By Harini Amarasuriya The hashtag #MeToo started trending in 2017 when American actress Alyssa Milano tweeted a request asking women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted to write Me Too as their social media status. This was at the time that sexual abuse allegations against Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein were beginning to gather […]
By Harini Amarasuriya
The hashtag #MeToo started trending in 2017 when American actress Alyssa Milano tweeted a request asking women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted to write Me Too as their social media status.
This was at the time that sexual abuse allegations against Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein were beginning to gather steam. Milano’s tweet generated a huge response and #MeToo became a global phenomenon with women from various parts of the world using the hashtag to talk about sexual harassment that they had faced.
The phrase ‘Me Too’ was originally created by American activist Tarana Burke, who works with survivors of sexual violence. The Me Too movement not only led to the exposure of many instances and perpetrators of sexual harassment throughout the world, but has also generated a broader conversation about sexual harassment and sexual violence. Predictably, there has been a backlash against the Me Too movement, mostly concerns about the possibility of false accusations.
However, almost four years into the movement, it is clear that the space that the Me Too movement has created for women to speak out against sexual harassment has led to a much needed conversation about men’s behaviour towards women – especially that of men in positions of power. Globally, well known men in the entertainment industry, media, academia and politics have been exposed by women. In Sri Lanka, there has been interest in the movement and although not widespread, similar conversations and initiatives have been taking place especially on social media platforms.
The backlash to the Me Too movement has also revealed how easily society reverts to ‘blaming the woman’ trope when men’s power is challenged. We know how common it is to hold women responsible for ‘putting themselves in danger’ whether it is the clothes we wear, the alcohol that we consume, or daring to believe that we have a right to expect not to be leered at or worse in public spaces or not to be taken advantage of in our intimate encounters.
The Me Too movement provoked a host of reactions about shrill and self-righteous women who don’t understand or appreciate ‘fun’ or have Victorian ideas about sex and sexual relationships. Even more than the lack of systems in place to protect women or procedures to deal with allegations of harassment and violence, the greatest challenge to opening up about experiences of sexual harassment and violence are the reactions women have to deal with when they choose to speak out.
Socialised as we are to always seek the approval of others and not to make ‘scenes’ many of us tend to swallow the indignity, pain and trauma of sexual harassment and carry on. It is this barrier that the Me Too movement really broke through by encouraging thousands of women to speak out, letting them know that they will be heard and that they will be supported.
The significance of that support and space cannot be underestimated. While it is extremely important to support women who want to speak out about their experiences, it is equally necessary to recognise that there are as many who do not speak out – often for very good reasons. It is not simply lack of access to social media or support that prevents women (and men) from speaking out about sexual harassment. Much of the silence around the harassment and violence is about incidents that take place in intimate circles: within families, close friends and colleagues.
How do you call out someone for inappropriate behaviour when you have every day close and personal interactions with that person at many different levels? How do you deal with someone like that even if you have not been personally or directly affected? For instance, what do you do when you hear about a colleague who regularly sends inappropriate texts/ images to women but who has always treated you with care? What do you do when male colleagues whose work you respect, constantly cracks sexist jokes around women? Or worse, behaves abusively towards other women? What do you do about a dearly loved relative who makes you uncomfortable with his overly affectionate behaviour, especially when you are the only one who seems to notice or care? The point is that much of what makes us feel uncomfortable, scared or violated, raises certain fundamental questions about how we interact with each other and what we understand by things such as respect and consent.
And drawing strict lines about what is ok and what is not ok in our interactions with each other is extremely difficult. How many times have we been in situations where we go along with jokes or conversations full of sexual innuendoes, even when we know it makes us uncomfortable because we don’t want to be spoilsports? What constitutes sexual harassment is on a spectrum and each one of us may have our own threshold of comfort/discomfort.
Yet, what constitutes our threshold is contingent on so many factors – not least the relations of power and sense of agency that shape our interactions with each other. For instance, the allowances granted to charismatic and intelligent men are much more than what is granted to men who are more direct (or cruder) in their behaviour. Social context also shapes behaviour.
I still remember what a very dear, male friend told me when we were discussing the issue of sexual harassment: “Never try to check the intentions or feelings of a man – only how he acts on those intentions and feelings”. The same friend told me how the men who leer at you in dark corners at the Majestic City or on a lonely street will behave quite differently if you bump into him at say, One Colombo.
This also brings me to a much more difficult point: if what is determined as sexual harassment is on a spectrum, so are the perpetrators. No human being is one dimensional or defined in totality by a single characteristic or act. Human beings are endlessly complicated and human interactions even more so.
As much as the Me Too movement created a space for women (and also men) to speak out about sexual harassment, there will also be others who are still hesitant to speak out. We may choose to continue to interact with people whose actions and behaviours have made us uncomfortable or whose actions and behaviours we condemn. Sometimes, we may not have the luxury or opportunity to avoid such people.
In such situations, we choose other strategies to manage those interactions as safely as possible. As much as we celebrate those who speak out, it is important that we hear and support those who do not.
My worry about the power of movements such as Me Too is that they sometimes present us with a set of certainties and fixed choices in situations filled with uncertainty and the possibility of a multiplicity of responses. Or rather, that sometimes, the certainty and choices before us are overemphasised especially when the discussions are confined to or conducted primarily on social media platforms.
At the heart of all of this is the quality and the humanity of our interactions with each other – whether in public or intimate spaces. Just as much as we interrogate the individuals complicit in abusive and predatory behaviour, we also need to interrogate the conditions that enable such behaviour, conditions that give rise to de-humanising behaviour. This includes our education system and mainstream ideologies that justify exploitative and abusive relationships in subtle and not so subtle ways.
It is also not enough to expect victims to seek legal interventions – very often these incidents cannot be presented to or resolved satisfactorily within a legal framework. Even when they are pursued legally and concluded successfully from the point of view of the victim, they rarely deliver justice in the broader sense.
Ultimately, it is the quality of our forms of sociality and human engagement that we need to focus on – while acknowledging its full range of complexities and nuances.
Acknowledging complexity and nuance is not an excuse or loophole for unacceptable behaviour, but rather appreciating the spectrum of human experiences, feelings, emotions and interactions. In the meantime, let us keep supporting each other to talk and to be heard, in whatever manner each of us chooses to be heard.
https://ceylontoday.lk/news/some-reflections-on-the-metoo-movement-2
විකල්ප කල්පනා රටේ ආර්ථිකය පවත්වාගැනීම සහ කොවිඞ් වසංගතය පාලනය කිරීමේ උපාය මාර්ගයක් ලෙස රට අගුලු දැමීම හෙවත් “ලොක්ඩවුන්” කිරීම පිළිබඳ විවාදයක් ඇත. මෙහි දි වසංගත රෝග හා ප්රජා සෞඛ්ය විශේෂඥයින් මෙන්ම ක්ෂද්ර ජීව විද්යාඥයින්, 100%ක්ම පාහේ රට අගුලු දැමීමට එකඟ ය. දෑත් සේදීම, දුරස්ථභාවය තබාගැනීම වැනි පුද්ගල සාධක මත පමණක් විශ්වාසය තැබීම තවදුරටත් ප්රමාණවත් නැත. […]
රටේ ආර්ථිකය පවත්වාගැනීම සහ කොවිඞ් වසංගතය පාලනය කිරීමේ උපාය මාර්ගයක් ලෙස රට අගුලු දැමීම හෙවත් “ලොක්ඩවුන්” කිරීම පිළිබඳ විවාදයක් ඇත. මෙහි දි වසංගත රෝග හා ප්රජා සෞඛ්ය විශේෂඥයින් මෙන්ම ක්ෂද්ර ජීව විද්යාඥයින්, 100%ක්ම පාහේ රට අගුලු දැමීමට එකඟ ය. දෑත් සේදීම, දුරස්ථභාවය තබාගැනීම වැනි පුද්ගල සාධක මත පමණක් විශ්වාසය තැබීම තවදුරටත් ප්රමාණවත් නැත. මොවුන් සියලුම දෙනා කියන්නේ එකම දෙයකි. පාලනයෙන් ගිලහී ඇති කොරෝනා වසංගතය පාලනයට නතුකර ගැනීම සඳහා පූර්ණ අගුලු දැමීමක් අවශ්ය ය. එසේ නොවන්නේ නම් කොරෝනාවලින් මිය යන සංඛ්යාවට අමතරව රාජ්යයේ ලිහිල් ප්රතිපත්තිය නිසා ඒ හා සමාන පිරිසක් මියයෑමට නියමිත ය. එවා සාවද්ය මනුෂ්ය ඝාතන ලෙස ද සැළකීමට පුළුවන. ලෝකයේ පහෙන් එකක ජනගහනයක් මෙන් ම ඉතාමත් දියුණු සෞඛ්ය උපකරණ වලින් සමන්විත එක්සත් ජනපදයට වඩා දියුණු බවින් ඉතා අඩු වියට්නාමය, තායිලන්තය තායිවානය පවා ආරම්භයේදී ම වසංගතය පාලනය කරගැනීමට සමත් විය. ජනාධිපති බයිඩන් යටතේ යම් සාර්ථකත්වයක් පෙන්වා ඇති නමුත් විශේෂයෙන්ම ඩොනල්ඞ් ට්රම්ප්ගේ වැරදි ප්රතිපත්තිය එක්සත් ජනපදයේ මේ අසමත්කමට තදින් බලපෑවේ ය. කොරෝනා වසංගතයේ ව්යාප්තිය හා පාලනය කෙරෙහි ඒ සම්බන්ධ රාජ්ය ප්රතිපත්තිය සෘජු ලෙස බලපාන බව පෙනේග ඒ අනුව ශ්රි ලංකාවේ කොවිඞ් වසංගතයේ ශීඝ්ර ව්යාප්තිය කෙරෙහි, ඒ සම්බන්ධයෙන් වූ රාජ්ය ප්රතිපත්තිය සෘජු ලෙස බලපා ඇති බව සක්සුදක් සේ පැහැදිළි ය.
පූර්ණ අගුලු දැමිමක දී පවුල් අතර එක්වීම, භාණ්ඩ ලබාගැනීමට වෙළඳ පොලට එක් රොක්වීම, පන්සල් හා පල්ලි යෑම, ආපන ශාලාවලට ගොස් එකට ආහාර ගැනීම, රැකියා ස්ථාන හා ඇඟලුම් කර්මාන්ත ශාලාවලට සේවකයින් ගාල්කිරීම, සම්භාහන මධ්යස්ථාන විවෘතව තැබීම ඇතුලු ජනතාව එකට සම්බන්ධවීම උපරිම මට්ටමෙන් නතර කිරීම අවශ්ය කෙරේ. වියදම් සහගත විය හැකි නමුත්, මුහුණදීමට සිදුවි ඇති, ආරක්ෂා සහිත හදිසි තත්වයක් වන මෙහිදී සමාජ දුරස්ථභාවය තබා ගැනීම රෝගය පාලනය කිරීම සඳහා ගත යුතු අත්යවශ්ය ප්රතිපත්තිමය තීරණයකි. කෙසේ නමුත්, මේ අගුලු දැමීම රටේ ආර්ථිකයට අහිතකර ලෙස බලපාන බව අමුතුවෙන් කිවයුතු නොවේ. මූලික වශයෙන් රට අගුලු දැමීම වෙළඳාමට මෙන්ම නිෂ්පාදනයට හානිකර ය. එ මගින් ධනය ඇති නිෂ්පාදකයාගේ හා ව්යාපාරිකයාගේ පමණක් නොව සේවකයාගේ ද ආදායම් ඇනහිටීම තර්කානුකූල ය. එය එසේ වූවත් අගුලු දැමීම සෞඛ්ය පැත්තෙන් වසංගතය පාලනය කිරීමේ අත්යවශ්ය අංගයක වී ඇත්නම් එය අත්යවශ්යයෙන්ම නිවැරදි ලෙස කළ යුතු වේ. නමුත් ආදායම් අහිමිවන්නන්ට මෙහිදි කිසියම් උපකාරයක් කළ යුතු ය. මෙහි දී ජීවත්විම සඳහා ආදායම් අහිමිවන අය රැක බලා ගැනීමට ආදායම් ලබන අයට සිදු වේ. ඊළග ප්රශ්නය වන්නේ එය කරන්නේ කෙසේ ද යන්න ය.
පිලිතුර ඉතා සරළ ය. ඒ සඳහා ප්රථමයෙන්ම යා යුත්තේ රටේ ධනය සමුච්චනය වන හෙවත් ඒකරාශිවන තැනට ය. මානව ඉතිහාසයේ වසර දහස් ගණනක සිට මෙවන් ව්යසනයන්ට මානව වර්ගයා මුහුණ දී තිබේ. වසංගත රෝග වලට අමතරව ඉඩෝරය, ජලගැලීම්, වැනි නොයෙකුත් ස්වාභාවික විපත් ඒ අතර වේ. ඓතිහාසික වශයෙන් පැවති ඒ ඒ සමාජ ක්රමය තුළ ආපදාවක දි ප්රයෝජනයට ගැනීම සඳහා මානවයා නිෂ්පාදනයෙන් කොටසක් සුරක්ෂිතව තබාගත් බව අපි දනිමු. ඒ අතිරික්ත සමුච්චය පිරිමැස්මෙන් යුතුව ව්යසනය අවසන් වන තෙක් බෙදාහදා ගෙන සමාජය විසින්ම සමාජය නඩත්තු කර ගෙන තිබේ. දියුණු යැයි කියන මෙම යුගයේ නිසැක ලෙසම අප ද එම ක්රමය අනුගමනය කළ යුතු ය. එක් තැනකට, නැති නම් තැන් කිහිපයකට එක් රැස්වී ඇති එම ධනය, අසරණ වූ අය තෝරා ගෙන බෙදා දී සමාජය ආරක්ෂා කරගත යුතු ය. එවිට රට අගුලු දැමීම ප්රශ්නයක් වන්නේ නැත. චීනය, කියුබාව, වියට්නාමය පමණක් නොව නිව්සිලන්තය, දකුණු කොරියාව හා තායිවානය වැනි රටවල පවා පෙර කියන ලද විශේෂඥ උපදෙස් අනුව සැබෑ ලෙස රට අගුලු දමා නැතිබැරි අයට සහන ලබා දී කොරෝනා වසංගතය පාලනයට නතුකර තිබේ.
මෙහි ප්රතිවිරුද්ධ පැත්ත කූමක් ද? ප්රාග්ධනය සමුච්චනය හෙවත් එක් තැනකට හෝ සීමිත තැන් කිහිපයකට ඒකරාශී වන ධනය සාධාරණව, අවශ්යතාවය අනුව නැවත බෙදා හැරෙන්නේ නැත. ඇතැම් විශාල සමාගම්වල, විශාල වශයෙන් ඒකරාශී වු ධනයක් තිබේ, අපේ රට ගතහොත් ඒ ආකාරයට විශාල වශයෙන් ධනය ඒකරාශිවන සමාගම් 30කට වඩා තිබේ. එයට අමතරව යහමින් මුදල ඒකරාශිවන බැංකු පද්ධතියට අමතරව පුද්ගලික ව්යාපාර ද ඇත. බොහෝ විට සමාජයේ පහළම ස්ථරයට එවැනි ඉතිරියක් නැති අතර එයින් ඉහළ ස්ථරයේ සිටින අයගේ ගිණුම්වල ද රුපියල් දෙතුන් දහකට වඩා වැඩි මුදලක් නැත. මෙවැනි හදිසි අවස්ථාවක රාජ්ය මැදිහත්වී බද්දක් පනවා තිබෙන තැනින් ගෙන නැති බැරි කොටසට සහනයක් සලසා දිය යුතු වේ. එවිට වසංගතය පාලනයට නතු කර ගැනීමට අවශ්ය සැබෑ අගුලු දැමීමක් කිසිසේත්ම ප්රශ්නයක් විය නොහැකි ය. එසේ නොමැතිව ආර්ථිකය පවත්වා ගැනීමට වැඩකරන ජනතාව සේවා ස්ථානවලට ගාල් කරන්නේ නම් වෛරසය හේතුවෙන් මියැදෙන සංඛ්යවට වඩා රජයේ ප්රතිපත්තිය නිසා මියැදෙන සංඛ්යාව තවත් ඉහළ යනු ඇත.
මහා පරාක්රමබාහු රජු (1153 _1186) විසින්, ඉදිකරන ලද පරාක්රම සමුද්රය එකල හදුන්වන ලද්දේ ‘වාපිරාජ’ හෙවත් ‘සියලු වැව් අතර වැව් රජු’ නමිනි. මහාවංසය සදහන් කරන ආකාරයට මෙම වැව ඇතුළු වාරිකර්මාන්ත රාශියක් රජු විසින් ඉදිකරන ලද්දේ දුර්භික්ෂ භය නැතිකිරීම පිණිස (දුබ්භික්ඛ දුක්ඛ නාසත්ථං) ය. රජුගේ එම උතුම් අරමුණ ඉටුකරමින්, සියවස් අටකටත් අධික කාලයක් මෙරට ජනතාවට ආහාර සපයා […]
මහා පරාක්රමබාහු රජු (1153 _1186) විසින්, ඉදිකරන ලද පරාක්රම සමුද්රය එකල හදුන්වන ලද්දේ ‘වාපිරාජ’ හෙවත් ‘සියලු වැව් අතර වැව් රජු’ නමිනි. මහාවංසය සදහන් කරන ආකාරයට මෙම වැව ඇතුළු වාරිකර්මාන්ත රාශියක් රජු විසින් ඉදිකරන ලද්දේ දුර්භික්ෂ භය නැතිකිරීම පිණිස (දුබ්භික්ඛ දුක්ඛ නාසත්ථං) ය.
රජුගේ එම උතුම් අරමුණ ඉටුකරමින්, සියවස් අටකටත් අධික කාලයක් මෙරට ජනතාවට ආහාර සපයා ගැනීමට ත් මිනිසුන්ගේ මෙන්ම සතා සීපාවාගේ පවස නිවා ගැනීමට ත් උපකාරී වු පරාක්රම සමුද්රය, අමනෝඥ පාලකයන්, බලධාරීන් සහ නිලධාරින් පිරිසකගේ උන්මත්තක අවශ්යතා සහ තීරණ නිසා බරපතල අනතුරකට මුහුණ පා තිබීම ඛෙිදජනක ය.
ශරීර සුවතා මංතීරු ඉදිකරන බව පවසමින් වැවේ රළපනාව ඉවත් කිරීමට මෙි වනවිටත් කටයුතු කර තිබේ . පුරාවිද්යා බලධාරීන් පවසන්නේ වැව තම දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවට අයත් නොවන බවයි. වාරිමාර්ග බලධාරීන් සහ නාගරික සංවර්ධන අධිකාරියේ බලධාරීන්ට අනුව සංචාරක කර්මාන්තය ඇතුළු නව ආර්ථික ක්රමෝපායයන් සදහා මෙබඳු නව ප්රවේශයන් වුවමනා ය.
කෙසේ වුව ද මෙරට සංවර්ධන ව්යාපෘති නමින් සිදු වූ ඓතිහාසික, පුරාවිද්යාත්මක සහ පාරිසරික හානිය ගැන දන්නා ඕනෑම කෙනෙකුට පරාක්රම සමුද්රයට අත්විය හැකි ඉරණම පිළිබඳ අවබෝධ කරගැනීම අපහසු නොවේ. කුරුණෑගල රාජසභා මණ්ඩපය ඩෝසර් කිරීමෙන් අලුත් වටයකින් ආරම්භ වූ පුරාවිද්යාත්මක වටිනාකම් සහිත ස්ථාන විනාශ කිරීම, අභයගිරිය, මිහින්තලය ආදී ස්ථාන හරහා ගොස් කොළඹ නගරය ආශ්රිත පැරණි ගොඩනැගිලි පසු කරමින් මහනුවර බෝගම්බර පැරණි ගොඩනැගිලි දක්වා ගමන් කර ඇත.
අනෙක් පසින් තිස්සමහාරාම වැව කිසිදු පුරාවිද්යා අනුමැතියකින් තොරව කැණීම් අරඹා, ජනතා විරෝධයක් එල්ල වූ පසු පුරාවිද්යා මුද්රාව කෙසේ හෝ ලබාගෙන කැණීම් කළ බව නොරහසකි. මෙම ක්රියාවලියේ ම දිගුවක් ලෙස පරාක්රම සමුද්රයේ රළපනාව ඩෝසර් කොට ඇවිදින මංතීරු සෑදීමට ගත් තීරණය දැක්විය හැකිය. මේ සදහා අවශ්ය නිර්දේශ ලබාගෙන තිබේ ද? එම නිර්දේශ ලබාදුන්නේ කවුරුන් විසින් ද? ඔවුන්ට යම් බලපෑම් සිදු වූයේ ද? වැනි ගැටලු රැසක් රට හමුවේ පවතී.
මෙම ගැටලු වඩාත් සංකීර්ණ වන්නේ, 2010 – 2011 සමයේ ඔලුවිල් වරාය ඉදිකිරීමට බව පවසමින්, අම්පාර දිස්ත්රික්කයේ උහන ප්රදේශයේ, රජගල සහ පියංගල පුරාවිද්යා භූමිවලට ආසන්නව මහා පරිමාණ කළුගල් වැඩපොලක් ආරම්භ කළ අතර එය අතරමග නවතා දමන ලද්දේ මාස කීපයක් ගල් කැඩීමෙන් පසුව ය. ප්රදේශවාසීන්ට අනුව එම ස්ථානයේ සද්ධාතිස්ස රජුගේ වස්තුව නිදන් කොට තිබිණි. තිස්ස වැව සහ පරාක්රම සමුද්රය පිළිබඳව ද ඊට සමාන ජනප්රවාද පවතී. ඉතා අහඹු සිදුවීමක් වන්නේ ඔලුවිල් වරාය සෑදීමට කටයුතු කළ එවකට වරාය කටයුතු භාර බලධාරියා යටතේ මේ වනවිට වැව් පැවතීම යි.
කෙසේ වුව ද පරාක්රම සමුද්රය වැනි අතිශය සංවේදී ස්ථානයක සිදුකෙරෙන ඉදිකිරීමකට අදාළ නිර්දේශ ලබා දීමේදී, ඊට සම්බන්ධ නිලධාරින් තම වෘත්තිය වගකීම් නිසි ලෙස ඉටු කළේ ද යන්න ගැටලු සහගත ය. පුරාවිද්යා බලධාරීන් ද ‘අපට අයිති නෑ’ ප්රතිපත්තිය ම තවදුරටත් අනුගමනය කරනවා ද යන්න යන්න ගැඹුරින් විමසා බැලිය යුතු ය.
දේවානි ජයතිලක වැනි කශේරුකා සහිත නිලධාරින්ගේ අගය වැඩි වැඩියෙන් රටට දැනෙන්නේ මෙබඳු අවස්ථාවලදී ය.
අහසින් වැටෙන වැසි ජලය ලෝකෝපකාරයෙන් තොරව මුහුදට ගලා යාම සිදු නොවිය යුතු බව තම තේමා පාඨය කරගත් මහා පරාක්රමබාහු රජුගේ ‘වාපි රාජයා’ වනසා ‘කාගෙන් හෝ ලැබෙන එක් ඩොලරයක් වත් අත නොහරිමු’ මානසිකත්වයෙන් පෙළෙන පාලකයන් හෙට දවසේ දළදා මාළිගාව වුව ද විකුණා නොදමති’ යි කාට නම් කිව හැකි ද?
By Harini Amarasuriya The hashtag #MeToo started trending in 2017 when American actress Alyssa Milano tweeted a request asking women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted, to write Me Too as their status. This was at the time when sexual abuse allegations against Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein were beginning to gather steam. Milano’s […]
By Harini Amarasuriya
The hashtag #MeToo started trending in 2017 when American actress Alyssa Milano tweeted a request asking women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted, to write Me Too as their status. This was at the time when sexual abuse allegations against Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein were beginning to gather steam.
Milano’s tweet generated a huge response and #MeToo became a global phenomenon with women from various parts of the world using the hashtag to talk about sexual harassment that they had faced. The phrase ‘Me Too’ was originally created by American activist Tarana Burke, who works with survivors of sexual violence. The Me Too movement not only led to the exposure of many instances and perpetrators of sexual harassment throughout the world, but has also generated a broader conversation about sexual harassment and sexual violence.
Predictably, there has been a backlash against the Me Too movement, mostly concerning the possibility of false accusations. However, almost four years into the movement, it is clear that the space that the Me Too movement has created for women to speak out against sexual harassment has led to a much needed conversation about men’s behaviour towards women – especially that of men in positions of power.
Globally, well known men in the entertainment industry, media, academia and politics have been exposed by women. In Sri Lanka, there has been an interest in the movement and although not widespread, similar conversations and initiatives have been taking place especially on social media platforms. The backlash against the Me Too movement has also revealed how easily society reverts to ‘blaming the woman’ trope when men’s power is challenged.
We know how common it is to hold women responsible for ‘putting themselves in danger’ whether it is the clothes we wear, the alcohol that we consume, or daring to believe that we have a right to expect not to be leered at or worse in public spaces or not to be taken advantage of in our intimate encounters.
The Me Too movement also provoked a host of reactions about shrill and selfrighteous women who don’t understand or appreciate ‘fun’ or have Victorian ideas about sex and sexual relationships. Even more than the lack of systems in place to protect women or procedures to deal with allegations of harassment and violence, the greatest challenge to opening up about experiences of sexual harassment and violence are the reactions women have to deal with when they choose to speak out.
Socialised as we are to always seek the approval of others and not to make ‘scenes’ many of us tend to swallow the indignity, pain and trauma of sexual harassment and carry on. It is this barrier that the Me Too movement really broke through by encouraging thousands of women to speak out, letting them know that they will be heard and that they will be supported. The significance of that support and space cannot be underestimated.
While it is extremely important to support women who want to speak out about their experiences, it is important to recognise that there are as many who do not speak out – often for very good reasons of their own. It is not simply lack of access to social media or support that prevents women (and men) from speaking out about sexual harassment. Much of the silence is around the harassment and violence that takes place within intimate circles: within families, close friends and colleagues.
How do you call out someone for inappropriate behaviour when you have every day, close and personal interactions with that person at many different levels? How do you deal with someone like that even if you have not been personally or directly affected? For instance, what do you do when you hear about a colleague who regularly sends inappropriate texts/images to women but who has always treated you with respect? What do you do when male colleagues whose work you respect, constantly crack sexist jokes around women? Or worse, behaves abusively towards other women? What do you do about a dearly loved relative who makes you uncomfortable with his overly affectionate behaviour, especially when you are the only one who seems to notice or care? The point is that much of what makes us feel uncomfortable, scared or violated, raises certain fundamental questions about how we interact with each other and what we understand by things such as respect and consent. And drawing strict lines about what is ok and what is not ok in our interactions with each other is extremely difficult.
How many times have we been in situations where we go along with jokes or conversations full of sexual innuendoes, even when we know it makes us uncomfortable because we don’t want to be spoilsports? What constitutes sexual harassment is on a spectrum and each one of us may have our own threshold of comfort/discomfort.
Yet, what constitutes our threshold is contingent on so many factors – not least the relations of power and sense of agency that shape our interactions with each other. For instance, the allowances granted to charismatic and intelligent men are much more than what is granted to men who are more direct (or cruder) in their behaviour. Social context also shapes behaviour.
I still remember what a very dear, male friend told me when we were discussing the issue of sexual harassment: “Never try to check the intentions or feelings of a man – only how he acts on those intentions and feelings”. The same friend told me how the men who leer at you in dark corners at the Majestic City or on a lonely street will behave quite differently if you bump into him at say, One Colombo.
This also brings me to a much more difficult point: if what is determined as sexual harassment is on a spectrum, so are the perpetrators. No human being is one dimensional or defined in totality by a single characteristic or act. Human beings are endlessly complicated and human interactions even more so. As much as the Me Too movement created a space for women (and also men) to speak out about sexual harassment, there will also be others who are still hesitant to speak out.
We may choose to continue to interact with people whose actions and behaviours have made us uncomfortable or whose actions and behaviours we condemn. Sometimes, we may not have the luxury or opportunity to avoid such people. In such situations, we choose other strategies to manage those interactions as safely as possible. As much as we celebrate those who speak out, it is important that we hear and support those who do not.
My worry about the power of movements such as Me Too is that they sometimes present us with a set of certainties and fixed choices in situations filled with uncertainty and the possibility of a multiplicity of responses. Or rather, that sometimes, the certainty and choices before us are overemphasised especially when the discussions are confined to or conducted primarily on social media platforms.
At the heart of all of this is the quality and the humanity of our interactions with each other – whether in public or intimate spaces. Just as much as we interrogate the individuals complicit in abusive and predatory behaviour, we also need to interrogate the conditions that enable such behaviour, conditions that give rise to de-humanising behaviour. This includes our education system and mainstream ideologies that justify exploitative and abusive relationships in subtle and not so subtle ways. It is also not enough to expect victims to seek legal interventions – very often these incidents cannot be presented to or resolved satisfactorily within a legal framework.
Even when they are pursued legally and concluded successfully from the point of view of the victim, they rarely deliver justice in the broader sense. Ultimately, it is the quality of our forms of sociality and human engagement that we need to focus on – while acknowledging its full range of complexities and nuances. Acknowledging complexity and nuance should not provide loopholes or excuses for unacceptable behaviour, but simply appreciating the spectrum of human experiences, feelings and emotions. In the meantime, let us keep supporting each other to talk and to be heard, in whatever manner each of us chooses to be heard.
https://ceylontoday.lk/news/some-reflections-on-the-metoo-movement-1
It is becoming increasingly evident that this government, which has failed in every sphere of governance, is also incapable of tolerating even the mildest criticism or dissent. We have observed that the police force is being used not for the protection of people, but rather as an instrument for harassing and intimidating government critics. In […]
It is becoming increasingly evident that this government, which has failed in every sphere of governance, is also incapable of tolerating even the mildest criticism or dissent. We have observed that the police force is being used not for the protection of people, but rather as an instrument for harassing and intimidating government critics. In recent times, students, teachers, academics and activists who have been engaged in a range of protests have been detained and/or being sought for questioning by the police. Trade union leaders have been harassed. Media including social media commentators, even health professionals who have been sharing their COVID experiences publicly are being questioned by the police. Civil society activists who express their views are being investigated, the latest being Shehan Malaka Gamage, who spoke out on the Easter Attacks to the media.
We would like to remind the government that the freedom of expression is a constitutionally guaranteed right. We appreciate the actions of several Magistrates recently, who have unequivocally reminded the police of this in recent incidents when people were presented to court by the police. However, it is clear that the police are being ordered by the political authority to act in this manner. We noticed several instances where police officers were embarrassed in court because they had to follow politically motivated directives. We also know that the government will not step up to defend police officers who have been forced to carry out these instructions.
These are cowardly tactics employed by insecure leaders who are clearly out of their depth in doing what they are supposed to do: govern the country. When the country and its people are in the midst of a battle against a global epidemic, unsure of their own lives or those of their loved ones, this government is seemingly more concerned with shutting down its critics. Unable to provide solutions for any of the legitimate issues faced by the people of this country, harassing critics seems to be the only response the government can conjure up at this time. The NPP calls upon the government to focus on what is important for the people at this moment in time – namely managing the COVID epidemic effectively and prioritising the health and wellbeing of our people. We vehemently condemn these efforts at intimidation and the use of the police for political ends. We call upon all the people to stand strong together against these anti-democratic government tactics. As the NPP we will continue to stand by the right of people to dissent and express their opinions and we will take whatever necessary actions to protect these democratic rights.
நிபுணத்துவ மருத்துவர், பேராசிரியர் கிறிஷாந்த அபேசேன உயிர்த்தஞாயிறு தாக்குதலுக்கு இன்றளவில் 28 மாதங்கள் கழிந்துள்ளன. சனாதிபதி ஆணைக்குழுவின் அறிக்கை கையளிக்கப்பட்டு ஆறு மாதங்களுக்கு மேலாகி விட்டது. இந்த தாக்குதலில் ஏறக்குறைய 270 பேர் உயிரிழந்ததோடு அதைவிட அதிகமான எண்ணிக்கையுடையோர் இறந்துகொண்டே வாழ்கிறார்கள். கைகால்களை இழந்தவர்கள், மூளைக்கு சேதமேற்பட்டவர்கள் பெருந்தொகையினராக இவ்விதமாக உள்ளதோடு அவர்களின் குடும்பங்கள் இதன் காரணமாக பாரிய அனர்த்தத்திற்கு இலக்காகி உள்ளன. இது கிறிஸ்தவ மக்களுக்கு எதிராக மாத்திரம் மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்ட தாக்குதல் என நாங்கள் நினைக்கவில்லை. […]
உயிர்த்தஞாயிறு தாக்குதலுக்கு இன்றளவில் 28 மாதங்கள் கழிந்துள்ளன. சனாதிபதி ஆணைக்குழுவின் அறிக்கை கையளிக்கப்பட்டு ஆறு மாதங்களுக்கு மேலாகி விட்டது. இந்த தாக்குதலில் ஏறக்குறைய 270 பேர் உயிரிழந்ததோடு அதைவிட அதிகமான எண்ணிக்கையுடையோர் இறந்துகொண்டே வாழ்கிறார்கள். கைகால்களை இழந்தவர்கள், மூளைக்கு சேதமேற்பட்டவர்கள் பெருந்தொகையினராக இவ்விதமாக உள்ளதோடு அவர்களின் குடும்பங்கள் இதன் காரணமாக பாரிய அனர்த்தத்திற்கு இலக்காகி உள்ளன. இது கிறிஸ்தவ மக்களுக்கு எதிராக மாத்திரம் மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்ட தாக்குதல் என நாங்கள் நினைக்கவில்லை. தமது சமயமே மிகச்சிறந்த சமயம், தமது இனமே தலைசிறந்த இனம் எனக் கூறுகின்ற எவரேனும் இருப்பாராயின் அவர்கள்தான் தீவிரவாதிகள். இதனூடாக பயங்கரவாதத்திற்குச் செல்வார்களாயின் இந்த சூழமைவின்கீழ் அந்த நிலைமையை மாத்திரம் கருத்திற்கொள்வதில்லை. தீவிரவாதம் அல்லது பயங்கரவாதத்திற்கான காரணங்களைக் கண்டறிந்து முழுமையான கருத்தொன்றினை பெற்றுக்கொள்ள வேண்டும். அழுத்தத்திற்கு அல்லது தீவிரவாதத்திற்கு மாத்திரம் சுருக்க நான் விரும்பவில்லை. இங்கு இருப்பது தீவிரவாதம் அலலது பயங்கரவாதம் பற்றிய பிரச்சினையொன்று, முஸ்லிம் மக்களுக்கு மாத்திரம் ஏற்பட்ட பிரச்சினையொன்று போல சுருக்க இயலாது. பௌத்த, இந்து மற்றும் ஏனைய மதத்தவர்களைப்போலவே முஸ்லிம் மக்களுக்கும் இந்த பிரச்சினை உருவாக்கக்கூடும். ஆனால் இங்கு இனவாத அல்லது மதவாதப் பிரச்சினையைப் பார்க்கிலும் வேறோன்று இருக்கின்றது.
சனாதிபதி ஆணைக்குழு அறிக்கையின் பிரதான விடயங்களைப் பார்த்தால் இது சம்பந்தமான தகவல்கள் இருக்கின்றன. ஏன் இந்த தாக்குதலைத் தடுத்துநிறுத்த நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்படவில்லை? அரசாங்க உத்தியோகத்தர்களை தவறாளிகளாக்கி இந்த அறிக்கை சமர்ப்பிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. சட்டத்துறை தலைமை அதிபதி திணைக்களத்தின் உத்தியோகத்தர்கள், பொலீஸின் உத்தியோகத்தர்கள் பொறுப்புக்கூற வேண்டுமென குறிப்பிடப்படுகின்றது. இந்த பொறுப்புக்கூற வேண்டியவர்கள் பற்றி இற்றைவரை நடவடிக்கை மேற்கொள்ளாதது மாத்திரமல்ல, குற்றச்சாட்டுகளுக்கு இலக்காகியுள்ளவர்களுக்கு இந்த அரசாங்கம் பதவியுயர்வுகளைக்கூட வழங்கியுள்ளது. இதனைத் தடுக்காமை சம்பந்தமாக முன்னாள் சனாதிபதியும் பிரதம அமைச்சரும் மாத்திரமன்றி அந்த அரசாங்கத்தில் இருந்த அனைத்து அமைச்சர்களும் தாக்குதல் பற்றி அறிந்திருந்தார்கள். அதனால் கடந்த அரசாங்கத்துடன் சம்பந்தப்பட்ட அனைவரும் உயிர்த்தஞாயிறு தாக்குதலுக்கும் பொறுப்புக்கூற வேண்டியவர்களாவர். இந்த நாட்டில் நிலவுகின்ற டீல் அரசியல் ஊடாக ஒருசில முஸ்லீம் குழுக்களுடன் அதிகாரத்தைப் பெற்றுக்கொள்வதற்காகவும் அதிகாரத்தை தக்கவைத்துக் கொள்வதற்காகவும் இந்த டீல் அரசியல் பிரயோகிக்கப்படுகின்றது. டீல் அரசியல் காரணமாக இதன் மறைவில் இயங்கிய குழுக்கள் பற்றிய முறையான விசாரணைகளை இந்த அரசாங்கம் மேற்கொள்ளவில்லை.
இந்த திட்டத்தை தீட்டியவர்கள் முஸ்லிம் தீவிரவாத குழுக்களென ஒருசிலர் கூறுகிறார்கள். மேலும் சிலர் தெற்கின் அரசியல் குழுக்களில் இருக்கிறார்கள் எனவும் கூறப்படுகின்றது. அது முக்கியமானது. சாரா ஜெஸ்மின் பற்றி எங்களுக்குத் தெரியும். ஒருசிலர் அவர் தப்பியோடியதாகவும் மேலும் சிலர் அவரைக் கொன்றுவிட்டதாகவும் கூறுகிறார்கள். தெஹிவலையில் இறந்த ஜமீலை சந்திக்க இராணுவ உளவுப் பிரிவின் தூதர் ஒருவரை அனுப்பிவைத்ததாகவும் கூறுகிறார்கள். நல்லாட்சி அரசாங்கத்தின் வினைத்திறமையீனம் காரணமாக மக்களுக்கு ஏதேனும் அழுத்தம் ஏற்பட்டது. அந்த அழுத்தத்தின் பேரில் இனவாதம், தீவிரவாதம் மற்றும் பயங்கரவாதத்தை பரவச்செய்வித்த தெற்கின் அரசியலை நெறிப்படுத்துபவர்கள் இதன் சூத்திரதாரிகள் எனும் சந்தேகம் எமக்கு நிலவுகின்றது. நிகழ்கால அரசாங்கம் உயிர்த்த ஞாயிறு தாக்குதலைப் பயன்படுத்தியே ஆட்சிக்கு வந்தது. இது சம்பந்தமாக முறையான விசாரணையை மேற்கொண்டு அனைத்தையும் மக்களுக்கு அம்பலப்படுத்துவதாக தேர்தலுக்கு முன்னர் அவர்கள் கூறினாலும் தற்போது கடைப்பிடிப்பது உப்புச்சப்பற்ற ஒரு கொள்கையைாயகும். விசாரணைகளை இடைநடுவில் நிறுத்திவிட்டார்கள். அதனால் தெற்கில் அரசியல் அதிகாரத்தைப் பெற்றுக்கொள்வதற்காக இது மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்டதா என்ற வலுவான சந்தேகம் எம்மிடம் நிலவுகின்றது. கத்தோலிக்கர் மாத்திரமன்றி இந்த நாட்டில் வசிக்கின்ற நீதியை நேர்மையை மதிக்கின்ற அனைத்து மக்களுக்கும் உண்மையை அறிந்துகொள்வதற்கான உரிமை இருக்கின்றது. ஒவ்வொரு மாதத்திலும் 21 ஆந் திகதி எதிர்ப்பினை வெளிக்காட்டுமாறு கர்தினால் ஆண்டகை வேண்டுகோள் விடுத்துள்ளார். நாங்கள் அந்த கோரிக்கைக்கு இணக்கம் தெரிவிக்கிறோம்.
28 மாதங்கள் கழிந்துள்ள குண்டுத் தாக்குதலால் இன்னமும் கவலையுடனும் அழுத்தத்துடனும் சீவிக்கின்ற அனைவருக்கும் இறந்த அனைவருக்கும் காயமுற்ற அனைவருக்கும் எமது ஆழ்ந்த அனுதாபத்தை தெரிவித்துக் கொள்கிறோம். அதைப்போலவே ஏதேனும் மோதல்கள் காரணமாக இறந்த இராணுவத்தையும் பொலிஸாரையும் சேர்ந்த அனைவருக்கும் எமது அனுதாபத்தை தெரிவித்துக் கொள்கிறோம்.
இந்த நாட்டில் குண்டுத்தாக்குதல்கள் பற்றி உங்களுக்கும் எனக்கும் பாரிய அனுபவங்கள் இருக்கின்றன. அது சம்பந்தமாக பலவருடங்களின் தகவல்கள் எம்மிடம் இருக்கின்றன. இவை மத்தியில் குண்டுகளை வெடிக்கவைத்தல் மற்றும் குண்டுத் தாக்குதல் நடாத்துதல் என இருவகைகள் இருக்கின்றன. ஆனால் இந்த இரண்டுவகையான குண்டுத் தாக்குதல்களையும்விட நினைத்துப்பார்க்க முடியாத வித்தியாசம் உயிர்த்தஞாயிறு தாக்குதலில் உள்ளது. எல்.ரீ.ரீ.ஈ. அமைப்பினால் குண்டுத்தாக்குதல் நடாத்தப்பட்ட பின்னர் அவர்கள் அந்த பொறுப்பினை எற்றுக்கொண்டார்கள். குண்டு வெடிக்கச் செய்விப்பதற்கு முன்னர் பெறப்பட்ட புகைப்படங்கள் பிரசுரிக்கப்பட்டிருந்த விதத்தை நாங்கள் கண்டோம். இந்த குண்டுத் தாக்குதல்களுக்கு ஏதோஒரு காரணம் இருக்கின்றது. ஆனால் உயிர்த்த ஞாயிறு குண்டுத் தாக்குதலுக்கான காரணத்தைக் கூறுமுடியாதுள்ளது. இது சம்பந்தமாக பாரிய குழப்பநிலையே இருக்கின்றது. அதனால் புலனாய்வுச் செயற்பாடுகள் மேலும் விரிவானதாக மேற்கொள்ளப்படல் வேண்டும். ஆனால் அன்று இருந்த அரசாங்கமும் தாக்குதலால் அநுகூலத்தைப்பெற்ற நிகழ்கால அரசாங்கமும் கடைப்பிடிக்கின்ற செயற்பாங்குகள் எமக்குத் தெளிவாகவில்லை. இற்றைவரை வழங்கப்பட்ட அறிக்கைகளை கத்தோலிக்கத் திருச்சபை நிராகரிக்கின்றது. உள்ளடக்கப்படவேண்டிய ஒருசில தகவல்கள் கிடையாதெனக் கூறுகிறார்கள். இதனால் பாரிய சந்தேகம் நிலவுகின்றது. சந்தேகத்தைப் போக்கவேண்டிய பொறுப்பு அரசாங்கத்திடம் இருக்கின்றது. இந்த பொறுப்பினை முறைப்படி ஈடேறறாமைக்கான காரணம் என்னவென தேசிய மக்கள் சகதி என்றவகையில் நாங்கள் கேட்கிறோம்.
இத்தருணமாகும் வேளையில் குண்டுத் தாக்குதலால் கொல்லப்பட்டவர்களின் குடும்பங்களில் வசிப்பவர்களுக்கு பாரிய சந்தேகமொன்று எழுந்துள்ளது. இதன் மறைவில் இருப்பவர்கள் யார் என்பதுதான் அது. உயிர்த்த ஞாயிறு ஆணைக்குழு அறிக்கை காரணமாக தாம் பாதிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதாக பொலிஸ் உத்தியோகத்தர்கள் கூறியிருந்தார்கள். கீழ்மட்டத்தில் உள்ளவர்கள்மீது பொறுப்பினை சுமத்துவதைப் பார்க்கிலும் உயர் மட்டத்தில் இருப்பவர்களை இனங்காண வேண்டியது முக்கியமானதாகும். யாரோ ஒருவரின் கட்டளையை ஏற்றுநடக்க எந்தவொரு பங்கரவாதக் குழுவினாலும் முடியும். ஆனால் அவர்களை நெறிப்படுத்தியவர் யாரென்பதுதான் பிரச்சினை. மக்களுக்காக இந்நாட்டின் ஆட்சியாளர்களிடம் நான் கேட்கிறேன். எமது உளவுப் பிரிவுகளால் கண்டுபிடிக்க இயலாத இந்த குழுவினர் யார்? உயிர்த்த ஞாயிறு தாக்குதல்தாரிகளை கண்டுபிடிக்க முடியாத உளவுப் பிரிவா எமது நாட்டில் இருக்கின்றது? இங்கு மறைக்கப்படுகின்ற பல தகவல்கள் இருக்கின்றன. இதனால் மக்கள் மத்தியில் சந்தேகம் வளர்ந்து வருகின்றது. சந்தேகத்தைப் போக்கவேண்டிய பொறுப்பு அரசாங்கத்திடமே உள்ளது. அந்த பொறுப்பினை வகிக்காததால் ஒவ்வொரு மாதத்தினதும் 21 ஆந் திகதி நடாத்தப்படுகின்ற எதிர்ப்பு ஆர்ப்பாட்டங்களுக்கு நாங்கள் ஒத்துழைப்பு வழங்குவோம். அது அரசாங்கத்திற்கு எதிர்ப்பு தெரிவிப்பதைப் பார்க்கிலும் மக்களின் உரிமைக்காக செயலாற்றுவதாக அமையும். சந்தேகம் நிலவுகின்ற இடங்களுக்கு அரசாங்கத்தின் கவனத்தைச் செலுத்தி அசல் குற்றஞ்சாட்டப்பட்டவர்களை சட்டத்தின்முன் கொண்டுவருமாறு இந்த நாட்டின் ஒட்டுமொத்த மக்கள் சார்பிலும் நாங்கள் வற்புறுத்துகிறோம்.
உயிர்த்தஞாயிறு தாக்குதலுக்கு 28 மாதங்கள் நிறைவடைகையில் இந்த மிகநீண்ட காலத்திற்குள் சம்பந்தப்பட்ட பொறுப்புக்கூற வேண்டியவர்களை இனங்காணாமை பாரியதொரு பிரச்சினையாகும். இந்த தாக்குதல் காரணமாக மக்கள் பேரதிர்ச்சி அடைந்திருந்தவேளையில் திருவாளர் கோட்டாபய ராஜபக்ஷவை உள்ளிட்ட அமைப்புக்கள் அதிகாரத்திற்கு வருவதற்காகவும் பாவித்தன. சனாதிபதி தேர்தலுக்காக திருவாளர் கோட்டாபய ராஜபக்ஷ போட்டியிடப் போவதாக இந்த அதிர்ச்சி நிலவுகையிலேயே கூறினார். அது சப்பந்தமான விசாரணைகளை மேற்கொள்வதாக வாக்குறுதியளித்து இந்த தாக்குதலால் அச்சமடைந்திருந்த மக்களின் வாக்குகளைப் பெற்றார். அதனால் இந்த அரசாங்கத்திற்கு தாக்குலால் இறந்த, வேதனைக்கு உள்ளாகிய, காயமுற்ற அனைவருக்கும் நீதியை நிலைநாட்டுவதற்கான பொறுப்பு இருக்கின்றது. ஆனால் தற்போது படிப்படியாக காலப்போக்கில் வரலாற்றின் மணல்மேட்டில் புதையுண்டுசெல்ல இடமளித்துள்ளார்கள். திருவாளர் மைத்திரிபால சிறிசேன நியமித்த ஆணைக்குழு பலவீனமானதாயின் புதிய ஒன்றை நியமித்து கோட்டாபய ராஜபக்ஷ தகவல்களைத் திரட்டியிருக்கலாம். ஆனால் அது அவ்வாறு இடம்பெறவில்லை.
தாக்குதல் இடம்பெற்றவேளையில் இருந்த சனாதிபதி தற்போது இந்த அரசாங்கத்திற்குள்ளேயே இருக்கிறார். அவர்கள் பொறுப்பினை தவறவிட்டமையால் தாக்குதல் இடம்பெற்றதாக கோட்டாபய ராஜபக்ஷவை உள்ளிட்ட குழுக்கள் கூறின. அதனால் அவர்களை தோற்கடித்து தம்மை அதிகாரத்திற்கு கொண்டுவந்து பொறுப்புக்கூற வேண்டியவர்களுக்கு தண்டனை வழங்க வாய்ப்பளிக்குமாறு கேட்டுக்கொண்டார். ஆனால் இப்போது பொறுப்புக்கூற வேண்டுமென அவர்களே கூறிய பிரதானியை தம்மிடமே வைத்துக்கொண்டு உண்மையான பொறுப்பாளிகளை பாதுகாக்கிறார்களா எனும் சந்தேகம் மக்களிடம் எடுந்துள்ளது. யார் சதிகாரர்கள் என எங்களிடம் கேட்கவேண்டாம். அரசாங்கத்திடம் உள்ள உளவுப் பிரிவுகளை ஈடுபடுத்தி அதனைக் கண்டுபிடிப்பதற்கான பொறுப்பு அவர்களுக்கு உண்டு. ஆனால் உப்புச்சப்பற்ற கொள்கை காரணமாக இந்த சந்தேகம் மேலும் வலுப்பெறுகின்றது. அதிகாரத்தில் இருக்கின்ற அரசாங்கத்தின் செயலென்றால் இவ்விதமாக செயலாற்றுமென சாதாரண பொதுமக்கள் அறிவார்கள். ஊடகவியலாளர் திரு. லசந்த விக்கிரமதுங்கவை படுகொலை செய்தமை போன்ற பல உதாரணங்கள் இருக்கின்றன. உயிர்த்தஞாயிறு தாக்குதலும் இந்த குவியலில் வீழ்ந்துள்ளது. விசாரணைகளின் பெறுபேறுகளை சரிவர நாட்டுக்கு வெளிப்படுத்தாமையால் சந்தேகத்தின் கரங்கள் அரசாங்கத்தின் பக்கம் நீட்டப்படுவதை தடுக்கமுடியாது.
முன்னர் நிலவிய அரசாங்கம் தாக்குதலை தடுக்கமுடியாமல் போனமைக்கான பொறுப்பினை ஏற்கவேண்டும். அதைப்போலவே தாக்குதல் தொடர்பாக முறையான விசாரணைகளை மேற்கொள்ளாமை பற்றிய பொறுப்பினை இந்த அரசாங்கம் எற்றுக்கொள்ள வேண்டும். இது ஒரு விளையாட்டல்ல. ஏறக்குறைய 300 மனித உயிர்களை இழந்தமை, உளரீதியான பீதிநிலை உருவாகியமை போன்றே நிகழ்கால அரசாங்கம் இந்த சம்பவத்தை அரசியலுக்காக பயன்படுத்துகின்றமையும் மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்டுள்ளது. அரசாங்கத்தைச் சுற்றியுள்ள தீவிரவாதக் குழுக்களை அந்நாட்களில் ஈடுபடுத்தினார்கள். இதனால்தான் வேட்டையாடியதை தோளில் சுமந்து போகின்றவரைக் கண்டால் துப்பாக்கியைக் கட்டியவரை இனங்காண முடியுமென்ற கதை உருவாகியது. தற்போது நடைபெறுவது அரசாங்கம் மென்மேலும் இந்த சந்தேகத்தை உறுதிசெய்வதாகும். அரசாங்கத்தினால் இந்த பிரச்சினையில் இருந்து கைநழுவிச்செல்ல முடியாது. கர்தினால் அவர்கள் சனாதிபதிக்கு அனுப்பிவைத்துள்ள கடிதத்திற்கு கிடைத்த பதிலைக்கூட ஏற்றுக்கொள்ள இயலாதெனக் கூறியுள்ளார். அரசாங்கத்திற்கு எதிராக சந்தேகம் தோன்றுவது ஒரு நாடு என்றவகையில் பாரதூரமான கவலைக்குரிய நிலைமையாகும். எமது நாட்டில் ஒவ்வோர் அரசாங்கமும் அதிகாரத்திற்காக மனித உயிர்களுடன் விளையாடினவென்பதை நாங்கள் அறிவோம். முதலாளித்துவ ஆட்சியாளர்களுக்கு அதிகாரத்தின் மத்தியில் மனித உயிர்கள் தொடர்பில் எந்தவிதமான பெறுமதியும் கிடையாதென்பது எங்களுக்குத் தெரியும். எந்தளவு எண்ணிக்கையிலான மனிதர்களையும் கொன்று அதிகாரத்தைப் பற்றிக்கொண்டாலும் கைப்பற்றிய அதிகாரத்தை பாதுகாத்துக்கொள்ளவும் அவ்வண்ணமே செயலாற்றி வருவதும் எமக்குத் தெரியும். கொவிட் பெருந்தொற்று நிலைமையைக்கூட பொருட்படுத்தாமல் அவர்கள் மனித உயிர்கள் பெறுமதியற்றவை என்பதாலேயே மாயாஜால உலகில் வசிக்கிறார்கள். முதலாளித்துவ ஆட்சியாளர்களுக்கு அதிகாரத்தின் அளவுக்கு மனித உயிர்கள் பெறுமதியானவையல்ல. அதிகாரத்திற்காகவும் சிறப்புரிமைகளுக்காகவும் அவர்கள் எந்தவொரு சதியையும் செய்வார்களென்பதை வரலாறு நிரூபித்துள்ளது.
இந்த சந்தேகம் ஏற்படுவதை அரசாங்கம் விரும்பாவிட்டால் உண்மையிலேயே பொறுப்புவாய்ந்தவரை காரணங்கள் சகிதம் முன்வைத்து அவர்களுக்கெதிராக சட்ட நடவடிக்கைகளை மேற்கொள்வதையே செய்யவேண்டும். ஆனால் தற்போது இடபெற்றுள்ளதோ காலத்தை வீணடிப்பது மாத்திரமே. வழக்குத் தாக்கல் செய்யுமளவுக்கு பேதியளவிலான சான்றுகள் முன்வைக்கப்படவில்லையென சட்டத்துறை தலைமை அதிபதி அண்மையில் குறிப்பிட்டிருந்தார். இறுதியில் நேரக்கூடியது படுகொலைகள் இடம்பெற்றாலும் கொலையாளி இல்லாதிருப்பதாகும். எனவே இதிலிருந்து பாடங்களை கற்றுக்கொள்ளுமாறு நாங்கள் மக்களுக்கு கூறுகிறோம். தமது அதிகாரத்திற்காக நாளைகூட இவ்வாறான செயல்களைப் புரியக்கூடும். அதனைத் தோற்கடிக்க வேண்டும். இந்நாட்டு மக்களாலேயே அதனைத் தோற்கடிக்க முடியும். அதன்பொருட்டு மக்கள் மத்தியில் தேசிய ஒற்றுமையும் மதம்சார்ந்த ஒற்றுமையும் நிலவவேண்டும். அதைப்போலவே ஆட்சியாளர்களின் சூழ்ச்சிகளை அடையாளம் காண்பதற்கான ஆற்றலை மக்கள் கொண்டிருக்கவேண்டும். மக்களை ஏமாற்றி, இன்னல்களுக்கு இலக்காக்கி, மக்களின் இரத்தத்தின்மீதும் உயிர்களின்மீதும் அதிகாரத்திற்கு வந்து அதிகாரத்தை தக்கவைத்துக்கொள்வதற்காக மேற்கொள்கின்ற முயற்சிகளை நாங்கள் விளங்கிக்கொள்வோம். இறந்தவர்கள் இந்நாட்டின் பிரசைகளே. பெருந்தொகையான இலங்கைப் பிரசைகளை படுகொலை செய்தமை தொடர்பாக அரசாங்கம் மௌனம் சாதிக்குமானால் அது மிகவும் பாரதூரமானது. அதற்காக எந்தவிதமான மன்னிப்பையும் வழங்க இயலாது. அதனால் வெகுவிரைவில் முறையான விசாரணையை மேற்கொண்டு பொறுப்புவாய்ந்தவர்களை அம்பலப்படுத்தாவிட்டால் அரசாங்கம் இதற்கான பொறுப்பினை ஏற்றுக்கொள்ள தயாராக வேண்டுமென்று நாங்கள் அரசாங்கத்தை வலியுறுத்துகிறோம். இது சம்பந்தமாக அரசாங்கத்திற்கு அழுத்தம்கொடுக்க தற்போது திட்டமிடப்பட்டுள்ள நடவடிக்கைகளுக்கு தேசிய மக்கள் சக்தி பூரணமான ஒத்துழைப்பினை வழங்கும்.
