 | |
| The word ‘triumph’ confirms that, to the majority race that elects Government – it was a ‘win’. To majority Tamils it was/is a sad and painful part of the war / Revolution. Majority vote is not for thinkers but for believers who are not able to think at the higher or wider level. They are NOT feelings unless they are based on Truth. |
by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam
(June 28, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I write in response to the article ‘Enough’ by Dr Dayan Jayatilleka published in Sri Lanka Guardian.
At the end of your tethers Dr. Dayan? Seems so to me after reading this ‘What do you do, or more correctly, what does a state do, and what does a leader at the helm of state affairs do, when faced with a situation of a heavily armed movement dedicated to dismembering the country through secession; a movement which has repeatedly resorted to terrorism; has repeatedly returned to war after episodes of ceasefires and negotiations with successive governments of two countries, has finally been outmanoeuvred and is cornered, trapped?’
If you had asked us – the Public in your heart – before taking action – whatever you did would have been accepted by the Public – the Public in your heart. To the Sri Lankan diplomatic circles and its opposition - the Tamil Diaspora, the ‘Public’ are no longer limited to the Sri Lankan Public on both sides of the ethnic divide.
You quote ' “ Revolution is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly”. – Mao Ze Dong'
Tamils committed to self governance would also claim that they were/are leading the Revolution. As per my simple mind, People bringing about a change in Governance Structures and Processes would be seen as leading a Revolution. It could mean accelerated change soon after strong challenge against Governmental powers. But this is not yet known at global level – in relation to the current Sri Lankan Government. Hence I conclude that Dr. Dayan’s contribution to this issue is not towards Revolution.
To my mind, I led revolutions in Resource Management at the Australian Workplace and included the Government – up to Prime Ministerial level in the process. To my mind – mine has produced lasting effects because the process was more important than the objectively measurable outcome. That is the difference between transformation and win at the visible level. As per independent observations neither the LTTE nor the Government of Sri Lanka was more committed to process than to win and therefore they were both less committed to transformation than to the fruits of their work. In both instances those who were not physically close to the leaders were isolated – however high their real credit in self governance may have been and however strong and painful their sacrifices towards self-governance may have been. Gandhi followers and for that matter Gandhi himself would have been lowest in their priorities. Hence the difficulty with wider world through the consolidated power of those who have invested in self governance. Those who hail Gandhi would have great difficulty in thinking of LTTE Leader Prabakaran or President Rajapakse as heroes.
Dr. Dayan asks; ‘Does anybody seriously expect a state, especially one that is sufficiently democratic at base to be responsive to public opinion, to open up the war and its closing stages, which are felt to be a liberating triumph by the overwhelmingly greater number of its citizens, to international scrutiny? Which state has done so, where and when, two years after a victorious war? Why should Sri Lanka be the first in line of a questionable doctrine, when it should be at the back of the queue if there is one? ‘
I focus on the following ‘ to open up the war and its closing stages, which are felt to be a liberating triumph by the overwhelmingly greater number of its citizens, to international scrutiny’
The word ‘triumph’ confirms that, to the majority race that elects Government – it was a ‘win’. To majority Tamils it was/is a sad and painful part of the war / Revolution. Majority vote is not for thinkers but for believers who are not able to think at the higher or wider level. They are NOT feelings unless they are based on Truth. Members of majority race who felt good when LTTE was crushed would have also felt good when JVP was crushed. Otherwise they are only ‘thinking’ and not ‘feeling’. Those who suffer deepest are likely to feel first and think, show and tell last and v.v. Feelings are based on belief and not thoughts. One may feel good or bad but there is nothing right or wrong with that feeling. How could anyone believing s/he is a Sri Lankan ‘feel’ good about death of a civilian?
Winning means it has come beyond the circle of feelings. To the extent Sri Lankan Government depended on Foreigners / Outsiders – it lost the power of its Sovereignty in this war. At least at this stage it must submit itself to the Common Processes to the extent it used ‘external assistance. Sri Lanka is owed that involvement by ‘external’ investors.
Dr. Dayan asks ‘Who will reconcile the vast Sinhala peasantry with that element of urban society and its expatriate cousins, which wishes to put their sons in the dock at the behest of some foreigners or liberal legal doctrines?’
There is no need to reconcile because the Sinhala Peasantry did not come of their own free will to the battleground – to fight man to man and woman to woman. They were required to respect Common Structures and follow Due Processes. When those Common systems are within the Global Structures – there is nothing to reconcile. Reconciliation is needed when they are outside these Common Structures and Processes. Is Dr. Dayan claiming that the Sinhala Peasantry acting through Sri Lankan Government Structures and Processes – acted outside their official limits? If yes, then certainly – we need to reconcile them as individuals and separate groups outside the officially accepted forces. Sri Lanka needs if it is not to suffer from lawlessness through private thinking of armed officers – a situation being complained about by many legal professionals of Sri Lankan origin, including Mr. Basil Fernando.
Dr. Dayan asks ‘Who will reconcile an ancient nation which constitutes the vast mass of the island, with the former colonial powers that issue deadlines and ultimatums and a neighbouring landmass from which incursions took place throughout history, and now passes resolutions calling for economic blockades? ‘
I take it that Dr. Dayan mean an ancient ‘Sinhala Nation’. This is why those who invested in Sri Lankan Nationalism are fighting to discipline those who promoted Sinhala Nationalism. This is confirmation that at least in Dr. Dayan’s mind Tamils are not part of his ancient nation living in that vast mass of the island.
Dr. Dayan asks the question ‘What could make an intelligent person think that the majority of Sri Lanka’s citizens do not see the Tiger flags and Tamil Eelam graphics (the map of the island with the North East differently coloured) in the photographs of the demonstrations and events taking place among the re-mobilised and revengeful elements of the Tamil Diaspora in the West?’
To my mind, the above thinking by a Tamil is due to the same element / Guna that blinds Dr. Dyan to seeing the ‘island’ as One and that there is no vast mass or small strip of the island. One who ‘sees’ the difference except for purposes of merit under specific circumstances – is confessing to having already ‘separated’ the Island. As my mother often said ‘two wrongs do not make a right’. One who desires to ‘win’ would tend take revenge; one who takes revenge would not be able to rise to the higher level to ‘include’ both.
Dr Dayan continues to state ‘A literate people know that the Tiger is not a self-serving embellishment of the incumbent administration, but the old enemy propelling its front organisations and fellow travellers; its ‘useful idiots’, while straining to leverage the ex-colonial states against Sri Lanka and waiting to leap from beyond the oceans.’
Dr. Dayan himself has resorted to Chinese expressions explain Revolution and many other ‘foreign’ examples to support his analysis. This automatically dilutes his claim of being part of ‘An ancient nation, possibly one of the oldest on earth’
The older a culture the more independent its practitioners would be. Living in that part of the world under one culture does develop a sense of independence – and is valid – but only within those boundaries. This is exactly the claim being made by Tamils of Sri Lanka. Their claim is valid to the extent they feel part of that section that feels ‘Home’ – the way Dr. Dayan feels for the Sinhala Peasantry. In the case of Tamils this is not just Northeastern Sri Lanka – but also many other parts of Sri Lanka – including Wellawatte, Kotehena and Mattkkuliya in Colombo, the Tea Estates in Central Sri Lanka and most of all Kathirgamam in South the Home of Muruga - Tamil form of God . If Sinhalese were truly an ancient culture – they would have found their own ‘sovereign’ solutions and not gone ‘outside’ including to those from these ‘small strips and pockets’ of land.
Like many migrants continuing to live in their countries of origin for political purposes, Dr. Dayan also seems to have difficulty living in his current Global environment. Given that most Tamil migrants in the West came as refugees and did not come to these countries as independent persons based on their own merits – it is understandable that they would take time to integrate their thinking. But given Dr. Dayan’s high position, one would expect him to rise to the higher level and include both environments (Sri Lankan Government and the UN dominated by the West) in his thinking. When that happens, Dr. Dayan would naturally rise to the level of Sinhalese and see the island as Sri Lanka. Likewise the official Tamil Diaspora leaders.
In Democracy one needs to ‘accept’ as opposition and not ‘conquer’ to claim victory as ruler.
Post a Comment