Sunday Times 2
National sovereignty: Whose sovereignty?
Some Sri Lankans went into a nationalistic frenzy last month risking the rupture of their blood vessels over the alleged threat to Sri Lankan sovereignty.
Having observed the alleged loss, sale and barter of national sovereignty since the times of Independence, on innumerable occasions, this writer feels somewhat sceptical when alarm bells are rung furiously about threats to sovereignty.
National sovereignty has become an increasingly inflammable factor in recent times. Shortly before the 2015 presidential election, the sale of national sovereignty rent the air with Mahinda Rajapaksa regime being accused of selling Sri Lanka’s sovereignty to China. Prime examples were the sale of 10 acres of prime property adjoining Galle Face to the Hong Kong-based Shangrila Co and around the same time the US$ 1.5 billion Port City project in Colombo. These deals had the foreign-investment-friendly UNP howling about the sale of Sri Lankan sovereignty. Colombo Fort, it was claimed by some critics, had become another China Town. The accusations reached a crescendo, when the UNP took office and realised the billion dollar loans taken by the socialist-oriented Rajapaksa regime had buried Paradise Isle in a mountain of borrowed dollars that would keep piling on as interests piled on and there was no visible hope of redemption.
When Ranil Wickremesinghe, to get rid of the Himalayan scale of debt, leased out the Hambantota Harbour and some land there to our debtors, the Rajapaksas with their cohorts performed a somersault on debt sovereignty and took to the streets with massive demonstrations, accusing Wickremesinghe and party of the sale of national sovereignty!
Allegations on sale of Sri Lankan sovereignty have been so numerous that it appears that sovereignty appears to an inexhaustible and infinite commodity. How many times it is sold and bought, it is still there to be sold once again.
Sri Lanka’s Constitution vests this highly valued commodity, Sovereignty, in the ‘People’ and declares it being inalienable. The legislature, executive and the judiciary exercise this sovereignty on behalf of the people.
Power of the ‘People’ came into political vogue notably after the so-called Bandaranaike Revolution of 1956. The Bandaranaike Revolution brought the ‘Common Man’ to the forefront of its ‘People’s Government’. Bandaranaike took the unprecedented step of getting a worker involved in the construction of the New Kelaniya Bridge to declare it open. The chamber of parliament — considered a sanctum sanctorum — on its opening day after the ’56 election was invaded by the hoi polloi, the ‘common man’, and one of them even sat on the Speaker’s chair, signalling the People’s time had arrived. Times have changed. Quite recently a retired commissioned officer of the Sri Lankan Air Force too repeated the Common Man’s performance during the fracas following the parliamentary coup to replace the incumbent prime minister. Was it symbolic of the Common Man being replaced by retired military officials? We can only guess and sincerely hope, it will not be so.
With much concern being expressed about ‘sovereignty’ that is vested in the People, are the People – the Common Man — recipients?
Power of the peasant?
Who exercises the sovereign rights of unfortunate peasants of the North Central and Eastern Provinces and some other parts of the Dry Zone, now in the grip of a severe prolonged drought? These are the remnants of generations of people who have toiled in the parched sun- baked lands to produce rice for the nation? They undoubtedly can claim to be the true original Sri Lankans.
Do they have the rights or power to call for substantial relief from the government not mere pitiful handouts? Do they have the right or ability to stage a strike like the GMOA doctors who do so not caring much for the hapless poor patients? Do they have the privileges of public servants to get Rs 10,000 increments or duty free cars as MPs? Tragically, the 1956 People’s Revolution has bypassed these peasants, even though those born in 1956 (Panas Haye Daruwo) are now the leaders — long in the tooth, bald and greying, occupying the government and Opposition benches.
The Bandaranaike Revolution of 1956 was brought about by the Sangha, local physicians, teachers, farmers and workers. ‘Govi’ comprised the bulk of the population of the five forces (Pancha Maha Balavegaya) that comprised the motive force.
It is indeed intriguing to identify who the present day vociferous callers from roof tops in defence of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty are. Are these the ‘People’ with whom the country’s sovereignty is vested with? They are indeed ‘Some of the People’ but certainly not all the People. These defenders of sovereignty’ comprise a group of cheer squads of the Rajapaksa regime that was thrown out of office not many Full Moons ago. They have a right to do so but they certainly do not represent all ‘the People’.
Defence agreements
The root cause for this recent political frenzy was two defence agreements: Acquisition and Cross Services Agreement (ACSA) and the Status of Force Agreement (SOFA) with the United States. The Rajapaksa-led Pohottuwa party is alleging, the agreements would result in the violation of sovereignty of Sri Lanka. We will refrain from commenting on these two controversial agreements because our comments are concerned with the broader issue of ‘National Sovereignty’ which constantly is factored into the most controversial issues.
The Sinhala equivalent of sovereignty is, “Svairybhawaya’, a word that has not been previously used frequently in Sinhala political lingo. Is it a new word coined by Sinhala etymologists? We must confess our ignorance and could be subject to correction. But there was no doubt about the cause for the Sri Lankan nationalists or rather Sinhala nationalists going into a frenzy at press conferences, in parliament, TV talk shows and other political platforms: True no one has a right to threaten or infringe on the sovereignty of the Sri Lankan people but is sovereignty the issue or the presidential election that is round the corner?
Allegations about bartering away the country’s sovereignty dates back to the time of Independence. The Opposition at the time comprising mainly of Marxists held that the country was not truly sovereign because of the defence agreement with Britain. D.S. Senanayake signed that agreement because of his concerns of what India’s attitude would be to its neighbours after its Independence. Senanayake’s fears were justified 40 years later when Indian troops landed in Sri Lanka and we had no one to turn to but to agree to the Indo-Lanka Agreement—the only real instance where Sri Lankan sovereignty was violated. The parasitic provincial councils now incurring a substantial amount of the country’s revenue is part of that Indian legacy.
There were regular alarm bells rung from 1948 to the 1980s with unchecked flow of illegal immigrants from South India to the tea plantations. The Hill Country would become a part of the Indian Raj, it was said. Many were the threats and violations to our sovereignty from India. Among them was the dispute of ownership of the Kachchativu Island. Sri Lanka has withstood all such threats imaginary or real.
Enter JRJ
With the advent of J.R. Jayewardene, it was alleged by India and its fellow travellers here that Trincomalee with its Oil Tank Farm was to be handed over to the United States, but the claim turned out to be a damp squib. American imperialism or necolonialism has been a popular favourite bogey among our conscientious objectors. Some of them with their extended families have a schizophrenic attitude towards America. They love living in America and the American Green Card but find American imperialism a ready-made punching bag in Sri Lankan politics.
Amidst all these alleged threats to national sovereignty, Sri Lanka still is muddling through as an independent republic, but, like all countries, Sri Lanka’s sovereignty is limited.
We will end these comments with an anecdote about a discussion I had on Sri Lankan sovereignty with an Indian journalist at the New Delhi Press Club during the heady days of 1987. To my claim that India has violated Sri Lanka’s sovereignty with the intrusion of its forces, he held that no country enjoys full sovereignty. India is not a fully sovereign country to do all what it wants. Not with China and not even with Pakistan. Even the superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union are not fully sovereign to do what they want. Sovereignty of all countries is limited, particularly small ones like yours, our Big Brother declared.