" And finally, your use of the choicest words- covens to begin with. You did not explain that in the rejoinder you wrote. I will not, definitely, stoop that low or high if you think that using abuses is the height of discussions. I would not even blame it on you. You come from a ‘background’ after all. "
by Avinash Pandey Samar
(September 19, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Reading your last piece (unfortunately one cannot call it an article by any stretch of imagination) came as a much needed comic relief Dr Dayan. Having been stuck in reading and writing all sort of tiring, jargon laden academic articles had made me yearning for a break. I am indebted to you for providing that by writing such an unintelligent piece, so entirely untaxing on the brain.
Yet, responding to the cyclical argument, bereft of any intelligence, you have been making would be a good exercise for the sake of the readers who have been following this debate.
Let me, first, take up the question you asked and claimed to have gotten no replies but a few social contract theories. Forget my English language skills, and I would not ask about yours as you have made a macabre display of that in any case. The answer to your question of who would be the ultimate arbiter was right there in the second para of my article. But then it takes some intelligence to understand that Dr Dayan. I am copy-pasting it (your idea of research in any case) from my own article.
“The idea of ultimate arbiter is located in the idea that the state has the right to exercise the sovereign power and to act as parens patriae (parent of the citizens). I remember a decision of the Indian Supreme Court, among those of others denying this right to Indian state. In a case regarding the rights of erstwhile small princes, the full bench of the Indian Supreme Court has concluded that there exists nothing as sovereign power of the state. It asserted that the legal sovereignty vests in the constitution whereas political sovereignty lied with the people, not with the office of the institution representing it. It is 'we the people' who unite ourselves into a sovereign state, sir, not the other way round.” (emphasis added this time, for your benefit)
So what about English now? What about this sovereign principle that barring people nothing is sovereign! It was in 1972, that the supreme court of India delivered this verdict. A constitutional bench of the supreme court on that. Just to help you a bit more, the issue resurfaced in India a quarter century later. This time it was democratically elected, yet right wing government, which wanted to review(they really wanted to change it but unlike you they could come up with a better phrase) Indian constitution. They actually went ahead and constituted a National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution but then Supreme Court came into picture again and reaffirming that basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered.
It reaffirmed its position that there exists nothing as sovereign power of the state. The Judges of the supreme court of India, for your entire bloated ego, no less intellectual to you is a fact you would concede, I hope, just hope. So let me put it again what they have to say in bulleted forms, the biggest form of intellectual articulation in your tradition
* There exists nothing as sovereign power of the state
* The legal sovereignty vests in the constitution whereas political sovereignty lied with the people, not with the office of the institution representing it.
Do you get your answer now? There exists nothing called ‘ultimate arbiter’ Mr Dayan. Not in democracies at least. It is the people and only the people, and just by the way, read your basic political science again. You would do well to begin with the theories of social contract, especially the parts which deal with the legitimacy of the contract. You will get a phrase, termed the right to rebellion there. Let me quote again from my own article, unlike the superb capacity of copy pasting you have shown, to the extent of copypasting a meaningless press report !
“The right to rebellion, particularly in case if the contract is leading to 'tyranny' is a phrase coined by Locke, the father of liberal democracy you are supposed to be espousing, and not by some insane critic sir!”
Do you get the answer now, at least? That there exists nothing called ‘ultimate arbiter’!
Anyways, lets come to the next point. I loved the way you exposed your mindset in the very opening the crap you have written. Let me quote you—
“It is a sad day when the JNU supposedly has a ‘research scholar’ who cannot understand English. It’s even sadder that he is featured on a website that borrowed and adapted the name of the journal my father founded.”
Leave the English part aside, as the readers could judge for themselves and also, the first thing my professors in JNU had taught me was that ‘Speak Social Science not English! But then leave it as I am sure you would not even get close to understand what this means.
So I could see the pain you had of seeing this alleged research scholar on the website “that borrowed and adapted the name of the journal my father founded.” Ah I could see the tears rolling down. The pain of having lost those beautiful days, when you used to be the lords floating with power. Those beautiful days when you used to own everything, even the names. I sympthise with you Dr Dayan
But then those feudal days are gone.
Now I can understand your cravings for a strong leader far better. That it is as much inside as outside. That your rants are the rants of someone who had lost a lot to democracy. You gave yourself away in this one Dr Dayan, but then that’s actually good.
Coming to the final point, suffice would be to quote your own analysis of that paragraph you quoted. Here we go then “Secondly, according to the passage quoted, on whom does Prof Wickremesingha “place all her hopes”? Certainly NOT on the “same protestors” but precisely “on the will of opposition political parties to forge an alternative democratic vision and give leadership to those who believe in it.” So, it is not on the “same protestors”, but on the opposition political parties! And that too, if they have the “will... alternative democratic vision... (and) leadership”! This is exactly what I’ve been saying, here and from 1997 onwards!”
Do you really not see the difference even now? She is placing her hopes, rightfully pointed out by you, on ‘the will of opposition political parties ‘. She has her faith, even if very little, left in those political parties. And what is your opinion of those ‘political parties’? You had completely exposed yourself in the very first article title hardly the death… You had asserted that the protestors had ‘civil society covens’ in considerable overlap with those who did not ‘denounce the Tigers’ and so on. That gives away your opinion of the political parties in opposition and the civil society alike.
Any sensible political scientist, in this scenario of absence of any credible opposition as identified by himself, will protest such undemocratic assaults on the constitution with much more commitment. But then that presupposes the sensibility part being present, does not it?
And finally, your use of the choicest words- covens to begin with. You did not explain that in the rejoinder you wrote. I will not, definitely, stoop that low or high if you think that using abuses is the height of discussions. I would not even blame it on you. You come from a ‘background’ after all.
Yet I cannot resist myself from quoting a brilliant writer. “Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels,” said Dr. Johnson. And I am not saying it. More on patriotism later, I promise you sir.
Avinash Pandey Samar is a Research Scholar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He can be contacted at samaranarya@gmail.com.
Please refer to previous article: Origins of Sri Lanka’s mess – Dayan admits being a proud product of the " Underya" tradition
Post a Comment