Articles

by Anuradhi Jayasinghe Aloe vera is a perennial species, cultivated industrially for its medicinal value. Aura Lanka herbal (Pvt) Ltd has also initiated Sri Lanka’s largest aloe vera cultivation in the Anuradhapura district with the mindset of enhancing the community and natural wellbeing of the area. Since the commencement of the project, it has created debates across the country especially since the project has failed to present valid,  comprehensive environmental approvals. As per the already-obtained Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the permitted land plots were only occupied for domestic cultivation with no forest intact, but the objective of land clearing was not only for Aloe vera. According to Aura Lanka Herbals (Pvt) Ltd, this initial clearing is a US$ 370 million investment, and hidden activities blanketed in the EIA report are building water tanks and irrigation systems, an international stadium, and a modern town plan. The approved EIA only consisted of the Aloe vera production. This is a clear violation of the National Environmental Act. Thus, it is conclusive that this project has no EIA approval. It is highly unlikely that the EIA process has covered all required steps since the assessment process seems to have ignored areas of the project. Most of the lands for this project have been obtained by farmers through permits which were issued through the Land Development Ordinance section 19 (2) and these lands come under the purview of the Divisional Secretary (DS), where they ca only utilise the land under special conditions. For instance, apart from constructing a house and a toilet, permit-holders cannot construct any additional facility on these lands. Farmers who wish to register for this project must obtain permission from the DS office. The granted permissions are also conditional as they were not to cut down any trees of commercial value without the prior approval of the DS not to damage public property not to transport any minerals out of the land not to change the topography of the land According to the project agreement, the nurturing of the plants is to be done by the farmers under the financial support from Aura Lanka herbals. However any issue relevant to the lands must be solved by the farmers at their own expense. This means it is the farmer who will be accused of violating the Flora and Fauna Protection Ordinance (FFPO), not the company. Farmers in Yaya 18 in Anuradhapura cultivate only one harvesting season due to a lack of water to support cultivations. Believing in unforeseen benefits, so far nearly 80 farmers have signed the agreement to give their lands to the project and the agreements are valid for 10 years. As the first phase of the company prepares the land for the farmers for the first phase of the project, 10% of the profits obtained by the farmers must be given to the company. Apart from adhering to the conditions by the DS office in cultivating aloe vera, they must comply with company conditions. Accordingly, farmers are not allowed to plant any crop other than aloe vera in his/her land. Seeing the benefits that families received by giving their lands to the project, the rest of the households are now planning to give their lands to the project. People cannot grow other crops for a living or at least for domestic consumption, they would be allowed to benefit from the said project. Some of the facilities given by Aura Lanka herbals to this area the installation of solar panels, road constructions, constructing the houses for farmers and distributing nutritional packages worth Rs.5000 per month. Providing such facilities seems to have created an environment that encourages household to voluntarily give their lands to the project and thereby the company does not have to deal with community outcry. These farmers who are already combating poverty, climatic calamities and human elephant conflicts embrace those said facilities or benefits by the Aura Lanka herbals warmly and work on any action set out by the company. For instance, farmers’ whose lands are very rocky where no planting could take place, have agreed to give the rocks to fill the reservoir constructed by the company. This is on one hand a violation of the conditions by the DS for the use of the land. People living in this area in Anuradhapura in the dry zone do not share equal wellbeing aspirations as those who live in areas like Colombo. Yet, the decisions to continue these projects are approved by people in Colombo who do not wish to live or never have lived a poor farming lifestyle. Also, the decision makers and those who are approving the projects are seemingly have neglected the impacts of the project on farm families. This is a huge loophole in large scale development and agricultural projects in Sri Lanka, where the impacts on society are given the least attention. Farmers in this project area are cultivating aloe vera by removing existing plantations and agreeing to give the only lands they have to a private company for unclear future benefits. There is no evidence to show how those farmers been provided with the knowledge on how to achieve the expected benefits and information on acting in any unprecedented situation. There is no way to assess the impact on the livelihoods without doing a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) along with EIA. An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) is a process of “identifying, predicting and evaluating the likely environmental, socio-economic, and cultural impacts due to the implementation of a project, and to propose mitigation actions together with management and monitoring measures; not only to reduce negative impacts but also provide positive contributions to the natural environment and well-being of the community”. What if the farmer doesn’t get the expected profits from aloe vera – who would compensate for his effort? As mentioned earlier, farmers are now violating the conditions mentioned by the DS when cultivating aloe vera by way of removing rocks out of their lands. What happens to the family if the father or mother is charged for violating the DS’ conditions for the

Remembering and honouring the victims obligates us to do more to provide for a safer, better tomorrow. The 21st of August is The International Day of Remembrance of and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism.   This is  a day to remember the suffering of its victims, their families, and their communities. Even as we remember past victims, we must surely strive to ensure that there will not be more victims in the future . Terrorism is the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in society and  achieve a particular political objective. Terrorism has inflicted horrors on people in Sri Lanka and across the world. Terrorism is driven by right-wing and left-wing ideologies, colonialists,  nationalists and religious groups, revolutionaries, and even state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and the police.  This is a description of reality, a statement of fact. Irrespective of the perpetrator’s ideology or place in society – their use of fear tactics and violence strikes terror in the hearts of the victims and leads to deaths, injuries, and destruction of property. The victims of terrorism are the softest targets – ordinary, unarmed, and unprepared civilians. The “Wars on Terror” have galvanized whole societies, paradoxically turning them into combatants and to targets. The specter of terrorism has also provided governments with political capital and the space to operate with impunity to fight terror. Consequently, the number of victims of terrorism continues to rise with the increasing number of purveyors of violence. We in Sri Lanka  have also experienced many bouts and forms of violence. We have given these acts of violence different names at different times. Riots, pogroms, mob violence, street justice, uprisings and insurrections, expressions of justifiable anger, the heinous crimes of extremists   – radicalized by political ideology or religion, civil war –are some of the words and phrases used to describe events and actions that struck terror into the hearts of victims and led to civilian deaths, injuries, and destruction of property. Sri Lanka has seen bouts of violence since 1956, but the violence was not labelled as terrorism. However, since 1979, the word “terrorism”  has been embedded in our political discourse.  However, even as we intensified our fight against terrorism, the numbers affected increased. The use of grenades, land mines, automatic firearms, and willing delivery agents of death – the suicide bombers – have intensified the violence and made acts of terrorism more difficult to contain, anticipate, repel, and even comprehend. The common thread is that these acts of violence have targeted innocent civilians for maximum effect. Remembering  and honoring the victims, obligates us to do more to  ensure  a safer, better tomorrow. It obligates us to support survivors of terrorism who are physically and emotionally scarred – perhaps for life.  It obligates us to support the families of terror victims as they too suffer collateral damage.  It also obligates us to seek better ways of protecting civilians while preparing against future attacks. This, in turn, obligates us to identify the root causes of terrorism and  attempt to address them. We must also be mindful of the need to protect people within the framework of the rule of law. Remembrance must go beyond ceremonials. It must be accompanied by concerted actions to ensure a safer, better tomorrow. Dr. Sakuntala Kadirgamar Executive Director Law and Society Trust

By Anuradhi. D Jayasinghe Sri Lanka’s global cumulative contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 was 0.03%. However, the country  ranked among the countries  most vulnerable to climate change in the global climate change risk index. This  indicates that Sri Lanka has a comparatively low carbon footprint but a significantly high climate change vulnerability. The IPCC AR6 report has shown that  intensified water cycles due to climate change are bringing more intense rainfall and associated flooding, changes in rainfall patterns, and monsoon precipitation in many regions of the world. These impacts are frequently visible  in Sri Lanka. The loss of lives, livelihoods and damageto the built environment are questioning the country’s development pathways. For instance, not only has climate change caused flooding but also misjudged and unsustainable decisions in the development pathways have caused flooding. For example, Central expressway development projects caused floods in many areas in Gampaha district in June 2021. The country is coping with continuous climate risks (i.e., flooding and intense rainfalls) throughout the year 2021 without having time to configure resilience planning. Thus, having contingency planning to enhance resilience to forthcoming climatic risks must be given  the most attention in Sri Lanka’s climate change preparedness agendas. Although there is a lower carbon footprint in Sri Lanka, the current trends in our consumption patterns are about to make significant changes in  per capita emissions in the long run. One of the alternatives for the sector-based approach of measuring ggreenhouse gas (GHG – e.g., CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.) emissions is consumption-based accounting (CBA). The CBA focuses on people’s consumption of goods and services and reports GHG emissions by consumption category, not the GHG emission by source category, which refers to  production-based accounting (PBA). The PBA of GHG emissions focuses on emissions from the domestic production of goods and services regardless of whether they are consumed domestically or are exported. The difference between the two accounting systems of GHG emissions indicates the net effect of emissions embodied in trade – the PBA generally refers to  emissions from exports  whereas  CBA  refers to  the emissions from imports of goods and services. Figure 1: Production vs. Consumption-based CO2 emissions in Sri Lanka Source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/sri-lanka?country=~LKA The production vs. consumption-based CO2 emissions in Sri Lanka (Figure 1)  show a significantly increasing trend in  consumption-based emissions or  emissions from imports of goods and services.  Regardless of the situation, the Sri Lankan food sector is further promoting the importation of food items due to the sudden bans on chemical fertilizers and the decision to switch to organic farming without research and planning.  As the country faces its worst economic crisis, the pandemic, and increased vulnerability to climate change risks, the people have to cope with the grave consequences of hasty and ill-thought out agricultural policies introduced by the government.   Considering the types of landscape and demographics factors in facing these challenges, it is the urban poor and middle class who would suffer the most. Given the higher food prices they do not  have space to grow their food. At the same time, they have to cope with  climate risks such as  flash flooding, which frequently results iin lowering their resilience. Thus, the egoistic political agendas in Sri Lanka make the communities more vulnerable to climate change impacts. Witnessing that communities are being entrapped in the vulnerability loop of climate change the developed nations are still fueling the development models of the developing nations to work more on climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. The developed nations, the largest polluters on earth have the highest climate resilience while the developing nations have to incur the negative externalities from pollution while taking the majority of the responsibility in mitigating and adapting to climate change. China, USA and India are the world’s top three emitters that are responsible for 50% of the global CO2 emissions. In contrast, high-income oil producers – UAE and Saudi Arabia – are the top two in the list of per capita emissions followed by developed countries – Australia, the USA  etc.  Dividing the total emissions of a country by its population gives the per capita emissions. The highest per capita emissions in oil-producing countries are attributed to the relatively low population size and relatively low fuel prices prevailing. However, the more populous countries  that have the highest per capita emissions such as the USA, Australia and Canada  show a positive relationship between income and per capita emissions. This is also evident by the lowest per capita emissions found in many of the poorest African nations.  But higher incomes and high standards of living  do not always lead to  higher per capita emissions. For instance, certain European countries with high living standards – Portugal and France – show lower per capita emissions. This is attributed to the source of electricity generated in these countries, which are  renewable energy sources. Thus, the source of energy plays a key role in determining the emissions rates of a country. Notwithstanding the deliverables and the proposed strategies developed by international climate conventions will force the scientists to forecast climate change impacts merely accounting for business as usual. Setting goals for zero emissions by 2050 and  requiring the developing nations  to    reduce  carbon emissions   while allowing high income nations like China to use highly polluting coal power plants  is preposterous .. . When considering transitioning to greener sources of energy for countries like Sri Lanka, climate change adaptation and mitigation studies must also focus on the willingness of the general public to transition to renewables. Continuing willingness studies pave the path to investigate the barriers and prospects of overcoming them to the sustainable energy transition. The strategies to cope with emissions reductions and drafting Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) should be followed by public hearings. Or else the conflict of interests would fail the transition projects at the very beginning. The introduction of floating solar power plants is one of the smartest moves that Sri Lanka has initiated mitigate the issues such as population density, agriculture needs, and declining forest cover and so forth. However, these floating solar power projects must first conduct

– ආචාර්ය සකුන්තලා කදිර්ගාමර් “අපි රාජාණ්ඩුවක් නොවේ, අපි ජනරජයක්.” ගරු. අලි සබ්රි අමාත්‍යතුමාගේ මේ වදන් ඇසීමෙන් සහ කියවීමෙන් සිත් ධෛර්යමත් විය. කෙසේනමුත්, ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ජනාධිපතිවරුන් අමනෝඥ අන්දමින් තමන් මහරජවරුන් බවක් හෝ මහරජුන් බවට පත්වෙමින් සිටින වගක් හෝ තම ක්‍රියා සඳහා කිසිදු වගවීමක් තමන්ට නොමැති වගක් හෝ සිතන්නේ නම්, ඒ, ඔවුන් වටා සිටිනා චාටු බස් දොඩන්නන් ඒ බවක් විශ්වාස කරන්නට ඔවුන්ට ඉඩ දී ඇති නිසාවෙන් බව මෙහි දී සබ්රි ඇමතිතුමාට සිහිකරදීම සුදුසු ය. ඉතිහාසය තුළ, නායකයින්ගේ මෙවැනි ආටෝපයෙන් යුතු සිහින පෝෂණය කරමින් ඔවුන්ගේ පරිපූර්ණත්වය හා අපරාජිතභාවය හුවා දැක්වූ බොහෝ චාටු බස් දොඩන්නන්, ඔවුන්ගේ සමීපතමයන් ලෙස කටයුතු කළ අය වේ. ජනපතිවරුන්ගේ සහ අගමැතිවරුන්ගේ ඒකාධිපතිවාදී හෝ රාජාණ්ඩු ප්‍රවණතා සඳහා අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයේ, පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ සිටින පන්දම් කාරයින් සහ දේශපාලන පක්ෂවල ප්‍රධාන ක්‍රියාකාරීන් සහය සහය දෙති. තම අයිතිවාසිකම් පිළිබඳ හොඳ දැනුමක් ඇති ශ්‍රී ලාංකික පුරවැසියන් වරින් වර මෙවැනි නායකයින් බලයෙන් පහකිරීම හරහා තමන්ට රජෙකුගේ යටත්වැසියන් බවට පත්වීමට කැමැත්තක් නොමැති බව යළි යළිත් පෙන්නුම් කර තිබේ. තම අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයේ ද, පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ද, පක්ෂයේ ද සහය තිබූ මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ ජනාධිපතිවරයා අසීමාන්තික වාර ගණනක් ජනාධිපති ධුරය දැරිය හැකිවන අන්දමින් ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 17වැනි සංශෝධනය ප්‍රවර්ධනය කළ විට, 2015 මැතිවරණයෙන් ඔහු පරාජය වූයේ ය. එවකට අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලය, පාර්ලිමේන්තුව සහ ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය පවා, ජනාධිපතිවරයාට අසීමිත වාර ගණනක් මැතිවරණවල තරඟ කිරීමට ඉඩ ලැබීම ඡන්දදායකයින්ගේ නිදහස තවත් වැඩිදියුණු කරන්නේ යැයි සහතික කරමින් එම සංශෝධනය සාධාරණීකරණය කිරීමට වෑයම් දැරූ එම යුගය පැහැදිලිවම චාටු බස් දෙඩීමේ උච්ඡතම අවධිය වූ බවට සැකයක් නොමැත. එවකට අපට කියා සිටියේ මෙමගින් ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදය නව තලයකට ඔසවා තැබෙනු ඇති බවකි. ජනතාව ගෝඨාභය රාජපක්ෂ ජනාධිපතිවරයා වෙත අසීමාන්තික බලයක් පිරිනැමූයේ නැත. ඔහුට පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ප්‍රබල සහයෝගයක් තිබුණ ද එය 2/3ක බහුතරයක් නොවීය. තානාන්තර සහ ආත්මලාභය අපේක්ෂා කරන පන්දම් කාරයින්ගේ පක්ෂ මාරුවත් සමගින් ඔහුට එම බහුතරය ලැබුණත් එය ජනතාව ලබාදුන්නක් නොවේ. දැන්, ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 20වැනි සංශෝධනයෙන් ලැබුණු බලතලවලින් සන්නද්ධ වූ ජනාධිපතිවරයා සිතන්නේ තමන් වගවීමට වුවමනා නොමැති බවකි. 20 වැනි සංශෝධනයෙන් ජනාධිපතිවරයකු වශයෙන් ඔහුගේ බලතල වැඩිකළා පමණක් නොව, ද්විත්ව පුරවැසිභාවය දරන ඔහුගේ සහෝදරයා සඳහා දේශපාලන අවකාශය තුළ ඉඩ සලසාදීමට විශේෂ මාර්ගයක් පාදා දුන්නේ ය. ජේ.ආර්. ජයවර්ධන ජනාධිපතිවරයා ද මෙවැනි කටයුතු සම්බන්ධයෙන් සුවිශේෂී දක්ෂකම් තිබූ අයෙකි. තම අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයේ සියළුම අමාත්‍යවරුන්ගෙන් දින නොයෙදූ ඉල්ලා අස්වීමේ ලිපි අත්සන් කරගැනීමෙන් ඔහු පෙන්වූයේ මිනිසුන් සම්පූර්ණයෙන් ම එහෙයියන් බවට පත් කිරීමට තමා සතුවූ සහජ හැකියාවයි. ඕනෑම මොහොතක ඔහු කළයුතු වූයේ අදාළ ඉල්ලා අස්වීමේ ලිපියට දිනයක් යොදා ලිපිය යැවීම පමණි. එවකට ජයවර්ධන ජනපතිවරයාට තිබුණේ ප්‍රබල අමාත්‍ය මණ්ඩලයක් වූ අතර ප්‍රේමදාස අගමැතිතුමා, ලලිත් ඇතුලත්මුදලි, ගාමිණි දිසානායක සහ රොනී ද මෙල් සහ තවත් අය ඇතුළු කුසලතාසම්පන්න වෘත්තීයවේදීන් සහ පලපුරුදු දේශපාලඥයින් එහි සාමාජිකයින් විය. එනමුත් ඒ සියළුදෙනා යටහත් පහත් ලෙස ඉහත කී ඉල්ලා අස්වීමේ ලිපි අත්සන් කර භාර දුන් අතර, ජයවර්ධන ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ ඒකපාර්ශවීය පාලන විලාසයට එය පසුබිම සකසා දුන්නේ ය. ඒකපාර්ශවීය විලාසයක් ගන්නා ආණ්ඩුකරණයේ අන්තරායන් සහ වේදනාව පසුගිය වසර තුළ අපි සියළුදෙනාම අත්වින්දෙමු. ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී ජනරජ ආණ්ඩුවක ලක්ෂණ වන නීතියේ ආධිපත්‍ය, ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථානුකූලභාවය, සියළුදෙනා ඇතුළත් කරගැනීම, සහයෝගීතාවය යනාදී ලක්ෂණ පසෙකට තල්ලු වී ගොස් ය. මහජන අදහස් විමසීම, රාජ්‍ය ප්‍රතිපත්ති සහ නීති සම්පාදනය රාමුගත කිරීමටත් සමාලෝචනය කිරීමටත් විද්වතුන්ගේ අදහස් ලබාගැනීම සහ රජයේ සැලසුම් ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීම සඳහා මධ්‍යස්ථ වූ නිලධාරී ක්‍රමය යොදාගැනීම මගහැර ගොස් තිබේ. විවිධ කාර්යසාධක බලකා පත් කෙරෙන අතර ඒවායේ සාමාජිකත්වය දරන්නේ ගජමිතුරන්, හමුදා නිලධාරීන් හෝ විශ්‍රාමික හමුදා නිලධාරීන් ය. ප්‍රජා අවකාශ දේශපාලනීකරණය සහ හමුදාකරණය දෙසට පැහැදිලිවම විතැන් වීමක් තිබේ. ගෝඨාභය රාජපක්ෂ ජනාධිපතිතුමාට ජනවරමක් ලැබී ඇති බව අපට නිතර නිතරම සිහි කර දෙනු ලැබේ. සැබැවින්ම, සෑම ජනපතිවරයකුටම ලැබෙන්නේ ජනවරමකි. එය සුවිශේෂී යමක් නොවේ. කෙසේනමුත්, සීමා සහිතවූත් තාවකාලික වූත් එම ජනවරම ලබාදී ඇත්තේ තමන් බලයට පත්වූ එම ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී රාමුව තුළ සිටිමින් අපේ සුබසෙත තකා ආණ්ඩුකරණයට ය. එය, තම දේශපාලන බල පරාක්‍රමය විදහාපෑමටත් අත්තනෝමතික ලෙස රට පාලනයටත් ලබාදුන් සීමා විරහිත ජනවරමක් නොවේ. නමුත් වැඩිවැඩියෙන් සිදුවන්නේ මෙයයි. වසංගතයට සහ ආර්ථික අර්බුදයට මුවා වෙමින්, ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ දේශපාලන ආර්ථිකයට මූලික වශයෙන් බලපාන්නා වූ, ඉතා පුළුල් ප්‍රතිවිපාක ගෙන දෙන තීරණ ගනු ලබමින් පවතියි. මේ අර්බුදවලට මුවා වෙමින් දේශපාලනික අනුග්‍රාහකත්වය ඇතිව තම මඩි තර කරගන්නා දේශීය සහ විදේශීය කොල්ලකරුවන් පිළිබඳව දැන සිටියත් අපට ඔවුන් වැලැක්විය නොහැක. ප්‍රසම්පාදන නීතිවලින් නිදහස්වීම සහ වගවීමෙන් නිදහස්වීම වැනි අළුත් නිදහස පරාසයක් ම ඔවුහු භුක්ති විඳිති. ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ජාතික සම්පත් නිසි විමසුමකට ලක් නොවූ කොන්දේසි මත හුවමාරු වේ. ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ පුරවැසියන් ගත වූ වසර තුළ මුහුණ දුන් කම්පන බොහෝ ය. වසංගතයත් සමගින් රට අගුළුදැමූ තත්වයන්ට යෑමට අපට බලකරන ලදී. බොහෝදෙනාට තම රැකියා අහිමි වී ගොස් ය. ළමයින්ගේ අධ්‍යාපනය කඩාකප්පල් වී ඇති අතර ආර්ථිකය කඩා වැටෙමින් තිබේ. ඔවුන් ඉදිරියේ ඇති කාර්යය පිළිබඳව එක්කෝ නොසැලකිලිමත්, නැතහොත් අත්දැකීම් අඩු, සහ බලය යොදාගැනීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් මීට වඩා හොඳින් ඉගෙනගත යුතුව තිබෙන කාර්යසාධක බලකා විසින් අපගේ ජීවිත පාලනය කරනු ලැබේ. ජනතාව කැළඹෙමින් සිටිති. නොපමාව කාබනික පොහොර දක්වා මාරුවීමට ගත් අත්තනෝමතික තීරණය ගොවි ජනතාව කළඹා තිබේ. එය, වර්තමානයේ පවතින ක්‍රමයේ ප්‍රායෝගිකභාවය පිළිබඳව තම හඬ අවදිකිරීමට කෘෂිකාර්මික අංශයේ විද්වතුන් කළඹා තිබේ. ගුරුවරුන්ගේ යුක්තිසහගත ඉල්ලීම් සලකා බැලීමට රජය ප්‍රතික්ෂේප කිරීමත් සමගින් වැඩවර්ජනයකට යෑම සඳහා ඔවුන්ගේ අධිෂ්ඨානය තවත් ශක්තිමත් වී තිබේ. බලශක්ති ක්ෂේත්‍රයේ සැකසහිත ගනුදෙනු විදුලිබල ක්ෂේත්‍රයේ සේවකයින් වැඩවර්ජනයකට යෑම සඳහා කළඹා තිබේ. එක් රටක්-එක් නීතියක් කාර්ය සාධක බලකායේ සභාපති වශයෙන් පූජ්‍ය ගලගොඩඅත්තේ ඥානසාර හිමියන් පත්කිරීමේ තීරණය අවසාන වශයෙන් අධිකරණ අමාත්‍යාංශය කළඹා තිබේ. ඥානසාර හිමියන්, එනම්, අධිකරණයට අපහාස කිරීම සඳහා වරදකරුවකු ලෙස සහ, සුළුතර විරෝධී, විශේෂයෙන්ම මුස්ලිම්-විරෝධී මත පොළඹවන්නකු  ලෙස එම හිමියන්ට ඇති පසුබිම සලකා බලන කල මෙම පත්වීම මගින් අධිකරණ අමාත්‍යාංශයෙන් මේ සම්බන්ධයෙන් කෙරෙන කාර්යයන් අඩපණ කරවන අතර නීතියේ ආධිපත්‍ය සඳහ වූ කැපවීම දුර්වල කරවයි. ශ්‍රී ලංකාව ජනරජයක් මිස රාජාණ්ඩුවක් නොවන බව සබ්රි අමාත්‍යවරයා විසින් දැන් තරයේ ප්‍රකාශ කර සිටින අතරේ, අප එළඹී සිටින්නේ විනිවිද නොපෙනෙන්නා වූත්, භයානක වීමට ඉඩ ඇත්තා වූත් ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම කෙටුම්පත් සම්පාදන ක්‍රියාවලියක් අභිමුඛයට ය. ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී පාලන ව්‍යුහයන් ද, මෙතෙක් කල් සිදු වූ ආකාරයට හමුදාව දේශපාලනයෙන් වෙන් කර තැබීම ද, භාෂා අයිතිවාසිකම් සහ ස්වාධිපත්‍ය හරහා සුළුතර කණ්ඩායම් ඇතුළත් කරගැනීමට වූ පොරොන්දු ද, අවදානමට පාත්‍ර වී තිබේ. දේශපාලනයේ ආගමික පූජකවරුන්ට ඇති ස්ථානය ද යළි-නිර්වචනයවීමට ඉඩ තිබේ. මේ වෙනස්කම් සමගින් අපි දශක හතක් තිස්සේ ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදයට කළ ආයෝජනවලින් දුරස් වෙමින් සිටින්නෙමු.

Vidura Prabath Munasinghe (Senior Researcher, Law & Society Trust) This article is based on views expressed at a public discussion entitled “Our Food System in Crisis: Can Women Farmers be the Solution?” organized by the Law and Society Trust and Savisthri Movement, to coincide with World Rural Women’s Day on the 15th of October, World Food Day on the 16th and World Poverty Alleviation Day on the 17th of this month. Sarojini Rengam, Vimukthi de Silva, Kokilarani Thiruchelvam, Sandun Thudugala, Dr. Sepali Kottegoda, Suganya Kandeepan, Thirugnanamoorthy Megala and Nedha de Silva were among the key discussants. Watch it online here.  49.6% of the world’s population, and 52% ​​of Sri Lanka’s population, are women. According to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), women produce 45% of the world’s agro-food production. According to the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 30% of the female labour force in the country are engaged in agriculture. However, women in agriculture are not recognized as farmers in Sri Lanka, and in the world in general. Although they play a significant role in food production, they do not receive due recognition and respect for it. Moreover, constant attempts are made to exclude women from agriculture. The global reality as well as the Sri Lankan situation are not very different in this regard. The purpose of this article is to explore the underlying causes for this exclusion, and to discuss the alternatives to the existing problematic condition. Woman is not a farmer The Draft of the National Agricultural Policy 2005-2012 is the first agricultural bill in Sri Lanka that mentioned about women specifically. There, too, women farmers are considered to be engaged in home gardening and play a supporting role in the family’s food supply. Occupied a profession that employs 30% of the female labor force in the country, why did she lose the recognition as a farmer, by being called a home gardener? As a result of this, women farmers do not receive the benefits of the agricultural extension services that are available to their male counterparts. Consequently, she misses opportunities for training and improvements on new farming methods and modern technology, that are required for agriculture. She is only entitled to agricultural services that are related to home gardening. Further, women are never involved in the decision-making process in agriculture. The farmer organization level is the primary level in this. Members of farmers’ organizations have the opportunity to participate in seasonal meetings and involve in decisions related to farming and water management. However, land ownership is crucial to be a member of a farmers’ organization, and take decisions on farming and water management. Women are particularly discriminated in land ownership in the country. More than 90% of the agricultural lands in the country are state lands and they have been given to the people for cultivation and residence under land permits and land grants. According to Schedule 3 of the Land Development Ordinance, interstate succession of a land permit goes to the eldest son of the family. Even in an instance where a daughter of the family cultivates such land alone, she does not inherit the land. Due to this, the vast majority of agricultural lands in the country are under male ownership. Consequently, the vast majority of members of farmers’ organizations in this country are men. Accordingly, men have the full power to intervene in decisions on agriculture and water management at the village level. Access to credit for landless women is also impeded, as banks and financial institutions almost always require a deed of a land as a collateral when obtaining loans. The woman who has been deprived of land ownership has thus also been deprived of access to capital. Women farmers face great injustice in cultivation as well as in the market. Purchasing and distributing agricultural produce is entirely a male dominant space. Economic centers are always very far from the farmlands. The bargaining process of the market is also dominated by men. Having limitations in mobility, and being responsible for care work in the family, women farmers have to enlist the help of men in this process. Simply said, she has almost no access to the market. The end result is that she is unable to influence the price of her produce. A deliberate discrimination and exclusion Women farmers continue to engage in agriculture while they are deprived of land ownership, decision-making power in agriculture, support of agro-extension services, and access to the market. They face considerable discrimination even in situations where she has minimal access. They continue to contribute to agriculture while carrying out unpaid care work (thus men, who have the identity as farmers, are released from care work to engage in farming). None of these barriers are natural. They have been deliberately created to discriminate against women in agriculture and to exclude them from it. These obstacles have been deliberately created by the state, and it tells the woman whose production process has thus been severely affected, that the state refrains from intervening in the process, in order to ensure free trade within a neo-liberal economic system. Accordingly, women farmers who have been deliberately crippled have to compete with large-scale companies that are engaged in the field of agricultural production. Although it is said that the state’s approach in a neo-liberal economy should be to avoid interference in these activities, the state has actually interfered to create the necessary structural conditions for large-scale corporations to take over the agricultural sector. Thus, conditions have been created to exclude women from agriculture. To whom are women a threat? What is the significance of women staying in the agro-value chain? How can their presence be an obstacle to large-scale companies in taking over the agricultural production and distribution sector? After World War II, especially with the Green Revolution, the food industry was recognized by large multinational corporations as an extremely lucrative sector. Accordingly, food industry was developed into highly lucrative global businesses similar to the arms trade and pharmaceutical business.

– Dr. சகுந்தலா கதிர்காமர் “நாம் முடியாட்சியல்ல, நாம் ஒரு குடியரசு.” கௌரவ திரு அலி சப்ரியின் வார்த்தைகள் வாசிப்பதற்கும் கேட்பதற்கும் புளகாங்கிதமாக இருக்கின்றன. எவ்வாறாயினும், இலங்கையில் ஜனாதிபதிகள் தாம் முடிமன்னர்கள் என, அல்லது முடிமன்னர்களாக உருவாகிவருபவர்கள் என, அல்லது தமது நடவடிக்கைகளுக்கு வகைப்பொறுப்புக் கூறத் தேவையற்றவர்கள் என அறிவீனமாக நம்பினால், அதற்கான காரணம் அவர்களை அவ்வாறு நம்புவதற்கு அனுமதிக்கும் அவர்களைச் சுற்றியுள்ள கொத்தடிமைகளே என்பதை அமைச்சர் அலி சப்ரிக்கு நினைவூட்டுவது சாலப் பொருத்தமானதாகும். வரலாற்று ரீதியாக, தலைவர்களின் பெருமிதப் பகட்டுக் கனவுகளுக்குத் தீனிபோட்டு அவர்களின் பிழையாத்தன்மையினை மேம்படுத்தும் கொத்தடிமைகளில் மிகப் பெரும்பான்மையானவர்கள் இவ்வாறான தலைவர்களின் உள்வட்டத்தின் அங்கமாகவே இருந்து வருகின்றனர். ஜனாதிபதிகளினதும் பிரதமர்களினதும் சர்வாதிகார எத்தனிப்புக்கு அல்லது முடிமன்னர் எத்தனிப்புக்கு  அமைச்சரவையிலும் பாராளுமன்றத்திலும் உள்ள கொத்தடிமைகளும் அரசியல் கட்சிகளினுள் உள்ள பிரதான இயக்குனர்களும் ஆதரவு வழங்கி வருகின்றனர். இலங்கைப் பிரசைகள் அவர்களின் உரிமைகள் பற்றி நன்கறிவர். மன்னன் ஒருவனால் ஆளப்படுபவர்களாக மாறாமல் இருப்பதற்கான அவர்களின் விருப்பம் இத்தலைவர்களை அவர்கள் ஆட்சியில் இருந்து காலத்திற்குக் காலம் தூக்கியெறிந்த வரலாற்றின் மூலம் நிரூபிக்கப்படுகின்றது. ஜனாதிபதி எத்தனை தடவைகள் பதவி வகிக்கலாம் என்பதற்கான வரம்பினை அகற்றுவதற்காக அரசியலமைப்புக்கான 17 வது திருத்தத்தினை மஹிந்த ராஜபக்ச தூக்கிப்பிடித்து ஆதரித்தபோது அவரின் அமைச்சரவையில் இருந்தும் பராளுமன்றத்தில் இருந்தும் அவரின் கட்சியில் இருந்தும் அவருக்கு ஆதரவு வழங்கப்பட்டதையும் தாண்டி அவர் 2015 தேர்தலில் தோல்வியடைந்தார். அமைச்சரவையும் பாராளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர்களும் உயர் நீதிமன்றமும் கூட திருத்தத்தினை நியாயப்படுத்துவதற்காகக் கற்பனைத்திறன் மிக்க வாதங்களைக் கண்டுபிடித்து தேர்தல்களில் சதாகாலமும் போட்டியிடுவதற்கான ஜனாதிபதியின் உரிமை வாக்காளரான மக்கள் குழுமத்தின் சுதந்திரத்தினை மேம்படுத்துகின்றதென மக்களுக்கு உத்தரவாதம் வழங்கியபோது கொத்தடிமைத்தனம் நிச்சயமாக அதன் உச்சத்தில் இருந்தது. மக்கள் கோதபாய ராஜபக்சவுக்கு கட்டற்ற அதிகாரத்தினை வழங்கவில்லை. அவருக்குப் பாராளுமன்றத்தில் உறுதியான ஆதரவு இருக்கின்றது. ஆனால் அவருக்கு முன்றில் இரண்டு பெரும்பான்மைப் பலம் இல்லை. இருப்பினும் பரிவும் பதவியும் தேடும் அடிவருடிகளான கொத்தடிமைகள் அவருக்குப் பெரும்பான்மையினைப் பெற்றுக்கொடுப்பதற்காகக் கட்சி தாவியுள்ளனர் –  அந்தப் பெரும்பான்மையானது மக்களால் வழங்கப்பட்டதல்ல. அரசியலமைப்புக்கான 20 வது திருத்தத்தின் மூலம் கிடைத்த அதிகாரத்தினைக் கையில் ஆயுதமாக வைத்துக்கொண்டு தான் வகைப்பொறுப்புக்கு அப்பாற்பட்டவர் என ஜனாதிபதி நம்பிக்கொண்டிருக்கின்றார். 20 வது திருத்தம் ஜனாதிபதி என்ற ரீதியில் அவரின் அதிகாரங்களை மாத்திரம் அதிகரிக்காமல் இரட்டைப் பிரசாவுரிமை கொண்ட அவரின் சகோதரர் அரசியல் வானில் உள்வாங்கப்படுவதற்காக விசேடமாக வடிவமைக்கப்பட்ட ஒரு பாதையினையும் வழங்கியிருக்கின்றது. இந்த விடயத்தில் ஜனாதிபதி ஜே ஆர் ஜயவர்தன மற்றொரு வழிகாட்டியாக இருக்கின்றார். தனது அமைச்சர்களிடம் இருந்து அவர்களின் ஒப்பமிடப்பட்ட ஆனால் திகதியிடப்படாத ராஜினாமாக் கடிதங்களைப் பெற்றுக்கொண்டு அதில் திகதியினை மட்டும் போட்டு அவர்களை வீட்டுக்கு அனுப்பிவைப்பதைத் தனது தற்றுணிபுக்கு விட்டுவிட்ட செயல் மூலம் மனிதனையும் எலியாக மாற்றும் தனது உள்ளார்ந்த ஆற்றலை அவர் எடுத்துக்காட்டியிருக்கின்றார். ஜனாதிபதி ஜயவர்தன, நன்கு பயிற்றப்பட்ட தொழில்வல்லுனர்களையும் பிரதமர் பிரேமதாச, லலித் அதுலத்முதலி, காமினி திசநாயக மற்றும் ரொனி த மெல் உள்ளிட்ட முதிர்ந்த அரசியல்வாதிகளையும் உள்ளடக்கிய பலம் வாய்ந்த அமைச்சரவையினைக் கொண்டிருந்தார். இருந்தாலும் இந்த ஜாம்பவான்களெல்லாம் அந்தக் கடிதங்களில் கோழைத்தனமாக ஒப்பமிட்டனர். இது ஜயவர்தனவின் ஒருதலைப்பட்சப் பாங்கிலான அரசாங்கத்திற்கு அத்திவாரமிட்டது. அரசாங்கத்தின் இந்த ஒருதலைப்பட்சப் பாங்கின் ஆபத்துக்களையும் வலிகளையும் நாம் அனைவரும் கடநத் வருடம் அனுபவித்தோம். ஜனநாயகக் குடியரசு அரசாங்கத்தின் அசைக்கமுடியாத பண்புகளான சட்டத்தின் ஆட்சி, அரசியலமைப்பியல், உள்ளடக்கம், கூட்டொருமை ஆகியவை துடைத்தெறியப்பட்டன. பொதுமக்கள் கலந்தாலோசிப்பும் அரச கொள்கை மற்றும் சட்டவாக்கத்தின் வரைபு மற்றும் மீளாய்வின் போதான நிபுணத்துவ உள்ளீடுகளும் அரசாங்கத்தின் திட்டங்களை அமுல்படுத்துவதற்கான நடுநிலையான பணித்துறை ஆட்சியும் ஓரங்கட்டப்பட்டு, அடிவருடிகளையும் இராணுவத்தினையும் அல்லது ஓய்வுபெற்ற இராணுவ ஆளணியினையும் பெருமளவுக்குக் கொண்ட செயலணிகள் வகைதொகையின்றித் தாபிக்கப்பட்டன.  அரசியல்மயமாக்கலை நோக்கியும் இராணுவமயமாக்கலை நோக்கியும் குடிமைப் பரப்புக்கள் தெளிவாக அடித்துச் செல்லப்படுகின்றன. ஜனாதிபதி கோதபாய ராஜபக்சவுக்கு மக்களின் ஆணை உள்ளது என எமக்கு அடிக்கடி நினைவூட்டப்படுகின்றது. உண்மையில், எல்லா ஜனாதிபதிகளுக்குமே இருப்பது மக்களின் ஆணைதான். இதுவொன்றும் தனித்துவமானது அல்ல. எவ்வாறாயினும், அந்த ஆணை எமது நலன்களினுள் ஆளுகை செய்வதற்கும் அவர் எந்த ஜனநாயகச் சட்டகத்தின் மூலம் பதவிக்கு வந்தாரோ அந்தச் சட்டகத்தினுள் ஆளுகை செய்வதற்குமான வரையறுக்கப்பட்டதும் தற்காலிகமானதுமான ஆணையாகும். இது அரசியல் முஷ்டி மடக்குவதற்கும் தான்தோன்றித்தனமாக ஆட்சி செய்வதற்குமான கட்டற்ற ஆணையல்ல. ஆனால் அதிகரித்த அளவுக்கு நடப்பதென்னவோ  இதுதான் என்பது இப்போது தெரியவருகின்றது. பெருந்தொற்று என்ற போர்வையிலும் பொருளாதார நெருக்கடி என்ற போர்வையிலும், இலங்கையின் அரசியல் பொருளாதாரத்தின் அடிப்படையினை ஆட்டங்காணச் செய்யும் பரந்த செயல்விளைவுடைய தீர்மானங்கள் எடுக்கப்படுகின்றன. அரசியல் ஆதரவினை அனுபவித்துக்கொண்டு இந்த நெருக்கடிகளின் போர்வையின் கீழ் தம் வயிறு வளர்க்கும் உள்நாட்டையும் வெளிநாட்டையும் சேர்ந்த திருட்டுப் பெருந்தகைகள் பற்றி நாம் அறிந்தாலும் அவர்களைத் தடுத்து நிறுத்த முடியாதவர்களாக இருக்கின்றோம். இவர்கள் பரந்த சுதந்திரங்களை அனுபவித்து வருகின்றனர் – கொள்வனவு விதிகளில் இருந்து சுதந்திரம், வகைப்பொறுப்பில் இருந்து சுதந்திரம். இலங்கையின் தேசிய சொத்துக்கள் அற்ப சொற்ப லாபங்களுக்காக எவ்வித பரிசீலிப்புக்களும் அற்ற விதிகளின் கீழ் வழங்கப்பட்டு வருகின்றன. கடந்த வருடம் இலங்கைப் பிரசைகள் பல அதிர்ச்சிகளுக்கு முகங்கொடுத்தனர். பெருந்தொற்றினால் நாம் வீடுகளுக்குள் முடக்கப்பட்டோம். பல மக்கள் அவர்களின் தொழில்களை இழந்தனர். பிள்ளைகளின் கல்வி அந்தரங்கத்தில் ஊசலாடுகின்றது. பொருளாதாரம் சரிவடைந்து வருகின்றது. தமக்கு வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ள பணி பற்றி எதுவுமே தெரியாத அல்லது அது பற்றிய அனுபவமற்ற ஆனால் பலத்தைப் பிரயோகிப்பதில் மட்டும் கில்லாடிகளான செயலணிகளால் எம் வாழ்வு கட்டுப்படுத்தப்படுகின்றது. மக்கள் கொந்தளித்துப் போயுள்ளனர். உடனடியாகச் சேதனப் பசளைக்கு மாறுவது என்ற தன்னிச்சையான தீர்மானம் விவசாயிகளைக் கொந்தளிக்கச் செய்துள்ளது. தற்போதைய வடிவத்தில் இதன் சாத்தியத்திற்கு எதிராகப் பேசுவதற்கு விவசாயத் துறை நிபுணர்களை இது கொந்தளிக்க வைத்துள்ளது. ஆசிரியர்களின் நியாயமான கோரிக்கைகளைப் பரிசீலிக்க அரசாங்கம் மறுத்தமை அவர்கள் பணிநிறுத்தத்தினைத் தொடங்குவதற்கு அவர்களை வலுப்படுத்தியிருக்கின்றது. சக்தித் துறையில் மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்ட போலியான கொடுக்கல் வாங்கல்கள் மின்சாரப் பணியாளர்கள் பணி நிறுத்தத்துக்கு அழைப்பு விடுக்க அவர்களைத் தூண்டியுள்ளது. ஒரு நாடு – ஒரு தேசம் பற்றிய ஜனாதிபதி செயலணியின் தலைவராகச் சங்கைக்குரிய ஞானசார தேரரை நியமிப்பது என்ற தீர்மானம் நீதி அமைச்சரைக் கொந்தளிக்கச் செய்துள்ளது. தேரரின் நியமனம் இது தொடர்பான நீதி அமைச்சின் பணிகளைக் கீழறுக்கின்றது. நீதிமன்றத்தினை அவமதித்தமைக்காக வழங்கப்பட்ட குற்றத்தீர்ப்பு, சிறுபான்மையினருக்கு எதிரான அவரின் தோற்றப்பாடு, குறிப்பாக முஸ்லிம்களுக்கு எதிராகத் தூண்டிவிடும் அவரின் போக்கு ஆகியவை சட்டத்தின் ஆட்சிக்கான எக்கடப்பாட்டினையும் கீழறுக்கின்றது. இலங்கை ஒரு குடியரசேயன்றி முடியாட்சியல்ல என அமைச்சர் சப்ரி இப்போது வலியுறுத்தினாலும், தெளிவற்றதும் ஆபத்துமிக்கதாக இருக்கும் சாத்தியத்தினைக் கொண்டதுமான அரசியலமைப்பு வரைபுச் செயன்முறையின் விளிம்பில் நாம் நிற்கின்றோம். ஜனநாயக ஆளுகையின் கட்டமைப்புக்கள் அபாயநேர்வில் இருக்கின்றன. இதுவரையில் அரசியலில் இருந்து இராணுவத்தினைப் பிரித்துவைத்தமை, மொழி உரிமைகள் மூலமும் தன்னாட்சி மூலமும் சிறுபான்மையினரை உள்ளடக்கும் கடப்பாடுகள் மற்றும் அரசியலில் சமயக் குறவர்களின் வகிபாத்திரம் ஆகியவையும் மீள்வரைவிலக்கணப்படுத்தப்படலாம். இந்த மாற்றங்களுடன் ஜனநாயத்தில் எமது ஏழு தசாப்த முதலீட்டில் இருந்து நாம் விலகிச் செல்கின்றோம்.

විදුර ප‍්‍රභාත් මුණසිංහ ( ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ පර්යේෂක, නීතිය හා සමාජ භාරය) මෙම ලිපිය මෙම මස 15 වන දිනට යෙදී තිබූ ලෝක ග‍්‍රාමීය කාන්තා දිනය, 16 වන දිනට යෙදී තිබූ ලෝක ආහාර දිනය සහ 17 වන දිනට යෙදී තිබූ ලෝක දරිද්‍රතාවය පිටු දැකීමේ දිනය යන දිනයන්ට සමගාමීව නීතිය හා සමාජ භාරය හා සවිස්ත‍්‍රී සාමූහිකය විසින්  ‘අපගේ ආහාර පද්ධතිය අර්බුදයක: කාන්තා ගොවීන්ට විසුද්ම වියහැකිද?’ යන මැයෙන් පැවැත්වූ මහජන සංවාදයක දී පළවූ අදහස් ඇසුරින් සැකසුනකි. එහිදී සරෝජනී රෙංගම්, විමුක්ති ද සිල්වා, කෝකිලරාණි තිරුචෙල්වම්, සඳුන් තුඩුගල, ආචාර්ය සේපාලි කෝට්ටෙගොඩ, සුගන්යා කන්දීපන්, තිරුඥාණමූර්ති මේගලා සහ නේධා ද සිල්වා විසින් මූලික අදහස් දැක්වීම් සිදු කරනු ලැබිනි. සැසිය මෙහි නරඹන්න. ලෝක ජනගහනයෙන් 49.6% ක් කාන්තාවෝ වෙති. ලෝක ආහාර හා කෘෂිකර්ම සංවිධානයට අනුව ලෝක ආහාර නිෂ්පාදනයෙන් 45% ක් නිපදවන්නේ කාන්තාවන් විසිනි. ශ‍්‍රී ලංකාවේ ජනගහනයෙන් ප‍්‍රතිශතයක් ලෙස 52% කාන්තාවෝ වෙති.  ජනලේඛණ හා සංඛ්‍යාලේඛණ දෙපාර්තමේන්තුව අනුව මෙරට කාන්තා ශ‍්‍රම බලකායෙන් 30% ක් පමණ කෘෂිකර්මාන්තයේ නියැලී සිටිතිි. නමුත් ශ‍්‍රී ලංකාවේ මෙන්ම පොදුවේ ගත්කළ ලෝක පරිමාණයෙන්ද පවත්නා තත්ත්වයක් වන්නේ කෘෂිකර්මාන්තයේ යෙදෙන කාන්තාවන් ගොවීන් ලෙස පිලිනොගැනීමයි. ආහාර නිෂ්පාදනයේ බලවත් භූමිකාවක් ඔවුන් විසින් ඉටු කරන නමුත්, ඒ සම්බන්ධෆයන් වන පිලිගැනීම හා ගෞරවය ඔවුන්ට හිමි නොවේ. එපමණක් නොව අපට නිතැතින්ම අසන්නට, දකින්නට ලැබෙන්නේ කාන්තාවන්ව කෘෂිකර්මාන්තයෙන් බැහැර කරවීම සදහා වන නිරන්තර උත්සාහයන් ය. ගෝලීය යථාර්ථය මෙන්ම ලාංකීය තත්ත්වයද මෙයින් වෙනස් නොවේ.  මෙම ලිපියේ අරමුණ වන්නේ මේ පිලිබඳව සහ එකී තත්වයන්ට මුල්වී ඇති හේතු සාධක විමසා බැලීමත්, එහි පවත්නා ගැටලූකාරී තත්ත්වයන්ට පවත්නා විකල්පය කුමක්ද යන්න සාකච්ඡුා කිරීමත් ය’ කාන්තාව ගොවියෙකු නොවේ ශ‍්‍රී ලංකාවේ ජාතික කෘෂිකර්ම ප‍්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටුම්පතක පළමුවරට කාන්තාවන් පිලිබඳ සඳහන් වන්නේ 2005-2012 කෘෂිකර්ම ප‍්‍රතිපත්ති කෙටුම්පත තුලය. එහිදී ද ගොවිතැන් කරන කාන්තාවන් සලකනු ලබන්නේ ගෙවතු වගාවේ නියුතු, පවුලේ ආහාර අවශ්‍යතාව වෙනුවෙන් වන සහායක භූමිකාවක් ඉටු කරන්නියක් ලෙසිනි. නමුත් කාන්තා ශ‍්‍රම බලකායෙන් 30% ක් නියැලී සිිටින වෘත්තියක්, ගෙවතු වගාවක් යැයි නාමකරනයකොට ගොවියාට හිමි පිලිගැනීම ඇයට අහිමි කරනු ලැබුවේ මන්ද? එහි ප‍්‍රතිඵලය නම් ගොවීන්ට හිමි වන කෘෂි ව්‍යාප්ති සේවාවන්හි ප‍්‍රතිලාභ ඇයට නොලැබී යාමයි. ඒ අනුව කෘෂිකර්මාන්තයට අවශ්‍ය නවීන තාක්ෂණය, නව ගොවිතැන් ක‍්‍රම යනාදිය සම්බන්ධයෙන් වන පුහුණු හා වැඩිදියුණුවීමේ අවස්ථා ඇයට මඟහැරී යයි. ඇයට හිමිවන්නේ ගෙවතු වගාවට අදාල කෘෂි ව්‍යාප්ති සේවාවන් පමණි. එමෙන්ම කාන්තාව කෘෂිකර්මාන්තයේ තීරණ ගැනීමේ ක‍්‍රියාවලියේ කිසිදු අවස්ථාවක සම්බන්ධ කරගනු නොලැබේ. මෙහි ප‍්‍රාථමිකම මට්ටම වන්නේ ගොවි සංවිධාන මට්ටම යි. එහිදී කන්න රැුස්වීම්වලට සහභාගී වෙමින් ගොවිතැන හා ජල පාලනය සම්බන්ධයෙන් වන තීරණ සදහා මැදිහත්වීමේ හැකියාව ලැබෙන්නේ ගොවි සංවිධාන සාමාජිකයින්ට ය. නමුත් ගොවි සංවිධානයක සාමාජිකයකුවීමට නම් ඉඩම් හිමිකාරීත්වය තීරණාත්මක ය. කාන්තාවන්ට මෙරට ඉඩම් හිමිකාරීත්වය සම්බන්ධයෙන් සුවිශේෂී වෙනස්කොට සැලකීමකට මුහුණදීමට සිදුව ඇත. මෙරට ගොවි බිම්වලින් 90% කට වඩා රජයේ ඉඩම් වන අතර ඒවා රජයේ බලපත‍්‍ර හා දීමනාපත‍්‍ර යටතේ වගා කටයුතු කිරීම හා පදිංචිය සදහා ජනතාව වෙත ලබාදී ඇත. මෙරට ඉඩම් සංවර්ධන ආඥා පනතේ 3 වන උපලේඛණයට අනුව එසේ බලපත‍්‍රයක් හෝ දීමනාපත‍්‍රයක් යටතේ ඉඩමක් භුක්ති විඳින තැනැත්තකු එකී ඉඩම සදහා අනුප‍්‍රාප්ති අයිතිය නොපවරවා මියගියහොත්, එය හිමිවන්නේ පවුලේ වැඩිමහල් පිරිමි දරුවාට ය. එකී ඉඩමේ ගොවිතැන් කටයුතු මුලූමනින්ම සිදුකරන්නේ පවුලේ ගැහැණු දරුවකු විසින් වුවද, එබඳු අවස්ථාවක ඇයට ඉඩමේ අයිතිය හිමි නොවේ. මේ හේතුවෙන් මෙරට කෘෂිකාර්මික ඉඩම්වලින් අති බහුතරය පිරිමි හිමිකාරීත්වයක් යටතේ පවතී. එහි ප‍්‍රතිඵලයක් ලෙස මෙරට ගොවි සංවිධාන සාමාජිකත්වයේ අතිබහුකරය හැමවිටම පිරිමින්ය. ඒ අනුව ග‍්‍රාමීය මට්ටමේ කෘෂිකර්මාන්තය හා ජල පාලනය පිලිබද තීරණ සදහා මැදිහත්වීමේ සම්පූර්ණ බලය පිරිමින් වෙත පැවරී ඇත. ඉඩම් අයිතිය අහිමි කාන්තාවට ණය සදහා වන ප‍්‍රවේශයද ඇහිරී යයි. ඒ හැමවිටෙකම පාහේ බැංකු හා මූල්‍ය ආයතන වෙතින් ණය ලබාගැනීමේදී සුරක්ෂිතයක් ලෙස ඉඩම් ඔප්පුවක් ඇපයට ඉල්ලා සිටීමයි. ඉඩම් අයිතිය අහිමි කරනු ලැබූ කාන්තාවට මෙනයින් ප‍්‍රාග්ධනයට ඇති ප‍්‍රවේශයද අහිමි කරවනු ලැබ ඇත. ගොවිතැනේදී මෙන්ම වෙළදපොල තුලද කාන්තා ගොවීන් විශාල අසාධාරණයකට ලක්වේ. මෙරට කෘෂි නිෂ්පාදන මිළදී ගැනීම හා බෙදාහැරීම යන ක‍්‍රියාවලිය සැකසී ඇත්තේ මුලූමනින්ම පිරිමි අවකාශයක් ලෙසිනි. අතරමැදි වෙළදපොල හැමවිටම ගොවිබිමට බෙහෝ සෙයින් දුරබැහැරව පවතින අතර ඒ වෙත වන ප‍්‍රවාහනයද පහසු එකක් නොවේ. වෙළදපොල තුල වන හෙට්ටු කිරීමේ ක‍්‍රියාවලියද පිරිමි වෙළද ආධිපත්‍යයට නතුව ඇත. පවුලේ රැුකවරණ වගකීමද පැවරී ඇති කාන්තාවන්ගේ සචලතාවයේ සීමාවන් හේතුකොටගෙනද මෙම ක‍්‍රියාවලිය සදහා ඇයට පිරිමින්ගේ සහය ලබාගැනීමට සිදුවේ. සරළවම පවසන්නේ නම් වෙළදපොල වෙත ඇයට ප‍්‍රවේශයක් නොමැති තරම්ය. එහි අවසන් ප‍්‍රතිඵලය සිය අස්වැන්නේ මිළ සම්බන්ධයෙන් ඇයට කිසිදු බලපෑමක් කිරීමට නොහැකි වී යාමයි. දැනුවත්ව සිදු කරනු ලැබූ වෙනස්කොට සැලකීමක් හා බැහැර කිරීමක් කාන්තා ගොවීහු සිය ගොවිබිමට ඇති ඉඩම් අයිතිය අහිමි කරනු ලැබ, ගොවීන් ලෙස නොසලකනු ලැබිමට ලක්ව, ගොවිතැන සම්බන්ධ තීරණ ගැනීමේ බලය අහිමි කරවනු ලැබ, කෘෂි ව්‍යාප්ති සේවාවන්හි සහය අහිමි කරවනු ලැබ, වෙලඳපොල වෙත ප‍්‍රවේශය අහිමි කරවනු ලැබ, අවම ප‍්‍රවේශයක් හිමිවන විටදී පවා එහිදී බෙහෙවින් වෙනස්කමට භාජනය කරනු ලැබ, පවුලේ ගෙවීමක් නොලබන රැුකවරණ භූමිකාවන් ඉටු කරමින් (එනයින් ගොවි අනන්‍යතාව හිමි පිරිමියාට ගොවිතැනේ නියැලීම සදහා ඔහුව රැුකවරණ භූමිකාවෙන් නිදහස් කරමින්* තවදුරටත් කෘෂිකර්මාන්තයේ නියැලී සිටියි. ඇය මෙරට ගොවි නිෂ්පාදනයෙන කාන්තා ශ‍්‍රම බලකායෙන් 30% ක් ට දායක වන්නේ මේ සියලූ බාධාවන් මධ්‍යයේ ය. මේ කිසිදු බාධාවක් ස්වභාවික බාධාවක් නොවේ. ඒ සියල්ල දැනුවත් ලෙස වුවමනාවෙන්ම කාන්තාවයන් කෘෂිකර්මාන්තය තුල වෙනස්කොට සලකමින් ඔවුන් එයින් බැහැර කරවීම අරමුණු කරගනිමින් නිර්මාණය කරනු ලැබූ බාධාවන්ය. මේ සියලූ බාධාවන් රාජ්‍යය විසින් දැනුවත්ව නිර්මාණය කළ ඒවා වන අතර ඒ සියල්ල තුල සිය නිෂ්පාදන ක‍්‍රියාවලිය දැඩිව බලපෑමට ලක්වූ කාන්තාවට රාජ්‍යය විසින් පවසා සිටින්නේ නව ලිබරල් ආර්ථික ක‍්‍රමයක් තුල නිදහස් වෙළදාම සුරක්ෂිත කරනු පිණිස රාජ්‍යය මැදිහත්වීමෙන් වැලකී සිටින බවයි. ඒ අනුව කෘෂි නිෂ්පාදන ක්ෂේත‍්‍රය වෙත මැදිහත්වන මහා පරිමාණ සමාගම්වල ක‍්‍රියාකාරීත්වය සමඟ දැනුවත්වම දුර්වල කරනු ලැබූ කාන්තා ගොවීන්ට තරඟ කිරීමට සිදුව තිබේ. නව ලිබරල් ආර්ථීකයක් තුල රාජ්‍යයේ ප‍්‍රවේශය වන්නේ මෙම කටයුතු සදහා මැදිහත්වීමෙන් වැලකී සිටීම යැයි කියනු ලැබූවද, ඇත්ත වශයෙන්ම සිදුවී ඇත්තේ මහා පරිමාණ සමාගම්වලට කෘෂි නිෂ්පාදන ක්ෂේත‍්‍රයේ සියලූ අංශ අත්පත් කරගැනීම සදහා අවශ්‍ය ව්‍යුහාත්මක තත්ත්වයන් රාජ්‍යයේ මැදිහත්වීමෙන් නිර්මාණය කරනු ලැබීමයි. තවත් සමහර විටෙක ඒ වන විටද පැවැති අසාධාරණ ව්‍යුහාත්මක තත්ත්වයක් තවදුරටත් පවත්වාගෙන යාමයි (උදා- ඉඩම් සංවර්ධන ආඥා පනතේ 3 වන උපලේඛණය*. කාන්තාව කෘෂිකර්මාන්තයෙන් බැහැර කරවීමට අවශ්‍ය තත්ත්වයන් නිර්මාණය කරනු ලැබ ඇත්තේ ඒ අනුවය. කාන්තාව තර්ජනයක් වන්නේ කාටද? ඇත්තෙන්ම කාන්තාව කෘෂි නිෂ්පාදන අගය දාමයේ රැුඳී සිටීමේ ඇති බැ?රුම්කම කුමක්ද? ඔවුන් එහි රැුඳී සිටීම කෘෂි නිෂ්පාදන හා බෙදාහැරීමේ ක්ෂේත‍්‍රය මහා පරිමාණ සමාගම් අතට පත්කර ගැනීමට බාධාවක් වන්නේ කෙසේද? දෙවන ලෝක යුද්ධයෙන් පසු, විශේෂයෙන් හරිත විප්ලවයත් සමඟ ආහාර නිෂ්පාදන ක්ෂේත‍්‍රය අතිශයින් ලාභ ලැබිය හැකි ක්ෂේත‍්‍රයක් ලෙස මහා පරිමාණ බහුජාතික සමාගම් විසින් හඳුනාගනු ලැබිණි. ඒ අනුව අවි ආයුධ වෙළදාම, ඖෂධ වෙළදාම මෙන්ම ආහාර නිෂ්පාදනයද අතිශය ලාභ ලැබිය හැති ගෝලීය ව්‍යාපාරයක් ලෙසින් වර්ධනය කරනු ලැබිණි. ඒ අනුව සමස්ථ ආහාර පද්ධතියම මහා පරිමාණ කෘෂි සමාගම්වල ග‍්‍රහනයට ගැනීමට අවශ්‍ය සියලූ කටයුතු සිදු කරනු ලැබිනි. මෙහිදී ආහාර පද්ධතිය යනුවෙනේ අදහස් වන්නේ ආහාර වටිනාකම් දාමය සමඟ බැඳුනු