Sujith Rathnayake and incarcerations imposed and embraced

‘Crisis & Struggle’ is the title of an art exhibition that was recently held at the Lionel Wendt Art Gallery. Sujith Rathnayake, the artist, calls it a visual art attack. Nice line. It is presented by, so the poster claims, ‘Art Gallery of the Galle Face Protest Site.’

Sujith Rathnayake’s stature as an artist got considerably enhanced during the ‘Aragalaya.’ Put another way, his stature as a conscious objector to perceived tyrannies or rather tyrannies perceived was elevated during those months.

Now we do know that the Aragalaya spawned a lot of unsavoury characters or rather brought them to the fore. Among them were ‘artists’ and some of them were funded directly or indirectly by the US State Department, especially through NED (National Endowment for Democracy), the successor to the CIA in overseas operations designed to destabilise nations considered ‘unfriendly’ or bring them under Uncle Sam’s sway. It is unlikely that Sujith Rathnayake had membership in that particularly distasteful club of con-artists.  

The artistic worth of Sujith’s work will have to be evaluated by art critics. Political fellow travelers will no doubt celebrate a comrade, but perhaps the full significance of one particular exhibit might be lost on them — the installation piece where a prison door and a mirror compels ‘viewer’ to consider his/her incarceration(s), aptly captioned with a Vicent van Gogh quote, ‘conscience is a man’s compass.’

It is pertinent that the quote is an extract from a letter Vicent wrote to his brother Theo (in December 1882) who supported the artist financially and emotionally. The entire letter makes fascinating reading, but let’s limit this to the paragraph that contains the quote, as translated by Theo’s wife Johanna van Gogh-Bonger:

‘One must go on working silently, leaving the result to the future. If one prospect is closed, perhaps another will open itself - there must be some prospect, and a future too, even if we do not know its geography. Conscience is a man's compass, and though the needle sometimes deviates, though one often perceives irregularities when directing one's course by it, one must still try to follow its direction.’

Sujith’s invitation is one for self-examination, a consideration of possible complicity. The image of the artist, self-incarcerated and self-framed by a reference to the conscience, is certainly powerful. It cries out, ‘I shall begin with myself.’  Maybe Sujith will, accordingly, express in art or in other form what he contended with in this journey.  He hasn’t yet, that much is clear from the rest of the exhibition.

It is a call nevertheless and since the entire exercise is Aragalaya-toned, so to speak, one cannot be faulted for wondering whether the comrades-at-arms were spurred to engage in the self-reflection prescribed.

The target of the ‘attack by art’ is the status quo, the state, the government then in power, the rulers of that time. The installations and the paintings state the artist’s discontent and indeed livid objection to all that. Perhaps in the calculation of ‘musts’ and ‘perhaps later’ Sujith decided not to question himself, his comrades, fellow-aragalists, relevant paarshava of the Aragalaya with regard to the choice of slogans, the tone of protests, arson, robbery, murder and other despicable acts which, ironically were important issues ranted and raved about by the agitators. Perhaps it was not the time to question, for example, the petikiriya of fellow-aragalists or unwrap the contradictions that were so apparent at Galle Face or, as they called it, GGG (Gotagogama).

Sujith Rathnayake is an artist. He is an activist. He stands up for what he believes. It is not unfair to ask him to subject himself to the tests he has prescribed for others. Time has passed.  A lot of time. Things have happened. One could ask, ‘what kind of reflection has the artist done in the time that has passed?’

Sujith will, I am sure, respond as he will. When he feels it is appropriate. For now, what’s most important, for me at least, is the invitation he has so eloquently ‘worded’ with mirror and frame, incarceration forced, willing submission submitted to imprisonment of one kind or another.

No struggle is perfect. No struggle is smooth. All struggles are marked by setbacks, confusion, betrayal etc. Sometimes, the worst betrayals are those perpetrated on account of ignorance and arrogance or, indeed, those which resolutely refuse self-criticism.

Sujith Rathnayake has put many things in perspective. Sujith Rathnayake has turned a searchlight inwards. The light has also fallen on the agitators and the agitation, whether or not this was intended. It is an important and necessary intervention by an accomplished artist and a man for whom conscience is a compass for it could result in the realization that conscience too can be subjected to incarceration. Self-incarceration. 

['The Morning Inspection' is the title of a column I wrote for the Daily News from 2009 to 2011, one article a day, Monday through Saturday. This is a new series. Links to previous articles in this new series are given below]

Other articles in this series:

Some stories are written on the covers themselves

A poetic enclave in the Republic of Literature

Landcapes of gone-time and going-time 

The best insurance against the loud and repeated lie

So what if the best flutes will not go to the best flautists?

There's dust and words awaiting us at crossroads and crosswords

The books of disquiet

A song of terraced paddy fields

Of ants, bridges and possibilities

From A through Aardvark to Zyzzyva 

World's End

Words, their potency, appropriation and abuse

Street corner stories

Who did not listen, who's not listening still?

The book of layering

If you remember Kobe, visit GOAT Mountain

The world is made for re-colouring

The gift and yoke of bastardy

The 'English Smile'

No 27, Dickman's Road, Colombo 5

Visual cartographers and cartography

Ithaca from a long ago and right now

Lessons written in invisible ink

The amazing quality of 'equal-kindness'

A tea-maker story seldom told

On academic activism

The interchangeability of light and darkness

Back to TRADITIONAL rice

Sisterhood: moments, just moments

Chess is my life and perhaps your too

Reflections on ownership and belonging

The integrity of Nadeesha Rajapaksha

Signatures in the seasons of love

To Maceo Martinet as he flies over rainbows

Sirith, like pirith, persist

Fragrances that will not be bottled 

Colours and textures of living heritage

Countries of the past, present and future

A degree in creative excuses

Books launched and not-yet-launched

The sunrise as viewed from sacred mountains

The ways of the lotus

Isaiah 58: 12-16 and the true meaning of grace

The age of Frederick Algernon Trotteville

Live and tell the tale as you will

Between struggle and cooperation

Of love and other intangibles

Neruda, Sekara and literary dimensions

The universe of smallness

Paul Christopher's heart of many chambers

Calmness gracefully cascades in the Dumbara Hills

Serendipitous amber rules the world

Continents of the heart The allegory of the slow road  

Read more

Unbearable taxes: aragalists asked for it, didn’t they?

In the heady days of the ‘Aragalaya’ The BASL (Bar Association of Sri Lanka), the right-wing stink tank Advocate (a docile servant of the Atlas Network, an extension of the US foreign policy apparatus),  would-be prophets of an economic renaissance including university dons, ex Central Bank high-ups excellently schooled in the relevant dogma and many would-be spokespersons for the ‘Aragalaya’ representing all kinds of activists openly demanded that the government seek IMF support.

The proposals put forward by FUTA (Federation of University Teachers’ Associations) were hilarious: ‘Negotiations with the IMF, including any conditions agreed to must be transparent. Such conditions should not further burden the poor, and should not undermine people’s sovereignty and their access to resources. The process should not create a greater debt trap for the future.’

Were there no economists, historians, sociologists or political scientists involved in drafting these proposals, I wonder. When were negotiations with the IMF ever transparent? Ok, let’s say it’s a decent demand even though it smacks of naïveté and is utterly wishful. How about the second part, i.e. about conditions not further burdening the poor and not undermining people’s sovereignty and access to resources? Don’t they have the intellect to make a symptomatic reading of how the IMF mantra changed from structural adjustment to structural adjustment with a human face and eventually structural adjustment with poverty alleviation? How about the last part, i.e. the process not creating a greater debt trap for the future? What happy-pills have the FUTA membership being popping into their sad mouths?  

Then we had Nishan De Mel of Verite Research, another dodgy stink tank, indulging in hilarious punditry:

‘We do not wait of the IMF to give us a plan. The mistake that poor countries make of not using their best economists is that they let the IMF draft the plan. Then that turns out to be impractical because they haven’t thought about the realities of the country.

'Sri Lanka needs a credible plan to get out. Then tell the IMF show us why this plan is no good. We must negotiate with the IMF as professional, equals, not as third class, citizens or a third class country.’
De Mel may fancy himself as a professional, a first class citizen and one of the best economists in Sri Lanka. He may think he’s better than every single economist who has hitherto negotiated with the IMF. But he is downright silly to think that the IMF is some kind of ethereal, apolitical entity that is willing to correct course if cogent arguments are put forward. No, the IMF is a creature of North America and Western Europe and has never stepped out of line and is unlikely to say ‘your plan is good, it’s better than ours and we will go ahead with it’ if the proposals go against the interests of the true owners of the organization.

De Mel as well as the other IMF-advocates must know, surely, that the USA and its stooges make the biggest voting bloc in the IMF? When ever did the USA do anything considered detrimental to national interests of that country? US thinking on profit and military strategy has never been framed by lovely thoughts such as morality and intellectual honesty. To think that ‘better economists’ can sway Washington is stupid to put it bluntly.    

The IUSF (Inter University Student Federation, dominated by the Frontline Socialist Party) made some noises during the aragalaya in opposition to calls for IMF intervention. Tokenism, at best. The JVP/NPP was cagey. Some Marxists, very few, expressed opposition, but it was all low-key stuff. The vast majority of protesters offered what can only be called silent consent. NONE OF THEM were engaged in heated debates with those screaming the IMF Mantra.

What country have these people being living in, one must ask. What planet have they inhabited? Sri Lanka has gone to the IMF no less than 16 times. What was achieved? Do they think that the answer to problems caused by bad medicine is to increase the dosage? And hasn’t FUTA and other outfits learned ANYTHING from how things happened on each of those 16 occasions?  

Today, as the present government hurries to put in place preconditions for IMF intervention which include an extremely severe tax regime, some of these very people are getting mighty anxious. They attack the government but say naught about the IMF.

Well, this is what they, in their over-enthusiasm, arrogance and pathetic ignorance wanted, was it not? They agitated, it can be argued, for the right to beg. Now, they, along with those who openly argued against the ‘IMF Mantra,’ have been turned into the most pitiful of beggars.

Can anyone who is agitated by the new tax regime claim that he/she was not part of the Aragalaya. Can anyone so agitated claim that he/she didn’t know that the BASL, FUTA, Verite Research, the Institute of Policy Studies (that supposedly ‘independent’ but slavish adherent to anti-intellectual economic dogma), Advocata, economists who fervently believe that economy and politics are two different planets, IMF minions in the Central Bank and such were agitating, in effect, for just that?

Now someone might say, ‘if not the IMF, then what?’ Indi Samarajiva outlined in April 2022 ‘7 ways the IMF sucks and 7 common sense alternatives for Sri Lanka.’ That’s just ONE of an entire library of articles, papers and books on the topic which of course the neoliberals don’t read or, worse, don’t know the existence of.

The ‘IMF-come, aney’ agitators and their silent approvers are by now well versed in organizing protests. There are some addresses they can march towards and peacefully protest:

The IMF: 30, Central Bank, Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo. The US Embassy: 210, Galle Road, Colombo 3. European Union: 389 Bauddhaloka Mawatha, Colombo 7.  Actually, these addresses might very well be familiar to a lot of aragalists considering who funded some of them, egging them on to thuggery, arson, theft and general banditry. After all Colombots, stink tanks, con-artists, bornagainazis, rent-a-protest agitators, candle-light ladies, funded voices and other Kolombians as well as NEDdas (the newly anointed foot soldiers funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy, successor to CIA operations aimed at subverting foreign governments) were partying with the likes of Julie Chung during the Aragalaya.

They could go further. They probably know their own addresses, their own names. They can stay at home and indulge in self-flagellation. They could also visit the offices of stink tanks, lawyers who lowered the bar and ill-informed, intellectually challenged or downright pernicious ‘academics’ and other IMF-loving economists and propose a whip-each-other party.  

What they cannot do, if they have a conscious (questionable, yes), is rant and rave against taxes. In fact, the likes of Julie Chung may very well say, ‘You asked for it. You Got it. Now shut up!’ And for once the agitators would realise that she never smiles, but smirks. Indeed, whereas she may have thought to herself, ‘suckers,’ now she might spit it out in their faces.   

 

RELATED ARTICLES:  

ජනසතු අරගලය ජනතාකරණයට ලක් වුනාද?

System-change: an Aragalist touch-me-not? 

Julie Chung and fire hoses of falsehood

Beware the NEDdas

Ambassador Chung and xeroxable change 

The Aragalaya: A postscript

ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන මාෆියාව/මේනියාව

 Vee da (වීද) hoo da (හූද) people?

When the centre cannot hold...

Recipes for co-opting and subverting #peoplepower

#De-dollarize!

The international community, the opposition and 'the people'

The 'ada davase mahanakama'

#Aragalayaleft?

Personalities and systems

The 'aragalists' and the challenge of re-mapping Sri Lanka

Tomorrow, tomorrow and so forth...

A season of (il)legitimacies 

The brink and beyond

Spontaneity and its discontents 

ලෙයට ලෙය වෙනුවට ආලය

පුද්ගල චරිත මතුවේ, නිර්පාක්ෂික හැව ගැලැවේ, අරගලය ඉදිරියටම....

The BASL Proposals: A review

malindadocs@gmail.com

 

Read more

System Change: an Aragalist touch-me-not?

Such diversity! Such passion! Such innovation and creativity! Such courage and heroism! Such were and still are the encomiums floating around in mainstream and new media about the Aragalaya. Yes, there was diversity, passion, creativity, innovation and courage. These however do not necessarily constitute good, healthy, wholesome etc. For example, the LTTE, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban and other such outfits had little diversity as is the case in identity based ‘struggles,’  but that all have long histories marked by creativity, innovation, passion, courage and heroism.

There was diversity and there was division. There were LGBTQ collectives (who, if probed, probably had very divergent views on things like governance systems, capitalism, the so-called ‘national question,’ elitism etc) and there were people spouting homophobic rhetoric. There were nationalists and those who equate the term with Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism. There were victims of the system and system-beneficiaries. There was the left and the right getting comfy with one another (of course the radical credentials of many self-styled leftists have long since been compromised). And there was Julie Chung playing Viceroy in the midst of a flag-waving multitude. But, clearly, they all got together.



For what? Well, even as they blared out their pet slogans, passed around leaflets and posted in social media nutshell version of particular ideologies and preferred outcomes, and ‘educated’ the ‘ill-educated’ at every turn in pitiful attempts to dislodge long-standing angst, they were in unison in the call for the resignation of Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

If anyone truly believed that getting rid of Gota would sort the country’s many ills, that’s delusion of the highest order. Nevertheless, it could be argued (and it has) that ousting him is a necessary first step in the process of putting things right. This theory is full of holes.

Systems can be represented by a single person or a collective of a few individuals, a family in this case as is argued for example. A system however is not a person (or a collective). The removal of a representative will not alter it. In this instance there was no agreement among the diverse multitude unified by a person-focused slogan and nothing else about successor or succession. Neither was there any cogent idea or even discussion about what kind of system would be desirable and how to go about installing it.

This is not surprising when outfits such as the Inter University Student Federation (IUSF) and the Frontline Socialist Party (FSP, which by the way dominates the IUSF) who formed the agitational vanguard in the main and professed to be committed to system-change failed miserably in a) coming up with even a halfway decent set of proposals for system change, and b) did not attempt to mobilise the agitators around the idea of a system-change. The second is understandable given the ideological diversity and a marked tendency to back-burn system change, never going beyond what at best could be called a peripheral slogan/demand.

Not surprisingly neither was there much of a system-change discourse emanating from the Neddas (those individuals/groups directly or indirectly benefiting from funds channeled through the National Endowment for Democracy — NED — the US outfit that took over the CIA’s country-destabilising operation), Candlelight Ladies, Rent-a-Protest Agitators, Stink Tanks, Con-Artists, Bornagainazis and other Funded Voices and other Kolombians. Indeed, for most of them the system was coterminous with Rajapaksas which again demonstrates both naïveté and duplicity.

Not all of this is captured in a survey of the Aragalaya recently carried out by the Centre for Policy Alternatives, but even this suspect outfit has (perhaps inadvertently) come upon a few startling truths about public perception related to what for some, such as the Asia Foundation, was ‘revolutionary’.    

The CPA assures that the semi-structured questionnaire administered among 1100 respondents from the four main ethnic communities (one wonders whether these were weighted to reflect real percentages) covering all 25 districts yielded reliable data.

On the one hand, a vast majority of respondents were willing to compromise on travelling and transport as well as food consumption (76.3% and 69.5%), but more than half were reluctant to agree to more taxes and almost 75% were vehemently opposed to any move that might result in a family member losing a job. This is all understandable. What’s missing here is hat some of the proposals for ‘change’ include these kinds of measures, especially those conditions currently being insisted by the IMF.

More than 80% want ‘system change’ but are clearly wary of neoliberalism. They want welfare and they also want less government. They want foreign companies to invest in Sri Lanka and they don’t want limits on earning capacity but they are not happy about privatising state-owned enterprises. They vehemently oppose greater involvement of the private sector in health and education.


Many questions have not been asked and therefore the data is not available. Here’s a list of issues that the CPA could consider if/when it conducts a follow-up survey:

1. What are the perceptions of Julie Chung’s involvement in the Aragalaya? 2. Can the IMF help the cause of changing the system? 3. Has the system changed? 3a. If ‘yes,’ in what ways specifically? 3b. If not, why not? 4. Does the replacement of a leader amount to system-change? 5. Did the institutional arrangement and the system of state processes change at all thanks to the Aragalaya? If conditions have not improved (The CPA’s income-expenditure data from the survey indicates that the situation has got worse) what really are the positives vis-a-vis ‘change’ that the Aragalaya yielded?  

While at it, the CPA (or anyone else) can ask if people know anything about the global capitalist system, whether or not it is important to develop the country’s manufacturing sector, whether or not development banks are necessary, whether or not a comprehensive plan for food and energy sovereignty and the will to implement it has to be part of a changed-system, whether beneficiaries of the system so reviled (the rich and powerful) truly wanted the structures and processes altered, and why and how the idea of system-change fizzled out the moment Ranil Wickremesinghe took control.

They could also ask what happened to the energy, creativity and courage? What happened to the agitational heroes? Who really benefited from the Aragalaya? Does Galle Face Green look prettier now if more boring? Were they right, those who said that it was a circus, all things considered and that the well-intentioned who were without political affiliation but were determined to build a new Sri Lanka were cheated?

malindadocs@gmail.com

RELATED ARTICLES

Beware the NEDdas

#Aragalayaleft?

Personalities and systems

The 'aragalists' and the challenge of re-mapping Sri Lanka

Notes for a Sincerity Project: The Vasalas and Brahmanas

Notes for a Sincerity Project: Elections, electors and elected 

The Aragaliss and the challenge of re-mapping Sri Lanka

Constitutional Reform: The wages of haste, sloth and expediency 

The International Community, the Opposition and the people 

Recipes for co-opting and subverting #peoplepower

#De-dollarize 

When the centre cannot hold

Vee da (වීද) hoo da (හූද) people?

ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන මාෆියාව/මේනියාව 

ජනසතු අරගලය ජනතාකරණයට ලක් වුනාද?

අරගලයේ දේශපාලන ඉතිරිය

අරගල, විප්ලව සහ දේශපාලනයේ අවලස්සන යටිපැත්ත

Ambassador Chung and xeroxable change

The Aragalaya: a postscript

Tomorrow, tomorrow and so forth...

A season of (il)legitimacies 

The brink and beyond

Spontaneity and its discontents 

ලෙයට ලෙය වෙනුවට ආලය

පුද්ගල චරිත මතුවේ, නිර්පාක්ෂික හැව ගැලැවේ, අරගලය ඉදිරියටම....

The BASL Proposals: A review

Read more

Beware the NEDdas!

 

In Sri Lanka’s political lexicon there are two terms that have obtained a lot of play over the past 8 years or so: Toyyas and Bayyas. Bayyas are sometimes taken to be Rajapaksa loyalists but the truth of that identity goes beyond that family and could be best understood as a contradistinction of Toyyas. Toyyas are certainly anti-Rakapaksa but that’s not all they are.

They are anti-Rajapaksa because they believe the Rajapaksas represent Bayyas. Toyyas would suffer any and all violations that the Rajapaksas are accused of if they were committed by those they believe represent the Toyya community, let’s say. That’s those who can be called Kolombians, candle-light ladies, Colombots, rent-a-protest NGO personalities, funded-voices etc.

They typically are anglicized, speak English and can hardly cobble together five Sinhala or Tamil words into a coherent sentence, are often virulently anti-Buddhist and are somehow ashamed of their Sinhala or Tamil ancestry. In short, the kalu-suddhas. The Uncle Toms, if you want a term that the likes of US Ambassador Julie Chung would understand.

Then we have the Wannabe Toyyas,. Most of them believe that adopting Toyya lifestyles, parroting Toyya political preferences and chorusing Toyya antipathies would give them Toyya membership. They were in for a rude shock when the aragalaya imploded — the Toyyas all but branded them as Bayyas, riffraff and rabble, refusing membership and putting quite some distance between themselves and these clearly confused individuals.

Bayyas are no saints either. Most of them know they will be denied Toyya membership. Some (a few) are happy with who they are and are not interested in membership while the politics of others are defined by undisguised envy of the Toyya community.  

The aragalaya brought to fore another class of people, small in numbers but certainly effective, at least in terms of delivering the deliverables for which their bosses reward them one way or another: the NEDdas, which is derived from ‘National Endowment for Democracy.’ It has not entered the political lexicon, but it ought to, considering the fact that Neddas were in the thick of things over the past few months or rather were thrust into the thick of things after careful and long preparation over several years.

Before we get to NEDdas, we need to get to NED and to do that we need to understand the machinations of the US government and relevant agents.

Whenever the USA proposes democracy or gets teary about human rights countries that are the intended beneficiary of largesse need to worry. This is not because democracy is a bad thing; it is not. It is not because human rights need not be upheld; they need to be. It is all about what these terms portend when uttered by the USA.  

As is abundantly clear to any serious student of the USA and as has been pithily argued by Noam Chomsky in ‘What Uncle Sam really wants,’ Washington doesn’t give two hoots about democracy, human rights, peace or other such lofty ideals. Washington has supported and still supports military juntas, theocracies, monarchies, dictatorships and other forms of totalitarian regimes marked by intolerance, violent crushing of dissent and blatant violation of human rights. Not surprising considering the absolute mockery of democracy and human rights in the USA itself, from back in the day to this very moment.

The terms have currency only when Washington has to deal with regimes or leaders not willing to play comply with US diktat. The USA still does the guns-in-booty-out number but where this is not possible, other means have to be employed. If countries need to be destabilized to get rid of unfriendly leaders or governments and if naked force is not an option for whatever reason subterfuge becomes the default Plan B. The CIA moves in. The CIA has got such a bad reputation, though, that US subterfuge needed a different name, a different lexicon and people wearing different clothes, especially after Congress forbade the agency to organize coup d'etat to secure markets. That’s when the White House and National Security Council moved in to get around the problem. That's how the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was set up. 

The four key subsidiaries of NED (National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, American Center for International Labor Solidarity and the Center for International Private Enterprise), gives it wide operative space and the requisite vocabulary yielding a civilizational veneer that can entrap the gullible (we are being kind here). It’s founder, Alan Weinstein wasn’t that cute — he called it the Second CIA way back in 1991.

So Washington funds NED, NED creates programs and outsources it to local NGOs in targeted countries who are tasked to make create molehills, turn them into mountains, create or precipitate the creation of objective preconditions where none exist or exploit such that do exist to manufacture and nurture popular dissent. Typically, the envisaged end, despite rhetoric about system-change, is replacement of a government or leader refusing to play ball with Washington by a leadership that is amenable to the advancement of US strategic interests.
 

Today, it is well known that the NED helped disintegrate the Soviet Union and was in the thick of political changes (not system change) in Georgia, Serbia, Ukraine and the uprisings dubbed ‘Arab Spring’ but which produced an endless and terrifying winter, paradoxically, in the Middle East. Venezuela knows of NED involvement.  It’s not hard to find which countries the NED has funded, which kinds of regimes were targeted and which supported and their relevant loyalties or otherwise to the USA. It is easy to see whether NED-supported groups and governments were or exemplify purported NED-values. 

NED is convenient. The name itself disarms the ignorant and gullible. Those in the know, are clearly beneficiaries as organizations or individuals and as such are willing pawns in Washington’s designs can claim, as some have, ‘No, we never got US funds.’ Indeed, one such individual who would have people believe he is in or is ‘the epicenter of the aragalaya’ (one wonders what other ‘epicenterists’ would have to say to this claim), when confronted with evidence of involvement with NED, backtracked and tried the age-old diversionary tactic — ‘Alright, yes, but what’s wrong with things like voter-education, eh?’ Others could ask, ‘what’s wrong with democracy, human rights etc.?’  A simple counter-question would suffice to floor them all: ‘to what end, really, brother?’

First, the condescension is insufferable. The assumption is that Sri Lankan voters are ignorant and need democracy-tuition. Second, there’s a pernicious twisting of all norms of democracy; constitution and popular will as expressed through the ballot are brushed aside in favour of manufactured and exaggerated popular dissent followed by tacit withdrawal of support for agitation the moment the preferred political outcome is obtained. Third, typically, the track records of the agents roped in make dismal reading.  It is easy after all to identify reasonably intelligent people with chips on their shoulders (which usually has nothing to do with ideological or political bent but about some simmering element of self-doubt or bruised egos) and cultivate them to be deployed at the right time. Yes, the NEDdas.

Now the NEDdas could say (and they have) ‘it doesn’t matter who gives money as long as the job is done.’ Well, that’s an end-justifies-the-means argument. Regardless, if anyone doesn’t care about what this ‘job’ is all about, has no clue and doesn’t care about history and the ways in which NED has operated and for what kind of goals, then such people aren’t really serious about system-change. They, in fact, are doing a job. Hatchet job, one might say.

It’s all about the Golden Rule — he who owns the gold, makes the rules. I wouldn’t call people innocent or naive for not taking the trouble to find out what’s what; I call them irresponsible and dangerous. They charter agitation to waters into which the bad ship ‘US Interests’ can sail in without obstacle. They don’t give a hoot about Sri Lanka. The only Sri Lankans they do care about are themselves. 

NEDdas are easily identified. One could check the organizations that NED funds, for starters. One could check NEDda positions (what they promote, who they condemn — countries included) and compare with NED ‘prerogatives.’ If NEDdas don’t care whether or not money is channeled by or through murderers, sackers of cities and other thugs, then of course they are seriously value-challenged. Should be noted.  

NEDdas. They need watching. Especially by all the hundreds and thousands who with pureness of heart and idealistic fervour about forging a different kind of nation with truly representative and democratic institutions and processes have their all to the aragalaya. There will be hundreds and thousands of other who will walk this path. They too will have their dreams blown up in their faces by NEDdas of the future. It need not be that way. Gotta keep NEDdas at bay though.

This article was first published in the Daily Mirror (August 25, 2022)
malindadocs@gmail.com
[Malinda Seneviratne is the Director, Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views.’]

Read more

අරගලයේ දේශපාලන ඉතිරිය

 

"ස්වයං විවේශනය, දුෂ්ටත්වයේ හරය තෙක් දිවෙන දරුණු, නොමසුරු, අනුකම්පා විරහිත විවේචනය නිර්ධන පාන්තික ව්‍යාපාරයක ජීවය සහ හුස්ම පොද වේ" -- රෝසා ලක්සන්බ(ර්)ග්

 
අරගලය අවසන් වුනා කියල සමහරු කියනවා. අරගල ඉවර වෙන්නෙත් නෑ ඉවර කරන්නත් බෑ කියල තවත් අය කියනවා. කෙසේ වෙතත් 'අරගලය' නමින් හැඳින් වූ දේශපාලන ක්‍රියාවලිය එක්තරා ආකාරයක නිමාවකට ඇවිල්ලයි තියෙන්නේ. අරගලය මැරුණා නැත්තම් මැරුවා කියල කියනවා නෙවෙයි. ඒ නිසා මෙතන ඉදිරිපත් කරන්නේ පශ්චාත් මරණ පරීක්ෂණයක් නෙවෙයි.

අරගලයේ සක්‍රීය වූ අය වගේම දුර ඈත සිට බලාපොරොත්තු පිරුණු දෑසින් අරගලය දෙස බලා සිටි අයද, අරගලය, එහි ප්‍රකාශිත අරමුණු සහ අරගලකරුවන් අතර සිටි ඇතැම් චරිත පිලිබඳව සැකසහිතව සියල්ල නිරීක්ෂණය කළ අයද යොමු විය යුතු බොහෝ කාරණා ඉතුරු වෙලා තියෙන බව කියන්න පුළුවන්. අරගලයට නැවතීමේ තිතක් කෙසේ වෙතත් කොමාවක් වැටිලා තියෙන මේ මොහොතේ ඒ සියලු දේ විමසීමට අවකාශයක් නිර්මාණය වෙලයි තියෙන්නේ. තම තමන්ගෙන්ම සහ එකිනෙකාගෙන් ඇසිය හැකි ප්‍රශ්න තියෙනවා. ඒවාට උත්තර සෙවීම වටිනවා කියලයි මට හිතෙන්නේ.

ඇමරිකානු තානාපති ජූලි චුං ගේ භූමිකාව කුමක්ද? චුං ගේ ට්විටර් සටහන් කියෙව්වාද? ඒවා හරහා ඇමරිකාව මොකාටද එන්නේ කියලා හිතුවද? කාදිනල්තුමාගේ භූමිකාව කුමක්ද? කතෝලික පල්ලිය සහ අරගලය අතර සම්බන්ධය මොන වගේද? අරමුණු මොනවාද? ජාත්‍යන්තර මූල්‍ය අරමුදල වන්දනාමාන කරමින් එහි පිහිට පතපියව් කියලා කට්ටිය කියද්දී උග්‍ර වාමවාදීන් මුනිවත රැක්කේ ඇයි. එයාලගේ වාමවාදය නැවත නැවතත් ප්‍රශ්න කළ යුතුයි නේද? අරගල ගැන ටියුෂන් දුන්න අප්පච්චිලාගේ, අම්මිලාගේ, ඇන්ටිලාගේ, අංකල්ලාගේ දේශපාලන ඉතිහාසය ගැන හොයල බැලුවේ නැති එක ගැන අරගලයේ දරුවෝ පසුතැවිලි වෙනවද? නීතිඥ සංගමය ගේමක්ද ගැහුවේ? විගණනය ඉල්ලන අයට නීතිඥ සංගමයේ සියලුම සාමාජිකයින් විගණනය කළ යුතුයි නේද කියල හිතුනද? 'අදේශපාලනික' කියන වචනයේ තේරුම දැනගෙන හිටියද? දැන් දන්නවද?

ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන අවශ්‍යයි කියල ආදී හප්පලා කෑ ගහපු අය අඩුම තරමින් 17වන සංශෝධනය සිට 20 දක්වා කියවලා තියෙනවද? ඒ ඒ සංශෝධන සම්මත කරගත්ත දේශපාලන වටපිටාව මොකද්ද කියල හෙව්වද? ඒ ඒ සංශෝධන කාගේ හරි වාසියක් සඳහාද නැත්තම් දේශපාලන විරුද්ධවාදීන් දඩයම් කිරීමේ චේතනාවෙන් සම්මත කරගත්තද? විධායක ජනාධිපති ක්‍රමය එපා කියන අය 13වන සංශෝධනය ගැන දන්නවද? සාලිය පීරිස්ගේ පරස්පර ප්‍රකාශ ගැන නීතිඥ සංගමයේ සාමාජිකයින් නිහඬ ඇයි?

පන්ති-රහිත අරගලයට 'පන්තිය' කඩා වැදුනේ මොන මොහොතේදීද? අරගලයට සහාය දැක්වූ ධනවත් ඇන්ටිලා අංකල්ලා (ඒ කියන්නේ මාමලා නැන්දලා නොවන වැඩිහිටියෝ) මෙච්චර කාලයක් අසීමිත වාසි ලබාගත්තේ සිස්ටම් එකට පිං සිද්ධ වෙන්න නෙවෙයිද? ජූලි 9දාට පසුව රියල්-ටෝයියෝ (ටොයි සමාජයට සැලියුට් දාන ටොයි සමාජයේ සාමාජිකතත්වය ලබාගැනීම ජීවිතයේ එකම අරමුණ සේ සළකන) වෙන්ඩ-ටොයියන්ව  බයියන් ගානටම දමමින් පිළිකුල් කරන්නේ ඇයි? ඇත්තටම අරගලයට ලොකු සල්ලි ආවේ කොහෙන්ද? කාගෙන්ද? කුමක් සඳහාද? අරගලය ඉදිරියට තල්ලු කරන්නත් ඉතා පරිස්සමින් සිස්ටම්-චේන්ජ් අල කරන්නත් කටයුතු කළ සෑම පුද්ගලයෙකුටම පාහේ, සෑම සංවිධානයකටම පාහේ ඍජුව හෝ වක්‍රව ඇමරිකාවේ රජය හෝ රජයට විවිධ සංවිධානවලින් මුදල් නැත්තම් කුමන හෝ උපකාර ලැබීම අහම්බයක්ද? #චුන්-නෝනා-ගෝහොම්, #NGOකාක්කෝගෝහෝම්, #IMFඑපා, #MalcolmGoToConfession: මේ වගේ සටන් පාඨ කාටවත් කල්පනා නොවුනේ ඇයි?  

ආරක්ෂක අංශ වළ සාමාජිකයින්ට 'අට පාස්' කියා සමච්චල් කරන අය මාටින් වික්‍රමසිංහ අට පාස්ද කියල තමන්ගෙන් අහන්නේ කවද්ද? උපාධිධාරීන්ගේ සසර ගමන අට පාස් අයට වඩා කෙටිද?  

අරගල කරද්දී මේ වගේ ප්‍රශ්න මතු වෙන්න ඇති. උත්තර හොයන්නත් ඇති. උත්තර සෙවීම පසුවට තබා අරගලයම උත්තර සපයයි කියල හිතන්නත් ඇති. ඒත් සියල්ල සිදුවුනාට පස්සේ ප්‍රශ්න එහෙමමයි. උත්තර හොයන්නේ නැත්තම් සර්වසුභාවාදය සර්වඅසුභාවාදයට පෙරළෙන්න පුළුවන්. එහෙම අනතුරක් නැත්තේ නෑ. 

උත්තර හොයන්නේ නැත්තම් වැඩියෙන්ම සතුටු වෙන්නේ සිස්ටම් එක. 

Read more

අරගල, විප්ලව සහ දේශපාලනයේ අවලස්සන යටිපැත්ත

 

 

ජනතා නැගිටීමක්, උද්ඝෝෂණයක්, රටක දේශපාලන නායකත්වයට අභියෝග කරන දේශපාලන ක්‍රියාවලියක්, දේශපාලන පෙරළියක් -- මේ හැම එකක්ම අරගලයක් කියල කියන්න පුළුවන්. විප්ලවයක් කියල කියන්න බෑ. සමහර අරගල විප්ලව බවට පරිවර්තනය වෙන්න පුළුවන්. කොන්දේසි තියෙනවා. පහුගිය මාස කිහිපය හරහා ලංකාවේ සිදුවුණා නැත්තම් සිදු කරන ලද අරගලය විප්ලවයක් බවට පෙරලුනේ නැහැ. ඒක 'අරගලයක්' නෙවෙයි, ඇත්තටම. එතන තිබුනේ අරගල. බහු වචනින්.

අරගලයට අදාල විවිධ ප්‍රකාශන සහ ක්‍රියාකාරකම් දිහා බලනකොට බරපතල කාරණා ගැන පොදු එකඟතාවක් තිබුනේ නෑ. මතවාදී කරුණු ගැන වගේම අරමුණු පිළිබඳවත් පොදු අවබෝධයක්, එකඟතාවක් තිබුනේ නෑ. ක්‍රමය වෙනස් කිරීම ගැන යම් යම් පුද්ගලයින් සහ සංවිධාන කතා කළත් අරගලයේ මහා පොදු සාධකයේ ඒ කිසි දෙයක් අඩංගු වුනේ නෑ. විවිධත්වයක් තිබුනා -- ආගම්, ජාති, කුල සහ පංති නොසලකපු, ඒ ඒ විවිධත්වයන් වලට ඉඩක් දෙන, අඩු වැඩි වශයෙන් ගරු කරපු  විවිධත්වයක් තිබුන. උග්‍ර වාමවාදීන් සිට ධනවාදයම ඉල්ලන, ධනවාදය වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටින ධනේශ්වරය දක්වා මතවාදීමය පරාසයේ විවිධ තැන් වල ස්ථානගත වූ අය සහ සංවිධාන අරගලකරුවන් අතර සක්‍රීයව හිටියා. මේ සියලු විවිධත්වයන් එක ධජයක් යටට එකතු කරන්න වුනේ සහ එකතු වුනේ ඇත්තටම කුඩාම පොදු සාධකයකට. පුද්ගල කේන්ද්‍ර සාධකයක්. ගෝටා ගෙදර යැවීම.

ගෝටා ගියා. අරගලකරුවන් වගේම අරගලයත් ගෙදර ගියා. සිස්ටම් එක එහෙමම තියෙනවා. එහෙම වුනේ ඇයි? වී ඩෝන්ට් නෝ වයි ද, වී නෝ වයි ද?  
 
රුසියාවේ වුනේ විප්ලවයක්. ප්‍රධාන තේමාව/අරමුණ #සාර්මරමු නෙවෙයි; ඉල්ලුවේ ඉඩම්, සාමය සහ පාන්. සාර් සහ සාර්ගේ පවුල ඝාතනය කළා, ඇත්ත. ඒත් සාර් පාලනය සහ ඒ හා බැඳුන වැඩවසම් ක්‍රමය අවසන් කිරීම තමයි අරමුණ වුනේ. අවසන් කළා. සාමය ලැබුනා. ඉඩම් ලබා ගන්න නැත්තම් ඉඩම් පොදු අයිතියට පවරා ගන්න කාලයක් ගියා. ඒ සඳහා ලේ වන්දියක් ගෙවීමටත් සිද්ධ වුනා. ආහාර ප්‍රශ්නය විසඳුනේ පරක්කු වෙලා. ඒත් සිස්ටම් එක චේන්ජ් වුනා.

ප්‍රංශයේ 'අරගලකරුවන්' #ලුවීමරමු කියල කියන්න ඇති. ඒත් ප්‍රධාන තේමාව/අරමුණ වුනේ නිදහස, සමානාත්මතාවය සහ සහෝදරත්වය. ලුවී ඇතුළු ප්‍රංශ රජ පවුල ඝාතනය කළා, ඇත්ත. ඒත් ප්‍රංශයේ රාජාණ්ඩුක්‍රමය අවසන් වුනා. වැඩවසම් නිෂ්පාදන මාදිලියෙන් ධනවාදී ක්‍රමයක් වෙත ප්‍රංශය ගමන් කරන්න පටන් ගත්තා. සමානාත්මතාවය සහ සහෝදරත්වය කෙසේ වෙතත් සිස්ටම් එක චේන්ජ් වුනා.    

රුසියාව, ප්‍රංශය, වගේම විප්ලව සිද්ධ වුන කියුබාව සහ වියෙට්නාමය වගේ රටවල විප්ලවවාදීන්ට නැත්තම් අඩුම තරමේ ඒ අරගල වල නායකයින්ට පුළුල් දැක්මක් තිබුනා. ඒ වගේම දේශපාලන සහ සටන් ක්‍රියාමාර්ග සංවිධානාත්මක ව්‍යුහයක් මතයි පදනම් වුනේ. බල ව්‍යුහය බිඳ දමන්නත්, පාලක පාර්ශව පළවා හරින්නත් පුළුවන් වුනේ ඒ නිසයි. විකල්ප සමාජ ආර්ථික දේශපාලන ව්‍යුහයන් ගොඩ නගන්න පුළුවන් වුනෙත් ඒ නිසයි.  

ප්‍රංශයේ, රුසියාවේ එහෙම වුනත් ලංකාවේ එහෙම වුනේ නෑ.  ලංකාවේ කරන්නේ විප්ලවයක් කියලත් සිද්ධ වුනේ විප්ලවයක් කියලත් සමහරු කිව්වත් හිතුවත්, එහෙම දෙයක් වෙලා නැති බව දැන්වත් අවබෝධ වෙන්න ඕන. ලොකු අකුරින් අරගලය පුරාවටම ලියවිලා තිබුනේ #gotagohome. පසුව චූටිම චූටි ෆොන්ට් සයිස් එකකින් #ranilgohome කියල වෙනස් වුනා තමයි. ඒත් කෝ අර බරපතල සිස්ටම් චේන්ජ් එක? දිනාගත්ත 'වෙනස' හරහා ඉඩම්, සාමය සහ ආහාර ලැබෙන ලකුණක් නැහැ. නිදහස, සමානාත්මතාවය සහ සහෝදරත්වය ලැබෙන ලකුණක් නැහැ. අඩුම තරමින් අරගල භූමියේ දක්නට ලැබුණු  නිදහස,සමානාත්මතාවය සහ සහෝදරත්වය අරගලකරුවන් අතරේ දැන් නැහැ. ඒ සියල්ල පුද්ගල කේන්ද්‍ර සටන් පාඨයකටම ලඝු වූ 'අරගලයක' තාර්කික අවසානය ලෙස හේදිලාම ගියා.  

මෙහෙම වුනේ ඇයි? අරගලය පුරාවට ආර්ථික අගහිඟකම් ගැන සටන් පාඨ තිබුනත්, සමස්ථ ආර්ථික අර්බුදය පුද්ගලයෙකුට නැත්නම් පවුලකට නැත්තම් පක්ෂයකට ලඝු කළා මිස අර්බුදයේ සංකීර්ණ සහ පුළුල් දේශපාලන ආර්ථික මූලයන් හොයන්න උත්සාහයක් තිබුනේ නෑ. ක්‍රමයක අවුල් පුද්ගලයෙකුට බැර කිරීම පහසුයි, තාවකාලික (සහ අවසානයේ සිල්ලර) ජයග්‍රහණයන් අත්පත් කරගන්න ප්‍රමාණවත් වුනා. එච්චරයි.

අරගලයට නැත්තම් අරගලකරුවන්ට හෝ නායකයින් කියලා හිතාගත්ත අයට අර්බුදය සහ අර්බුදයට අදාළ දීර්ග ඉතිහාසය සහ අර්බුදය නිර්මාණය වෙන සමස්ථ දේශපාලන ආර්ථිකය කියව ගන්න බැරිවුනා. ඒ ඇයි? අරගලකරුවන් සහ අරගලය ගැන විශ්වාසය තැබූ අය හමුවේ ඒ ප්‍රශ්නය ඉතුරු වෙලා තියෙනවා. එවැනි කියවීමක් වෙත යන්න අවශ්‍ය දැනුම නැති  නිසාද? වුවමනාවක් නැති නිසාද? ඒවා ගැන හොයන්න ගියොත් ලැබෙන උත්තර අනුව අරගලයට චිය(ර්)ස් දාපු දෙස් විදෙස් විද්වතුන්, හිතවතුන්, ගමන් සගයින් සහ මූල්‍යමය ආධාර සැපයු පරිත්‍යාගශීලී සිල්වත්තු උරණ වෙන්න ඉඩ තියෙන නිසාද?

එතකොට අරගලයේ සැබෑ පාර්ශවකරුවන් කවුද? කා සඳහාද කා වෙනුවෙන්ද අරගල කෙරුවෙ? උත්තරය: ජනතාව. ඒත් ජනතාවමද? ජනතාව කියන්නේ කාටද? මේවත් හොයන්න ඕන. 

අරගලයේ නිතරම කියවුනේ ජනතාව ගැනයි. ජන දුක, ජනතා අභිලාෂයන් ගැනයි. හැම තක්කඩි දේශපාලනඥයා වගේම අවසන් විග්‍රහයේදී අරගලයත් අරගලයේ ඊනියා නායකයිනුත් 'ජනතාව' කියන වචනය ගසා කෑව, තම තමන්ගේ පුද්ගල ඉල්ලක්ක සඳහා 'ජනතාව' දඩමීමා කරගත්තා. ඒ විතරක් නෙවෙයි, ජනතා නාමයෙන් පුද්ගලයින්ට එලව එළවා පහර දුන්නා, ගෙවල් ගිනි තිබ්බා, පුද්ගලයින්ට මරණ තර්ජන නිකුත් කළා, මැරුවා, පොදු දේපළ වලට හානි කළා, මංකොල්ල කෑවා. අරගලයට චියර්ස් දාපු අය එක්කෝ මේවා අනුමත කෙරුවා නැත්තම් නිහඬ අනුමැතිය දුන්නා.

අවසානයේ ඒ හැම දෙයක්ම අරගලයට පාරාවළල්ලක් වුනාට පස්සේ කිව්වේ 'බලයේ ඉන්න අරයයි මෙයයි අරක කෙරුව මේක කෙරුව, ඒවා ගැන කතා කරන්නේ නැතුව අරගලකරුවන්ගේ වැරදි හොයන්න එපා' කියලයි. ඒකෙ අත්තක් තියෙනවා. ඒත් අරයගෙයි මෙයාගෙයි අර වැරැද්දයි මේ වැරැද්දයි පෙන්වල දුන්න, ඒවාට විරුද්ධව කටයුතු කළ අරගලකරුවෝ හිටියේ නැද්ද? ඒ අයට අරගලයේ තක්කඩිකම් හෙලා දකින්න සදාචාර අයිතියක් තියෙනවා නේද? සමස්තයක් හැටියට නිහඬව හිටියා නේද? හොරකමේ, තක්කඩිකමේ ප්‍රමාණයන් තියෙනවා තමයි. ඒත් හොරකම හොරකමමයි. තක්කඩිකම තක්කඩිකමමයි.         

එසේනම් 'අරගලය' නැත්නම් පහුගිය මාස කිහිපය තුල ගෝල් ෆේස් කේන්ද්‍ර කරගෙන ක්‍රියාත්මක කළ 'අරගල' තේරුම් ගන්නේ කොහොමද? සර්ව අසුභවාදී වෙන්න අවශ්‍ය නැහැ.  විවිධ අගහිඟකම් හේතුවෙන් සමාජයේ විවිධ ක්ෂේත්‍ර තුල සහ සියලු සමාජ ස්ථර හරහා කණස්සල්ල, බිය සහ කෝපය ගොඩ නැගී ඒ සියලු වේදනා උද්ඝෝෂණ බවට පරිවර්ථනය වුනා. නේකවිධ කෛරාටිකයින්ට සහ පටු අරමුණු ඇති පුද්ගලයින්ට, සංවිධාන වලට සහ ඇතැම් රටවල් වලට රඟන්න වේදිකාවක් නිර්මාණය වුනේ එහෙමයි. සමහරු අරගල භූමියේ කොටස් තමන්ගේ ව්‍යාපෘති වලට නතු කරගත්තා. සමහරු තිරයෙන් පිටිපස සිට තම කාර්යයන් වල යෙදුනා. සමහරු විසිල් ගැහුවා, තක්කඩිකම් සාධාරණය කෙරුව. උද්දාමයට පත්ව තම තමන්ගේ වෘත්තීමය සදාචාරයන විශ්‍රාම යවපු අයද මේ අතර හිටියා. ඒ සියලු දෙනා ප්‍රීතියෙන් මෝහනය වූ නිසා තම තමන්ගේ රෙදි ගලවගත්තා. සමාජ මාධ්‍යයේ සටහන් වල ස්ක්‍රීන් ෂොට් නැතුව නොවේ.     

ඒ කෙසේ වෙතත්, අරගලය තුල පුටු මාරුවලට එහා ගිය, ව්‍යුහයන් වෙනස් කිරීමේ අභිලාෂයන් තිබුන සහ ගෝටා ගෙදර යැවීම ඒ දිගු ගමනේ අනිවාර්ය සහ පළමු පියවට පමණක් බව අවබෝධ කරගත් පිරිස් හිටියා. තවමත් ඒ පුළුල් අරගලය සහ අරමුණු වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටින සහ නැවතුන තැන සිට නැවත ක්‍රියාත්මක වීමේ අවශ්‍යතාවය හඳුනාගෙන ඒවෙනුවෙන් කරයුතු කරන බොහෝ අය ඉන්නවා. තමන් ඉත්තෝ බවට පත් වෙයි කියල එයාලා හීනෙකින් වත් හිතුවේ නැතුව ඇති. එහෙම නැත්තම් ඉත්තෝ වීම වළක්වන්න බැරි දෙයක්, පතන සමාජ විපර්යාසය වෙනුවෙන් ගෙවිය යුතු මිලක් කියලා හිතන්න ඇති. අරගලය පාවා දෙන්න සුදානම් අය ඉන්න බවත් එයාල හඳුනාගන්නේ කෙසේද කියලත් එවැනි බාධක ජයග්‍රහණය කරන්නේ කොහොමද කියලත් එවන් අරගලකරුවන් මේ ක්‍රියාවලිය තුල ඉගෙන ගන්න ඇති.  

විශේෂයෙන්ම  නිශ්චිත සහ පුළුල් සමාජ, ආර්ථික දේශපාලන දැක්මකින් තොර අසංවිධිත දේශපාලන ක්‍රියාවලි අවසන් වන්නේ සිස්ටම් චේන්ජ් එකකට මෙහා බවත්, ආ මග ඇත්තටම කෙටි බවත්, යායුතු මග එහෙමම ඉතුරුව ඇති බවත්, සිස්ටම් එක හිතුවට වඩා දෘඩ බවත්, විප්ලවය ඔය විදිහට කළ නොහැකි බවත් ඒ එඩිතර, අධිෂ්ටානශීලී, නිර්මාණශීලී ආදරණීය මිනිසුන් මේ වන විට අවබෝධ කරගෙන ඇති බව මම විශ්වාස කරනවා. රටේ හෙට දවස ගැන බලාපොරොත්තු තියාගන්න නම් මෙය විශ්වාස කළ යුතුමයි.  ආදරයට ඉඩක් ඉතුරු වෙන්නෙත් එහෙමමයි. අරගලය විප්ලවයක් දක්වා විකාශනය වෙන්න පුළුවන්. කොන්දේසි තියෙනවා. පාඩම් ඉගෙන ගැනීම ඉන් එකක්. පාඩම් ඉගෙනගනිමි සිටිනවා කියල හිතන්න මම ආසයි.

රැවටිලි එමටයි. රවට්ටන අය බොහෝයි. රැවටුනා වෙන්න පුළුවන්. යා යුතු මග යා යුතුමයි. යා නොයුතු මාර්ග 'යා යුතු මගමයි' කියල නම් කරත් කෙළවර වන්නේ ඉදිරියක් නැති තැන්වලයි. අරගලය නැවතිලා තියෙන්නේ එවැනි තැනකයි. ෆේක් අරගලකරුවන්ට ඒකෙ අවුලක් නැති වුනත්, සැබෑ විප්ලවවාදියාට එතැනින් නැවත ගමන පටන් ගන්න පුළුවන්. අර රුසියාවේ, චීනයේ, ප්‍රංශයේ, කියුබාවේ, වියෙට්නාමයේ සහ ඇතැම් යුග වල ලංකාවේ වුනා වගේ. 

අරගල, විප්ලව සහ දේශපාලයේ අවලස්සන යටිපැත්ත එන්සෝ ට්‍රැවර්සෝ ලියූ 'විප්ලවය: බුද්ධිමය ඉතිහාසයක්' (‘Revolution: an intellectual history’) නම් කෘතියේ විශිෂ්ට ලෙස විස්තර කරනවා.

'අරගලයක අරමුණ දේශපාලන  තන්ත්‍රයක් බිඳ දැමීම නොවේ; ඇත්තටම අරමුණ එහි නියෝජිතයින් වෙනස් කිරීමක්. අරගලකරුවන් සාමාන්‍යයෙන් ඉලක්ක කරන්නේ පුද්ගලයින් මිස පන්තීන්, ආයනත හෝ බලය නොවේ. එබැවින් ඔවුන්ගේ ක්ෂිතිජයන් පටු වේ, ආයු කාලයද කෙටි වේ. ඒවා ස්ථානික විය හැකි භූමියකට යම් නිශ්චිත අවකාශයකට සීමා වේ. විප්ලව මීට වෙනස්. බලාපොරොත්තු නිර්මාණය වන්නේ මතවාදයන් සහ යෝතෝපියානු ප්‍රක්ෂේපන ඔස්සේය. ඒවා ක්‍රියාවට නංවන්නේ ජකොබියානුවන් හෝ බෝල්ෂෙවික්වරුන් වැනි දේශපාලන ව්‍යාපෘති හා බැඳී බලවේගයන් වේ. ඔවුහු පවතින සමාජ දේශපාලන ව්‍යුහයන් වෙනස් කිරීම සඳහා සවිඥානිකව කැප වෙති. කෙටියෙන්, ඔවුන් ප්‍රකාශයට පත් කරන්නේ දැවැන්ත සහ ඇතැම් විට විශ්වීය අභිලාෂයන් ය.'

ට්‍රැවර්සෝ ලංකාවේ 'අරගලය' පුර්වාපේක්ෂා කෙරුවා වගේ. නේද?

Read more

Ambassador Chung and xeroxable change

 

Aragalaya. Translatable as revolt, uprising, protest, agitation, struggle or even insurrection. Aragalaya is singular, but considering statements and actions it was certainly not marked by concert, ideological agreement, unity of purpose etc. Eclecticism was the signature of the rumbling. There was mumbling, nothing more, about system-change, but a revolution it certainly was not. So, aragalaya: singular; aragala: plural. The latter is the better descriptive. And perhaps it is exactly this eclectic and disjointed character that forced the agitators to dilute whatever revolutionary fervour there may have been to a project that targeted an individual and once that ouster was obtained shift focus to another individual.

Let’s elaborate if only to dismiss those who still harbour illusions about what transpired over the past three months was about system-change, revolution or a political shift of tectonic proportion.

History teaches lessons. The Russian Revolution was about land, peace and bread. It wasn’t #Czar-out. Land and peace were obtained; bread took a while. The Czar was assassinated, sure, but in a political sense it was incidental. The Czar was not replaced some Royal heir. Tsarist rule came to an end. In France, it was ‘liberty, equality and fraternity,’ and not #Louis-out.  Capitalism is anti-equality and one might argue anti-liberty and anti-fraternity, but the French ended the monarchical system. Louis was assassinated. Again, incidental. A Royal heir didn’t succeed him.

In China, the slogan of the Communist Party was ‘Serve the people,’ admittedly a different tune to those played in Russia and France. In any event the Chinese weren’t maniacally invested in  banishing Chiang Kai-shek. The target was the Kuomintang and what it represented, and the overall relations of production. Chiang Kai-shek fled. The Communists did stumble and worse in serving the people, but all things considered all Chinese received what was previously the luxury of a few.

In all three cases, like in any revolution such as what took place in Cuba and Vietnam for example, the movements were marked by a clear vision about what kind of political and economic system should replace the one being challenged and organisational cohesion which enabled implementation.

In Sri Lanka, over the past three months, it was different. In Sri Lanka, we had #gohomegota and in a smaller font size and in normal text as opposed to bold and italicised, #gohomeranil, only, the latter was made impossible along the way for Ranil Wickremsinghe’s house was torched. Talk, if any, of land, peace and bread, of liberty, equality and fraternity, got drowned in the individual-focused slogans, As for serving the people, well, the agitators weren’t short on rhetoric. Indeed, as is often the case, all of it (and we need to include, sadly, the destruction of public property, stifling of expression-freedom, arson, theft, thuggery and murder as part of the ‘all’) was done ‘in the name of the people.’ At the end of the day, it was ‘same-old, same-old.’


Enzo Traverso, I am told, put it much better in the book ‘Revolution: an intellectual history’: ‘The aim of revolt is not to put down a political regime; it is rather to change its representatives; usually their targets are individuals, not classes or institutions, nor power itself. This is why they have a limited horizon and a short duration: they can be endemic, but are always territorially circumscribed. Revolutions, on the contrary, raise hopes supported by ideologies and utopian projections; they are frequently carried out by forces that embody political projects, like the Jacobins or the Bolsheviks. They consciously wish to change the social and political order. In short, they express great, sometimes universal ambitions.’

So what was it all about then? Let us not be unforgiving. There was serious anxiety, fear and anger regarding multiple depravations. Fertile ground, then, for all manner of agent provocateurs and there were veritable legions in operation. Some on the ground, some behind the scenes, some cheering on (only to go silent after, perhaps, true objective was achieved) and some in the giddiness of it all compromising professional ethics and tripping gaily over their own contradictions. Names can be named, if necessary, for screen-shots of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram posts have been filed. Meticulously, I might add.

Regardless, there were and still are idealists who wanted more than name-change, who genuinely believed that this was a necessary first step in the long march to meaningful social transformation. Maybe they didn’t expect to play pawn, maybe they believe(d) that it was a price they may have to pay, maybe they will learn and become smart enough distinguish enemy from friend and outwit the small-minded and pernicious as well as those who saw a larger picture and preferred outcomes that they, the genuine agitators, never believed was part of this whole exercise.

US Ambassador Julie Chung’s tweets are hilarious but seriously they could feed several doctoral dissertations on international political economy. It is no secret that the US backed several vocal outfits and individuals who backed the aragalaya (and who have since been more cautious in their missives). She was jubilant when Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa resigned. She’s reproached the government for evicting protestors from Galle Face, but in guarded tones.

Check the language. On the 9th of May she used the word ‘condemn’ and on the 22nd of July, merely expressed ‘concern’. Earlier it was ‘violence’ and later ‘actions.’ Perhaps all the social media  ‘activists’ (who would like people to believe they wanted real change and weren’t just being willing pawns of US interests) could do some content analysis of her tweets. She was and is, after all, the point person in Colombo for US interests and knows which individuals and which organizations were and are funded by US organizations dedicated to pushing Washington’s agenda forward around the world, for example the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

The attacks (actions/violence) happened. No argument there. The magnitude of course, as claimed/tweeted, is debatable, but violence there was. There is of course a difference between attacking those who are engaged in peaceful protest and taking action against those violating the law. All things considered and especially comparing with the way the USA has treated peaceful protestors (outright brutality including murder, Chung would know), it could have been much worse. But here’s something for the lady to chew on: President Biden recently tweeted, ‘Call me old fashioned, but I don’t think inciting a mob that attacks a police officer is “respect for the law.” You can’t be pro-insurrection and [at the same time be] pro-cop or pro-democracy or ‘pro-American.’

Inciting a mob. There were mobs among the idealists, there were arsonists, looters, murderers and paddlers of virulent ideologies that were square-in-the-middle of racism, intolerance and such. Chung knew. Chung knows. Chung didn’t tweet a sweet ‘no, no, not like that!’  

And we have Derek Grossman a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation (established in 1948 in California with the purpose of military planning, research, and decision development, has 1,950 employees from 50 different countries), gloating thus: ‘China’s window of opportunity to one day control Sri Lanka probably just closed.’ Is he saying 'our window of opportunity just got opened that much more'? Would Chung nod in agreement?

Well, when CIA agents cheer a protest, the conscientious protestors should  say something to the effect of,‘we don’t need your endorsement; you are part of the problem, part of the system.’ Didn’t see any of that though.

All this is in a land called ‘bound to happen’ and that inevitability has everything to do with the key flaws of the aragalaya outlined above and the inability of those who truly wanted change to rise to the challenge of taking on and defeating the enemy within, so to speak, even as they targeted symbols and not the system they represented.

Lessons for the future, hopefully.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

ජනසතු අරගලය ජනතාකරණයට ලක් වුනාද?

The Aragalaya: A Postscript

ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන මාෆියාව/මේනියාව

 Vee da (වීද) hoo da (හූද) people?

When the centre cannot hold...

Recipes for co-opting and subverting #peoplepower

#De-dollarize!

The international community, the opposition and 'the people'

The 'ada davase mahanakama'

#Aragalayaleft?

Personalities and systems

The 'aragalists' and the challenge of re-mapping Sri Lanka

Tomorrow, tomorrow and so forth...

A season of (il)legitimacies 

The brink and beyond

Spontaneity and its discontents 

ලෙයට ලෙය වෙනුවට ආලය

පුද්ගල චරිත මතුවේ, නිර්පාක්ෂික හැව ගැලැවේ, අරගලය ඉදිරියටම....

The BASL Proposals: A review

malindadocs@gmail.com

[Malinda Seneviratne is the Director/CEO of the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views.]

Read more

The Aragalaya: a postscript

 

Ranil Wickremesinghe is no longer president in an acting capacity. He is the president, period. Did someone say ‘I don’t know whether to laugh or cry?’ I am pretty sure someone did. Did someone say, ’who wudda thunk?’ Well, if two or three years ago, if anyone suggested that in July 2023 Ranil Wickremesinghe would be the president of this country, there would have been laughter and tears, if at all, would have been of mirth.

But get this: he is legit. Yes, he barely got into Parliament. Yes, his party returned just a single member and this only through the National List. And yet, as per constitutional provisions, he was legitimately elected President. Interestingly, his ascension is similar to that of his uncle, J R Jayewardene in 1978. There was no Presidential Election in 1978. The newly elected United National Party, with JR as Prime Minister enacted a new constitution with a provision for Parliament to elect a president with executive powers. It was only in 1982 that JR actually faced a presidential election; one which was fraught with allegations of widespread malpractice over and above the fact that his government stripped Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the individual with the best chance of defeating him, of her civil rights.

2022 is a different kind of year/situation. Wickremesinghe was appointed Prime Minister by the  politically beleaguered President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Wickremesinghe’s legitimacy came into question. That was in May. Today, he is the president as per the majority will of Parliament. Today, however, there are still people questioning his legitimacy on account of his party’s and the number of votes garnered at the last General Election. However, until such time an election is held, parliamentary or presidential, there’s no other mechanism to test the legitimacy of the illegitimacy-claims.

How did we get to this, some vociferous ‘Aragalists’ are asking themselves and anyone willing to listen. Interestingly, that question betrays a curious and all things considered irresponsible understanding of political processes, including provisions for change enshrined in the constitution. Let’s elaborate.

If ‘single-minded’ was what the Aragalaya was about then it was apparent in one thing alone: the slogan “#gotagohome.” Aragalists, for the most part, pooh-poohed those who asked ‘and afterwards, what/who?’ First things first, they said. In other words, they deliberately back-shelved the question pertaining to post-Gotabaya Sri Lanka.

As it might have been expected, the protest lost must vim and vigour the moment the demanded outcome materialised. Some even posed, first cautiously and later quite vigorously, that the aragalaya (in other words, the aragalists) should go home. It looks like some were happy to take home a consolation prize while for others it was THE prize, i.e. evicting the Rajapaksas from the political stage. In all this, one thing is startlingly conspicuous by its very absence: zero effort to address the systemic flaws that pushed Sri Lanka over the brink, flaws that were deliberately created, sustained and made worse over almost half a century. So it was just a power game, nothing more, nothing less.

At the end of the day, Ranil Wickremesinghe has become the de facto leader of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna or, as someone might say, he has skillfully taken over that party. How he deals with the SLPP and how he performs as president is of course left to be seen, but that’s for later. Right now, his detractors within and without parliament (and these probably include many who supported Gotabaya Rajapaksa) are left to rue what may have been. How they regroup, re-imagine Sri Lanka and re-think strategy, is also left to be seen.

These turn of events have produced many questions. First and foremost, while there’s no denying the widespread displeasure and anger at the previous government (opposition which congealed naturally into an anti-Gotabaya riot of sorts or rather a ‘bread-riot’ wrapped in the #gotagohome streamer), it also provided fertile ground for all manner of political racketeers. They were essentially peddling their wares at Galle Face. Some had axes to grind. Some were far more devious, far better organised and focused. It has come to light that the US Embassy was thick in its involvement, funding directly and indirectly media outfits, 'research' institutes, think-tanks, NGOs, activists and social media operatives, many with pretty sick histories. Twitter feeds, instagram and Facebook posts leave trails. Makes for interesting reading. More will be known soon.

However, it is left to be seen whether such movers and shakers thought beyond #gotagohome. Is Ranil Wickremesinghe the desired ‘outcome’? It’s hard to tell. The aragalists, after all, began targeting Wickremesinghe the moment he was appointed as Prime Minister. The US Ambassador, perhaps covering all bases, exposed the JVP leader to endless vilification from left circles with endorsement that stopped just short of cuddles and kisses. She however tweeted that Wickremesinghe’s appointment as premier was a necessary first step. The JVP, after pooh-poohing the aragalaya in early April, attempting to hijack it later on by saying it needed a head (essentially ridiculing aragalists for being airheads, at best), later claiming outright ownership and on Wednesday putting forward Anura Kumara Dissanayake as presidential candidate and losing, now stands in opposition to the new government. Friends inside and friends outside. Happy times, certainly.

Reality check all around, though. The aragalaya is now positioned to shed the instigators with shady agenda who were living in the pockets of foreign governments, religious organizations and such. The nationalists have got rid of the Rajapaksa dead weight that had in effect crippled them. The Kolombians have distanced themselves from wannabe Kolombians. Wannabe Kolombians have been rudely awakened to the fact that in the face of Kolombians they are just another set of rowdies whose only redeeming feature was that at a particular moment in history they stood against their longtime nemesis, the Rajapaksas.

So, is this some kind of postscript for the aragalaya? Not necessarily. It didn’t start with any talk of bringing Ranil Wickremesinghe to power and it need not end with him becoming president. Time is long. Battles are lost but this doesn’t mean wars will also be lost. Betrayals are part of the story. Disappointments are to be expected. Falling short is not a crime. Some people, mostly youth, with exemplary idealism, courage, determination and innovative rush, decided to fight. It is unfair to ridicule them for not having emerged victorious. The aragalaya, some say gleefully, is dead. Some aragala, i.e. in the plural, did die, some would wounded, some retired hurt and some just quit. There’s another aragalaya that still breathes. Sobered, perhaps. That’s a good thing.  

RELATED ARTICLES: 

ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධන මාෆියාව/මේනියාව

 Vee da (වීද) hoo da (හූද) people?

When the centre cannot hold...

Recipes for co-opting and subverting #peoplepower

#De-dollarize!

The international community, the opposition and 'the people'

The 'ada davase mahanakama'

#Aragalayaleft?

Personalities and systems

The 'aragalists' and the challenge of re-mapping Sri Lanka

Tomorrow, tomorrow and so forth...

A season of (il)legitimacies 

The brink and beyond

Spontaneity and its discontents 

ලෙයට ලෙය වෙනුවට ආලය

පුද්ගල චරිත මතුවේ, නිර්පාක්ෂික හැව ගැලැවේ, අරගලය ඉදිරියටම....

The BASL Proposals: A review

malindadocs@gmail.com

[Malinda Seneviratne is the Director/CEO of the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views.]

Read more

Vee da (වීද) hoo da (හූද) people?

Sri Lankans make a unique and hilarious knicker-twisted nation, exasperated over lengthy fuel lines to the point of ousting a president and then entire families sweating lengthier lines under umbrellas to see his residence.

Any uprising cast as being spontaneous invariably runs into a bunch of problems, the most serious being the one about credentials. Who speaks for the aragalaya, one could ask. If anyone claims he/she speaks for the aragalaya (and many have, as individuals or groups), the immediate question is, who gave him/her the authority and on what grounds? This of course doesn’t necessarily mean that spontaneous mass uprisings are bad or are bound to fail. Sometimes things unfold and it is in the unfolding that leaders emerge.  

As one might expect, the surge, whether all spontaneous or subtlety orchestrated (yes, such things happen too), made many want to have a piece of it. It was a low-cost adventure for many who had for years benefitted from a rotten system but had never once complained. Yes, they would whine now and then when preferred parties/politicians were out of power but even when sworn enemies were in power, they never balked at exploiting the very same rotten system.  

There were those kinds of people, largely Kolombians who had most likely voted for Ranil/UNP or Sajith/SJB, Kolombians who were suffering from lifestyle deprivation but were certainly not feeling anything like the pinch that most people in the country were experiencing. They were a small but significant minority in the aragalaya. Their posts were in English. When they tried to speak in Sinhala, it was actually funny.  Mind you, the issue was not that Sinhala was not their mother tongue.

Why am I talking about these politically marginal set of people, you may be wondering. Well, there’s a note that’s being circulated titled ‘’Why did we join the aragalaya?’ It is signed by ‘We, the people.’ Obviously convenient but possible dodgy.  An interesting and telling read, though.  

Here it is:

1. WE…protested against the Rajapaksa regime.  2. WE…protested against corruption, nepotism, violation of the rule of law and of human rights. 3. WE…protested in favour of economic stability, civil liberties and rights, the upholding of the constitution, the legislature and the preservation of our democratic values. 4. WE…protested as a Sri Lankan along with my brothers and sisters, for what I believed would be a new future for my country that is shaped in accordance with our constitution. 5. WE…DID NOT PROTEST in favour of anarchy, violence or to empower subversive elements who would deem to overthrow our democratic values. What’s happening now is NOT OUR ARAGALAYA!

In Number 4, there’s a slip from ‘we’ to ‘I’.  I noticed in similar posts that this has been since corrected. It’s a personal angst obviously, but then again it is collectively subscribed to, going simply by the fact that it is being shared on multiple social media platforms. Ok, that’s out of the way.

So, ‘these people’ claim they protested against the Rajapaksa regime. Fair enough. They’ve protested against corruption, nepotism, violation of the rule of law and of human rights. Again, legit. Now, is it the case that all these nasties (corruption, nepotism, violation of the rule of law and of human rights) was the preserve of Gotabaya Rajapaksa or indeed the Rajapaksa clan? Obviously not. We saw such things galore even during the Yahapalana times during which there was little ‘yaha’ and even less  ‘palana’ and, mind you, without having to deal with decades long buttressing of the import mafia, dependency on remittances and tourism, Covid-19 related shocks that lasted for two whole years etc.

Here are some questions: did ‘these people’ a) benefit or not from ‘the system’? b) did they always vote SLFP (or SLFP-led coalition) or did they vote for Ranil/UNP or Sajith/SJB? c) did they ever protest these nasties when the UNP or UNP-led coalition or coalitions the UNP was part of?

There’s talk of economic stability, civil liberties and rights, the upholding of the constitution, legislature and the preservation of democratic values. Lovelies, all of them, BUT, again, were these things sitting pretty until November 2019? We can run through three to four decades, name parties, name individuals and name ideologies and policies that took potshots at one and all. So here’s the question: did these worthies utter a single word about those other transgressions?

The darlings are claiming that they did not favour anarchy, violence or empowerment of subversive elements who would deem to overthrow democratic values. Lovely. Let’s break it down.

Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Repeat after me. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values. Anarchy. Violence. Subversion. Democratic Values.

Throughout this aragalaya there were calls for and affirmation of anarchy. Sure, not all aragalists were anarchists in ideological bent or in action, but only the myopic and naive could dismiss the possibility that anarchy of the worst kind was festering and could very well erupt. Forget all that. Did these lovelies who are now in whine-land ever once say ‘hey, hey, hey…ease off guys’? Mirihana. Rambukkana. Warakapola. Temple Trees. Galle Face. President’s House. Ranil Wickremesinghe’s residence. Parliament. And let’s not forget the vandalism, arson, thuggery etc., that followed the unleashing of thugs from Temple Trees by forces beholden to or controlled at  that time Mahinda Rajapaksa. Who called for, who indeed demanded anarchy and violence? Who called for and demanded subversion, who indeed subverted? What were the democratic values affirmed by pillage, destruction of public property, arson and thuggery? Why this sorrow now, but not then? Is it ok to be selective about these things? Is it ok to just go along, look askance when unpleasant things happen until the process yields an outcome that is, well, ok? And if the outcome is ok for you but not for others, if those others continue to do what you called for, cheered, took part in perhaps or supported one way or another, do you have a moral right to object?  

Regardless of who started the fire (and it was certainly not lit in November 2019), if those who were mandated to quash it did not or could not, regardless of unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances (Covid-19, which by the way Gotabaya Rajapaksa did much to quash — efforts which were scoffed at by, I suspect, ‘these [very] people’: no cheers for all that by the way), then they can, do and even must come under fire, so to speak.

People were angry. People protested. Legit. People made demands that could not be delivered. That’s ok, for that is all legitimate in politics. Gotabaya could have come clear, said the unpalatable truths, expressed regret for errors despite good intention (let’s say), stated options being considered (if there were any) or simply said ‘there is a crisis of legitimacy, I agree, and therefore I believe that the democratic thing to do is to hold elections so the people can decide for themselves.’ He didn’t. Is that enough to call for his blood, though? If it was enough, then why didn’t ‘these people’ call for the blood of other who did much worse for so many decades?

Democracy. Let’s get back to the word/term. There are values associated with democracy and ‘these people’ have mentioned this. There’s also a thing called ‘representation.’ And so, sorry lady/ladies and/or gentleman/men, we need to unpack ‘the people’ a little, if you don’t mind.

How do we know what a collective really wants? How do we obtain the popular will? Well, elections. Sometimes there are mass uprisings. Mass uprisings can be orchestrated, particularly in times of hardship, but let’s assume that’s not what happened here, just for argument’s sake. So yes, there’s a mass uprising. What was it about? Well, it was reduced to evicting an elected president. There were some noises about system change, yes, but nothing to write home about.

And so you had ostensibly classless, religion-free, ethnicity-erased and even ideology-free people coming together. They even said it was a ‘nirpaakshika aragalaya’ or a struggle free of political parties. Now, they got what they wanted: Gota left. All well and good. Now what?  Struggle done and dusted? Victory achieved? Now that Gota has gone home, should everyone else also go home? But why should everyone go home? There was no agreement was there that if and when Gota does go home, everyone would pack up and go home themselves? Things evolve and even if they didn’t, there are people out there who are not necessarily ‘these people.’ They have political aspirations whose shelf life haven’t expired. There was no referendum on what ought to happen, after all. It was assumed that the entire country, the entire voting population wanted Gota out. Now, without a referendum, can anyone claims that the entire country wants the aragalaya to fold up and the aragalists to go home? That’s the problem of representation. No election, no way to verify anything like that. If some want to go home, sure. If others don’t, so be it. And those who left cannot tell those who didn’t ‘well, the kind of anarchy we cheered is no longer acceptable.’

Democracy. There’s more to it. ‘These people’ didn’t give a hoot about established democratic procedures and institutions until Gota left. They didn’t give a hoot about constitutionally sanctioned procedures. Now, all of a sudden, they are swearing by the very same institutions, values and processes they themselves were ever ready to subvert.

‘These people’ claim, ‘What’s happening now is NOT [THEIR] ARAGALAYA! So what happened before ‘no’ WAS their aragalaya? The arson, thuggery, looting, pillage and destruction of public and private property before July 9 WAS their kind of Aragalaya? And is it that THEIR aragalaya is done? Is Sri Lanka now ‘all set’? Is there no political crisis any more? Has the economic crisis been resolved?  

Let’s hypothetically fast-forward to, say, August 9, 2022. There are still long queues for petrol and diesel. There’s still galloping inflation. The constitution is intact (interesting fact: talk of repealing the 20th, restoring the 19th and so on seems to have disappeared). Presidential powers: intact. Sajith Premadasa is the President. There is no IMF bailout or there is and they’ve imposed conditions which exacerbate inequities and deprivation over and above ensuring chronic dependency and slavery. People are as or more anxious, fearful and incensed as they were in April, May, June and early July, 2022. The people storm the barricades. The people weather teargas, disregard water cannons, brush aside policemen and soldiers and aim to re-take President’s House, Temple Trees, Prime Minister’s office and the Presidential Secretariat. What would be the take of ‘these people’? Would they spur the aragalists to do what they’ve done in all these past few months? Would they say ‘go ahead and threaten politicians’? Would they, on social media platforms egg them on to search, ransack and burn houses? And if all that did happen, would ‘these people’ (as they did before) remain mum?

‘These people’ are not woolly-headed. They are not in cloud cuckoo land. They knew and know what they wanted/want. There are outcome preferences that have nothing to do with systems, systemic flaws and assaults on the rule of law, democratic institutions and values, and human rights.  

‘We the people.’ I would love it if anyone who has posted, re-posted or shared that note has the courage to put his/her name to it. Then, we can do a background check and figure out who is who and what is what. In the name of democracy, decency, transparency etc., etc., etc. How about it, ‘[the] people’?
 

RELATED ARTICLES: 

When the centre cannot hold...

Recipes for co-opting and subverting #peoplepower

#De-dollarize!

The international community, the opposition and 'the people'

The 'ada davase mahanakama'

#Aragalayaleft?

Personalities and systems

The 'aragalists' and the challenge of re-mapping Sri Lanka

Tomorrow, tomorrow and so forth...

A season of (il)legitimacies 

The brink and beyond

Spontaneity and its discontents 

ලෙයට ලෙය වෙනුවට ආලය

පුද්ගල චරිත මතුවේ, නිර්පාක්ෂික හැව ගැලැවේ, අරගලය ඉදිරියටම....

The BASL Proposals: A review

 

 

malindadocs@gmail.com

 

[Malinda Seneviratne is the Director/CEO of the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views.]

 

 

Read more