The ‘National Question’ in a lumpenized nation

Ideological battles are often marked by a deliberate misnaming of things. One could argue that perspective prompts different kinds of definitions, labels and elaboration, of course, but these choices are not always innocent. Some are used so often that they become entities which allow anyone to read them any which way they like. Sometimes, over-use and even the affirmation through word and deed of the polar opposite, not only robs meaning from words, names, terms and such but turn them into grotesque, humorous and ridiculous descriptives. Yahapalanaya, for instance.  

We are talking here about an older term which has been dormant for a while for reasons we shall come to presently: the national question.  

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe used it a couple of days ago while addressing the 125th anniversary celebrations of the Kandarodai Vidyalaya in Chunnakam, Jaffna. He pledged that he would do his utmost to find a political solution to the national question within the next two years.  Where he will be, politically, come July 2021, is of course a question in and of itself, but then again, attempt at anything, political solution or otherwise, to any question national, international or non-national, is not necessarily dependent on location. What’s interesting is the use of the term and the term itself. 

‘The National Question’ has been a proxy for the so-called ‘Ethnic Conflict’ (also definable as ‘The Separatist Problem’ or ‘The Eelam Project’). In ideological battles, such term-choices are a given, one observes. ‘The National Question’ could also be something that speaks to issues of identity and belonging, especially after Independence. 

Wickremesinghe, for example, observing in the same speech that the English cricket team included players of different national origins, opined that ‘the time has come for everyone to think of Sri Lankans as [citizens of] a single nation.’  One assumes he’s implying that people should stop thinking of themselves as Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers etc., or as belonging to different religious communities or, even as they do so they ought to see ‘Sri Lanka’ and ‘Sri Lankan.’ One need not be one (e.g. Tamil or Sinhala) or the other (Sri Lankan), this too needs to be said. Also, the entire ‘question’ should not be (as it is) reduced to something that derives from a simple and simplistic description on lines such as ‘one ethnicity one vote’ or ‘one religion one vote’. That’s essentially deploying the principle of equality to erase percentages, history and heritage. One observes that many such ‘One Sri Lanka’ advocates are conspicuously silent on such important matters. 

That said, we do have a problem of ‘belonging’. Wickremesinghe implies that the likes of Eoin Morgan and Jofra Archer feel they are truly ‘English’. He may be correct. The question for us is, do Tamils and Muslims, Christians and Burghers feel similarly ‘belonged’? For that matter, do Sinhalese feel ‘belonged’? Do the majority feel they are ‘belonged’ in some form or the other that matters to them, individually and/or collectively? Do we feel properly represented? Who really owns this country? 

If ‘national’ relates to or is characteristic of ‘nation’ or something common to a whole nation, what then is ‘nation’ for people living on this island? You could get many responses here, many of them valid in terms of substantive-weight and indeed, for reasons of political efficacy, appearing even more valid by selectivity, i.e. the play of exaggeration and understatement. 

This is not an exercise is defining to any degree of ‘finality’. However, Wickremesinghe has opened the doors to debate. In the very least, we can use the common sense definitions of ‘nation’ and ‘national’ to raise some questions. Here goes. 

How ‘national’ was Resolution 30/1 of the UNHRC co-sponsored by the Yahapalana Government, considering that it essentially crippled the security apparatus (long, longed for by the movers and shakers of the regime and in particular the then Minister of Foreign Affairs)? How ‘national’ indeed when it includes clauses that make for non-nationals to decide how things are done or not done in Sri Lanka? What’s ‘national’ about policies that clearly compromise sovereignty, wrecks food security and causes ecological destruction? What’s ‘national’ about processes that impoverish vast sections of the citizenry? What kind of ‘nation’ do we have when in the name of religious freedom, certain religious communities teach, affirm and execute tenets that are not only intolerant but make for terrorism? 

What is this ‘nation’ where politics is reduced to a consideration of which party/coalition or candidate gets to sell bits and pieces or entire swathes on account of idiocy, lack of faith in the people, kickbacks or any combination of these plus a lot of other things that make ‘belonging’ and ‘ownership’ meaningless? For the record, let’s mention the following: the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, the Ceasefire Agreement, various deals related to ports and airports, the SOFA and ACSA, Millennium Corporation deal. 

What’s this nation where corrupt, incompetent and clearly traitorous ministers, with the tacit support of their respective bosses, sign agreements that are detrimental to the national interest, whichever way one wants to defined ‘national’ here? What kind of nation is this where we have agreements with other countries that the cabinet, parliament and the general public don’t get to see?  Does ‘nation’ make sense when the state subsidizes capital interests while insulting, humiliating and dispossessing the majority of the people? What kind of ‘nation’ is this where poisoning the soil and the people are cornerstones of agricultural policy? What is this nation which has paid representatives who keep their mouth shut in other countries and in multilateral forums where resolutions are proposed to vilify the nation and her people and/or seek to legitimate narratives that are patently false? Where’s the ‘national’ in that kind of sloth, incompetence and idiocy? 

Marxists talk of a bourgeoisie and a proletariat that does not comprehend their respective class interests. They talk of a lumpen proletariat and could also talk of a lumpen bourgeoisie. We do have, one might add, lumpen nationalism/nationalists, lumpen ‘intellectuals’, lumpen ‘civil society,’ and lumpen ‘professionals’. Put together, a lumpen citizenry and a lumpen nation, one might conclude.

‘Lumpen,’ ladies and gentlemen, refers to that which relates to dispossession and uprooting, i..e cut off (typically) from the economic and social class with which a particular collective might normally be identified. We do not have a sense of ‘nation’ and ‘national’ or rather our ‘leaders’ and ‘representatives’ do not. There’s dispossession. There’s uprooting. If we are a nation, we are a lumpen articulation of one. If there’s dispossession, then re-possession is the order of the day. If there’s uprooting, then re-rooting or a search for rootedness is called for. Such an exercise cannot be expected from the major political parties or their allies. We cannot expect it from the mainstream contenders for the prize (yes!) of the presidency. We might as well look elsewhere.

malindasenevi@gmail.com. 

[First published in the Daily Mirror on July 18, 2019]

Read more

The ‘National Question’ and the vague-speak of Tamil ‘moderates

There are some fundamental difference between moderates and extremists that go beyond the obvious degree of flexibility.  Extremists are upfront, moderates are cagey.  Extremists may believe (even if they don’t say it) that the fact of extremism gives moderates maneuverability and therefore increases the chances for moderates to secure ground.  Moderates tend to believe that the non-negotiability that is inherent to extremism hardens the other side to a point that makes such extraction difficult if not impossible.  

When extremists have the upper hand, moderates are rendered into docile yes-men and yes-women.  When moderates are stronger, extremism goes underground, surfacing only now and then to mark presence.  Extremists use language that is intransigent, moderates keep things vague.  

There is then a symbiotic relationship between the two groups.  The history of Tamil Nationalism (or Tamil Racism/Chauvinism if you will), for example, demonstrates all of the above.  Indeed, if you take the history of Sinhala Nationalism (or Sinhala Racism/Chauvinism, if you will), a similar case can be made.   In this essay I focus on the former, simply because there seem to be some tension between the Tamil ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’ which can give the false impression that they are essentially at odds with each other when in fact they are not. 

The ‘tension’ came into the open with the racist posturing of the Chief Minister, Northern Province, C.V. Wigneswaran.  The ‘moderates’ who have some voice in the Tamil Nationalist discourse were quick to censure.  It was as though they were in damage-control mode.  Some even observed that Wigneswaran’s antics could only strengthen Sinhala hardliners and argued that this would compromise the Tamil project which they probably believed was on the verge of securing some real estate (political and otherwise) from a Yahapalana Government they believe owe them something for winning the Presidential Election, 2015.  They’ve argued that Wigneswaran and other extremists are essentially an unnecessary distraction that robs something from the more important discussion of ‘The National Question’.

‘The National Question’ indeed!  Now that is the Grandmaster (Grandmonster?) of moderate-speak, i.e the Vagueness Device.  Let’s consider a few terms by way of illustration before we proceed.  The unrepentant and unabashed Eelamists (extremists) will say ‘Separate State’, the shy-making Eelamists (moderates) will say ‘Self-Determination’; the extremists use the Eelam-Sri Lanka distinction, the moderates say ‘North and South’; extremists will talk about ‘our/my people’ and moderates will say ‘multi-ethnic’ and ‘multi-religious’ taking care not to mention numbers and proportions; the extremists will say ‘border’, the moderates say ‘border villages’; the extremists will the inalienable rights of Tamil people to Eelam (contoured by lines arbitrarily drawn by the British and indefensible in terms of history, demography and geographic realities), the moderates say ‘The National Question’.  The extremists are upfront about Eelam-need, the moderates blur, tease and deceive — when they say ‘national’ is could imply a reference to Sri Lanka when in fact they are thinking ‘Tamil Eelam’.

The truth is that there are grievances that are enumerable and their resolution do not necessarily require division or even devolution of power.  Indeed, devolution cannot resolve the kinds of grievances that have been articulated and whose articulation is buttressed by substantiation given the demographic spread of the Tamil community.  

Devolving to British-drawn lines is no resolution but in fact could lead to the creation of a truly ‘national’ question in that it could rip the country along ethnic lines that could be much worse than what the partition which created India and Pakistan did.  

But that’s the bread and butter of the moderates.  They have to keep it vague.  Ask them to break down this ‘national question’ and the Tamil nationalism that’s hovering at tongue-tip will pop out, legitimate grievance  will be exaggerated and coupled to unreasonable aspiration, fact will be inflated with fiction-air, history will be obliterated in myth, and history supplanted with source-poor heroic epics, and selectivity will underline the entire narrative. The other option is to distract.  They’ll talk about secularism, the removal of certain articles that privilege Buddhism, the celebration and affirming of diversity by allowing for multiple systems of law (thesavalamai, sharia) and will essentially keep the ‘national question’ afloat when in fact it should be buried if not for anything for it’s affront to intelligence.  

Wigneswaran is a distraction, yes.  He feeds and feeds on the worst sentiments of ‘belonging’ and ‘identity’, both among Tamils and Sinhalese.  He essentially contributes to the postponement of a sober, logical and fact-backed consideration of grievances.  His ‘detractors’ among the ‘moderates’ (or the necessary adjunct of the ‘Tamil Project’ as opposed to fellow articulators of real and unresolved grievances) are worse because they are the frill-makers; frills distract, camouflage and lulls into a sense of false security all peoples of all communities.  

There is a ‘National Question’ (if you want to use the term).  It is the fudging of ‘nation’ and ‘question’ by all Eelamists of all hues and all degrees of flexibility, the extremists as well as the moderates.  It is high time that they are called upon to make list, shake it as many times as they want and submit it to public scrutiny.  

See also: President Sirisena has spoken (on Eelamist myth-mongering)

Read more