Muslim sultans ruled the Arakanese city of Mrauk U, which was in its zenith in the 17th century and a key trading hub in Asia. This was long before the main wave of Indian immigrants arrived in Burma after it was conquered by the British Empire during the 19th century. By the 1930s, the new Indian arrivals were a majority in most big Burmese cities, and dominated the commercial sector of the economy. Modern-era Muslim political participation in the Arakan state itself goes back to the 1930s.

The Japanese invasion of Burma during the Second World War drove out most of those Indian immigrants, but the Burmese fear and hatred of “foreigners” in their midst remained, and it then turned against the Rohingya. They were targeted mainly because they were perceived as “foreigners”, but the fact that they were Muslims in an overwhelmingly Buddhist country made them seem even more alien.

The Rohingya of Arakan were poor farmers, just like their Buddhist neighbours, and their right to Burmese citizenship was unquestioned until the Burmese military seized power in 1962. The army attacked the Rohingya community and drove some 200,000 of them across the border into Bangladesh in 1978, in a campaign marked by widespread killings, mass rape, and the destruction of mosques. Another military campaign drove a further 250,000 Rohingyas into Bangladesh in 1990 and 1991.

The military government of Myanmar refused to recognize them as citizens of Myanmar. The military dictator of the day, Ne Win, revoked the citizenship of all Rohingyas in 1982, thereby justifying their expulsion and ill treatment by labelling them "illegal Bengali immigrants". Other newly enacted laws forbade them several rights. Rohingya babies born out of wedlock were placed on blacklists, and barred from attending school and later marrying; Rohingyas were banned from owning land; a Rohingya couple had to apply well in advance before attempting to wed; and newly married couples had to sign a commitment to have no more than two children.

This animosity is shared by senior figures in the government; the current representative to the United Nations (UN), Ye Myint Aung, once described the Rohingya: "as ugly as ogres".

The Northern Arakan state, where the majority of Rohingyas reside, is now virtually an open prison. Foreigners are barred from entering, and the Rohingyas are subject to a system of travel permits that controls their movements.

The Muslims who have crossed into Bangladesh over the past three decades have been living in some of the worst possible conditions in camps along the border. The unofficial refugee camps have no running water, drainage, or health facilities, leaving the Rohingya Muslims in poverty without any aid or intervention. Such is the treatment of the Rohingya that up to 300,000 now reside in Bangladesh, which in turn sees them as illegal immigrants from Myanmar and denies them citizenship. They are the epitome of “stateless”, and spend their lives in unofficial camps where conditions are notoriously poor (only 28,000 are registered by the UN).

The current crisis with the Rohingyas poses a lot of interesting questions and dilemmas on how Myanmar (and the political stakeholders within it) will engage with the international community in the future.

The original appeared on Fair Observer

The UK Riots - One Year On

What a difference a year makes.  Last year at this time, London (and the rest of the England) was in a state of shock as riots (and subsequent looting) held the authorities hostage for about a week or so.  Writing on this subject a year ago, I stressed that if anything what was needed was a collective response from both the government and wider society in dealing with the complex background context that had fermented the riots.  I talked about the need to engage with each other and to start the process of linking to not only understand each other but to strengthen communities, add to social cohesion and contribute to personal and professional development through friendships made and work undertaken across the partnerships. 

However since then, despite assurances of addressing some of the real issues, it seems that not much has really been done.  There have been some compensations paid (but it appears not in the same amounts that were promised), buildings have been rebuilt and people have been jailed.  There has been very little done to address some of the underlying factors that led to the riots.  Several news reports on the anniversary of the  riots spoke to local residents who claimed that the status quo had remained and what change had come about was as a result of the communities coming together despite Government assurances of helping.

It is the community that has taken the first step to collectively move forward from blame to positive action to address the root causes.   One such community forum took place on the 1^st of February 2012, which looked specifically at how grassroots organisations responded and should respond to such an incident, taking into account the moral and values-based dimension of the problem.  What was particularly unique about this forum was that it brought some of the principled players, who were involved directly with the riots: either as perpetrators, victims or people who prevented the riots taking place in their own back yard, and allowed them the space for sharing success stories and best practice and to have real engagement between the youth and people who are involved with making real changes within their communities. In the wake of the anniversary of the riots, the report of that forum has been published and makes for some interesting reading.

The views in particular aired by the youth should point us to their frustrations and concerns especially in relationships with the authorities, police stop and search, the quality of education, lack of job opportunities, and the lack of resources to develop facilities for the youth in their areas. The young participants who attended the forum were candid in identifying that some aspects of negative youth culture, misuse of social media, a breakdown of respect within society, and a lack of purpose were important issues to be addressed.  The voices of the youth speak out and tell us precisely where our time should be more productively used, in ensuring that it doesn’t happen again.

What this report tells us is something that was already common knowledge despite the best efforts especially by the Government to paint it otherwise, that the riots that took place in London and other cities in the summer of 2011 cannot be viewed or solved in isolation, without taking into account the wider picture. At the heart of the crisis is the frightening failure of integrity in society and in the words of the former Bishop of Worcester “we need to attune our moral compasses and move away from a ‘system of disregard’ that had emanated from the top of society and had made its way to the bottom”.

In order for us to tackle the roots causes of the riots there is a need for new insights and alternative solutions.  We have to develop values that can counter consumerism that will come not only from an education process but also by developing closer relationships between families and communities. In it is a role for faith communities in particular, to move out of institutional power politics and to provide a narrative and a space in which one can start to explore some of these discussions of ethics, values and morals.    Thus communities must recognise that the solutions to their challenges lie first with themselves and how they focus on the youth who are the drivers of the future with the provision of support, advice and guidance.  This involves tackling real issues of the lack of aspirations and motivation amongst young people and enabling youth to find meaning and purpose in their lives. Throughout Britain, there are seeds of hope.   As the report shows, these are sown by community groups and organizations who out of the bankruptcy of failed regeneration efforts, are stepping into fill the gaps.

In working to change the system of disregard decision makers and figures in authority like the police must increase real engagement with communities through regular consultations with community leaders, groups and schools thereby reducing resentment amongst grass roots communities.  The challenge for all of us, particularly decision makers, would be to facilitate and ensure that such initiatives are sustainable and spread throughout the country at all levels.

There thus needs to be space and confidence established and more importantly sustained for this type of engagement to take place which can lead to the creation of stronger communities that can share best practices but also come up with organic solutions to their problems.

This year London has been seen in an entirely different light.  The Olympics have showcased the city in all its summer glory, warmth and hospitality.  Add to it, the remarkable achievements of Team GB athletes and there is a really strong feel good factor and pride in the nation at the moment.  The anniversary of the riots has been largely overshadowed by the games and some would cynically say that, the games have been a distraction, masking the real issues underlying London and the UK in the midst of a deep recession and other social issues.  Those same news reports on the anniversary of the riots spoke to people from the communities at the heart of the riots last year, who claimed that the Olympics did not touch them nor did they feel ‘inspired’.  This is where the real challenge lies now in the legacy of the Games.  Whilst the motto of London 2012 has been ‘To Inspire a Generation’, it is not just inspiration that is needed.  It is real support; guidance and hand holding that can create a space for the next generation to flourish.

Since inner city communities bore the brunt of the impacts of the riots, they should be the first recipients of this legacy and hence we need to communicate with marginalized communities. To do this, it is vital to identify key ‘gatekeepers’ who have influence within marginalized communities such as teachers, former gang members and religious leaders, who are part of the solution and not the problem. What the Olympics have served to show is that results are borne from hard work, dedication and perseverance.  The achievements of the athletes goes very much against the grain of the markets dominated life, we have allowed ourselves to fall into, where more is better if it is done quickly and without much effort. This is the inspiration that needs to be drawn from the Olympians who now have a responsibility to engage with these at risk youngsters to inspire them to achieve beyond their dreams.

People can be inspired but without access to facilities and an opening up of opportunities, that inspiration fizzles out to disillusionment. Currently there is little scope in the school curriculum to provide young people with a bigger purpose in life and so it is important for ‘out of school’ experiences such as sports and working and serving in the community to be developed. The government will have its part to play in correcting the structural weaknesses in society that lead to social inequity and isolation, however there has to be a bigger role for wider society.  The great sense of pride (and unity) that has swept the nation and allowed them to embrace as the best of British, the multiculturalism of the opening ceremony and the plethora of medals by people who capture the diversity of the UK society, has to be channelled and utilised in order to inspire and offer opportunities for  the next generation.  London 2012 cannot afford to be written off as a party for a few weeks, but in essence, we will have to sustain that spirituality of commonality, which we discovered during the Olympics that will allow us to recognise the common space and substance that will provide the fuel for social change.

In short, we must learn to listen closely to one another, not simply because it is polite, but because it is just possible that we might learn something important about ourselves, become better human beings, and build a better global village in the process.

This was first published here  in Fair Observer