Uncle Sam: The Mother of All War Criminals

[This was first published in 'The Nation', September 20, 2009.  Given the continuing criminality of the United States of America, sadly, these kinds of comments are (relatively) timeless]

Robert O. Blake, former US Ambassador to Sri Lanka and currently Assistant Secretary, South and Central Asian Affairs in the Obama administration, is said to have told Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Washington, Jaliya Wickremasuriya that a report on the conduct of government forcees during the war against the LTTE would be submitted to the US Congress tomorrow (September 21). 

We all know that Robert O. Blake was an ace mischief maker, the epitome of the Ugly American, during his tenure in Colombo. We know that he did everything possible to find safe passage out of Sri Lanka for the world’s most ruthless terrorist, Velupillai Prabhakaran.  We know that he was one of the key players (along with Teresita Schaffer, another important figure who batted for the Eelamists) in getting down Jehan Perera and Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu to brief people in Washington D.C. recently. 

We know that the likes of Perera and Saravanamuttu represent that tiny sliver of public opinion that always held against the state and that has been largely compromised by rabid anti-intellectualism and a marked propensity to treat terrorism with affection.  There are no prizes therefore for predicting that this report will be of the Channel 4 News type: sourced to the most despicable and corrupt political operators that ever walked this island, selective and ideologically motivated in reference and this on substantiation. 

What’s all this about?  Well, the short answer is: ‘more of the same’.  Terms come to mind: ‘double-standards’, ‘sour grapes’, ‘revenge’.  ‘Double-standards’ because the USA is by far the worst culprit in terms of violating human rights; ‘sour grapes’ because the USA did its all to give life-breath to a dying terrorist movement and failed, and ‘revenge’ because the people of Sri Lanka didn’t care a hoot for Robert O. Blake’s Viceroy-posturing and did what had to be done: make good on the widely accepted global policy called ‘Zero-tolerance on terrorism’.     

Look at who is upset: Uncle Sam!  I don’t know the legal standing of this report in the USA and its political and legal overall, but it occurred to me that there’s nothing to prevent the Sri Lankan parliament to constitute a committee that keeps track of war crimes world wide.  I believe that such a committee could submit to Parliament a ‘note’ on what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Such a report would not make waves.  The world knows that Uncle Sam has been the world’s biggest bully for the past so many decades.  On the other hand, no Government has had what it takes to sock it back to Uncle Sam.  Someone better do it.  Sri Lanka has nothing to lose now.  We have to recognize that the West hates this regime, not for its transgressions (which, compared to most nations fighting a terrorist) is hardly worth a murmur, but because Mahinda Rajapaksa for all his faults is too much of a patriot. 

Here are some facts which I am sure will not be mentioned or even footnoted in this report that’s on its way to the US Congress.

The United States invaded Iraq twice and moved to impose economic sanctions on that country because a ‘friend’ (Saddam Hussein was The Friend in Uncle Sam’s battle to destabilize Iran – remember Iran-Contra?)  had become ‘foe’.  Over half a million Iraqi children died as a result of sanctions.  Over a million Iraqis have died as a consequence of the invasion.  That country was bombed into the middle ages by George W Bush’s Alliance of the Willing to Massacre Brown People (check out George Carlin’s right-on-the-money comment, ‘We like war’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoTkbwML-zU). 

For what reason? Weapons of mass destruction.  Key word: ALLEGED.  How many did Bush’s men and women in uniform find? NONE.  The horror stories authored by the US occupation forces in Iraq would fill a library.  I am willing to wager that Robert O Blake would not have the tongue to utter a single reference to what the US did and continues to do in Iraq in terms of ‘human rights abuses’ (a sanitized term for ‘genocide’ and ‘crimes against humanity’). 

Afghanistan.  Robert O. Blake probably will not wet his pants if someone mentioned that country and that’s only because he is the Ugly American Personified and has a mind that blocks out anything negative about the USA.  To hunt down a single terrorist, the USA turned half a million people into IDPs, destabilized a region and killed close to 40,000 people.  US jets bomb civilian targets at will and do not feel obliged to say ‘sorry’. 

I am sure that Robert O. Blake will not read F. William Engdahl’s ‘Colour revolutions; old and new’, where the author explains a new form of US covert warfare, first played out in Belgrade, Serbia in 2000.  It was not the spontaneous and genuine political movement that people believed it was, Engdhal argues; it was the product of techniques developed in the USA over several decades.   The Clinton administration orchestrated Slobodan Milosevic’s removal.  A $ 41 million campaign was launched from US Ambassador Richard Miles’ office, according to Engdhal. 

Blake will know but not acknowledge the mechanics of Georgia’s bloodless ‘Rose Revolution’ that replaced Edouard Shevardnadze with Mikhail Saskashvili, and Ukrain’s ‘Orange Revolution’ that brought Yushchenko to power in January 2005. 

The ‘Washington-hand’ in the on-going ‘Green Revolution’ in Iran is also well documented. It is said that if the ‘Green Revolution’ in Teheran fails, then ‘hardline regime change must be worked from the outside’.  In a June 12 Wall Street Journal editorial, John Bolton called for Israeli air strikes whatever the outcome - to "put an end to (Iran's) nuclear threat," despite no evidence one exists.

The operation in Sri Lanka suffered the fate of the attempted ‘Saffron Revolution; in Myanmar.  Well, Robert O Blake could not do a ‘Richard Miles’ in Colombo.  Perhaps this is why he is trying it out in Washington.

On July 11, 2008, Jason Leopold headlined his Countercurrents.org article, "State Department's Iran Democracy Fund Shrouded in Secrecy" and stated: "Since 2006, Congress has poured tens of millions of dollars into a (secret) State Department (Democracy Fund) program aimed at promoting regime change in Iran."

Yet Shirin Abadi, Iran's 2003 Nobel Peace prize laureate, said "no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept" US funding for this purpose. In a May 30, 2007 International Herald Tribune column, she wrote: "Iranian reformers believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone."

What is the truth about Sri Lanka?  Well, Robert O Blake has been parroting claims churned out by the LTTE propaganda machine for a long time now.  Much of the claims have been adequately refuted and retractions articulated by some of the accusers themselves. 

Were there ‘excesses’ perpetrated by the security forces during the war.  It would be silly to say ‘no’.  Wars are not tea-parties.  But there has to be a sense of proportion in claim, objection and the processes of blaming and uncovering truth. 

Here are some facts (which should be compared with the facts from Iraq and Afghanistan):

Sri Lanka fought and defeated the world’s most ruthless terrorist organization which had spread its wings outside the island and linked with other terrorist outfits, some of which the Obama administration is at war with.

Sri Lanka lost thousands of fighting men whose lives were put at extra risk because the Government wanted to minimize civilian casualties.  Had the government been dismissive of cost to civilians, the war would have been over in January 2009 and not May. 

During the conflict, the Government ensured that everything possible was done to provide food and medicine to people being held hostage by the LTTE. 

Throughout the conflict, the Government did not cut back on free education and free healthcare services. Today, post-war, the bulk of the money is going for rehabilitation and rebuilding efforts in the North and East.  Compare this with what the US has done to the people whose lands were stolen (the Native Americans) and the people who built that nation with their labour (the African Americans), and to the victims of Katrina.  And get this: the vast majority of the people backed the President to the hilt and continue to back him in the reconstruction efforts.

How about torture?  There is no evidence of any kind of systemic torture being perpetrated by the Sri Lankan security forces.  Robert O Blake and the Obama administration, if they bring up torture, will be dismissed by mentioning a double-barreled torture chamber: Guantanamo Bay.  Well there is also Abu Ghraib and other such unhappy places associated with the gruesome.  

Enough. The Mother of All War Criminals does not have a leg to stand on and these Washington maneuvers stink.  It is what made some people say ‘You deserve it punk’ to Uncle Sam when that unconscionable attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon took place on September 9, 2001.  The world was willing to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt because he positioned himself as the political opposite of the Ugly American.  Looks like the man is no different from his predecessors.  The proof of the pudding is in the substance, not the colouring, Barack.  Tastes horrible, brother.

Read more

The White House preference: ‘Talking for the sake of talking’

The more I listen to Barack Obama the more I get disillusioned about the man.  In the run up to the US Presidential Election informal polls of people from all over the world found him to be way ahead in popularity over his rivals, first Hillary Clinton and then John McCain.  Almost one year into his term, the man sounds more and more like his predecessors. He is redefining his identity and sounds nothing more nothing less than a common thug. 

“Our patience is not unlimited,” Obama told Iran recently, alluding to tougher economic sanctions if Iran does not take the necessary steps. “The United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely, and we are prepared to move towards increased pressure,” he thundered, reiterating the strong arm foreign policy preference that has made the USA one of the most hated nations in the world.  He was referring to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Acting quite the school principal, Obama has put Iran ‘on notice’.  He charges Iran of ‘breaking rules that all nations must follow’.  The learned President of the USA cannot be ignorant of how his country has broken all rules and norms of decency throughout the long 20^th Century and continues to do so in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But he doesn’t say a word about all this; instead he says ‘we’re committed to serious and meaningful engagement, but not interested in talking for the sake of taking’. 

To me, the bottom line is this: the whole discourse of non-proliferation is wrong.  Obama says that Iran should understand that developing nuclear weapons does not enhance that country’s security but undermines it.  Look who’s ‘talking for the sake of talking’!  No country that has nuclear weapons has a moral right to complain about other countries developing similar capacities. Obama should cut the crap and say it as it is: ‘We are not interested in the idea of a global community, we are only interested in securing resources and markets; we are a selfish people and even as we talk the talk of humanity, community, democracy etc., we do so only insofar as it serves our purposes.’

His predecessor, George W Bush invaded Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction.  What was that?  Certainly not ‘talking for the sake of talking’.  That was ‘talking for the sake of safeguarding oil interests’.  Is Obama any different? No.  If he was, he would have pulled out from Iraq the day he became President.  

‘Talking for the sake of talking’ quite in contrast to Obama’s claim is in fact the A-Z of US Foreign Policy.  I am thinking right now of Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State and one time opponent of Barack Obama who famously charged the latter of proposing ‘change (one) could Xerox’.  Obama retorted, ‘this is when we enter the season of silliness’.  All that is now in the past.  Clinton does a lot of Xeroxing and Obama is living it up in an unending season of silliness. 

Clinton, a few days ago, as President of the UN Security Council, made some utterly tendentious remarks on the subject of ‘Women, peace and security’.  This woman, who lied to the US voter about having got off a plane in Baghdad ‘under a hail of bullets’ and is blind to the crimes against humanity that her country has committed and continues to do so, flippantly said, ‘Rape has been used as a tactic of war in Sri Lanka’ (she named a couple of other countries too).

‘Tactic of war’ did she say?  Well, the lady is accusing the Government of Sri Lanka of having adopted and implemented a deliberate defence policy of systematically raping people as a key component of its strategy to defeat the LTTE.  Hillary is not saying that the Sri Lankan security forces stole some guavas from a garden in Puthukudiarippu.  He used the word ‘rape’. That’s a serious charge and one which demands elaboration and substantiation.  No one should be allowed to get away with that kind of frivolous charge, least of all a known liar from a country that has brought death and destruction to dozens of countries and is even now displacing innocent civilians by the hundreds on a daily basis and has set in motion processes that cause untold misery to hundreds of thousands of people, in particular women, children, elderly and the sick. 

Who raped whom, Clinton must tell us.  When did it happen?  Why was that charge not made earlier?  Why now? What kind of evidence has surfaced now to warrant this charge?  What is the ‘systematic’ in the alleged incidents that justify the charge, ‘rape as a tactic of war’? 

Patricia Butenis, the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka in a poverty-stricken damage-control exercise, offered that Clinton did not name any person but made a general comment. 

Well, what would Butenis say to a ‘general comment’ about rape and deliberate actions of sexual humiliation committed by US military personnel in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and who knows where else?  Would she let it pass, if for example, Sri Lanka’s permanent representative to the UN talked of war crimes and inter alia mentioned the United States of America among other ‘rogue states’? 

It’s all talking for the sake of talking, isn’t it?  We are yet to hear the United States of America doing something about having broken and continuing to break rules that most nations follow.  Obama doesn’t want to see photographic evidence of torture and rape perpetrated by his troops. Hillary might want us to believe that the US Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan to dig wells, clean drains and construct toilets.  Butenis will not respond to questions that make her uncomfortable.  None of the three are willing to admit that the Global Thug days of the USA are coming to an end. 

Obama, Clinton and Butenis need to understand that talking the talk but not walking the walk does not win any admirers.  It is even worse to get others to walk one’s talk while one twiddles thumbs and passes judgment. 

Just after 9/11 happened, most Sri Lankans I spoke to expressed shock and sympathy for the victims.  Most of them after doing so, paused for a while, and mouthed the invariable ‘but’, followed by ‘the USA deserved it’.  I am fairly certain that such sentiments were not limited to Sri Lankans.  There is a reason for this and the Obama administration is not doing anything to change the mindset that utters such sentiments.  Indeed people like Robert O Blake have only hardened the genera anti-US sentiment among a lot of people.  Hillary is not helping either and as for Patricia, a willing approver (by designation), there’s very little she can do. 

Few liked George W. Bush.  Obama was supposed to be different.  He is doing his best to prove that he is not.  I feel for all those citizens of the USA who believed in his ‘change’ message.  The truth is, friends, ‘he can’t’.  Sorry, it’s not about ‘yes we can’ any more; it is about ‘no we won’t’ (change). 

That’s of course something the people in that country will have to think about. As for us, in Sri Lanka, we need answers from Hillary. She won’t give any.  We will have to ask her representative in Sri Lanka.  Ms. Patricia Butenis, we need another, more elaborate statement from you.  If you choose silence then we will have no option but to conclude: ‘guilty as charged!’  Sorry.  It’s just us, doing something more than ‘talking for the sake of talking’, I am sure you will understand.

[first published in 'The Nation', October 3, 2009]

Read more

The Ranjan Madugalle Column

Ranjan Madugalle remembers Jagath Fernando’s classic 160 not out in the 1971 Royal-Thomian.  I remember being at that match and I remember savouring the scorecard of that match in the 1972 Royal souvenir which had just one dampener, Gajan Pathmanathan being out at 97.  Ranjan remembers Gajan getting out. 

I remember Ranjan walking back after a poor show in the middle in the Big Match of 1975.  He was just 15 then.  Tiny.  I remember reading about his exploits in Pakistan the following year when as a 16 year old he took 8 wickets to help Sri Lanka’s Under 19 team annex the Ali Bhutto trophy.  I can’t remember remembering this fact more acutely than when Mahinda Halangoda and Chandi Richards denied Royal a win in the Centenary Match (1979). I wished Ranjan, who captained Royal in that match, had brought himself on. 

I was just 11 years old then and the controversy surrounding his selection for the Ali Bhutto Trophy game went over my head.  I remember thinking, years later, when the issue was brought up, ‘yes, maybe it was unfair, but he was given an opportunity and seized it with both hands’.  The fact is, Ranjan was a phenomenal talent. 

Cricket captains were held in awe by schoolboys.  Ranjan Madugalle captained twice and was such a performer that he walked or was thought to walk a few inches off the ground unlike other cricket captains.  The fact is, he was always grounded. 

He was very fond of my mother, who was his teacher and who claimed she had carried him as a baby.  I was known, therefore.  I remember Ranjan once catching me on the corridor.  Our class (7F) was next to the prefects’ room and Ranjan was the Head Prefect.  He asked me a question and not having heard what he said I said (in a questioning tone) ’….aaah?’  He said that there was no such word and that if I didn’t hear, I must say so.  A few weeks later he caught me on the corridor.  He mumbled something.  I started with the habitual ‘aaah?’ and quickly changed to ‘what?’  He smiled and said ‘that’s better!’ 

I remember Ranjan and Arjuna Ranatunga saving Sri Lanka’s blushes in the first innings of the first ever test (1982, P.Sara Stadium against England).  I remember listening to the commentary when he scored his maiden hundred (against India) and how the commentator observed that he had got out ‘to a shot by a tired man’.  I remember listening to the commentary during the classic partnership he put together for NCC with Sridharan Jeganathan.  I went for the first test but the other two incidents were random – I hardly ever listened to the radio. 

I remember Ranjan losing his cool only once, when he was hitting the Australian attack to all corners of the field and got into a war of words with Rodney Hogg.  I think Hogg bounced him and it annoyed Ranjan.  I think Hogg got his wicket and had choice things to say to Ranjan as he walked away.  I remember Ranjan stopping in his tracks to (presumably) exchange ‘pleasantries’ with Rodney.  I can’t remember if we won or lost but I think either Ranjan won it for us or else brought us close. 

I met Ranjan a couple of days ago when I went to meet my oldest friend, Rajitha Dhanapala.  He said he was at the Royal-Thurstan match.  When we were chatting he had seen Ranjan.  I hadn’t seen him since my mother’s funeral a little over two years ago, so we strolled to the other end of the ground passing the J.R.Jayewardena pavilion to where he was sitting with several other old Royalists, cricketers all, among them Jagath Fernando, Jehan Mubarak and Zulki Hameed.

He recognized both of us, got up and greeted us.  He greeted me as ‘Mister Editor’.   So we talked about ‘The Nation’ and I asked him to write a column.  He said that Sa’adi Thawfeek, our Sports Editor had made the same request many times but that he was constrained by contractual agreement (with the ICC).  He added, ‘I asked Sa’adi what had happened to you since I didn’t see your articles and he said “we told him to stick to one paper instead of writing to all the newspapers like a prostitute”.’   We had a good laugh over it, and I told him that these days the first article to get the chop for lack of space is mine. 

Getting back to ‘columns’, he said that I could write his obituary notice (for free).  I laughed and said I will write an appreciation.  We don’t know when death comes, so I don’t know if I would be around to do either, so I thought I would write this now. 

A year ago, almost, I wrote an article for the ‘Daily News’ titled ‘On Ranjan Madugalle’s ‘lesson’ in 1982’.  It was something he said when invited by the then Principal of Royal College, L.D.H. Peiris to be a guest speaker at the school assembly.  This is what he said:

‘Whenever I am out of form, getting out cheaply or to poor shots, I revert to the fundamentals.  I go back to the nets. I check my stance. I check the back-lift.  Things like that.  Invariably, I start performing better.  That is a life lesson. Whenever we go wrong, it is good to ask yourself if you’ve got the fundamentals wrong.  Basic things like discipline. Like values.  You will always find that that’s where the problem lies.  That is what needs to be corrected.’

Ranjan Madugalle is not a columnist.  He is not allowed to write or speak to the media.  He spoke to me about the things that people who have known each other for more than 30 years talk about.  Light banter. 

He’s written his ‘column’ in the middle of the ground and outside the boundary line.  He was a technically sound batsman.  He was sound.  He is sound.  Day in and day out.  And that, my friends, counts for a daily column running continuously for over thirty years. 

Read more

Let’s all observe 2 minutes of silence today…

Twenty four years ago, i.e. February 22, 1987, around 3.00 pm, I got a call from a batchmate at Peradeniya.  Prabath Sahabandu, now the Editor of The Island newspaper, mentioned a name and followed it with two words: ‘Rohana gange giya’ (Rohana went down the river, meaning that he had drowned). 

Rohana Kalyanaratne was my roommate.  For thirteen years since that sorrowful day, I sent my thoughts back to that time, that moment and that beautiful man.  Then came February 22, 2001 and finally I was unburdened of that lingering sense of loss.  The weight of that death was erased by the lightness of a life, my daughter Mithsandi.  She’ll be 10 as you read this and for 10 years I’ve remembered Rohana, not with sadness but with a smile. I can’t help it and I am not apologetic about it either.  Life is like that.

The 22^nd of February was then about death and later about life.  But life is cunning. It gives, it takes.  For 6 years, i.e. from 2002 to 2007 a certain blackness cut through birthday cake and candles, voices singing ‘Happy birthday’ and the toy-joy time of a little girl.  I don’t know if others noticed, but this other darkness denied me the privilege of full celebration.  That blackness was initialed.  CFA.  ‘Ceasefire Agreement’ between the then Government of Sri Lanka and the world’s most ruthless terrorist organization, the LTTE.

There were some who cheered, some who feared.  Among those who cheered, some genuinely believed that a respite from the fighting would be good (no dispute there of course) and moreover it would create a platform for discussions on core issues.  Such people were clearly myopic.  The wording of the CFA showed intellectual sloth and complicity in the LTTE’s designs with respect to the Sri Lankan state. 

It also indicated a manifest naiveté about the LTTE.  That organization always looked at negotiations and ceasefires through a strictly military lens and anyone who had even the most basic familiarity with their history would have known from Day One that the Ceasefire Agreement was doomed.  And yet the CFA was treated like some holy cow issued from some kind of immaculate conception, so sacred that journalists and commentators were asked not to touch the precious little angel and those who dared desecrate with comment or objection were called ‘war mongers’ and ‘racists’ (usually with the tag ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’). 

February 22, 2002 was a landmark in that it implied that the Sri Lankan Government had acknowledged the following: a) the LTTE is the sole-representative of the Tamil people, b) the LTTE deserved and got parity of status vis-à-vis the Sri Lankan Government, c) the conceding of territories seized, d) violence is a legitimate means of securing political gains and e) a willingness to let a pro-LTTE entity (Norway) to stand as Chief Arbiter in processes related to the CFA.   

The inevitable happened. The LTTE used the CFA to a) re-arm, b) recuperate from the heavy losses suffered at the hands of the Army’s ‘deep penetration’ units, c) recruit (thousands of children were forcibly recruited during the time the CFA was in operation), d) eliminate political irritants, e) assassinate key members of the Army’s intelligence units, f) expand operations to areas hitherto inaccessible. 

The Government, not enjoying the privileges that a law-unto-themselves terrorist outfit could benefit from, was essentially hand-tied during this time.  Happily so, one might add, given the kind of statements we heard from Ranil Wickremesinghe and his principal confidantes/advisors at the time.    

It was doomed to end with a bang and this is exactly what happened.  The LTTE upped the ante as expected and when it felt confident to unleash another round of violence.  That ill-conceived and poorly worded piece of paper quickly lost relevance except for LTTE-friendly sections of the international community to wave at the Sri Lankan Government like a yellow or red card.  On January 8, 2008, it was proclaimed dead.  I remember helping author a book on the CFA around that time, titled ‘It is customary to bury the dead’.  This is the 4^th February 22^nd since the CFA was abrogated.  Much violence and dispossession could have been avoided if successive governments were not hoodwinked into believing the tall tales of rabidly anti-Sinhala, anti-Buddhist and guardedly pro-LTTE elements masquerading as academics, political analysts and sundry pundits and instead listened to the likes of Dr. Nalin De Silva, who argued that the LTTE needed to be militarily engaged and that victory was not impossible.  ‘It is customary to bury the dead’ contains useful information relevant to the CFA, how it came about, its principal backers, the assumptions it was based on and how it gradually slipped into full scale arms-clash courtesy the LTTE.  

The CFA must be remembered for it is a classic example of how not to deal with intransigent thugs. 

On February 22, 1988 I wrote a few lines for my friend. This was as the country was quickly moving towards the UNP-JVY bheeshanaya (period of terror).

One more victorious year

stamped on the pages of their history,

turbulent rivers flow through ours….

….[with] this era at an end,

there is little to tell.

just the subdued rain on fallen leaves

and silent beads of sweat,

and hope buried in the past.

Twenty three years later I would tell him that the skies are not exactly blue all day and full of stars at night.  I would say that there are clouds but they are not all dark and foreboding.  I would tell him that part of the reason is something beautiful that came into my life exactly 14 years after her exited it.  I would say ‘that’s not the only reason, brother.’  And I would say all this with a smile that does not indicate absence of sorrow. Life is never clear-cut and neither is death. 

I will spend two minutes in complete silence.  That’s personal.  I will remain silent for two additional minutes.  That’s collective.  You can join if you like. 

[First published exactly one year ago in the Daily News, i.e. February 22, 2011]

Read more

In search of nation in flag-waving, anthem-singing times

A nation need symbols.  Flags and anthems for example.  They are supposed to capture things that are unmistakably ‘national’. Things that make a particular polity in a particular geography unique.  They must, therefore, reflect not just the surface that is ‘today’, but the depths that are contained in the ‘yesterday’ that brought this ‘today’ and hopefully point to a realistic tomorrow. 

The current debate about language pertaining to the national anthem, to my mind, is useful only in terms of seeing it as an invitation to return to the debate on who we are; a debate that includes the following questions: Who were we?  Where did we come from?  Who were our ancestors? What did they do?  What philosophical traditions were the most prominent in persuading the unfolding of event and creating of artifact, physical and otherwise, in particular ways?  Where do we want to go?  Reducing the issue to a ‘today’ and pandering to the misleading and indeed obfuscating rhetoric flowing from that nonsensical notion, ‘one-ethnicity = one vote’ flowing from the once again misleading and un-nuanced phrase ‘mult-ethnic, multi-religious’ is nothing more than playing power politics. 

One must never go overboard with anything, particularly representation.  That would require us to make sure a) that all groups (religious, ethnic, gender, age etc) represented in appropriate percentages and b) periodically alter the relevant pie charts in accordance to changing demographic data.  It is no easy task of course. All the more reason to remind ourselves that what is more important is not symbol but what it is supposed to represent. A nation with national flag and national anthem but sans a national ethos is patently hollow.

This is not to say that we are not a people with no national sense of course.  If that were the case, we would be still fighting the war against terrorism.  Still, it is not incorrect to say that nationalism is more latent than apparent.  If our nationalism is limited to safeguarding the dimensions of a map we are poor indeed, especially in a global context where national boundaries are porous when it comes to things economic and indeed cultural. 

I believe we should inhabit the national flag and anthem just as much as these things ought to inhabit us.  What does ‘nation’ mean if we do not acknowledge the existence of one another, if we do not celebrate the triumphs of our fellow-citizen and commiserate in his/her sorrow?  What would our nationalism mean if we cannot stand by our fellow citizen in his distress even when he/she is in error and deserving of admonishment? What would our nationalism mean if we choose not to criticize his error?

We are lesser nationalists if we cannot celebrate the fact that a Sri Lankan Catholic priest was made a Cardinal, clearly a personal honour to him and his flock.  We are lesser nationalists if we fail to note that he was in error when he pandered to Eelamist myths when making submissions to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and that he fudged with respect to the role of the Catholic Church vis-à-vis the Eelam Project.  We are lesser nationalists if we choose to look the other way when a place of religious worship is desecrated and lesser nationalists when we do not acknowledge the deliberate attempts to downplay the role of particular philosophies and attendant religious traditions in the making of a civilization and indeed a nation.  There is no nationalism in avowing a multi-ethnic, multi-religious Sri Lanka while at the same time ignoring the fact that those who belonged to a particular ethnicity and subscribing to a particular set of religious practices perished in greater numbers and suffered more depravations and desecration in the 500 years under colonial rule and even thereafter so that we have the national flag and national anthem we quarrel over today. 

What is our nationalism if we do not see neighbour, if we do not see community, if we do not respect his/her religious convictions, if we confer ‘heathenism’ and seek to purchase emancipation?  What is our nationalism if we do not understand that certain structures and processes favour a few and trip the rest? What is our nationalism if we do nothing to correct structures but instead seek to people them with our friends (if we ourselves cannot occupy the high seats within)?  What is our nationalism if we are fixated with ‘demand’ and ‘right’ and have dragged ‘responsibility’ to the trashcan and emptied it thereafter? 

We are not a nation if we cannot see our warts. We are not a nation if we see only the warts.  We are not a nation if we see flag and anthem and not the nation they are supposed to be symbols of.  We can do without flag and anthem, but we would not be nation if we are not nationalists in the most comprehensive and most embracing understandings of the term. 

We are not a nation worthy of that name if we object to one enemy but not another. We are not a nation if we pick the easy fight. We are not a nation if we cannot see that not all the nation’s enemies have foreign passports. We cannot be the nation that we can legitimately aspire to be given the strong philosophical and civilizational foundations laid down by our ancestors if we do not consciously and frequently engage in self-reflection and self-criticism. 

There are questions we need to ask ourselves.  What kind of nation are we? What kind of nation do we want to be?  Ignoring these and indulging in the easy business of quarreling over flag and anthem is being crassly political.  Not something to be proud of.  The nation does not reside in flag or anthem, in identity card or birth certificate. It exists outside of all these things and, one can argue, in spite of them.  It does not come shouting and that’s a good thing, for if that were the case it is more than likely that it would either be destroyed or purchased.  That’s the nation we must seek, I believe, as individuals and as a colourful collective, warts and all.   

[first published in 'The Nation', December 2010]

Read more

NAADRO: harvesting the rhythms of the sun

In the classic sculptured posture where Lord Shiva is depicted as Nataraj or Lord of the Dance, that which symbolizes life (according to some interpretations) is the drum (‘fire’, held in another of the four hands depicting ‘death’).  It does not take mythology or faith to tell us that rhythm is basic, however. 

We begin with heartbeat after all.  It is said that the most reassuring thing for an infant is the mother’s heartbeat.   From then, until death, our lives pulsate with beat in innumerable forms.  This is perhaps why we involuntarily tap our feet to music, even music that is totally foreign to our ears.  We may not know the lyrics or understand the logic of melody, but we recognise and identify with the beat.  Our lives are made of and surrounded by percussion, although we don’t necessarily think of it like that. 

Drums are basic, in other words or rather ‘drumming’ is fundamental to the human condition.  It comes patterned in so many things we don’t automatically label as ‘music’.  In the play of hammer and anvil, that of fingertip on keyboard, the working of a press, the work of mortar and pestle, the swish-swish of winnowing fan, or the incessant right-click-refresh of a nervous IT trouble-shooter, we remain a ‘percussioned’ species.  

Percussion is universal and is made of rhythmic commonalities that cuts across time and space, region and continent, language and dialect, faith and myth, politics and ideology.  It is timeless.  It is specific. Right now.  

Specific because its universality is articulated, absorbed and celebrated by singular embodiment of the genre, Naadro.

Naadro.  The name was coined by the incomparable Arisen Ahubudu and means hiruge naadaya ada gannaa or that which draws the sound of the sun, which as we know is giver of all, especially energy.  Naadro  consists of an eclectic mix of young and mature talent and is a highly trained, meticulously professional group of young men united in their common love for and pursuit of supreme proficiency in percussion from the Sri Lankan, Indian, African, Mediterranean and Latin idioms.

It all began in 2007 when six young undergrads studying the Performing Arts at the University of Colombo were brought together by their common passion for percussion.  Led by Rakitha Wickramaratne whose percussionist talent was identified at a very young age, the group included Gayan Manokumara, Nalinda Dilupama, Ranga Nuwantha, Nupathi Nilambara and Uthpala Iroshan, all artists who were trained by those considered to be doyens of percussion in Sri Lanka such as Piyasara Shilpadhipathi and Ravi Bandu Vidyapathi.  The team has since been strengthened by

Chaturanga Chitrajit, Gayrika Weerasinghe, Nuwan Liyanage, Lahiru and Tharindu.

They are all ideologically committed to the kind of cross-cultural sharing and learning that rhythmic universality makes for and this is evidenced in its preoccupation with fusion music, where they’ve drawn from many sources, from many cultures and musical traditions. 

Naadro began its long and yet unfinished and necessarily unending journey across the global musical firmament as a percussion band, starting off with some rudimentary percussion instruments, some of which were popular across the world.  Within a short period of time they not only obtained instruments from a wide range of cultures but through sheer dedication, practice and love for music became proficient at using them to expand the horizons of their percussionist passions.  In this way Naadro made a mark among the few globally recognized percussion bands. 

Learning does not end and Naadro constantly explores the potential of employing the traditional percussion instruments from India, Japan, Latin America and Africa along with traditional Sri Lanka drums to create new percussion music.  Perhaps this is why they have attracted a large and growing following across the world. 

One of the key and unique features of Naadro is the deliberate effort to go beyond percussion instruments and to incorporate anything and everything that can produce sound as appropriate for the particular creative exercise in order to mould a signature style of percussion.  This includes at times a kitchen utensil, at times vehicle spare parts or even the implements used by a mason. 

It is perhaps indicative of the freshness and creative uniqueness of Naadro that many advertisers have recognized in them an immense communicative potential in introducing products and services.   Naadro quickly emerged as a ‘must have’ element in corporate events and have received many invitations to provide background music for movies and songs.  Perhaps the ‘coming of age’ of the group is best indicated by the kinds of global brands they endorse.  The Latin Percussion Company (drums), Gibraltar (hardware), Sabian (symbols), Vicfarth (sticks) and Remo (drumheads) have all found Naadro to be effective brand ambassadors.

Rhythm is common and that which is common cross-fertilizes and is made for experiencing and sharing.  Naadro has sought, shared with and learned from the most accomplished exponents from all parts of the world.   They have performed in the USA, South Africa, Australia (Para Masala Festival, Sydney), India and Singapore and are set to tour the UK, Norway and New Zealand shortly, along with revisits to Australia and the USA.  They’ve shared stage with the likes of Shakira, Shaggy and Linkin Park at the Singapore Ground Prix and yet remain utterly young and full of energy and humility. 

Most encouragingly, Naadro is committed to popularizing percussion among the younger generation.  They have devoted the entire first quarter of the year 2012 to conduct various programmes for school children. 

Drums are about rhythm.  Rhythm is common to all cultures across time and space.  It is a phenomenon that everyone can relate to, can identify with, can own, share and celebrate.  Naadro believes that this particular genre of music is ideally suited to setting up ‘common ground’ for communities separated by geographical realities, political processes, histories of mistrust and fracture to come together in non-threatening and non-confrontational manner and thereby facilitate dialogues pertaining to peace, mutual respect, healing and co-existence.

It is then not just about the freeing, intoxicating and indescribable thing called passion, but a responsible engagement which includes deeper reflection of the human condition as well as the social reality that surrounds them.  Maybe that’s what drums are all about.  Maybe that’s what the timeless sculpture of Nataraja is all about. Maybe it is impossible to say in words but eminently articulated in rhythm.  Maybe it is time to stop and listen.

[published in 'The Nation', February 19, 2012]

Read more

Stop scripting insurrection

Poverty is not oozing out of the city seams, but this doesn’t mean people are free of anxiety.  Although less than 9% are said to be below the poverty line, around 20% of the population remain undernourished while close to half the population don’t meet the minimum recommended dietary energy consumption levels. 

Those who complain of difficulty are silent on subsidies they enjoy, from pre-birth (courtesy midwives) through childhood and youth (education and health) and throughout life (food, fuel and other subsidies).  In short human beings are perennial and happy victims of the Oliver Twist syndrome: asking for and wanting more is almost part of our DNA. 

But if it is all about perception and self-interest then those who are less well-off will always take note of differences in consumption levels and in particular be very alert to conspicuous flouting of wealth, over-consumption and in-your-face arrogance.  When all benefits enjoyed are taken for granted, perceived as birth right and these perceptions are affirmed by politicians for expedient purposes, then any ‘taking away’ naturally provokes anger.  That anger is made to be harnessed politically by those out of power. 

We live in times of stress and strain courtesy global events (the war-mongering West thirsting for Iranian blood), rampant viceroy-like angst suffered by major international actors about a regime that refuses to play ball (all the time) and the persisting trade imbalances and other factors which keep Sri Lanka ‘underdeveloping’.  In such circumstances, anxieties do spill out into the streets. 

When real incomes decline, lifestyles get crumpled.  Consumption patterns change and decline.  When you can’t take to sea (in the case of fishermen trumped by fuel price hikes), you take to the streets.   The street does not have a sign saying ‘only for the truly aggrieved’.  Among the street-takers are those hungry to obtain some deaths, for coffin-carrying makes for more photo-ops, image-enhancement and a boosting of political relevance.  The streets, moreover and as was seen in the Fort on Friday, are also fair game for petty thieves and looters. 

No grievance however serious is big enough to justify vandalism, especially of public property.  We saw a lot of it over the past few weeks including Friday evening when armed mobs hoofed innocent citizens out of buses.  That said, the right to object is fundamental to a healthy democracy.  The possibility of grievance being hijacked or abused by malicious elements is a reality that society and the state must live with. 

Minister Maithripala Sirisena, on behalf of the ruling party and the government, has expressed regret over the killing of a protesting fisherman in Chilaw.  Regretting after the fact is easy.  The Government should understand that unless radical steps are taken with respect to general policy on crowd control, unpopular decisions (whether they are necessary or not) will continue to generate protests, enhance fertility for situation-abuse by the opposition, fuel vandalism and cause more deaths. 

If agitating citizens get unruly to the point that property and lives are threatened, there is certainly justification for effective response, but shooting has always got to be a last resort and ‘shoot to kill’ never an option.   The man who died was shot in the head.  This is unpardonable. 

It is easy to blame the man who pulled the trigger or the officer who gave the order, but the fact remains that the conditions that provoked agitation and street-battle were not created by either agitator or trigger-puller.  When unpopular steps are taken, they should be preceded by honest articulation of necessity, open debate and effective communication.  Where people see opulence at the top end of a social pyramid and squalor all the way down to the base with no sign of things changing for the better, protest is inevitable.  And where politics is not about right but about making capital, the democratic right to protest degenerates into a free-for-all where democracy itself cedes ground to anarchy. 

Quite apart from the fact that such a situation would be positively orgasmic for outside forces who are salivating for regime change, what is most worrying is the possible cost for the citizens of this country.  Another bloody insurrection that leaves tens of thousands dead and systems of theft, abuse and poor governance intact is not something to be cheered. 

Responsibility is what all this calls for; from the government, the opposition and most of all by the aggrieved, for the last is the intended beneficiary and, as history has shown, the first to be sacrificed. 

['The Nation' editorial of February, 19, 2012] 

Read more