The Conflict in Sri Lanka: Ground Realities - Ilankai Tamil Sangam

their times and climes but their voices get totally submerged in
the cacophony of the Bumiputras espousing, ‘One land, one faith,
one rule and one language’. Here it should also be pointed out
that Tamils were not party to any of the constitution-making,
i.e. 1948, 1972 or 1978 and in that the Tamil claim is that a
unilateral Sinhala constitution is imposed on them and in that
they are ruled against their will and consent.
In a pluralist polity, for good governance it is necessary that
all ethnic and religious groups receive equal treatment and
be protected from discriminatory actions and legislation. The
solemn covenant, which became the anchor of the Constitution
at Sri Lanka’s independence in 1948, was section 29, which is
the non-discriminatory clause. The SLFP and its Marxist allies
arbitrarily rejected this safeguard when they framed the 1972
Constitution without the consent of the non-Sinhala races and
non-Buddhist religious groups. A Bill of Rights replaced section
29. This was found to be hardly adequate. This presupposes a
strongly independent Supreme Court, but judges (majority of
whom are Sinhalese) have been known to give politically motivated
judgements even on cases that have serious implications for
Fundamental Rights and the Human Rights. Thus, there cannot
be any safeguard against a hegemonic ethnic majority determined
on thriving by subjugating and decimating other nationalities in a
State where democracy is understood only in terms of numbers.
This Buddhocratic state system is further consolidated by the
fact that Buddhist monks enjoy unlimited freedom to dictate
policy especially when it concerns the non-Sinhala races and
non-Buddhist religions; these monks were largely responsible for
the gradual collapse of the State system as they have no idea of
how modern democracies are managed. Encouraging the Buddhist
monks to run the constitutional affairs of the State amounts to
the allowing of medieval form of thinking to pervade the political
ethos. Beginning with the Bandaranaike couple this has proved
to be a devastating gamble and it will continue to prove to be
suicidal to the Sinhala State apparatus. It was no secret that the
Buddhist monks pressured Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike to usher
in the most discriminatory “national” legislation of Sinhala Only.
47