Sunday Nov 09, 2025
Sunday Nov 09, 2025
Thursday, 31 January 2013 22:21 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Human rights violations have been part of this country’s history particularly in recent times, says Minister of National Languages, Ethnic Affairs and Social Integration Vasudeva Nanayakkara.
The Minister pointed out that the West targets countries like ours citing concern about human rights violations while turning a blind eye to what is going in Saudi Arabia and any other countries they consider as friends. He pointed out that Western countries are looking towards a change of regime and therefore continue to pressure Sri Lanka with various charges.
The Minister explained that although we respect universal laws and universal agreements, we are also free to practice and observe our own laws and implement them in terms of our needs, which are determined by a democratically-elected government.
Following are excerpts of an interview:
Q: You have been insisting that the national anthem be sung in both Sinhala and Tamil. At a time ethnic conflicts are taking a new turn, don’t you think such a move will only aggravate the situation?
A: Presently the national anthem is sung according to the language of the congregation. It is sung according to the needs and the wishes of the people who want to sing it. That is accepted and that is how it is practiced. Anybody who wants to sing the national anthem either in Tamil or Sinhala is permitted to do so and they are entitled to do so in terms of the Constitution. But at national events like the Independence Day we presently sing the national anthem only in Sinhala. The proposal is that we combine the Sinhala and the Tamil national anthems which are presently separately sung and sung together in combination with the Sinhala lines and the Tamil lines. It has to be properly composed by some expert musicians and composers. This would give to the Tamil speaking people a new feeling of nationalism. That is the purpose of this proposal.
The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission had also recommended that it be sung in both languages. Having taken a cue from that, I addressed a letter to the President. It also came up at the advisory committee meeting of the Ministry at which a few Parliamentarians who were available said that it would be a good idea to overcome the present tension in the country.
On the other hand, the law relating to language is that Sinhala and Tamil are official languages and they both can be used anywhere in any part of the country. This is only a new practice we are seeking to begin.
Q: When there are bigger issues that need to be addressed, why attend to trivial things like this? And if you are looking at ways to ease the ongoing tense situation in the country, don’t you feel there are better options?
A: Of course there are bigger issues in the country. But I would not agree that this is a trivial thing. I would say this is very important and it goes to the root of the feelings of the national unity. People who had felt excluded all this time at national events when the national anthem is sung in Sinhala would only begin to integrate and feel identified with the national anthem emotionally too.
Q: How do you see the hate campaign against the Muslims?
A: As the Minister of National Languages, Ethnic Affairs and Social Integration, I would like to condemn this campaign against the Muslims. It is a hate campaign by sections of the Buddhist clergy. I believe this is an extension of the hate campaign against the Muslims in the Western countries. And it is a part of the campaign to identify the Islamic civilisation and the Islamic countries with terrorism by Western countries. I believe these elements who are engaged here spreading a campaign against the Muslims is supported by the Western powers or Western organisations that have hostile attitude toward the Islamic civilisations.
These hate campaigns would lead to conflict. But fortunately large sections or the majority of the Sinhalese and Tamil people are not influenced by this campaign. They have an indifferent attitude or disapproving attitude towards this campaign.
Q: Some say it is sheer business rivalry that is behind the ongoing hate campaign against Muslims. Your comments?
A: Communal conflicts are generally rooted in business rivalry and property rivalry. Even a large number of crimes and violence in the country are rooted in property and money.
Q: Just four years after ending a war, the country is once again heading towards another ethnic conflict between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. Don’t you think the Government needs to take immediate action before things get heated up?
A: The Government is concerned about this and would want to do everything in order to douse the flames of this hate campaign. How this matter needs to be dealt with has been discussed among the Muslim ministers and the President. If there are certain grievances they can be discussed, taken up and resolved instead of coming on the streets to ignite communal conflagrations.
Q: The United States has said that it will move a resolution against Sri Lanka at the upcoming United Nations Human Rights Council Sessions in Geneva in March. This proves international pressure against human rights violations in Sri Lankan will continue. Your comments?
A: We have to carry out our work here in the country according to our laws and our needs which may give rise to differences of opinion with certain governments in other countries and other organisations outside the country. We will patiently explain to them what we are doing. We will tell them that we are doing the right thing, in a lawful manner, it is the need of the country and it is approved by the large majority of the people democratically.
The Helms-Burton Law says that any law or practice that is observed and any country or anywhere in the world nationally or internationally which goes contrary to the interest of United States will not be regarded as law by USA. This law is in order to protect their interest. In such situation they should not be describing to us a different practice of having to observe rules which are to be imposed on us. We respect the universal laws and universal agreements that have been reached, but we are also free to practice and observe our own laws and implement them in terms of our needs which are determined by a democratically elected government.
Q: With that kind of attitude how can the country move forward? Why is the present Government trying to isolate Sri Lanka from the rest of the world?
 |
| Minister of National Languages, Ethnic Affairs and Social Integration Vasudeva Nanayakkara |
A: We are not trying to isolate ourselves. We have differences of opinions with certain governments of other countries and certain organisations. That we will resolve by explaining to them in the forums where they raise these matters. In such situations we will have all matters fully explained and fully elaborated in order to justify what we have done or said or proposed to do. They may disagree. But disagreement does not mean conflict. We have a right to agree to disagree. They may disagree with what we are doing and we disagree with what they do. They have the right to raise those human rights issues and we have to explain and answer those charges. Where we are not able to do so, where we are unable to explain, we will be found by the international community as guilty of those practices. That depends completely on what the charges are; if it is matters relating to the war, the exercise in a war are taken for granted in other parts of the world. Recently I read in the papers what appeared as torture and sexual degradation of prisoners by British officers. So these things happen, all what we need to do is investigating and correct them. And of course make people accountable for what they have done. But we need evidence for that.
Certain exercises in military conflict are not desirable. Therefore, we must not let them go un-investigated, and we need to take steps arising out of such investigations. But we are not a country which is committed to a ‘tooth for a tooth, eye for an eye’ attitude. We are for the forgiveness, above all, and reforms and rehabilitations. This is why we have rehabilitated a large number of LTTE combats. They lead a free life with their families once again. We do not punish them just because they were members of the LTTE. We do not have retributive justice in our tradition.
Q: Are you denying the charges levelled by the international community against Sri Lanka of human rights violations and lack of rule of law?
A: I don’t know, they have said we have exceeded the limits and transgressed the rules of civil military conflicts. These matters have been referred to the armed forces under the LLRC and the implementation program. The armed forces will come up with their own explanations if there are any. If there aren’t, then the armed forces will take action in terms of military law.
Q: Do you think there are human rights violations taking place at present?
A: Human rights violations have been a part of this country’s history, particularly in recent times. So there is a Human Rights Commission. We have a system of courts and laws, which provides for a course of action to be adjudicated in such courts, inquired into by the Human Rights Commission. The biggest problem about some of these violations is that we are not able to trace or identify the offenders. If the offenders are identified and traced, then the Human Rights Commission and legal system will take action to follow the due process.
Q: Canada is continuing with its campaign to stop Sri Lanka holding the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). It seems that international pressure is mounting. Your comments?
A: The Canadian Government, the USA and some countries of the European Committee have been accusing this Government of commissions and omissions for some time. They have not had a friendly posture towards our country and this Government in international forums. They may have their own reasons why they do so. We are used to their animosity towards us. As it has been leaked out, they are looking towards a change of regime.
Q: Why do they hate this Government so much?
A: For their own reasons, which we are unable to explain. We can only guess we take an independent or non aligned position regarding the power blocs. We are committed fully to the liberation of people and nations and therefore we stand by the Iranian Government together with their nuclear power for peaceful purposes. We have close cooperation with China. We stand for the full statehood of Palestine. We condemn the invasions on Libya and Iraq and the invasions and the ongoing war in Afghanistan. We are no longer prepared to privatise State ventures and give them over to foreign companies. The Government is determined to intervene in the markets whenever necessary in the larger interest of the market forces. These are not in keeping with the line of thinking and practices prescribed by the Western powers. So this is probably why they are against the present Government. This is my guess.
They must come out with their own reasons. They say it is solely for the protection of human rights, solely for the fundamental requirement of keeping democratic practices alive, it is in order to preserve the rule of law and demand the respect for human rights. But they don’t seem to act in the same way in respect of every country. Therefore there is a selective interest they show in all the noble objectives. They target countries like us in their concern about the issues that we discussed while they may turn a blind eye to what’s going in Saudi Arabia or any other countries they consider as friends.
Q: You along with other Left parties insisted that changes need to take place in the impeachment procedure. Will you be taking the initiative to do the needful? When?
A: We need to bring about changes in the procedure of impeachment. Parties of the Left will raise this as a matter of concern in future. But unfortunately I am unable to give you a timeframe on when we will be doing it.
Q: What impact will the impeachment have in the international arena?
A: They have already raised this matter as a concern and a violation of the rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary. They have already passed their judgement. They have not waited to inquire from us and what we might have to say. However, we can explain that the independence of the Judiciary is intact. Many judges of the Supreme Court held a particular view regarding the powers of the Parliament but Parliament rejected it as a sovereign body. That does not mean that those judges who held against Parliament are in any way affected by whatever the Government is presently doing. The Government has no power to do anything regarding the powers of the Judiciary except through a motion in Parliament based on proven charges. Other judges who held against Parliament and held against the views of the Government continue as judges of the Supreme Court.
Q: You just said the international community did not have the patience to inquire from the Government or did not wait for our response before passing judgement. Don’t you think the Government too acted in a similar manner?
A: The Government was very convinced about what we were doing.
Q: Don’t you think the Government acted hasty during the entire impeachment process?
A: Maybe we were too hasty. I believe it could have taken a little longer than that. However, the time necessary to inquire into it was not too long because they confined the entire inquiry into four charges. Three charges have been proven. Time taken for it was about one month, which I think is reasonably good. But if we did give them a little more time, maybe about another two or three weeks, it would have been better. But I don’t approve of Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake’s walking out together with her counsel from the inquiring committee. They can protest, but they should not have walked out like that. It is worse because the Opposition members too walked out. It seemed more a political gimmick than an actual participation in any inquiry, which Parliament legitimately has the power to do.
Q: Do you approve of the way Government handled this entire situation?
A: Yes, basically we have handled it correctly. But a little more time would have been better, which could have been happened if they stayed back. I don’t see how and why they could walk out of an inquiry. On what basis did they walk out that way? They took a sheer arbitrary decision and acted in an arbitrary manner in utter disregard of rules.
Q: Other Leftist parties, Minister D.E.W. Gunasekera and Prof. Tissa Vitarana abstained from voting. Why did you decide to vote for the impeachment?
A: They abstained from voting according to their party decisions. Our party decided to vote with it.
Q: Why did your party take such a decision?
A: Because the impeachment is correct and the charges are proved. D.E.W. Gunasekera and Prof. Tissa Vitarana did not either vote for or against because they were not happy about the proceedings. Not because there were no charges against the Chief Justice.
Q: You too were with them, claiming the procedure needs to be changed. You openly said that you were not happy with procedure. Your comments?
A: I am not happy with the procedure. But ultimately it didn’t come to the question of procedure or the charges. It came to a conflict between the Supreme Court and the Parliament. It was regarding power; who has the power to decide on a question of motion against a judge, which provision is available in the Constitution for Parliament to act. But when the Supreme Court says they had no such power, it became a conflict between Parliament and the Supreme Court. I stood by Parliament. If that situation did not occur, I might have considered the same cause as D.E.W. Gunasekera and Prof. Tissa Vitarana.
Q: Do you believe Mohan Pieris is the most suitable person to be appointed as the Chief Justice?
A: As a person who had raised this matter prior to the appointment, presently after the appointment I wish to refrain from making any comments, as he is now the Chief Justice.
Q: What happened to the alliance that was formed to protect the 13th Amendment to the Constitution?
A: If and when the issue arises, we will reconvene this discussion among those who signed. There are more who may join in if the circumstances require.
Q: What happened to the letter containing the signatures of the Parliamentarians who were against the repealing of the 13th Amendment? Have you submitted this to the President?
A: The letter has been given to Minister Douglas Devananda, who was our convenor. I don’t know whether he has handed it over to the President or not. You have to ask him. I haven’t inquired. But I believe he has given it to the President.
Q: You were a role model, a mentor; you were appreciated for your beliefs and most importantly for the work you carried out. But people today openly accuse you of easily trading those values and beliefs to protect your ministerial post. Your comments?
A: I am fully committed to democracy. I understand lot of middle class friends of mine who had appreciation for my work and my ways are today disillusioned because they all went over to the Chief Justice as against to Parliament, while I stayed with Parliament. They have to look at themselves before questioning my beliefs.
