By Faizer Shaheid
“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
There are no strong religious roots in Sri Lanka, but there are many blind followers. This has been noted since the British period, when communal riots broke out on many an occasion. We have had wars fought, and leaders murdered, all for the clamour of racism. The latest saga unveiled in Teldeniya, Kandy and the current tensions have escalated fears of a renewed backlash against the Muslims.
Herein lies a moment of decision. A decision to use the powers of Government and curb the onslaught, or do nothing and watch this country destroyed in the name of racism.
The Background
The racist violence unfolded following an isolated incident on 22 February, of four intoxicated men with a Muslim identity in a three-wheeler battering a man with a Sinhalese identity.
The four intoxicated men were travelling in a three wheeler, when the victim, M. G. Kumarasinghe (41), had prevented that three-wheeler from overtaking his vehicle. The road rage had reportedly damaged the side mirror of the aforementioned three-wheeler, which further angered the foursome.
In the aftermath, the victim had been admitted to the Kandy Teaching Hospital. Ten days later, on 3 March, Kumarasinghe succumbed to his injuries. Without any delay, the Police rounded up the four suspects from Digana Town and remanded them. However, the problem began only after that.
It is believed that a group of people galvanized by an enraged gathering at the funeral in Teldeniya, further pumped up by certain renowned external forces from Bodhu Bala Sena (BBS) and Mahason Balakaya, took to the streets and torched every Muslim owned shop in the vicinity. The violence escalated into a pogrom and continued in Digana. The rioters attacked every person known to be a Muslim, and pelted stones at Muslim- owned houses and shops, even attacking mosques where certain Muslims were seeking refuge.
It is reported that, infamous hate preachers, Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera, Ven. Ampitiye Sumanarathna Thera and Dan Priyasath, were also present at the funeral.
While many were reportedly injured, there was one confirmed death of a Muslim by the name of Abdul Basith. He had suffocated to death within the confines of his own home having been unable to cope with the fierce fumes.
President Maithripala Sirisena urged the people to remain calm in these troubled times and promised to appoint a commission to investigate the pogrom. Many other Ministers also came forward to condemn the violence including Minister Mangala Samaraweera.
The Problems
From the sequence of events in Kandy prior to the pogrom, it had become increasingly clear that a tense situation was likely to arise. However, the negligence of the Law and Order Ministry caused a delay in taking any form of action to prevent the violence.
A plethora of video footages have emerged showing rioters walking the streets armed with clubs and stones and with their faces masked, but with zero Police surveillance. This is not to claim that the Police were completely inactive, but they were far fewer in numbers than needed and were posited in rather inappropriate areas.In some of the areas, the Police were in such few numbers that shops were burned even in their presence and cognizance.
The Law and Order Ministry should have been aware of the sensitivity of the issue and the escalation of the risk following the visit of at least three controversial figures. The riots were similar to the events that unfolded in Aluthgama and Beruwala in 2014, and the Police should have acted accordingly.
The hate crime laws
Racism and hate crimes are prohibited domestically and internationally, and the crime can sometimes be classified as genocide. Although the Government has not investigated the issue till now, the speech made by Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara in 2014 would satisfy the criteria of the crime of ‘incitement to genocide’ as according to the Genocide Convention and for hate speech under various laws.
The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) under Article 20 (2) prohibits any advocacy of racial or religious hatred that results in hostility and unrest. However, Article 157 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka only permits International Law to apply domestically if it has been ratified.
As such, the ICCPR Act which effectuated the ICCPR, in Article 3, recognized the same law. Therefore, any advocacy of hate, racial and religious hatred, is prohibited and punishable in Sri Lanka.
Further to this, Chapter XV of the Penal Code deals with such religious sensitivities and states that causing any disturbance to religious assemblies, religious abodes or against a religious group could result in arrest. In particular, Section 290 of the Penal Code makes the crime punishable up to two years and/or a fine.
The need to use force
Under Section 79 (2) of the Police Ordinance, if any word is uttered in a public meeting which intends to breach the general peace, the Police can make an arrest. However, in this situation, there does not appear to be a notable speech like in 2014. The convening of people in this situation appeared to be more organized and the pep talk happened within closed doors. Being so, the above law may not apply in every situation, except in the situations where Ampitiye Sumanarathna Thera was seen among the mob constantly communicating anti-Muslim remarks.
However, laws under the Criminal Procedure Code address the issue of riot situations. Section 95 of the Act states that where there is a group of five or more persons, who are likely to disturb the general peace, any Magistrate or Police Officer of the rank of an Inspector or above may direct such assembly to disperse.
In this context, it does not appear like the rioters would have dispersed as easily as certain other protests. The condescending manner in which some of the monks involved in the violence depicts the scant respect they had for the law. In such instances, if the rioters persist, the law permits necessary force to disperse the crowds. This would involve use of tear gas canisters, establishing barricades and baton charging.
However, considering the nature of the riots, the mob would not have retreated even if the Police employed necessary force.
In such instances, Section 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the key to solving the crisis. Section 96 reads that, whenever the public security is manifestly endangered by any such assembly, then any commissioned officer of the Sri Lankan Army, Navy or Air Force may disperse the crowds using military force. Military force would mean, shooting every rioter that refuses to back down.
A similar situation unfolded during the 1915 riots under the British rule. The Sinhalese had staged riots all around the country attacking Muslims but after authorization of the Marshall Law by British, which meant that every person who was witnessed rioting or causing any type of disturbance to the general peace could be shot dead, peace returned again.
This is the nature of the people. Unlimited power would result in unimaginable chaos. This is why we need laws to limit us, and a rule of law to ensure that every person is equal before it. However, impunity reigns with certain persons dressed in robes and hence the consequent violence that has erupted.
The Emergency Regulations
While Prime Minister and Minister of Law and Order at that time, Ranil Wickremesinghe, had absconded in the wake of the crisis, President Maithripala Sirisena came to the fore to defuse the situation using his powers. He initially called on the people to maintain peace, and thereafter, a curfew was imposed with the hope of neutralizing the escalating violence.
However, the violence merely shifted from town to town and showed signs of metastasizing to other parts of the country. From 5 March, the violence had spread to other parts of the country and false rumours were being spread all across the country to create panic.
In this midst, President Sirisena utilized his powers under Article 155 of the Constitution which empowers the President to pass Emergency Regulations in times of a threat to public security and issued a Proclamation to that effect on 07 March. The Proclamation will be valid for 10 days and may continue if Parliament passes a Resolution in favour of it.
The Emergency Regulations are set out in the Public Security Ordinance authorizing the President of Sri Lanka to amend any law that may deem necessary in view of the situation. During the times of Emergency, any person can be detained by the Police, or any possession can be confiscated, or any premises can be searched without warrant. The President may authorize the Police to arrest any offender as he would name and order him or her to be punished.
Conclusion
While the law is in motion, and that at least some portion of Government can be seen actually functioning, it appears strange that other portions of Government have remained silent. It is alleged by some that the riots were caused to distract attention and delay the No-Confidence Motion against the Prime Minister to be submitted this Parliamentary week.
However, as the Prime Minister Wickremesinghe is expected to ensure the general security of the people and rule of law, without having to allow the President to clean up his mess.
Even at present, it is not too late to act. The requisite arrests can be made utilizing the powers vested in the President under the Public Security Ordinance, and unlike in 2014, if at least now a Commission of Inquiry can be set up to inquire into the racist agenda of a few notorious persons in respect of the racial tensions around the country, we may find a lasting solution to the racial problems which are constantly re-ignited.
Courtesy: Ceylon Today
