State of Democracy in South Asia

DIALOGUE ON MAJORITIES AND MINORITIES IN SRI LANKA

Sri Lanka, Kandy
Dates: 20^th September, 2004

This dialogue was held in Kandy, Sri Lanka, on the 20th of September 2004. It sought to focus specifically on the perceptions and expectations of democracy that majority and minority communities hold of democracy. In a concept note that was circulated among the participants, the following questions were mentioned as themes to be explored::

There were thirty-four participants at this Dialogue. It began at 9. 00 a.m. and ended at 6. 00. p.m. on the same day. English, Sinhalese and Tamil translations were provided to participants.

Sri Lanka has an extremely problematic political process of majority-minority relations that were exacerbated throughout the post-colonial phase of its political change. The prolonged ethnic war that began in the early 1980s was the culmination of ethnic competition between the Sinhalese and Tamil political elites and the politics of minority exclusion practiced by the Sinhalese political class. The ethnic war has had complex consequences for the politics of Sri Lanka. At one level, the war intensified ethnic divisions and separateness between Sinhalese and Tamil communities. At the same time, it also strengthened the argument for radically reforming the Sri Lankan state in the direction of pluralism, power sharing and constitutional federalism. Nearly two decades of this war, Sri Lanka has entered a phase of finding a negotiated settlement to the ethnic conflict.

The ethnic war in Sri Lanka has also awakened emancipatory imaginations of other, smaller ethnic minorities. The Muslim community in the Northern and Eastern provinces, who suffered during the war, have been seeking a place in the peace settlement, on the argument that although the conflict had been between two parties – the government and the Tamils – its solution should be tripartite. The forming of a separate Muslim political party, the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, in the late 1980s occurred against the backdrop of the war and it symbolized the political desire within the Muslim community to establish their own political agency. In the past, the Muslim political interests were represented through Sinhalese or Tamil political parties. In the Tamil nationalist politics, the presence of the Muslims was conceptualised in the formulation that the Tamil movement for regional autonomy, and later separation, represented the political emancipation of ‘Tamil-speaking peoples’ in the Northern and Eastern provinces in Sri Lanka. The basis for this subsumption of Muslim political interests in the larger identity if the ‘Tamil-speaking peoples’ was derived from the fact that the Sri Lankan Muslim people spoke Tamil but when the civil war developed, Muslim politics began to de-link itself from the Tamil nationalist movement. The SLMC was formed specifically to assert a separate Muslim ethno-political identity, taking religion and religion-based culture, and not the language, as the primary identity marker of the Sri Lankan Muslim community. Thus, the emergence of Muslim autonomy in political representation is an important development in Tamil-Muslim relations as well.

A parallel development was the political awakening among some politically advanced sections of the plantation Tamil community as a minority with distinct political aspirations. Some of them have recently begun to advance an argument for non-territorial power sharing on the premise that territorial autonomy for the Tamil and Muslim communities in the North and East would not address the political aspirations of other Tamil communities living outside the ‘traditional Tamil homeland.’ They also make a case for the political and constitutional recognition of non-territorial, regional, and local minorities and for constitutional and electoral reforms to ensure their security, rights and representation.

The debate on minority rights in Sri Lanka has also been complicated by what may be termed as ‘minoritarian’ assertions made by the majority Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalist groups. Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalist mobilisation for more than a century has produced a specific kind of political knowledge in which the Sinhalese-Buddhist nation has been constructed as a ‘minority’ constantly threatened by a larger Tamil community in India and still larger religious communities of the Muslims and Christians worldwide. Sinhalese nationalist groups continue to view ethnic minority claims for equality as a potential threat to the well being of the majority. Thus, in the Sinhalese nationalist worldview, inter-group equality is unacceptable because it constitutes a source of threat to the majority. As minorities see it in Sri Lanka, public policies concerning minority rights all post-independence governments have been thoroughly defined by this minoritarian anxiety of the majority community.

Nonetheless, political debate on minority rights and democratic re-working of majority-minority relations in Sri Lanka has been going on. At every attempt at constitutional reform, or a negotiated settlement to the ethnic conflict, these issues have entered the core of public concerns. The Sri Lankan debate is incomplete and inconclusive. It has it limits as well as possibilities. The Dialogue which we report below mirrors those limits as well as possibilities.

This particular Dialogue was a regional one. The purpose of regional dialogues was to engage in a critical reflection on what the promise, expectation, dynamics, institutions, limitations as well as future possibilities of democracy in Sri Lanka are from a regional perspective. Given the diversity and pluralism of Sri Lanka’s political as well as social forces, the regional dialogue sought to explore the same issues with social and political activists in the Central Province. The central province is multi-ethnic and plural. Other than the majority Sinhalese community, there are minority communities of Muslims and plantation Tamils. Muslims are a dispersed community living in Kandy and Matale districts concentrated in specific townships and villages. Plantation Tamil people are primarily workers employed and living in tea plantations. A majority of them are concentrated in the Nuwara Eliya district of the Central province while significant plantation Tamil minorities live in the tea estates in the Kandy and Matale districts as well.

The cultural space of Kandy town is a challenging one for modern pluralistic democracy. The headquarters of the Buddhist Sangha (monks) are in the Kandy city. The Temple of the Tooth of the Buddha, is located in the city, and is the major religious shrine of the Buddhists. Both these institutions have been conservative entities in social, ideological and political terms. They are also centres of Sinhalese-Buddhist identity politics. Linked to the agrarian aristocracy in terms of kinship ties, yet now dependent on the Sinhalese trading class, the leading Buddhist temples in Kandy have also been symbolic centres of Sinhalese nationalist politics. On the other hand, the Kandy town has had a fairly longstanding tradition of Left, radical and trade union politics. The University of Peradeniya, situated just outside the Kandy city, has been a centre of Left and radical political mobilisation as well as intellectual activism for many years.

Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda (Social Scientists’ Association (SSA)): chaired the Dialogue. He welcomed the participants and then made a brief introduction of the overall study and then outlined the focus of this particular dialogue.

Prof. Uyangoda explained that this dialogue was part of a broader initiative in which SSA, the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) are engaged to study the State of Democracy in South Asia. This study was being carried out in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and seeking to assess: the state of democracy in each of these countries, the specific as well as common challenges that they faced, the advances that they may or may not have made since Independence and the introduction of multi party democracy. The objective was not to rank countries but to provide a baseline study and a methodology for an on-going assessment.

The overall project has five components: cross-section surveys, elite surveys, case studies, dialogues and qualitative assessments. The five components would employ different methodologies but operate within the same intellectual framework.

A national dialogue was held in December 2003 in Colombo to engage in a critical reflection on the promise, expectation, dynamics, institutions, limitations as well as future possibilities of democracy in Sri Lanka. Perspectives of democracy are mediated by class, ethnicity, gender, generational, private versus public, institutional and social emancipatory claims. This national dialogue enabled the participants to critically examine the promise and practice of democracy through critical lenses of the above perspectives.

Prof. Peter R deSouza (Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi): briefly explained the methodology of the Dialogue. The Dialogue was not a conference, seminar or a workshop. It was a loosely structured conversation between different viewpoints. It enables the presentation of a diversity of view points from the perspectives of minorities, women, political activists, trade union activists, community leaders etc. Prof. deSouza suggested that three sets of question might constitute the focus of this Dialogue on majorities and minorities. He said, “These are questions that have a central significance in the democracy debate in South Asia. Firstly, what is the place of minorities in a democratic polity? Should there be special rights for the minorities? How to ensure vibrant minorities for the democracy’s success? Secondly, should majorities be willing to be inconvenienced to protect minorities? And thirdly, should majorities become dominant? What happens if democracy refuses to allow majority domination? What would be the win-win outcome of democratic equality in plural societies?”

Ms. Sakuntala Kadirgamar-Rajasingham (International-IDEA, Stockholm): briefly described the role of IDEA in the Dialogue process and explained that majority-minority relations constituted a major paradox in democracy in South Asia. “A part of the paradox is that democracy has worked in such a way that it has excluded many marginalized communities from the democratic process. Election results do not capture this paradox of democracy. On the other hand, democracy has also facilitated impulses for political emancipation which had often gone beyond the limits of existing institutions of democracy. The enabling force of democracy has also exposed its own limits. Should we then imagine democracy differently, broadening its scope and deepening its content? The Dialogue intends to explore it. The Dialogue is also a forum that should enable the marginalized views to be expressed”.

Bandara (a leader of the Bank Employees’ union and a Left political activist): began the discussion arguing that the majority-minority divide is primarily economic and social, defined in terms of the access to wealth. Democracy, according to him, functions within a class framework of the haves and have-nots, the former being the minority and the latter the majority.

Chaminda Hettiarachchi (A management student with a background of political activism): countered Bandara’s framing of the majorities and minorities through economic categories alone. He pointed out that the definition should have multiple reference points. “There are ethnic majorities and minorities. In Sri Lanka the majority is Sinhalese, Buddhist and heterosexual males. Similarly, any person can be in the majority as well as the minority at the same time. Identities are fixed, and at the same time not so fixed”.

Rev. Mahinda, (a university teacher): pointed out that the range of participation at this particular dialogue has majority-minority dynamics. Tamil representation was inadequate. There were only two Buddhist monks. Priests of other religions were not present. There was no adequate representation of women either.

Anuruddha (a university graduate): The discussion on the definition of ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ continued with Anuruddha, who observed that in the economic definition the minority has power whereas in its ethnic definition, the minority is deprived of power.

Marikkar (a political activist attached to the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress – Kandy branch): argued that democracy had favoured the numerical and ethnic majorities at the expense of the minorities. He said, “The normal logic of democracy is to protect the rights of the majority. For democracy to be meaningful to the minorities, it should provide equality among all communities irrespective of their numerical size and protect their self-respect”. He also argued that the majority-minority discourse in Sri Lanka had distorted the inter-community relations by perpetuating a minority status for the minority communities. It had undermined and weakened the minority search for equality.

Ranaraja (a senior politician from Kandy): began his intervention by asking when did the categories ‘majority’ and ‘minorities’ begin to figure in the political discourse. In Ranaraja’s argument, these terms were inventions in the late colonial period. The idea of belonging to either a majority or a minority is so ingrained that people do not seem to think in terms of a Sri Lankan identity, but of the majority or of a minority. Ranaraja also argued that Sri Lanka’s present system of Proportional Representation had exacerbated the majority-minority divide.

At this stage of the dialogue, the question of one’s own identity in terms of the majority-minority categorisation became the subject of discussion.

Lalith Abeysinghe (a social and political activist in Kandy): observed that one’s own location in identity terms was quite problematic. In his own case, he belonged to the majority in ethnic identity terms, yet in terms of political opinion he belonged to a small minority. “On the other hand, members of the Sinhalese majority think that they are a minority compared with the Tamil population in South India”. Lalith’s point was that the majority’s minoritarian anxiety had led to a specific kind of politics that had run counter to democratic pluralism by imposing on the minority communities hegemonic identity politics.

Lalith continued his intervention by arguing that the question of equality was at the heart of majority-minority dynamics in Sri Lanka. “Have we in Sri Lanka been able to accommodate diversity?” Answering his question in the negative, Lalith pointed out that the democratic process in Sri Lanka has not led to building institutions and structures to accommodate and sustain diversity. “With that failure we have also failed to produce a South Asian version of democracy”.

Another point Lalith made is that Sri Lanka’s democracy has not broadened its social bases. “For example, many young people do not relate themselves to democratic politics. Democracy has been appropriated by a small elite that controls the political, economic and intellectual spaces”.

In Lalith’s view, “Another dimension of our ‘democratic failure’ is our inability to look at democracy from the perspectives of ‘micro institutions’—university, the workplace, our own organisations, and the family. Rarely do we accommodate diversity in our own institutions. Our emphasis and critique has always been about the democracy at the macro level”.

Vishaka Dharmadasa (an activist in the peace movement): joined the discussion on identity and democracy by saying that identity politics was not about the melting pot, or loss of identity through identity mixing. “Rather, it is about maintaining separate identities while working within a larger political space. Democracy is the space that allows unity as well as separateness”.

Raja Uswettakeyiyawa (a Left political activist in Kandy): argued that the majority-minority discourse does not help the minorities because at the centre of political inequality is economic inequality. He said, “Political equality in the sense of liberal political rights is not adequate to ensure minority rights”. According to Raja, “One key shortcoming in the majority-minority discourse is that it ignores minorities within majorities and majorities within minorities”. He was specifically referring to social, or caste, communities within ethnic communities. Thus, securing minority rights in the ethnic sense is not an answer to social inequalities within minority as well as majority groups. Raja also noted that among the Dialogue participants there were differences in the conceptualisation of the majorities and minorities as political categories.

Jayaratne Maliyagoda (a trade unionist in Kandy): joined the discussion on the conceptualisation of majorities and minorities taking a Left, or class, perspective as Raja did in the previous intervention. Jayaratne’s starting point was that a minority controlled the economy and that democracy had allowed, and even facilitated, that minority to deprive the majority their democratic rights. The rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the country were available only to a small minority of the population. “Only those who have money to retain expensive lawyers can seek judicial intervention when their rights are violated”. An ordinary worker or peasant would not have access to the judicial process through fundamental rights cases.

Jayaratne also argued that language defines majorities and minorities in a particular way in which the minority rules over the majority. The Sinhalese or Tamil-speaking people who constitute the vast majority of the population have no access to structures of power because they are dominated by an English-speaking minority.

“Another area where the categories of majorities and minorities become problematic is when the economic elite of ethnic minorities becomes dominant in the sense of class power”. The overall conceptual point that Jayaratne made is that the majority-minority dynamics are not uni-dimensional in the ethnic sense, but multi-dimensional. These categories need to be placed in the context of the stage of economic development of our society and the economic crisis.

Rajaratnam (a trade unionist among Tamil plantation workers): (incidentally, he spoke in fluent Sinhalese), began his intervention by relating an episode in his political career. When he was with the Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC) which was the largest trade union of the plantation workers, a CWC delegation had a meeting with President J. R. Jayewardene in 1984. This was after the ethnic riots of 1983. The separatist Tamil insurgency had also just begun. The CWC delegation pleaded with President Jayewardene to grant the minorities their due rights. According to Rajaratnam, President Jayewardene responded by saying: ‘I can give the minorities their rights, but the majority Sinhalese people will oppose it. I cannot handle their opposition.” Rajaratnam said that the plantation Tamils were a minority within a minority. Unlike the Tamils in the North-East, they did not opt for radical options. Their strategy has been to win the rights through cooperation and negotiation with the Sinhalese political leadership. He also asserted that the plantation Tamils were a minority that had not deprived the majority its rights.

Prof. Peter R deSouza (Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi): intervened at this stage to ask the participants whether democracy has been the real problem in Sri Lanka’s majority-minority relations. “Is it democracy that has caused the majority-minority problem?,” asked Prof. deSouza. Although there was no direct response to Peter’s intervention, it appeared that many participants shared the view that democracy had caused the problem through the way in which it had enabled the political forces to define inter-group relations in Sri Lanka.

Kumari (a political activist in Kandy): brought the gender dimension to the discussion on the majorities and minorities. She noted that women constituted the majority of the country’s population, about 55 percent. However, in Sri Lanka’s democratic process the representation of women in political parties as well as institutions of governance has been extremely low. Kumari’s point was that although women in Sri Lanka constituted the numerical majority, in the democratic process and in power relations in the governance process, women have been an insignificant minority.

Bandara (a leader of the Bank Employees’ union and a Left political activist): returned to the theme of framing the majorities and minorities in terms of economic disparities. He asserted that democracy had failed to address the question of economic disparities in society. He stressed that the majorities and minorities were essentially defined by economic disparities.

Chaminda Hettiarachchi (A management student with a background of political activism): argued that it was not entirely correct to say that democracy had failed everybody. He said that as a youth he found the system of Proportional Representation had accommodated the youth and increased youth representation in the institutions of governance. Taking a somewhat neo-liberal perspective, he claimed that one key problem of Sri Lanka’s democracy was not that democracy had exploited people, but that it had not adequately exploited people like him.

Marikkar (a district leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress in Kandy): presented a minoritarian critique of the majoritarian democracy in Sri Lanka. He began by making the rhetorical claim that in Sri Lanka, if one belonged to a minority ethnic community, one could get democracy only by taking up arms against the state. He stated that cultural differences were so institutionalised that crossing the barriers was extremely difficult. For example, although he was a citizen of Kandy, he could not become the custodian of the Buddhist Temple of the Tooth in Kandy because he was a non-Buddhist. “Ethnic identities are institutionalised in the political parties too. It is not possible to wish away these differences. What was needed was to ensure rights for all while recognizing the existence of group differences”.

Sumanasiri Liyanage (a lecturer at the University of Peradeniya): noted that two approaches to the question of democracy and minority rights had so far emerged in the Dialogue: The first articulated by participants belonging to the Left movement and trade unions viewed the majority-minority dichotomy in terms of economic and class power. In this approach, democracy should lead to the eradication of economic and social differences. The second approach, articulated by participants belonging to minority ethnic communities, viewed majorities and minorities in cultural-identity communities and argued that democracy should enable them to negotiate their rights leading to the empowerment of minority communities. In the first, democracy that emphasised political equality was inadequate, because political equality did not necessarily lead to equality in other spheres. Sumansiri also argued the majority-minority dynamics cannot be properly understood if the question of power was excluded. The way in which power is exercised is important in framing the majorities and minorities.

Charitha Herath (a lecturer at Peradeniya University): brought to the discussion the centrality of citizenship in democracy. He argued for democratic space in which active citizenry makes democracy meaningful. “The eradication of social, economic and other differences should not be the responsibility of the state. Active citizen should be the agency of broadening the democratic space”.

Joseph Stalin (a political activist from Nuwara Eliya): expressed the view that there was something radically wrong in the people’s expectation from democracy to societies that did not enjoy democracy. The usual expectation was that some agency should introduce democracy from above. For the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, the LTTE (Liberation of Tamil Tigers Elam) should bring democracy. For the poor in Nepal, the Maoists should bring democracy. Joseph argued that this was not the way in which democracy should be approached. He also asserted that economic equality was crucial for democratisation.

Ranjith Wijesinghe (a political activist in Kandy): made his intervention arguing against the economic interpretation of democracy. In his argument, democracy cannot be reduced to the economic relations alone. Majority-minority identities were so pervasive that it required political practice to move away from these categories. He emphasised that group equality should be the outcome of a political struggle. Political movements are important because they are the agents of political struggle for democracy and equality.

In the post-lunch session of the Dialogue too, the political validity of majority-minority categories continued to be an important theme of discussion.

Jayaratne Maliyagoda (a trade unionist in Kandy): Jayaratne Maliyagoda began the discussion after lunch arguing that granting special rights to minorities was not democratic, because it went against the idea of equality. In his belief, democracy should not give special rights even to a minority since it does not address the question of inequalities within the minority. Therefore, constitutional provisions like language rights or devolution were not adequate to address minority grievances, since there were economic and social roots of inequality.

Prof. Peter R deSouza (Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi): intervened at this stage. He began by pointing out that democracy had not produced majority-minority distinctions. “Democracy has indeed produced the politics of identity, yet the identity distinctions had already been there in society. One could argue that democracy had given a new political value to identity claims”. Peter then observed that there were two basic models of dealing with identity differences. “The first is the ‘French model’ in which identity differences are eliminated. One becomes French first. The second is the ‘Indian model’ in which differences are accepted and accommodated. The Indian model has provisions for diversity at three levels. Firstly, the state sector as federal, state and provincial levels provides political institutions to accommodate the increasing expression of the politics of difference. It also creates new institutions wherever necessary. Secondly, the society recognizes the minorities. In the democratic imagination, public discourse must be encouraged, as happens in India, to recognise the politics of difference and diversity. Thirdly, mechanisms of distributive justice enable minorities to have access to public goods through policies of affirmative action and positive discrimination”. He suggested that the imaginations of democracy in Sri Lanka could benefit from the Indian experience.

Sumanasiri Liyanage (a lecturer at the University of Peradeniya): Sumanasiri then continued the argument for the special rights for minorities. He argued that according special rights to minorities was a defining quality of democracy. “Inequalities are usually produced in the functioning of societies and social inequalities are inherent in all social formations, posing a challenge to social cohesion. The option offered by democracy is to bring the marginalized and minority communities to the political domain by means of special rights. The Nehruvian democracy India envisioned a democracy that could bring the minorities and social outcastes to the domain of politics”.

Chaminda Hettiarachchi (a management student with a background of political activism): Chaminda countered this argument by asserting that granting special rights to minorities was essentially anti-democratic due to three reasons. “It legitimises inter-group differences. Efficiency suffers when groups are given special rights”. It favours weaker parties. Chaminda argued for a ‘performance-based democracy.’

Rajaratnam (a trade unionist among Tamil plantation workers): Rajaratnam returned to the argument for special rights for the minorities. Citing the experience of Tamil plantation workers, he emphasized that minorities who had been subjected to historical processes of marginalization needed special rights and opportunities. For example, the Tamil plantation workers needed special rights in the areas of education, health and social security.

Rev. Mahinda, (a university teacher): too supported the argument for special rights to the minorities by observing that minority caste groups within the majority community have been so marginalized that they need special opportunities for social and economic advancement.

Lalith Abeysinghe (a social and political activist in Kandy): supporting the argument for special rights for the minorities, he said that such special rights should extend for a definite period. “There should be state policies to facilitate such rights and institutions to implement them. In Sri Lanka, it is important to look for new political institutions that ensure minority rights. The existing minority rights discourse in Sri Lanka is not adequate to address the rights of the minorities within the minorities. For example, the plantation Tamils are minority within the larger Tamil minority, yet the existing federalist demand and the Tamil proposals for an interim self-governing authority does not deal with the political rights of the plantation Tamils”.

Rev. Rahula (a young Buddhist monk teaching at Peradeniya University): saw two problems in granting special rights to minorities. “Firstly, it will perpetuate their second-class status. Secondly, the majority will continue to use the minorities for their advantage”. Rev. Rahula suggested that the majority-minority discourse needed to be transcended. He wanted all citizens to be educated on the value of equality. He also asserted that the majority-minority distinctions could not be erased by means of legislation. It needed to be overcome through a counter-veiling discourse of equality.

Charitha Herath (a lecturer at Peradeniya University): contributed to the discussion on special rights to minorities arguing that positive discrimination and quota system was likely to result in excluding merit. At the same time, a quota system was necessary to right social inequalities in opportunities. This is a necessary dilemma in democracy in relation to the minorities and their special rights.

Jayaratne Maliyagoda (a trade unionist in Kandy): responded by asserting his previous position that the quota system justified an inadequate system. What was necessary instead was to expand the opportunities.

Bandara (a leader of the Bank Employees’ union and a Left political activist): Bandara responded to Jaryaratne saying that the specific objective of the quota system was to expand opportunities.

Marikkar (a district leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress in Kandy): Marikkar, defending the case of special rights to minorities, pointed out that although when professional groups agitated for their special rights, there was no objection whereas when minorities asked for special rights, they were viewed as regressive and communal attempts. He observed that in the Kandy city, the highest rate slums were among the Muslims. Yet, whenever the housing question of the Muslim people in Kandy was raised, it was branded as communal. Marikkar asserted that only a quota system would address the question of poverty.

Rev. Rahula (a young Buddhist monk teaching at Peradeniya University): reacted by asserting that the quota system, if at all, should be implemented strictly in accordance with the ethnic population ratio and that it should not unduly favour the minorities.

Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda (Social Scientists’ Association (SSA)): intervened at this stage to suggest that the quota system would have its own merits and de-merits, but it should not be seen primarily in ethnic terms. “There are multiple minorities – ethnic, social, caste, regional, religious, generational, gender, ideological etc. One way to look at the majority-minority dialectic is to recognise that ultimately we all belonged to some category of minority. A Sinhalese citizen in Sri Lanka while belonging to the majority ethnic community would be a regional minority in the Eastern province. Similarly, a member of a particular marginalized caste community would be a social minority within an ethnic majority. Tamils who are a national minority are a regional majority in the Northern province. In this way, majorities and minorities could be seen as dynamic, not static, categories. If democracy was understood as space for empowerment and emancipation, a useful way to imagine the emancipatory goals is to recognize the minority in all of us”.

Rajaratnam (a trade unionist among Tamil plantation workers): Rajaratnam at this stage once again pointed out how the educational rights of the plantation Tamils have not been ensured by any government. There was no university for Plantation Tamils although the government was planning for each province to have its own university.

Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda (Social Scientists’ Association (SSA)): responded by pointing out that that rights could be viewed as negative rights and positive rights. Negative rights were those including non-discrimination and protection against marginalisation whereas positive rights included the right to education, employment and development. The Quota system could be viewed as a mechanism for positive rights. He noted that in the Dialogue so far participants asserted both types of rights.

Anuruddha (a university graduate): objected to the quota system arguing that special policies to uplift the oppressed castes might legitimise and even legalise caste oppression. “What is more appropriate”, according to Anuruddha, “to eradicate group discrimination are general welfare policies like free education”.

Sumanasiri Liyanage (a lecturer at the University of Peradeniya): made the point that the North-East question had dominated the public discussion on Sri Lanka’s minority rights. Minorities outside the North-East were ignored. The Democracy debate should include the rights of them as well.

Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda (Social Scientists’ Association (SSA)): responded to Sumanasiri by pointing out that Sri Lanka’s democratic discourse needed to be widened to include the multiple minorities. New institutions should be created to adjudicate the grievance of multiple minorities.

At this stage, the Dialogue entered into a discussion on the effectiveness of existing institutions in protecting minority rights. A number of participants pointed out that the Human Rights Commission had been ineffective, because it had no proper authority to implement its own decisions. Since the members of the Commission are not Judges, its decisions were legally ineffective.

Chaminda Hettiarachchi (a management student with a background of political activism): Chaminda responded to this discussion by observing that there was too much emphasis on creating new laws and finding legal solutions to political and social problems. In his views such problem did not have legal solutions. Legal solutions were just lawyers’ solutions. He also argued, “We must develop the capacity to understand the problems of the minorities from their perspectives”.

Marikkar (a district leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress in Kandy) intervened to say that democracy was like a garden in which each and every plant needed special care and attention. In the garden of democracy minorities needed special care and attention.

Vishaka Dharmadasa (an activist in the peace movement): observed that it had not been easy for the minorities in Sri Lanka to be taken seriously. She asked rhetorically whether they should take up arms to be taken seriously by the majority. She also observed that social and caste discrimination persists, because the discriminated groups do not take up their grievances in the public domain.

Raja Uswettakeyiyawa (a Left political activist in Kandy): argued that the neglect of the minority grievances was also linked to the general decay in the democratic institutions as well as limitations of the democratic struggle in Sri Lanka. He observed that civil society groups had not fought for minority rights. Only minorities had struggled for their rights, thereby creating a situation where minority rights movements by the minorities had been isolated in the broad democratic movement.

When the discussion was reaching an end, Jayadeva Uyangoda invited Peter de Souza and Sakuntala Kadirgamar to make their comments by way of conclusions.

Prof. Peter R deSouza (Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi): began by thanking the participants for the robust discussion they engaged in throughout the day and made the following points:

Ms. Sakuntala Kadirgamar-Rajasingham (International-IDEA, Stockholm): made her concluding comments by making the point that there was the need to empathise with the minority in order to understand the minority claims to rights and equality. The challenge for the majorities is always about empathic understanding of minority grievances.

Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda (Social Scientists’ Association (SSA)): In his final comments, Jayadeva Uyangoda noted that four major themes emerged in the dialogue. Firstly, there were two contending approaches to the conceptualisation of the categories of majority and minority, class-economic and ethnic-cultural. Secondly, there was a recurring debate on the way in which group grievances could be addressed. While one approach advocated group-specific special policies, the other approach emphasised general policies that would not perpetuate minority status. Thirdly, there were anxieties about the possible undemocratic consequences of the recognition of special rights for the minorities. Fourthly, it was necessary to broaden the discourse of democracy to address the inherent vulnerabilities of the minorities to enable their inclusion in the democratic imagination.

The main objective of this dialogue is to critically discuss the experiences of democracy by ‘majority’ as well as ‘minority’ communities. All of us belong to different identity communities. We often associate ourselves with ethnic, religious, language, social and other identity communities. Similarly, our experiences with democracy have been varied. Majority and minority communities would hardly experience the political process in the same way.

We can begin and direct our discussion by asking and exploring some simple questions like the following: