The American way forward is to go backwards
Part I
American diplomats, along with their Western allies, (all of whom are
bundled together as "the international community") have played and
continue to play a key role in the north-south conflict, oftentimes
leaning heavily on the Government of Sri Lanka to do its bidding.
Sometimes it exerts its pressure behind the scenes and sometimes it
makes quite blunt statements for public and political consumption.
Robert Blake, the American Ambassador, for instance speaking on the
topic of "Sri Lanka: The Way Forward" told a seminar held on September
21, 2007: "Since time is short and we Americans are known for not
mincing our words, let me get right to the point on the topic at hand.
The Government of Sri Lanka has achieved some important victories in the
last several months. The expulsion of the LTTE from the East and the
recent sinking of several LTTE ships carrying arms and other provisions
mark important military successes. But these tactical successes should
not tempt the Government to re-consider whether Sri Lanka's conflict can
be won by military means. It cannot... The governing coalition must
demonstrate it represents the interests of all Sri Lankans, not just
southern Sinhalese".
As he states, he is as blunt as he can be. His statement is like the
curate's egg; good in some small parts. He has also jumped to the
conclusion that "the way forward" is for the "south" to give in to the
"north", to use the geography of Ambassador Blake. His statement also
reveal three salient points: 1) there is a realistic appraisal of the
change in the "military balance"; 2) the Sri Lankan government does not
represent the interests of all Sri Lankans and 3) the "southern
Sinhalese" must appease the northern Tamils to "demonstrate (that) it
represents the interests of all Sri Lankans".
In referring to "southern Sinhalese", geographically speaking, he
pits them against the "northern Jaffna Tamils". He is right in this
because the confrontations are between the southern Sinhalese and the
northern Tamils ONLY and not with the other minorities -the Muslims in
the east or the Indian Tamils in the central hills. This should impress
upon him and his colleagues in the international community that the
"southern Sinhalese" can't be that bad as they are portrayed to be if
they can co-exist in relative harmony with all the other minority
communities except "the northern Tamils" - the dynamics of which will be
dealt later.
In his political assessments, Ambassador Blake could not have missed
the unmistakable demographic and ethnic factors of the other two
communities: a) they are also Tamil-speaking; b) they are also ethnic
minorities and c) they also claim, rightly or wrongly, a geographical
space of their own. If, as stated by Ambassador Blake, the Sri Lankan
government does not represent the interests all communities, shouldn't
they have also turned into terrorists like the northern Tamils? But they
haven't. So the "southern Sinhalese" can't be that bad in handling
ethnic relations with the minorities, if it has a problem with only one
single minority community out of three, eh?
Pathological penchant to preach
The majority-minority problems are surfacing to be a common factor
plaguing all democracies that have built their political culture on
Western models of what they call liberal principles and norms. Some
disaffected minorities take up arms (e.g. Basque separatists), some have
been suppressed into total submission like the indigenous tribes of
Americas, Australia, New Zealand etc., some continue to flex their
muscles (e.g. Afro-Americans and Muslims) - all of which are turning out
to be problematic for the liberal leaders who have a pathological
penchant for preaching to others on how they should deal with their
minorities.
Sri Lanka too has a majority-minority problem but with only one
community - and that happens to be with the most privileged community in
the north.
Despite the pompous pronouncements of some second-rate academics and
third-rate public intellectuals hired by foreign-funded NGOs, there has
not been a balanced study of the majority-minority relations in Sri
Lanka.
Invariably, what passes off as research is a regurgitation of the
Tamil separatist platform of the forties and fifties based on cooked up
history, fictitious geography and imagined grievances of discrimination.
These researchers, driven more by their politics than the realities
on the ground, have produced volumes based on their theories of good
guys vs. bad guys. The good guys are the northern Tamils and the bad
guys are "the Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinists" who have been accused of
denying the minorities their economic, cultural, territorial and
linguistic rights. Since the Western diplomats have swallowed this
political platform of the Tamils it may be helpful to review in outline
the majority-minority relationship of the advanced liberal societies
with that of the not so advanced Sri Lanka.
No doubt, Ambassador Blake is fully aware of the crises faced by the
majorities in leading democracies with their minorities. How many
minorities in America, France, UK, Australia, for example, are happy
with their lot? Can America, UK and France - the leading models of
democratic liberalism - claim to represent all the minorities and just
not the Christianized Caucasians? When, for instance, the Hispanic
minority demands that their language be recognized the American states
are reacting aggressively by officially declaring English as the
official language. In Sri Lanka all three languages are recognized. So
which of the two countries represent the minorities better?
In France 13 million Occitanians and other minorities are denied the
right of using their languages. French is the only language recognized
by the state and the minorities must conform. So on the logic of
Ambassador Blake shouldn't the Sri Lankan government follow the example
of the French - the land of liberty, equality and freedom - to represent
the minority interests?
Use of headscarves in Europe
The use of headscarves in European countries has created such a storm
that in France it is banned. In Sri Lanka the government issues free
headscarves to the Muslims. Which country represents the minorities
better?
The first Army Commander was Maj-Gen. Anton Muttukumaru, a Tamil. The
second Navy Commander was Rear-Admiral, Rajan Kadirgamar, a Tamil. There
were several Tamil IGPs. Why aren't they there now? They would have been
killed by the Tamils like the way they killed Lakshman Kadirgamar, who
would have been the first Tamil Prime Minister if he was living today.
To test his case Ambassador Blake could ask Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu,
a man who haunts the cocktail circuit crying about discrimination
against the Tamils, what discrimination he faced throughout his career?
Or he could ask Radhika Coomaraswamy? Or better still, ask Radhika what
discrimination her father, Raju, faced in the public service?
Furthermore, if Ambassador Blake should pause to compare the plight
of the 70 million Tamils spread out in the diaspora he will be surprised
to find that the Tamils had never had it so good as in Sri Lanka. Take,
for instance, the highest symbol of the nations. There are 192 flags
flying at the UN and in none of these has the Tamils a place of
recognition except in the Sri Lankan flag.
The orange strip in the Sri Lankan flag has given them the highest
honour of being recognized and rubbing shoulders with the community of
nations. The Muslims are honoured in the green strip. How many
minorities are recognized the American flag? Or in the Union Jack? Or in
the Australian flag?
Without going deep into the international intricacies of the "culture
wars" of Samuel Huntington, it has to be acknowledged that the
increasing flow of migrants from non-Caucasian countries is upsetting
the prevailing internal culture of the
Westernized-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants (WASP) in English-speaking countries
so much so that the so-called Western liberal leaders - from John Howard
in Australia to Gordon Brown in Britain - are demanding conformity to
the majority WASPish culture.
Western liberals somersault
Faced with the flood of migrants from non-European cultures
challenging their values and their way of life the Western liberals have
somersaulted and are now drawing limits for multiculturalism and
insisting on re-defining national identity with the emphasis on
reinforcing the values of the dominant majority culture of the WASPs. In
the last week of September 2007, addressing the first Labour Party
conference as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown made an impassioned speech
using the words "Britain" and "Britishness" 70 times, according
calculations made by those attending the session. And here's the juicier
bit that fell from the British lips of the British Prime Minister: "I am
proud to be British. I believe in British values. I stand for a Britain
where it is a mark of citizenship that you should learn our language and
traditions."
Will Ranil repeat the same speech?
Well, which American ambassador will dare to tell Gordon Brown that
his speech represents an aggressive assertion of majority dominance over
the multiple minorities in Britain? Imagine what Jehan (Pacha) Perera
and Poi-kiyana-sothy Saravanamuttu would have to say if President
Mahinda Rajapaksa had made a similar speech at the SLFP sessions? And
since Ranil Wickremesinghe is a regional representative of the
International Democratic Union, headed by these liberal leaders, will he
follow the great pillars of liberal democracy and repeat the same
speech, substituting "Sinhala" and :Sinhalese" instead of "Britain" and
"British"? And if not, why not?
What is more, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown proposed
the establishment of a British national day. High Commissioner, Dominick
Chilcott, will agree that this is another demonstration of the British
government's determination to impose the values of the dominant
"British" on the minorities, whether they like it or not. It is clearly
a move to instill patriotism of the British, by the British for all the
minorities who are not that British. But if the Sri Lankan leaders
follow the British example the NGOs and the Tamil propagandists will
raise such a howl until British High Commissioner turns into a fairy
godmother to grant their wish.
Hegemony of the majority
The hegemony of the majority and the political dominance of the
majority in France and UK, for instance, are expressed clearly in the
ethnic bias contained in the name of their nations. The French calls it
is France because it stamps unquestionably the authority of the
majority. And the British call it Britain for the same reason. But the
Sinhalese did not go down that ethnic track. They had the opportunity to
call it Heladiva (the island of the Sinhalese), for instance. Instead,
they named it with a neutral name, Sri Lanka, to be inclusive of all
communities.
Then there is the citizenship test. No one can become a citizen in
America, UK, France, Australia etc., unless they pass a citizenship
test.
Paneer can bowl in the English team, wearing his turban, as long as
he passes the British citizenship test and conforms to British values.
Imagine for a moment the repercussions if the Sri Lankan government
had insisted on the Indian Tamils passing a citizenship test before they
qualify to be citizens!
Besides, in all the countries where the Tamils have settled down
nowhere have they been given a place of recognition, honour, dignity and
respect as the Sri Lankan Tamils whose language is given an equal place
with Sinhalese and English in stamps, air letters, national currency,
roads, official documents etc. Of all the airlines in the world, only
Air Lanka announces in Tamil. It would be interesting to find out what
High Commissioner Chilcott's godmother would have to say to the dignity
and honour given to the Tamils of Sri Lanka! Would he ask his fairy
godmother to change it, as he said he would in the case of changing
Sinhala-only to English?
The "southern Sinhalese" have, from pre-colonial days, been running a
multicultural, multi-ethnic and tolerant administration giving the
minorities (1) protection from Western imperialist persecutors on
religious or commercial grounds, and (2) their freedom to have their own
identity and grow in their culture, invariably with state patronage.
Minorities active participants
Besides, practically every government in power has had one or two
members of he minority communities in the Cabinet - the highest
decision-making body of the nation.
Most governments also had depended on the minority votes to come into
power and be in power. In other words, the minorities have been active
participants in the process of decision-making as, for instance, in the
case of G. G. Ponnambalam the leader of the Jaffna Tamils voting with
the government of the day on the Citizenship Bill.
Perhaps, the outstanding exception would be the passing of the
Sinhala Only Bill in 1956 which prompted the High Commissioner Chilcott
to say: "If my fairy godmother were to grant me the power to change one
thing in Sri Lanka's recent past it would be to prevent the Sinhala-only
language law from coming into force and to make English the common
working language." But the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act was
passed in 1959 restoring a balance. What are the chances of the French
passing a similar bill to recognize the language of the 13 million
Occitanians? Or the American Congress passing a bill to recognize
Ebonics - a dialect of the Afro-Americans rebelling against the hegemony
of English - as an alternative to standard English? When this issue came
up before the Oakland Board of Education they voted on a "policy
affirming Standard American English language development for all
students."
No doubt, H.C. Chilcott's fairy godmother would approve of it. Apart
from acknowledging the privileges granted automatically to those who
know English (the Sinhalese youth called it the kaduwa - the sword that
grants power and privileges) I must confess that my respect and love for
the English language is not second to that H.C. Chilcott. At the same
time, I must add that there are some English scholars among Sri Lankans
who can teach some of the English-speaking diplomats a few things about
their glorious language. However, what gets the goat of those who speak
and don't speak the language is when these diplomats behave like Mrs.
Norris, one of the most obnoxious, meddlesome, all-knowing women in
English literature. It's a pity that Jane Austen didn't endow her with a
broomstick to complete her character! |