Fruit forbidden to liberals

 

One of the most thorny problems for self-styled liberals in Sri Lanka is that they use the liberal label as though it’s some kind of impenetrable shield, hiding behind which they take on specific enemies in accordance with preferred outcomes. Scratch them and you find some grotesque creatures.

You would find colonial remnants, elitists who anything said or written in any language other than English has to be inferior, religious zealots rabidly anti-Buddhist, ardent lovers of much discredited neoliberal economic policies and echoers of Washington-speak who swear by Reuters, BBC, AP etc. They would swoon if Julie Chung said ‘hi machang’ and probably lamented the death of Elizabeth, a woman who benefited from and was the unmistakable symbol of genocide, ethnic cleansing and outright plunder. Then of course there are the wannabes with chips on their shoulders who mimic Colombots, Candlelight Ladies, Funded Voices, Rent-a-Protest Agitators in the mistaken belief it will get them automatic citizenship in Kolombia.  

The positions taken (or not taken) on a wide range of issues mark them and indeed question their liberal credentials. Nothing dissolves the liberal shield, however, as the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act.

The Committee for Muslim Law Reforms (CMLR) has proposed that the polygamy law applicable to Muslim be retained albeit with minor adjustments but nevertheless reaffirming inequality before the law and celebrating the subjugation of Muslim women. That’s a double whammy for liberals. We’ll get to that soon.
CMLR Chairman Shabry Haleemdeen is reported to have said, ‘We are deliberating on polygamy since it is a sensitive issue for the Muslim community, for the reason that it is derived from the Quran. It is a religious tenet and people take it very seriously.’

Now, if you really want to take the Quran seriously and use the sensitivity caveat, all manner of atrocities against non-believers would have to be sanctioned (the same with certain tenets of the Bible of course).

Haleemdeen makes much of allowing brides to sign the marriage registration form. Cheers! Well, trivial, really. Let’s get to the more serious stuff. Haleemdeen’s apologies are hilarious. Apparently permission from a ‘Conciliator’ would have to be obtained when a Muslim man wishes to marry again (and again). If the MMDA remains with CMLR recommendations incorporated, some researcher studying patriarchy, discrimination etc., is likely to exclaim, ‘all conciliators happen to be men, oh wow!’ That’s going by how these ‘sensitive issues of the Muslim community’ have played out over time. Let’s put that aside.

The conciliator, Haleemdeen says, ‘will have to mainly consider the equal treatment of the wives, financially, physically, and mentally.’ I suppose financial issues could, in part, be sorted with assets being legally divided between the first and second wives. However, the principle of equality would be wrecked if the man takes a third or fourth wife. In any case, how on earth can anyone ensure ‘equal physical and mental treatment’ of all wives prior to the second or subsequent marriage? The CMLR also insists, ‘the person who is proposing to marry again should have sufficient financial means to support all their wives and children.’ Polygamy for the rich, then? 

Haleemdeen says that a Muslim man wanting a second marriage should have a compelling reason, for example, if the first wife has a terminal illness or an incurable disease or cannot perform in bed (who judges that, though?). Let’s flip it. What if a Muslim man is impotent? What if a Muslim man is terminally ill or has some incurable disease? Why shouldn’t the same principle be applied? What does Haleemdeen and the CMLR have to say? What do liberals have to say? What do feminists have to say? Why aren’t they going for Haleemdeen’s jugular? Why aren’t they launching a protest? #CMLRgetlost, anyone? Haleemdeen hasn’t uttered a word about divorce. That's also interesting given that the MMDA renders the bride vulnerable vis-a-vis the bridegroom from Day One.

 
It boils down to a couple of things. First, men from one community enjoys polygamy while men of other communities end up in jail for the same act. Secondly, it is sexist. Liberals who just cannot stand Article 9 of the Constitution (never mind its negation by Articles 10 and 14) and rant and rave about separating religion from the state, are silent on all this. Why?

Haleemdeen is a sham artist, one has to conclude. The CMLR is a sham show. Liberals who are silent on the MMDA and the CMLR recommendations are ostriches and need to wave a banner with the following legend, ‘#I-left. And shut up thereafter.

Enough. Consider the following. On February 19, 2020, i.e. days before Parliament was dissolved and probably in full cognizance of impending General Elections, a report was released by ‘The Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security,’ appointed following the Easter Sunday attacks almost a year before.

This report contained recommendations on the following areas: 1. Education, 2. Banning face coverings which hinder identification, 3. National Defence Policy, 4. Amending the Immigration and Emigration Law in line with new developments, national and international, 5. Electronic, print and social media, 6. Amending the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Law, 7. Empowering Muslim civil society, 8. Empowerment and legalization of the NGO Secretariat, 9. Amendment of the Wakf Act, 10. Suspension of registration of political parties on ethnic and religious basis, 11. Issuing birth certificates with Sri Lankan Identity Number, 12. Establishment of a ministry of religious affairs that combines all religions, 13. Building and maintaining Dhamma schools and religious centers to ensure inter-religious cohabitation, and 14. Halal certification process.

Now this is as comprehensive a report as we’ve seen on a number of key and interrelated issues. The most important recommendations are related to Muslim marriages and divorces that require amendment of Acts Nos. l3 of l951, 31 of 1954, 22 of 1955, 1 of 1965, 5 of 1965, 32 of 1969,  and Law No. 41 of 1975. These correct the horrendous gender inequalities in that community with respect to marriages and divorce.  

But why even bother amending the MMDA, my liberal friends? Shouldn’t the principle of equality supersede customary law? Indeed, shouldn’t you be pushing for the repeal of all such parochial pieces of legislation? But they nothing but Religious Freedom Nazis who have a bone to pick with certain religions (but not their own) and/or whose faiths have no history or numbers of the faithful of any significance (which is why, ‘equality of the ‘one-religion, one-vote’ kind is advocated even though in countries where THOSE religious communities are the majority, such generosity is hardly seen). That’s their problem. It’s a quintessential Sri Lankan ‘liberal’ dilemma. A disease and a curse, one might add.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance columnist who can be reached at malindadocs@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more

A non-political citizenry for a no-politician democracy

"The most radical idea at this political moment could very well be the notion of a no-politician citizenry, i.e. a movement of the people, by the people, for the people, with or without the state."  

දේශපාලනයේ 'අපි' කව්රුද?

Tilak Disanayake and Hilmy Sally who describe themselves as ‘design engineers and concerned citizens’ have proposed a concept which they call ‘No politician democracy (NPD)’ (see ‘No politician democracy’ in the Daily FT, June 14, 2017).  It is a blueprint (in the making) of a new Sri Lanka which will be, in their words, ‘unitary, secular and sustainable, and will have a thriving, inclusive economy affording opportunities for all its people regardless of gender, race, age, religion, caste or sexual orientation.’

Ask any politician or anyone else for that matter and very few if at all would object to residency in such a republic.  Tilak and Hilmy have promised to detail the ‘how to get there’ of all this shortly and I await eagerly what promises in the very least to be a good read.  They have hinted that their ‘plan’ can come into force if 151 Members of Parliament purchase it.  Given the enormous benefits that politicians have reaped and continue to enjoy one might think it is a hard sell, but this engineering duo believe that the benefits of change would outweigh the costs and the said MPs would be ‘swung’.   

That the country requires radical change is a no-brainer.  That it is urgent is clear.  And yet, for all the need and all the ‘blueprints, the resilience of the institutional arrangement and the current political culture is certainly formidable.  

Lying politicians are certainly responsible for sabotaging the reform agenda that they themselves pledged to implement, but theirs is essentially a part role.  There are structural factors that stand in the way.   

This obviously pleases the politicians who were never serious about reform for they can always blame it on the system (when they are not blaming everything on the Rajapaksas that is).  It won’t be easy to convince 151 MPs because easy money is a happier prospect that hard-earned money.  The carrot called ‘freedom from prosecution’ may look delicious but it will nevertheless be compared to the infinitely more delicious goodies that arrive from tenaciously defending a system that does not prosecute.  

The issue perhaps is about how deeply embedded the individual MP is in this corrupt system. We have to understand that some have invested heavily in all this and those who haven’t secured adequate returns will not feel the prosecution-free pull.  

That’s only part of the problem.  When Dullas Alahapperuma decided not to contest the 2001 General Election he offered the following reason: ‘We [I] are [am] too white; there are too many brown people and their brownness is most evidenced when there is a white contrast.’  He has a valid point that has outlived his political ‘whiteness’.  The more serious issue is that we don’t really have a white (or ‘clean’) citizenry.  In that sense perhaps we do have a decent enough  ‘representative democracy’ and this is something we need to recognize.

Our NPD advocates acknowledge this pervading ‘brownness”:  

‘The mostly dishonest, incompetent politicians (and their parties) that we elect via easily manipulated polls have ruined the country over the past 69 years.  And we the people have been complicit by electing them.’  

If 151 MPs stand up for NPD it would not be a revolution, it would be a coup.  Given that such a coup would immediately get us a different constitution it could revolutionize the system of governance and pave the way for transparent and efficient institutional arrangements and processes. I am sure that there are many people who would share the vision for Sri Lanka that Tilak and Hilmy have outlined.  They probably have shared their thoughts with movers and shakers.  Perhaps they have even won some of them over and who knows, even convinced some MPs.  Perhaps they could do with some help from below.  

The history of social transformation demonstrates that given certain objective conditions what is required is not a citizens’ majority.  We don’t need, happily, ‘two-thirds plus one’ of ‘the people’.  A critical mass is what is required.  An organized critical mass, one might add, or at least a number of people/groups who although they may not work together are in concert in the matter of action.  

The proposition is mouth-watering given what we’ve had for so many decades.  A ‘no politician democracy’ is a cry that rises from everything vile that politician, political party and politics denotes.   

We are, as Tilak and Hilmy imply, a ‘serial monarchy.’  A republic without meaningful citizenship, a population that is not also a citizenry.  

And yet, it is not that ‘the people’ have not counted.  They have stood up, they have challenged, and they have died. Those who say that independence was won without a drop of blood being shed are ignorant of all that has happened from 1815 to 1948 (and that’s only if we count the British period).  We have seen flashes of the kind of citizenship that Tilak and Hilmy probably envisage, but in non-political terms, especially in times of tragedy.  

It is of course not easy to mobilize the energy, capacity, tenacity and attitude demonstrated in such situation for what is essentially a political project, even though the objective is a no-politician democracy.  This does not mean that it should not be attempted.  

The most radical idea at this political moment could very well be the notion of a no-politician citizenry, i.e. a movement of the people, by the people, for the people, with or without the state.  

Anarchy?  It may look like that, but perhaps such a tendency would be the ‘stick’ that would force those critical 151 individuals in Parliament to take the carrots offered by Tilak and Hilmy.  

They’ve set a ball of ideas rolling, these two.  It’s a big object and one that requires more than 4 hands to keep it going in the right direction.  There’s a lot of space on that surface for many more hands.  One thing is certain:  established political parties and professional politicians are unlikely to lend their weight. 

See also:

A separate state, anyone?

The nation rises

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Blog: malindawords.blogspot.com. Twitter: malindasene

Read more

Don't underestimate Ven Athureliye Rathana Thero

Ven Athureliye Rathana Thero, quite silent and almost a non-factor in the public domain for almost a year, made the headlines of all national newspapers last week.  ‘Rathana Thero goes independent,’ or versions of this, made the headlines.  The truth is that Rathana Haamuduruwo had already been made independent.  He had been unceremoniously evicted from the Jathika Hela Urumaya.  Although a national list MP of the United National Party(UNP), it is no secret that he does not identify with that party.  Although close to President Maithripala Sirisena, he has no truck with the Sri Lanka Freedom Party.  The JVP doesn’t consider him a friend.

It was almost as though the obvious was being stated.  Rathana Haamuduruwo has since stated that he will support the government.  The JHU has called for his ouster from Parliament.  What happens next, no one knows.  Some insights into the haamuduruwo’s character, going by his history, might help infuse some reason into conjecture.

One Wednesday afternoon in early April 2001, while making my way from Town Hall to Jayasekeraramaya (Kuppiyawatte Pansala), I came across a small crowd of people staring in shock and horror at the Punchi Borella bo tree.  Mangala Samaraweera, then a minister of the People’s Alliance government headed by Chandrika Kumaratunga had ordered the half-wall surrounding the tree to be demolished.  There was debris all over the place.  The intent, according to reports, was to remove the bo tree, supposedly to alleviate traffic congestion.  No warning.  No explanation.  Just a bulldozing with scarcely a concern for hurting the sentiments of Buddhists. Strange for a man and a colleague of others who then and now preach ‘reconciliation’ and demand ‘sensitivity’ from Sinhalese and Buddhists.

I proceeded to the temple where Ven Athureliye Rathana Thero (then of the Sihala Urumaya) was to explain the Satipattana Sutta to a few of us as he had every Wednesday morning for several weeks.  I reported what I saw and that signaled the end of the ‘class’ for that day.  Rathana Thero took off.  Anuruddha Pradeep Karnasuriya, now a senior lecturer in Political Science at Jayawardenapura University and a spokesperson for the Jathika Hela Urumaya told me (in Sinhala), ‘the haamuduruwo will be standing on a barrel and making a speech in a few minutes’.  

There was no barrel, but he did climb on to a block of concrete displaced by Mangala’s machines and addressed the crowd which grew and grew to make within a few hours turned a full blown demonstration.  Among those who came to check things out were UNP members, Dinesh Gunawardena and Mahinda Rajapaksa, all of whom were duly booed by the protestors for dishonesty, cowardice and even complicity in the anti-Buddhist operations of that regime.  

I relate this incident because I believe it gives an insight into the political thinking and practice of ‘Rathana Hamuduruwo’.  

I first saw him in December 1986 when he addressed students of Dumbara Campus, University of Peradeniya at the Weerasooriya Commemoration (Weerasooriya being a student who was shot dead at Peradeniya during a protest 20 years previously when Sirimavo Bandaranaike was Prime Minister).  He was articulate.  Compelling.  Quite the orator.  Quite a character.

Two years later he headed a panel set up by the Action Committee of the university to inquire into various allegations leveled against a group of students who opposed the JVP dominated student movement.  At the time he was one of the key leaders of the Inter University Student Federation (IUSF) and appeared to be a JVP loyalist.  He was fair and did his utmost to settle the issues without the matter snowballing into a mini war.  

Then came the bheeshanaya.  

I saw him again in July 1990 when I visited Peradeniya while on vacation.  I saw him walking into the enclosure reserved for the clergy in the WUS canteen.  I was surprised and even happy that he was still alive.  So I spoke with him.  And that was the beginning of my long friendship with RathanaHamuduruwo, a friendship marked by agreement and disagreement, much affection and many a light moment.  He took criticism.  He could take a joke.  

Less than two years later we shared a cell at the Wadduwa police station.  The OIC of that police station, Karunatilleka, was a man with a reputation for brutality.  I heard sounds of people getting assaulted.  There was screams.  I asked the hamuduruwo if we would be beaten up.  He said ‘hmmm’.  I asked if we would be killed.  He said ‘probably not,’ adding, ‘are you scared?’  I was, but lied.  He knew.  He said, ‘don’t be scared; after a few blows your body will go numb and you won’t feel anything.’  He was correct.  After I had been dragged out and ‘treated’, it was his turn.  Rathana Haamuduruwo began chanting the Karaneeyametta Sutta.  The OIC blurted out, ‘karaneeyametta thoge ammage h…..,’ caught hold of the hamuduruwo’s head and banged it several times against the wall of the cell.

Back then he was the chief incumbent of a temple in Palliyamulla, Matara.  Rights to the temple he relinquished and moved to Colombo in the late nineties.  He went from temple to temple like a vagrant.  Kind and accommodating chief incumbents suffered the ‘strange’ comings and goings and one by one, inevitably, asked him to move on.  Those who talk about his ‘maaligaava’ (palance) on Gothami Road, “Sadaham Sevana,” clearly haven’t seen his room or observed the life he leads.

So he has a history.  It all began with the fact that the great left leader, Dr. S.A. Wickramasinghe was from his village, Athureliya.  His beginnings, therefore, were heavily influenced by the Marxism of the then ‘old’ left.  Ranjithan Gunaratnam, the older brother of the current leader of the Frontline Socialist Party, Kumar Gunaratnam, then the convenor of the IUSF, had spent many hours discussing politics with Rathana Haamuduruwo at Peradeniya.  

‘He must have talked to me for more than 100 hours over many nights; we discussed late into the night and he would sleep on the floor,’ is how he described that association.  ‘Ranjithan was a wonderful human being,’ he added, implying that his humanity had a larger part to play in the political choices that he, Rathana Haamuduruwo, made as a student.  

When the student movement went ‘military’ he quit and as was the way at the time because a prime target.   He survived both the JVP and the vigilante groups of the then UNP government.  He survived — hence my surprise at seeing him in the WUS.  He was a prime mover in the formation and activities of several political groups: Ratawesi Peramuna, Janatha Mithuro, National Movement Against Terrorism, Sihala Urumaya and Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU).

On the 14th of February, 2005, I went to see him at the Vihara Maha Devi Park where he was to address young people attending an event that offered an alternative to the crass and commercialized thing called ‘Valentine’s Day’.  Ama Wessa was the name of that programme, interestingly organized by Rev Galabodaaththe Gnanasara Thero of the Jathika Sanga Sammelanaya.  

I asked him what was happening, referring to rumours that the Buddhist clergy was planning to contest the upcoming Parliamentary Elections.  He smiled and said ‘What’s happening?  Athureliye Rathana is going to the Parliament — that’s what is happening.’  We were and are friends, so the arrogance was in part due to friendship.  And due to friendship I said ‘before this election is over, you will consider me one of your key political foes’.  

The JHU never had the numbers that the JVP had.  It never had a party machinery that could hold a candle to that of the JVP.  And yet, the JHU made maximum use of meagre resources, Rathana Hamuduruwo being one of the key individuals who could at any given moment alter equations and change the political direction of the entire country.  If the JHU and Rathana Hamuduruwo had the parliamentary strength that the JVP enjoyed from 2005 to 2010, it is reasonable to state that they would have done much more than the JVP did, for better or worse as the case may be.

But we saw how the march on Mavil Aru changed perceptions and policy.  We saw how that ‘first move’ turned out to be a ‘necessity’ in altering the policy of appeasement, mollycoddling and going through the tired and unproductive motions of ‘peace’ such as ceasefire agreements and negotiations.  

We saw how Rathana Haamuduruwo, accidentally invited to a donor conference in Kandy, took the microphone uninvited, said a few words, distributed a leaflet and thereby stymied efforts to channel aid directly to the LTTE in the post-tsunami context.  

We saw how he single-handedly pushed the JHU out of the coalition led by Mahinda Rajapaksa in late 2014 and how this move expand the space for the consideration of an alternative like the Maithripala Sirisena candidacy.  

We also saw how the signature project ‘Mathata Thitha’ lacked the support to bear any real fruit but we see that his vasa visa nathi ratak project to rid agriculture of chemical inputs is slowly but surely gaining ground. 

Ven Athureliya Rathana Thero has been deservedly accused of lacking in organizational discipline.  He is outcome-focused and sometimes he sets multiple destinations for himself and therefore leaves followers stranded high and dry.  Whether or not we like his preferred outcomes, whether we endorse what appears to be an ad hoc manner of engagement, it has to be acknowledged that without human resources to write home about, without an organizational machinery that is robust or even in barely working order, and despite a multitude of political detractors he’s ‘gathered’ over the years over and above those ready and able to vilify him at every turn, this bikkhu has nevertheless surprised one and all at key political moments. 

So what do we make of this Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI)?  A longtime friend and political associate who has known Ven Rathana Thero as long as I have, when it was put to him that the Thero had been made independent anyway, had this to say: ‘Stating the obvious, yes; but what it means is that a ball has been bowled to create doubt in the mind of the batsman’.  

What the response indicates is that there’s a new turn of events that the general public is anticipating.  Others, after all, have ‘left’ or declared ‘independence’ from the yahapaalana political establishment, but no one generated anything close to the kind of media curiosity that Ven Rathana Thero’s statement precipitated.  There’s a demand for a rallying point, one might say, an anticipation of a first stone that needs to be cast.  Whether or not we will see Ven Rathana Thero doing another ‘unexpected’ we cannot predict.  Neither can we predict the kind of configuration that might result if there is such an eventuality.  The possibility lurks, though.  That’s quintessential ‘Rathana Haamuduruwo’.  

Read more

'Kade Aiya' won the war for us

Actress and screenwriter Jenny Lumet, writing about her grandmother Lena Horne, made the following observation: ‘There are people who do their thing, and they pick up the nation. And when they’re done, we’re all in a different place. They move us along whether they know it or not.’

A year ago there was much agitation about who deserves credit for defeating the LTTE.  The focus of course was on the big names.  That’s natural.  Moments of victory spawn paternity suits.  Troops fight and they must fight for wars to be won.  They will not fight if they are not sent to battle and cannot win battles if not adequately prepared.  Politicians send men and women to the battlefield but that decision is significantly impacted on public will.  Public will does not fall from the sky. It is systematically nurtured. 

There was a time when it was believed the LTTE cannot be defeated. That notion was crafted by pro-LTTE, pro-federalist ideologues who managed to cosy up to the highest in the land at the time.  That erroneous and perniciously crafted view had to be defeated not with gun and bullet but superior ideas that were more effectively argued. Those fathers who brought forth idea and nurtured were not talked of at the time of grabbing bragging rights.  They did not claim nor complain.  They just did their thing.

Some fathers are known even if their roles are not acknowledged. Some did their thing without fanfare in the everydays of their lives.  They even watched the celebrations and cheered as though they are the happy recipients of the fruits of others’ labours.  ‘Kade Aiya’ was one such man.

Kade Aiya was not Kade Aiya before he set up his small retail store in Galkissa but we will come to that later.  I lived for a year and a half in Galkissa and Kade Aiya’s shop was at the top of the lane.  That’s where I went to get the newspaper, sugar, tea, eggs etc on most mornings.  Kade Aiya was made of smiles and good humour. He had opinions which he expressed without malice.  He knew what he had to sell and put profit after customer satisfaction. For example, he would forego the few rupees extra he might earn by selling Product 1 if he thought Product 2 was better value for the customer’s money.  He suggested, never insisted.

He was not a busybody or a gossip but he not only knew all his regular customers but put like-thinking people in touch with one another.  If someone complained of any ailment, he would recommend a doctor-customer, for example.  He knew their names and they got to know each others’ names. The man who did all this was always ‘Kade Aiya’, even to those who were much older to him and those young enough to be his grandchildren. 

Kade Aiya knew I wrote to newspapers.  He quickly figured out where I stood on important issues and finding a lot of commonality spoke freely about all kinds of matters, particularly political affairs.  ‘Mamath karanne maadya vedak!’ (I am also engaged in media work) he admitted once.

He argued very astutely that there is no such thing as neutrality in journalism.  He knew that there is politics in choice of lead story, the wording of the headline, privileging of certain columnists and opinions.  He was convinced that the LTTE should be and can be militarily defeated.  He knew which papers supported this position and which consciously tried to subvert it. He would market the newspapers that supported his position and even point to particular articles when handing over the paper to the customer.  He sold other newspapers, yes, but would on occasion suggest to the customer that other papers were better. He never had such papers on top of the pile.  He was being political in much the same way as most editors and media institutions are. He was a father, in much the same way that Dr. Nalin De Silva was a father of the military victory over the LTTE and the ideological triumph of Eelamists, some masquerading as rights advocates, political analysts and academics. 

Kade Aiya brought people together and he nurtured goodness by his generosity. Kade Akka told me last night that her husband was wont to collect all kinds of things (for example the tops of soda bottles) that school children may need.  She said that there were numerous occasions when people came to their house after he had closed shop to ask for something needed for some school project.  He always had something to give.  Kade Aiya was a solidarity builder who did his thing quietly. 

Kade Aiya died a few days ago.  His wife was amazed that a simple owner of a roadside shop (it was so tiny that few would notice it from a passing vehicle) was known and loved by so many.  He did his thing and in the process picked up the nation. We are all in a different place thanks to what he did.  Thanks to his tribe, he might have added. 

Kade Aiya’s name was Ratnasiri Gammanpila.  That’s a name no one who had the privilege of stopping at his shop to buy a newspaper or some sugar would know or remember. Kade Aiya would take some forgetting though.  Like the nation. Hard to let go. It is part of us.  Kade Aiya too.  Part of who I am.  And so many others too. He moved us all along. Towards victory.

Read more

Grievance first, devolution later (if at all)

Kalana Senaratne, in an article titled ‘Will there be peace before death?’ published in www.groundviews.org, begins an interesting essay on the 13^th Amendment with the obvious preamble that the end of a war is followed by the resurfacing of problems that could not be resolved through the use of force.

Kalana offers that the answer to political problems rests in our own attitudes and perceptions, and in our ability to compromise.  He singles out two issues; that of ‘devolution of power’ and ‘promotion and protection of human rights and equality’; as challenges that confront us and ones on which people hold strong and uncompromising views.  He is correct.  These have been talked-to-death issues over at least two decades and the two have often been conflated for reasons of political convenience.  They can be but are not necessarily related.  Kalana makes this distinction. 

He dwells at length on the issue of devolution, picking the debate over the 13^th Amendment as an illustrative case of the condition he laments over; i.e. perceptions and (in)ability to compromise.  I am yet to come across as clear and accurate a delineation of the contending positions, pointing to the fault lines that have time and again caused fissures in discussion and crumbled compromise when it comes to devolution.  Being an opponent of the 13^th Amendment and devolution along the lines proposed by both Eelamists and their academic and other apologists, I will focus on the issues that Kalana raises regarding objections to the 13^th.

He observes that some of the arguments against the 13^th Amendment are presented mischievously. For example, the on-the-ground failure of the 13^th is not a sufficient argument against devolution, Kalana points out, because ‘failure’ can be attributed to ‘the inability and/or unwillingness to implement,’ and ‘waste of resources less a problem of the document that a problem regarding those who were supposed to implement it’.  He is absolutely correct here.  Just because some Christian or Buddhist fundamentalist does something horrendously uncivilized in the name of Jesus of Lord Buddha, respectively, it does not mean that the respective faiths or their founders are uncivilized and/or erroneous.  The 13^th can be rubbished on other grounds that have nothing to do with identity-issues and which indeed are foregrounded by issues of democracy, human rights etc. 

I find Kalana’s observation regarding myth and reality to be spot on. This is what he says:

‘One would not believe in the concept of a ‘traditional homeland’ or in a merged North-East, and would dismiss these ideas as political myths. But the fact that the majority of the North and the East consist of Tamil speaking people is not a myth, along with the fact that this demand for power-sharing had always been the predominant demand of the Tamil minority, or its representatives, elite or otherwise.’

Yes, ‘Tamil-speaking’ and this, let us not forget, was political sleight of hand on the part of Prabhakaran and a little game that Ashroff, the founder of the SLMC was happy to play.  The two communities, Tamil and Muslim, in terms of linguistic commonality do make the majority.  It doesn’t mean that the total land area of the North and East is mostly ‘Tamil-speaking’ though.  The linguistic issue can have a language-related ‘solution’ and the legislation for this already exists. Political will has been slow off the blocks, but it is not standing still either.  Citing ‘language’ when convenient and leaving it out when it is not is bad, insincere and ‘rubbishable’ politics. That kind of conflation is good for Eelamists, not for any sensible person who genuinely wants resolution or is agreeable to deferring to superior logic. 

Yes, the demand for power-sharing has always been a biggie as far as the Tamil minority is concerned.  So?  All kudukaarayas (drug addicts) consistently want heroin.  When they run out of money they rob.  It is quite ok to demand, but for demand to be reasonable, it must flow from grievance.  Having said this, I do agree that ‘devolution’ cannot be rubbished off the political stage easily, but for different reasons from what Kalana offers.  Devolution has been politically accorded a kind of currency that is not congruent with the grievances that it seeks to redress. Furthermore, the grievances have been so frilled that their true dimensions need to be re-obtained.  This is why I say that we are putting the card before the horse when we talk about devolution and grievances. 

My contention, as the title indicates, is that ‘Devolution’ is not a necessary town that the nation-train has to pass on the way to a conflict-free, peaceful and harmonious future.  I am not saying that we must not take a route that takes us through Devolution, but that the issue of devolution has been poorly framed. 

The question of whether or not the 13^th Amendment makes Sri Lanka a federal entity or not is academic at a certain level.  Kalana believes that the 13^th is harmless.  One doesn’t write into law and implement all harmless things.  That makes constitutional enactment a joke.

The bottom line here is that we have to work up from minority grievances.  ‘Devolution’ cannot only be about efficiencies (the 13^th is inefficient for reasons other than those that Kalana states), it has to allude to the grievances.  We are not talking about aspirations here because that’s an as-high-as-the-sky kind of thing.  We are talking instead of real grievances of a community that is clearly aggrieved.  We are talking of redressing these grievances and doing without disregarding demographic realities, political doability and in ways that make economic sense. 

It is important to understand, as Kalana argues, that resolution of grievances (through devolution or in some other manner, as made ‘appropriate’ by grievance-dimension) must go hand-in-hand with ‘constitutionalism, the rule of law, the establishment of independent institutions and a firm resolve to promote and protect human rights and equality’, not just to placate minority anxiety but in creating the conditions conducive to a wholesome citizenry.

It all begins from the beginning that time was made to forget by a politics that I suspect did not necessarily like it: GRIEVANCE.  Forget it and all ‘solutioning’ is easily reducible to crass politicking. 

Kalana is absolutely right: an opportunity, a tremendous opportunity, has arrived, now that there is an absence of violent conflict; but success depends on how well that opportunity is used, or utilized.’  I would add, it depends on how honest we want to be about what we gripe about. 

[This article was first published in the 'Sunday Island' in May 2010]

Read more

Media is spin but it need not be

One of the most inspiring slogans I’ve encountered is the tagline used by ‘Indymedia’, i.e. the Independent Media Centre, which was established by various independent and alternative media organizations and activists in 1999 for the purpose of providing grassroots coverage of protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle.  It was a simple proposition: ‘Be the media’.  The suggestion was that we don’t need to have things described for us; we can and should exercise our minds to obtain information, assess veracity and engage in dissemination ourselves. 

The internet helps, certainly, but one should not be complacent for the forces of infomanipulation, to coin a word, are not unaware of the potential of the internet to subvert their machinations.  Search engines are not innocent; those who wish to misinform deliberately craft websites to structure what might appear to be ‘random’ searches so that particular opinions get formed.  Thus one needs to search intelligently and consistently look for alternative renderings and analyses in order to obtain a better understanding of events, incidents, personalities and processes.  For the most part, however, the version of the mainstream media wins the day.    For the most part, we are not the media.  For the most part, media is spin. 

Take the coverage of the so-called Arab Spring for example.  The mainstream media went berserk, as it did when George W Bush illegally invaded Iraq.  The ‘enemy’ was clearly identified, suitably tagged (brutal, dictator, tyrant, despot, etc. were frequently used words), and the largely uninformed consumer of mis-truth were egged on to purchase uncritically the mainstream version of things.  Now consider the fact that the protests in Libya at the beginning of the ‘Libyan Spring’ were nothing compared to the magnitude of protests sweeping the Western world as I write with thousands upon thousands mimicking the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement in countless cities, and hundreds upon hundreds being beaten, arrested and tortured.  Consider also that NATO moved into Libya to enforce a No-Fly-Zone in order to protect civilians from alleged attacks by President Gaddafi’s Air Force whereas  the same media institutions that saluted this move is tongue-tied when it gets to demanding a similar security devise for Afghan and Pakistani civilians who are being regularly bombed by US Air Force drone attacks.  Spin is selective, clearly. 

Then we get the Australian network ABC, taking a leaf out of BBC and Channel 4, shamelessly showcasing the lies mouthed by ex-terrorists without bothering to check credentials or reliability of claim.  We also have someone called Paul Cleary, writing for ‘The Australian’ claiming that ‘Tamils are still enslaved in northern Sri Lanka’, citing a Tamil National Alliance MP (E. Saravanapavan).  Cleary could have done a background check on the MP and his party and their servility to the LTTE and consequent grief at the vanquishing of that terrorist organization.  He could have done a compare-and-contrast about how Sri Lanka handled the issue of displaced civilians vis-à-vis the conditions of IDP fallout from US-led attacks on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, not to mention the rescuing of some 300,000 civilians held hostage by the LTTE, resettlement of more than 98% of them and the rehabilitation and reintegration of thousands of ex-terrorists.   

Cleary paints a bleak picture which would give the impression that there are hundreds of thousands languishing in refugee camps while those who are not are being totally neglected by the government.  Saravanapavan is mischievous enough to tell only a fraction of the story.   He claims that 800,000 Tamils are living as ‘slaves’.  The man clearly needs to check the dictionary meaning of the word ‘slave’ and ask himself if his party was not slave to the LTTE and was not in fact de-slaved by the Sri Lankan Government when the slave-master was liquidated.  Cleary could have gone back to the basics of writing a news story.  He didn’t.  He spun or let himself be instrument of spin.  Deplorable.

The Northern Province, contrary to Cleary’s claim was never ‘controlled by the Tamils’. The Tamils were controlled by a terrorist outfit and parts of that province was controlled at gun-point.  The impression created is that there was some kind of benign Tamil ruler operating in the Northern Province, for he claims that the area is ‘now run like a military dictatorship’.  Spin, clearly.

Cleary was interviewing a foreigner and has the out of saying ‘I was quoting him’.  ABC, on the other hand, knew what it was about.  Meens Krishnamoorthy, appropriately frilled for camera by ABC, was a member of a terrorist outfit and someone who underwent weapons training.  Her associates include international criminals who raised funds for terrorists, facilitated arms-procurement and acted as spokespersons for terrorists, the pin-up boy being a rogue who goes about dressed as a Catholic priest, ‘Father’ Emmanuel. 

Meena Krishnamoorthi, like many other Tamil Australian citizens who were or are members of either the Tamil Youth Organization and/or Australian Tamil Congress, were members of a non-Australian armed group. Therefore, over and above the fact that credibility of statement is severely compromised by the fact, they have violated the Australian Constitution, especially Crimes Act No 13 of 1978 which covers ‘Foreign Incursions and Recruitment’.  ABC and all other media institutions that purchased ABC Spin are guilty of aiding and abetting all those who have transgressed.   

Is ABC naïve, ignorant, incompetent and moronic? I think not.  ABC, like Channel 4 and BBC, like Al Jazeera and all the mainstream networks in the USA and Europe know very well what they are doing.  They are spinning as though their lives depend on it.  In fact their lives do depend on it, sadly. 

So, does spin always work, always win the day for the spinners and their masters and mistresses?  Not always.  The continent of Africa didn’t buy the spin on Muammar Gaddafi.  The entire world didn’t buy the spin on Iraq.  Not purchasing didn’t alter the course of history as blueprinted by the USA and her allies of course, but it seems that spin is losing its potency.  Slowly. 

What spin cannot purchase has to be obtained by fire-power.  This is what we are seeing all over the world.  On the other hand, when 99% of the people rise up against the 1% who keep them down, spin can’t do much and bullets can’t do all. 

The most formidable bulwark against spin and bullet, in the final instance, is the truth and collectives determined to weed out the lie.  It is good to be the media.  It is imperative that we be the media.  Everywhere.  Here in Sri Lanka too. 

[Courtesy, 'The Nation', October 30, 2011] 

Read more

A note on the ‘commonsensical’ in meeting threat



Dayan Jayatilleka -- obsessed with the 13th?

I suppose it is incumbent on diplomats to defend regimes and policies, to see the positive side of things and call for celebration.  It is perhaps natural also for ex-diplomats to paint the bleak picture and point fingers at policy and personnel for contributing.  This is what I felt reading two contrasting articles on the country’s foreign policy recently, one by Dayan Jayatilleka, former Permanent Representatives at the UN (Geneva) and currently the Ambassador to France (who, between jobs, gave down-in-the-mouth interviews compared to his things-are-rosy articulations when employed by the Ministry of External Affairs), and the other by a retired career diplomat Izeth Hussein.

Dayan, citing a cable from the US Embassy in Sri Lanka unearthed by Wikileaks, pats his ministry and himself on the relevant backs for ‘effective diplomatic approach’ in Geneva.  It is certainly a defensible claim, considering outcome, although the by now par-for-the-course self-congratulatory  vein of Dayan’s comments does leave a poor taste on tongue. 



Izeth Hussain -- touting selective commonsensicality?



Izeth Hussain (‘Rethinking war crimes allegations’) seems to think that the outcome had nothing to do with the grand strategies that Dayan claims were orchestrated (his  typically wordy contention was ‘refreshing non-aligned roots while twinning Tri-continentalism with the rise of Asia and emergent multi-polarity in the world order’).  Izeth says, bluntly, that if Sri Lanka came through unscathed it was simply because ‘the powerful bloc of countries arrayed against (her) has decided that this is not the time to give a whacking’.  He claims, moreover that the test of effectiveness is not measured only in outcome but in winning over those opposed.  In this regard, he claims that the government’s counter-thrust has not made any difference to the US, the EU member states and their allies, and concludes ‘flopped, and flopped badly’. 

Izeth argues that the government ought to try ‘commonsensical arguments’ and adopt a ‘holistic approach’.  The first would, in his view, involve telling the world that any serious war crimes investigations ‘would envenom the political atmosphere’ so much that it would compromise efforts to find political solution and obtain ethnic reconciliation.  He is correct, I believe.  Investigating war crimes, whether or not any were committed would lead to the kind of outcome he describes.  Whether this would dissuade Sri Lanka’s international foes, I am not sure. 

If, as he argues, these powers are not swayed by the logic of argument, there is no reason to believe they would listen to commonsense, if indeed what Izeth proposes is commonsensical.  NATO, for example, didn’t give a damn about the political being envenomed in Libya.  The assumption that things like solutions and reconciliation really matter is not supported by the history of engagement as practiced by these powers.  It is silly to think that truth counts.  Moreover, that kind of line gives the impression that uncommitted war crimes were indeed committed but the perpetrators are seeking to get off the hook by pleading a worsening if they were investigated. 

His ‘holistic’ answer is of course an echo of Dayan’s perennial whine-want: ‘give me the 13^th and lots more besides!’ Both these individuals are loathe to give the true dimensions of grievances and match proposed solution to these, nor defend solution with respect to objections on lines of demography, history, geography, political efficacy and economic sense.  In Izeth’s case, if telling the truth or ‘commonsensicality’ really matters, then it is strange that he is silent on the commonsensicality of telling the truth regarding grievance and related facts. 

Interestingly, while Izeth wants negotiations (one assumes, with the TNA), Dayan, in an interview has stated that the TNA’s expressed desire ‘to start from scratch’ is making the government and the Sinhalese cautious ‘as to where power-sharing might lead’.  Well, ‘starting afresh’ means we cannot presume that devolution will result.  Given that the discourse has been so marred by rhetoric and myth and buttressed by a strong aversion to defeating the LTTE military by vociferous defenders of devolution (Dayan is an exception here), it makes sense to start afresh, which would include a discussion on the true dimensions of grievances.  If indeed they are territorial, then a territory-based agreement makes sense. 

On the other hand, if the issues are not territory-bound, then a different mechanism has to be worked out.  Dayan’s aversion to a fresh start is couched within a devolutionist frame of thinking, hence his contention about imagined fears about ‘where power-sharing might lead’.  As things stand, power-sharing and devolution are being conflated and presented as ‘solution’, when in fact it is just Tamil nationalism in reduced circumstances deferring to the Chelvanayakam option of ‘A little now, more later’. 

The bottom line is that truth and fact have little currency in the machinations of international busybodies and thug-nations.  Commonsense hardly counts.  I don’t know if it was, as Izeth claimed, that the Geneva-outcome had nothing to do with the government’s efforts, but if, as Dayan claims, strong ties with friends and being conscious of changes in the global political equation helps, then it makes sense to pursue this line of engagement.  ‘The Worst Case Scenario’, as Izeth claims but doesn’t factor into his recommendations, is truth-averse anyway.    

Still, it is better to be honest than to lie and it is better to win friends and enemies over with truth.  It is all we have.   What we lack is effective mechanisms to ensure that truth emerges from all relevant deliberations, that there is transparency and accountability, and robust institutional structures including legal mechanisms that are truth-yielding.  In the long run, this is the true site of struggle. Diplomats and ex-diplomats have a lot to offer by way of educating the people on how things happen on the international stage of course, but perhaps these two learned gentlemen can shed more light on what’s possible and what’s not in this regard.  I know Izeth touches on these issues frequently and that his analysis is largely free from preferred outcomes in the rough-and-tumble of party politics.  I know that Dayan is cagey, naturally, and tends to play safe.  I would suggest that commonsense has more currency here in Sri Lanka than in engagements with the largely disingenuous set of thugs running the world these days.

Read more