President Mahinda Rajapaksa in his Independence Day speech in Trincomalee yesterday outlining the immense suffering that Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans had to endure in securing freedom observed that protecting those freedoms from those who would take them away is a duty by the land of one’s birth. He clearly made the point that political differences should not get in the way of doing what is best for the country.
Too often people get caught up in the politics of the moment,
their political preferences and related antipathies have greater weight than
the consequences for the nation as a whole.
This was evident in all the war years when we saw leader after leader,
regime after regime, put political expediency ahead of the need to remove the
threat of terrorism.
Politicians are good at justifying anything and
everything. Back then the key arguments
could be reduced to just one: the LTTE cannot be militarily defeated. Just in case there were people who might have
disagreed, we saw regime after regime by omission and commission paint the LTTE
in invincible colors. These included
the quick and regular reference to ‘Geopolitical Realities’ (read, ‘India’), an
argument that was buttressed by the weak-kneed moment of J.R. Jayewardene in
1987 after the infamous parippu
incident which paved the way for the Indo-Lanka Accord, the IPKF and the 13th
Amendment. Those canards were
effectively laid to rest by a President, regime and a citizenry that knew
better.
Today’s threats are not yesterday’s threats. Those who bet on failure have had to
re-think. So they talk ‘Geneva’ and ‘The
Hague’. They don’t talk geopolitical
realities but throw a ghost called Arab Spring into the political
equation. As President Rajapaksa
correctly observed recently, these forces have a lot of money, powerful
weapons, significant sway over the perception manufacturing industry and other
resources, but lack one thing: the people.
‘The people’ need to be united, it goes without saying, if
external threats are to be mitigated.
‘The people’ are not a monolith, though.
Not everyone voted for Mahinda Rajapaksa, after all. What the President, in his speech, seems to
have stressed is that it is perfectly alright to be against him and the regime,
but that the citizen’s patriotism must see beyond such things and, in the name
of nation, object to pernicious attempts to destabilize the country and roll
back the victories won at heavy cost.
Now, theoretically, it is quite possible for an objector to
believe that safeguarding victory itself requires a different political
culture, a different institutional arrangement, a new constitution etc. Such an individual could very well believe
that the regime is not interested in such things. As the President himself has pointed out when
making observations on protests, demonstrations and even verbal castigations in
Parliament, different views and their expression is to be expected in a
democracy.
On the other hand, just as the President expects (quite
rightly too) that those who oppose him be mindful of the larger need to see
beyond the petty political equation, it is also incumbent on the Government to
heed criticism regardless of the name of the critic, his/her track record and
politics. Nothing done is ever ‘enough’. The President knows this. The country was freed from terrorism during
his tenure. Unprecedented development is
taking place under his direction. It is
now incumbent on him to rid the country of its other enduring ills such as
corruption, wastage, drugs, the underworld and not least of all the flaws of
the 1978 Constitution and its Amendments, most importantly the 13th.
The President observed in his speech that if freedom is a
heavenly state, then it is not a state we can create or inhabit. He pointed out that no one is ever fully
satisfied. People always want something
more. More than anything, though, people
want to feel ‘belonged’. To ‘do duty by
the country of birth’, one has to feel ‘belonged’ to ‘the country of birth’. No leader post-Independence has made that
belief as real as Mahinda Rajapaksa. The
curse of politics, however, is that no ruler can rest on his/her laurels. ‘Belonging’ must be sustained.
Where there was fear and silence before, there is confidence
and voice. Where there were bullet holes and craters, there are houses and
roads. Where child was possible
bomb-victim and terrorist-recruit, childhood is possible. All these things make for a greater sense of
belonging, to both nation and one another.
There is only so much that a President can do. There is a lot that the citizenry can and
must do, as individuals and as a collective.
Freedom is a beautiful word.
It is good that it is a ‘tomorrow’ thing because that makes it possible
for people to be better. Complacency is the enemy of freedom. Vigilance is the price of independence. These are things we should take note of.
1 comments:
Freedom in this land is an ugly, much abused word.
Freedom, as defined by the rulers, is everywhere but is liberty from the point of view of the individual citizen, present?
A monolithic, omnipresent, omnipotent state crushes all in its path, whether public servant, jurist, journalist or citizen.
Actions speak louder than words and our liberties must be measured in terms of whether we can go about our daily affairs without fear. The muslims are just the latest group to discover that fact.
Post a Comment