03 December 2011

On the ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ of Indo-Lanka relations

[This article first appeared in 'The Nation', on November 28, 2010] 

In a thoughtful piece titled ‘For a treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation with India’ in The Island of Saturday, November 27, 2010, former ambassador, K. Godage has laid out the basis on which Indo-Lanka relations should be developed.  He has considered the history, the geopolitical realities, the today-factors and outlined the ‘ought to be’ in cogent terms.

Godage refers to the ‘Gujral Doctrine’ and suggests that India should revert to that progressive and far-thinking document when considering for relations with other South Asian countries.  He has pointed out that there is a complete trust-breakdown at present between India and other South Asian countries and this is true. 

India has not been the good-hearted neighbour at all times and even when it helps out (as some claim it did during the last stages of the war), such largesse has been considerably outweighed by India’s pernicious history of fermenting division and orchestrating destabilization, not to mention the natural and legitimate moves to secure economic benefit in overall engagements with Sri Lanka.  The Gujral Doctrine insists that India gives and accommodates without demanding reciprocity.  That’s a nice wish.  The reality is the opposite and indeed one where there is little ‘giving’ or ‘accommodating’. This is not surprising because one really cannot expect much from a nation that cannot ‘give’ anything to nor ‘accommodate’ the vast majority of people in Kashmir and indeed has limited its giving to maiming and killing. 

Godage says that Sri Lanka should not anger or cause concern in India by appearing to undermine India’s strategic regional interests.  This is sensible advice.  We do not live in a flat world and we must keep in mind that we don’t have the military might to back us in a self-righteous shouting match with India, even though India, after the IPKF fiasco must know that a military adventure in Sri Lanka will cost it dearly (India, we note, is hard pressed to keep her own terrorists at bay and ‘Kashmir’ ought to have taught the regional thug that an irate citizenry will harass an invader to the point of tears and beyond).  We need to keep things in perspective, yes. 

Bilateral relations, however, is a two-way street even between parties of unequal strength.  India’s non-Gujral ways of operation can push Sri Lanka to seek non-intruding help from other sources.  There is no help that comes without strings, of course, but there are strings and there are strings. Some come with the tag ‘reasonable price’ and some with the ugly sticker ‘blackmail’.  Relations with India, sadly, appear to be more of the latter type whereas the China and Iran strings seem more palatable. 

There is a reason why Sri Lankans are wary of India and this is not just because of Indira Gandhi breast-feeding Eelamism and terrorism and her son Rajiv playing J.R.Jayewardene every which way he could.  There is a reason why Pakistan is seen as a friendly country.  There’s a reason why the Minister of External Affairs G.L. Peiris has to say ‘we haven’t taken devolution off the agenda’ when his Indian counterpart, S.M. Krishna says ‘Sri Lanka must not sort out her outstanding issues including finding a political solution for the Tamil people’, even though devolution was not mentioned in the ‘friendly’ observation.  I can’t imagine G.L. Peiris responding in this manner if for example Makhdoom Shah Mahmoon Qureshi, the Pakistani Foreign Minister said ‘it would be nice if Sri Lanka sorts out all outstanding issues pertaining to grievances and aspirations articulated by the Tamil people’.   

It will take statesmanship of a far superior kind and one which necessarily includes a high degree of humility on the part of India to come anywhere close to the Gujral Doctrine.  As of now, India has got the rhetoric right and that’s such an easy and such a tiny part of the deal. 

Godage was a diplomat and this shows in the tone of his writings. He says, ‘Please allow us to sort out our problem and do not seek to impose external solutions to problems we understand best and need to sort out in our national interest.’  Yes, India wants us to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’. Even when they kick us in our national gut.  Until a time comes when civility and respect underline all bilateral relations between India and her neighbours, niceties will be surface-made and will not have any depth in political, economic or any other reality. 

I doubt if S.M. Krishna will hear Mr. Godage.  I am not hopeful he will hear me.  That’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it Mr. Godage.  We need dialogue and we beg for it.  India wants monologue.


02 December 2011

Who is the Real Mahinda?

[This article first appeared in the 'Sunday Lakbima News' of November 7, 2010]

Mahinda Rajapaksa is a dictator.  The Rajapaksas are running the country as a family business.  They are a clan.  They are into dynasty-building.  They are robbing the treasury.  They are ruining the economy.  They’ve turned Sri Lanka into a ‘failed state’.  The Rajapaksas, led by Mahinda, are the worst news that Sri Lanka has heard post-Independence.  He is a disaster when it comes to foreign relations and has angered the big players in the international community, the USA, Britain and the rest of the European Union. He is vindictive; incarcerating his political opponent and one time Army Commander, Sarath Fonseka while befriending those who are guilty of massacring hundreds of people (Karuna, Pilliyan) or else creating conditions for such blood-letting (KP) as well as known racketeers preying on people’s helplessness (Devananda). He’s a racist, anti-Tamil and is not interested in resettling the IDPs, who by the way he’s treated very shabbily. He stole an election.  There is wide-spread discontent. He will be ousted soon.

That’s one school of thought. 

Mahinda Rajapaksa is the best thing that happened to Sri Lanka post-Independence.  He ended a 30 year war and vanquished terrorism without conceding one square inch of territory, ideological or otherwise, to Eelamists, tiger-striped or otherwise including the devolution-fixated slaves of the worst elements of Indian hegemony.  He has given Sri Lankans back their dignity, a sense of purpose and created the conditions for people to better themselves in spite of the machinations of politicians. 

He has a close-knit set of advisors, chief among whom are his brothers Basil and Gotabhaya, this is true, but given history of betrayal and pursuing of self-interest to the detriment of national-interest, it was imperative that he surrounds himself with people he could trust in order to fight the war to a finish. Moreover, they are competent.

The economy is on a sound footing.  There’s development, mega and otherwise. Infrastructure is coming up.  Inflation is under control.  State enterprises have not been sold, asset bases have expanded and those who make wild claims about sell-outs are hard pressed to substantiate allegation.  As for foreign relations, he seems to have unshackled himself from the myth that the Long American Century is not yet done.  He understands that the balance of global power has shifted and his thinking on international affairs has taken this into account.

During his tenure, he saved hundreds of thousands of Tamils from the grip of a terrorist, oversaw the greatest ever hostage rescuing operation in history and although not keeping to self-set deadlines, has treated the IDPs in ways that no other nation or leader has treated people in similar situation and has ensured that resettlement is as swift and as smooth as is humanly possible. He won an election, fair and square.  He is secure in power.

That’s another school of thought. 

I believe that Mahinda is no saint. I don’t believe he’s a devil either. He’s just a politician being political, doing what is necessary to retain power, twisting the rules when he has to using what powers are at his disposal. He is not subtle and he’s not crass.  He’s a middle-ground player.  He can unite polar-opposites.  He is a pragmatist. He knows there are no permanent enemies or friends in politics and knows that the edifice of national prosperity cannot be constructed on quicksand called political instability. For this reason he puts his arm around despicable people, forgiving and forgetting as convenient to his political stability as well as to the nation’s wellbeing. 

The Rajapaksas are having a good time, of this there’s no doubt.  Are they making money?  Well, considering what people in power usually do, one would be persuaded to say ‘yes’ or at least ‘probably’.  Are they dynasty-fixated? Yes and let’s add here that so too are the other ‘political’ families, the Senanayakes, Bandaranaikes and Wijewardenas; all Colomboan in mind-set and acculturation whereas the Rajapaksas are distinctly village-born and rural. 

I doubt the figures trotted out by Ajith Nivard Cabraal but don’t subscribe to the horror-scenarios articulated by his detractors in the UNP.  I don’t think the UNP’s traditional power-base, the business community, is unhappy with him because no regime has been this friendly to the private sector.  He is not poor-friendly but neither is he their sworn enemy. He’s a consolation prize. For instance, I have no doubt that if Ranil Wickremesinghe were in Rajapaksa’s shoes, we would have lost the People’s Bank, Bank of Ceylon and the National Savings Bank.  As things stand, we still have these entities, got back the Insurance Corporation, Sri Lankan Airlines and control of gas.  Could be better run, yes, but we are now less susceptible to being screwed.  I am thankful.

I don’t think he’s anti-Tamil, but I think decent as his treatment of IDPs has been, he could have done better.  He’s not a democrat in spirit and neither is he a statesman; he’s just a politician who is using to good effect to further his interests a constitution made for someone else. He didn’t steal any elections but neither did he win fair and square.  The outcome, however, was not changed by the unfairness. 

Is he about to be kicked out of power or is this impossible?  Neither.  I don’t believe in ‘forever’ and neither do I believe, given realities, in ‘imminent’.  There is dissent, some discontent, but there is also huge popularity, a distinctive and disturbing absence of credible opposition and a bunch of objectors so despicable on so many counts that make the man look positively benign. 

The West is down but not out and even if it were, it is silly to annoy people, especially the ill-willed and ill-intentioned. Some might say you can’t have the cake and eat it, but there’s balance to be struck and this is something which Mahinda Rajapaksa has time and again tripped over. 

As for those who are salivating about the story that Mahinda didn’t go to London because he was scared he would be arrested for war-crimes, they should do a re-think.  That’s the kind of thing that helps boost the man’s popularity at home and helps him consolidate power-hold.  It takes something from Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans, sure, but that’s ‘besides-the-point’ when it comes to politics and political longevity.  A seasoned politician knows this and there’s no one more seasoned than him around these days. 


01 December 2011

Gunadasa Amarasekera: The dentist — philosopher rooted in Sinhala soil


[This article was first published in the Sunday Island in 2001]

Some people are controversial. Some fall victim to the invective that arises out of controversy. Some, very few, smile and go about their work regardless. I suspect that such people are able to weather the storms they unleash or provoke because they have resolved to commit themselves to perceive the eternal verities of life and as such are not perturbed by praise or blame. Some people demonstrate this quality in their work. In others it is present in all their life activity. They are rare.

The first time I encountered Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera was in the early seventies, when my parents took me to the Dental Institute to get a tooth extracted. Or was it a filling? I can’t remember. I do recall a smiling face. And just the other day, it occurred to me that the warmth written in that smile had not changed. We chatted for hours about his life, his extensive writings, literature, politics, the changes this country, and the ferment in its cultural ethos, challenged as it is by the seemingly inexorable intrusion of western ideological drives in their patently violent forms.
He was born in 1929 and grew up in a remote village called Yatalamatta, some 15 miles inland of Galle. His father was a vedamahattaya and his mother the headmistress of a school. Gunadasa was a sickly child and whereas his older brother and younger sister had been sent to the missionary school in Baddegama, he had been kept at home until he was 12 or so on account of the epileptic fits he had been regularly afflicted with.
Gunadasa maintains that this was a blessing in disguise because it allowed him to familiarise himself with Sinhala literature. His father had been an ardent admirer of Anagarika Dharmapala, and being well versed in both Sanskrit and Pali and given to reciting the classical epics such as the Selalihini Sandesaya. In fact he had written a poem dedicated to Mahatma Gandhi in Sanskrit. Apparently the principle of Vidyodaya, Rev. Baddegama Piyarathana, was his father’s brother. He also remembers listening to his mother reading from the Kusa Jathakaya in school. The intellectual climate in the household had also been enhanced by newspapers such as Sarasavi Sandares which were regularly purchased.
As such there was already a culture of learning and appreciation of literature that the young Gunadasa was enveloped in. This was complemented by the inevitable immersion in the cultural ethos of the village life.
At 12, Gunadasa had been sent to Baddegama so that he could be educated in English. He had stayed with his aunt’s family, who were Christian. "That was my first encounter with the West, and I remember instinctively rebelling, for instance, arguing the worth of ayurvedic medicine."
He went to Nalanda during the war years. "There was a certain ‘awakening’ among the Sinhala educated people. We had W. A. Silva’s novels, the Colombo poets and of course Gamperaliya came out in 1944. It was also at this time that the free education movement began. People like Kannangara and Malalasekera were unreservedly ridiculed. The Catholics, the Christians and the English educated elite rebelled against these trends."
According to him "1956" didn’t just happen. It was preceded by long struggles and many factors, including the existence of people like his father whose sensibilities were deeply rooted in the strong foundation of our culture.
It was while at Nalanda that he first showed signs of becoming a writer. To begin with he was influenced by teachers like W. S. Perera, or "Siri Aiya" as the poet was better known, Karunaratne Abeysekera and Ridgeway Tillekeratne. He also closely associated with the Colombo poets during this time.
"It was around this time that D. B. Dhanapala started the Lankadeepa, thus challenging the Lake House monopoly, and more than that encouraging the local traditions and writers. In 1952 the Times Group had organised a short-story competition, sponsored by the New York Herald Tribune. Gunadasa had submitted a story titled "Soma" which had won first prize. Soma, along with the winner in the English category, "A culture of hate" by A. Felician Fernando, were later published in a collection titled "World Prize Stories".
This had naturally given the young author some exposure and M. D. Gunasena had come forward to publish a collection of short stories titled Rathu Rosa Mal just before he joined the university. He had studied science at Nalanda although the school was not noted for its strength in these subjects and had been selected to the Dental School at Peradeniya. His studies in dentistry did not prevent him from experimenting with the Sinhala language and its creative potentials. While in the university he published a collection of Sinhala free verse titled Bhava Geetha.
"Even at that time, I was looking for a ‘native’ form based on our folk poetry and its particular structural forms such as the pasmath viritha. Bhava Geetha was followed by Amalbiso, Guruluvatha and Avarjana. Karumakkarayo and the short story collection Jeevana Suwanda, also came out around the same time."
The sheer volume of his work during this time, considering also the fact that he was following a strenuous programme in dentistry, clearly speaks to the man’s discipline as well as the intellectual and creative ferment within him. Gunadasa explained that the above mentioned works belonged to what he calls the "first phase," i.e. when he was relatively free from the influence of the Western traditions. They also worked around immediate themes such as university life, adulthood and its associated problems.
Later he was to be heavily influenced by Western authors such as D. H. Lawrence and Arthur Miller and possibly explains his flirtations with eroticism. It was during this "second phase" (which he says was "imitative") that he wrote the novels Yali Upannemi and Depa Noladdo.
It is perhaps not possible to talk about this period of the writer's life without mentioning Peradeniya University and everything it stood for. "There was a general culture of looking to the West." Although Gunadasa remains sympathetic to the socialist ideal, he claimed that he was not too enamoured with the Marxists: "Instinctively I felt something alien in their approach, it was probably the cultural factor." Or perhaps the absence of it in the way that Marxists then and now explicate their canon.
Gunadasa marks Martin Wickramasinghe’s critique of the Peradeniya novel as the beginning of the "second phase" of his journey with the pen. "Martin Wickramasinghe charged that those who belonged to the Peradeniya school were mere imitators and that they were looking through foreign lenses. And so arose the controversy between him and Sarachchandra. Initially I took up a position that was oppositional to Wickramasinghe, but later I reexamined my views. I came to realise that the tendency in Peradeniya was to take man out of his cultural context. They were looking for universal human values."
Perhaps it was a product of the maturing process. Gunadasa himself admits that self-criticism is part and parcel of the writer’s world since he is constantly questioning things. For him a writer is primarily an intellectual. "For a serious writer, writing is not an end, but a means to an end, it is a living process. He has to come to terms with what he perceives, writing is but a by-product of the process."
He left for his post graduate studies in 1967. Gunadasa claimed that by this time his views had undergone radical change and he was intent on trying to place people in the social and cultural context. He wrote Gandabba Apadanaya just before he left. This marked his "third phase".
England had been an eye-opener. "I realised how alien they were and how radically different we were to them. During this time I came out with Ektemen Polovata, Katha Pahak, and Premaye Sathya Kathava.
Gunadasa laments that our reading public, society in general and the intelligentsia have stopped growing. He offered that this is probably due to the fact that once the flaws of blind aping of the West surfaced, it petrified people and prevented them from coming up with something of their own.
"My novels are hardly discussed. I am not saying that they are excellent works, but I do believe that they are worthy of comment and discussion."
It is also in this "third phase" that Gunadasa ventured out of literature to the political and ideological spheres in a more direct way. Abuddassa Yugayak and Ganadura Mediyama Dakinemi Arunalu, this is clearly evident, the latter becoming a veritable handbook of those who found answers to some of their burning questions with regard to civilisation and the social-political crisis they were undergoing in the Jathika Chinthanaya school.
"I found that literature alone was not enough and that something had to be said in a more direct form. In 1980 I wrote Anagarika Dharmapala Marxvadiyek da?" I remember Dr. Nalin de Silva writing a harsh review of the book. But he later told me that that was the book that changed him and took him away from Marxism."
I ventured that literature is able to implant ideas in a deeper way within a person’s sensibilities as opposed to ideological theses, and he said "A writer is someone who experiences discontent. His mind is a prism, it can express itself academically, through fiction, essays or any number of ways. Take Martin Wickramasinghe for example. There is no argument that he is a colossus among the Sinhala writers of the 20th century. But he did not stick to fiction. Through his novels and his essays he was searching for one thing, the Sinhala Lakuna, the Sinhala mark or identity.
"But I do see your point. If our politicians were poets things would have been much better. Look at Mao, and even Lenin, who saw the political and philosophical worth of Chekov’s Ward Six.
"Marxism in Sri Lanka was conspicuously non-creative. It became a substitute for thinking. Our Marxists have made absolutely no contribution of significance to the debates within Marxism. Here it was nothing but fuel for dull minds and mediocrity."
It was time to move on to Jathika Chinthanaya and his long association with the much maligned, controversial and in many ways invaluable Dr. Nalin de Silva.
"As I said earlier, the seeds of ’56 were planted by Anagarika Dharmapala. He helped create the intelligentsia in the village. In fact I believe that the future of this country is still in the hands of the educated rural youth. Rural peoples are culturally rooted and disciplined. What happened was that we got a full blast of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Challenging this cultural imperialism will have to be based on civilisation and nationalism. The West does not have the answers. They are fundamentally rooted in analytical philosophy which is but an expression of philosophical poverty. I think Wittgenstein was right when he said that ‘It’s just language’.
"This is why, the post-modernists can’t go beyond a critique. At least the Marxists tried to go beyond what existed. They failed because they are philosophically tied to the same modernist principles."
Discussing Jathika Chintanaya, I asked him if it was correct to say that the very demand for a definition of the idea is indicative of the modernist affliction and fascination with neat equation and categorisation. He agreed. "It is a concept. There is nothing to ‘discover’ here. We just articulated it, but it is also present in the work of Dharmapala and Munidasa. It is something that is evident everywhere, it’s flavour is understood in the flesh if we move from the Western fixation on ‘having’ to the idea of ‘being’."
He explained that some of the leading lights of the Frankfurt School, those who pioneered Western Marxism in the USA, like Eric Fromm and Max Horkheimer seem to have understood this. "In his essay To have or to be, Fromm claims that the Western world was never Christian outside of the period between the 13th and 16th centuries. They moved from paganism to the industrial revolution where reason degenerated into manipulative intelligence and individualism to selfishness, resulting in a quick return to the original paganism."
Gunadasa observed how in the 50 plus years since Independence, we blundered because we wanted to follow the pagan ethic of "wanting to have". "We moved from Marxist Socialism to extreme capitalism. Why? Because we were rudderless, so to speak. Whatever success that the Marxists enjoyed was because of Buddhism, and its socialist orientation."
"The interesting thing is that renowned theorists like Huntington have now understood that history did not end as Fukiyama claimed, with the world moving towards a uniform set of values, but that what was paramount was the civilisational collectives and drives. Jathika Chinthanaya translates roughly as ‘civilisational consciousness’. I first wrote about it in the Divaina. Nalin of course gave it a solid philosophical foundation. In fact he was our first postmodernist.
There are two categories of people in terms of the reaction to the idea. The first don’t understand it in philosophical terms and you can’t blame them. After all they have been subjected to three centuries of cultural imperialism and as such are handicapped by history. The second category includes those who will fully refuse to acknowledge its logical worth. They find it dangerous because it speaks of a national ideology which is a threat to Western imperialism of which they are but pawns and part beneficiaries."
Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera is a quiet optimist. Unlike Nalin, he is less interested in the overtly political, and believes that his forte lies in the use of the word. And this he has used to good effect. The series of historical novels that started with Gamanaka Mula, quite apart from their literary worth, are eminently sociological works that trace the evolution of the so-called Sinhala middle-class. We have already been treated to Gamdorin Eliyata, Inimage Ihalata, Vankagiriyaka, Yali Maga Vetha and Duru Rataka Dukata Kiriyaka. They are said to be biographical but clearly go beyond tracing the intellectual journeys of a single man, remarkable though he may be.
It is certainly beyond my task to offer a full literary criticism of the collected works of Gunadasa Amarasekera. All I can say is that his books are read by the intellectually curious and those who enjoy books for their sheer literary value. The value of the man, is, I believe beyond calculation. I remember an essay in his Ganaduru Mediyama Dakinemi Arunalu, where he takes to task those who characterise people like him as "deshiya buddhimatun" or indigenous intellectuals. He asks "What does one call those other, non-deshiya intellectuals? The point is this, if one is not deshiya, by definition one cannot be an intellectual."
At 71, Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera is long retired from his dental practice. His mind, however, is clearly still at work. I found him to be equipped with up to date knowledge and deep understanding of both the current debates in academic circles as well as a comprehensive understanding of both local and international political currents.
He is currently working on a sequel to his thought-provoking Gal Pilimaya Saha Bol Pilimaya, which he says will probably be out in two to three months. The tentative title is Pilima Lovin Piyavi Lovata. In addition he is working on the last two parts of the series he started with Gamanaka Mula.
I can’t resist saying, "we are fortunate". And also quote my friend Piyasiri, "One man is not a front". But then again, this "front" is and will remain as invisible as the ranks that made up "1956" possible. Hopefully this time around, they will rise outside the crass frames of power politics. In any event, when such change occurs, there is no doubt in my mind, he will rank high among those whose lives made it possible to imagine and create a new kind of living, closer to that which is at the core of who we are, our cultural sensibility.

30 November 2011

Old Trotskyites don’t die…

My teacher and friend, E.C. Gunasekara, disciplinarian, sportsman and wonderful conversationalist and human being, who even while fighting a cancer was trying to convert me into Christianity, had in his living room (Pamankade) a wall-hanging of a batsman just failing to make the crease before the keeper whipped the bails off.  There was caption: ‘Old cricketers never die, they just get run out.’  I’ve seen many such ‘old (insert profession/category) never die…’ lines since.  Most of them are cute, and, theoretically at least, applicable to anything and everything, all kinds of people. 

What kind of (not) dying line would be appropriate for Trotskyites, I wondered a short while ago.  Thinking of Trotskyites, took me to a lecture by Dr. Desmond Mallikaarachchi in Peradeniya. This was either in 1997 or 1998.  His topic was Maaksvaadaya maranne kawda? (Who is killing Marxism?).  There were about 50 people in the audience, most of them members of the JVP’s student wing, the Samaajawaadi Shishya Sangamaya (Socialist Students’ Union), one from the Samaajawaadi Samaanatha Pakshaya (Socialist Equality Party), i.e. the new avatar of the ‘VIKOSA’ or Viplavavaadi Komiyunist Sangamaya (Revolutionary Communist League) and maybe about 10-15 who could be said to sympathize with the Jathika Chinthanaya school. 

Desmond focused, naturally for that time, on Nalin De Silva, Gunadasa Amarasekera and the Jathika Chinthanaya School the two had helped form and develop into a significant presence in the universities.  It should be mentioned that the ideological thrust and political will so necessary for crushing the LTTE came mostly from the work of these individuals over a period of more than two decades, a fact that none of their detractors who now enjoy the fruits of that victory are willing to admit.  Desmond, as always, gave an interesting lecture.  Naturally, I did not agree with everything he said. 

There was a question and answer session following the lecture. I had a question.  Three, actually. I offer below the English translation.

‘Who kills Marxism?  Is Marx not murdered by the traditional left or the Old Left when entering into coalitions with right wing or centrist political parties? Is Marx not murdered when so-called revolutionaries hold a galkattas to the heads of workers and force them to “strike”? Was Marx not murdered by Trotskyites who put a full stop to the dialectic when Trotsky was murdered?’  Desmond answered in Sinhala: ‘Ow, ow,ow (yes, yes and yes)’.    

I got black looks from the TVPers. The sole VIKOSA member who was seated next to me, Dharshana Liyanage displaying that latest streak of fascism in all Trotskyites, used his elbow on my ribcage, scowling in a fashion that made the JVPers’ seem quite friendly.  There was no one from the Old Left.  There was, technically, come to think of it, one. Dhammika Amarakoon, who had never been able to hand in his letter of resignation (from the party) because the party office in Kandy was never open. 

If Old Trotskyites don’t die, what happens to them, I asked myself again.  Are they knocked down by a train called reality as they grope blindly along a deterministic tunnel?  Are they blown over by the nescience (lack of knowledge or awareness; ignorance) that has been the natural product of the marriage between tunnel-vision and arrogance, blessed of course by the high priests of crass materialism? 

Can we say, ‘Old Trotskyites never die, they just get their knickers so twisted in the iron-grip of the dialectic that they are rendered intellectually immobile’? I remember another Trotskyite, again from the VIKOSA, Jayasekera from the Engineering Faculty.  Now I had some regard for the two to three Trotskyites on campus because unlike the JVP boys they had actually read some Marx (key word, ‘some’).  One night I was traveling in a Mahakanda-Kandy bus.  This Jayasekera gets into the bus somewhere near Getambe. The bus is quite empty and he happens to sit near me.  I smile. He smiles back. I ask, ‘Ithin kohomada, me dawas wala monavada karanne?’ (So, how are things, what are you doing these days?). He looks at me as though I have asked the stupidest question on earth: ‘Monavada karanne? Politiks!’ He downs me.  I smiled and mumbled acknowledgment of his wisdom, what else can one do when confronted with such ‘unidimensionality’?

Old Trotskyites don’t die; they just grow so bitter that they might as well be called Bitterites.  Old Trotskyites don’t die; they are so black-and-white that they go colour-blind.  Old Trotskyites don’t die; they are so self-righteous that they don’t realize when they end up in or are co-opted by the Right Wing.  Old Trotskyites don’t die; handicapped by a deterministic ideology and therefore burdened with logical inconsequentialities, they lost capacity to think straight and spend their years twisting and turning as though they have been afflicted with a bad case of KPG (Kiri Panu Gaaya) to justify assertion. 

Old Trotskyites, nevertheless, if they spend enough time in the land of their birth and among the people, find immortality thanks to the sheer force of tangible evidence and sometimes even graduate out of Trotskyism into other isms, most enlightening of which is Buddhism.  Some, on the other hand, flee looking for greener pastures, to other continents, discover that the world is not built on ‘material’ and ‘economy’, get uprooted and go unsteady and return home only to find that they just cannot re-root in any way.  Such people spend their years spitting so much that their mouths go dry and their voices become hoarse.  They suffer such depravations, emotional and otherwise, that their final refuge becomes an unholy fascination with organized religion and the worst crooks ever to be in the pay of colonial powers hell-bent on serving the interests of capital.  That they don’t see is perhaps a blessing.  I would not wish anything but myopia for these Old Trotskyite dodderers, some of whom masquerade as Renaissance Men.   

That’s a good end, then.  Old Trotskyites don’t die; they just call themselves Renaissance Men and engage in doddery.

29 November 2011

Obama (unplugged) at the UN General Assembly

Disclaimer 1: This article first appeared in 'The Nation' (September 26, 2010).  Had I written this after this year's UN Sessions, I would have done Barack Obama greater justice. Sorry Barack.

Disclaimer 2: Barack Obama, President of the United States of America addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York on September 23, 2010.  President Obama is a Nobel Laureate, an intellectual (at least compared to his predecessor) and a man who understands words.  I am convinced that text that’s been doing the rounds was a dud.  I am convinced that chunks have been left out.  This is an exercise in correction.  I am taking his rhetoric and filling the blanks.  What’s given in UPPER CASE LETTERS is, I am convinced, paraphrasing of what was left out. No, this is not the entire speech, but includes key sections that appear to have been deleted.

REMEMBER ME AND THIS SPEECH. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME A US PRESIDENT IS BEING HONEST.

Underneath ALL THE challenges to our security and prosperity lie deeper fears: that ancient hatreds and religious divides are once again ascendant; that a world which has grown more interconnected has somehow slipped beyond our control.  I DO NOT NEED TO GIVE A LECTURE ON INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY OR TRACE THIS HISTORY FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT MY COUNTRY AND OUR ALLIES HAVE BEEN LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS.  I AM HERE TO ANNOUNCE A NEW BEGINNING. WE WILL BE DIFFERENT FROM NOW ON.

As for our common security, America is waging a more effective fight against al Qaeda, while winding down the war in Iraq. LET ME ADMIT RIGHT NOW THAT THE WAR ON IRAQ WAS ILLEGAL (AS MY BRITISH FRIEND NICK CLEGG SAID RECENTLY) AND UNWARRANTED.  IN SHORT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.  IT WAS ABOUT OIL.  TO BE HONEST WE WILL LEAVE ONLY WHEN WE ARE CONVINCED ABOUT CONTROLLING OIL AND A SECURE MARKET FOR OUR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE IT IS BETTER IF WE CAN DO ALL THIS WITHOUT A MILITARY PRESENCE.  AS FOR THE A QAEDA, WE’VE DISPLACED CLOSE TO A MILLION PEOPLE, KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AND ARE NOWHERE CLOSE TO FINDING OSAMA BIN LADEN. INDEED WE’VE EFFECTIVELY PRECIPITATED A RESURRECTION OF THE TALIBAN. AGAIN, IT IS ABOUT OIL.  I CONFESS.

As we pursue the world's most dangerous extremists, we're MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE NOT denying them the world's most dangerous weapons. WE MAKE WEAPONS WE DON’T NEED.  IT IS LOGICAL TO SELL THEM. IN FACT IF THE ARMS INDUSTRY IS FISH, THEN WARS ARE THE MIGHTY OCEANS.  WE NEED WARS. WE LIKE WAR AS GEORGE CARLIN ONCE SAID. WE ARE INDEED ‘A WAR-LIKE PEOPLE’. I PLEAD: IT IS OUR CULTURE.

As part of our effort on non-proliferation, I offered the Islamic Republic of Iran an extended hand last year, and underscored that it has both rights and responsibilities as a member of the international community. I also said -- in this hall -- that Iran must be held accountable if it failed to meet those responsibilities. And that is what we have done. WELL, IT IS NOT THAT THE USA HAS A MORAL AUTHORITY TO TALK ABOUT NON-PROLIFERATION.  I PLEAD, ‘NATIONAL INTEREST’. THIS MEANS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR PEACEFUL AS WELL AS MILITARY PURPOSES BUT WE DON’T WANT IRAN TO HAVE IT FOR EITHER. WE DON’T THINK THEY HAVE A NUKE-CULTURE.
BY THE WAY, ISREAL DEEVLOPED NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND OFFERED THEM TO APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA.  I AM BLUSHING INSIDE, LADIES AND GENTELMEN.

Iran is the only party to the NPT that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program, and those actions have consequences. Through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, we made it clear that international law is not an empty promise. NOT THAT I GIVE A JIT ABOUT SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS OF COURSE.  WE WILL NEVER TAKE ISSUE WITH ISREAD FOR GIVING THE FINGER TO THIS AUGUST BODY WHEN IT COMES TO SUCH RESOLUTIONS, YOU WOULD NOTE. BUT HEY, THAT’S US DOING THE RIGHT THING IN TERMS OF NATIONAL INTEREST.  CULTURE, FRIENDS.

CLIMATE CHANGE: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I AM ASHAMED.  I WILL TAKE A ‘PASS’ ON THIS.
We have also been persistent in our pursuit of peace in the Middle East. WHAT AM I SAYING?  WHO SWITCHED THE SCRIPT?  WE TAKE SIDES, LIKE ALL OF YOU DO.  WE SIDE WITH ISRAEL.  OUR BOTTOM LINE IS THE SECURITY OF ISREAL. AT ALL COST.  I AM BEING HONEST HERE.

In times of economic unease, there can also be an anxiety about human rights. OH YES, WE KNOW ABOUT THIS. I STATE HUMBLY THAT I REPRESENT THE COUNTRY THAT HAS PERPETRATED THE MOST HORRENDOUS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND AS SUCH DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT leaders abolishing term limits, crackdowns on civil society.  WIKILEAKS UNDRESSED ME.  AND MY PREDECESSORS.  I PROMISE TO DO BETTER IN THE FUTURE.

America is working to shape a world that fosters this openness, for the rot of a closed or corrupt economy must never eclipse the energy and innovation of human beings. SOME MIGHT THINK I AM TALKING ABOUT A WORLD WHERE WE CAN PLUNDER RESOURCES AT WILL AND EXPLOIT LABOUR TO THE MAX AS HAS BEEN OUR WAY AND OUR CULTURE.  BEING HONEST HERE.

The common thread of progress is the principle that government is accountable to its citizens. And the diversity in this room makes clear -- no one country has all the answers, but all of us must answer to our own people.  I AM SORRY, SOMEONE’S BEEN FIDDLING WITH MY TEXT.  THE TRUTH IS I BELIEVE I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS AND DON’T BELIEVE IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE A DIALOGUE HERE.

The world that America seeks is not one we can build on our own. WHO THE HELL WROTE THIS SPEECH?  Part of the price of our own freedom is standing up for the freedom of others. I NEVER WROTE THIS!  I AM SORRY.  SOMETHING’S GONE WRONG HERE.  I NEED A TIME-OUT FOLKS. 


28 November 2011

Gaffes and Gumption made in Washington

First things first.  Ban Ki-moon got some shady individuals to write a report on Sri Lanka in contravention of all UN protocol.  The feeders of misinformation duly dubbed it ‘UN Report’ and the movers and shakers of the story followed suit.  Lackeys in I/NGO, academic and media circles felt no shame in doing the time-honoured ‘going along’. Slavishly, one might add. 

Now we learn that Hillary Clinton, a woman fascinated with Xeroxing (photo-copying, that is) has demanded that Patricia Butenis, the US Ambassador in Colombo, be given a preview of the LLRC (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission) Report, BEFORE THE GENERAL PUBLIC GET TO SEE IT!  This lady Butenis, as Wikileaks exposures of secret communiquĂ©s show, is a classic US busybody who acts as though she’s Viceroy, doing her utmost to script political developments in Sri Lanka and naturally chagrined when the key players, namely the people of the country, refused to play ball.   
That being said, the communiquĂ© to the Minister of External Affairs, delivered by Butenis’ predecessor and an equally obnoxious meddler, Robert O Blake, is all about ‘accountability’, we are told.  We are also informed, inter alia, that failure to address allegations contained in the rogue document submitted to Ban Ki-moon would ‘give rise to a resurgence of violence in Sri Lanka and undermine the country’s progress so far’.  
Now this would mean that Clinton has intimate knowledge of all political factors relevant to Sri Lanka or else that her country is capable of orchestrating violence.  That’s no impossible, of course, as history has shown, but it is incumbent on concurring on the part of the general public in significant numbers.  While there should be no illusions that there are no takers to such propositions here in Sri Lanka, for we do have a bunch who are wide-eyed and servile about and to the United States of America, respectively, ‘doability’ remains, as of now, untenable.  The proposition should remain flagged, however. 
What, though, is this ‘accountability’?  What moral right does Clinton or Blake (or Obama for that matter) have when it comes to lecturing people on accountability?  We know, after all, about Iraq and the game played about weapons of mass destruction. We know about Afghanistan and oil. We know of the butchery perpetrated in Libya in the name of stopping butchery.  We know how the ‘Arab’ was made to ‘spring’.  Little however is known about Honduras.  A recap would place Clinton’s ‘dire warnings’ and her defer-to-Butenis directive in proper context.
A murder was perpetrated in broad daylight in Uncle Sam’s backyard, not too long ago.  Didn’t make the news. Didn’t warrant strongly worded statements from the US State Department criticizing the perpetrators.  Nothing about violation of human rights. No call for independent probes. No threats of economic sanctions.  Instead, the main beneficiary of the assassination, Porfirio Lobo was embraced by Barack Obama in Washington.  Obama’s salutation is thick:  “Two years ago, we saw a coup in Honduras that threatened to move the country away from democracy, and in part because of pressure from the international community, but also because of the strong commitment to democracy and leadership by President Lobo, what we’ve been seeing is a restoration of democratic practices and a commitment to reconciliation that gives us great hope.”
Obama, ladies and gentlemen, refused to meet the democratically elected president who was overthrown, although the man, Mel Zelaya came to Washington three times seeking help. Zelaya was a left-of-centre president who had instituted a number of reforms as per the mandate he received from the electorate.  These included raising the minimum wage and promoting land reform. 
Obama’s snubbing may have been prompted by the fact that Zelaya was close to left-leaning governments in South America.  When the Honduran military overthrew him in June 2009, Obama did everything possible to ensure that the coup succeeded.  He did his all to legitimize the coup government in an election that the rest of the region refused to recognize.  Butenis is fond of talking about democracy and accountability, but her boss in Washington cared and cares little about the fact that the ‘election’ that brought Lobo to office in January 2010 was marred by serious human rights violations. 
The Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America (CRLN) reports on assassinations in Honduras after Lobo took over.   
“Pedro Salgado, vice-president of the Unified Campesino Movement of Aguán (MUCA), was shot then beheaded at about 8:00 p.m. at his home in the La ConcepciĂłn empresa cooperative. His spouse, Reina Irene MejĂ­a, was also shot to death at the same time. Pedro suffered a murder attempt in December 2010. .Salgado, like the presidents of all the cooperatives claiming rights to land used by African palm oil businessmen in the Aguán, had been subject to constant death threats since the beginning of 2011.”
Obama is ‘in the know’ about the close nexus between the current political leadership in Honduras, a US-backed military and police that cooperates with private armies to unleash political violence and drug lords.  Indeed it is recorded that ‘the 2009 coup kicked open the door to drug cartels to send cocaine to the USA. 
But Barack Obama embraced Lobo.  Obama thumbed his nose at Zelaya.  Clinton sends dire warnings to Sri Lanka.  Butenis plots regime-change.  Ill-informed and/or maliciously intentioned journalists give hurrah-space to these many-tongued agents of international thuggery. 
I am not cheering.
As for the LLRC report, we do need to see it.  We need to see it, study it and evaluate it.  We need to discuss and debate the contents.  Everyone must see it, even Butenis’ playmates and yes-boys and yes-girls in I/NGO, academic and media circles.  Even Butenis, why not?  What is objectionable is the demand to preview, but not perusal of a public document, after all.  The sooner, the better.   
As of now, though, this ‘I wanna see it first’ wailing from Washington DC smacks of a disease that is yet to be named but is nevertheless oozing with gumption and suffered by a palpably immoral patient called Uncle Sam, who ‘is not a relative’ according to millions of residents of the United States of America currently struggling to recover citizenship, democracy, decency, civilization and dignity in that country.   
[Published in 'The Nation', November 27, 2011]

27 November 2011

Friendship and hosanna-singing

Mahinda Rajapaksa: are his best friends his worst enemies?
Mahinda Rajapaksa, when he was sworn in as the fifth President with executive powers in November 2005, made a stirring speech at Galle Face.  He spoke of friends and friendship.  He said ‘I believe my friends are those who offer just criticism and not those who sing hosannas in my praise’. 
While we don’t know whether the President has assessed friendship-worth of hosanna singers, it is very clear that in the six years that have passes since that significant political moment there has been no lack in the matter of singing hosannas.  Indeed it would seem that those who are in a position to sing praises, metaphorically and literally, have not understood the friendship parameters laid out by the President six years ago. 
Two recent incidents come to mind which illustrate what might be called the classic occupational hazard of rulers.  First, there was the assault on placard carrying opposition members while the President was presenting the annual budget in Parliament.  
UNP members carried placards containing the legend ‘Shame!’ It was clearly bait and several ruling party MPs swallowed it.  Whatever other issues prompted such a demonstration and regardless of ideological objections to the President and the Government the move by the opposition indicated a crass disregard for the gravity of parliamentary proceedings on that particular day.  One recalls how parliamentarians of an earlier era with far less number-clout than that enjoyed by today’s opposition kept former finance ministers on their toes simply by the power of argument.  Sarath Muttetuwegama (Communist Party) and Anura Bandaranaike (SLFP) had both decorum and logic while the then UNP government, handicapped by roughly the same proportions of parliamentary hooligans as the UPFA today, listened, objected as best it could and held the day courtesy of superior numbers.
The legend ‘Shame!’ then can be read both as accusation and confession of course.  After all, there is a lot that the placard-carriers have to be embarrassed about in the stands they’ve taken with respect to the execution of the military offensive against terrorism, the vilification of the nation and complicity in commercial hanky-panky while in power.  Those who did the punching, however, helped footnote that ‘confession’ and succeeded in conferring justification on the accusation.      
The evidence points to the fact that who paid scant regards for parliamentary traditions and regulations felt they were doing their leader a favour.  They were not exactly singing hosannas, but were nevertheless currying favour, which is what hosanna-singers typically do.  The President himself was rendered helpless and was made to cut a sorry figure thanks to the antics of those who believe punching the opposition at that moment was what friendship dictated.
The second is the doctoring of photographs.  The outfit that ‘outed’ the doctoring has built for itself a damning reputation as an unprofessional, tasteless and odious organization that knows nothing of journalistic ethics, a fact that was apparent in the long comment that accompanied this ‘disclosure’.  Still, what they did ‘out’ was a fact and one which put the President in poor light.  Again, we see the work of ‘friends’, the hosanna-singing need and the costs of the recipient of genuflection.     
What these hosanna-singers fail to understand is that even in this era of communications there is nothing more powerful that word that is followed by deed and deed that matches word, yata vadi tatha kari and so on.  The President has the words and a track record.  He is a communicator who does not need a PR company to market him. He can certainly do without the well-meaning interventions of sycophants for it is the President and not they who get egg on the face.   He is no saint and has his imperfections.  It is for this very reason that he needs the critics far more than the hosanna-singers, especially in a context where factors such as regime-fatigue and a natural decline of popularity-credit from stewardship during the victory over terrorism. 
One recalls the period prior to that historic day of victory in November 2005. Then, as presidential candidate, Mahinda Rajapaksa had few friends.  Power is a friend-magnate.  It tests the ability to separate friend from sycophant.  It is perhaps time to revisit that historic speech and that particularly pertinent line about true friendship.  It is perhaps time to tell off hosanna-singers and view with new eyes his critics, friendly and otherwise.         
[The Editorial, 'The Nation', November 27, 2011]