I am not a big fan of multi-ethnic, multi-religious
propositions because they tend to fudge demographic realities and if the logic
of representation is taken to its logical conclusion then we would have to
break down line and verse and have ‘language-representation’ that correspond to
percentage of population. Furthermore,
as time goes on and the percentages change, lyricists would have to get back to
composition and add and subtract so that representational integrity is not
compromised.
I think there’s been too much fascination with symbols and I
suspect that this has something to do with doubts about the substance which
symbols are supposed to represent. I
don’t believe nation and nationalism exist in flag and anthem. Neither do I believe that making anthem and
flag ‘representational’ (even in proportionate terms, as would be the logical
democratization as opposed to the fictionalizing and mischievous enhancing and
suppressing sought and often secured by the ‘one-ethnicity, one-vote’ type of
proposal) makes for a more united and integrated polity.
Years ago, I believe in the year 2002, the UNP Government
dubbed its comprehensive plan for overhauling the economy ‘Regaining Sri
Lanka’. One can only regain something
that one has lost. If one is clueless
about what was lost, it cannot be regained.
Sri Lanka
certainly needed some regaining and one of the things that stood out and
screamed ‘take me back, take me back’ was territory seized by the land-grabbing
terrorists. There were other things too
that had been ‘lost’. A sense of dignity.
National pride. There was truth
that had been overtaken by myth, especially regarding ‘exclusive traditional
homelands’. There was legitimate
grievance that had been frilled for political expediency to a point where wild
aspiration had moved several light years from grievance.
There were a lot of ‘lost’ things, none of which ‘Regaining
Sri Lanka’ sought to recover. Much of it
was ‘regained’ only after the UNP was unceremoniously tossed off the political
stage in 2004. A key ‘lost’ or at least
hidden element that was studiously left out of the blueprint was that class of
things which includes culture, heritage and history. Sure, these are not necessarily ‘economic’
categories, but then again ‘Sri
Lanka’ is not just an economy. Indeed, the architects and implementers of
‘Regaining Sri Lanka’ not only would have given a hoot about such things but
would salivate if they could see them obliterated at project-end.
That much-sought erasure was tripped by electoral defeat,
but this does not mean the project was abandoned or that a ‘regaining’ should
not take place. There were many things
given up for ‘lost’ during the time the pro-Eelam NGOs and academics had their
honeymoon at Hotel CFA. Much was
recovered after 2005. What was recovered
in relation to what was not, what needs to be recovered, what can be recovered
and what ought to be protected, was minute, really.
If there’s little in us that we can say is unique, then
there’s no point talking about becoming Asia’s
Miracle. I believe there is a lot that
is unique and also that there’s a conspicuous neglecting of all that. If we do not know our history, have no sense
of heritage, are ignorant of who are ancestors were, the philosophies that fed
the thinking that built a civilization in a particular way, then we cannot
understand who we are. We will not know where we ought to go. We end up
inhabiting other people’s versions of our reality and embracing uncritically
their wellbeing-blueprints.
What is the point in waving a ‘national’ flag over a
territory upon which reside a people who have a warped sense of nation or one
that has been defined for their consumption?
Why sing a ‘national’ anthem if nation is just a piece of land defined
by a boundary and which holds a people who share with each other only the fact
of territorial containment.
I am not saying we should not sing the anthem or wave the
flag, but such acts would be so much more meaningful if we got our act together
so we can flag that which is undoubtedly ‘national’ and learn to sing those
ballads which speak of things that came before.
Is there ‘national flag’ in the future we script for our children by way
of the development models we’ve chosen?
Is there ‘national anthem’ in our relations with our neighbours or are
we required to sing on a lower key and tiptoe so some supposedly ‘big’ brother
doesn’t get upset?
We regained lost territory. That’s physical. For this we can wave the flag. We are yet to recover lost cultural
territory. We are yet to slay our colonial ghosts. We are yet to reach our full
potential and we will not get there until we have a solid sense of who we
are.
We are not flag-deserving or anthem-deserving, not yet; not
in any way that makes sense. We had our terrorism-vanquishing moment. We
brought out the flags to celebrate the fact that we won’t have to worry about
bombs taking us out. Worthy of
celebration. There’s much more that could be celebrated, that needs to be
celebrated. We are not worthy. Not yet.
Flag and anthem should be embedded (in a metaphorical sense)
in the nation and not the other way about.
That’s the only way these things can have meaning.
This was first published on December 18, 2010 in the Daily News.
malindasenevi@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment