The Marriage Contract: Its Basic Elements | ||
| ||
Know, dear reader, that Allah Most High has created things in pairs. Those pairs must get together in certain ways in order for reproduction to occur. The way for reproduction to occur among humans—males and females—is through marriage, known in Arabic as nikah. Islam urges Muslims to marry and prohibits premarital relationships. Allah Most High says in the Qur’an:
Also, Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), in the hadith found in Al-Bukhari and Muslim, commanded young people to marry, and advised those of them who could not afford it to fast as a means of controlling their sexual desire. From an Islamic perspective, marriage is not viewed merely as a means of satisfying natural desires and passions. Its goals are much deeper than just obtaining legal sex. Allah Most High points out one of the main objectives behind marriage by saying
The marriage contract is the formal bond that turns two individuals from strangers to husband and wife. It is the most important contract that most people execute throughout their lives. Since the marriage contract has such great significance, the deen of Islam provides a number of guidelines. Before delving into the basic elements of marriage, it is worth mentioning here that marriage is a serious matter and should be dealt with seriously. It is not allowed for a man to marry and then claim he did not really mean it, or that he was joking. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “There are three matters in which it is not permissible to joke: marriage, divorce, and emancipation (of slaves)” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim). The Islamic marriage contract has conditions, requirements, pillars, and optional elements. A contract must be Islamically acceptable. Eligibility of Bride and Groom The first of these conditions is that both the bride and groom must fulfill certain requirements. The groom must be a chaste Muslim having attained the age of puberty. He must not be related to the bride by any of the permanently prohibiting blood, milk, or marital relationships such as his sisters, paternal and maternal aunts, daughters, granddaughters, and others. He must not be prohibited from marrying the bride for any of the temporary reasons stipulated in the Qur’an and Sunnah. An example of a temporary reason is that as long as a man is married to a particular woman, all of her sisters become temporarily prohibited for him; that is, he may not marry any of them unless he divorces their sister or she dies. Others who are temporarily prohibited in marriage include a woman who is married to another man; a woman and simultaneously her niece; an adulteress or prostitute that has not sincerely repented; and others that the Islamic Shari`ah may have listed. The requirements a bride must fulfill is that she must be a chaste Muslim, Christian, or Jew. She must not be married to another man, and must not be related to the groom by any of the permanently prohibiting blood, milk, or marital relationships, in addition to not being prohibited from marrying the groom for any of the temporary reasons as stated above. Bride’s Permission The next required element of the marriage contract is the bride’s permission. Without her permission, the contract is either null and void, or may be invalidated by the Islamic authorities at the bride’s request. The minimum required permission may be done by either voicing her approval or through a passive expression such as remaining silent when asked about a potential husband and simply nodding her head, or making any other motion to indicate that she does not object to the marriage. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “A deflowered unmarried woman (i.e., widow or divorcee) may not be married without her instructions; and a virgin may not be married without her permission, and her silence indicates her consent” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim). The Woman’s Wali The next requirement for a valid contract is the approval of the woman’s guardian known as the wali. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “A marriage (contract) is not valid without a wali” (Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi, and others; verified to be authentic by Al-Albani). Normally, a woman’s wali is her father. If for any reason her father is unable to be her wali, her wali would then be her next closest blood relation: the grandfather, uncle, brother, son, and so on. It is not permissible for a woman to take another woman as her wali. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “A woman may not give another woman in marriage, nor may a woman give herself (independently) in marriage” (Ibn Majah, Al-Bayhaqi and others; verified to be authentic by Al-Albani). If the bride does not have a Muslim blood relative as a wali, the Islamic authority, represented by the ruler or judge, would appoint a wali for her. In non-Muslim communities the local imam is the one to be appointed as the wali of a woman who has no wali. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “A marriage (contract) is not valid without a wali” (Ahmad and Abu Dawud; verified to be authentic by Al-Albani). (See The Wali in Marriage: Role and Responsibilities.) The presence of the wali or a representative he has appointed is an integral element of the contract or else the contract is deemed invalid. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whichever woman marries without her wali’s permission, her marriage is void, her marriage is void, her marriage is void. If he (the husband) performs intercourse with her, the mahr (dower) becomes her right because he had access to her private parts” (Ahmad and Abu Dawud; verified to be authentic by Al-Albani). The Witnesses Another condition for the validity of a marriage contract is the presence of at least two trustworthy Muslim male witnesses. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “A marriage is not valid without a wali and two trustworthy witnesses” (Ahmad, Ibn Hibban, and others; authentic according to Al-Albani). The Mahr (Dower) The next element of the marriage contract is a mandatory marriage gift from the husband to his wife. In Arabic, this gift is called mahr or sadaq. Allah Most High said, [And give the women their dowry as a free gift] (An-Nisaa’ 4:4). He also commanded regarding this by saying: [ And give them their compensation as an obligation] (An-Nisaa’ 4:24). The mahr is the sole right of the wife and no one may take any of it without her permission—not even her parents. The dower can be in the form of money, jewelry, clothing, or other material things. It can also be a non-material gift. The Shari`ah has not specified any amount, but it should be in accordance with the husband’s financial ability and with what is reasonable for the bride in her social status. It is normally determined by agreement between the husband and the bride or her wali. A woman came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and offered herself to him. He declined, so a man who was present with him said, “O Messenger of Allah, marry her to me.” The Prophet asked him, “Do you have anything to give her?” He said, “No.” The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Give her at least an iron ring.” But he still could not afford it. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) then asked him, “Have you memorized any portion of the Qur’an?” He replied, “I have memorized such-and-such surahs.” The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) then said, “I marry her to you for the portion of the Qur’an that you have memorized.” This means that he was expected to teach her some of what he had memorized and to treat her kindly based on this memorization. All of that would be much more beneficial to the bride than lots of material gifts. Know that the best dower is that which is light and easiest upon the husband. This is actually a sign of blessing for the bride, as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Verily, a sign of blessing for a woman is that her engagement, dower, and giving birth are all made easy” (Ahmad, Al-Hakim, and others; its chain is good according to Al-Albani). `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) once gave a sermon in which he said, “Do not be excessive in regard to the women’s dowers.” It is recommended to give the bride her dower immediately after executing the marriage contract. Yet it is a very common practice to divide the mahr into two portions, an advanced and postponed portion. It defeats the very purpose, which is to be a gift prior to having any intimacy with the bride. Conditions At the time of carrying out the marriage contract, the two parties may wish to set conditions whose violation would invalidate the contract. This is acceptable as long as the conditions do not violate any Islamic principles. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Every condition not according to the Book of Allah is void, even if it be a hundred conditions” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim). An example of a condition may be that a woman stipulates that she remain in a particular homeland during their marriage. The conditions are normally set by the wife’s side, because the husband can terminate the marriage by uttering the divorce. Carrying Out the Contract It is recommended for the person conducting the marriage ceremony to start with a sermon, khutbat al-hajah, that was reported by Ibn Mas`ud and Jabir in At-Tabarani and by Al-Bukhari in At-Tarikh. The main and actual pillars of the contract are the offering and acceptance known as ijab and qabul. They signify the mutual agreement and acceptance between the two parties to join in this marriage bond. The ijab and qabul must be stated in clear, well-defined words, in one and the same sitting, and in the presence of the witnesses. The person conducting the ceremony may help the two parties say offering and accepting words. Documenting the marriage contract is not a requirement for the contract’s validty. However, it is important to document it for future reference and to preserve the rights of the husband and wife. Once the marriage contract is executed, all rights and responsibilities for the two parties become immediately due. We ask Allah to bless us with beneficial knowledge and cure us from the ailment of ignorance and Allah knows best! |
Saturday, June 23, 2007
The Marriage Contract: Its Basic Elements
Monday, June 18, 2007
US, EU Resume Aid to Palestinian Gov't
US, EU Resume Aid to Palestinian Gov't | |||
| |||
WASHINGTON/LUXEMBOURG — One day after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas formed an emergency government without rival Hamas, the US and EU decided on Monday, June 18, to normalize ties with the new cabinet and resume the frozen direct aid. "I told him the US would resume full assistance to the Palestinian government and normal government-to-government contacts," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters after phoning Palestinian Premier Salam Fayyad, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). "I told the prime minister that we want to work with his government and support his efforts to enforce the rule of law and to ensure a better life for the Palestinian people." Bypassing parliament, where Hamas enjoys a comfortable majority, Abbas swore in a new emergency cabinet on Sunday, June 17, under West-educated economist Salam Fayyad. The move followed a decision by Abbas to sack the three-month Hamas-led national unity government and declare emergency across the Palestinian territories poised to end its 15-month aid embargo. The new emergency cabinet does not include any Hamas members. The American decision came after hours after a similar one was made by Euroean foreign ministers in Luxembourg. "The EU will resume normal relations with the Palestinian Authority immediately," the ministers said in a statement. The ministers also agreed to "resume direct financial support to the government" and undertake "intensive efforts to build the institutions of the future Palestinian state". The 27-nation bloc -- the biggest donor to the Palestinians – and the US froze ties with the government and suspended direct aid after Hamas swept to power last year through the ballot boxes. Israel also froze hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and customs revenue collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority after Hamas's electoral victory, greatly exacerbating the economic crisis in the Palestinian territories. Full Support Rice told West-educated Fayyad, a respected economist and former employer of the World Bank, that American money would pour in again. "We intend to lift our financial restrictions on the Palestinian government, which has accepted previous agreements with Israel and rejects the path of violence," she said. "This will enable the American people and American financial institutions to resume normal economic and commercial ties with the Palestinian government." The US has outlawed sending any aid to the Palestinians and threatened to punish banks that transfer funds to the Palestinians, leaving millions of dollars donated to the Palestinians by Arabs and Muslims, peoples and government, locked in bank accounts. The announcement on lifting the 15-month embargo on direct aid to the Palestinians was all but certain Monday. "I'll talk to you later," Rice told reporters earlier Monday when asked about that possibility. President George W. Bush on Monday threw his backing behind Abbas during a 15-minute phone call. "The president pledged help and support," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "President Abbas described the steps that he has taken in the last week forming an emergency government and appointing (Fayyad) as the prime minister," Snow said of the conversation with Bush. "Also he noted that he wanted to resume the political process and open political channels." US Consul General in Jerusalem Jacob Walles said earlier on Monday that Washington would normalize relations with the new government. "I told him that we will re-engage with this government. We will again have a normal relation with this government," he told reporters after a 90-minute meeting with Fayyad. "I told him that the USA supports him." |
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Click on to Lanka’s bloggers
|
Friday, June 15, 2007
Local Nation With Hamas and International Support with Fatah
Hamas is freedom fighters of
Hamas got the power of the parliament by using same democracy which is following by all over the democratic countries. But the western world in back of
Abbas appoints new Palestinian PM
Abbas appoints new Palestinian PM | ||
|
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Power struggle in bloody muddle as Palestinian crisis deepens
The battle for Gaza is raging with Palestinians using their guns meant to ensure their liberation from Israeli occupation to kill each other in a self-destructive madness. It is a civil war in the making -- and a power struggle, too. Reports indicate that the situation in the Gaza Strip - a 360 square km patch of land where 1.5 million Palestinians have been squeezed into - is turning favourable to Hamas, the Islamic group which has locked horns with Fatah led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
It was in February this year that the two sides signed a power-sharing agreement in the Muslim holy city of Makkah in Saudi Arabia. But instead of peace, Palestinians saw bloodshed. The current spate of violence that has killed more than 70 people is the second time that clashes went out of control since the Makkah deal, in terms of which the important portfolios of interior, foreign and finance were given to neutral parties and the two rivals formed a unity government.
Last month too, hundreds died in the inter-Palestinians clashes, the first since the unity government was formed.
Fatah was to be blamed for triggering last month's clashes. It dishonoured the spirit of the Makkah deal when President Abbas deployed 3,000 policemen loyal to him to wrest control of the Gaza Strip from Hamas. The Interior Ministry, which according to the Makkah deal, was headed by a neutral person, was not consulted. Interior Minister Hani al-Qawasmi under whose purview such deployment should come, resigned in protest saying he had little power over matters of security.
A series of ceasefires were mooted and adopted but before the blood on the floor could dry, shots were fired to indicate that the game was not over.
The question that arises is: why is Fatah hell-bent on weakening Hamas in Gaza? If Fatah wants to increase its political fortunes and defeat Hamas in the next assembly elections, it should try to win the hearts of the Palestinians living in Gaza. Even if Fatah justifies its action saying that Hamas should be checked to resurrect the peace process with Israel, violence is not the answer. It is said that Fatah strongman Mohammed Dahalan is giving orders from Cairo, where he is recuperating, to his men to go all-out and bring Hamas to its knees while Abbas talks to Hamas leader Khaled Meshal regarding a ceasefire.
The situation exposes the weakness of Abbas who has little control over his own men.
The problem with Abbas is that he tries to be president of a militant society which has been living with violence for the past eight decades or so. Since the Ottoman Turks were defeated in the First World War, the lot of the Palestinians has been one of misery accentuated by the humiliation of being occupied and being ruled by foreign powers - first the British and now the Israelis.
Even as the Palestinians undergo untold hardship for the whole world to see on television screens, more harm is being inflicted on them with Israel grabbing more and more land by building a security barrier across the West Bank. What's sad, the western world led by the United States has little sympathy for the Palestinian people. There is very little political support for the Palestinian cause in the West where rightwing anti-Arab racists masquerade as liberals.
The West promoted Abbas who in turn showed the West that he too was a liberal. He did not don the military uniform which Arafat refused to part with till his death. He tried to introduce democratic ideals to the peace-starved Palestinian people living in abject poverty, little realizing that democracy was not priority number one for the Palestinians. He tried to renounce violence while his people died in violence perpetrated on them by Israel.
Abbas' civility was seen as a sign of weakness by the Palestinian people who believe that what has been taken from them through violence can be taken back only through violence.
After Arafat's death, Abbas became the head of the Palestinian Authority — an institution set up under the 1993 Oslo peace deal to administer areas from which Israel would withdraw. But he inherited an administration tarnished by allegations of corruption and mismanagement. The end result was the Palestinian people handed an easy victory to Hamas in the January 2005 elections.
Instead of honouring the people's verdict, the West imposed sanctions on the Hamas regime. It withheld humanitarian and development aid to Palestinian areas while Israel refused to release taxes it collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. The West and Israel demanded that Hamas renounce violence and recognize Israel and all agreements the Palestinian Authority had signed with Israel.
The standoff led to a collapse of the Palestinian economy with the authorities finding it difficult to pay the salaries of public servants who account for nearly half the Palestinian work force. The collapse of the economy only expedited the inter-Palestinian civil war, which Arafat with his political astuteness averted when Israel demanded that he disarm Hamas and other Islamic militants. But Abbas walked into the trap.
Latest reports indicate that Hamas has taken over the Fatah headquarters in Gaza. One senior Abbas aide said, "Gaza is lost", while others say the Palestinian Authority President would make a major announcement. There is speculation that he will dissolve the unity government and declare emergency or form an emergency cabinet.
But Abbas will have to seek parliamentary approval if he wants to extend the life of the emergency cabinet. Given the rising animosity between the two sides, it is unlikely that Hamas which controls parliament will vote for the extension. The move will only aggravate the crisis with the violence spreading to the relatively peaceful West Bank, where Fatah is said to be stronger.
One possibility is that the current clashes will lead to the division of what is left of Palestine -- with Hamas ruling Gaza and Fatah the West Bank. The ultimate victor in this violent power struggle among the Palestinians is Israel. The clashes will only delay efforts to revive the Palestinian peace process. In other words, Israel will continue to occupy Palestine, build more settlements and alter the path of its security wall across the West Bank, thus grabbing more Palestinian land.
The truth is that with each passing day, the Palestinians are losing more land and the resolution of the Palestinian crisis will become more and more difficult, if not complicated. Israel would also not agree to a 'one nation two people' solution because if the Palestinians were incorporated into Israel and the Palestinian refugees are allowed to return, it will give birth to an Arab-majority Israel. Israeli leaders say their country is a Jewish state and should remain a Jewish majority country.
What Israel and the West are trying to impose on the Palestinian people is a two-state solution living side by side. But they are not going to restore the 1967 border. The West and Israel are now talking about new ground realities. This means the future Palestine state will be whatever remains after Israel takes all what it wants from the areas it is now occupying.
Compounding the present crisis is a move to send an international peacekeeping force to Gaza. Both the United Nations and the European Union are in favour of such a force. Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has also given his nod. But it is unlikely that Hamas which virtually controls Gaza will agree.
The international force, to be formed in terms of a United Nations Security Council resolution, may have a mandate to disarm all militants. This will result in the Palestinian crisis taking a different turn -- of course a violent turn.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Another Bush legacy: Return to arms race
Fact box: Missile shield
|
George W. Bush is doing it again - dragging the world towards another conflagration. He fired the first shot, paving the way for the possible return of the Cold War that had kept the world divided into two power blocs for four decades until the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s.
Is the Bush administration so naïve as to assume that Russia would not see the threat posed by the US moves to set up missile defence systems in the Czech Republic and Poland? A few years ago, when Sri Lanka wanted to buy hi-tech Chinese radars to beef up its air defence systems to counter the threat posed by the air wing of the Tamil Tiger guerrilla, India shot down the move and forced Colombo to accept an outdated Indian radar system as a gift. The reason: India did not want the Chinese to come to Sri Lanka with powerful radars and pry into what was going on in Indian airspace. The radar equipment the United States will install in the Czech Republic will be much more powerful than what Sri Lanka was to buy from China.
Russia's angry reaction to the US missile defence system is totally justified. The United States assures that the missile defence shield is not targeted against Russia but against rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. But in terms of realpolitik, such assurances mean very little. If the United States is keen on intercepting Iranian or North Korean missiles, it should have first discussed the matter with Moscow since the US plan posed a threat to Russia's national security.
In an imaginary world of only two states which co-exist peacefully while maintaining balance of power, if one state suddenly adds more weapons to its arsenal, obviously the other will feel insecure. This will certainly set off an arms race which will continue until balance of power is restored.
Arms race: The cost
During the Cold War era — from early 1950s to early 1990s - the US-led Western bloc and the Soviet Union-led Communist bloc were engaged in a senseless arms race at the cost of the welfare of the people who inhabited the world. Arms races feed mutual suspicion and thus contribute to the build-up of tension or even lead to war. If a country reduces its defence expenditure, the money saved could be used for the welfare of its citizens, improve the country's infrastructure or the advancement of science.
A country that eventually wins the arms race becomes arrogant and wants to dominate the rest of the world, interpreting its intervention in the affairs of other countries in terms of national interest. Such a country refuses to believe that war is morally wrong.
The United States under the Bush administration is not the first country to fit this description. History is replete with examples that show the winner of arms races becoming aggressor.
But the advocates of America's missile defence shield may argue that war preparedness is war prevention. E. H. Carr in his book 'Twenty-Year Crisis: 1919-1939' advises policymakers not to be carried away by ideal norms which have not been tested or proved to be useful. He finds faults with the utopian international order - which was advocated by US President Woodrow Wilson and which existed from the end of the First World War to the beginning of the Second. As diplomats and scholars during this period believed in idealism or utopianism based on moral values, power politics was ignored. The man who thought in terms of power-politics was Hitler, while other European powers and the United States dreamt of a just world based on international law. Hitler's rise was largely due to the failure of his European rivals and the United States to nip in the bud the threat posed by the Nazis.
Since the end of the Second World War, the United States foreign policy has been guided by those who put power politics before moral values. They advised that moral values should be pursued in international relations only if such an approach helps increase US power and serves its national interest. So it is not surprising that the United States is coming to the neighbourhood of Russia, a nuclear power, ostensibly to counter the threats posed by Iran and North Korea.
In response to the US missile defence shield, Russia last week test fired a ballistic missile with multiple warheads. A missile with multiple warheads is difficult to intercept. Russian President Vladimir Putin at this week's G-8 summit in Germany told Bush that Russia was unhappy over the US decision to install a missile detection radar system in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland. He told Bush that they could, instead, share a radar station in Azerbaijan if the United States felt threatened by Iranian missiles and wanted to intercept them. Bush is reported to have said that he found the Russian proposal interesting. But analysts said it was unlikely that the United States would change its original plan.
The missile-defence crisis has brought US-Russian relations to its lowest ebb since the Cold War ended. Besides the missile-defence row, the two countries have been taking contrasting policy stances over a number of global issues. Russia is opposing a US-backed UN plan for independence for Kosovo, a Serbian region with an Albanian majority. Russia has criticized the United States' arms shipment to Lebanon to help the Fouad Siniora government fight the Islamic militants holed up in a Palestinian refugee camp. Russia has also hit back at US criticism at Putin's crack down against opposition figures in Russia. Washington also accused Russia of being a bully to its neighbours.
Russia is also smarting over the loss of its prestige as a superpower and Putin has not tried to hide his desire to make his country a force to be reckoned with in the international arena. The rise in oil prices has helped Russia to overcome its economic woes and made Putin confident that his goal of making the county a superpower once again is not unattainable.
Putin in an interview in February charged that the US was an imperialist power. He repeated the charge a week before his departure to the G-8 summit and said Washington was starting a new arms race by building a missile shield in Europe. Meanwhile, relations between Russia and Britain are also strained over the poison killing of former Russian spy Alexander Litveninko. Britain demanded that Russia extradite the prime suspect, former KGB agent Andrey Lugovoy, to face trial in London. But Lugovoy, backed by the Putin regime, told a news conference that Litvinenko was poisoned by British intelligence.
These developments point to a possible return of the Cold War. But it is unlikely that the present crisis will aggravate to the levels of what the world witnessed after the Second World War. The Cold War then was a clash between communism and capitalism and the two superpowers were backed by one country or another. The ground reality today is that despite the rhetoric, Russia has to catch up a great deal to become a military match to the United States.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
The human rights situation and humanitarian space in Sri Lanka
Tuesday, 5th June, Brussels
Your Excellencies, Distinguished Participants & Colleagues,
It is indeed a pleasure to be in Brussels this evening.
We have watched with interest from Colombo your engagement in particular, as a development partner and a friend in promoting peace.
I preface my formal presentation with a few a contextual facts relating to my requested presentation .Since Independence from Britain, Sri Lanka has contended with the challenges of governance of for a multi-ethnic society with competing demands of majority and minority interests, together with accompanying pressures of a plural society with significant development goals. Close upon three decades of civil strife, regional disparities in economic dividends for growth and peace with the impact of the Tsunami of 2004, has left the country with deficits in the realm of human security. A deficit which has resulted in conflict affected regions becoming isolated from the development framework, a national yearning for a return to normalcy and to manage expectations from Peace.
Dividends from peace
The dividends from the Ceasefire Agreement signed in 2002, resulted in approximately 100,000 families being resettled in their original habitat, 55% of mine clearance, totalling 35,832, 825 square metres of land, externally funded projects, estimated at Rs. 43,620.43 million , domestic fund utilization for restoration work in the North-East from 2002 – 2006 estimated at Rs. 3,056.00 million. Agriculture land was brought back into active production, rice production increased by about 90,000 metric tons per year and water supplies restored to approximately 20,000 families. People across the country began recovering their lives, economies and futures. Collectively we renewed our faith in peace as a means to erase conflict and to development. The onward progress has now stopped due to the resurgence in conflict.
Absence of peace
War derogates human rights and our country has not been immune. The Ceasefire Agreement was said to have frozen war. It has melted now, garrisoning in places people with terrifying consequences. A focus on human rights must have a focus on human lives. Accompanying losses to life, forced displacement, involuntary disappearances, reports of abductions, hostage taking for ransom , conscription, fear of attacks which disrupt day to life and stringent measures adopted to secure cities and urban life run counter to civil liberties of sections of our populace, which in turn accentuates existing cleavages amongst stakeholders and communities.
Humanitarianism
Reaching the vast expanse of displaced persons has posed harsh challenges to humanitarian agencies, with new regulations and procedures on access, a natural evolution and companion in times of conflict. Humanitarian agencies are neutral – in their principles and partisan to people in need, in their activities. It has resulted in some agencies, employees and families coping with direct assaults, intimidation and threats. Neutrality has come under fire. Though it remains as such and as long as there are people in need with access to affected people at the forefront of concern.
Amidst these challenges, humanitarianisms must persist to reach those who cannot run anymore, those who do not know where to run, those who cannot offer their children sufficient protection and those children who wonder why they are scared everyday of their lives. Equally our actions are called to account by all. A call which needs to be met with the highest of standards expected of us.
While we may not be able to bring about miracles, the humanitarian community in Sri Lanka has overcome obstacles of significant size and nature, and this strength should be a telling sign of the potential to reverse the devastating circumstances for many people.
In seeking progress we must catalogue our successes. We have seen progress amidst the challenges. A few reminders: engagement of multilateral and bilateral agencies and their investments, willingness of humanitarian action to weather conflict, development of frameworks for relief, rehabilitation and reconciliation, scintillating draftsmanship of a proposal for final settlement of conflict and constitutional change, engagement and dialogue by all stakeholders on challenges to human security, civic voices, calling to account derogation from human rights within Sri Lanka and realization of the limits of impunity given global trends.
Call for peace and hope
The search for human security away from conflict and indignity is global and ceaseless. The demands of human security include a balanced view of tragedies that are the result of terrible omissions as well as dreadful commissions.
In short a celebration of life as opposed to a memoriam for life. We must make it that much harder to justify destruction as a means to conquer one another and make dialogue, conciliation and accommodation a means to find solutions too many competing and justifiable claims from the peoples of our country.
Human rights will realize in large measure with the ebb of conflict and a focus on development. Such a common quest requires the enterprise of adversaries who are stakeholders of today, it is for the interlocutors and investors to bring out about this commonality of vision which together may assist us all to justifiably feel one day that we did what we had to when we had to.