25 April 2021

23:31

By Malinda Words



1 comment

Move over Teplitz, Seubert's here


 
Geneva. That’s a city. Heard of it? It was in the news folks. Well, ‘was’ means ‘past tense.’ Make no mistake though, it will make the headlines again, for Geneva is seasonal. For now, in the present, it’s old news. We are in a post-Geneva world right now. The human rights noise-makers are on a break.

It’s as though human rights matter only when the Human Rights Council meets or is set to meet. The circus begins in December and continues until bullies are done with bullying. That’s how it is. And then? All quiet on all fronts.

Well, almost. When resolutions are passed, mechanisms are put in place. If the ultimate objective is not achieved, we get a period of consolidation. There are after all people who are aware that there will be another December followed by a January and February. Those in it for the long haul are not unaware of the importance of incremental gain.

And this is why the noise-makers keep their twitter accounts active. Relevance must be maintained after all. We have US Ambassador Alaina B Teplitz (is ‘B’ for ‘Busybody’ one wonders) offering advice on how Sri Lanka should or should not maintain relations with other countries. She gets her favorite scribes in certain media houses to write reams about her opinions on whatever excites her at the moment. It’s now Port City and now about how to deliver ease of business. Then it’s about debt management. And this from the representative of a country whose debt is owned by China!  

Meanwhile, there’s a hilarious story from Geneva. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet has thought fit to advise the UK about legislation in that country. Now the UK was the key player (operating as proxy for the USA which called the Human Rights Council a cesspool of bias, implying that Bachelet herself is the Drainage Manager) in moves against Sri Lanka just a few weeks ago.

What’s interesting is the stark difference in tone and content. Sri Lanka was essentially warned about various matters which disturbed the Council. Measures were taken, or so we are told, to make sure things don’t get worse. No, nothing about war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and other tall tales that seemed to have been bedtime reading for the likes of Bachelet not too long ago (she even had nightmares about the discovery of a mass grave in Mannar containing the remains of people killed some 400 years ago but which she was convinced was a Rajapaksa affair). It was about a disturbing present that cast shadows on a possibly worse future. In a word conjecture. If you want an adjective, consider ‘wild.’

The UK case is different. It’s legislation that would give a free hand to combatants to rape, plunder, torture and kill. That’s black and white stuff, as opposed to a motley set of stories laced with exaggeration if not totally fabricated which ‘compelled’ the Council to rap Sri Lankan on the proverbial knuckles and more. In stark contrast, Bachelet’s missive to the UK is mild.

Bachelet, the Chief of Vexatious Persecution in Geneva, operating on behalf of the worst war criminals that walk the earth representing the worst rogue nations the world has known over the past several centuries, has some lovely words for the British:

‘As currently drafted, the bill would make it substantially less likely that UK service members on overseas operations would be held accountable for serious human rights violations amounting to international crimes.’

This is about the Overseas Operations Bill (better known as the Bill Against Vexatious Prosecution). If ‘present’ is what compelled the Council to draw Sri Lanka over the coals a few weeks ago, then this ‘present’ in the UK should have prompted Bachelet to leave no stone unturned to facilitate sanctions against that country. Didn’t happen. Won’t happen. The world is not ordered that way. Geneva doesn’t operate that way. Bachelet is not made for that kind of operation.

Now, one would have expected Andreas Michaelis to have had something to say about all this. Not a word did he utter.

Haven’t heard of him, ladies and gentlemen? Don’t feel bad. I didn’t know the name either. I wanted to know (and I’ll tell you why, presently) what the German mission in London had to say about the Bill to Enable War Crimes with Impunity (as it should be called). Andreas Michaelis is the current German Ambassador to the Court of St James. He might be busy doing other stuff. Maybe he’s not a busybody like Teplitz. Or Holger Seubert, his Sri Lankan counterpart who, all of a sudden, wanted to teach Sri Lankans world history.

Seubert, representing a country that, predictably, sided with the UK in the vexatious persecution of Sri Lanka in Geneva, tweeted recently:

‘I‘m hearing claims that “a Hitler” could be beneficial to Sri Lanka today. Let me remind those voices that Adolf Hitler was responsible for human suffering and despair beyond imagination, with millions of deaths. Definitely no role model for any politician!’

We know all that. We know also that there were countries back in the day that fought Hitler and his Germany. That’s only because for the first time in history white people were doing to white people what white people had done to non-white people for centuries — mindless slaughter.

Seubert is correct of course. Hitler was no angel. On the other hand, ‘Hitler’ is a name that passes for ‘strong man.’ Someone who was single-minded. Someone who got things done. It’s a name invoked by a bikkhus and more recently by parliamentarian Dilum Amunugama who said that those who voted for Gotabaya Rajapaksa expected him to ‘be a Hitler.’ Indeed the Rajapaksa, before and after assuming office, has been branded as a dictator-in-waiting. The derogatory terms used on his brother by his political opponents a decade ago were essentially refreshed and used against the president. He hasn’t been a dictator and that might have upset those who counted on such an eventuality so they could say ‘I/we told you so!’

On the other hand, those other Hitlerian qualities, aren’t on display either, according to Dilum at least. Perhaps Dilum should have interjected the necessary caveats. It is after all ridiculous to assume that anyone voted for someone expecting an outpouring of human suffering and despair beyond imagination with millions of deaths to boot.  

Seubert would do well to ask people outside his circle of friends in Sri Lanka what ‘hitler kenek’ (a Hitler) connotes in this country.

It is unlikely he would. However, until the Geneva Circus comes around, he can continue to tweet and enhance his busybody credentials. He must have some German pride, one assumes. Why play second fiddle to Teplitz and her UK counterpart, Sarah Hulton, eh?

Make no mistake. Geneva will make the headlines again. Until then media houses will have to make do with the likes of Teplitz, Hulton and Seubert (but not Bachelet or Michaelis)!


[Malinda Seneviratne is the Director/CEO of the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views].




17:11

By Malinda Words



No comments

Krishantha Cooray asks: 'Are you Annesley, Lesley, Kingsley or Bruce Lee?'

 


This is a story related to me by my friend and founder CEO of Rivira Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd, Krishantha Cooray. Apparently he had, a long time ago, figured out that employees or subordinates are of four types, each associated with or rather amenable to description by the above names.

First. Annesley. This, according to Krishantha, is the type of subordinate who will accept with enthusiasm tasks and responsibilities, and end up messing everything. Perhaps out of over-enthusiasm. Perhaps on account of over-estimating capacities. Perhaps out of sheer ignorance and incompetence. So why ‘Annesley’? Well, it’s derived from the Sinhala colloquial term for messing things up: aana gannava.

Then we have Lesley. ‘Lesley’ from lessala-yanava….slinking away or (deftly) sidestepping responsibility or nudging it in someone else’s direction. [A] Lesley won’t say ‘no’ or ‘cannot.’ Lesley might even show the same enthusiasm as [an] Annesley. Lesley won’t do the job. Indeed he won’t even try to do the job. Someone else will take on the responsibility. If that person succeeds, Lesley would probably not be averse to accepting the credit (Krishantha didn’t elaborate on this) but rest assured, if there’s failure, Lesley will not be blamed.

The third character, according to Krishantha is Kingsley. [A] Kingsley will take orders and carry them out as though they’ve been given by a king.  Fear of punishment or absolute loyalty and commitment to affirming the notion of raajakaariya would do the trick. Such individuals attend to the task at hand diligently. They get the job done.

The final character is Bruce Lee. Yes, the martial artist Bruce Lee. [A] Bruce Lee would fight his/her way through to get the job done. There could be some bruises, black-eyes and maybe even a broken nose at the end of the story but he/she would deliver.

Krishantha has an elaboration of this thesis as well. You would have no doubt asked the obvious question: doesn’t it depend (also) on who the king/queen is? Yes, the character or personality of the person giving the order needs to be factored in as well.

There are all kinds of leaders. Sometimes, if the system has been tested and refined over time, it doesn’t really matter who is at the top. There are rules, there are expectations and there’s a culture of work. In such situations, a Lesley or an Annesley won’t survive. He/she would be hoofed out. There won’t be a Bruce Lee either; a half-way decent system will not require noses to be broken. That’s when we find that everyone is a Kingley. In fact the real king would be the system. All that’s left is rajakariya.

That’s rare, though. So we have to talk about leaders.

Obviously any system that has all four types cannot be efficient. Bruce Lee will get things done, but could create other issues. Kingsley can be counted on. Ii might still work if together they outweigh Annesley and Lesley. No guarantees though. Ideally, Annesley and Lesley have to be shown the door and Bruce Lee reined in a bit.

Sometimes, say in a state institution, it’s not easy to get rid of Annesley and Lesley. Annesley has to be closely supervised and even nurtured into being a Kingsley. You can’t take chances with Lesley.

Unlike Annesley, whose intentions might be praiseworthy, Lesley by definition so to speak is constructed to ensure failure. Lesley thrives when there’s no one watching. Lesley in fact can go out of the way to ensure that eyes are looking elsewhere, for that is an objective precondition for Lesley’s success and of course not the success of the organization. However, when one considers the fact that Lesley simply does not want to get caught, some surveillance could change matters. Continuous supervision could even turn Lesley into Kingsley.

Bruce Lee is a hero. In movies. In an office, he is a sword that could and often does cut both ways. Good man to have around in an emergency, but certainly not a man for all seasons. In a sense it is harder to turn Bruce Lee into Kingsley than to effect a transformation of Lesley. The former is an end-justifies-the-means kind of individual; the latter operates as though believing that doing nothing is the only end that’s of any worth. Bruce Lee has to be re-moulded and that’s really tough. Too little supervision or giving full rein could end with delivery but delivery leaving behind a wreckage-trail. Too much supervision could immobilize. That would translate into idle human resources. Not good.

The task of the leader is unenviable, then. The objective, ultimately, is to transform self into system. Ego can get in the way. Human frailty can stump. However, there’s little to lose by trying. An institution made of Kingsleys and Kingsleys in the making would probably be better than one made of a Kingsley, a Bruce Lee, an Annesley and a Lesley.

Perhaps Krishantha Cooray, if and when he writes his memoirs, could shed more light on this fascinating aspect of human resource management!

malindasenevi@gmail.com


[Malinda Seneviratne is the Director/CEO of the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views]


16:08

By Malinda Words



No comments

PC elections could stump constitutional reform(ers)


 

There’s talk of provincial council elections. Various parties or rather their leaderships have instructed the respective ranks and files to get ready. A good time, then, to talk of this particular political exercise.

Now provincial council elections are, first and foremost, part of constitutional requirements. It’s necessitated by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, illegally though its passage in Parliament was. It was a product of the infamous Indo-Lanka Accord which, as is well known, was essentially a for India, by India and with India kind of operation.

Of course the provincial councils have since then acquired the legitimacy that elections yield, even though the fact of contesting had little or nothing to do with the objectives of that piece of ‘legislation.’  Simply, elections constitute the bread and butter of politicians. Parties in power use such (relatively) minor elections to test approval or otherwise while for those in the opposition they are useful for regrouping after defeats at major elections. For individual politicians it’s about political careers. For the people, well, at least a moment of entertainment and a brief (and minor) validation of citizenship.

They were originally conceptualized as a solution to what is carelessly called ‘ethnic conflict.’ ‘Careless’ because the lines and the regions are not drawn from the ‘problems’ that the 13th sought to alleviate. They do not, for example, describe ‘traditional homelands (exclusive or otherwise) by any stretch of the imagination. The aggrieved polities are not contained by the lines. The relevant densities rebel against the ‘logic’ of devolution alone the lines.

Be that as it may, provincial elections are now a constitutional requirement, even though few are interested in them. The devolution brigades forgot about the 13th, the problems it was supposed to resolve etc., when the previous regime refused to hold provincial council elections. Those who whine about democracy at every turn somehow forgot that elections are important elements of a democracy. Now, typically their democracy angst only surfaces when the UNP (or its various avatars, for example the SJB) is out of power. And yet, this time around, when Sri Lanka and in particular the current government was put under a trial in a kangaroo court in Geneva, the prosecutors (who are also wont to switch roles with the judges and the jury) were conspicuously (and hilariously) silent on provincial council elections not being held.

So, we’ve gone several years now without PC elections, but that hasn’t really bothered anyone. The provincial administration has carried on regardless. No complaints from the politicians and more importantly, none from the people in these provinces.

So we have to consider the question, ‘do we need these?’ What's happened over the past three decades clearly says ‘no.’

And yet, they are, as mentioned above, a constitutional requirement and as such need to be held. On the other hand, the constitution is currently under review. At least in the sense any committee appointed to draft a new constitution is expected to review the existing one.

Now, for argument’s sake, let’s say that PC elections are held and a few weeks later the committee of experts tasked to draft a new constitution comes up with a document that essentially repeals the 13th amendment. What then?

Now even if no one is really interested in provincial councils (as per the evidence of the past 3-4 years), the very fact of holding such elections and returning members to the various provincial councils would be cited as ‘people’s will’ AGAINST such recommendations by the committee of experts, never mind if people voted in order to express endorsement or objection of the current government, needed some political entertainment or wanted to feel recognized and valued for a change. The fact of holding elections would be considered as an overall aye in a ‘referendum’ on the 13th Amendment itself.

And yet, as mentioned above, elections need to be held. Postponement for reasons such as the above, valid though they may be, is not a good thing. The argument, ‘they postponed and hardly an eyebrow was raised, and therefore we shall postpone too,’ is weak. The errors of a previous government does provide a precedent, but refusal to correct course does not yield democratic brownie points.

This is why the government would do well to consider alternative courses of action. For example, why not a referendum on the 13th? That would settle the question once and for all. It’s a direct question and therefore ‘mandate’ cannot be twisted and turned as per the whims and fancies of the interpreter of outcome.

Better still, the committee of experts can release at least an interim report of progress on work done regarding the formulation of a new constitution. They’ve been at it for many months now. It’s not as though they are starting from scratch. The Second Republican Constitution (of 1978) has been reviewed enough over the past 43 years. The debates have not been behind closed doors. It’s all out there in the public domain. It’s unlikely that the experts have been ignorant of the relevant debates. They are, after all, citizens. They are, more likely than otherwise, people who have exercised their franchise. They are experts and as such can be expected to have reflected on the pros and cons of the 1978 constitution and have had more than a cursory glance at the 13th Amendment so to speak. It cannot be that their expertise is limited to, say, the understanding that no less than 20 amendments in less than 40 years indicates more than a half-baked argument for reform.

In any event, it is not entirely unfair for the public to expect these experts to say something, anything, about their work so far. It is good that they are not in a hurry, for hasty reform can have and has had serious consequences. The 19th amendment, from draft to SC opinion to the disregard of such opinion to passage and eventual submission to the SC for determination is a classic case of how not to do constitution reform, for example. On the other hand, ruminating endlessly does not help either.

The talk about holding provincial council elections, if not anything, ought to alert the experts to get the reform process off the blocks. They cannot be ignorant of the fact that the very holding of PC elections can stump their work, as argued above.

So, here’s a question for Mr Romesh De Silva and the team of experts: how about a status report?

malindasenevi@gmail.com.


[Malinda Seneviratne is the Director/CEO of the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views.]

16:05

By Malinda Words



No comments

The National Endowment for Vexatious Interference (USA) and its local pawns


 

Did you just google ‘National Endowment for Vexatious Interference’? If so, you would be disappointed. There’s no such thing.  This is not because no one in this world interferes. People interfere. Countries too. Interfering is not something the interfered enjoy. It implies ‘without invitation.’ There is something vexatious about it and as such the term vexatious interference is a bit ‘extra.’ The reason for the absence of an endowment of that name is simple: creatures who are bad, vicious, bloodthirsty etc., with a penchant for belligerence, theft, plunder, murder etc., don’t wear such labels. They would rather call themselves benign, generous, selfless etc., and wear pretty clothes with angel-wings attached to shoulders.

The National Endowment for Democracy. Now that would come up on google. It is a US Government think tank set up to support freedom around the world. Think of a word without racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance — well, that’s the kind of place that the NED wants or rather says it stands to help create.

The USA and freedom. Isn’t that something! One doesn’t have to ask how the USA voted on Resolution 72/157 to understand US humbuggery in its domestic and international engagements. The death, dismemberment, destruction and displacement engineered by the US is too evident to warrant such digs. It’s a rogue state if ever there was one. Nevertheless, since the USA has often used the United Nations to trot around in angel-garb, it’s worth a revisit.

It was at its 72nd session in December 2017 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 72/157. It was ‘a global call for concrete action for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.’ Furthermore, it requested the Human Rights Council ‘to continue to pay attention to the situation regarding racial equality in the world.’

Now just the other day, the HRC passed a resolution against Sri Lanka. The prime mover of that exercise was the UK, operating as the proxy of the USA of course. France and Germany stood with the UK. Interestingly (and tellingly!) France, Germany and the UK were among the 14 countries that voted against Resolution 72/157, along with the USA (aha!), Australia (aha!), the Netherlands (aha!), Israel (aha!) and Canada (aha!). ‘Aha’ too regarding the fact that all other European countries abstained!

In other words, these countries thumbed their proverbial noses at the global all for the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. In other words, their noises about such things is nothing less than political cacophony masking the pursuit of interests that have nothing to do with supporting freedom. In other words, in the case of the USA for example, the NED is at odds (thematically and in practice) with Washington’s policy prerogatives.

Well, ‘at odds’ on paper. Dig a little deeper and one finds absolute harmony.  The NED is notorious for pumping dollars into groups, parties and ‘movements’ operating against governments that do not toe the Washington line. Sure, they say it’s for democracy but that’s hogwash. The USA never supports groups objecting to US-friendly despots, military juntas and monarchies who mow down anything associated with freedom and democracy.

Alright. Don’t believe me. You can, however, take it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.Carl Gershman, the NED’s co-founder once told the New York Times that a lot of what the NED does was previously done covertly by the CIA. The CIA does a lot overtly and covertly, this we know. So why have the NED in the first place? Gershman gave the following explanation: ‘It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA.’ Apparently this is why the endowment was created.

Now would you be interested in being named as a beneficiary of such an outfit? And what would you have to say about outfits that depend on NED to run their operations? What would you make of their claimed passion to counter things such as racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance? What would you have to say about their morality, their integrity, their intellectual and political pursuits? Would a pinch of salt be enough? A cartload then?

Check this list and shake it twice: https:///www.ned.org/region/asia/sri-lanka/2020. Millions of dollars have been pumped into various ‘civil society organizations,’ you will find.

Now if you want to add two to two and obtain four (in a political sense), just check out those who have crawled out of the woodworks to stomp around and beat their chests indignantly over Port City. Check the names and what kinds of organizations they’ve taken up residence in over the years. Now check who has funded these organizations. Well, you can also ask what they’ve done when the yahapalana regime was engaged in vexatious operations regarding entities such as the Port City and the Hambantota Port, if you want a good measure of malice, political intent and humbuggery.

Law and Society Trust (LST). Have you heard of them? Centre for Policy Alternatives (heard of them)? They’re up in arms (now, as opposed to when the Yahapalanists were at China’s door with the begging bowl following Brexit — when Ranil Wickremesinghe suddenly realized there’s an ‘East’ in the world) against the Port City Economic Commission. LST obtained bucks from the NED. So did the CPA.

Did you add two to two? Did you get four? Tells a story, doesn’t it? Tells a story but it’s not about justice, democracy, rights and other such lovely things. Chinese interference, did someone squeak? Obviously, there’s a Chinese footprint here. There’s a US footprint too and it’s getting erased and maybe this is why Alaina B Teplitz is livid and why outfits such as the NED are in the picture. We would rather not have any footprints but ours, obviously, but those who have walked in and kicked us in the gut have no moral authority to complain, right? And neither do those whose rights-angsts are fed by rights-offenders.

malindasenevi@gmail.com

[Malinda Seneviratne is the Director/CEO of the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views.]

16:02

By Malinda Words



No comments

On nation(s), nationalist(s) and nationalism(s)



Around 20 years ago, a young politician with nationalist pretensions made an interesting observation (in Sinhala), the gist of which is as follows: ‘There is no such thing as a “Sinhala Race” but people think there is — we should exploit the perception.” Interestingly, he was at the time in a political party that was contesting an election on a Sinhala card, so to speak. Now if there’s nothing called ‘Sinhala Race’ then there cannot be subjective identification with that term. Why then should anyone who speaks Sinhala vote for such a party, is a question he may not have considered.

The party didn’t do well in that election, returning just one candidate to Parliament and this too on the national list courtesy of predetermined ratios. Perhaps some ‘Sinhalese’ did consider ‘race’ as a subjective identifier; some as in a tiny minority. Barely three years later, a shift from Sinhala to Buddhist in political rhetoric yielded far better results and yet the overall vote was just a fraction of the population that spoke Sinhala.

Perhaps Sinhala or Sinhala Race aren’t that important when it comes to elections. Perhaps other factors have more compelling weight in the calculations of a voter. Perhaps, as he said, there’s no such thing as a ‘Sinhala Race,’ one might argue, never mind that nothing in this country has been as vilified as Sinhala Nationalism, real or imagined, and never mind that the vilifiers play deaf and dumb over act and word from other communities (real or imagined) that would, in terms of equivalencing, qualify for the ‘nationalist’ tag and, let us not forget, again by virtue of similarity warrant similar vilification.  

Twenty years ago, turning to a random page in a copy of the Majjima Nikaya, I came across the Payasi Rajaagna Sutra which gave an insight into this issue of identity.

Here’s the gist.

The sutra is essentially a conversation between Kumara Kashyapa Thero and an argumentative merchant who took issue with the doctrine of the Buddha and expressed doubt by posing unanswerable questions such as the following: ‘what is nirvana like?’ By way of response, the Thero related an anecdote about a fire-worshipping Jatila.

This Jatila had an apprentice of sorts. One day the master had to go on a journey and he had instructed the boy to make sure that the fire would not go out. The boy was careless. The fire went out. The boy didn’t know how to make a fire. He split the firewood to tiny slivers, he searched among the ashes for the fire that had gone missing. The Jatila, returning after a couple of days, duly reprimanded the disciple and lit the fire.

And so, the Thero expounded: just as he who does not know how to make fire will not make fire, those who without wisdom look for nirvana will not find it.

The application: he/she who looks for race without knowing what it is or rather what it is constituted of or is not empowered with techniques of identification, will not find it. My comment from twenty years ago went on the following lines: it is a good thing that identification is hard for if that was not the case that which was looked for would be destroyed or purchased.

And so, for reasons of political convenience Sinhalaness (or for that matter Tamilness or any other ‘ness’) misidentified is observed in the persona of the enemy of the moment. That enemy, admittedly, might even wear the identity-garb, sometimes with conviction that the cloth covers the real thing but more typically because it is also convenient. And so we have battles among the convenient for reasons of convenience.

Identity is an interesting thing. Prof Arjuna Parakrama, speaking on the subject at a Commonwealth Literature confab in Peradeniya University around 16-17 years ago, told the story of a ‘Sinhala’ individual somewhere in the North Central Province (if memory serves right) who, when asked who he was, had lots to say with ‘Sinhalese’ or ‘Sinhala-speaking’ either not being mentioned or mentioned as one among many self-identifiers. Parakrama was asked how he, Parakrama, would identify himself. His response was ‘good question.’ He did not answer.

And yet, nationalism is an often used word. Nationalists there are. Of all kinds. Rata, jathiya and aagama (nation, race and religion) are easy words that are used frequently in power politics. They are ferociously affirmed and equally ferociously vilified. It’s like a set of clowns or thugs averse to acknowledging silliness and belligerence respectively and therefore talk about the clothes they and their political others wear.

Of course the self-labeled nationalists (of all hues) are in-your-face visible. The more extreme the position or the more intractable in terms of political project(s) the more visible they are. And that’s where one finds the nationalist discourse. The label-wearers are the stars/villains. The parties they identify with have star/villain value. Whether their amalgam constitutes THE NATION is of course a moot point. They are part of it, obviously. They do shape/disfigure the political edifice. What they do and do not do, what they say and do not say, have a bearing on nation, nationalists, nationalism that have little truck with them.

It’s easy. Too easy, even. Profitable though in many ways for many people. Somewhere where those lacking wisdom cannot see nation, somewhere outside of the universe they traverse in nation-garb, there is probably a nation and a people who identify with it in ways that don’t make it to even the footnotes of the nationalist discourse.

That’s a good thing, for after all the shouting is done, the buildings brought down and upon those ruins other mansions or hovels (as the case may be), the blood letting is done and the wounds dressed, foundation and heart will remain. That’s how civilizations survive and reincarnate themselves.

Meanwhile, however, politics we will have. The young politician mentioned at the beginning still spouts nationalism. Less frequently of course and without any chest-beating whatsoever. He has reinvented himself several times and is quite conversant in the doctrine of strange bedfellows. He’s not done too badly, all things considered. He’s not done with nation, though. It is a convenience, after all, and a useful political tool.

15:58

By Malinda Words



No comments

The British will not learn English, let's not kid ourselves

 

The United Kingdom, it is reported, has rejected Sri Lanka’s request for the disclosure of wartime dispatches from its High Commission in Colombo. Sri Lanka had made the request during the 46th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva a few weeks ago.

The dispatches from the then British Defence Advisor, Lt Col Anthony Gash were never referred to in any of the many ‘studies’ on Sri Lanka’s bloody struggle against terrorism. Indeed no one would have known of them or what they contained if not for Lord Naseby invoking the UK’s right to information laws to obtain them. Gash’s dispatches clearly prove that there were no war crimes committed by Sri Lankan security forces, certainly not the kind that the terrorist lobby (strangely or perhaps not so strangely bed-fellowing with rogue states such as the UK and USA) and indeed these bed-fellows claim have been perpetrated.


British authorities pretended for years that there was no such information available. Now they can’t deny these dispatches exist. And therefore they’ve come up with an interesting disclaimer. The UK now faults Gash for not obtaining independent confirmation of reports he had sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Key word: ‘now.’ This was NOT the position originally taken by the FCO.

Alright, let’s take the CURRENT position at face value. Couldn’t the UK table the dispatches in all relevant forums with such caveats/disclaimers? That’s just one issue. There’s another. Yes, the business of ‘independent confirmation.’  What’s independent and what’s confirmation? The UK and others hell-bent on censuring Sri Lanka for imagined war crimes frequently refer to documents that are based on a report issued by a ‘panel of experts’ appointed by Ban Ki-moon. The Darusman Report is what it is called. There are lots of claims in that document but no one can claim that any of it was ‘independently confirmed.’ The sources will remain a mystery for years to come.

In the United Kingdom, they’ve not heard of the word ‘contradiction’ it seems. Certain things that are partisan and come unconfirmed are permissible whereas other stuff that’s independent (unless the UK actually sided with the Sri Lankan security forces in the last days of the war on terrorism) are out of order.

It seems to me that the authorities in the UK don’t know whether they are coming or going. Well, maybe they do know that they are severely challenged in logic, in intellect, in moral standing etc., but believe that the world someone does not notice. A third possibility: they just don’t care.

The United Kingdom, with respect to the UNHRC resolution and all matters relevant to it, then, hasn’t exactly covered herself in glory, but what of that considering that shamelessness is the blood-stained batch on its coat of arms, so to speak?

Let’s humor them, though. There’s a lady called Sarah Hulton. Let’s assume she knows English. Let’s assume she has some skills in language comprehension. Let’s not assume she values truth, justice and being honorable for we shouldn’t kid ourselves too much. Nevertheless, we can ask some questions.

What’s the value of hearsay? Do we discard ‘word’ and if so which words? If we pick some words and junk others, what criteria should we employ? The Darusman Report, for example, is ALL ABOUT HEARSAY. We have to assume that until we know how said what, for only then can we talk of reliability of source. We have reports that toss out random numbers without a shred of substantiation. Is that ok, Ms Hulton? If Gash is unreliable, how can any report based on some other report that is based on hearsay be ok?

Let’s not kid ourselves. This is not about truth and reconciliation. The United Kingdom values lie over truth, injustice over justice, violation of all basic tenets of humanity over their protection, theft over property rights, plunder over protection. The British are yet to reconcile themselves regarding the many crimes against humanity they have perpetrated or, at least, benefited from. Seeking justice and truth from such people is silly. Seeking honor from the dishonorable is silly.

And yet, in Geneva and in other places where bucks and bombs count more than truth and justice, countries like the United Kingdom will prevail. For now. For now, we must add, for we know that nothing is permanent. For now, the reports of idiots and/or the politically compromised will be valued over those of impartial, dispassionate individuals such as Gash.

Let’s get this right. The British are not just bullies. They are cowards. Intellect is not their strong point or even if they are sophomoric at best, they are bullish enough to push aside the truth. It’s about ‘by any means necessary’ but obviously not in an emancipatory sense of that phrase, as used by Malcolm X.

So when they talk of truth and justice, reconciliation and peace and other such lovely things, let’s keep in mind that it’s all balderdash. When they talk of ‘victims’ it is nonsense because without ‘wrongdoing’ that’s established, there can be no ‘victims’.

Mr Hulton is not sleeping ladies and gentlemen. The United Kingdom is not sleeping. The Foreign and Commenwelt Office in that country is not sleeping. They are pretend-sleepers. They cannot be woken up.
 
One is reminded of a song from ‘My fair lady,’ the musical based on George Bernard Shaw’s ‘Pygmalion’. Why can’t the English teach their children how to speak? That’s the title of the song. When the English learn English — now that would be the day! Right now they speak some garbled language devoid of any logic or reason. It works for them. Colonial-speak is a possible name for that language. It is an excellent communications device in all things antithetical to the high ideals, the furtherance of which was the reason for the establishment of the UNHRC. Indeed that has become the lingua franca of Geneva. The British know this French, pardon the irony!  Ms Hulton knows it, as do her bosses in London as did their ancestors whose crimes against humanity are left out from the history books.

We are not talking of the past though. It’s the present. It’s ugly. As ugly as the past, only it’s come wearing other clothes. Nice ones. Not everyone is fooled though.

15:56

By Malinda Words



1 comment

'Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat'

 

Regular readers of this column will no doubt have noticed that I draw heavily from cricket and chess. The pieces, I hope, have application-value outside of cricket and chess; but anyway, it’s simply because I played competitive chess and still play a lot of online games and because I’m a keen follower of cricket. I am your average sports fan who knows something but not much about most sports and a little more about one or two.

Anyway, I felt I needed to get that out of the way.

The column, then. The example is chess. Again. Bear with me.

Now in chess there are positions where neither of the players have any edge, not even a slight advantage. ‘An equal position,’ is how it would be described, by players and engines. Sometimes it is a blocked position with few or no openings for either player to break through into the enemy’s camp. Sometimes it’s an ending where the particular complement of pieces simply means that one player controls some squares (say the dark ones) and the other the rest (light squares), typically in an opposite colored bishop ending.  Sometimes it’s just that both players are short of ideas and imagination.

If neither player has an overwhelming desire to push for victory then it could end with them agreeing to draw the game following a few cursory moves that neither threaten nor create weaknesses that the other could exploit.

Sometimes, ‘draw’ or its possibility enters the mind of a player who overly depends on tactics. If the piece-complement, their relations with one another and the overall position do not lend towards tactical play, one often notices a kind of resignation. That is, a resignation to a drawn result. However, as most chess players know, chess is a game of development. It’s about striving to improve one’s position. Relentlessly. Even in a blocked position, for example, one could decide to develop the least developed pieces. It doesn’t necessarily deliver a victory but in the very least will reduce opportunities for the opponent to force a win.

It’s all about strategy. In equal positions, many have learned the hard way, the player with a plan tends to win or at least improve chances of winning. ‘Dead drawn positions’ do not always end in draws. One player might plan, visualize a ‘winning position’ and strategize ways of getting there. He/she may or may not, but if the other player is complacent, there is always the possibility that he/she might err and provide that half-chance which makes the difference.

On the other hand, if one player banks on tactics and tactics alone, he/she might unconsciously become blind of subtle opportunities that help improve his/her position. From there to complacency is a short distance. Complacency always creates the possibility of error. Error, even if slight, can tip the scales.

Tactics are important, make no mistake. A wise man once said, ‘strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory; tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.’ In chess, the length of the road is about fatigue and that matters too if it’s a long tournament or even just a single game afterwards. Long or short, the victory, sweet or otherwise, yields just a single point. That point is important. Hence the emphasis on strategy.

In certain positions and against opponents who drop their guard and become careless, tactics alone can deliver victory, but if one is playing stronger opponents at higher levels of competition, they won’t be enough. Often necessary but seldom sufficient are tactics.  And without strategy, it’s just noise. You win battles or rather you may win a battle or two, but you could very well lose the war. You might come up with some neat tricks but more often than not, the opponent is not caught by surprise or left without opportunities to refute.  

In general, in sports like in war, those who carefully plan are more likely to gain ground in the mini battles or sub-plots which, in the end, translate into incremental advantages that add up to give an edge that is decisive.

In the end, the noise does not count. It’s the noise one earns the right to make AFTER the game is over that counts. Well, the result is what matters, but bragging rights about consolation prizes secured along the way are in the end of little import.

Strategy. It matters. One has to plan. Tactical opportunities present themselves if strategy is sound. The quote, by the way, is from Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art of War.’ He knew about tactics. He knew about strategy. He always had the endgame in his sights. In war. In chess. In all sports. Even in life, one might add.

Other articles in the series titled 'The Interception' [published in 'The Morning']

Do you have a plan? Strengths and weaknesses
Wait, it's a strategy
The virtues of risk-free generosity
Thinking and out-thinking in sports
Read, locked-down people, read!
The team, the team!
Who should take the last shot?
It's all about partnerships
'The done thing' is rarely done
'Practice, lots of practice'
Special, always and forever
The shortcut to greatness
It's healthy to retire the braggadocio 
Money talks, gold rules: are we ok with that?
Sometimes if you don't stand up, you fall
Selections and the political economy of disappointment
So who is the GOAT?
Predecessors are great teachers
When things go wrong check the fundamentals
There's always only one more game left
Mind games are part of the sporting story
Those nervous nineties
Out-think the opposition!
School sports and parents
The importing mania in school cricket
Sportsmen and sportswomen beware: your accounts will be hacked soon!
Not all victories are recorded 

 

15:53

By Malinda Words



No comments

A coach must have a magical mirror

 


Pritvi Shaw has played in just five tests, scoring 339 runs including a century and two fifties at an average of 42.37. The Indian opener has played in three ODIs and his 54 T20 appearances have yielded 11 half centuries at an average of 24.18 and a good strike rate of 148.57.

Not bad for someone who’s just over 21 years of age. He failed in Australia last year and before that had been dropped by the Delhi Capitals towards the end of the 2020 IPL tournament, averaging just 18 over13 games.

He’s young. These de-selections are not unusual therefore. Shaw did a bit of justice to the faith placed in him by selectors and the talent he obviously possesses when he shattered multiple records and helped Mumbai win the Vijay Hazare Trophy in early March. He’s started the 2021 IPL with a bang (of sorts).

Maybe he’s turned a corner. Maybe he has not. We have to wait. He’s just 21, as mentioned above.

This is not about Shaw though. This is not about the Delhi Capitals batting coach Praveen Amre, who has been working on Shaw’s technique and attitude of late, in addition to being mentor to the youngster for quite a while now. It’s about something Shaw said about Amre (see Nagraj Gollapudi's article ‘Five days that lifted Pritvi Shaw from out of his rut.’):

‘He agreed that he had to work on his batting. He wanted to improve. I showed him the mirror. I told him: Where are you right now? You have been dropped from the Test team. You did not even have a par performance last IPL. You have just experienced failure, so how are you going to bounce back? The one thing that is in your [favour] is you are 21 years old.’
Mirror. That’s the keyword here.

There’s no magic in this of course. Take any sport and given the technology available it’s easy for any sportsman/woman to see what he/she has done in a particular encounter, a series of matches or, if you want to get down to the details, against a particular opponent.

You can use the particular data base to pin it down to particular moments. If there are many such moments then we say ‘typical’ or ‘habit.’ A frame by frame approach obviously helps. A chess player for example might be found to make positional errors say between moves 15 and 20 or become unimaginative in certain kinds of positions. That’s how one identifies weaknesses or bad habits.

These are easily identified. It’s not hard for a coach to show these to the particular player. What the camera, so to speak, does not always capture is the attitude/approach. It’s one thing to identify it and quite another to ‘show it’. Certain things simply can’t be ‘replayed.’  

Amre, according to Gollapudi, has stated some known facts. Maybe the tone used, the nature of his relationship with Shaw and Shaw’s respect for Amre may have made a difference. Sometimes we know what’s wrong, but sometimes we need someone else to tell us that in a particular kind of way. A wall has to be broken down and some walls just cannot be brought down by a battering ram.

So it’s a different kind of mirror that has to be used; hence the qualifier 'magical.' And sometimes it matters who is holding the mirror and at what angle it is held, for every player is unique and what works for one may not work for another.  

A good coach can fix a technical error. A great coach will fix the technical error and the flaws of the mind, the approach and the attitude.

Shaw had a good first game in IPL 2021. He’s just 21. Amre’s work might not be over. Let’s watch.


Other articles in the series titled 'The Interception' [published in 'The Morning']

Do you have a plan? Strengths and weaknesses
Wait, it's a strategy
The virtues of risk-free generosity
Thinking and out-thinking in sports
Read, locked-down people, read!
The team, the team!
Who should take the last shot?
It's all about partnerships
'The done thing' is rarely done
'Practice, lots of practice'
Special, always and forever
The shortcut to greatness
It's healthy to retire the braggadocio 
Money talks, gold rules: are we ok with that?
Sometimes if you don't stand up, you fall
Selections and the political economy of disappointment
So who is the GOAT?
Predecessors are great teachers
When things go wrong check the fundamentals
There's always only one more game left
Mind games are part of the sporting story
Those nervous nineties
Out-think the opposition!
School sports and parents
The importing mania in school cricket
Sportsmen and sportswomen beware: your accounts will be hacked soon!
Not all victories are recorded