Mangala-Chandrika-TNA Constitution, the queer logic of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke

By T. Mallawatantri

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka poses the question in his column in the Daily FT (14 February), ‘Would you undergo or put a loved one through an unnecessary but quite drastic, risky surgery?’ He says this is precisely what the UNP and Chandrika are trying to perpetrate on the Sri Lankan body politic through a new constitution. He goes further to say they seek to effect such change to the constitution that cannot be limited to reform through amendments.

He says, there is no commitment to a new constitution to the Human Rights Council and it is limited to a political solution based on the 13th Amendment at the behest of ‘our neighbouring friends’, a far more modest solution than a new constitution. 

Jayatilleka puts forward a simplistic argument that it is possible to leapfrog accountability and transitional justice by implementing the 13th Amendment, with necessary improvements. He faults the present Government’s contention that the Joint Opposition has no valid grounds to oppose a new constitution. He reasons that the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime’s commitment was only to implement the 13th Amendment and nothing more, though Mahinda Rajapaksa promised 13 plus and not to go beyond the 13th Amendment.

He brings forth a somewhat irrational parallel of a person’s age to augment his contention that 13 plus as promised by Rajapaksa is nothing more than 13. He tries to elucidate that by saying, ‘anyone who has had a 13th birthday knows, if anyone asks your age six months after that, you reply 13 plus, which in no way means you have gone beyond 13’. As any child will explain that when he or she says ‘my age is 13+’, she does not mean 13 but much older than 13, at least some months above the age of 13. 

I am nonplussed as to how an erudite scholar like Dayan Jayatilleke, an alumnus of the Peradeniya University and Fulbright Scholar studying at the Binghamton University, can bring in this simplistic argument, if not silly, to buttress what Mahinda Rajapaksa promised to the Indian PM that when he said he is prepared to go beyond 13 or 13+ to resolve the ethnic issue in Sri Lanka, he meant only the 13th Amendment. He unabashedly goes on to say, “President Rajapaksa promised 13 plus and NOT to go beyond the 13th Amendment. And therefore he did not promise a new constitution”.

He asks, why not go that painless route? According to Jayatilleka, the Government seeks a change that goes beyond a reform. However, when Mahinda Rajapaksa presented the UPFA Election Manifesto to the Maha Sangha at the Henry Pedris Grounds in Colombo on 1 August 2015, pledging to bring in a new constitution, Dayan Jayatilleka was one of the key members present along with former CJ, Sarath N. Silva among other key leaders of the UPFA. 

If Dr. Jayatilleka cannot recall this, I invite him to refer the Sunday Times of 2 August 2015, which said, “In his address, Mahinda Rajapaksa said the UPFA would introduce a new constitution to the country if elected to power, and also introduce electoral reforms, while devolving power through the Village Councils (Gam Sabha) system. He spoke at length on his achievements for the country during his 10-year tenure as President, saying the war victory was his greatest achievement.”

The UNP pledged to bring in a new constitution in its manifesto of 2015 and so did Mahinda Rajapaksa. In the general election of 17 August 2015, the UNP polled 49% votes and the UPFA polled 37%. As far as the new constitution is concerned, an overwhelming 87% voted for a new constitution and the people have given an unequivocal mandate as both parties pledged to bring in a new constitution though their other manifesto policies were different.

I cannot understand why Dr. Jayatilleka is talking about quasi federalism, special war crimes tribunal, etc., whereas the constitution is in its drafting stage and all members of Parliament are working as a constitutional assembly and no such proposals have come up for consideration. Perhaps, he may be trying to instil fear among the ordinary people who will believe him because he is widely thought to be a scholar. In other words, he is using his reputation to hoodwink the masses so that when the referendum comes, the people so deceived would reject the new constitution.

He is talking about a deal between Ranil, Mangala CBK troika and the TNA’s Sumanthiran and Global Tamil Forum with a handful of Western states with ‘important Tamil diaspora vote banks. This is a ridiculous contention. If you take the Tamil populations, including Indian Tamils, against the total voter numbers in Western nations he is talking about, his argument is unfounded. 

United Kingdom: Total voters 45 million, Tamils 300,000

United States: Total voters 137 million, Tamils 190,000

Germany: Total voters 44 million, Tamils 60,000

France: Total voters 35 million, Tamils 125,000

Canada: Total voters 35 million, Tamils 200,000

The Tamils living in those Western countries are insignificant in comparison to the number of voters and Tamils certainly are not significant vote banks. 

There is also a credibility issue of Dr. Jayatilleka. He changed his ancestral family name. He joined Eelam People’s Revolutionary Front and was a member of the Board of Ministers in the North Eastern Provincial Council at the time Varatharaja Perumal declared ‘unilateral independence’. 

When he was arrested under PTA, he changed his loyalties to Ranasinghe Premadasa. When he did not get recognition from Ranil Wickremesinghe, he became a Rajapaksa loyalist and later got appointed as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to the UN in Geneva. He certainly made some constructive diplomatic efforts and succeeded to some extent in improving Sri Lanka’s position at the Geneva UNHCR sessions. However, his current stand looks chauvinistic and has racist undertones in his work as a commentator on political issues.