Circus
Pacifica, Apollo Circus and of course the amazing Chinese Circus —
readers of an earlier generation will no doubt remember these. The
Apollo Circus however planted itself on Pedris Park for quite awhile,
but the others were rare.
Perhaps the antics of politicians,
political parties, activists of various persuasions and of course the
NGO rat pack compensated. They have entertained us even as they went
about their charades, clowning, sleight of hand, somersaults and such,
prompting quite a few oohs and aahs from an audience that wasn’t exactly
applauding in unison.
We could never look forward to the real
circuses. We didn’t have to anticipate with bated breath the political
circus. However, there’s one which comes around every year around
February. The Geneva Circus.
There are essentially two scripts:
one to be used when a US-friendly or rather servile-to-the-USA
government is in power and the other when the regime is not willing to
play ball with eyes closed. In the first case, we get co-sponsored anti
Sri Lanka resolutions, soft deadlines, much forgiving and forgetting.
The run-up to the UNHRC sessions are not marked by Washington-led media
outfits badmouthing Sri Lanka. The separatist groups abroad are in
‘go-easy’ mode. Human rights outfits barely murmur ‘concerns.’ Their
local counterparts go into hibernation and the slumber is so deep that
they don’t have the eyes to see any wrongdoing.
Well, we are not
in that situation right now. It’s ‘the other guys’ in power and
perforce it’s the second script that’s being played. This is how it
goes.
It begins with the collection/construction of evidence.
There are claims that strangely (and by now predictably) are filed
without substantiation. Non-movement on agreements that are no longer
valid will be noted. There will be a lot of striving and straining to
enumerate ‘minority grievances,’ and to this end, the local lackeys in
political and NGO circles will do their bit. Statements will be issued
by the representatives of nations that have clout in Geneva (the
‘Cesspool of bias’ description notwithstanding). All ‘concerns’ raised
will be duly documented. Human rights outfits, international and local,
silent for months, will suddenly find voice.
‘Sri Lanka’s human
rights situation has seriously deteriorated under the administration of
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Human Rights Watch said in its World
Report 2021.’
That’s Human Rights Watch. Absolutely predictable. It comes with ‘evidence.’
HRW
claims that security forces have increased intimidation and
surveillance of human rights activists, victims of past abuses, lawyers,
and journalists.’ If activists and claimants of past abuses, political
operatives who conveniently wear the lawyer or journalist hat are upset
about outcome preferences that haven’t materialized feel some anxiety
and want to call it ‘intimidation’ or ‘surveillance’ that’s their right.
A state cannot be faulted to be cautious, especially given a thirty yer
war against terrorism and a jihadist movement that unleashed terror on
civilian targets that matched the worst of the LTTE. We don’t even know
if there was intimidation or surveillance. We do know that
‘intimidation’ is frequently fabricated, posted on dubious websites and
photoshopped into newspaper cuttings. We know that such ‘evidence’ is
sent to the right addresses where the relevant householders lap it all
up gleefully.
HRW is upset about Sri Lanka withdrawing from the
resolutions co-sponsored by a more than mischievous minister on behalf
of a government operating absolutely against popular will on the
relevant issues. However, when the wording is regurgitated, it does
sound ominous. It’s as though Sri Lanka has decided that truth-seeking,
accountability and reconciliation are irrelevant. That’s hardly the
case. Well, not ‘Reconciliation = Eelamist Agenda’ certainly, but those
who preferred THAT version were booted out by the voter. HRW has missed
the incontrovertible truth that even those who pushed that version, did
an about turn, pledging in two major elections to uphold the unitary
character of the state. As for the devolution element of reconciliation,
not even its most ardent advocates seem interested in provincial
councils.
So it’s natural that the HRW feels a reversal in
‘gains of the previous government.’ HRW feels that minorities are 'more
insecure, victims of past abuses fearful, and critics wary of speaking
out.’ That’s what Meenakshi Ganguly, the South Asia director of the
outfit says. It’s cut-and-paste stuff, nothing more.
If
‘security’ is about a separatist agenda moving in the ‘right direction,’
sure, that’s not happening. ‘Victims of past abuses,’ she says — well,
such as? Critics? Does she mean those who were unofficial adjuncts of
the political camp that lost? They are wary, are they? ‘Wary’ is
certainly a politically more useful descriptive than, say, ‘devastated
by political defeats.’
There is certainly a more military
presence in government. Systemic flaw and woeful incompetence by
officials haven’t really helped the President get things done,
especially in a pandemic context. It’s no secret that it is the security
forces and the State Intelligence Service that have sacrificed the
most, working tirelessly around the clock, to support the efforts of the
medical teams fighting Covid-19. The retired officers (they are
civilians now, let us not forget) haven’t done worse than those they
replied as heads of certain key institutions. In fact, in certain cases,
they’ve managed to streamline operations, cut costs and get things
done.
HRW says ‘they were, like the President, implicated in war
crimes.’ Here we go again! Accusation treated as established fact in a
political project which is not described as such, naturally. HRW makes
much of the USA announcing that General Shavendra Silva was ineligible
to enter that country.’ Oh dear! The USA passes judgment and that’s the
last word? This is the point where the clowns do their turn. Loud
applause and much laughter follow!
HRW talks of a ‘false
accusation on social media that Muslims were deliberately spreading the
virus.’ Lots happen on social media. Some take it seriously, some don’t.
HRW seems to have done some surveillance and cherry-picked. Good for
HRW.
HRW does better on the issue of burials/cremation. The
Government has not sanctioned burial. Yet. The issue has been
politicized by multiple parties, Muslim politicians included. Maybe HRW
is not interested in delving into the details and the complexities, but
the Government could (still) act in ways that alleviate the
apprehensions of the Muslim community.
The High Commissioner for
human rights, Michelle Bachelet has also made the expected noises,
flagging ‘freedom of expression’ issues related to what she calls
‘criticism of the government’s handling of the Covid-19 situation.’ This
is not the time to be mischievous and some certainly were, and that,
Bachelet and HRW will not agree, can have serious impact on the entire
population. The nice thing about it is that neither HRW nor UNHRC has to
do the cleaning up when the gooey stuff hits the fan.
Ganguly
ends with some poetry. Nice. ‘Concerned governments should do all they
can to prevent Sri Lanka from returning to the ‘bad old days’ of rampant
human rights violations. Governments need to speak out against abuses
and press for a UN Human Rights Council resolution that addresses
accountability and the collection and preservation of evidence.’
Concerned
governments, she says. Does she mean the USA, UK and those in the EU?
Laugh, ladies and gentlemen. That’s what you do when the circus comes to
town!
0 comments:
Post a Comment