What kind of people worship at decadent Oxford?

by Rajpal Abeynayake

(December 06, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) So why did President Mahinda Rajapaksa decide to lecture for a second time in two years at the Oxford Union?

As they would say, you have two ask him that. As the editorial in this newspaper states, once having invited him, it was unforgivable for Oxford and the British government to snub him the way they did, so called security reasons notwithstanding.
The actions of Britain, Oxford, and the perennially misled diaspora Tamil lobby are to be condemned in the severest of terms.

But that said, what is this mentality that drives a Head of State who has achieved so much in terms of protecting national integrity by defeating a ruthless terrorist organization, to make pilgrimages to Oxford not once but twice in two years?

Oxford as the home of free speech? Why, nothing is as laughable, a fact made obvious by the way free speech was summarily kicked by the Oxford Union authorities who made a unilateral decision to cancel the Rajapaksa speech due to some pesky protesters screaming by the ivy.

But of what value is our bedrock principle of a national philosophy/credo (Jathika/Mahinda Chinthanaya) if we continue to think that Oxford of all places is worthy of the honour of a visit by a president who is admired by some of the most potent powers of the globe such as China for instance, for the way in which he dealt with the terrorist scourge, despite all the resistance mounted towards this effort by the collective Western powers?

But yet, this dispensation had to kneel at the altar of Oxford and to add insult to injury, when snubbed by Oxford, state that ‘Oxford is the home of free speech?’.

No free speech

What? No free speech in the ancient Indian, Greek and Roman civilizations? No free speech in the thriving democracies of the world, including the world’s largest, India, cheek by jowl to the north of us? Free speech feels at home only at Oxford, they say?

What exactly is the genesis of this genuflection towards just another institution of higher learning, notwithstanding the fact that it may have some ancient traditions — and have had some well-known alumni?

Well, so have other universities — and besides there are universities such as Colombia which respected free-speech enough to invite Iranian president Ahmadinejad, who is all but a persona non grata in the United States, having persued nuclear ambitions and denied the Holocaust.

Columbia never snubbed Ahmadinejad despite having invited him, which should make Columbia at least one home of free-speech truly deserving of the appellation.
But why would those who spin the statements for the Sri Lankan state call Oxford the ‘home of free speech.’ Perhaps, they were trying to drive home the ironical nature of the snub, particularly as it involves a country and a university that regularly makes deafening noises about democratic practice and the value of freedom of expression.

This writer thinks that ‘the home of free speech’ statement has its antecedents in the context of the fact that the president agreed to address the Oxford union in the first place.

Point number one, is that it seems the colonial mentality is hard to discard for the most diehard of nationalists. Perhaps they find it hard to jettison this mentality, because they are nationalists, precisely, and not in spite of that fact.
The general denominator, meaning those who know something about Oxford, are not in any way in awe of this institution which they see as just another university, except that it goes out of the way to attract a rich and famous student body that could be flaunted.

It is a well-known fact that Oxford would welcome the children of Heads of State as students, merely because they add that quotient of political glamour by which the institution pretends it stands above the rest of the world’s higher seats of learning.

Take one look at the quality of the contemporary products of Oxford, and without mentioning names, one would have to agree that barring one or two exceptions, none of these alumni are anything special compared to the larger student body that passes out of other institutions of learning.

Tyronne Fernando to take one example was one of the latter-day Oxford products, and his career was marked by the fact that he was one of the most talent-less, colourless and mediocre Foreign Ministers that we ever had. Sarath Amunugama for instance, despite all his flaws, is a Sri Lankan university product, and outshines a person such as Tyronne Fernando with a comparably higher intellectual wattage, measuring either in terms of his accomplishments or his intellectual output.

Imagined times of old glory

In the wider context, the only thing special about Oxford,is that the folks at Oxford make such an enormous effort to hold out that they are special.
In fact, all Oxford is about is a desperate attempt to hark back to often imagined times of old glory.

The best analogy would be to recall a time when the Colombo elite schools dominated Sri Lanka cricket. It was the time Sri Lanka cricket was much ballyhooed and advertised by those few who engaged in the relatively exclusive pursuit of playing cricket, in those bad old days.

But released from the grip of this exclusive club, Sri Lanka cricket thrived and went from the doldrums to test status, and then quickly to World Champion status.
You get the picture. Oxford now is much like Sri Lankan cricket used to be.

Essentially an empty vessel, about with some people who have nothing else to hang on to, make such an inordinate noise in a vain attempt to promote themselves.
This government may be fooled by Oxford despite all its poojas to nationalism, but we are not.