On Feb. 4, Sri Lanka will celebrate the 60th anniversary of its independence from the British colonial empire. There is hardly any mood to celebrate in the country, however.
Beset by enormous economic hardships and price hikes, by unprecedented levels of blatant corruption and abuse of power, rejection of adherence to the Constitution itself and violent conflict within which all parties to the conflict seek a more direct military confrontation, the people of the country are confused about the meaning of it all.
Lawlessness has spread in the country; there is an increase in grave crimes coupled with the ever-increasing police and criminal nexus, leading to widespread insecurity.
In trying to understand the prevailing confusion, a quote by John Adams, the second U.S. president, may be of some use:
“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The revolution was effected before the war commenced. The revolution was in the minds and the hearts of the people.”
Also, Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy in her book “The God of Small Things,” includes the following dialogue:
“‘If you’re happy in a dream, Ammu, does that count?’ Estha asked.
“‘Does what count?’
“‘The happiness — does it count?’
“She knew exactly what he meant, her son with his spoiled puff. Because the truth is that only what counts, counts. The simple, unswerving wisdom of children.
“If you eat a fish in a dream, does it count? Does it mean you’ve eaten a fish?”
In these two quotes, there are two different, but related, ideas. First, freedom has to live in the hearts of people who have come together as a society if it is to have any real social significance. Thus, freedom, which in modern times also includes human rights, needs to be a dream, an expectation and something that is deeply cherished.
On the other hand, a fish eaten in a dream does not count. Dreams, if they are to count, must find expression through social arrangements which really work. Taken together, these two ideas demonstrate the state of freedom and human rights in Sri Lanka today.
Compared to 60 years ago, Sri Lanka today is now a place of dreams and expectations shared by large sections of the people. These people belong to different racial and religious groups, be they Sinhalese or Tamils or Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians and others. Among all these people, there have been changes in their allegiances to the earlier social order in which only privileged people in the feudal and colonial system enjoyed most of the benefits of the social arrangement.
The most prominent change has been in the rural countryside in all areas of the country — in the south, north and east. If one were to trace the history of any village in Sri Lanka for the last 100 years, it would demonstrate the tremendous change of the peasants’ submissive mentality toward their landlords. A whole generation of young people will no longer behave within the mindset held by their ancestors for centuries.
The demand for rational explanations and reasonable treatment is part of every family’s behavior now. Thus, it can clearly be said that in the hearts of the people of Sri Lanka there has been an irreversible transformation that demands recognition of their rights. While articulation of this internal transformation may vary, the mindsets of people today in Sri Lanka are radically different from the traditional mindset bred in a feudal, caste-based social milieu.
It can thus be claimed that the centuries-old inner laws of social organization of Sri Lanka have now been decisively broken. The people have more hope, more expectations and more dreams in their hearts. More people eat fish in their dreams.
However, in reality, there are tremendous restraints against realizing these hopes, expectations and dreams. These obstacles emanate from the political and social organization of the country, which has failed to adjust to the inner transformation among the people. Overcoming these barriers is a difficult task.
Times of great change within the hearts of people are difficult with regard to social arrangements that have long been taken for granted. This is especially true in the field of governance. Political, legal and social institutions do not easily adjust to change.
The Sri Lankan experience is similar to that of India and China. For example, when people began to change their minds about the caste system in India, a basic law governing social arrangements was shaken. When peasants lost their docile attitude and loyalty to feudal landlords, as occurred in China and many other countries, this too challenged a centuries-old “law” that constituted social structure in those societies. When attitudes toward corruption underwent change, for example, in a community like Hong Kong, this was accompanied by a new legal regime which effectively outlawed corruption.
In each of these instances, changes had to be made to the previously existing political, social and legal order. New arrangements had to accommodate the changed mentality, meaning changes within the system of governance.
How will Sri Lanka develop its political and social organizations to become compatible with the change in the hearts of the people? How will their aspirations for recognition and equality be realized in a rational and dynamic way?
These central questions need a response if the 60th anniversary of Sri Lanka’s independence is to have any meaning. This applies to all social groupings in the country. The binding thread between the people of Sri Lanka, despite decades of violent conflict, is a strong demand for equality among all the people that were neglected in the old feudal social order.
To make equality a reality, the people whose hearts and minds have changed must express their own positions more assertively. This demands the rejection of violent modes of political expression that manifest frustration. It demands the determination to reorganize their societies to include recognition of their rights.
Creating a framework for peaceful political discourse is primarily the responsibility of the state. It must ensure an ethos within which political change can take place that is compatible with the changes of the people’s mindset.
Source: Fish eaten in a dream does not count
Filed under: crime, human rights, police, politics, Sri Lanka, violations
