The intertwining of ethnicity and religion means that the ethnic conflict
also occupies a religious dimension. The politicization of religion
has thus become a major impediment to peace building.

When distributing correct information and fact-based interpretations of current events, the media can be a powerful instrument of democracy. Media that provide accurate and comprehensive information are pillars of democracy and agents for conflict resolution by peaceful means. Through uninterrupted access to responsible news sources, the public is able to make the well-informed choices that sustain a democracy. However, the democratic establishment is impaired when the media become partial agents in society, intent on pushing their own agenda or the agenda of those in power. Where the media are not neutral reporters or peripheral observers but active participants in the conflict, they end up broadcasting and printing partisan information and polarizing divided communities further.

A major problem arises in the case of ethnic conflicts when national society itself polarizes between the ethnic groups in conflict. Even religious communities can become polarized and parties to the conflict, failing to engage in mutual dialogue and each taking a stand that excludes the other. In these circumstances, a medium becomes utilized by decision makers and opinion formers alike to become a part of the conflict, disseminating partial and partisan information. The Sri Lankan ethnic conflict has been no exception. For nearly three decades, Sri Lanka has been embroiled in civil war. Ethnopolitical tensions in the early nation spurred a Tamil nationalist movement, with a separate Tamil state as its agenda, and infighting among ethnic groups soon escalated into a full-scale war.

The Sri Lankan ethnic conflict has been considered to be "one of the deadliest and most protracted conflicts of our time"¹ and, until the recent crushing of the rebel Tamil Tigers in war, was the longest-running civil war in the Asian region. Although the war is over, the ethnic conflict that preceded the war and, indeed gave birth to it, still continues and needs to be dealt with through a political solution. The cultural diversity found in Sri Lanka is an essential aspect of both the roots and the development of this conflict. The majority, at about 74 percent of the population, is Sinhalese, most of whom are Buddhist. The rest of the population is divided among the Sri Lankan Tamils, who are mostly Hindu by religion and compete with the Sinhalese for claims of historical entitlement to the land; the Sri Lankan Moors, who trace their roots to Arab traders; and the Indian Tamils, who, again, are predominantly Hindu and were brought to the island as plantation workers by the British. A relatively small minority of both Sinhalese and Tamils is Christian.

While ethnicity is the primary marker of identity in Sri Lanka, it has become both socially and politically conflated with religion. Since the late nineteenth century, there have been increasing instances of religious conflict. In the post-independence period, this trend has intensified. The Sinhalese have been very effectively mobilized through Buddhism; similarly the Tamil-speaking Muslims have asserted a more distinct identity for themselves based on their religion. Hinduism, another early religion of Sri Lanka, is associated with having pure Tamil roots. These interactions between ethnicity and religion suggest that even though race is the primary source of social stratification in Sri Lanka, people are always "aware of the religious identities associated with different communities"² and that all religions have political elements to them.

The civil war in Sri Lanka, though classified as an ethnic conflict, is thus also one based on sacred identities and religious separations. The mobilization of religion for ethno-nationalistic purposes plays a key role in the war's social and political history. To gain power, the early Sinhalese elite used the historical record of an ancient Buddhist heritage to unite the Sinhalese into a base of electoral support. In its rise to power, the ruling Sinhalese elite tended to ignore the needs of Sri Lanka's minorities, severely damaging its relations with them.

In response to the increasing power of the Sinhalese, the Tamils began to harden their own ethnic boundaries, eventually giving rise to a volatile form of Tamil nationalism around which the rebel group Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was organized. Meanwhile, the Tamil-speaking Muslims, who saw their sociopolitical and economic interests floundering under increasing Tamil mobilization, asserted their own distinct ethnic identity. This intertwining of ethnicity and religion means that the ethnic conflict also occupies a religious dimension.

The politicization of religion has thus become a major impediment to peace building in Sri Lanka. The history of religious interference in political and social peace building has tainted modern perceptions of the potential of religions to advocate for reconciliation and forge peace. Furthermore, the recent political climate, one that has invested all of its energy and resources into a military "solution," does not look kindly upon messages of peace. Current faith-based peace-building efforts cannot be removed from this history or context, since each presents obstacles that must be tackled and overcome.

Such polarization is especially serious in light of the nationalistic atmosphere fostered by opposing extremist groups. These groups thrive by engendering societal divisions and bolstering conflicting nationalistic identities. Nationalistic identity, as defined by a political scientist, Benedict Anderson, is founded on how the nation-state is perceived by individuals;³ since this is purely a perception, however, it is subject to external manipulation. This is where the media play a key role. By publishing propagandist materials, by voicing only one-sided accounts, and by creating a general fear of "the other," the media are able to polarize Sri Lanka's ethnic communities and prolong their mutual dislike and distrust.

The media are thus an important informant in national identity formation and consolidation. Within Sri Lanka, they are particularly effective in promoting nationalism, since the public relies heavily on them for most of its conflict-related information. The perpetuation of nationalistic tendencies through the media is not by any means a new phenomenon. The powerful influence that the media hold over the people has allowed them to be repetitively manipulated for the use of substantiating and reaffirming nationalism. National governments, religious communities, and other establishments of power have all taken advantage of the media at one point or another, using their influence to garner support for their own agendas.

Other cases throughout the world also show how the media can become tools of nationalism. The media can be influenced by nationalistic policies, as when American newspapers mirrored government stances during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.⁴ Media can also reflect the nationalism of the people, as when nationalistic rhetoric took over the Chinese media when a Chinese pilot was killed in a collision with a U.S. military aircraft over the South China Sea.⁵ Perhaps most dangerous is when the media regenerate nationalism as they do for second- and third-generation Muslims in the West, radicalizing them through nationalistic content and the creation of informal Internet-based diasporic networks.⁶

Particularly significant in the theme of nationalistic media is the concept of "patriotic journalism." This is evident in almost all media coverage of any homeland conflict. When wars are waged against "the other," or national interests are deemed to be threatened, the media find that they must align with their own nation or risk being called traitors. During the Gulf War, for instance, the U.S. government collaborated with American media to generate very high public support for the war. In the conflicts the United States has engaged in more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, such authoritarian control of public information is still visible. While current news media are somewhat more sympathetic to the high toll on civilians in these regions, they are still operating under instructions to be circumspect in their television footage.

In the intensely nationalistic atmosphere created by such conflicts, the media are told "you are either with us, or against us."⁷ Their reporting thus becomes heavily one-sided, with no efforts to understand or engage with the opposition. The nation's failures are brushed aside in favor of critiques of the other, influencing the public to make uninformed decisions about whether such conflict is justifiable. The media thus become influential components of the conflict, reaffirming nationalism and sustaining the us versus them divide.

Much of the recent research and discussion on Sri Lankan media has found that it is currently difficult to find an independent, impartial voice in the media.⁸ Instead, information is both formally and informally controlled by those in power, creating inherent biases in the media structure. Thus the media repeatedly emphasize the tensions between the two groups by giving one-sided information, maintaining ethnic hatred, and destroying any wish the people may have for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Thus sections of the media not only polarize society now but sustain this for the future by not creating sufficient awareness among the general population about the need for mutual accommodation to arrive at a just and negotiated political solution to the conflict.

The escalation in conflict during the past few years has meant that there has been an increase in nationalistic thought and ethnic hostility within the country, the tensions of which are reflected in the media. The media are not detached observers of these events; instead the media actively encourage the conflict by intentionally reproducing prejudiced and incomplete knowledge. This is, in large part, because of who controls the local media. In Sri Lanka, the widest-reaching media are state run, with about 95 percent of the country having access to them.⁹ Since the majority of media establishments are aligned with the state, often out of a desire for sheer survival, much of the information distributed to the public is biased toward the government and rarely expresses the views of other parties.

Furthermore, since the media are primarily commercial institutions, they must ensure that they publish what is pleasing to their advertisers and their primary audience. This usually does not cause a problem when the consumers are diverse in background and opinion. Since readership in Sri Lanka is divided by ethnicity and religion, however, this allows the media to present a single, prejudicial, undisputed point of view. The difference is most glaring between the Sinhala- and Tamil-language media, where nationalism is consistently reaffirmed and the perspectives of the other remain distorted and unrecognized. Even the English-language media, though having a more varied audience, are influenced primarily by the dominant Sinhala perspective.

While ownership and an ethnically divided audience do influence the content of the media, media partiality can also be accredited to the personal biases of the journalists. The journalists, publishers, and editors who create the print media are not, as they are idealized, detached from society. They are very much a part of it. They are a part of the divisions, rivalries, and prejudices that constitute society. Being fully conscious of the powerful role they have, they seek to act in ways that promote the interests of the side they belong to. This personal bias that is introduced into the media is difficult to identify, since it is usually reflected simply through the wording of a report. It can be especially dangerous, however, when it leads to an outright manipulation of the facts.

Since all of Sri Lanka's ethnic and religious communities feel that their existence is threatened,¹⁰ a large majority perceive the current nationalistic conflict as the only means of survival. In the current climate where fierce battles raged and increased ethnic tension, and ethnic polarization increased, it thus becomes difficult even for religious leaders of either group to speak of a peaceful reconciliation that involved political compromise that deals with the roots of the ethnic conflict. Since peace necessitates negotiating with those perceived as the enemy and maintaining a sustained collaboration, it is construed as diametrically opposed to the values of ethnic patriotism. Those who work for peace that involved political accommodation and compromise with the other are thus branded as traitors and are publicly vilified as such. In the aftermath of the Sri Lankan government's military victory, nationalistic fervor is at a high level, which can make the need for compromise that reaches out to the ethnic minorities seem totally unnecessary.

Also, since religion has been so effectively tied to the ethnic conflict, it becomes particularly difficult for religious leaders who seek to be close to the ethos of their coreligionists to abandon the norm and speak for such a negotiated peace. As representatives of their group's beliefs, their public personae are subject to both external and internal pressure. There is usually more inducement to adhere to the more popular nationalist agenda, which can make it extremely difficult for religious leaders to openly support a political peace. Buddhist monks, who are the most influential on the political leadership, are also the most subject to such restraint.

It is important to keep these fears in mind when trying to establish an interreligious effort for peace. Those organizing such a project must understand that each religious group has its own specific concerns and that forming a unified idea of "peace" will be a difficult task. It must also be understood that while there may be some level of consensus among the leaders, this may not be immediately translated to the public. Nationalism and an exclusivistic group identity will be the hardest to combat.

On the other hand, while the religious communities are largely compartmentalized, they hold significant power over events in Sri Lanka. If they could overcome their internal nationalistic leanings, the religious communities would be able to generate a great deal of positive change. Thus, while the current perspectives and actions of the religious communities uphold the conflict, they can, with some effort, work to end it. One primary asset of the religious communities is their exposure to ideas of the universalism of human values. This, combined with the greater level of education, could be a positive source of information for decision makers and people in Sri Lanka.

Literature in the field of religious peacemaking identifies a number of specific, though not unique, strengths that faith-based actors possess. These include "strong faith-based motivation, long-term commitment, long-term presence on the ground, moral and spiritual authority, and a niche to mobilize others for peace."¹¹ Religious interventions can take many forms, involving local religious bodies, grassroots initiatives, or religious leaders to bridge "the divide between faiths to engage in dialogue, build relationships, and develop trust and work together to resolve common problems."¹² One particular asset of faith-based peace building in Sri Lanka is that the country is inherently very spiritual; thus when these interventions are framed within a religious context and argue for peace using religious narratives, they become much more effective in persuading involved parties toward peace.

Although the media have by and large been used to perpetuate conflict, it must be recognized that one of the most effective resources of the religious communities is their access to the media. A network of immense proportions, the media can reach all members of the Sri Lankan community and be a persuasive voice for peace and reconciliation. The religious communities must take advantage of this freedom and use it to transcend their internal divisions. By interacting with each other, the various members of the religious communities may be able to share their perspectives and realize a common ground. Through small group meetings and interviews with the media, and by using the Internet, they could create and adopt a collective Sri Lankan identity through which the conflict could then be addressed.

At the same time, it is also important that the media provide the opportunity for religious leaders to focus on peace and negotiated, as opposed to unilateral, solutions as a universal value. Only by publicizing such peace efforts will it be recognized that ethnic reconciliation is a legitimate possibility. If religious groups initiate links with local and international peace efforts and give them a visible presence in the media, the potential for reconciliation will gradually be publicly realized. Nationalism, though it may not wholly die out, will be visibly challenged, and constructive discussions on ethnic relations can then take place. If the religious communities can utilize the media positively and transform them into a proactive mode of ideological interaction, they will be able to reach a larger number of people with the message of peace. Through providing access to comprehensive information and a perspective informed by universalism, the religious communities could become a valuable vehicle for peace and democracy in Sri Lanka.