Is Sri Lanka facing an episode of another blunder, which could have been evaded if politicians had acted a bit more diplomatically? Had the political sphere acted with a bit more responsibility couldn’t we have avoided Mullaitivu District Judge and Magistrate Saravanarajah’s resignation?
As of the latest updates, at the time the news goes to print, the entire legal fraternity seems to be up in arms against the Government, with the North-based lawyers holding a protest yesterday. From the side of the authorities, the Judicial Services Commission has requested Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya to investigate into the reasons and responsible persons that led to the resignation of Judge Saranavarajah. A few days ago, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka forwarded a letter to the Chief Justice requesting to investigate into the same.
Parallel to these episodes, the story is making headlines in the news media platforms, which definitely are a triggering factor for a chaos that may lead to cause tremor in the global arena. The news wave is not the cause of the chaos but is the end result of a short-sighted decision.
If we recall the event, Judge Saravanarajah tendered his resignation from his multi-tasked judge role on 23 September, and has reportedly fled the country. As stated in the letter, he has addressed the Judicial Services Commission Secretary, citing the reasons for his resignation as being “due to threat to my life and a lot of stress”. The resignation surfaced in the aftermath of his judgement upholding the right of religious worship of Hindu devotees at a Hindu shrine on Kurundi temple in Mullaitivu. As reported, his judicial security has been reduced and he was called out by higher authorities for his judgement and was later reported to have received pressure to change his stance.
These few words would stand as a landmark in Sri Lankan Judicial history and will be a life-long banner that would be hoisted by the pro-Eelam teams, established locally and at the global level, in verifying several alleged anti-minority aspects of the Sri Lankan Government, especially on two factors – i.e. destroying historical Hindu religious and historical sites in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and the adverse impact of State pressure on the Sri Lankan Judiciary, threatening the free and fair nature of it.
For Sri Lanka, a nation grappled with multi-faceted challenges and a broken democracy, this would be a difficult hurdle.
Yes, there is no doubt that Parliamentarians are privileged to voice their stance, extremely democratically, during Parliamentary sessions. And even outside, they could surely comment to a greater extent that the Sri Lankan law allows any citizen to voice their stance. Yet, Parliamentarians have a far greater responsibility, going beyond the borders of freedom of expression, to maintain peace and harmony among citizens. In those instances in the past where they failed to do so, we have experienced conflicts and war that led to thousands of lost lives – children, women, men, youth were lost to the nation over a narrow-minded political expression and led the entire nation to suffer to the brink.
With the end of a three-decade-long war, as “normalcy” returned to the country, many parties raised many issues the Tamil community in Sri Lanka are facing, overall stating all under the larger issue of systemic racism and the precarious position of Tamils within the country.
Judge Saravanarajah’s resignation would be the modern highlight of the campaign.
The current steps taken by the Government to bring solace to broken societies and establish reconciliation are insufficient to address the prolonged neglect of vulnerable communities and facilitate the country’s re-emergence under one nationality – i.e. Sri Lankan. In such a backdrop, how can we justify an action that would add fuel to the burning pile of coal?