Sonny Ramadhin and Alf Valentine. They were the original ‘spin twins’. They played in the 1950s, especially after helping the West Indies secure a maiden test victory in England. They were celebrated in a calypso song that became a hit that year (1950), ‘Those little pals of mine - Ramadhin and Valentine.’
Since then we had the Indian spin quartet of Erapalli Prasanna, Srinivas Venkataraghavan (both off spinners), Bhagwat Chandrasekhar (a leg spinner), and Bishen Singh Bedi (a left-arm spinner). Sri Lanka, in the seventies and early eighties had D.S. De Silva, Ajith De Silva and Lalith Kaluperuma. In more recent times Rangana Herath and Dilruwan Perera have proved to be a formidable duo, hunting from both ends of the wicket.
Spin, in a political context, is not new. Neither is fake news. It’s just that the lie has been given terminological respect. Money talks. Power executes. The fake is often unrecognizable or, more potently, saluted as the authentic. Sometimes, however, the spinners slip over their own slime. The political spinners, that is (no disrespect whatsoever intended to the great bowlers mentioned above).
Just the other day, we had the UN boss on human rights, Michelle Bachelet, tripping over half-truths and wild conjecture on Sri Lanka in the report submitted to the membership of the UNHRC. She has all but resurrected those dead and buried almost a millennia ago and clothed them as ‘civilians killed in the last days of the war’. That entire narrative of ‘last days,’ ‘war’ and ‘war crimes’ is fraught with glib arrogance and bare faced lies, but such things don’t embarrass liars who are comfy in high seats of power; that’s another story though.
We are concerned here with the spin of Mangala Samaraweera. It was a lengthy spell, to use the cricketing metaphor, a full page no less where he has tried out variations in flights of fancy and wrong-‘uns. Not hard to read. It would of course bamboozle the readily-bamboozled (read, ‘partners in spin’ — like Bachelet) but those who read delivery from run-up through arm-action, flight and movement off the pitch, are less likely to be fooled.
He has spoken as someone who once held the Foreign Affairs portfolio in cabinet and now feels it is his duty ‘to respond to some of the malicious arguments being made and misrepresentation of facts’ regarding the UNHRC resolution against Sri Lanka (yes, ‘against’). In the rush he has effectively rubbished the work of his cabinet colleague and current Foreign Minister Tilak Marapana. Mangala had hoped for ‘maturity, skill, finesse and grace’ but believes Marapana’s team had ‘made a spectacle’ of themselves.
He believes that what’s on offer today across the political spectrum is ‘a plethora of contradictory, improvised and exaggerated accounts.’ Well, he can speak for himself and has effectively implicated himself in his lengthy harangue.
First of all, he oversteps (that’s a ‘no ball’) by claiming to speak on behalf of ‘sane, rational, decent, sincere, compassionate, serious-minded and honest Sri Lankans who fervently wish to consolidate peace and reconciliation in our country, heal the wounds of our fellow citizens, and ensure non-recurrence of conflict, to lead us towards economic prosperity.’ We can’t fault a man for his ego and self-image but a convincing case can be made to the effect that Mangala (and indeed this government) embody the opposite of the attributes he has enumerated. Insane. Irrational. Indecent. Insincere. Heartless. Clownish. Dishonest. Yes, and wreckers of peace and reconciliation hell bent on recurrence of conflict and leading us to economic disaster.
Mangala apologizes to Bachelet for alleged ‘misrepresentation’ of statements. He may be referring to what is now being called a misquotation of Suren Raghavan regarding what Bachelet had told a Government delegation in Geneva. However, as Tilak Marapana’s submission clearly points out, it is Bachelet who is guilty of misrepresentation. She has lied about the release of lands previously occupied by security forces, deliberately taken accusation and conjecture as established fact, and indulged in fairy-tales regarding mass graves. Mangala, in his ‘innocence’ has not thought of rapping the lady’s knuckles or apologizing on behalf of her friend to the Sri Lankan citizenry.
The ‘biggest misrepresentation,’ he claims, ‘is the version that Sri Lanka has somehow managed to produce an accusation against itself’ via Resolution 30/1. He correctly chides the delegation for self-incrimination and incompetence because contrary to their rhetoric regarding self-incrimination’ they not only ensured that the resolution’s extension by two years (Resolution 40/1) passed without a vote along with co-sponsorship, but even partied on account of the outcome! That’s the confusion of the Yahapalana Government led by Ranil Wickremesinghe and Maithripala Sirisena.
On the other hand, Mangala has conveniently pussy-footed around the contents of the resolution. Following the usual ‘good done by us’ lecture, Mangala tosses in what he might think is the wicket-taking delivery, the debate over the judicial process pertaining to investigation of alleged rights violation. He insists that the resolution ‘explicitly’ calls for a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, albeit with the participation of foreign jurists.
Why then has he not taken issue with Bechelet for the following recommendation in her report on Sri Lanka?
‘Adopt legislation establishing a hybrid court to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of international human rights law and violations of international humanitarian law; (d) Review.’ [A/HRC/40/23 (C)]
Will Mangala tell her something like this: ‘Er…Your Excellency, pardon me for being a purveyor of bad news, but A/HRC/40/23 (C) clearly compromises the spirit of Resolutions 30/1, 34/1 and now 40/1 which, according to MY reading gives Sri Lankan ownership of the responsibility regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms?’ Will he now tell the ‘‘sane, rational, decent, sincere, compassionate, serious-minded and honest Sri Lankans’ that he lied, that he spun and that if there was ever any doubt that he could be deceitful, indecent and insincere, such doubts could be laid to rest?
With this kind of idiocy does it to prompt careless and politically suspect ‘celebrities’ such as Arundhati Roy to repeat unsubstantiated lies drawing from tall tales uttered by people with dubious agenda and conjured from questionable claims uttered unreliable sources. Referring to a soon to be released novel titled ‘Vanni,’ Roy says ‘The story of the 2009 war in Sri Lanka, in which tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were brazenly and brutally killed is rapidly being buried by powerful countries with strategic and business interests in the region; this book seeks to unbury those terrible, sordid secrets and place them in clear view for the world to see.’
Secrets, huh? An interesting word. Perhaps she should consider the possibility that the word is used because it can, ironically, make something out of nothing. Mountains out of molehills or less. Indeed, such un-burial would be welcome because we would get closure on the number and the rank anti-intellectualism that has marked the narratives on Sri Lanka the likes of Bachelet have privileged. ‘Spun,’ rather. Mangala and his little pals of spin are but doing their part, no doubt. In any event, for all the rhetoric, lies and deceit, sycophancy and spin will not help peace and resolution. They would, more likely wreck such lofty projects.
0 comments:
Post a Comment