The Dr N M Perera Trust organised a very meaningful panel discussion last week on the way forward for the country in the aftermath of the recently concluded war. It was good to hear the Anglican Bishop Duleep de Chickera speak at this event. As always, his comments were pointed and thought-provoking. The Bishop urged that we should move away from war and violence towards integration and reconciliation by embracing values shared by all our people, values common to all religions. He identified these universal values as: the care and support of the vulnerable and the poor, always; the condemnation of all types of violence, especially killings, always; the affirmation of dialogue, negotiation, and compromise in our decision making, always; the return to a healing of memories of hatred and revenge so that we may strive towards a future in which we will be free and reconciled, always.

The majority of Sri Lankans, of all communities, will readily identify themselves with these values. Sri Lankans are by nature liberal and abhor hatred and revenge. It is only a small but vocal minority who promote violence and seek to put down the ‘other’. When Bishop de Chickera was urging that we as a nation hold fast to these values, he was following in the tradition of three other great Anglican clerics. The present Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams refused to hold a Thanksgiving Service at the conclusion of the Iraq War saying that it would be seen as triumphalist and send the wrong signals to the people of both Britain and Iraq. A former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Robert Runcie was even more forthright. He agreed to preach at a Thanksgiving Service at the end of the Falklands War in 1982, but stated in his sermon that that while giving thanks, the nation should also mourn for grievous losses. People, he said, were mourning on both sides of the conflict. ‘In our prayers today’, he asserted, ‘we shall quite rightly remember those who are bereaved in our own country and the relatives of the young Argentinian soldiers who were killed. Common sorrow could do something to re-unite those who were engaged in this struggle. A shared anguish can be a bridge of reconciliation. Our neighbours are indeed like us….. The parent who comes here mourning the loss of a son may find here consolation, but also a spirit which enlarges our compassion to include all those Argentinian parents who have lost sons…… But talk of peace and reconciliation is jut fanciful and theoretical unless we are prepared to undergo such a revolution (of the spirit of compassion towards the ‘other’).

The twin dangers of Nationalism and Triumphalism

Dr Runcie also added pertinently and one which is no doubt very relevant to our own post-war situation, ‘I have heard about the troops engaged in this war refer to moments when soldiers have been brought face to face with what is fundamental in life and have found a new source of strength and compassion even in the midst of conflict. Ironically, it has sometimes been those spectators who remained at home, whether supporters or opponents of the conflict, who continue to be the most violent in their attitudes and untouched in their deepest selves……. Those who dare to interpret God’s will must never claim him as an asset for one nation or group rather than another. War springs from the love and loyalty which should be offered to God being applied to some God-substitute, one of the most dangerous being nationalism.’

Dr Runcie made those remarks when Britain had just won the war against Argentina and there was a mood of triumphalism in the air. But he was able to instil a sense of sanity, even though the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was reportedly unhappy with her Archbishop over the sermon. Our country too needs men of vision who will have the courage to swim against the current tide and steer the country towards reconciliation and compassion towards any perceived enemy. Dr Runcie was urging compassion towards a foreign enemy; but our pseudo-patriots are unable to show compassion even towards our fellow-citizens. Otherwise there is no need for people like Bishop de Chickera and other concerned citizens to be repeatedly calling for respect for the rights and dignity of the internally displaced in the camps.

A predecessor of Bishop de Chickera as an Anglican Bishop was one of the most outstanding men, religious or otherwise, that Sri Lanka produced in the last century. Bishop Lakshman Wickremesinghe was a prominent leader of the Civil Rights Movement and struggled hard to safeguard the rights of thousands of youth detained after the failed southern insurgency of 1971, of the thousands of workers unjustly dismissed by the J R Jayawardene regime, of the fraudulent deprivation of the civic rights of Sirimavo Bandaranaike, and of many other violations of people’s rights. He was also anguished after the pogrom against the Tamils and wrote his celebrated Pastoral Letter to his flock in 1983, shortly before his death. In it, he spoke of the issues of reconstruction and of the public aspect of rehabilitation in assisting Tamils to rebuild homes and restart their livelihoods.It was necessary to keep these issues alive in our own minds and in the minds of the politicians and the officials.

Bishop Wickremesinghe also said there was a personal side of rehabilitation. He suggested the formation of neighbourhood groups to help the Tamils to re-build their homes, provide education for their children and to regain confidence. That would not be easy, he said. ‘We shall be taking risks. We may be criticised and lose Sinhala friends. We may be opposed by others who want to take personal advantage of the situation. People with power may frustrate our efforts. But we need the grace to persevere.

The dilemma of the reconcilers

He was also alive to the genuine difficulties faced by men of goodwill. After stating that he had no respect for those Tamils who asked for a negotiated settlement of their grievances while at the same time supported armed groups, and for those Sinhalese who also want a negotiated settlement of mutual grievances while at the same time wanting domination of the Tamils by the Sinhala majority, he acknowledged that many Tamils were faced with a real dilemma. They have a strong sense of resentment and grievances which they wanted remedied. They do not support the demand for a separate state nor the activities of the armed groups, though they may appreciate the outlook of those from whom they differ. Since the security forces cannot protect them and they fear swift revenge from the armed groups, they remain silent. It is too risky to speak out in public. There were also Sinhalese who were faced with a similar dilemma. They want mutual grievances remedied through negotiation; but are against domination of the Tamils by the Sinhala majority and against the unjustified activities of the security forces though they may appreciate the genuine problems raised by those from whom they differ. Since they fear the revenge of the thugs with political patronage and know that they not likely to receive the protection of the police, they remain silent. It is too risky to speak out in public.

How well the Bishop analysed the problem as it existed then and the dilemmas faced by the majority of our people of all communities, who disapproved of the activities of a vocal and violent minority of obscurantist forces within their own community. His analysis remains valid even after twenty six years.

The need now, as it was then, is to quickly get the civilians out of camps, ensure that they are helped to re-build their homes and get back to their own livelihoods. The need is also for a sustained dialogue between the elected leadership of the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities. This dialogue can be broadened to include civil society and religious leaders and a consensus reached. Such a consensus is possible if all parties approach this urgent problem in the right spirit. The national interest must prevail over petty personal or party interests. It is probable that obscurantist forces among all communities will oppose such a consensus solution. All major parties and all religious and civil society leaders must then have the courage to stand by the agreed consensus and together oppose such obscurantist forces. That is the only way we can move forward and put the inglorious past behind us. There is no other future for a Sri Lanka, where all communities can live together in unity, peace, equality and goodwill.