Got you, Wiggy!

C.V. Wigneswaran, former judge and former Chief Minister, Northern Province, has made a humble request. Humble. Now that’s a nice word. Nicer still, coming from someone like Wigneswaran. [Ref: ‘My humble request to my Sinhala brethren, especially the Buddhists,’ in the website Colombotelegraph].

Now Wigneswaran, in a different lifetime almost, was a judge. Back then he would have heard of a term called presumption of innocence. He’s forgotten. Take for example his take on the travel ban on Army Commander Lt Gen Shavendra Silva or more precisely his glee at the same.

‘Shavendra Silve is a wanted man for war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide. What is wrong in congratulating any country for such Country recognizing his past activities as criminal,’ he asks. 

The first sentence is a lie. Maybe Wiggy wants Shavendra convicted as a war criminal, whether or not there’s evidence to that effect. Maybe that’s what inspired ‘wanted’ in his claim. To date, Shavendra Silva has not been convicted of such things. At best, it’s speculation and worst a wish born of revenge-intent for preferred outcomes not materializing or for the role played in annihilating Wiggy’s heroes, namely the LTTE.  In the next part, it’s not speculation. It’s statement of fact! Quick, that. Then he puts the onus on Shavendra to prove he is innocent, insisting that HE should go before a kangaroo court and be judged. Yes, a Kangaroo court because that’s what any inquiring body made up of or set up by the prejudiced would be.   

From speculation, he moves to fiction. Yes, the tired re-telling of Eelamist myth-mongering and treatment of myth as fact. No evidence whatsoever to support the theses offered. He talks of prehistory, he makes claims about who were there (in the Northern and Eastern provinces) and when. High on claim, dismal on evidence. ‘What a judge, WHAT a judge!’ did someone whisper?

What I found most interesting is the plea, the ‘humble request,’ which has phrased in quite a quaint manner.

Here goes: ‘My humble request of my Sinhala brethren especially the Buddhists is for them to ask the question why would a man of 80 years who had been in the forefront to establish a Congress of Religions while still a young lawyer, who had been speaking at Amity Meetings for a long time to bring about amity among communities and religions want to start a separatist movement in the North and East? I have no need to separate human beings on the basis of ethnicity nor religion. My interest is to bring amelioration to my people who have been suffering from around 1956 having lost their equality in that year. Sinhala chauvinism and Sinhala Buddhist hegemony have made our people lose hope and purpose in their life. Discrimination still goes on.’

Since he’s 80 years old, who has established something called a ‘Congress of Religions’ (for what purpose, we do not know), attended ‘Amity Meetings’ (whatever those meetings were about — we don’t know), he wants us to believe that he’s a goody goody two shoes.  The judge who was Wiggy’s previous avatar would have been aware of the term non sequitur, it does not follow. 

Other explanations are possible. He may be touting Tamil nationalism to remain politically relevant in a province which, under his watch, got nothing. Just as he was inspired to speak in glowing terms about Velupillai Prabhakaran and the LTTE. Maybe (who knows?) he’s suffering from a terrible angst that the community he belongs to doesn’t have a country recognized as such by, say, the United Nations. Maybe he’s living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Now, even if wasn’t always resident there. 

Maybe the amity meetings were about amity and that ‘congress’ was about, say, deep discussion on things religious and philosophical, but does that mean that it gives him some kind of moral right to talk and advocate nonsense? Do such things create a situation that everyone is supposed to believe that he cannot be wrong? Even if the motives at the time were noble, does it mean that the motivated (at that time) could not have diminished in terms of intellectual honesty, clarity of thought and such. The preposterous claims he makes most certainly makes one suspect that this, indeed, is what has happened. IF, that is, he was not playing a game all along or else having placed a certain game suddenly realized that a fictitious caste could be built on it. 

The problem is that the foundation of all this is not past co-existentialist behavior but the ideological and political positions he takes now.  That’s a base which is at best shaky. The edifice doesn’t stand. The man tosses out anecdotes from his limited and therefore limiting life experiences and extrapolates wildly. Just like his ‘prehistoric’ claims regarding the history of Tamils in Sri Lanka, Tamil who flippantly embraced Buddhism and re-embraced the Shaivaism. ‘Tamil’ Buddhism that did not produce any scholarship on that doctrine whatsoever, let us not forget. 

Wiggy, even now, wants us to believe he’s no separatist, he’s not communalist etc., etc., but is merely fighting for Tamil rights, but his rhetoric is full of fabricated narratives pertaining to the Northern and Eastern part of the country.

He appeals to the Sinhala Buddhists even as he vilifies them, not uttering one word about the massive tragedies that people like him brought upon his brethren, from Chelvanayakam to himself (well, maybe we should say ‘to M.A. Sumanthiran, give the devil his due and all that) through Appapillai Amirthalingam, not forgetting that blood-thirsty brute, Prabhakaran who abducted Tamil children, killed Tamil politicians, professionals and priests, held as hostage and starved hundreds of thousands of Tamil civilians. 

So yes, it’s not hard to get you, Wiggy. You’ve set it up nicely; your case, I mean. You speak of a decent enough history (although we really don’t know what you were up to in these organizations you refer to or what they were all about either), and demand that your innocence is agreed upon and that your claims taken as irrefutable truths. 

Yes. Got you, Wiggy. Loud and clear. 

This article was first published in the SUNDAY MORNING [March 1, 2020]

malindasenevi@gmail.com

RELATED ARTICLES

Wigneswaran and the puppeteering with ghosts

Wigneswaran, the judge who forgot 'the whole truth'

Read more

Let the Court of History summon all perception-peddlers

Dayan Jayatilleka is absolutely opposed to any move that goes beyond the 13th Amendment (in terms of power-devolution).  ‘Not even a single millimeter!’ is he ready to concede.  He adds a caveat: ‘even the implementation of the 13th amendment must be gradual and conditional on conduct.’

The ‘conduct’ element has been prompted by a recent speech by the Chief Minister of the Northern Provincial Council, C.V Wigneswaran, delivered in Jaffna to an audience that included some British parliamentarians and members of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. 

Percipere: seize, understand

In that speech, speaking on ‘reconciliation,’ Wigneswaran makes the pertinent point that it is ‘mind-oriented’ as opposed to reconstruction, which is physical.  Therefore, he argues, that one has to appreciate the role of perceptions.  Thereafter, he proceeded to list the relevant ‘percepts.’  Let us note, parenthetically, that the word ‘perception’ derives from the Latin ‘percipere’ which means seize or understand.  

Perspective, in the sense the word is used, is about regarding, understanding or interpreting something.  Objectivity is not assumed, naturally.  In other words, we are not talking about claims that can be or need to be substantiated. 

Anyway, Wigneswaran proceeded to lay out the percepts which, as per his own preamble, would permit others to dismiss as ‘sheer lunacy,’ given different perceptions (if we are to be generous to Wigneswaran).  Dayan has picked the appropriate Voltaire quote here: “if you believe absurdities you will commit atrocities”.   Appropriate because Wigneswaran is not calling for an audit of perceptions in terms of historical evidence (including, if he so wishes, community-glorifying literature, but certainly not limited to such ‘tracts’).  Appropriate, also, because he is essentially mimicking his predecessors in the line of Tamil chauvinists — drawing heavily from the politicizing script of tall tales, creations and/or exaggeration of grievances and the painting of myth and rank falsehood as truth and historical fact.  But let’s put all that as ‘perception’.

Wigneswaran’s exercise clearly and unabashedly is one of setting up preamble to the statement of objective, namely ‘federalism’.  This is how he puts it:

“The Sinhalese are allergic to the term federalism since the politicians of both communities have created the belief that federalism is separation or federalism leads to separation. Both ideas are incorrect. Federalism joins together disparate entities of people. This perception of the Sinhalese that Federalism is separation and/ or leads to separation has stood in the way of reconciliation.”

Now the above can be dismissed as ‘perception’ or can be countered by a painting of ‘Tamil (chauvinistic) beliefs’ and relevant ‘allergies’.  We can then demonstrate that Tamils and not Sinhalese have stood in the way of reconciliation.  But if we were to strip the federalist ‘imperative’ (couched inside a narrative about perceptions) of its racial frills, we have to contend with the issue of ‘disparate entities’.  That, of course, makes imperative a historical audit or a comprehensive assessment of all claims, ‘perceptions’ if you will.   It will, for example, force us to examine the ‘logic’ of provincial boundaries; i.e. whether or not they contain ‘historical communities’.  All of Wigneswaran’s claims (and of course the claims of other chauvinists, Tamils and also Sinhalese) would have to be ‘strained’ through such an audit to obtain something rational to frame reconciliation with.  

It is clear that Wigneswaran would not want this for if he did (because, say, he was actually convinced that his claims would stand the test of scrutiny with respect to historicity) he would have been the first to call for a historical audit.  Instead, he wriggles around it.  He says, quite pompously and self-righteously, “Lots of our Tamil leaders would shudder to say these truths (sic) for fear they would hurt the feelings of the Sinhalese,’ and adds, ‘by not informing the truth we are consolidating the wrong perceptions fed into the Sinhalese mind.’   

He would have to concede the equal pertinence of a perception along the following lines: ‘Tamil leaders would shudder to utter such preposterous claims for fear that they would be called out for lunacy.’  And this: ‘in truth Wigneswaran is consolidating the perception that Tamil chauvinists such as himself are not interested in reconciliation because they are not interested in eliciting the truth of history-claims.’

This brings us back to Dayan’s ‘conduct clause’.  If Wigneswaran (or anyone else) conducted him/herself in non-lunatic ways (let’s say), should the 13th Amendment be implemented?  The problem is that if we were to probe ‘conduct’ on the basis of lunacy (and there can be many strains to this malady) and the truth-value of history-claims, then we should begin with a review of the 13th Amendment itself by questioning its preamble which, we all know, was obtained from Tamil chauvinist narratives and not from the outcome of a historical audit. 

Of course there are grievances which were and still are real, but for the solution to be a map-based one, then lines have to have history-worth especially since the overall narrative is history-laden.  In any event, quite apart from history, the relevant geographic, demographic and economic elements need to be factored in.  The 13th clearly did nothing of the kind.  

My contention is that a sober laying out of facts would necessitate a review of the 13th Amendment.  Such sobriety would have to include a consideration of claims, tall or otherwise, uttered by the sober or by the lunatics.  Wigneswaran, as things stand, doesn’t seem to be interested.  He is not engaging with the Sinhalese.  He is not interested in the truth. Perceptions dressed up as biblical truth constitutes political bread and butter, one might conclude.  He can peddle absurdities because he can afford to do so.  

He can crank his fairy-tale machine and serve these to a naive audience of foreigners predisposed to a) believing minorities never lie and b) terrorists are actually freedom fighters if they are doing the killing in some other country.  He can do that because it costs him nothing.  He is no fool.  He knows what is what.  He is not interested in reconciliation. He would go with ‘atrocity’ if that’s what it takes to remain politically relevant.  

However, if anyone is truly serious about reconciliation (reconciliation peddlers please note!) then why should there not be a serious discussion about claims?  Why not call for it?  History, as I have argued frequently, ought to chair the reconciliation process if not for anything because (let’s humour him!) Wigneswaran is clamouring for it.  Let the man and his words stand trial before we talk ‘reconciliation’.  The issue of ‘conduct’ would no doubt be resolved in the process along with the the more important issue of conflicting claims (perceptions, if you will).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Wiggy missed a train

Wigneswaran and the resolve to hate

NPC resolution a threat and an opportunity

Let's listen to Wigneswaran

The quiet and shout of the racist label

President Sirisena has spoken (on Eelam myth mongering)!

The 'National Question' and the vague-speak of 'Tamil Moderates'

Wigneswaran and puppeteering with ghosts

Sinhala and Tamil traces in an island history

Wigneswaran: the judge who forgot 'the whole truth'

Read more

Wigneswaran: the judge who forgot ‘the whole truth’

"No reconciliation without justice," he says
but can there be justice without truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

A highly successful lawyer was once asked why he was not interested in becoming a judge.  He had laughed, ‘I would rather talk a load of rubbish all day than listen to a load of rubbish.’  Judges have to listen.  That’s their job.  And one of the things they have to listen to day in and day out throughout their careers is the oath taken by witnesses to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Whatever else they may have forgotten, this they must remember.  It is hard to believe that a Supreme Court judge could forget this basic element of judicial process, even if they know that those who swear thus don’t always tell the truth.  

C.V. WIgneswaran is not a judge.  He’s a politician.  He can, therefore, avail himself of that sad and pathetic instrument that the two-bit members of his tribe frequently use: political license (to toss around half-truths, gloss over fact, ignore context, play to the gallery etc).  But Wigneswaran used to be a judge.  He would remember things, for example the line about ‘truth’ referred to above.  Even if he had to listen to ‘such rubbish’ as a judge, being a judge he would be duty-bound and of course honor-bound to desist from indulging in the same.  

Last week, at the UNUR Economic Engagement Programme held in Tellipalai, Wigneswaran made some very valid points.  He is absolutely correct in some of his criticisms of the Peace Building Priority Plan Framework, or rather the preparation of it.  Participation of key stakeholders in all post-war development planning is non-negotiable and the failure to do this was a serious error on the part of the previous regime.  

As he correctly points out, it is still not too late for this government to put things right on this account.  Reconciliation demands the participation of those affected freely and dignifiedly, he says and he is absolutely correct.  Although the people he represents do not make up all the numbers of the category ’those affected,’ it is clear that they were among ‘the victims’ of a process which included the mindless brutality exerted on them by their self-appointed saviours, the LTTE (championed as such by Wigneswaran’s party, let us not forget).  These caveats are valid, but they do not constitute an argument for non-inclusion.  The non-mentioning of them, however, does not help his cause, because ‘truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ is part and parcel of ‘peace building’ or ‘reconciliation’ or whatever it is you want to call this process. 

Wigneswaran bemoans ‘the lack of reference to the inclusion of War Crimes jurisdiction into Law, demilitarization, High Security Zones, and security sector reforms,’ and the non-reiteration of ‘the need to withdraw the Prevention of Terrorism Act’.  He also complains that the framework has no reference to ‘war crimes accountability’.  

We do know that this government makes a lot of noise on all these subjects, but we do not know whether such matters were considered by those responsible for developing this framework.  Prioritizing is no easy matter, one has to concede.  What bites Wigneswaran does not necessarily have to bite others as well.   It makes sense, post-war, to be serious in word and deed about demilitarization and security sector reforms.  If anyone expects the government to toss ‘security’ into a policy dustbin that would be optimistic in most situations.  On the other hand, this government does act as though security is no longer a concern and this fact alone gives credence to Wigneswaran’s gripe.  

In any event, as an elected representative, he has every right to demand representation in any body which deliberates on matters that impact the people he represents.  No argument there.  The problem is that he does not seem to understand that one cannot indulge in Eelamist posturing, sing hosannas to terrorists and be selective in recollection of the past, and at the same time expect his proposals to be championed to the exclusion of all others.  

He makes some claims.  “Discrimination and a hegemonic attitude on the part of the Centre led to our initial disagreements and unpleasantness. It was the snowballing effect of such negative attitudes which led to violence. When violence was brought to an end with International help the means adopted at the tail end by our powers that be were dubious and brutal.”

That’s Wigneswaran’s version of what happened. 

There’s truth in it, but what he has said does not constitute the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  The land-grab intent, the deliberate positing of myth as history and fiction as fact, the exaggerations that accompanied all this, the easy inter-change of ‘grievance’ and ‘aspiration’ and such also contributed to the ‘snowballing effect’.  And it is not possible to blame snowball for all that the LTTE was and what it became.  

Wigneswaran wants ‘the diaspora’ to be included.  The logistical nightmare aside, why on earth should any government ‘include’ non-citizens.  If they still hold citizenship or have dual-citizenship, such inclusion as proposed by Wigneswaran has to be preceded by a stringent screening process for the simple reason that ‘the diaspora’ (in the monolithic sense the term is used by Tamil Nationalists) was an important cog of the principal obstacle to peace and reconciliation, namely the LTTE.  It would be a foolish government indeed that would ‘include’ such elements in any peace-building exercise. 

But where he errs more (which by the way is hard to pardon for reasons expressed above) is when it comes to ‘accountability’.  Wigneswaran, surprisingly, has treated the entire period of the war prior to ‘the last days’ as though not worthy of scrutiny.  This is strange since there were serious crimes committed by security forces in the early days of the war.   Those lives lost and the anguish caused as a result cannot be less important, surely?  

He focuses on ‘the concluding stages’.  He speaks of ‘attending to the psychological injuries caused by the war’ during this period and places the totality of blame for ‘brutality and extortion’ on ‘sections of the armed forces’.  This is where this ex-judge expunges the phrase  ‘the whole truth’ from the transcript.  

What was this ‘last stage’?  Let us detail it.  

In the last stage, the LTTE continued to do what the LTTE had always done.  Tamil children were abducted and forcibly recruited.  Guns were thrust in their hands and they were sent in to battle.  In the last stages the LTTE continued to plot acts of terrorism on civilian targets.  In the last stages the LTTE help hundreds of thousands of Tamils hostage.  In the last stages the LTTE prevented Tamil civilians who were forced to be part of its ‘human shield’ from fleeing to the relative safety of areas held by the security forces.  The LTTE shot at those attempting to flee. In those very same ‘last stages’.  In the last stages the LTTE sent children strapped with explosives which were then set off as they reached the ‘receiving points’ set up by the security forces, clearly with the intention of wrecking the process whereby civilians could get to safe areas.

The last stages constituted a massive and historic hostage rescue operation.  In the last stages, judge, your party went pleading to anyone who was willing to listen to prevail on the then government to provide free passage to the hostage-takers.  In the last stages the United States did its best to evacuate the hostages, possibly to ‘be free to fight another day’.  

Remove all these elements from ‘the last stage’ and it’s not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth that will be obtained.  Remove them all, and yes, ‘brutality’ becomes the preserve of those who carried out the rescue operation at great cost.  Remove all this and it will not be just those ‘sections’ of the armed forces who ought to be brought to justice for violating relevant laws, local and international, that will be punished, but the entire armed forces and every single citizen who stood for democracy over terrorism. 

The pity of it all is that by using this brush of selectivity and in indulging in truth-twist, it is Wigneswaran who is most guilty of the very error he accuses other of: sweeping things under the carpet.  The great pity of course is that this kind of concealment detracts from the most noble elements of his overall proposal.  Simply, he denies himself the right to be taken seriously.

RELATED ARTICLES

The Sinhala and Tamil traces of the island's history

Wigneswaran and the puppeteering with ghosts

The 'national question' and the vague-speak of Tamil 'moderates'

President Sirisena has spoken (on Eelamist myth-mongering)

The quiet and shout of the racist label

Let's listen to Wigneswaran

The NPC resolution is both a threat and an opportunity

Truth and justice are un-deferrable 

Resolving to hate

Why Wiggy missed a train

Wigneswaran's framework

Wigneswaran's double-speak and dilemmas

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Blog: malindawords.blogspot.com.  Twitter: malindasene

  

Read more

The Sinhala and Tamil traces in an island history

There’s the evil ghost of misrepresentation, the evil ghost of exaggeration, the evil ghost of painting fiction as fact and myth as history, the evil ghost of silence on demographic realities, the evil ghost of a flawed colonial map, and the evil ghost of bullying Sinhalese into thinking that submitting to Tamil chauvinism is equal to ‘a solution that satisfies all communities’.  

Any discussion on claims which contain words such as ‘traditional’ or ‘historical’ can make sense only if assertions are backed by fact and not myth.  They should be buttressed by a corpus of evidence that are coherent and wholesome, and are not marked by the errors of selectivity.  In an article where he sets himself the task of refuting an allegation that ‘the claim of traditional/historical homelands (of Tamils) is a load of balderdash, unsupported by any kind of evidence,’ (see ‘Wigneswaran and the puppeteering with ghosts') P Soma Palan (PSP hereafter) appears to have inadvertently reinforced my assertion (see his article ‘Claim of traditional homeland: not a load of balderdash’).

PSP dwells at length on the Vijaya Legend.  He calls it a myth and yet in a sleight of hand typical of Eelam myth-modelers and in contradiction of his own myth-claim insists that the real name is ‘Vijay’ or ‘Vijayan’ (a ‘Tamilization’ that has become ‘par for the course’ in creative Eelamist historiography).  The reference to Vijaya is taken from the Mahawamsa of Mahanama Thero in the 5th Century.  It is an epic narrative in Pali.  We cannot as yet take it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and we certainly cannot call it a total fabrication; the veracity of certain parts have been established by archaeological excavation and by corroboration via other texts while certain other parts remain unsubstantiated.  The Vijaya legend belongs to the latter kind.  

To make sense of it, it is useful to revisit the chronicler’s disclaimer.  Mahanama Thero observing that the narratives (in text or other form) of the ancients (those who came before) are at times overly lengthy, at times all too brief and at times repetitive, claimed that his was an exercise of eliminating error and laying it out for easier comprehension and for the delight (of the reader).  What was left out and what was added, we cannot be definite about as per available evidence.  For the historian it is a useful document that provides base-text and innumerable clues, nothing more and nothing less.  

PSL asks me a bunch of questions, all based on the assumption that I’ve bought the Vijaya Legend.  I have not.  The ‘refutation’ of the Vijaya Legend that PSP offers is that ‘no race is founded by an individual’.  This is absolutely correct, but he’s making too much of a symbol or a signifier.  It is not that Vijaya descended from nowhere and founded a race of sons and daughters who inter-married and had children of their own and multiplied.  What’s important is not the name, but the process.  

It is reasonable to assume that Vijaya was not the first (and certainly not the last) ‘prince’ who came to the island with an entourage and with a conquistador’s designs.  For the chronicler his arrival was clearly significant enough in terms of impact on political control to give it the privilege of ‘starting point’.  This does not mean that the island was uninhabited or only sparsely inhabited at the time.  Neither do we know for sure the ‘clan names’ if you will of the indigenous peoples.  We do know that a document compiled by a South Indian Buddhist monk in the 1st or 2nd Century CE titled ‘Seehalavattuppakara’ referring to a community by the name ‘Seehala’.  We know that there are references to various communities in early inscriptions but none in which a Tamil trace can be found.  There are no references to any Tamil community or even a non-Tamil Dravidian community or any community with any trace of “Tamils, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalees” that PSP claims inhabited the island ‘before Vijaya’s arrival’ (he seems to believe the ‘myth’!).   I would love to examine his sources on this.  The relevant cave inscriptions, by the way, are in Sinhala Prakrit.  If indeed this was a ‘Tamil Island’ as PSP claims and if it were Tamils who were converted to Buddhism, surely there would have been some references, some caves, a dozen or even one with South Indian ‘Brahmi’ characters?  None!  

More on language, later.  Let’s consider the ‘evidence’ that PSP offers.  Ravana! It’s a nice story and interestingly written, true, but it’s as much ‘legend’ as the VIjaya story if not more.  That was a story that was popularized elsewhere.  The place names that PSP refers to are of relatively recent origin, this side of the Gampola Period to be more precise and possibly explained by several waves of immigrants being allowed to settle in various parts of the island by the kings of the time which are interestingly the very same places where ‘ravana legends’ and ‘ravana place names’ exist!  That’s ‘history’; what PSP offers is conjecture.  No evidence.  

PSP likes to conflate terms.  Hindu, for him, indicates Tamil.  Non-Buddhist by implication has to be Hindu.  Of course the people who lived before the arrival of Arahat Mahinda had their own religious beliefs, some of which were quite possibly related to present day Hinduism.  The island was never isolated.  There have even been Buddhists too before Arahat Mahinda, as evidenced by begging bowls discovered in Anuradhapura dating back to pre-Mahindian times as well.  Texts such as the ‘Divyavadana’ believed to have been written in the 1st Century CE speak of Buddhist missions that arrived in the island from time to time, dating back to the time of the Buddha.  What’s pertinent is that there is little evidence to say that even if there was any Hindu trace in these cosmologies there is even less ‘Dravidian’ markings and nothing of ‘Tamil’.   

“The ancestral progenitors of present day Sinhalese are the converted Tamil Buddhists,” PSP claims.  So, did Tamils drop language, create a new language and transform into a different ‘ethnicity’ just because they converted to Buddhism (as claimed)?  Whatever date the name ‘Sinhala’ came to be identified with the vast majority of people in the island, what is clear is that there was a process involved and that if there indeed was any Tamil trace it was marginal.  If ‘Tamil’ was erased by racist ‘Sinhala’ chroniclers, it is indeed strange that of the 15-20 names given to the island by outsiders there is not one that has any Dravidian trace, leave alone a Tamil one.  

PSP is full of myth and legend.  In addition to the Ravana Legend, he says that the Kataragam temple (Tamilized as per his whims to ‘Kathiragamam’) existed around 13,000 BC.  He offers no evidence. What we do know is that he’s speaking of the Mesolithic Age, the time of hunters and gatherers who didn’t have any fixed abode.  “The existence of pre- Vijayan and pre-Buddhistic Hindu temples, millennia before the arrival of so-called Vijay and Arahat Mahinda, proves that the Tamils and other Dravidian Hindu races, was the majority population of Lanka,” he claims, but what’s this evidence?  PSP’s sources would make wonderful reading and I eagerly await them. 

PSP’s most ‘potent’ devise is language, or rather its corruption; more precisely the easy and utterly ahistorical mechanism of Tamilizing.  He says Devanampiyatissa was actually Devanambya Alwar Tissan (a Telugu Hindu, according to him).  He offers that the real name of Arahat Mahinda was Mahendra, which would make Emperor Ashoka a Tamil!  Claim is fine, but again, it has to be backed by evidence. 

The literature on this neat but pernicious exercise is extensive.  Ranamadu was made Iranamadu, Akkara Pattu became Akkaraipattu, Batakotte is now Vadukkoddai.  Nothing wrong in people twisting names for ease of tongue but to then confer some kind of historical first on oneself is cheap politics, nothing more.  

Naming whim as ‘history’ does not make it history; neither does painting fiction as fact.  PSP speaks of ‘over hundred Brahmi Rock inscriptions confirming the “Holy Yatra” made by several Saints, Sages, Munis and Yogis, including the Great Agastya, who came to the sacred Kataragama and worshipped Lord Murugan.   None of it, strangely, have been recorded.  I would love to read the sources, let me repeat. 

There are broadly two kinds of ‘brahmi characters’, those found in the Northern part of what’s now India and those found in the South.  There are some ‘Southern’ characters in inscriptions found on this island, but they are very rare an are greatly overwhelmed by the northern forms or rather forms that can be said to have some relation to characters that are found in the northern part of the subcontinent.  The existence of southern forms at best indicates what is not denied — interaction across the straits; but to extrapolate such existence to a significant and indeed a majority Tamil community without explaining the predominance of non-Southern forms is mischievous.  If you want to assume a script because of a single or a few characters, then what do you make of the other characters that outnumber your ‘Tamil (sic)’ characters by quite a margin?  I would call it clinging to straws.   The myth that Sinhala was based on ‘Tamil Alphabetics’ has been comprehensively debunked, PSP is probably not aware.  

In any event, what happened to the Tamils that he claims were the dominant population of this island?  PSP speaks of ‘Tamil Buddhists’.  Of course there may have been Tamil Buddhists, but Buddhism is a doctrine, a philosophy and for some a religion, and one that has been embraced by people speaking many, many languages.  Embracing a doctrine does not mean one has to abandon one’s language, surely? Where are the Tamil Buddhist texts, on stone or parchment?  If they were so dominant, why didn’t we see a Tamil script evolving in this island, i.e. one drawing heavily from the Southern Brahmi characters? 

So, sorry PSP, “the architectural, epigraphical (Brahmi rock inscriptions) and literary and place names etc,” do not “establish any pre- historic population consisted of Hindu Dravidians in this island”.  The ‘Sinhalese’ as such must have been quite a race to convince others to abandon their language and be reticent in bed while they (the Sinhalese) orchestrated natural population increase.   

With respect to the issue of numbers and percentages, PSP takes us through the myths dealt with above, but carefully refuses to address the issue of the here-and-now — that pernicious fudging of the multi-ethnic-multi-religious narrative where proportions are absent(ed).  Even if we cite ‘war’ and ‘economic push and pull’ to explain why almost half the Tamils live outside the ‘historical homeland’ the overall percentages tell a story and one of land-grab intent by extreme elements of an otherwise highly civilized community.  PSP has perhaps forgotten that the Tamil narrative, as Rajeewa Jayaweera points out, has so far been about discrimination and genocide outside the North and East, a claim that is refuted by PSP's explanation of 'job opportunities and security' for Tamils preferring to leave the traditional-homelands (so-called)!   

Toss in the absence of history and we are left without ‘traditional’ and ‘historical’ with respect to ‘homeland’.  We don’t even have to comment on the (irr)rationality or rather the arbitrariness of the British in drawing provincial boundaries.  Suffice to say that PSP's claim that 'there was never a centralized Lanka' is old hat, and a hat full of holes one might add, considering the reigns of several kings, better known among whom are Dutugemunu, Parakramabahu I and Mahasen, as Rajeewa point out.

I hoped that some Eelamist ‘historian’ would come out with some facts.  Instead, PSP, possibly a well-meaning Sri Lankan who wishes the best for all Sri Lankans, has arrived with a thin portfolio but one filled with more myths and legends and questions obtained from such things.  I must say I am disappointed. 

*A slightly shorter version of this article was published in the Daily Mirror on February 23, 2017.

Read also:

Grievances and resolution: the question of true dimensions

Let's make Sampanthan's New Year wish come true

Cheating Sinhalese through proposal and Tamils through outcome

Death by obfuscation: the prerogatives of the federalist lobby

The management of insecurities

Read more

Wigneswaran and the puppeteering with ghosts

Sports Minister Dayasiri Jayasekara’s recent comments on Northern Province Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran contained valid observations, old news delivered as though it was new, half-truths and some uncalled for insults.  Wigneswaran’s response was, in contrast, quite sober though not unproblematic.  

In Jayasekera’s opinion, Wigneswaran is ‘nothing but a bhoothya’.   An evil ghost instigating disharmony between the Sinhalese and Tamils, to be precise.  He took issue with what he considers racist remarks by Wigneswaran which, he claims, is making it difficult for the Government to sell the idea of devolution to the Sinhalese.  He also said that Wigneswaran is cosy with the LTTE (meaning probably what’s left of it and of course its sympathizers) and ‘NGOs’.  

It’s a strange statement for several reasons.  The TNA was the principle apologist for the LTTE in the democratic political space.  Wigneswaran is a member of that political coalition.  Jayasekara is not making any startling revelations, therefore.  The comment on NGOs is vague.  It’s a silly generalization.  There’s nothing wrong with NGOs per se; you’ve got to name names and explain what’s so pernicious about them that warrants a reference that sounds dismissive.  However, it’s the question of ethnic harmony that’s problematic.  

Jayasekera, on the one hand says, ‘he (Wigneswaran) is trying to convey a message to the international community, saying that power devolution is not an option for Sri Lanka because of the Sinhala people’.  In other words, Wigneswaran contends that the Sinhalese are opposed to power devolution.  Jayasekera then acknowledges that the idea of devolution has not been embraced by the Sinhalese.  In other words, it has to be sold to the Sinhalese.  He is in fact endorsing Wigneswaran’s position and ironically also  the position of devolution-fixated NGOs, but contends that Wigneswaran’s racism is scuttling well-meaning efforts.  So, in effect, the two are on the same page with regard to devolution, but are at odds when it comes to the best way to get to destinations they both prefer.  

Wigneswaran, for his part, has said that the ‘Tamil people’s issues’ cannot be solved by chasing him away.  He claimed that even if he was ‘banished’ his successor would say the same thing.  He adds the reason, ‘as we always speak the truth’.  

He is correct.  Absolutely.  On this issue, let me qualify.  What is ‘this issue’?  Let’s discuss it.

The issue is that the Sinhalese are opposed not to devolution per se but to the kind of devolution that Tamil chauvinists have been touting for almost a century now, beginning with Ponnambalam Ramanathan’s communalism, G.G. Ponnambalam’s 50-50, the Batakotte Resolution, the Thimpu Principles and the various other separatist proposals, either in the form of Eelam or those following the Chelvanayagam Principle (a little now, more later).  

The ‘Tamil issue’ won’t go away as long as Tamil politicians consider it their political bread and butter to whip up communalism even to the point of conflating politically aspirations so grand that they are politically inexpedient.   Wigneswaran’s predecessors talked that talk, he talks it, and his successors will continue to talk it as long as it serves narrow political objectives.   To such proposals, the Sinhalese will object, this is true.  Wigneswaran is correct.  When he says ‘the Sinhalese are not interested in devolution,’ he is correct.  The Sinhalese have no reason whatsoever to agree to the kind of devolution that Wigneswaran proposes, his predecessors have proposed and his political/ideological successors would in all probability propose.  

And why should they?

There’s absolutely nothing in all the Tamil ‘grievances’ pertaining to discrimination that cannot be resolved in ways other than devolution of power.  The claim of traditional/historical homelands is a load of balderdash, unsupported by any kind of evidence.  There are no archaeological props, there’s no subaltern history and even the literary kind of ‘evidence’ is at best weak and easily debunked.  But we need not go into all that.  Just the fact that the ‘Tamil Homeland Map’ is essentially a pick off a set of lines arbitrarily drawn by the British is enough to pinch that part of the ‘truth-claim’ which the likes of Wigneswaran trot out now and again.  Add the fact that they blur the truth with ‘multi-ethnic’ talk but indulge in navel and toe gazing when asked about numbers and percentages and it’s actually pretty sad.  Throw in the fact that almost half the Tamil population live outside the ‘homelands’ and the bottom falls out of the argument.  ‘Issues’ are reduced to slow implementation of the Language Act, nothing more and nothing less.  Want to tell the Sinhalese that you need devolution to sort out that little tumor and you are bound to run into ‘Are you kidding?’  

The uncomfortable truth that confronts Jayasekara and others touting devolution along Eelamist lines is not that they are getting tripped by the racist statements issued by the likes of Wigmeswaran but the sheer mismatch between grievance and solution.  

Sure there are ghosts.  Evil ones.  There’s the evil ghost of misrepresentation, the evil ghost of exaggeration, the evil ghost of painting fiction as fact and myth as history, the evil ghost of silence on demographic realities, the evil ghost of a flawed colonial map, and the evil ghost of bullying Sinhalese into thinking that submitting to Tamil chauvinism is equal to ‘a solution that satisfies all communities’.  

Too many ghosts.  Way too many.  No wonder people are not buying it.   Wigneswaran is not a ghost.  He’s a politician who, like his predecessors, is puppeteering with such specters.  Jayasekara seems to have been mesmerized.  The principle ‘issue’ of both is that it’s a very hard sell as far as the Sinhalese are concerned.  It serves Wigneswaran’s political purposes, but wrecks Jayasekara’s.  That’s why the latter rants and the former is smug.   

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene.  \

Read more

ඊළමේ කයිවාරු රේඛා සහ බලය බෙදීමේ කෝලම

දුක්ගැනවිලි ඇත.  හැමෝටම.  අභිලාෂයන්ද ඇත. හැමෝටම.  අභිලාෂයන් නිර්මාණය කිරීම ධනවාදයේ අනිවාර්යයකි.  අභිලාෂයන් වැළඳගත් අය සටනට කැඳවීම දේශපාලනිකය.  සුලබය.  දුක්ගැනවිලි ප්‍රසාරණය කිරීමද, ප්‍රසාරණය කරන ලද දුක්ගැනවිලි වලට අභිලාෂයන් හා කිරීමද දේශපාලනික ය. සුලබය.  මෙසේ දුක්ගැනවිලි ප්‍රසාරණය කල නිසා හෝ ඒවා අභිලාෂයන්ට හා කිරීම දුක්ගැනවිලි වල සැබෑ දිග පළල ගැඹුර නොසෙවීමට හේතුවක් නොවේ.  ඒවා නොවිසඳීම ට ද හේතුවක් නොවේ.  කණගාටුවට කාරණය වන්නේ ආලේප සැරසිලි හේතුවෙන් ප්‍රශ්ණය වෙන අතකට අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම හැරීම යි.  දෙමළ නිජබිම් කතාව ආලේපයකි, සැරසිල්ලකි, සැබෑ ප්‍රශ්නය නොවිසඳෙන තැන ට ඇද දමන.  එබැවින්ම ඒ ආලේප සහ සැරසිලි වලින් සැබෑ දුක්ගලවිල්ල මුදවා ගැනීම අනිවාර්යයක් වේ.  ඉතින් අපි ආලේප සහ සැරසිලි ගැන කතා කරමු.

ඓතිහාසික/සම්ප්‍රදායික නිජබිම් ගැන ඊලාම්වාදීන් මෙන්ම ෆෙඩරල් වාදීන් ඇතුළු විවිධාකාර (බලය) බෙදුම්වාදීන් අඩි හප්පද්දී ඔවුන් හිතා මතා කතිකාවෙන් ඉවත් කරන කරුණු කිහිපයක් සඳහන් කිරීමේ පුරුද්දක් මට ඇත.  දෙමළ ජාතිවාදීන් ගේ ඊළාම් සිතියම පදනම් වන්නේ වත්මන් පළාත් සිතියම මත ය.  එම පළාත් එකිනෙකින් වෙන් කරන රේඛා ඇන්දේ බ්‍රිතාන්‍ය අධිරාජ්‍යවාදීන්.  සුද්දෝ.  ඊළම වේවා, 13 වන සංශෝධනයට එහා ගිය බලය බෙදීමක් වේවා (ෆෙඩරල් සිට ඊළම දක්වා), කතන්දරයට අදාළ ඉරි ඇන්දේ සුද්දෝ මිස දෙමළ ජාතිකවාදීන් නොවේ.  දෙමළ ජාතිකවාදයට එවන් ඉරි ඇඳීමට පාදක කර ගත හැකි කිසිඳු ඓතිහාසික මූලාශ්‍රයක් නැත. අඩුම තරමේ දෙමළ ජාතිකවාදයේ දුප්පත්කම කියාපාන සහ එය එදා සිට පෝෂණය හිඟා කෑ දමිළ බසින් ලියවුන ප්‍රබන්ධ සාහිත්‍යයේ වත් එවන් සාධක නැත.  සිංහලයාට නැති දමිලයාට ඇති 'වඩා පැරණි' ඉතිහාසයක් ගැන විග්නේශ්වරන් වැන්නන් පුරසාරම් දෙඩුවත් ඔවුන්ගේ සිහින දේශයේ 'දේශ සීමා' ඇඳ ඇත්තේ සුද්දෝ.  ඒ 1890 වර්ෂයේ.  [සැ.යු:  ඊලාම්වාදීන් වයඹින් ද කොටසක් තම 'සිතියමට' එකතු කල බව සැබෑය, එහෙත් 'උතුරු-නැගෙනහිර' කතාවට එය අවශේෂ වේ.]

සුද්දෝ එම රේඛා ඇඳීමට ඓතිහාසික මූලාශ්‍රයන් භාවිතා කර ඇති බවට කිසිඳු සාක්ෂියක් නැත.  පරිපාලන පහසුව සඳහා හිතුමතේට කොළ කෑල්ලක ඉරි ඇඳ නැති ප්‍රශ්ණ ඇති කිරීමේ කලාව ප්‍රගුණ කර තිබු සුද්දෝ කියන්නේ මේ රටේ සම්පත් මංකොල්ල කෑ, වෙහෙර විහාර දාගැබ් මෙන්ම හින්දු කෝවිල් කඩා බිඳ දැමූ, ගම් නියම් ගම් වලට ගිනි තැබූ, සිංහල ජනතාව සමූලඝාතනය කල (දැන් කාලේ එවැනි ක්‍රියාවන්ට කියන්නේ 'වාර්ගික ශුද්ධය' කියා ය), මේ රටේ සංස්කෘතිය විනාශ කිරීමට අසීමිත (මුත් අසාර්ථක) ප්‍රයත්නයක යෙදුනු ම්ලේච්ච්ඡ ජන වර්ගයකි.  (මේවා  අමතක වී ඇති හීනමානකාරයින් බොහෝ සිටින බැවින් කිව යුතු දෙයකි මෙය).   අඩුම තරමින් භූගෝලීය හෝ වෙනත් විද්‍යාත්මක සාධකයන් සලකමින් පළාත් වෙන් කිරීමටවත් ඔවුනට විනයක්, දැනුමක් හෝ උවමනාවක් තිබුනේ නැත.   ඉතිහාසයකට නෑකම් කිව හැකි රේඛා නැති බැවින් ඇත්තේ 'තක්කඩි ඉරි' පමණි.  බෙදුම්වාදීන්ට වැරදුනේ මෙතැනයි.  අබවින් 1890 ට පෙර දේශසීමා සහිත රටක ඉතිහාසයක් ගැන ඔවුනට කතා කල නොහැක.

දෙමළ ජාතිකවාදීන් ප්‍රධාන වශයෙන් කාරනා දෙකක් මතු කරති.  එක, දුක්ගැනවිලි.  දුක්ගැනවිලි ප්‍රසාරණය කලද බලය බෙදා විසඳීමට තරම් ප්‍රශ්නයක් නගන්න නොහැකි නිසාදෝ දමළ ජාතිකවාදීන් 'අභිලාෂයන්' ගැනද කතා කරති.   තේරුම් ගැනීමට අපහසු නැති, සාමාන්‍ය දේශපාලන කරුණකි මෙය.  බොරුව, වංචාව සහ තර්ජනය ඇතුළු තමන් සතු සම්පත් තමන් ගේ (එනම් සමූහයේ නොව, මෙවැනි කෛකතන්දර ගොතා දේශපාලනිකව ගොඩ යෑමට උත්සහා කරන පුද්ගලයින් ගේ) අරමුණු සාක්ෂාත් කිරීම උදෙසා යෙදවීම දෙමළ ප්‍රජාවට සුවිශේෂ වූ ක්‍රමවේදයක් ම නොවේ.  අවුල ඇත්තේ මෙවන් සැලසුම් වලට සුජාත භාවයක් ලබා ගැනීමට උත්සහා කිරීම යි.

මෙහෙම හිතමු.  නිජබිම් යැයි කියාගන්න ප්‍රදේශවල වෙසෙන දමිළ ජනගහනය (සමස්ත ජනගහනයෙන් ප්‍රතිශතයක් ලෙස ගත කල) ට සමාන ජනගනයක් ඇති ජනවර්ගයක් ගැන සිතමු.  එම ජනවර්ගය නියෝජනය කරනවා යැයි කියන ජාතිකවාදීන්ටද කයිවාරුව ඔප්පු කරගන්නට නොහැකි යැයි සිතමු.  ඔවුන්ද දුක්ගැනවිල්ල ට අභිලාෂයන් පටලවා, දෙකම ප්‍රසාරණය කර, ඉල්ලීම් තර්ජන දක්වාද තර්ජන ත්‍රස්තවාදය දක්වාද තල්ලු කලේ යැයි සිතමු.  මේ සියලු තත්ත්වයන් සමග 'වෙනම රටක්' ඉල්ලන තවත් ජනවර්ගයක් මේ ලොව තිබේද?  නැත.  උරුමකම් නැතිව ඉඩම් අල්ලන එකම එක කණ්ඩායමක් ඇත.  ඒඅධිරාජ්‍යවාදීන්.  'දෙමළාගේ ප්‍රශ්ණය' මේ අනුව ඉතා සරල වේ:  ඉල්ලීම සාධාරණය කිරීමේ දුෂ්කර කමේ ප්‍රශ්ණයයි .

ඊළඟ කාරණය 'දේශ සීමා' වේ.  ඊළාම් සිතියම ඇන්දේ කවුරුන් දැයි නොදනිමි එහෙත් එවන් සිතියමක් ඇත.  ඒ සඳහා පාදක වූ ඉතිහාසය කුමක් ද?  දෙමළ ජාතිකවාදී බේගල් වල දේශසීමා ගැන ඓතිහාසික කරුණු නැත්තේ ඇයි?

සී.වී.විග්නේශ්වරන් නම් කියන්නේ දෙමළ ඉතිහාසය (මේ දිවයින තුල) සිංහලයාගේ ඉතිහාසයට වඩා පැරණි බවයි.  පුදුම හිතෙනවා මට නම් මේ 'ඉතා පැරණි' ඉතිහාසය තුල දෙමළ සලකුණු අල්ප වීම ගැන.  කෝ ඒ ඉතිහාසය කියාපාන ඉතිහාස ග්‍රන්ථ?  කෝ නටඹුන්?  උතුරේ සහ නැගෙනහිර ඇති බෞද්ධ නටඹුන් 'දෙමළ බුද්ධාගම' කට සාක්ෂි දරනවා යැයි තර්ක කරන අය ට 'එහෙනම් කෝ දෙමළ බසින් ලියවුන බෞද්ධ ග්‍රන්ථ?' ප්‍රශ්නයට උත්තර දෙන්න බැරි ඇයි?  මේ සියල්ල ට වඩා වැදගත් වන්නේ 'කෝ ඉරි කෑලි?' යන ප්‍රශ්නයයි, මන්ද ඉරි කෑලි නොමැති නම්, 'දේශයකට' සීමා තිබිය නොහැකි නිසා.

මේ රටේ පළාත් නවයක් ඇත.  මේ 'බෙදීම' ප්‍රධාන වශයෙන් පරිපාලන පහසුව සඳහා විය.  වික්ටෝරිය රැජිණ ගේ පාලන සමයේ සිදු කර එකකි එය.  එනම් 1890 දී. එතෙක් රට පළාත් පහකට බෙදී තිබිණ.  ඒ 1833 සිට (සිව් වන විලියම් රජ සමයේ).  ඊටත් පෙර බෙදී තිබුනේ රුහුණු, මායා සහ පිහිටි යනුවෙනි.  'තුන් සිංහලේ' වුයේ මෙයයි (සැ.යු. මෙහිදී 'සිංහලේ' යනු සිව්+හෙළ හි බිඳීමකි, එනම් යක්ෂ, රාක්ෂ, නාග සහ දේව යන හෙළයට අයත් කණ්ඩායම් සතරෙහි එකතුවකි එය).  ඉතින් අර විග්නේශ්වරන් කියන ඉතා දීර්ඝ වූ ඉතිහාසයට අදාළ සිතියම් ඇත්තේ කොහෙද?  දේශපාලන වාසි සඳහා ඉඳ හිට වනන ඊළාම් ධජයේ ඇඳ ඇති සිතියමේ ඉරි කෑලි මොන මූලාශ්‍රයන් පදනම් ව නිර්මාණය කල ඒවාද?  විග්නේශ්වරන් මෙන්ම දෙමළ ජාතිකවාදය දෙසා බාන මිත්‍යාවන් මිත්‍යාවන් බව දැන දැනත් ආසාවෙන් ගිල දමා නැවත නැවත වමාරන බලය-බෙදීමේ ප්‍රේමවන්තයින් ද සාමාන්‍යයෙන් මෙවැනි ප්‍රශ්ණ වලට පිළිතුරු සපයන්නේ නැත.

එහෙත් දැන් නම් මග හරින්නට අසීරු වී ඇත, මන්ද ප්‍රශ්නය අසන්නේ ජනාධිපති තුමා බැවින්.  ජනාධිපති තුමා අදාල පාලකයාගේ නම වැරැද්ද ගත් බව සත්‍යයකි (ඔහු පැවසුවේ රට පළාත් නවයකට බෙදුවේ ජෝර්ජ් රජුගේ සමයේ බවයි).  ඒත් වැදගත්වන්නේ වර්ෂයයි.  1890.  විග්නේශ්වරන් ගේ 'ඈත අතීතයේ' නොවේ 1890 පිහිටා ඇත්තේ.  එකයි අවුල.  විග්නේශ්වරන් තවත් එක බලකාමියෙකි.  ඔහුව අමතක කරමු.  වැදගත් වන්නේ වසර සහ ඉරි කෑලි ය.  වැදගත් වන්නේ ඉරි කෑලි ප්‍රශ්නය මතු කරන්නේ යහපාලන ජනපති බවයි.  ප්‍රධාන පක්ෂ දෙකෙහිම නායකයින් මෙන්ම ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණ ප්‍රධාන වාමාංශික යැයි කියාගන්න පක්ෂයන්හිද නායකයින් මග හැර ඇති කාරණය සිරිසේන ජනපති තුමා මතු කර ඇත.  මේ ගැන බලය-බෙදීමට ලොල් ඊනියා බුද්ධිමතුන්, වාමාංශිකයින් සහ එන්ජීයෝ කාරයින් කිසිවක් නොකියන්නේ ඇයි?  ඉන්දියාවට කියන්න දෙයක් තියේද? එතකොට එරික් සෝල්හයිම් ලා මොනවා කියයිද?  බ්‍රිතාන්‍ය මහා කොමසාරිස් කාර්යාලයෙන් නිවේදනයක් නිකුත් වේ ද?

ඉරි කෑලි කතාවෙන් ඊලාම් වාදය මෙන් ම "ජනවාර්ගික පදනම්" මත බලය බෙදීමේ බලවේගයන් ද කුජීත වී ඇත.  ඉතිරි ව ඇත්තේ ප්‍රබන්ධ පමණි.  ඒවා ඔස්සේ බලය බෙදීම යනු තක්කඩි කමකි.  එසේ නොමැති නම් ඉඩම් මංකොල්ලයකට පිඹුරුපත් සැකසීමකි.

ඉතින් අප නැවත මෙසේ කියා සිටිමු.  දුක්ගැනවිලි ඇත.  හැමෝටම.  අභිලාෂයන්ද ඇත. හැමෝටම.  අභිලාෂයන් නිර්මාණය කිරීම ධනවාදයේ අනිවාර්යයකි.  අභිලාෂයන් වැළඳගත් අය සටනට කැඳවීම දේශපාලනිකය.  සුලබය.  දුක්ගැනවිලි ප්‍රසාරණය කිරීමද, ප්‍රසාරණය කරන ලද දුක්ගැනවිලි වලට අභිලාෂයන් හා කිරීමද දේශපාලනික ය. සුලබය.  මෙසේ දුක්ගැනවිලි ප්‍රසාරණය කල නිසා හෝ ඒවා අභිලාෂයන්ට හා කිරීම දුක්ගැනවිලි වල සැබෑ දිග පළල ගැඹුර නොසෙවීමට හේතුවක් නොවේ.  ඒවා නොවිසන්දීමට ද හේතුවක් නොවේ.  කණගාටුවට කාරණය වන්නේ ආලේප සැරසිලි හේතුවෙන් ප්‍රශ්ණය වෙන අතකට අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම හැරීම යි.  එබැවින්ම ඒ ආලේප සහ සැරසිලි වලින් සැබෑ දුක්ගලවිල්ල මුදවා ගැනීම අනිවාර්යයක් වේ.  දෙමළ නිජබිම් කතාව ආලේපයකි, සැරසිල්ලකි, සැබෑ ප්‍රශ්නය නොවිසඳෙන තැන ට ඇද දමන.  

Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more