Some thugs can’t even name themselves…

It has been reported that Rajiv Gandhi, on his way to sign the Indo-Lanka Accord, had told Tamil Nadu politicians that the agreement he was to sign with the then president of Sri Lanka, J.R. Jayewardene, would bring Sri Lanka under the Indian orbit, just like Bhutan.

The before and after of the Indo-Lanka Accord is well known, but considering the recent joint-statement issued by the ministers in charge of external affairs of the two countries, it is worth a recap.  India, under Rajiv Gandhi and before him, under his mother, Indira Gandhi, armed, funded and trained Tamil separatists from Sri Lanka and as such has remained the principal instigator of and contributor to terrorism and all its horrendous and tragic consequences.  

The ‘after’ of the Accord saw the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) engaged in wanton acts of brutality against the very people whose interests the accord was supposed to uphold. The IPKF is guilty of destruction, torture, death, displacement, rape, petty theft and other such ‘peaceful’ operations in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Having rescued the LTTE from certain defeat via the Accord, India ended up having to deal with the wrath of the terrorists it spawned, breast-fed, spoon-fed and gun-fed.  ‘Tail between legs’ was how the IPKF left Sri Lanka.  By this time, natural antipathy to a regional thug had beefed up the fascist JVP of Rohana Wijeweera to launch its second and infinitely more bloody insurrection, leaving 60,000 dead in just over 2 years. 

India left behind one thing. The 13^th Amendment to the Constitution, whose political worth lies in the legitimacy it gives to the boundaries of the Eelam map, never mind the objections of history, geography and demography.  While some say that India did help Sri Lanka in combatting the LTTE, i.e. after 2005, no one can claim that such ‘help’ did not come with a political price tag.  It was not about a friendly and repentant neighbor doing the right thing. It was the neighbourhood thug engaged in extortion. 

Today, two years after terrorism was vanquished.  We celebrate this moment and must remember that we can do so mainly because of the political leadership, the security forces and the citizenry of this country.  If India helped (even grudgingly) in some manner, we would say ‘thank you’, but we need to point out that it is the least that India could do, considering her considerable and significant contribution to problem-cause. 

The statement referred to above clearly indicates that we should be sober in our celebrations.  It is one thing to defeat the LTTE and quite another to keep separatism at bay.  The one did not follow the other and only the naïve would believe that it should.  The LTTE represented the military option of the separatism, and for a time it did seem that guns could carve an Eelam out of Sri Lanka, whereby a community with no historical claim, amounting to less than 6% of the population (counting out Tamils living outside the so-called ‘traditional homelands’), would get control over one-third the land area and half the coast.  After the military option petered out, Tamil chauvinism had to get back to what I call the Chelvanayakam Option -- a little now, more later – with ‘little’ being the legalizing of the homeland claim (not even supported by myth, by the way) through the 13^th Amendment. 

What’s the source of India’s fascination with the 13^th?  Right now, the Congress Party is deep in some foul smelling matter.  Scandals, mismanagement and the usual dissatisfaction with incumbents have seen a drop in popularity, a decline which has found articulation in electoral debacle.  Tamil Nadu returned not ally but opponent.  It is clear that retaining power at the next General Election could come down to obtaining Jayalalitha’s support or else neutralizing it.  For all the antipathy that her state has toward Tamils from Sri Lanka when they do come there, either as refugees or on visit, the idea of a Tamil Homeland and related sloganeering continues to have a lot of political currency.  Placating Tamil Nadu is not a political choice for the Congress Party. It is an imperative. A ‘must’.

The wording of the ‘Joint Statement’ indicates a lot of arm-twisting on the part of Delhi.  Mentioning ‘investigations into allegations of human rights violations’, shows that Delhi must have cited moves by international thugs to harass Sri Lanka; it’s got ‘we will protect you brother, but at a price,’ the cost being the 13^th Amendment, which too has been mentioned.  Well, mentioned with a ‘plus sign’, meaning land and police powers (included in the 13^th as of now) and other things besides.  In reality, the small print is about editing the concurrent list in favour of Eelamist positions. 

Now it is not only the Congress Party that has problems. India, as a nation, is in crisis.  It has countless separatist struggles to deal with, a grand mismatch between projected image of emerging power and a lived reality of misery and numerous other problems that the IPL, braggadocio, a few nuclear reactors etc together or separately cannot take out from the governability equation.  India wants, nay craves, international recognition. India wants ‘thug-status’ acknowledged, i.e. by obtaining a permanent position in the UN Security Council. And nothing shows that country’s national angst than the fact that it cannot shed the name given by those who invaded and pillaged it.  Indeed that country because what it is courtesy of the invader.  That’s a huge psychological handicap to overcome. We understand. 

The Joint Statement shows that Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs had positioned himself (and thereby the country) as India’s vassal. There’s no mention of India’s endless wars, crimes against humanity, lack of domestic mechanisms to investigate known crimes against humanity (in Kashmir and elsewhere) and Sri Lanka’s concerns about these followed by India’s commitment to addressing them. 

Why should Sri Lanka give guarantees of any kind to India?  Sure, Sri Lanka is not as big as India, has a smaller economy and even though the average standards of living are far superior, Sri Lanka doesn’t have the fire power or the bucks that India can mobilize.  Sri Lanka is a smaller market and therefore cannot use its population statistics as leverage. For example, ‘we are a huge market, remember!’ is not a flag that can be waved to ward off the would-be de-stabilizer.

Sri Lanka has one thing that India does not, a ‘one thing’ that has stood us well over the centuries when dealing with invaders.  A sense of dignity.  Whatever is bartered away by politicians, the people recover, sooner or later. Whatever the costs!  The costs, in this case, will most definitely be a major electoral reversal for those who sell out. 

Sri Lanka did not become another Bhutan.  It will not.  Where Rajiv Gandhi failed, his wife will not succeed. Where J.R. Jayewardene failed, G.L. Peiris will not succeed. 

Twenty seven thousand members of the security forces paid with their lives to defeat the LTTE and keep separatism at bay.  Close to a hundred thousand of our citizens perished in this 30 year long conflict. Sixty thousand were killed in 1988-89 and India helped in that particular ‘evacuation’ by way of the Indo-Lanka Accord.  We have seen enough blood, courtesy of our neighbor.  They can make us bleed, again and again.  But death comes slowly.  This is something that India should realize. G.L. Peiris too. And of course Mahinda Rajapaksa.    

Read more

A return to the Buddha Vacana is called for in this 2600th Sambhuddatva Jayanthi

A friend of mine, a Christian, asked me a couple of years ago what ‘Sri Lankan culture’ was.  ‘Culture’, like ‘love’ is not easily defined. They can only be recognized by those who live it or experience it.  My response was something like the following: ‘There is, naturally, diversity embedded in the overall ‘Sri Lankan’ when it comes to culture, but to the extent that anything can be claimed to be the core of our overall culture, or has contributed overwhelmingly in terms of customs, traditions, art, literature and way of life, it is Buddhism.’

I have observed on occasion that while this does not and should not accord Buddhists any or affirmation when those who cannot allude to as extensive a history on this island speak of multi-religious as though all religions contributed equally or are an equal part of what is conveniently called ‘Sri Lanka’ and/or ‘Sri Lankan Culture’.  It is in fact political, and speaks of a politics that is not benign in orientation, practice and intention, especially in cases where the particular religion’s history (as evidenced by how its adherents/advocates have responded to the above cultural and religious reality) is not acknowledged or pooh-poohed by way of the easy and convenient ‘in the past’.  Such ignorance, arrogance and deliberate silence rebel against the basic tenets of humility and acknowledgment of truth inherent in all religious doctrines, and this itself speaks of pernicious intent.

Buddhism does not belong to this country or to any particular person or entity.  ‘Belonging’ is a term that can be associated with a doctrine only to the extent that the particular individual inhabits or is inhabited by or lives the fundamental tenets associated with it.  ‘Belonging’ in any other sense has nothing to do with teaching, but relates to self-identification with doctrine and requisites, as perceived by the keepers of the word or institution.  These ‘keepers’ are either self-appointed or made to inhabit posts or live with titles on the basis of particular interpretations of the word. 

This country was not born Buddhist.  Buddhists make the overwhelming majority of the population. Buddhism has influenced the arts, crafts, literature, governance culture and way of life of more people across the centuries and across the length and breadth of the island than any other religion or philosophy. It is only in a political sense that these realities are asserted, challenged, disputed and sought to be changed.  On the other hand, if ‘nation’ is about people and about culture, then attempts to unsettle the foundational elements of who we are have to be seen as deliberate designs to make us vulnerable to forces that seek to destroy us, even if such malicious and hate-filled agents do so under cover of constitutional guarantees about ‘religious freedom’. 

We are in the year of the Sambuddhatva Jayanthi, or the 2600^th anniversary of that life-changing, civilization-giving moment when the ascetic Siddhartha Gauthama attained enlightenment, achieved ultimate comprehension of the Four Noble Truths and vanquished the kleshas.  The entire country is decked with signs that acknowledge this moment.  It is not unnatural for the pruthgjanas to seek refuge in frill rather than substance. It is not unnatural either for those who are unable to engage substance but have some emotional association with trappings, to affirm the same by decoration and cheer.  Understandable, also on account of the violence unleashed upon all things and persons associated with ‘Buddhism’ by those who do a lot of injustice to the doctrines they subscribe to, for example the word of Jesus Christ, all the way from the Vatican to the self-proclaimed god’s-work-doers. 

I’ve been reading Susantha Goonatilake’s ‘A 16^th Century Clash of Civilizations’ and have discovered that I’ve known very little about the extent of hatred and ignorance that motivated bible-carrying, bullet-spewing Europeans to destroy and kill in the manner they did.  It is a book that all Christians in this country and elsewhere ought to read, to know what was done in the name of Jesus Christ and perhaps understand the suspicions with which evangelists are looked upon and indeed to understand the ‘why’ of the unjustified violence carried out against them.  This book, moreover, does not claim to cover the other eras of religious violence against Buddhists and the over structure of Buddhist social organization, including the destroying of temples, burning of libraries and books, institutional mechanisms to prompt convenience-conversions etc. 

All this explains to an extent the cry we hear now and then to ‘Save Buddhism’.  Lost in the rhetoric and related politics is the salient fact that Buddhism is a doctrine that is not soliciting protection.  The relevance and preservation of the dhamma is dependent not on flag, assertion and ritual, but by its acceptance and level of residency within, as exemplified by the extent to which it informs action. 

Buddhism is a way of life and ‘Buddhist politics’ is essentially about subscribing to tenets that shape action and word, thought and comprehension; in other words all engagements, personal and public, individual and collective. 

When I read this book I was surprised by the fact that there are still Buddhists in this country and that the dhamma is still alive, both in word and deed.  I realized that the reason for this has less to do with Buddhists getting mobilized than about Buddhists living the dhamma in accordance with their relative karmic strengths.  This is not to say, however, that Buddhists should not think ‘collective’, for the Buddha’s discourses did accord considerable value to things ‘social’ and reflect a deep consideration of interactions among people and groups.  Still, it was not ‘organization’ that saw this land fight back the wicked and ignorant.  If there was ‘Buddhist Politics’ that helped us get to where we were, it is because of individuals such as the Most Venerable Velivita Sri Saranankara Sangha Raja Thero, who were committed to relevant scholarship, deep reflection and had the knowledge, skill and will to teach. 

Listening to bana on the radio or associating with scholar bikkhus, attending discussions on the dhamma, following the five precepts, being aware of and reflecting deeply on how best to associate with different categories of people (e.g. in the Singalovada Sutta), abiding by the sathara brahma viharana (Loving kindness, compassion, equanimity and rejoicing in another’s joy) etc., is what will preserve Buddhism, and to the extent that preserving Buddhism preserves ‘Sri Lanka culture’ or ‘Sri Lankanness, if you will), protect this land. 

The Word of the Buddha or the Buddhavacana, was valid yesterday.  Today we celebrate the 2600^th Sambuddatva Jayanthi. Tomorrow too, the Buddhavacana will be valid.  It will empower.  Not on account of frill, but substance. 

We have seen signs, recommending that this celebration be a matter of returning to and inhabiting the tenets of Buddhism, viz ‘pilivethin pelagesemu’. Inherent in this call is the recommendation for a collective effort.  It is the ‘pilivetha’ (practice) that makes celebration meaningful. It is the ‘pilivetha’ that makes a meaningful collective that is wholesome, not just to Buddhists but everyone else, all other communities and indeed even those individuals and collectives that are anti-Buddhist or believe that asserting faith necessarily involves vilification of and/or destroying of other faiths, by burning books, unethically converting and seeking legislative cover to carry out such operations.

Of all the Buddhist assertions I’ve seen in the recent past, one stands out: those who abide by the dhamma is protected by the dhamma.  Valid for the Buddhist and valid for this country, not because this is a ‘Buddhist Country’ (a meaningless proposition), but Buddhism contains the understanding, logic and practices that make for protection.

Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta!  May all beings be happy.

Read more

The radical must be wary of ‘logic’

These notes on radicalism, based on our Budun Wahanse’s Charter on Free Inquiry, the Kalama Sutta, are based on certain assumptions about the creature under consideration, namely the radical.  The ‘radical’ relevant to this discussion is one endowed with integrity and an aversion to sloth.  He/she would not shove into footnote, ‘superstructure’ and other convenient dismissal-categories such as imponderable and externality that which doesn’t fit theory but rather seek to explain and failing which return critically to text and equation, adjust or even abandon if these prove to be wanting in explanatory and predictive power. 
The slothful will always twist and turn to fit fact to theory, typically getting by and away with turn of phrase, half-truths, irrelevant quote and such.  Rhetoric is useful in political practice but a rhetorician is no radical. 

The true radical will eschew convenience and will constantly question premise and assumption and moreover subject theory to the scrutiny required by each and every piece of information encountered. 
It is in this context that Siddhattha Gotama’s discourse on inquiry can be of use to radical and would-be radical.  The constant call to question is a striking feature of Buddhist philosophy and indeed is unique in that it openly invites critical consideration of the philosophy itself.  The Kalama Sutta by suggesting that a person should not take as logical or true or wholesome something just because some wise person said this was the case, immediately invites a dissection of this very claim as well as the entire corpus of the Buddha Vacana.  

Typically, the radical, once enamoured with a particular doctrine and sufficiently acquainted with relevant quotes, truisms, the if-thens, either-ors etc., ceases to take into account the possibility that the theoretical body is framed by a set of assumptions, which may or may not be completely true or universally applicable across time and space.  The relevant ‘logic’ naturally persuades the radical to see mismatch and contradiction in other doctrines and equations that are based on different sets of assumptions and/or flow from different logical apparatuses.  A couple of examples might be useful at this point. 

Marxism is a grand narrative that is replete with grand constructions.  In its more puerile articulations (which are what radicals reference for the most part, or at least are referenced most frequently by those who believe ‘revolution’ is coterminous with regime-change and tend to be fixated with altering names and the structures of exploitation and suppression but typically end up replacing one set of thugs by another), Marxism spawns lots of quote-buffs who are fascinated by and frequently trip over binaries.  So we have structure and superstructure, culture predicated on economy, production modes bleeding into production relations and an ‘inevitable’ movement from feudalism through capitalism to communism.  This determinism has buried many ‘revolutions’ but at great cost in terms of human life, cultural vandalism and intellectual suffocation. 

All doctrines tend to come with or develop along the way magnificent archives that hold both fundamental teachings as well as interpretive narratives.  Those fixated with relevant doctrinal logic are automatically burdened by blinders which make for tunnel vision.  They tend to throw chapter and verse at adversaries, often paying no attention to the relevance of context. 

The same holds for other ‘radicals’ as well.  History is full of ‘radicals’ who draw from the ‘logic’ of revolutionary text, religious dogma and political philosophy, convinced that these are error-free and reliable. 

The problem is often exacerbated by the fact that the interpreter, hampered by human frailty, is prone to erroneous reading of what may be a reasonable proposition (relevant of course to time-space specifics).  It is hard to believe that Jesus Christ would have condoned the Crusades or what some of his followers did and do in terms of ‘spreading the good news’. It is hard to believe that Prophet Mohammed would bless those who wage Jihad in the name of Allah. It is hard to believe that Siddhattha Gotama, our Budun Wahanse, would condone those who attack ill-intentioned individuals hell-bent on converting people to Christianity in the by-any-means-necessary mode of operation.  But all these individuals do take refuge in doctrine and the ‘logic’ therein, often violating many fundamental tents of the very same teachings. 

Even if, for argument’s sake, one believes that The Teacher relevant to the particular politics/radicalism was all-knowing or spoke/wrote with astral authority, there is no escaping the fact that follower is in the final instance a ‘reader’ and that reading is necessarily done through the blurred glass that is location in the matrix of culture, aspiration, ego, preferred-outcome, intellectual capacity, personality quirk and so on.  Even ‘logic’ is read through such flawed interpretive lenses, which is why the same equation is differently read by different people in different contexts.  All the more reason, then, for the radical to treat with healthy suspicion and to inquire and interrogate relentlessly the logic he/she subscribes to.

Pierre Bourdieau, the French Sociologist put it nicely when he said ‘that which goes without saying, comes without saying’. It is a call for inquiry, for treating the ‘givens’ critically.  Bourdieau’s proposition refers to something that is perceived to be external and externally pernicious, something which can tweak mind-set and grow within.  The Kalama Sutta suggests that the principle can be applied not only to the invasive ‘logic’ by the subscribed-to logic as well.  An excellent rule of thumb, I believe, for the young radical as well as to the more mature practitioner who has to sooner or later comes to terms with the fact that life has a wicked way of tripping word.

Let us reflect awhile on the crux of the Charter:

Kalamas, when you yourselves know [that] 'these things are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; and when undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them.  Kalamas, when you know for yourselves [that] these are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them.’

Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta. May all beings be happy!

Read more

Lionel Ranwala Foundation leaves a footprint in Zhangjiajie

On the 8^th of September, 2011, a young Sri Lankan, a medical student studying in China, had visited Zhangjiajie.  On his t-shirt was a Sri Lankan flag.  It was not the first time he had worn this t-shirt in China but it was the first time it was noticed.  In fact, wherever he went, there were people wanting to photograph him and be photographed with him.  He did not understand for it had never happened before.  

Then he met Sahan Ranwala.

Sahan Ranwala was in that city for a week, from September 10^th to the 16^th, attending an International Folk Music Festival.  The troupe he led, that of the Lionel Ranwala Foundation, was one of 29 teams from 28 countries, not counting 21 Chinese groups that were participating. 

All the teams had to perform twice a day for an entire week. Most had come ready with one or two programmes.  The Sri Lankan troupe performed 15 different items.  They had in fact stamped the Sri Lankan signature on the entire festival from day one, theirs being the best item of the opening ceremony. 

Of the fifty groups, 6 were adjudged as the top performers.  Sri Lanka’s flag fluttered proudly among these winners, the rest of the elite group comprising the United States of America, Russia, France, Georgia and South Africa.

Ten young people well versed in all aspect of Sri Lankan folk music stood out from the rest on account of their versatility.  Sahan told The Nation that they were focused on expressing in their performances the amazing diversity of the Sinhala folk song.  The audiences were treated to a fine mix of traditional music, with the troupe having put together pieces that were representative of the three main traditions, Udarata, Pahatharata and Sabaragamua.  There had been nelum gayana, raban gayana and the songs associated with shanthikarma. 

‘We received accolades from all quarters, but almost everyone praised our performances for being able to give the message of the lyrics in dance and music,’ Sahan said.  He mentioned especially the ‘Vessanthara Velapuma’ which had moved many to tears.  The explanation was simple: ‘The melody and performance would give them the idea of the item and they recognized that each item contained a central and profound concept with which they could identify’.

More than presenting new material at each performance, they were unique in that they were able to get the audience involved as well. 

‘It was a very proud moment for us to see the Lion Flag among the flags of bigger and better known nations.  We sang deshabhimanee gee (patriotic songs) all the way from the hall to the hotel. When we arrived in the city, no one knew us or about us; few indeed knew of Sri Lanka.  By the time we were ready to leave, there was no country bigger than Sri Lanka.’

It was bound to happen, though.  On the first night, i.e. after the opening ceremony, there had been a function.  Everyone had brought their drums.  Everyone played.  After some time we tried out the traditional drums of our fellow participants from other countries.  They were all surprised that the Sri Lankans could play their drums.  All they did was to watch and then try their hand at these instruments they had never touched before.  The Israeli troupe was made of all drummers.  Their leader had tried to play the traditional Sinhala drums but hadn’t been able to demonstrate the kind of mastery that Sahan’s team had shown playing their (the Israeli) drums.  Whatever dance they saw, they watched carefully and danced themselves. Needless to say they were noticed, applauded and highly appreciated. 

Their versatility, freshness and unique ability to transcend language barriers and touch hearts of people from vastly different cultures had endeared the Ranwala Foundation troupe to everyone. 

Sahan said that they did not expect anyone in Sri Lanka to have heard about their exploits and that they were pleasantly surprised when a special felicitation was organized for the troupe at the BMICH and when they also received a special award from the Buddhist Congress. 

The troupe representing the Lionel Ranwala Foundation and the nation were sponsored by the Ministry of Cultural Affairs.  Sahan expressed gratitude to the Minister of Cultural Affairs, Hon. T.B. Ekanayaka, the Secretary, Mr. Bimal Rubasinghe, the Director of Cultural Affairs, Mr. Vijith Kanugala and Prasanna Batiks who provided the costumes.

A few weeks ago, the citizens of Zhangjiajie did not know about Sri Lanka.  Today, few would not know about Sri Lanka.  That’s the secret of everyone wanting to take a picture with that random Sri Lankan medical student wearing a T-shirt with a Sri Lankan flag.  The people of Zhangjiajie know the Lion Flag.  They know the rhythms of Sri Lanka.  They have heard the traditional drums.  They have heard folk songs born in the Udarata, Pahatharata and Sabaragamuwa. 

Maybe there's a lot we can give the world.  Maybe all it takes is to be ourselves. In all the glory, all the giving, all the erros and tragedies.  If this country has a culture, it must have a rhythm.  It's good to know that we have something unique.  Something that people of other cultures can related to, admire and applaud. 

More power, therefore, to the Sahans of our land. 

Read more

Radicalism must tread gently on legend and tradition

The revolutionaries of the 20^th century were, admittedly, influenced mostly by the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the Germanic notion of ‘stages’, the on-the-ground example of the Russian Revolution and the voluminous theories it engendered, Euro-Centric, deterministic and in other ways flawed of course. 

The formulation included an observation that the capitalist epoch would obliterate things ancient and even new-formed opinions and prejudices would themselves be antiquated instantaneously (Communist Manifesto: section on ‘Bourgeois and Proletarians’).  What we witnessed is the opposite, but perhaps we are still not yet as far into the capitalist age as warranted by the description ‘late capitalist’ frequently used by some Marxists. 

Marx also rubbished history and tradition and created the impression that revolutionaries and revolutions are ‘revolution-bound’ to abandon/destroy everything touched or smeared by the ‘past’.  In the ‘18^th Brumaire of Louis Napolean’, Marx plays on Hegel’s claim, ‘all great world-historic facts and personages appear twice,’ offering that the first time it is tragic and the re-enactment a farce.   What he failed to anticipate was that Marxism and its adherents would end up creating their own histories, develop their own iconography, temples and holy cows, and consequently their own tragedies and farces, although not in the order of Marx’s formulation. 

What did make sense and indeed made for healthy revolutionary practice was the question mark that he stamped on ‘the past’, including tradition, customs, prejudices and opinions.  His know-all followers, handicapped by the yes-no, black-white, either-or logical frame on which their gurus built the theoretical edifice that they came to regard as temple and consequently worship, unfortunately read question-mark as revolutionary license to rubbish and destroy.  They’ve not progressed much either in the elimination of ‘tradition’ or in bringing the exploited closer to emancipation. 

What is pertinent to this discussion is the fact that Marx had a point, even though it was vulgarized by his followers.  Marx predicted or at least hoped that man would in the end be ‘compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind’.  There is very little in life that is ‘compelling’ and the compelling is as influenced by reason as by emotion, as much by cold logic as by burning blood.  The sobriety that Marx would have liked quickly gave way to fixation. The doctrine of approximation was replaced by the erroneous ‘finality’ of exactitude and consideration of context ditched for parroting of convenient quote and the inevitable abandonment of question mark in favour of exclamation mark.    

It is perhaps an indicator of colonial servility that prevented many Marxists from discovering and/or acknowledging that Siddhartha Gauthama, our Budun Wahanse, had in less dogmatic and therefore more ‘compelling’ and sober ways outlined the importance of questioning ‘tradition’ and ‘legend’.  ‘Do not believe in traditions and legends simply because they have been handed down for many generations,’ the Compassionate One told the Kalamas in outlining the pithy and telling Charter of Free Inquiry, the Kalama Sutta.  What is recommended is not the wholesale abandonment of tradition and legend, but an informed and critical engagement with these elements.

Marx wrote that the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living and warned that they are particularly heavy in ‘revolutionary’ moments, with ‘revolutionaries’ conjuring up the spirits of the past, borrowing from them names, battle slogans and costumes.  Marxists are as guilty of this error as any other ‘revolutionaries’.

It is true, is it not that we tend to treat legend and myth as fact?  Are we not reluctant to examine and determine the true dimensions of event and personality by stripping account of frill? Are we not selective when we refer to history, prone to valourization of that which feeds our political project and suppression of that which is uncomfortable or disconcerting?   How ready are we to obtain a narrative of some reasonable degree of approximation by peeling off rhetoric and poetry? 

Is it not true that people whose accounts of community and lineage are short on acceptable evidence often depend on ballad and slogan while rubbishing history as irrelevant? Don’t those who belong to communities whose track record is made of bloodletting and pillage prefer political discourse to be limited to the here-and-now and do they not call for the virtual burning of books (that survived the arsonist adventures of fellow-practitioners of an earlier era) by outlawing ‘history’ from school curricula?  Is it not true that some faiths happily embellish the relevant doctrine by borrowing artifact, symbol and even tenet from other traditions and thereafter treat these as ‘god-given’, sacrosanct and exclusively owned by the faith from then to now and all time? 

The importance of questioning legend and tradition stems from a simple observation, i.e. such things are not cast in stone but are in fact products of contexts and histories.  That which makes sense in one context, i.e. in a particular time-space matrix need not necessarily have meaning in another.  The difference between the Marxian formulation and that of our Budun Wahanse is that the former is dogmatic and lends to finality whereas the latter advocates the exercise of reason and the application of logic taking into consideration all available facts pertaining to the context.  Underlining it all is the call for equanimity.  Budun Wahanse neither recommended the hard grip or fixation, nor did he advocate out of hand rejection. What is stressed is ‘critical engagement’. 

What is advocated is not blind acceptance of word (which is what legend and traditional amount to) or the callous rejection of something simply because it is a ‘legend’ or is ‘traditional’.  It is always a judgment call but one predicated on the exercise of reason and not a response to some emotional impulse.  This is the spirit in which ‘legend’ and ‘tradition’ should be considered by those who want to change things as they are. 

To the Kalamas he said, "When through the exercise of the intellect and the testing through observation and practice you discover that these things are bad, these things are blamable, these things are censured by the wise and these things when undertaken and observed lead to harm and ill, abandon them’.  That which is and that which was, by virtue of existence in the ‘now’ or in the ‘past’, respectively, are not necessarily good and/or wholesome.  In the case of traditions and legends, the revolutionary would do well, I believe, to assess their dimensions, relevance and benefits. If they are indeed good, if they are not blamable, if they are indeed praised by the wise, and if, when undertaken and observed, they lead to benefit and happiness, then, as Siddhartha Gauthama advocated it would be logical to enter on and abide in them.  Not otherwise. 

A revolutionary, accordingly, is by definition, called upon to apply his/her critical gaze not only on that which he/she seeks to change but that which he/she considers ‘articles of faith’ as represented by relevant legends, myths and traditions. 

Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta. May all beings be happy!

Read more

Media is spin but it need not be

One of the most inspiring slogans I’ve encountered is the tagline used by ‘Indymedia’, i.e. the Independent Media Centre, which was established by various independent and alternative media organizations and activists in 1999 for the purpose of providing grassroots coverage of protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle.  It was a simple proposition: ‘Be the media’.  The suggestion was that we don’t need to have things described for us; we can and should exercise our minds to obtain information, assess veracity and engage in dissemination ourselves. 

The internet helps, certainly, but one should not be complacent for the forces of infomanipulation, to coin a word, are not unaware of the potential of the internet to subvert their machinations.  Search engines are not innocent; those who wish to misinform deliberately craft websites to structure what might appear to be ‘random’ searches so that particular opinions get formed.  Thus one needs to search intelligently and consistently look for alternative renderings and analyses in order to obtain a better understanding of events, incidents, personalities and processes.  For the most part, however, the version of the mainstream media wins the day.    For the most part, we are not the media.  For the most part, media is spin. 

Take the coverage of the so-called Arab Spring for example.  The mainstream media went berserk, as it did when George W Bush illegally invaded Iraq.  The ‘enemy’ was clearly identified, suitably tagged (brutal, dictator, tyrant, despot, etc. were frequently used words), and the largely uninformed consumer of mis-truth were egged on to purchase uncritically the mainstream version of things.  Now consider the fact that the protests in Libya at the beginning of the ‘Libyan Spring’ were nothing compared to the magnitude of protests sweeping the Western world as I write with thousands upon thousands mimicking the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement in countless cities, and hundreds upon hundreds being beaten, arrested and tortured.  Consider also that NATO moved into Libya to enforce a No-Fly-Zone in order to protect civilians from alleged attacks by President Gaddafi’s Air Force whereas  the same media institutions that saluted this move is tongue-tied when it gets to demanding a similar security devise for Afghan and Pakistani civilians who are being regularly bombed by US Air Force drone attacks.  Spin is selective, clearly. 

Then we get the Australian network ABC, taking a leaf out of BBC and Channel 4, shamelessly showcasing the lies mouthed by ex-terrorists without bothering to check credentials or reliability of claim.  We also have someone called Paul Cleary, writing for ‘The Australian’ claiming that ‘Tamils are still enslaved in northern Sri Lanka’, citing a Tamil National Alliance MP (E. Saravanapavan).  Cleary could have done a background check on the MP and his party and their servility to the LTTE and consequent grief at the vanquishing of that terrorist organization.  He could have done a compare-and-contrast about how Sri Lanka handled the issue of displaced civilians vis-à-vis the conditions of IDP fallout from US-led attacks on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, not to mention the rescuing of some 300,000 civilians held hostage by the LTTE, resettlement of more than 98% of them and the rehabilitation and reintegration of thousands of ex-terrorists.   

Cleary paints a bleak picture which would give the impression that there are hundreds of thousands languishing in refugee camps while those who are not are being totally neglected by the government.  Saravanapavan is mischievous enough to tell only a fraction of the story.   He claims that 800,000 Tamils are living as ‘slaves’.  The man clearly needs to check the dictionary meaning of the word ‘slave’ and ask himself if his party was not slave to the LTTE and was not in fact de-slaved by the Sri Lankan Government when the slave-master was liquidated.  Cleary could have gone back to the basics of writing a news story.  He didn’t.  He spun or let himself be instrument of spin.  Deplorable.

The Northern Province, contrary to Cleary’s claim was never ‘controlled by the Tamils’. The Tamils were controlled by a terrorist outfit and parts of that province was controlled at gun-point.  The impression created is that there was some kind of benign Tamil ruler operating in the Northern Province, for he claims that the area is ‘now run like a military dictatorship’.  Spin, clearly.

Cleary was interviewing a foreigner and has the out of saying ‘I was quoting him’.  ABC, on the other hand, knew what it was about.  Meens Krishnamoorthy, appropriately frilled for camera by ABC, was a member of a terrorist outfit and someone who underwent weapons training.  Her associates include international criminals who raised funds for terrorists, facilitated arms-procurement and acted as spokespersons for terrorists, the pin-up boy being a rogue who goes about dressed as a Catholic priest, ‘Father’ Emmanuel. 

Meena Krishnamoorthi, like many other Tamil Australian citizens who were or are members of either the Tamil Youth Organization and/or Australian Tamil Congress, were members of a non-Australian armed group. Therefore, over and above the fact that credibility of statement is severely compromised by the fact, they have violated the Australian Constitution, especially Crimes Act No 13 of 1978 which covers ‘Foreign Incursions and Recruitment’.  ABC and all other media institutions that purchased ABC Spin are guilty of aiding and abetting all those who have transgressed.   

Is ABC naïve, ignorant, incompetent and moronic? I think not.  ABC, like Channel 4 and BBC, like Al Jazeera and all the mainstream networks in the USA and Europe know very well what they are doing.  They are spinning as though their lives depend on it.  In fact their lives do depend on it, sadly. 

So, does spin always work, always win the day for the spinners and their masters and mistresses?  Not always.  The continent of Africa didn’t buy the spin on Muammar Gaddafi.  The entire world didn’t buy the spin on Iraq.  Not purchasing didn’t alter the course of history as blueprinted by the USA and her allies of course, but it seems that spin is losing its potency.  Slowly. 

What spin cannot purchase has to be obtained by fire-power.  This is what we are seeing all over the world.  On the other hand, when 99% of the people rise up against the 1% who keep them down, spin can’t do much and bullets can’t do all. 

The most formidable bulwark against spin and bullet, in the final instance, is the truth and collectives determined to weed out the lie.  It is good to be the media.  It is imperative that we be the media.  Everywhere.  Here in Sri Lanka too. 

[Courtesy, 'The Nation', October 30, 2011] 

Read more

Asset declaration by candidates necessary but not sufficient

A question is put to John Reed (played by Warren Beatty) in ‘Reds’, the classic film based on Reed’s authoritative account of the Russian Revolution, ‘Ten Days that Shook the World’: ‘Mr Reed, what do you think this war is about?’  Reed, a well-known journalist who had just returned to New York after covering the Mexican Revolution for the Metropolitan Magazine and the war referred to was World War I.  Reed stood up and the audience attending the lavish dinner party fell silent, expecting a profound analysis.  He offered a one-word answer: ‘profit!’

Had John Reed been asked what politics is about today he might give the same answer.  Profit.  Money. Making-money.  A lot of money.  That’s what politics is about once manifestos are forgotten, posters and cut-outs removed, leaflets recycled and rhetoric becomes a dim memory.  Candidates and parties spend millions of rupees to boost image and convince the voters that they and they alone can solve their burning problems.  They are all honest, clean, skillful, energetic and wise.  Or so they claim.  If all this was true then we would be living in a perfect society and in physical and social landscapes devoid of crime, squalor, wastage, preventable diseases and wastage.  We do not, alas!

If it was only about empty rhetoric that is soon forgotten and non-delivery of promises, it would still be sufferable. The truth is that for all the grand claims and pronouncements, not only does nothing concrete materialize by way of enhancing the overall well-being of the population.  Why then should anyone contest?  If they were honest and if they realize they just cannot deliver, they could admit incompetence and resign or at least choose not to re-contest.  This hardly ever happens.  We are forced to conclude, given the fact that the salaries and other legal benefits of holding office are insignificant compared with amounts spent on campaigns, that Reed’s observation is eminently applicable to politicians.

Politics is like a special machine where someone who looks pious, well-meaning, sincere and capable goes in and a fat, arrogant, self-satisfied and wealthy individual comes out.  The arrogance and body shape can be forgiven, but not wealth-accumulation.  Not in a democracy that can claim to be ‘functional’. 

It is in this context that a recent statement made by the Elections Commissioner, Mahinda Desapriya regarding asset declaration by candidates needs to be examined carefully.  Mr. Desapriya has sought powers to disqualify any candidate failing to declare assets prior to submitting nominations.  He states that while most candidates had complied with the requirement, some are yet to come clean. 

What is important, however, is not mere asset declaration but a meticulous examination of declaration to test for falsification.  If the relevant laws do not require honesty in declaration and the powers to verify claim, and if there are no legal mechanisms to assess assets acquired while in office, then obtaining asset-declaration is nothing more than eyewash. 

It has to be kept in mind that crooks are resourceful creatures and tend to have a better understanding of the law than the average citizen and as such are generally educated about all the loopholes as well.  There are many ways to hide assets and many ways to explain wealth acquisition, after all.  As things stand, unless the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption makes a move, elected candidate just move on to the next election.  In the very least, there is no mechanism to note differences in asset endowment of candidates up for re-election and therefore no queries seeking explanation for difference if any.

What is required then is a more robust set of laws so that politics ceases to be another name for profiteering through commissions, favours and bribes. What is required also is a proper and independent auditing mechanism.  Most importantly, what is required is hawk-eye vigilance on the part of the citizenry.  It must be noted that unfortunately a culture has developed where the voter expect the voted to make bucks after being elected.  This is a ‘par for the course’ that helps make the general voting population deserving of the kinds of governments and representatives they get saddled with post-election. 

If the public is complacent, then the crooks who see politics as buck-making vocation cannot be expected to be on their toes, forget about enacting laws that would inhibit such operations.    

The Elections Commissioner has not laid it out as thick as the general public would like, but he’s come out and said something that needed to be said.  It is brave of him and he needs to be supported at all levels and by all stakeholders.  If this is not done we will continue to caricature novice parliamentarians and other elected representatives as scrawny hopefuls who, with time, are drawn as smug and obnoxious fatties.  The people will laugh but the politicians will continue to have the last laugh.  It will continue to be raucous and unpalatable, and will extend the validity of Reedesque comment regarding the purpose of politics, namely, ‘profit’. 

[Read 'The Nation'; the above is the editorial, October 30, 2011] 

Read more