Brexit: long overdue!

The most asked question on Google in the year 2019, according to reports, is ‘Where is Sri Lanka?’ I am not sure who is looking for Sri Lanka or why. Maybe it has something to do with Sri Lanka being picked as the No 1 island to visit. Again, I am not sure who concluded this or why.  

Sri Lankans know where Sri Lanka is. Most Sri Lankans know what Sri Lanka is. Of course there are those who think Colombo is Sri Lanka and vice versa and who, consequently, don’t think that non-Colombots really count and therefore are often shocked at how politics unfold. That’s a different story. 

There are people from other countries who know where Sri Lanka is and have a rough idea that the island is not only about tea. The more discerning and aware know the island’s history, its strategic importance in the Indian Ocean and of course who plundered what and when.  Most, however, have only a cursory knowledge of the island. Arundathi Roy, for example. Gullible to the core, and yet sufferable in ways Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn are not.  

Boris and Jeremy, leaders of the Conservative and Labour Parties in the UK had many things to talk about in the run up to that country’s parliamentary elections. Usually, Sri Lankans are not really bothered about by such processes, not least of all because the result, either way, has little chance of changing the predatory and condescending attitudes and actions of the UK government(s) with respect to Sri Lanka. This time, however, both leaders mentioned Sri Lanka in the course of their respective campaigns.  

It’s not hard to understand. There’s a significant number of Tamils of Sri Lankan origin living in the UK who have the vote. Elections are about votes. Politicians woo voters. They are a promising lot. The aim to please. And so Boris and Corbyn had to say stuff that they believed was music to the ears of this relatively tiny segment of the voting population.  

A minor matter and it didn’t really count, but it nevertheless indicates stuff. Jeremy talked of genocide. That's a good thing. Britain know all about genocide, ethnic cleansing, cultural erasure and plunder. Boris wants to achieve ‘reconciliation, stability and justice.’ Across the world, he says. In current or former conflict zones, he says. Yeah, right!    

Those who get high on either Boris or Jeremy should relax. They are no different. The only good thing is that we have to deal with just one of them. As things turned out that would be Boris. 

Now Britain may have reconciled itself to forgetting the past and the present when it comes to horrendous excesses (yes, a mild word, that). However, if Britain wants justice, that’s good. Here’s stuff that Britain could do.

First. Return all the loot. Second. Compensate for genocide, torture, dispossession and for having flowered up a people via divide-n-rule. Third. LEAVE US ALONE!  

That country, folks, doesn’t know whether it is coming or going. It preaches democracy but is just another monarchy. It could never tell East from West and still believes the sun has not set on collective behind. It believes that it is a free country when it is in fact a client state of the United States of America. It is not sure if it is a part of Europe or if it is not. It pretends to be one country in the United Nations but when it comes to sports (like Rugby and Football) it ‘breaks’ into its constituent parts.

And they want to give us direction. Wait. I need to laugh for a good ten minutes over that!  

Alright. Done laughing. Seriously, folks, when you dig deep into all this, it is not funny. It’s gruesome. And it is unresolved. 

Sri Lanka is not the UK and not only because we haven’t really robbed other countries or stockpiled weapons. We don't do what they do. We don’t tell others what to do. We don’t insist they inhabit our version of their reality. We are not telling them to mind their own flowering business.  

Britain has its own tumors to deal with. That much is clear. Xenophobia. Terrorism. Chicken coming home to roost. That kind of thing. Perhaps the likes of Boris and Jeremy feel good about themselves by dissing countries like Sri Lanka. 

And we here they are fretting over something called ‘Brexit’. Britain + Exit, that is. The first time I heard that term, I remembered Nanda Malini’s catchy song in the ‘Pawana’ album, titled ‘Nidahas Baila’.  This is how Sunil Ariyaratne saw it: sudda yanna giyeth nae, nogihin hitiyeth nae. (The white man did not stay, and neither did he leave)!  

We’ve been waiting for Brexit for more than two centuries. And it’s not their fault alone. There are people among us who just don’t want them to leave. Maybe ‘Brexit’ is a Sri Lankan project. An unfettering. It might actually give a boost reconciliation, ensure stability and obtain justice simply because we won’t have rank idiots telling us who we are, what we are about and what we ought to do. 

This article was first published in the 'Sunday Morning' [December 15, 2019]

RELATED ARTICLES

Britain and post (sic) colonial skullduggery

If the Common-Welt is to be erased...

Returning facsimiles of loot does not compensate, sorry

malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com.

Read more

The flooring of ideologies and ideologues

Labour gaining ground. One in ten still undecided. Jeremy Corbyn is much closer to becoming Prime Minister than voters think, according to a Conservative party memo. Hung parliament will see Boris Johnson removed from No 10 Downing Street. Labour minority government likely. Opinion polls tightening — Corbyn might just become Prime Minister.

These were headlined claims in the run up to the British Parliamentary Elections. Change a few names and it is pretty much what did the rounds in Sri Lanka, especially among those who read, speak (and live?) ‘English’ a month ago.  Check the following ‘clips’ from the pro-Sajith twitterati masquerading as political commentators and political scientists (crystal gazing quacks if you ask me!).

Sajith has the late starter advantage. Easy win for Sajith in Gota-Sajith race. Sajith is gaining ground. Sajith is bridging the gap fast. A tight race. It’s too close to call. Sajith slowly pulling ahead as Gota fails to gain traction. A poll has shown that Premadasa currently would narrow the margin considerably against Rajapaksa. Second-preference will decide things since no one will get 50%+1. 

This is not exactly party propaganda posted by party-run websites and social media teams only to be liked and shared by party loyalists. No, we are not talking about career politicians such as those backing Sajith Premadasa or political activists like Shiral Laktilleka who until the very end maintained that Sajith could come through. Here’s a partial list of prophesy-pushers: Dayan Jayatilleka, Jayadeva Uyangoda, Victor Ivan, Harim Peiris and Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu.  Some of them, like Dayan, were openly campaigning for Sajith while others may have done so on the sly.  Some, like Kumar David didn’t exactly cheer Sajith, but waxed eloquent about the ‘real possibility’ of second-preferences coming into contention, indicating that he also believed in a close race. 

Now their UK Election counterparts weren’t exactly Sumanadasas either. So how does one explain the fact that they got it all wrong? Is it enough to say ‘outcome preferences compromised analytical rigor’? Is it enough to say ‘they started believing their own propaganda?’ 

Maybe they just had no clue.    

Many commentators, first and foremost, seemed to have read everything wrong. In 2015, they believed it was a battle between a clueless authoritarian Sinhala Buddhist nationalist crook and a coalition of good and competent guys who were peaceful, democratic, honest, tolerant and secularist. Come 2019, they believed (hoped, rather) that there would be a repeat. That belief/hope was predicated probably on that flawed reading of the 2015 result.  

It can’t be the case that people had been ‘converted’ from revolutionary (‘low-intensity’ as Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri put it) to counter-revolutionary if you want that kind of terminology in the course of less than five years. It has to be something else. It was not about the electorate suddenly becoming ultra-progressive (as per THEIR understanding of the word) between 2010 and 2015. Simply, people were tired of the regime, they were tired of the arrogance and more so than the perceived corruption. If that was not the case, the above pundits would find it hard to explain how Gota not only won the districts that Mahinda lost or won by margins much slimmer than those of 2010 but won them handsomely.

So they were shocked. Naturally. Perhaps they should try self-reflection and ask themselves if they unconsciously extrapolated personal preferences and convictions to the entire electorate or at least a significant section of it. 

In the UK (like in the USA), politics is dominated by the right wing. Yes, just like in Sri Lanka. Sure, the Democrats are ‘left’ but only in relation to the location of the Republicans on the Left-Right political continuum. Labour, in the UK, is ‘left’ but only in relation to the Conservatives. In terms of broader social, economic and political issues, both parties in both countries (yes, just like in Sri Lanka) are ‘right’. 

In Sri Lanka, ironically, ‘The Left’ or rather the so-called Left Intellectuals that ‘The Left’ has dwindled down have identified the UNP as the preferred refugee camp. Now if these individuals were serious about taking on capitalism and if ‘class’ was their top political priority, they wouldn’t go anywhere near the UNP. Some of course backed the JVP and painted themselves as supporting program rather than a ‘lesser evil’. But ‘lesser evil’ seems to be the perennial fall-back option for these people, both in Sri Lanka and the UK.  

Why is the Sri Lanka Podu Jana Peramuna (SLPP) or the Conservative party the ‘greater evil’? It’s not about capitalism or class struggle. Such things are no longer in their vocabulary. The left pretenders are simply reluctant to acknowledge the truth that such ideological concerns no longer excite them. They simply want to retain the label. So they pick what have been peripheral to traditional left politics: self-determination, minoritarianism, environmental issues, women’s rights, human rights, reconciliation, liberal democracy (as an interim political project), carbon-neutrality etc. 

And they must pick a political other. What’s easy? Well, ‘nationalism’ has always been the no-no for the Left. So it’s easy. They painted the Rajapaksas and the SLPP as ‘Sinhala Buddhist racists’ and happily sided with Sajith. But wait, read what Kumar David has to say about Sajith. Sajith’s mind, he paraphrases thus: ‘I will be as tough as Gota; mother Lanka is safe from separatist Tamils and terrorist Muslims in my custody.’ It was easy, one feels. If not wanting to side with a Rajapaksa was not reason enough, all they had to do was to move to where the nationalists were not.

Never mind all that. They needed to stand somewhere and they picked a default option, even though it meant they had to rub shoulders of Tamil racists and Muslim fundamentalists, not to mention of course champions of the ultra-right and out and out slaves of the global thugs led by the USA and UK . Interestingly, the same can be said of the ultra nationalists. It is not that Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the SLPP were in policy statement or rhetoric more nationalist than Sajith. Neither were they parroting the claims and aspirations of the nationalists. And yet, they were the lesser evil for the nationalists. It was easy, one feels. Just check where Mangala Samaraweera, Rauff Hakeem, Rishard Bathiudeen, M.A. Sumanthiran et al stand and pick the person opposed to them. 

What comes out of all this is that while there are ideologies and ideologues, they either don’t have a party they expresses the particular ideology or else don’t have the will to build such a political force. And so those who picked the winner have things to say about what and who were defeated while those who backed the loser talk about what and who won.  

This is not something that was peculiar to the recently held Presidential Election. It is a theory that can help explain the behavior of ‘ideologues’ of all kinds in every major election since 1965. That makes 54 years of default-option as far as those who are heavy on ideology are concerned. 

Interestingly, they make such a tiny minority that their effect is considerably smaller than their profiles (and egos). In other words, had the self-labeled Leftists chosen to spend all their time away from laptops and pocket meetings and instead used armchairs, the results would have not been very different in both 2015 and 2019 (and of course other elections). The same would go for the nationalists. 

Of course things are a bit different in Britain, considering Brexit, Johnson and deep-seated xenophobia coming out into the open, but one feels that electorate-temper has been as misread in that country as it was in Sri Lanka. Nevertheless, the commonalities of misreading, mis-extrapolation and missing the bus consequently are hard to deny.  

One thing is certain. The November 16, 2019 election showed up many political scientists and political commentators for being utterly inept. Perhaps it was a sobering experience and we might see more informed and perceptive missives from them in the future. I am not betting on it though. 

This article was first published in the Sunday Observer [December 15, 2019]

malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more

US-UK humbuggery notwithstanding, rascals must be reined in

Friends (after all) in Post-Coloniality 

A few days ago there was an uproar about a Swiss Embassy employee being abducted and questioned. Who did it and why are questions that are yet to be answered. If, as speedily assumed, the Government had a hand in it by way of security or other authorities using a political green light to bend or go around the law, it is indeed a serious matter. 

If the ‘abductors’ happened to be in the law enforcement or security establishment and operated on their own volition, then it is still serious. It would amount to an act of thuggery which certainly gives a boost to the negative portrayals of the new President that have emanated from the Western and pro-West media and of course foreign governments disappointed in the election results because their darlings were routed. It is also possible that the incident had nothing to do with government agencies and that there was no political involvement whatsoever. 

The truth has to be established. So far, despite a claim by the Swiss Embassy in Colombo that it had complained, there’s no record of such in the Police. The employee’s name is unknown. There are claims about people seeing it happen, but there are no witnesses.  Of course, the claim can be made that people are scared to come forward. Understandable on account of the insane fear-mongering indulged in by the very same who are raising cries of horror over this matter. But then again, if that is the case, surely the Swiss Embassy could facilitate the investigation by arranging for the alleged victims and alleged witnesses to be interviewed by the Police in the precincts of the Embassy itself?  

In any event, quick, comprehensive and conclusive investigation followed by action against perpetrators if perpetration is established will be to the advantage of the Government. Anything less will leave unanswered questions, make room for wild speculation and, going by past record, ululation by the usual suspects, the (I)NGOs, UN agencies and certain foreign missions. That’s something President Gotabaya Rajapaksa can do without right now. 

Alright. Let’s look at the larger picture, which might help us understand the hue and cry better. The press, especially those that operate as though they are the mouthpieces of Washington, vilified Gotabaya Rajapaksa no end. ‘Democracy is under threat,’ some ‘analysts’ warned, never mind that it was an ELECTION they were talking about. Gotabaya Rajapaksa was portrayed as some kind of thug, never mind that he’s not been found guilty of any wrongdoing (note: allegations are a dime a dozen and ‘framing’ an age-old tool, just like treating charge as guilt). 

And immediately after the results were announced, we had two major political parties in the United Kingdom trying to outdo each other in issuing warnings on Sri Lanka. Perhaps in their consciousness, Sri Lanka is still a colony, never mind the fact that for all intents and purposes the UK operates like a client state of the United States of America. 

The Labor Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn said, 'If the Sri Lankan government continues to reject key tenets of a UN Human Rights Council resolution on accountability then “clearly something has to be done in another direction.' How that ‘resolution’ came into being, we all know. Arm-twisting plus happy compliant by a government which was corrupt, incompetent and absolutely servile to the USA and UK, sealed that deal. And what’s ‘clearly something has to be done in another direction’? Is that a threat or a is that a threat? 

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and Conservative party leader Boris Johnson, said pretty much the same thing. The party’s manifesto promises ‘to  support international initiatives to achieve reconciliation, stability and justice’ in Sri Lanka. It notes, ‘From helping to end the slave trade to tackling modern slavery, the UK has long been a beacon of freedom and human rights – and will continue to be so. We are proud of our peace-building and humanitarian efforts around the world, particularly in war-torn or divided societies, and of our record in helping to reduce global poverty.’

Well! These statements come from a leader and would-be leader of a country that enslaved peoples, robbed nation, wrecked stability, had no notion whatsoever of justice and cared not a hoot for freedom or human rights. Sorry, that should be in the present tense.

The manuals for interrogation of prisoners used by the British military still contain torture. Securing markets, plundering resources are of greater import that ensuring there are no rights abuses. They’ve bombed or supported bombing by the world’s most rabid terrorist state, the USA, but they do it in the name of ‘democracy,’ and ‘world peace’! Forget all that. How about the Chagos Islands?

Corbyn has said that a government he leads would return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. That’s left to be seen. Officially, the UK has spurned a determination in the ICJ ordering the return of the Chagos Islands, ruling that ‘detachment of the Chagos archipelago in 1965 from Mauritius had not been based on a free and genuine expression of the people concerned. In fact Mauritius claims that the Chagos Islands constituted a price exacted for independence in 1965. 

Prime Minsiter of Mauritius, Pravind Jugnauth has not denied a report that Boris Johnson, when he was Foreign Secretary had called him personally to pressure Mauritius to back down on its demand that the islands be returned after decades under UK control. He claims that Mauritius was threatened with retaliation on issues of trade and investment.

The British Foreign Office maintains the following: ‘we have repeatedly undertaken to cede it to Mauritius when no longer required for defence purposes, and we maintain that commitment.’ Cede? That’s almost like saying ‘we will gift it to you’ and not ‘we will return it to you.’ Why should Britain ‘cede’ the Chagos Island? As for ‘defence purposes,’ who can ever predict a time frame for ‘unnecessary’? 

The Chagossians were evicted so the USA could set up a military base in Diego Garcia. Ah! The USA. Britain’s most trusted partner in multiple crimes such as plunder, destruction, assassination, genocide and ethnic cleansing! They have the worst track record when it comes to violation of human rights in the past 200 plus years. Shouldn't we be talking about 'doing something about these global thugs "in another direction"?'

What does the USA have to say about things that the likes of Corbyn and Johnson claim are almost articles of faith? Well, the US has threatened to arrest and sanction judges and other officials of the International Criminal Court if it moves to charge any American (of the USA) who served in Afghanistan with war crimes. White House National Security Advisor John Bolton said, ‘If the court comes after us, Israel or other US allies, we will not sit quietly.’ How about 'another direction' folks?

Reminds one of sauce, geese and ganders. 

Hypocrisy is the order of the day. Sorry, order of their days. That said, it should not be the order of our days. 

Sri Lanka hasn’t bombed nations into the middle ages, but our history, ancient and modern, is not without blemish. Equivalency is easiest game to play in countering allegations. We can say ‘Adey, you fellows don’t have the moral authority to pass judgment,’ but that’s a copout response. 

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has a responsibility to do things differently. He pledged a disciplined society. That discipline has to be articulated at every turn, by word and deed, by everyone in all state institutions. That alone will help obtain discipline by society at large. 

Extra-judicial is NOT the way to go. During the previous regime dozens of prisoners died in police stations. Sure, the US and UK embassies didn’t utter a word, but we know why — darlings look the other way when darlings do the dirty. When Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s brother was president too, there was much hanky-panky of the same kind. Investigations were slow and never concluded. Of course the US and UK were horrified and we know why — they typically come down hard on those who don’t toe the line, those they love to hate.  

US and UK preferences and machinations should not frame policy or implementation of policy. The people of this country want law and order. They want a better justice system. They want accountability. Sure, the Government can call out UK and US authorities for their humbuggery, but that’s just not enough. 

They’ll do their thing, but we need to do our things right. 

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more