Now what if these ‘bigots’ had not turned idea into ideology
and not convinced a critical mass of people in key segments of the population
of the superiority of their position? I
believe it is quite likely that Mahinda Rajapaksa would have had a tough time
balancing the political equation, military realities, the key players in the
international community and his own doubts, if indeed he was convinced of the
above position which I seriously doubt.
I believe the LTTE would have been very much alive and in all likelihood
being painted as ‘peace-partners’ and ‘legitimate representatives (of Tamils)’
by an adoring I/NGO community.
I am sure there are still some people who are nostalgic
about those happy days when terrorism ruled our streets, junctions, railways
stations, and shopping complexes if not for anything, because it meant the
Rajapaksas had to be on their toes and therefore could be tripped
politically. Few though would in their
most private moments be unhappy that the LTTE is out of the political equation
and off the streets they and their loved ones walk. They are not raising a toast to the bigots,
the chauvinists, the religious fundamentalists and warmongers.
The Eelamists are now doing the ‘next best thing’. In these dismal times where the ideological
and political setbacks are so formidable that many loyalists have abandoned the
separatist ship, they are fighting to keep the Eelam-feeding terminology
alive. They have to keep the labels
‘real’ and ‘current’ because language is not just political, it is in many ways
the core of what we call ‘politics’. The
entire Eelam story was a product of carefully crafted terms and phrases such as
‘(exclusive) traditional homelands’, ‘aspirations’, ’50-50’, ‘multi-ethnic;
multi-religious’ and characterizations such as ‘The North’ (as opposed to ‘The
South’ and thereby creating an imaginary dividing line right across the island
to legitimate the ’50-50’ proposition), ‘Kilinochchi’ (to refer to the LTTE
leadership, as counterpoint to ‘Colombo’, the capital of Sri Lanka) and
‘de-facto state’ (forgetting conveniently that a even the cattle-shed that
‘Kilinochchi’ was compared to Colombo was essentially subsidized by this very
same ‘Colombo).
I can understand people, especially ‘minorities’ being wary
of an overarching ‘Sri Lankan’ identity that might, at least in theory, end up
erasing cultures or at least key strands in various identities. Identities, like cultures, I believe are far
more resilient than people think they are and very often survive despite
legislative mechanisms designed specifically to obliterate such things. The European invaders, some empowered by
Papal Bulls engaged in a kind of zealotry that was marked by violence unseen until
the LTTE turned up and yet it took just one individual, the Sangharaja Welivita
Sri Saranankara Thero to turn things around. That’s an example, if you need
one.
I don’t think however that the iteration of certain terms is
about cultural survival; it is powered rather by a need to expand political
terrain, geographic and otherwise. Take
‘multi-ethnic, multi-religious’ for example. Which nation in the 21st century
can claim that it is not ‘multi-ethnic’ or that it is not
‘multi-religious’? Few, if at all, and
if so they are probably nations made of very small populations. ‘Multi-ethnic, multi-religious’ is thin ice
to stand and pronounce anything if one is asked to name the core sources of a
‘Sri Lankan’ culture. One can say
‘nothing’ or ‘everything’ but it will betray only one thing: the political
and ideological need to suppress the Sinhala and Buddhist elements of
the overall identity-make up of this nation.
We have the issue of labeling, indeed of demanding labels. I was told there are notices in certain parts
of the Jaffna Peninsula requesting ‘visitors’ to be
sensitive to ‘local culture’. It is good
of course to be sensitive to others, other traditions, religious faiths,
cultures and ways of being. In general
it is better to educate all people about all people so that such signage
becomes irrelevant, but the existence of the sign has implications that are
extremely disturbing.
The moment you put up a sign saying ‘Mine’ or ‘Do as I say!’
you are essentially asking for and giving legitimacy to someone else putting up
similar signs elsewhere. There’s nothing
‘wrong’, then, in Sinhalese putting up signs saying ‘Respect our culture’ or
Buddhists saying ‘Respect our traditions; desist from animal-sacrifice’ or
‘Theism reigns here, so don’t offend us by claiming there is a creator god’. The Buddhists could, theoretically, wave the
Buddhist flag in Kandy . In Akurana, Muslims could, theoretically ban
the chanting of pirith. I need
not elaborate, but Christians (of all denomination), since they do not
constitute the majority in any district could, theoretically, have to tone down
on ritual and expression in deference to ‘local culture/tradition’.
It should not be like that, should it? But this is exactly the kind of outcome that
this kind of identity reiteration can produce. Some 53% of Tamils live outside
the North and East. What of their ‘cultural assertion’ in those other
provinces? Some may argue that they are
culturally ‘second-classed’ anyway, but that’s as bigoted a statement as anything
that bigoted Sinhalese might say of Tamils.
There are citizenship anomalies but nothing as severe as those
experienced by certain minorities in many part of the world. There are insecurities that can be sourced to
racism from all quarters. I don’t believe we have crossed the point of no-return. If that were the case there wouldn’t be any
churches, mosques or kovils in the city of Colombo . We would be like Gujarat ,
periodically snuffing out thousands of lives over a few hours. But we could get there let us have no
illusions about this. We could get to
the point where tolerance is needled out of the politico-cultural equation by
short-sighted territory-carving attempts in the manner of claim-squirting
canines.
When someone says ‘hands off’ he/she is at the same time
agreeing to concede pre-eminence in other politico-geographies. Not the way to go if we want to get out of
the divisive and in the final count dismembering mind-set that dragged us all
down as a nation and as various ethnic and/or religious collectivities.
We have to be careful about labeling, the tags we pin on
ourselves and on one another, for even as they demarcate sovereignties (shall
we say?), real or imagined, tenable or otherwise, they immediately create
spaces in which the demarcators (shall we say?) are marked out and made
lesser.
3 comments:
I believe that the notices in jaffna asking people to 'be sensitive to local culture' etc,were posted during the sudden influx of visitors to jaffna and Nagadvipa after the war ended. They were relevant then because the busloads of visitors did not observe simple rules of cleanliness. They were not meant to be communal-minded.
They are not relevant now and have no bearing on the present situation.
Whilst I am in agreement with most of the contents the 'notices' in Jaffna I believe - as sajic says - were not meant to be divisive. I notice that many travel brochures advise western tourists to be sensitive to South Asian cultural norms - on beaches, places of worship and so on.
In the context of I/NGOs and their propaganda:
I must say my rspect for World Vision and Rev. Tim Costello is down to zero.
Commenting on the asylum seeker issue Costello makes a sweeping statement that the asylum seekers are fleeing Afghanistan and Sri Lanka due to 'persecution.'
This is the kind of irresponsibe (to put the kindest interpretation) statement that the Sri Lanka High Commission should take up with the people who make them.
Post a Comment