Avuncular Fonseka betrays his “nephews” – Dayan and Malinda

"Implied in this partisan theory is the assumption that only minorities have rights and the duty of the majority is to give into anything they demands in the name of rights. This denies the majority in ex-colonies to claim their rights suppressed for centuries under the divide and rule policies of imperialists who favoured the minorities to keep the majority in check."
__________________

By H. L. D. Mahindapala

(July 17, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) What prompted me to step into this debate between Dayan Jayatilleke and Malinda Seneviratne is the intervention of Prof. Carlo Fonseka whose lumpen-Marxist genes have suddenly energized him to regurgitate the myths of post-independence politics expounded so passionately by his gurus in the failed Trotskyite movement. My intention is not to confront either of the two heavyweights clashing head-on but to take on the fallacies and the contradictions of Marxist Fonseka who unashamedly supports the most extreme tribalism of the mono-ethnic Jaffna jingoists while complaining bitterly about the “tribalism” of the Sinhala-Buddhists – his bete noir.

Early in his piece he expresses his “avuncular fondness” for both Dayan and Malinda. But before long “Uncle Fonnie” drops his proclaimed fondness for Malinda all because he argues against the “tribalism” of the Jaffna jingoists. Predictably, “Uncle Fonnie” extends his fondness mainly to those who adhere to his six “sopho-moronic” lectures denigrating the Mahavamsa and its traditions, (fortunately Dayan is not one of them) which was published by World Institute for Development Economics Research, (WIDER) a UN research centre based in Helsinki. Like all those in the NGO bandwagon “Uncle Fonnie” earned a packet in Helsinki large enough to build a palatial house in Sri Lanka. On this issue of his six essays, which he considers to be his magnum opus, he might take cover behind President Premadasa acknowledging receipt of his book with a perfunctory note of appreciation. My guess is that it must have been the work of Bradman Weerakoon, the then secretary of President Premadasa, who has been an obedient factotum of NGOs.

In any case, what President Premadasa did not know at the time was that Prof. Fonseka was financed by Lal Jayawardena who channeled funds of WIDER to his cronies. He ended his career as Director of WIDER under a cloud after the Helsinki media exposed his expensive life-style and his financing of useless projects. As every NGO hack knows there is money in bashing the Sinhala-Buddhists and Lal Jayawardena and his wife Kumari Jayawardena of the Colombo University were in the forefront of this campaign.

Much has been said about these anti-Sinhala-Buddhist agents dependent on foreign funds for their high living sustained by their low-thinking publications, closed-door seminars, etc These venal “Dependistas” are like the locusts swarming all over the Third World, devouring and destroying national human resources for their personal glory or gain. “Uncle Fonnie” has been a beneficiary of this predatory system and his pronouncements are tainted partly by his warped Marxist ideology and partly by his loyalty to his ideological patrons.

This background helps to understand as to what makes “Uncle Fonnie” tick. His punditry indicates that he is still obsessed with the local brand of Trotskyism that led the founders of this variation of Marxism eventually into the oblivion from which they came. These rabble-rousing trouble-makers are left with only theoretical dodos like “Uncle Fonnie”. Most of them died in the bosom of the capitalists and feudal parties they condemned for the better of their lives. Others retired into NGO havens like Regi Siriwardena – one of the Trotskyite “Dependistas” who found refuge in the air-conditioned “thatched patio” of the ICES, the most sophisticated den of Tamil tribalism.

As opposed to these failed ideologues, the home grown “Mahinda Chintanaya” and its allies have emerged as the most formidable and productive force in nation-building. They have beaten all the vacuous theories of Marxist mythologists. The varieties of Marxism that dominated the post-World War II political landscape have been a futile and unnecessary diversion of history – somewhat reminiscent of the Holy Roman Empire which dragged Europe into the Dark Ages. Communism, of course, ran into a dead-end of brutal violence, oppression, denial of fundamental human rights, denial and suppression of the rights of self-determination of a dozen European nations under the myths of the universal brotherhood of workers and peasants, and, above all, an abysmal failure to deliver even the basic necessities to redeem the oppressed masses with their glorified and fictitious class relations.

Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution which envisaged the power of Marxist vanguard to skip the evolutionary stages of history, passing through classes into the classless utopia, was as doomed as he was. Neither Trotsky nor his ideology could find a permanent home. He was a man without a visa who found some diversionary solace in the arms of his mistress, Frieda, in Mexico. Apart from a brief flirtation in Indonesia, Trotskyism found a temporary visa only in Sri Lanka. The starry-eyed returnees from Western universities in the colonial period understandably came loaded with their anti-colonial and anti-capitalist ideological baggage. But history moved inexorably to drag these ideologues into a premature graveyard. In some places where they were born midwives moved in quickly to throttle them in the cot. Trotsky is an example. Those who survived were liquidated by their children or by the disenchanted workers and peasants.

In Sri Lanka their doomed theories never served them or the nation as a whole. “Uncle Fonnie” is one of the last remaining fossils of this bandwagon of ideologues who is yet to answer the question that haunts the Marxists: was it their imported alien theories or their unacceptable hypocritical practices that buried them as a political force in Sri Lankan history?

“Uncle Fonnie’s” hypocrisy is no better than that of his failed gurus. When his revered gurus like Dr. N. M. Perera and Dr. Colvin R. de Silva had the power to give “our Tamil brethren (I guess “Uncle Fonnie” is referring to “sahodarayas”) a measure of self-governance, as the price of genuine peace and the fulfillment of a basic human right” why didn’t they do it? Was Dr. de Silva afflicted with “rural idiocy” (Marx) or “a whopping dose of tribalism” (Prof. Fonseka) when he drafted the 1972 constitution? Most of all, it will be useful to analyse the politics of Prof Fonseka if he could kindly reveal in what hole he was hiding when his guru was denying “our Tamil brethren” their human rights? Why didn’t he stand up for “our Tamil bretheren” then and why is he shedding crocodile tears for them now?

After all, it is these Trotskyites who stoked the fires of Jaffna jingoism by first opposing the Sinhala Only Act and later endorsing it as move to overthrow the English-educated ruling class. Besides, the conventional ideologies of hired theoreticians in NGOs promoted the reconfiguration of existing constitutions as the solution to the north-south conflict. So when Dr. Colvin R. De Silva was tasked with the reconfiguration of the existing constitution why did he fail to come up with a devolution package that the rag-tag end of the dying Trotskyites are throwing up as the final solution. In failing to do so, Dr. De Silva has committed the unpardonable sin of denying the “Tamil brethren” their fundamental human rights, if one is to g by Prof. Fonseka’ argument. Does he accept responsibility for that? No. But he is quick to blame Malinda for opposing the mono-ethic extremism of peninsular politics. Dr. de Silva too opposed Jaffna jingoism and refused to recognize group rights. His constitution recognized primarily individual rights. There is much wisdom in recognizing individual rights as a solution to all inequalities than going down the path of narrow tribalism embedded in group rights. Dr. de Silva’s constitution enshrined the basic principle that all Sri Lankan have the right to share this land from coast to coast as its common trustees. I know there are some forked-tongued Marxist apologists who manufacture excuses for Dr. de Silva’s constitution. But Dr. de Silva would agree that a Marxist should be judged by his actions and not by his rhetoric.

Reality dawned on the Marxists in their old age. By the time they ended in the bosom of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike and her daughter it dawned on them that the reality of hanging on to ministerial portfolios was better than hanging on to airy-fairy theories. They were struggling to find excuses for having the cake of ministerial posts and eating it also with some Marxist toppings. The more they tried to defend themselves the more their fellow-travellers (Edmund Samarakoddy, Bala Tampoe, V. Karalasingham) and followers lost respect for their political posturing and betrayal of their fundamental principles.

Prof. Fonseka is in the same hollow position when he drops his avuncular fondness for Malinda and attacks him for opposing Jaffna jingoism. He says: “Respect for human rights is the modern antidote to tribalism. The core human rights have to do with liberty, equality, material welfare and self-determination or self-governance.” If one is to believe his logic, then the one million Tamils in the diaspora who enjoy liberty, equality and material welfare do not have the benefit of the core human rights because they do not have “self-determination and self-governance.” But the Tamils in the diaspora are quite content to live without any recognition given to their language or their culture the way it is in Sri Lanka where even the Buddhists share their deities and shrines. What place have these nations given to Tamils in their national flags? Which airline of countries announce in Tamil? In which country can they write to the government and demand a reply in Tamil? Which currency or stamp in the international community has given Tamil a status of equality?

On top of all this Prof. Fonseka wants special powers (13 plus + plus) to be given to the Jaffna jingoists simply because they refuse to co-exist peacefully in a multicultural society like the other communities. Co-existence in a multi-ethnic society demands a radical change in the political attitude of the Jaffna jingoists who claim to be superior to all other communities, even above their fellow Tamils in the east and central hills. Radhika Coomaraswamy and Malini Parasarathy have said that there has been a “paradigm shift” in the position of the Sinhala polity since 1956. As opposed to this the Jaffna jingoists had shifted their politics to extreme of endorsing violence in the Vadukoddai Resolution of May 14, 1976. The intransigence and extremism of peninsular politics had led the people of Jaffna into the hell hole of brutal Prabhakaranism. After 33 years of Vadukoddai violence will they at least now open their eyes and agree to co-exist with the other communities in peace?

By definition human rights are to be distributed equally to all human beings living in a defined space, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, class etc. In this sense, the best guarantee for the enhancement and protection of human rights of all groups is to distribute rights equally to all individuals and not go as far as granting racist enclaves with exclusive rights for mono-ethnic extremists who are determined to exclude other communities. Enhancing individual rights is a better guarantee for level playing rather than enforcing group rights on uneven playing fields. At the core of the Sri Lankan crisis is the claim for more rights by one group at the expense of all other groups. Indo-Sri Lanka agreement which introduced the 13th Amendment failed because a solution that gives exclusive rights based on historical fictions and concocted geography will never solve problems of multi-ethnic co-existence.

The universality of human rights can be fostered, protected and enhanced primarily in a de-territorialized space. If the ideal is to have borderless, transnational states, as claimed by the likes of Prof. Fonseka, then why demand an ethnic enclave for only one community in Sri Lanka? Exclusive human rights for one group alone are inimical to human rights of all others. Besides, divisive territorial claims among communities that have lived in harmony for the better part of their shared history will be a negation of human rights of the excluded communities. This is more so in multi-ethnic Sri Lanka because the Jaffna Tamils wants equality in the south with all other communities while demanding more equality for them in the north. They can’t have both. It amounts to the Orwellian definition of equality where some are more equal than the others. The Tamils in the diaspora do not demand more rights than their compatriots in the countries where they are domiciled. Besides, they have had enough of bloody experiences of pursing divisive politics. They must seriously consider the options of either returning back to the past they have just left behind or marching together, hand in hand, with the other communities to regain the place they lost in violent separatism.

As for Prof Fonseka his theories are as good as his arithmetic. He is clutching at straws when he includes the Tamils of the east who have consistently resisted the hegemony of Jaffna Tamils, even under S. J.V. Chelvanayakam’s pan-Tamil movement. Apart from his antiquated and partisan theories Prof. Fonseka commits the sin quoting outdated statistics to back up his fuddy-duddy theories. He quotes the 1981 census figures when he knows – or should know -- that nearly a million Tamils have emigrated since then. The provisional figures have downgraded the Tamils to the third place below that of the Muslims. The actual figures will be known only when the next census is conducted without Tigers obstructing the next census.

Consider also his other bizarre statement: “I have told him (Malin) to his face that I read the things he writes more for their style than for their content.” I don’t think Dayan will agree with him on this. Dayan is not addressing his style, he is addressing Malin’s substance. Besides, style without content has no meaning. For instance, if someone is to dress up “Uncle Fonnie” in the most stylish suit it is not going to improve the contents in his brain, eh? The style in itself has no meaning unless there is content for the style to shine through it. Malinda undoubtedly is gifted writer with an urbane style. And the polished style with which he wraps the substance makes his arguments persuasive and even conclusive.

Furthermore, “Uncle Fonnie” is complaining bitterly that his “nephew” from Harvard had taken to “tribalism”, meaning that Malinda should not be arguing against the extremism of Jaffna jingoism that produced the most hideous political monster of our time: Velupillai Prabhakaran. Obviously, to him a product of Harvard standing up for the Sinhala-Buddhists who had been denied their human rights for nearly five centuries under some of the cruel colonialists is a tribalist. But Tamil products of Harvard, like Neelan Tiruchelvam and Radhika Coomaraswamy, who actively, politically and aggressively peddled their mono-ethnic extremism disguised as moderates are exonerated as championing minority rights.

Implied in this partisan theory is the assumption that only minorities have rights and the duty of the majority is to give into anything they demands in the name of rights. This denies the majority in ex-colonies to claim their rights suppressed for centuries under the divide and rule policies of imperialists who favoured the minorities to keep the majority in check. As for Neelan his tribalism was made explicit when wore two hats simultaneously: 1. the hat of the so-called independent NGO, ICES (Incestuous Cabal for Eelamist Sycophants) and 2) the hat of TULF MP. Heads of NGOs are supposed to independent, non-partisan and objective members of a civil society and not card-carrying members of a racist political party. He was never backward in exploiting his Harvard credentials to the hilt to propagate mono-ethnic Tamil extremism in every publication, seminar and fora of the ICES.

On the contrary, Malin, in his unobtrusive way has only gone as far presenting his case in gentle understatements. So why is Malin’s Harvard credentials under attack by Prof. Fonseka without subjecting Neelan and Radhika to the same scrutiny? Besides, if “Uncle Fonnie” considers his “nephew” Malin to be a racist for lending his voice to the Sinhalese who have been oppressed for nearly five hundred years how does he propose to categorize Neelan and Radhika who have championed only the cause of the most privileged ethnic community which reaped the best of benefits under colonial patronage?

I am afraid that Prof. Fonseka has been in the habit of getting away with this kind of conning for too long. This is the reason why I once asked him to change his name from Fonseka to Con-seka. I do not want to go any further into Prof. Fonseka’s arid inanities except to say that Dayan deserves more intelligent defenders than self-proclaimed Uncles who are rushing to save him. If I know Dayan well, he must be chuckling privately saying: “I can look after myself. But God save me from my uncles!”

-Sri Lanka Guardian