As the ‘war’ draws to a close with the LTTE clearly defeated, the minds of the leadership should be focused on the way peace is to be managed. In the 1940’s as the Second World War was coming to an end, the victorious powers took many decisions about the post-war world, one of which was that there should be an international organization with an aim of maintaining peace. Thus it was that within weeks of the end of the war, the United Nations Organisation had come into being at the San Francisco Conference in 1945. But here in Sri Lanka, hate and revenge seem to be the dominant mood. Judging by feature articles and opinion columns in the media and the speeches of politicians (even given the allowance for election time propaganda), a triumphalist rhetoric is reaching a crescendo. There seems little or no interest in civilians, subject to multiple displacements and violence from all sides, being treated with dignity and re-settled without delay. There seems no urgency that priority should be given to addressing the political grievances of the minorities. There seems no concern about reports that, among the civilians who have arrived from the Vanni, many young men and women have ‘disappeared’.

If there is transparency, as the apologists claim, there is now no reason to retain the stringent restrictions on access to the IDP camps by the civil society and journalists. Indeed, it will prove that the authorities have nothing to hide. It will similarly show their transparency if a list of all who have arrived from the Vanni, with details and the camp in which they are being held, is made public. Here is a chance to show the country that the authorities intend to avoid the bitterness caused to family members by ‘disappearances’ after the last southern insurgency.

In the aftermath of the 1983 pogrom, Professor Mahinda Palihawardene in a newspaper article urged that we accept the reality of the thinness of the veneer of Buddhist piety in our society. Instead of trying to project a false image, we should be aware of the seeds of hate and retaliation in us. Only then would we have taken the first steps in our pilgrimage towards the Buddha. What Professor Palihardana wrote about Buddha’s teachings is valid for the teachings of all religious leaders. He wrote: "The Buddha asked us not to kill. But, first and foremost, he asked us to be aware that we have in us the propensity to kill – the mentality of hate and retaliation. That is what enables us to be provoked. In the known history of religion, it was the Buddha who first insisted that man must be profoundly aware of all that is within him. He said so because he was convinced that such awareness is a catalyst. Awareness is the cornerstone of Buddhist teaching. The Dhammapada commentary states that the Buddha’s entire teaching can be summed up in one word, the word awareness. Awareness develops the critical faculty. It liberates man from the influence of myths, including the myths of racialism. It makes us question the concepts and prejudices of society. Mercy is not possible in a heart cluttered with racial and other prejudices."

Despite all the rhetoric of liberation for the Tamils, the Government has shown no signs of providing justice and dignity and addressing the grievances of that community. In the East, an armed group continues to engage in abductions and killings. The recent killing of Inspector Jamaldeen, rightly or wrongly, has been blamed on this group. The LTTE apparently is also active in all districts of the East, in addition to the Moneragala district. The ordinary people of the East, though certainly enjoying greater freedom with a local government leadership that is at least sensitive to their problems, have certainly a long way to go to be ‘liberated’ from fascism in all its ugly forms. The Government must not make the same mistake in the North, and allow a free rein to armed groups, even if its leaders enjoy ministerial status.

It has become fashionable among many political analysts now to condemn the Ceasefire Agreement signed by the Ranil Wickremesinghe Government in 2002. No doubt, the CFA had many faults and there were many discerning analysts who were critical both of the process leading to its signing as well as its terms. The journal of the National Christian Council of Sri Lanka, for instance, whilst editorially stating that a cessation of hostilities was welcome under any circumstances, expressed disappointment that no attempt was made to adopt a consensual approach. The reference was to the constitutional co-habitation between the Executive President from the PA and the Prime Minister from the UNP. By going-it-alone the Wickremesinghe administration had lost an opportunity. No negotiated settlement can succeed, the editorial stated, unless there was bi-partisan agreement between the two major political parties. The editorial goes on to state what this column has been urging all along: "We are also concerned that the agreement does not recognise does not recognise the rights of internally displaced persons. People of all three communities have been the victims of ethnic cleansing and their right to return to their places of original habitation needs to be recognised. Dwellings appropriated from these persons must be restored to them…(When substantial negotiations begin), both parties must recognise that there is a substantial body of opinion different from their own. They will be failing the country, if due heed is not paid to such opinions and the concerns and fears of non-LTTE and non-government groups and individuals in the North-East and elsewhere are not recognised."

Whilst there was criticism of the CFA in 2002, many of the vocal critics now were silent then. It is in response to a recent criticism that Ranil Wickremesinghe’s signing of the CFA was an act of ‘treachery’ (sic), that he came out with the startling statement that President Mahinda Rajapakse, then a member of President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s Party, and two leading members of the present Rajapakse Government in G L Peiris and Milinda Moragoda, were actively involved in the discussions leading to the drafting and signing of the CFA. That was done behind the back of the then President Kumaratunga. Undoubtedly Ranil Wickremesinghe’s charge is a very serious one. The allegation, if true, raises several ethical questions. A person is entitled to change opinions on issues but disloyalty to a party leader unfortunately seems to be a growing phenomenon in Sri Lankan politics.

Apologists have, as expected, pooh-poohed Ranil Wickremesinghe’s call for a debate. President Rajapakse has also rightly rejected the call, though for the wrong reasons. The dignity of the Office of the President will be compromised by a debate of this nature. But it will be in his own and the national interest if President Rajapakse gives an explanation to the country in respect of the truth or otherwise of this allegation.

The many good people who prefer ‘appalling silence’ to condemning the ‘evil deeds’ of the bad people (to borrow Martin Luther King’s terminology) will no doubt appreciate what the courageous Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi had to say in an essay she wrote some years ago: "It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it. Most Burmese are familiar with the four a-gati, the four kinds of corruption. Chanda-gati, corruption induced by desire, is deviation from the right path in pursuit of bribes or for the sake of those one loves; Dosa-gati is taking the wrong path to spite those against whom on bears ill-will; Moga-gati is aberration due to ignorance. But the worst of the four is bhaya-gati, for not only does bhaya or fear stifle and slowly destroy all sense of right and wrong. It so often lies at the root of the other three kinds of corruption……