A new Constitution for the future?

The clarion call for Sri Lanka to become a secular state does not mean that Buddhist religious sentiments are betrayed.

By Father Reid Shelton Fernando
Colombo:  The Sri Lankan government which came to power in January 2015 is drafting a new constitution promising to end decades of increasingly authoritarian rule. It established a committee to seek the views of civil society. This committee went around the country seeking the views of a cross-section of the public. Religious and ethnic minorities want to change Article 9 of the current constitution, drafted in 1978.

The 1978 constitution, drafted by J.R. Jayawardene, paved the way for executive presidency and, even though some provisions for human rights were included, it did not satisfy the aspirations of religious minorities. Article 9 was the sticking point. It promised "the foremost place" to the majority religion, Buddhism, defining its protection as a duty of the state. Though other religions had the freedom to exercise their beliefs, in practice, many felt they were at the mercy of the majority group.

But in the same constitution Article 12 seemed to be in contradiction with it. Article 12 states that "no citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, political opinion or any such grounds."

Hence in this discussion, it must be stated that the Constitution of Sri Lanka did not endorse Buddhism as the state religion.

Some say that Article 9 discriminates against religious minorities and makes them second class citizens with no equality. While much of the conflict over the last 38 years was drawn over ethnic lines, religious persecution has occurred and, unlike the ethnic violence, still does. An August 2014 attack by extreme Buddhist sentiments on Muslims in Dharga Town is a case in point. Those responsible for the various violations got off scot-free because of the impunity they enjoyed due to the constitutional concept of Buddhism having the “foremost place.”

Even when Christians are given some assurance regarding freedom to worship, there are restrictions in building centers or churches with sufficient number of adherents. Then the accusers hurl objections by stating that the congregation was unlawfully converted. For prayer centers, the approval has to be given by authorities.

Therefore, the clarion call for the country to become a secular state does not mean that religious sentiments are betrayed. It is not a call for anti-religious movements to thrive either. It is a call to have the universal right to religious freedom and freedom of worship. A secular state does not mean that any religion is discriminated against and there is certainly no disgrace to Buddhism. Let us consider the teachings of the founders of each religion — surely they would have eschewed a predominant place and preferred that all were treated equally!

We in Sri Lanka call ourselves a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country but in practice we deny the very concept of equality. Reconciliation and solidarity is of paramount importance for peace in any country but it cannot become a reality in Sri Lanka as long as the divisive attitude of placing one religion in the foremost place continues — contradicting the uniting citizens as one people of the country. Further, it does not augur well for any country, if some religious sentiments are not respected while others get preferential treatment.

Sadly, many Sri Lankans are ignorant of human rights and many think that it is a Western concept that is harmful to our own culture. This kind of thinking is visible even among the leadership and the intelligentsia. They have failed to grasp the valuable contributions made by the UN and UN Conventions. These treatises have contributed to human welfare significantly the world over.

The translation of the local term in the majority Sinhalese language for "secular status" brings another wrong dimension as if the very secularity is considered as anti-religious which is far from it. The secularity is not against any religion that must be given publicity.

Today when the term "secular" is translated as "Anagamikka or Niragamika" it can be used to mean "anti-religious" or “against religion.” Hence the popular understanding of secular locally pertains to something irreligious or anti-religion. So “non-secular” people do categorize the proponents of secularism as opponents of all types of religious customs, practices and rituals which may not be the full truth at all.

But secular should not be seen this way. It should be seen as not favoring one religion over another or being given a prominent place to the detriment of other religions. It should mean that all religions and people who believe in them are equal before the law.

Unless this misinterpretation of words and concepts is rectified, and the country is seen as respecting all denominations, beliefs and people, protecting by law religious beliefs and practices of all citizens and not curtailing the religious freedom of anyone, any amount of constitutional changes will make little or no impact.

Father Reid Shelton Fernando is a human rights activist and former Archdiocese of Colombo coordinator of the Young Christian Workers Movement.

Source: UCAN