Nationalism as represented by the
President Mahinda Rajapakse continues to dominate the politics of Sri Lanka,
and it is the message given by the people at the Provincial Council elections
in the western and southern provinces. The individual performances of some
candidates have to be considered and interpreted in the above background and
not in an absolute manner. While congratulating young Hirunika Premachandra for
obtaining the highest number of preferential votes (manape) in the Colombo
District it is foolhardy to say the people have voted for her in order to turn
away the government from its nationalistic policies, which are identified and
branded as Chauvinistic policies. If Hirunika Premachandra contested from the
Mahajana Pakshaya of Vijaya Kumaratunga, which was not nationalistic, it is
clear that she would not have obtained so many preferential votes. The
personalities do matter but only with respect to a general background.
There was a time when the pundits and
others who are identified as political analysts told us that without the so
called minority vote it was not possible to form a government in Sri Lanka.
This “analysis” had been driven into the minds of the SLFP leaders some of whom
continue to be the leaders of the Party. They under the leadership of Chandrika
Kumaratunga changed the nationalistic policies of the SLFP, the party had
followed since about 1954. It has to be reminded that the SLFP contested the
general elections in 1952 as a liberal party opposing the conservative UNP, and
not as a nationalistic party. The SLFP under Chandrika Kumaratunga was not a
SLFP and the party came to power in the early nineties in the Southern and
Western Provincial Councils and later in the Parliament as the main party to
oppose the “seventeen year curse (sapaya)” of the UNP.
The nationalistic forces were able to
expose the myth that no government could be formed without the so called
minority votes and in a country where the Sinhala population is around 75%, it
was only necessary to obtain roughly two thirds of the Sinhala votes to form a
government under the preferential system. If a party could poll around 88% of
the Sinhala vote it could form a government with two third majority without any
support from the so called minority parties. It is not an impossibility the way
the UNP is being drawn into the orbit of the “minorities” under the “guidance”
of the westerners but I would not advocate the SLFP and the UPFA to be a party
of the Sinhala people only.
Since 2009 the Sinhala people have voted
overwhelmingly for the SLFP and the UPFA with plusses and minuses but the trend
remains the same. The most encouraging aspect is that the Sinhala
Christians/Catholics have closed ranks with the Sinhala Buddhists in spite of
the higher-ups of the respective churches advocating a different policy. It may
be that the school takeover in 1962 finally taught the Sinhala
Christians/Catholics that the Sinhala Buddhists are not against the religion of
the former but against the pro western policies of the leadership of the
Church. Though the ordinary Sinhala Christians/Catholics have realised the
nationalistic intentions of the Sinhala Buddhists it is unfortunate that the
same cannot be said of most of the leaders. The education still plays a big
role in domination by the Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya, but unfortunately
the government has not realised the threat it could pose to the nationalistic
policies of the government.
The UNP was able to win Galle and the
electorates in the Colombo city limits due to the ethnic and religious
minorities living in the area, who appear to have voted for the UNP and not the
SLFP led UPFA. The highest preferential votes in the Colombo District were
obtained by a Muslim in the UNP list whether he is a supporter of Ranil
Wickremesinghe or not. The person who poled the third highest preferential
votes in the UNP in the Colombo district was also a Muslim, and Mano Ganeshan’s
Party was able to push the UPFA to third place in two of the electorates within
Colombo city limits. While the Sinhala people vote for the SLFP led UPFA in
general, the “minorities” have a tendency to vote against that party.
The SLFP though nationalistic in many
areas still lacks a nationalistic policy in development. The cost of living is
a problem for the people mainly due to the spending attitudes of the people
from Kurunduwatta to Kurundugahahathamma. The present education does not
encourage people to change the consumerist attitudes of the people stemming
from Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya. A great revolution in school education
is needed but the leaders including the leading Buddhist Bhikkus have to resort
to simple life and educate the masses by setting an example. No country
including China seems to have an economic and development policy independent of
the western policy and by trying to emulate a policy of somebody else based on
the assumption that there is only one world the non western countries are only
following the western countries to disaster. Mao forgot Tao and had to pay the
price at the end. The present rulers of China also seem to have forgotten Tao
and Yin Yang philosophy, and the development that China has acquired during the
last twenty years or so is nothing but a mirage.
The Sinhala
people and the SLFP should learn lessons from what has happened in the world
during the last twenty five years, and should extend the nationalistic policies
from the political arena to other fields as well. It is true that except on an
individual basis the Muslims and the Tamils do not vote for the SLFP en masse,
arising out of nationalistic feelings. While the Muslim countries in the world
continue to vote with Sri Lanka in UNHRC and other fora the Muslims in Sri
Lanka appear to vote against the SLFP led UPFA. There is a contradiction in
this state of affairs, and leaders such as Hakeem form an obstacle in Muslims
and Sinhalas coming together on a nationalistic basis.
The SLFP having
won the confidence of Sinhala Christians/Catholics should strive to win over the
Muslims and the Tamils based on nationalistic policies. It will take time as
these policies cannot be worked out in a year or two. However, the west takes
advantage of these delays, and would cultivate anti Sinhala feelings among
those communities through TNA leaders, and leaders such as Hakeem and Mano
Ganeshan. The SLFP should educate the Muslims and the Tamils of the historical
injustices to the Sinhala people, especially the Sinhala Buddhists and that
some of these have not been rectified after sixty six years of independence.
The west makes a hue
and cry over the implementation of the LLRC report. The LLRC report is not a
report of the government as it is only a report of a commission appointed by
the government. The government is not bound to implement all the
recommendations of the LLRC, and it is clear from the results of the Provincial
Council elections held on Saturday the Sinhala people are against the
implementation of the entire report. On the other hand the SLFP under Mr. SWRD
Bandaranaike undertook to implement the Buddhist Commission report, a promise
that has not been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Sinhala Buddhists. It
was on a recommendation of the Buddhist Commission that the schools were taken
over in 1962, and the Christians/Catholics have now realised that proposal was
not against their religions. The SLFP is the only nationalistic party that can
address the cost of living problem as well as “reconciliation” of Sinhala
people and others and it could be achieved by implementing the recommendations
of the Buddhist Commission report rather than the LLRC report produced by a
group some of whom who did not have grass for their feet. The SLFP should
extend its nationalistic policies approved by the people to other areas not
confining itself to the political arena.
Nalin De Silva
02-04-2014