|
The British House of Commons debated the present Sri Lankan situation
- the ethnic conflict. There was nothing wrong in engaging in a debate.
That is their freedom. What irks are the utterances of some of the
members.
Whilst some were very considerate and spoke sense, some others like
Simon Hughes proved their ignorance of the subject they chose to speak
on. It was also apparent that Mr. Hughes spoke with his eyes on the
Tamil votes in his electorate. However, he should not be too sure that
all the Tamils will vote for him.
The present problem in our country is a legacy left behind by the
British colonialists - the ancestors of Mr. Hughes. They adopted a
divide and rule policy and gave special concessions and benefits to
certain categories which they lost after independence.
The seeds of discord were sown then. Hughes is perhaps unaware that
Tamils in large numbers live with the Sinhalese in the South deserting
the North where the LTTE resorted to ethnic cleansing throwing out the
Sinhalese and the Muslims who were living there. In fact, the Tamils are
living in comfort and happiness in the South with the Sinhalese than
with the LTTE in the North.
Indian Tamil workers were brought to Sri Lanka by the Britishers to
work in the plantations for which purpose the Sinhalese were thrown out
by force and their lands were confiscated. After independence the Indian
workers were not thrown out. India did not want them back. The
Britishers did not settle them down in Britain though the Tamil workers
were their responsibility.
There was no disenfranchisement of Indian workers as such, as
contended by Mr. Hughes. They had to be given citizenship before being
granted voting rights. I believe that the same procedure is being
followed in Britain. The ‘Indian workers’ are now Sri Lankan citizens.
They cannot be referred to as indians though certain racist politicians
do so for political existence.
Hughes and his ilk seems to be worried about the place given to
Buddhists. The attempts by the colonialists to annihilate Buddhism
failed though they succeeded in converting some by force or through
bribery.
However, even during the colonial times Buddhism managed to retain
its place. In Islamic countries, Islam is given the pride of place. Even
in certain Christian countries that prevails - operated discreetly in
others. Mr. Hughes seems to have forgotten that in Britain the Monarch
has to be a Protestant. We have no such restriction in Sri Lanka. We are
more democratic.
Why does not Mr. Hughes campaign to allow the Irish and the Scots
self government where they want? Why does he not talk about handing over
Falklands Islands to the rightful owners?
Is it correct to place a terrorist organisation on equal footing with
a democratically elected Government? In what country other than Sri
Lanka does such a position exist?
The British House of Commons wants to invite Thamilchelvan of the
LTTE to address them. They should not stop at that. They should listen
to a representative of the Karuna faction too.
They should even go further and invite representatives of Saddam
Hussein, Hamas, Taliban Al quaeda etc. also to educate them. That will
do much good to British politics. After all, Saddam Hussein and Osama
bin Laden were darlings of the British at one time or the other.
In conclusion, I wish to remind Mr. Hughes of the saying “It is
better to keep silent and be thought to be a fool than speak out and
clear all doubts about it” even though that will not apply to him.
UPALI S. JAYASEKERA
Colombo 4
Doctor Jayasekara’s article on ‘A right to die’ opens very
interesting and important questions relevant to the living society. The
first question is, “who has the right to die?’. Does a person have a
right to die and can he/she determine his/her death. Dr. Jayasekara’s
article implies that a person who is suffering and who wants to end his
life should have a right to die.
The second question is ‘Can one end his/her life’? As far as I am
aware the practical way (other than the natural way) of ending one’s
life is either suicide or murder.
Whichever way it is killing, and is criminal as well as immoral
according to the civilized society (excluding the suicide bombers and
hara-kiri pilots of aggressors and extremists). Therefore one has no
right to end one’s life.
The third question is if one has no right to end life, “Does life
belong to him/her?”. Apparently it does not totally belong to him/her,
because the life of a person was determined by the action of others,
from the time of inception to adulthood. Parents and the family appear
to have some interest.
Ownership and the right to life continuously change from infancy,
childhood, adolescence etc. A mother generally does not allow her child
to die. As one grows up one takes charge of his/her life-actions, makes
different relationships and also creates another life.
Actions and relationships determine life. Child-parent,
teacher-student, husband-wife, boss-subordinate, and other social
relationships are cultivated over a period of time and each relationship
has its responsibilities and obligations attached to it.
When responsibilities and obligations, which are ‘karma committed’,
are not duly fulfilled dissatisfaction and sorrow follows, and each
party suffers, either the person, parent, or the society. This suffering
could be overcome only through right actions (kusala karma) by
fulfilling ones obligations and responsibilities towards oneself, one’s
parents, and the society.
Life and death are cyclic steps in the sansaric process. Today life
and death occur in the modernized world away from the natural
environment. In the artificial man created society we have to manage
birth, life and death, with the available resources efficiently
utilizing man’s ingenuity without harming the environment. In managing
life and relationships, each party has to play its role, fulfill
obligations and responsibilities.
Doctors play an important role in society, attending to the health
care function and managing births and deaths. Since the resources and
costs of survival have immensely increased, doctors have to make
critical decisions about saving life, based on the costs involved and
the benefits to the society.
As we grow old we should become aware of the physical changes taking
place, as well as the psychological changes especially with respect to
the relationships, responsibilities and obligations necessary to take us
through the old age towards a peaceful death, without any burden to
others.
Relationships and behaviour play a key role in this process. One has
to prepare oneself through appropriate actions for death, either with
the family or in the sanctuary of elders home.
The person involved must communicate his/her desire of being
permitted a peaceful death without being rushed to hospitals and causing
trouble to doctors and others, preferably in writing, in time so that
the guardians are empowered to handle the situation at the last stages,
with a clear conscience.
SRINATH FERNANDO
via email
Fifty years ago my mother who was a Medical Officer at the Kattankudy
hospital was transferred to the Civil Hospital, Chilaw, which was known
at that time. I can still remember the night mail train journey from
Batticaloa.
We had to break journey at Ragama and take the connecting train to
Chilaw which came at the correct time 6.40 a.m. When we reached Chilaw
it was 8.50 a.m.
I can still remember the Chilaw Railway Station at that time. It was
not second to a paradise! Beautiful flower plants were grown by the side
of the platform.
The platform was spotless clean and also the railway track, without a
single weed by the side. The gap between sleepers were filled with rock
stones.
Just opposite the platform was the goods-shed which was maintained
properly. The painted iron doors with padlocks showed the security of
the goods.
A clean water filter was kept just opposite the SM’s office. The
Station Master was there, with his usual white uniform. This railway
station at that time showed the prestige of the Ceylon Government
Railway.
A few months ago, I happened to go to Chilaw by train with two of my
friends.
I was really sorry to see the condition of the Chilaw Railway
station. The platform was unclean. The toilets were not cleaned. The
goods-shed was not second to a cattleshed.
The SM’s office was untidy. There were people in the SM’s office but
we didn’t know who was the SM.
The railway track by the side was covered with grass. Garbage was
dumped by the side of the platform and stray dogs were roaming all over.
I am very sorry to say that the Chilaw railway station is nothing
compared to what it was 50 years ago.
PEMSIRI PERERA
Welisara |
