We men and women’s activism

“Where, after all, do human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world… Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.” - Eleanor Roosevelt, 1958

“Laws will be introduced to remove inequalities among men and women… Women will be assured of enjoying equal status in the society. Within one year, a Women’s Charter of Rights, which provides protection and equality for women, will be enacted. I will arrange to increases (sic) the number of nominations of women to a minimum of 25% of the total number of candidates in respect of Provincial Councils and Local Government authorities.” - Mahinda Chintanaya

Eleanor Roosevelt accepted reluctantly the offer by President Truman to join the US delegation to the first UN General Assembly in London. Although, she wasn’t taken seriously at first, her staunch championing of the rights of refugees won friends and a year after, led to her appointment as Chair of a committee at the UN that proposed an international bill of human rights. Unanimously appointed the first Chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights, Eleanor played a pivotal role in the creation of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Hansa Mehta, the Indian freedom fighter, and Eleanor were the only two women in the Human Rights Commission. It was Hansa, not Eleanor, who objected to the phrase in the first draft of Article 1 that “all men are brothers…”, noting that this could be interpreted in some countries to exclude women. Hansa’s persistence at incorporating an expression that fully recognised the equality of women and men resulted in the text finally adopted for Article 1, that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.

I coincidentally happened to be reading about these key architects of the UDHR when the Women and Media Collective (WMC) held a retrospective and exhibition of art and photography at the Lionel Wendt last week, celebrating a quarter century of activism on women’s rights in Sri Lanka. After spousal death, through their own merit, through favouritism, clientelism and occasionally, as elected Presidents and commanders-in-chief, women have indelibly stamped their presence in party politics for decades. And yet, although women make up of 52% of Sri Lanka’s population, they have abysmal representation in Parliament and local government authorities. Problems of agency, empowerment and representation abound and sadly endure. As Chulani Kodikara, writing to Groundviews last year noted, it is the exclusive, violence and male dominated driven party political culture that is a significant obstacle to the representation of women in political institutions, though not the only one. As she notes,

The enormous costs of contesting elections, the thuggery and violence, the competition within the party fostered by the proportional representation system and the general lack of support for women candidates from male colleagues mean that even the few women who are offered, are often reluctant to accept nominations.

Chulani ends her critique by asking whether we need to “revisit and reframe the discourse on increasing political representation of women in Sri Lanka, in order to have an impact in the near future”. The WMC’s retrospective was one response to Chulani’s submission. On the one hand, petitions and letters such as those written by Kantha Handa to President Jayawardene in the 80’s, sans the dateline, articulated concerns and challenges no less dominant in the present context and under incumbent Executive. Flagging the violations of and need to strengthen key social and political rights, including the right to strike, these print and poster campaigns in Sinhala, Tamil and English from the pre-Internet, pre-computer typeset era were essentially disquieting in exposing how little had changed in our violent political culture in general, and apart from some advances, the representation and empowerment of women in particular. Images of women in mainstream politics from 1948 onwards were exceptional, both in the sense of celebrating outstanding women who challenged the status quo and their atypical nature to this day. Particularly striking was the range of rights championed over twenty-five years by women’s organisations, eschewing cultish formations around certain provisions and articles in the UDHR, as well as purely opportunistic interpretations of rights. The posters and photographs on display framed inter alia, outrage, courage, determination, resilience and the remembrances of violence past. On the other hand, WMC’s mobile phone video and photography competitions to get the public to engage with women’s rights made this not just a tired retrospective of twenty-five years, but a tableau alive to current challenges and perceptions of woman and new forms of discourse. I have on many occasions proposed that for women and other similarly marginalised and muted groups, the strategic use of new media and mobiles offer a range of ways, unimaginable even a few years ago, through which existing obstacles to expressing voice gendered concerns, political participation, identity and progressive change can be overcome, or at least, mitigated.

The juxtaposition of Eleanor’s understanding of human rights and our President’s vision for women’s rights is a snapshot of how much Sri Lanka falls short of the UN’s UDHR in spirit and fullest implementation and expression in polity and society. This essential hypocrisy of successive governments in this regard is well documented, but of serious concern is why even after twenty-five years, more women and men fail to challenge the status quo and champion change. Much perhaps has to do with diminishing returns and increasing risk of physical harm, particularly under this government and the culture of impunity it has invested in so heavily and openly. WMC’s retrospective highlighted large civil and political rights movements in the 80s and 90s involving ordinary women and men, galvanised by a common calling to rise up against hate, harm, inequality and injustice. This is rare today.

The most insulting and insensitive language against women is published even in newspapers with female editors. Racists in Sinhala media and online in particular use a vicious argot of profanity against women writers who they find inconvenient, and this is most pronounced in anonymous comments and contributions under a pen name. Coupled with the overarching violence against political activism against the State, a fear psychosis and quite understandably, an unwillingness to be vilified in public, WMC’s exhibition perhaps unintentionally was a record of path-breaking and courageous activism in decline. And yet, the forms of violence such activism bore witness to is evident even today, from that which is systemic and physical to that which is expressed through the media and psycho-social in nature. Perhaps twenty-five years hence, a similar retrospective will capture contemporary struggles to prop women’s and human rights as those which facilitated a more representative and equitable polity and society.

As a woman or man, wouldn’t you be proud to be part of such a progressive narrative?

Published in The Sunday Leader, 16 October 2009

Post-war politics

Victors, if the pre-election shenanigans in the South are any barometer, violently differ on how to share the spoils of war. Unsurprisingly, the war and LTTE are still alive in the pre-election campaigns in the South. Victory against the LTTE and those who championed it are projected as superior, and better fit for political office than those who did not. The nostrums of national security gloss over concerns regarding IDPs. Promises of development abound, as usual without any real basis in economics. Promises of systemic political change, anchored to various pronouncements of the Executive, are also paraded, again without any real sincerity – minority grievances in and to the South, after all, remain largely peripheral to concerns over post-war economic recovery. This however is the first election in the South, the bedrock of the SLFP and its allies, conducted without the glue of war to bind them to a common purpose and enemy. The result is petty bickering, outrageous sexism and high incidents of violence against fellow candidates, usually reserved for those from competing political agencies. Those, especially outside the country interested in regime change, are advised to observe these trends. This fissiparous trend in what during war was an impregnable regime occurs independent of any impetus from the international community, NGOs or independent media. It is rather a reflection of the essential nature of our party politics and electoral system, where course correction eventually checks the worst authoritarianism. Without any all-engulfing effort like war enjoying support in the South, the design and establishment of hegemony becomes increasingly difficult. The regime, deeply cognisant and fearful of this growing disintegration within the party, will seek to contain it through mechanisms it controls and knows best – favouritism, nepotism, party political manipulation, and if the family future is threatened or thwarted, violence.

The end of war provided a significant opportunity for the establishment of a different and more progressive political culture, that we have so tragically lost. Internationally, our hydra-headed post-war foreign policy is about as nuanced and strategic as petulantly giving the West the middle-finger. Domestically, our policies of post-war reconciliation, constitutional reform and development are a mess. Ricocheting from the bizarre to the outrageous, policies and practices of government – from Police brutality to corruption – no longer contained or overwhelmed by coverage of war or by censorship are out in the open and generating public disdain. There is already a shift in media and editorials that were supportive of war yet increasingly impatient with the government’s handling of post-war realities. The tired worldview defining of patriots and traitors and the other pedestrian piffle this government loves to wallow in is political currency soon expended, and not easily replenished. It was useful in war-time. It is useless in peacetime.

We could have instead learnt from a significant failure in Africa – President Julius Nyerere and his experiment in one-party democratic socialism in Tanzania. As the economist Paul Collier notes in his latest book Wars, Guns and Votes, Nyerere’s political leadership built a sense of national identity, without resorting to the idea of an enemy to build this identity – “indeed, he emphasised a Pan-African as well as national identity”. His experiment in socialism was a failure, and in 1985 Nyerere publicly admitted his failure and stepped down from office, the first African head-of-state to voluntarily do so. And yet his enduring legacy, in a region riven with violent identity based conflict, was country enjoying a high degree of social and political cohesion and peace. Or we could learn from China. Zhang Pengjun, one of the key negotiators of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was a polymath – diplomat, scholar, poet, playwright, Broadway producer and opera singer. He noted that differences in philosophy and ideology did not impede securing and protecting human rights. Who is of the same mind in the Rajapakse regime, despite their avowed affinity to China today? The economic prosperity New China enjoys is not because of the doctrine of socialism and revolutionary struggle against capitalism. It is because of economic liberalisation and participation in a global compact of nations. India offers very different lessons of identity formation, economic development and multi-lateral diplomacy, no less compelling. Is our government interested in studying and adapting from these and other post-conflict models of social cohesion, economic development and international engagement from Asia to South America and Africa? There is no evidence in this regard. Amongst a tragic collection of similar examples, the Prime Minister’s audacious reference to Monica Lewinsky in a derogatory attack on Hillary Clinton in the media recently and his repeated assertion at the Asia Society in New York that the ICRC was harbouring LTTE terrorists suggest that asinine policies and statements are, far from a source of embarrassment, a matter of pride for the Rajapakse government domestically and internationally.

Ergo, cui bono – therefore, who stands to gain or benefits?  The international pro-LTTE lobby for starters, and the pro-Eelam parties in Sri Lanka. The bungling of post-war policy-making by the government, it’s complete lack of over-the-horizon strategies to address challenges of peacebuilding, and above all, its incarceration of over a quarter of a million IDPs in hellish conditions gives succour to international campaigns supporting violent secessionism in Sri Lanka. There are also powerful regimes that appear to be our friends today who want this. Blueprints designed by them for post-war development, resettlement, reconstruction and military expansion in the North and East not just envision, but actively foment communal unrest in the future. A government pathologically unable to think beyond its own self-preservation and aggrandisement is easy prey for these mercenaries, who are equally adept at greasing palms and egos.

Despite all this of course, this regime will win the Southern Provincial Council elections, and go on to win the Presidential election next year. Thus unshakable and unbeatable in the short term, the EU for example may find that the manic frenzy of activity over the probable non-extension of GSP+ is useful to replay in the future to hold the government accountable for what it has promised regarding the resettlement IDPs, democratic governance and human rights. Unless there is damning evidence from US Department of Defence satellite imagery analysis, evidence of war crimes within Sri Lanka will be limited to the sort of partial narratives broadcast and published in British media recently. None of this registers domestically, or was an issue in the elections conducted yesterday. The significant violence within the SLFP and its erstwhile coalition partners in the lead up to the election signifies greater violence to come, especially as the memory of victory against the LTTE fades. Especially during a general election, this will result internecine violence that costs lives. This loss of life will decrease political capital and increase international scrutiny. Quite independently then, growing international and domestic pressure on multiple fronts could overwhelm and de-stabilise the incumbents to such a degree that the only thing needed for regime change would be the most difficult to engineer and envision.

A new leader for the UNP.

Article published in the Sunday Leader, 11 October 2009.

An enduring mypoia

A news report published week suggests a novel approach by the Sri Lankan government to thwart allegations of war crimes and is anchored to Damilvani Gnanakumar, a British Tamil present in the Vanni during the final bloody weeks of war, was subsequently interned in Menik Camp. Upon her release from Menik Camp, she left to the UK. Once safely at home, she recounted damning first hand accounts of government atrocities during war and appalling conditions in Menik Camp, receiving wide coverage in the British press and broadcast media.  Unable to contain or censor her by other means, the news report notes that the government “arrested members of the family that provided lodging to her while she was in Vavuniya”, effectively silencing Damilvani. The report also suggests that the government has decided to delay the release of Tamil nationals who are citizens of Australia and Canada from IDP camps, for fear of more Damilvani’s amongst them.

So what has the government achieved here? It has effectively silenced Damilvani, obviously its intended goal. After her initial outbursts on the Guardian and Channel 4, she has not appeared again in the media, obviously for fear of endangering the lives of relatives now in custody. But by doing so, the government has given her account, which as I noted last in my previous column is deeply partial and biased, new legitimacy, greater appeal and vigour. Precisely because of government attempts to silence her, Damilvani’s narrative strengthens the argument that allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity by both government forces and the LTTE can only be verified or denied by independent inquiry. By attempting to blackmail her into silence, the government guarantees more domestic and international media scrutiny on the fate of a quarter of a million Tamil IDPs, especially those with foreign citizenship, still interned in Menik Camp. Diplomatic pressure and censure will not be far behind, at a time when the government is trying its utmost to retain the EU’s GSP Plus trade concessions. And with this inescapable international pressure will be growing calls for accountability, precisely what the Government is so violently opposed to and seeks to avoid. The Sinhala adage “uda balan kela gahanewa” comes to mind.

Based on this incident alone, it’s remarkable how such a victorious government, enjoying unprecedented adulation, has lost so comprehensively the post-war plot. Braggadocio of the Executive to stand trial on behalf of the armed forces over any investigations into war crimes does nothing whatsoever to prevent punitive sanctions and whether we like it or not, the possibility of Washington backed, UN mandated war crimes investigations in the future. This glass jawed patriotism is at best silly for it ignores, at great peril, vital domestic and international post-war realities. Functioning as if it still commanded the services of glib gentlemen in peace secretariats and at the UN to defend Sri Lanka’s human rights abuses, the government’s continuing offensives against human decency and democracy are without reason. Worse, it is self-defeating.

For example, the JHU loudly proclaimed last week that it would start a campaign to generate a million signatures to hold the US accountable for its own war crimes, forgetting momentarily perhaps, inter alia, the sheer absurdity of challenging the moral authority and popularity the incumbent US President commands. Columnists and commentators, in print, broadcast and increasingly online, have gone on the offensive, offended at what they see is the chutzpah of the US and West to rain on our parade after the LTTE’s decisive defeat. New enemies are being created apace by the regime and its apparatchiks to cover up for the lack of post-war democracy. From the UN to the IMF, from the US to the EU and all their domestic agents, this is a conspiracy of such power, reach and complexity that it would put Dan Brown’s imagination to shame. In a bizarre twist, there is even now the demonization of the ICRC on the Ministry of Defence website. Yet it is the UN that is helping with post-war demining, development and the existential needs of interned IDPs. Government media record that in July, Sri Lanka’s U.S. Envoy, Jaliya Wickramasuriya at a meeting with Robert M. Scher, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South & Southeast Asia at the US Department of Defense thanked the United States for providing support, especially in terms of curbing the funding and logistical network in the effort to eliminate the LTTE. We need the money from the IMF just as much as we need the GSP Plus extension. Leave aside GSP Plus – the EU in 2006 alone gave Sri Lanka over one hundred and seventy million Euros as post-tsunami development and reconstruction aid. As noted on its website, over the coming years, the EC will spend an average in grants to Sri Lanka of around two billion rupees a year. And finally the ICRC, that lost three aid workers this year alone, continues to care for those displaced and affected by war it has access to. Quite simply, without the aid and assistance of these governments and agencies, Sri Lanka would tank.

While for some an affront to national pride, this is a reality that one cannot erase through bitter invective and silly posturing. To speak out in favour of domestic conditions that encourage the continued engagement of these actors is not, as it is often simplistically made out to be, uncritical of Western assistance or to be a lackey of some foreign agenda. On the contrary, our ability to negotiate favourably loans, grants and trade concessions is inextricably pegged to real change in our post-war democratic institutions. To my knowledge, Sri Lanka is being judged today against rights enshrined in its own constitution and UN declarations and treaties it has ratified as a State. It is being judged on the basis of official statements to the international community by the Executive, promising the resettlement of IDPs in Menik Camp within 180 days and the full enactment of the 13^th Amendment. These are not promises made by and statements crafted by NGOs or an operative in Langley hell-bent on regime change. Why then viciously blame it on NGOs and the West when the divide between promises and reality stands exposed?

Our best chance at international respect and recognition post-war will not come from photo-ops with pariahs like Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Gaddafi, or for that matter through supine subservience to bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors. It can only ever be achieved through the restoration of the dignity of all our peoples, a return to democracy, the Rule of Law and a country all its citizens are proud to be associated with and part of.

Celebrating 60 years of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 2009, the President noted that “we in Sri Lanka renew and reaffirm our commitment to upholding the values and goals proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also requires the elimination of terrorism in all its forms”.

Damilvani and others may wonder if the President was thinking of his own government’s policies and practices when he said that.

###

Published in The Sunday Leader, 27th September 2009