[lg policy] Sri Lanka: A tale of two languages
Harold Schiffman
hfsclpp at gmail.com
Mon May 30 14:54:27 UTC 2016
A tale of two languages By Raisa Wickrematunge
<http://himalmag.com/author/raisawickrematunge/> 30 May 2016
Sri Lanka’s efforts to implement a sound language policy.
55
14 69
[image: Print Friendly] <http://himalmag.com/a-tale-of-two-languages/#>
- [image: Photo : Wikimedia Commons]
Photo : Wikimedia Commons
If one were to visit the office of the Official Languages Commission
(OLC) in Colombo, one would see officials busily filling out correspondence
to be sent to several government departments. Set up in 1991, the functions
of the Commission, mandated by Section 18 of the Official Languages
Commission Act, are to monitor “regulations, directives or administrative
practices” which violate existing language regulations. The Commission also
conducts educational programmes on language development and language use,
and one of its main tasks is ensuring that Sinhala and Tamil are given
equal prominence in public administration.
Sri Lanka’s current constitution lists Sinhala and Tamil as official
languages, with English being given the status of a ‘link language’. The
wording of the constitution, however, is problematic. Chapter 4, Sections
18 (1) and (2) of the Constitution proclaims:
The Official Language of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala.
Tamil shall also be an official language.
This suggests that Tamil was added as an afterthought, or a later
addition – which, in fact, it was. After achieving independence in 1948
both Sinhala and Tamil were official languages until a ‘Sinhala Only’ Act
came about in 1956, taking away the official language status of Tamil. The
Act was partly reversed in August 1958, with the Tamil Language (Special
Provisions) Act allowing for education, admission for public service,
administrative functions and state correspondence to be conducted in Tamil
in the North and East provinces. The 1978 constitution made Sinhala and
Tamil national languages but maintained Sinhala as an official language,
with the current iteration being added in 1987 through the Thirteenth
Amendment. The amendment was partly fueled by international pressure,
particularly from India. The signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord
reinstated Tamil as the official language, among other concessions on
devolution of power to the provinces. India also agreed to end its support
for the Tamil separatists.
Language, as one of the flashpoints of ethnic conflicts, has long been
cited by many studies as one of the main factors that led to Sri Lanka’s
civil war. During colonial times, Sinhala nationalists felt Tamils received
a disproportionate share of civil administration posts. When the country
finally gained Independence in 1948, the Sinhalese hoped to be awarded a
greater share of such opportunities, in keeping with their standing as the
majority community. When this did not transpire, resentment against the
Tamils grew. Although the situation had been precipitated by colonialists,
the Sinhalese felt frustrated that their Tamil counterparts were able to
access services that they could not (since the Sinhalese were not as
conversant in English). For instance, banking transactions not conducted in
English were considered illegal until 1953. Even Parliamentary debates were
conducted in English; permission had to be secured to use either Sinhala or
Tamil.
In many instances, language equality is still treated as an afterthought.
Politicians capitalised on this and began proposing resolutions in
Parliament to declare Sinhala the official language. It was the election of
SWRD Bandaranaike in 1956, however, that was the turning point. In 1951, he
led the Sinhala Maha Sabha faction, which he had organised to promote
Sinhalese culture and interests, out of the United National Party (UNP) to
form the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP).
Although his party originally promoted the use of both Sinhala and
Tamil, Bandaranaike gravitated towards Sinhala later to mobilise Sinhalese
discontentment for political mileage. He began lobbying for Sinhala to be
given status as the sole official language. The strategy worked – in part.
He was elected Prime Minister in a landslide victory. Once he was elected
into power, he duly fulfilled his promise through the Official Language Act
of 1956, popularly dubbed the ‘Sinhala Only’ Act.
The consequences were devastating. “The Tamils will never forget and
never forgive the majority community for depriving them of rights which had
been apparently been secured to them,” retired MP Cyril ES Perera wrote in
1956, shortly after the act had been passed.
Since the election of the new government on 8 January 2015, there have
been some symbolic steps forward in terms of language rights: for instance,
at the Independence Day celebrations in 2016, the national anthem was sung
in both Sinhala and Tamil. In 2010, former president Mahinda Rajapaksa
decided to scrap the Tamil translation of the national anthem at official
and state functions. Following this, an unofficial ban prevailed even in
Tamil-speaking areas, fuelled by military intimidation and fearful public
officials.
Today, as Sri Lanka recovers from the devastation of civil war, the work
of bodies like the Official Languages Commission becomes even more vital in
restoring the rights of the minorities. Yet, in many instances, language
equality is still treated as an afterthought.
In the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lessons Learned and
Reconciliation (LLRC) of 2011, it was noted many people still could not
transact business in their own languages. The think tank Centre for Policy
Alternatives, in their research on language rights, reported of an incident
where a Tamil-speaking pregnant woman seeking treatment at a Government
hospital in Puttalam, was instructed in Sinhala, and was allegedly
assaulted by nursing staff because she did not understand the instructions
and contravened them several times. This is in violation of the
Constitution as it entitles people “to receive communications from, and to
communicate and transact business with… in either Tamil or English” even in
areas where Sinhala is the language of the administration.
In 2010, prior to the introduction of bilingual police officers
following directives from the LLRC, a 13-year-old girl arrived at a police
station in the Batticaloa district in eastern Sri Lanka to report an
incident of rape, accompanied by her mother. There was only one police
officer with a basic knowledge in Tamil who was tasked with recording her
statement. The mother was in tears, while the daughter was silent and
fearful; misreading the situation, the policeman recorded what he thought
was an instance of assault against the mother. By the time the error was
discovered, it was too late. The girl was not examined by a Judicial
Medical Officer in time, significantly weakening her case.
The website citizenslanka.org records numerous ways in which Sri
Lankans’ language rights are violated. Many Tamil citizens have complained
that their statements are taken down in Sinhalese, even in places such as
Vavuniya, Trincomalee, Mannar and Ampara, where Tamil-speakers form the
majority, and asked to sign statements they cannot comprehend. Court
proceedings here are also usually conducted in Sinhala. Administrative
tasks such as applying for pensions, obtaining licenses, or registering a
birth mostly happen in Sinhala.
Sri Lanka’s political situation being fraught with turmoil for two
decades, the Official Languages Commission had been somewhat inactive
initially. Former Chairman of the Commission, Raja Collure, admitted in
2006: “Successive governments have failed to implement the constitutional
provision in regard to the use of Tamil as the second official language”.
Despite the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1987, it was only in
2005 that Collure compiled a comprehensive report, which showed a
lamentable lack of Tamil speakers in public administration – just 8.3
percent. In May 2016, a circular from the Ministry of Public Administration
notified that written and oral tests will be conducted for public officials
twice a year in the ‘other’ official language (the one they are not
proficient in) twice a year. This is one of the steps being taken to ensure
public officials are conversant in both languages – including through
courses provided by the Official Languages Department.
In his office, present Chairman Dayananth Edirisinghe holds up a file
with several letters, many on government bodies which have failed to abide
by the terms of the Act by not using Tamil in their official work. “The
Commission does not have punitive powers – we only record violations [of
language rights],” Edirisinghe clarified. A few of the complaints are from
individuals, but there are also letters from civil society organisations.
One of them has pictures of police signboards in Colombo – when a one-way
system in was introduced in March 2016, the police put up signboards only
in Sinhala and English.
Given that language has been an intrinsic sticking point for the
Sinhala-Tamil identity politics, it needs more than goodwill to secure
rights of both sides.
However, civil-society organisations say that at times, the Commission
can be toothless. As Professor Lionel Guruge wrote in the *Sunday Leader*,
“[the Commission’s] jurisdiction is limited to requesting and communicating
with other institutions to abide by the OLP [official language policy], but
does not reach enforcement levels. The authority vested in the OLC
[official language commission] is arguably diminutive, although very few
stakeholders dare to admit it.”
One of the major setbacks was when in 2011, the Chairman of Official
Languages Commission asked the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation to abide by
the languages policy, he was pressured to resign by prominent figures, who
believed he had no authority to dictate changes to other institutions,
Guruge claimed in the article. Moreover, the routine affair of thousands of
complaints going ‘unrecorded’ has meant that grievances about mislabeled
pharmaceutical products, official forms, road signs go unheeded.
Edirisinghe has only been in the Chairman’s seat for five months. A
graduate of Vidyodaya University, the Foreign Languages Research Center of
Seoul National University and the Dongguk University in Seoul, Edirisinghe
is also the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Korean Association. His appointment
comes at a crucial moment, as the government is working on the submissions
made to the Public Representations Committee (PRC) on constitutional
reform. Here, at last, is a chance to undo the damage caused by the Sinhala
Only Act. (Following the Presidential election on 8 January 2015, which saw
Opposition candidate Sirisena elected into office, one of the many promises
made was to form a constitutional assembly, with the objective of
re-shaping Sri Lanka’s constitution.)
In Edirisinghe’s view, there is no need for any major changes in order
to facilitate a balance – there is already an adequate legislative
framework in place, giving Sinhala and Tamil equal prominence. The main
change to the Constitution that the Commission has called for is that
Section 18 (1) and (2) be amalgamated, so that Tamil is given an equal
footing to Sinhala as an official language and not treated as an
afterthought.
Given that language has been an intrinsic sticking point for the
Sinhala-Tamil identity politics, it needs more than goodwill to secure
rights of both sides. The way successive political dispensations have used
it to trigger violence amongst the population also calls for a strong
official stance to prevent voter mobilisation on ethnic and linguistic
lines. Following Bandaranaike’s example, the SLFP continued to play on
nationalist sentiments in order to win votes. Former President Rajapaksa
was no exception. During his regime, Bodu Bala Sena (BBS), a Sinhalese
Buddhist nationalist organisation, began to agitate for the protection of
Sinhala Buddhist rights. At a 2013 rally in Maharagama, which drew 16,000
people, BBS general secretary Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara stated, “This is a
government created by Sinhala Buddhists and it must remain Sinhala
Buddhist. This is a Sinhala country, Sinhala government. Democratic and
pluralistic values are killing the Sinhala race.”
Following this statement, a series of attacks began on mosques,
Muslim-run abattoirs, churches – led mostly by other Sinhala Buddhist
groups like the Ravana Balaya and the Sinhala Ravaya. While former
President Rajapaksa officially denounced the groups’ actions, the attacks
continued unabated. Rajapaksa’s brother, then Defence Secretary Gotabhaya
Rajapaksa, was even Chief Guest at a BBS event – providing a seal of
implicit approval. The BBS also publicly said they would back Rajapaksa at
the Presidential election – which disenchanted minority voters.
Since then, the BBS and organisations like them have backed out. Yet a
small anonymous group has begun pasting “Sinha Le” (Sinhala blood) stickers
on three-wheelers and buses. Just as in 1956, a spirit of insecurity and
frustration still persists among some Sinhalese – who feel that the new
Government is “pro-minority” and isn’t doing enough to help maintain or
pacify the majority, as a trishaw driver whose vehicle bore one of these
stickers explained. The rhetoric and feelings of frustration stirred up by
groups like the BBS are yet to be addressed.
It’s clear that there’s still a long way to go before Sri Lanka gets to
a place of tolerance and understanding. Yet, there was also a sense of hope
as citizens gathered to make submissions to the PRC – at least their
grievances are being heard. Will the new Constitution mend the deep scars
left behind after the conflict? Only time will tell.
*~ Raisa Wickrematunge is co-editor of *Groundviews*, a citizens
journalism website in Sri Lanka.*
- http://himalmag.com/a-tale-of-two-languages/
- See more at:
http://himalmag.com/a-tale-of-two-languages/#sthash.FjFQbVKs.dpuf
--
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or
sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write
directly to the original sender of any offensive message. A copy of this
may be forwarded to this list as well. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20160530/4fb43b8c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list
More information about the Lgpolicy-list
mailing list