Ostriches cannot fight terrorists

Immediately after the LTTE was militarily defeated, the peace-brigade that had for years fought tooth and nail for ‘parity of status’ (i.e. for the LTTE vis-a-vis the Government of Sri Lanka) and insisted, inter alia, that the LTTE was the sole representatives of the Tamils, said ‘the government can now dismantle all military camps in the North and East.’

At first glance, this seemed to be a logical suggestion. After all, there was no military threat now. On the other hand, that logic could be applied to all military camps, which ought to be dismantled. One could go further and argue that the entire military establishment should be done away with. Silly. 

Silliness, however, seems to go hand in hand with such people. If, as they have argued, the LTTE was a product of a history (a tale told selectively and with appropriate twists to justify a narrative that is poor on substantiation, by the way), then what is done or not done in the here and now can have consequences. 

In a terrorist-infested world order, dominated by powers that are not adverse to unleashing terrorism, national security is not a suspendible subject. If there were doubts on this, the Easter Sunday attacks would have laid them to rest.  

And yet, we have seen the Colombo Twitterati (Kolumbians, if you will) and of course those who think they’ll get membership in that exclusive and snooty club by parroting their prejudices repeatedly skirting the issue of terrorism. 

We had Phil Miller of the website ‘Morning Star’ (which is ‘for peace and socialism’ no less!) pointing the finger at Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, following the now tired tokenism of flagging the terrorist. Here’s what he says: ‘There are certainly some Muslims in Sri Lanka who may exhibit extremist tendencies.’ Some? May? Talk about downplaying the most terrible single-day execution of terrorist attacks! 

Let’s forgive Phil. He obviously doesn’t know much. The New York Times and the BBC ought to know better than to conjure the now tired ‘billa’ of Sinhala Buddhist extremism, but then again going by the political persuasions of those who provides information at this end, one need not be surprised.  

There are others less forgivable. Prof Jayadeva Uyangoda, in an interview with the Sunday Observer offers two proposals. The first is to defend democracy and human rights. He explains, ‘Slightly similar to the 9/11 attacks on American and global democracy, the Easter Sunday tragedy could be used by certain sections in Sri Lanka to curtail democracy and bring in an authoritarian form of governance.’ He is correct. 

Here’s the second: ‘Restoration of the institutional balance between the President, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet is vital for Sri Lanka to resolve the political crisis which paved the way for the Easter Sunday tragedy.’ Well, some form of clarity is of course useful, and to that extent this is a sensible suggestion.

Is that it, though? It seems that’s it as far as Uyangoda is concerned. In terms of dealing with the threat, all he has to say is ‘[t]he so-called radicalization of Islam has a unique feature, has associated itself with a global armed insurgency, or a global war,’ and ‘what is necessary now is a global conversation about all religions’ secular role.’  So-called? He’s not sure? Well, a conversation is important and that is taking place in various forms, but Uyan talking to Jehan and sharing insights thus obtained with Victor Ivan and Victor briefing Sumanthiran so that Civil Society can take a cue is hardly a conversation and certainly not something that those who plot attacks such as the one on Easter Sunday will lose sleep over. 

Victor Ivan, writing a guest column for the Daily FT titled ‘Sri Lanka: our of the frying pan into the fire,’ talks about the history of Muslims in Sri Lanka, the political conundrum of a president and premier at loggerheads, throws in the bogey of Sinhala Buddhists (as the villains of the piece, obviously) and glosses over the terrorists and the ideas, ideals, identities and faith they profess and affirmed. All he has to say is that it has ‘caused shock and shame among the Muslim community.’ That’s in all of 2,698 words! At least Jehan Perera, in his initial responses to the attacks (published in international media) was not so verbose in the usual vilification of Sinhala Buddhists. Jehan, though, demonstrated once again that he was all at sea when it comes to identifying threats. Still, one would have expected him to advocate a negotiated settlement with the perpetrators. He did not. Is it because churches were attacked, one wonders!

Sumanthiran, TNA Member of Parliament, speaking at an event organized by people who could be described as Wannabe Kolombians, offers that the Easter Sunday attack is a result of Sri Lanka’s failure to address minority grievances. Yeah right! Is he saying that removing the tokenist privileging of Buddhism from and scripting Eelamist devolution into the constitution would have stopped the terrorists who claim to be doing the work of Allah (and not necessarily delivering the aspirations of all Muslims)? 

‘Civil Society’ had to issue a statement (see ‘We cannot afford a second breach’ in The Island,  May 1, 2019). They were ‘appalled by the carnage.  They are, like Uyan, upset about the President and Prime Minister not being united. Naturally, for most of the signatories were gung-ho about the yahapalana lie. They don’t want another ‘carnage’ but apart from a cursory and dismayed allusion to the need for emergency regulations, they’ve focused primarily on possible vigilante violence.  

We don’t need vigilante violence. That would be a tragedy and would play into the hands of the terrorists. Agreed. But is that what everything boils down to?  

Many such people were and are horrified about elephants being used in peraheras. They were quite vocal about elephants being kept in Buddhist temples. They’ve not been upset about swords being found in mosques. They are not questioning the Minister of Muslim Affairs explaining swords as garden tools. They don’t see the truth. They don’t see the threat.  

They are ostriches. And they want the rest of us to play ostrich too. Such an eventuality would be the closest thing to heaven as far as the ISIS, the NTJ and other Jihadists can experience. 

They were like this with the LTTE too.  Indeed, the LTTE may have been defeated much earlier and much carnage avoided had these people not diverted attention from the matter at hand (defeating the LTTE). Red herrings is what they are all about (when they are not being ostriches, that is). It’s not too hard to figure out that the terrorists will have to be defeated, with or without the ostriches.