Extremism, violence and the Rajapaksa regime’s response

Wednesday, 9 July 2014 00:02 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

By Luxman Siriwardena Aluthgama-Beruwala legacy and regime change campaigners As expected the Aluthgama-Beruwala anti-Muslim riots has become the focus of anti-regime campaigners overseas and here. Of course, extremism, violence and destructive behaviour need to be condemned nationally as well as internationally. In a civilised society the emergence of a group of extremists does not justify violence against them by another set of extremists. In the name of attacking the extremist elements, indiscriminate suppression or brutality against the whole community is an unpardonable offence against humanity. If any regime has direct or tacit involvement in violence and destruction against a section of its own citizens its deplorable.

Therefore, I believe that the Government in power must employ all its forces to bring the perpetrators to justice. If any involvement or encouragement on the part of any member of the governing party is revealed the system should have the freedom to enforce impartial justice. Historical experiences of managing anti-minority riots Let us look back at the history of communal violence in Sri Lanka. The ugly and violent communal riots in 1958 were so widespread that it took several weeks if not months to establish a semblance of peace. In 1977, within a short period of the JRJ-led UNP victory anti-Tamil riots erupted and spread throughout the country. In the later years repeatedly the plantation Tamil community was attacked followed by the worst and most disgraceful anti-Tamil riots, unleashed in 1983 resulting in death, destruction and the creation of a highly fertile environment for one of the world’s most brutal terrorist movements – the LTTE. The most powerful and crafty leader of the UNP, President Jayewardene and his highly reputed ministerial team consisting of Prime Minister Premadasa and Ministers Gamini Dissanayake, Lalith Athulathmudali and Ronnie de Mel became mere onlookers when the entire country was engulfed in flames, violence, indiscriminate deaths, looting and hatred. The whole thing was triggered by an incident that could have been localised and contained if the then leadership of the country had the will, courage and vision to safeguard the interest of the people and the country. Did the Rajapaksa regime manage better? In comparison to the ugly and unfortunate experiences of 1958, 1978 and especially 1983, the Aluthgama-Beruwala incidents were managed and localised and the damage to a larger Muslim population and property was limited. The Rajapaksa Government, in spite of its leader President Mahinda Rajapaksa being away from the country managed to curtail and localise the incidents unlike in the previous occasions. Notwithstanding this achievement, as could be expected, the Western media and the leaders, who seem to be more inclined to promote regime change in Sri Lanka, are harping on the ‘possibility’ or ‘likelihood’ of the Government’s involvement in the Aluthgama-Beruwala incidents. If today’s Government was equally indifferent or tacitly encouraging the violence, as in 1983, the entire country would have once again become a towering inferno. The writer strongly believes that without criticising the Rajapaksa regime regarding excesses or negligence, the national and international community should appreciate the fact that the regime has handled the situation more firmly and effectively than its predecessors. Of course, the impartiality of handling further investigations has to be judged by the eventual outcomes. Acid test for Rajapaksa leadership History will judge the Rajapaksa leadership not only on the basis of their deservedly celebrated war victory but also on their capacity to avoid any repetition of such incidents and their commitment to promote social harmony. This is where the Jayewardene regime failed by allowing repeated attacks on the Tamil community.