Which candidate can bell the Muslim Fundamentalist Cat?

Promises are cheap, plans expensive. Promises easy, plans take time to formulate and a certain basic level of intelligence to articulate. Promises don’t add up to vision, plans do. Some candidates promise, others plan. I need not elaborate.   

Let’s flag some issues.

The economy. We have one of the worst growth rates in the region; only Afghanistan lags behind Sri Lanka. For all the talk of a debt inherited by the Yahapalana Government (of which Sajith Premadasa is a minister), the quantum of new debt had nothing to do with the past.   

National security. Easter Sunday showed the mess we are in. It’s a product of an insane revenge-drive that constituted of a comprehensive witch hunt against intelligence and security officers assumed to be loyal to the previous regime and an equally insane misconception that ‘reconciliation’ is about dismantling the security apparatus. That’s Yahapalana thinking for you (and Sajith Premadasa is a minister in the Yahapalana Government).   

A dress is a dress in whatever form. Even nudity can be described as a dress-preference. We have norms which do not sanction nudity but we can’t have laws that sanction dress-form. We can have norms though and in certain cases even laws

Reconciliation. That’s a term which in practice had a rider: ‘pseudo’. It was all about hurting one way or another the majority community. It was not about inclusive nationalism, as it ought to have been. That again is a Yahapalana thing and yes, Sajith Premadasa is a minister in the Yahapalana Government.   

There’s more, but let’s focus on issues related to religion, secularism and national integrity. Now these have been constant themes of this regime and those who supported it. The focus of course has been the removal of the special status of Buddhism (Article 9), which has anyway been negated by Articles 10 and 14. However, for all talk of secularism, there’s been dead silence by the vociferous secularist lobby on customary laws pertaining to religion. The caveat ‘other than the marriages of Muslims in the Marriages (General) Ordinance No 19 of 1907 made more specific by the the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act No 13 of 1951 and the Marriages and Divorce (Kandyan) Act No 44 of 1952 have not caught attention. Strangely.   

If religion, as the likes of Mangala Samaraweera frequently claim, is a personal matter and not the business of the state, if the route to modernity involves a separation of state and religion and if a secular state is a non-negotiable when it comes to an integrated Sri Lanka that has reconciled community-based differences, then these things should be done away with. Surely?   
And yet, the entire debate in ‘civil society’ (can we call it a ‘Civil Society gaaya’ following Thenuwara’s pet peeve, the so-called ‘Ranaviru gaaya’?) has been about reforming and not repealing these archaic statues that stand in the way of everything they swear by (secularism, national integration and reconciliation). Why?   

Rev. Athureliye Rathana Thera tabled three bills to repeal the aforementioned Acts. It hasn’t been taken up. It hasn’t generated any comment from the secularists. Child marriages, selective sanctioning of polygamy and so-called customary dress codes (Niqab and Burqa) are absolutely at odds with the kind of modernity that these ladies and gentlemen advocate for Sri Lanka.   

A dress is a dress in whatever form. Even nudity can be described as a dress-preference. We have norms which do not sanction nudity but we can’t have laws that sanction dress-form. We can have norms though and in certain cases even laws. If a masked man enters a bank, would not the employees feel uneasy? Do they have to ‘grin and bear’ because ‘that’s his/her dress-preference’? In an age that is marked by insecurity, in a country where the single most bloody act by adherents of a particular religion targeting non-believers was the Easter Sunday attacks, in a country that has seen 30 years of terrorism, we all have to pay a price for personal and community security. Vigilance. Laws that could be seen as infringements on personal freedom. For example. Banning the niqab and burqa are relatively minor infringements but most importantly warranted by particularly terrifying circumstances. Please note that even though these new ‘customs’ are a direct product of the spread of Waha’abism and even though it is this religious sect that has given rise to Islamic extremism, it is not the religious association that makes such a ban logical. It’s a national security issue.   

Why should we have religious holidays in a secular state? If it’s a personal matter, then people can affirm their ‘personal religious preferences’ on their own time   

Of course, none of the terrorists involved in the Easter Sunday attacks wore niqab or burqa, but that’s not relevant here. The issue is concealment of identity. If anyone wears anything that indicates ‘I can see you but you cannot see me,’ then that kind of attitude has no place in civilized society. It does not make for free and equal person-to-person interaction. It could work in a circle where everyone wears such garments, not elsewhere. For the record, Justice Minister Thalatha Athukorale submitted a Cabinet Paper on the subject, but Rauff Hakeem and other Muslims ministers shot it down. Sajith Premadasa, for the record, is a Cabinet Minister. He was silent.   

Why should we have religious holidays in a secular state? If it’s a personal matter, then people can affirm their ‘personal religious preferences’ on their own time. Why should certain people be allowed time-off for prayers? Why should there be different leave-options for women of a particular religious community on account of childbirth or widowhood? That’s taking religion and custom way too far. Sure, they can take time off, but institutions need not be forced to pay for the religion-time of their employees.   

It is for these reasons that the Bills that Rev. Rathana Thera has tabled are very important pieces in resolving the conundrum of integrity and reconciliation.   

Right now, in the thick of presidential campaigns, in the war of promises bettering the promises of others, the clear front-runner Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the optimistic hopeful Sajith Premadasa, the more-pale-pink-than-red candidate Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the choice of the less-political-but-indignant Mahesh Senanayake and the destined-to-be also-rans have maintained a dead silence on these issues.   

They are playing cheap politics with a serious national issue. Sweeping these under the carpet of expedience may help win the day but they are creating conditions for the entire nation to trip on them sooner or later.   

There’s more, but let’s focus on issues related to religion, secularism and national integrity

At what price, ‘The Muslim Vote’? That’s the question that remains unanswered. My personal view is that Muslims have traditionally voted for the UNP. Sajith Premadasa taking a principles stand on this issue will not cause any dents. Those Muslims who have supported the Rajapaksas tend to be the more liberal elements of that community. They are not for a ‘One Sri Lanka with Ethnic/Religious Enclaves’.   

Regardless of the impact on votes, it is good when candidates are principled rather than populist. Does Sajith have the what-nots? Does Gota? How about the others? Let us see.